Seven Answers From Michael Crichton

A little Q&A with Michael Crichton.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To what extent is climate change happening, to what extent is it anthropogenic, and what should we be doing about it?

There has been so much disinformation about my position that I feel obliged to repeat what I said in my book. Yes, the globe is warming; the greenhouse effect is real; CO2 is a greenhouse gas; it is increasing from human activities; we would expect this increased CO2 to produce warming. All true.

But nothing in this sequence of statements implies that CO2 is the primary driver of the warming we are seeing. Not at all. It is one thing to say that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and is therefore causing warming; it is quite another to say CO2 is causing ALL of the warming that we see. There is good evidence (and good physical theory) for the first statement, and weak evidence, primarily computer models, for the second.

Despite all the huffing and puffing, the truth is no one knows how much of the current warming trend is caused by man. Some of it surely is. And some of that anthropogenic warming is caused by the man-made rise in CO2. But how much is attributable to CO2 is not known. In the absence of that vital knowledge, people speak of a consensus of scientists. That's a way to get around the lack of knowledge and the inability to predict (which is the conventional proof of scientific knowledge, hence the usual emphasis in science on testable hypotheses.) Perhaps people and nations will choose to act on the basis of a claimed consensus. They have done so in the past, sterilizing their poor neighbors in the name of eugenics, gulping milk for their ulcers, downing antioxidants to prevent cancer, and soon. But all those behaviors were ultimately proven to lack a scientific basis — in other words, they are superstitions.

If you take antioxidants, last year you were being sensible about your health. This year, you are engaging in superstitious behavior, wasting your money, and possibly harming your health. So what really matters is knowledge, not consensus.

In the end, the issue in climate is not how many scientists agree that CO2 is the primary driver of current warming. The issue is whether the CO2 mechanisms they have embraced accurately account for the behavior of the planet in the recent past, and can predict its behavior in the near future.

Time will tell. But I believe the planet has many surprises in store.

So, too, does the science. I am quite sure we will see greater scrutiny of the global temperature record, and how it is kept. At least one paper has attacked the notion of global mean temperature as an arbitrary calculation having no physical significance at all.

In the meantime, as you know, my own prediction for warming over the next 100 years is 0.8 degrees C. I arrived at this by a complex formula that I will reveal in future years.

You also ask whether we need to do anything about climate change. I think another question that must be asked first: what are the most pressing environmental problems that wealthy western societies should be addressing right now? Where does global warming stand in that list?

In other words, where does global warming fit in our environmental priority list?

Many people behave as if you dare not ask that question. But it is perfectly reasonable to assign priorities to our environmental problems. In fact, it is highly unreasonable not to do so.

So, should we act now, or not? That is appropriately a complex discussion that depends on economic considerations, an understanding of how fast modern societies can change their infrastructures, and on the question of competing needs — and, yes, on moral considerations as well. But taken seriously.

Readers who are interested in my views on what to do about climate can find them in a speech I gave at the National Press Club in Washington called "Our Environmental Future." It can be found at:

http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speeches/index.html.

How has your public stance on climate change been received?

Any departure from environmental orthodoxy is marked by ad hominem attack, vigorous spread of false information, claims of criminality and mental derangement, and general nastiness. Apparently this is one area where reasonable people cannot disagree.

It's interesting that any entity as complex, changing and difficult to comprehend as the environment should be guarded by organizations that allow no deviation from a single point of view toward what needs to be done. One might have predicted a rather broad range of environmental viewpoints, promoted by an equally broad range of institutions and activist organizations. There is some variation among organizations, of course. But on the subject of global warming, no deviation. That is to say, I am aware of no environmental organization that does not claim global warming is a major threat that must be dealt with now.

I leave it to your readers to explain that puzzle. Complex subject, simplistic response.

Do you really think nanotechnology poses a serious threat, or was Prey just a good story?

I do not understand the reaction the novel evoked in many quarters. People got wound up for no good reason. But that often happens with my books. After Jurassic Park, a Congressman announced he would introduce legislation to ban all research leading to the creation of a dinosaur — until someone whispered in his ear that it couldn't be done.

It's frequently claimed that I am exposing the public to false fears (except when it's claimed I am giving them a false sense of security.) In any case, it's nonsense. I trust my readers. They understand what I am saying. Nobody worried about dinosaurs after Jurassic Park, and nobody worried about nanotechnology after Prey. On the other hand, people worried like hell about cancer and powerlines and other false claims made by the media.

Prey was written as a story about the influence of commerce on science. It was a story about people taking short-cuts to keep to a schedule and meet deadlines. It wasn't really about the emerging field of nanotechnology because the technology described in the novel is entirely fictional. Nanotechnology can't make self-reproducing, evolving nanomachines. Couldn't then, and can't now.

However, the story accurately dealt with certain trends; the novel anticipated a merging of molecular biology and nanotechnology as away to solve certain problems in both fields. And it is true that some Caltech graduate students asked me to visit their lab because "We're doing all the stuff you wrote about." But they weren't, exactly.

I think there is a great need for advanced societies to come to terms with the commercialization of science, which is an enormous social change that has occurred entirely within my lifetime. Science is now a very different game, with very different players, different opportunities, different benefits, and different hazards for the population. But people in general don't understand what has happened.

They will.

Can you paint a brief picture of technological and social development over the next 50 years?

No. I don't think it's possible to predict the future. It's hard enough to predict the past.

GM - boon, threat, or both?

Most of the people I know who are anxious about GM say that their concerns lie with the fact that the technology is of unproven safety. They share their worries with like-minded people by use of their cell phones. When I remind them that cell phones are a technology of unproven safety, and that the construction of all these wireless networks around the world and in our houses is a development of unproven safety, they just shrug. They don't care. Even though most of them are old enough to remember the false fears about cancer and electromagnetic radiation. You'd think that fear could be easily reawakened in them, but no.

From this I conclude fears are a matter of fashion. Worries are like clothing styles, they come and go, rise and fall, based on what the worry fashion leaders tell the herd of independent minds to fear this year. GM is fashionable to fear. But that will change.

What is the most serious threat facing our civilisation?

Loss of classical liberal values in those western societies that embraced them.

England was the first modern state, the first superpower, the first nation to deal with moral issues around the world, and the first nation to install the benefits of what we might now loosely term a liberal society. I mean that in the 19th century sense of liberalism. That notion of liberalism was also present in America, but made it to the Continent only in a pale and limited form. It is a wonderful social conception that must be vigilantly guarded. It is not shared by other nations in the world. Nor is it shared by many citizens in English-speaking countries. Peculiarly, many of our most educated citizens are least sympathetic to classical liberal ideals. Indeed the term 'liberalism' in the modern day has come to imply a constellation of attitudes that John Stuart Mill would not recognize as liberal at all. Nor would, say, John F. Kennedy recognize them as liberal. Kennedy's conception of liberalism was simultaneously more tolerant and more tough-minded: tolerant about varieties of behavior within the society, and tough-minded toward threats to a tolerant society from without.

That's all gone, now. Today there is far too much sensitivity within societies, and too little hard-nosed recognition of threats from without. We are inclined to be intolerant of speech by our friends and neighbors, and tolerant of beheadings, rape, and homophobia in distant lands.

This makes no sense. But here we are.

What are you working on now?

An adventure story like Jurassic Park. I'm enjoying myself.

Newspapers in Decline

More bleak news for the purveyors of death and destruction in print...

*****************************

Drop in Ad Revenue Raises Tough Question for Newspapers
By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE

For newspapers, February was the cruelest month. So far.

Revenue from advertising was in striking decline last month, compared with February a year ago, and were generally weaker than analysts had expected.

And while there was one piece of good news for the industry — ad spending on newspaper Web sites rose — many industry watchers were wondering whether the February declines were part of a short-term slump or whether they signal a deepening systemic problem.

“I’m reluctant to say that a single data point is a trend,” said Barry Parr, a media analyst at Jupiter Research. “But those are scary numbers, especially when we’re not in a recession.”

At USA Today, the nation’s biggest newspaper, ad revenue was down 14 percent this February, compared with February last year. Gannett, which owns USA Today and is the nation’s biggest newspaper company, reported that its overall ad revenue declined 3.8 percent in February from February 2006.

Ad revenue at The New York Times Company fell 6 percent overall, declining 7.5 percent at The New York Times; ad revenue at the company’s New England Media Group, which includes The Boston Globe, was down 4 percent. At The Wall Street Journal, published by Dow Jones, it was off 10 percent.

The Tribune Company, whose papers include The Los Angeles Times, The Chicago Tribune and The Baltimore Sun, reported losses of more than 5 percent. So did McClatchy, whose papers include The Miami Herald, The Sacramento Bee and The Lexington Herald-Leader in Kentucky.

Even papers in smaller markets, which are shielded from some of the forces buffeting some of the bigger metro dailies, saw losses in February. Ad revenue for the publishing division of Media General, which owns The Tampa Tribune, The Richmond Times-Dispatch and The Winston-Salem Journal, were down 5.8 percent.

Most of the numbers were worse than January’s and came after a difficult year in which many newspapers continued to pare costs by laying off employees, shrinking the physical size of their print publications and reducing benefits. Several newspapers also tried raising revenue by accepting advertising in prominent spaces that they had long reserved for news.

And still the numbers were bad. Collectively, the February sales were “the worst group performance to date,” Steven Barlow, an analyst at Prudential Equity Group, wrote to his clients.

The newspaper companies blamed the declines largely on the continuing shift of classified advertisers from print to online, especially to mostly free sites like Craig’s List. In some cases, particularly in Florida and California, they traced the weaknesses to volatile real estate markets.

Tampa, Fla., which is also recovering from a series of hurricanes, was hit particularly hard, with revenue from real estate ads plunging 44 percent compared with last February. Tampa’s overall classified revenue was off 27 percent, with help wanted down 32 percent and automotive off 27 percent, according to Media General.

Lauren Rich Fine, a media analyst for Merrill Lynch, cautioned in her analysis of McClatchy’s February numbers not to “overreact to just one month of poor performance.” Nonetheless, she said, McClatchy’s problems were “just starting.” She cited the stark comparison between California’s hot real estate market last February, when revenue from classified real estate ads was up 48 percent, and its weaker market this February, when that revenue was down 20 percent.

Mark Fratrik, an economist at BIA Financial Network, said the February results were “not a blip on the screen.”

“It’s fundamental, what’s going on with newspapers,” he said. “The younger groups, the most desired demographics, are just not reading them. They aren’t listening to traditional radio either, but I tell radio broadcasters that they’re lucky not to be in newspapers.”

Mirroring the slide in ad revenue is a long slow decline in circulation.

Newspaper circulation nationally reached its peak in 1984, when there were 1,600 morning and afternoon paid dailies with a circulation of 63 million. With the rise of cable television and, later, the Internet, newspaper circulation began to decline. Today there are 1,450 paid dailies with a circulation of 53 million. The losses have accelerated over the last two years.

While many newspapers still have healthy profit margins, their costs are up and ad revenue is down.

On the bright side, says the Newspaper Association of America, ad spending on newspaper Web sites jumped 31.5 percent last year compared with the year before, to $2.7 billion.

The bad news is that online spending accounted for only 5.4 percent of all newspaper ad expenditures in 2006, the association reported. And print revenue fell 3.7 percent in 2006, to $13.2 billion, from the year before.

Online spending is projected to continue to grow, and many newspapers are investing more and more in their Web sites. But so far, the online revenue is too small to begin to compensate for the losses from print advertising.

Mr. Parr, the Jupiter analyst, said that gap was going to force the industry to adapt to survive and that the February results were just a symptom of this larger struggle.

“There is absolutely no question that the next 10 years are going to be really bad for the newspaper business,” he said. “This is a time of wrenching change and chaos. All of our assumptions about newspapers are going to be changed. The format, the business model, the organization of newspapers have outlived their usefulness.”

Creative Destruction in the Music Business

Speaking of creative destruction...

Sales of Music, Long in Decline, Plunge Sharply
Rise in Downloading Fails to Boost Industry;
A Retailing Shakeout
By ETHAN SMITH
March 21, 2007

In a dramatic acceleration of the seven-year sales decline that has battered the music industry, compact-disc sales for the first three months of this year plunged 20% from a year earlier, the latest sign of the seismic shift in the way consumers acquire music.

The sharp slide in sales of CDs, which still account for more than 85% of music sold, has far eclipsed the growth in sales of digital downloads, which were supposed to have been the industry's salvation.


The slide stems from the confluence of long-simmering factors that are now feeding off each other, including the demise of specialty music retailers like longtime music mecca Tower Records. About 800 music stores, including Tower's 89 locations, closed in 2006 alone.

Apple Inc.'s sale of around 100 million iPods shows that music remains a powerful force in the lives of consumers. But because of the Internet, those consumers have more ways to obtain music now than they did a decade ago, when walking into a store and buying it was the only option.

Today, popular songs and albums -- and countless lesser-known works -- can be easily found online, in either legal or pirated forms. While the music industry hopes that those songs will be purchased through legal services like Apple's iTunes Store, consumers can often listen to them on MySpace pages or download them free from other sources, such as so-called MP3 blogs.

Jeff Rabhan, who manages artists and music producers including Jermaine Dupri, Kelis and Elliott Yamin, says CDs have become little more than advertisements for more-lucrative goods like concert tickets and T-shirts. "Sales are so down and so off that, as a manager, I look at a CD as part of the marketing of an artist, more than as an income stream," says Mr. Rabhan. "It's the vehicle that drives the tour, the merchandise, building the brand, and that's it. There's no money."

The music industry has found itself almost powerless in the face of this shift. Its struggles are hardly unique in the media world. The film, TV and publishing industries are also finding it hard to adapt to the digital age. Though consumers are exposed to more media in more ways than ever before, the challenge for media companies is finding a way to make money from all that exposure. Newspaper publishers, for example, are finding that their Internet advertising isn't growing fast enough to replace the loss of traditional print ads.

In recent weeks, the music industry has posted some of the weakest sales it has ever recorded. This year has already seen the two lowest-selling No. 1 albums since Nielsen SoundScan, which tracks music sales, was launched in 1991.

One week, "American Idol" runner-up Chris Daughtry's rock band sold just 65,000 copies of its chart-topping album; another week, the "Dreamgirls" movie soundtrack sold a mere 60,000. As recently as 2005, there were many weeks when such tallies wouldn't have been enough to crack the top 30 sellers. In prior years, it wasn't uncommon for a No. 1 record to sell 500,000 or 600,000 copies a week.

In general, even today's big titles are stalling out far earlier than they did a few years ago.

The music industry has been banking on the rise of digital music to compensate for inevitable drops in sales of CDs. Apple's 2003 launch of its iTunes Store was greeted as a new day in music retailing, one that would allow fans to conveniently and quickly snap up large amounts of music from limitless virtual shelves.

It hasn't worked out that way -- at least so far. Digital sales of individual songs this year have risen 54% from a year earlier to 173.4 million, according to Nielsen SoundScan. But that's nowhere near enough to offset the 20% decline from a year ago in CD sales to 81.5 million units. Overall, sales of all music -- digital and physical -- are down 10% this year. And even including sales of ringtones, subscription services and other "ancillary" goods, sales are still down 9%, according to one estimate; some recording executives have privately questioned that figure, which was included in a recent report by Pali Research.

Meanwhile, one billion songs a month are traded on illegal file-sharing networks, according to BigChampagne LLC.

Adding to the music industry's misery, CD prices have fallen amid pressure for cheaper prices from big-box retailers like Wal-Mart and others. That pressure is feeding through to record labels' bottom lines. As the market has deteriorated, Warner Music Group Corp., which reported a 74% drop in profits for the fourth quarter of 2006, is expected to report little relief in the first quarter of this year.

Looking at unit sales alone "flatters the situation," says Simon Wright, chief executive of Virgin Entertainment Group International, which runs 14 Virgin Megastores locations in North America and 250 world-wide. "In value terms, the market's down 25%, probably." Virgin's music sales have increased slightly this year, he says, thanks to the demise of chief competitor Tower, and to a mix of fashion and "lifestyle" products designed to attract customers.

Perhaps the biggest factor in the latest chapter of the music industry's struggle is the shakeout among music retailers. As recently as a decade ago, specialty stores like Tower Records were must-shop destinations for fans looking for both big hits and older catalog titles. But retailers like Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Best Buy Co. took away the hits business by undercutting the chains on price. Today such megaretailers represent about 65% of the retail market, up from 20% a decade ago, music-distribution executives estimate. And digital-music piracy, which has been rife since the rise of the original Napster file-sharing service, has allowed many would-be music buyers to fill their CD racks or digital-music players without ever venturing into a store.

Late last year, Tower Records closed its doors, after filing for bankruptcy-court protection in August. Earlier in 2006, following a bankruptcy filing, Musicland Holding Corp., which owned the Sam Goody chain, closed 500 of its 900 locations. And recently, Trans World Entertainment Corp., which operates the FYE and Coconuts chains, among others, began closing 134 of its 1,087 locations.

But even at the outlets that are still open, business has suffered. Executives at Trans World, based in Albany, N.Y., told analysts earlier this month that sales of music at its stores declined 14% in the last quarter of 2006. For the year, music represented just 44% of the company's sales, down from 54% in 2005. For the final quarter of the year, music represented just 38% of its sales.

Joe Nardone Jr., who owns the independent 10-store Gallery of Sound chain in Pennsylvania, says he is trying to make up for declining sales of new music by emphasizing used CDs, which he calls "a more consistent business." For now, though, he says used discs represent less than 10% of his business -- not nearly enough to offset the declines.

Retailers and others say record labels have failed to deliver big sellers. And even the hits aren't what they used to be. Norah Jones's "Not Too Late" has sold just shy of 1.1 million copies since it was released six weeks ago. Her previous album, "Feels Like Home," sold more than 2.2. million copies in the same period after its 2004 release.

"Even when you have a good release like Norah Jones, maybe the environment is so bad you can't turn it around," says Richard Greenfield, an analyst at Pali Research.

Meanwhile, with music sales sliding for the first time even at some big-box chains, Best Buy has been quietly reducing the floor space it dedicates to music, according to music-distribution executives.

Whether Wal-Mart and others will follow suit isn't clear, but if they do it could spell more trouble for the record companies. The big-box chains already stocked far fewer titles than did the fading specialty retailers. As a result, it is harder for consumers to find and purchase older titles in stores.

Write to Ethan Smith at ethan.smith@wsj.com

DARPA Q&A

Here's a little Q&A with DARPA Director Tony Tether from WIRED magazine I found interesting:

What future technologies worry you? Quantum computing. If someone else, an enemy, got ahold of that, it would be a real technological surprise.

That concerns you more than biological weapons? The biological is more worrisome because it’s potentially more near-term. But the quantum computer will be really revolutionary.

By working on it, though, aren’t you potentially giving it to them? That’s always a worry, isn’t it? In some cases, when we have a technology that we don’t want to teach the world how to create, we put controls on it.