scientific concept to carry and, truth tontell, Rifkin cannot make it do so. WhatnRif kin offers in this book is a pop versionnof a world view: Entropy is to Vico,nToynbee, Hegel and even Teilhard whatna McDonald’s hamburger is to hautencuisine.nR ifkin attacks what he calls then”mechanical paradigm” and, to hisncredit, he is correct, at least to the extentnthat much of classical physics as it developednfrom the late 16th through the laten19th centuries has been fundamentallynchanged by developments in the 20th. Innparticular, Newtonian mechanics, basednon a notion of absolute space and time,nwas overthrown by Einstein’s famousntheories of relativity. Further, the introductionnof statistical methods of predictionnhas limited the degree to which scientificnlaws may be said to be certain andnthe results of physical processes inevitable.nThus our view of science has fundamentallynaltered, and the world view itnsupported has lost its certitude, hence itsnappeal. But if there was a mechanicalnworld view and it is dying, what is replacingnit.^ Whatever it is, according to suchnthinkers as CoUingwood and Whitehead,nit will be one which is not based on anynof the iron laws of physics that excludenhuman value, but on a more contingentnview of the universe in which a sense ofnthe ongoingness of time, of time pastnand time future, gives us access tonhuman possibilities and therefore tonhuman values.nWhat has Rifkin to say in responsento all this.? The concept of entropy certainlynhas to do with the passage of time,nsince it deals with the transformation ofnenergy from one state to another and, asnRifkin points out, once we have used thenenergy (burning coal or oil for instance),nthen in that form, at least, it is lost forever.nWhat a theme for a philosopher orna commentator on the vanity of humannwishes—especially as it is the entropynrelation which gives a physical basis fornthe subjective sense we have of the passagenof time. Further, irreversible timenis, as Rifkin and others including Berg-nS6inChronicles of Culturenson and Capek have pointed out, deniednin the mechanical system devised bynNewton. However, while Rifkin presentsnthe concept of Entropy (with ancapital “E”) as the basis for a new antimechanisticnworld view, he cannot letngo of one feature of that world view, perhapsnthe most pernicious, namely thendoctrine of necessity. Rifkin actuallynrefers to entropy as an “iron law” andnquotes Einstein to the effect that it isnthe best established of all the generalnlaws of science (which is a bit like quotingnLenin in praise of the two-party system).nSo intent is Rifkin on reservingnthe doctrine of necessity for the entropynlaw that he attacks the attempts of certainn19th-century scientists to put thenentropy law on a statistical basis, assertingnthat such greats as Boltzmannnand Maxwell did so in an attempt to escapenthe force of the law, i.e. the factnthat the universe is running down. Innfact their real intent was to integrate thenlaw of entropy with the statistical theorynof heat, which puts the entropy law on anfirmer theoretical basis and which is angenerally accepted principle of contemporarynphysics. Again, the point in allnthis is simply that Rifkin wishes to establishnentropy as an iron law whose consequences,nRifkin claims, are completelynunavoidable. The irony is that Rifkin,neven while declaiming against the mechanicalnworld view, still wants to saventhat portion of it that he thinks will ensurenacceptance of his version of entropy.nRifkin could have used the entropynconcept to express the valuesninherent in the range of human possibilitiesnand in the fact of choice. In­nnnstead, he chose to use it as the guarantornof his political opinions. In this,nhe is not different from Marx, Spencer,nComte, Skinner or E. O. Wilson.nJ-ypically, authors of world viewsnseek not only to define them in generalnoutline, but also to show their influencenin the practical affairs of life. Rifkin isnno different, for he calls not just forngreater conservation, or for a less hecticnand artificial lifestyle, but also for a dismantlingnof our technological capacity, angross reduction of our industrial productivity,nand a shrinking of the earth’snpopulation. He argues for this on thenbasis of entropy, but he would seem tonbelieve that energy consumption is evilnin itself, as if all our energy resourcesnwere doomed to give out in the next sixnmonths. Rifkin’s is a survival ethicdon’tnbreathe too deeply or you’ll use upnthe remaining oxygen that much morenquickly. Thus he downplays the possibilitiesnof synf uels and solar as new sourcesnof energy, as well, of course, as those ofnatomic and fusion power. He not onlynpredicts depletion of all our energy resources,nhe desires it. So great is hisnanxiety to promote the emergence of thenentropic world view that he makes somenmistakes along the way. He ignores thenfact that market forces, i.e. the rise innoil and gas prices, have had more effectnin promoting conservation than anythingnelse, including government actionnand the promotion of bucoHc lifestyles.nAlso, Rifkin exaggerates to an absurdndegree the entropy process itself (his eloquencenis such that you can feel thenenergy dying), broadly mixing the ratesnof decay of free energy in nature andnthose infinitesimally smaller rates involvednin mankind’s use of applied energy.nIn other words, by pointing to theninevitable death of the sun (in severalnmillion years), he encourages us to givenup the use of automobiles. Finally, he attacksnthe increasing complexity of technologynand its spread, avoiding the factnthat only the full utilization of the newntechnologies will enable the peoples ofnthe Third World to increase their stand-n