1. PHILOSOPHICAL - YEAR 2012
1.8 Space settlers will either be environmentalists or dead
1.9 Environmental Anti Humanism Alert
1.10 Lazy thinking will endanger our future
1.11 No Wonder the Planet is going down the TOILET
1.12 The curse of scientific fundamentalism
1.13 "inclusive Wealth" index
1.14 Crashing the operating system
1.15 Why can't civilization be bettered?
1.16 Ayn Rand's Philosophy
1.17 Rights of Nature
1.18 All economic value comes from nature via society
1.19 Cardinal says Church '200 years out of date'
1.20 The evolution of human thought - the great leaps forward
1.21 Live/Non-Life
1.22 George Gilder's Philosophy
1.23 Manesar story from a worker's perspective
1.24 How 'Silent Spring' Ignited the Environmental Movement
1.25 Isaac Asimov on "homeland"
1.26 Homo economicus or Homo altruisticus?
1.27 Einstein Quote
1.28 Prominent ID sites do look more reasonable than most angry atheists' sites.
1.29 Separation of Live sciences from the Physical sciences
1.30 Free Market Capitalism
1.31 Civilisation is making humanity less intelligent, study claims
1.32 Peak desktop
1.33 Robots and Robber Barons
1.34 The power of outrospection - empathy
1.35 Adams on courage and integrity
1.36 Is More Intelligence the Answer?
--------------------------
1.1 The Most Important Video You'll Ever See (10/1/2012)
Q: You have been criticised as someone trying to curtail media freedom. How do you respond to that?
A: When someone tries to rectify the market-driven media, the media owners scream and take refuge in Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution (Freedom of Speech). They raise an alarm when anyone questions their irresponsible sensationalised views being peddled as news. The middle class Indians are easily swayed by the peripheral issues the media raises (which are really non-issues, like lives of film stars, cricket, pop music, reality shows, etc) which they dish out with propagandist zeal. When I raise my voice against this, I am branded as a dictator who wants to crush media freedom, someone who wants to impose Emergency. But I am the strongest advocate of freedom.
Small ecosystems, like those inside space settlements, are pretty
unstable. It is really quite easy to run out of O2 or get too much
CO2 -- meaning too much for humans to survive. Space settlers will
either be environmentalists or dead.
1.9 Environmental Anti Humanism Alert (6/6/2012)
We might think Google and Microsoft have problems, but we – and our governments – haven't even begun to think about what such connectivity is going to do to our learning, communication, businesses, civilisation.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/
1.33 Robots and Robber Barons (12/12/2012)
In a recent book, “Race Against the Machine,” M.I.T.’s Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee argue that similar stories are playing out in many fields, including services like translation and legal research. What’s striking about their examples is that many of the jobs being displaced are high-skill and high-wage; the downside of technology isn’t limited to menial workers.
.. As I said, this is a discussion that has barely begun — but it’s time to get started, before the robots and the robber barons turn our society into something unrecognizable.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/
1.34 The power of outrospection - empathy (19/12/2012)
The power of outrospection:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
1.35 Adams on courage and integrity (21/12/2012)
What takes real leadership and courage is to question things that don't add up and dare to investigate and report whatever truths might be found.
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/
1.36 Is more intelligence the answer? (6/12/2012)
At present, because of human activities enabled by our increasingly sophisticated technological creations, the ongoing extinction rate is estimated to be roughly 100 times the “background” extinction rates over evolutionary time. One in three species are now at risk of extinction, half of the primate species around the world are endangered, and climatologists are warning of “‘irreversible’ climate shifts because worst-case scenarios warned of two years ago are being realized.” And, crucially, we have apparently never been smarter than we now are.
1.1 The Most Important Video You'll Ever See
1.2 Population growth
1.3 Earth council (Interesting idea)
1.4 Justice Katju slams media for dumbing down
1.5 ID Research
1.6 Putting humans in space - the purpose behind it
1.7 Young adults focus more on fame and money1.8 Space settlers will either be environmentalists or dead
1.9 Environmental Anti Humanism Alert
1.10 Lazy thinking will endanger our future
1.11 No Wonder the Planet is going down the TOILET
1.12 The curse of scientific fundamentalism
1.13 "inclusive Wealth" index
1.14 Crashing the operating system
1.15 Why can't civilization be bettered?
1.16 Ayn Rand's Philosophy
1.17 Rights of Nature
1.18 All economic value comes from nature via society
1.19 Cardinal says Church '200 years out of date'
1.20 The evolution of human thought - the great leaps forward
1.21 Live/Non-Life
1.22 George Gilder's Philosophy
1.23 Manesar story from a worker's perspective
1.24 How 'Silent Spring' Ignited the Environmental Movement
1.25 Isaac Asimov on "homeland"
1.26 Homo economicus or Homo altruisticus?
1.27 Einstein Quote
1.28 Prominent ID sites do look more reasonable than most angry atheists' sites.
1.29 Separation of Live sciences from the Physical sciences
1.30 Free Market Capitalism
1.31 Civilisation is making humanity less intelligent, study claims
1.32 Peak desktop
1.33 Robots and Robber Barons
1.34 The power of outrospection - empathy
1.35 Adams on courage and integrity
1.36 Is More Intelligence the Answer?
--------------------------
1.1 The Most Important Video You'll Ever See (10/1/2012)
Arithmetic, Population and Energy
President Carter’s famous speech on energy:
“ And in each of those decades (the 1950’s and 1960’s) more oil was consumed than in all of mankind’s pervious history”.
President Jimmy Carter
April 18, 1977
The complete video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?
1.2 Population growth (10/1/2012)
Bill Moyers interviewed Isaac Asimov:
Question: What happens to the idea of the dignity of the human species if this population growth continues at its present rate?
Answer: It will be completely destroyed. I like to use what I call my bathroom metaphor; if two people live in an apartment, and there are two bathrooms, then both have freedom of the bathroom. You can go to the bathroom any time you want to and stay as long as you want to for whatever you need. And everyone believes in the freedom of the bathroom; it should be right there in the constitution.
But, if you have twenty people in the same apartment and two bathrooms, no matter how much every person believes in freedom of the bathroom, there is no such thing. You have to set up times for each person, you have to bang at the door,"Aren't you through yet?" And so on.
Asimov:
In the same way, democracy
cannot survive overpopulation.
Human dignity cannot survive
overpopulation.
Convenience and decency cannot
survive overpopulation.
As you put more and more people into
the world, the value of life not only
declines, it disappears. It doesn't
matter if someone dies, the more
people there are, the less one
individual matters.
1.3 Earth council (Interesting idea) (13/1/2012)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: sustcomm <sustcomm@yahoo.com>
Date: 13 January 2012 00:37
Subject: [Emerald-Forest] Earth Council Embassy Video
We do have a land base now. Who would like to join us?
1.4 Justice Katju slams media for dumbing down (30/1/2012)
Q: You have been criticised as someone trying to curtail media freedom. How do you respond to that?
A: When someone tries to rectify the market-driven media, the media owners scream and take refuge in Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution (Freedom of Speech). They raise an alarm when anyone questions their irresponsible sensationalised views being peddled as news. The middle class Indians are easily swayed by the peripheral issues the media raises (which are really non-issues, like lives of film stars, cricket, pop music, reality shows, etc) which they dish out with propagandist zeal. When I raise my voice against this, I am branded as a dictator who wants to crush media freedom, someone who wants to impose Emergency. But I am the strongest advocate of freedom.
Q: Wouldn't that give the government the right to censor the media?
A: I don't believe that regulation of the media should be done by the Government. It should be done by an independent statutory authority. The Press Council is not under the Government. It is an independent statutory authority. I am not subordinate to the government.
A: I don't believe that regulation of the media should be done by the Government. It should be done by an independent statutory authority. The Press Council is not under the Government. It is an independent statutory authority. I am not subordinate to the government.
Q: But should one go back in time to find role models from another culture?
A: There is nothing wrong in learning from historical examples. Like the heroes of that age-Voltaire, Rousseau, Thomas Paine, Diderot or Helvetius-I want today's Indian journalists to play a crucial role in transforming Indian society from feudalism into a new age of enlightenment, characterised by reason, science and humanity. This is the "leadership" angle I talked about at a lecture at the Bengal Club in Kolkata on December 5 last year. The traditional roles of the media are two: providing information and entertainment. In the transitional age, there is a third role: that is, giving leadership to the people in the realm of ideas. Media persons, however, can play a great role in this connection only if you correct yourselves. You can show the way and give leadership to the nation, provided you make yourself fit to do so.
A: There is nothing wrong in learning from historical examples. Like the heroes of that age-Voltaire, Rousseau, Thomas Paine, Diderot or Helvetius-I want today's Indian journalists to play a crucial role in transforming Indian society from feudalism into a new age of enlightenment, characterised by reason, science and humanity. This is the "leadership" angle I talked about at a lecture at the Bengal Club in Kolkata on December 5 last year. The traditional roles of the media are two: providing information and entertainment. In the transitional age, there is a third role: that is, giving leadership to the people in the realm of ideas. Media persons, however, can play a great role in this connection only if you correct yourselves. You can show the way and give leadership to the nation, provided you make yourself fit to do so.
1.5 ID Research (3/2/2012)
Collectively, this body of research is converging on a consensus: complex biological features cannot arise by unguided Darwinian mechanisms, but require an intelligent cause.
Despite ID’s publication record, we note parenthetically that recognition in peer-reviewed literature is not an absolute requirement to demonstrate an idea’s scientific merit. Darwin’s own theory of evolution was first published in a book for a general and scientific audience -- his Origin of Species -- not in a peer-reviewed paper. Nonetheless, ID's peer-reviewed publication record shows that it deserves -- and is receiving -- serious consideration by the scientific community.
The purpose of ID's research program is not to convince the unconvincible -- critics who repeat over and over in the media that there is no such thing as ID research, that ID has not produced a single peer-reviewed paper. Rather, ID research seeks to engage open-minded scientists and thoughtful laypersons with credible, persuasive, peer-reviewed, empirical data supporting intelligent design.
And this is happening. ID has already gained the kind of scientific recognition you would expect from a young (and vastly underfunded) but promising scientific field. The scientific progress of ID has won the serious attention of skeptics in the scientific community, who engage in scientific debate with ID and attend private scientific conferences allowing off-the-record discussion with ID proponents.
We provide below an annotated bibliography of technical publications of various kinds that support, develop or apply the theory of intelligent design. The articles are grouped according to the type of publication.
1.6 Putting humans in space - the purpose behind it (3/2/2012)
"In every deliberation, we must consider the impact on the seventh generation... even if it requires having skin as thick as the bark of a pine."
..............................
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: l_ed_cox <elaurens.cox@gmail.com>
Date: 14 February 2012 10:05
Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: : Putting humans in space - the purpose behind it.
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
From: l_ed_cox <elaurens.cox@gmail.com>
Date: 14 February 2012 10:05
Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: : Putting humans in space - the purpose behind it.
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
I've been getting emails with all the new posts for a while now without adding one myself.
I found out about space habs when they were featured in Science News about 40 years ago when I was a teenager. There seems to be absolutely no mainstream interest in them whatsoever right now.
But one name for them back then was "Space Ark." Those were the days of the dawning of the environmental movement. People weren't sure how long this earth was going to last. If we didn't blow it up in some godforsaken war, popular opinion was that we would pollute it to death.
And that was the purpose I saw for space habs: To give our biosphere another chance in another time and place, in case this one became unlivable.
I still see that as a major reason for developing space habs.
I have seen a lot of posts about the science and the engineering behind the problem. And that's fine. But every once in a while someone raises the question of finance. Or of how the colonists will do without being connected to Earth.
We have to answer those questions, too. If we don't, maybe we never get to square one.
These colonies mean more than giving us a way to exploit the asteroid belt for resources, or to alleviate the effects of over-population. So, can we do what needs to be done to at least put them on the global agenda? I don't see them there right now.
Some may think, well, that's just too far down the road. No one wants to think about crossing that bridge right now.
But don't some of you wish our grandfathers had planned a little better than they did? We're living in the future they created; and so are most of them!
And that's where my spiritual training comes in.
There's a company called "Seventh Generation." They get this name and concept from the Iroquois.
"In every deliberation, we must consider the impact on the seventh generation... even if it requires having skin as thick as the bark of a pine."
Why did they think like this? Though we can see how it makes sense as a rational policy for any society that wants to survive, there is another obvious answer: Because the decision makers of today will be some of the major participants in the future that they create.
And that is not something that most people in this "modern" world realize or believe.
I thought I would drop in to express a few of my more weighty concerns. I hope it does not dampen the enthusiasm of the engineers in the group.
But it seems to me there is more to engineer here than just a very complex piece of hardware. Someone will also need to "engineer" the will of this and future generations to build it and man it.
Good luck!
I found out about space habs when they were featured in Science News about 40 years ago when I was a teenager. There seems to be absolutely no mainstream interest in them whatsoever right now.
But one name for them back then was "Space Ark." Those were the days of the dawning of the environmental movement. People weren't sure how long this earth was going to last. If we didn't blow it up in some godforsaken war, popular opinion was that we would pollute it to death.
And that was the purpose I saw for space habs: To give our biosphere another chance in another time and place, in case this one became unlivable.
I still see that as a major reason for developing space habs.
I have seen a lot of posts about the science and the engineering behind the problem. And that's fine. But every once in a while someone raises the question of finance. Or of how the colonists will do without being connected to Earth.
We have to answer those questions, too. If we don't, maybe we never get to square one.
These colonies mean more than giving us a way to exploit the asteroid belt for resources, or to alleviate the effects of over-population. So, can we do what needs to be done to at least put them on the global agenda? I don't see them there right now.
Some may think, well, that's just too far down the road. No one wants to think about crossing that bridge right now.
But don't some of you wish our grandfathers had planned a little better than they did? We're living in the future they created; and so are most of them!
And that's where my spiritual training comes in.
There's a company called "Seventh Generation." They get this name and concept from the Iroquois.
"In every deliberation, we must consider the impact on the seventh generation... even if it requires having skin as thick as the bark of a pine."
Why did they think like this? Though we can see how it makes sense as a rational policy for any society that wants to survive, there is another obvious answer: Because the decision makers of today will be some of the major participants in the future that they create.
And that is not something that most people in this "modern" world realize or believe.
I thought I would drop in to express a few of my more weighty concerns. I hope it does not dampen the enthusiasm of the engineers in the group.
But it seems to me there is more to engineer here than just a very complex piece of hardware. Someone will also need to "engineer" the will of this and future generations to build it and man it.
Good luck!
1.7 Young adults focus more on fame and money (20/3/2012)
1.8 Space settlers will either be environmentalists or dead (15/4/2012)
An interesting conversation in spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, which started out with the title 'Could life in the solar system complicate space settlement?' The conversation brings out the inherent conflict between the preservation of natural systems and modern technological advancements. It is unfortunate that our educational system (in particular Engineering Education) has lacked the intelligence and the courage to tackle and to harmonize this obvious conflict.
The times are changing, and not essentially for the better when it comes to giving back to society, a new study has revealed.
According to 40 years of research on 9 million young adults, there has been a significant decline among young Americans in political participation, concern for others and interest in saving the environment since the baby boomer generation.
-----------------
Cutting edge research is required on the visual media, how it affects our thinking and our intelligence, and the time spent on TV, computers and cell phones.
Finally, everyone has only 24 hours a day at his disposal.
Selvaraj
1.8 Space settlers will either be environmentalists or dead (15/4/2012)
Selvaraj
......
Brooks:
So I was reading that Saturn's moon Titan may have methanogens, breathing H2 combined with acetylene and exhaling methane. And even some of the data supports this, with very low levels of H2 and acetylene at the surface, against what is expected otherwise. Interesting in and of itself, but it got me thinking. If we do find methanogens on Titan, how ubiquitous is life in the solar system? If we find there's life in every possible location, underground and in caves on Mars, within all the large icey moons (Europa, Ganymede, etc.), liquid comet cores (as has been recently reported), even more doubtfully but say Venus and the gas giants atmospheres.
We may find settlement and definitely terraforming to raise ethical concerns. I'm sure some asteroids and smaller moons can be expected to be devoid of life and signs of past life, including our own moon, but we may become limited in how much we wish to change the conditions on bodies that already contain life.
We may find settlement and definitely terraforming to raise ethical concerns. I'm sure some asteroids and smaller moons can be expected to be devoid of life and signs of past life, including our own moon, but we may become limited in how much we wish to change the conditions on bodies that already contain life.
Mike Combs:
Unless the ubiquitous life extends to cometary cores and asteroids, I would say this would make planetary/lunar colonization less likely, and High Frontier type colonization more likely. HF colonization could proceed without disturbing anything outside of asteroids and perhaps the occasional comet.
Lucio:
I think that - as we do on Earth - we will completely disregard
indigenous life if they are in the path of economic interests. (And
that will be particularly true if the indigenous life is just
microbial. Even the most extremist econuts here on Earth won't care at
all about the rights of bacteria.) Even if one group in space has some
concern about disturbing local life, another group will not (and I
assume that at some point there will be many groups and cultures with
diverging views and interests in space).
Sorry if my opinion sounds too cynic, but I think that it is just realistic.
indigenous life if they are in the path of economic interests. (And
that will be particularly true if the indigenous life is just
microbial. Even the most extremist econuts here on Earth won't care at
all about the rights of bacteria.) Even if one group in space has some
concern about disturbing local life, another group will not (and I
assume that at some point there will be many groups and cultures with
diverging views and interests in space).
Sorry if my opinion sounds too cynic, but I think that it is just realistic.
John:
I completely agree with Lucio, unless the life has 'guns' humans will roll right over it. The law will not stand in the way of money and profit and (to a lesser extent) new frontier land/opportunity will not slow down the march at all.We have no non-interference directive.
Brooks:
I'm sure we 'can' do whatever we want and one day if anyone has the ability to gain economically from an extraterrestial body that they just 'will'. But for those of us who care about what we effect when we go places, our options for mass manipulation may be limited to finding more dead rocks to work with.
Joe:
I'm inclined to think you're both being too pessimistic. Public opinion
DOES matter, even (especially?) to large corporations. If there is
alien life, even microbial, on some other world in the solar system,
there will be a huge amount of public opposition to disturbing it. It
would be in any government or corporation's best interest to find other
resources to exploit, if possible.
And since any life is almost certainly at the bottom of a deep gravity
well, it will probably be cheaper to exploit other resources (in
asteroids, comets, ring particles, etc.) anyway.
DOES matter, even (especially?) to large corporations. If there is
alien life, even microbial, on some other world in the solar system,
there will be a huge amount of public opposition to disturbing it. It
would be in any government or corporation's best interest to find other
resources to exploit, if possible.
And since any life is almost certainly at the bottom of a deep gravity
well, it will probably be cheaper to exploit other resources (in
asteroids, comets, ring particles, etc.) anyway.
Lucio:
It all depends on if the consumers of the products and services of said
large corporations do really care about that, and that is not even close to
be an universal sentiment. I have the impression that in Europe and some
parts of the US and Canada environmental concern may really have an impact
for some companies, but that's not true in the rest of the world.
For instance I am Brazilian, living in Brazil, and in practice people in
here don't give ANY importance to the destruction of the Amazon rainforest.
Keep in mind that the forest is a vast extension of millions of square
kilometers in the north of the country, populated by almost no one - the
thick of the Brazilians live on the other hand in the Southeast, Northeast
and South, heavily concentrated along the costline, and the rainforest is a
distant place that no ones knows and no one thinks about - like another
planet. (Here<http://28.media.tumblr.
image of South America - which is mostly occupied by Brazil - showing
the hugely brilliant cities in the east coast, particularly Rio and São
Paulo, and the Amazon as a dark spot in the upper central portion of the
continent.) Economic exploration of the Amazon is concentrated on ore
extraction (which is largely exported to China, by its turn not the most
environmentally concerned country in the world either), soybean culture and
cattle farming. Cattle is for meat and the internal consumption is HUGE - a
population close to 200 million with one of the highest per capita beef
consumption in the world - and people would not be happy in trading
reduction in the Amazon deforestation for an increase in beef price. They
are unhappy even with laws forbidding plastic bags in some cities, pointing
that "clearly" supermarket owners bought some politicians to earn more
money by selling overpriced inferior compostable bags.
Of course Brazil, China and other emerging countries not-so-worried about
the environment are not the whole of Humanity, but as I said I would expect
that when space colonization takes off there will be all kinds of people
exploiting resources in there, and many won't lose nights of sleep because
they are killing Martian nanobacteria and self-replicating molecules inside
a comet core, or whatever; and at the same time there will be consumers on
Earth that don't care about those thinguies dying a billion kilometers away
if that is necessary for producing this or that at an affordable price.
If we find cute macroscopic aliens in Europa or Titan, on the other hand,
maybe there will be an universal outcry for preserving them. Cuteness
sells! That's why there is so much effort in preserving pandas (even, and
particularly, in China), despite the fact that they are nearly useless to
the ecosystem and are a species going extinct due no natural evolutionary
causes<http://abcnews.go.com/
large corporations do really care about that, and that is not even close to
be an universal sentiment. I have the impression that in Europe and some
parts of the US and Canada environmental concern may really have an impact
for some companies, but that's not true in the rest of the world.
For instance I am Brazilian, living in Brazil, and in practice people in
here don't give ANY importance to the destruction of the Amazon rainforest.
Keep in mind that the forest is a vast extension of millions of square
kilometers in the north of the country, populated by almost no one - the
thick of the Brazilians live on the other hand in the Southeast, Northeast
and South, heavily concentrated along the costline, and the rainforest is a
distant place that no ones knows and no one thinks about - like another
planet. (Here<http://28.media.tumblr.
image of South America - which is mostly occupied by Brazil - showing
the hugely brilliant cities in the east coast, particularly Rio and São
Paulo, and the Amazon as a dark spot in the upper central portion of the
continent.) Economic exploration of the Amazon is concentrated on ore
extraction (which is largely exported to China, by its turn not the most
environmentally concerned country in the world either), soybean culture and
cattle farming. Cattle is for meat and the internal consumption is HUGE - a
population close to 200 million with one of the highest per capita beef
consumption in the world - and people would not be happy in trading
reduction in the Amazon deforestation for an increase in beef price. They
are unhappy even with laws forbidding plastic bags in some cities, pointing
that "clearly" supermarket owners bought some politicians to earn more
money by selling overpriced inferior compostable bags.
Of course Brazil, China and other emerging countries not-so-worried about
the environment are not the whole of Humanity, but as I said I would expect
that when space colonization takes off there will be all kinds of people
exploiting resources in there, and many won't lose nights of sleep because
they are killing Martian nanobacteria and self-replicating molecules inside
a comet core, or whatever; and at the same time there will be consumers on
Earth that don't care about those thinguies dying a billion kilometers away
if that is necessary for producing this or that at an affordable price.
If we find cute macroscopic aliens in Europa or Titan, on the other hand,
maybe there will be an universal outcry for preserving them. Cuteness
sells! That's why there is so much effort in preserving pandas (even, and
particularly, in China), despite the fact that they are nearly useless to
the ecosystem and are a species going extinct due no natural evolutionary
causes<http://abcnews.go.com/
Brooks:
I think a big difference is the US, canada and Europe have the luxury to be more concerned about the environment, thankfully. When Brazil and China are still trying to advance their economies to bring their people out of poverty it definitely puts the environment and worker and consumer protections on the back burner.
Al Globus:
It should be noted that many civilizations have collapsed due to
environmental degradation. Often deforestation. In the case of one
Pacific Island, the inhabitants ate a great deal of sea food caught
from canoes. The canoes where hollowed out trees. They cut down ALL
of the trees on the island to make canoes. When the existing canoe
fleet rotted, most of the population starved to death.
If you think this is irrelevant, remember that the center of
Mediterranean/European civilization used to by the Mid East. Look at
the terrain if you want to know why that region is weak today.
You can trash the environment and make money -- and if you trash it
enough you die, along with most or all of your friends and family.
environmental degradation. Often deforestation. In the case of one
Pacific Island, the inhabitants ate a great deal of sea food caught
from canoes. The canoes where hollowed out trees. They cut down ALL
of the trees on the island to make canoes. When the existing canoe
fleet rotted, most of the population starved to death.
If you think this is irrelevant, remember that the center of
Mediterranean/European civilization used to by the Mid East. Look at
the terrain if you want to know why that region is weak today.
You can trash the environment and make money -- and if you trash it
enough you die, along with most or all of your friends and family.
Lucio:
On the other hand, others have degraded their environment, the
environment of their colonies and other subject regions, and even
though they prospered and are still alive! E.g., Europe, which *now*
is concerned about the environment, but until the mid 20th century was
an industrial revolution distopia and also explored the resources of a
lot of colonies as if there was no tomorrow. Based on that, I consider
environmental degradation for economic purposes an investment of
medium risk.
Going back to the subject of space exploration, it seems hard for me
to see how for instance deforestation or whatever would be a
survivability issue for colonists, since forests (and even the soil
and air) would have to be made from scratch by seemingly industrial
processes...
environment of their colonies and other subject regions, and even
though they prospered and are still alive! E.g., Europe, which *now*
is concerned about the environment, but until the mid 20th century was
an industrial revolution distopia and also explored the resources of a
lot of colonies as if there was no tomorrow. Based on that, I consider
environmental degradation for economic purposes an investment of
medium risk.
Going back to the subject of space exploration, it seems hard for me
to see how for instance deforestation or whatever would be a
survivability issue for colonists, since forests (and even the soil
and air) would have to be made from scratch by seemingly industrial
processes...
Ian:
That's a laugh, the term 'US' is practically synonymous with 'not being
concerned with the environment'. There's massive numbers of people there in
deep, deep denial about things like global warming being caused by fossil
fuels for example. About 69% of Americans think that's pretty much all just
some wild conspiracy theory.
concerned with the environment'. There's massive numbers of people there in
deep, deep denial about things like global warming being caused by fossil
fuels for example. About 69% of Americans think that's pretty much all just
some wild conspiracy theory.
Al Globus:
On Apr 13, 2012, at 5:01 PM, Lúcio de Souza Coelho wrote:
> Going back to the subject of space exploration, it seems hard for me
> to see how for instance deforestation or whatever would be a
> survivability issue for colonists,
For space settlements the ecological issues are much more immediate. > Going back to the subject of space exploration, it seems hard for me
> to see how for instance deforestation or whatever would be a
> survivability issue for colonists,
Small ecosystems, like those inside space settlements, are pretty
unstable. It is really quite easy to run out of O2 or get too much
CO2 -- meaning too much for humans to survive. Space settlers will
either be environmentalists or dead.
1.9 Environmental Anti Humanism Alert (6/6/2012)
Interesting article. Can we start solving our environmental
problems by assuming that humans are exceptional? Do they survive on
mana from heaven? It is precisely this form of thinking that has lead to
our current problems, where probably 10% of humanity consume 50% of the
planet's resources, without actually having a quality of life and
health commensurate with this mega use of resources.
By thinking more logically and
scientifically, rather than by this religious idea of human
exceptionalism, we can protect our environment and provide a better
quality of life for everyone, including the rich.
Selvaraj
1.10 Lazy thinking will endanger our future (23/6/2012)
Psychologist Daniel Kahneman likes to pose the following problem to audiences to illustrate our habitual modes of thinking:
A bat and a ball cost $1.10 together and the bat costs one dollar more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?
It turns out that about 50 percent of students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology got the answer wrong. The proportion reached as high as 90 percent at other unnamed universities. Okay, now that you've had time to reflect on the answer, you'll realize that your instinct was probably to answer 10 cents. But, of course, that's wrong. And, all you have to do is some elementary math to realize it's wrong, and then arrive at the correct answer: The ball costs 5 cents.
.. There are three things I took from this conversation. First, I was frankly astonished that someone whose job is energy analyst at a bona fide think tank did not know the EIA number for crude oil plus condensate. After all, that's his job and that number is probably the most important number in the world for an energy analyst to know. Second, this person did not know the EIA definition of oil. I realize that this definition is not something the average person would know. But for someone who eats, drinks and breathes energy, it really ought to be essentially top of mind. Third, this encounter was a perfect illustration of how System 1 thinking--a broad narrative about there being plenty of oil for decades to come--can completely overshadow System 2 thinking even in persons whose work involves heavy emphasis on System 2.
http://oilprice.com/Energy/
1.11 No wonder the Planet is going down the TOILET (24/6/2012)
1.12 The curse of scientific fundamentalism (24/6/2012)
The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who can’t read and write, but those who can’t learn, unlearn and relearn.
—Alvin Toffler
As Professor B. M. Hegde says in his article, “Is science one of those fanatical religions?” (Open Page, June 17), “In the true sense of the word, science is only a method to understand the working of this universe.”
But science has somehow achieved the status of the only one method to understand the working of the universe. And there lies the root cause of all tragedies that befell the humans and the environment in the last 200 years. This “arrogance” of science wreaked more havoc on humanity and the environment within this short span than what they suffered in the preceding 1000-2000 years.
http://www.thehindu.com/
1.13 "Inclusive Wealth" index (1/7/2012)
In
project planning we have the critical part method (CPM), where of the
hundreds of activities, we identify the critical elements (and if we are
interested in schedules the critical sequence), to get the job done.
CRITICAL PATH: -----> 1 -------> 2 -------> 3 ---------> 4 -------> 5 .... -----> 10 -------> END
If any of the critical elements are not achieved, your project is punctured.
A good designer will, if the project happens be an engineering one, make sure that say, eight of the elements are not critical (there will be generous margins of safety); this will allow him to focus on the two that are critical so that the project is brought to a successful conclusion.
This simple common sense approach has not been followed in dealing with our World at large. We have made every issue critical:
* Land
*Water
* Energy
*Population
* Spending on arms
* General Education and awareness
* Environmental awareness
* Excessive consumerism
* Design of our living environment
* Transportation
* And of course there is no Global Warming
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
etc.
This is how our leadership (many, who are scientists and engineers), have been fooling themselves and others for the last hundred years.
Selvaraj
1.15 Why can't civilization be bettered? (16/7/2012)
. Their population was not depressed, suicidal, seething with rage or questioning the purpose of life like we are. Tribal life has been a success since the birth of mankind.
Civilization on the other hand is a 10,000 year old experiment and the ecological and social toll is rising exponentially. Civilization is founded on the idea that the entire world belongs to man so we are justified in doing what we want with it. We have done what we want with it - the result is a skyrocketing number of humans and plummeting biodiversity. Every extra human on the planet takes the food out of another animal's mouth. 200 species a day are becoming extinct and the integrity of the earth's ecosystem is threatened.
... Such are the benefits of tribal life that we could easily take it forward to the future and still retain a society with advanced technology and material luxury. Hunting and gathering is an occupation and is out of reach for 99% of the population today. But tribalism is merely a social organization. There is no reason why we couldn't participate in modern occupations in businesses that are formed tribally rather than hierarchically.
http://www.deep-ecology-hub.
..............
* Redesign our Cities, Towns and Villages in 1 Km x 0.5 Km format with automobiles limited to peripheral roads.
* Redesign our 'work' so that we spend 50% of our time in a formal organisation and 50% in a social organisation.
Selvaraj
................
A reply to my post was sent in another discussion group. Since the reply raised important issues, I had think hard to respond to the concerns that were raised.
Regards,
Selvaraj
................
Hi Sraj
I'm in Japan and I'm about 120 km from the nuclear disaster that started just over a year ago.
Tribal life. OK. But are you saying we can solve humanity's problems by redesigning cities/towns/villages and work? If so, I'm afraid you will not get the desired result.
There are at least three elements missing.
1) Population - as you say, gathering/hunting is out of reach for 99% of humanity. There are too many of us living with too large an ecological footprint. What are we going to do about this? Just simply wait till it crashes? The subject is taboo for most people. Also, I think humanity will not overcome this problem until there is at least a recognition and some movement towards resolution of 2) and 3) below.
2) Most of humanity is completely out of touch with nature. Nature is supposed to be perceived with the human heart. If you think this is nonsense, please read The Secret Teachings of Plants by Stephen Buhner and follow some of the references given there. Also spend at least a few months with an indigenous "tribe" who are living a traditional lifestyle, preferably in a forest. I spent a year in Thailand working with the Karen - they call themselves Pgaz K'Nyau, hence my nickname here. Then you will know something about how far off base most of humanity is living.
3) At present, we have huge problems changing the system or redesigning living spaces. I have been in discussions with people who say, "Well, humanity is intelligent enough to do XYZ, so we can do it if we really want to." So... why are "we" not doing it then? Part of the answer is that the world is literally being run by psychopaths. If you think this is nonsense, please read Political Ponerology by Andrew Lobaczewski. There are also other materials about this on the web. Try "The Mask of Sanity" by Hervey Cleckley, though this is by no means the only resource and will only give you part of the picture.
You'll have to clear these three elements if you wish to better civilization. Look forward to discussing this here, along with the future of food and energy.
Taj bluv!
..............................
My Reply:
Hi Taj Bluv,
I am with you on the issue of population growth. Ideally, if we were a race of intelligent people, we would have hit the button on one child per family by now, and stabilized the global population to a desired level. I believe that the reason for this failure is a massive failure of philosophy and a lack of courage at all levels; scientific, religious and political. The world changed dramatically a hundred years back, yet our leadership is caught in a time wrap which is thousands of years old.
Just as it is self evident "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". So also, it ought to have been self evident to our scientists that in a planet such as ours which supports myriad forms of life, no one life form (however intelligent it may be) ought to usurp more that 10% of its resources for its own sustenance.
I went through a Stephen Buhner video on U Tube: fascinating! I read an article on Political Ponerology by Andrew Lobaczewski: interesting, but not really convincing. Without checks and balances it is possible for any individual to become a tyrant ..... Power corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
My belief is, the solution to all our problems lies in dealing with issues in an intelligent and scientific way. Science as it is presently taught and promoted, is highly selective (as you can see from the Nobel Prize awards, which ignore sciences relating to human psychology, environment and sustainability). Sciences should lead on a much wider front, taking into account the simple scientific fact that we do not own this planet, any science we propagate must be in harmony with the needs of our planet.
If we apply Maslows hierarchy of needs, it is quite clear that as a global civilisation we are caught in meeting our Physiological and other personal needs. We are still to reach the 'self actualization' level. If we value our future safety, we need to a certain extent, turn Maslow's hierarchy of needs on its head; through giving priority to self actualisation we have a better chance of meeting our other needs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
..................*
................*...*.........
1.16 Ayn Rand's Philosophy (17/8/2012)
'The Fountainhead', the novel which launched Ayn Rand, does not relate in any way with her Capitalist Philosophies, and her belief in the virtue of selfishness. The Fountainhead is a racy novel where the protagonist struggled against all odds to live the life he believed in. The popularity of this novel (which once again, is in no way related with her philosophies), made people interested in her philosophies - not the other way around.
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/
1.17 Rights of Nature (21/8/2012)
With the enactment of the 2008 Constitution, Ecuador became the first country in the world to codify the Rights of Nature. The Constitution, specifically Articles 10 and 71-74, recognizes the inalienable rights of ecosystems to exist and flourish, gives people the authority to petition on the behalf of ecosystems, and requires the government to remedy violations of these rights. The rights approach is a break away from traditional environmental regulatory systems, which regard nature as property and legalize and manage degradation of the environment rather than prevent it.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
..............................It is unfortunate that Ecuador has beaten India in this regard. Our civilisations values ought to have dictated that we should have been the first to do so. Let's hope that we will at least be the second, and that the United Nations will move to codify this principle.
The present morality supported by our sciences, our religions, our governments, and our economic systems where we first check to ensure that our bread is buttered on both the sides (and on the sides too), before recognizing the rights of Nature, is myopic and self destructive.
Selvaraj
1.18 All economic value comes from nature via society (3/9/2012)
1.19 Cardinal says Church '200 years out of date' (3/9/2012)
Martini, once favored by Vatican progressives to succeed Pope John Paul II and a prominent voice in the church until his death at the age of 85 on Friday, gave a scathing portrayal of a pompous and bureaucratic church failing to move with the times.
"Our culture has aged, our churches are big and empty and the church bureaucracy rises up, our rituals and our cassocks are pompous," Martini said in the interview published in Italian daily Corriere della Sera.
... "The church is 200 years out of date. Why don't we rouse ourselves? Are we afraid?"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/
1.21 Life/Non-Life (9/9//2012)
Extract from Isaac Asimov's Autobiography:
... A second villainy that Svirsky committed was to get George Beadle to write a foreword. Beadle was a great geneticist and a Nobel Laurate, but I didn't want anyone to introduce my books. In time to come, I introduced a hundred books, at least, for other people, but I feel no need to have anyone introduce one of mine.
Svirsky started the second volume by saying that scientific advance had all but wiped out the distinction between life and nonlife. It was his statement, not mine, and of course it was vulnerable to denunciation.
Barry commoner denounced it, for instance. He attacked the book in a totally overreactive way in a major article in Science. I was caught by the headline, glanced over the first few paragraphs, and was almost knocked over when I realized he was denouncing my book. His most stupid remark was to ask what would happen to biology as a science if the distinction between life and nonlife was wiped out.
I wrote a brief and reasoned response (which Science dutifully printed) in which I pointed out that Copernicus over four centuries ago, wiped out the distinction between Earth and the other planets - and what had happened to geology as a result? Nothing.
..................
No wonder our scientists are clueless as we humans face an uncertain future. I strongly disagree with both Nobel Prize winning scientist George Beadle and with Asimov. We can only be fearful that Scientists and Engineers (who do the hatchet jobs) are running amuck on our planet.
Selvaraj
1.22 George Gilder's Philosophy (10/9//2012)
George Gilder's Philosophy:
http://reason.com/blog/2012/
--------------------------
Would agree with only part of this philosophy; interesting nevertheless.
Selvaraj
1.23 Manesar story from a worker's perspective (14/9/2012)
All this started with
Frederick W. Taylor:
Frederick Winslow Taylor is a controversial figure in management history. His innovations in industrial engineering, particularly in time and motion studies, paid off in dramatic improvements in productivity. At the same time, he has been credited with destroying the soul of work, of dehumanizing factories, making men into automatons....
http://www.skymark.com/
A possible solution to this problem is to split our work so that we work for say one week in a formal organisation and the next week in an informal social organisation, where you engage in a variety of tasks - for fun and to meet social needs.
Let's say:
Week two: Teaching in a school
Week four: Work in a barber shop (should be fun to cut off someone's hair :-)
Week six: Work in an agricultural field (Free vitamin D!)
Week eight: Working taking care of aged people.
Week ten: A course on teaching
Etc.
Selvaraj
P.S. To create a sense of community it will be useful to divide a city into 1 Km x 0.5 Km regions one considers his own.
1.24 How 'Silent Spring' Ignited the Environmental Movement (23/9/2012)
1.31 Civilisation is making humanity less intelligent, study claims (14/11//2012)
"A
hunter-gatherer who did not correctly conceive a solution to providing
food or shelter probably died, along with his or her progeny, whereas a
modern Wall Street executive that made a similar conceptual mistake
would receive a substantial bonus and be a more attractive mate.
Clearly, extreme selection is a thing of the past."
1.32 Peak desktop (18/11//2012)Psychologist Daniel Kahneman likes to pose the following problem to audiences to illustrate our habitual modes of thinking:
A bat and a ball cost $1.10 together and the bat costs one dollar more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?
It turns out that about 50 percent of students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology got the answer wrong. The proportion reached as high as 90 percent at other unnamed universities. Okay, now that you've had time to reflect on the answer, you'll realize that your instinct was probably to answer 10 cents. But, of course, that's wrong. And, all you have to do is some elementary math to realize it's wrong, and then arrive at the correct answer: The ball costs 5 cents.
.. There are three things I took from this conversation. First, I was frankly astonished that someone whose job is energy analyst at a bona fide think tank did not know the EIA number for crude oil plus condensate. After all, that's his job and that number is probably the most important number in the world for an energy analyst to know. Second, this person did not know the EIA definition of oil. I realize that this definition is not something the average person would know. But for someone who eats, drinks and breathes energy, it really ought to be essentially top of mind. Third, this encounter was a perfect illustration of how System 1 thinking--a broad narrative about there being plenty of oil for decades to come--can completely overshadow System 2 thinking even in persons whose work involves heavy emphasis on System 2.
http://oilprice.com/Energy/
1.11 No wonder the Planet is going down the TOILET (24/6/2012)
Ajay (Bangalore)
No Wonder the Planet is
going down the TOILET !
1.12 The curse of scientific fundamentalism (24/6/2012)
The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who can’t read and write, but those who can’t learn, unlearn and relearn.
—Alvin Toffler
As Professor B. M. Hegde says in his article, “Is science one of those fanatical religions?” (Open Page, June 17), “In the true sense of the word, science is only a method to understand the working of this universe.”
But science has somehow achieved the status of the only one method to understand the working of the universe. And there lies the root cause of all tragedies that befell the humans and the environment in the last 200 years. This “arrogance” of science wreaked more havoc on humanity and the environment within this short span than what they suffered in the preceding 1000-2000 years.
http://www.thehindu.com/
1.13 "Inclusive Wealth" index (1/7/2012)
The UN's metric weighs economic growth against other factors,
including environmental resources, and the value of "manufactured, human
and natural capital stocks."
The top economy in the "Inclusive Wealth Index" is the US with $US118 trillion ($A117.90 trillion) in total wealth, followed by Japan with $55 trillion. Germany ranks nearly the same as China, with $20 trillion.
The aim of the report is to give governments a more holistic - and accurate - way to plan their policies.
Instead of simply aiming to boost GDP - which measures the "stuff" a country produces - this new metric intends to reflect the total well-being of a society. In China's case, that means accounting for the rampant pollution of rivers, land and air due to modernisation.
In this view, China's growth story changes. Instead of 10 per cent annual growth, its economy has grown at a more modest - but still impressive - three per cent, the report says.
... "The problem is that when you look at the GDP numbers, they really represent the number of inputs, and really don't measure the value of the outputs," he says. "If you spend $100 million building an airport, but its economic value is less than that, it still shows up as a $100 million increase in GDP."
http://www.theaustralian.com.
1.14 Crashing the operating system (10/7/2012)
The top economy in the "Inclusive Wealth Index" is the US with $US118 trillion ($A117.90 trillion) in total wealth, followed by Japan with $55 trillion. Germany ranks nearly the same as China, with $20 trillion.
The aim of the report is to give governments a more holistic - and accurate - way to plan their policies.
Instead of simply aiming to boost GDP - which measures the "stuff" a country produces - this new metric intends to reflect the total well-being of a society. In China's case, that means accounting for the rampant pollution of rivers, land and air due to modernisation.
In this view, China's growth story changes. Instead of 10 per cent annual growth, its economy has grown at a more modest - but still impressive - three per cent, the report says.
... "The problem is that when you look at the GDP numbers, they really represent the number of inputs, and really don't measure the value of the outputs," he says. "If you spend $100 million building an airport, but its economic value is less than that, it still shows up as a $100 million increase in GDP."
http://www.theaustralian.com.
1.14 Crashing the operating system (10/7/2012)
We find ourselves in a world of receding horizons.
|
10/07/2012
 | | ||
| ||||
CRITICAL PATH: -----> 1 -------> 2 -------> 3 ---------> 4 -------> 5 .... -----> 10 -------> END
If any of the critical elements are not achieved, your project is punctured.
A good designer will, if the project happens be an engineering one, make sure that say, eight of the elements are not critical (there will be generous margins of safety); this will allow him to focus on the two that are critical so that the project is brought to a successful conclusion.
This simple common sense approach has not been followed in dealing with our World at large. We have made every issue critical:
* Land
*Water
* Energy
*Population
* Spending on arms
* General Education and awareness
* Environmental awareness
* Excessive consumerism
* Design of our living environment
* Transportation
* And of course there is no Global Warming
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
etc.
This is how our leadership (many, who are scientists and engineers), have been fooling themselves and others for the last hundred years.
Selvaraj
1.15 Why can't civilization be bettered? (16/7/2012)
. Their population was not depressed, suicidal, seething with rage or questioning the purpose of life like we are. Tribal life has been a success since the birth of mankind.
Civilization on the other hand is a 10,000 year old experiment and the ecological and social toll is rising exponentially. Civilization is founded on the idea that the entire world belongs to man so we are justified in doing what we want with it. We have done what we want with it - the result is a skyrocketing number of humans and plummeting biodiversity. Every extra human on the planet takes the food out of another animal's mouth. 200 species a day are becoming extinct and the integrity of the earth's ecosystem is threatened.
... Such are the benefits of tribal life that we could easily take it forward to the future and still retain a society with advanced technology and material luxury. Hunting and gathering is an occupation and is out of reach for 99% of the population today. But tribalism is merely a social organization. There is no reason why we couldn't participate in modern occupations in businesses that are formed tribally rather than hierarchically.
http://www.deep-ecology-hub.
..............
* Redesign our Cities, Towns and Villages in 1 Km x 0.5 Km format with automobiles limited to peripheral roads.
* Redesign our 'work' so that we spend 50% of our time in a formal organisation and 50% in a social organisation.
Selvaraj
................
A reply to my post was sent in another discussion group. Since the reply raised important issues, I had think hard to respond to the concerns that were raised.
Regards,
Selvaraj
................
Hi Sraj
I'm in Japan and I'm about 120 km from the nuclear disaster that started just over a year ago.
Tribal life. OK. But are you saying we can solve humanity's problems by redesigning cities/towns/villages and work? If so, I'm afraid you will not get the desired result.
There are at least three elements missing.
1) Population - as you say, gathering/hunting is out of reach for 99% of humanity. There are too many of us living with too large an ecological footprint. What are we going to do about this? Just simply wait till it crashes? The subject is taboo for most people. Also, I think humanity will not overcome this problem until there is at least a recognition and some movement towards resolution of 2) and 3) below.
2) Most of humanity is completely out of touch with nature. Nature is supposed to be perceived with the human heart. If you think this is nonsense, please read The Secret Teachings of Plants by Stephen Buhner and follow some of the references given there. Also spend at least a few months with an indigenous "tribe" who are living a traditional lifestyle, preferably in a forest. I spent a year in Thailand working with the Karen - they call themselves Pgaz K'Nyau, hence my nickname here. Then you will know something about how far off base most of humanity is living.
3) At present, we have huge problems changing the system or redesigning living spaces. I have been in discussions with people who say, "Well, humanity is intelligent enough to do XYZ, so we can do it if we really want to." So... why are "we" not doing it then? Part of the answer is that the world is literally being run by psychopaths. If you think this is nonsense, please read Political Ponerology by Andrew Lobaczewski. There are also other materials about this on the web. Try "The Mask of Sanity" by Hervey Cleckley, though this is by no means the only resource and will only give you part of the picture.
You'll have to clear these three elements if you wish to better civilization. Look forward to discussing this here, along with the future of food and energy.
Taj bluv!
..............................
My Reply:
Hi Taj Bluv,
I am with you on the issue of population growth. Ideally, if we were a race of intelligent people, we would have hit the button on one child per family by now, and stabilized the global population to a desired level. I believe that the reason for this failure is a massive failure of philosophy and a lack of courage at all levels; scientific, religious and political. The world changed dramatically a hundred years back, yet our leadership is caught in a time wrap which is thousands of years old.
Just as it is self evident "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". So also, it ought to have been self evident to our scientists that in a planet such as ours which supports myriad forms of life, no one life form (however intelligent it may be) ought to usurp more that 10% of its resources for its own sustenance.
I went through a Stephen Buhner video on U Tube: fascinating! I read an article on Political Ponerology by Andrew Lobaczewski: interesting, but not really convincing. Without checks and balances it is possible for any individual to become a tyrant ..... Power corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
My belief is, the solution to all our problems lies in dealing with issues in an intelligent and scientific way. Science as it is presently taught and promoted, is highly selective (as you can see from the Nobel Prize awards, which ignore sciences relating to human psychology, environment and sustainability). Sciences should lead on a much wider front, taking into account the simple scientific fact that we do not own this planet, any science we propagate must be in harmony with the needs of our planet.
If we apply Maslows hierarchy of needs, it is quite clear that as a global civilisation we are caught in meeting our Physiological and other personal needs. We are still to reach the 'self actualization' level. If we value our future safety, we need to a certain extent, turn Maslow's hierarchy of needs on its head; through giving priority to self actualisation we have a better chance of meeting our other needs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
..................*
................*...*.........
..............*******
............*..........*......
..........*..............*
........****************
......*.....................*.
....*.........................
..*************************
DOING SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTS:
In the spirit of being scientific I have suggested that we experiment with our living environment and the way we work.
The advantages of a 1 Km x 0.5 Km format:
- Much better air quality.
- Children can move around freely.
- It will be possible to cycle freely in the city.
- More free area for playing fields, lakes and gardens.
- Will create a sense of community: people more likely to get together to solve their common problems.
By breaking our work schedule so that we work in a formal organization for half the time and in a social organization for the rest of the time, I am reasonably sure that we will increase overall productivity and our social goods. Most important, this may increase the time available for us to debate, discuss and rectify serious issues that affect our communities. At the moment all of us seem to be cogs in an industrial machine. When we make (social and scientific) time for ourselves, our Discussion Space will be modified:
******************************
*.............................
*.......DISCUSSION SPACE.......*
*.............................
*.......(90% Trivialities and..........*
*.........10% Serious issues).......*
*.............................
*.............................
*.............................
******************************
......................I
......................I
.....................V
******************************
*.............................
*.......DISCUSSION SPACE.......*
*.............................
*.......(50% Trivialities and..........*
*.........50% Serious issues).......*
*.............................
*.............................
*.............................
******************************
Regards,
Selvaraj, Trivandrum, India
............*..........*......
..........*..............*
........****************
......*.....................*.
....*.........................
..*************************
DOING SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTS:
In the spirit of being scientific I have suggested that we experiment with our living environment and the way we work.
The advantages of a 1 Km x 0.5 Km format:
- Much better air quality.
- Children can move around freely.
- It will be possible to cycle freely in the city.
- More free area for playing fields, lakes and gardens.
- Will create a sense of community: people more likely to get together to solve their common problems.
By breaking our work schedule so that we work in a formal organization for half the time and in a social organization for the rest of the time, I am reasonably sure that we will increase overall productivity and our social goods. Most important, this may increase the time available for us to debate, discuss and rectify serious issues that affect our communities. At the moment all of us seem to be cogs in an industrial machine. When we make (social and scientific) time for ourselves, our Discussion Space will be modified:
******************************
*.............................
*.......DISCUSSION SPACE.......*
*.............................
*.......(90% Trivialities and..........*
*.........10% Serious issues).......*
*.............................
*.............................
*.............................
******************************
......................I
......................I
.....................V
******************************
*.............................
*.......DISCUSSION SPACE.......*
*.............................
*.......(50% Trivialities and..........*
*.........50% Serious issues).......*
*.............................
*.............................
*.............................
******************************
Regards,
Selvaraj, Trivandrum, India
1.16 Ayn Rand's Philosophy (17/8/2012)
'The Fountainhead', the novel which launched Ayn Rand, does not relate in any way with her Capitalist Philosophies, and her belief in the virtue of selfishness. The Fountainhead is a racy novel where the protagonist struggled against all odds to live the life he believed in. The popularity of this novel (which once again, is in no way related with her philosophies), made people interested in her philosophies - not the other way around.
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/
1.17 Rights of Nature (21/8/2012)
With the enactment of the 2008 Constitution, Ecuador became the first country in the world to codify the Rights of Nature. The Constitution, specifically Articles 10 and 71-74, recognizes the inalienable rights of ecosystems to exist and flourish, gives people the authority to petition on the behalf of ecosystems, and requires the government to remedy violations of these rights. The rights approach is a break away from traditional environmental regulatory systems, which regard nature as property and legalize and manage degradation of the environment rather than prevent it.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
..............................It is unfortunate that Ecuador has beaten India in this regard. Our civilisations values ought to have dictated that we should have been the first to do so. Let's hope that we will at least be the second, and that the United Nations will move to codify this principle.
The present morality supported by our sciences, our religions, our governments, and our economic systems where we first check to ensure that our bread is buttered on both the sides (and on the sides too), before recognizing the rights of Nature, is myopic and self destructive.
Selvaraj
1.18 All economic value comes from nature via society (3/9/2012)
The ecological worldview consists of three concentric circles (he had
these drawn on a powerpoint slide): the outer ring, encompassing the
other two, is nature. The middle ring is society. The inner ring, the
donut hole, is the economy.
This is the hierarchy of sustainability. Nature encompasses everything including society and the economy. We are not separate from nature. Society contains within it the economy. Classical economists would relabel these so that the outer ring was economics.
http://www.bobwaldrop.net/?p=
..............................
******************************
*...............NATURE........
*.........********************
*.........*......Society......
*.........*.....**************
*.........*.....*.Economy...*.
*.........*.....**************
*.........*......Society ...........*..........*
*.........********************
*...............NATURE........
******************************
Selvaraj
This is the hierarchy of sustainability. Nature encompasses everything including society and the economy. We are not separate from nature. Society contains within it the economy. Classical economists would relabel these so that the outer ring was economics.
http://www.bobwaldrop.net/?p=
..............................
******************************
*...............NATURE........
*.........********************
*.........*......Society......
*.........*.....**************
*.........*.....*.Economy...*.
*.........*.....**************
*.........*......Society ...........*..........*
*.........********************
*...............NATURE........
******************************
Selvaraj
1.19 Cardinal says Church '200 years out of date' (3/9/2012)
Martini, once favored by Vatican progressives to succeed Pope John Paul II and a prominent voice in the church until his death at the age of 85 on Friday, gave a scathing portrayal of a pompous and bureaucratic church failing to move with the times.
"Our culture has aged, our churches are big and empty and the church bureaucracy rises up, our rituals and our cassocks are pompous," Martini said in the interview published in Italian daily Corriere della Sera.
... "The church is 200 years out of date. Why don't we rouse ourselves? Are we afraid?"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/
A LIST:
- The number of asterisk denotes the relative importance of the discovery.
- Asterisk in parenthesis denotes ideas still to be resolved.
1. Development of language *******
2. The idea of intelligence in Nature, or God, a supreme intelligence (*********)
3. Discovery of fire ****
4. Invention of the wheel ***
....
....
....
8. The heliocentric theory ****
9. Newton's laws of motion ***
....
....
12. Human Psychology *** http://allpsych.com/
13. Einstein's theory of relativity ***
.....
.....
16. The subconscious (*****)
---------
Notes:
1. The evolution of human thought can relate to either inanimate objects or relate to something dealing with the complexity of life. Humans have, in general, found it easier to deal with inanimate objects; Newton's laws and Einstein's theory of relativity are two good examples. To make things easier for themselves there has also been a tendency to try to explain the phenomenon of life using paradigms more suited to deal with inanimate objects. Thus we have physicists telling us that they are on the verge of discovering 'the theory of every thing', when it should be obvious to any one that their theory of every thing will not explain the mysteries of life. The Darwinian theory relating to evolution also assumes that this is a process that does not require any intelligence - a purely mechanist approach is enough to create life. The adherents of this theory do not attempt to explain the mathematical probability of this happening - which is as unlikely as the probability that randomly mutating systems could for instance create a motor car!. This contempt for life, and an approach that extols purely mechanical approaches is also self evident in the way in which we have nurtured our planet.
2. To any rational individual it should be obvious that any science dealing with life is likely to be more complex. Hence the idea of intelligence in Nature, or God, has the maximum number of asterisks after it. This remains the ultimate mystery. How did life originate? Even, how did monkeys convert themselves to humans in a very finite number of steps (without the aid of intelligence of any kind, as is being claimed).
3. The development of language has the next maximum number of asterisks after it, since this development is closely related with the development of human intelligence. The use of words to express ideas, is central to human intelligence. This ability is now under attack, with the seduction of the visual media which robs us of the time required to polish our verbal skills. This is a very important issue, which the best scientific minds need to probe.
4. The heliocentric theory has four asterisks after it, more than that allotted to Newton's law and Einstein's theory of relativity, because this theory was not only a scientific watershed, but because it upset our religious ideas where we looked upon the universe as revolving around planet earth - by implication making humans the most important entities in the universe.
5. Now comes the mystery, item 16, which I have graded as being more important than even Newton's laws and Einstein's theory of relativity. Let me give you a few hints:
a) It is related to item 12.
b) It is important because it is a skill that all of us need to learn if we are to have physical and mental health.
c) The basic idea is not as complex as the idea of Id, Ego and Super Ego, explained in item 12.
d) The basic idea is as simple as Newton's first law!
Selvaraj
P.S. To be continued
- The number of asterisk denotes the relative importance of the discovery.
- Asterisk in parenthesis denotes ideas still to be resolved.
1. Development of language *******
2. The idea of intelligence in Nature, or God, a supreme intelligence (*********)
3. Discovery of fire ****
4. Invention of the wheel ***
....
....
....
8. The heliocentric theory ****
9. Newton's laws of motion ***
....
....
12. Human Psychology *** http://allpsych.com/
13. Einstein's theory of relativity ***
.....
.....
16. The subconscious (*****)
---------
Notes:
1. The evolution of human thought can relate to either inanimate objects or relate to something dealing with the complexity of life. Humans have, in general, found it easier to deal with inanimate objects; Newton's laws and Einstein's theory of relativity are two good examples. To make things easier for themselves there has also been a tendency to try to explain the phenomenon of life using paradigms more suited to deal with inanimate objects. Thus we have physicists telling us that they are on the verge of discovering 'the theory of every thing', when it should be obvious to any one that their theory of every thing will not explain the mysteries of life. The Darwinian theory relating to evolution also assumes that this is a process that does not require any intelligence - a purely mechanist approach is enough to create life. The adherents of this theory do not attempt to explain the mathematical probability of this happening - which is as unlikely as the probability that randomly mutating systems could for instance create a motor car!. This contempt for life, and an approach that extols purely mechanical approaches is also self evident in the way in which we have nurtured our planet.
2. To any rational individual it should be obvious that any science dealing with life is likely to be more complex. Hence the idea of intelligence in Nature, or God, has the maximum number of asterisks after it. This remains the ultimate mystery. How did life originate? Even, how did monkeys convert themselves to humans in a very finite number of steps (without the aid of intelligence of any kind, as is being claimed).
3. The development of language has the next maximum number of asterisks after it, since this development is closely related with the development of human intelligence. The use of words to express ideas, is central to human intelligence. This ability is now under attack, with the seduction of the visual media which robs us of the time required to polish our verbal skills. This is a very important issue, which the best scientific minds need to probe.
4. The heliocentric theory has four asterisks after it, more than that allotted to Newton's law and Einstein's theory of relativity, because this theory was not only a scientific watershed, but because it upset our religious ideas where we looked upon the universe as revolving around planet earth - by implication making humans the most important entities in the universe.
5. Now comes the mystery, item 16, which I have graded as being more important than even Newton's laws and Einstein's theory of relativity. Let me give you a few hints:
a) It is related to item 12.
b) It is important because it is a skill that all of us need to learn if we are to have physical and mental health.
c) The basic idea is not as complex as the idea of Id, Ego and Super Ego, explained in item 12.
d) The basic idea is as simple as Newton's first law!
Selvaraj
P.S. To be continued
1.21 Life/Non-Life (9/9//2012)
Extract from Isaac Asimov's Autobiography:
... A second villainy that Svirsky committed was to get George Beadle to write a foreword. Beadle was a great geneticist and a Nobel Laurate, but I didn't want anyone to introduce my books. In time to come, I introduced a hundred books, at least, for other people, but I feel no need to have anyone introduce one of mine.
Svirsky started the second volume by saying that scientific advance had all but wiped out the distinction between life and nonlife. It was his statement, not mine, and of course it was vulnerable to denunciation.
Barry commoner denounced it, for instance. He attacked the book in a totally overreactive way in a major article in Science. I was caught by the headline, glanced over the first few paragraphs, and was almost knocked over when I realized he was denouncing my book. His most stupid remark was to ask what would happen to biology as a science if the distinction between life and nonlife was wiped out.
I wrote a brief and reasoned response (which Science dutifully printed) in which I pointed out that Copernicus over four centuries ago, wiped out the distinction between Earth and the other planets - and what had happened to geology as a result? Nothing.
..................
No wonder our scientists are clueless as we humans face an uncertain future. I strongly disagree with both Nobel Prize winning scientist George Beadle and with Asimov. We can only be fearful that Scientists and Engineers (who do the hatchet jobs) are running amuck on our planet.
Selvaraj
1.22 George Gilder's Philosophy (10/9//2012)
George Gilder's Philosophy:
http://reason.com/blog/2012/
--------------------------
Would agree with only part of this philosophy; interesting nevertheless.
Selvaraj
1.23 Manesar story from a worker's perspective (14/9/2012)
All this started with
Frederick W. Taylor:
Frederick Winslow Taylor is a controversial figure in management history. His innovations in industrial engineering, particularly in time and motion studies, paid off in dramatic improvements in productivity. At the same time, he has been credited with destroying the soul of work, of dehumanizing factories, making men into automatons....
http://www.skymark.com/
A possible solution to this problem is to split our work so that we work for say one week in a formal organisation and the next week in an informal social organisation, where you engage in a variety of tasks - for fun and to meet social needs.
Let's say:
Week two: Teaching in a school
Week four: Work in a barber shop (should be fun to cut off someone's hair :-)
Week six: Work in an agricultural field (Free vitamin D!)
Week eight: Working taking care of aged people.
Week ten: A course on teaching
Etc.
Selvaraj
P.S. To create a sense of community it will be useful to divide a city into 1 Km x 0.5 Km regions one considers his own.
1.24 How 'Silent Spring' Ignited the Environmental Movement (23/9/2012)
“Every once in a while in the history of mankind, a book has appeared
which has substantially altered the course of history,” Senator Ernest
Gruening, a Democrat from Alaska, told Carson at the time.
“Silent Spring” was published 50 years ago this month. Though she did not set out to do so, Carson influenced the environmental movement as no one had since the 19th century’s most celebrated hermit, Henry David Thoreau, wrote about Walden Pond. “Silent Spring” presents a view of nature compromised by synthetic pesticides, especially DDT. Once these pesticides entered the biosphere, Carson argued, they not only killed bugs but also made their way up the food chain to threaten bird and fish populations and could eventually sicken children. Much of the data and case studies that Carson drew from weren’t new; the scientific community had known of these findings for some time, but Carson was the first to put them all together for the general public and to draw stark and far-reaching conclusions. In doing so, Carson, the citizen-scientist, spawned a revolution.
.. Carson believed that people would protect only what they loved, so she worked to establish a “sense of wonder” about nature. In her best-selling sea books — “The Sea Around Us,” “The Edge of the Sea” and “Under the Sea-Wind” — she used simple and sometimes sentimental narratives about the oceans to articulate sophisticated ideas about the inner workings of largely unseen things.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/
1.25 Isaac Asimov on "homeland" (25/9/2012)
“Silent Spring” was published 50 years ago this month. Though she did not set out to do so, Carson influenced the environmental movement as no one had since the 19th century’s most celebrated hermit, Henry David Thoreau, wrote about Walden Pond. “Silent Spring” presents a view of nature compromised by synthetic pesticides, especially DDT. Once these pesticides entered the biosphere, Carson argued, they not only killed bugs but also made their way up the food chain to threaten bird and fish populations and could eventually sicken children. Much of the data and case studies that Carson drew from weren’t new; the scientific community had known of these findings for some time, but Carson was the first to put them all together for the general public and to draw stark and far-reaching conclusions. In doing so, Carson, the citizen-scientist, spawned a revolution.
.. Carson believed that people would protect only what they loved, so she worked to establish a “sense of wonder” about nature. In her best-selling sea books — “The Sea Around Us,” “The Edge of the Sea” and “Under the Sea-Wind” — she used simple and sometimes sentimental narratives about the oceans to articulate sophisticated ideas about the inner workings of largely unseen things.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/
1.25 Isaac Asimov on "homeland" (25/9/2012)
Isaac Asimov on “homeland”
.. The Earth faces environmental problems right now that
threaten the imminent destruction of civilization and the end of the planet as
a livable world. Humanity cannot afford to waste its financial and emotional
resources on endless, meaningless quarrels between each group and all others.
There must be a sense of globalism in which the world unites to solve the real
problems that face all groups alike
Can that be done? The question is equivalent to: Can humanity
survive?
I am not a Zionist, then, because I don’t believe in
nations, and Zionism merely sets up one more nation to trouble the world. It
sets up one more nation to have “rights” and “demands” and “national security”
and to feel it must guard itself against its neighbors.
There are no nations! There is only humanity. And if we
don’t come to understand that right soon, there will be no nations, because
there will be no humanity.
1.26 Homo economicus or Homo altruisticus (4/10/2012)
Professor John List demonstrated through similar experiments, conducted under real-life situations, that mankind is totally homo economicus and far from being homo altruisticus.
http://www.moneylife.in/
1.27 Einstein Quote (9/10/2012)
The world we have made, as a result of the level of thinking we have
done thus far, creates problems we cannot solve at the same level of
thinking at which we created them... Einstein
1.28 Prominent ID sites do look more reasonable than most angry atheist's sites (23/10/2012)
Design, according to some, needs a designer. However, famous biologists and neo-Darwinists such as D. Dennett say that evolution “designs” by natural selection. If we accept that usage of the term, “design” does not by definition imply an intentional act (much like “the hand evolved in order to grasp” does not imply that evolution desires to achieve anything). If there are “blind watchmakers” who do “design”, then the following question is scientific:
... Anyway - to conclude the justification before getting into the meat of what I want to write: We are justified to soberly write about intelligent design (ID) on a science site. Usual “science sites” are sufficiently stuffed with preaching the evil of ID. [BTW: Since I was accused of copying: I had a look now. Wow – prominent ID sites do look more reasonable than most angry atheists’ sites. Thanks once again to all the science bloggers of the cheerleading for naïve scientism variety for that anything can look more trustworthy science wise. In fact, if you want to find clearly stupid mistakes, you will find many more on SB than on the ID sites I just looked at! Wow! Just Wow!]
http://www.science20.com/
1.29 Separation of Life sciences from the Physical sciences (31/10/2012)
Dear Friends,
One cannot help but be puzzled by the manner in which evolution has taken place - without the application of intelligence on any kind, as claimed by our respected scientists (I do happen to believe in evolution). To help clear my doubt on this subject I watched the following talk on Evolution vs Intelligent Design by Dr. Kenneth Milller:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
Dr. Kenneth Miller is a renowned cell biologists, so I thought he would be able to elucidate on this subject. Unfortunately I seem to have wasted 1:06:01 hours of my time, as the talk turned out to be more of a political lecture. There is nothing in the scientific part that I could not have anticipated.
This issue goes beyond intellectual curiosity. You may be aware that our respected scientists in India insist that they know enough about the DNA of plants to be able to directly intervene and perform useful changes in the plants which will benefit our farmers and consumers. They claim that what they plan to do is not different from the natural evolution of plants through selective plant breeding over the last 10,000 years, where nature was a partner, not a mute spectator as is the case with GM technology.
We must remember that plants are as complex in structure as human beings. So we are not far from the happy day when we can genetically modify humans too, with a great degree of confidence to make them a little more rational and far healthier than they are at present.
Genome size of plants: 157 Mb to 150 Gb
Genome size of humans: 3.2 Gb
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Also, there are important ethical questions, even if we knew how to genetically modify plants, animals and humans (artificially) should we do so, in the closed environment of planet earth? After all planet earth is where life originated, it is the reference standard for life.
While we ponder the above issues, it is worth chewing on the fact that a good number of scientists no longer believe that there is difference between life and non-life. It is common for Physicists for instance to claim that they are inches away from discovering 'the theory of everything'. They do not tell us that principles that govern life could be different from those that drive Physics.
Here we have another example:
-----------
Extract from Isaac Asimov's Autobiography:
... A second villainy that Svirsky committed was to get George Beadle to write a foreword. Beadle was a great geneticist and a Nobel Laurate, but I didn't want anyone to introduce my books. In time to come, I introduced a hundred books, at least, for other people, but I feel no need to have anyone introduce one of mine.
Svirsky started the second volume by saying that scientific advance had all but wiped out the distinction between life and non life. It was his statement, not mine, and of course it was vulnerable to denunciation.
--------------
When all of science is clubbed together and called 'science', we are not able to make important distinctions between life and non-life. Scientists belonging to one group may not be able to voice differences that exist between the two groups in order to preserve solidarity. Most non scientists will agree that it is the prime responsibility of the life sciences to enable human progress without completely altering the nature of life on our planet. And it is the responsibility of our scientists working in the Physical sciences to not to convert our planet into a Martian landscape.
To further this objective my suggestion is that there should be a separation of the Life Sciences from the Physical Sciences. They should proffer views independently and not join together to damage our planet as they are doing presently.
Selvaraj
1.30 Free Market Capitalism (6/11//2012)
Professor John List demonstrated through similar experiments, conducted under real-life situations, that mankind is totally homo economicus and far from being homo altruisticus.
http://www.moneylife.in/
1.27 Einstein Quote (9/10/2012)
The world we have made, as a result of the level of thinking we have
done thus far, creates problems we cannot solve at the same level of
thinking at which we created them... Einstein
1.28 Prominent ID sites do look more reasonable than most angry atheist's sites (23/10/2012)
Design, according to some, needs a designer. However, famous biologists and neo-Darwinists such as D. Dennett say that evolution “designs” by natural selection. If we accept that usage of the term, “design” does not by definition imply an intentional act (much like “the hand evolved in order to grasp” does not imply that evolution desires to achieve anything). If there are “blind watchmakers” who do “design”, then the following question is scientific:
Can we possibly, for example by investigating the designed “creation”, distinguish an intelligent designer, one that did have intentions, from an aimless design process like algorithmic evolution?
... Anyway - to conclude the justification before getting into the meat of what I want to write: We are justified to soberly write about intelligent design (ID) on a science site. Usual “science sites” are sufficiently stuffed with preaching the evil of ID. [BTW: Since I was accused of copying: I had a look now. Wow – prominent ID sites do look more reasonable than most angry atheists’ sites. Thanks once again to all the science bloggers of the cheerleading for naïve scientism variety for that anything can look more trustworthy science wise. In fact, if you want to find clearly stupid mistakes, you will find many more on SB than on the ID sites I just looked at! Wow! Just Wow!]
http://www.science20.com/
1.29 Separation of Life sciences from the Physical sciences (31/10/2012)
Dear Friends,
One cannot help but be puzzled by the manner in which evolution has taken place - without the application of intelligence on any kind, as claimed by our respected scientists (I do happen to believe in evolution). To help clear my doubt on this subject I watched the following talk on Evolution vs Intelligent Design by Dr. Kenneth Milller:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
Dr. Kenneth Miller is a renowned cell biologists, so I thought he would be able to elucidate on this subject. Unfortunately I seem to have wasted 1:06:01 hours of my time, as the talk turned out to be more of a political lecture. There is nothing in the scientific part that I could not have anticipated.
This issue goes beyond intellectual curiosity. You may be aware that our respected scientists in India insist that they know enough about the DNA of plants to be able to directly intervene and perform useful changes in the plants which will benefit our farmers and consumers. They claim that what they plan to do is not different from the natural evolution of plants through selective plant breeding over the last 10,000 years, where nature was a partner, not a mute spectator as is the case with GM technology.
We must remember that plants are as complex in structure as human beings. So we are not far from the happy day when we can genetically modify humans too, with a great degree of confidence to make them a little more rational and far healthier than they are at present.
Genome size of plants: 157 Mb to 150 Gb
Genome size of humans: 3.2 Gb
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Also, there are important ethical questions, even if we knew how to genetically modify plants, animals and humans (artificially) should we do so, in the closed environment of planet earth? After all planet earth is where life originated, it is the reference standard for life.
While we ponder the above issues, it is worth chewing on the fact that a good number of scientists no longer believe that there is difference between life and non-life. It is common for Physicists for instance to claim that they are inches away from discovering 'the theory of everything'. They do not tell us that principles that govern life could be different from those that drive Physics.
Here we have another example:
-----------
Extract from Isaac Asimov's Autobiography:
... A second villainy that Svirsky committed was to get George Beadle to write a foreword. Beadle was a great geneticist and a Nobel Laurate, but I didn't want anyone to introduce my books. In time to come, I introduced a hundred books, at least, for other people, but I feel no need to have anyone introduce one of mine.
Svirsky started the second volume by saying that scientific advance had all but wiped out the distinction between life and non life. It was his statement, not mine, and of course it was vulnerable to denunciation.
--------------
When all of science is clubbed together and called 'science', we are not able to make important distinctions between life and non-life. Scientists belonging to one group may not be able to voice differences that exist between the two groups in order to preserve solidarity. Most non scientists will agree that it is the prime responsibility of the life sciences to enable human progress without completely altering the nature of life on our planet. And it is the responsibility of our scientists working in the Physical sciences to not to convert our planet into a Martian landscape.
To further this objective my suggestion is that there should be a separation of the Life Sciences from the Physical Sciences. They should proffer views independently and not join together to damage our planet as they are doing presently.
Selvaraj
1.30 Free Market Capitalism (6/11//2012)
The
lead article in the Oct 28, 2012 issue of Business India was on the
subject 'Free market Capitalism' and "pandering to the 'mango people' ".
And the following quote is pasted at the bottom over two pages width
in red colour, no less :-)
The historical debate is over. The answer is free-market capitalism ... Thomas Friedman
There are three quotes in boxes:
1. People have a hard time accepting free-market
economics for the same reason they have a hard time accepting evolution.
Life looks Intelligently designed, so our natural inclination is to
infer that there must be an Intelligent designer - a God. Similarly, the
economy looks designed, so our natural inclination is to infer that we
need a designer - a government.... Michel Shermer
2. All systems are capitalist. It's just a matter of
who owns and controls the capital - ancient kings, dictator, or private
individual. We should properly be looking at the contrast between a
free market systems where individuals have the right to live like kings
if they have the ability to earn that right and government control of
the market system such as we find today in socialist nations .... Ronald
Regan
3. A market economy is to economics what democracy
is to government: a decent, if flawed, choice among many bad
alternatives ... Charles Wheelan
... since these issues are important we need to probe them with the utmost seriousness.
- Free market capitalism and Darwinian evolution
- Existing institutions, do they follow the free market ideal?
- Under what conditions can free market capitalism function smoothly?
1. Since I have a personal interest in Darwinian
evolution, let us first get this issue out of the way. Free market
competition does not take place in the absence of intelligence. The
wonderful cars that we drive, one better than the next is the result of
companies world wide like Mercedes, Toyota, Ford, The Tatas, Maruti,
employing some of the finest designers in the world to make superlative
products. These products, intelligently made, are then subject to free
market competition (Darwinian natural selection).
So, we can have two models:
NON INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED PRODUCTS
---------> NATURAL SELECTION
----------> FURTHER IMPROVEMENT IN PRODUCTS
or
INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED PRODUCTS
---------> NATURAL SELECTION
----------> FURTHER IMPROVEMENT IN PRODUCTS
As far as I am aware no one has proved so far that the first model works.
(If
engineers had used their intelligence a little more, and had not been
carried away by oil company propaganda, we may have all been driving
electric cars today).
2. Existing institutions, do they follow the free market ideal?
-
No individual business in its internal affairs runs on this model. If a
business is to succeed, its activities will have to be carefully
planned out.
- A family cannot run on this model.
- No government can
run on this model. A quote above claims that no government is required.
All countries have governments, they do extensive planning and all
advanced democracies tax their citizen quite heavily.
- There are many innovations which economists wrongly claim as
their own. a) The innovation of mass production was not thought out by
economists, it was figured out by engineers. b) Most innovations take
place in publicly funded universities, and publicly funded institutions
such as NASA, which are subsequently capitalised on by private
businesses. c) The fast pace of economic growth since the 1970s has been
due to the introduction of computerisation and automation, and the
Internet, all of which had their genesis under government programs.
- Free market capitalism is not as creative as it is thought to be.
Mega businesses today popping up in China and India can hardly be
considered creative. They are basically copying American models
(blindly), exploiting natural resources without applying their minds to
discover how long these resources will last, and whether there are
downsides to such exploitation.
3. Under what conditions can free market capitalism function smoothly?
-
Generally it must be agreed, most mature businesses can be run on this
model, and indeed most businesses in India today run on this model.
- Free market capitalism can thrive (and expand - this could be an
issue now) where there are abundant choices. A lot of mining
opportunities all over the world. Plentiful supply of fish in the sea,
plentiful supply of water for various purposes, abundance of land etc.
This is the condition that existed when Adam Smith wrote his wealth of
nations - wast new colonies with their resources available for the newly
industrialising countries to exploit.
- The promoters of free market capitalism assume that any problem
created by free market capitalism will be automatically solved by human
ingenuity. They fail to factor in the fact that we have been ingenuous
in exploiting the natural resources of planet earth and these resources
are not inexhaustible. Indeed if human ingenuity were the only factor we
ought to have had a bustling human presence on the Moon and on Mars by
now.
- The free market capitalism model (sans thought), implicitly
assumes that we can go back in time and erase problems that have been
created. This is clearly not possible. We cannot reduce the human
population overnight. If a natural forest is cut down it is gone
forever. We cannot magically increase the supply of fresh water. We
cannot decrease the CO2 in the atmosphere overnight.
- Indeed, very foolishly, we have allowed much of the slack that is
required for Free Market Capitalism to work elegantly to be taken up.
Now, with every issue made critical, it becomes more difficult to have
unfettered Free Market Capitalism. For example we see the humiliating
spectacle of the government of the scientifically most advanced nation
in the world denying that there is climate change, under pressure from
industrialists.
To conclude. Free Market Capitalism, Yes. Without intelligence, No.
Selvaraj
1.31 Civilisation is making humanity less intelligent, study claims (14/11//2012)
-------------------
Let
us not forget that it is in the interest of big business (who presently
control the media, governments, the sciences and the engineering
profession), to have a dumb populace, who will consume till they drop
(like chickens in a coop) :-)
Selvaraj
We might think Google and Microsoft have problems, but we – and our governments – haven't even begun to think about what such connectivity is going to do to our learning, communication, businesses, civilisation.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/
1.33 Robots and Robber Barons (12/12/2012)
In a recent book, “Race Against the Machine,” M.I.T.’s Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee argue that similar stories are playing out in many fields, including services like translation and legal research. What’s striking about their examples is that many of the jobs being displaced are high-skill and high-wage; the downside of technology isn’t limited to menial workers.
.. As I said, this is a discussion that has barely begun — but it’s time to get started, before the robots and the robber barons turn our society into something unrecognizable.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/
1.34 The power of outrospection - empathy (19/12/2012)
The power of outrospection:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
1.35 Adams on courage and integrity (21/12/2012)
What takes real leadership and courage is to question things that don't add up and dare to investigate and report whatever truths might be found.
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/
1.36 Is more intelligence the answer? (6/12/2012)
At present, because of human activities enabled by our increasingly sophisticated technological creations, the ongoing extinction rate is estimated to be roughly 100 times the “background” extinction rates over evolutionary time. One in three species are now at risk of extinction, half of the primate species around the world are endangered, and climatologists are warning of “‘irreversible’ climate shifts because worst-case scenarios warned of two years ago are being realized.” And, crucially, we have apparently never been smarter than we now are.
.. It
turns out that we have good reason to worry about a
technology-precipitated eschaton, or “end-time,” being actualized in the
near future. Experts today, in fact, estimate a probability of
self-annihilation within the next century to be between 25% and 50%. (As
Russell and Einstein noted over fifty years ago, it is the individuals
who know most who are the most gloomy.)
The
point of this article, then, is to gesture at an apparently strong
correlation between our expanding intellectual capacities and our
growing (self-)destructive capabilities. This correlation appears to
hold (more-or-less) historically, contemporarily and into the
prognosticated future.
No comments:
Post a Comment