From checker at panix.com Thu Sep 2 13:00:08 2004 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 09:00:08 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Paleopsych] WorldNetDaily: Olympics: Add drugs, remove jingoism Message-ID: Olympics: Add drugs, remove jingoism 4.9.2 [All laws have arbitrary elements. It's the nature of human reality. This is a bad argument.] The idea of the Olympics is great. But there are at least two aspects of the event that should be modified. First is the fact that the athletes are all there as representatives of their nation states, not as individuals, even though athletic competition is something that occurs strictly between individuals or, at most, small teams. What does, or should, that have to do with politics? The answer is, nothing. Personally, I like to support the athletes that I find most appealing, regardless of what government's passport they have in their pockets. It's disgusting that the games are so often used as an opportunity to rally the masses in jingoism. The 2004 games weren't bad in that respect - nothing could top Hitler's 1936 games or some of the contests during the Cold War in that regard. Especially the 1980 games, when Jimmy Carter shamefully forced American athletes to withdraw, after years of preparation, to give weight to one of his fatuous political conceits. What should be done? The Games should be privately organized, open to the best athletes in the world, regardless of their nationality. Politics don't belong on the playing field. Or, really, anywhere else between people of good will; but that's another subject. Second is the hysteria about drug use among athletes. Drugs serve several basic purposes: to reduce pain, to give pleasure, or to enhance health or performance. Often the lines are blurred among these purposes and effects. How do you draw the line? Where do you draw the line between natural substances that occur in foods, drugs that are necessary for a medical condition, or some prohibited substance that an athlete might have been accidentally exposed to? And who has the right to draw the line? Caffeine (as in coffee) is a performance enhancer, but it's legal; cannabinols (as in marijuana) are not, but they're illegal. It's all arbitrary, hypocritical and destructive. These rules are as stupid as would be rules saying all athletes must eat the same diets to level the playing field between those from rich countries and poor ones. Or as stupid as the recently dropped prohibition against professional athletes competing in the Olympics. Lots of improvements have been allowed in equipment and clothing over the years. Why not improvements available from drugs as well? In any event, it's not a technical issue; it's an ethical one. Athletes own their own bodies; it's their right to do whatever they can to enhance performance. It's shameful to see the careers of great athletes ruined simply because they were trying to be all that they can be. If any compromises are to be made, there ought to be two classes: Standard and Open. Athletes could compete in either or both. It would make for a hell of a show. And a much more honest one. ___________ Legendary speculator [19]Doug Casey logs 150,000 miles a year, trekking through jungles, deserts and high mountain passes, while his readers sit home and collect returns of 400 percent, 4,170 percent, even 10,060 percent. He is the author of the best-selling "Crisis Investing" and "The International Man." He also edits the newsletter [20]International Speculator. References 19. mailto:dcasey at worldnetdaily.com 20. http://www.shopnetdaily.wnd.com/store/item.asp?DEPARTMENT_ID=11&SUBDEPARTMENT_ID=68&DROPSHIP_ID=43&ITEM_ID=83 From emmanuel.lusinchi at gmail.com Thu Sep 2 17:26:03 2004 From: emmanuel.lusinchi at gmail.com (Emmanuel Lusinchi) Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 11:26:03 -0600 Subject: [Paleopsych] 5 Gmail (Google Mail) accounts for grabs Message-ID: <5d315cca040902102673ab1d0c@mail.gmail.com> Hi all, I've been real quite on this list for the past year and a half or so (lots of change in my life recently), but I wanted to chime in with an offer for all of you good people. Thanks to a friend, I got a GMail account a while ago and I have been using it for the paleopsych list with much success. The combination of search feature, *huge* mail capacity and topic-threading mechanism makes GMail an ideal email account for receiving this mailing list. I now have 6 fresh new accounts to distribute to whomever I choose. I'm saving one for Howard naturally, so that 5 that are up for grabs. First come, first served. I'll need your First Name, Last Name and current email address to send you the Gmail offer. And Howard, please let me know if you want the GMail account or if I should put it up for grab as well. Bests, -- emmanuel From shovland at mindspring.com Thu Sep 2 17:43:26 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 10:43:26 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] This fax machine bites (sound byte du jour) Message-ID: <01C490D9.ADB17E10.shovland@mindspring.com> "Let them eat hope" (today's convention theme) That's the main problem for the President. He has created a situation in which many people are losing hope. There are many of us who wonder if we'll ever have a decent job again, ever own a home, ever be able to retire, ever be able to get health insurance. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net From emmanuel.lusinchi at gmail.com Thu Sep 2 20:03:22 2004 From: emmanuel.lusinchi at gmail.com (Emmanuel Lusinchi) Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 14:03:22 -0600 Subject: [Paleopsych] 5 Gmail (Google Mail) accounts for grabs In-Reply-To: <6.1.2.0.0.20040902141854.03376668@mail.earthlink.net> References: <5d315cca040902102673ab1d0c@mail.gmail.com> <6.1.2.0.0.20040902141854.03376668@mail.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <5d315cca04090213034e93526c@mail.gmail.com> Karen, I've sent you the Gmail invite at guavaberry at earthlink.net and you'll get to pick your own gmail address. Let me know if you don't receive it or run into trouble. -- emmanuel From shovland at mindspring.com Fri Sep 3 15:33:37 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 08:33:37 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] Fax bite du jour :-) Message-ID: <01C49190.B6B2DD30.shovland@mindspring.com> On Jobs Bush doesn't get it. Neither does Kerry. Both of them believe in the outdated "free trade" theories that are destroying the livelihood of millions of Americans. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net From guavaberry at earthlink.net Fri Sep 3 20:23:19 2004 From: guavaberry at earthlink.net (K.E.) Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 16:23:19 -0400 Subject: [Paleopsych] Bush by numbers: Four years of double standards Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.0.20040903162238.02f40ec0@mail.earthlink.net> A four page article in today's Independent, a respected left-of-centre UK National newspaper, provides some very illuminating (but of course carefully-chosen) statistics about George W. Bush's Presidency. The full story is at: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=557746 karen ellis ==== Bush by numbers: Four years of double standards By Graydon Carter 03 September 2004 1 Number of Bush administration public statements on National security issued between 20 January 2001 and 10 September 2001 that mentioned al-Qa'ida. 104 Number of Bush administration public statements on National security and defence in the same period that mentioned Iraq or Saddam Hussein. 101 Number of Bush administration public statements on National security and defence in the same period that mentioned missile defence. 65 Number of Bush administration public statements on National security and defence in the same period that mentioned weapons of mass destruction. 0 Number of times Bush mentioned Osama bin Laden in his three State of the Union addresses. 73 Number of times that Bush mentioned terrorism or terrorists in his three State of the Union addresses. 83 Number of times Bush mentioned Saddam, Iraq, or regime (as in change) in his three State of the Union addresses. $1m Estimated value of a painting the Bush Presidential Library in College Station, Texas, received from Prince Bandar, Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States and Bush family friend. 0 Number of times Bush mentioned Saudi Arabia in his three State of the Union addresses. 1,700 Percentage increase between 2001 and 2002 of Saudi Arabian spending on public relations in the United States. 79 Percentage of the 11 September hijackers who came from Saudi Arabia. 3 Number of 11 September hijackers whose entry visas came through special US-Saudi "Visa Express" programme. 140 Number of Saudis, including members of the Bin Laden family, evacuated from United States almost immediately after 11 September. 14 Number of Immigration and Naturalisation Service (INS) agents assigned to track down 1,200 known illegal immigrants in the United States from countries where al-Qa'ida is active. $3m Amount the White House was willing to grant the 9/11 Commission to investigate the 11 September attacks. $0 Amount approved by George Bush to hire more INS special agents. $10m Amount Bush cut from the INS's existing terrorism budget. $50m Amount granted to the commission that looked into the Columbia space shuttle crash. $5m Amount a 1996 federal commission was given to study legalised gambling. 7 Number of Arabic linguists fired by the US army between mid-August and mid-October 2002 for being gay. George Bush: Military man 1972 Year that Bush walked away from his pilot duties in the Texas National Guard, Nearly two years before his six-year obligation was up. $3,500 Reward a group of veterans offered in 2000 for anyone who could confirm Bush's Alabama guard service. 600-700 Number of guardsmen who were in Bush's unit during that period. 0 Number of guardsmen from that period who came forward with information about Bush's guard service. 0 Number of minutes that President Bush, Vice-President Dick Cheney, the Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, the assistant Defence Secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, the former chairman of the Defence Policy Board, Richard Perle, and the White House Chief of Staff, Karl Rove the main proponents of the war in Iraq served in combat (combined). 0 Number of principal civilian or Pentagon staff members who planned the war who have immediate family members serving in uniform in Iraq. 8 Number of members of the US Senate and House of Representatives who have a child serving in the military. 10 Number of days that the Pentagon spent investigating a soldier who had called the President "a joke" in a letter to the editor of a Newspaper. 46 Percentage increase in sales between 2001 and 2002 of GI Joe figures (children's toys). Ambitious warrior 2 Number of Nations that George Bush has attacked and taken over since coming into office. 130 Approximate Number of countries (out of a total of 191 recognised by the United Nations) with a US military presence. 43 Percentage of the entire world's military spending that the US spends on defence. (That was in 2002, the year before the invasion of Iraq.) $401.3bn Proposed military budget for 2004. Saviour of Iraq 1983 The year in which Donald Rumsfeld, Ronald Reagan's special envoy to the Middle East, gave Saddam Hussein a pair of golden spurs as a gift. 2.5 Number of hours after Rumsfeld learnt that Osama bin Laden was a suspect in the 11 September attacks that he brought up reasons to "hit" Iraq. 237 Minimum number of misleading statements on Iraq made by top Bush administration officials between 2002 and January 2004, according to the California Representative Henry Waxman. 10m Estimated number of people worldwide who took to the streets on 21 February 2003, in opposition to the invasion of Iraq, the largest simultaneous protest in world history. $2bn Estimated monthly cost of US military presence in Iraq projected by the White House in April 2003. $4bn Actual monthly cost of the US military presence in Iraq according to Secretary of Defence Rumsfeld in 2004. $15m Amount of a contract awarded to an American firm to build a cement factory in Iraq. $80,000 Amount an Iraqi firm spent (using Saddam's confiscated funds) to build the same factory, after delays prevented the American firm from starting it. 2000 Year that Cheney said his policy as CEO of Halliburton oil services company was "we wouldn't do anything in Iraq". $4.7bn Total value of contracts awarded to Halliburton in Iraq and Afghanistan. $680m Estimated value of Iraq reconstruction contracts awarded to Bechtel. $2.8bnValue of Bechtel Corp contracts in Iraq. $120bn Amount the war and its aftermath are projected to cost for the 2004 fiscal year. 35 Number of countries to which the United States suspended military assistance after they failed to sign agreements giving Americans immunity from prosecution before the International Criminal Court. 92 Percentage of Iraq's urban areas with access to potable water in late 2002. 60 Percentage of Iraq's urban areas with access to potable water in late 2003. 55 Percentage of the Iraqi workforce who were unemployed before the war. 80 Percentage of the Iraqi workforce who are unemployed a Year after the war. 0 Number of American combat deaths in Germany after the Nazi surrender in May 1945. 37 Death toll of US soldiers in Iraq in May 2003, the month combat operations "officially" ended. 0 Number of coffins of dead soldiers returning home that the Bush administration has permitted to be photographed. 0 Number of memorial services for the returned dead that Bush has attended since the beginning of the war. A soldier's best friend 40,000 Number of soldiers in Iraq seven months after start of the war still without Interceptor vests, designed to stop a round from an AK-47. $60m Estimated cost of outfitting those 40,000 soldiers with Interceptor vests. 62 Percentage of gas masks that army investigators discovered did Not work properly in autumn 2002. 90 Percentage of detectors which give early warning of a biological weapons attack found to be defective. 87 Percentage of Humvees in Iraq not equipped with armour capable of stopping AK-47 rounds and protecting against roadside bombs and landmines at the end of 2003. Making the country safer $3.29 Average amount allocated per person Nationwide in the first round of homeland security grants. $94.40 Amount allocated per person for homeland security in American Samoa. $36 Amount allocated per person for homeland security in Wyoming, Vice-President Cheney's home state. $17 Amount allocated per person in New York state. $5.87 Amount allocated per person in New York City. $77.92 Amount allocated per person in New Haven, Connecticut, home of Yale University, Bush's alma mater. 76 Percentage of 215 cities surveyed by the US Conference of Mayors in early 2004 that had yet to receive a dime in federal homeland security assistance for their first-response units. 5 Number of major US airports at the beginning of 2004 that the Transportation Security Administration admitted were Not fully screening baggage electronically. 22,600 Number of planes carrying unscreened cargo that fly into New York each month. 5 Estimated Percentage of US air cargo that is screened, including cargo transported on passenger planes. 95 Percentage of foreign goods that arrive in the United States by sea. 2 Percentage of those goods subjected to thorough inspection. $5.5bnEstimated cost to secure fully US ports over the Next decade. $0 Amount Bush allocated for port security in 2003. $46m Amount the Bush administration has budgeted for port security in 2005. 15,000 Number of major chemical facilities in the United States. 100 Number of US chemical plants where a terrorist act could endanger the lives of more than one million people. 0 Number of new drugs or vaccines against "priority pathogens" listed by the Centres for Disease Control that have been developed and introduced since 11 September 2001. Giving a hand up to the advantaged $10.9m Average wealth of the members of Bush's original 16-person cabinet. 75 Percentage of Americans unaffected by Bush's sweeping 2003 cuts in capital gains and dividends taxes. $42,000 Average savings members of Bush's cabinet received in 2003 as a result of cuts in capital gains and dividends taxes. 10 Number of fellow members from the Yale secret society Skull and Bones that Bush has named to important positions (including the Associate Attorney General Robert McCallum Jr. and SEC chief Bill Donaldson). 79 Number of Bush's initial 189 appointees who also served in his father's administration. A man with a lot of friends $113m Amount of total hard money the Bush-Cheney 2000 campaign received, a record. $11.5m Amount of hard money raised through the Pioneer programme, the controversial fund-raising process created for the Bush-Cheney 2000 campaign. (Participants pledged to raise at least $100,000 by bundling together cheques of up to $1,000 from friends and family. Pioneers were assigned numbers, which were included on all cheques, enabling the campaign to keep track of who raised how much.) George Bush: Money manager 4.7m Number of bankruptcies that were declared during Bush's first three years in office. 2002 The worst year for major markets since the recession of the 1970s. $489bn The US trade deficit in 2003, the worst in history for a single year. $5.6tr Projected national surplus forecast by the end of the decade when Bush took office in 2001. $7.22tr US national debt by mid-2004. George Bush: Tax cutter 87 Percentage of American families in April 2004 who say they have felt no benefit from Bush's tax cuts. 39 Percentage of tax cuts that will go to the top 1 per cent of American families when fully phased in. 49 Percentage of Americans in April 2004 who found that their taxes had actually gone up since Bush took office. 88 Percentage of American families who will save less than $100 on their 2006 federal taxes as a result of 2003 cut in capital gains and dividends taxes. $30,858 Amount Bush himself saved in taxes in 2003. Employment tsar 9.3m Number of US unemployed in April 2004. 2.3m Number of Americans who lost their jobs during first three Years of the Bush administration. 22m Number of jobs gained during Clinton's eight years in office. Friend of the poor 34.6m Number of Americans living below the poverty line (1 in 8 of the population). 6.8m Number of people in the workforce but still classified as poor. 35m Number of Americans that the government defines as "food insecure," in other words, hungry. $300m Amount cut from the federal programme that provides subsidies to poor families so they can heat their homes. 40 Percentage of wealth in the United States held by the richest 1 per cent of the population. 18 Percentage of wealth in Britain held by the richest 1e per cent of the population. George Bush And his special friend $60bn Loss to Enron stockholders, following the largest bankruptcy in US history. $205m Amount Enron CEO Kenneth Lay earned from stock option profits over a four-year period. $101m Amount Lay made from selling his Enron shares just before the company went bankrupt. $59,339 Amount the Bush campaign reimbursed Enron for 14 trips on its corporate jet during the 2000 campaign. 30 Length of time in months between Enron's collapse and Lay (whom the President called "Kenny Boy") still not being charged with a crime. George Bush: Lawman 15 Average number of minutes Bush spent reviewing capital punishment cases while governor of Texas. 46 Percentage of Republican federal judges when Bush came to office. 57 Percentage of Republican federal judges after three years of the Bush administration. 33 Percentage of the $15bn Bush pledged to fight Aids in Africa that must go to abstinence-only programmes. The Civil libertarian 680 Number of suspected al-Qa'ida members that the United States admits are detained at Guant?namo Bay, Cuba. 42 Number of nationalities of those detainees at Guantanamo. 22 Number of hours prisoners were handcuffed, shackled, and made to wear surgical masks, earmuffs, and blindfolds during their flight to Guantanamo. 32 Number of confirmed suicide attempts by Guantanamo Bay prisoners. 24 Number of prisoners in mid-2003 being monitored by psychiatrists in Guantanamo's new mental ward. A health-conscious president 43.6m Number of Americans without health insurance by the end of 2002 (more than 15 per cent of the population). 2.4m Number of Americans who lost their health insurance during Bush's first year in office. Environmentalist $44m Amount the Bush-Cheney 2000 campaign and the Republican National Committee received in contributions from the fossil fuel, chemical, timber, and mining industries. 200 Number of regulation rollbacks downgrading or weakening environmental laws in Bush's first three years in office. 31 Number of Bush administration appointees who are alumni of the energy industry (includes four cabinet secretaries, the six most powerful White House officials, and more than 20 other high-level appointees). 50 Approximate number of policy changes and regulation rollbacks injurious to the environment that have been announced by the Bush administration on Fridays after 5pm, a time that makes it all but impossible for news organisations to relay the information to the widest possible audience. 50 Percentage decline in Environmental Protection Agency enforcement actions against polluters under Bush's watch. 34 Percentage decline in criminal penalties for environmental crimes since Bush took office. 50 Percentage decline in civil penalties for environmental crimes since Bush took office. $6.1m Amount the EPA historically valued each human life when conducting economic analyses of proposed regulations. $3.7m Amount the EPA valued each human life when conducting analyses of proposed regulations during the Bush administration. 0 Number of times Bush mentioned global warming, clean air, clean water, pollution or environment in his 2004 State of the Union speech. His father was the last president to go through an entire State of the Union address without mentioning the environment. 1 Number of paragraphs devoted to global warming in the EPA's 600-page "Draft Report on the Environment" presented in 2003. 68 Number of days after taking office that Bush decided Not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, the international treaty to reduce greenhouse gases by roughly 5.2 per cent below 1990 levels by 2012. The United States was to cut its level by 7 per cent. 1 The rank of the United States worldwide in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. 25 Percentage of overall worldwide carbon dioxide emissions the United States is responsible for. 53 Number of days after taking office that Bush reneged on his campaign promise to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. 14 Percentage carbon dioxide emissions will increase over the next 10 years under Bush's own global-warming plan (an increase of 30 per cent above their 1990 levels). 408 Number of species that could be extinct by 2050 if the global-warming trend continues. 5 Number of years the Bush administration said in 2003 that global warming must be further studied before substantive action could be taken. 62 Number of members of Cheney's 63-person Energy Task Force with ties to corporate energy interests. 0 Number of environmentalists asked to attend Cheney's Energy Task Force meetings. 6 Number of months before 11 September that Cheney's Energy Task Force investigated Iraq's oil reserves. 2 Percentage of the world's population that is British. 2 Percentage of the world's oil used by Britain. 5 Percentage of the world's population that is American. 25 Percentage of the world's oil used by America. 63 Percentage of oil the United States imported in 2003, a record high. 24,000 Estimated number of premature deaths that will occur under Bush's Clear Skies initiative. 300 Number of Clean Water Act violations by the mountaintop-mining industry in 2003. 750,000 Tons of toxic waste the US military, the world's biggest polluter, generates around the world each Year. $3.8bn Amount in the Superfund trust fund for toxic site clean-ups in 1995, the Year "polluter pays" fees expired. $0m Amount of uncommitted dollars in the Superfund trust fund for toxic site clean-ups in 2003. 270 Estimated number of court decisions citing federal Negligence in endangered-species protection that remained unheeded during the first year of the Bush administration. 100 Percentage of those decisions that Bush then decided to allow the government to ignore indefinitely. 68.4 Average Number of species added to the Endangered and Threatened Species list each year between 1991 and 2000. 0 Number of endangered species voluntarily added by the Bush administration since taking office. 50 Percentage of screened workers at Ground Zero who now suffer from long-term health problems, almost half of whom don't have health insurance. 78 Percentage of workers at Ground Zero who now suffer from lung ailments. 88 Percentage of workers at Ground Zero who Now suffer from ear, nose, or throat problems. 22 Asbestos levels at Ground Zero were 22 times higher than the levels in Libby, Montana, where the W R Grace mine produced one of the worst Superfund disasters in US history. Image booster for the US 2,500 Number of public-diplomacy officers employed by the State Department to further the image of the US abroad in 1991. 1,200 Number of public-diplomacy officers employed by the State Department to further US image abroad in 2004. 4 Rank of the United States among countries considered to be the greatest threats to world peace according to a 2003 Pew Global Attitudes study (Israel, Iran, and North Korea were considered more dangerous; Iraq was considered less dangerous). $66bn Amount the United States spent on international aid and diplomacy in 1949. $23.8bn Amount the United States spent on international aid and diplomacy in 2002. 85 Percentage of Indonesians who had an unfavourable image of the United States in 2003. Second-party endorsements 90 Percentage of Americans who approved of the way Bush was handling his job as president on 26 September 2001. 67 Percentage of Americans who approved of the way Bush was handling his job as president on 26 September 2002. 54 Percentage of Americans who approved of the way Bush was handling his job as president on 30 September, 2003. 50 Percentage of Americans who approved of the way Bush was handling his job as president on 15 October 2003. 49 Percentage of Americans who approved of the way Bush was handling his job as president in May 2004. More like the French than he would care to admit 28 Number of vacation days Bush took in August 2003, the second-longest vacation of any president in US history. (Record holder Richard Nixon.) 13 Number of vacation days the average American receives each Year. 28 Number of vacation days Bush took in August 2001, the month he received a 6 August Presidential Daily Briefing headed "Osama bin Laden Determined to Strike US Targets." 500 Number of days Bush has spent all or part of his time away from the White House at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, his parents' retreat in Kennebunkport, Maine, or Camp David as of 1 April 2004. No fool when it comes to the press 11 Number of press conferences during his first three Years in office in which Bush referred to questions as being "trick" ones. Factors in his favour 3 Number of companies that control the US voting technology market. 52 Percentage of votes cast during the 2002 midterm elections that were recorded by Election Systems & Software, the largest voting-technology firm, a big Republican donor. 29 Percentage of votes that will be cast via computer voting machines that don't produce a paper record. 17On 17 November 2001, The Economist printed a correction for having said George Bush was properly elected in 2000. $113m Amount raised by the Bush-Cheney 2000 campaign, the most in American electoral history. $185m Amount raised by the Bush-Cheney 2004 re-election campaign, to the end of March 2004. $200m Amount that the Bush-Cheney 2004 campaign expects to raise by November 2004. 268 Number of Bush-Cheney fund-raisers who had earned Pioneer status (by raising $100,000 each) as of March 2004. 187 Number of Bush-Cheney fund-raisers who had earned Ranger status (by raising $200,000 each) as of March 2004. $64.2mThe Amount Pioneers and Rangers had raised for Bush-Cheney as of March 2004. 85 Percentage of Americans who can't Name the Chief Justice of the United States. 69 Percentage of Americans who believed the White House's claims in September 2003 that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the 11 September attacks. 34 Percentage of Americans who believed in June 2003 that Saddam's "weapons of mass destruction" had been found. 22 Percentage of Americans who believed in May 2003 that Saddam had used his WMDs on US forces. 85 Percentage of American young adults who cannot find Afghanistan, Iraq, or Israel on a map. 30 Percentage of American young adults who cannot find the Pacific Ocean on a map. 75 Percentage of American young adults who don't know the population of the United States. 53 Percentage of Canadian young adults who don't know the population of the United States. 11 Percentage of American young adults who cannot find the United States on a map. 30 Percentage of Americans who believe that "politics and government are too complicated to understand." Another factor in his favour 70m Estimated number of Americans who describe themselves as Evangelicals who accept Jesus Christ as their personal saviour and who interpret the Bible as the direct word of God. 23m Number of Evangelicals who voted for Bush in 2000. 50m Number of voters in total who voted for Bush in 2000. 46 Percentage of voters who describe themselves as born-again Christians. 5 Number of states that do not use the word "evolution" in public school science courses. This is an edited extract from "What We've Lost", by Graydon Carter, published by Little Brown on 9 September From checker at panix.com Sat Sep 4 18:42:48 2004 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 14:42:48 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Paleopsych] NYT: Justice After War Message-ID: Justice After War New York Times, 4.9.4 By PETER STEINFELS Efforts to think clearly and systematically about the morality of warfare have traditionally fallen under two headings. "Jus ad bellum" referred to moral questions about going to war. "Jus in bello" covered moral questions about the conduct of war. Now Michael Walzer, a political philosopher who has played a leading role in contemporary thinking about what is just or unjust in warfare, has proposed a third division: "jus post bellum," or justice after war. Actually, Dr. Walzer, a scholar at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, briefly dealt with the question of justice in postwar agreements in his 1977 classic, "Just and Unjust Wars,'' a book that Christopher Shea, writing in The Boston Globe last May, said "helped drag just-war theory, a tradition of thought beginning with St. Augustine almost 2,000 years ago, out of theology departments and into the mainstream of political science - and all the way to West Point, where the theory is now taught." But Dr. Walzer, in "Arguing About War," published last month by Yale University Press, now recognizes that this earlier treatment "is much too brief and doesn't even begin to address many of the problems that have arisen in places like Kosovo and East Timor and, recently, in Iraq." "Arguing About War" is itself brief, a collection of a dozen of his lectures and essays, more than half of them produced since 2000. They are clear and concrete, bridging the seminar room and the public forum, philosophy and politics. They address Kosovo, Rwanda, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, terrorism and much else. The introduction and a lecture discussing "the triumph of just-war theory," indeed delivered at West Point, offer a succinct defense of that theory against pacifists, crusaders and the realism that dominated the field of international relations when he was in graduate school in the 1950's and early 60's. "Moral argument was against the rules of the discipline," he notes. But left-wing critics of the war in Vietnam, almost against their will, Dr. Walzer says, "fell into morality." Searching for "a common moral language," they found themselves talking just-war theory, more or less without knowing it. In Dr. Walzer's own application of just-war theory, the massacres, ethnic cleansing and terrorism of recent years have increased his readiness to find that military intervention can qualify as just. But not in the case of Iraq. In 2002 and 2003, his conclusion that an American invasion there would be morally unjustifiable emerged in a series of essays, reprinted in the new book, that did not have today's luxury of hindsight about faulty or manipulated intelligence but were based on what could be reasonably known at the time. He certainly shared the view that Saddam Hussein's regime was brutal and dangerous, but he rejected the choice that the Bush administration even now insists that it faced: trust a madman or go to war. Maintaining a prolonged inspection under military pressure would be risky and costly, Dr. Walzer argued, but a moral alternative to what was ultimately embarked upon. In January 2003, he recognized the allure of the counterargument that "a short war, a new regime, a demilitarized Iraq, food and medicine pouring into Iraqi ports" would be "morally and politically preferable" to such "a permanent system of coercion and control." "But who can guarantee that the war would be short and that the consequences in the region and elsewhere would be limited?" he said. Didn't just-war theory speak of war as a "last resort" precisely "because of the unpredictable, unexpected, unintended and unavoidable horrors that it regularly brings?" For Dr. Walzer, as for many opponents of the war, the moral quandaries hardly ceased once it actually began. If the American invasion was unjust, the Hussein government's war to perpetuate an unjust brutal tyranny was no better. Dr. Walzer could only hope for a quick Iraqi collapse and that "everything possible be done to avoid or reduce civilian casualties." This central requirement of jus in bello still applied. But Iraq also made urgent what had become apparent in humanitarian interventions like that in Kosovo: the need for jus-post-bellum criteria that went beyond those used to judge either the resort to war or its conduct. At one point Dr. Walzer organizes his proposals for jus-post-bellum criteria, which appear somewhat haphazardly in different essays, around "closure" and "legitimacy." "Once we have acted in ways that have significant negative consequences for other people (even if there are also positive consequences), we cannot just walk away," he writes. Closure encompasses responsibilities to "think seriously" about post-victory actions (a moral test he believes was not met in Iraq) and to expend sufficient resources on reconstruction. ("A just occupation costs money; it doesn't make money.") The question of legitimacy makes democratic principles central to jus post bellum - principles like self-determination, popular consent, civil rights, defense of minorities and the idea of a common good. "Jus post bellum can't be entirely independent of jus ad bellum," Dr. Walzer says. "The distribution of the costs of the settlement is necessarily related to the moral character of the war." Nonetheless, the critical moral issues that the United States must debate regarding its current responsibilities in Iraq appear to him rather independent of the issues that were foremost in the debate about whether to fight there in the first place. Dr. Walzer's thoughts about jus post bellum remain sketchy, suggestive rather than systematic. Indeed, in some respects he would have to admit that they may be contradictory. In Iraq, for example, meeting the criteria of "closure" - notably, carrying out reconstruction - may prove to be seriously at odds with meeting the criteria of "legitimacy"; and the various democratic criteria of legitimacy itself, like turning over power and assuring minority rights, may be at odds with one another. At this stage, however, Dr. Walzer is still trying to introduce a new category of analysis. Just-war theory does not cease to be relevant when one side declares "mission accomplished"- even in those cases where that may be true. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/04/national/04beliefs.html From checker at panix.com Sat Sep 4 18:58:05 2004 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 14:58:05 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Paleopsych] 5 Gmail (Google Mail) accounts for grabs In-Reply-To: <5d315cca040902102673ab1d0c@mail.gmail.com> References: <5d315cca040902102673ab1d0c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Please send the offer to Frank Forman, checker at panix.com if there are any left. Frank On 2004-09-02, Emmanuel Lusinchi opined [message unchanged below]: > Hi all, > > I've been real quite on this list for the past year and a half or so > (lots of change in my life recently), but I wanted to chime in with an > offer for all of you good people. > > Thanks to a friend, I got a GMail account a while ago and I have been > using it for the paleopsych list with much success. The combination of > search feature, *huge* mail capacity and topic-threading mechanism > makes GMail an ideal email account for receiving this mailing list. > > I now have 6 fresh new accounts to distribute to whomever I choose. > I'm saving one for Howard naturally, so that 5 that are up for grabs. > First come, first served. I'll need your First Name, Last Name and > current email address to send you the Gmail offer. > > And Howard, please let me know if you want the GMail account or if I > should put it up for grab as well. > > Bests, > -- > > emmanuel > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > From HowlBloom at aol.com Sun Sep 5 03:21:22 2004 From: HowlBloom at aol.com (HowlBloom at aol.com) Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 23:21:22 EDT Subject: [Paleopsych] Jaak--is the lab an antique tool? Message-ID: You tossed me an intriguing challenge when you came over to the bloom brownstone a year or two ago. I've been chewing on it, using it for mindfuel, ever since. To make my theories count, you said, I had to be able to translate them into predictions that could be proven or disproven in the lab. Good point. What can't be operationalized and what can't be tested isn't science, right? So for three months I tried to figure out how to put my ideas into lab-able terms. That isn't easy. These concepts were seeded by 15 years of study in theoretical physics, microbiology, psychology, religion, history, and the arts. Many of the questions were tweaked and shaded by riding the rails and adventuring. Then came the real deal--20 years of fieldwork in popular culture, in visual art and music, in making superstars, in creating cultural whirlwinds where there were only breezes before, from making hurricanes of passion in the real world where a film like Purple Rain by Prince becomes a cultural legacy, where it becomes the most popular makeout film for hormonally-driven teens who were born long after the day I had to save Purple Rain from being canned by Warner Brothers. In the world of pop culture you do have to demonstrate science's basics, prediction and control. You are forced to form hypotheses, then make predictions about the next career move for Michael Jackson, Billy Idol, Billy Joel, Bob Marley, or Joan Jett. An artist's lifetime work depends on whether your prediction turns out true or false. The gifts or curses that reach the public depend on your observation, your insight, and your accuracy. But your hypotheses are often formed by your gut, your intellect, and your intuition all working in parallel. You can't necessarily explain the things you suspect, much less the things you know. The subject matter you're studying is huge...far too huge to squeeze into the lab. So how DO we test the making of a culture storm in a lab on a university campus in Boston, New York, Berkeley, or Bowling Green? The answer, it finally dawned on me was not in trying to shrink hurricanes of mass emotion down to something that can be replicated in a-pencil-and-paper test given to 60 students in exchange for credit toward their psychology requirements. The problem you posed may not be in the nature of ideas generated in the field, ideas generated by observational and participatory science. The problem may be in the lab itself. It could be that the lab is the Oldowan stone tool of science. It has been a great tool for the last 120 years or so. I could never have formulated my ideas without what the lab-work of Neil Miller and his proteges gave me in mouse research. I could never have done it without the work that you have given me with your laughing, tickled, and play-deprived mice. I could never have done it without the lab-work neuroscientist like Ed Taub gave me in his work with chimpanzees. But, Jaak, the lab is not the solution, it's the problem. The lab is too limited to catch most of what human behavior is about. It is too limited to catch the mas passions that make a Hitler, an Osama Bin Laden, a Beethoven, a Shakespeare, a Winston Churchill, or an FDR. It is too limited to assess whether the CIA and the Mossad destroyed the world trade center or whether al qaeda did it. If al qaida was the culprit, the lab is too limited to tell us what to do next--what to do to defend our civilization from collapse. The lab is even too limited to tell us whether our civilization is worth fighting for. Are these questions science must address? You bet. So the real question is this. How do we make a genuine science of human passions, of mass emotions, of mass perceptions, of popular culture, of high culture, of politics, and of history. What new tool can we invent that takes us beyond the lab? One clue is this. There are several real-world measures of mass moods and mass perceptions. One is the stock market. Another is the real world interaction that takes place in IMs, videogames, role playing games, and chat rooms. In the cyberworld, every word and every nuance is recorded. All one needs is permission from the participants to use the mass of data. Another advantage of the cyberworld: folks from all over the world kick in. An online group like the one devoted to the Philosophy of History is based in Siberia and reaches out to Europe, the United States, South America, and Australia. There are many ways to slice and splice the data. There are many ways to quantify, if quantification is what you want. But it's critical to realize that some of the greatest distortions in the sciences of the psyche have been created by the physics-and-equation-envy that seize many of us and remove us from the real world. If quality is what you want (and you, in particular, often do) not just measurement, then getting our sciences out of the lab and into the real world is critical. The cyberworld may just be a convenient starting point. My job, it turns out, is very different. After 20 years at the top of the star-making business, 20 years of gut-hypotheses, it's time to do something very difficult. It's time to translate what my muscles and my viscera know into words. And it's time to continue to practice the process of shaping human perception in the real world so an Osama doesn't outdo us by understanding the human passions far better than we in science do. It's time to practice prediction and control in the world of tomorrow's history. Howard ---------- Howard Bloom Author of The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History and Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The Big Bang to the 21st Century Visiting Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University; Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute www.howardbloom.net www.bigbangtango.net Founder: International Paleopsychology Project; founding board member: Epic of Evolution Society; founding board member, The Darwin Project; founder: The Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New York Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Psychological Society, Academy of Political Science, Human Behavior and Evolution Society, International Society for Human Ethology; advisory board member: Youthactivism.org; executive editor -- New Paradigm book series. For information on The International Paleopsychology Project, see: www.paleopsych.org for two chapters from The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History, see www.howardbloom.net/lucifer For information on Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century, see www.howardbloom.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From intarts at teleport.com Sun Sep 5 04:17:07 2004 From: intarts at teleport.com (John Beahrs) Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 23:17:07 -0500 Subject: [Paleopsych] Jaak--is the lab an antique tool? References: Message-ID: <003101c492ff$5b7b4ea0$032179a5@JOBeahrs> Right on! Another more tangible illustration of the limits of the laboratory, is psychiatric practice. We shrinks pride ourselves on being "scientific", but what we do is scientific only to a point. Controlled research simply can't test psychiatric treatment as actually practiced in the field. Research paradigms apply manualized procedures to populations carefully selected as likely to respond to the procedures, and sure enough, a significant number do. But I'm a VA outpatient psychiatrist who has to treate incredibly complex disturbed veterans with the gamut of disorders and terribly limited resources. We must do the opposite of controlled research. We look for and utilize whatever we can find that might help. Among hundreds or more variables that we're constantly scrutinizing, we seek focal points that we can isolate, change, and which when changed will lead to cascading changes throughout the system. These occur at many levels. Sometimes great results accrue, sometimes not. And when they do, what really led to the positive changes? Further complicating the matter, is that I'm not the only "therapist". Others, like AA members, specialty group leaders, friends, and family members, are concurrently interacting -- all may have powerful impact. And let's not forget the role of patients themselves. How well they do varies with how much they're doing for themselves, far more than what I do to or for them. If so, then sometimes I can help the most by motivating self-help beyond what patients initially feel capable. This has led me toward a "strategic self-therapy" model, challenging patients to define and redefine their personal identities. Now, how do I take stock and try to figure out what really worked and what didn't? I'm nearing retirement and trying to assess my results collectively. I've deliberately avoided setting up controls or using numerical rating scales as I go, because if I did, I would no longer be doing what I do, but biasing my treatment into something different; and it's what I actually do that I really want to assess. I'm currently trying to develop a strategy of rating multiple potentially relevant variables, 0-4+, all complex in themselves, using the clinical record as a data base, getting independent raters to test for inter-rater reliability, and then do cross-correlations for pattern recognition. It's incredibly difficult, and may prove futile. But I am convinced, like Howard, that radically new methods will be needed to assess what happens in the human sciences, health sciences, arts, politics -- those things that actually matter the most. Hang on, Howard. Don't accept the "scientific" adage that "untestable" means unscientific. Rather, let's look for creative new ways to study complex systems. I wish I had a good answer. l'm really struggling with this issue right now. From: HowlBloom at aol.com To: jpankse at bgnet.bgsu.edu Cc: paleopsych at paleopsych.org Sent: Saturday, September 04, 2004 10:21 PM Subject: [Paleopsych] Jaak--is the lab an antique tool? You tossed me an intriguing challenge when you came over to the bloom brownstone a year or two ago. I've been chewing on it, using it for mindfuel, ever since. To make my theories count, you said, I had to be able to translate them into predictions that could be proven or disproven in the lab. Good point. What can't be operationalized and what can't be tested isn't science, right? So for three months I tried to figure out how to put my ideas int lab-able terms. That isn't easy. These concepts were seeded by 15 years of study in theoretical physics, microbiology, psychology, religion, history, and the arts. Many of the questions were tweaked and shaded by riding the rails and adventuring. Then came the real deal--20 years of fieldwork in popular culture, in visual art and music, in making superstars, in creating cultural whirlwinds where there were only breezes before, from making hurricanes of passion in the real world where a film like Purple Rain by Prince becomes a cultural legacy, where it becomes the most popular makeout film for hormonally-driven teens who were born long after the day I had to save Purple Rain from being canned by Warner Brothers. In the world of pop culture you do have to demonstrate science's basics, prediction and control. You are forced to form hypotheses, then make predictions about the next career move for Michael Jackson, Billy Idol, Billy Joel, Bob Marley, or Joan Jett. An artist's lifetime work depends on whether your prediction turns out true or false. The gifts or curses that reach the public depend on your observation, your insight, and your accuracy. But your hypotheses are often formed by your gut, your intellect, and your intuition all working in parallel. You can't necessarily explain the things you suspect, much less the things you know. The subject matter you're studying is huge...far too huge to squeeze into the lab. So how DO we test the making of a culture storm in a lab on a university campus in Boston, New York, Berkeley, or Bowling Green? The answer, it finally dawned on me was not in trying to shrink hurricanes of mass emotion down to something that can be replicated in a-pencil-and-paper test given to 60 students in exchange for credit toward their psychology requirements. The problem you posed may not be in the nature of ideas generated in the field, ideas generated by observational and participatory science. The problem may be in the lab itself. It could be that the lab is the Oldowan stone tool of science. It has been a great tool for the last 120 years or so. I could never have formulated my ideas without what the lab-work of Neil Miller and his proteges gave me in mouse research. I could never have done it without the work that you have given me with your laughing, tickled, and play-deprived mice. I could never have done it without the lab-work neuroscientist like Ed Taub gave me in his work with chimpanzees. But, Jaak, the lab is not the solution, it's the problem. The lab is too limited to catch most of what human behavior is about. It is too limited to catch the mas passions that make a Hitler, an Osama Bin Laden, a Beethoven, a Shakespeare, a Winston Churchill, or an FDR. It is too limited to assess whether the CIA and the Mossad destroyed the world trade center or whether al qaeda did it. If al qaida was the culprit, the lab is too limited to tell us what to do next--what to do to defend our civilization from collapse. The lab is even too limited to tell us whether our civilization is worth fighting for. Are these questions science must address? You bet. So the real question is this. How do we make a genuine science of human passions, of mass emotions, of mass perceptions, of popular culture, of high culture, of politics, and of history. What new tool can we invent that takes us beyond the lab? One clue is this. There are several real-world measures of mass moods and mass perceptions. One is the stock market. Another is the real world interaction that takes place in IMs, videogames, role playing games, and chat rooms. In the cyberworld, every word and every nuance is recorded. All one needs is permission from the participants to use the mass of data. Another advantage of the cyberworld: folks from all over the world kick in. An online group like the one devoted to the Philosophy of History is based in Siberia and reaches out to Europe, the United States, South America, and Australia. There are many ways to slice and splice the data. There are many ways to quantify, if quantification is what you want. But it's critical to realize that some of the greatest distortions in the sciences of the psyche have been created by the physics-and-equation-envy that seize many of us and remove us from the real world. If quality is what you want (and you, in particular, often do) not just measurement, then getting our sciences out of the lab and into the real world is critical. The cyberworld may just be a convenient starting point. My job, it turns out, is very different. After 20 years at the top of the star-making business, 20 years of gut-hypotheses, it's time to do something very difficult. It's time to translate what my muscles and my viscera know into words. And it's time to continue to practice the process of shaping human perception in the real world so an Osama doesn't outdo us by understanding the human passions far better than we in science do. It's time to practice prediction and control in the world of tomorrow's history. Howard ---------- Howard Bloom Author of The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History and Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The Big Bang to the 21st Century Visiting Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University; Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute www.howardbloom.net www.bigbangtango.net Founder: International Paleopsychology Project; founding board member: Epic of Evolution Society; founding board member, The Darwin Project; founder: The Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New York Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Psychological Society, Academy of Political Science, Human Behavior and Evolution Society, International Society for Human Ethology; advisory board member: Youthactivism.org; executive editor -- New Paradigm book series. For information on The International Paleopsychology Project, see: www.paleopsych.org for two chapters from The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History, see www.howardbloom.net/lucifer For information on Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century, see www.howardbloom.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shovland at mindspring.com Sun Sep 5 14:13:12 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2004 07:13:12 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] Jaak--is the lab an antique tool? Message-ID: <01C49317.CE5081D0.shovland@mindspring.com> Although there are situations where the traditional lab is appropriate, I think you are correct in saying it doesn't work in others, although there still is a need to get some information that is harder than opinions and beliefs.. There are other problems in "science." For one, trying to reduce situations to a single variable has some validity but many situations have multiple variables and we need better ways to evaluate complexity. I also have the impression that traditional science tends to concentrate on the center of the distribution. The outliers can be just as interesting and possibly more important. I think we have a huge problem with "mercenary science, " in which something that looks like the scientific method is used to prove all sorts of things. Tests of new "medications" are one area where this is prominent, and we often see this in presentations to Congressional hearings or juries. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net From checker at panix.com Sun Sep 5 15:49:12 2004 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2004 11:49:12 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Paleopsych] NYT: Always on the Job, Employees Pay With Health Message-ID: Always on the Job, Employees Pay With Health New York Times, 4.9.5 By JOHN SCHWARTZ [Graphic available by clicking the URL] American workers are stressed out, and in an unforgiving economy, they are becoming more so every day. Sixty-two percent say their workload has increased over the last six months; 53 percent say work leaves them "overtired and overwhelmed." Even at home, in the soccer bleachers or at the Labor Day picnic, workers are never really off the clock, bound to BlackBerries, cellphones and laptops. Add iffy job security, rising health care costs, ailing pension plans and the fear that a financial setback could put mortgage payments out of reach, and the office has become, for many, an echo chamber of angst. It is enough to make workers sick - and it does. Decades of research have linked stress to everything from heart attacks and stroke to diabetes and a weakened immune system. Now, however, researchers are connecting the dots, finding that the growing stress and uncertainty of the office have a measurable impact on workers' health and, by extension, on companies' bottom lines. Workplace stress costs the nation more than $300 billion each year in health care, missed work and the stress-reduction industry that has grown up to soothe workers and keep production high, according to estimates by the American Institute of Stress in New York. And workers who report that they are stressed, said Steven L. Sauter, chief of the Organizational Science and Human Factors Branch of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, incur health care costs that are 46 percent higher, or an average of $600 more per person, than other employees. "The costs are significant," Dr. Sauter said, adding, "Those are just the costs to the organization, and not the burden to individuals and to society." American workers are not the only ones grappling with escalating stress and ever greater job demands. European companies are changing once-generous vacation policies, and stress-related illnesses cost England 13 million working days each year, one British health official said. "It's an issue everywhere you go in the world," said Dr. Guy Standing, the lead author of "Economic Security for a Better World," a new report from the International Labor Office, an agency of the United Nations. White-collar workers are particularly at risk, Dr. Standing said, because "we tend to take our work home." Most stress-related health problems are a far cry from the phenomenon known in Japan as karoshi, or "death from overwork." But downsizing, rapid business expansion, outsourcing - trends that some have credited with increasing the nation's economic health - translate into increases in sick days, hospitalization, the risk of heart attack and a host of other stress-related problems, researchers find. The changing workplace, said Hugo Westerlund, a researcher at the National Institute for Psychosocial Medicine in Stockholm, "does pose a threat to people's health." Growth of the Untraditional Job The days when an employer said "if you do your job, you'll have a job" are long gone. The traditional career, progressing step by step through the corridors of one or two institutions, "is finished," said Dr. Richard Sennett, a sociologist at New York University. He has calculated that a young American today with at least two years of college can expect to change jobs at least 11 times before retirement. Business has moved away from traditional employment, now an almost quaint concept described in a recent RAND Corporation study as "full-time jobs of indefinite duration at a facility owned or rented by the employer." Instead, that study found, one in every four workers in the United States is "in some nontraditional employment relationship," including part-time work and self-employment. Four out of 10 Americans now work "mostly at nonstandard time," according to figures cited by Harriet Presser of the University of Maryland. The odd hours include evenings, nights, rotating shifts and weekends to meet the demands of global supply chains and customers in every time zone. These jobs require an increasing amount of time as well. Workers in the United States already put in more than 1,800 hours on the job a year: 350 hours more than the Germans and slightly more than the Japanese, according to the International Labor Office. Nonwork hours have also been increasingly invaded by technologies that act like a virtual leash. "The distinction between work and nonwork time is getting fuzzier all the time," said Donald I. Tepas, professor emeritus of industrial psychology at the University of Connecticut, who has studied the health and safety effects of overwork and sleeplessness. One result is an office culture where too much work is not enough. And while some workers thrive in the changing workplace, others find their workplaces ruled by what one expert, Joanne B. Ciulla of the University of Richmond, calls "the work ethic of fear." More than 30 percent of workers say they are "always" or "often" under stress at work, according to the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, and a quarter of those surveyed in 2002 said there often were not enough co-workers to get the job done. Other surveys show no end in sight. In a new report, Kronos Inc., a human resources firm, found that 62 percent of American workers said that their job activities and responsibilities had increased over the past six months and that they had not used all of their allotted vacation time in the past year. And 60 percent of those surveyed said they did not expect any respite from increased working hours in the next six months. Little wonder, then, that Dr. Richard A. Chaifetz, chief executive of ComPsych, the largest provider of employee assistance programs, said "the stress levels today are clearly higher than they were a few years ago." The strain of working in an uncertain economic world weighed heavily on Sergey Shevchuk, a former programmer for financial services companies. He said he was caught in an emotional vise while the companies tried to weather the post-2000 stock slump by purging the ranks and looking toward cheaper labor through outsourcing. "I was depressed and getting easily sick very often," he recalled. "I was coming home empty." Mr. Shevchuk has since left the world of programming, where his work could bring $135,000 a year, and started Distinct Construction Service, a home contracting business in Fairlawn, N.J. Diane Knorr, a former dot-com executive, said she believed that the stress of her job contributed to persistent stomach pain and sleeplessness. At first, she said, the feeling of being on call at all hours was exciting. "The first time I got a call way after hours from a senior manager, I remember being really flattered" and thinking, "Wow! I'm really getting up there now." But gradually, her work and family life became a blur with hours that were hard to scale back. "If I leave at 5 and everyone else leaves at 6:30, I might look like the one who is not pulling his weight," she said. In college, Ms. Knorr set a goal of making a six-figure salary by the time she was 49. She reached it at 35, and "nothing happened; no balloons dropped," she said. "That's when I really became aware of that hollow feeling." A doctor suggested that she begin taking an antidepressant for the stomach pain, "which struck me as bizarre," she said. The doctor described it as a treatment to increase the amount of serotonin in the digestive tract, but Ms. Knorr said she now realized he might have been giving her a subtle message about her own level of anxiety and depression. She eventually quit her job, and used her savings to start a nonprofit group, Wonder Inc., which provides mentors and activities for foster children. Work can be seductive, said Dr. Arlie Hochschild, a sociologist at the University of California, Berkeley. One in five of the people she interviewed in the course of research for her book "The Time Bind" said the rewards of work could actually become stronger than the comforts of home, so "home became work, and work became home." Dr. Hochschild warns of "the splintered self," a state of constant distraction, doing one thing and expecting another. "It's not just time" that is lost, she said, "it's basically attention: what we give to one another." Stress Equals Illness Researchers are beginning to document the toll that the changing nature of work takes on health. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, which has studied the links for decades, began a major initiative two years ago to study "the changing organization of work" and has worked with the American Psychological Association to build up the field of occupational health psychology at a dozen academic institutions nationwide. Downsizing, studies find, is associated with poorer health, whether workers are fired or survive the downsizing and continue in their jobs. Pioneering studies in Scandinavia, where centralized health care allows researchers access to vast databases of medical conditions and treatment, also have shown a strong link between downsizing and illness. A study by Finnish researchers published in February in the British Medical Journal, for example, found the risk of dying from a heart attack doubled among permanent employees after a major round of downsizing, with the risk growing to five times normal after four years. Two other studies, led by Dr. Westerlund, the Swedish researcher, suggest that other forms of strain in the workplace can also affect health. An analysis of medical records for 24,036 Swedish workers from 1991 to 1996 found that in workplaces that underwent large-scale expansions, the workers were 7 percent more likely to take sick leave of 90 days or more and 9 percent more likely to enter a hospital for some reason. Health risks rose if the expansion, defined in the study as more than 18 percent annual job growth, continued year after year, he said. Employees in companies experiencing moderate growth, on the other hand, were slightly less likely to take extended leave, perhaps because the growth rate was more manageable. One explanation for why expansion might lead to poor health, Dr. Westerlund said, is that it often involves tumult: in some cases, offices expand when the parent company centralizes operations or merges offices through downsizing. In another study, Dr. Westerlund and colleagues gave a series of medical tests to 3,904 white-collar employees working in stable businesses and workers in other companies in various states of stressful transition, including reorganization, downsizing and outsourcing, in some cases because the companies were threatened by the difficulties of competing in a global marketplace. The workers in organizations that were in transition had higher-than-average levels of cholesterol, high blood pressure and other biochemical markers of heart disease risk, the researchers found. "All forms of structural insecurity or instability may pose risks for the health of the employees," Dr. Westerlund and his colleagues wrote, "although the mechanisms may vary." One result of this uncertainty, experts say, is that employees are increasingly turning to medication like antidepressants and anti-anxiety drugs to help them cope with the added pressures. "Medication has, for some people, become a coping mechanism to help them feel better so they can perform better," Dr. Chaifetz of ComPsych said. Some researchers are trying to tease out the types of stress that are most detrimental to workers. In a large study conducted in the 1990's, Dr. David M. Almeida, a developmental psychologist and associate professor of human development and family studies at Penn State, interviewed 1,500 people, asking about their "daily hassles" and "chronic stressors" at work and at home over a period of eight days. Different types of stress produced different reactions, Dr. Almeida found. Tension with co-workers and overbearing bosses was more likely to lead to psychological and physical health symptoms, he said, while deadline pressure could actually "make you feel masterful." Central to understanding how much stress the workers experienced, he said, was whether they felt in control. Citing research by Robert A. Karasek of the University of Massachusetts and colleagues, he said workers who felt that they had a measure of control over their environment were far less likely to find work stressful than those who felt utterly at the mercy of a capricious boss, a child's illness or a lurching economy. That combination effect is well known to psychiatrists like Jeffrey P. Kahn, president of WorkPsych Associates, a consulting firm in New York. "Stress at home plus stress at work doesn't equal two units" of stress, he said. "It equals five." Dr. Almeida is now starting a second round of surveys, with an additional biological dimension: the interviews about daily stress levels will be augmented with a twice-a-day self-administered test for levels of a stress hormone, cortisol. The physiological changes associated with stress are part of a complex system that once saved the lives of human ancestors, warning them of danger, said Dr. Bruce S. McEwen, director of the neuroendocrinology laboratory at Rockefeller University. The quick flood of hormones like adrenaline and cortisol pump up the body for fight or flight. "We wouldn't do very well without our stress hormones," he said. But human physiology, Dr. McEwen said, was not intended to handle the chronic stress that is an inescapable accompaniment of modern life. The wear and tear of long hours, ringing phones, uncertain working conditions and family demands lead to what he calls "allostatic load," a stress switch stuck in the half-on position. The result: fatigue, frustration, anger and burnout. Dr. McEwen and other stress researchers have linked persistent stress to a variety of conditions, including obesity, impaired memory, suppressed immune function and hardening of the arteries. What is more, chronic stress contributes to behavior that makes it harder to recover, he said. For example, sleep deprivation may increase hunger, causing a stressed-out worker to seek comfort in a midnight bowl of pasta or a nightcap, which can lead to further weight gain or cardiovascular troubles. Researchers are also finding links between stress and disease at the molecular level. At Ohio State University, for example, Dr. Ronald Glaser, a viral immunologist, and his wife, Dr. Janice Kiecolt-Glaser, a psychologist, are reaching across disciplines to understand how stress causes illness. Working with other researchers at Ohio State, they have studied the immune response of people who live with an enormous burden of stress: people who care for a spouse who is suffering from Alzheimer's disease, and who are, on average, 70 years old. The immune systems of the caregivers are clearly compromised, they found. "What we know about stress is that it's probably even worse than we thought," Dr. Kiecolt-Glaser said. Their most recent work focuses on cytokines, molecules produced by white blood cells, and in particular interleukin 6, which plays a beneficial role in cell communication. Like cortisol and adrenaline, interleukin 6 can damage the body in large and persistent doses, slowing the return to normal after stressful events. It has been linked to conditions that include arthritis, cardiovascular disease, delayed healing and cancer, Dr. Glaser said. The immune systems of the highly stressed subjects, Dr. Glaser said, "had the levels of Il-6 that we saw in the controls that were 90 years old," which suggests that their experiences "seemed to be aging the immune system" drastically. These results might be especially important for older workers. "If you're 50 years old and you hate your job, you're going to be stressed; that probably translates into immune changes," he said. Stressful working conditions can have more indirect effects, worsening illnesses that are already present. Libbi Lepow, who lives in Kensington, Calif., worked at a dot-com that epitomized the 24/7 lifestyle. Her days, she said, were dominated by "action junkies," who she said lived on adrenaline. "There has to be a crisis, or these folks feel that they aren't doing anything," she said. Before long, Ms. Lepow said she was gaining weight and getting by on junk food and soda. By March 2001, the combination of stress, lack of sleep and poor nutrition apparently contributed to a flare-up of multiple sclerosis, a condition that she had lived with at a low level for years. The company, she said, was "very kind to me," and allowed her to continue working from home, but work continued to affect her. "I never took a nap without the two phones in the room," she said, and people called constantly. "It was still exhausting," she said. She resigned in June 2002 and now lives on disability. The Benefits of Slowing Down Recognizing workplace stress might be as simple as counting the broken pencils on a desk, but doing something about it is harder. "We cannot stop change," Dr. Westerlund said, although it may be possible to "help the people cope with the environment." The advice that most experts offer is deceptively simple: Dr. McEwen, for example, recommends getting enough sleep, avoiding cigarettes and alcohol, eating sensibly and exercising. Emotional support can also make a difference, Dr. Kiecolt-Glaser said. By "overworking, not spending time with family and friends, you're limiting the things that are most likely to do you good," she said. Career consultants tell clients to examine the degree to which they themselves are the ones cracking the whip. "Consider the possibility that you are colluding in your own demise," said Rayona Sharpnack, founder of the Institute for Women's Leadership in Redwood City, Calif. "Suffering," she said, "is optional." Ms. Lepow, whose work stress contributed to her disability, calls her illness "a kind of gift," because without it, she said, "I could have lived my whole life without stopping." She recalled striding across her deck to her home office without ever taking in the view. "It took something like this disease to make me stop and slow down," she said. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/05/health/05stress.html From checker at panix.com Sun Sep 5 15:52:00 2004 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2004 11:52:00 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Paleopsych] NYT: The Most Important Article in Our History Message-ID: The Most Important Article in Our History New York Times, 4.9.5 By TOM KUNTZ [The current election is right up there with Garfield vs. Hancock in 1880. The plurality in the popular vote was just 7000. I repeat Mr. Mencken's observations on Harding vs. Cox below.] IF the presidential election were Mae West, her reply to a flatterer calling her the "most important election ever" could easily be: "I bet you say that to all the elections, big boy." Surprise, all you election 2004 superlative-pushers, from Bruce Springsteen to the Christian Coalition: This election is the "most important" in our history - our lifetimes, a generation, whatever - only if you ignore a slew of others. Here is a sampling of comments stretching back more than a century and a half. 1864 Lincoln vs. McClellan "We have had many important elections, but never one so important as that now approaching." Gen. James H. Lane, pro-Lincoln campaigner, The New York Times, March 31 1888 Harrison vs. Cleveland "The Republic is approaching what is to be one of the most important elections in its history." New York Times editorial, July 2 1924 Coolidge vs. Davis "I look upon the coming election as the most important in the history of this country since the Civil War." Joseph Levenson, Republican leader, The New York Times, July 20 1976 Ford vs. Carter "I think this election is one of the most vital in the history of America." President Ford, debating Jimmy Carter, Oct. 22 1980 Carter vs. Reagan The International Union of Electronic Workers said it felt it was important to take a stand early because the critical problems the nation faces may make the 1980 election "the most important of this century." Associated Press, Nov. 2, 1979 1984 Reagan vs. Mondale "This is the most important election in this nation in 50 years." Ronald Reagan, Nov. 5 1988 Bush vs. Dukakis "It may be the most important election of this century." Senator Robert C. Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, Oct. 22 1992 Bush vs. Clinton "I ask you to join with me for these last three days to reach out and call your friends and family and neighbors to tell them this is the most important election in a generation." Gov. Bill Clinton of Arkansas, Oct. 30 1996 Clinton vs. Dole "This is the most critical election in the long history of the American labor movement." John Sweeney, AFL-CIO president, The Washington Post, March 3 "It's the most important election of our lifetime." Ralph Reed, Christian Coalition director, The Tulsa World, April 14 "Talk about a bummer! Can you imagine how the Republicans must feel at this, the beginning of the most important election year in decades? Pass the Prozac, please." Robert Beckel, Democratic political analyst; commentary in The Denver Post, Jan. 31 2000 Bush vs. Gore "The first national election of the 21st century is the most important election (so far) of the 21st century." Ebony magazine, November United States Representative Zach Wamp said last week he believes "2000 historically is the most important national election in my lifetime." Chattanooga Free Press, Nov. 22 2004 Bush vs. Kerry "This is the fourth presidential election which Pearl Jam has engaged in as a band, and we feel it's the most important one of our lifetime." Eddie Vedder of Pearl Jam, www.pearljam.com "This is the most important election I can remember, at least since 1968." Al Franken, comedian, Minneapolis Star Tribune, July 8 "Christian Coalition of America believes this is the most important election in our nation's history." Press release, Aug. 24 "We share a belief that this is the most important election of our lifetime." Statement on Bruce Springsteen's Web site on the Vote for Change tour "My fellow Americans, this is the most important election of our lifetime." Senator John Kerry Democratic National Convention, July 29 "For that reason, ladies and gentlemen, the election of 2004 is one of the most important, not just in our lives, but in our history." Vice President Dick Cheney Republican National Convention on Wednesday Larry King: "Is this the most important election ever?" President Bush: "For me it is." "Larry King Live," Aug. 12 http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/05/weekinreview/05kuntz.html ---------------- On Being an American by H.L. Mencken (from Prejudices, Third Series (1922)) 4 All the while I have been forgetting the third of my reasons for remaining so faithful a citizen of the Federation, despite all the lascivious inducements from expatriates to follow them beyond the seas, and all the surly suggestions from patriots that I succumb. It is the reason which grows out of my mediaeval but unashamed taste for the bizarre and indelicate, my congenital weakness for comedy of the grosser varieties. The United States, to my eye, is incomparably the greatest show on earth. It is a show which avoids diligently all the kinds of clowning which tire me most quickly -- for example, royal ceremonials, the tedious hocus-pocus of haut politique, the taking of politics seriously -- and lays chief stress upon the kinds which delight me unceasingly -- for example, the ribald combats of demagogues, the exquisitely ingenious operations of master rogues, the pursuit of witches and heretics, the desperate struggles of inferior men to claw their way into Heaven. We have clowns in constant practice among us who are as far above the clowns of any other great state as a Jack Dempsey is above a paralytic -- and not a few dozen or score of them, but whole droves and herds. Human enterprises which, in all other Christian countries, are resigned despairingly to an incurable dullness -- things that seem devoid of exhilirating amusement, by their very nature -- are here lifted to such vast heights of buffoonery that contemplating them strains the midriff almost to breaking. I cite an example: the worship of God. Everywhere else on earth it is carried on in a solemn and dispiriting manner; in England, of course, the bishops are obscene, but the average man seldom gets a fair chance to laugh at them and enjoy them. Now come home. Here we not only have bishops who are enormously more obscene than even the most gifted of the English bishops; we have also a huge force of lesser specialists in ecclesiastical mountebankery -- tin-horn Loyolas, Savonarolas and Xaviers of a hundred fantastic rites, each performing untiringly and each full of a grotesque and illimitable whimsicality. Every American town, however small, has one of its own: a holy clerk with so fine a talent for introducing the arts of jazz into the salvation of the damned that his performance takes on all the gaudiness of a four-ring circus, and the bald announcement that he will raid Hell on such and such a night is enough to empty all the town blind- pigs and bordellos and pack his sanctuary to the doors. And to aid him and inspire him there are travelling experts to whom he stands in the relation of a wart to the Matterhorn -- stupendous masters of theological imbecility, contrivers of doctrines utterly preposterous, heirs to the Joseph Smith, Mother Eddy and John Alexander Dowie tradition -- Bryan, Sunday, and their like. These are the eminences of the American Sacred College. I delight in them. Their proceedings make me a happier American. Turn, now, to politics. Consider, for example, a campaign for the Presidency. Would it be possible to imagine anything more uproariously idiotic -- a deafening, nerve-wracking battle to the death between Tweedledum and Tweedledee, Harlequin and Sganarelle, Gobbo and Dr. Cook -- the unspeakable, with fearful snorts, gradually swallowing the inconceivable? I defy any one to match it elsewhere on this earth. In other lands, at worst, there are at least intelligible issues, coherent ideas, salient personalities. Somebody says something, and somebody replies. But what did Harding say in 1920, and what did Cox reply? Who was Harding, anyhow, and who was Cox? Here, having perfected democracy, we lift the whole combat to symbolism, to transcendentalism, to metaphysics. Here we load a pair of palpably tin cannon with blank cartridges charged with talcum power, and so let fly. Here one may howl over the show without any uneasy reminder that it is serious, and that some one may be hurt. I hold that this elevation of politics to the plane of undiluted comedy is peculiarly American, that no-where else on this disreputable ball has the art of the sham-battle been developed to such fineness... ... Here politics is purged of all menace, all sinister quality, all genuine significance, and stuffed with such gorgeous humors, such inordinate farce that one comes to the end of a campaign with one's ribs loose, and ready for "King Lear," or a hanging, or a course of medical journals. But feeling better for the laugh. Ridi si sapis, said Martial. Mirth is necessary to wisdom, to comfort, above all to happiness. Well, here is the land of mirth, as Germany is the land of metaphysics and France is the land of fornication. Here the buffoonery never stops. What could be more delightful than the endless struggle of the Puritan to make the joy of the minority unlawful and impossible? The effort is itself a greater joy to one standing on the side-lines than any or all of the carnal joys it combats. Always, when I contemplate an uplifter at his hopeless business, I recall a scene in an old- time burlesque show, witnessed for hire in my days as a dramatic critic. A chorus girl executed a fall upon the stage, and Rudolph Krausemeyer, the Swiss comdeian, rushed to her aid. As he stooped painfully to succor her, Irving Rabinovitz, the Zionist comedian, fetched him a fearful clout across the cofferdam with a slap-stick. So the uplifter, the soul-saver, the Americanizer, striving to make the Republic fit for Y.M.C.A. secretaries. He is the eternal American, ever moved by the best of intentions, ever running a la Krausemeyer to the rescue of virtue, and ever getting his pantaloons fanned by the Devil. I am naturally sinful, and such spectacles caress me. If the slap-stick were a sash-weight, the show would be cruel, and I'd probably complain to the Polizei. As it is, I know that the uplifter is not really hurt, but simply shocked. The blow, in fact, does him good, for it helps get him into Heaven, as exegetes prove from Matthew v, 11: Hereux serez-vous, lorsqu'on vous outragera, qu'on vous persecutera, and so on. As for me, it makes me a more contented man, and hence a better citizen. One man prefers the Republic because it pays better wages than Bulgaria. Another because it has laws to keep him sober and his daughter chaste. Another because the Woolworth Building is higher than the cathedral at Chartres. Another because, living here, he can read the New York Evening Journal. Another because there is a warrant out for him somewhere else. Me, I like it because it amuses me to my taste. I never get tired of the show. It is worth every cent it costs. That cost, it seems to me is very moderate. Taxes in the United States are not actually high. I figure, for example, that my private share of the expense of maintaining the Hon. Mr. Harding in the White House this year will work out to less than 80 cents. Try to think of better sport for the money: in New York it has been estimated that it costs $8 to get comfortably tight, and $17.50, on an average, to pinch a girl's arm. The United States Senate will cost me perhaps $11 for the year, but against that expense set the subscription price of the Congressional Record, about $15, which, as a journalist, I receive for nothing. For $4 less than nothing I am thus entertained as Solomon never was by his hooch dancers. Col. George Brinton McClellan Harvey costs me but 25 cents a year; I get Nicholas Murray Butler free. Finally, there is young Teddy Roosevelt, the naval expert. Teddy costs me, as I work it out, about 11 cents a year, or less than a cent a month. More, he entertains me doubly for the money, first as a naval expert, and secondly as a walking attentat upon democracy, a devastating proof that there is nothing, after all, in that superstition. We Americans subscribe to the doctrine of human equality - - and the Rooseveltii reduce it to an absurdity as brilliantly as the sons of Veit Bach. Where is your equal opportunity now? Here in this Eden of clowns, with the highest rewards of clowning theoretically open to every poor boy -- here in the very citadel of democracy we found and cherish a clown dynasty! From shovland at mindspring.com Mon Sep 6 14:36:17 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 07:36:17 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] CEO Confidence Index Drops Message-ID: <01C493E4.324907D0.shovland@mindspring.com> As Election Nears, Chief Executives Back Bush on the Issues. Drop in Employment Confidence Heralds Slow Job Growth. MONTVALE, N.J....As CEOs face the prospects of terror, spiraling health care costs, high oil prices and softness in consumer spending and job growth, their outlook on the U.S. economy has dipped this month. After reaching a record high in July, the benchmark CEO Confidence Index fell 7.7 points in August, to 169.7. Perhaps more concerning, for the eighth month in a row, chief executives believe that current business conditions are better than future conditions, in this case by a wide margin (186.9 vs. 158.0). Both the overall CEO Confidence Index and its component indices were initially set at 100 when Chief Executive magazine began its monthly polling of the mood in America's corner offices in October 2002. Despite these concerns, the CEOs surveyed this month by Chief Executive overwhelmingly support President Bush in his bid for re-election against Senator John Kerry. Asked which candidate would deal more effectively on eight key issues, from health care to terrorism to job creation and international trade, they said Bush on every account. The only issue where the polling was even close was health care, as 47.5% of the 358 respondents said they believed Kerry was better prepared to deal with it and 52.5 % backed Bush. The issues that produced the widest margins for Bush over Kerry among CEOs were terrorism/homeland security (82.7% vs. 17.3%) and taxation (81.9% vs. 18.1%). "John Kerry's proclamation that CEOs support him in large numbers is not at all born out by what our CEO readers are saying," says Edward M. Kopko, chairman and CEO of the Chief Executive Group. "On the issues, CEOs find Kerry politically calculating and they clearly believe President Bush is a stronger leader. " Over the past two years, the Employment Confidence Index has served as a leading indicator of U.S. employment levels, with typically a four-month lag between the two measures. This month, the Employment Confidence Index fell by 10.4 points, from 191.2 to 180.8. The polling was conducted prior to the release of the U.S. Department of Labor figures on job growth in July, which showed that job creation had slowed substantially. "Although many CEOs support Bush, at the same time they're deeply concerned about the nation's job picture and the fundamentals of global competition," says William J. Holstein, editor-in-chief of Chief Executive magazine. "They also say they don't see strong leadership on health care and education." The CEO Confidence Index is released on the third Tuesday of each month. For additional information regarding the confidence of public- and private-company CEOs, details about regional CEO attitudes on employment, investment and business conditions, as well as confidence differences between service and non-service industry CEOs, visit our full report at . Chief Executive is a controlled circulation magazine that reaches 42,000 chief executive officers and their peers. It is published 10 times a year and reaches a total readership of 143,000. Chief Executive Group facilitates "Chief Executive of the Year," a prestigious honor bestowed upon an outstanding corporate leader, nominated and selected by a group of his or her peers. Jack Welch, Bill Gates, John Chambers, Michael Dell and Sandy Weill are just some of the leaders who have been honored throughout the award's 17-year history. Chief Executive also organizes roundtable meetings and conferences to foster opportunities for top corporate officers to discuss key subjects and share their experiences within a community of peers. Visit www.chiefexecutive.net for more information. Chief Executive 110 Summit Avenue Montvale, NJ 07645 Tel: 201-930-5959 Fax: 201-930-5956 From shovland at mindspring.com Mon Sep 6 14:43:32 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 07:43:32 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] Battle Over Benefits Message-ID: <01C493E5.35578AE0.shovland@mindspring.com> CEOs are trying many initiatives to lower their companies' health care costs. But will it be enough? When Mark Gumz was named president of Olympus America, he decided to take a hard look at the company's spiraling health care costs. After discovering that the U.S. subsidiary of the Japanese camera company was spending far above the national average on health benefits, Gumz spent a year spearheading a series of initiatives, including instituting a no-smoking policy on the corporate campus, adopting wellness programs and overhauling employee benefits. "Our health care costs were out of control," he told CEOs gathered for a recent health care summit held by Chief Executive in partnership with the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association. "So we had a very tough year of restructuring the plan and explaining to employees why we were doing it." To mitigate potential damage to employee morale, Gumz held a series of town hall meetings to communicate the company's position and get as much empl oyee backing as possible. Such tales of drastic revamping efforts typically end with the happy report of slashed costs, but four years later health care costs at Olympus America have been flat for two years running. Is Gumz disappointed? Hardly. At a time when double-digit increases in health care costs are the norm, he counts it a victory. "Last year, the average company saw costs climb by 14 percent," he said. "So we're very pleased to have not had an increase for two years straight." The key question is how many CEOs can tame their companies' health care cost explosion? Clearly, the strategies they are currently pursuing can do only so much. A growing number of companies, for example, provide wellness programs that educate workers about healthier lifestyles and offer financial incentives for behavior thought to prevent or effectively manage health issues. But employees aren't always receptive to health awareness and disease management programs, said John McConnell, CEO of Ohio-based Worthington Industries, which offers financial credits to employees who participate in those kinds of programs. "In almost all of these plans," he noted, "it's hard to drive employees beyond a 20 percent participation rate." Even when participation is high, programs such as smoking cessation and weight reduction offer only short-term relief from rising costs. "I would challenge whether these wellness and prevention programs truly have had an impact," said David Klein, president and CEO of Excellus Blue Cross and Blue Shield in Rochester, N.Y. "For the most part, what you see is a shift for a few years and then the curve comes right back up." Other initiatives aim to connect end consumers, or employees, more directly with the price of health care to encourage more cost-conscious choices. "We're trying to make people true consumers," explained Tom May, CEO of NSTAR, an electric and gas utility equipment maker in Boston. "Let's face it, if you only pay a $5 to $10 co-pay to see a doctor, you don't really think about that purchase." Toward that end, some companies increase copayments and health-care deductibles or adopt consumer-driven health care plans that combine high-deductible health insurance policies with health savings accounts or health reimbursement accounts that roll over from year to year. Others, concerned about the potential impact on employee loyalty, stop short of implementing wholesale changes to their benefits structures. "We're looking at HSAs and other ways to increase the level of coverage and care that we're providing to employees as well as to inject some real economics into it," said William Mitchell, CEO of Arrow Electronics in Melville, N.Y. "But we've had large debates around the [impact on employee morale] with no real results." Such efforts must walk a fine line: encouraging employees to make wise decisions without discouraging them from seeking necessary care, said Scott Serota, CEO of Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association in Chicago. "If you fund an HSA and tell employees that if they don't spend that $3,000 on health care they can carry it forward, they may not do the preventive care that they should," he said. "Or if an individual has to pay 30 percent because you restructured your benefits, he may choose not to get an MRI that he would have otherwise gotten. If it turns out he needed it, he ends up in the emergency room and we all pay." Similarly, efforts to pass on some of the cost of benefits by asking for employee contributions can lead to employees opting out of coverage altogether. "We have terrible participation," reported John Shalam, CEO of Audiovox, whose company switched from carrying 100 percent of medical program costs to requiring employees to contribute toward health care benefits. At salaries of below $21,000, we have 4 percent participation; below $50,000, it's about 7 percent; and above $50,000, it's around 9 percent. We need to step that up desperately, but we're not sure how to handle it." Ultimately, CEOs by themselves may not be able to do enough to get a grip on health care costs. "Most of the solutions from an employer perspective are just rearranging the deck chairs," Serota argued. "It's about, 'Instead of me paying for health care, I'm going to make my employee or the government pay.' But we have to get at the fundamental drivers. We have to look at how health care is delivered as well as how we pay for it." Although touted as the best in the world, America's health care system is plagued by inefficiencies and a dearth of quality-of-care information. In medical care today, free market rules of competing on efficiency and quality simply don't apply, said Steve Martin, CEO of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Nebraska. "When no one manages supply and a new hospital specializing in heart care opens, competing facilities simply raise their prices to make up the lost revenue," he explained. Supplier-induced demand is also viewed as a major cost culprit. When consumers flock to their physicians demanding the latest acid reflux drug, what percentage of the resulting prescriptions reflect need rather than the effect of the latest ad campaign? If a new piece of medical equipment comes into the community and suddenly the number of scans being prescribed shoots up, is the bump attributable to real health issues-or a need to pay off the investment? The other reality is that health care delivery is a local or regional phenomenon and in each case the economics are different. The relative bargaining power of hospitals and other providers varies. In some markets, alliances have given health care providers the clout to dictate prices, said Anita Smith, CEO of Capital Blue Cross. "We don't have a lot of competition in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania," Smith said. "So providers have bought out each other and have networked, and they now have more of a base to impose increases." That means some solutions to the quality-versus-cost issues must be regional. "Rather than a one-size-fits-all approach, it involves a patchwork quilt-different solutions in Nebraska, in Western Massachusetts and in Upstate New York," said Excellus Blue Cross and Blue Shield's Klein, who noted that many large companies are ill-equipped to tackle solutions from a community-by-community standpoint. "Most companies large enough to have the resources to throw at this have, at best, a plant manager in a local area who's worried about running a production line or a distribution center," he said. "How do you take that person off-line and get them engaged in the disintermediation of area hospitals? Companies are not structured in the right way to create the power base to affect the types of changes we need." Regional Remedies Still, encouraging progress has been made in some communities. In Rochester, for example, a Community Technology Assessment Advisory Board comprised of business and community leaders and health care providers, including doctors and hospital representatives, review new medical technologies or treatments and make recommendations about when they should be introduced and how much capacity is necessary. "During the years this has been around, there's never been a situation where the advice was not accepted," said Klein, noting that similar systems are emerging in Syracuse and Buffalo to limit spiraling costs by avoiding overcapacity. "It's a local coalition coming together to say, 'We're not going to overbuild. We will have programs to attract enough doctors and nurses and community formularies so that we can begin to do volume purchasing.'" Larger markets where four or more health care delivery systems compete, such as New York, Chicago, Atlanta and Dallas, however, will require a more information-centric approach. Ideally, an open market would reward providers who offer the best quality care in the most efficient manner. "But we have lousy cost and quality information today," Klein said, adding that data will have to be compiled and disseminated for consumers to make more informed decisions. Given the privacy protection afforded to America's health care consumers through the HIPAA Privacy Regulation that went into effect in 2003, that could take a while. "North America, the hub of capitalism, has an extraordinary challenge," said Sir William Castell, CEO of GE Healthcare, noting that the mandates on privacy that apply to providers, plans and others involved in U.S. health care hamper information sharing. "We'll be looking at efficiency in the treatment of disease at the macro level in Europe very shortly. That is something you won't be able to do in North America, where the concept of individual privacy mitigates the way we can draw upon clinical IT data." Uncovering Issues While promising, community-based initiatives and quality and cost data are just two pieces of a larger health care puzzle. Myriad other issues must also be addressed, and they are beyond the power of individual CEOs. Fueled by rampant litigation and breathtaking jury awards, medical malpractice insurance premiums have skyrocketed-a cost reflected in rising prices from care providers. Concern over litigation also spurs "defensive medicine," or physicians whose fear of lawsuits leads to unnecessary tests, and dissuades doctors in the more litigious areas of practice from opening offices in some markets. A nationwide epidemic, medical litigation is particularly problematic in "judicial hellholes," as the American Tort Reform Association refers to cities, counties or judicial districts notorious for awarding plaintiffs astronomical sums. The American Medical Association has declared a state of emergency for 18 states where few if any controls have been implemented to cap jury awards. Beyond driving costs up, litigation can drive health care providers out of a market, reported NSTAR's May. "Tort reform is something that we have to go after on a national basis," he asserted. "We can't get obstetric gynecologists to set up practice in Massachusetts, because the malpractice premium is $200,000. How do you get a kid out of medical school to come up with $200,000 to practice delivering babies?" Business leaders also question the toll that fraud takes on health care costs (see sidebar, facing page), and what can be done to cut down on abuses. "As a consumer you wonder what effect the fraudulent parts of this puzzle wind up costing," noted Harry Gould, CEO of Gould Paper. "A more concerted effort to stop that kind of chicanery may help reduce costs, which will help all of us." While virtually all agree that workable solutions are hard to come by, consensus is building that addressing inequities in the system may mean lobbying for government action. "It's very important for us, as business leaders, to have expectations of both the federal government and the state government," said William Van Faasen, CEO of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts, who notes that under the current system, private companies are subsidizing care for the growing population of retired Americans. "We can't have Medicare and Medicaid continue to underpay and rely on the private commercial market to subsidize their obligations and think we can solve this problem." Frustration over the rapid rise of prescription drug prices also has traditionally anti-government intervention CEOs humming a new tune. "The pharmaceutical industry has done a good job of saying that prices support R&D, but why does the U.S. have to subsidize everyone else?" asked Worthington Industries' McConnell, who argued that pharmaceutical companies make price concessions to foreign countries on costly drug therapies, but continue to charge sky-high prices in the U.S. Drug companies counter that price concessions are a necessary evil of doing business in foreign countries. "The French government negotiates prices and will just deny access to the market the same way China denies technology companies access to their markets," said William Manning, CEO of Manning & Napier Advisors, an investment advisory firm based in Rochester, N.Y. While conceding that price discrepancies are an important issue, GE's Castell argued that America benefits from the less regulated environment it offers drug makers. "We don't want yesterday's technology-we want the best possible health care," he said. "And because prices in most other areas of the world are regulated, the industry has, not surprisingly, moved to North America, which has been a real boost to research and development in this country." But with drug costs adding to the health care tab, irritation is on the rise. In 2003, American companies footed more than $70 billion in pharmacy benefit costs and, following eight years of double-digit increases, saw drug bills rise by 9.1 percent-hefty enough to have some CEOs longing for public intervention. "Pharmaceuticals will be opening the door for the government foot," said McConnell. "And it will come in, because people like me who love free markets will be demanding it from my representatives." Ultimately, no single effort will cure the ailing health care system. It will take the combined efforts of leaders in the health care industry and the business community, working on local and national levels, to deliver a "solution cocktail" that will move companies from simply coping with the health care conundrum to finally resolving it. Collaboration is Key To get more bang for its research buck, GE Healthcare is working with insurers to make sure products in development will merit reimbursement. Innovation can both address cost issues and transform health care, according to Sir William Castell, CEO of GE Healthcare, who talked to Chief Executive about shifts in medical research practices. You have said communications with health-care insurers are changing the way GE Healthcare handles the clinical trial process. How does that work? Historically, we have identified what we feel are the right products to develop and then moved onto reimbursement. We're now talking to the insurers in the U.S. in advance of FDA trials to see if they feel the products we have under development will be useful. So rather than using our own market skills to say we think this product has good clinical niche to fulfill, we say, "Let's make sure the people who are actually paying for the product will see it as a product they will reimburse and therefore endorse." Have discussions with insurers changed the way you approach the development of diagnostic tools and treatments? We have certainly changed prioritization as a result. There are some products that are much less near the top in terms of clinical development as a result of these discussions. I can't say we have actually dropped products. I think we are getting to the stage where, through discussion, we are just much more focused now on innovation that will bring both patient benefit and efficiency to the health care system. For example, we have a product in the area of clinical heart failure that came out of that partnership deliberation. We had good discussion with insurers in the U.S. and are now developing as rapidly as possible a product that will adequately differentiate the types of cardiac failure and, therefore, better describes the appropriate therapy. That is an important development that we think will make significant improvements in both the diagnosis and efficiency of health care in chronic cardiac failure. Do you feel comfortable with insurers taking a role in determining which medical innovations get developed? U.S. legislation has to an extent coped with what we call orphan drugs, or therapeutic products that have a relatively low incidence within the population. There is no point in us developing products that are not felt to be sufficiently effective to qualify for reimbursement. I am not aware of any product for which we felt there was a real clinical need that we couldn't find reimbursement for or acceptance of, so we have broken our way through that barrier. You mentioned that Europe will soon begin looking at the efficacy of health care treatments on a macro level. How? And what will be done with the information? The U.K. government, working through the Medical Research Council and the Wellcome Trust, have established the UK Biobank where 500,000 citizens are being genotyped and followed for the next 15 years. It is also the first major government attempting to digitize health care. For the first time we will have a patient community significant enough to look at disease development and relate it both to genetics and the environment people are living in. It will not happen overnight, but the combination of that research work plus the development of electronic medical records will allow us to have the mechanism for both capturing and analyzing data about the diseases occurring and the therapies being prescribed. Those will be fascinating studies. We may start to see early results within 12 to 14 years, and we will see it becoming a new way of looking at health care in the next 20 to 30 years. How do you see genetic knowledge or innovations in diagnostics or treatments transforming the industry? We see more and more articles indicating that if you have a specific gene mutation you are more likely to develop certain diseases, or if your genes are switched on or off you metabolize [chemicals] differently. So we are seeing the importance of genes in the way we process life. That will become a much more critical part of how we deal with the complexity of the body. We will evolve ways to use that information to create a better quality of life and a more cost-effective and safer life because we will be able to better select therapies that work, for their efficacy, and to deselect them for their likely side effects. Over the next 20 years I think we will see society debate how we should use that data and how it should be communicated. There is no doubt that genetics can become an extraordinary instrument in determining how we get the best quality of life and greater efficiency in the provision of medicine. The Fraud Factor Health care fraud is an $85 billion problem. But CEOs can help fight it. Between August 2002 and April 2003, an estimated 5,000 people reportedly underwent unnecessary surgeries at a California outpatient center. Recruited by "surgery coyotes," recent immigrants were promised cash payments for receiving unnecessary and invasive medical treatment, such as circumcision, removal of sweat glands, and colonoscopy procedures. The price tag? An estimated $97 million in fraudulent insurance claims. The scam ranks as one of the most egregious, and inhumane, examples of insurance fraud. But it's only one of many kinds of abuse contributing to the rising costs of health care, says Scott Serota, president and CEO of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association. "Every day there are unnecessary actions taken that end up costing all of us millions of dollars," says Serota. "And every dollar taken by some con artist is a dollar not available for necessary life-saving treatments, drugs, research or emergency services." Fraud typically involves billing for medical services that were not provided, misrepresenting services or providing unnecessary treatment. But pharmaceutical fraud is also on the rise, with drugs being diverted for illegal use or street sales. To combat the problem, the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association recently created the "BCBS Anti-Fraud Strike Force," composed of a team of investigators from 11 of its 41 plans around the country. The team will help facilitate investigation of multi-jurisdictional cases, sharing of best practices, and faster response to fraud alerts. Consumers, too, play a role in fighting fraud. In 2003, nearly 3,200 consumer reports of suspected fraud that were received through Blue Plan consumer hot lines resulted in investigations. In an effort to expand on that success, the company recently launched a national hot line number and a web site where consumers can report concerns. The bad news is that fraud is an $85 billion problem today, says Serota. "The good news is there are things we can do," he suggests. "As CEOs we can start by creating a corporate culture that won't tolerate fraud." From shovland at mindspring.com Mon Sep 6 14:45:41 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 07:45:41 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] Harnessing Innovation Message-ID: <01C493E5.8240DFA0.shovland@mindspring.com> http://www.chiefexecutive.net/depts/innovation/201.htm Last September, Intel Capital, the venture arm of Intel, invested $2 million in a relatively unknown Japanese battery technology company named Pionics. While a tiny amount for the giant $30 billion chipmaker, the investment has proven to be highly strategic. Since then, engineers have huddled in R&D labs in Japan and Silicon Valley, together figuring out how to double the battery life of PDAs and notebook PCs. Their research could very well lead to the next breakthrough for Intel. Indeed, Intel's highly successful new Centrino chip was partly inspired by a $50 million Intel Capital investment in U.K.-based Cambridge Silicon Radio, a pioneer in short-range wireless communications. Through that investment four years ago, Intel got "early knowledge of what was going on in wireless, which helped to shape the strategy for the Centrino chip," says Claude Leglise, vice president at Intel Capital in Santa Clara, Calif. The Centrino chip, which provides wireless access and improved battery performance on lighter, slimmer notebooks, helped Intel increase its market share lead by nearly 3 percent, to 88.1 percent in mobile PC microprocessors, according to International Data Group, and accounted for 25 percent of Intel revenues last year. Leading cell phone maker Nokia and huge Japanese trading company Itochu also are relying on in-house venture units to spot new technology and improve their balance sheets, supplementing research and development departments in an economical way. At its most ideal, corporate venture groups help to fund a startup firm's technology through the laborious and costly testing and prototype stage until the startup can be acquired at a low valuation when it needs capital for expansion. During the recent tech downturn, many corporate venture units got the ax, as companies hunkered down and focused sharply on cost cutting. Among those shut down were Compaq Computer and Commerce One. But while corporate VC peaked in 2000, it still accounts for one-fourth of the 169 venture deals and one-sixth of the $18 billion in venture spending last year, according to the National Venture Capital Association in Washington (see chart). And it appears to have stabilized at those still very significant levels. "The ones (corporate venturers) who are in there now are the ones who are committed, the ones who were there prior to the big run-up," says John Taylor, director of research at the National Venture Capital Association. He cites Intel, Nokia, Kodak, SmithKline and Softbank as being some of the major worldwide players in corporate VC. Avoiding Bureaucracy Moreover, with CEOs these days debating ways to achieve top-line growth through innovation, corporate venturing shapes up as an important avenue. The reason is that some internal R&D operations can become overly bureaucratic and therefore are slower to market. Smaller companies often come up with great ideas but lack the resources to commercialize them. So when a major company can identify and provide funding for those innovations, it can later benefit by becoming a major customer for the smaller entity. It may also decide to buy the company outright, or can simply remain invested as part of a financial portfolio strategy. At Nokia, an entire new division, Nokia Enterprise Solutions, was created from investments made by Nokia Ventures Organization. Over a typically Finnish seafood lunch at Nokia's R&D campus on the outskirts of Helsinki, director Jyrki Rosenberg explains that the venture group is comprised of six units with an overall budget that amounts to 9 percent of Nokia's total revenues of $36.2 billion. This entity was patched together from two prior investments by the venture group: Nokia One, a provider of mobile email access, and Nokia Internet Communications, a supplier of security systems and private networks. These groups were then combined with a unit selling Nokia phones to businesses. A departure for Nokia, the enterprise solutions group is geared to selling mobile phones, email services and security systems to the faster-growth business sector, and its products compete with Oracle, Hewlett-Packard and Microsoft rather than with traditional rivals such as Motorola, Ericsson and Samsung. Business communications services are growing by more than 40 percent per year, according to research firm IDG, while cell phone sales have stagnated. One of four major divisions now, the enterprise solutions group reported revenues of $234 million in Nokia's first quarter 2004, representing a growth rate of 95 percent compared with the first quarter of '03. That was a much-needed boost, given overall sales were down by 2 percent last year and by the same percent for this year's first quarter. Continuing to leverage the new division, Nokia recently hired Hewlett-Packard veteran Mary McDowell as head of the enterprise unit and moved the operation to New York from Helsinki to be closer to business customers. Itochu, too, is fueling its growth with investments from an internal venture group. One star is MeshNetworks, a wireless networking firm funded by Itochu Technology last year with a mere $1 million. Itochu set up its Japanese business under a licensing agreement and today MeshNetworks Japan is wholly owned by Itochu, with a $2 million contract to supply Japan's transport system with information needed during traffic jams, accidents and natural disasters. "One of the strengths of our group is that we are not only a VC group, but a support to Itochu technology," says Kazuhiko "Bob" Sunada, president and CEO of Itochu Technology in Santa Clara. "We get good access to technology from the startup community, so we don't just look at this as a return on investment." In-the-know CEOs are maintaining or even increasing support for their venture units, economic downturn or not. This year's budget at the 100-person Intel Capital is $700 million, twice as much as the year before, says Leglise. Meanwhile, Intel's R&D spending is also rising, up to $4.4 billion last year from $3.1 billion in 1999. CEO Craig Barrett leads the innovation charge, noting recently in a speech at the Intel Developer Forum for hardware and software developers that "Intel has always invested heavily during the downturns as a way to continue to innovate and emerge from the downturn stronger than before." Intel's investments act as a kind of early warning radar system, allowing it to peer into promising technologies across a variety of businesses. "Because we have a portfolio of 350 companies, we do get a fair amount of knowledge about worldwide technological developments, and we are able to synthesize that learning and bring it back to the engineers to influence their long-term thinking," says Leglise, who travels frequently to Bangalore, Shanghai and other innovation hot spots in search of entrepreneurs to back. With Silicon Valley "not the only center of innovation" and with "world class centers of excellence with different market needs for different countries," he says, it helps to have that broad spectrum. Leglise, who is on the road about half of the time, oversees Intel's venture investments outside the U.S., which began in 1998 and now account for 40 percent of the group's investments. Among the markets he cites for innovation are Japan, for semiconductor manufacturing technology, consumer electronics and cellular applications; Korea, for broadband applications and information technology networks; the U.K., for wireless capabilities; and China, for adapting technology for unique local needs, such as the low-cost mobile phone PAS technology made popular by UT Starcom. At the best corporate venture units such as Intel, Nokia and Itochu, the groups not only stimulate new product innovation but also can be a profit center and fund their own initiatives. Much as with a typical venture capital firm, investments in startups lead to money-making small businesses that provide a return on investment when merged, acquired or taken public on NASDAQ or another exchange. Acting Like a VC Intel's Leglise has no trouble ticking off successes from his group: Cisco's acquisition of Israeli startup Riverhead Networks in April for $39 million; a "good financial return" from the acquisition of European-leading Linux provider, Suse Linux, to Novell last November; and a "good IPO in London" when Cambridge Silicon Radio, a maker of silicon chips for bluetooth-enabled wireless devices, went public on the London Stock Exchange in February. "We look for the same good returns as a VC," says Leglise. Just like any good venture firm, Intel is not afraid to make a mistake either. "If you don't make mistakes, you are not taking enough risks," he says. "We are not worried about making mistakes, but about discovery of an incredible amount of technology talent." Nokia has taken an extra step into the venture world by setting up in Silicon Valley a unit called Nokia Venture Partners. It operates like a venture capital firm with outside limited partners or investors, including Goldman Sachs. From a $650 million fund, Nokia's venture arm has made some 30 investments since it was formed five years ago, with its biggest success coming with the acquisition of portfolio company PayPal to eBay in late 2002 for $1.5 billion. Tucked in a nondescript office suite along the Great American Parkway in Santa Clara, Itochu Technology has invested an average of $2 million in 90 U.S. technology companies and achieved an impressive 45 percent return on these investments since 1994. About 30 percent of the companies it has invested in have gone public, while another 40 percent were acquired. Among the success stories are Siebel Systems (an IPO in 1996 with a 47-times return on an investment made in 1995); Openwave (merged in 1999 with phone.com); Nvidia (public listing in 1999 with a 114 percent return on a 1994 investment); and Recourse Technologies (acquired in 2002 by Symantec at a 300 percent return on a deal financed in 2001). The firm, like most other venturers in Silicon Valley, has not escaped writing off an investment or two, admitted Takashi Kameda, vice president, venture investment. With lots of startups looking for financial support in the Valley, Itochu has its pick of information technology companies and looks at several hundred potential deals each year. Last year, Itochu backed five companies, all of them hungry for Japanese sales to offset sluggish U.S. growth in the large Japanese IT market. Currently, Itochu sees opportunities for U.S. high-tech companies in Japan and Asia in four areas: wireless, security, storage and broadband. But Itochu's "secret sauce" is in helping its investees break into the Japanese market. Through the trading firm's 1,500 salespeople in Japan, Itochu gets firsthand market intelligence about consumer trends. The Itochu team then assesses how ready a portfolio company is for Japan and how ready the Japanese market is for their product. If it looks like a go, then Itochu counsels the firm on market strategy and introduces the management to Itochu distributors. Itochu earns money on these "finds" by entering into reseller licensing agreements with the U.S. firms. Itochu also negotiates distribution agreements and handles export regulation and tax paperwork. "We are able to see growth in certain market sectors, and we help firms to develop the Japan market. It would be very hard for them to do it on their own," says Kameda. He adds, "For U.S. companies that are not shipping their own product to Japanese markets, we make $100 million annually in revenues for shipping their product." Of course, winning the game of corporate VC isn't easy. CEOs who go down this path have to make sure their investment managers are more than just money people; they have to be sophisticated enough to understand the implication of new technologies for the company's core businesses. CEOs also must be prepared for the corporate VC unit to have a sizeable budget that may not produce immediate results for the bottom line. It can take three to five years before viable products are developed. But the evidence seems unmistakable: Corporate VC can yield powerful results. From shovland at mindspring.com Mon Sep 6 17:12:33 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 10:12:33 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] Letter to CEO magazine Message-ID: <01C493FA.06F01180.shovland@mindspring.com> -----Original Message----- From: Steve [SMTP:shovland at mindspring.com] Sent: Monday, September 06, 2004 8:02 AM To: 'wholstein at chiefexecutive.net' Subject: Decline in CEO confidence What CEO's may not understand is that the problems that are undermining their confidence are in part a function of the current maldistribution of personal income. Over the last 10 years or so the top 20% of Americans have seen increases in their share of personal income at the expense of 80% of Americans. You can verify this by looking at the census data. These changes in domestic distribution of income have been exacerbated by the shift of personal income overseas through out-sourcing. The result has been a reduced capability to buy goods and services on the part of many Americans, which is causing the stagnation of sales and ultimately of profits and stock values that CEO's are worrying about. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net From shovland at mindspring.com Mon Sep 6 21:12:18 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 14:12:18 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] Brain damage from bypass surgery Message-ID: <01C4941B.85872170.shovland@mindspring.com> http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0815/is_2001_March/ai_71198910 The memory loss and other cognitive problems long known to result from coronary-artery bypass surgery are often minimized by heart surgeons as merely transient problems. Mark F. Newman, MD and colleagues at Duke University Medical Center, however, have conducted the first study to show that for a substantial minority who undergo this operation, mental impairment will recur years later. Their findings were published last month in The New England Journal of Medicine (2/8/01). The 261 study participants were given mental tests before undergoing bypass surgery at Duke between 1989 and 1993. Their average age was 60 years at the time of surgery, and most were men. All were tested again at discharge from the hospital, at six weeks, six months, and five years. The incidence of cognitive decline was 53% at discharge, 36% at six weeks, 24% at six months, and 42% at five years. Their problems ranged from concentration difficulties to stroke. The people showing cognitive deficits at discharge were also the people most likely to have the problem at five years. "Long-term cognitive changes after [bypass surgery] have received less attention, despite common reports by patients that they are 'just not the same' after surgery," wrote Ola A. Selnes, PhD, and Guy M. McKhann, MD in an editorial that accompanied the study. They describe the changes as subtle, involving problems following directions, mental arithmetic, and planning complex actions. They note that there is still much to be learned about the mechanisms of late cognitive decline after bypass surgery. The suspected route of brain damage is the heart-lung machine. During surgery, the patients blood is circulated through this machine picking up air bubbles along the way. The bubbles may block the blood flow through the tiny vessels of the cranium, killing brain cells. According to another theory, tiny fragments of diseased aorta dislodged during surgery are circulated through the heart-lung machine, migrating to the brain, blocking blood flow, and causing strokes. Dr. Newman and colleagues acknowledged the weaknesses of their study. For example, all elderly people tend to show cognitive deficits with age; and their study lacked participants who did not undergo bypass surgery for comparison purposes. Still, the cognitive decline that normally occurs with aging is gradual, and the investigators say that their findings show that bypass surgery is an additional factor. More than 500,000 coronary-artery bypass operations are performed yearly in the U.S. Though there has been substantial drop in the death rate due to improvements in surgical and anesthetic techniques, according to the Duke investigators, the incidence of cognitive decline has changed little over the past 15 years. COPYRIGHT 2001 Center for Medical Consumers, Inc. COPYRIGHT 2001 Gale Group From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Mon Sep 6 21:59:27 2004 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 14:59:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Paleopsych] The Politics of Branding In-Reply-To: <200409061801.i86I18011455@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20040906215927.41603.qmail@web13422.mail.yahoo.com> The Politics of Branding By Andrew MacDougall Digital Journal ? The good ship Democrat has pulled into Boston for the Kerry coronation, which means the world will soon be treated to a healthy dose of ?Bush is a corporate stooge and unilateralist-cowboy? agitprop. In real-time, Republican spin masters will fire off a countering salvo of ?Kerry is a Brahmin with flip-flopper rhetoric.? Continuing the descent, the Democrats will levy a tablespoon of ?Cheney is a warmonger bagman,? to which the GOP will respond with a pinch of ?Edwards is a pretty-boy ambulance-chaser.? Welcome to the age of politics through branding. In a shift from corporate advertising, politicians have chosen to brand their opponents. A stop at the official websites of either campaign will make you dizzy from all of the spin. After all, if you're continually framing the other guy, you can avoid telling people about yourself. In today's political climate, that's a good thing. ... The real damage of branding our politics emerges when we realize that the issues facing today's world cannot be distilled into handy all-encompassing slogans. I didn't fully realize that myself until 9/11. While the rubble was still smoldering, I went out and bought a dozen books about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, about Islam, and about U.S. foreign policy. I wanted to learn why and how this happened. Here's what I found out: The world is gray. It's not as easy as "the U.S. is the problem"; or "Islam is the problem"; or "poverty is the problem"; or "globalization is the problem". While I'm confident any member of my generation could tell you who Paris Hilton is dating this week or what movie is number one at the box office, I'm not confident my generation could summarize the last 70 years of Iraqi history ? although that doesn't seem to stop us from espousing an opinion on the current situation. We need to put the gossip rags down, roll up our sleeves, pull out our reading glasses, and do some homework. After all, propaganda and spin are less likely to work if you have a broad base of knowledge. Most of us aren't blessed by being an economics major with a minor in international affairs. Most of us don't even read the front section of the paper every day. Instead we form our opinions with the help of polemicists and media magicians like Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh ? people who are under no obligation to produce a balanced opinion. We're the ones who vote people in. We must demand better. Wait, that's catchy. Wasn't that the latest Conservative campaign slogan? I had better change it to something cooler. http://www.digitaljournal.com/news/?articleID=4096 __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From shovland at mindspring.com Tue Sep 7 03:55:28 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 20:55:28 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] The Politics of Branding Message-ID: <01C49453.D7235570.shovland@mindspring.com> When, after a prolonged struggle, I decided to live in the real world, I decided to build my own brand and become skilled a writing sound bites :-) Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net From pkurakin at yahoo.com Tue Sep 7 07:51:17 2004 From: pkurakin at yahoo.com (Pavel Kurakin) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 00:51:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Paleopsych] Jaak--is the lab an antique tool? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040907075117.30659.qmail@web53406.mail.yahoo.com> Hi all. Let me inform you that Russian mathematician Vyacheslav I. Aldoniasov is on the way in modelling of twins crash at 11\09\2001. I don't possess all the information on his results, but I only know he argues that twins could NOT burn and crash due to aicraft hits. HowlBloom at aol.com wrote: But, Jaak, the lab is not the solution, it's the problem. The lab is too limited to catch most of what human behavior is about. It is too limited to catch the mas passions that make a Hitler, an Osama Bin Laden, a Beethoven, a Shakespeare, a Winston Churchill, or an FDR. It is too limited to assess whether the CIA and the Mossad destroyed the world trade center or whether al qaeda did it. If al qaida was the culprit, the lab is too limited to tell us what to do next--what to do to defend our civilization from collapse. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shovland at mindspring.com Tue Sep 7 08:44:20 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 01:44:20 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] Jaak--is the lab an antique tool? Message-ID: <01C4947C.3383FCC0.shovland@mindspring.com> One wonders whether anecdotal information can be raised to something more like science? Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net From checker at panix.com Tue Sep 7 15:53:47 2004 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 11:53:47 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Paleopsych] NYT: Working Long Hours? Take a Massage Break, Courtesy of Your Boss Message-ID: Working Long Hours? Take a Massage Break, Courtesy of Your Boss New York Times, 4.9.7 By BENEDICT CAREY Through the tropics of mid-August, Michael Maccari, a men's clothing executive, was at it 10 to 12 hours a day, fretting over the details of an imminent holiday shipment to stores, the fittings for the spring 2005 lines and the designs for next fall - three seasons, three sets of deadlines. But right now, at lunch hour on a Wednesday, the deadlines were dissolving beneath a gentle tide of deep breathing. Dressed in a T-shirt and shorts, Mr. Maccari joined 14 colleagues who were arrayed across the floor of a large conference room, holding the downward-facing-dog position, an upside-down V, with their rear ends in the air, arms and legs straight, as if they were playing a game of Twister. "Think of something you can let go of," said the yoga instructor, Margi Young. "Something, or some way, you could be doing less." The company, Armani Exchange, offers this yoga and meditation class free to help employees relax, reduce stress and recharge during the middle of the week. Similar classes are now familiar in workplaces across the country, from old-line firms like AT&T to New Economy outfits like Yahoo. About 20 percent of employers have some kind of dedicated stress-reduction program in place, surveys find, and corporate spending has helped fuel what is an $11.7-billion-a-year-and-growing stress management industry, according to estimates by Marketdata Enterprises, a market analyst in Tampa, Fla. But as the menu of techniques expands to include not only chair and table massages but practices like tai chi, feng shui ("wind and water") and energy dances, the trend has prompted some experts to ask how effective the popular programs are, and whose interests they serve. They wonder if the effects are lasting or just provide a brief break in an ever-longer day. And wouldn't some employees really prefer a raise to a massage? Researchers are finding, among other things, that the benefits of stress reduction programs are generally short-lasting, and may be as useful to a demanding employer as they are to stressed-out workers. All agree that, in part, the courses have sprung up in reaction to the enormous shifts in the nature of work itself, the kaleidoscopic flow of electronic information, the way work obligations have pushed like a climbing vine into almost every corner of private life. "The sheer diversity of hours people are working is just startling," said Dr. Harriet Presser, a University of Maryland sociologist whose book "Working in a 24/7 Economy" (Russell Sage Foundation, 2003) explores the social and physical effects of commercial activity that depends on people working at all hours of the day and night. "For some people, like dual wage earners with kids," she added, "the sleep deprivation adds to the stress and it's like they are never, ever away" from work. But researchers say companies' interest in stress gurus and breathing lessons has as much to do with pushing workers as it does with real, sustained stress reduction. The programs took off in the expanding economy of the late 1990's, experts say, when the labor market was tight, and workers' compensation suits claiming damage from stress were on the rise. "These stress programs were a part of the concierge services that companies were using at that time so that employees didn't notice how many hours they were working," said Dr. Peter Cappelli, a professor of management and director of the Center for Human Resources at Wharton School of Business in Philadelphia, "and they held over since then." It does not take an M.B.A. to understand why. After his hour of yoga and meditation, Mr. Maccari said: "It's not that different from going to therapy, the way I see it. It takes one hour of your time, and youre mind is clear, and you approach the rest of the day in a completely different way." Meditation usually makes people feel, well, meditative. The downward-facing dog certainly beats jumping like a circus dog for a demanding boss. For those who like it, acupuncture can be a godsend. And even lobsters relax when given a massage (their eye stalks go limp). Dr. Lawrence Murphy, a psychologist at the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health who has done extensive reviews of the research, says studies of workplace stress reduction typically pick up the immediate effect of the technique in question. Massages relieves stress when stress is determined by measuring muscle tightness. Meditation appears psychologically soothing when people are answering questionnaires about how calm they feel after the classes. In a 2001 analysis of 48 studies of occupational stress reduction programs, Dutch researchers came to the same conclusion: Courses teaching meditation, acceptance and letting go provide mild relief, at least in terms of what participants report after having taken the classes. But the effects are short-lived, said Dr. Murphy, unless people make the yoga or meditation a part of a regular, or even daily, routine, and ideally combine it with some other activity, like jogging or massage. For anyone with a spare hour or two in the day, or who is living comfortably off interest income, this regimen might make sense. For those whose daily lives demand a mental jujitsu with competing appointments and deadlines, however, a tai chi class becomes just that: another appointment, another deadline. "I love the yoga class, but I just can't get to it anymore; I'm running all day," said Wendy Rothman, a public relations officer at Armani Exchange. Time is what most stressed people crave, of course, and this is where mind-body relaxation techniques can backfire. While a lunchtime course may add quiet space to a workday, it can also prime people to put in longer hours. John Sheehey, a business consultant based near San Francisco, had acupuncture for six months while working long hours in Los Angeles. "Finally, my acupuncturist said, 'Hey, all I'm doing is tuning you up so you can keep running longer.' I think if your tendency is to be a workaholic, it just enables you to do that. If stress is a warning system that you're about to burn out, all you're doing is overriding it so you can stay in the game." Some providers of stress reduction services acknowledge this effect, said Holden Zalma, the chief executive of Metatouch, a massage therapy practice in Culver City, Calif., whose clients have included Earthlink, eToys and other technology companies. "We got them all addicted to massage in the 90's; it was wonderful," he said. "But we were very clear that we were not going to fix the stress problem, we were only going to patch it." The one workplace stress-reduction technique that seems to outperform all others in preventing the buildup of stress - rather than reducing symptoms temporarily - is a form of counseling called cognitive therapy. In these classes, people learn to challenge the sort of assumptions about their work (that every assignment must be perfect, for instance, or that they must impress everyone) that unnecessarily amplify the pressure they are already getting from people around them. In 18 studies, including more than 850 people working in a wide variety of jobs, from hospital cleaners to telecom workers, this kind of counseling has significantly reduced work complaints, sometimes in as few as six sessions of training. But there is a catch. The counseling has been tested almost exclusively among the sorts of workers who have some control over their own schedules, like bankers, engineers and other professionals. When it comes to job stress, control over one's work may be the most important factor, said Dr. Peter L. Schnall of the Center for Occupational and Environmental Health at the University of California at Irvine. Dr. Schnall and others have shown that the workers most likely to develop high blood pressure are those who work under deadlines with little control over what the workday will bring, like bus drivers on heavily traveled routes or nurses in frantic hospital wards. In one study, of 195 New York men followed for three years, Dr. Schnall found that people in these "high strain" jobs had significantly increased blood pressure during work and at home compared with men in less stressful jobs. "When people have some say over how and when their job is done,'' he said, "when they are able to learn new things on the job, when they are able to improve their skills and see them improving, these are the things that are most important" in managing strain. These are also the very properties that most people associate with a satisfying job. By contrast, the 50-some studies of on-site stress reduction programs show little effect on job satisfaction, Dr. Murphy said. "Turnover, employee absenteeism, commitment to the organization, pride at work - there's no good evidence that any of those things are affected" by mind-body techniques, he said. "It's not rocket science. If you're still overworked, still have a supervisor who doesn't support you and is making all kinds of demands, you're going to be unhappy." Perhaps the most stressful of all jobs is the one that might soon be gone. Companies hoping to ease employees through layoffs or restructuring with meditation, tai chi or other mind-body techniques are serving weak tea to people in need of Scotch, say organizational psychologists who study plant closings and downsizing. Rare is the employee who is going to spend the middle of the day chanting like a monk when fighting to keep his or her job. In these circumstances, researchers find that what best keeps stress levels in check is telling employees as clearly and quickly as possible who is being laid off and why, and offering meaningful benefits, like help in finding another job, generous severance payments and psychotherapy if needed. "Everything else is window dressing," said Dr. James Campbell Quick, a stress researcher at the University of Texas at Arlington who helped advise the military in closing Kelly Air Force base in San Antonio, which employed 13,000 people. The skeptic's view of stress management, said Dr. Samuel Culbert, a professor of human resources and organization at the University of California at Los Angeles, is that the programs are a cheap diversion from the real problems, which companies and managers themselves are creating. "Human resources departments hypothetically have a fabulous role to play in bridging the gap between employees who want to do well at work and managers who want them to do well," Dr. Culbert said. "But once you hear about stress programs for employees, you have to start wondering whose interest is being represented." Certainly, many of those who teach stress-management classes know this story from both sides. Often self-employed and formerly in stressful jobs themselves, they are entirely at the whim of their clients, and their services are among the first to be cut when management changes or times are tough. "Once the economy started dying down after 2000," said Mr. Zalma, "we were the first to go. We had to transform the business entirely, to treat injuries and pain." In this economy, stress managers need stress management too. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/07/health/07yoga.html From checker at panix.com Thu Sep 9 16:32:38 2004 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 12:32:38 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Paleopsych] NYT: (Samuelson) An Elder Challenges Outsourcing' s Orthodoxy Message-ID: An Elder Challenges Outsourcing's Orthodoxy New York Times, 4.9.9 By STEVE LOHR At 89, Paul A. Samuelson, the Nobel Prize-winning economist and professor emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, still seems to have plenty of intellectual edge and the ability to antagonize and amuse. His dissent from the mainstream economic consensus about outsourcing and globalization will appear later this month in a distinguished journal, cloaked in clever phrases and theoretical equations, but clearly aimed at the orthodoxy within his profession: Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Federal Reserve; N. Gregory Mankiw, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers; and Jagdish N. Bhagwati, a leading international economist and professor at Columbia University. These heavyweights, among others, are perpetrators of what Mr. Samuelson terms "the popular polemical untruth." Popular among economists, that is. That untruth, Mr. Samuelson asserts in an article for the Journal of Economic Perspectives, is the assumption that the laws of economics dictate that the American economy will benefit in the long run from all forms of international trade, including the outsourcing abroad of call-center and software programming jobs. Sure, Mr. Samuelson writes, the mainstream economists acknowledge that some people will gain and others will suffer in the short term, but they quickly add that "the gains of the American winners are big enough to more than compensate for the losers." That assumption, so widely shared by economists, is "only an innuendo," Mr. Samuelson writes. "For it is dead wrong about necessary surplus of winnings over losings." Trade, in other words, may not always work to the advantage of the American economy, according to Mr. Samuelson. In an interview last week, Mr. Samuelson said he wrote the article to "set the record straight" because "the mainstream defenses of globalization were much too simple a statement of the problem." Mr. Samuelson, who calls himself a "centrist Democrat," said his analysis did not come with a recipe of policy steps, and he emphasized that it was not meant as a justification for protectionist measures. Up to now, he said, the gains to America have outweighed the losses from trade, but that outcome is not necessarily guaranteed in the future. In his article, Mr. Samuelson begins by noting the unease many Americans feel about their jobs and wages these days, especially as the economies of China and India emerge on the strength of their low wages, increasingly skilled workers and rising technological prowess. "This is a hot issue now, and in the coming decade, it will not go away," he writes. The essay is Mr. Samuelson's effort to contribute economic nuance to the policy debate over outsourcing and trade. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, a quarterly published by the American Economic Association, has a modest circulation of 21,000 but it is influential in the field. Indeed, Mr. Bhagwati and two colleagues, Arvind Panagariya, an economics professor at Columbia, and T. N. Srinivasan, a professor of economics at Yale University, have already submitted an article to the journal that is partly a response to Mr. Samuelson. Theirs is titled "The Muddles Over Outsourcing." The Samuelson critique carries added weight given the stature of the author. "He invented so many of the economic models that everyone uses," noted Timothy Taylor, managing editor of the Journal of Economic Perspectives. For generations of undergraduates, starting in 1948, the study of economics has meant a Samuelson textbook, now in its 18th edition, with William Nordhaus, a Yale economist, as a co-author since the 12th edition. Because he has taught at M.I.T. for six decades, the elite ranks of the economics profession are filled with Mr. Samuelson's former students, including Mr. Bhagwati and Mr. Mankiw. According to Mr. Samuelson, a low-wage nation that is rapidly improving its technology, like India or China, has the potential to change the terms of trade with America in fields like call-center services or computer programming in ways that reduce per-capita income in the United States. "The new labor-market-clearing real wage has been lowered by this version of dynamic fair free trade," Mr. Samuelson writes. But doesn't purchasing cheaper call-center or programming services from abroad reduce input costs for various industries, delivering a net benefit to the economy? Not necessarily, Mr. Samuelson replied. To put things in simplified terms, he explained in the interview, "being able to purchase groceries 20 percent cheaper at Wal-Mart does not necessarily make up for the wage losses." The global spread of lower-cost computing and Internet communications breaks down the old geographic boundaries between labor markets, he noted, and could accelerate the pressure on wages across large swaths of the service economy. "If you don't believe that changes the average wages in America, then you believe in the tooth fairy," Mr. Samuelson said. His article, Mr. Samuelson added, is not a refutation of David Ricardo's 1817 theory of comparative advantage, the Magna Carta of international economics that says free trade allows economies to benefit from the efficiencies of global specialization. Mr. Samuelson said he was merely "interpreting fully and correctly Ricardoian comparative advantage theory." That interpretation, he insists, includes some "important qualifications" to the arguments of globalization's cheerleaders. Those qualifications are not new to Mr. Samuelson. He noted that in a different context, he touched on similar matters as far back as 1972 in a lecture he delivered shortly after he won his Nobel Prize, titled "International Trade for a Rich Country." For his part, Mr. Bhagwati does not dispute the model that Mr. Samuelson presents in his article. "Paul is a great economist and a terrific theorist," he said. "And in markets like information technology services, where America has a big advantage, it is true that if skills build up abroad, that narrows our competitive advantage and our exports will be hit." But Mr. Bhagwati, the author of "In Defense of Globalization" (Oxford University Press, 2004), says he doubts whether the Samuelson model applies broadly to the economy. "Paul and I disagree only on the realistic aspects of this," he said. The magnified concern, Mr. Bhagwati said, is that China will take away most of American manufacturing and India will take away the high-technology services business. Looking at the small number of jobs actually sent abroad, and based on his own knowledge of developing nations, he concludes that outsourcing worries are greatly exaggerated. As an example, Mr. Bhagwati pointed to the often-repeated estimates that, because of the Internet, as many as 300 million well-educated workers, mostly from India and China, could now enter the global work force and compete with Americans for skilled jobs. In their paper, Mr. Bhagwati and his co-authors write that such an assessment of the education systems of India and China "almost borders on the ludicrous." In an interview, Mr. Bhagwati said, "You have a lot of people, but that doesn't mean they are qualified. That sort of thinking is really generalizing based on the kind of Indian and Chinese people who manage to make it to Silicon Valley." The Samuelson model, Mr. Bhagwati said, yields net economic losses only when foreign nations are closing the innovation gap with the United States. "But we can change the terms of trade by moving up the technology ladder," he said. "The U.S. is a reasonably flexible, dynamic, innovative society. That's why I'm optimistic." The policy implications, he added, include increased investment in science, research and education. And Mr. Samuelson and Mr. Bhagwati agree that the way to buffer the adjustment for the workers who lose in the global competition is with wage insurance programs. "You need more temporary protection for the losers," Mr. Samuelson said. "My belief is that every good cause is worth some inefficiency." http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/09/business/worldbusiness/09outsource.html From checker at panix.com Thu Sep 9 16:36:14 2004 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 12:36:14 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Paleopsych] Contexts: How globalization breeds conformity Message-ID: A glance at the summer issue of "Contexts": How globalization breeds conformity News bulletin from the Chronicle of Higher Education, 4.9.3 Globalization is leading countries with cultural and economic differences to conform to international democratic, economic, educational, and social standards, writes John W. Meyer, an emeritus professor of sociology at Stanford University. "For example," he writes, "despite some resistance on religious or cultural grounds, most Islamic countries have now ratified the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (albeit sometimes with qualifying phrases)." Still, global "pressures to conform to standard models of the modern nation breed hypocrisy," Mr. Meyer writes, because many policies "adopted by countries around the world go unimplemented in practice." Surprisingly, however, real practices are changing anyway, he argues, thanks to pressure from intergovernmental institutions like the World Bank and Unesco; the news media; nongovernmental organizations like Amnesty International; and social movements. In Saudi Arabia, for example, female enrollment in schools is rising, even though the government discourages women's rights, Mr. Meyer maintains. Thus international standards "penetrate national societies, creating social expectations and practices whether or not appropriate government action occurs," Mr. Meyer concludes. The article, "The Nation as Babbitt: How Countries Conform," is not online, but information about the magazine is available at http://www.contextsmagazine.org From shovland at mindspring.com Thu Sep 9 16:43:58 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 09:43:58 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] NYT: (Samuelson) An Elder Challenges Outsourcing' s Orthodoxy Message-ID: <01C49651.88A4DE00.shovland@mindspring.com> I'm glad to see that some mainstream folks are catching on. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net From checker at panix.com Thu Sep 9 17:04:20 2004 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 13:04:20 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Paleopsych] Guardian: Maths holy grail could bring disaster for internet Message-ID: Maths holy grail could bring disaster for internet http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5009766-103690,00.html Two of the seven million dollar challenges that have baffled for more than a century may be close to being solved Tim Radford, science editor Tuesday September 7, 2004 Mathematicians could be on the verge of solving two separate million dollar problems. If they are right - still a big if - and somebody really has cracked the so-called Riemann hypothesis, financial disaster might follow. Suddenly all cryptic codes could be breakable. No internet transaction would be safe. On the other hand, if somebody has already sorted out the so-called Poincar? conjecture, then scientists will understand something profound about the nature of spacetime, experts told the British Association science festival in Exeter yesterday. Both problems have stood for a century or more. Each is almost dizzyingly arcane: the problems themselves are beyond simple explanation, and the candidate answers published on the internet are so intractable that they could baffle the biggest brains in the business for many months. They are two of the seven "millennium problems" and four years ago the Clay Mathematics Institute in the US offered $1m (?563,000) to anyone who could solve even one of these seven. The hypothesis formulated by Georg Friedrich Bernhard Riemann in 1859, according to Marcus du Sautoy of Oxford University, is the holy grail of mathematics. "Most mathematicians would trade their soul with Mephistopheles for a proof," he said. The Riemann hypothesis would explain the apparently random pattern of prime numbers - numbers such as 3, 17 and 31, for instance, are all prime numbers: they are divisible only by themselves and one. Prime numbers are the atoms of arithmetic. They are also the key to internet cryptography: in effect they keep banks safe and credit cards secure. This year Louis de Branges, a French-born mathematician now at Purdue University in the US, claimed a proof of the Riemann hypothesis. So far, his colleagues are not convinced. They were not convinced, years ago, when de Branges produced an answer to another famous mathematical challenge, but in time they accepted his reasoning. This time, the mathematical community remains even more sceptical. "The proof he has announced is rather incomprehensible. Now mathematicians are less sure that the million has been won," Prof du Sautoy said. "The whole of e-commerce depends on prime numbers. I have described the primes as atoms: what mathematicians are missing is a kind of mathematical prime spectrometer. Chemists have a machine that, if you give it a molecule, will tell you the atoms that it is built from. Mathematicians haven't invented a mathematical version of this. That is what we are after. If the Riemann hypothesis is true, it won't produce a prime number spectrometer. But the proof should give us more understanding of how the primes work, and therefore the proof might be translated into something that might produce this prime spectrometer. If it does, it will bring the whole of e-commerce to its knees, overnight. So there are very big implications." The Poincar? conjecture depends on the almost mind-numbing problem of understanding the shapes of spaces: mathematicians call it topology. Bernhard Riemann and other 19th century scholars wrapped up the mathematical problems of two-dimensional surfaces of three dimensional objects - the leather around a football, for instance, or the distortions of a rubber sheet. But Henri Poincar? raised the awkward question of objects with three dimensions, existing in the fourth dimension of time. He had already done groundbreaking work in optics, thermodynamics, celestial mechanics, quantum theory and even special relativity and he almost anticipated Einstein. And then in 1904 he asked the most fundamental question of all: what is the shape of the space in which we live? It turned out to be possible to prove the Poincar? conjecture in unimaginable worlds, where objects have four or five or more dimensions, but not with three. "The one case that is really of interest because it connects with physics, is the one case where the Poincar? conjecture hasn't been solved," said Keith Devlin, of Stanford University in California. In 2002 a Russian mathematician called Grigori Perelman posted the first of a series of internet papers. He had worked in the US, and was known to American mathematicians before he returned to St Petersburg. His proof - he called it only a sketch of a proof - was very similar in some ways to that of Fermat's last theorem, cracked by the Briton Andrew Wiles in the last decade. Like Wiles, Perelman is claiming to have proved a much more complicated general problem and in the course of it may have solved a special one that has tantalised mathematicians for a century. But his papers made not a single reference to Poincar? or his conjecture. Even so, mathematicians the world over understood that he tackled the essential challenge. Once again the jury is still out: this time, however, his fellow mathematicians believe he may be onto something big. The plus: the multidimensional topology of space in three dimensions will seem simple at last and a million dollar reward will be there for the asking. The minus: the solver does not claim to have found a solution, he doesn't want the reward, and he certainly doesn't want to talk to the media. "There is good reason to think the kind of approach Perelman is taking is correct. However there are some problems. He is very reclusive, won't talk to the press, has shown no indication of publishing this as a paper, which you would have to do if you wanted to get the prize from the Clay Institute, and has shown no interest in the prize whatsoever," Dr Devlin said. "Has it been proved? We don't know. We have good reason to assume it has been and within the next 12 months, in the inner core of experts in differential geometry, which is the field we are speaking about, people will start to say, yes, OK, this looks right. But there is not going to be a golden moment." The implications of a proof of the Poincar? conjecture would be enormous, but like the problem itself, very difficult to explain, he said. "It can't fail to have huge ramifications: not only the result, but the methods as well. At that level of abstraction, that level of connection, so much can follow. Differential geometry is the subject that is really underneath understanding everything about space and spacetime." Seven baffling pillars of wisdom 1 Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture Euclid geometry for the 21st century, involving things called abelian points and zeta functions and both finite and infinite answers to algebraic equations 2 Poincar? conjecture The surface of an apple is simply connected. But the surface of a doughnut is not. How do you start from the idea of simple connectivity and then characterise space in three dimensions? 3 Navier-Stokes equation The answers to wave and breeze turbulence lie somewhere in the solutions to these equations 4 P vs NP problem Some problems are just too big: you can quickly check if an answer is right, but it might take the lifetime of a universe to solve it from scratch. Can you prove which questions are truly hard, which not? 5 Riemann hypothesis Involving zeta functions, and an assertion that all "interesting" solutions to an equation lie on a straight line. It seems to be true for the first 1,500 million solutions, but does that mean it is true for them all? 6 Hodge conjecture At the frontier of algebra and geometry, involving the technical problems of building shapes by "gluing" geometric blocks together 7 Yang-Mills and Mass gap A problem that involves quantum mechanics and elementary particles. Physicists know it, computers have simulated it but nobody has found a theory to explain it From checker at panix.com Thu Sep 9 19:00:17 2004 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 15:00:17 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Paleopsych] I am quitting Rational Review of the News Message-ID: I got a lot of articles about politics from this daily source that I have forwarded, but my interest in the subject has mostly collapsed. Or at least these articles just feature new evils adding or replacing old evils or else recycling predictable viewpoints about old or new evils. Rarely anything upbeat. I invite anyone and everyone to subscribe by sending a blank message to: rrnd-subscribe at yahoogroups.com Here's the webpage: Yahoo! Groups : rrnd http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/rrnd/ Description Category: [24]News and Media Rational Review News Digest is published Monday-Friday, except on holidays. Readers are provided with brief summaries and links to news and commentary relating to freedom. What's New New within the last seven days: [25]Messages: 4 Recent Messages [26]View all Messages (471) [27]RSS Get messages in RSS | [28]Add to My Yahoo! Sep 9 [29]09/09 -- Iraq: US soldier killed as airstrikes target Fallujah resis - [30]thomaslknapp RATIONAL REVIEW NEWS DIGEST --------------------------------------------------- Sep 8 [31]09/08 -- Iraq: US death toll passes 1,000; US launches new Fallujah - [32]thomaslknapp RATIONAL REVIEW NEWS DIGEST --------------------------------------------------- Sep 7 [33]09/07 -- Iraq: 10 US troops killed in attacks; Clinton survives hear - [34]thomaslknapp RATIONAL REVIEW NEWS DIGEST --------------------------------------------------- Sep 3 [35]09/03 -- Terrorists at Russian school reportedly release 26; New Yor - [36]thomaslknapp RATIONAL REVIEW NEWS DIGEST --------------------------------------------------- Sep 2 [37]09/02 -- Iraq: US airstrikes kill 17, including three children; 16 d - [38]thomaslknapp RATIONAL REVIEW NEWS DIGEST Group Email Addresses Post message: rrnd at yahoogroups.com Subscribe: rrnd-subscribe at yahoogroups.com Unsubscribe: rrnd-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com List owner: rrnd-owner at yahoogroups.com Group Info Members: 2016 Founded: Dec 21, 2002 Language: English Group Settings ? Listed in directory ? Open membership ? All messages require approval ? Only the moderator may post ? Public archives ? Email attachments are not permitted References 24. http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/dir/Business___Finance/News_and_Media 25. http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/rrnd/messages 26. http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/rrnd/messages 27. http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/rrnd/rss 28. http://e.my.yahoo.com/config/promo_content?.module=ycontent&.url=http://rss.groups.yahoo.com/group/rrnd/rss&.done=http://finance.groups.yahoo.com%2Fgroup%2Frrnd%2F 29. http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/rrnd/message/471 30. http://profiles.yahoo.com/thomaslknapp 31. http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/rrnd/message/470 32. http://profiles.yahoo.com/thomaslknapp 33. http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/rrnd/message/469 34. http://profiles.yahoo.com/thomaslknapp 35. http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/rrnd/message/468 36. http://profiles.yahoo.com/thomaslknapp 37. http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/rrnd/message/467 38. http://profiles.yahoo.com/thomaslknapp From checker at panix.com Thu Sep 9 21:33:42 2004 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 17:33:42 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Paleopsych] New Criterion: (Mrs. Nut Tree) Does shame have a future? by Roger Kimball Message-ID: Does shame have a future? by Roger Kimball http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/23/sept04/shame.htm No society can do without intolerance, indignation, and disgust. --Patrick Devlin, The Enforcement of Morals [A] liberal society has particular reasons to inhibit shame and protect its citizens from shaming. --Martha C. Nussbaum, Hiding from Humanity I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. --Genesis, 3:10 In Masaccio's great fresco depicting the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden (ca. 1426), the Angel of the Lord hovers, sword in hand, above and behind the First Couple. Adam strides forward, naked, his face buried in his hands. Eve, however, a look of wailing misery on her upturned face, covers her breasts and privates as she walks. She is ashamed of her nakedness and strives to conceal it. I thought of Masaccio when I stumbled upon Martha Nussbaum's essay "Danger to Human Dignity: The Revival of Disgust and Shame in the Law," which appeared last month in The Chronicle of Higher Education. How Nussbaum would disapprove of Eve!, I thought. For Martha Nussbaum--a classicist who is currently the Ernst Freund Distinguished Service Professor of Law and Ethics in the Philosophy Department, Law School, and Divinity School at the University of Chicago--does not approve of shame. She is not too keen about disgust, either. Both emotions, she thinks, impede "the moral progress of society." And here we have Eve, ashamed of her body, modestly shielding her sex from view: how very unprogressive. "Danger to Human Dignity" is an oddly vertiginous work, as is the new book from which it is drawn, Hiding from Humanity: Disgust, Shame, and the Law.[2][1] (It is appropriate that the book should feature on its cover a fleshy, unpleasant nude by Otto Dix: how different it is--morally as well as aesthetically--from Masaccio's Eve!) Professor Nussbaum begins "Danger to Human Dignity" with the following show-stopper: "The law, most of us would agree, should be society's protection against prejudice." Really? I thought "most of us would agree" that the law ought to be society's protection against crime. But perhaps Professor Nussbaum thinks that prejudice is itself a crime--though surely not all prejudice. Edmund Burke said that prejudice "renders a man's virtue his habit." He meant that if we have a predisposition--a prejudice--toward the right things, they more easily become second nature. Surely Professor Nussbaum would not wish the law to protect us from that sort of prejudice. And it must be said that she herself is clearly prejudiced against anything she labels "conservative." I doubt that she believes that the law should be society's protection against prejudice directed at conservatives. Well, let's leave prejudice to one side. The ostensible burden of both these works, the essay and the book, is to warn readers about the "remarkable revival" of shame and disgust in our society, especially as they impinge upon the law. Now when I read that, I thought "Nussbaum, on top of everything else, must be a student of Stephen Potter." For anyone as intelligent as she could not really believe that shame and disgust are enjoying a renaissance in our culture. She must be employing a variation of a gambit Potter describes in his book Lifemanship, "Going One Better." It works like this. First you find out the quality for which an author is most famous, then you blame him for not having enough of it. An example from Lifemanship: "The one thing that was lacking, of course, from D. H. Lawrence's novels, was the consciousness of sexual relationship, the male and female element in life." Look around at our society: flip on the television; saunter down to your local newsstand; visit a local theater or museum; inspect the nose rings, the tongue or eyebrow or nipple studs that are so popular with the young and not-so-young today. One thing indisputably missing in our society is anything like a traditional sense of shame or disgust. So how clever of Professor Nussbaum to devote an entire book to the malignant presence of something that has all but disappeared. Professor Nussbaum is particularly exercised by the sentences, handed down by various courts, which involve some public declaration of the perpetrator's wrongdoing. A child molester, for example, is required to post a sign on his property warning children to stay away. Another chap, convicted of larceny, is required to wear a shirt with the advice: "I am on felony probation for theft." A drunk driver is made to sport a bumper sticker advertising the fact of his infraction to other motorists. Professor Nussbaum approvingly quotes a spokesman from the American Civil Liberties Union who angrily objects to such punishments: "Gratuitous humiliation of the individual serves no social purpose at all ... [a]nd there's been no research to suggest it's been effective in reducing crime." To which one might reply that the humiliation was not "gratuitous" but, on the contrary, was meted out in response to a criminal violation. And as for the "research," it doesn't take much to tell you that, having been duly put on notice, the neighbors of that convicted child molester will keep a wary eye out for him, thus reducing the chance of a repeat performance. Likewise, the shopkeeper who espies the banner-wearing thief enter his store is sure to watch the till, once again reducing the chance that the crime will be repeated. But Professor Nussbaum doesn't confine herself to mere pragmatic issues, such as whether a given policy in fact reduces crime. Her objection is more fundamental. "Shaming penalties," she notes, "encourage the stigmatization of offenders, asking us to view them as shameful." Er, yes: they would have that effect, wouldn't they? Hiding from Humanity is full of such near tautologies. You do something bad, something, in fact, that is shameful. The legal punishment calls attention to your bad, your shameful, action, partly in order to encourage you to reflect on your fault, partly to alert others to it. Is that a bad thing? Professor Nussbaum brandishes the verb "stigmatize" early and often in this book. She doesn't approve of stigmatizing people. Originally, a stigma was a mark burned into the skin of a criminal or slave. It has acquired an additional meaning: "A mark or token of infamy, disgrace, or reproach," as my dictionary puts it. Professor Nussbaum several times raises the specter of unfairly stigmatizing innocent people or groups of people. She quotes A. Hitler on the Jews, for example. As you'd expect, he said some very unpleasant things that were definitely intended to stigmatize the Jewish people. But how about Joe, the convicted child molester, who moves in next door? A thoughtful judge has ordered him to post a sign on his front lawn advertising his crime. That sign is indeed "A mark or token of infamy, disgrace, or reproach," and you can bet that it's one for which the mothers in the neighborhood are grateful. Which brings us to something that gets lost in Professor Nussbaum's discussion: the distinction between unfairly stigmatizing an innocent person or group of people and stigmatizing someone or some group because they deserve a mark or token of infamy, disgrace, or reproach. Of course one wishes to avoid the former. Does that mean that we should in principle forswear the latter? In any event, Professor Nussbaum has a deeper objection to penalties that shame a criminal. She thinks that calling attention to Joe's penchant for sexually molesting little girls or boys is incompatible with the ideals of "human dignity and the equal worth of persons." That's another phrase Professor Nussbaum deploys regularly. She tells us, toward the beginning of her book, that her guiding motivation is to "construct a public myth of equal humanity, to substitute for other pernicious myths that have long guided us." That sounds nice. Why not toss out all those "pernicious myths" that have guided humanity until fifteen minutes ago and sign on to the one that says "human dignity" and "equality"? Professor Nussbaum speaks of the "equal worth of persons." What do you suppose she means? In America, all citizens are meant to enjoy equality before the law. The figure of justice is often portrayed blindfolded because the scales she carries are meant to operate dispassionately, without the ballast of interest or parti-pris. That is one sort of equality. Then there is what the philosopher Harvey Mansfield called "the self-evident half-truth that all men are created equal." It's only a half-truth because, except for the special case of our status as legal actors, nothing could be more obvious than the gross inequality of men. As the journalist William Henry put it in his book In Defense of Elitism (1994), the simple fact [is] that some people are better than others--smarter, harder working, more learned, more productive, harder to replace. Some ideas are better than others, some values more enduring, some works of art more universal. Some cultures, though we dare not say it, are more accomplished than others and therefore more worthy of study. Something similar can be said about "human dignity." Professor Nussbaum finds a "deep tension" between the view that "law should shame malefactors and the view that law should protect citizens from insults to their dignity." Let's leave the question of whether the law really should concern itself with "insults" to a citizen's dignity. Mightn't it be argued that by calling attention to a criminal violation of human dignity the law reinforces the ideal of human dignity? In any event, all these cases concern the outer scaffolding of Professor Nussbaum's argument. The inner core of her book is part of a revisionist morality, the emotional weather of which is summed up in a section that appears towards the end of her book: "The Case Against Disgust and Shame." As Professor Nussbaum acknowledges, shame and its more visceral cousin, disgust, are semantically amphibious emotions. They are moral as well as physical creatures, depending as much upon an idea of the good as upon physical revulsion. Shame is deeply bound up with modesty, another moral sentiment that inscribes itself in immediate physical reaction. Similarly, disgust is the body's fire alarm for the noxious, but not merely the physically noxious. As William Ian Miller puts it in his book The Anatomy of Disgust (1997), disgust, although inculcated in toddlerhood, is "above all ... a moral and a social sentiment." Disgust highlights the good by violently excluding its opposite. Consequently, Miller argues, "contempt and disgust have their necessary role to play in a good, but not perfect, social order." Utopia, having excluded evil, would have no call for disgust. As Miller notes, these observations are hardly new: "The entire Latin Christian discourse of sin depended on the conceptualization of sin and hell as raising excremental stenches and loathsome prospects." Professor Nussbaum wants us to get beyond all this. She acknowledges that "the person who is utterly shame-free is not a good friend, lover, or citizen," but she wants to privatize shame, as it were, to disenfranchise it from any role in public life. Similarly, Professor Nussbaum acknowledges that disgust may have played "a valuable role in our evolution"--making us recoil from various toxic elements in our environment; she even admits that it may continue to be a valuable guide in daily life. But because the "thought-content" of disgust is "typically unreasonable, embodying magical ideas of contamination, and impossible aspirations to purity, immortality, and nonanimality," disgust should "never be the primary basis for rendering an act criminal, and should not play either an aggravating or a mitigating role in the criminal law where it currently does." Another way of putting this is to say that Professor Nussbaum wishes completely to emancipate law from the idea of sin. From a traditional point of view, of course, the law is seen as being rooted in a moral vision, which includes a recognition of sin. As the British jurist Patrick Devlin noted in The Enforcement of Morals (1965), "the complete separation of crime from sin ... would not be good for the moral law and might be disastrous for the criminal." Why? Because without the idea of sin, moral life would be an empty calculus of pain and pleasure. "What makes a society of any sort," Lord Devlin noted, "is a community of ideas, not only political ideas but also ideas about the way its members should behave and govern their lives; these latter ideas are its morals." Sin--like disgust, like shame--is such an irrational idea, so hard to get hold of "theoretically." Professor Nussbaum finds disgust "perplexing in theory": "the theoretical literature," she says, reveals "considerable debate about whether shame and disgust ought to play the roles they currently play" in the moral and legal economy of life. ("That's all very well in practice," says the economist in the old joke, "but how does it work out in theory?") "To appeal to disgust," Professor Nussbaum concludes, "seems to be just to say `I don't like that,' and stamp one's foot. No reasons are advanced that would make debate about such laws a real piece of public persuasion." Professor Nussbaum is certainly right that feelings of disgust, like feelings of shame, are extra- if not irrational: we don't argue ourselves into disgust or shame: we feel it immediately. Professor Nussbaum is deeply suspicious of those feelings. She sharply criticizes the physician-philosopher Leon Kass for advocating the "wisdom of repugnance"--the wisdom of disgust and revulsion--because our disgust might be misplaced. She is even more severe about Lord Devlin, who argued that "for the difficult choice between a number of rational conclusions the ordinary man has to rely upon a `feeling' for the right answer. Reasoning will get him nowhere." A good conservative, Lord Devlin was a minimalist when it came to the law's province. "In any new matter of morals," he argued, "the law should be slow to act." Advocating "toleration of the maximum individual freedom that is consistent with the integrity of society," he noted that "the law is concerned with the minimum and not with the maximum": "the criminal law is not a statement of how people ought to behave; it is a statement of what will happen to them if they do not behave." At the same time, Lord Devlin recognized that "not everything is to be tolerated. No society can do without intolerance, indignation, and disgust." Every moral judgement, unless it claims a divine source, is simply a feeling that no right-minded man could behave in any other way without admitting he was wrong. It is the power of common sense and not the power of reason that is behind the judgements of society. Professor Nussbaum is very impatient with the "power of common sense." It is so often insufficiently enlightened, insufficiently progressive, insufficiently in agreement with the opinions of people like Martha Nussbaum. Lord Devlin appealed to the moral feeling of the ordinary man, "the man in the Clapham omnibus." Professor Nussbaum doubts "whether the disgust of the `average' man would ever be a reliable test for what might be legally regulable." So maybe many of the things that the inherited moral wisdom of millennia have taught us to find disgusting--and to which society has responded with various legal prohibitions--need to be reevaluated? What do you think? Take necrophilia. Professor Nussbaum finds this a thorny problem. Who, after all, is harmed in the transaction? Professor Nussbaum wonders "whether necrophilia ought, in fact, to be illegal." She acknowledges that there is "something unpleasant" about a person who rapes a corpse, but it is "unclear" to her whether such conduct should be "criminal." Possibly, since a corpse is generally the property of its family, there should be "some criminal penalties" where "property violations" are involved, but otherwise not. Professor Nussbaum describes her intellectual-political pedigree as "less Millian than Whitmanesque." That may be right. I think, for example, of "Song of Myself," which has many Nussbaumian touches. Nussbaum: "[W]e wash our bodies, seek privacy for urination and defecation, cleanse ourselves of offending odors with toothbrush and mouthwash, sniff our armpits when nobody is looking, check in the mirror to make sure that no conspicuous snot is caught in our nose-hairs." Whitman: "The scent of these arm-pits is aroma finer than prayer,/ This head is more than churches or bibles or creeds./ ... I dote on myself ... . there is that lot of me, and all so luscious ...". But if there is a lot of Whitman blowing through Professor Nussbaum's book, there is also a good deal of Mill. I am thinking especially of the Mill of On Liberty, the Mill who advocated "new and original experiments in living" and argued that the sole justification society had for interfering with an individual "in the way of compulsion and control"--whether by "physical force in the form of legal penalties or the moral coercion of public opinion"--was "self-protection." If the individual is not harming others, then (says Mill) we have to leave him alone: "His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant" for interference. Mill's libertarian doctrine is our modern gospel. Professor Nussbaum is part of a large choir singing its praises. But the popularity of Mill's doctrine says nothing about its cogency. As James Fitzjames Stephen pointed out in Liberty, Equality, Fraternity (1873), Mill's teaching would "condemn every existing system of morals." Strenuously preach and rigorously practise the doctrine that our neighbor's private character is nothing to us, and the number of unfavorable judgments formed, and therefore the number of inconveniences inflicted by them can be reduced as much as we please, and the province of liberty can be enlarged in corresponding ratio. Does any reasonable man wish for this? Could anyone desire gross licentiousness, monstrous extravagance, ridiculous vanity, or the like, to be unnoticed, or, being known, to inflict no inconveniences which can possibly be avoided? As Stephen dryly observes, "the custom of looking upon certain courses of conduct with aversion is the essence of morality." But it is part of Professor Nussbaum's brief--as, in a way, it was of Mill's--to encourage us to dispense with moral aversion, of which shame and disgust are prominent allotropes. One of the oddest features of Hiding from Humanity is Professor Nussbaum's recurring argument that the emotions of shame and disgust encourage us to ignore or discount our mortality, our incompleteness, our animality. No doubt Professor Nussbaum has managed to embrace her own animality without the benefit of shame or disgust. But for most of us, the emotions of shame and disgust are vivid reminders of our status as imperfect creatures, fragile, animal, and therefore mortal. This is something embodied the world over in the idea of taboo, a concept with deep connections to the ideas of shame and disgust. These are insights we arrive at not by ratiocination but by feeling. As the philosopher Leszek Kolakowski writes, "We do not assent to our moral beliefs by admitting `this is true,' but by feeling guilty if we fail to comply with them." What we are dealing with, he points out, is not an intellectual performance but "an act of questioning one's own status in the cosmic order, ... an anxiety following a transgression not of a law but of a taboo." Professor Nussbaum wants us to "discard the grandiose demands for omnipotence and completeness that have been at the heart of so much human misery." Good idea! But shame and disgust are accomplices, not impediments, to that attack on hubris. Hiding from Humanity is not only a polemic against the emotions of shame and disgust. It is also a political position paper. Professor Nussbaum is such a ferocious opponent of shame and disgust because she is such a passionate proponent of many things that shame and disgust recoil from. It is ironical that in a book which is partly an attack on "the grandiose" Professor Nussbaum should harbor such a grandiose agenda for social change. From public nudity to poverty, the global AIDS crisis, and homosexual marriage, Professor Nussbaum has embraced the entire menu of politically correct causes. Poverty, she says, is "one of the most stigmatized life-conditions, in all societies." Therefore it must be removed. And not just poverty: we must also supply items that are "part of the social definition of a decent living-standard," e.g., "a personal computer." AIDS is "a major cause of stigmatized lives." Something must be done! Professor Nussbaum is one of those intellectuals whose intoxication with the thought of her own virtue is equalled only by her contempt for the opinions of the ordinary people whose lives she pretends to anguish over. Even without the inducement of the arguments she advances, her conviction of moral superiority would have led her to jettison shame as an impediment to "the moral progress of society." One saw this at work a decade ago when she was called upon to give expert testimony in Evans v. Romer, which challenged a state constitutional amendment in Colorado that prohibited any official body from adopting a law or policy that grants homosexuals "minority status, quota preferences, protected status or claim of discrimination." As the philosopher John Finnis showed in an article for Academic Questions, Professor Nussbaum, by deliberately misrepresenting the meaning of Greek words and the work of other scholars, engaged in "wholesale abuse of her scholarly authority and attainments." Among other things, she went back to a nineteenth-century edition of the standard Greek-English lexicon because it did not include a morally opprobrious definition of a contested Greek term. She took the trouble to white-out the name of a contributor to the later edition of the lexicon that the lawyers, unaware of her subterfuge, had supplied in the footnotes of a court document. Challenged about this, she claimed that she was simply correcting a clerical error because the earlier edition was "more reliable on authors of the classical period" than later editions. I asked a former Regius Professor of Greek about that and it took him about five minutes to stop laughing. It's clear that Professor Nussbaum doesn't believe it either, since it has been shown that her own work regularly relies on later editions. It is a curious quirk of language that "shameless" entails "shameful"--that is, being without shame is something to be ashamed of. This is not, I suspect, something that much troubles the Ernst Freund Distinguished Service Professor of Law and Ethics in the Philosophy Department, Law School, and Divinity School at the University of Chicago. But the rest of us might regard a shameless life the real hiding from humanity. _________________________________________________________________ Roger Kimball's latest book is The Rape of the Masters: How Political Correctness Sabotages Art (Encounter Books). Notes 1. Hiding from Humanity: Disgust, Shame, and the Law, by Martha C. Nussbaum; Princeton University Press, 413 pages, $29.95. [4]Go back to the text. ________________________________________________________ From The New Criterion Vol. 23, No. 1, September 2004 From guavaberry at earthlink.net Fri Sep 10 00:19:24 2004 From: guavaberry at earthlink.net (K.E.) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 20:19:24 -0400 Subject: [Paleopsych] NYT: (Samuelson) An Elder Challenges Outsourcing' s Orthodoxy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.0.20040909201630.032a0ec0@mail.earthlink.net> More about H1B visa's http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Teachers/H1B.html It's a race to the bottom . . . Karen At 12:32 PM 9/9/2004, you wrote: >An Elder Challenges Outsourcing's Orthodoxy >New York Times, 4.9.9 >By STEVE LOHR > >At 89, Paul A. Samuelson, the Nobel Prize-winning economist >and professor emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of >Technology, still seems to have plenty of intellectual edge >and the ability to antagonize and amuse. /// Karen Ellis /// Educational CyberPlayGround __ /// National Children's Folksong Repository \\\/// Guavaberry Books \X/ Funk Brothers WebQuest \/ "Humankind has not woven the web of life. We are but one thread within it. Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves. All things are bound together. All things connect." - Chief Seattle "A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes." From guavaberry at earthlink.net Fri Sep 10 00:38:19 2004 From: guavaberry at earthlink.net (K.E.) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 20:38:19 -0400 Subject: [Paleopsych] NYT: (Samuelson) An Elder Challenges Outsourcing' s Orthodoxy Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.0.20040909203742.0323bec0@mail.earthlink.net> The latest in remote control After the call-centre, now the IT department is off to India IN A shiny new building in the drab construction site that is Noida, a Delhi suburb, teams of young Indian engineers are, in a manner of speaking, managing the world. A number of America's best-known companies have entrusted the remote running of part of their global computing networks to HCL Comnet. This information-technology services firm is at the crest of what Gartner, a consultancy, has called "the next big wave" of Indian outsourcing deals, covering remote "infrastructure-management services". India's outsourcing boom started with software development and has expanded into a whole range of business services that can be handled a continent away, of which the country's hundreds of call-centres are just the most prominent examples. This takes that trend one stage further, and shifts offshore much of the administration and maintenance of a firm's IT systems. Gartner's Partha Iyengar divides remote IMS work into three categories: monitoring global network operations; providing helpdesk support and maintenance; and administering databases. http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=3177136 /// Karen Ellis /// Educational CyberPlayGround __ /// National Children's Folksong Repository \\\/// Guavaberry Books \X/ Funk Brothers WebQuest \/ "Humankind has not woven the web of life. We are but one thread within it. Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves. All things are bound together. All things connect." - Chief Seattle "A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes." From shovland at mindspring.com Fri Sep 10 03:43:04 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 20:43:04 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] NYT: (Samuelson) An Elder Challenges Outsourcing' s Orthodoxy Message-ID: <01C496AD.9B1FAEF0.shovland@mindspring.com> If you take a car plant and move it to China, the people who make the cars over there can't afford to buy them. At the same time, the Americans who formerly worked in those car plants can't afford them either. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net From checker at panix.com Fri Sep 10 14:24:18 2004 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 10:24:18 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Paleopsych] NYT: Cracking Under the Pressure? It's Just the Opposite, for Some Message-ID: NYT: Cracking Under the Pressure? It's Just the Opposite, for Some September 10, 2004 By ANAHAD O'CONNOR For Michael Jones, an architect at a top-tier firm in New York, juggling multiple projects and running on four hours of sleep is business as usual. Mr. Jones has adjusted, he says, to a rapid pace and the constant pressure that leads his colleagues to "blow up" from time to time. A design project can drag on for more than a year, often requiring six-day workweeks and painstaking effort. At the moment, he said, he is working on four. But for Mr. Jones, the stress is worth it, if only because every now and then he can gaze at the Manhattan skyline and spot a product of his labor: the soaring profile of the Chatham apartment building on East 65th Street, one of many structures he has helped design in his 14 years at Robert A. M. Stern Architects. "If I didn't feel like I was part of something important, I wouldn't be able to do this," he said. Mr. Jones belongs to a rare breed of worker that psychologists have struggled to understand for decades, not for the sheer amount of stress they grapple with day to day, but for the way they flourish under it. They are a familiar but puzzling force in the workplace, perpetually functioning in overdrive to meet a punishing schedule or a demanding boss. To colleagues, these men and women may seem simply like workaholics. But psychologists who study them call them resilient, or hardy, and say they share certain backgrounds and qualities that enable them to thrive under enormous pressure. "People who are high in hardiness enjoy ongoing changes and difficulties," said Dr. Salvatore R. Maddi, a professor of psychology at the University of California, Irvine, and the author of a forthcoming book, "Resilience at Work." "They find themselves more involved in their work when it gets tougher and more complicated. They tend to think of stress as a normal part of life, rather than as something that's unfair.'' Chronic stress has been linked to an array of illnesses, including heart disease and depression. But people who cope successfully, studies have found, punch in at work with normal levels of stress hormones that climb during the day and drop sharply at night. Their coworkers who complain of being too stressed have consistently higher levels of hormones that rarely dip very far, trapping them in a constant state of anxiety. At the same time, resilient people seem to avoid stress-related health and psychological problems, even as colleagues are falling to pieces, say researchers who have studied strenuous work environments. "Some of it is genetic, some of it is how you were raised, and some it is just your personality," Dr. Bruce McEwen, director of the neuroendocrinology laboratory at Rockefeller University, said. People who thrive under pressure do not necessarily seek out particular professions, researchers say. But whether they are on the trading floor or the campaign trail, they all appear to have had early experiences in difficult environments that taught them how to regulate their stress levels. They can sense when they are reaching their breaking point, and they know when to take a walk or turn off the ringer. In some cases, these people subject themselves to stresses of their own making, driven by an unconscious urge to conquer pressures that dogged them as children or young adults, said Steven Kuchuck, a psychotherapist in New York who treats many patients who seek out demanding jobs and relationships. "There's this strong desire to go back to similar sources of stress that they grew up with in an effort to master it," Mr. Kuchuck said. "Some people will say 'No, I don't like a lot of stress,' but they find themselves in one stressful job after another, so there must be something that's pulling them." Mr. Kuchuck has also seen the opposite: people who crave a frenzied career because they feel their childhoods were not stimulating at all. But regardless of what propels people to push themselves, what allows them to prosper, psychologists say, is a strong commitment to their career, a feeling of being in control, and a tendency to view stress as a challenge rather than as a burden. People's attitudes toward their jobs and the degree to which they feel they make a difference by showing up each day have long been considered powerful indicators of how well they will do. Being just another cog in a machine with no say over what happens is almost guaranteed to cause burnout. But even in the most grueling work environment, people can cope if they feel they have some control. Studies of professional musicians show that people in orchestras are often less satisfied and more stressed than those in small chamber groups because they lack autonomy, according to Dr. Robert M. Sapolsky, a professor of biology and neurology at Stanford and the author of "Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers." Orchestra musicians are at the mercy of their maestro's every whim. For years, they had no power even to take regular bathroom breaks. "The people who are under someone's thumb, who are low-ranking and don't have any decision-making,'' Dr. McEwen said, "these are the people who always experience more anxiety." People who exhibit hardiness are reluctant to cede control. They are also less likely to feel victimized by their bosses or by unpredictable life circumstances. When there is a crisis at work, they can tough it out because they accept a harsh workload or the occasional pink slip as an unsavory but inevitable part of life, psychologists say. "They know there'll be different challenges, some you can't even anticipate, yet they train their minds to say these things are expected," said Dr. Robert Brooks, a clinical psychologist at Harvard Medical School and the author of "The Power of Resilience." Anticipating troubled waters can decrease vulnerability to stress-induced diseases. In the early 1980's, Dr. Maddi of U.C. Irvine followed hundreds of employees at Illinois Bell when its parent company, AT&T, was facing federal deregulation. More than 10,000 people eventually lost their jobs. "There was suicide, depression, anxiety disorders, divorces, heart attacks, strokes - all the things that could be attributed to massive stress," Dr. Maddi said. But while about two-thirds of the workers in Dr. Maddi's sample unraveled, the other third thrived. They survived the incident with their health intact and hung onto their jobs or moved to another company where they quickly climbed up the ranks. When the researchers went back and reviewed their first set of interviews, they found that many of the people who made it through unscathed had stressful family backgrounds - constant moving, their parents getting divorced - and were more likely to describe change as inevitable. "Some of the people who cracked had initially taken a job with Bell rather than I.B.M. because they believed it was safe and didn't want any disruption," Dr. Maddi said. Stress is unavoidable, so bracing for it every now and then is the best way to cope. But people who are on constant alert may be suffering from an anxiety disorder, psychologists say. Those who collapse under the pressures of the workplace are prone to envision every worst-case scenario, while resilient people think of how a greater workload, for example, might lead to a promotion. In studies, researchers have found that perhaps the only time pessimists thrive is when they become lawyers. "If you're drawing up a contract, the ability to see every foreseeable danger is something that goes along with pessimism, but it's also what makes a good lawyer," Dr. Martin Seligman, a professor of psychology at the University of Pennsylvania, said. "The problem is, not only are they good at seeing that the roof might collapse on you, they're also good at seeing that their mate might be having an affair, that they're never going to make partner." But one way to overcome cynicism and exhaustion, said Dr. Andy Morgan, an associate professor of psychiatry at Yale, is with a sense of personal accomplishment. An architect who toils six days a week, regularly burning the midnight oil, like Mr. Jones, can be happy if a glimpse of the Manhattan skyline illustrates the value of his efforts. "When you feel that you're accomplishing something, it's akin to a sense of control," Dr. Morgan said. "When people start feeling that what they're doing is not meaningful, then they take more sick days, begin looking for another job, and complain of health problems." http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/10/health/10stress.html From shovland at mindspring.com Sat Sep 11 12:12:36 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 05:12:36 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] Our imploding economy Message-ID: <01C497BD.F42DEC80.shovland@mindspring.com> For a few weeks this summer I had a consulting engagement in Menlo Park, on the fringe of Silicon Valley. During my lunch hour I would walk around the neighborhood. I was shocked to see that almost half the buildings in this industrial area were empty. There were new buildings that looked as if they had never been occupied. There were older buildings that looked as if they had been there for 20-30 years. I suspect many of the jobs that had been done in those buildings are now being done in Mexico and Asia. A couple of weeks ago a friend of mine told me that his brother who works in the Valley has been told to take 1 day a week off without pay. Delta is planning to lay off thousands, and there may be more layoff stories in coming weeks. Job creation numbers have been falling short of the number needed to keep up with population expansion for a long time, and we are far below the rate needed to absorb the unemployed. Those on the upper decks of our ship of state have been insulated from this pain for quite awhile, but they are feeling it now in the form of smaller bonuses and a wallowing stock market. Even Walmart is posting soft results. The health care crisis has hit the front pages, and neither candidate is offering anything like the structural reforms that are probably needed. There are a variety of causes for this. After years of being ridiculed by some interest groups, we may be approaching the limits of growth delineated by the Club of Rome oh so many years ago. The notion of Peak Oil is rapidly becoming well known. Growth in the supply of money has failed to produce corresponding growth in the economy because the distribution of income funnels too much money into the hands of those with a high propensity to save. All hands to the life boats? What life boats? Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Sat Sep 11 18:22:00 2004 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 11:22:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Paleopsych] life boats In-Reply-To: <200409111800.i8BI0W018987@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20040911182200.45086.qmail@web13424.mail.yahoo.com> >>All hands to the life boats? What life boats?<< --At the moment, fear seems to be making people withdraw into isolated groups to maintain personal sanity. If that is happening on a fractal level, it will be difficult to patch all the little groups together to maintain social cohesion when it becomes critically important. But I think as fear increases, there will be a point where people stop retreating behind their castle walls and start making the connective leaps necessary to put Humpty back together again. Without internet, I'd be much less optimistic. Synergy is automatic once people have no other options but to reach out to others. Michael ===== "Beslan is a call to America to remember the candles, the flowers, and the grief that united us in the aftermath of 9/11. On this day, if we turn down the volume, our ears will catch an echo of that still, small voice once again. We may not know where the road will take us, but we owe it to the world?s children to return to the starting point before we have gone so far that we can?t turn back." - Bill Wiser "We're doomed, guys! It turns out, if we don't hurry up and change the world, the world changes us!" - Cartoon character, Mafalda http://www.soulaquarium.net __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From shovland at mindspring.com Sat Sep 11 19:02:07 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 12:02:07 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] life boats Message-ID: <01C497F7.2AA306E0.shovland@mindspring.com> The fear will become a reservoir of power that can be tapped by good leaders or bad ones. Fear can manifest as acts of courage :-) Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net From shovland at mindspring.com Sat Sep 11 19:05:28 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 12:05:28 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] If you want to move beyond what everyone "knows" about the recovery from the Great Depression, read this Message-ID: <01C497F7.A1C90A80.shovland@mindspring.com> http://web.missouri.edu/~econwww/Seminars/Papers/steindl.pdf I think this is relevant because the current state of our economy is more like a depression than like a recovery. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net From guavaberry at earthlink.net Sun Sep 12 13:34:45 2004 From: guavaberry at earthlink.net (K.E.) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 09:34:45 -0400 Subject: [Paleopsych] Human Bar Codes Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.0.20040912093422.01ed7a00@mail.earthlink.net> Human Bar Codes posted by David Kushner @ 9/3/2004 11:34:29 AM Days after 9/11/01, New Jersey surgeon Richard Seelig didn't want to take any chances that his body could be lost in a disaster. After seeing the firefighters writing their social security numbers on their forearms, he knew there must be a better means of I.D. Dr. Seelig became the first human to be injected with a Verichip: a tiny radio frequency identification chip the size of a grain of rice. Is this the dawn of the human bar code? http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/blog.asp?blogID=1548&trk=nl karen ellis <>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> The Educational CyberPlayGround http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/ National Children's Folksong Repository http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Culdesac/Repository/NCFR.html Hot List of Schools Online and Net Happenings, K12 Newsletters, Network Newsletters http://www.edu-cyberpg.com/Community/index.html 7 Hot Site Awards New York Times, USA Today , MSNBC, Earthlink, USA Today Best Bets For Educators, Macworld Top Fifty <>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<>~~~~~<> From shovland at mindspring.com Sun Sep 12 14:47:55 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 07:47:55 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] Human Bar Codes Message-ID: <01C4989C.D147F2D0.shovland@mindspring.com> I assume you know that when your cell phone is on it can by tracked by GPS systems :-) Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net From checker at panix.com Sun Sep 12 15:17:19 2004 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 11:17:19 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Paleopsych] Human Bar Codes In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.0.20040912093422.01ed7a00@mail.earthlink.net> References: <6.1.0.6.0.20040912093422.01ed7a00@mail.earthlink.net> Message-ID: I just read _Revelation: God's Word for the Biblically-Inept_, by Daymond R. Duck. It's the first time I've read Revelation carefully, with this 300+ page book as a guide. It takes the pre-millenarian line, which is one of four major interpretations of the book, and a pre-tribulationist stance within this interpretation. Anyhow, during the Tribulation period, the unfaithful will wear the Mark of the Beast, and it's suggested that human barcodes will be the way it's done. Actually, the various commentators, like Hal Lindsey (author of _The Late, Great Planet Earth_), who are liberally quoted in the book, are more than a bit inconsistent. The pre-trib, pre-mill line has it that the true Christians will be raptured to heaven *before* the seven-year Tribulation period begins. Since that manifestly has not happened yet, it makes no sense to speak of barcodes and events that will be taking place during the seven-year period. The book was extremely entertaining, nevertheless. Frank On 2004-09-12, K.E. opined [message unchanged below]: > Human Bar Codes > posted by David Kushner @ 9/3/2004 11:34:29 AM > > Days after 9/11/01, New Jersey surgeon Richard Seelig didn't want to take > any chances that his body could be lost in a disaster. After seeing the > firefighters writing their social security numbers on their forearms, he knew > there must be a better means of I.D. Dr. Seelig became the first human to be > injected with a Verichip: a tiny radio frequency identification chip the size > of a grain of rice. Is this the dawn of the human bar code? > > http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/blog.asp?blogID=1548&trk=nl From checker at panix.com Sun Sep 12 15:21:39 2004 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 11:21:39 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Paleopsych] Locus Online: John Shirley: Global to Local Message-ID: John Shirley: Global to Local http://www.locusmag.com/2004/Features/09_ShirleySocialFuture.html Friday 10 September 2004 Global to Local: The Social Future as seen by six SF Writers: Cory Doctorow, Pat Murphy, Kim Stanley Robinson, Norman Spinrad, Bruce Sterling and Ken Wharton Organized and with commentary by John Shirley Some questions are hard to formulate -- but you carry them around inside you, like Confucius overlong in the womb, waiting for a way to ask them. I wanted to know about the quality of life in the future. I wanted to know about our political life; the scope of our freedom. I wanted to know what it was going to be like on a daily basis for my son and my grandson -- I wanted to know if perhaps my son would do better to have no children at all. Those are general yearnings, more than specific questions. The questions I came up with still seem too general, and approximate. I think it helps to use Raymond Williams' concept of 'residual and emergent,' Kim Stanley Robinson told me, ...and consider the present as a zone of conflict between residual and emergent social elements, not making residual and emergent code words for 'bad and good' either. Residual and emergent: yes. But what will reside and what emerge? From here, the future is just that unfocused. So I simply I asked the only questions I had... and six science fiction writers answered. # 1) In the past you've written science-fictionally about the social future. What's changed in your estimate of the social future since then? Do you have a sharper picture of where we're going, socially? Ken Wharton: I've been pondering psychohistory lately -- not Asimov's big sweeping trends, but how large groups make decisions on single issues. Those with money and power are approaching Hari Seldonesque abilities, gradually steering public opinion using knowledge of how groups think, and I only see that trend increasing as basic human instincts are incorporated into more realistic game theory models. Individuals, on the other hand, often don't have the time and/or inclination to dig into any particular issue for themselves -- meaning that many people will tend to make decisions using the very instincts that are most easily manipulated. Considering the revelations in the documentary Outfoxed, about right-wing control of news content on the Fox channel, it's a timely comment. It seems to dovetail with Kim Stanley Robinson's: It also helps me to think of us as animals and consider what behaviors caused our brains to expand over the last two million years, and then value some of those behaviors. Norman Spinrad: The biggest change, one which I didn't get at the time, was the rise to dominance of the American Christian fundamentalist far right. Where are we going? If Kerry should be elected, back to the Clintonian middle. But if Bush is re-elected, straight into the worst fascist shitter this country has ever experienced. We're on a cusp like that of the Roman Republic about to degenerate into the Empire. Though in many ways it has already. Pat Murphy is thinking more about our health risks, the burdens we may have to carry: I dont know if its sharper, but its definitely bleaker. Here are two of the trends Im currently watching: The emergence and spread of certain diseases -- fostered by human activity. Consider the rapid spread of the SARS epidemic by international travelers, the emergence of Mad Cow Disease (which spread when sheep by-products were put in high-protein livestock), the role that global warming may play in increasing the geographic range of mosquitoes that spread malaria. The increase in children with Aspergers syndrome and autism. Though generally described by the medical establishment as 'disorders,' both Aspergers syndrome and autism are caused by a neurological difference. Affected individuals think differently, particularly with regard to communication. Cory Doctorow is thinking about control of information and technology as the deciding factor -- leading to a new colonialism: As you'd expect, I think the social future is tied up intimately with copyright, since copyright is the body of law that most closely regulates technology (copying, distributing, and producing are all inherently technological in nature and change dramatically when new tech comes along). Copyright also has the distinction of being the area of law/policy that deals most copiously in crazy-ass metaphors, such as the comparison of copying to theft" -- even though the former leaves a perfectly good original behind, while the latter deprives the owner of her property. Finally, copyright is the area of law most bound up with free expression, which makes it a hotbed of socio-technical storylines. Property law deals with instances of ideas -- a physical chair -- while Intellectual Property" law deals with the ideas themselves -- a plan for a chair. Increasingly, though, the instantiation of an idea and the idea itself: a electronic text, an MP3, a fabrication CAD/CAM file. Traditionally, new nations have exempted themselves from IP regulation (as the US did for its first century, enthusiastically pirating the IP of the world's great powers). When you're a net importer of IP, there's no good economic reason to treat foreign ideas as sacrosanct property. Indeed, piracy and successful industrialization go hand in hand. Today, though, the developing world has been strong-armed into affording IP protection to foreign ideas, usually by tying IP enforcement to other trade elements ("If you give us fifty more years of copyright, we'll double our soybean quota!"), which is working out to be a disaster. No one in Brazil or South Africa can pay American street-prices for pharmaceuticals -- or CDs, or DVDs, or books, or software. A guy in Maastricht worked out that if every Burundi copy of Windows were legitimately purchased, the country would have to turn over 67.65 months' worth of its total GDP to Microsoft. This is the impending disaster, a new form of colonialism that makes the old forms look gentle and beneficent by comparison. But Bruce Sterling's thinking that the leading trends are coming from outside North America: I used to think that the USA, being an innovative, high-tech polity, would be inventing and promulgating a lot of tomorrow's social change. I don't believe that any more. These days I spend a lot of time looking at Brazil, China, India, and Europe. Japan and Russia, interestingly, are even more moribund than the USA. # 2) The world seems dangerously chaotic; the spread of nuclear technology, unmonitored fissionable materials, WMDs and so forth, might be an argument for a powerful centralized global government. On the one hand this has fascist overtones, or it risks something dictatorial; on the other hand one could argue it's the only way to prevent significant loss of life. Can one defend greater governmental control for the future, in this increasingly overpopulated world? Pat Murphy: I am not convinced by any argument for increased governmental control. In fact, I would be more inclined to look in the direction of increased personal responsibility. I see this as a direction in opposition to a more powerful government. I feel that the more powerful the government is, the less people take the personal responsibility. And what we need now is more personal responsibility, not less. Several interviewees mentioned the European Union in this connection. Kim Stanley Robinson: I like the UN, the European Union, and other aspects of trans-sovereignty, but I don't like globalization as the massive emplacement of capitalist injustices, so I don't know what to say about 'greater governmental control'. Ken Wharton sees nuclear power as resource that could help us handle global crisis: Actually, I could make a strong global-warming-based argument for more spread of nuclear (power) technology. It's ironic that our courts have decided a 10,000 year nuclear waste depository doesn't take a long enough view, while on most issues our society can't seem to look beyond a decade or so. On century timescales, you can't stop large groups from getting just about any weapon they want. And while stomping on personal freedoms might slow the acquisition of those weapons, it will probably only increase the probability that they'll actually be used. Norman Spinrad too is skeptical of global control systems but sees a break-up of the old nationalisms: Way back when, I sort of liked the idea of a world government. Then I heard Lenny Bruce say: 'If you want to imagine a world government, think of the whole world run by the phone company and nowhere else to go.' On the other hand, I think that the concept of absolute national sovereignty is on the way out and good riddance. The European Union is one model. My own, as in Greenhouse Summer, is some form of syndicalist anarchism -- 'anarchism that knows how to do business' -- no national governments per se. Cory Doctorow doubts the efficacy of big control and again sees information as the key: The Stasi -- the East German version of the KGB -- had detailed files on virtually every resident of East Germany, yet somehow managed to miss the fact that the Berlin Wall was about to come down until it was already in rubble. Tell me again how a centralized government makes us more secure? September 11th wasn't a failure to gather enough intelligence: it was a failure to correctly interpret the intelligence in hand. There was too much irrelevant data, too much noise. Gathering orders of magnitude MORE noise just puts that needle into a much bigger haystack, while imposing high social costs. Fingerprinting visitors to the US and jailing foreign journalists for not understanding the impossibly baroque new visa regs makes America less secure (by encouraging people to lie about the purposes of their visit and by chasing honest people out of the country), not more. Bruce Sterling speculates that big global government might take new shapes: I had a brainstorm about this very problem recently. What if there were two global systems of governance, and they weren't based on control of the landscape? Suppose they interpenetrated and competed everywhere, sort of like Tory and Labour, or Coke and Pepsi. I'm kind of liking this European 'Acquis' model where there is scarcely any visible 'governing' going on, and everything is accomplished on the levels of invisible infrastructure, like highway regulations and currency reform. # 3) What do you think people in the future will regard as being the greatest overall mistakes made during our time? Pat Murphy: Id say that our worst blunder has been the destruction of the environment -- particularly as it relates to our consumption of fossil fuels. Over the next few decades, I believe that we will increasingly experience the consequences of global warming in the form of extreme weather (heat waves, drought, severe storms), new patterns of disease (West Nile and the Hantavirus are just the beginning), rising sea levels, extinctions due to climate change, catastrophic weather in the last 100 years. For more on all this, check out [3]www.Exploratorium.edu/climate. Bruce Sterling's response is in the same ballpark: Ignoring the Greenhouse effect and neglecting public health measures. Kim Stanley Robinson's response is related. Our greatest mistake, he says, is: The mass extinction event we are causing. Indeed, according to Natural History magazine: Human beings are currently causing the greatest mass extinction of species since the extinction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. If present trends continue one half of all species of life on earth will be extinct in 100 years. Some of that die-off is a result of sheer human sprawl. This connects with Ken Wharton's answer regarding our biggest mistakes: The worldwide population explosion. Being in the middle of it for so long, it's hard to remember that exponential growth can never sustain itself forever. 50-100 years from now population will have mostly stabilized at something, and that number will be the primary determinant on what sort of long-term future is in store for humanity. In hindsight, will there have been a way to stabilize at a lower number? Probably... and someday we might be viewed as criminal for not doing just that. Norman Spinrad, though, thinks our biggest mistake is political, with all of politics' fall-out. For him, the greatest mistake of our time is: The election of George W. Bush. Second, the disappearance of the Soviet Union, leading directly to an unopposable American hegemonism. Not that they aren't related. Taking that concern to the next level, Cory Doctorow: I think the Ashcroftian terrorist witchhunts, coupled with the fiscal irresponsibility of massive tax-cuts and out-of-control cronyist military adventurism will be regarded as the world mistake in this part of the American century by debtor generations to come who find themselves socially and economically isolated from the rest of the world. When the US dollar starts to drop against the laser-printed post-Saddam occupation Dinar, an unbacked currency, you know that your economy is in the deepest of shit. Question four inevitably abuts question threebut prompts more specificity. # 4) Are we in danger, serious danger, environmentally? Why or why not? If we are, what are the social consequences? Kim Stanley Robinson's response echoes concerns about the population: Life is robust, but many biomes are not. We could damage the environment to the point where it would be difficult to sustain 6 billion people, in which case there would be a scramble for food and other resources, meaning many wars etc. I think that danger clearly exists. Ken Wharton sees the danger but also sees chances to moderate it: Danger? We're changing the planet's climate, and the odds are it'll be for the worse, but I don't think anyone knows what the precise consequences are going to be. Society will deal with all the problems as they arrive, as we always do. The frustrating thing is that right now there's not an obvious solution (short of a massive nuclear fission initiative). Twenty years from now there will be alternatives -- solar power is plummeting in price, for example -- but that won't be in time to avert the first fundamental climate change since the last Ice Age. Fortunately, it will be in time to bring things back into balance before we obliterate the biosphere. Norman Spinrad: We sure are, mainly because we don't know what the hell we're doing, and this is not primarily a matter of malice or greed, though there is that, but because the science just isn't there. Global warming has surely arrived, but the local results are unpredictable, for example, if the warming destroys the Gulf Stream, the north of Europe and North America could get colder, not warmer. And as things get worse, we'll try to fix them ourselves, again without sufficient scientific knowledge, making the global system, already made more chaotic by the increase in total energy input even more chaotic. Bruce Sterling summarizes simply: Yes, the climate is changing and will change more, and we're going to suffer a great deal for it. Something close to a consensus, there # 5) What's the most significant current social trend? It's hard to say for sure, of course, but off the top of your head... Bruce Sterling: I think it's the influence of stateless diasporas empowered by telecommunications and money transfer. It's amazing that Al Qaeda, a ragtag of a few thousand emigres, have led the US around by the nose for four solid years. Offshore Chinese and non-resident Indians are the secret of India's and China's current booms. Pat Murphy thinks it's more to do with street-level conditions: Id have to look to the bleakest science: economics. With increases in the costs of housing and health care, with the increase in single parent households, with changes in the job market, the middle class is being squeezed -- possibly squeezed out of existence. Ken Wharton: Has it been long enough since the dot-com boom/crash that I can say the most significant trend is the expanding use of the Internet, without sounding either silly or old-fashioned? I doubt it -- but it's true, nonetheless. Norman Spinrad: I'd say the Jihad; there is one, you know. There isn't any war on terrorism; terrorism is a tactic; the war is Islamic fundamentalism versus the Crusaders, aka the Great Satan, aka the United States, aka the West, aka the 21st Century. The Jihad has been openly and loudly declared by the jihadis, and as far as Islam is concerned, Bush has openly declared the other side in Iraq. This will affect everything. It already has. It's a holy war that's been going on for 1400 years or so, and this is only the latest and most dangerous phase. Osama bin Laden, after 9/11, said that he would destroy civil liberties in the West, and in the US he's already succeeded. What he didn't understand was that he was feeding energy into the fundamentalist Christian right, Bush's allies, and in effect creating the Great Crusader Satan of his paranoid fantasies that hadn't existed before, or at least not on a mass level. Years ago, and I paraphrase loosely, William Burroughs said that if you want to start a murderous brawl, record the Black Panthers speaking, play it for the Ku Klux Klan, play their reaction back to the Panthers, etc.... Voila, Jihad! Destroying civil liberties, indeed civil society itself, on both sides. Wherever you go, there we are. # 6 ) Will there always be war? Is it becoming like Haldeman's 'The Forever War'? What are the trends in war? Pat Murphy: Will there always be war? I hate to say it, but probably so. For trends in war, just look at Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq. Technological advances make amazingly precise bombing possible -- but the inevitable human error leads to mistakes like the bombing of refugees in Kosovo and the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. Media coverage of war has become both more intimate and more global. And of course, war is no longer contained by the battlefield, as the continuing terrorist attacks demonstrate. Kim Stanley Robinson: Disgust at the US's war on Iraq may make the idea [of war] unpopular for a while. But see question 4. Ken Wharton: War will be around as long as human nature, I'm afraid. Trend-wise, I think Afghanistan is a lot closer to the future than Iraq, which will be viewed as a major anomaly (if it isn't already!). Thrusting overpowering military technology into the hands of local fighters, in the name of a foreign power that doesn't want to get their hands too dirty... that's the future of war. Soon you won't even need the back-up troops to accompany the weapons, and at that point one could conceivably have wars sponsored by corporations instead of states. Norman Spinrad: I suppose there will always be war in the general sense, but not this 'War on Terrorism.' For one thing, the US is running out of troops. Low intensity continuation of the centuries-long jihad, though, I think will be around for a long, long time. And I think that's the trend in war for the foreseeable future, barring alien invasion. The US is just too militarily strong for anyone to even dream of a general all-out war against it, and as the planetary military hegemon, I doubt it would permit a general war between two other powers either. Nuclear war is well-deterred. But the above situations make it easier for small wars like the ones in Sudan, Chechnya, etc., to go on indefinitely. And militarily speaking, at least at the US level, we're getting to close to wars that can be fought entirely at a distance with robot planes, tanks, maybe even footsoldiers. A consensus emerges that war is staying but changing shape. Bruce Sterling: Well, if you gather in armies and raise a flag, the USA will blow you to shreds, so the trend is to strap a bomb around your waist or pile artillery shells into a car and then blow yourself up. The idea that a 'war on terror' is going to resolve this kind of terror by using lots of warfare is just absurd. # 7) To sort of top off a previous question: Is a real world government possible and could it be a good thing, on balance? (What can I say, I'm really interested in the question of world government and plan to write a novel on it someday.) Pat Murphy's response is succinct: I dont think its possible or desirable. Kim Stanley Robinson is equally succinct and he has exactly the opposite opinion: It's possible, and if it happened it would be a good thing. Ken Wharton: The only nice thing I can say about a world government is that there are some global problems that are best dealt with on a global level. As for it actually happening in a way that such problems can indeed be dealt with... I doubt it, but I'll be watching the E.U. to see how far the concept can go. Norman Spinrad: As I said before, probably not a good thing. And probably impossible. Too many cultural and economic disparities. Even the recent expansion of the European Union east is not going to work too well for that reason. Even Germany has plenty of problems in its governmental union with the former DDR. Bruce Sterling: Civilization is better than barbarism. I'm not sure I believe in 'real world government,' but global civil society attracts a lot of my attention. 'Globalism' used to be a synonym for 'Americanization', but nowadays it's starting to look a lot more genuinely global: Iranians in Sweden, Serbians in Brazil, global Bollywood movies filmed in Switzerland, a real m?lange. # 8) Will the gap between the haves and the have-nots widen even more dramatically? If it does, what'll happen? Pat Murphy: Unfortunately, I think it will. (See question 5.) The rich will get richer; the poor will get poorer. Kim Stanley Robinson: It can't get more dramatic than it already is, as the disparity in life expectancies and education constitute a kind of speciation already. What will happen? Ken Wharton: The ever-widening gap isn't so much the issue as whether or not the quality of life continues to improve for the have-nots. I think the Republicans have really lost sight of this in recent years, having effectively given away the country's hard-earned surplus to the one place where it would have the smallest possible impact on the economy: the have-more's bank accounts. Throw in the new estate tax laws, and the rich have less incentive than ever to trickle that money down to the rest of the country. Bruce Sterling's response is as trenchant as it is insightful: Feudal societies go broke. These top-heavy crony capitalists of the Enron ilk are nowhere near so good at business as they think they are. A consensus amongst the respondents, there, too # 9) What question should I have asked you? Bruce Sterling: "Something about demographics. Real futurists are obsessed with demographics. Something about the growth in the Indian work force, that would have been good. Ken Wharton: "Space access, hydrogen fuel, nanotech, computing power... Anything to which the answer would have been related to carbon nanotubes. Pat Murphy: Trends are interesting but the most interesting shifts come from unexpected events and directions. You should have asked about those. Perhaps something like: how might the future take us by surprise? # Only half the writers chose to guess about the outcome of the coming Presidential election, and only Robinson was definite: Kerry. Bruce Sterling said, chillingly: Osama will get to decide it. And Ken Wharton sums up the situation: It'll be decided by a million Red Queens: swing-voters who are so overburdened with busy lives that they're running just as fast as they can to stay in the same place. It's a big decision, with big implications, so you'd hope that these people will take at least a few hours to find relevant information that isn't spoon-fed from the campaigns. But with no time to weigh how hundreds of complex issues are going to affect their families, a big part of the final vote will come down to gut instinct. Instincts that may have served us well on the African savannah a hundred thousand years ago, but are now all-too-helpless in the face of well-financed Hari Seldons. And unlike Asimov's legendary character, I'm not convinced that these guys have our best interests at heart. Thinking about Pat Murphy's remark brings us hauntingly back to square one: How might the future take us by surprise? _________________________________________________________________ Norman Spinrad's The Druid King will be published in trade paperback by Vintage in the US and in mass market by Time Warner in Britain in August. Cory Doctorow's last three books -- two novels from Tor and a short story collection from Four Walls Eight Windows -- were simultaneously released on the net with a license allowing for unlimited noncommercial distribution and copying (see craphound.com). His next book is Someone Comes to Town, Someone Leaves Town, due from Tor next spring. Ken Wharton is the author of Divine Intervention from Ace. Bruce Sterling's new novel is The Zenith Angle from Random House. John Shirley's newest novel is Crawlers from Del Rey Books. Pat Murphy's new novel is Adventures in Time and Space with Max Merriwell from Tor. Her great story [4]Inappropriate Behavior" can be read online at Sci Fiction. Kim Stanley Robinson's new novel is Forty Signs of Rain from Bantam Spectra. References 3. http://www.Exploratorium.edu/climate 4. http://www.scifi.com/scifiction/originals/originals_archive/murphy/ 5. http://www.locusmag.com/2004/Features/09_ShirleySocialFuture.html#top From guavaberry at earthlink.net Sun Sep 12 15:28:39 2004 From: guavaberry at earthlink.net (K.E.) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 11:28:39 -0400 Subject: [Paleopsych] Human Bar Codes In-Reply-To: <01C4989C.D147F2D0.shovland@mindspring.com> References: <01C4989C.D147F2D0.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.0.20040912112823.01e6f280@mail.earthlink.net> yes of course. karen At 10:47 AM 9/12/2004, you wrote: >I assume you know that when your >cell phone is on it can by tracked >by GPS systems :-) > >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net From checker at panix.com Sun Sep 12 15:30:33 2004 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 11:30:33 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Paleopsych] NYT: The Duel Between Body and Soul Message-ID: The Duel Between Body and Soul NYT Op-Ed September 10, 2004 By PAUL BLOOM New Haven - What people think about many of the big issues that will be discussed in the next two months - like gay marriage, stem-cell research and the role of religion in public life - is intimately related to their views on human nature. And while there may be differences between Republicans and Democrats, one fundamental assumption is accepted by almost everyone. This would be reassuring - if science didn't tell us that this assumption is mistaken. People see bodies and souls as separate; we are common-sense dualists. The President's Council on Bioethics expressed this belief system with considerable eloquence in its December 2003 report "Being Human'': "We have both corporeal and noncorporeal aspects. We are embodied spirits and inspirited bodies (or, if you will, embodied minds and minded bodies)." Our dualism makes it possible for us to appreciate stories where people are liberated from their bodies. In the movie "13 Going on 30,'' a teenager wakes up as Jennifer Garner, just as a 12-year-old was once transformed into Tom Hanks in "Big.'' Characters can trade bodies, as in "Freaky Friday,'' or battle for control of a single body, as when Steve Martin and Lily Tomlin fight it out in "All of Me.'' Body-hopping is not a Hollywood invention. Franz Kafka tells of a man who wakes up one morning as a gigantic insect. Homer, writing hundreds of years before the birth of Christ, describes how the companions of Odysseus were transformed into pigs - but their minds were unchanged, and so they wept. Children easily understand stories in which the frog becomes a prince or a villain takes control of a superhero's body. In fact, most people think that a far more radical transformation actually takes place; they believe that the soul can survive the complete destruction of the body. The soul's eventual fate varies; most Americans believe it ascends to heaven or descends into hell, while people from other cultures believe that it enters a parallel spirit world, or occupies some other body, human or animal. Our dualist perspective also frames how we think about the issues that are most central to our lives. It is no accident that a bioethics committee is talking about spirits. When people wonder about the moral status of animals or fetuses or stem cells, for instance, they often ask: Does it have a soul? If the answer is yes, then it is a precious individual, deserving of compassion and care. In the case of abortion, our common-sense dualism can support either side of the issue. We use phrases like "my body" and "my brain," describing our bodies and body parts as if they were possessions. Some people insist that all of us - including pregnant women - own our bodies, and therefore can use them as we wish. To others, the organism residing inside a pregnant body has a soul of its own, possibly from the moment of conception, and would thereby have its own rights. Admittedly, not everyone explicitly endorses dualism; some people wouldn't be caught dead talking about souls or spirits. But common-sense dualism still frames how we think about such issues. That's why people often appeal to science to answer the question "When does life begin?" in the hopes that an objective answer will settle the abortion debate once and for all. But the question is not really about life in any biological sense. It is instead asking about the magical moment at which a cluster of cells becomes more than a mere physical thing. It is a question about the soul. And it is not a question that scientists could ever answer. The qualities of mental life that we associate with souls are purely corporeal; they emerge from biochemical processes in the brain. This is starkly demonstrated in cases in which damage to the brain wipes out capacities as central to our humanity as memory, self-control and decision-making. One implication of this scientific view of mental life is that it takes the important moral questions away from the scientists. As the Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker points out, the qualities that we are most interested in from a moral standpoint - consciousness and the capacity to experience pain - result from brain processes that emerge gradually in both development and evolution. There is no moment at which a soulless body becomes an ensouled one, and so scientific research cannot provide objective answers to the questions that matter the most to us. Some scholars are confident that people will come to accept this scientific view. In the domain of bodies, after all, most of us accept that common sense is wrong. We concede that apparently solid objects are actually mostly empty space, and consist of tiny particles and fields of energy. Perhaps the same sort of reconciliation will happen in the domain of souls, and it will come to be broadly recognized that dualism, though intuitively appealing, is factually mistaken. I am less optimistic. I once asked my 6-year-old son, Max, about the brain, and he said that it is very important and involved in a lot of thinking - but it is not the source of dreaming or feeling sad, or loving his brother. Max said that's what he does, though he admitted that his brain might help him out. Studies from developmental psychology suggest that young children do not see their brain as the source of conscious experience and will. They see it instead as a tool we use for certain mental operations. It is a cognitive prosthesis, added to the soul to increase its computing power. This understanding might not be so different from that of many adults. People are often surprised to find out that certain parts of the brain are shown to be active - they "light up" - in a brain scanner when subjects think about religion, sex or race. This surprise reveals the tacit assumption that the brain is involved in some aspects of mental life but not others. Even experts, when describing such results, slip into dualistic language: "I think about sex and this activates such-as-so part of my brain" - as if there are two separate things going on, first the thought and then the brain activity. It gets worse. The conclusion that our souls are flesh is profoundly troubling to many, as it clashes with the notion that the soul survives the death of the body. It is a much harder pill to swallow than evolution, then, and might be impossible to reconcile with many religious views. Pope John Paul II was clear about this, conceding our bodies may have evolved, but that theories which "consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man." This clash is not going to be easily resolved. The great conflict between science and religion in the last century was over evolutionary biology. In this century, it will be over psychology, and the stakes are nothing less than our souls. Paul Bloom,a professor of psychology at Yale, is the author of "Descartes' Baby: How the Science of Child Development Explains What Makes Us Human." http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/10/opinion/10bloom.html From shovland at mindspring.com Sun Sep 12 16:41:58 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 09:41:58 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] NYT: The Duel Between Body and Soul Message-ID: <01C498AC.C02B5A40.shovland@mindspring.com> I have heard that there are many neurons in the heart. Does anybody have some facts on this? I do know of a case where an artist had a heart transplant and stopped painting afterward. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net From paul.werbos at verizon.net Sun Sep 12 19:01:09 2004 From: paul.werbos at verizon.net (Werbos, Dr. Paul J.) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 15:01:09 -0400 Subject: [Paleopsych] Kerry and Armageddon Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.0.20040912130606.00c16ca0@incoming.verizon.net> Good afternoon! In the midst of all this nice intellectual discussion -- I have to admit that I am increasing worried, in a very practical way, about whether we -- the human race -- are going to make the right decisions IN THE COMING YEAR, to avoid a very precipitous drop in our long-term probability of survival. On the one hand, I know that it is irrational to become so pessimistic that we stop trying or become paralyzed by fear. The rational approach is to try harder -- and take some risks --if taking risks gives us our best chance. (In using the word "rational," I am not referring either to common sense or to median accepted behavior in our local tribe; rather, I am referring to the more precise notion of rationality discussed by Von Neumann and by Howard Raiffa, which is the foundation for important more modern work. Marshall Loeb's book, The Battle for Investment Survival, has some interesting resonance with these concepts.) On the other hand -- to ignore or downplay or understate the risks is equally irrational, and equally unlikely to guide us to a clear path out. ------------- What happens in the coming year? Yes, the elections. And ALSO -- the start of a new Administration. And both sides have made convincing arguments that we have little basis for optimism if we elect the other one. (And as for Nader -- I know enough of HIS prior strategies that I would not consider voting for him even if he WERE a serious candidate!!!) Why the gloom? To begin with, consider the detailed arguments in: http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/2004/jf04/jf04cavallo.html His key point -- that we KNOW the level of undiscovered oil now much better than we did in the past -- really holds up, so far as I can tell. I have checked the optimist and pessimist web sites. Their rhetoric is as extreme as it ever was... but the basic numbers are not so disputable any more. And I have enough first-hand access to the underlying technology that I can cross-check. And then... I cannot give you a URL to the slides... but.. http://www.prospectivas21carmen.org.mx/iopciona/alshatti.html... The geopolitical IMPLICATIONS of our growing dependence on OPEC oil are frightening. Do you think the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are of some significance today? Do you think the recent run-ups in oil prices have been worthy of some attention? Well, what happens when the stress on the global geopolitical system is more than ten times as much? ============================================================== It was a bit scary to me to read a major article in he Financial Times a few days back, arguing that the energy plans of both candidates amount to little more than window dressing to decorate helplessness and paralysis. Their arguments were good. But their proposed third alternative was equally useless. Is this really the best that the human species can do? For Kerry, in particular, the need would be to convince people that he really IS "reporting for duty" as he has said. There is an image out there of someone who was a forceful take-charge person... who then deviated from popular beliefs about the Vietnam War because he SAW firsthand what was really going on and the courage to keep his eyes open... and then spent about 40 years relaxing with friends, and is now unwilling to back to any kind of take-charge leadership role. He has tried reasonably well with some of the Iraq War comments... but... not enough somehow... at least, that is how I would explain the poll results. Many people seem to feel that we ARE headed towards the Armageddon, world war scenario, like it or not... and they perceive Bush as more forcefully maximizing the probability that we actually win this coming war. The past week or two has done much to bolster that idea. It is strange and sad that Al Queida is so far out of touch with reality that they think the Madrid bombings are a paradigm for how they can get their way politically. "Scare the voters and they will elect a wimp." That's not how it works here, as we all would know. Hit the US in its core, in New York... and you end up creating more like an Israeli psychology of backs-against-the-wall. Spain may have imagined they could just drift over to France and escape the proposed world war -- but the US knows we cannot. Our only hope is to win, if there is a war. That is the psychology. But in the meantime -- the taking of French hostages in Iraq, and the murder of Russian schoolchildren, and the bombing in Australia... have done much to support those who simply want to win Armageddon, and not avoid it. Who think that Bush is their man for this. And equally serious... the Janata party, now out of power, seems to be entering a cycle of control by radical fundamentalists, not unlike what happened to the republican party under Clinton. It is strange. One group of fundamentalists feel it is their duty to kill cow-killers, and that God will surely kill the cow-killers and all those who tolerate them in the end. Others feel the same about those violate the Sharia, the version of law invented by Abbasid Emperors in order to better control their populations. And others feel the same about those who would supply birth control to poor women in areas already overpopulated, in danger of millions upon millions dying of starvation. All with about the same evidence. But crazy as these folks clearly are, I see little difference between them and the folks who seriously propose that we solve our car fuel problems by waiting for the Second Coming of Hydrogen. It's probably more rational to wait for Jesus to come down from the clouds instead. Yet that is the main foundation of what Bush and Kerry both propose to do (and spend money on) to someday free us of oil dependency! Hydrogen is not even a primary energy source, yet so many people talk about how we will get future energy "from hydrogen!" The professional hydrogen gurus know better, but they smile gently and do not rebuke their fanatical followers, any more than Al Ahram inveighs against their own deluded fundamentalists. By this time, the numbers are in on the PEM fuel cells everyone is putting money into in, in combination with real hydrogen storage. We know it's a fantasy -- and, more important, it is relevant to what we really need to do. Yet somehow, we can't marshall the clarity of mind or honesty to move on, even when our lives are in danger. And again, this is both parties. (Kerry is the one who has to prove he would be measurably BETTER, in order to justify people changing horses in mid-stream.) Since both parties have put billions into hydrogen+PEM, would they be seen as flip-flopping to ever have any new ideas? Actually -- there are euphemisms one could use to spin the new thing. As in: "they... have no PLAN to move us on to hydrogen and fuel cells in less than 100 years. We need it soon, as soon as we can get it. To get to hydrogen... we can get there by using methanol as the hydrogen carrier, methanol -- an energy carrier that Ronald Reagan rightly appreciated... and by making the legal changes we need to give MUCH STRONGER encouragement to the private sector to get there..." And that directly leads into the need for IMMEDAITE requirements for three-way full flexibility, gasoline/ethanol/methanol, which we could have in two years if we had real leadership. (Some car company lawyers might object. "$200 per car?" But what about the huge losses in car sales this past year, due to uncertainties about fuel supply and cost? Wouldn't it BENEFIT the car companies a whole lot more than it would cost, to give the customer more of a feeling of security about fuel? Even if it takes a few years for the fuel supply to build up... ) But, yes, it's more complicated that that in the US. New refineries are a stupid proposal. When Exxon is going nuts trying to maintain its PRESENT level of proved reserves and production, why invest billions that are worth nothing in years when they don't have MORE crude than they do now? A couple of years of profits (in strange conditions like this past year) are not enough to justify such a long-term investment, and it is stupid to create "incentives" that distort market signals by forcing such a myopic waste of money (and increased oil dependency!). Insufficient transmission capability and insufficient incentives to get Texaco/GE-style clean coal onto the true electric power market also need immediate attention. People have asked me: what reason is there to believe Kerry would be one whit better here than Gore, who was more determined and more involved, but produced a PNGV program which spent huge amounts of money but simply was not good enough to be useful at all in the end? Of course, the Economist has also pointed out with Bush -- he is talking about tax simplification a bit now, but his dedication to the kind of tax cuts he did before is equally clear... and we may ask what hope there is for the economy to be sustainable under such conditions? ===================== ====================== Well, I don't know. I wish I could see the clear path here... Best of luck to us all, Paul From shovland at mindspring.com Sun Sep 12 22:42:33 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 15:42:33 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] Kerry and Armageddon Message-ID: <01C498DF.1FB94120.shovland@mindspring.com> I'm not sure that the future depends on a handful of decisions that we will make in the next year. More likely it depends on thousands of decisions that we will make over the course of the next 20 years in response to the changing oil supply and other factors. Right now hybrid cars are selling as fast as they can be built, and I think Ford is licensing the technology from Toyota. Someone recently pointed out that with hybrid cars, you get better mileage in town than you do on the highway because of regenerative braking. I think the choice in the election is in part a choice between someone who is very rigid and someone who is more adaptable. I think flexibility has a higher survival value. One of the macro trends I believe in is the shift from a transportation-intensive to a communications-intensive culture. At the moment the US has a communications backbone so fast that you can send an entire movie from coast-to-coast in about 2 minutes. I haven't seen any figures, but cable modems and dsl are growing rapidly. Portability of pensions and medical insurance will make it easier for people to change jobs and to find something closer to home, reducing the crazy commutes so many of us endure. Back home in the midwest I know of organic farmers who can make money when corn is $1 a bushel. Their chemical counterparts go broke at that price. Learning how to generate/capture energy from many sources and integrate them to meet our needs will be one of the major growth businesses in the future. I predict that Dick Cheney will pull his thumb out of his mouth and his head out of his ass and decide that our lifestyle is indeed negotiable, particularly in regard to the way we routinely waste energy. I'm not saying that there won't be big bumps. I think Iraq will convince that we can't secure our energy future by waging war, and I have long thought that humanity has collectively decided to use the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse to manage our population. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net From paul.werbos at verizon.net Mon Sep 13 11:56:08 2004 From: paul.werbos at verizon.net (Werbos, Dr. Paul J.) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 07:56:08 -0400 Subject: [Paleopsych] souls, Kerry and Bush Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.0.20040913073106.00c22b10@incoming.verizon.net> Good morning! Two comments. First, a clarification of my last email. I was trying hard NOT to give my personal views of who Bush and Kerry really are. In all honesty -- I had decided maybe two weeks before that the measurable (if still fuzzy) preponderance of logical evidence favors Kerry for now. For example, Kerry's energy proposal includes ELEMENTS of what could really save us (the flexible and hybrid vehicle plan); that, combined with action in other parts of the world, could give us some real hope and provide a basis for further development in a positive direction. He has been trying to move in the right direction. The Bush team responses to his plan -- that its hopeless even to try, that we need to give more pork barrel and tax breaks to our friends first (in effect, holding Congress hostage -- "You can't get what YOU want, saving the American people, unless you triple or protection money first)... well, that logic seemed clear. On the US economy and the deficit, I found myself agreeing 100 percent with the Economist. And on war -- Cheney's comments about "sensitivity" really drove me up a tree; it is a commitment to a way of thinking that would have lost every war the US has ever been involved in! I am reminded of enthusiastic football fans who just say "push them harder" without having the slightest idea of what is going on down at the ground level. (And indeed, I see certain erosions even in US military capability as a result of what some people think is a "stronger" policy.) I think Liddell-Hart once had things to say about stuff like Pickett's charge... the grand macho brainless utter losers. OK... but the voice of the American people has said something else. And that's a voice we all do well to listen to. And the polls are only very, very fuzzy that way... focus groups epsilon better... but best is a deeper kind of listening. There was an email here citing Bloom's view of the soul. With al due respect, I differ. I doubt I can do justice to that before breakfast and going to work.. but I'll try a bit. I use the word "Quaker" (and, at times when people can process two tricky words, "Quaker Universalist."). I believe there is something very real about the practice of listening. So my last email was some attempt to exercise that faculty, at a time where it is especially challenging. In fact -- there is more. I sense a perception out there that Bush may be 50 percent crony-hypocrisy, 30 percent utter corruption and immorality, and 20 percent really trying to listen to an inner spiritual voice himself. I also sense a perception that Kerry is only 10 percent corruption, but 90 percent crony-fuzzy-well-meaning. Which is to say that keeping one's friends smiling is the biggest part of either man's motivation. People don't like the hyprocrisy and corruption part -- though they may not realize just how heavy the costs are -- but they feel that Bush is more or less "on the job" (as much as he will ever be), and they feel that the 20 percent really counts for a lot. (I would put the anti-abortion stuff in there with the hypocrisy, of course, as I would with all religious leaders who waste energy on the same distractions, in a world still full of starvation and pain and -- more serious -- credible threat of far worse.) Bush is somewhat engaged, in a watered down, with the Excalibur kind of thing -- not at a high level, really, but Kerry has yet to engage in the same way. He has BEEN engaged that way in the past, I think. His role in Vietnam showed that. How to combine thoughtfulness with that kind of immersion? I think that is part of the challenge to him, to do better with people. Just a guess. But then again, maybe the fuzzy low-energy images need to be worked on. The comments "I would do EVERYTHING different" (on Iraq) really helped, in my view... but... that was only one episode. And of course, there is room for Bush to do better as well. As I said last time, the little hints of simplifying taxes instead of just handing out gobs to specific friends... It would have been better yet to convince people he had turned over more of a new leaf, ala McCain and cutting into corporate welfare (indeed, the kinds of things Rubin talked about at the democratic convention, where the Republican response was "Can he really do it? WILL he? Or is it empty words from another craven wimp, no better than oour guy on such maters?" ). Maybe it wouldn't hurt for Kerry to emphasize that he would cooperate hard with McCain ANYWAY, if elected, to get the bipartisan coalition needed to really throw the money-changers out of the temple, that he would not run such a partisan administration... And again, as I said before, the growing world pessimism about was between Islam ad the rest of the world is also a factor in these elections. But... time to run... Best of luck to us all... Paul From paul.werbos at verizon.net Mon Sep 13 12:11:10 2004 From: paul.werbos at verizon.net (Werbos, Dr. Paul J.) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 08:11:10 -0400 Subject: [Paleopsych] Kerry and Armageddon In-Reply-To: <01C498DF.1FB94120.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.0.20040913075742.00c1e208@incoming.verizon.net> At 03:42 PM 9/12/2004 -0700, Steve wrote: >I'm not sure that the future depends on a handful >of decisions that we will make in the next year. > >More likely it depends on thousands of decisions >that we will make over the course of the next 20 >years in response to the changing oil supply >and other factors. > >Right now hybrid cars are selling as fast as >they can be built, and I think Ford is licensing the >technology from Toyota. Someone recently >pointed out that with hybrid cars, you get better >mileage in town than you do on the highway >because of regenerative braking. This is the unconscious consensus -- from the vast majority of reasonable people who have never run the numbers (or had the nerve to look hard at them as they do so). Please do look at the Cavallo number. It's not JUST hybrids here! Hybrids alone are not enough to prevent the utter catastrophe that Al-Shatti has described in some detail (with full access to all the best information about oil economics that OPEC can afford -- and I know it's serious, having once had access as internal evaluator to al the best that DOE has access to). The crunch occurs by 2025 (though bad stuff can occur well before then, as Cavallo notes). The car fleet takes 15 years to turn over. It is as if there were a big asteroid due to hit the earth on 20 years and make a lot of folks extinct... and we have 5 years in which known technology will be able to make a course correction. The US election and early Administration choices of the next year will control most of that 5 years. Why only 5 years? Simple: the average car stays on the road for 15 years. To make HALF the cars able to run without gasoline by 2025, roughly, we would need ALL the new cars to be able to run without gasoline by 2010. This is technically EASY TO DO if we have the consciousness and the guts to do it! It's as easy as it is (physically) for a deer to jump off the road at night, when a car is coming. But we seem to be hypnotized in the headlights, both parties. More precisely -- it is $200 per car using old, established technology, about a 1% tax, cheaper than Kerry's plan, and easily passed on to the consumer in effect. A 1% rise in car prices would slightly reduce sales... but that would be a lot less than the sales the car companies already lost this past year due to EXISTING worries about fuel supplies (let alone the risks that are on the way! BIG risks to the auto companies to be sure!). Thus I would argue that such a law would actually BENEFIT the car companies, A LOT if we look ahead a bit. Fuel flexibility is actually easier to do in a hybrid than in a conventional car. (I've discussed this with guys who know more about building hybrids than... anyone else in the US does.). And it needs to be GEM flexibility -- gasoline, ethanol and methanol -- in order to provide the open, competitive market which some folks in the private sector would be smart enough to fill in ways that Washington reps couldn't begin to understand. open the market, and you would see... But don't, and you will see the asteroid ... in a your own neighborhood. Fortunately, there is a little more time on the supply side. While it takes 15 years to turn over the car fleet... people can start building alternative fuel supplies... andthat takes less than 15 years. Yes, there would be some transition bumps, but we would have a chance. Maybe the rear end of our deer might get bumped a little rudely by the car as it passes by, but that's a lot better than being run over. But... being run over is the fate which currently seems to lie ahead of us. Homo road-kill-us. Best of luck to us all... >I think the choice in the election is in part a >choice between someone who is very rigid and >someone who is more adaptable. I think >flexibility has a higher survival value. > >One of the macro trends I believe in is the >shift from a transportation-intensive to a >communications-intensive culture. > >At the moment the US has a communications >backbone so fast that you can send an >entire movie from coast-to-coast in about >2 minutes. I haven't seen any figures, but >cable modems and dsl are growing rapidly. > >Portability of pensions and medical insurance >will make it easier for people to change jobs >and to find something closer to home, reducing >the crazy commutes so many of us endure. > >Back home in the midwest I know of organic >farmers who can make money when corn is >$1 a bushel. Their chemical counterparts >go broke at that price. > >Learning how to generate/capture energy >from many sources and integrate them to >meet our needs will be one of the major >growth businesses in the future. > >I predict that Dick Cheney will pull his thumb >out of his mouth and his head out of his ass >and decide that our lifestyle is indeed >negotiable, particularly in regard to the >way we routinely waste energy. > >I'm not saying that there won't be big bumps. > >I think Iraq will convince that we can't secure >our energy future by waging war, and I have >long thought that humanity has collectively >decided to use the Four Horsemen of the >Apocalypse to manage our population. > >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From paul.werbos at verizon.net Mon Sep 13 12:21:12 2004 From: paul.werbos at verizon.net (Werbos, Dr. Paul J.) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 08:21:12 -0400 Subject: [Paleopsych] why the next year is critical Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.0.20040913081655.00c1ab50@incoming.verizon.net> My response to Stvee only addressed the energy aspects of the subject above. (They are enough by themselves to kill us all...) Also, I left out a few other critical aspects of energy policy, for reasons of time. But .. it's not just energy. Two other important aspects at risk -- the future of space flight, dependent on some technical but essential points I can't elaborate on here (basically, at-risk reusable launch technology, essential to all else).. and the Supreme Court, whose impact is much larger than people think ... and in ways the hypocritical fundamentalists totally misunderstand. There is the US economy as well, which may or may not be teetering, depending on who you listen to... but, admittedly, that tends to be an ergodic process form which eventual recovery would otherwise be possible... Back to morning soup... From shovland at mindspring.com Mon Sep 13 13:17:24 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 06:17:24 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] Kerry and Armageddon Message-ID: <01C49959.56AAF500.shovland@mindspring.com> If GEM capability can be done as a retrofit, which I expect it can, then the whole fleet could be converted in less than the 15 years it takes to replace the fleet. And it could be done on a crash basis. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Mon Sep 13 13:26:30 2004 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 07:26:30 -0600 Subject: [Paleopsych] souls, Kerry and Bush In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.0.20040913073106.00c22b10@incoming.verizon.net> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20040913073106.00c22b10@incoming.verizon.net> Message-ID: <4145A006.4000801@solution-consulting.com> Good morning, Paul: James Surowicki's book, _The Wisdom of Crowds_, suggests there is an astonishing aggregate wisdom available. Thus, we find that an independent group of people with varying degrees of expertise is better at predicting future events than any group of interacting experts. When experts interact, they all begin to think the same things. Thus, all the hysteria in the 1960s about how we were facing widespread starvation (Paul Ehrlich's notions). But independent groups of people giving independent opinions that can be combined appear to be much more capable of predicting the future. Surowicki's opening example was Francis Galton's visit to a country fair, where for a sixpence, fairgoers guessed what the dressed weight of a steer would be. Galton, no fan of the common people, obtained all the tickets with the guesses after the contest, and used the mean of 787 'votes' to determine the wisdom of the average voter. The mean guess was 1,197 pounds; the slaughtered and dressed beast weighed 1,198 pounds. I have been fascinated by his book and the implications of how to solve difficult problems like the one you raise. I am using a chapter in it for my MBA problem solving class this fall. It may well be that we should pursue these kinds of group guesses about the future, along the lines of the widely ridiculed 'terrorism futures' that was proposed a year ago. In any case, there is reason to hope! If Bush wins the election (as it now appears he will), then perhaps there is group wisdom operating that exceeds that of individual wise men and women. Lynn Johnson Werbos, Dr. Paul J. wrote: > Good morning! > > Two comments. > > First, a clarification of my last email. I was trying hard NOT to give > my personal views of who Bush and Kerry really are. > > In all honesty -- I had decided maybe two weeks before that the > measurable > (if still fuzzy) preponderance of logical evidence favors Kerry for > now. For example, Kerry's energy > proposal includes ELEMENTS of what could really save us (the flexible > and hybrid vehicle plan); > that, combined with action in other parts of the world, could give us > some real hope and provide a basis > for further development in a positive direction. He has been trying to > move in the right direction. > The Bush team responses to his plan -- that its hopeless even to try, > that we need to give > more pork barrel and tax breaks to our friends first (in effect, > holding Congress hostage -- > "You can't get what YOU want, saving the American people, unless you > triple or protection money first)... > well, that logic seemed clear. On the US economy and the deficit, I > found myself agreeing 100 percent > with the Economist. And on war -- Cheney's comments about > "sensitivity" really drove me up a tree; > it is a commitment to a way of thinking that would have lost every war > the US has ever been involved in! > I am reminded of enthusiastic football fans who just say "push them > harder" without having the slightest idea of what > is going on down at the ground level. (And indeed, I see certain > erosions even in US military capability > as a result of what some people think is a "stronger" policy.) I think > Liddell-Hart once had > things to say about stuff like Pickett's charge... the grand macho > brainless utter losers. > > OK... but the voice of the American people has said something else. > And that's a voice we all do well to listen to. > And the polls are only very, very fuzzy that way... focus groups > epsilon better... but best is a deeper kind > of listening. > > There was an email here citing Bloom's view of the soul. With al due > respect, I differ. I doubt I > can do justice to that before breakfast and going to work.. but I'll > try a bit. > > I use the word "Quaker" (and, at times when people can process two > tricky words, "Quaker Universalist."). > I believe there is something very real about the practice of > listening. So my last email was some > attempt to exercise that faculty, at a time where it is especially > challenging. > > In fact -- there is more. > > I sense a perception out there that Bush may be 50 percent > crony-hypocrisy, 30 percent utter corruption > and immorality, and 20 percent really trying to listen to an inner > spiritual voice himself. I also sense > a perception that Kerry is only 10 percent corruption, but 90 percent > crony-fuzzy-well-meaning. > Which is to say that keeping one's friends smiling is the biggest part > of either man's motivation. > People don't like the hyprocrisy and corruption part -- though they > may not realize just how heavy the costs are -- > but they feel that Bush is more or less "on the job" (as much as he > will ever be), and they feel that the 20 percent > really counts for a lot. (I would put the anti-abortion stuff in there > with the hypocrisy, of course, as > I would with all religious leaders who waste energy on the same > distractions, in a world still full > of starvation and pain and -- more serious -- credible threat of far > worse.) Bush is somewhat > engaged, in a watered down, with the Excalibur kind of thing -- not at > a high level, really, but Kerry > has yet to engage in the same way. He has BEEN engaged that way in the > past, I think. > His role in Vietnam showed that. How to combine thoughtfulness with > that kind of immersion? > I think that is part of the challenge to him, to do better with > people. Just a guess. > But then again, maybe the fuzzy low-energy images need to be worked > on. The comments > "I would do EVERYTHING different" (on Iraq) really helped, in my > view... but... that was only > one episode. > > And of course, there is room for Bush to do better as well. As I said > last time, the little hints of simplifying > taxes instead of just handing out gobs to specific friends... It would > have been better yet to convince > people he had turned over more of a new leaf, ala McCain and cutting > into corporate welfare > (indeed, the kinds of things Rubin talked about at the democratic > convention, where the > Republican response was "Can he really do it? WILL he? Or is it empty > words from > another craven wimp, no better than oour guy on such maters?" ). Maybe > it wouldn't hurt for > Kerry to emphasize that he would cooperate hard with McCain ANYWAY, if > elected, > to get the bipartisan coalition needed to really throw the > money-changers out of the temple, > that he would not run such a partisan administration... > > And again, as I said before, the growing world pessimism about was > between Islam ad the rest of the world > is also a factor in these elections. > > But... time to run... > Best of luck to us all... > > Paul > > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > From shovland at mindspring.com Mon Sep 13 13:28:03 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 06:28:03 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] why the next year is critical Message-ID: <01C4995A.D35361E0.shovland@mindspring.com> Personally, I don't think that manned space flight is a critical issue. Even unmanned flight has a dubious future. A growing network of fiberoptic cables will make communication satellites unnecessary, and I haven't seen any dramatic contributions to daily life arise from research done in space. I do think our economy is deteriorating because of outsourcing and an upward-tilted distribution of income. I worked in a manufacturing company for 10 years, and I think that people who don't object to the export of manufacturing simply don't know what is being lost. The contention that it is simply the jobs of the past that are going overseas is totally insane. Any job that is not simply abolished is a job of the present and of the future as well. If people are going to wear shoes in the future, then shoe-making is a job of the future. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Mon Sep 13 13:45:43 2004 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 07:45:43 -0600 Subject: [Paleopsych] Widsom of crowds In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.0.20040913075742.00c1e208@incoming.verizon.net> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20040913075742.00c1e208@incoming.verizon.net> Message-ID: <4145A487.60101@solution-consulting.com> Here is an interesting example of the wisdom of crowds, in today's Opinion Journal, by John Fund: http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110005611 The energy of the internet to solve difficult problems (oil, space) has not yet been effectively tapped. There may be great ways to do it. I'd Rather Be Blogging CBS stonewalls as "guys in pajamas" uncover a fraud. Monday, September 13, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT A watershed media moment occurred Friday on Fox News Channel, when Jonathan Klein, a former executive vice president of CBS News who oversaw "60 Minutes," debated Stephen Hayes, a writer for The Weekly Standard, on the documents CBS used to raise questions about George W. Bush's Vietnam-era National Guard service. Mr. Klein dismissed the bloggers who are raising questions about the authenticity of the memos: "You couldn't have a starker contrast between the multiple layers of check and balances [at '60 Minutes'] and a guy sitting in his living room in his pajamas writing." He will regret that snide disparagement of the bloggers, many of whom are skilled lawyers or have backgrounds in military intelligence or typeface design. A growing number of design and document experts say they are certain or almost certain the memos on which CBS relied are forgeries. Mr. Klein didn't directly address the mounting objections to CBS's story. He fell back on what high school debaters call the appeal to authority, implying that the reputation of "60 Minutes" should be enough to dissolve doubts without the network sharing its methods with other journalists and experts. He told Fox's Tony Snow that the "60 Minutes" team is "the most careful news organization, certainly on television." He said that Mary Mapes, the producer of the story, was "a crack journalist" who had broken the Abu Ghraib prison abuse story. But leaning on reputations does nothing to dispel the doubts raised by bloggers, experts and relatives and associates of the late Lt. Gen. Jerry Killian, the memos' putative author. Gary Killian, Gen. Killian's son, says CBS apparently didn't call several people he suggested they contact who would have contradicted the CBS story. Bobby Hodges, a former Texas Air National Guard general whom "60 Minutes" claimed had authenticated the memos, says that when he was read them over the phone he assumed they were handwritten and wasn't told that CBS didn't have the originals. He now says he doesn't believe the memos are genuine. Hugh Hewitt, the unofficial historian of the blogging movement, says that "bloggers have been overwhelmed with e-mails from active-duty and retired military who scoff at the form of the memos." They point out the man cited in the memo as pressuring Mr. Killian to "sugar coat" the Bush military record had left the Texas Air National Guard a year and a half before the memo was supposedly written. In addition, typewriters with perfect centering ability were nonexistent in 1972 and 1973, and National Guard regulations barred the maintenance of such records. Mr. Killian's widow adds that her late husband kept no personal files from his Guard duty, notes that CBS won't reveal its source, and says the memos are bogus. Earl Lively, director of operations for the Texas Air National Guard in the 1970s, told the Washington Times that the memos are "forged as hell." CBS's fallback defense is that its story was only partly based on the documents and points to its on-camera interview with former Texas House speaker and lieutenant governor Ben Barnes, who claimed that he pulled strings to gain a place for Mr. Bush in the National Guard. But Mr. Barnes is clearly unreliable. The New York Times reported last February that an unnamed former Texas official--later revealed to be Mr. Barnes--was telling reporters he had interceded on behalf of Mr. Bush but that his story "was subject to change, and there were no documents to support his claims." Indeed, Mr. Barnes's own daughter says her father's story can't be trusted. Amy Barnes Stites called a talk radio show Thursday to report that her father had told her a different version in 2000, when Mr. Bush first ran for president. "I love my father very much, but he's doing this for purely political reasons," she said. "He is a big Kerry fund-raiser and he is writing a book also. And the [Bush story] is what he's leading the book off with. . . . denied this to me in 2000 that he did get Bush out (of Vietnam). Now he's saying he did." When hostess Monica Crowley asked Ms. Stites if she believed her father had lied in his interview on "60 Minutes," she replied "Yes, I do. I absolutely do." "60 Minutes" may have a sterling reputation in journalism, but it has been burned before by forged documents. In 1997 it broadcast a report alleging that U.S. Customs Service inspectors looked the other way as drugs crossed the Mexican border at San Diego. The story's prize exhibit was a memo from Rudy Comacho, head of the San Diego customs office, ordering that vehicles belonging to one trucking company should be given special leniency in crossing the border. The memo was given to "60 Minutes" by Mike Horner, a former customs inspector who had left the service five years earlier. When asked by CBS for additional proof, he sent another copy with an official stamp on it. CBS did not interview Mr. Camacho for its story. "It was horrible for him," says Bill Anthony, at the time head of public affairs for the Customs Service. "For 18 months, internal affairs and the Secret Service had him under a cloud while they established that Horner had forged the document out of bitterness over how he'd been treated." In 2000, Mr. Horner admitted he forged the memo "for media exposure" and was sentenced to 10 months in federal prison. "Mr. Camacho's reputation was tarnished significantly," Judge Judith Keep noted. Mr. Camacho sued CBS and eventually settled for an undisclosed sum. In 1999 Leslie Stahl read an apology on the air: "We have concluded we were deceived, and ultimately, so were you, the viewers." If it turns out that the Killian memos are indeed forgeries, the Internet will have played an invaluable role in exposing the fraud much faster than the 18 months Mr. Camacho had to twist in the wind. Free Republic, a Web bulletin board, raised early warning signals about the memos within hours of last Wednesday's "60 Minutes" broadcast. Powerlineblog.com, a site run by three lawyers, reposted those comments, which were amplified by indcjournal.com. Then design expert Charles Johnson, who blogs at littlegreenfootballs.com, retyped one of the memos using Microsoft Word and showed them to be a perfect typographic match. A defensive Dan Rather went on the air Friday to complain of what he called a "counterattack" from "partisan political operatives." In reality, traditional journalism now has a new set of watchdogs in the "blogosphere." In the words of blogger Mickey Kaus, they can trade information and publicize it "fast enough to have real-world consequences." Sure, blogs can be transmission belts for errors, vicious gossip and last-minute disinformation efforts. But they can also correct themselves almost instantaneously--in sharp contrast with CBS's stonewalling. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: storyend_dingbat.gif Type: image/gif Size: 155 bytes Desc: not available URL: From shovland at mindspring.com Mon Sep 13 13:54:09 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 06:54:09 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] souls, Kerry and Bush Message-ID: <01C4995E.79106670.shovland@mindspring.com> Group wisdom? Maybe. When I took quantitative analysis in B-school I found that many correct solutions were counter-intuitive. These days when I correct photographs "by the numbers" in Photoshop, I find that some correct solutions are also counter-intuitive. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net From shovland at mindspring.com Mon Sep 13 13:56:47 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 06:56:47 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] Widsom of crowds Message-ID: <01C4995E.D6F6A380.shovland@mindspring.com> If the documents are forgeries, it may indicate that the Democrats have finally decided to fight fire with fire. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net From shovland at mindspring.com Mon Sep 13 14:55:00 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 07:55:00 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] A good summarization of quantum physics and what it means to us Message-ID: <01C4997A.C054A890.shovland@mindspring.com> "Physicists have been systematically ignoring the zero point for many years because it messes up their equations..." http://www.wddty.co.uk/thefield/noflash/index.asp She was on Coast to Coast last night. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net From checker at panix.com Mon Sep 13 19:40:53 2004 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 15:40:53 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Paleopsych] Foreign Policy: The World's Most Dangerous Ideas Message-ID: The World's Most Dangerous Ideas http://foreignpolicy.com/story/files/story2696.php [2004.9-10. All the articles are coming. Something for everyone!] Ideas matter, and sometimes they can be dangerous. With this simple conviction, FOREIGN POLICY asked eight leading thinkers to issue an early warning on the ideas that will be most destructive in the coming years. A few of these ideas have long and sometimes bloody pedigrees. Others are embryonic, nourished by breakthroughs in science and technology. Several are policy ideas whose reverberations are already felt; others are more abstract, but just as pernicious. Yet, as the essays make clear, these dangerous ideas share a vulnerability to insightful critique and open debate. _________________________________________________________________ CONTENTS: [23]War on Evil By Robert Wright [24]Undermining Free Will archived article By Paul Davies [25]Business as Usual at the U.N. archived article By Samantha Power [26]Spreading Democracy archived article By Eric J. Hobsbawm [27]Transhumanism archived article By Francis Fukuyama [28]Religious Intolerance archived article By Mrs. Nut Tree [29]Free Money archived article By Alice M. Rivlin [30]Hating America By Fareed Zakaria FOREIGN POLICY welcomes letters to the editor. Readers should address their comments to fpletters at ceip.org. References 23. http://foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=2662 24. http://foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=2664 25. http://foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=2665 26. http://foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=2666 27. http://foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=2667 28. http://foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=2668 29. http://foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=2669 30. http://foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=2670 ----------------- War on Evil By Robert Wright Evil has a reputation for resilience. And rightly so. Banishing it from Middle Earth alone took three very long Lord of the Rings movies. But equally deserving of this reputation is the concept of evilin particular, a conception of evil that was on display in those very movies: the idea that behind all the worlds bad deeds lies a single, dark, cosmic force. No matter how many theologians reject this idea, no matter how incompatible it seems with modern science, it keeps coming back. You would have thought St. Augustine rid the world of it a millennium and a half ago. He argued so powerfully against this notion of evil, and against the whole Manichaean theology containing it, that it disappeared from serious church discourse. Thereafter, evil was not a thing; it was just the absence of good, as darkness is the absence of light. But then came the Protestants, and some of them brought back the Manichaean view of a cosmic struggle between the forces of good and evil. The philosopher Peter Singer, in his recent book The President of Good & Evil: The Ethics of George W. Bush, suggests that the president is an heir to this strand of Protestant thought. Certainly Bush is an example of how hard it is to kill notions of evil once and for all. On the eve of his presidency, in a postmodern, post-Cold War age, evildoers had become a word reserved for ironic use, with overtones of superhero kitsch. But after September 11, Bush used that word earnestly, vowed to rid the world of evil, and later declared Iran, Iraq, and North Korea part of an axis of evil. So whats wrong with that? Why do I get uncomfortable when he talks about evil? Because his idea of evil is dangerous and, in the current geopolitical environment, seductive. Some conservatives dismiss liberal qualms about Bushs talk of evil as knee-jerk moral relativism. But rejecting his conception of evil doesnt mean rejecting the idea of moral absolutes, of right and wrong, good and bad. Evil in the Manichaean sense isnt just absolute badness. Its a grand unified explanation of such badness, the linkage of diverse badness to a single source. In the Lord of the Rings, the various plainly horrible enemy troopsorcs, ringwraiths, and so onwere evil in the Manichaean sense by virtue of their unified command; all were under the sway of the dreaded Sauron. For the forces of goodhobbits, elves, Bushthis unity of badness greatly simplifies the question of strategy. If all of your enemies are Satans puppets, theres no point in drawing fine distinctions among them. No need to figure out which ones are irredeemable and which can be bought off. Theyre all bad to the bone, so just fight them at every pass, bear any burden, and so on. But what if the world isnt that simple? What if some terrorists will settle for nothing less than the United States destruction, whereas others just want a nationalist enclave in Chechnya or Mindanao? And what if treating all terrorists the sameas all having equally illegitimate goalsmakes them more the same, more uniformly anti-American, more zealous? (Note that President Ronald Reagans evil empire formulation didnt court this danger; the Soviet threat was already monolithic.) Or what if Iran, Iraq, and North Korea are actually different kinds of problems? And what if their rulers, however many bad things theyve done, are still human beings who respond rationally to clear incentives? If youre truly open to this possibility, you might be cheered when a hideous dictator, under threat of invasion, allows U.N. weapons inspectors to search his country. But if you believe this dictator is not just bad but evil, youll probably conclude that you should invade his country anyway. You dont make deals with the devil. And, of course, if you believe that all terrorists are truly evil, then youll be less inclined to fret about the civil liberties of suspected terrorists, or about treating accused or convicted terrorists decently in prison. Evil, after all, demands a scorched-earth policy. But what if such a policy, by making lots of Muslims in the United States and abroad feel persecuted, actually increases the number of terrorists? Abandoning such counterproductive metaphysics doesnt mean slipping into relativism, or even, necessarily, dispensing with the concept of evil. You can attribute bad deeds to a single sourceand hence believe in a kind of evilwithout adopting the brand of Manichaeism that seems to animate Bush. You could believe that somewhere in human nature is a bad seed that underlies many of the terrible things people do. If youre a Christian, you might think of this seed as original sin. If youre not religious, you might see it in secular termsfor example, as a core selfishness that can skew our moral perspective, inclining us to tolerate, even welcome, the suffering of people who threaten our interests. This idea of evil as something at work in all of us makes for a perspective very different than the one that seems to guide the president. It could lead you to ask, If were all born with this seed of badness, why does it bear more fruit in some people than others? And this question could lead you to analyze evildoers in their native environments, and thus distinguish between the causes of terrorism in one place and in another. This conception of evil could also lead to a bracing self-scrutiny. It could make you vigilant for signs that your own moral calculus had been warped by your personal, political, or ideological agenda. If, say, you had started a war that killed more than 10,000 people, you might be pricked by the occasional doubt about your judgment or motivationrather than suffused in the assurance that, as Gods chosen servant, you are free from blame. In short, with this conception of evil, the world doesnt look like a Lord of the Rings trailer, in which all the bad guys report to the same headquarters and, for the sake of easy identification, are hideously ugly. It is a more ambiguous world, a world in which evil lurks somewhere in everyone, and enlightened policy is commensurately subtle. Actually, there are traces of this view even in the Lord of the Rings films. Hence the insidious ring, which can fill all who gaze on it with the desperate desire to possess it, a desire that, if unchecked, leads to utter corruption. The message would seem to be that, thanks to human frailty, anyone can play host to evilhobbits, elves, even, conceivably, the occasional American. Robert Wright, author of NonZero: The Logic of Human Destiny (New York: Pantheon Books, 2000) and The Moral Animal: The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology (New York: Pantheon Books, 1994), is visiting fellow at Princeton Universitys Center for Human Values and Seymour Milstein senior fellow at the New America Foundation. ------------------ Undermining Free Will By Paul Davies You dont have to read this article. But if you do, could you have chosen otherwise? You probably feel that you were free to skip over it, but were you? Belief in some measure of free will is common to all cultures and a large part of what makes us human. It is also fundamental to our ethical and legal systems. Yet todays scientists and philosophers are busily chipping away at this social pillarapparently without thinking about what might replace it. What they question is a folk psychology that goes something like this: Inside each of us is a self, a conscious agent who both observes the world and makes decisions. In some cases (though perhaps not all), this agent has a measure of choice and control over his or her actions. From this simple model of human agency flow the familiar notions of responsibility, guilt, blame, and credit. The law, for example, makes a clear distinction between a criminal act carried out by a person under hypnosis or while sleepwalking, and a crime committed in a state of normal awareness with full knowledge of the consequences. All this may seem like common sense, but philosophers and writers have questioned it for centuriesand the attack is gathering speed. All theory is against the freedom of the will, wrote British critic Samuel Johnson. In the 1940s, Oxford University philosophy Professor Gilbert Ryle coined the derisory expression the ghost in the machine for the widespread assumption that brains are occupied by immaterial selves that somehow control the activities of our neurons. The contemporary American philosopher Daniel Dennett now refers to the fragile myth of spectral puppeteers inside our heads. For skeptics of free will, human decisions are either determined by a persons preexisting nature or, alternatively, are entirely arbitrary and whimsical. Either way, genuine freedom of choice seems elusive. Physicists often fire the opening salvo against free will. In the classical Newtonian scheme, the universe is a gigantic clockwork mechanism, slavishly unfolding according to deterministic laws. How then does a free agent act? There is simply no room in this causally closed system for an immaterial mind to bend the paths of atoms without coming into conflict with physical law. Nor does the famed indeterminacy of quantum mechanics help minds to gain purchase on the material world. Quantum uncertainty cannot create freedom. Genuine freedom requires that our wills determine our actions reliably. Physicists assert that free will is merely a feeling we have; the mind has no genuine causal efficacy. Whence does this feeling arise? In his 2002 book, The Illusion of Conscious Will, Harvard University psychologist Daniel Wegner appeals to ingenious laboratory experiments to show how subjects acquire the delusion of being in charge, even when their conscious thoughts do not actually cause the actions they observe. The rise of modern genetics has also undermined the belief that humans are born with the freedom to shape their individual destinies. Scientists recognize that genes shape our minds as well as our bodies. Evolutionary psychologists seek to root personal qualities such as altruism and aggression in Darwinian mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection. We are survival machinesrobot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes, writes Oxford University biologist Richard Dawkins. Those aspects of the mind that are not predetermined by genetics lie at the mercy of memetics. Memes are the mental equivalent of genesideas, beliefs, and fashions that replicate and compete in the manner of genes. British psychologist Susan Blackmore recently contended that our minds are actually nothing but collections of memes that we catch from each other like viruses, and that the familiar sense of I is some sort of fiction that memes create for their own agenda. These ideas are dangerous because there is more than a grain of truth in them. There is an acute risk that they will be oversimplified and used to justify an anything-goes attitude to criminal activity, ethnic conflict, even genocide. Conversely, people convinced that the concept of individual choice is a myth may passively conform to whatever fate an exploitative social or political system may have decreed for them. If you thought eugenics was a disastrous perversion of science, imagine a world where most people dont believe in free will. The scientific assault on free will would be less alarming if some new legal and ethical framework existed to take its place. But nobody really has a clue what that new structure might look like. And, remember, the scientists may be wrong to doubt free will. It would be rash to assume that physicists have said the last word on causation, or that cognitive scientists fully understand brain function and consciousness. But even if they are right, and free will really is an illusion, it may still be a fiction worth maintaining. Physicists and philosophers often deploy persuasive arguments in the rarified confines of academe but ignore them for all practical purposes. For example, it is easy to be persuaded that the flow of time is an illusion (in physics, time simply is, it doesnt pass). But nobody would conduct their daily affairs without continual reference to past, present, and future. Society would disintegrate without adhering to the fiction that time passes. So it is with the self and its freedom to participate in events. To paraphrase the writer Isaac Bashevis Singer, we must believe in free willwe have no choice. Paul Davies is professor of natural philosophy at the Australian Centre for Astrobiology at Macquarie University in Sydney. He is the author of 25 books, including The Fifth Miracle: The Search for the Origin and Meaning of Life (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1999) and How to Build a Time Machine (New York: Viking, 2002). ------------------ Business as Usual at the U.N. By Samantha Power For the United Nations, relevance may be almost as perilous as irrelevance. In the span of a year, the Bush administration went from taunting the world body to begging for its help. A beefed-up U.N. team will soon arrive in Baghdad to advise the Iraqi government on reconstruction, social services, and human rights and directly assist with elections. At the same time, U.N. peacekeeping missions are sprouting or expanding in Burundi, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Haiti, and Ivory Coast. Indeed, by the end of 2004, more blue helmets will likely be in action than at any time in history. Although some U.N. backers revel in the growing global reliance on the world body, now is no time to get smug. These weighty responsibilities are landing on the shoulders of an organization that national governments have deliberately kept weak. The United Nations 60-year-old machinery has never seemed so ill-equipped for its work, and its credibility has plummeted. As the major powers fight terrorism and dwell on homeland security, they will hand the United Nations essential but thankless tasks they might once have tackled themselves (or just ignored). Without major changes, the United Nations may well buckle under the growing strain. The idea that the United Nations can stumble along in its atrophied condition has powerful appeal in capitals around the worldand even in some offices at U.N. headquarters. But believing that the status quo will suffice is dangerous. Regrettably, most of those who could change the organization have an interest in resisting reform. None of the permanent Security Council members wants to give up its veto; smaller powers delight in their General Assembly votes, which count as much as those of the major powers; repressive regimes cherish participation in United Nations human rights bodies, where they can scuttle embarrassing resolutions; and the Western powers whose troops and treasure are needed to strengthen U.N. peacekeeping have other priorities. Even within the U.N. bureaucracy, many veterans shy away from dramatic reformit has taken them decades to become masters of the old procedures, and change is risky. And while U.N. officials, including the secretary-general, are quick (and correct) to blame the member states for the constraints they face, they too rarely find the courage to spotlight those specific states whose obstinacy, stinginess, and abuses undermine the principles behind the U.N. Charter. Much U.N.-bashing is, of course, unfair. The United Nations is in many respects just a building. It is a place for states to butt heads or to negotiate as their national interests dictate. And, on the operational side, the organization performs many indispensable tasksfeeding, sheltering, and immunizing millions, and even disarming the odd Iraqi dictator. But the organizations reputation rises and falls these days based on the performance and perceived legitimacy of three of its most visible componentsthe Security Council, the Commission on Human Rights, and the peacekeepers in the field. Each is in dire need of reform or rescue. Permanent membership on the Security Councilgranted to the Second World War victors (plus France)is woefully anachronistic. Britain and France cant fairly claim two fifths of the worlds legal authority. The permanent five members once spoke for close to 40 percent of the worlds population. They now account for 29 percent. The worlds largest democracy (India) is excluded; so are regional powerhouses such as Nigeria and Brazil, not to mention the entire Islamic world. It is the permanent members who decide when atrocities warrant humanitarian intervention, but this decision is made by two of the planets worst human rights abusers (Russia and China) and one country (the United States) that exempts itself from most international human rights treaties. While still coveted in some cases, the council imprimatur is fast losing its sheen. The Commission on Human Rights, the 53-state forum based in Geneva, has become a politicized farce. Because the commission takes all comers (seats are allocated on a regional basis), some of the worlds most vicious regimes are members. Libya chaired the 2003 commission, and this years commission extended membership to Sudan, which is busy ethnically cleansing hundreds of thousands of Africans in Darfur. Until membership comes with responsibilities, the commission will shelter too many human rights abusers and condemn too few. When the states on the Security Council tell the secretary-general to put boots on the ground, his peacekeepers often face impossible assignments. They march into some of the worlds most treacherous conflict zones, but only those where major Western economic and security interests are not at stake. Not coincidentally, the peacekeepers invariably lack the wherewithal to actually keep peace. In the 1990s, peacekeepers who were chained to Serbian lampposts became poster boys for the international communitys impotence, as Western powers dispatched lightly armed troops to Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia without the mandate or means to stop genocide. To accommodate the unexpected surge in demand for peacekeeping in the last year, Secretary-General Kofi Annan (who likes to joke that S.G. stands for scapegoat) has appealed for more troops, intelligence resources, and logistical supportand the ability to call upon reinforcements if needed. Funding for peacekeeping missions has increased somewhat, but another $1 billion is needed. Even more important, the United Nations must be able to recruit soldiers from the major powers, which have coughed up only a few hundred troops in recent years. The countries that do contribute significant forcesincluding Pakistan, Bangladesh, Uruguay, and Nigeriaare often lured by the cash and military hardware they receive just for turning up. No wonder command and control of these forces often melts down. If the major powers continue to deploy peacekeepers on the cheap, the Security Council will again set up the United Nations for failureand endanger the millions of desperate civilians who have no choice but to rely on the baby blue flag. To a large extent, the United States and other member states get the United Nations they want and deserve. But proponents of U.N. reform should view the quagmire in Iraq as a moment of opportunity. Rather than regarding the United Nations new centrality as evidence of success, the secretary-general must talk some sense into the member states, who stubbornly persist in believing that a hobbled United Nations can meet the 21st centurys deadly transnational challenges. Dag Hammarskj?ld, the United Nations second secretary-general, liked to say that the United Nations was not created to take humanity to heaven but to save it from hell. Even escaping hell requires an international organization that is up to the job. Samantha Power is a lecturer in public policy at Harvards John F. Kennedy School of Government and author of A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide (New York: HarperCollins, 2003), which won the 2003 Pulitzer Prize. ---------------- Spreading Democracy By Eric J. Hobsbawm We are at present engaged in what purports to be a planned reordering of the world by the powerful states. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are but one part of a supposedly universal effort to create world order by spreading democracy. This idea is not merely quixoticit is dangerous. The rhetoric surrounding this crusade implies that the system is applicable in a standardized (Western) form, that it can succeed everywhere, that it can remedy todays transnational dilemmas, and that it can bring peace, rather than sow disorder. It cannot. Democracy is rightly popular. In 1647, the English Levellers broadcast the powerful idea that all government is in the free consent of the people. They meant votes for all. Of course, universal suffrage does not guarantee any particular political result, and elections cannot even ensure their own perpetuationwitness the Weimar Republic. Electoral democracy is also unlikely to produce outcomes convenient to hegemonic or imperial powers. (If the Iraq war had depended on the freely expressed consent of the world community, it would not have happened.) But these uncertainties do not diminish the appeal of electoral democracy. Several other factors besides democracys popularity explain the dangerous and illusory belief that its propagation by foreign armies might actually be feasible. Globalization suggests that human affairs are evolving toward a universal pattern. If gas stations, iPods, and computer geeks are the same worldwide, why not political institutions? This view underrates the worlds complexity. The relapse into bloodshed and anarchy that has occurred so visibly in much of the world has also made the idea of spreading a new order more attractive. The Balkans seemed to show that areas of turmoil and humanitarian catastrophe required the intervention, military if need be, of strong and stable states. In the absence of effective international governance, some humanitarians are still ready to support a world order imposed by U.S. power. But one should always be suspicious when military powers claim to be doing favors for their victims and the world by defeating and occupying weaker states. Yet another factor may be the most important: The United States has been ready with the necessary combination of megalomania and messianism, derived from its revolutionary origins. Todays United States is unchallengeable in its techno-military supremacy, convinced of the superiority of its social system, and, since 1989, no longer remindedas even the greatest conquering empires always had beenthat its material power has limits. Like President Woodrow Wilson (a spectacular international failure in his day), todays ideologues see a model society already at work in the United States: a combination of law, liberal freedoms, competitive private enterprise, and regular, contested elections with universal suffrage. All that remains is to remake the world in the image of this free society. This idea is dangerous whistling in the dark. Although great power action may have morally or politically desirable consequences, identifying with it is perilous because the logic and methods of state action are not those of universal rights. All established states put their own interests first. If they have the power, and the end is considered sufficiently vital, states justify the means of achieving it (though rarely in public)particularly when they think God is on their side. Both good and evil empires have produced the barbarization of our era, to which the war against terror has now contributed. While threatening the integrity of universal values, the campaign to spread democracy will not succeed. The 20th century demonstrated that states could not simply remake the world or abbreviate historical transformations. Nor can they easily effect social change by transferring institutions across borders. Even within the ranks of territorial nation-states, the conditions for effective democratic government are rare: an existing state enjoying legitimacy, consent, and the ability to mediate conflicts between domestic groups. Without such consensus, there is no single sovereign people and therefore no legitimacy for arithmetical majorities. When this consensusbe it religious, ethnic, or bothis absent, democracy has been suspended (as is the case with democratic institutions in Northern Ireland), the state has split (as in Czechoslovakia), or society has descended into permanent civil war (as in Sri Lanka). Spreading democracy aggravated ethnic conflict and produced the disintegration of states in multinational and multicommunal regions after both 1918 and 1989, a bleak prospect. Beyond its scant chance of success, the effort to spread standardized Western democracy also suffers from a fundamental paradox. In no small part, it is conceived of as a solution to the dangerous transnational problems of our day. A growing part of human life now occurs beyond the influence of votersin transnational public and private entities that have no electorates, or at least no democratic ones. And electoral democracy cannot function effectively outside political units such as nation-states. The powerful states are therefore trying to spread a system that even they find inadequate to meet todays challenges. Europe proves the point. A body like the European Union (EU) could develop into a powerful and effective structure precisely because it has no electorate other than a small number (albeit growing) of member governments. The EU would be nowhere without its democratic deficit, and there can be no future for its parliament, for there is no European people, only a collection of member peoples, less than half of whom bothered to vote in the 2004 EU parliamentary elections. Europe is now a functioning entity, but unlike the member states it enjoys no popular legitimacy or electoral authority. Unsurprisingly, problems arose as soon as the EU moved beyond negotiations between governments and became the subject of democratic campaigning in the member states. The effort to spread democracy is also dangerous in a more indirect way: It conveys to those who do not enjoy this form of government the illusion that it actually governs those who do. But does it? We now know something about how the actual decisions to go to war in Iraq were taken in at least two states of unquestionable democratic bona fides: the United States and the United Kingdom. Other than creating complex problems of deceit and concealment, electoral democracy and representative assemblies had little to do with that process. Decisions were taken among small groups of people in private, not very different from the way they would have been taken in nondemocratic countries. Fortunately, media independence could not be so easily circumvented in the United Kingdom. But it is not electoral democracy that necessarily ensures effective freedom of the press, citizen rights, and an independent judiciary. Eric J. Hobsbawm is emeritus professor of economic and social history at Birkbeck, University of London, and author of The Age of Extremes: A History of the World, 19141991 (New York: Pantheon Books, 1994). ---------------------- Transhumanism By Francis Fukuyama For the last several decades, a strange liberation movement has grown within the developed world. Its crusaders aim much higher than civil rights campaigners, feminists, or gay-rights advocates. They want nothing less than to liberate the human race from its biological constraints. As transhumanists see it, humans must wrest their biological destiny from evolutions blind process of random variation and adaptation and move to the next stage as a species. It is tempting to dismiss transhumanists as some sort of odd cult, nothing more than science fiction taken too seriously: Witness their over-the-top Web sites and recent press releases (Cyborg Thinkers to Address Humanitys Future, proclaims one). The plans of some transhumanists to freeze themselves cryogenically in hopes of being revived in a future age seem only to confirm the movements place on the intellectual fringe. But is the fundamental tenet of transhumanismthat we will someday use biotechnology to make ourselves stronger, smarter, less prone to violence, and longer-livedreally so outlandish? Transhumanism of a sort is implicit in much of the research agenda of contemporary biomedicine. The new procedures and technologies emerging from research laboratories and hospitalswhether mood-altering drugs, substances to boost muscle mass or selectively erase memory, prenatal genetic screening, or gene therapycan as easily be used to enhance the species as to ease or ameliorate illness. Although the rapid advances in biotechnology often leave us vaguely uncomfortable, the intellectual or moral threat they represent is not always easy to identify. The human race, after all, is a pretty sorry mess, with our stubborn diseases, physical limitations, and short lives. Throw in humanitys jealousies, violence, and constant anxieties, and the transhumanist project begins to look downright reasonable. If it were technologically possible, why wouldnt we want to transcend our current species? The seeming reasonableness of the project, particularly when considered in small increments, is part of its danger. Society is unlikely to fall suddenly under the spell of the transhumanist worldview. But it is very possible that we will nibble at biotechnologys tempting offerings without realizing that they come at a frightful moral cost. The first victim of transhumanism might be equality. The U.S. Declaration of Independence says that all men are created equal, and the most serious political fights in the history of the United States have been over who qualifies as fully human. Women and blacks did not make the cut in 1776 when Thomas Jefferson penned the declaration. Slowly and painfully, advanced societies have realized that simply being human entitles a person to political and legal equality. In effect, we have drawn a red line around the human being and said that it is sacrosanct. Underlying this idea of the equality of rights is the belief that we all possess a human essence that dwarfs manifest differences in skin color, beauty, and even intelligence. This essence, and the view that individuals therefore have inherent value, is at the heart of political liberalism. But modifying that essence is the core of the transhumanist project. If we start transforming ourselves into something superior, what rights will these enhanced creatures claim, and what rights will they possess when compared to those left behind? If some move ahead, can anyone afford not to follow? These questions are troubling enough within rich, developed societies. Add in the implications for citizens of the worlds poorest countriesfor whom biotechnologys marvels likely will be out of reachand the threat to the idea of equality becomes even more menacing. Transhumanisms advocates think they understand what constitutes a good human being, and they are happy to leave behind the limited, mortal, natural beings they see around them in favor of something better. But do they really comprehend ultimate human goods? For all our obvious faults, we humans are miraculously complex products of a long evolutionary processproducts whose whole is much more than the sum of our parts. Our good characteristics are intimately connected to our bad ones: If we werent violent and aggressive, we wouldnt be able to defend ourselves; if we didnt have feelings of exclusivity, we wouldnt be loyal to those close to us; if we never felt jealousy, we would also never feel love. Even our mortality plays a critical function in allowing our species as a whole to survive and adapt (and transhumanists are just about the last group Id like to see live forever). Modifying any one of our key characteristics inevitably entails modifying a complex, interlinked package of traits, and we will never be able to anticipate the ultimate outcome. Nobody knows what technological possibilities will emerge for human self-modification. But we can already see the stirrings of Promethean desires in how we prescribe drugs to alter the behavior and personalities of our children. The environmental movement has taught us humility and respect for the integrity of nonhuman nature. We need a similar humility concerning our human nature. If we do not develop it soon, we may unwittingly invite the transhumanists to deface humanity with their genetic bulldozers and psychotropic shopping malls. Francis Fukuyama is professor of international political economy at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and author of State-Building: Governance and World Order in the 21st Century (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2004). ---------------- Religious Intolerance by Mrs. Nut Tree Sometimes old ideas are the most dangerous, and few ideas are older than those that undergird religious intolerance. Lamentably, these ideas are acquiring new life. In 2002, Hindus in Gujarat, India, killed several hundred Muslims, with the collaboration of public officials and the police. Europe has recently seen a frightening rebirth of anti-Semitism, while the appeal of radical forms of Islam appears to be increasing in the Muslim world. Prejudice against Muslims and a tendency to equate Islam with terrorism are too prominent in the United States. On and on it goes. Intolerance breeds intolerance, as expressions of hatred fuel existing insecurities and permit people to see their own aggression as legitimate self-defense. Two ideas typically foster religious intolerance and disrespect. The first is that ones own religion is the only true religion and that other religions are false or morally incorrect. But people possessed of this view can also believe that others deserve respect for their committed beliefs, so long as they do no harm. Much more dangerous is the second idea, that the state and private citizens should coerce people into adhering to the correct religious approach. Its an idea that is catching on, even in many modern democracies. Frances reluctance to tolerate religious symbols in schools and the Hindu right wings repeated claims that minorities in India must become part of Hindu culture are disturbing recent examples. The resurgence of this kind of thinking poses a profound threat to liberal societies, which are based on ideas of liberty and equality. The appeal of religious intolerance is easy to understand. From an early age, humans are aware of helplessness toward things of the highest importance, such as food, love, and life itself. Religion helps people cope with loss and the fear of death; it teaches moral principles and motivates people to follow them. But precisely because religions are such powerful sources of morality and community, they all too easily become vehicles for the flight from helplessness, which so often manifests itself in oppression and the imposition of hierarchy. In todays accelerating world, people confront ethnic and religious differences in new and frightening ways. By clinging to a religion they believe to be the right one, surrounding themselves with coreligionists, and then subordinating others who do not accept that religion, people can forget for a time their weakness and mortality. Good laws are not enough to combat this fundamentally emotional and social problem. Modern liberal societies have long understood the importance of legal and constitutional norms expressing a commitment to religious liberty and to the equality of citizens of different religions. But, though codification is essential, constitutions and laws do not implement themselves, and public norms are impotent without educational and cultural reinforcement. We need, then, to think harder about how rhetoric (as well as poetry, music, and art) can support pluralism and toleration. The leaders of the U.S. civil rights movement understood the need for this kind of support; the speeches of Martin Luther King Jr. illustrate how rhetoric can help people imagine equality and see difference as a source of richness rather than fear. During the recent electoral campaign in India, leaders of the Congress Party, especially Sonia Gandhi, effectively conveyed the image of an inherently pluralistic India. (The words of Indias national anthem, written by pluralist poet Rabindranath Tagore, also celebrate Indias regional and ethnic differences.) The current U.S. administration has made useful statements about the importance of not demonizing Islam, but the rhetoric of certain key officials has also highlighted Christian religion in ways that undermine tolerance. Attorney General John Ashcroft, for example, regularly asks his staff to sing Christian songs. And while he was a sitting U.S. senator, Ashcroft characterized America as a culture that has no king but Jesus. For centuries, liberal thinkers have focused on legal and constitutional avenues to tolerance, neglecting the public cultivation of emotion and imagination. But liberals ignore public rhetoric at their peril. All modern states and their leaders convey visions of religious equality or inequality through their choices of language and image. Writing to the Quaker community in 1789, then President George Washington said, The conscientious scruples of all men should be treated with great delicacy and tenderness. Such delicacy is now in short supply. If leaders do not think carefully about how to use public language to foster respect, human equality will remain vulnerable. Mrs. Nut Tree is the Ernst Freund distinguished service professor of law and ethics at the University of Chicago and author of Hiding from Humanity: Disgust, Shame, and the Law (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004). ---------- Free Money By Alice M. Rivlin Fiscal irresponsibility is politically attractive, but it is equivalent to believing in something for nothing. Basing the policy of the worlds dominant economy on the hope that the normal rules of fiscal prudence do not apply is an exceedingly dangerous idea. Large and sustained deficits in the United States threaten not only U.S. prosperity but the worlds economic health as well. Massive public borrowing in the United States is already absorbing other nations savings to finance the worlds richest country. And it may soon raise interest rates around the world and slow global growth. U.S. profligacy could even invite an international financial crisis that would bring enormous human costs everywhere. Small countries cannot afford to behave irresponsibly for very long; their currencies lose value and their governments cannot borrow money. But investors give the United States more leeway. Its debtthe famed U.S. Treasury bondsis still regarded as a very safe place to park money. The persistent appeal of U.S. bonds is leading politicians in the United States to believe that the ordinary rules of global finance dont apply to them. When they realize that rules are rules, it may be too late; the world could be caught in a financial crisis that has escalated beyond control. Sermons on fiscal rectitude often fall on deaf ears in the United States. Everyone likes a free lunch if they can get it. Raising taxes and cutting spending are always painful, and political leaders have to be convinced that the pain is worth it. But a glance at the recent past should wake the slumbering body politic. In the early 1980s, the Reagan administration cut income tax rates and increased defense outlays without restraining other spending. Supporters of those tax cuts predicted they would stimulate economic growth so powerfully that deficits would vanish. They claimed that deficits did not matter because government borrowing did not raise interest rates. They were wrong on both counts, and the free lunch proved expensive. Fortunately, the costs of high deficits in the 1980s evoked a bipartisan response in the United States. Politicians in both parties voted for tax increases and forced themselves to restrain spending growth. Fiscal responsibility and a strong economy turned the deficits into surpluses by the end of the 1990s. Irresponsibility is back. Once again, a U.S. administration is touting huge tax cuts as stimulants to economic growth and massively increasing military spending. Once again, deficits initially blamed on recession persist even as the economy recovers. If the United States does not quickly change course, deficits will remain around 3.5 percent of gross domestic product for the next decade and then escalate rapidly as an aging society forces more spending for social security and health care. In many ways, the current deficits are even more dangerous than those of the 1980s. The retirement of the baby boom generation is two decades closer. Moreover, the United States has shifted from being the worlds largest creditor to being the worlds largest debtor, and a far more substantial portion of U.S. public debt is held by foreigners, especially Asian central banks. This dependence makes the United States vulnerable to the shifting moods of international investors. A day may come when wary foreign investors demand high interest rates as compensation for holding their assets in U.S. dollars. Worst of all, the political will to deal with deficits has evaporated. The spending rules adopted in the 1990s have lapsed, and the bipartisan coalition to restore fiscal discipline has splintered. The most likely scenario is continuing deficits financed largely by borrowing from the rest of the world. The principal victims of this fiscal irresponsibility will be Americans, who will suffer higher interest rates, slower growth, more of their tax money going to debt service, and higher inflation. The larger debt will be passed on to future taxpayers, who will simultaneously have to grapple with the burdens of a rapidly aging population. Eventually, the government will raise taxes and cut spending by more than would have been necessary if action were taken earlier. The weakness in the United States will almost inevitably sap the strength of the world economy. Thats the best case. An even darker possibility is that investors (including many Americans) will lose confidence in the ability of the United States to handle its fiscal affairs and will move their funds elsewhere. Such a massive migration of capital would precipitate a plunge in the dollar and generate a spike in interest rates and inflation in the United States. This tsunami in the worlds largest economy would disrupt international markets and devastate many developing countries. Avoiding possible disaster, or even the more likely slow erosion of prosperity, will test U.S. political leadership. Will elected officials recognize that common-sense rules of fiscal responsibility apply to the United States as well as to other countries? Will they make the tough choices needed to restore fiscal sanity to the worlds most important economy? Alice M. Rivlin is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a visiting professor at Georgetown University. She was director of the Office of Management and Budget in the first Clinton administration and vice chair of the Federal Reserves Board of Governors from 1996 to 1999. ----------------- Hating America By Fareed Zakaria On September 12, 2001, Jean-Marie Colombani, the editor of Le Monde, famously wrote, Today we are all Americans. Three years on, it seems that we are all anti-Americans. Hostility to the United States is deeper and broader than at any point in the last 50 years. The Western Europeans, it is often argued, oppose U.S. foreign policy because peace and prosperity have made them soft. But the United States faces almost identical levels of anti-Americanism in Turkey, India, and Pakistan, none of which are rich, postmodern, or pacifist. With the exception of Israel and Britain, no country today has a durable pro-American majority. In this post-ideological age, anti-Americanism fills the void left by defunct belief systems. It has become a powerful trend in international politics todayand perhaps the most dangerous. U.S. hegemony has its problems, but a world that reacts instinctively against the United States will be less peaceful, less cooperative, less prosperous, less open, and less stable. The wave of anti-Americanism is, of course, partly a product of the current Bush administrations policies and, as important, its style. Support for the United States has dropped dramatically since Bush rode into town. In 2000, for example, 75 percent of Indonesians identified themselves as pro-American. Today, more than 80 percent are hostile to Uncle Sam. When asked why they dislike the United States, people in other countries consistently cite Bush and his policies. But the very depth and breadth of this phenomenon suggest that it is bigger than Bush. The term hyperpower, after all, was coined by the French foreign minister to describe Bill Clintons America, not George W. Bushs. Anti-Americanisms ascendance also owes something to the geometry of power. The United States is more powerful than any country in history, and concentrated power usually means trouble. Other countries have a habit of ganging up to balance the reigning superpower. Throughout history, countries have united to defeat hegemonic powersfrom the Hapsburgs to Napoleon to Kaiser Wilhelm and Hitler. For over 50 years, the United States employed skillful diplomacy to fend off this apparently immutable law of history. U.S. administrations used power in generally benign ways, working through international organizations, fostering an open trading system that helped others grow economically, and providing foreign aid to countries in need. To demonstrate that it was not threatening, the United States routinely gave great respect and even deference to much weaker countries. By crudely asserting U.S. power and disregarding international institutions and alliances, the Bush administration has pulled the curtain on decades of diplomacy and revealed that the United States constraints are self-imposed: America can, in fact, go it alone. Not surprisingly, the rest of the world resents this imbalance and searches for ways to place obstacles in Americas way. But an equally important force propelling anti-Americanism around the world is an ideological vacuum. Political scientist Francis Fukuyama was right when he noted that the collapse of the Soviet Union also meant the collapse of the great ideological debate on how to organize economic and political life. The clash between socialism and capitalism created political debates and shaped political parties and their agendas across the world for more than a century. Capitalisms victory left the world without an ideology of discontent, a systematic set of ideas that are critical of the world as it exists. There is always a market for an ideology of discontentit allows those outside the mainstream to relate to the world. These beliefs usually form in reaction to the worlds dominant reality. So the rise of capitalism and democracy over the last 200 years produced ideologies of opposition from the left (communism, socialism) and from the right (hypernationalism, fascism). Today, the dominant reality in the world is the power of the United States, currently being wielded in a particularly aggressive manner. Anti-Americanism is becoming the way people think about the world and position themselves within it. It is a mindset that extends beyond politics to economic and cultural realms. So, in recent elections in Brazil, Germany, Pakistan, Kuwait, and Spain, the United States became a campaign issue. In all these places, resisting U.S. power won votes. Nationalism in many countries is being defined in part as anti-Americanism: Can you stand up to the superpower? Much has been written about what the United States can do to help arrest and reverse these trends. But it is worth putting the shoe on the other foot for a moment. Imagine a world without the United States as the global leader. Even short of the imaginative and intelligent scenario of chaos that British historian Niall Ferguson outlined in this magazine (see [24]A World Without Power, July/August 2004), it would certainly look grim. There are many issues on which the United States is the crucial organizer of collective goods. Someone has to be concerned about terrorism and nuclear and biological proliferation. Other countries might bristle at certain U.S. policies, but would someone else really be willing to bully, threaten, cajole, and bribe countries such as Libya to renounce terror and dismantle their WMD programs? On terror, trade, AIDs, nuclear proliferation, U.N. reform, and foreign aid, U.S. leadership is indispensable. The temptation to go its own way will be greatest for Europe, the only other player with the resources and tradition to play a global role. But if Europe defines its role as being different from the United Stateskinder, gentler, whateverwill that really produce a more stable world? U.S. and European goals on most issues are quite similar. Both want a peaceful world free from terror, with open trade, growing freedom, and civilized codes of conduct. A Europe that charts its own course just to mark its differences from the United States threatens to fracture global effortswhether on trade, proliferation, or the Middle East. Europe is too disunited to achieve its goals without the United States; it can only ensure that Americas plans dont succeed. The result will be a world that muddles along, with the constant danger that unattended problems will flare up disastrously. Instead of win-win, it will be lose-losefor Europe, for the United States, and for the world. Fareed Zakaria is the editor of Newsweek International and author of The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad (New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 2003). From paul.werbos at verizon.net Mon Sep 13 22:01:52 2004 From: paul.werbos at verizon.net (Werbos, Dr. Paul J.) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 18:01:52 -0400 Subject: [Paleopsych] Kerry and Armageddon In-Reply-To: <01C49959.56AAF500.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.0.20040913180112.03d4bcf8@incoming.verizon.net> At 06:17 AM 9/13/2004 -0700, Steve wrote: >If GEM capability can be done as a retrofit, >which I expect it can, then the whole fleet >could be converted in less than the 15 years >it takes to replace the fleet. And it could >be done on a crash basis. Sorry. Not technically viable. (Have you ever tried replacing just one gasket?). >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From checker at panix.com Mon Sep 13 22:16:24 2004 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 18:16:24 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Paleopsych] BH: Calculating the Quantum Nightmare Message-ID: Calculating the Quantum Nightmare http://www.betterhumans.com/Print/index.aspx?ArticleID=2004-09-13-1 We must awaken to the threat of a quantum computer getting into malicious hands By Stephen Page Special to Betterhumans 9/13/2004 1:31 PM Computing the risk: "I have developed a fear of what a quantum computer could do in the hands of evildoers with wealth and resources," says Stephen Page. "We must start building safeguards now" I was born in Los Alamos in 1949 shortly after my father, a physicist from the University of Michigan, took a job at the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory (now the Los Alamos National Laboratory, or LANL). He had been hired to work on the hydrogen bomb and to find ways to reduce the size of the bombs started on the Manhattan Project. His hiring and his job proved to be timely, as the Cold War began in 1949 when the Communist Soviet Union took on an expansionist policy and occupied much of Europe. In the late summer of 1949, they detonated their first fission-based atomic bomb. Fears of mass destruction, "doomsday," pervaded the country and world. The Cold War swung into full force and did not end until the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991. As I began researching my father and his life, for writing memoirs for the family, I quickly found that little existed about him because of his "classified" status. This meant that he could tell no one about his life work, not even his wife and best friends. While this made my research difficult, I found out some detail when I examined the places he worked and the resume he used to obtain a job at TRW Space & Electronics Group in Redondo Beach, California. After speaking to my sister and some of my father's friends, I discovered his favorite life work focused on subjects such as nuclear bombs, [1]quantum mechanics, cryptography, computers, astronomy and life on other planets. While at TRW, his main functions included the programming of the navigation systems for the early missiles, rockets and space shuttles. This continued up until 1976, when he retired. He died in 1981 from acute leukemia, a cancer possibly contracted from his work with plutonium at Los Alamos. His friends laughed when they said the scientists used to play football with raw plutonium. Little did they know. While I understood the other topics, quantum mechanics was new to me. I delved deep into this subject. As I read physics book after physics book, a familiar theme popped up. In reviewing my father's transcripts, I noticed a concentration of courses in physics, computers, quantum theory and quantum mechanics. This information put me on the trail of the [2]quantum computer. At first, I did not understand the physics behind a quantum computer but after reading many articles and books, I developed a basic understanding. As a [3]writer of six nonfiction books about setting up policy and procedures systems (i.e., doing things right the first time), I decided that I should write a novel about quantum computers and dedicate it to my father. The boring storyline presents the book as "the construction of a quantum computer and the terrorists who are after it." The exciting storyline presents the book as "a high-ranking politician who turns to espionage and hands over a commercial quantum computer to terrorists to avenge the CIA's cold-blooded killing of his brother." I titled the book The Quantum Killer. I derived this title from [4]Peter Shor's explanation of his breakthrough pertinent to factorization; he used the term "[5]killer app" to refer to the factorization algorithm. My quantum killer title refers to a quantum computer so powerful that it could help mankind to advance in many sciences but at the same time be capable of killing any application by crippling it, accessing it or destroying it. The book is science fiction now, but within 10 to 50 years, when a quantum computer will likely be real and available commercially, it may appear to be nonfiction. While in awe of its projected features, I have developed a fear of what a quantum computer could do in the hands of evildoers with wealth and resources. What worries me the most is that there seems to be a lack of articles and books on the risks of a quantum computer. Some scientists say that a quantum computer will be prohibitively expensive and that terrorists couldn't afford one. But we have seen the kind of resources that present-day terrorists can muster. Are we taking the threat seriously? The furor starts Physicists and computer scientists first explored the idea of a computational device based on quantum mechanics in the 1970s and early 1980s. The real furor began in 1981 when brainy physicist [6]Richard Feynman suggested that quantum phenomena could perform calculations. He also explained how a machine would be able to act as a simulator for quantum physics. In other words, a physicist would have the ability to carry out experiments in quantum physics inside a quantum mechanical computer. At about the same time, other theorists such as [7]Charles H. Bennett at IBM and [8]Paul A. Benioff at Argonne National Laboratory began to toy with the idea that quantum particles might function as computer bits. In 1985, physicist [9]David Deutsch at the University of Oxford realized that Feynman's assertion could eventually lead to a general purpose quantum computer. He published a crucial theoretical paper showing that any physical process, in principle, could be modeled perfectly by a quantum computer. Thus, a quantum computer would have capabilities far beyond those of any traditional classical computer. The real icebreaker came in 1994 when Peter Shor at AT&T Labs outlined how a quantum computer could factor a huge number exponentially faster than a classical computer. This factoring algorithm became a killer app because any application based on encryption (such as those for national security, banking transactions, stock trades, secure Websites and vital governmental installations) could be compromised in seconds or minutes. With this breakthrough, quantum computing transformed from a mere academic curiosity directly into a national and world interest. Governments, corporations and research institutions have now committed billions of dollars to the research and construction of a quantum computer capable of performing calculations a billion times faster than a classical computer. Slow progress With the resources being thrown at quantum computers, we're left to wonder why they have barely left the drawing board in about 30 years. But we only think this because when it comes to computational advances, we're spoiled. We're used to fast computer progress so we naturally think the same holds for "just" another computer. With each blink of the eye, there is a new, faster processor or hard drive with more data storage. But for all their computational might, computers as we know them will eventually bump up against the laws of physics. Technology marches forward and components get smaller. If the current rate of miniaturization continues, computer experts predict that within a decade or two, transistors will dwindle to the size of an atom. And at those dimensions, well-behaved, predictable classical behavior goes out the window, and the slippery, untenable nature of quantum mechanics takes over. Unlike classical computers, quantum computers won't fall apart because of the laws of physics at the atomic scale. Rather, they exploit them. In the quantum world, rather than being entities with sharply defined positions and motions, particles are described by spread out wave-functions, seemingly existing in many places at once. Made of quantum particles, quantum computers exploit this property for built-in parallelism, because quantum calculations can be performed on particles (or quantum bits--qubits) that coexist in multiple states simultaneously. Quantum computers are still more science fiction than fact, however. Even the most optimistic of experts predict a decade or more before anyone builds one that actually computes anything. The field of quantum information processing has made numerous promising advancements since its conception, including the building of two-, three- and seven-qubit quantum computers capable of some simple arithmetic and data sorting. But scientists believe that a fully featured quantum computer must use at least 200 qubits. "What is the problem?" you ask. Progress is slow because there are a few potentially large obstacles that must be resolved before a breakthrough of single-digit qubit computers can lead to double- and triple-digit qubit quantum computers. The formidable obstacles include error correction, decoherence and hardware architecture. Error correction is rather self-explanatory, but what errors need correction? The answer lies primarily with those errors that arise as a direct result of decoherence, or the tendency of a quantum computer to decay from a given quantum state into an incoherent state as it interacts, or entangles, with the state of the environment. These interactions between the environment and qubits are unavoidable, and induce the breakdown of information stored in the quantum computer, and thus errors in computation. A Catch-22 scenario. Before any quantum computer will be capable of solving hard problems, researchers must devise a way to maintain decoherence and other potential sources of error at an acceptable level. Thanks to the theory (and now reality) of quantum error correction, first proposed in 1995 by Peter Shor and continually developed since, small-scale quantum computers have been built and the prospects of large quantum computers are looking up. Currently, research is underway to discover methods for battling the destructive effects of decoherence, to develop optimal hardware architecture for designing and building a quantum computer and to further uncover quantum algorithms to utilize the immense computing power available in these devices. The future of quantum computer hardware architecture is likely to be very different from what we know today, however, current research has helped to provide insight into what obstacles the future will hold for these devices. Research suggests it is only a matter of time before we have devices large enough to test Shor's and other quantum algorithms. Quantum computation has its origins in highly specialized fields of theoretical physics, but its future undoubtedly lies in the profound effect it will have on the lives of all mankind. To answer the question of why progress is slow, it is because quantum computers lie at a pioneering stage and face numerous difficulties inherent within quantum physics. When research breaks through the obstacles, the building of a quantum computer will be a free-for-all. Benefits and risks To understand the benefits of quantum computing, let's look at some of its potential capabilities. In theory, a quantum computer could be used to: 1. Factor large integers in a time that is exponentially faster than any known classical algorithm. 2. Run simulations of quantum mechanics. 3. Crack encrypted secret messages in seconds that classical computers cannot crack in a million years. 4. Create unbreakable encryption systems to protect national security systems, financial transactions, secure Internet transactions and other systems based on current encryption schemes. 5. Advance cryptography to a point where messages can be sent and retrieved without encryption and without eavesdropping. 6. Search large and unsorted databases that had previously been virtually impenetrable using classical computers. 7. Improve pharmaceutical research because a quantum computer can sift through many chemical substances and interactions in seconds. 8. Create fraud-proof digital signatures. 9. Predict weather patterns and identify causes of global warming. 10. Improve the precision of atomic clocks and precisely pinpoint the location of the 7,000-plus satellites floating above Earth each day. 11. Optimize spacecraft design. 12. Enhance space network communication scheduling. 13. Develop highly efficient algorithms for several related application domains such as scheduling, planning, pattern recognition and data compression. Along with such fantastic benefits, however, there are big risks. The consequences of a fully featured quantum computer getting into the hands of terrorists, criminals, hackers or other evildoers could be devastating and cause world anarchy. In malicious hands, quantum computers could be used to: 1. Cripple national security, defenses, the Internet, email systems and other systems based on encryption schemes. 2. Decode secret messages sent out by government employees in seconds versus the millions of years it would take a classical computer. 3. Break many of the cryptographic systems (e.g., RSA, DSS, LUC, Diffie-Helman) used to protect secure Web pages, encrypted mail and many other types of data. 4. Access bank accounts, credit card transactions, stock trades and classified information. 5. Break cryptographic systems such as public key ciphers or other systems used to protect secure Web pages and email on the Internet. The risks are devastating and the possible consequences disastrous. Just the ability to crack any secret code or access any bank file sends shivers up my spine. Given the potential benefits and risks, quantum computing research must become a priority for the governments of free nations around the world. We must start building safeguards now, not when it's too late. In 1969, the US government flexed its muscles and sent men to the Moon to assure dominance in the space race. We need more muscle flexing now to create safeguards, standards and laws to prevent people from using quantum computers to wreak destruction. Stephen Page is an author of six nonfiction books on quality and process improvement. He works full-time at Nationwide Insurance in Columbus, Ohio as a process management specialist. He has an MBA from UCLA in management and is certified in project management, software engineering, records management and forms management. He is published in numerous journals and Websites. He is available for questions and can be reached at spage at columbus.rr.com. Look for his book The Quantum Killer in 2005. You can also log on to http://www.thequantumkiller.com and sign the guestbook. References 1. http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics 2. http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computer 3. http://www.companymanuals.com/ 4. http://www-math.mit.edu/~shor/ 5. http://www.ece.osu.edu/~berger/press/spectrumqc.pdf 6. http://www.feynmanonline.com/ 7. http://www.research.ibm.com/people/b/bennetc/ 8. http://www.phy.anl.gov/theory/staff/pab.html 9. http://www.qubit.org/people/david/David.html From checker at panix.com Mon Sep 13 22:17:53 2004 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 18:17:53 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Paleopsych] Eco: Testing, testing... Message-ID: Testing, testing... http://books.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5007175-110738,00.html 4.9.4 Umberto Eco finds scientific method a suitable counterbalance to fundamentalism Many readers probably don't know exactly what black holes are and, frankly, the best I can do is to imagine them like the pike in Yellow Submarine that devours everything around it until it finally swallows itself. But in order to understand the news item from which I am taking my cue, all you need to know about black holes is that they are one of the most controversial and absorbing problems in contemporary astrophysics. Recently I read in the papers that the celebrated scientist Stephen Hawking has made a statement that is sensational, to say the least. He maintains that he made an error in his theory of black holes (published back in the 70s) and proposed the necessary corrections before an audience of fellow scientists. For those involved in the sciences there is nothing exceptional about this, apart from Hawking's exceptional standing, but I feel that the episode should be brought to the attention of young people in every nonfundamentalist or nonconfessional school so that they may reflect upon the principles of modern science. Science is frequently criticised by the mass media, which hold it responsible for the devilish pride that is leading humanity towards possible destruction. But in doing so they are evidently confusing science with technology. It is not science that is responsible for atomic weapons, the hole in the ozone layer, global warming and so on: if anything, science is that branch of knowledge that is still capable of warning us of the risks we run when, even in applying its principles, we put our trust in irresponsible technologies. The problem is that in many critiques of the ideology of progress (or the so-called spirit of the Enlightenment) the spirit of science is often identified with that of certain idealistic philosophies of the 19th century, according to which history is always moving on towards better things, or toward the triumphant realisation of itself, of the spirit or of some other driving force that is forever marching on towards optimal ends. At bottom, however, many people (of my generation at least) were always left in doubt on reading idealist philosophy, from which it emerges that every thinker who came after had understood better (or "verified") what little had been discovered by those who came before (which is a bit like saying that Aristotle was more intelligent than Plato). And it is this concept of history that the Italian poet Leopardi challenged when he waxed ironic about "magnificent and progressive destinies". But these days, in order to substitute a whole series of ideologies in crisis, some people are flirting more and more with a school of thought according to which the course of history is not leading us closer and closer to the truth. According to these people, all that there is to understand has already been understood by long-vanished ancient civilisations and it is only by humbly returning to that traditional and immutable treasure that we may reconcile ourselves with ourselves and with our destiny. In the most overtly occultist versions of this school of thought, the truth was cultivated by civilisations we have lost touch with: Atlantis engulfed by the ocean, the Hyperboreans, 100% pure Aryans who lived on an eternally temperate polar icecap, the sages of ancient India and other amusing yarns that, being indemonstrable, allow third-rate philosophers and writers of potboilers to keep on churning out warmed-over versions of the same old hermetic hogwash for the amusement of summer vacationers. Modern science does not hold that what is new is always right. On the contrary, it is based on the principle of "fallibilism" (enunciated by the American philosopher Charles Peirce, elaborated upon by Popper and many other theorists, and put into practice by scientists themselves) according to which science progresses by continually correcting itself, falsifying its hypotheses by trial and error, admitting its own mistakes - and by considering that an experiment that doesn't work out is not a failure but is worth as much as a successful one because it proves that a certain line of research was mistaken and it is necessary either to change direction or even to start over from scratch. And this is what was proposed centuries ago in Italy by an institute of learning known as the Accademia del Cimento, whose motto was " provando e riprovando ". This would normally translate into English as "to try and try again", but here there is a subtle distinction. Whereas in Italian " riprovare " normally means to try again, here it means to "reprove" or "reject" that which cannot be maintained in the light of reason and experience. This way of thinking is opposed, as I said before, to all forms of fundamentalism, to all literal interpretations of holy writ - which are also open to continuous reinterpretation - and to all dogmatic certainty in one's own ideas. This is that good "philosophy," in the everyday and Socratic sense of the term, which ought to be taught in schools. From shovland at mindspring.com Mon Sep 13 22:22:55 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 15:22:55 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] Kerry and Armageddon Message-ID: <01C499A5.8BB1B7B0.shovland@mindspring.com> What does it involve mechanically? Does it go beyond changes to the fuel injection systems? Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Werbos, Dr. Paul J. [SMTP:paul.werbos at verizon.net] Sent: Monday, September 13, 2004 3:02 PM To: The new improved paleopsych list; 'The new improved paleopsych list' Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] Kerry and Armageddon At 06:17 AM 9/13/2004 -0700, Steve wrote: >If GEM capability can be done as a retrofit, >which I expect it can, then the whole fleet >could be converted in less than the 15 years >it takes to replace the fleet. And it could >be done on a crash basis. Sorry. Not technically viable. (Have you ever tried replacing just one gasket?). >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From shovland at mindspring.com Mon Sep 13 22:28:02 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 15:28:02 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] Flexible Fuel Retrofit Message-ID: <01C499A6.4371F860.shovland@mindspring.com> Alternative fuel vehicles are produced by both original equipment manufacturers and companies that retrofit existing and new gasoline vehicles to run on alternative fuels. Generally, original equipment manufacturer vehicles have better performance (including lower emissions and improved durability) than retrofit vehicles, because original equipment manufacturer vehicles can be optimized with consideration for the special attributes of the alternative fuel. http://www.energy.ca.gov/reports/afvguide.html Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net From paul.werbos at verizon.net Mon Sep 13 23:28:32 2004 From: paul.werbos at verizon.net (Werbos, Dr. Paul J.) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 19:28:32 -0400 Subject: [Paleopsych] Flexible Fuel Retrofit In-Reply-To: <01C499A6.4371F860.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.0.20040913191853.03d402f8@incoming.verizon.net> At 03:28 PM 9/13/2004 -0700, Steve wrote: >Alternative fuel vehicles are produced by both original equipment >manufacturers and companies that retrofit existing and new gasoline >vehicles to run on alternative fuels. Generally, original equipment >manufacturer vehicles have better performance (including lower emissions >and improved durability) than retrofit vehicles, because original equipment >manufacturer vehicles can be optimized with consideration for the special >attributes of the alternative fuel. > >http://www.energy.ca.gov/reports/afvguide.html If you search on "retrofit" in the document, you will see that it refers to retrofit from gasoline to dedicated LPG or natural gas vehicles. Not to "GEM" (gasoline/ethanol/methanol) flexibility. LPG is a limited fuel. Compressed Natural Gas is VERY strongly favored by natural gas lobbies -- but it is far more expensive either as a new option or as a retrofit than GEM in new vehicles. There is a pervasive "chicken and egg" problem in trying to change fuels. Not so many people would buy dedicated natural gas vehicles today, in the absence of natural gas in the gas station. And you can't put natural gas effectively in the same tank as gasoline. Still, I would propose a new law that would let the consumer choose. Only those cars which HAVE gasoline tanks and an ability to burn gasoline would be required to have tanks strong enough to also hold ethanol or methanol, and engines capable of any mix. That's feasible in 2-4 years (2 if we do it right) for ALL new cars. If GEM flexibility were a fact TODAY all across the US -- the incentive would build up to the private sector to supply that alcohol fuel. There are many sources, and many new technologies. ONCE methanol is available enough... even in local areas.. it becomes much more realistic to talk about selling fuel cell vehicles which use methanol as a"hydrogen carrier." (Small scale efficient converters from methanol to hydrogen have been proven for decades -- but from gasoline or natural gas, it really does not compute, and DOE has recently given up even trying. Losses in storing hydrogen AS HYDROGEN, and in getting hydrogen to a car nozzle, far exceed the losses in the small-scale reformers!) That's our best hope of getting to fuel cell cars before it is too late. >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From paul.werbos at verizon.net Mon Sep 13 23:32:52 2004 From: paul.werbos at verizon.net (Werbos, Dr. Paul J.) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 19:32:52 -0400 Subject: [Paleopsych] Kerry and Armageddon In-Reply-To: <01C499A5.8BB1B7B0.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.0.20040913192908.03d401b0@incoming.verizon.net> At 03:22 PM 9/13/2004 -0700, Steve wrote: >What does it involve mechanically? > >Does it go beyond changes to the >fuel injection systems? Materials in gas tanks, gaskets, hoses ... and, in the conventional tehcnology, an oxygen sensor and hookups from there to control injection. The last part can be made cheaper ($1) using new technology we have been funding, but I wouldn't wait for it (even though truly competent folks COULD do it within 2 years, and it helps clean air at the same time!). Brazil is already getting lots of ethanol/gasoline vehicles on the private market. but we need to move faster, and to add that little increment to let methanol compete too. For the record, all incentives and R&D programs which support biohydrogen or bioethanol should be extended to biomethanol, simply because logic insists... the external benefits of getting it from renewable bio sources are as good for biomethanol as for the others. Whatever they may be. I don't have a number... >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > >-----Original Message----- >From: Werbos, Dr. Paul J. [SMTP:paul.werbos at verizon.net] >Sent: Monday, September 13, 2004 3:02 PM >To: The new improved paleopsych list; 'The new improved paleopsych list' >Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] Kerry and Armageddon > >At 06:17 AM 9/13/2004 -0700, Steve wrote: > >If GEM capability can be done as a retrofit, > >which I expect it can, then the whole fleet > >could be converted in less than the 15 years > >it takes to replace the fleet. And it could > >be done on a crash basis. > >Sorry. Not technically viable. >(Have you ever tried replacing just one gasket?). > > > > >Steve Hovland > >www.stevehovland.net > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >paleopsych mailing list > >paleopsych at paleopsych.org > >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From shovland at mindspring.com Mon Sep 13 23:43:10 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 16:43:10 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] Flexible Fuel Retrofit Message-ID: <01C499B0.C19E3000.shovland@mindspring.com> You were correct in saying that OEM is the best way to go. I used to work with a company that made industrial pumps, and material compatibility was a constant nightmare. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net From shovland at mindspring.com Mon Sep 13 23:44:45 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 16:44:45 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] Kerry and Armageddon Message-ID: <01C499B0.FA9F6360.shovland@mindspring.com> Ethanol is also snarly because it comes from corn, the production of which is presently heavily dependent on fossil fuels Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net From checker at panix.com Tue Sep 14 01:14:45 2004 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 21:14:45 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Paleopsych] The Imago Newsletter, 2004.9 Message-ID: The Imago Newsletter, service of the Center for Bioethics and Culture Network http://www.thecbc.org/IMAGO/ BIOETHICS RESEARCH NETWORK 2004.9 The Anthropocentric Cosmos? Part II: Human Uniqueness and the Natural Sciences by Chris Fisher, PhD Cosmology, Providence, and Humanity's Place in the Cosmos The natural sciences are supposed to have shown that humans are nowhere near the 'center of the universe', either physically or metaphorically. However, science offers other perspectives besides cosmic geography from which to view human existence and uniqueness, which lead to a very different conclusion. The anthropic principle, which recognizes the extreme fine-tuning of the universe to make life possible, suggests to some something about human significance. John Polkinghorne comments that 'the anthropic principle represents a kind of anti-Copernican revolution in our cosmological thinking. We do not live at the center of the universe, but neither do we live in just "any old world." Instead, we live in a universe whose constitution is precisely adjusted to the narrow limits that alone would make it capable of being our home.' [7]Read Entire Article... How Then Should We Do Medical Research? by Robert Carlson What is the Declaration of Helsinki and why is it worthy of a doctoral thesis being devoted to it? The Declaration of Helsinki is one of the 20th century's most remarkable texts. In this document, the World Medical Association seeks to provide "a statement of ethical principles to provide guidance to physicians and other participants in medical research" . Unlike many other much longer international documents , the Declaration of Helsinki sets forth its principles in less than 2000 words. It has risen, over its 40-year existence, to become one of the pre-eminent texts addressing ethical issues in medical research. [9]Read Entire Article... Book Review by Todd Daly Review of Alister E. McGrath's, A Scientific Theology, vol. 1, Nature (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2001), 325 pages In the first of his three volume A Scientific Theology entitled Nature, Alister McGrath sets out the groundwork for exploring the complex relationship between science and theology, in hopes that an investigation of this relationship might allow for the development of a theological methodology. Lest his title confuse and alienate faithful adherents to Christian Orthodoxy, McGrath reassuringly affirms that the classical Christian formulations of the faith are perfectly adequate to function as the basis of a scientific theology (p. 42). Fully aware of the problems that have plagued past efforts in this regard, McGrath builds on the foundation set forth by Augustines critical appropriation model, acknowledging that the admission of natural science methodologies into the operative logic of Christian theology can indeed be a dangerous exercise, given the provisional nature of both theological and scientific judgments. McGrath is no more satisfied with a vacuous theology capitulating to the rigorous methods of science than he is of a rigid, archaic theology which would dare not stoop to the realms of scientific inquiry. He asserts that a constructive working relationship between science and theology is not just an option, but is demanded by the way Christian theology understands the nature of reality itself. However, McGrath asserts that theres no privileged philosophy by which one need gain access to this complex interface in that both theology and science are viewed as disciplines which seek to give an account of this external reality. [12]Read more... Calendar of Events UPCOMING EVENTS: Don't Forget: The Face of the Future: Technosapiens II? October 28-29, 2004 Join us for the second round of discussion with key players in the technology revolution. Leading advocates and critics will continue the conversation and debate begun in California last October addressing the impact of nanotechnology, cybernetics, artificial intelligence and related technologies on the future of the human race. Confirmed speakers include, William Hurlbut M.D. of Stanford University and President Bush's Council on Bioethics, C. Christopher Hook M.D. Mayo Clinic, Lori Andrews J.D. Chicago-Kent College of Law, Nick Bostrom, Co-Founder of the World Transhumanist Association, Wrye Sententia, Center for Cognitive Liberty and Ethics, Christine Peterson, Director of the Foresight Institute. Holiday Inn on the Hill, Washington, DC. [13]http://www.thecbc.org. For additional information and online registration details, [14]click here. Contact [15]Jennifer.Lahl at thecbc.org for details. [17]Full List of Events... Career Opportunities * Clinical and Organizational Ethics Leader, Midwest Bioethics Center, Kansas City, MO. Seeking a leader for our healthcare and organizational ethics domain who has a clinical medicine background, advanced academic training in bioethics, and a deep interest in working on a practical basis with healthcare delivery systems-whether a hospital system, medical center, physician practice, or healthcare insurance- on clinical or organizational ethics issues. Interested candidates should submit a letter chronicling education, relevant work experience, and future career interests, along with a current curriculum vitae or resume, to: [18]mdavis at midbio.org Education and Events Manager, Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity, Bannockburn, IL, USA. [19]http://www.bioethics.com/jobs.asp The following Positions are listed in full at [20]http://www.bioethics.net/bioethicsjobs.php * Research Fellowship, University of Chicago A two-year fellowship for recently trained physicians in Clinical Ethics. Applications available from [21]http://ethics.bsd.uchicago.edu to be received by December 15. Contact Mark Siegler at (773) 702-1453 or email: [22]msiegler at medicine.bsd.uchicago.edu. * Faculty in Biomedical Ethics, Stanford University. Invites applications for an open rank tenure-line faculty position in the general area of Biomedical Ethics with appointment beginning September 1, 2005. Junior candidates should have completed the Ph.D. by the time of appointment. Applicants will be expected to teach courses at both the graduate and undergraduate levels; at least some of the courses should have a substantial component in Biomedical Ethics. Contact: David Magnus, Tel: 650-723-5760. Email: [23]dmagnus at stanford.edu * Assistant/Associate Professor of Bioethics, Case Western Reserve University. The Department of Bioethics invites applications for a faculty position in the area of public health ethics at the Assistant or Associate Professor level. The ideal applicants possess a PhD, JD, or MD, and have a record of outstanding scholarship in the area of public health ethics. The new faculty member will play an active role in the Department's robust research program and its teaching activities at the Medical School, undergraduate, Master's, and Doctoral levels. Applicants should submit a letter of interest, current Curriculum Vitae, two recent publications, and three letters of reference to: Barbara Juknialis, Case Western Reserve University, 10900 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio 44106-4976. Tel. 216-368-3309. Email: [24]bwj at cwru.edu ADVISORY BOARD Nigel M. de S. Cameron Ph.D. Executive Chairman, The Center for Bioethics and Culture Director, The Council for Biotechnology Policy Henk Jochemsen Ph.D. Director, Lindeboom Institute, Ede, and holder Lindeboom chair for medical ethics, Amsterdam, The Netherlands Nancy Jones Ph.D. Wake Forest University School of Medicine John F. Kilner Ph.D. President, The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity Jennifer Lahl M.A. Executive Director, The Center for Bioethics and Culture C. Ben Mitchell Ph.D. Editor, Ethics and Medicine Pia De Solenni Ph.D. Family Research Council Agneta Sutton Ph.D. Centre for Bioethics and Public Policy, London, UK Todd Daly IMAGO Editorial Fellow [onepixel.gif] [26]Want to be a part of the IMAGO network? Click here to subscribe [27]Click here to unsubscribe References 7. http://www.thecbc.org/redesigned/research_display.php?id=145 9. http://www.thecbc.org/redesigned/research_display.php?id=146 12. http://www.thecbc.org/redesigned/imago_article.php?id=147 14. http://www.thecbc.org/research_display.php?id=118 15. mailto:Jennifer.Lahl at thecbc.org 17. http://www.thecbc.org/redesigned/imago_article.php?id=106 18. mailto:mdavis at midbio.org 19. http://www.bioethics.com/jobs.asp 20. http://www.bioethics.net/bioethicsjobs.php 21. http://ethics.bsd.uchicago.edu/ 22. mailto:msiegler at medicine.bsd.uchicago.edu 23. mailto:dmagnus at stanford.edu 24. mailto:bwj at cwru.edu 26. mailto:todd.daly at thecbc.org?subject=SUBSCRIBE 27. mailto:todd.daly at thecbc.org?subject=UNSUBSCRIBE From paul.werbos at verizon.net Tue Sep 14 01:32:16 2004 From: paul.werbos at verizon.net (Werbos, Dr. Paul J.) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 21:32:16 -0400 Subject: [Paleopsych] Kerry and Armageddon In-Reply-To: <01C499B0.FA9F6360.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.0.20040913212522.00c3f530@incoming.verizon.net> At 04:44 PM 9/13/2004 -0700, Steve wrote: >Ethanol is also snarly because it comes from >corn, the production of which is presently >heavily dependent on fossil fuels Indeed -- the essential first step is only a first step. It is fortunate that many of the necessary follow-ons require, not laws, but a combination of basic research (where NSF-style open research solicitations should be good enough, in principle -- though not trivial to manage right) and private sector efforts. In Brazil, they seem to have enough ethanol... there are various ways to get it... But methanol is the bigger long-term option. Not to mention electricity itself, per batteries. I am glad we don't need to know the future market shares of electricity versus methanol in "ideal" car fuel mixes. We have work to do to maximize both areas. If fuel flexibility laws lag, electricity will become more critical in filling the hole. And we have major crises in the US in supplying electricity cost-effectively. But -- we may be able to import what we need from Mexico, before too long. And get the wire technology from Brazil. Etc. And -- the space options turn out to be more near-term and more relevant than I would have believed even just a year or two ago, when I was unaware of the most recent developments. Best of luck to us all... Paul >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From shovland at mindspring.com Tue Sep 14 01:42:42 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 18:42:42 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] Kerry and Armageddon Message-ID: <01C499C1.742A8CE0.shovland@mindspring.com> What are the space options for energy? Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Tue Sep 14 03:29:27 2004 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 21:29:27 -0600 Subject: [Paleopsych] Kerry and Armageddon In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.0.20040913192908.03d401b0@incoming.verizon.net> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20040913192908.03d401b0@incoming.verizon.net> Message-ID: <41466597.8000509@solution-consulting.com> Why isn't biodiesel the preferred next step? Small diesel engines are all over Europe now, and biodiesel requires no new delivery technology. A crash program - driven by tax incentives, etc. - would bring about a greatly reduced dependence on fossil fuel. The biodiesel should not increase CO2, since it is from living plants already in the CO2 - O2 loop. Government could mandate a switch to diesel in all new cars, unless they were hybrid. Eh? Lynn Johnson Werbos, Dr. Paul J. wrote: > At 03:22 PM 9/13/2004 -0700, Steve wrote: > >> What does it involve mechanically? >> >> Does it go beyond changes to the >> fuel injection systems? > > > Materials in gas tanks, gaskets, hoses ... and, in the conventional > tehcnology, an oxygen sensor and hookups from there to control injection. > > The last part can be made cheaper ($1) using new technology we have > been funding, > but I wouldn't wait for it (even though truly competent folks COULD do > it within 2 years, > and it helps clean air at the same time!). > > Brazil is already getting lots of ethanol/gasoline vehicles on the > private market. > but we need to move faster, and to add that little increment to let > methanol compete too. > > For the record, all incentives and R&D programs which support > biohydrogen or bioethanol should be extended to > biomethanol, simply because logic insists... the external benefits of > getting it from renewable bio sources are as > good for biomethanol as for the others. Whatever they may be. I don't > have a number... > > >> Steve Hovland >> www.stevehovland.net >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Werbos, Dr. Paul J. [SMTP:paul.werbos at verizon.net] >> Sent: Monday, September 13, 2004 3:02 PM >> To: The new improved paleopsych list; 'The new improved >> paleopsych list' >> Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] Kerry and Armageddon >> >> At 06:17 AM 9/13/2004 -0700, Steve wrote: >> >If GEM capability can be done as a retrofit, >> >which I expect it can, then the whole fleet >> >could be converted in less than the 15 years >> >it takes to replace the fleet. And it could >> >be done on a crash basis. >> >> Sorry. Not technically viable. >> (Have you ever tried replacing just one gasket?). >> >> >> >> >Steve Hovland >> >www.stevehovland.net >> > >> > >> >_______________________________________________ >> >paleopsych mailing list >> >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >> >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> >> _______________________________________________ >> paleopsych mailing list >> paleopsych at paleopsych.org >> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >> _______________________________________________ >> paleopsych mailing list >> paleopsych at paleopsych.org >> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > From shovland at mindspring.com Tue Sep 14 04:11:54 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 21:11:54 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] Kerry and Armageddon Message-ID: <01C499D6.4C2C28B0.shovland@mindspring.com> Good point. If not the step, one of the steps. Walking our dog one day we came across two girls who were running their VW on bio-diesel. In a pinch they could go into any grocery store and buy some vegetable oil, treat it, and go on. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. [SMTP:ljohnson at solution-consulting.com] Sent: Monday, September 13, 2004 8:29 PM To: The new improved paleopsych list Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Kerry and Armageddon Why isn't biodiesel the preferred next step? Small diesel engines are all over Europe now, and biodiesel requires no new delivery technology. A crash program - driven by tax incentives, etc. - would bring about a greatly reduced dependence on fossil fuel. The biodiesel should not increase CO2, since it is from living plants already in the CO2 - O2 loop. Government could mandate a switch to diesel in all new cars, unless they were hybrid. Eh? Lynn Johnson From checker at panix.com Tue Sep 14 13:59:01 2004 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 09:59:01 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Paleopsych] NYT: A Doctor Puts the Drug Industry Under a Microscope Message-ID: A Doctor Puts the Drug Industry Under a Microscope NYT September 14, 2004 By CLAUDIA DREIFUS [I sent a review of her book earlier.] WASHINGTON - In many ways, Dr. Marcia Angell is an unlikely muckraker. A pathologist by training, she is the former editor in chief of The New England Journal of Medicine. She is also a senior lecturer at Harvard Medical School. But just days short of her 65th birthday and her first Social Security check, Dr. Angell is taking on the American pharmaceutical industry with a new book, "The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It" (Random House)."I don't worry about labels," Dr. Angell said in an interview at the Hotel Monaco, where she stopped during a book tour. In a 1996 book, she noted, she argued "that there wasn't a shred of evidence that the breast implants were causing all the disease they were said to." "I was said to be a tool of the pharmaceutical and device companies," Dr. Angell recalled. "I call them as I see them." Q. Why produce an investigative book on the pharmaceutical industry? A. Because everyone knows that prescription drug prices are sky-high. Americans pay far more for our drugs than people in other countries. The drug companies say, "We need high prices to cover our staggering research and development costs, and if you do anything to squeeze our prices, it will stifle innovation." The book was written to examine that argument. Q. The pharmaceutical companies say their prices are steep because they spend somewhere in the neighborhood of a billion dollars per drug bringing them to market. Did your research support this assertion? A. A group of economists - mainly funded by the drug companies - came up with the widely quoted figure on this. They said that it cost $802 million to bring a drug out. They, however, were looking at the most expensive drugs to develop: new chemical compounds developed entirely in house. Most new drugs aren't that at all. Most are what people call "me too" drugs, which are slight variations of older drugs already being sold. According to these economists, the real cost of bringing out those rare original drugs is actually around $403 million. But they doubled it by factoring in how much money the companies might have earned if they'd invested that $403 million. Moreover, the economists did not figure into their total the many generous tax breaks these companies receive for doing research and development. This is a highly inflated figure. The fact is that for the last two decades the drug companies have been hugely profitable. Last year there was a little wiggle downward, but in 2002, the 10 biggest American drug companies had a median profit of 17 percent of sales compared to a median of 3 percent for the other Fortune 500 companies. In the 1990's, profits ran between 19 and 25 percent. Prices are high to keep profits high. Q. Exactly what are these "me too" drugs you argue against? A. They are minor variations of old drugs already on the market. Sometimes a company creates a "me too" drug as a way of extending a patent on an older one. For example, AstraZeneca created Nexium to replace the virtually identical Prilosec when its patent was about to expire. By putting out these me-too's, the companies can get new exclusive marketing rights on what are essentially the same old drugs. Other companies come in with their own me-too's because markets are expandable. It's been shown that when you advertise one me-too drug, you increase the sales of all of them. Q. Why do you have a problem with this? A. The prevalence of the me-too's really says an awful lot about the lack of innovation within the pharmaceutical industry. If you look at the new drugs marketed over the last six years, 78 percent weren't even new chemical compounds. They were just new combinations or different formulations of old drugs. And 68 percent were classified by the F.D.A. as unlikely to be improvements over drugs already on pharmacy shelves. At the same time, there are shortages of some important drugs that the pharmaceutical companies aren't much interested in making because they are not as profitable as the me-too's. But the companies don't have to turn out needed drugs, if they are not lucrative. And they don't. Q. How much of the high cost of drugs is the result of marketing and sales expenditures? A. The companies spend over 30 percent of their revenues on marketing and administration. Their marketing budgets are so enormous because they have to persuade doctors and patients to prescribe one me-too drug over another. If you had a truly innovative drug - a cure for cancer, for instance - you wouldn't have to market it much. The world would beat a path to your door. Q. Was there anything in your life that pushed you to write this book? A. As a journal editor, I witnessed a disturbing trend in pharmaceutical research. Twenty years ago, most drug trials were conducted at academic medical centers and the pharmaceutical companies tended to stand back during the testing period. However, in recent years, the companies have succeeded in attaching strings to research contracts, often designing the studies themselves, keeping the data in-house and deciding whether or not to publish the results. They also began to contract with private research companies for testing. Moreover, the medical schools and even individual researchers began to enter into entrepreneurial arrangements with the drug companies. While all this was occurring, I began to see bias creep into medical research. And I saw a lot of it. The most obvious example were studies comparing a new drug to a placebo. That may be enough to get a drug F.D.A. approval, but it should not be enough for The New England Journal of Medicine. Doctors don't want to know whether a drug is better than nothing. They want to know if it's better than what they are already using. Q. You've written that "because most medical journals are dependent on drug ads for their survival, it probably also influences what they publish." Were you speaking of The New England Journal of Medicine there? A. No. That's because the Journal was virtually unique. We had a real wall between the advertising people and the editorial offices. But many other medical journals - and there are thousands of them - are little more than vehicles for advertisements. Still others, while they are not quite that, will put out occasional sponsored supplements, which I wouldn't have any confidence in whatsoever. Q. You left the editor's chair at The New England Journal of Medicine in 2000. Have there been any big changes there since your departure? A. There's only one I know of - we had a policy that review articles and editorials could not be written by anyone with any financial connection to a company whose product was featured in that article. We said that disclosing the connection was not enough. When we printed papers on original research and there were often conflicts of interests, we published those articles with disclosures. It's my understanding that the policy on reviews and editorials is no longer in place. I'm sorry they made that change. But they say it's too hard to find a prominent author who doesn't have a conflict of interest. Q. The first phase - the discount card phase - of the new Medicare drug benefit is about to go into effect. Do you, as a newly minted senior, believe it will make prescription drugs more affordable? A. It's not going to have a major effect. These discounts are very small, maybe 10 to 15 percent. At the rate of inflation of drug prices, they'll be overtaken in a very short time. Now, the main Medicare drug benefit that goes into effect in 2006 is designed to funnel billions of dollars to the pharmaceutical industry. It's an absolute bonanza for it. The pharmaceutical industry's lobbyists made certain that the legislation contained a provision barring Medicare from negotiating drug prices. Interestingly, the federal government negotiates drug prices for the Veterans Affairs system and gets very low prices because it is a bulk purchaser. And Medicare would have been the biggest bulk purchaser of all - so it could have negotiated very low prices. That provision allows the drug companies to continue raising their prices faster than the inflation rate, and the drug benefit will soon become unaffordable. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/14/health/policy/14conv.html From checker at panix.com Tue Sep 14 13:59:42 2004 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 09:59:42 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Paleopsych] NYT: When the Vision Goes, the Hallucinations Begin Message-ID: When the Vision Goes, the Hallucinations Begin NYT September 14, 2004 By SUSAN KRUGLINSKI One day a few years ago, Doris Stowens saw the monsters from Maurice Sendak's "Where the Wild Things Are" stomping into her bedroom. Then the creatures morphed into traditional Thai dancers with long brass fingernails, whose furious dance took them from the floor to the walls to the ceiling. Although shocked to witness such a spectacle, Ms. Stowens, 85, was aware that she was having hallucinations, and she was certain that they had something to do with the fact that she suffered from the eye disease macular degeneration. "I knew instantly that something was going on between my brain and my eyes," she said. Ms. Stowens says that ever since she developed partial vision loss, she has been seeing pink walls and early American quilts floating through the blind spots in her eyes several times each week. In fact, Ms. Stowens's hallucinations are a result of Charles Bonnet syndrome, a strange but relatively common disorder found in people who have vision problems. Because the overwhelming majority of people with vision problems are more than 70 years old, the syndrome, named after its 18th-century Swiss discoverer, is mostly found among the elderly. And because older people are more susceptible to cognitive deterioration, which can include hallucinations or delusions, Charles Bonnet (pronounced bon-NAY) is easily misdiagnosed as mental illness. Many patients who have it never consult a doctor, out of fear that they will be labeled mentally ill. "It is not a rare disorder," said Dr. V. S. Ramachandran, a neurologist at the University of California at San Diego, who has written about the syndrome. "It's quite common. It's just that people don't want to talk about it when they have it." Researchers estimate that 10 to 15 percent of people whose eyesight is worse than 20/60 develop the disorder. Any eye disease that causes blind spots or low vision can be the source, including cataracts, glaucoma, diabetic retinopathy and, most commonly, macular degeneration. The hallucinations can vary from simple patches of color or patterns to lifelike images of people or landscapes to phantasms straight out of dreams. The hallucinations are usually brief and nonthreatening, and people who have the syndrome usually understand that what they are seeing is not real. Nancy Johnson, a 72-year-old retired schoolteacher from San Diego whose left eye was removed because of cancerous tumors, says she is not bothered by the images she sees. "I see little tiny geometric shapes that all fit together," Ms. Johnson said. "Like doodles in the margin of a notebook. It's sort of interesting and distracting, but it's not fearful." But the experience can also be frightening. Ms. Stowens, for example, said the visions of monsters terrified her. "I couldn't even speak, my heart was beating so fast," she said. Many patients are relieved to hear that what they are suffering from is simply a vision problem, said Dr. William O'Connell, a low-vision specialist at the State University of New York College of Optometry who has seen scores of patients with Charles Bonnet syndrome. "I've had patients tell me, 'I thought I might be getting a brain tumor,' '' he said. "Or 'I thought I might be having a stroke,' or 'I thought I might have Alzheimer's.' " Experts say that medication offers no relief to Charles Bonnet patients, and that in fact there is little that they can do to stop the hallucinations, besides blinking, brightening the light in a room or making other changes in the environment. In some ways, researchers say, the hallucinations that define the syndrome are similar to the phenomenon of phantom limbs, where patients still vividly feel limbs that have been amputated, or phantom hearing, where a person hears music or other sounds while going deaf. In all three cases, the perceptions are caused by a loss of the sensory information that normally flows unceasingly into the brain. In the case of sight, the primary visual cortex is responsible for taking in information, and also for forming remembered or imagined images. This dual function, Dr. Ramachandran and other experts say, suggests that normal vision is in fact a fusion of incoming sensory information with internally generated sensory input, the brain filling in the visual field with what it is used to seeing or expects to see. If you expect the person sitting next to you to be wearing a blue shirt, for example, you might, in a quick sideways glance, mistakenly perceive a red shirt as blue. A more direct gaze allows for more external information to correct the misperception. "In a sense, we are all hallucinating all the time," Dr. Ramachandran said. "What we call normal vision is our selecting the hallucination that best fits reality." With extensive vision loss, less external information is available to adjust and guide the brain's tendency to fill in sensory gaps. The results may be Thai dancers or monsters from a children's book. "The most interesting thing to me," Ms. Stowens said of her syndrome, "is that this brain of mine keeps telling me things I don't want to know." http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/14/science/14eyes.html From checker at panix.com Tue Sep 14 14:02:30 2004 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 10:02:30 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Paleopsych] NYT: F.D.A. Links Drugs to Being Suicidal Message-ID: F.D.A. Links Drugs to Being Suicidal NYT September 14, 2004 By GARDINER HARRIS BETHESDA, Md., Sept. 13 - Top officials of the Food and Drug Administration acknowledged for the first time on Monday that antidepressants appeared to lead some children and teenagers to become suicidal. Dr. Robert Temple, director of the F.D.A.'s office of medical policy, said after an emotional public hearing here that analyses of 15 clinical trials, some of which were hidden for years from the public by the drug companies that sponsored them, showed a consistent link with suicidal behavior. "I think that we now all believe that there is an increase in suicidal thinking and action that is consistent across all the drugs,'' Dr. Temple said, summarizing the agency's presentation to a special advisory committee. "This looks like it's a true bill.'' The acknowledgement, made after the hearing, comes a year after the agency suppressed the conclusions of its own drug-safety analyst, Dr. Andrew Mosholder, who first found a link between the drugs and suicide in teenagers and children. Agency officials wrote in internal memorandums that Dr. Mosholder's analysis was unreliable, and they hired researchers at Columbia University to re-analyze the same data. That study recently reached conclusions nearly identical to Dr. Mosholder's. The testimony came before an advisory committee of 31 independent experts that the F.D.A. has charged with making a recommendation about the labeling and use of antidepressants in children and teenagers. Family members of suicide victims at the hearing angrily denounced agency officials for the delay in admitting the risk of antidepressants in children. The British health authorities decided in December to ban the use of most antidepressants in children and teenagers. Mathy Milling Downing of Laytonsville, Md., whose 12-year-old daughter hanged herself in January, said: "Candace's death was entirely avoidable had we been given the appropriate warnings. "The blood of these children is on your hands.'' Agency officials said that they had no regrets about the months of study. "I don't think the data were at that time reliable,'' Dr. Temple said. "Scaring people needlessly" or overdoing a warning is worrisome, he added. The most popular pills are Zoloft, made by Pfizer; Paxil, made by GlaxoSmithKline; and Prozac, made by Eli Lilly & Company. In 2002, nearly 11 million children and teenagers were prescribed antidepressants. The risk of suicide among patients given the pills is very small. If 100 children and teenagers are given antidepressants, 2 or 3 will become suicidal who otherwise would not have had they been given placebos, agency officials said. None of the children in the trials committed suicide, but some thought about or attempted suicide, researchers found. In March, the agency required antidepressant manufacturers to include on labels a warning that therapy with antidepressants could lead some patients, both adults and children, to become suicidal. The committee must decide whether this warning is strong enough or whether the drugs should be banned for children. The advisory committee is expected to make a decision on Tuesday. The F.D.A. normally follows recommendations of its advisory committees. It is a complex task. Most studies of the drugs have failed to show that they have any effect on depression in children and teenagers. But the drugs have proven effective in adults, and studies suggest that teenage suicide rates have dropped in countries where use of antidepressants is widespread. A large study of depressed teenagers conducted by the National Institute of Mental Health recently found that Prozac was far more effective in treating depression in children and teenagers than was talk therapy. Several speakers noted that clinicians would have almost nothing to offer depressed teenagers and children if antidepressants were banned. Suicide is the third leading cause of death among teenagers, trailing only homicide and accidents. Without treatment, many more teenagers will die, several experts said. If the committee suggests an even stronger warning, some patients will resist therapy and could perhaps die, some speakers said. The issue has roiled the agency and is likely to transform the way the drug industry markets its products. Committees in both the House and Senate have begun investigations following disclosures that Dr. Mosholder's analysis had been suppressed. The New York State attorney general Eliot Spitzer, filed suit against GlaxoSmithKline, charging the drug maker with fraud for failing to disclose the results of clinical trials of Paxil that found no benefit while promoting the drug to physicians. The company settled the suit this summer by promising to disclose the results of all of its clinical trials of its marketed products dating back to 2000. Editors of the nation's top medical journals have said they will not to accept for publication trials that have not been publicly registered, and legislation is expected to be offered in both the House and the Senate requiring the disclosure of the results of all major drug tests on humans. For some bereaved parents, Monday's hearing was a chance to take drug makers and the F.D.A. to task. Mark and Cheryl Miller of Overland Park, Kan.,, told the committee that their 13-year-old son, Matthew, had committed suicide seven months ago while taking Zoloft. "Why haven't parents like Cheryl and myself and countless others been told the truth?'' Mr. Miller asked. But others said that antidepressants had helped millions. Dr. Suzanne Vogel-Sibilia of Beaver, Pa., said that she had brought her 15-year-old son, Tony, to the hearing to represent what she said were the vast majority of patients who had been helped by the drugs. "Please help me preserve my future," Tony told the committee. "Don't take away my medication." Claims that antidepressants cause patients to become acutely suicidal have been made since 1991, just three years after Prozac was introduced. But drug makers and regulators long dismissed these claims, saying they were anecdotal reports without any basis in rigorous clinical trials. Then last year, GlaxoSmithKline announced that tests of Paxil had found that teenagers and children who took the pill were more likely to become suicidal than those given placebos. The announcement was quickly followed by a similar one from Wyeth, the maker of Effexor, another antidepressant. Suddenly, the anecdotal reports were being confirmed by clinical trials. Still, just how the drugs may lead some people to become suicidal remains the subject of fierce debate. Many of those at the hearing said that the pills had brought a change in the personalities of their friends and relatives. Alice Erber said that Paxil caused her 21-year-old son, Jake Steinberg, to throw himself in June from the 24th floor of a Manhattan office building. "If he had not taken Paxil, he would be alive today,'' Ms. Erber said. But Dr. Temple speculated that some people taking the pills become suicidal because they are actually getting better. As their depression improves, he said, they gain the energy to act on suicidal thoughts that their illness had suppressed. "I think the work is cut out for us tomorrow,'' Dr. Wayne Goodman, chairman of the advisory committee, said at the end of Monday's hearing. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/14/health/14depress.html From checker at panix.com Tue Sep 14 14:06:00 2004 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 10:06:00 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Paleopsych] Innovations-Report: GeneBalls: barcoding DNA Message-ID: GeneBalls: barcoding DNA http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/life_sciences/report-33410.html Millions of genetic tests using just one drop of blood. Queensland PhD student Angus Johnston has invented a unique technology with the potential to test for hundreds of diseases, cancers and genes in one, cheap, test. He hopes that within five years the technology will be available in a desktop unit for less than AU$30,000. "This is a unique, patented technology that has the potential to revolutionise genetic testing," said Angus Johnston, PhD student and co-inventor of the technology. "A simple machine could be installed in a doctor's surgery which would give almost instantaneous feedback on which diseases the patient is susceptible." GeneBalls would not only help diagnosing cancer and other diseases, but also give an early warning for diseases like heart disease. With this early warning the patient can make lifestyle changes before any symptoms occur. Geneballs can currently look at 12 genes in one test, but in the next 12 months we plan to increase this number to tens or hundreds of thousands. The existing technology, is too expensive and inaccurate for clinical applications. Angus is one of 16 early-career scientists presenting their research to the public for the first time thanks to Fresh Science. The researcher who best meets the criteria of the national competition will present their work in the UK courtesy of British Council Australia. It's been an exciting journey for the student researcher. "I've had the opportunity to do a PhD that's led to direct commercial outcomes," says Angus. "It has given me two international patents and a shareholding in a company which is commercialising the technology." GeneBalls are tiny particles one tenth the diameter of a human hair and work like a barcode on items in a supermarket. Each tiny bead contains a mixture of fluorescent dyes and is coated with DNA. If a patient has DNA the same as DNA on one of the GeneBalls, their DNA will stuck to the GeneBall. More information: www.freshscience.org From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Tue Sep 14 18:43:48 2004 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:43:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Paleopsych] economic and behavior In-Reply-To: <200409131800.i8DI0t003951@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20040914184348.77745.qmail@web13426.mail.yahoo.com> >>It is as if there were a big asteroid due to hit the earth on 20 years and make a lot of folks extinct... and we have 5 years in which known technology will be able to make a course correction. The US election and early Administration choices of the next year will control most of that 5 years.<< --You're assuming US politics controls consumer behavior, and that other nations won't fill the gap and produce better technology. US consumers have shown that they are perfectly willing to buy foreign-made products if they are superior and more economical. As gas prices go up, the market will change, regardless of who is responsible for innovation. If the US refuses to innovate, it will just lose its share of the future market. Michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Tue Sep 14 18:49:05 2004 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:49:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Paleopsych] bush/kerry In-Reply-To: <200409131800.i8DI0t003951@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20040914184905.76546.qmail@web13421.mail.yahoo.com> >>In the midst of all this nice intellectual discussion -- I have to admit that I am increasing worried, in a very practical way, about whether we -- the human race -- are going to make the right decisions IN THE COMING YEAR, to avoid a very precipitous drop in our long-term probability of survival.<< --It's pretty likely Bush will win the US election, and whatever innovation will be done will likely be in part due to a backlash against the Bush mentality. Which could actually be preferable, to go too far in one direction in order to inspire its opposite, rather than oscillating weakly and getting only slow change. Might be better to create a crisis now than to wait for a bigger one later. Michael _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Tue Sep 14 18:57:46 2004 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:57:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Paleopsych] bush In-Reply-To: <200409131800.i8DI0t003951@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20040914185746.72611.qmail@web13423.mail.yahoo.com> >>And on war -- Cheney's comments about "sensitivity" really drove me up a tree; it is a commitment to a way of thinking that would have lost every war the US has ever been involved in!<< --What's really strange about Cheney's comment is that Bush used the exact same word -- "sensitive" -- in describing how the US should approach foreign policy. Cheney seems to have no real ethic when he campaigns, he's going with every rhetorical stab he can get in, regardless of how hypocritical or contradictory it may sound in a larger context. The branding of Kerry as a "flip-flopper" has worked very well for the GOP, even though it's as simplistic and mindless as any advertising campaign. Once branded, celebrities, including politicians, find it very hard to escape. Bush has branded himself the "hero" and will run with it, avoiding any political move which would threaten the brand's integrity. Given a choice between appearing weak and doing something stupid that appears strong, he'll go with the latter option, every time. As he does, he'll make greater and greater ethical compromises, until the public imagination decides it's time to flip the polarity and put Bush into the "villain" role. Americans are in huddle-mode, and they will respond the way any herd responds, with black and white perception based on images of heroism and weakness. We must build up a hero, then sacrifice him, as the unconscious dark gods demand. That hero/sacrifice role seems to have been given to Bush, all too willing to accept it, and if he wins the election (I think it's likely he will), he will have a difficult time not being taken down by scandal or assassination in his next term. Polarities are nothing to play with, and I think he's in over his head. Michael _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Tue Sep 14 19:08:38 2004 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 12:08:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Paleopsych] evil In-Reply-To: <200409141800.i8EI0X010711@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20040914190838.80132.qmail@web13421.mail.yahoo.com> >>This idea of evil as something at work in all of us makes for a perspective very different than the one that seems to guide the president. It could lead you to ask, If were all born with this seed of badness, why does it bear more fruit in some people than others?<< --A Christian ought to be asking such questions, but Bush's Christianity doesn't seem to have much concept of evil as a force within us as well as in our enemies. He also has no problem with using the death penalty against born-again Christians who, according to Christianity, are "new persons" not subject to the evil they've done in the past. Such contradictions undermine the transformative power of the Christian myth, reducing it to a Darwinistic battle between "saved" elites and "unsaved", and therefore unworthy, masses. Such a Christianity can't save anybody. It also doesn't acknowledge the systemic aspects of evil. Evil seems to be not only up to the nature of the individual, but to the environment. An environment in which everyone is either an enemy or a victim will produce more and more extreme behavior through feedback. But still, we have to ask, "why do some people take risks to help the innocent during times of cruelty". That kind of question is far more useful in preventing future evil than "how do we kill all the bad people". Michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From shovland at mindspring.com Tue Sep 14 19:22:40 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 12:22:40 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] bush Message-ID: <01C49A55.87CFB290.shovland@mindspring.com> Cheney's rhetoric is one reason why I refer to them as psychopaths. And how many versions have we had about why we are in Iraq? Does that count as "crazy lying?" Carrying the battle to the capital is the end-game of many wars, and we are seeing a significant increase in activity in Baghdad. This could end up being a bigger issue than most people expect. I agree that it looks like another Bush term, and that it will not be a happy one. Perhaps the Democrats are throwing this election in the hope of getting back Congress in 2006 and the Executive in 08. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net From paul.werbos at verizon.net Tue Sep 14 21:44:27 2004 From: paul.werbos at verizon.net (Werbos, Dr. Paul J.) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 17:44:27 -0400 Subject: [Paleopsych] economic and behavior In-Reply-To: <20040914184348.77745.qmail@web13426.mail.yahoo.com> References: <200409131800.i8DI0t003951@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.0.20040914173531.00c3b890@incoming.verizon.net> At 11:43 AM 9/14/2004 -0700, Michael Christopher wrote: > >>It is as if there were a big asteroid due to hit >the earth on 20 years and make a lot of folks >extinct... and we have 5 years in which known >technology will be able to make a course correction. >The US election and early Administration choices of >the next year will control most of that 5 years.<< > >--You're assuming US politics controls consumer >behavior, and that other nations won't fill the gap >and produce better technology. Funny you should say that. I have been working very hard to communicate with other nations about these issues, and I do think we should work with them as much as we can. But, to begin with, the US is a very big part of the WORLD gasoline market. the US and China between them seem to predict global oil demand pretty well. And then you can go to the EC. I don't see a huge amount of motion in the EC right now. The combination of vested interests and political correctness/delusion is at least as problematic there as here, in every probe I have tried. I am not surprised that the Saarland folks voted in violent reaction the other day, given what they have been asked to put up with. China ought to be better in some ways. Certainly they have batteries for electric and hybrid cars right now that beat the rest of the world. They have strong mileage standards and encourage hybrids. That's something. But I don't see anything on alternatives fuels. Lately, there is a commitment to cut back on ALL capital investment EXCEPT nuclear, which is utterly weird. (People tell me that SAFE fission costs more than clean coal, and China has more comparative advantage with clean -- gasified -- coal. Maybe they haven't thought through what a Chernobyl style of nuclear development might do to their internal future?) There are places where more is happening, like Brazil... but only if we are flexible enough to learn from those nations can we make a big dent in the global situation. And we need to learn soon... > US consumers have shown >that they are perfectly willing to buy foreign-made >products if they are superior and more economical. As >gas prices go up, the market will change, regardless >of who is responsible for innovation. If the US >refuses to innovate, it will just lose its share of >the future market. > >Michael > > > > >__________________________________ >Do you Yahoo!? >New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! >http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From paul.werbos at verizon.net Tue Sep 14 22:03:41 2004 From: paul.werbos at verizon.net (Werbos, Dr. Paul J.) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 18:03:41 -0400 Subject: [Paleopsych] a detail In-Reply-To: <4145E134.598F934E@yahoo.com.br> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20040912130606.00c16ca0@incoming.verizon.net> Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.0.20040914174522.00c3f4d0@incoming.verizon.net> At 03:04 PM 9/13/2004 -0300, Arnoldo Jose de Hoyos wrote: >Dear Paul, > >Recently I attended both Michel Moore?s Farenheit 11( www.michaelmoore.com >) and The Corporation ( www.thecorporation.tv ) so I understand how You >may be feeling about critical / appocaliptical energy related issues, >particularly when the leading nation lacks of appropiate political >leadership; and timing seems too short to wait for next generation of >Indigo kind of children to take care... >But still the question is to what extent we are all at the personal levels >doing some spiritual progress and helping others to awaken to other realms >of reality. Our struggle for life has being with us since the begining , >but now we are at a time when planetary stakes are on the table , and >hence a challenge to learn about higher principles that may become more >present as our levels of consciousness evolve. >We pray that You may continue to be a Prophet for this appocaliptical >times, reminding us of the risks and opportunities ahead. Thank you very much for your kind message, Arnoldo! I will keep trying. Your encouragement -- and the memory of a time of sanity in Sao Paolo -- will help very much. ----------------- It is amusing how many themes keep recurring in new contexts, as with a kaleidoscope. For example, when half-awake this morning, I thought about this "asteroid" metaphor I have been using lately. Where did this metaphor come from? To be honest, I was thinking about what hits the fan, in a common expression we use here. I did not wish to specify the substance in the common expression, because people are very polarized about what language to accept. But... I remembered... as we discuss Armageddon scenarios... that the asteroid (metaphor?) is actually used in the Book of Revelations as well. I do not believe in fundamentalism, in the exact truth of the Bible. But like Quaker Universalists in general, I do think there is some kind of valid inspiration or synchronicity in the Bible and in many other books, such as the Tao Te Ching, or Jules Verne, or even Ayn Rand or the science fictoin novels of Orson Scott Card (a highly respected Mormon). Or even in our own dreams for that matter. All risky but real. And I remembered (I think) that the asteroid in Revelations was named Wormwood. And then I felt like laughing... for in Revelatoins, the folks who get killed are killed because of toxic stuff ala wormwood going into the world's water supply. And what is that toxic stuff? Probably pretty much like wood alcohol -- like methanol or MBTE. So here I am advocating more methanol use fast... How do I respond? First, the danger of groundwater contamination from methanol in leaky gas stations is one of the few valid concerns expressed by the vested interests (who go 'way beyond that, however -- they tend to slander methanol in about the same way as they slander Kerry...)... But: gasoline is as toxic as methanol, and methanol has an easier antidote at hand (ethanol). The US **ALREADY** has a serious groundwater contamination problem, and has for a few decades, involving gasoline and additives in gasoline. That's the main factor which has stalled the energy bill. (I wish that theft of taxpayer money alone had been enough to stall it, but what can we do?) And so... if we WAIT until we need to move to methanol in a hurry, then we could risk expanded contamination problems, ala Wormwood. But if we PREPARE.. I would in fact propose that we bite the bullet, and phase in more solid leakproof tanks in all gas stations in the US, able to handle gasoline or methanol without leakage. People have at times said that the US can't afford that. But if we start now, we can do a kind of steady rollover, not too expensive in any year. And I wonder: how is it that Brazil has gone to strict safety (above ground tanks even) in all of its gas stations? Is Brazil richer than the US? Is that why they can afford it? Or do Brazilians rely on tap water more than Californians, say, do? ============ By the way, there is also a passage in Revelations that talks about chemical and biological weapons coming from the Tigris and Euphrates. I have wondered at times whether that affected Bush's decision. Yet it also talks about the frog that was removed form power, and amazed the world by coming back. Just as a game ... to titillate the imagination... could it be that the net effect of Bush's Iraq policy will be to bring back the frog Saddam Hussein in the end, who will get his vengeance by doing exactly what Bush most accused him of doing? I hope not. I certainly don't consider it inevitable. But I certainly wouldn't call it impossible either at this point. --------- But... that's too much crazy noise already, no? Back to normal routines... Best of luck to us all, Paul -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shovland at mindspring.com Tue Sep 14 22:50:10 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 15:50:10 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] economic and behavior Message-ID: <01C49A72.847A3FD0.shovland@mindspring.com> In the EC they have a lot of tiny cars that get 100 mpg :-) We will see them here, perhaps after most of the SUV's go to the crusher. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net From shovland at mindspring.com Tue Sep 14 22:55:24 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 15:55:24 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] Complex Adaptive Systems and the Energy Crunch Message-ID: <01C49A73.3FA326F0.shovland@mindspring.com> I spent some time reading the notes for Howard's book Passion Points. One of the things he talks about is complex adaptive systems theory. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=complex+systems+theory&btnG=Google+Search One main class of players in CAS's is that of "diversity generators." I would say that those of us who are thinking about how to deal with the on-rushing energy problem are DG's in our time. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net From paul.werbos at verizon.net Tue Sep 14 23:39:58 2004 From: paul.werbos at verizon.net (Werbos, Dr. Paul J.) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 19:39:58 -0400 Subject: [Paleopsych] Kerry and Armageddon In-Reply-To: <41466597.8000509@solution-consulting.com> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20040913192908.03d401b0@incoming.verizon.net> <5.2.1.1.0.20040913192908.03d401b0@incoming.verizon.net> Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.0.20040914193444.042a9320@incoming.verizon.net> At 09:29 PM 9/13/2004 -0600, Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D. wrote: >Why isn't biodiesel the preferred next step? Small diesel engines are all >over Europe now, and biodiesel requires no new delivery technology. A >crash program - driven by tax incentives, etc. - would bring about a >greatly reduced dependence on fossil fuel. The biodiesel should not >increase CO2, since it is from living plants already in the CO2 - O2 loop. >Government could mandate a switch to diesel in all new cars, unless they >were hybrid. Eh? >Lynn Johnson Hi! Biodiesel is not the same as diesel. I can imagine an argument that the "externality payment" per Btu should be exactly the same for all biofuels. That's for the fuel producer, for whom we can tell when it's bio. But to require all cars be diesel wouldn't work so well. For one thing, a shift from IC gasoline to diesel is much BIGGER than a shift to GEM flexibility in new cars. Diesel is hard in smaller cars. And above all... we can't afford to limit ourselves to small steps. We need to move fast before they get us... ADDING small steps that are CONSISTENT with critical big changes is fine. But if we take small steps as an ALTERNATIVE to big impacts... we're dead. On the CAR side... GEM flexibility is a SMALLER change, with BIGGER IMPACT than diesel cars. But on the fuel supply side, yes, a level playing field for biosubsidies is logical, more or less. (Biomethanol does have the additional value however of easing future transition to methanol fuel cell cars, a benefit that the other biofuels do not have.) Best, Paul From shovland at mindspring.com Tue Sep 14 23:54:42 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 16:54:42 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] Kerry and Armageddon Message-ID: <01C49A7B.888C2F80.shovland@mindspring.com> I would tend to feel that a "monoculture" outlook is part of our current problem. We need a "permaculture" approach to energy, and I think that would mean including a variety of sources. If I recall correctly, biodiesal cars can run on conventional diesel as well, so there is no retrofit and no need to replace the fleet. An incremental pathway to the future includes wide application of hybrid drive chains with alcohol blends and biodiesal for the internal combustion part. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net From paul.werbos at verizon.net Wed Sep 15 00:47:05 2004 From: paul.werbos at verizon.net (Werbos, Dr. Paul J.) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 20:47:05 -0400 Subject: [Paleopsych] diesel In-Reply-To: <01C49A7B.888C2F80.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.0.20040914203130.00c3b360@incoming.verizon.net> At 04:54 PM 9/14/2004 -0700, Steve wrote: >I would tend to feel that a "monoculture" outlook >is part of our current problem. > >We need a "permaculture" approach to energy, >and I think that would mean including a variety >of sources. If I recall correctly, biodiesal cars >can run on conventional diesel as well, so there >is no retrofit and no need to replace the fleet. OK... I was incomplete. We need more level playing fields, but also some realism. Now -- diesel is a kind of local progress over gasoline, today, because it is more efficient than IC gasoline. But it is not really more efficient than EITHER (a) hybrids using gasoline; or (b) advanced Stirling. Thus putting energy into the expense of diesel engines is a distraction... it's like putting out hybrids that (a) can only use gasoline; and (b) does not develop the electrical technology that also facilitates fuel cell or pure electric cars. In sum, it's a waste. A living fossil. In fact... I have proposed that any car which CAN use gasoline should be required to have GEM flexibility. As I think more about the logic... I should have said any car which can use gasoline OR OTHER liquid hydrocarbons. THAT'S for the car part. For the fuel production part, still it is fair to supply incentives to biodiesel as great as for bioethanol or biohydrogen. (Biomethanol theoretically should have more subsidy, insofar as it has the value of opening the door to methanol-carrying fuel cell cars, and economic theory demands a payment for the attendant externalities. But... I wouldn't fight to microoptimize so precisely. ) ================ By the way, I think that Kerry's proposed incentives for hybrids -- weak as they are -- are desirable and far more useful, for example, than drilling in Anwar. Hybrids are NOT coming online as fast as they could be. Yet, Prius is selling like hotcakes, due to snob appeal. But Honda Civic, for example, could use a little extra market pull, and US manufacturers could have a bit more incentive to open up more lines of hybrids. **IF** we don't get methanol online fast enough, WITH the necessary associated technologies... our survival... will depend on team B, which will experience a huge amount of discontinuous market pressure at some point: team B, the "plug-in hybrids," which I am glad to hear Daimler has begun to explore. Given enough pain and shock, and lack of a methanol alternative... electricity can at least handle ordinary journeys to work and to shopping, albeit with constraints people would now considerable unacceptable. (e.g. one trip per day, no long ones.) Weak as that backup may sound now... in case of future national emergencies, we may be grateful to have it available as backup. If the oil folks don't let us have methanol in time, the price may be the premature end of their industry, under circumstances where even they could see it would then be for the best... then... Best, Paul From shovland at mindspring.com Wed Sep 15 01:39:46 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 18:39:46 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] diesel Message-ID: <01C49A8A.35C53EE0.shovland@mindspring.com> What are the Stirling options like, technically? Could "regenerative" braking be incorporated into Stirling engines the way it is in hybrids? I suspect that the energy companies of the future won't be the oil companies. They will go into defensive mode and slowly wind down. What bright young person will think there is a great future in oil? How many are studying nuclear engineering these days? Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net From shovland at mindspring.com Wed Sep 15 01:42:22 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 18:42:22 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] diesel Message-ID: <01C49A8A.92A30CA0.shovland@mindspring.com> And while we're considering possibilities, how about some kind of high-tech steam engine? Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Wed Sep 15 01:46:11 2004 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 19:46:11 -0600 Subject: [Paleopsych] economic and behavior In-Reply-To: <01C49A72.847A3FD0.shovland@mindspring.com> References: <01C49A72.847A3FD0.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <41479EE3.4000602@solution-consulting.com> They also have a diesel BMW 3 that can beat a Porsche. You can't get them here. Steve wrote: >In the EC they have a lot of tiny cars >that get 100 mpg :-) We will >see them here, perhaps after most >of the SUV's go to the crusher. > >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > > > From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Wed Sep 15 02:01:27 2004 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 20:01:27 -0600 Subject: [Paleopsych] Bush/Kerry Wisdom of Crowds In-Reply-To: <01C49A8A.35C53EE0.shovland@mindspring.com> References: <01C49A8A.35C53EE0.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <4147A277.5080404@solution-consulting.com> Today's tradesports.com standings for the 2004 Presidential Election are: PRESIDENT.GWBUSH2004 63.0/63.5 PRESIDENT.KERRY2004 35.2/37.5 These futures markets have been unbelievably good (well, I have a hard time believing them) at predicting future events. I believe we ought to start thinking about how to influence the Bush administration in the next term. LJ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shovland at mindspring.com Wed Sep 15 02:03:31 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 19:03:31 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] modern steam engines in cars etc Message-ID: <01C49A8D.877D0440.shovland@mindspring.com> The Mobile Steam Society, a not for profit corporation organized to design and build a modern steam car. The car, a 1963 VW bug, has been operating since ~1978. we have made constant refinements, the latest is a digital computer control and recording system. The steam generator is a monotube type which is about 85% efficient. The engine is a converted three cylinder Hearth snowmobile engine of 35 cubic inches with a bore and stroke of 2-1/2 x 2-1/2. The car has been operated at up to 55 mph. We run the car and give rides at spring meetings in Oak Ridge, TN and in the fall at Danville, IL. http://knauffl.tripod.com/ A FRESH VIEW OF THE STEAM CAR FOR TODAY http://www.stanleysteamers.com/modern_steam.htm Modern Steam Cars and other External Combustion Engines http://www.geocities.com/kenboak/steam.html Steam Car FAQ's http://ghlin2.greenhills.net/~apatter/steamfaq.html the google search: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&q=modern+steam+engines+f or+cars&btnG=Search Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net From shovland at mindspring.com Wed Sep 15 02:19:51 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 19:19:51 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] Bush/Kerry Wisdom of Crowds Message-ID: <01C49A8F.D07F21D0.shovland@mindspring.com> I think some big problems would manifest during their 2nd term, things that may surprise them, and the progressive "we" can have some answers ready. On health care, we need to start by filling the gap so that everyone has some reasonable level of insurance. The next stage would be to put the health care system under the cost-accounting microscope and find out where all the money is going. On jobs, we need to make it clear that sending jobs overseas during a time of unemployment is insane and we want it stopped. This group is doing a pretty good job of exploring the energy future. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net From HowlBloom at aol.com Wed Sep 15 05:09:40 2004 From: HowlBloom at aol.com (HowlBloom at aol.com) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 01:09:40 EDT Subject: [Paleopsych] Re: Jaak--is the lab an antique tool? Message-ID: <15a.3f3c7946.2e792894@aol.com> I doubt that in my lifetime I'll figure out how to make replicable experiments in the world of mass emotion and mass culture. The big problem is replicability. Culture and mass moods are different from one day to the next. The global context that tweaks these moods is constantly changing. New ideas, new technologies, new world views, and new relationships between people, between subcultures, between nations, and between supranational movements make the cultural context of one day very different from the cultural context of the day that follows. One way to see the shifts of mass perception and mass emotion is to look at the news. News hunts for anomalies, for differences. It may return to the same story over and over again, but it looks for the change in that story. Why? Because human curiosity demands change, shift, and the new. This restlessness in itself is worthy of scientific study. Those who are content will die without the antsiness of the restless. Tom Seeley has shown this in his work with bees. Neil Miller managed to extract predictable patterns from the news with his frustration-agression hypothesis. He started with history and current events--lynchings in the south. Then he hypothesized and demonstrated a relationship between lynchings and cotton prices. Finally he predicted that lab rats subjected to frustration or pain would lash out with aggression. Then he proved it. My work is more in the nature of what Darwin did in South America. I'm adventuring in the hope of tapping into experiences few folks in science gain access to. I've learned how to make replicable predictions about how to build superstars. But those have been based on a combination of reason, analysis, broad knowledge, and...the hard but essential part...gut level, highly-trained intuition. At this point I should be working to express those gut-intuitions in words and in testable principles. Alas, my gut and my reason predicts that a superstar of history, Osama bin Laden, may soon end the civilization that gives you and me the privilege of participating in the scientific process. So I've been forced to try to stop the very thing my intuition and reason are predicting--the destruction of key cities in America by nuclear, chemical, and conventional means. This is an experiment in history, but one that's not replicable or measurable. The hypothesis it's based on is that there is a pecking order of groups, a pecking order of subcultures, a pecking order of nations, and a pecking order of civilizations. Groups periodically battle for alpha position. The sub-hypothesis is that groups battle not when they are deprived, but when they are flush with resources and see an opportunity to take over. They judge their chances much as Franz de Waal's beta chimps judge the right moment to take their next incremental move toward the top. A bunch of extraordinarily rich kids--Osama bin Laden, Ayman al Zawahiri, and others like them--are trying to topple America, Russia, Western Civilization, and a clutch of principles they regard as Satanic. They are out to eradicate the following Satanic notions: 1) that man can make his own constitution and laws 2) that man can separate himself from Koranic mandates by promoting a heretical notion that we call "freedom" 3) that man can promote what we call human rights 4) that man has a right to promote what we call gay rights 5) and that man has the right to speak ungodly and unislamic words in the name of a false principle we call freedom of speech. This worldview takes our values and turns them into moral poisons. It makes Islam the only religion that understands purity, and it makes us the epitome of corruption and evil. In other words it uses ideas to turn the tables and make our group the dirt under the sole of humanity's feet. It puts us on the bottom of the hierarchical totem pole of groups. And it puts Islam on the top. It is natural and just that those who understand purity, truth, god's laws, and god's justice should rule god's planet. So a perceptual trick of hierarchy has set the stage for a power grab, a grab for the number one military and political position. But this time round the weapons of a cumpulsory Holy War are no longer swords, they are the nuclear fires the Koran predicted would torture unbelievers. There is science in here somewhere--a science of the forces of history. But right now I have to do everything in my extremely limited power to make sure that my own predictions do not come true. Onward--Howard In a message dated 9/9/2004 4:00:07 AM Eastern Standard Time, jpankse at bgnet.bgsu.edu writes: Dear Howard, Interesting, but must make my response short since I am on a month long lecture tour in Europe, and jumping from one place to another every few days, often with inadequate time or computer links to keep up on e- mails. I have no major disagreements with what you said. . . no question that laboratory research imposes enormous constraints on certain phenomena, while allowing others to be studies incisively with all the traditional controls. Whether the cultural world can really be used as a laboratory sremains to be seen. I think here we may be really bouncing off the traditional world of science, where things really cannot be adequately measured and the precictions often are weak. That is why cultural studies are usually in the humanities, giving us many useful and contentiously useless and often hard to comprehend perspectives. I am all ears for a more compelling approaches that have the earmarks of traditional science. . . replicability. No question that current scientific methodology has enormous constraints in dealing with the ultra-complexities of many cultural and mental dynamics. Just attended the 5th Neuro-Psychoanalytic congress in Rome where such complexties and difficulties where very evident. Greetings from Cambridge, Warm regards, Jaak ---------Included Message---------- >Date: 4-Sep-2004 23:21:38 -0400 >From: >To: >Cc: >Subject: Jaak--is the lab an antique tool? > >You tossed me an intriguing challenge when you came over to the bloom >brownstone a year or two ago. I've been chewing on it, using it for mindfuel, ever >since. > >To make my theories count, you said, I had to be able to translate them into >predictions that could be proven or disproven in the lab. Good point. What >can't be operationalized and what can't be tested isn't science, right? > >So for three months I tried to figure out how to put my ideas into lab- able >terms. That isn't easy. These concepts were seeded by 15 years of study in >theoretical physics, microbiology, psychology, religion, history, and the arts. > >Many of the questions were tweaked and shaded by riding the rails and >adventuring. Then came the real deal--20 years of fieldwork in popular culture, in >visual art and music, in making superstars, in creating cultural whirlwinds >where there were only breezes before, from making hurricanes of passion in the >real world where a film like Purple Rain by Prince becomes a cultural legacy, >where it becomes the most popular makeout film for hormonally-driven teens who >were born long after the day I had to save Purple Rain from being canned by >Warner Brothers. > >In the world of pop culture you do have to demonstrate science's basics, >prediction and control. You are forced to form hypotheses, then make predictions >about the next career move for Michael Jackson, Billy Idol, Billy Joel, Bob >Marley, or Joan Jett. An artist's lifetime work depends on whether your >prediction turns out true or false. The gifts or curses that reach the public depend >on your observation, your insight, and your accuracy. > >But your hypotheses are often formed by your gut, your intellect, and your >intuition all working in parallel. You can't necessarily explain the things you >suspect, much less the things you know. > >The subject matter you're studying is huge...far too huge to squeeze into the >lab. > >So how DO we test the making of a culture storm in a lab on a university >campus in Boston, New York, Berkeley, or Bowling Green? The answer, it finally >dawned on me was not in trying to shrink hurricanes of mass emotion down to >something that can be replicated in a-pencil-and-paper test given to 60 students >in exchange for credit toward their psychology requirements. > >The problem you posed may not be in the nature of ideas generated in the >field, ideas generated by observational and participatory science. The problem >may be in the lab itself. > >It could be that the lab is the Oldowan stone tool of science. It has been a >great tool for the last 120 years or so. I could never have formulated my >ideas without what the lab-work of Neil Miller and his proteges gave me in mouse >research. I could never have done it without the work that you have given me >with your laughing, tickled, and play-deprived mice. I could never have done >it without the lab-work neuroscientist like Ed Taub gave me in his work with >chimpanzees. > >But, Jaak, the lab is not the solution, it's the problem. The lab is too >limited to catch most of what human behavior is about. It is too limited to >catch the mas passions that make a Hitler, an Osama Bin Laden, a Beethoven, a >Shakespeare, a Winston Churchill, or an FDR. It is too limited to assess whether >the CIA and the Mossad destroyed the world trade center or whether al qaeda >did it. If al qaida was the culprit, the lab is too limited to tell us what to >do next--what to do to defend our civilization from collapse. > >The lab is even too limited to tell us whether our civilization is worth >fighting for. > >Are these questions science must address? You bet. So the real question is >this. How do we make a genuine science of human passions, of mass emotions, >of mass perceptions, of popular culture, of high culture, of politics, and of >history. What new tool can we invent that takes us beyond the lab? > >One clue is this. There are several real-world measures of mass moods and >mass perceptions. One is the stock market. Another is the real world >interaction that takes place in IMs, videogames, role playing games, and chat rooms. >In the cyberworld, every word and every nuance is recorded. All one needs is >permission from the participants to use the mass of data. > >Another advantage of the cyberworld: folks from all over the world kick in. >An online group like the one devoted to the Philosophy of History is based in >Siberia and reaches out to Europe, the United States, South America, and >Australia. > >There are many ways to slice and splice the data. There are many ways to >quantify, if quantification is what you want. > >But it's critical to realize that some of the greatest distortions in the >sciences of the psyche have been created by the physics-and-equation- envy that >seize many of us and remove us from the real world. > >If quality is what you want (and you, in particular, often do) not just >measurement, then getting our sciences out of the lab and into the real world is >critical. > >The cyberworld may just be a convenient starting point. > >My job, it turns out, is very different. After 20 years at the top of the >star-making business, 20 years of gut-hypotheses, it's time to do something very >difficult. It's time to translate what my muscles and my viscera know into >words. > >And it's time to continue to practice the process of shaping human perception >in the real world so an Osama doesn't outdo us by understanding the human >passions far better than we in science do. > >It's time to practice prediction and control in the world of tomorrow's >history. > >Howard >---------- >Howard Bloom >Author of The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of >History and Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The Big Bang to the >21st Century >Visiting Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University; Faculty >Member, The Graduate Institute >www.howardbloom.net >www.bigbangtango.net >Founder: International Paleopsychology Project; founding board member: Epic >of Evolution Society; founding board member, The Darwin Project; founder: The >Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New York Academy of Sciences, American >Association for the Advancement of Science, American Psychological Society, Academy >of Political Science, Human Behavior and Evolution Society, International >Society for Human Ethology; advisory board member: Youthactivism.org; executive >editor -- New Paradigm book series. >For information on The International Paleopsychology Project, see: >www.paleopsych.org >for two chapters from >The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History, >see www.howardbloom.net/lucifer >For information on Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang >to the 21st Century, see www.howardbloom.net > > ---------End of Included Message---------- ---------- Howard Bloom Author of The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History and Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The Big Bang to the 21st Century Visiting Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University; Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute www.howardbloom.net www.bigbangtango.net Founder: International Paleopsychology Project; founding board member: Epic of Evolution Society; founding board member, The Darwin Project; founder: The Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New York Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Psychological Society, Academy of Political Science, Human Behavior and Evolution Society, International Society for Human Ethology; advisory board member: Youthactivism.org; executive editor -- New Paradigm book series. For information on The International Paleopsychology Project, see: www.paleopsych.org for two chapters from The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History, see www.howardbloom.net/lucifer For information on Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century, see www.howardbloom.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shovland at mindspring.com Wed Sep 15 05:28:20 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 22:28:20 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] Re: Jaak--is the lab an antique tool? Message-ID: <01C49AAA.24E2D5E0.shovland@mindspring.com> It seems to me that your work with rock musicians had an aspect of replication. Somehow you figured out that if you reached some deeper level in these individuals, you would get a superior musical output, which would show up in concert attendance etc, which it did :-) It might not be possible to test some ideas on really big groups of people, but perhaps you could test up to concert hall size. Well I take that back. The big lie technique works, and it has been done successfully on whole nations, including our own. The most recent example is the connection of Iraq with 911. Hitler did this very well, having a fairly precise and repeatable speaking technique which could rouse crowds to a fever pitch. Look at the tapes of the Nuremberg festivals to see this on a massive scale. Maybe you could get a crowd together, wire them up with individual micro EEG machines, or examine them with a SQUID, and see patterns of coherence or chaos depending on their reaction. A casual observer would note that a crowd at a movie or concert achieves a level of coherence soon after the performance starts. How to measure is the problem. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net From n.j.c.bannan at reading.ac.uk Wed Sep 15 09:20:31 2004 From: n.j.c.bannan at reading.ac.uk (Nicholas Bannan) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 10:20:31 +0100 Subject: [Paleopsych] economic and behavior References: <01C49A72.847A3FD0.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <006e01c49b05$3f983d20$6882e186@.rdg.ac.uk> In the EC, lots of people travel long distances by a method known as 'walking'. I gather that a certain Texan has been seen to do this between journeys by car and 'plane, and it is known as 'swaggering'. NB ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve" To: "'The new improved paleopsych list'" Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 11:50 PM Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] economic and behavior > In the EC they have a lot of tiny cars > that get 100 mpg :-) We will > see them here, perhaps after most > of the SUV's go to the crusher. > > Steve Hovland > www.stevehovland.net > > _______________________________________________ > paleopsych mailing list > paleopsych at paleopsych.org > http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > From paul.werbos at verizon.net Wed Sep 15 12:23:51 2004 From: paul.werbos at verizon.net (Werbos, Dr. Paul J.) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 08:23:51 -0400 Subject: [Paleopsych] diesel In-Reply-To: <01C49A8A.35C53EE0.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.0.20040915080559.020dff98@incoming.verizon.net> At 06:39 PM 9/14/2004 -0700, Steve wrote: >What are the Stirling options like, technically? There have been breakthroughs of a sort in Stirling in the last few years. The true story has been a bit like Perils of Pauline... and utterly unrelated to the fantasy stories of renewables told by the current official experts in the mainstream culture. But technically, it is fairly straightforward. It is "external combustion." In other words the engine proper converts heat to torque (or electricity, when it's one integrated system). Old efficiency is like 30 percent -- still allowing solar power far more efficient than DOE's hoped for goals for ten years from now. The path to 50 percent is fairly clear, and has received at least two sufficiently large funding commitments to pull it off and go to mass production. In fact, I probably can claim credit for making this last part happen (though in fact, it's a chain, in which four of us were essential links.). Some of the previous pass funding came from the diesel people, who could see the advantage of something as efficient as their old engines, but cleaner and cheaper and utterly fuel-flexible. But the biomass and solar applications, and distributed electric power, are driving the present efforts. Having this stuff move ahead will be very crucial to prevent more extreme rises in the price of natural gas and high-quality biomass (which should nevertheless continue to rise) when/if fuel flexibility creates a large (if indirect) new market both for natural gas and liquid biofuels. And it should help alleviate the emerging electric power supply problems in many parts of the world -- especially those with lots of biomass and sunlight. But -- hybrids rightly get more attention in my view in vehicles for now, as (1) they are further along; and (2) they are a steppingstone to other important possibilities, like the methanol-hydrogen-carrier carbon-tolerant alkaline fuel cell car, and the "plug-in hybrid" which can grow to be a true electric car (or at least a car able to run on electricity alone in case of emergency). >Could "regenerative" braking be incorporated into >Stirling engines the way it is in hybrids? Strictly speaking, the next generation stirling engine could be used in place of the small gasoline engine used in today's hybrids. But for now that is not a priority. But in fact... I wouldn't be surprise if that ended up being the "next best" hope for liquid fuels if the methanol alkaline fuel cell car doesn't happen. It could even burn weird liquids like corn oil. FOR NOW -- getting to mass production of the next generation Stirling is the proper main concern (and worry). >I suspect that the energy companies of the future >won't be the oil companies. They will go into >defensive mode and slowly wind down. Maybe. But they should be allowed to destroy themselves, if they so choose -- while also be given every opportunity at a better win-win outcome. >What bright young person will think there is a great >future in oil? > >How many are studying nuclear engineering these days? The best and brightest in the US are studying virtual reality and video games, and perhaps voting accordingly. Well-- that's a bit of an exaggeration; please forgive. But we have a lot to work on. Best of luck to us all... >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From shovland at mindspring.com Wed Sep 15 13:43:23 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 06:43:23 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] diesel Message-ID: <01C49AEF.4C4666C0.shovland@mindspring.com> I have heard that enrollments in computer science programs has declined 23% due to the lack of jobs in the computer business. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net From checker at panix.com Wed Sep 15 14:39:07 2004 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 10:39:07 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Paleopsych] NYT: Amazon to Take Searches on Web to a New Depth Message-ID: Amazon to Take Searches on Web to a New Depth NYT September 15, 2004 By JOHN MARKOFF PALO ALTO, Calif., Sept. 14 - Amazon.com, the e-commerce giant, plans to take aim at the Internet search king Google with an advanced technology that the company says will take searches beyond mere retrieval of Web pages to let users more fully manage the information they find. A9.com, a start-up owned by Amazon, said in a briefing here on Tuesday that it planned to make the new version of its search service, named A9.com, available Tuesday evening. The service will offer users the ability to store and edit bookmarks on an A9.com central server computer, keep track of each link clicked on previous visits to a Web page, and even make personal "diary" notes on those pages for viewing on subsequent visits. "In a sense, this is a search engine with memory," said Udi Manber, a computer scientist who was a pioneer in online information retrieval and worked at Yahoo before moving to Amazon two years ago. Mr. Manber created the original A9 search service, which is based in part on search results from Google. He also led the development of Amazon's "search inside the book" project, which lets visitors to the Amazon.com and A9.com Web sites search the complete contents of more than 100,000 books the company has digitally scanned. Amazon's entry into the search engine wars will certainly raise the stakes in an already heated battle for control of what is believed to be the high ground in Internet commerce and advertising. Google, which had a widely watched public stock offering last month, is still the dominant provider of search results with approximately 250 million daily searches. But Yahoo and Microsoft have become direct competitors, and a number of start-up companies are busy developing search technologies. Google executives did not return calls asking for comment. Amazon is also offering a dialog box that will enable customers on the Amazon.com shopping site to use A9 service to perform Web searches. Company executives say they have no immediate plans to compete head-on with Google and the other search providers. But analysts say the company is aware that search engines are often the starting point for online shopping and cannot help but see broader business opportunities for expanding more fully into online searching. "They've downplayed the idea that they're going into search," said Danny Sullivan, editor of Search Engine Watch, an industry Web site. "They say, 'we're not competing.' But at the same time you have to wonder why they're doing it, and it's likely they're doing it because they see some potential in search." Amazon quietly established A9 last year as a subsidiary in a large office building here. The start-up has been offering a search demonstration page, which has so far been limited to the ability to record a history of Web searches. The new service goes much further, adding the ability to organize and retrieve past searches. The idea is to make searching more useful by making it easier to remember where a Web browser has gone before. "The ability to search through your own history of personal Web searches is insanely powerful," said John Battelle, a writer and consultant who is the organizer of the Web 2.0 conference to be in San Francisco next month. "This is a big deal,'' Mr. Battelle said. "But the question is will people get the habit of using it?" The new A9 search page permits users to search the Web and simultaneously retrieve related information from Google's search results and its image search service, reference material from the GuruNet service and additional information from the Internet Movie Database. A9 executives said that the new version of the service was simply a first release and that the company had extensive plans for adding new capabilities. "This is just version 1.0," said Mr. Manber. "There is a lot more to come." But Mr. Manber, who began working on information retrieval in the early 1990's as a faculty member at the University of Arizona, was reticent to discuss whether A9 would become a direct competitor to Google. A9 is currently using Google search results and displaying the syndicated Google Adwords advertisements. The two companies share revenue from the advertisements. Amazon also has its own independent technology for indexing the Web, as a result of its purchase in 1999 of Alexa, a search company founded by the information retrieval specialist Brewster Kahle. The new version of A9 offers some Web traffic information derived from Alexa, but not search results. Initially, A9 will focus on managing information like bookmarks and search history, Mr. Manber said. "It's not just about search," he said. "It's about managing your information." The A9 service will include a Web browser tool bar that has several innovative features, like the ability to create instant lists from individual Web pages and then use the lists to move among those pages. Moreover, it will offer a home page giving users the ability to edit and move Web links easily for later retrieval. The A9 site will also offer a "discovery" feature that gives Internet browsers suggestions on Web sites that they may find interesting, based on their searches - a feature similar to the product recommendation features offered on Amazon. Mr. Manber said that A9 had no current plans to include paid ads in search research or to give a preference to products sold on Amazon. But he also said that he could not comment on future plans, except to say that A9 did have plans for new search technologies that would generate revenue. He stressed that the evolution of Internet search capabilities was still in its earliest stages. "We're in the Wright brothers phase of search technology," he said. A9 executives said they were acutely aware of potential privacy concerns raised by the personalized nature of the service and said they were doing a variety of things to address the issue. There will be a version of the A9 service that will offer anonymous searches, for example, Mr. Manber said. Moreover, it will be possible to turn off the history feature, remove information from an individual history list and even entirely clear the history results that are stored on the A9 server, he said. "The new thing here is not that this information is being collected," he said, but rather that A9 is actually letting Web users have access to their browsing histories for their own purposes. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/15/technology/15search.html From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Thu Sep 16 02:12:44 2004 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 19:12:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Paleopsych] domino theory In-Reply-To: <200409151800.i8FI0P017568@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20040916021244.3434.qmail@web13422.mail.yahoo.com> I'm not sure I agree that the US has an obligation to be at the top of the global pecking order, and I'm even less sure that the US can do that regardless of whether it would make the world safer. We're economically linked to everything else, we cannot control the spread of nuclear weapons by ourselves, and we can't change our minds if we decide to grab control and instead inspire everyone else to grab for control. We could be setting an example by leadership, saying in effect "Everybody grab as many nukes as you can and impose your will on anyone who doesn't have them." In that event, Bin Laden would have won, not by defeating the US but by inducing it to make unnecessary displays of dominance, triggering a cascade of similar behavior by other nations. Wars fought on theory don't have a good record of success, and when there's chaos, anyone on the bottom has nothing to lose and everything to gain by going to extremes. In order to fight terrorism the US doesn't have to rule the world, it only has to set an example that can be replicated by other nations, forming a net. Trying to be the alpha male tends to get one hurt, in individuals as in nations. People follow the leader, they do not cower in fear indefinitely, and if the US sets the wrong tone, we won't be on top, we'll be somewhere in the middle watching everyone clumsily and destructively imitate our attitude. Michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From paul.werbos at verizon.net Thu Sep 16 10:29:39 2004 From: paul.werbos at verizon.net (Werbos, Dr. Paul J.) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 06:29:39 -0400 Subject: [Paleopsych] another image of Bush In-Reply-To: <20040916021244.3434.qmail@web13422.mail.yahoo.com> References: <200409151800.i8FI0P017568@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.0.20040916062339.0425be20@incoming.verizon.net> Forgive a bit of comic relief -- but I just had an amusing dream, after reading to my six year old. My six year old loves Tom Sawyer, really loves him... In the dream, George Bush was Tom Sawyer. Injun Joe was Osama/Zawahiri. Muff Potter was Saddam Hussein. So much fits. But... this particular Potter, Hussein, wouldn't be so nice if fully restored to power. (The US has already begun facing the inevitable, in the face of opposition -- particularly Shia opposition or even just lack of cooperation -- and put Baathists back into power more and more in more and more places, seeing alternatives as even worse.) But I wonder -- which comes next? Wandering in the cave or Huckleberry Finn? Or does the analogy break down, and we go to some of those Biblical type stories so many other children love? Our imagination can be such a powerful force.. Best of luck to us all... From shovland at mindspring.com Thu Sep 16 10:45:28 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 03:45:28 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] another image of Bush Message-ID: <01C49B9F.9C4F3B00.shovland@mindspring.com> Wandering in the cave, stumbling over things in the dark seems to represent the near future :-) Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Werbos, Dr. Paul J. [SMTP:paul.werbos at verizon.net] Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2004 3:30 AM To: The new improved paleopsych list; paleopsych at paleopsych.org Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] another image of Bush Forgive a bit of comic relief -- but I just had an amusing dream, after reading to my six year old. My six year old loves Tom Sawyer, really loves him... In the dream, George Bush was Tom Sawyer. Injun Joe was Osama/Zawahiri. Muff Potter was Saddam Hussein. So much fits. But... this particular Potter, Hussein, wouldn't be so nice if fully restored to power. (The US has already begun facing the inevitable, in the face of opposition -- particularly Shia opposition or even just lack of cooperation -- and put Baathists back into power more and more in more and more places, seeing alternatives as even worse.) But I wonder -- which comes next? Wandering in the cave or Huckleberry Finn? Or does the analogy break down, and we go to some of those Biblical type stories so many other children love? Our imagination can be such a powerful force.. Best of luck to us all... _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From checker at panix.com Thu Sep 16 18:54:44 2004 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 14:54:44 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Paleopsych] NYT: Virginia Postrel: The New Trend in Spending Message-ID: Virginia Postrel: The New Trend in Spending New York Times, 4.9.9 http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/09/business/09scene.html?position=&pagewanted=print&position= By VIRGINIA POSTREL LISTEN to the jobs debate carefully, and you might get the idea that the problem with the economy is that Americans just are not materialistic enough. We spend too much of our income on restaurant meals, entertainment, travel and health care and not enough on refrigerators, ball bearings, blue jeans and cars. Manufacturing employment is sluggish because of rising productivity - making more with fewer people - and foreign competition. But that's not the whole story, especially over the long term. Production is changing, but so is consumption. As incomes go up, Americans spend a greater proportion on intangibles and relatively less on goods. One result is more new jobs in hotels, health clubs and hospitals, and fewer in factories. In 1959, Americans spent about 40 percent of their incomes on services, compared with 58 percent in 2000. That figure understates the trend, because in many cases goods and services come bundled together. Consider food, classified by the government's spending survey as a "nondurable good." In 1959, consumers spent 25 percent of their income on food, compared with 14 percent in 2000. Today food spending looks much smaller if you exclude restaurant meals. Meals at home took 19 percent of income in 1959, compared with only 8 percent in 2000. Another way to look at the same trend: In 2000, we spent 41 cents of each food dollar on restaurant meals, up from only 29 cents as recently as 1987. Restaurant meals have changed, too. More and more of their value comes not from the nutrition and dishwashing services - function - but from the experience the restaurant provides. We don't go out to eat just to avoid cooking. We go to enjoy different cuisines in pleasant environments. For successful restaurants, aesthetics is no longer an afterthought. Customers are paying for memories, not just fuel. What's true for restaurants is true across the economy. New economic value increasingly comes from experiences. Americans have not stopped buying stuff, of course. (Indeed, there's a whole industry devoted to organizing our pantry-like closets.) But the marginal value of tangibles versus intangibles has shifted. That many manufactured goods are also getting cheaper only intensifies the trend. Products as well as services increasingly distinguish themselves through aesthetics, adding emotional value to practical use. This trend confounds those who equate "quality" with function. Hence a recent Dilbert comic strip satirizes a product designer who declares: "Quality is yesterday's news. Today we focus on the emotional impact of the product." In fact, the trend toward emotional value is exactly what psychological research would predict. Particularly as incomes rise, people find that additional experiences give them more pleasure than additional possessions. In research reported last year in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Leaf Van Boven of the University of Colorado, Boulder, and Thomas D. Gilovich of Cornell University used two surveys and a lab experiment to test whether people reported greater happiness from "experiential purchases" or "material purchases." In almost all cases, they found that subjects preferred experiences to goods. (The psychologists did not consider relative prices, except to specify that survey respondents consider purchases they'd made for more than $100.) That does not mean nobody wants more things. The issue is one of relative benefits. The economic question is, Given limited resources, what is the best trade-off? What do you want next? The two psychologists' research found that the less people already had, the more benefits they reported from additional goods as opposed to experiences. "Respondents' level of income was positively associated with their endorsement of experiential over material possessions," the psychologists wrote, noting that "respondents with the lowest levels of income were equally likely to indicate that material or experiential purchases made them happier." As an economist would put it, this research found diminishing marginal utility - less enjoyment from an additional purchase - from new possessions, compared with experiences like travel and restaurant meals. "The good life," the authors wrote, "may be better lived by doing things than by having things." This result sounds both logical and humanistic. It's consistent with economic theory. But translated into economic life, it disrupts cherished assumptions. In the popular imagination and the political debate, making things is "real" work. Providing experiences is not. Analysts assume that working in a factory is a good job and working in a hotel is not. This perception is not just a question of relative wages. Even at the top, it's more prestigious to create stuff than experiences. Carleton S. Fiorina, the chief executive of [1]Hewlett-Packard, ranks 10th on the new Forbes list of "the world's most powerful women." (She's the top-ranked business executive on the list.) Oprah Winfrey ranks a mere 62nd, and isn't even classified as an executive. Similarly, the election-year news suggests that the economy is bad all over. But in fact, states like Florida and Nevada, whose economies produce experiences, are booming. States like Ohio and Michigan, whose economies produce stuff, are hurting. The shift toward intangibles creates geographic winners and losers, redistributing economic and political clout. Over the last eight years, the demographer Peter Francese reports, "people have been moving out of the Northeast and Midwest at a net rate of just over 30,000 a month." In the July/August issue of American Demographics magazine, he documents the story of "young people pulling up stakes in the Northeast and Midwest and dispersing to better jobs and more affordable places to live, where the weather often happens to be a lot better." Americans are pouring out of the Northeast and Midwest, where water and rail transportation and convenient raw materials once provided an economic advantage. They're going to the more hospitable physical and economic climates of the South and West. There, catering to emotion and imagination is "real" work and pleasure is a form of quality. Virginia Postrel (www.dynamist.com) is the author of "The Substance of Style: How the Rise of Aesthetic Value Is Remaking Commerce, Culture and Consciousness," just published in paperback by Perennial. From shovland at mindspring.com Fri Sep 17 01:38:51 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 18:38:51 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] National Intelligence Estimate provides bleak assessment of Iraq security Message-ID: <01C49C1C.6A6E3000.shovland@mindspring.com> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/09/15/national2339EDT0866.DTL From eshel at tamar.tau.ac.il Fri Sep 17 09:17:59 2004 From: eshel at tamar.tau.ac.il (Eshel Ben-Jacob) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 12:17:59 +0300 Subject: [Paleopsych] Widsom of crowds In-Reply-To: <4145A487.60101@solution-consulting.com> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20040913075742.00c1e208@incoming.verizon.net> <4145A487.60101@solution-consulting.com> Message-ID: <1095412679.414aabc7d46f4@webmail.tau.ac.il> Dear Lynn, You might find the attached papers interesting, All the best, Eshel Eshel Ben Jacob E-mail: eshel at tamar.tau.ac.il Professor of Physics Home Page: http://star.tau.ac.il/~eshel/ School of Physics and Astronomy The Maguy-Glass Chair in Physics of Complex Systems Tel Aviv University, 69978 Tel Aviv, Israel President of the Israel Physical Society Visit the IPS on-line magazine http://physicaplus.org.il Tel #?s Country (972) City (3) Home: (972-3) 644-8265 Office: 640-7845; Secretary: 640-7604; Fax: 642-5787; Laboratory: 640-8066; 640-8261 Quoting "Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D." : > Here is an interesting example of the wisdom of crowds, in today's > Opinion Journal, by John Fund: > http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110005611 > > The energy of the internet to solve difficult problems (oil, space) has > not yet been effectively tapped. There may be great ways to do it. > > I'd Rather Be Blogging > CBS stonewalls as "guys in pajamas" uncover a fraud. > > Monday, September 13, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT > > A watershed media moment occurred Friday on Fox News Channel, when > Jonathan Klein, a former executive vice president of CBS News who > oversaw "60 Minutes," debated Stephen Hayes, a writer for The Weekly > Standard, on the documents CBS used to raise questions about George W. > Bush's Vietnam-era National Guard service. > > Mr. Klein dismissed the bloggers who are raising questions about the > authenticity of the memos: "You couldn't have a starker contrast between > the multiple layers of check and balances [at '60 Minutes'] and a guy > sitting in his living room in his pajamas writing." > > He will regret that snide disparagement of the bloggers, many of whom > are skilled lawyers or have backgrounds in military intelligence or > typeface design. A growing number of design and document experts say > they are certain or almost certain the memos on which CBS relied are > forgeries. > > Mr. Klein didn't directly address the mounting objections to CBS's > story. He fell back on what high school debaters call the appeal to > authority, implying that the reputation of "60 Minutes" should be enough > to dissolve doubts without the network sharing its methods with other > journalists and experts. He told Fox's Tony Snow that the "60 Minutes" > team is "the most careful news organization, certainly on television." > He said that Mary Mapes, the producer of the story, was "a crack > journalist" who had broken the Abu Ghraib prison abuse story. > > But leaning on reputations does nothing to dispel the doubts raised by > bloggers, experts and relatives and associates of the late Lt. Gen. > Jerry Killian, the memos' putative author. Gary Killian, Gen. Killian's > son, says CBS apparently didn't call several people he suggested they > contact who would have contradicted the CBS story. Bobby Hodges, a > former Texas Air National Guard general whom "60 Minutes" claimed had > authenticated the memos, says that when he was read them over the phone > he assumed they were handwritten and wasn't told that CBS didn't have > the originals. He now says he doesn't believe the memos are genuine. > > Hugh Hewitt, the unofficial historian of the blogging movement, says > that "bloggers have been overwhelmed with e-mails from active-duty and > retired military who scoff at the form of the memos." They point out the > man cited in the memo as pressuring Mr. Killian to "sugar coat" the Bush > military record had left the Texas Air National Guard a year and a half > before the memo was supposedly written. In addition, typewriters with > perfect centering ability were nonexistent in 1972 and 1973, and > National Guard regulations barred the maintenance of such records. Mr. > Killian's widow adds that her late husband kept no personal files from > his Guard duty, notes that CBS won't reveal its source, and says the > memos are bogus. Earl Lively, director of operations for the Texas Air > National Guard in the 1970s, told the Washington Times that the memos > are "forged as hell." > > CBS's fallback defense is that its story was only partly based on the > documents and points to its on-camera interview with former Texas House > speaker and lieutenant governor Ben Barnes, who claimed that he pulled > strings to gain a place for Mr. Bush in the National Guard. But Mr. > Barnes is clearly unreliable. The New York Times reported last February > that an unnamed former Texas official--later revealed to be Mr. > Barnes--was telling reporters he had interceded on behalf of Mr. Bush > but that his story "was subject to change, and there were no documents > to support his claims." > > Indeed, Mr. Barnes's own daughter says her father's story can't be > trusted. Amy Barnes Stites called a talk radio show Thursday to report > that her father had told her a different version in 2000, when Mr. Bush > first ran for president. "I love my father very much, but he's doing > this for purely political reasons," she said. "He is a big Kerry > fund-raiser and he is writing a book also. And the [Bush story] is what > he's leading the book off with. . . . denied this to me in 2000 that he > did get Bush out (of Vietnam). Now he's saying he did." When hostess > Monica Crowley asked Ms. Stites if she believed her father had lied in > his interview on "60 Minutes," she replied "Yes, I do. I absolutely do." > > "60 Minutes" may have a sterling reputation in journalism, but it has > been burned before by forged documents. In 1997 it broadcast a report > alleging that U.S. Customs Service inspectors looked the other way as > drugs crossed the Mexican border at San Diego. The story's prize exhibit > was a memo from Rudy Comacho, head of the San Diego customs office, > ordering that vehicles belonging to one trucking company should be given > special leniency in crossing the border. The memo was given to "60 > Minutes" by Mike Horner, a former customs inspector who had left the > service five years earlier. When asked by CBS for additional proof, he > sent another copy with an official stamp on it. > > CBS did not interview Mr. Camacho for its story. "It was horrible for > him," says Bill Anthony, at the time head of public affairs for the > Customs Service. "For 18 months, internal affairs and the Secret Service > had him under a cloud while they established that Horner had forged the > document out of bitterness over how he'd been treated." In 2000, Mr. > Horner admitted he forged the memo "for media exposure" and was > sentenced to 10 months in federal prison. "Mr. Camacho's reputation was > tarnished significantly," Judge Judith Keep noted. > > Mr. Camacho sued CBS and eventually settled for an undisclosed sum. In > 1999 Leslie Stahl read an apology on the air: "We have concluded we were > deceived, and ultimately, so were you, the viewers." > > If it turns out that the Killian memos are indeed forgeries, the > Internet will have played an invaluable role in exposing the fraud much > faster than the 18 months Mr. Camacho had to twist in the wind. Free > Republic, a Web bulletin board, raised early warning signals about the > memos within hours of last Wednesday's "60 Minutes" broadcast. > Powerlineblog.com, a site run by three lawyers, reposted those comments, > which were amplified by indcjournal.com. Then design expert Charles > Johnson, who blogs at littlegreenfootballs.com, retyped one of the memos > using Microsoft Word and showed them to be a perfect typographic match. > A defensive Dan Rather went on the air Friday to complain of what he > called a "counterattack" from "partisan political operatives." In > reality, traditional journalism now has a new set of watchdogs in the > "blogosphere." In the words of blogger Mickey Kaus, they can trade > information and publicize it "fast enough to have real-world > consequences." Sure, blogs can be transmission belts for errors, vicious > gossip and last-minute disinformation efforts. But they can also correct > themselves almost instantaneously--in sharp contrast with CBS's > stonewalling. > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > This Mail Was Scanned By Mail-seCure System > at the Tel-Aviv University CC. Eshel Ben-Jacob Professor of Physics The Maguy-Glass Chair in Physics of Complex Systems President of the Israeli Physical Society ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Trends-published.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 575324 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NI-AI.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 1026656 bytes Desc: not available URL: From checker at panix.com Fri Sep 17 19:26:35 2004 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 15:26:35 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Paleopsych] Wind Power Falls Under $0.01/kwh Message-ID: Frank Forman here: I'm disinclined to get involved in the disputes over energy, since the market will determine what gets used, not my own predictions. I read recently that electricity from coal costs 4?/kwh while electricity from solar power costs 22?/kwh. So this new development about wind power, if accurate (and comparable to the other estimates, which may not be the case) is an exciting development. With technologies that will increase intelligence coming right down the pike, and with the unlikelihood that capitalism will be abrogated, I have every reason to take Teddy Kennedy's attitude to the putative energy CRISIS! From: brian-slashdotnews at hyperreal.org Date: 15 Sep 2004 04:26:04 -0000 To: slashdotnews at hyperreal.org Subject: Wind Power Falls Under $0.01/kwh User-Agent: SlashdotNewsScooper/0.0.3 Link: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/09/15/0112215 Posted by: timothy, on 2004-09-15 01:40:00 from the hey-it's-breezy-in-here dept. [1]js7a writes "[2]Colorado State University's [3]Rocky Mountain Collegian reports that, "[4]as of June [the price of wind power] dropped to 1 cent per kwh." Even without further expected improvements in turbine technology, the U.S. would now need to use less than 3% of its farmland to get 95% of its electricity demand satisfied by wind power. Plus, wind power is the only mitigation of global warming, because if the whole world converted to wind power in 15 years, the amount of power being extracted from the atmosphere would be more than the increase in greenhouse gas atmospheric energy forcing since 1600. Don't say goodbye to coal and oil, yet, though; unless cell technology increases substantially, when we run out of oil we will convert coal to synthetic fuel." References 1. http://www.readsay.com/ 2. http://www.colostate.edu/ 3. http://www.collegian.com/ 4. http://www.collegian.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/09/14/41471e15b64b1 From checker at panix.com Fri Sep 17 19:51:29 2004 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 15:51:29 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Paleopsych] Plausible Futures: Conservative Eugenics and Human Evolution Message-ID: Conservative Eugenics and Human Evolution http://plausible.custompublish.com/index.php?id=181730&cat=5911&printable=1 4.9.14 [Thanks to Ole Peter for finding this.] Crow's essay (1966) on "The Quality of People: Human Evolutionary Changes" posed a number of important problems concerning the evolutionary future of the human species. Particularly important are the problems resulting from the slow increase in frequency of mutant genes in human populations which must inexorably follow in the most obvious democratic and humane termination of the population explosion. Leonard Ornstein Mount Sinai Graduate School of Biological Sciences Editor's Note: This article appeared in a somewhat different form in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, (Ornstein, 1967). The editors of BioScience asked Dr. Ornstein to allow its publication in this journal as well because they felt it deserved the attention of a larger audience of biologists. Among knowledgeable biologists, much confidence is placed in our current understanding of the broad outlines of the evolutionary process in populations of sexual organisms. Evolution is seen to result from the interplay of the genetic endowment of the members of an interbreeding population with that population's environment.The genetic endowment is continuously subject to recombination as a result of processes associated with sexual reproduction. Occasional random physical rearrangements, duplications, etc, provide opportunities for linking together of especially adaptive recombinations. Rare random point mutations of the coded genetic message provide the seeds for adaptive inovation. Those mutations and rearrangements that provide their carriers with some adaptive advantage will, on the average, gradually replace the parental stock. Those mutations which, on the average, confer a selective disadvantage to their carriers are generally eliminated--or held at a low incidence--in competition with the parental stock. Thus, evolution results from balanced interaction of random mutation and selection (Dobzhansky, 1951). In the absence of mutation, a non-human species would ultimately be expected to become extinct if its fixed genetic resources were inadequate to permit it to adapt to the kinds and magnitudes of environmental changes to which it might be exposed to over periods of millions of years. In contrast, man, with his unique ability to revamp his environment, now depends upon cultural and technological mutations to provide even greater plasticity for coping with natural environmental change than that provided by the adaptive innovations which are sparked by random genetic mutation. Therefore, the absence or elimination of mutation in humans need not constitue a biological threat. In the absence of selection, however, any species (including Homo sapiens ) would be expected to degenerate gradually through a process closely related to genetic drift (Dobzhansky, 1951). The resulting increasing accumulation of mutations would produce wider and wider departures of the individual phenotypes from one another and from the parental type. The mechanism is quite simple. The overwhelming majority of mutations which occur in a selective environment are deleterious and are therefore eliminated, tending to keep the population relatively monotypic. Selection plugs the multiple leaks that are forever occuring in the genetic dyke and channels the flow of life thermodynamically uphill along adaptive paths. In the absence of selection, the dike would slowly crumble and the flow would dissipate down a multitude of exentropic gulleys, producing a vastly refashioned species. The only directions or styles that would be apparent in this kind of evolutionary process would be those which reflect changes in those genetic code words which for whatever reasons, mutate at the highest rates--and these mutations will almost always represent phenotypic departures from the parental type. And later generations of mutations would represent still further departures from this more heterotypic base. Now what can reasonably be meant by "in the absence of selection"? If death were eliminated and fertility maintained indefinitely, there would be, at least initially, no selection--however, in an extremely short period of time, a species would exhaust any "real" environmental resources--and this hypothetical kind of "elimination of selection" thus would be too short-term to be relevant to our present discussion. But there are two other ways to eliminate selection: (a) a mechanism which maintains a stable population size, in the presence of random fluctuations of fertility, by random elimination of offspring, independent of the genetic endowments of the individuals; and (b) a mechanism which maintains a stable population size by uniformly and randomly limiting fertility of individuals, independent of their genetic endowment. If the elimination of offspring occurs before birth (e.g., abortion and some forms of birth control), it is essentially equivalent to a limitation on fertility, or what is commonly called birth control. With this frame of reference, we will now consider two facts of life which, although in and of themselves are quite encouraging from a humanistic point of view, nonetheless conspire to generate the next great threat to humanity. There is a growing agreement that some form of birth control will provide the only reasonable solution to the population explosion and the limited resources of our planet. All efforts to increase food production to relieve, at least temporarily, population pressures should be encouraged. But no one supposes that exponential population growth can be matched by food technology. Therefore, in the long run, enthusiasm for such efforts is not likely to be permitted to reduce attempts at population control. Those who divert attention from the real and pressing problem by appeal to science fiction--expecting "to reap the resources of the universe"--will hopefully soon begin to appreciate the sobering cost estimates of even a trip to a nearby star (von Hoerner, 1962). The ranks of those who at least pay lip service to the principles of equalitarianism and classless or open-class societies are swelling rapidly both within bona fide democracies and in major totaitarian states. It seems not only undesirable from a humanistic point of view that this trend should be reversed, but reversal is also unlikely. The expected solution, if any, to the population explosion therefore will probably involve the almost universal application of birth control and voluntary (although socially and/or economically rewarded or coerced) individual commitment to the maintenance of a reproductive rate of two offspring per pair of adults, independent of the genetic (or other) endowment of the parents. If such a program is successful in maintaining a stable population and avoiding racial, class and individual biases in the rates of reproduction (and therefore in the composition of future generations), the human species may eliminate selection and thus be on the road to ultimate biological degradation and probable extinction! Is there a democratic way out? Lederberg (1966) has stated that "It would be a tour de force to demonstrate any change (increase) in the frequency of a specific harmful gene in a human population that could be unambiguously traced to relaxation of natural selection against it. In comparison to the pace of medical progress, these exigencies are trivial." Crow also has pointed out that "An increase incidence [of homozygotes for a rare recessive harmful gene] of 2% per generation would mean about 40 generations for the incidence to double. This is more than a thousand years. The genetic consequences of the successful treatment of diseases caused by rare recessive genes are slight." The tone of such remarks is calculated to lull the reader into a state of evolutionary complacency. Yet, on the following page, Crow's tone turns. "However, I must introduce two cautions in this perhaps over-optimistic discussion of simple examples. One is that the increase is geometric, not arithmetic, and over a long period will become important" (itallic supplied). Effective tools for recognizing the human cariers of recessive genes (the great majority of new mutations are recessive and harmful) have only been discovered within the past few years. Changes in the frequency of such genes due to mutation in large breeding populations (the human population now is effectively a very large breeding population) occur very slowly. Therefore an extremely large random sample of each of two successive generations would probably be required to demonstrate a change unambiguously. Lederberg's first statement is therefore correct. His second statement, however, requires more careful examination. "Trivial" by what standards? Examine the case of a disease such as diabetes. Assume that diabetes is due to a recessive gene in the homozygous state. Prior to the discovery of insulin, a large fraction of diabetics died before reaching sexual maturity (or soon enough thereafter to lower the probability of the survival of their offspring). The human efforts, in terms of research and medical care, and the economic and other social costs of the production of drugs which control diabetes clearly are trivial when compared to the suffering of millions of diabetics and their families that was endured before the development of such drugs. Medicine has, in this case, effectively begun to neutralize the harmfulness of diabetes genes. Their frequencies and the frequency of afflicted carriers will therefore automatically increase among future generations due to unapposed mutation pressure (Dobzhansky, 1961). In a similar way, eye glasses, artficial kidneys, and all the devices, transplants, and drugs of the coming euphenic revolution will reduce or eliminate the harmfulness of many genes. But the genetic base from which harmful mutations arise has until now been kept relatively homogenoeous by selection. Therefore, the numbers and kinds of mutations that at present can occur are constrained by the homogeneity of that base. As this special variant of genetic drift slowly takes over, the base will become more and more heterogeneous, and euphenic correction of each new mutation will become more and more a problem of the custom engineering of individual medical or biochemical crutches or prostheses. Insulin solves the problem of a very large number of diabetic individuals and the social cost per individual is very small.* *The production of insulin has been coupled with, rather than competitive with, food production. It is, however, perhaps instructive to note that until very recently, the maintenance of an average diabetic over a 30-year period required the production and destruction of about 1000 head of cattle. This is likely to gradually become less and less the case for the correction of newly arising mutations. It may not be possible to predict, with any accuracy, the relative rates of progress of medical and euphenic research as compared to the rates of increase of problems with which medicine will have to deal as a result of the elimination of selection. In the short run, the benefits from the development of crutches will clearly outweigh the costs, but in the long run (and how long is problematical) the costs are likely to become prohibitive. It takes little effort to conjure up glimpses of the bizarre brave new world--a world of enormous individual variability, each individual (human?) uniquely wired up and supported by his own special set of transplants and external biochemical plant. A glimpse into a relatively modern hospital will convince one of the rapidity with which this vision is being realized at present, although admittedly for a relatively tiny fraction of the world population. But later, a major portion of technology and virtually all of society's resources would be consumed by that technology. An individual that would be recognizable as a member of Homo sapiens would be rare indeed. Are such exigenicies "trivial"? The cultural relativist might argue that provided such a culture does not exhaust its resources in trying to keep itself alive, its values and way of life may be just as good for its members as ours are for us. I would counter that if we can now, by judicious planning, provide greater adaptive flexibility and fewer biological and economic burdens for our descendants, as judged by our standards of value, then we cannot entertain the relativist's rationalization with a clear conscience. What alternatives exist? Lederberg (1966) states "Eugenics is relatively inefficacious since its reasonable aims are a necessarily slow shift in the population frequencies of favorable genes" (italics supplied). He and others (e.g., see Dobzhansky, 1962) have rightly emphasized the problems of defining "favorable" genes in our present state of genetic ignorance. The problems of defining "unfavorable" genes may often be equally difficult. If the genes for schizophrenia were responsible, in the heterozygous state, for attributes of the kind of intelligence which we believe we value, eugenic attempts to reduce the frequency of schizophrenics from their present levels of 1% to 2% might reduce average intelligence of the population as a whole. This might produce an undesired and unexpected by-product which would outweigh the desired reduction in human misery and in the social burden that elimination of schizophrenia should represent. Would schizophrenia genes average out as favorable or unfavorable? And would we want to increase or decrease their frequency? Because of the difficulty in defining "favorable" genes as well as "unfavorable" genes, I question Lederberg's implication of the absence of other reasonable (short-term, i.e., within the next 10,000 years?) aims of eugenics. In discussing the evolutionary process, Crow reminds us "...that for many, and probably most traits there is little selection toward systematic change in a fixed direction. Most natural selection is not changing things. Rather it is acting to remove deviants in both directions from the mean, or adjusting to fluctuations in the environment, eliminating recurrent harmful mutations, or maintaining polymorphisms. Considerable selection is needed to maintain the genetic status quo, even without any progressive evolutionary changes" And later on he asks, "...must we soon begin genetic steps if the human phenotype is not to deteriorate? And should we be content merely to keep ourselves from getting worse?" I believe we must begin by being "content merely to keep ourselves from getting worse," and that perhaps the only reasonable short-term and conservative aims of eugenics, taking into account the impending reduction in natural selection and our present state of ignorance of human genetics, are: (1) the approximate maintenance of the present distribution of gene frequencies and frequencies of "linked" combinations of genes, and (2) the reduction of the frequency of those rare mutations which clearly confer severe phenotypic disabilities that are not easily compensated by present medical technology. Such conservative aims should be vigorously pursued, provided that the individual and social costs are not excessive. If we had methods for decoding and reading the complete set of genetic messages of each and every individual and for recording this data in a central computer file, it would be possible, in principle, to examine the message sets of any two prospective mates to compute recommendations as to the number of offspring they should have in order to help to contribute to the maintenance of the genetic status quo. For most couples, the recommended number of children would be two; for many, one or three; and in rare cases, none or more than three. As Crow (1958) previously demonstrated, variances in reproductive rate of this sort can provide very "considerable selection". The computer would be programmed to take past frequencies of both intentional and accidental departures from the recomended values (continuously updated from birth records) into account in formulating recommendations. Some such program of conservative eugenics is probably the only kind of eugenic program that would have a chance to start to function successfully in democratic societies. Some reasonable eugenic measures have begun to be put into effect to hold down the frequencies of rare genes that produce severe disabilities. Those with the highest natural mutation rates pose the greatest threat, and it is just those which tend to be among the first to be singled out for attention. This is the kind of genetic counselling program to which informed and humane physicians are often privately committed. It is clear that the evolutionary process itself has selected, in some cases, for reduction of effective mutation rate to compensate for increase in generation time and decrease in number of offspring per mating. We are now beginning to understand something of the workings of some mutation-rate control mechanisms such as excision of nucleotide codons which constitute coding errors and replacement with correct codons (using an unmutated complementary strand as a model?). Increased redundancy in the genetic code (e.g., polyteny and polyploidy and gene duplications) may have provided natural means for reduction of effective mutation rates through the action of such genetic reading and editing mechanisms. And in so far as we can discover artificial means to reduce natural mutation rates, the rate of genetic drift can be slowed. New high-resolution electrophoretic techniques for the separation of proteins (which are the direct translation of genetic messages) and techniques for fingerprinting of the peptide digests of pure proteins begin to permit us to collect significant amounts of data on gene frequencies. These techniques more often than not permit the identification of heterozygous carriers of otherwise pheotypically recessive genes. Routine cataloguing of the accessable proteins of blood cells and serum and other body fluids of each individual (to be followed up later by routine analyses of the proteins of samples of tissue biopsies or cultures from such biopsies) will begin to lay a foundation for the kind of genetic analyses of human populations that is required to guide conservative eugenics. Although the pace of genetic drift in large populations is initially very slow, the development of the kind of biomedical information-retrieval system and genetic decoding techniques required to stem the tide of drift may also be very slow, and attempts to discover practical means for reducing mutation rates may be even slower in reaching fruition. Therefore, the sooner a very much more substantial social commitment is made to the pursuit of such ends, including making adequate genetic education a required part of all high school curricula, the more secure will be the future of humanity. Removing the spectre of suicide by nuclear, chemical, or biological warfare and putting a damper on the population explosion (which includes world-wide democratic application of birth control and the elimination of poverty) come first and second on my personal list of social priorities. Attending to our evolutionary future comes a very close third. Learning to live with leisure and computers follows. A 1000 BEV Alternating Gradient Synchnotron, trips to the moon and planets, listening for messages from outer space (Project OZMA), etc., all seem trivial by comparison. As for large-scale application of "algeny" and positive eugenics to the improvement of mankind, I believe, with Lederberg (1966), Dobzhansky (1962), and Hotchkiss (1965) that these must wait at least until we are both technicallyt more proficient and genetically vastly more knbowledgeable. References Crow, J.F. 1958. "Some possibilities for measuring selection intensities in man" Human Biology, 30: 1. Crow, J.F. 1966. "The quality of people: human evolutionary changes". BioScience, 16: 863-867. Dobzhansky, T. 1951. Genectics and the Origin of Species. Columbia University Press, New York. Dobzhansky, T. 1962. Mankind Evolving. Yale University Press, New Haven, Conn. Hotchkiss, R.D. 1965. "Portents for a genetic engineering". J. Heredity, 56: 197. Lederberg, J. 1966. "Eperimental genetics and human evolution". Bull. Atom. Sci., 22: (10) 4. Ornstein, L. 1965. "Subnuclear particles: a question of social priorities". Science, 149: 584. Ornstein, L. 1967. "The population explosion, conservative eugenics and human evolution". Bull. Atom. Sci., 23: (6) 57. von Hoerner, S. 1962. "The general limits of space travel". Science, 137: 18. ------------------------------------------------------ 1997 Postscript: Thirty years later, the above arguments about the priority that Conservative Eugenics deserves still hold. In the interim, the gel electrophoresis methods which I co-invented have been successfully extended (by others) to the resolution of nucliec acid fragments that differ by single nucleotides, and serve as the main analytical tools for reading the genetic code. The multi-year, 3-billion dollar Human Genome Project is well on the way to sequencing the "complete set of human genetic messages" and the first generation of the required kinds of computers and computer programs to do the job already exist. To make execution of my recomendations practical will require methods that reduce the 3-billion dollar cost by about five more orders of magnitude, and the years to at least days, that appears feasible to me within the life-time of the next few generations. It hasn't been my priorities that have driven this revolution, but curiosity and the wide-spread belief in the power of the new technologies for euphenic (mainly medical and agricultural) applications and the possibilities for "gene repair" (algeny). But for the long run, conservative eugenics still warrant the higher priority. From shovland at mindspring.com Fri Sep 17 20:28:48 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 13:28:48 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] Wind Power Falls Under $0.01/kwh Message-ID: <01C49CBA.4419AD00.shovland@mindspring.com> Power companies may decide to stop building coal- and gas-fired plants in favor of buying windmills. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net From paul.werbos at verizon.net Fri Sep 17 22:27:58 2004 From: paul.werbos at verizon.net (Werbos, Dr. Paul J.) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 18:27:58 -0400 Subject: [Paleopsych] Wind Power Falls Under $0.01/kwh In-Reply-To: <01C49CBA.4419AD00.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.0.20040917182439.00bf3fb0@incoming.verizon.net> At 01:28 PM 9/17/2004 -0700, Steve wrote: >Power companies may decide to stop >building coal- and gas-fired plants in >favor of buying windmills. It's a supply curve for the intermittent power which comes from wind. How much of it is truly 1 cent per kwh when delivered to grid and aligned to fit the grid? Don't know ... but I haven't heard of anyone serious who thinks wind could provide more than about 10-15% of world's electricity needs (let alone total energy needs!) at a price people could tolerate. That's a big market and large enough to justify our taking great care to get the most we can from that resource. Lots of new actions can be justified. But it won't put us on a solid foundation. For that, we need to work much harder on stuff that takes a bit more effort. >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From checker at panix.com Fri Sep 17 23:00:26 2004 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 19:00:26 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Paleopsych] Wind Power Falls Under $0.01/kwh In-Reply-To: <01C49CBA.4419AD00.shovland@mindspring.com> References: <01C49CBA.4419AD00.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: Well, of course, Steve. Businesses are out to make money. Is this a problem? On 2004-09-17, Steve opined [message unchanged below]: > Power companies may decide to stop > building coal- and gas-fired plants in > favor of buying windmills. > > Steve Hovland From shovland at mindspring.com Fri Sep 17 23:05:50 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 16:05:50 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] Wind Power Falls Under $0.01/kwh Message-ID: <01C49CD0.349DBD60.shovland@mindspring.com> I'm originally from southwest Minnesota, and back home some company is putting up huge wind turbines at a pretty fast rate. In Europe wind power is growing about 20-30% per year. Here are wind maps: http://www.awstruewind.com/inner/windmaps/windmaps.htm Last year Stanford did a study and found that with the new generation of turbines- 150 foot towers- 23% of the area of the US can generate economical power. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net From HowlBloom at aol.com Sat Sep 18 02:53:11 2004 From: HowlBloom at aol.com (HowlBloom at aol.com) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 22:53:11 EDT Subject: [Paleopsych] the origins of language Message-ID: <9.3291cee1.2e7cfd17@aol.com> Re: Pre-adolescent children typically possess better linguistic learning abilities than adults, making it easier for them to learn a new language. But this ability normally disappears around adolescence and why this should happen remains unclear. Kita suggests that this could have had an evolutionary advantage, helping to reinforce linguistic bonds by making it more difficult for those who grew up outside of a social group to learn its language. hb: This quote from the article below is an extremely interesting suggestion about the origin of language. It hints that language may have developed as an individual display mechanism, a way of showing off your powers to impress other males or to seduce females. It also suggests that language evolved with a dual purpose--not just to show off the power of your brain, but to show off the power and identity of your group. It was a group display device as well as an individual bit of flash. And it was a group bonding mechanism. Then there's its function in communicating and all that that entails, culture-building, sharing tips and secrets, gossiping and keeping others in line, coming up with complex plans, coordinating strategies, negotiating alliances and trades, frantically gabbling to others about your latest techno-dreams, putting down folks you want to rise above, praising those whose favor you thirst for, and in the process of your snobberies and imitations of those above you creating the basic units of large-scale social structures. Talk about multi-tasking. Language may have evolved with five or six simultaneous functions, five or six different ways of being useful, five or six different ways of transforming upright apes into human beings. Howard Retrieved September 17, 2004, from the World Wide Web http://www.newscientist.com/news/print.jsp?id=ns99996411 Childhood learning may determine linguistic rules 19:00 16 September 04 NewScientist.com news service The way children learn may determine the building blocks of language, suggests a study of deaf Nicaraguan children. Ann Senghas of New York's Columbia University, US, and colleagues studied three generations of deaf schoolchildren from the Nicaraguan capital, Managua. The first deaf schools were established in 1977, giving many deaf children their first a chance to interact with one another. Pupils from these schools gradually developed their own form of hand-based communication, known today as Nicaraguan Sign Language. Senghas and colleagues showed deaf pupils a video of a cartoon cat tumbling down a hill and asked them to describe the event using sign language. They found that older students used hand signals resembling the gestures employed by hearing people, mimicking the entire event physically. But younger pupils - who had interacted with other deaf children from an early age - used a more complex series of signs. They split the scene into component parts and arranged these sequentially to convey the incident. The constructions resemble the way words and sentences are built in verbal languages, using segments structured in a linear fashion. This indicates that way the younger children learnt the sign language helped reshape it according to these linguistic rules. Learning bias "Our findings indicate that children have a learning mechanism with a bias towards linear and hierarchical organisation of information," says Sotaro Kita at the University of Bristol, UK, and one of the team. "It may tell us why languages all have this linear, hierarchical organisation of information." Languages the world over exhibit similar structural features, perhaps indicating that humans have a biological predisposition to communicate in this way. The new study suggests that the way children learn a language may play a critical role in constructing these linguistic rules. The new study may also provide unique insight into the way language evolved, says Karen Emmorey, an independent linguistics expert from the Salk Institute in California, US. "It tells us about the way language emerges," she told New Scientist. "The exciting thing is that there's just no way to get at this data for spoken languages as you can't go back in time." Pre-adolescent children typically possess better linguistic learning abilities than adults, making it easier for them to learn a new language. But this ability normally disappears around adolescence and why this should happen remains unclear. Kita suggests that this could have had an evolutionary advantage, helping to reinforce linguistic bonds by making it more difficult for those who grew up outside of a social group to learn its language. Journal reference: Science (vol 305, p 1779) Will Knight Return to news story ? Copyright Reed Business Information Ltd. ---------- Howard Bloom Author of The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History and Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The Big Bang to the 21st Century Visiting Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University; Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute www.howardbloom.net www.bigbangtango.net Founder: International Paleopsychology Project; founding board member: Epic of Evolution Society; founding board member, The Darwin Project; founder: The Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New York Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Psychological Society, Academy of Political Science, Human Behavior and Evolution Society, International Society for Human Ethology; advisory board member: Youthactivism.org; executive editor -- New Paradigm book series. For information on The International Paleopsychology Project, see: www.paleopsych.org for two chapters from The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History, see www.howardbloom.net/lucifer For information on Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century, see www.howardbloom.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From HowlBloom at aol.com Sat Sep 18 06:23:07 2004 From: HowlBloom at aol.com (HowlBloom at aol.com) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 02:23:07 EDT Subject: [Paleopsych] Widsom of crowds Message-ID: <111.3788b763.2e7d2e4b@aol.com> Re: Meaning-Based Natural Intelligence Vs. Information-Based Artificial Intelligence Eshel?As so often, we?re on the same track?this time the track of context and competition, context and survival. On natural meaning versus machine intelligence, way down below is the start of an unfinished essay I wrote for the writer and counterculture phenomenon RU Sirius. It approaches a key mystery raised by both your work and mine. Meaning comes from context. Meaning comes from the company you keep. It comes from what you produce of value for those around you. But what is that value? How does it come to be? At what point do we go from mouse-trap like micromechanisms doing their own thing for no good reason whatsoever to a collection of these micromechanisms large enough to make the automatic snaps of its citizens into music, to make the obsessive actions of an atom or a molecule into something ?valuable? and ?meaningful?. This leads to another thought, the connection between economics and all other systems of meaning that emerge from massive social interaction. Is there really a difference between ?meaning? and ?value?? Or do the same principles apply to information exchange, information creation, and value creation? Are mass intellects and mass economies slightly different manifestations of the same thing? We do have markets for ideas. You come up against that fact every time you go for a grant, try to recruit grad students, or fight to get your ideas into major physics journals. You hit the blunt facts of that market even more when you try to move your research beyond physics journals and into the places where they really belong--into microbiology and neurobiology publications. I take a safari into the market of ideas every time I write a book. Why was Van Gogh?s art meaningless and valueless in the late 19th Century but as valuable and meaningful as gold in the 20th? The answer lies in the rearrangement of large-scale social arrangements. But that is an awfully vague statement. I?d like more details. Why was the attraction between hydrogen and oxygen that led to water initially meaningless and valueless in clouds of interstellar gas and in comets. Why did that mousetrap-snapping-like combination take on a first hint of value and meaning on spicules of amorphous ice when those spicules contained carbon molecules that responded to the insults of ultraviolet light by combining with water in primitive biomolecules? Why did that meaning and value become even greater when water and its biomolecules hit the face of a planet where they could liquify, puddle, and form membrane-like envelopes? What contribution came from another participant in this growing social structure: moderate heat?a cushioned slam of movement that came from trapped solar energy, solar energy softened by clouds and atmosphere, then held tight by the stony cheekbones of the earth. How did these societies of complex, sustained social interactions gain the ability to protect themselves from disruption and chaotic change? Could the proto-membranes have helped bubble-baby these elaborate dances? At what point did these webs of interaction get ambitious and go out to impose their dance steps on others? How did they pull off the mega-alliances of atoms that we call life? At what point did they cross the boundary from machine-like information-exchange to meaning? Let?s take a step backward to another word you?ve wisely injected into a scientific conversation that for too many centuries has shunned it: creativity. Creativity has manifested itself since the big bang, an act of creation almost beyond description. The precipitation of forces, quanta, neutrons, protons, atoms, molecules, galaxies, and stars?all of these were huge creative leaps. And ambition we can trace to the first manifestations of gravity. What is a galaxy or a star but an extraordinarily ambitious and greedy mass, one that has come out on top in an almost endless series of competitive bouts? So where does meaning and value enter this driven, obsessive-compulsive, manically self-creating cosmos? What peculiar mesh of social interaction finally turns a simple, machine-like game of toss-and-catch with phosphorus atoms into the Krebs Cycle? What sort of mesh does the Krebs cycle have to be embedded in to give it value and meaning? How did a cycle so dependent on trillions of interactions, interactions choreographed in just the right manner, ever manage to evolve? This cosmos has an amazing habit of coughing out radically new forces. Until roughly 300,000 abb (after the big bang) there was no such thing as an electro-magnetic grip that held protons to electrons. Until roughly 380,000 abb, there was no grab between things that you could call gravity. In fact, early in the cosmos? history, there were no ?things?. Each of these objects and forces was something more than a mere emergent property. Each awaited a new echelon of social complexity before it revealed itself. But each was far, far more than the sum of its parts. In the days of their first emergence, the electromagnetic grip and the grapple of gravity were radically new and were NOT simply a new form of social arrangement. Is life another new force like gravity and electromagnetism?a force that was implicit all along but took it?s own sweet time to become explicit? Is consciousness another of these new forces? Is conscious will a new force too? Are meaning and value vital aspects of these newnesses? Meaning and value are the sums of majestic, massively repetitive, xerox-effected, copy-catted and dopplegangered webs of social interaction. But are meaning and value greater than mere social complexity come to life in new ways? Are they a newness as gripping as the gravity of a black hole or of a sun squeezed into a blaze? Now for the fragment belched forth for RU Sirius: In a message dated 9/2/2004 11:44:33 PM Eastern Standard Time, rusirius at well.com writes: Let me start simply. What is the Global Brain? hb: You're right. On the one hand, the Global Brain is as easy to understand as can be. Put one gigantic microprocessor to work and you have a pretty potent computer. But put 60 together in parallel and you have something only governments and a few top universities can afford, a supercomputer. The earth is a mesh of processors working in parallel. It's been that since a single chemical family rose and started a land-grab for the planet 3.85 billion years ago. That family is an imperialistic intermesh that specializes in transformation, invention-swapping, and collective smarts. The territorially greedy chemical family I'm talking about is the clan of life, the clan of cells, and the clan of DNA. For 3.85 billion years biomass has worked full tilt on the greedy, imperialistic, yet astonishingly creative enterprise of transforming the inanimate atoms of this huge hunk of stone--the earth--into biomass. That's a big job. And biomass has pulled this off by lacing masses of micro-intellects into planet-spanning macro-intellects. It sounds like a goofy and exaggerated notion. But think for a second. To kick off this thinking process, let's start with Richard Dawkins' idea of The Selfish Gene. Dawkins is a brilliant thinker. And his "let's turn this upside down and see what new insights appear" approach was great a quarter of a century ago. But the gene-worship that's taken over since then misses a basic point. No gene is an island. No gene can afford to be totally selfish. First off, the gene itself is a pretty big collective intelligence. Atoms talk together with yeses and nos. Offer to give me an extra electron when my outer shell is aching to be filled and I'll say yes and pull you toward me. Offer to give me an extra electron when my outer shell is pleasantly full and I'll whiffle by you without paying attention. I'll give you a no. This is the start of intelligence--its basic unit. And I've dumbed down the nuances of this atomic language considerably. Why? So you and I, two intelligent humans, can understand it quickly. Genes are smart collectives of atoms, collectives rigged to give them a primitive intelligence. They're wired a bit like spring-loaded mouse traps. They're set to sense things in their surroundings and to respond in a way that gets things done. Back in the 1950s and 1960s when BF Skinner ruled psychology he said that all of the science of the emotions and of the mind could be reduced to stimulus and response. By that definition, atoms and smart atom collectives have an equivalent to a mind. In fact, smart atom collectives have no such thing. But if you put enough of them together, interesting things start happening. Let's go back to mousetraps. A mousetrap is meaningless unless there's a human who wants to get rid of a mouse or a mouse that wants to avoid having her neck snapped. The same thing applies to smart collectives of atoms. They're only useful if they have neighbors that get something of value from what they do. Intelligence isn't just something inside of you. It takes its meaning from its context, from the crowd it runs with. But I'm getting ahead of myself. Now put the electron yeses and noes, the complex chemical conversations of roughly 89,900 atoms together in just the right way and you have a gene. Well, sort of. Genes live in only one state--as members of teams. Not just small teams, big ones. The smallest string of genes we've ever seen that works--the smallest string that can produce life--is 400 genes or so. That's the size of the genome of the most skimpily-genomed bacteria we've ever taken apart. Your genomes make the bacterial gene-strings look laughably primitive. Your gene-teams are mega-cables, mega-masses of parallel-wired intelligences. Every one of your gene-ropes, every one of your genomes has roughly 35,000 genes. And it takes a hundred trillion of those genomes working simultaneously to keep you going from one second to the next. No gene is an island! Actually genes are so dependent on the crowds they run with that they have no separate existence at all. They're segments of a gigantic, unbroken strand of atoms. Yes, a genome is one single giant molecule. A gene is only a segment of this molecule, a segment able to program the building of a few proteins, and a segment that's far more variable than the mousetrap. Hit it with one regulatory signal and it will do one thing. Hit it with a different signal and it will do something else. Some genes can do four things or more. If a mousetrap is a very dumb smart device, a gene is quite a bit smarter. Now let's dig away a little further at Dawkins' very useful, very clever idea that genes are selfish. In fact, let's toss a challenge at today's hot streak of DNA-centrism. No gene is an island. And DNA is not an island either. It's a citizen of a larger body...a cell. Cells were as basic to life 3.5 billion years ago when life was just getting started as were genomes. No cell, no life. It was as simple as that. So it may be time to digest what we've learned from the Human Genome Initiative and move up a few steps. and this is as far as I got. Howard ---------- Howard Bloom Author of The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History and Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The Big Bang to the 21st Century Visiting Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University; Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute www.howardbloom.net www.bigbangtango.net Founder: International Paleopsychology Project; founding board member: Epic of Evolution Society; founding board member, The Darwin Project; founder: The Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New York Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Psychological Society, Academy of Political Science, Human Behavior and Evolution Society, International Society for Human Ethology; advisory board member: Youthactivism.org; executive editor -- New Paradigm book series. For information on The International Paleopsychology Project, see: www.paleopsych.org for two chapters from The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History, see www.howardbloom.net/lucifer For information on Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century, see www.howardbloom.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shovland at mindspring.com Sat Sep 18 12:30:32 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 05:30:32 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] Low-Cost Supercomputer Made With 1,100 PC's Message-ID: <01C49D40.9E6A4950.shovland@mindspring.com> http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/22/technology/22SUPE.html?ex=1095652800&e n=d518ee6a0c2b9d8f&ei=5070 By JOHN MARKOFF Published: October 22, 2003 Virginia Tech At Virginia Tech, technicians and students have built a supercomputer, above, using 1,100 Apple Macintosh computers. Srinidhi Varadarajan, below, director of the school's computing operation, works on a program. SAN FRANCISCO, Oct. 21 - A home-brew supercomputer, assembled from off-the-shelf personal computers in just one month at a cost of slightly more than $5 million, is about to be ranked as one of the fastest machines in the world. Word of the low-cost supercomputer, put together by faculty, technicians and students at Virginia Polytechnic Institute, is shaking up the esoteric world of high performance computing, where the fastest machines have traditionally cost from $100 million to $250 million and taken several years to build. The Virginia Tech supercomputer, put together from 1,100 Apple Macintosh computers, has been successfully tested in recent days, according to Jack Dongarra, a University of Tennessee computer scientist who maintains a listing of the world's 500 fastest machines. The official results for the ranking will not be reported until next month at a supercomputer industry event. But the Apple-based supercomputer, which is powered by 2,200 I.B.M. microprocessors, was able to compute at 7.41 trillion operations a second, a speed surpassed by only three other ultra-fast computers. The fastest computers on the current Top 500 list are the Japanese Earth Simulator; a Los Alamos National Laboratory machine dedicated to weapons design; and another weapons oriented cluster of Intel Pentium 4 microprocessors at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories. Officials at the school said that they were still finalizing their results and that the final speed number might be significantly higher. "We are demonstrating that you can build a very high performance machine for a fifth to a tenth of the cost of what supercomputers now cost," said Hassan Aref, the dean of the School of Engineering at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, Va. The computer was put together in a virtual flash. Scientists from the school met with Apple executives two days after the company introduced its new 64-bit desktop computer in June. Apple agreed to put the school at the head of the line for the new machines. Starting when they returned to school in September, student volunteers, who received free pizzas for their labor, helped with the assembly of the system, essentially an array of large refrigerators to keep the computers from overheating. Virginia Tech's president offered free football tickets to the technicians who were spending long hours on the project. "When you have a small budget," said Srinidhi Varadarajan, a leader of the project, "you have to take risks." The ranking is a coup for Apple, which for several years has lagged behind, in terms of raw computing speed, the PC world controlled by Intel and Advanced Micro Devices microprocessors. It is also an indication that the supercomputer industry, which has been in eclipse since the end of the cold war, is again playing a more vital role. "On the surface this is a pretty impressive machine," Mr. Dongarra said. "It shows that the processors are getting to the point where this kind of performance will be quite common." The performance of the new computer highlights the challenge to highly expensive custom-designed machines - like the Earth Simulator of Japan, which is assembled from 5,120 custom processors that have special circuitry for performing long strings of mathematical operations - from computers put together by linking more common off-the-shelf components in fairly simple ways. The Japanese computer was measured at 35.8 trillion operations a second last year but American computer experts estimate that it cost as much as $250 million. By contrast, the fastest cluster machine, the Lawrence Livermore system consisting of 2304 Intel Xeon processors, is capable of 7.63 trillion operations a second, at a price estimated at $10 million to $15 million. The Virginia Tech computer makes the cost-to-performance equation even starker. From ljohnson at solution-consulting.com Sat Sep 18 13:53:57 2004 From: ljohnson at solution-consulting.com (Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 07:53:57 -0600 Subject: [Paleopsych] Widsom of crowds In-Reply-To: <1095412679.414aabc7d46f4@webmail.tau.ac.il> References: <5.2.1.1.0.20040913075742.00c1e208@incoming.verizon.net> <4145A487.60101@solution-consulting.com> <1095412679.414aabc7d46f4@webmail.tau.ac.il> Message-ID: <414C3DF5.1020201@solution-consulting.com> These are fascinating! I am a psychologist, which means I hid from hard science in grad school, but I must say, the idea of many individuals all contributing something to determine the behavior of the colony does illustrate the wisdom of the group. I intend to carefully study these and incorporate them into my thinking. thanks for your thoughtfulness. Lynn Eshel Ben-Jacob wrote: >Dear Lynn, >You might find the attached papers interesting, All the best, Eshel > >Eshel Ben Jacob E-mail: >eshel at tamar.tau.ac.il >Professor of Physics Home Page: >http://star.tau.ac.il/~eshel/ >School of Physics and Astronomy >The Maguy-Glass Chair in Physics of Complex Systems >Tel Aviv University, 69978 Tel Aviv, Israel >President of the Israel Physical Society Visit the IPS on-line >magazine > > http://physicaplus.org.il >Tel #'s Country (972) City (3) Home: (972-3) 644-8265 >Office: 640-7845; Secretary: 640-7604; Fax: 642-5787; >Laboratory: 640-8066; 640-8261 > >Quoting "Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D." : > > > >>Here is an interesting example of the wisdom of crowds, in today's >>Opinion Journal, by John Fund: >>http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110005611 >> >>The energy of the internet to solve difficult problems (oil, space) has >>not yet been effectively tapped. There may be great ways to do it. >> >>I'd Rather Be Blogging >>CBS stonewalls as "guys in pajamas" uncover a fraud. >> >>Monday, September 13, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT >> >>A watershed media moment occurred Friday on Fox News Channel, when >>Jonathan Klein, a former executive vice president of CBS News who >>oversaw "60 Minutes," debated Stephen Hayes, a writer for The Weekly >>Standard, on the documents CBS used to raise questions about George W. >>Bush's Vietnam-era National Guard service. >> >>Mr. Klein dismissed the bloggers who are raising questions about the >>authenticity of the memos: "You couldn't have a starker contrast between >>the multiple layers of check and balances [at '60 Minutes'] and a guy >>sitting in his living room in his pajamas writing." >> >>He will regret that snide disparagement of the bloggers, many of whom >>are skilled lawyers or have backgrounds in military intelligence or >>typeface design. A growing number of design and document experts say >>they are certain or almost certain the memos on which CBS relied are >>forgeries. >> >>Mr. Klein didn't directly address the mounting objections to CBS's >>story. He fell back on what high school debaters call the appeal to >>authority, implying that the reputation of "60 Minutes" should be enough >>to dissolve doubts without the network sharing its methods with other >>journalists and experts. He told Fox's Tony Snow that the "60 Minutes" >>team is "the most careful news organization, certainly on television." >>He said that Mary Mapes, the producer of the story, was "a crack >>journalist" who had broken the Abu Ghraib prison abuse story. >> >>But leaning on reputations does nothing to dispel the doubts raised by >>bloggers, experts and relatives and associates of the late Lt. Gen. >>Jerry Killian, the memos' putative author. Gary Killian, Gen. Killian's >>son, says CBS apparently didn't call several people he suggested they >>contact who would have contradicted the CBS story. Bobby Hodges, a >>former Texas Air National Guard general whom "60 Minutes" claimed had >>authenticated the memos, says that when he was read them over the phone >>he assumed they were handwritten and wasn't told that CBS didn't have >>the originals. He now says he doesn't believe the memos are genuine. >> >>Hugh Hewitt, the unofficial historian of the blogging movement, says >>that "bloggers have been overwhelmed with e-mails from active-duty and >>retired military who scoff at the form of the memos." They point out the >>man cited in the memo as pressuring Mr. Killian to "sugar coat" the Bush >>military record had left the Texas Air National Guard a year and a half >>before the memo was supposedly written. In addition, typewriters with >>perfect centering ability were nonexistent in 1972 and 1973, and >>National Guard regulations barred the maintenance of such records. Mr. >>Killian's widow adds that her late husband kept no personal files from >>his Guard duty, notes that CBS won't reveal its source, and says the >>memos are bogus. Earl Lively, director of operations for the Texas Air >>National Guard in the 1970s, told the Washington Times that the memos >>are "forged as hell." >> >>CBS's fallback defense is that its story was only partly based on the >>documents and points to its on-camera interview with former Texas House >>speaker and lieutenant governor Ben Barnes, who claimed that he pulled >>strings to gain a place for Mr. Bush in the National Guard. But Mr. >>Barnes is clearly unreliable. The New York Times reported last February >>that an unnamed former Texas official--later revealed to be Mr. >>Barnes--was telling reporters he had interceded on behalf of Mr. Bush >>but that his story "was subject to change, and there were no documents >>to support his claims." >> >>Indeed, Mr. Barnes's own daughter says her father's story can't be >>trusted. Amy Barnes Stites called a talk radio show Thursday to report >>that her father had told her a different version in 2000, when Mr. Bush >>first ran for president. "I love my father very much, but he's doing >>this for purely political reasons," she said. "He is a big Kerry >>fund-raiser and he is writing a book also. And the [Bush story] is what >>he's leading the book off with. . . . denied this to me in 2000 that he >>did get Bush out (of Vietnam). Now he's saying he did." When hostess >>Monica Crowley asked Ms. Stites if she believed her father had lied in >>his interview on "60 Minutes," she replied "Yes, I do. I absolutely do." >> >>"60 Minutes" may have a sterling reputation in journalism, but it has >>been burned before by forged documents. In 1997 it broadcast a report >>alleging that U.S. Customs Service inspectors looked the other way as >>drugs crossed the Mexican border at San Diego. The story's prize exhibit >>was a memo from Rudy Comacho, head of the San Diego customs office, >>ordering that vehicles belonging to one trucking company should be given >>special leniency in crossing the border. The memo was given to "60 >>Minutes" by Mike Horner, a former customs inspector who had left the >>service five years earlier. When asked by CBS for additional proof, he >>sent another copy with an official stamp on it. >> >>CBS did not interview Mr. Camacho for its story. "It was horrible for >>him," says Bill Anthony, at the time head of public affairs for the >>Customs Service. "For 18 months, internal affairs and the Secret Service >>had him under a cloud while they established that Horner had forged the >>document out of bitterness over how he'd been treated." In 2000, Mr. >>Horner admitted he forged the memo "for media exposure" and was >>sentenced to 10 months in federal prison. "Mr. Camacho's reputation was >>tarnished significantly," Judge Judith Keep noted. >> >>Mr. Camacho sued CBS and eventually settled for an undisclosed sum. In >>1999 Leslie Stahl read an apology on the air: "We have concluded we were >>deceived, and ultimately, so were you, the viewers." >> >>If it turns out that the Killian memos are indeed forgeries, the >>Internet will have played an invaluable role in exposing the fraud much >>faster than the 18 months Mr. Camacho had to twist in the wind. Free >>Republic, a Web bulletin board, raised early warning signals about the >>memos within hours of last Wednesday's "60 Minutes" broadcast. >>Powerlineblog.com, a site run by three lawyers, reposted those comments, >>which were amplified by indcjournal.com. Then design expert Charles >>Johnson, who blogs at littlegreenfootballs.com, retyped one of the memos >>using Microsoft Word and showed them to be a perfect typographic match. >>A defensive Dan Rather went on the air Friday to complain of what he >>called a "counterattack" from "partisan political operatives." In >>reality, traditional journalism now has a new set of watchdogs in the >>"blogosphere." In the words of blogger Mickey Kaus, they can trade >>information and publicize it "fast enough to have real-world >>consequences." Sure, blogs can be transmission belts for errors, vicious >>gossip and last-minute disinformation efforts. But they can also correct >>themselves almost instantaneously--in sharp contrast with CBS's >>stonewalling. >> >> >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> This Mail Was Scanned By Mail-seCure System >> at the Tel-Aviv University CC. >> >> > > >Eshel Ben-Jacob >Professor of Physics >The Maguy-Glass Chair in Physics of Complex Systems >President of the Israeli Physical Society > >---------------------------------------------------------------- >This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shovland at mindspring.com Sat Sep 18 15:22:32 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 08:22:32 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] Widsom of crowds Message-ID: <01C49D58.A58C6160.shovland@mindspring.com> Most of the organizations and systems we deal with on a daily basis are top-down systems, which usually work to crush initiative from the bottom. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net From shovland at mindspring.com Sat Sep 18 15:26:51 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 08:26:51 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] Complexity theory applied to business, future energy Message-ID: <01C49D59.405C7DB0.shovland@mindspring.com> http://www.cio.com/archive/enterprise/041598_qanda.html A juicy phrase (skh) "when autonomous agents interact and mutually affect one another, patterns will emerge" EXECUTIVES WHOSE BUSINESS SCHOOL CURRICULUM failed to include old episodes of Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom may gain a new appreciation for Marlin Perkins--as management guru. A growing number of consultants and academics are looking at complexity theory, once the domain of the biological and physical sciences, to help managers improve the way they lead organizations. What is complexity theory? One way to understand it is to look skyward to the avian maneuverings of birds. A lone bird follows simple rules of behavior, such as when and what to eat. However, a group of birds flying together exhibit complex, unpredictable, creative behaviors that emerge naturally from the interactions of individual birds. For example, a flock in v-formation is able to fly farther and faster than an individual bird. The flock that is formed when autonomous agents--birds--interact is known as a complex adaptive system. To fly in a flock, a bird need follow only three simple rules: Don't bump into anything, keep up and stay in close proximity. Yet following these rules leads to a cohesive, seemingly complicated group of birds flying with the speed and precision of the Blue Angels. Complexity theorists argue that managers should allow creativity and efficiency to emerge naturally within organizations rather than imposing their own solutions on their employees. They can do this by setting some basic ground rules and then encouraging interactions or relationships among their employees so that solutions emerge from the bottom up. Managers can't predict what the solutions will be. But just as a flock of birds can achieve more than a bird flying solo, it's likely that the energy and enthusiasm that are unleashed when employees are working together will yield successful results. Several researchers and companies are examining how an understanding of complexity theory can apply to businesses. Roger Lewin and Birute Regine are two researchers making headway in this area. Lewin and Regine have backgrounds in biology and psychology, respectively, and Lewin has written several science books, including Complexity: Life on the Edge of Chaos (Collier, 1994). They are currently collaborating on a book about complexity theory called The Soul at Work: Complexity Theory and Business, As If People Matter (to be published in January 1999 by Simon & Schuster). "With the Internet and networks, the extent of business ecosystems is growing," says Lewin. "And the pace at which the landscape within an ecosystem changes--thereby forcing changes throughout--is increasing." That's why Lewin and Regine believe today's business climate is particularly ripe for the application of complexity theory. Recently, Features Editor Megan Santosus spent an afternoon discussing complexity theory and its implications with Lewin and Regine at their Cambridge, Mass., office. CIO: How do you define complexity theory for business people? Lewin: There is no simple definition of complexity theory. Traditionally, business people think about their worlds in a very mechanistic, linear way that is [characterized] by simple cause and effect and is predictable. Most of the world isn't like that. Complexity theory looks at these systems in ways that are organic, nonlinear and holistic. CIO: What are the principles of complexity theory? Lewin: A few simple rules guide the interaction between the components of a system. First, in a business context, managers should attend to relationships at all levels within their organizations. The second rule is that small changes can have large effects. And third, interesting and unpredictable properties can be expected to emerge from a system. As a result, it is hard, if not impossible, to implement a strategic plan for anything but the short term. A hoped-for direction can be set but not the ultimate goal. Regine: People often think of complexity theory as a metaphor. We certainly don't think of it like that because that is like saying it's just another fad. What we're saying is that underlying principles found in nature apply to human organizations. CIO: So how does this organic way of looking at things apply to businesses and other organizations? Regine: It gives them a different way of looking at their organizations. Take the property of emergence, for instance. In computer models based on complexity theory, when autonomous agents interact and mutually affect one another, patterns will emerge--an intrinsic order just waiting to unfold. But it comes about in a nonlinear way, so the order can't be predicted. When we translate computer models into human terms, the autonomous agents are people and the interactions among them are relationships. Complexity theory underscores the importance of relationships. How people relate to one another affects what emerges in the organization--the culture, the creativity, the productivity. So if you want a culture that is intrinsically creative, growing and learning, you have to look at the relational level: Can people be real with one another? Is there trust? Do people acknowledge each other and the good work they do? In organizations that have relationships as their bottom line, a culture of care and connection emerges--and it is palpable. In this context, people are more willing to change and are more adaptable because they feel they're not alone and that together they can manage most anything. CIO: It sounds like complexity theory flies in the face of traditional problem-solving techniques. Lewin: The idea of teamwork has been popular, for instance, partly because managers believe that people are happier as members of teams but also because teams can be highly effective in the workplace. The traditional approach to [implementing a team structure] would be for managers to say, "OK, we're going to make you a team," and to expect everyone to fall in with the idea. This can work, but from what we hear, it often doesn't work very well because it is imposed and artificial. When managers genuinely value relationships in the workplace and truly listen to people and act on their suggestions, a culture of care and connection emerges in which people are highly responsive to the needs of the organization. Teams can form spontaneously and powerfully in this context, and the job gets done. It's much more effective to allow solutions to problems to emerge from the people close to the problem rather than to impose them from higher up. CIO: Do you know of any organizations that have used complexity theory to solve problems? Regine: At Muhlenberg Regional Medical Center in Plainfield, N.J., it took up to 24 hours to admit patients and give them their first dose of antibiotics. [The hospital] used a complexity approach--[implementing] small changes and bottom-up solutions, then allowing things to unfold--to solve the problem. The vice president of nursing put together a diverse team of people--secretaries, doctors, administrators--to try different things, to experiment, to make small changes and see how they could reduce the wait. First they tried having all the admissions procedures done in one place. Then they looked at duplication of services. One thing led to another, and within only four or five months they had reduced the admission time to one hour. No one could have anticipated that the new way of doing admissions would have emerged so quickly and so efficiently. CIO: How does complexity theory apply to strategic planning? Regine: Everybody knows that in most industries long-term strategic planning is near impossible, and this is often viewed as a failure on the part of management. When you recognize that the business environment is a complex system that is inherently unpredictable, you understand that the failure of long-term strategic planning is not a failure of management but an expected outcome of the business environment. The challenge for managers is to feel comfortable merely setting the direction for the future and to be ready to adapt and evolve as the environment changes. The Industrial Society, a London-based business consultancy, was on the brink of financial collapse three years ago. A new CEO was brought in, and he said, "Forget about a strategic plan. The first things to get right are the relationships among top management." He then asked the workers in the lower levels of the organization what they thought they could achieve in their wildest dreams. Some responded with wildly unrealistic profit targets--and many were met. The energy tapped was incredible because a project was available for anyone who wanted to participate [on a team], whether it was a secretary or top manager. The company is now financially healthy. CIO: Traditional consultants who are in the business of providing solutions may find themselves at odds with complexity theory. Regine: Many consultants often get in the way of emerging solutions because of their need to prove they have answers. There is a role for consultants, but it's a very different kind of role and leadership. CIO: How should the role of consultants change? Lewin: Of course, corporations will always need consultants to go in and fix many operational problems, such as line scheduling. But when you are dealing with organizational issues, particularly those that require change, it's appropriate to consult in a different way. A complexity theory perspective is particularly helpful to disheartened, disconnected companies where workers lack commitment--rather, they just watch the clock and work to pick up a pay check. For instance, a big steel-making company in Australia was having terrible industrial relations problems, with workers and managers battling each other. Not surprisingly, productivity was way below its potential. Consultants went in and simply got people talking to each other. Before very long, these big, muscular Aussies were building relationships with each other. Workers and management began to empathize with each other's problems. And productivity went up 20 percent. The consultants didn't have a strategic plan to increase productivity by a certain amount. They attended to relationships, as the complexity approach says, and the productivity enhancement followed. CIO: Wouldn't the role of executives have to change as well? Regine: CEOs and CIOs are used to thinking that they have to have all the answers, that they are in control of everything. Well, control is not something you can have over a complex system, at least beyond some very general parameters. So yes, executives do have to change. They have to give up the illusion of control and concentrate instead on setting a larger vision for their organizations so that the creativity of their people can emerge. Lewin: It's not about saying let's look at business organizations as if they are complex systems. They are complex systems. Managers have been operating within them in a very controlling way, which dampens the potential creativity of employees. What we're saying is shift the way you [lead] organizations, loosen control to encourage more creativity. A culture of care will emerge, as opposed to a culture of command and control, and your company will be more creative and productive, too. CIO: What are the qualities executives need in order to be successful in a complexity environment? Regine: Be accessible, respond immediately to others, acknowledge and value people's contributions at all levels, create opportunities for people, take the time to build trusting relationships and walk the talk--you are the embodiment of the organization's values. If you can't be honest, then how can you expect others to be? [Wouldn't dishonesty] affect the culture, the organizational identity and how you develop relationships with other organizations? It all starts with you. CIO: Are there any qualities employees need to have in a complexity environment? Regine: The people on the front lines have to conquer the fear of freedom that comes when they are given the leeway to do something important. CIO: What about organizations? Are there particular qualities that characterize a complex adaptive system? Regine: There's a tendency in business to focus at the macro level. One thing complexity theory says is that the most powerful processes happen at the micro level--the people, relationship dimension. [To initiate these processes,] start small, experiment, include others and promote a "just try it" environment. Set up a few simple rules, then let go. Small successes will [encourage] other people to start pilot projects, and a comfort with change will catch on. Complex adaptive systems have three ways of functioning. There is the stable zone, in which the company is in a state of inertia, not responding to opportunities nor adapting to changes. However, stability is not something to strive for because it leads to an unresponsive system. Then there is the chaotic zone, in which the organization is bouncing off the walls, haphazard, led by events rather than choices and overreacting. And there is a zone in between these two, the creative zone, which is the place to be--not so stable that [little] changes, nor so unstable that everything falls apart. There's a lot of fluctuation in the creative zone--ups and downs and paradoxes keep occurring. For example, leaders in complex adaptive systems need to be strong and have vision, yet they also need to be comfortable managing with a hands-off approach. Also, companies may know the direction in which they're moving, but they don't know exactly where they will end up. Creativity emerges from tolerating such ambiguity. Features Editor Megan Santosus can be reached at santosus at cio.com . From paul.werbos at verizon.net Sat Sep 18 18:03:52 2004 From: paul.werbos at verizon.net (Werbos, Dr. Paul J.) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 14:03:52 -0400 Subject: [Paleopsych] Wind Power Falls Under $0.01/kwh In-Reply-To: <01C49CD0.349DBD60.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.0.20040918134826.00c45e70@incoming.verizon.net> At 04:05 PM 9/17/2004 -0700, Steve wrote: >I'm originally from southwest Minnesota, >and back home some company is putting >up huge wind turbines at a pretty fast rate. > >In Europe wind power is growing about >20-30% per year. > >Here are wind maps: > >http://www.awstruewind.com/inner/windmaps/windmaps.htm > >Last year Stanford did a study and found that with >the new generation of turbines- 150 foot towers- >23% of the area of the US can generate economical >power. The Rocky Mountain Institute talk of less than 1 cent per kilowatt hour reminds me of the 200 mpg full-sized conventional cars they talks about back when I was in the Office of Energy Information Validation at DOE. One of the first lessons in such a job is (should be) to learn a kind of discernment -- for what's political propaganda and what's real. And what numbers to watch for. When we were assessing certain numbers for certain solar technologies, I remember one case where a solar consortium promised a certain level of net savings on fuel bills at a certain interest rate over 5 years. I contacted them. They swore it was for real. And they swore they had it for sale. I did a quick arithmetic calculation, and said "OK, that means you will sell this to me, a homeowner, for X dollars." "Oh?" they said "You were thinking about actually BUYING? Well, in the case, here is what it REALLY costs.." And we had studies which quantified the real cost versus the bullshit propaganda cost. I had similar experiences more recently re Ballard, the PEM fuel cell company which is the darling of the mainstream ripoffs. Lots of great numbers advertized by political supporters. But then at the IEEE Power Electronics Society, they had a special session where they told potential buyers what they really had for sale. I can still remember people walking out saying "Why did they bother? Who do they think would even consider buying such a thing?" (Of course, there are PR departments, government relations departments, and R&D groups who get support from the same.) There are LOTS of real-world people actually buying wind energy systems, in the market for the same, and highly supportive.. but constrained by real prices rather than imaginary propaganda. For example, I recommended folks worried about oil to do Google on "Cavallo oil Bulletin." Why not try "Alfred Cavallo wind?" You would get relatively honest numbers from a strong supporter of wind - running around 10 cents per kwh. At least, for the normal range of the supply curve. Fast growth and big profits are possible in growing from 0.1% of US electricity to, say, 10% -- though 10 cents is above the usual market price these days, even for the highest grade of electricity. (Wind gives the lowest.) By contrast -- DOE sponsored photovoltaics are hoping someday to reach 14 cents per kwh, years from now. (The goal is posted at www.whitehouse.gov.) But a solar thermal system proven to work at Sandia years ago was estimated a 6 cents per kwh, FOR the technology in hand and proven at that time, for which the potential output is many times the US ENERGY demand, which is larger than our ELECTRICITY demand. I just hope that the private sector will succeed in its efforts to move this fast... Best of luck, Paul >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From shovland at mindspring.com Sat Sep 18 20:26:33 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 13:26:33 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] Wind Power Falls Under $0.01/kwh Message-ID: <01C49D83.1E52DC80.shovland@mindspring.com> 1 cent may have been a bit optimistic, but I gather that a lot of turbines are being put up because they are competitive with gas. Bigger units mounted higher are making the difference. Wind is intermittent, but fine-grained installations of other sources including gas turbines, biodiesel, and pumped storage can help handle the variations. By fine-grained I mean having a number of relatively small units that can be brought on line quickly to handle the fluctuating load. Right now a lot of energy is wasted providing "spinning reserves" because the big plants take a long time to come up. If you have ever driven north from the airport in San Francisco in the afternoon you have driven through an area where every afternoon a 30mph wind blows from the ocean to the bay- just in time for the peak usage hours. Overall, I think the solution will be emergent rather than dictated or legislated. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net From paul.werbos at verizon.net Sat Sep 18 21:43:51 2004 From: paul.werbos at verizon.net (Werbos, Dr. Paul J.) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 17:43:51 -0400 Subject: [Paleopsych] Wind Power Falls Under $0.01/kwh In-Reply-To: <01C49D83.1E52DC80.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.0.20040918173820.0424ba00@incoming.verizon.net> At 01:26 PM 9/18/2004 -0700, Steve wrote: >1 cent may have been a bit optimistic, >but I gather that a lot of turbines are >being put up because they are competitive >with gas. Bigger units mounted higher >are making the difference. > >Wind is intermittent, but fine-grained >installations of other sources including >gas turbines, biodiesel, and pumped storage >can help handle the variations. Natural gas turbines can handle anything -- and mostly do right now in the US. But I am not saying that wind is worth zilch -- just that it's not enough to save us from where we are presently headed (e.g. overreliance on natural gas for openers). >By fine-grained I mean having a number of >relatively small units that can be brought on >line quickly to handle the fluctuating load. >Right now a lot of energy is wasted providing >"spinning reserves" because the big plants >take a long time to come up. Depends on how they are set up. Inefficiency is a big part of our current problems. The recent French and Italian blackouts had them in the dark about one-tenth of the time we did, after the big Northeast blackout, because we don't do spinning reserves as much or as well as they do. The waste is not with the spinning reserves (which allow rapid switching, at a relatively low cost if done right) but with the consequences of NOT being able to control the big plants... and again overreliance on natural gas ones. >If you have ever driven north from the airport >in San Francisco in the afternoon you >have driven through an area where every >afternoon a 30mph wind blows from >the ocean to the bay- just in time for the >peak usage hours. > >Overall, I think the solution will be emergent >rather than dictated or legislated. I never said governments would or should do everything. But ALL of the work has to be done by conscious folks who know what they are doing. Emergence without consciousness would get us to the bottom of the swamp. >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From shovland at mindspring.com Sat Sep 18 21:49:07 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 14:49:07 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] Wind Power Falls Under $0.01/kwh Message-ID: <01C49D8E.A8123960.shovland@mindspring.com> Where in your opinion are the major areas of inefficiency in our system? generation? transmission? usage? Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net From paul.werbos at verizon.net Sat Sep 18 22:24:00 2004 From: paul.werbos at verizon.net (Werbos, Dr. Paul J.) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 18:24:00 -0400 Subject: [Paleopsych] Wind Power Falls Under $0.01/kwh In-Reply-To: <01C49D8E.A8123960.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.0.20040918181446.04255680@incoming.verizon.net> At 02:49 PM 9/18/2004 -0700, Steve wrote: >Where in your opinion are the major >areas of inefficiency in our system? > >generation? transmission? usage? The folks in the IEEE Energy Policy Committee generally use much stronger terms than I have here to describe the state of the US grid system today. Transmission... generation... regulation... control strategy... There are a mix of things which cry out for action, some short term, some long-term... In October 2001, NSF and EPRI joint sponsored a workshop on near-term transmission issues which was a real eye-opener for me, for one example. You've heard immense noises about California's state deficit and the shock to the economy which resulted. But screwed up grid stuff is still a major part of it. The Brazilians -- who fund more advanced real grid research than the US government does by far -- epxlained how they could increase capacity on key lines from Rockies to California by 60 percent IN A FEW WEEKS, at a cost about 10 percent of the initial line costs, with no new right-of-ways... and the US ISOs all said it sounded fine... but the present environment wouldn't let them do it. Something like disincentives for investment, lack of clear authority, and such. A FEW WEEKS!!! But stringing up wires is too hard for us to do. Just one little drop... By the way, in the mountain area are underutilized existing coal-fired plants that could've offered much lower prices than the gas guys at overcapacity, that were not hitting environmental constraints... but I think I heard something about political problems with folks who didn't understand that and feared California would steal "their" cheap electricity and drive electricity up elsewhere; not a realistic fear, but politics is full of unrealistic fears. >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From shovland at mindspring.com Sun Sep 19 01:49:47 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 18:49:47 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] Wind Power Falls Under $0.01/kwh Message-ID: <01C49DB0.46276B90.shovland@mindspring.com> Deregulation is part of the problem, separating transmission from generation, and leaving no one responsible for much of anything other than milking the maximum amount of profit out of the situation. The mountain states plants you are talking about may be the Four Corners plants. I used to do business up that way and once those plants started to operate I could see the brown cloud of pollution from 75 miles out when I drove up there. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net From tramont at iinet.net.au Sun Sep 19 06:40:25 2004 From: tramont at iinet.net.au (Stephen Jarosek) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 14:40:25 +0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Widsom of crowds In-Reply-To: <01C49D58.A58C6160.shovland@mindspring.com> References: <01C49D58.A58C6160.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.2.20040919142846.02c7d870@mail.iinet.net.au> While we are discussing the wisdom of groups... I am presently working on a chapter in my book with the following sub-section. It is based on my encounter with "aliens" while I was on a fishing trip. This is a true story. Read on. What is it about across-species interactions that might impact on the development of intelligence? Evolving life I was on a fishing trip some years ago with some friends, when I stayed at a cottage out in the country. I chose the granny flat at the back of the house, which was situated alongside the back door of the house, opening up onto the back porch. One cool, misty morning I woke up to a thump on the back porch. I opened the door of the granny flat, and there it was, the alien, hesitantly hobbling up the wooden steps, onto the porch and into the kitchen. I looked down to the back yard, and there, about ten metres in front of me, a troop of about six other aliens stood in anticipation, watching their comrade, as if urging her on by telepathy, "go on, go on. Go inside! Check it out!" The leader of the group stood closest to me, with his troop gathering behind him. He was obviously their leader, calmly surveying proceedings, while the others seemed eager for some action. It was time for breakfast, so I followed the alien inside the house, urging her on. And inside, to my astonishment, there was already an alien in the kitchen! I could not believe it! My five friends were standing around sipping on their coffees, as if nothing extraordinary was going on. The alien that was already inside was as tall as a man, and she was helping herself to the food on the table. She seemed to be motioning to the fridge, as if asking us to open it. I grabbed the coffee that was waiting for me on the table, and joined three of my friends to discuss these strange goings on. The alien that I ushered up the steps stood across from me, and she made her way between two of my friends, as if to join in the conversation. Of course, she didn't say anything, as she couldn't speak. My friends and I made her welcome, so she just calmly stood there, perhaps trying to observe what strange ritual we were partaking of. After about ten minutes, we heard another thump at the back door, as a third alien made her way up the steps. She obviously realized that it was ok to come in, now that her friends had broken the ice. She made her way alongside me. So there we stood, in the kitchen in a circle, three of my friends along with two aliens. We were warming to the novelty of having these aliens standing with us. We got back to our plans for the day's fishing. Ron showed me his box of trout lures. He explained that he was going to go to the lake to see if he can catch one of the big trout that was rumoured to be lurking there. I told him I'd rather be fishing on the river. Alex was tired. He was going to go back to bed and see how he felt once he woke up again. I gently touched the alien next to me on her shoulder. She twitched nervously. She really did not like it. Obviously, she was not used to it. So I promptly removed my hand. But she wasn't shy about trying to get my coffee out of my hand. The alien across from me was also keen to sample some of our earthly concoctions, shifting her gaze between my friends and her comrade next to the fridge. She also seemed to be drawn to the fridge. I was mindful of the rest of their troop waiting outside. Weren't any of our guests in the kitchen going to report back to their comrades? Weren't they going to invite them inside? I said to the alien next to me, "go on, invite your friends in". She did not understand me. I was keen to get some fishing in for the day. I excused myself from our group of five and went to prepare. It was an event that I will never forget. Of course, our three guests were not aliens from another planet at all. They were kangaroos from the surrounding bush. They were in the house primarily for one reason. Food. Obviously, they had become rather tame because of tourists that feed them. Does this manner of socialization suggest that this particular tribe might be experiencing what, over a sustained period of time, would result in evolution to some higher life-form? Inside that kitchen, their character seemed to be that of grasping opportunistically at food scraps. Their friends waiting outside in anticipation wanted them to take the risk to venture into the house - they were too afraid to enter. If their friends got into trouble inside, they would be very unlikely to valiantly enter the house to come to their rescue. Rather, they would flee for the bush. There is little among kangaroos that we would identify with honour or courage. Or perhaps, might we be pleasantly surprised? Nonetheless, in the course of this remarkable encounter, the observation remains that there seemed something humanly tribal and intelligent about them. Their behaviour did not seem too unlike the sort of behaviour we might expect from an isolated, primitive human tribe chancing upon contact for the first time with "civilized" humans. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shovland at mindspring.com Sun Sep 19 11:33:14 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 04:33:14 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] Widsom of crowds Message-ID: <01C49E01.C7C8FB90.shovland@mindspring.com> We have noticed that if you stop thinking of cats and dogs as fur-balls and open up to them empathically then the intelligent interaction with them increases dramatically :-) Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net From checker at panix.com Sun Sep 19 15:42:29 2004 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 11:42:29 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Paleopsych] NYT: When Gender Isn't a Given Message-ID: When Gender Isn't a Given NYT September 19, 2004 By MIREYA NAVARRO AT the moment after labor when a mother hears whether her new child is a boy or a girl, Lisa Greene was told she had a son. She named her baby Ryan and went home. Ms. Greene learned five days after the birth that her baby was really a girl. Doctors who ran tests diagnosed congenital adrenal hyperplasia, a condition that, put simply, can make baby girls' genitals look male. As the young mother struggled to get over her shock, to give explanations to relatives and put away the blue baby clothes, she also had to make a decision: whether to subject her daughter to surgery to reduce the enlarged clitoris that made her look like a boy, or leave it alone. Thus Ms. Greene, a 26-year-old cashier in East Providence, R.I., was thrown into a raging debate over a rare but increasingly controversial type of cosmetic surgery. For decades, parents and pediatricians have sought to offer children whose anatomy does not conform to strictly male or female standards a surgical fix. But the private quest for "normal" is now being challenged in a very public way by some adults who underwent genital surgery and speak of a high physical and emotional toll. Some of them gave tearful testimony at a hearing last May before the San Francisco Human Rights Commission, which has taken up the surgeries as a human rights issue and is expected to announce recommendations before the end of the year. They spoke of lives burdened by secrecy, shame and medical complications: some said the surgeries robbed them of sexual sensation and likened the procedures to mutilation; others said they were made to feel like freaks when nothing was really wrong with them. But a more common argument was that the surgeries are medically unnecessary and should at least wait for the patient's consent. Some doctors are starting to agree. "Everyone's rethinking this," said Dr. Bruce Buckingham, associate professor of pediatric endocrinology at Stanford University. "We're probably a little less aggressive than we used to be. There's a lot of opinion." But more opinions and inconsistent medical practices have made the decision tougher than ever for parents, many of whom are confronted with the word "intersex" for the first time. The term describes cases that arise from a host of conditions that cause sex chromosomes, external genitals and internal reproductive systems not strictly to fit the male or female standard. Although no national statistics are available on the surgeries, some pediatric urologists and surgeons say they are doing fewer of them early. Doctors say the majority of cases involve girls with congenital adrenal hyperplasia, or C.A.H., a hereditary disorder that affects the synthesis of adrenal hormones and leaves girls with high levels of male hormones. The condition may cause not only male-looking genitals, even in the presence of fully formed ovaries and uterus, but also personality traits and interests typically associated with boys. The incidence of anomalous genitals in C.A.H. patients is not known precisely, but some studies indicate it may occur in as few as one in about 30,000 births because only girls are affected. Surgeries for other intersex conditions are even rarer, doctors say. But for the minority of parents who must choose whether surgery is the best course of action, the decision is unlike most others they may make on behalf of their children. Some parents say they choose largely in the dark because there are no comprehensive long-term studies showing how patients fare as they grow up, with or without genital surgery: data on sexual function, for example. At the same time, some parents note, some doctors inform them of the option to do nothing, while others advise to do the surgery right away. There is the steady drumbeat of opposition to surgery from a vocal intersex movement, but some parents wonder whether there is a silent majority of satisfied patients. And then there is the question: What would the child want them to do? Worries about such an intensely personal matter often surface anonymously on computer message boards. "It's very hard to know what her feelings will be when she is older," read one message posted this summer on a Web site for families affected by congenital adrenal hyperplasia. "Will she hate us for letting her have the surgery? Or will she thank us for having it done when she was young enough not to know?" In Rhode Island, Ms. Greene said she was confused and overwhelmed at first, not just with the news of her baby's change of gender but also with medical problems related to C.A.H., which kept her daughter in and out of the hospital for the first year. Ms. Greene said that at first she was determined to do a clitoroplasty, or reduction of clitoral size, fretting over whether people would call her daughter hermaphrodite, a term from Greek meaning one with male and female sexual organs, and suggestive, in modern times, of a sideshow attraction. "She looked identical to a boy," said Ms. Greene, explaining that in addition to a large clitoris, her daughter's labia was fused together and she had no vaginal opening. "It's hard for a parent not to think of the psychological damage." She said she was speaking candidly because "in a way, I'm telling other parents that it's not something to be ashamed of." Ms. Greene said her child's doctors recommended against surgery, warning her of risks like possible nerve damage. Skeptical, she went to the library to do her own research and on the Internet, where she said she sent e-mail messages back and forth with adults with the same condition. In the end she consented only to creating a vaginal opening and rebuilding the urethra last year. Although whether vaginoplasties should be done early is also a subject of debate, Ms. Greene said her daughter, now 4?1/2, would have needed to undergo the procedures sooner or later to menstruate and for heterosexual intercourse. Ms. Greene deemed them medically and psychologically easier on the child if done early. But Ms. Greene said she opted to wait for her daughter to grow old enough to make other decisions for herself. "They tell me that what I've done is the best compromise," she said. Some parents weigh the same pros and cons and come out in favor of surgery, however. In San Jose, Calif., the 28-year-old mother of another girl diagnosed with the same congenital condition said doctors told her that today's surgical techniques spare nerves and are less extreme. To her the psychological issues seemed more crucial than the physical risks and her daughter underwent a clitoroplasty last month at the age of 4. "My problem is the adolescent period," said the mother, a medical assistant who spoke on condition of anonymity to protect the privacy of her family. "Growing up a teenage girl is hard enough. I never want her to feel different. I never want her to have extra issues to deal with." "When she's a teenager, and she's in a girl's locker room, it's not going to be a cute situation," the mother said. "Society is a big issue here. I tell my husband, if we lived in a deserted island she'd never need this." Jeff Spear, 37, a farmer in Maine whose 11-month-old daughter underwent a clitoroplasty along with other surgical procedures six months after birth, said he hardly considered the surgery cosmetic given how male she looked. Mr. Spear rejected the idea of waiting for his daughter's consent. "You're the parent, you make the decisions," he said. "We felt this needed to be done right now." The more "virilized" the appearance, the more likely parents will choose surgery, said Kelly R. Leight, executive director of the Cares Foundation, a support and educational group for families affected by congenital adrenal hyperplasia. While more parents are beginning to question the surgeries, more often than not they choose to operate within the first year, said Katrina A. Karkazis, a medical anthropologist and research associate with the Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics. Ms. Karkazis, who interviewed parents, doctors and people who had undergone early surgery of the clitoris, vagina and testes because of C.A.H. or androgen insensitivity syndrome, another condition that affects the development of genital organs, said doctors and parents who favored genital surgery were driven by cultural factors, like their own values about appearance and worries about how the child would be treated by others. Most of the adults who had undergone the surgery as children, however, told Ms. Karkazis they were unhappy with the results and complained of lack of sensation or pain, of the need for repeated surgeries and of the fact that they had thick scarring and the genitals never looked "normal." Few were in intimate relationships, she said. Since the 1990's, adults unhappy with the operations have been raising their profile, denouncing a standard of treatment they say is based on cultural biases, and on arbitrary ideas of male and female and of the ability to assign gender. The most famous case of "gender management" was not intersex but illustrated the point: David Reimer, raised as a girl after a botched circumcision, rejected the identity assigned to him later on in life and lived his teenage years and adulthood as a man, proving wrong researchers who believed sexual identity is made rather than born. He shared his story in a 2000 book, "As Nature Made Him" by John Colapinto, and appeared on "The Oprah Winfrey Show." Last May, depressed after losing a job and separating from his wife, relatives said, he committed suicide at 38. Some doctors say that even when gender seems certain, as in the case of C.A.H. patients, who can also be fertile and bear children, there are questions surrounding the effect on the girls of high levels of androgens. Dr. Patrick H. McKenna, chairman of the division of urology at Southern Illinois University School of Medicine and a member of an intersex task force of the American Academy of Pediatrics, said that both the mixed results of surgery on sexual sensation and the idea that some patients may identify more with the opposite gender upon growing up has led him to recommend against early surgery in intersex cases. He and other doctors said medical centers are increasingly involving psychologists and other specialists in handling intersex cases because of their complexity. "There's no good scientific data, and more and more we're leaning toward waiting," he said. The Intersex Society of North America, a group representing intersex adults founded in 1993, advocates that children with anomalous genitals be raised in a specific gender even without surgery, but not be regarded as "a social emergency," as pediatric guidelines have called these cases in the past. Cheryl Chase, the group's executive director, said its efforts are now focused on influencing how medical schools teach the intersex subject; she said that if doctors learned alternatives to early genital surgeries, including a treatment model that incorporates psychological support for families, they would in turn help parents see their children's condition more as a natural variation than a cause for panic. In many cases, opponents of the surgery say, parents have hidden the medical history from their children. Betsy Driver, 40, a television news freelancer from Easton, Pa., who runs an online support group, Bodies Like Ours, said she underwent an extreme form of clitoral surgery as an infant because of congenital adrenal hyperplasia but did not fully learn the details of her condition until her 30's. "I felt my parents could not love me the way I was," she said. "There was nothing wrong with the genitals. They just looked different." It took her years of therapy to come to terms with her intersex condition, said Ms. Driver, who said she was left with no clitoral sensation. "Dating was exceptionally difficult," said Ms. Driver, who is gay and said she did not start dating until her 20's. "It was body image, fear of rejection and not being able to explain why I was different. Now, because I can explain, it's no big deal." But she added, "Not doing the surgery is not a magic bullet." Parents need to talk openly about their children's bodies and teach self-esteem, she said. Ms. Greene said she was trying hard to do just that. She said her daughter was old enough to be curious and constantly asked questions about the way she looked. "Bigger means better," Ms. Greene tells her. Ms. Greene said she had warned preschool teachers about her daughter's physique "so they're not surprised" if she ever has an accident. She said she was compiling a huge folder with information so her daughter had the facts as she grew up. "We're not ashamed of it, and she should not be ashamed of it," Ms. Greene said. "I just came to the conclusion that we'd raise her with as much confidence as we can," she said. "If she chooses as an adult to have the surgery, I'll support her." http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/19/fashion/19INTE.html From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Sun Sep 19 21:34:06 2004 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 14:34:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Paleopsych] intersexuals In-Reply-To: <200409191800.i8JI0T007267@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20040919213406.48596.qmail@web13426.mail.yahoo.com> >>For decades, parents and pediatricians have sought to offer children whose anatomy does not conform to strictly male or female standards a surgical fix. But the private quest for "normal" is now being challenged in a very public way by some adults who underwent genital surgery and speak of a high physical and emotional toll.<< --I wonder if that throws a monkey wrench into the "one man, one woman" definition of marriage now being used to ban gay marriage... are intersex individuals allowed to marry according to their feelings, or limited according to their birth certificates? Are there even well-defined rules on the subject? Michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From HowlBloom at aol.com Tue Sep 21 07:24:41 2004 From: HowlBloom at aol.com (HowlBloom at aol.com) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 03:24:41 EDT Subject: [Paleopsych] Re: from Eshel/paper Message-ID: Eshel--I dove into your paper and found it exhilarating. But this is what it drove out of me. Hopefully I'll dive deeper and farther in future days. Onward--Howard Eshel?I know I may sound obdurate, perverse, and ignorant, but it?s really time, in my opinion, to toss the laws of thermodynamics out the window?both of them. First of all, the conservation of energy is a great idea and has done extraordinary things for science. But it is an unproven assumption, one too big for me to grapple with here. Let?s just admit that it?s not necessarily true and move on. Second, the concept of entropy is upside down and backwards. So let?s look for something that concept obscures. What is the creative, forward-moving force of the cosmos, the principle that milks opportunity from catastrophe and carries the cosmos forward like a salmon going upstream? No, let?s cancel that image. The universe IS the stream, and it is going uphill, not downhill. In fact, it is MAKING the hill as it steps upward. Why and how does it pull this off? An organism doesn?t take a low entropy energy?a formless, random energy?and turn it into a high-entropy energy?an even more formless and random form of movement (which, at heart is what all energy is--movement). An organism does just the opposite. It takes an already formful and organized form of energy and adds additional form and function, additional Rube Goldberg gadgetry that makes the energy travel through a far more complex, ordered, repeatable, upgradeable, and exultant path. Now let?s strip the anthropomorphist poetry from that sentence and call the path more ornate, more intricate, and, to use a word you ?ve wisely put into play, but one whose meaning is still mysterious, a path that has more meaning, a path that triggers more compressed and repeatable processes. Life feeds off the screams of atoms ripped apart in the heart of the sun. Those screams are streams of photons. Streams of photons are highly ordered. A photon alone is a mystery we?ve scarcely begun to fathom. Why does it pulse? Why does it wave? Why do any waves wave? What keeps the photon wobbling with amazing precision as it travels a straight line? Where does the precision come from? Why does the photon continue traveling? What strange form of trapped motion is this that wobbles with precisely the same frequency for vast distances and never deviates in direction? If this is the random universe of entropy, then: v Photons should not have a precise wavelength?their wavelength should shudder randomly v Photons should not be organized in precise quanta v Photons should sometimes blob, sometimes glop, and should slither and slur in ways that make then unrecognizable from one second to the next v There should be nothing at all so regular and ordered, so repetitive and predictable, that we can call it light and reduce it to photons We are limited in being able to understand life by the fact that the best evidence we have on its origins come from some streaks of iron that seem to have been metabolized 3.85 billion years ago, and by the fact that the first life we know already had cells, genomes, communication, and social organization. Taking the highly ordered rays of sunlight, selecting a small slice of their spectrum (another mark of organization, formfulness, and non-randomness) then twisting it into a chemical cycle, using it the way a waterwheel uses a stream? but ever-so-much-more complexly and creatively?is a remarkable feat. Using it to maintain the vast society of molecules that is a single cell is a miracle of vast proportions?highly anti-entropic. Using some of that photon-chemical-machinery-fueled-energy to translate motion from one medium to another to another and to many others, that?s anti-entropic, too. Using some of that energy to communicate and keep a social organization going, using some of it to communicate to find new food, using some of it to communicate to make chemical war with enemies, using other batches of that photon-based energy to make each generation?s contribution to the pyramid a succession of billions cyanobacterial generations manages to build, a stromatolite, all that is negentropic. Jeesh, I shouldn?t be using this vocabulary. Believe me, words based on entropy are scientific poison. Then there?s the shit that life-forms excrete. We know that some bacteria attack a batch of food with phenotypes, morphs, that are born to gorge themselves. We know that their shit is poisonous to them. We know that other morphs are born to eat shit and love it. What these bacteria excrete, I do not know. But I suspect it?s something useful. Why? Because I know that the dung of any life form is highly processed stuff. It?s the opposite of random. And I do know that other life forms rapidly find a way to exploit it. We are all shit eaters, Eshel, because even shit is gorgeous in its way. My shit feeds bacteria. So does yours. For microorganisms human shit is gourmet food. Judging from the way flies congregate around a bit of shit, I suspect they find the stuff we excrete to be candy and mannah too. We?re shit eaters like the rest. We love cheese, vinegar, and beer?all micoorganismic shit. But that?s the secret of the universe. Each form of shit is a gourmet dish awaiting the evolution of its eaters. Electrons and protons lose their independence and are imprisoned. Their imprisonment makes atoms, atoms of new wonders, hydorogen, helium, and lithium. From a torture comes a miracle. Atoms are shredded in the hearts of suns. From that vast destruction light comes. Life eats star-shit of two kinds. It finds good use for the shit spewed out when stars go through their agonies and die. That shit comes out in an extraordinarily ordered and extraordinarily constrained way. It comes out as 89 new forms of atoms. A mere 89 new forms in a cosmos with gazillions of particles? That ain?t random. That ain?t disordered. And that ain?t a move backwards. It isn?t entropy. Look what life has done with the resulting 92 natural atoms and the molecules that self-assembled along the way. Every old form?s shit is another new form?s delicacy. Every catastrophe that besets what?s old is a step toward a new kind of wonder. This is a cosmos of miracles. But the word miracle implies that only God can understand these things, and that we humans are passive admirers doomed to sing god?s praises. Sorry, God does some inexcusably vicious things?like the Holocaust and his current torment of Israel. We are scientists. In other words, we are the best god has been able to do up until today. It?s our task to understand the incomprehensible, to turn yet more energy into a higher-level summary of what this cosmos is about. The cosmos, in my opinion, builds on the unfolding of the implications of her axioms. And she builds on self-reflection?on the power of new summaries of herself to become new sorts of processes and things. Life is the cosmos? project of self-reflection lifted to a new degree. A genome is a portrait of the cosmos painted in her own materials, summarizing the past in order to predict? and build?a future. Consciousness, passion, religion, and art are summaries of the cosmos too, summaries that become the building blocks of whole new kinds of things. That?s how the cosmos works. Turn an implication into something hard and fast. Use that something hard and fast to summarize the past and to predict a future. Use it to digest and to condense. Then use the product, use the bit of mind-or-matter-shit , to build, just as the dung beatle turns a bit of feces into a treasure trove or as a termite builds a palace with its own small bricks of shit. Then spring a really big surprise, another implication turned into a wildly new reality. Toss in something really big and unbelievably new?like particles, waves, and gravity. Like planets, suns, life, and ?dark energy?. We are the newest generation of those who yank the implicit into the hard and fast. We are the newest generation of cosmic mirrors helping an entire universe admire herself in our glass. We are the latest past-crunchers metabolizing a vast history to predict what?s next and what with our efforts we can cause to be. Every miracle is understandable. And the task of understanding is up to you and me. Entropy is not a tool of understanding. It?s a forced denial of all we see. Onward--Howard ---------- Howard Bloom Author of The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History and Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The Big Bang to the 21st Century Visiting Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University; Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute www.howardbloom.net www.bigbangtango.net Founder: International Paleopsychology Project; founding board member: Epic of Evolution Society; founding board member, The Darwin Project; founder: The Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New York Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Psychological Society, Academy of Political Science, Human Behavior and Evolution Society, International Society for Human Ethology; advisory board member: Youthactivism.org; executive editor -- New Paradigm book series. For information on The International Paleopsychology Project, see: www.paleopsych.org for two chapters from The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History, see www.howardbloom.net/lucifer For information on Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century, see www.howardbloom.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From checker at panix.com Tue Sep 21 15:13:32 2004 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 11:13:32 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Paleopsych] St. Petersburg Times: Soviet-Style Psychiatry Carries On Mistreating Mentally Healthy Citizens Message-ID: Soviet-Style Psychiatry Carries On Mistreating Mentally Healthy Citizens http://www.sptimes.ru/archive/times/968/opinion/o_12455.htm [Thanks to Amara for finding this article.] OPINION By Vladimir Kovalev It might seem like science fiction, but amendments to a law on psychiatric assistance filed by a group of psychiatrists at the end of last year could drag Russia back into the Soviet past when people disapproved of by the authorities ended up in mental institutions. Their "treatment" was designed to make sure that if they were not already crazy then it would make them so. "[Compulsory] treatment can begin after a psychiatrists' commission decides on it; in emergencies it can be initiated by the doctor who examined the patient," an amendment to one article says. And this is not the most frightening example. At the moment, only a court can institute compulsory treatment. If that changes in the way the amendments propose, society could be faced with people who have no mental illnesses at all being "treated" merely because they are out of favor with someone, be it an angry neighbor or an official. If amendments filed by Moscow's Serbsky Mental Institute become law, a patient could be detained in a mental hospital for 10 days without a court order and treated punitively if he or she "is unable to perceive reality, but is not handicapped." In other words, anybody taken from a street on a broad daylight can be treated without their consent. The State Duma rejected the draft amendments, but there is a danger that in the current situation, when the authorities are trying to control every segment of society, even worse amendments will appear. It is not the law that needs reforming, but the mental institutions themselves. According to human rights advocates little has changed in psychiatric clinics since Soviet times, not even the attitude of staff to their patients. A report filed this year by Roman Chyorny, head of the Citizen's Commission for Human Rights, suggests that in several cases St. Petersburg mental institutions killed patients by destroying their minds and sometimes through physical harm. A chapter called "Fascism in Ward No. 6" tells of a boy admitted to Skvortsova Stepanova Mental Hospital with simple concussion. "The next day I saw my son in the hospital," said mother Anna Solovyova. "He was sitting naked, absolutely soaking wet. He told me they gave him large amounts of medication - 68 pills. His condition was constantly getting worse. Ulcers appeared in his mouth. He couldn't eat. He became so thin in the hospital that he started looking like a skeleton ..." Two months later, the boy was delivered to the Alexandrovskaya Hospital in a critical condition. "Do you know why your son is dying?" a doctor at that hospital asked the mother. "He's dying of bedsores. Why did you allow him to get into such a state. Why didn't you complain?" Solovyova said she trusted the doctors at Skvortsova Stepanova. The reward for her trust was her son's eventual death. And this is just one of several similar cases documented in the report. One article described the St. Petersburg Human Brain Institute of the Russian Academy of Science announcing in 1997 that it could treat drug addiction by "a unique surgery." The "surgery" was to drill a hole in the brain and fill in a section responsible for pleasure with liquid nitrogen at a temperature of minus 70 degrees Celsius. As a result, this part of the brain would be distorted. According to the report, the institute offered this surgery at 135,000 rubles ($4,655) for Russians and $8,000 for foreigners. A total of 335 people took the treatment until in 2002 one of the patients filed a suit against the institute. The court revealed that the operations were performed without Health Ministry approval and were, in fact, experiments on people. At the end of 2002, the institute ceased to offer the operations after a St. Petersburg Prosecutor's Office decision and recommendations by the Health Ministry. But in autumn 2003, the operations were resumed, with an announcement placed on the Human Brain Institute's official web site http://www.ihb.spb.ru/index_1.html. It says the success rate is 60 percent, but makes no mention of what happens to the other 40 percent of patients. In human rights circles it is well known that many psychiatrists at local mental institutions have not only kept their jobs after the demise of the Soviet Union, even though they had persecuted dissidents, but they are also still treating patients the same way they did years ago. Their methods are known as karatelnaya meditsina or punitive medicine. "Soviet punitive psychiatry came through perestroika unscathed and intact," the report quotes Memorial member Valentin Smirnov as saying. "There is absolutely the same red professorship ... the same ignoble methods of 'treating' citizens who are out of favor with the authorities, and the same senseless cruelty." From checker at panix.com Tue Sep 21 15:15:06 2004 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 11:15:06 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Paleopsych] BH: Genes Show Men Slept Around Message-ID: Genes Show Men Slept Around http://www.betterhumans.com/Print/index.aspx?ArticleID=2004-09-20-1 By Liz Brown Betterhumans Staff 9/20/2004 3:58 PM New research confirms the stereotype: Men have indeed been sleeping around more than women. The proof is in the genes. Researchers at the [3]University of Arizona in Tucson have dispelled some widely held beliefs about mating and migration patterns in humans with the compilation of a genetic record of humanity's reproductive history. The scientists report that men appear to have traveled widely to mate. They also say that men and women differed in their participation in reproduction, while it was previously thought that men and women both played an equal role in mating. And the researchers have found that more men than women get squeezed out of the mating game, while twice as many women as men pass their genes to the next generation. "It is a pattern that's built up over time," says [4]Jason Wilder, lead author of the study. "The norm through human evolution is for more women to have children than men. There are men around who aren't able to have children, because they are being outcompeted by more successful males." Male mutation For their study, Wilder and colleagues looked at the [5]Y chromosome and [6]mitochondrial DNA. The Y chromosome differentiates males from females. Mitochondrial DNA is used to trace the lineage of females. Scientists have long believed that the reason DNA from the Y chromosome has much less variability than mitochondrial DNA is because a beneficial mutation on the Y chromosome swept through the whole world. Wilder and colleagues examined this theory by testing Y chromosome DNA and mitochondrial DNA from three far-flung populations of humans: The [7]Khoisan of southern Africa, Mongolian Khalks and highland [8]Papua New Guineans. For each group, DNA from 25 people was tested. Uncommon ancestors If in fact a beneficial mutation had swept through males, men's common paternal ancestor would be the same age no matter where the researchers looked. Instead, the age of men's common ancestor differed between the groups. "Because we don't think the pattern we see was caused by an event that swept across the globe, we had to reexamine our assumptions about whether equal numbers of men and women are mating," says Wilder. The second common belief that the researchers proved false is that women's genes traveled farther than men's. In fact, the genes of both sexes traveled equal distances. Previously, scientists thought that women's genes were more widely dispersed due to the common marriage practice of patrilocality, where women moved from their native village to their husband's village. This would mean that there should be bigger differences between populations in Y chromosome DNA than in mitochondrial DNA. However, through testing 389 people from 10 distinct human populations, the researchers found otherwise. More variations Using new technology, the researchers also found many more variations of the Y chromosome than previously thought. The new technique revealed that both types of DNA differ to the same degree among populations. This implies that even though only half as many males are getting their genes into the next generation, they are traveling around more than women to do it. And it doesn't mean that mass populations are migrating across continents--more likely it was explorers and sailors who slept around during their travels. The research will be reported in the journals [9]Nature Genetics ([10]read abstract) and [11]Molecular Biology and Evolution. References 2. http://servedbyadbutler.com/go2/;ID=144366;size=300x250;setID=70192 3. http://www.arizona.edu/ 4. http://amadeus.biosci.arizona.edu/~jawilder/ 5. http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y_chromosome 6. http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_DNA 7. http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khoisan 8. http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papua_New_Guinea 9. http://www.nature.com/ng/ 10. http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/ng/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/ng1428.html 11. http://mbe.oupjournals.org/ From checker at panix.com Tue Sep 21 15:17:25 2004 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 11:17:25 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Paleopsych] Independent Institute: Wendy McElroy: China's Missing Women Message-ID: Wendy McElroy: China's Missing Women http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1363 China's Missing Women September 1, 2004 [22]Wendy McElroy ifeminists.com China has announced a [23]"Care for Girls" program with financial incentives for those who produce daughters. According to China's official news agency, [24]119 boys are now born for every 100 girls; the "natural" ratio is 103-107 for every 100. By 2020, it is estimated that China may contain 30 to 40 million restless bachelors. Unfortunately, the proposed "cure" merely continues the process that helped create the crisis: namely, social engineering. Social engineering occurs when a centralized power tries to manipulate or override people's preferences to make them behave according to a social blueprint. It is the opposite of allowing a culture to evolve naturally according to the preferences of individuals. Rules are imposed, sometimes by dangling carrots but usually by wielding sticks. In the early '80s, the one-child policy was selectively imposed upon the Chinese people as a way to override the popular choice to have two or more children. Additional pregnancies were subject to [25]coerced abortion. The one-child policy did not seek to disproportionately reduce the female population; it aimed at a general reduction. But the state's vision of "a family" did not factor in the preferences of parents. Generally speaking, the Chinese have favored sons over daughters, partly because the culture has undervalued women. But there are also practical reasons. In rural areas where hard labor means survival, sons are usually stronger. Moreover, daughters leave home upon marriage and their adult labor enriches the husband's family. Thus, when rural families are forced to limit their families, they may act to ensure the birth of sons. If an ultrasound reveals that a fetus is female, the woman may abort. (Improved technology has also contributed to the sex imbalance.) If a female infant is born, she may be killed or sent away for foreign adoption. Thus, the latest Chinese census shows that the rural provinces of Hainan and Guangdong have sex-birth ratios of 135.6 and 130.3 boys to 100 girls respectively. The sex imbalance is what the social theorist [26]Friedrich von Hayek called an "unintended consequence." Every act has unforeseen and unintended consequences that may determine its impact far more than the act's intended goal. Hayek saw at least two practical problems with social engineering, both of which involve unintended consequences. The first problem speaks to the nature of a healthy society. If left to the labor and ingenuity of individual members, society tends to evolve answers to the problems confronting it. Hayek used language as an example of both problem-solving and unintended consequence. No one sat down to plan the development of language. Human beings evolved a sophisticated and standardized form of communication because they wanted to trade and establish intricate social relationships. Language was an unintended consequence a tool that evolved--as people individually pursued the intended goal of socializing. Or, Hayek would phrase it, language is "the result of human action but not of human design." To Hayek, when a government oversteps its proper function of protecting freedom and begins, instead, to dictate choices, it damages the dynamics of a healthy society. It prevents individuals from adapting and evolving solutions. The second practical difficulty with social engineering was [27]"the knowledge problem." In accepting the Nobel Prize in Economic Science for 1974, Hayek [28]explained, "The recognition of the insuperable limits to his knowledge ought [to guard] the student of society ... against becoming an accomplice in men's fatal striving to control society--a striving, which makes him not only a tyrant over his fellows, but which may well make him the destroyer of a civilization which no brain has designed but which has grown from the free efforts of millions of individuals." In terms of China, Hayek would argue that a centralized bureaucracy could not successfully design the choices or determine the outcomes for hundreds of millions of people with whom it has not even consulted. This becomes especially true as circumstances change over time. All the bureaucracy can do is to attempt to control people by limiting their options. And, the longer it imposes social control, the more unintended consequences stack up. Part of what China faces now are the unintended consequences of a two-decade long attempt to socially engineer the Chinese family. The proposed remedy is to introduce yet another program of social engineering this time with the seemingly benevolent goal of increasing respect for girls. But Chinese social control does not have a benevolent history. Those who view the [29]"Care for Girls" program in such a light should remember that the one-child program was first applauded as progressive and voluntary by many Westerners. The ultimate folly of the [30]"Care for Girls" program may well be that it is unnecessary. Simply by becoming scarce, girls have become more highly valued. The issue of "the missing girls" has social commentators speculating wildly about China's future. Will roving gangs of young men overrun the nation, or will China declare war in order to siphon off her [31]"surplus" sons? With a new appreciation of their importance to society, the role of women in China seems poised for redefinition. The Chinese government can best help that process by getting out of the way. _________________________________________________________________ [32]Wendy McElroy is Research Fellow at The Independent Institute and editor of the Institute books [33]Freedom, Feminism and the State and [34]Liberty for Women: Freedom and Feminism in the Twenty-first Century. References 22. http://www.independent.org/aboutus/person_detail.asp?id=488 23. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3557898.stm 24. http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_asiapacific/view/95943/1/.html 25. http://portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/08/05/wchin05.xml 26. http://www.hayekcenter.org/friedrichhayek/hayek.html 27. http://www.zetetics.com/mac/soceng.htm 28. http://members.shaw.ca/competitivenessofnations/Anno%20Hayek%20Pretence%20of%20Knowledge.htm 29. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-07/08/content_346700.htm 30. http://english.people.com.cn/200408/13/eng20040813_152873.html 31. http://chronicle.com/free/v50/i34/34a01401.htm 32. http://www.independent.org/aboutus/person_detail.asp?id=488 33. http://www.independent.org/store/book_detail.asp?bookID=40 34. http://www.independent.org/store/book_detail.asp?bookID=43 From checker at panix.com Tue Sep 21 15:20:41 2004 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 11:20:41 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Paleopsych] The Observer: Revealed: full scale of euthanasia in Britain Message-ID: Revealed: full scale of euthanasia in Britain Fury as number of 'assisted deaths' claimed to be 18,000 Jamie Doward, social affairs editor Sunday September 19 2004 The Observer [Thanks to Adelaide for finding this article.] British doctors help nearly 20,000 people a year to die, according to one of the UK's leading authorities on euthanasia. The claim, the first public attempt by a credible expert to put a figure on 'assisted dying' rates, will reignite the emotive debate over the practice. Dr Hazel Biggs, director of medical law at the University of Kent and author of Euthanasia: Death with Dignity and the Law, calculates that at least 18,000 people a year are helped to die by doctors who are treating them for terminal illnesses. Biggs, who has submitted evidence to the House of Lords select committee which is examining Lord Joffe's private member's bill on Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill, makes the claim in an article submitted to the European Journal for Health Law . Her figures will place renewed focus on the doctor-patient relationship, which pro-euthanasia campaigners want changed so that medical staff can help conscious, terminally ill patients in pain to shorten their lives. Biggs's figures are based on data from countries such as the Netherlands and Australia, which have published research into assisted dying rates, as well as evidence taken from British doctors. 'If you extrapolate from countries that have published data, you're looking at quite a large number of patients who may have had their end hastened, not necessarily with their consent,' she said. 'What this says to me is that we know these practices are going on, but they are completely unregulated. We don't know how many people are volunteers or non-volunteers, and maybe because of that the law ought to be changed so that people can give voluntary consent, which will give them more protection.' An ageing population has meant that an increasing number of doctors are taking private decisions to aid the early demise of terminally ill patients, usually by increasing drug doses. Deborah Annetts, chief executive of the Voluntary Euthanasia Society, said there was an urgent need to clarify regulations governing assisted dying: 'We need to shine a spotlight on this. The medical profession doesn't want the public to realise they are making these decisions. It shows the need to make the patient the decision-maker. When it's left to the doctor, there is always the risk of abuse.' Pro-euthansia groups point out that in Britain the maximum sentence for helping someone to commit suicide is 14 years in prison. 'With the exception of Ireland, no other country in Europe behaves like that,' Annetts said. Opinion polls show overwhelming public support for law changes that would make it easier for terminally ill patients in pain to request medical help to shorten their lives. In successive surveys, about 80 per cent of people back the move. A survey by the society this month found that 47 per cent of people said they were prepared to help a loved one to die, even if it meant breaking the law. But a spokeswoman for the ProLife party said: 'Surely the response of a compassionate society is to alleviate the pain, to love and comfort the patient, and to try and restore a sense of self-worth until death comes naturally.' Politicians have repeatedly deflected moves to change the law on euthanasia, believing it is unlikely to be a vote-winner. But Joffe's bill might find its way through the Lords committee stage and into the Commons, which would alarm religious groups. In a joint submission to the select committee, Church of England and Roman Catholic bishops said: 'It is deeply misguided to propose a law by which it would be legal for terminally ill people to be killed or assisted in suicide by those caring for them, even if there are safeguards to ensure that only the terminally ill would qualify.' From checker at panix.com Tue Sep 21 15:21:39 2004 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 11:21:39 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Paleopsych] The Observer: Death with dignity Message-ID: Death with dignity Time for a debate on euthanasia Leader Sunday September 19 2004 The Observer [Thanks to Adelaide for finding this article.] As the Observer reveals today, thousands of very ill patients in Britain are helped to die each year by their doctors. Sometimes the fatal doses of morphine are administered with their knowledge, sometimes only with the knowledge of their families who don't want to see them suffer further. It is all done on the quiet because such an action can lead to the doctor being on a murder charge. Politicians naturally shy away from entering this emotive arena. The very term 'mercy killing' conjures up images of doctors administering lethal injections to comatose patients. There is also the very real concern that any legislation would put elderly people under pressure to agree to an assisted death to help their relatives. But the law currently proposed by Lord Joffe, and being debated in the House of Lords, sets out a framework which would comprehensively outlaw such cases. His proposal is that only patients who are terminally ill and judged to have less than six months to live would be eligible for an assisted death. They would have to be in 'unbearable pain', be capable of making a rational decision about their future and would have to undergo both a medical and psychological examination. There would also be a 'cooling-off' period so that they could contemplate the process they had been through. Polls show that both the public and the medical profession support reform of the law on assisted death. It is a basic desire to want our end to be as peaceful, dignified and pain-free as possible. The thousands of people with terminal illnesses have little hope of this at the moment. They need ministers to have the courage to look for a path which will cut through the ethical and legal complexities. If it is possible on abortion and cloning, it must also be possible to frame legislation that allows the dying the right to a dignified departure. From howlbloom at aol.com Wed Sep 22 22:57:01 2004 From: howlbloom at aol.com (howlbloom at aol.com) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 06:57:01 +0800 Subject: [Paleopsych] Mail Delivery (failure paleopsych@paleopsych.org) Message-ID: <200409220754.i8M7ss007072@tick.javien.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: audio/x-wav Size: 29568 bytes Desc: not available URL: From pkurakin at yahoo.com Thu Sep 23 08:50:15 2004 From: pkurakin at yahoo.com (Pavel Kurakin) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 01:50:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Paleopsych] St. Petersburg Times: Soviet-Style Psychiatry Carries On Mistreating Mentally Healthy Citizens In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040923085015.50814.qmail@web53405.mail.yahoo.com> In Russian Federation it became known now from previously opened archives of Inner Affairs Ministry, that in 1939 - 1941, Lavrenty Beria, Stalin's minister of inner affairs, initiated a review of affairs, and 1\3 of prisoners were freed. (They were judjed at previous minister Yezhov). The reason of affairs' review were evidence under violence. In Stalin's USSR, according to judgement laws, the violence at getting evidence was a reason to review the affair. To compare, the Supreme Court of USA issued a decree in 1991, asserting that from now evidence at getting evidence in criminal affairs is acceptable, and evidence got even in violation of Constitutional rights of citizens can be lawfully accepted by courts as well. Premise Checker wrote: Soviet-Style Psychiatry Carries On Mistreating Mentally Healthy Citizens http://www.sptimes.ru/archive/times/968/opinion/o_12455.htm [Thanks to Amara for finding this article.] OPINION By Vladimir Kovalev It might seem like science fiction, but amendments to a law on psychiatric assistance filed by a group of psychiatrists at the end of last year could drag Russia back into the Soviet past when people disapproved of by the authorities ended up in mental institutions. Their "treatment" was designed to make sure that if they were not already crazy then it would make them so. "[Compulsory] treatment can begin after a psychiatrists' commission decides on it; in emergencies it can be initiated by the doctor who examined the patient," an amendment to one article says. And this is not the most frightening example. At the moment, only a court can institute compulsory treatment. If that changes in the way the amendments propose, society could be faced with people who have no mental illnesses at all being "treated" merely because they are out of favor with someone, be it an angry neighbor or an official. If amendments filed by Moscow's Serbsky Mental Institute become law, a patient could be detained in a mental hospital for 10 days without a court order and treated punitively if he or she "is unable to perceive reality, but is not handicapped." In other words, anybody taken from a street on a broad daylight can be treated without their consent. The State Duma rejected the draft amendments, but there is a danger that in the current situation, when the authorities are trying to control every segment of society, even worse amendments will appear. It is not the law that needs reforming, but the mental institutions themselves. According to human rights advocates little has changed in psychiatric clinics since Soviet times, not even the attitude of staff to their patients. A report filed this year by Roman Chyorny, head of the Citizen's Commission for Human Rights, suggests that in several cases St. Petersburg mental institutions killed patients by destroying their minds and sometimes through physical harm. A chapter called "Fascism in Ward No. 6" tells of a boy admitted to Skvortsova Stepanova Mental Hospital with simple concussion. "The next day I saw my son in the hospital," said mother Anna Solovyova. "He was sitting naked, absolutely soaking wet. He told me they gave him large amounts of medication - 68 pills. His condition was constantly getting worse. Ulcers appeared in his mouth. He couldn't eat. He became so thin in the hospital that he started looking like a skeleton ..." Two months later, the boy was delivered to the Alexandrovskaya Hospital in a critical condition. "Do you know why your son is dying?" a doctor at that hospital asked the mother. "He's dying of bedsores. Why did you allow him to get into such a state. Why didn't you complain?" Solovyova said she trusted the doctors at Skvortsova Stepanova. The reward for her trust was her son's eventual death. And this is just one of several similar cases documented in the report. One article described the St. Petersburg Human Brain Institute of the Russian Academy of Science announcing in 1997 that it could treat drug addiction by "a unique surgery." The "surgery" was to drill a hole in the brain and fill in a section responsible for pleasure with liquid nitrogen at a temperature of minus 70 degrees Celsius. As a result, this part of the brain would be distorted. According to the report, the institute offered this surgery at 135,000 rubles ($4,655) for Russians and $8,000 for foreigners. A total of 335 people took the treatment until in 2002 one of the patients filed a suit against the institute. The court revealed that the operations were performed without Health Ministry approval and were, in fact, experiments on people. At the end of 2002, the institute ceased to offer the operations after a St. Petersburg Prosecutor's Office decision and recommendations by the Health Ministry. But in autumn 2003, the operations were resumed, with an announcement placed on the Human Brain Institute's official web site http://www.ihb.spb.ru/index_1.html. It says the success rate is 60 percent, but makes no mention of what happens to the other 40 percent of patients. In human rights circles it is well known that many psychiatrists at local mental institutions have not only kept their jobs after the demise of the Soviet Union, even though they had persecuted dissidents, but they are also still treating patients the same way they did years ago. Their methods are known as karatelnaya meditsina or punitive medicine. "Soviet punitive psychiatry came through perestroika unscathed and intact," the report quotes Memorial member Valentin Smirnov as saying. "There is absolutely the same red professorship ... the same ignoble methods of 'treating' citizens who are out of favor with the authorities, and the same senseless cruelty." _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From checker at panix.com Fri Sep 24 16:18:21 2004 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 12:18:21 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Paleopsych] God the Liberal In-Reply-To: <20040924024750.31886.qmail@web25201.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <20040924024750.31886.qmail@web25201.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Continuing the [wta-talk] If there were God thread: God, at least the one in the Bible, is a liberal. He had too high expectations of human nature. Timeline (all from the Scofield Reference Bible, which uses the King James Version, but using, not the original 1611 spelling, but that of 1769, which continues to this day): 4004 BC: On the sixth day, God makes the first, or Edenic, Covenant (Gen. 1:26-3:13) 4004 BC: On the eighth day, God kicks Adam and Eve out of Paradise. 4004 BC: Later that day, God makes the Second, or Adamic, Covenant (Gen. 3:14-19). 2353 BC: God floods the earth (Gen. 6). 2348 BC: God makes the Third, or Noahic, Covenant (Gen. 8:20-11:9). 2247 BC: Tower of Babel: "Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech. So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of the earth" (Gen. 11:7-8). 1913 BC: God makes the Fourth, or Abrahamic, Covenant (Gen. 15:18). 1491 BC: God makes the Fifth, or Mosaic, Covenant (Ex. 20, which includes the Ten Commandments). 1451 BC: God makes the Sixth, or Palestinian, Covenant (Deu. 30). 1042 BC: God makes the Seventh, or David, Covenant (II Sam. 7). I am not sure what crashed expectations of the Lord necessitated all the additional covenants, but God got so fed up with man that he decided to end his entire creation. 4 BC: God, just but nevertheless merciful, sends his son to forgive individuals (all of them) that fail to live up to his various commandments, provided they will accept the offer. This constitutes the Eighth, or New, Covenant (Heb. 8:8). 26 AD: John the Baptist is fed up with the whole lot of the Jews, not just those in the religious establishment: "Then said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?" (Luke 3:7). 31 AD: Jesus repeats the charge: "O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the of abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh." (Mat. 12:34), though later he restricts the charges to "scribes and Pharisees" (Mat. 23:29-33). 33 AD: In a familiar act of rent-seeking, the Jewish religious establishment induces the government (the Romans) to get rid of the competition (all four Gospels). This is, of course, highly controversial, but as a Public Choice economist, I know rent-seeking when I see it. You would think that by this time, God would have offered a covenant more in keeping with human nature as it is, not what a liberal would like it to be. before 70 AD (I accept John A.T. Robinson's _Redating the New Testament_ here, while Scofield assigns 96 AD), God reveals to St. John the Divine that, nevertheless, "And I saw a new heaven an a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away: and there was no more sea (Rev. 21:1). On 2004-09-24, Trend Ologist opined [message unchanged below]: > Good points, Samantha. What do you know about what might be called > deism?: say... > a. God existed at one time and then died. > b. God is sane, but is a sadist > c. God is is insane > d. God suffers from latent insanity > e. God is in a coma or is semi-conscious > f. God is addicted to gambling > g. We are witnessing the birth of God > h. God has multiple personalities etc. > > Samantha Atkins wrote:This assumes that the purported designer sought to meet a set of > requirements according to which the job was botched. But if the goal > was to use evolutionary and other algorithms in a sufficiently powerful > computational space as to evolve sufficient intelligence for the > intelligence to recursively self-improve through successively higher > levels. If so then the design thus far has been within the desired > parameters. > > - samantha From paul.werbos at verizon.net Fri Sep 24 21:17:52 2004 From: paul.werbos at verizon.net (Werbos, Dr. Paul J.) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 17:17:52 -0400 Subject: [Paleopsych] frivilous response to frivilous stuff In-Reply-To: References: <20040924024750.31886.qmail@web25201.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <20040924024750.31886.qmail@web25201.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.0.20040924171636.034cb2f0@incoming.verizon.net> At 12:18 PM 9/24/2004 -0400, Premise Checker wrote: >>a. God existed at one time and then died. >>b. God is sane, but is a sadist >>c. God is is insane >>d. God suffers from latent insanity >>e. God is in a coma or is semi-conscious >>f. God is addicted to gambling >>g. We are witnessing the birth of God >>h. God has multiple personalities etc. OK, so in some sense humanity IS God and is all of the above. From paul.werbos at verizon.net Fri Sep 24 21:57:59 2004 From: paul.werbos at verizon.net (Werbos, Dr. Paul J.) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 17:57:59 -0400 Subject: [Paleopsych] one more red pill -- posted at p57.blogspot.com In-Reply-To: References: <20040924024750.31886.qmail@web25201.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <20040924024750.31886.qmail@web25201.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.0.20040924175503.034d3e28@incoming.verizon.net> Creed of an unbeliever I have taken a very heavy dose of red pills.. but I have never taken any psychoactive drug nor will I ever (except for the usual caffeine and alcohol). When I was young, I believed in Santa Claus and Catholicism -- but gave them up completely, along with ALL of their theology, when seven and eight, respectively. I then believed in being logical -- and indeed, in metamathematics and formal logic and all that Hilbertian Fregian stuff. Until age 15. Gave that up too. Have mostly lived on earth since about then. Never believed in the Big Bang. There was something unconvincing about the garrulous Gamow trying to hype the theology of Father Le Maitre, and the later fantastic epicycles as glorious as medieval theology. And Arp had some interesting data, etc. Never believed in superstring theory. No data, all imaginary, motivated by a desire to entertain and titillate, and by an inability to do math right in four dimensions. We can do it in four dimensions. Had to give up photons. Was once aloof from the issue... but studying it.. the red pill... I really think there is no photon. (As does Lamb!) Nothing but electromagnetic radiation, governed mostly by Maxwell's Laws. But Maxwell's laws, like Newton's laws of gravity, are just an approximation to more complex field equations... and I know I don't know the deepest level in peeling the onion. Not yet. I don't believe in quantum phenomenology, or that we live in Fock space or Bohmian space or in C* algebra space. I don't believe that the arrow of time is a Cosmic Anthropomorphic univeral, any more than the direction "down" is. All just a part of provincial local cultures on earth, a planet I seem to be a bit less culturally bound to than most. But I don't believe in Modren Secular Humanism, the WYSIWYG view either. Or in deconstructionist postmodernism or other extensions of ancient flaccid intellectual narcissisms. There is weirdness out there -- and I can't help seeing in more colors than the self-trained blind would be willing to accept. Colors in which the "soul" is at least real.. even if it bears almost no resemblence to the overdue credit cards which the ayatollahs and rabbis and oral Bobists say we owe them money for. I haven't even give up on milk, on carbs, on sugar or salt or an almost-daily glass of red wine with dinner. Some of you have to. Glad I don't. We're all different. And, oh yes, I don't believe that Hebbian learning (or the eccentric definition of locality which many insist on) can ever explain anything like the intelligence of a salamander, let alone a human. But I don't believe in the past participle gene either, or in other radical geneticist theories that have quietly re-emerged after a hiatus at the end of World War II. But I have to admit that Freud and Jung look better as I live longer... I don't believe in the PEM fuel cell, in the Kyoto Treaty, in salvation by wind power, or in the descent of H2 from the sky in the final days of the world. (They should get rid of the "2" to come a little closer to reality.) In fact, I have no faith that humanity will survive at all in the coming 5,000 years... but no faith in its extinction either. We decide. And now, today, I have had to swallow yet another red pill. I have always known that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is not exactly what it seems -- that entropy functions, being nonlocal for many systems, do not always do what they are supposed to do. But as for changing heat into electricity on earth... well, I have been more than aloof about THAT! Today: the red pill. From aloof skeptic to 90 percent heretic, on a path leading yet again to the most abject and unacceptable heresy. ---------------- All for now. From shovland at mindspring.com Fri Sep 24 22:23:31 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 15:23:31 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] one more red pill -- posted at p57.blogspot.com Message-ID: <01C4A24A.744A1BF0.shovland@mindspring.com> What are your best candidates for future heresies? Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Werbos, Dr. Paul J. [SMTP:paul.werbos at verizon.net] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 2:58 PM To: The new improved paleopsych list; World Transhumanist Association Discussion List; paleopsych at paleopsych.org; Human Biodiversity Subject: [Paleopsych] one more red pill -- posted at p57.blogspot.com Creed of an unbeliever I have taken a very heavy dose of red pills.. but I have never taken any psychoactive drug nor will I ever (except for the usual caffeine and alcohol). When I was young, I believed in Santa Claus and Catholicism -- but gave them up completely, along with ALL of their theology, when seven and eight, respectively. I then believed in being logical -- and indeed, in metamathematics and formal logic and all that Hilbertian Fregian stuff. Until age 15. Gave that up too. Have mostly lived on earth since about then. Never believed in the Big Bang. There was something unconvincing about the garrulous Gamow trying to hype the theology of Father Le Maitre, and the later fantastic epicycles as glorious as medieval theology. And Arp had some interesting data, etc. Never believed in superstring theory. No data, all imaginary, motivated by a desire to entertain and titillate, and by an inability to do math right in four dimensions. We can do it in four dimensions. Had to give up photons. Was once aloof from the issue... but studying it.. the red pill... I really think there is no photon. (As does Lamb!) Nothing but electromagnetic radiation, governed mostly by Maxwell's Laws. But Maxwell's laws, like Newton's laws of gravity, are just an approximation to more complex field equations... and I know I don't know the deepest level in peeling the onion. Not yet. I don't believe in quantum phenomenology, or that we live in Fock space or Bohmian space or in C* algebra space. I don't believe that the arrow of time is a Cosmic Anthropomorphic univeral, any more than the direction "down" is. All just a part of provincial local cultures on earth, a planet I seem to be a bit less culturally bound to than most. But I don't believe in Modren Secular Humanism, the WYSIWYG view either. Or in deconstructionist postmodernism or other extensions of ancient flaccid intellectual narcissisms. There is weirdness out there -- and I can't help seeing in more colors than the self-trained blind would be willing to accept. Colors in which the "soul" is at least real.. even if it bears almost no resemblence to the overdue credit cards which the ayatollahs and rabbis and oral Bobists say we owe them money for. I haven't even give up on milk, on carbs, on sugar or salt or an almost-daily glass of red wine with dinner. Some of you have to. Glad I don't. We're all different. And, oh yes, I don't believe that Hebbian learning (or the eccentric definition of locality which many insist on) can ever explain anything like the intelligence of a salamander, let alone a human. But I don't believe in the past participle gene either, or in other radical geneticist theories that have quietly re-emerged after a hiatus at the end of World War II. But I have to admit that Freud and Jung look better as I live longer... I don't believe in the PEM fuel cell, in the Kyoto Treaty, in salvation by wind power, or in the descent of H2 from the sky in the final days of the world. (They should get rid of the "2" to come a little closer to reality.) In fact, I have no faith that humanity will survive at all in the coming 5,000 years... but no faith in its extinction either. We decide. And now, today, I have had to swallow yet another red pill. I have always known that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is not exactly what it seems -- that entropy functions, being nonlocal for many systems, do not always do what they are supposed to do. But as for changing heat into electricity on earth... well, I have been more than aloof about THAT! Today: the red pill. From aloof skeptic to 90 percent heretic, on a path leading yet again to the most abject and unacceptable heresy. ---------------- All for now. _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From paul.werbos at verizon.net Sat Sep 25 07:37:03 2004 From: paul.werbos at verizon.net (Werbos, Dr. Paul J.) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 03:37:03 -0400 Subject: [Paleopsych] one more red pill -- posted at p57.blogspot.com In-Reply-To: <01C4A24A.744A1BF0.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.0.20040925030121.034f3d68@incoming.verizon.net> At 03:23 PM 9/24/2004 -0700, Steve wrote: >What are your best candidates for future heresies? Good question. I wouldn't call it heresy to take a stand that half of humanity already takes, loudly. Nor is it a new heresy to smoothly extend a previous heresy. But -- black and white politics, dinosaurs, drug policy, parapsychologists and time technology. Quarks. (I need to list it to avoid forgetting stuff...) (I forgot Helgoland, but that's as well for now.) I do not believe in either side, Conservative or Liberal, or Fundamentalist or Atheist or Establishment, in the main ideological battles of our day. I do not believe in the black or the white -- but I believe that the fuzzy grey in-between is even further from the truth, and sometimes even more dangerous, though usually more stable. It seems to me, in a war between black and white, that the truth is more often a matter of colors, more vivid and more alive than the purest blacks and whites. In 1999, my Japanese host asked me to give a two line "koan" to summarize my plenary talk at the United Nations University Headquarters. (At arXiv.org, not physics, q-bio 0311006). "Reality is strange but real. We need more color in our lives, and less in our quarks." Bosonic dyons... On drug policy... I don't feel such deep conviction. It's not science. I have already posted some possibilities to this list, which would offend both black and white -- and grey. Dinosaurs ... again, not such strong conviction... but I tend to doubt that the main cause of their going extinct was a comet. Nor will such an out-of-the-blue event be the real cause of human extinction if we go down that path. Nor were falling trees the main cause of the big Northeast blackout awhile back. The falling trees were like a spark falling on a big pile of dry wood... the real cause was the accumulation of the dry wood, which would have led to a big fire sooner or later anyway. Weakness of the electric power grid. For the dinosaurs, the "dry wood," in my view, was the evolution of the modern mammal brain -- something George Gaylord Simpson talked about (consistent with Per Bak's cartoon model of evolution), but forgotten by later authors who try to get credit for about half of his ideas while letting the rest sink into obscurity (not the rarest phenomenon in human intellectual history). The evolution of the modern mammal brain was an event of huge significance, and it is sad how much we underestimate and misunderstand it. Parapsychologists -- this is real heresy. Yes, I admit there are hosts of charlatans and psychopaths out there, as well as folks who are well-meaning but as confused as .. whatever. But I do think there are some bits and pieces of stuff out there that are basically real, even if they are just at a surface level of that reality. The remote viewing stuff and most of the presentience stuff seems basically valid, in my view, and even "Phillip the imaginary ghost" might be (though I haven't looked at it as much). Jesse Helms won the day politically, but I don't see that as a victory for the spirit of truth or for the scientific method. Now THAT'S grade A heresy, no? But I also don't believe in Puthoff's thing about the Casimir effect and zero-point energy, even if it has penetrated such mainstream places as Hawking's talk about whitened black holes and politically correct time-asymmetry. But I could imagine a more extreme possible future heresy. As of this very moment. If it should be true (as now seems most likely) that it is possible to extract free energy from heat after all... (I regret that it would violate a few rules for me to elaborate at this moment; please forgive; this is not a scientific journal, and I am not asking for your belief right now...)... then I can see how this might connect to prior stuff I had at arXiv.org, in physics, in quant-ph 2000 and 2003. If we can convert heat energy to FORWARDS-TIME free energy (the only kind we normally see in this region of the galaxy), we might be able to extract BACKWARDS-TIME free energy by building the time-inverted kind of apparatus. How could one conceive of such an apparatus? Well, awhile back, I asked how the ideas of Huw Price could be translated into more workable real apparatus, able to image backwards-time-flowing macroscopic regions if they exist (which is not at all obvious to me -- a situation which reduced my interest in pursuing it further). There are some very tangible ways to do it... and those designs might be adapted to the new situation. Maybe. But I do not feel any conviction at all about it... but the technical questions involved are beyond the scope of a blog. Maybe a future heresy, maybe not. Maybe I will have time to find out; maybe not. From paul.werbos at verizon.net Sat Sep 25 14:59:20 2004 From: paul.werbos at verizon.net (Werbos, Dr. Paul J.) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 10:59:20 -0400 Subject: [Paleopsych] more random heresies Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.0.20040925103249.03507048@incoming.verizon.net> At 03:23 PM 9/24/2004 -0700, Steve wrote: >What are your best candidates for future heresies? There heresies so far are things I take seriously, whatever the level of probability I attach. But... since you ask... as I think back... on the periphery of my memory... there are a couple more, which I have no special attachment to... I inserted the word "Helgoland" at the last moment before. More than 40 years ago, when I lived near the northwest border of Philadelphia, I found a book on the legend of Atlantic in the Chestnut Hill Public Library. I borrowed it, and remember even now a few interesting parts. I don't BELIEVE in what it said -- but it did seem fairly reasonable, and I have tended to think it is more likely to be true than other versions I have heard. Among the key ideas: people had said Plato must be totally wrong, because of the contradiction between an "island" and a nation 3,000-miles wide; he pointed out how "Venice" and "Rome" were used in earlier history to refer both to a capital and to the land/empire ruled from it. And he had a story about flooding about 1200BC linked to the Hellenic migration, and various other things. He located the island around Hegloland (or was it Helioland?), and island off Denmark -- and I seem to recall a successful digging up of stuff from under the water. The Orthodox view is that either the legend had no foundation at all, or that the island was somewhere far away. A couple of years ago, I was musing about this, and wondered why none of the logic in the book seemed to have penetrated the mainstream, whose arguments seemed a bit shallower to me, and less connected to what we now know about "megalithic civilization." But Google gives us all a new kind of archeology, recovering what was once the lost past. And so I recovered the story. (Though the citation is buried deep in my files again and I don't remember it...) In essence, the guy was highly respected but politically incorrect. To put it gently -- like Von Braun. But with Von Braun, people who needed rockets could distinguish the messenger from the message. In this case, people did not feel a need for the truth enough to overcome their personal and political antipathies. There was actually far more substance behind his theory than I saw in the old book... and it has not been entirely lost... but there have been limits to people outside of Germany overcoming barriers to even paying attention to it. His story fits very nicely with what has been learned about the big Stonehenge in Salem New Hampshire, carbon dated to many thousands of years ago. (Not Salem, Mass.!). That Stonehenge was a neat place to visit, just off the highway, going from around Boston to the White Mountains. To me, it did not have the feeling of a rice and beans culture, of a bloodthirsty Mayan-style priest, or of an unknown superscience. (Common myths in our culture today regarding that culture.) Rather... I would imagine a culture there dominated by explorers, reaching out with a kind of vigor across unknown oceans, through surrounding uncertainty and often darkness, but holding steady to their path of growth, looking far out to the stars to guide them and define who they were. ================================================ Another, more recent deviant view of past history.... not mine, but something I have heard here and there, I forget where... that the Neanderthals really weren't all just killed off. That there was enough crossfertility that the pattern was far more complex. And that Neanderthals genes exist to this day in concentrated pools -- maybe living Neanderthals, in effect... in places like Basque country and the Caucasus. With perhaps even ancient languages... I **REALLY** don't feel a lot of attachment to this picture, but it makes some kind of rough sense to me, and it certainly deviates from the usual certainties... ===================================== By the way, I have no plans to go off thinking about how to generate negative free energy. We have enough things to sort out a little closer to our horizon of knowledge. And a lot of people need help in learning how to tie their shoes, so to speak... time-consuming, but it's clear that we could be in real trouble if there is not more appreciation of what is already crystal clear, related to energy technologies already in hand based on universally accepted principles. Best of luck, Paul From shovland at mindspring.com Sat Sep 25 17:31:13 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 10:31:13 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] more random heresies Message-ID: <01C4A2EA.C9AD6ED0.shovland@mindspring.com> On the history channel I saw a show about the Vikings having a non-magnetic compass and how easy it was to sail across the Atlantic by island hopping- just a few days on the open ocean between them. Have you heard of the place in Texas where supposedly human footprints and T Rex footprints were found side by side in rock? Have you heard about radioactive human remains found when they excavated Mohenjo-Daro? http://forum.atlan.org/viewtopic.php?p=2266 Or areas of Mongolia covered with the kind of "glass" you see on the ground near a nuclear explosion? Or pyramids in New Mexico (I knew a pilot in Albuquerque who had seen them, and also surveyed the ancient roads.) Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net From paul.werbos at verizon.net Sat Sep 25 18:52:26 2004 From: paul.werbos at verizon.net (Werbos, Dr. Paul J.) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 14:52:26 -0400 Subject: [Paleopsych] more random heresies In-Reply-To: <01C4A2EA.C9AD6ED0.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.0.20040925144542.00c402f8@incoming.verizon.net> At 10:31 AM 9/25/2004 -0700, Steve wrote: >On the history channel I saw a show about the Vikings having >a non-magnetic compass and how easy it was to sail >across the Atlantic by island hopping- just a few days on >the open ocean between them. > >Have you heard of the place in Texas where supposedly >human footprints and T Rex footprints were found side by >side in rock? No. That's beyond my horizon. >Have you heard about radioactive human remains found >when they excavated Mohenjo-Daro? I wonder. Did I hear anything? I don't recall. Also beyond my horizon. >http://forum.atlan.org/viewtopic.php?p=2266 > >Or areas of Mongolia covered with the kind of "glass" >you see on the ground near a nuclear explosion? Sounds more familiar, but only the vaguest level of memory. But I do recall the Siberian giant meteor melting stuff that glassified. >Or pyramids in New Mexico (I knew a pilot in Albuquerque >who had seen them, and also surveyed the ancient roads.) LOTS of pyramids in Mayaland. In Quintana Roo museum... lots of Egyptian looking old stuff. And faces on big statues in Tabasco which they all say are negroid. McNeill's Rise of the West had a nice chapter on megalithic civilization. Read a piece on "Chi Chi" people in Andes which is interesting and fits. And have seen home slides of the backs of structures in Macchu Picchu which were rather interesting. Best, Paul >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From HowlBloom at aol.com Sun Sep 26 05:42:35 2004 From: HowlBloom at aol.com (HowlBloom at aol.com) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 01:42:35 EDT Subject: [Paleopsych] meaning and entropy, meaning and waste Message-ID: <1e2.2bcdea79.2e87b0cb@aol.com> Eshel Ben-Jacob has brought a very important concept into the dialog that goes on here. It?s ?meaning?. Meaning and its relationship to relationships--its relationship to sociality, its relationship to linguistics, its relationship to context. Eshel's latest paper, ?Seeking the Foundations of Cognition:From Thermodynamics to Contextual Information and Back?, is forcing me to rethink old thoughts about entropy in slightly new ways. So please bear with me as I try to tie a few threads of thought together. Entropy is related to meaning. Not to information, at least not in Shannon?s sense of information? but to meaning. Energy is motion that can be put to work. Entropy is disordered energy. Entropy is the waste made by work? specifically by the work of a ?heat engine??by the work of a steam engine. Waste is energy teasing the cosmos, daring the universe to make its next creative upgrade, the upgrade that will harness the mischief of waste. Waste is energy waiting for meaning. It is energy waiting for a rider that can tame it, for a harvester who can use it to achieve whatever purpose the harvester is aiming toward. Let?s get back to entropy. Waste is entropy. And entropy is waste. Waste is just a temporary state. It?s a state that invites the evolution of the goals and of the gizmos?living or dead?that produce meaning. 300,000 ABB (after the big bang), atoms gave the random movement of protons and electrons a new meaning. 380,000 ABB gas wisps gave atoms new meaning. Roughly 600,000 ABB galaxies gave gas wisps new meaning. Then came stars, giving an entirely new set of meanings to atoms, gas wisps, and galaxies. Today we are giving the photons shed by those stars new meaning every day in the offices of astrophysicists, in the interpretations of astrologers, in the myths of indigenous peoples, in the wonder evoked in those who stare at the stars from dark fields in the American Midwest, from porches in Portland Maine and Portland Oregon, and from rooftops in Beijing and Beirut. Which leaves us with a few more questions and a few more hints at answers. What is meaning? What?s the difference between meaning and information? Are meaning and information separable? Goals are a part of meaning. What does it take to produce a goal? Here?s a guess. It takes a sense of past and a sense of future. Why? Because goals compact the past to predict to a future. If that?s true, do atoms really give new meaning to protons and electrons? Does a proton or an electron have enough past compacted within it to anticipate a future? Is that anticipation really necessary to meaning? Does it take a vast mesh of another of this cosmos? inventions?molecules?to give meaning to atoms? How vast must that mesh be before it anticipates a future? How vast must that interacting society of atoms be to create the first primitive scenario of "what's next"? Here?s another question, this one inspired by the concepts of Paul Werbos and Pavel Kurakin. If time is reversible, is the future spreading its tendrils as much into the past as the past is spreading its tendrils into the future? If the future is beckoning us forward through the sheer power of a future to attract all that a cosmos holds, how would that change the meaning of meaning? And what would the nature be of the future's attractive power? Sorry for pestering you with so many questions, but the meaning of meaning? the latest of Eshel?s fertile mysteries?seem worth re-perceiving. Onward--Howard ---------- Howard Bloom Author of The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History and Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The Big Bang to the 21st Century Visiting Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University; Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute www.howardbloom.net www.bigbangtango.net Founder: International Paleopsychology Project; founding board member: Epic of Evolution Society; founding board member, The Darwin Project; founder: The Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New York Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Psychological Society, Academy of Political Science, Human Behavior and Evolution Society, International Society for Human Ethology; advisory board member: Youthactivism.org; executive editor -- New Paradigm book series. For information on The International Paleopsychology Project, see: www.paleopsych.org for two chapters from The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History, see www.howardbloom.net/lucifer For information on Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century, see www.howardbloom.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From HowlBloom at aol.com Sun Sep 26 06:02:49 2004 From: HowlBloom at aol.com (HowlBloom at aol.com) Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 02:02:49 EDT Subject: [Paleopsych] another stab at meaning, context, and time Message-ID: meaning is a product of gossip, of gossip between particles and between people. Meaning is also a product of another whispering?the gossip between the past and future. It?s a social relationship that ties together time. ---------- Howard Bloom Author of The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History and Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The Big Bang to the 21st Century Visiting Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University; Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute www.howardbloom.net www.bigbangtango.net Founder: International Paleopsychology Project; founding board member: Epic of Evolution Society; founding board member, The Darwin Project; founder: The Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New York Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Psychological Society, Academy of Political Science, Human Behavior and Evolution Society, International Society for Human Ethology; advisory board member: Youthactivism.org; executive editor -- New Paradigm book series. For information on The International Paleopsychology Project, see: www.paleopsych.org for two chapters from The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History, see www.howardbloom.net/lucifer For information on Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century, see www.howardbloom.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From checker at panix.com Mon Sep 27 14:43:42 2004 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 10:43:42 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Paleopsych] CHE: The End of Easy Oil Message-ID: The End of Easy Oil The Chronicle of Higher Education, 4.10.1 http://chronicle.com/weekly/v51/i06/06b01101.htm By MALCOLM G. SCULLY You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist or a Michael Moore enthusiast to think that Donald Rumsfeld and his colleagues in the Bush administration are being disingenuous when they declare that the war in Iraq is not about oil. In fact, according to the authors of two new books, most foreign-policy and many domestic decisions made by the current administration -- and by its predecessors going back to that of Franklin D. Roosevelt -- have been shaped, overtly or covertly, by a desire to assure a secure supply of cheap petroleum for America's economic and military needs. And, the authors of the books conclude, maintaining that "energy security" will become more difficult, more dangerous, and more likely to produce violence in the years ahead. Our petroleum habit will have growing influence on both geopolitical and economic issues, according to Paul Roberts in The End of Oil: On the Edge of a Perilous New World, published by Houghton Mifflin, and Michael T. Klare, in Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Petroleum Dependency, published by Metropolitan Books. As Roberts, a writer who focuses on economic and environmental issues, says: "Although we will not run out of oil tomorrow, we are nearing the end of what might be called easy oil. Even in the best of circumstances, the oil that remains will be more costly to find and produce and less dependable than the oil we are using today." Klare, a professor of peace and world-security studies at Hampshire College and defense correspondent for The Nation, suggests that the United States has never resolved the inherent tension between our need for assured supplies of petroleum to keep the economy cooking and our growing reliance on overseas sources of that oil, especially from areas, like the Persian Gulf, that have a long and continuing history of instability. Rather than develop a sustained strategy for reducing our reliance on such sources, he says, American leaders "have chosen to securitize oil -- that is, to cast its continued availability as a matter of 'national security,' and thus something that can be safeguarded through the use of military force." Klare argues that our demands for energy and those of other major powers will require the petroleum-rich Gulf states to "boost their combined oil output by 85 percent between now and 2020. ... Left to themselves, the Gulf countries are unlikely to succeed; it will take continued American intervention and the sacrifice of more and more American blood to come even close. The Bush administration has chosen to preserve America's existing energy posture by tying its fortunes to Persian Gulf oil." Even more worrisome, Klare says, is the intense and growing competition among countries such as the United States, China, India, and those in the European Community over petroleum supplies. "This competition is already aggravating tensions in several areas, including the Persian Gulf and Caspian Sea basins," he writes. "And although the great powers will no doubt seek to avoid clashing directly, their deepening entanglement in local disputes is bound to fan the flames of regional conflicts and increase the potential for major conflagrations." That's pretty alarming stuff, and some people may be tempted to dismiss Roberts's and Klare's analyses as anti-Bush, anti-oil rhetoric. But the questions they raise transcend approval or disapproval of any one administration, and go to the core of whether any country can -- purposefully and without vast disruptions -- make the transition from an economy dependent on one finite resource to an economy based on renewable, nonpolluting resources. The authors argue that such a transition would be difficult in the best of times, and that these are not the best of times. Roberts notes, for instance, that the development of renewable alternatives to petroleum, such as biofuels, solar power, clean coal, and hydrogen, has not been as rapid or as simple as their promoters had hoped. And even if those alternatives had been developed more fully, he adds, "many of the new fuels and technologies lack high power density and simply will not be able to deliver the same energy punch as the hydrocarbons they replace." What that means, he says, is that the new technologies must be accompanied by sharp increases in energy efficiency. He is not sanguine about achieving such gains. "In spite of high energy prices and rising concerns about energy security, consumers and policymakers alike have all but stopped talking about the ways we use energy, how much we waste, and what might be changed." Klare writes that President Bush's choice of Vice President Dick Cheney to conduct a major review of energy policy preordained an antiefficiency outcome. When the National Energy Policy Development Group began its work, in February 2001, he writes, the United States "stood at a crossroads." It could "continue consuming more and more petroleum and sinking deeper and deeper into its dependence on imports," or "it could choose an alternative route, enforcing strict energy conservation, encouraging the use of fuel-efficient vehicles, and promoting the development of renewable energy sources." While the group's report -- National Energy Policy -- gave lip service to the concepts of conservation and energy self-sufficiency, he says, a close reading "reveals something radically different." The policy "never envisions any reduction in our use of petroleum," Klare writes. "Instead it proposes steps that would increase consumption while making token efforts to slow, but not halt, our dependence on foreign providers." Given the Bush administration's close ties to the oil-and-gas industry, such an outcome may have been inevitable, Klare says. But even an administration without such links would find it politically risky to move to a radically different energy policy. Like his predecessors, he notes, President Bush "understood that shifting to other sources of energy would entail a change in lifestyle that the American public might not easily accept. ... And so he chose the path of least resistance." Roberts, who focuses on the question of total energy supply more than on the geopolitical consequences of relying on foreign oil, finds little cause for optimism in our current strategy. The longer we put off the transition to a postpetroleum era, the harder that transition will be, he says, and the more unrest and violence we will encounter. As oil supplies dwindle, "energy security, always a critical mission for any nation, will steadily acquire greater urgency and priority," he writes. "As it does, international tensions and the risk of conflict will rise, and these growing threats will make it increasingly difficult for governments to focus on longer-term challenges, such as climate or alternative fuels -- challenges that are in themselves critical to energy security, yet which, paradoxically, will be seen as distractions from the campaign to keep energy flowing. ... The more obvious it becomes that an oil-dominated energy economy is inherently insecure, the harder it becomes to move on to something else." In the meantime, Klare argues, the Bush administration's war on terrorism, the impulse of its neoconservative supporters to spread "democracy" to the Middle East, and our desperate need for stable supplies of oil have merged into a single strategy -- one that will commit us to maintaining military forces in many parts of the world and to using those forces to protect oil fields and supply routes. "It is getting hard," he writes, "to distinguish U.S. military operations designed to fight terrorism from those designed to protect energy assets." Many of the authors' arguments and conclusions have been advanced before, and both men fall into the category of "energy pessimists," who do not believe that we will be able to maintain our current levels of oil consumption for as long as agencies like the U.S. Geological Survey and Europe's International Energy Agency predict. Such agencies, Roberts says, "are under intense political pressure to err on the side of wild optimism." But regardless of whether Klare and Roberts err on the side of pessimism, their message is unsettling: We are headed into uncharted territory, led by a government that seems prepared to use force, when necessary, to preserve the current system. We face growing competition from other countries for a finite resource at a time of growing animosity toward the United States. It is a message that is moving beyond academic and environmental circles. In a recent "midyear outlook" report, Wachovia Securities, a large investment company, examines the impact of "the end of cheap oil" for investors. "We neither expect, nor wish to dwell on, worst-case scenarios -- but the market knows it is foolhardy to ignore the possibilities," the report says. It warns that with record-high oil prices and many domestic refineries operating at or near capacity, "a disruption somewhere in the production chain could have a greater than normal effect on energy markets." The war on terror, it adds, "raises the risk that such a disruption would not be an accident." Malcolm G. Scully is The Chronicle's editor at large. From checker at panix.com Mon Sep 27 14:53:52 2004 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 10:53:52 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Paleopsych] CHE: Political Timber: Glitter, Froth, and Measuring Tape Message-ID: Political Timber: Glitter, Froth, and Measuring Tape The Chronicle of Higher Education, 4.10.1 http://chronicle.com/weekly/v51/i06/06b01201.htm By EDWARD TENNER As the presidential debates approach, some anxious Democrats are taking comfort in the five-inch height advantage of their candidate, who stands 6 feet 4 inches to George W. Bush's 5 feet 11 inches. They remember, all too well, the 1988 presidential debates between George H.W. Bush and Michael S. Dukakis. At the time, the newspaper columnist Charles Krauthammer described the elder Bush as "tall and terrible. He whined. He stumbled. He looked nervous and hyperactive. From the first question about drugs, he was on the defensive." Then Krauthammer also mentioned the results of a focus group of undecided voters convened by The Washington Post, who ultimately leaned toward Bush. After the candidates shook hands, one member had explicitly mentioned the six-inch gap in height. The focus-group participants had cited other factors, of course, but the possibly fatal handshake was added to the capital's political lore. "Half to two-thirds of what people take away is visual rather than verbal," a Republican pollster told The New York Times in 1996. "It's huge." To some Democrats, that principle implies the need for a physically imposing candidate. After the initial surge of Gov. Howard Dean of Vermont, some supporters of rival Democrats stooped to open heightism, deriding Dean as an example of "short man's syndrome." How did it come to this? Why is stature now considered such a political advantage -- or liability? It's easy to blame the tube for fostering a flight from serious issues into glitter, froth, and measuring tape. But taller was seen as better in the 19th century, too, and long before. The already imposing Lincoln may have chosen his signature stove-pipe hat to further accentuate the strong point of his appearance. Herodotus heard that the Ethiopians made the tallest and strongest men their kings. Still, height was not considered destiny. James Madison's nickname, "Little Jemmy" -- his height is usually given at 5 feet 4 inches -- was not politically fatal. Lincoln's shorter opponents and their fans accepted and even flaunted their stature. Stephen A. Douglas was famous as the "little giant," and Gen. George B. McClellan, whatever his failings as a Civil War commander, won the 1864 Democratic nomination as "Little Mac," a phrase his troops had always used affectionately. (A brilliant military engineer, he was also compared admiringly with Napoleon earlier in his career.) Friend and foe spent little time talking about height. It was a given, to be used derisively or positively. That attitude changed toward the end of the century. Timothy A. Judge, a professor of management at the University of Florida, and Daniel M. Cable, an associate professor of management and organizational behavior at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who study height and success, have observed in a recent analysis of the literature on the topic in the Journal of Applied Psychology that William McKinley, elected in 1896, was the last president shorter than the average man. And there were signs of the end of the good-natured banter of the waning century. McKinley's journalistic critics portrayed him as a "little boy" controlled by his big nursemaid, the Republican boss Mark Hanna, and the growing big-business trusts. Fear of the big began to mix with mockery of the small. An unpublished University of Iowa dissertation by Michael Tavel Clarke, "These Days of Large Things: The Culture of Size in America, 1865-1930" (2001), suggests that the interest in personal size and strength was partly a response to the emergence of industrial combinations and other corporate giants that threatened to crush individuality. At the same time, the scientific professionals of the late-19th and early-20th centuries regarded small stature in Africa, Asia, and Europe as a throwback to primitivism and feared its importation. Eugenic interpretations of stature abounded. For example, William Zebina Ripley's The Races of Europe, published in 1899, popularized the division of the Old World into distinctive biological types, with tall Northern European blonds on top physically and mentally as well as geographically, followed by the stockier Alpines and the still-darker Mediterraneans. America's old racial stock (those called "native Americans" around 1900 were mainly Anglo-Saxon Protestants) was threatened by an influx from the shorter nations of Eastern and Southern Europe. With the closure of the frontier in the 1890s, medical and educational authorities believed a new struggle would occur within the growing cities, where high-density living and immigration seemed to be endangering public health. They established height and weight standards and fitness programs to help assure the stature of a more-diverse urban population, meeting the threat of degeneration. For their part, African-American people were starting to stand tall in sports. In 1908 Jack Johnson, more than six feet tall, defeated the world boxing champion, a 5-foot-7-inch white Canadian named Tommy Burns, seeming to confirm the fears of the founder of the modern Olympics, Baron Pierre de Coubertin, four years earlier that "black men, red men, and yellow men" would eventually "leave the white man behind them" in competition. Several decades later, the stereotype of the short, simian Japanese marked World War II-era racism in America, and the emergence of better nourished and taller postwar generations of Japanese has not yet ended the acrimony about height among nations and races. In 2001 the Sunday Telegraph reported a campaign by the Chinese government to encourage the nation's children to drink more milk (even though many are lactose intolerant) after the humiliation of learning that Japanese average height had overtaken Chinese stature for the first time in recorded history. Height is not only a nationalist concern, of course. It can be a revealing index of social change. For economic historians, records of stature, whether from military data or archaeological digs, illuminate health and living standards in a way that production and consumption data alone never can. Contemporary changes, too, can signal the real rise and decline of public welfare. Consider the public-health catastrophe of North Korea. According to a 2003 report of the World Food Program and Unicef, 42 percent of North Korean children are now classified as stunted, their growth markedly below their age norms, and most may never recover. Thanks to prosperity and a Western diet, 17-year-old boys near the border on the South Korean side average 5 feet 8 inches; most teenagers on the North Korean side stood less than five feet, even though before World War II, Koreans in the northern part of the country had been slightly taller. Height is thus a mirror of the isolation and decline of the North Korean economy, with its widespread poverty and resulting malnourishment. Yet the United States shows that political freedom and apparently abundant food are not necessarily enough. In a paper published earlier this year in the journal Economics and Human Biology, the University of Munich economic historians John Komlos and Marieluise Baur show how "within the course of the 20th century the American population went through a virtual metamorphosis from being the tallest in the world, to being among the most overweight." In the mid-19th century, Americans were from 3 to 9 centimeters taller than Western and Northern Europeans, and underweight. Now the Dutch and Scandinavians (followed by the British and Germans) are from 3 to 7 centimeters taller than Americans, who have one of the highest rates of obesity. (Beginning in the 1970s, Uncle Sam ceased to be drawn mostly as tall and thin and has often been cut down to size, according to the University of Oregon journalism professor and cartoonist Thomas H. Bivins, who has studied the figure's history.) Because their study excludes Asian and Latino people and those born outside America, and because black people show the same pattern as the broader population, Komlos and Baur discount immigration as the reason why Americans have become relatively shorter. Their hypothesis is that European welfare state policies and greater social equality have produced better nutrition and health care. Two strains of social science collide, then, when stature rears it head in politics. One historicizes height as convention and metaphor, a symbol of dominance or otherness, a relic of imperialism and nativism. The other takes height seriously as a yardstick of overall fitness, as the authorities of the progressive era saw it, a characteristic predicting intelligence and performance. In their survey article, Judge and Cable suggest that tall people may make more money at least partly because they actually are better at their work. For example, being tall can generate admiration, which can promote self-esteem, which can enhance competence. Another study in the College Mathematics Journal by Paul M. Sommers, an economist at Middlebury College, compares the heights of American presidents with their ratings in two surveys of historians, and finds that a disproportionate number of the highest-rated chief executives were taller than average -- if only because "historians want someone they can look up to in the highest office." Perhaps the members of the Washington Post focus group were on to something. Yet ultimately, height is a social as well as an anatomical fact. While physically altering height is one of the most painful of all surgical interventions -- limb lengthening requires cutting through the thigh bones and having the patient turn screws in agony over months and months to deposit new calcium -- elites have relatively painless ways to manage impressions. In 1840 in Paris Sketch Book, the novelist William Makepeace Thackeray depicted a magnificent wig, sumptuous coat, and high-heeled shoes (Rex), a little bald man in his underwear (Ludovicus), and their fusion in the fully clothed Sun King (Ludovicus Rex) -- elevated by his footwear. More recently, shorter-than-average male film stars -- from Alan Ladd and Humphrey Bogart to Tom Cruise -- have been aided by costume and adroit cinematography. But tricks like the "Ladd box" (on which the actor stood) would not have worked if the people who used them hadn't had their own ability to project a charismatic, dashing -- in fact, "larger than life" -- persona. Outside show business, too, we have all known or seen people who have managed to appear taller than they actually were. There is thus hope for shorter candidates to cast long shadows with the proper delivery and gestures, and not being seen to care about stature. Howard Dean's real height problem may not have been being under 5 feet 9 inches but in insisting he was 5 feet 8 3/4. And whatever merits Bush's and Kerry's debating arguments might have, much more will depend on their rhetorical prowess than on their stature. The correlation between height and success may be significant, but the exceptions have been as striking as the rule. Above all, we should think twice about height as a proxy for greatness on the world stage. At 6 feet 4 to 6 feet 6 inches, according to the FBI "wanted poster," Osama bin Laden would stand above both candidates. Edward Tenner is a senior research associate at the Jerome and Dorothy Lemelson Center for the Study of Invention and Innovation at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of American History. He is the author of several books, most recently Our Own Devices: The Past and Future of Body Technology (Alfred A. Knopf, 2003). From checker at panix.com Mon Sep 27 15:10:20 2004 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 11:10:20 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Paleopsych] spiked: Bashing the McMasses Message-ID: Bashing the McMasses http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA6DF.htm by Brendan O'Neill In the docu-blockbuster-cum-human-experiment Super Size Me, released in British cinemas over the weekend, New York filmmaker Morgan Spurlock eats nothing but McDonald's meals three times a day for a month. He's won widespread praise for pushing his body to the limit - he goes from fit to fat, gets bad skin, has mood swings, and in one scene, having spent 22 minutes eating a Super Size Double Quarterpounder Meal, pukes it up out of his car window - all for the apparently worthy cause of showing Americans 'the real price they are paying for their "addiction" to fast food' (1). Sounds radical, right, taking on the Golden Arches of America and charging them with making poor folk sick and miserable by forcefeeding them junk? In fact, Super Size Me, like so many other anti-McDonald's campaigns, comes with a generous side order of snobbery. Its real target is the people who eat in McDonald's - the apparently stupid, fat, unthinking masses who scoff Big Macs without even asking to see a nutritional and calorie breakdown first. Spurlock and his ilk might hate McDonald's, but they seem to loathe the McMasses even more. Spurlock's venture looks to me like a sparkier, more irreverent and updated version of 'Mass Observation', that notorious study of the masses carried out by anthropologist Tom Harrisson in the 1930s, where a team of middle-class observers 'mingled with the natives' and collected data on everything from football pools to dirty jokes to armpit hygiene - all recounted in inglorious detail in John Carey's The Intellectuals and the Masses (2). But Spurlock goes a step further; he doesn't only mingle with the natives but becomes one of them, transforming his body into what he imagines the average American's body to be like. The film starts by showing us that Spurlock is something of a model citizen. Before he begins his 30-day binge on nothing-but-MaccyD's he goes to a GP, a gastroenterologist and a physical fitness instructor for a series of tests. They decree that he's fit, able, has a low cholesterol, a very good Body Mass Index and is in 'great shape'. As a Manhattanite he also walks everywhere, rather than relying on a car like the rest of fat America, and even has a vegan chef for a girlfriend (referred to as 'Healthy Chef Alex'). In short, he's a Good American in one of the few ways that you can measure being a Good American in our post-political, post-moral times: he's healthy. Then he crosses over to the other side.... The rules are that he can only eat what is available over the counter at McDonald's; he has to reduce the amount he walks to a maximum of 5,000 steps a day, to reflect how little the average American apparently waddles around; and, most importantly, if he's offered the option of Super-Sizing his meal (which comes with seven ounces of fries and a 42-ounce coke) he has to say yes - the assumption being that the kind of people who frequent McDonald's are so feckless that when the spotty teen behind the counter mentions the SS-phrase they are powerless to resist (especially if they're from Texas, one of the Fattest States of America according to Spurlock, where he was most often asked 'You wanna Super Size that?'). So Spurlock grosses out in order to see what it's like to be one of those gross Americans. Fellow American Cosmo Landesman of The Sunday Times praises him for taking a 'kamikaze dive into the gargantuan blubber-gut and buttock-mountain serial heart-killer and cholesterol free fall that is obese America's fast-food blowout' (3). But Spurlock only becomes a cartoon Yank, a fat lazy blob living down to his own and others' prejudices. No one in their right mind would eat just McDonald's every day; most of those interviewed in the film say they eat fast food once or twice a week. As some experts have pointed out, Spurlock probably became ill because his 30-day diet was so unvaried. The same would have happened if he'd only eaten foie gras or fruit or some other 'good' food for a month. [pixel.gif] [pixel.gif] The lower orders are often lambasted for their lack of food-consciousness today It is striking how morally loaded some of the discussions about food are. In one of the funnier scenes, Healthy Chef Alex - a holistic health counsellor who believes in 'integrating appropriate food choices and lifestyle options' - tries to coax Spurlock away from the 'corrupt' world of meat-eating and towards a Good Life of nuts and lentils (4). Spurlock visits a school where the pupils are calm and attentive and claims that it's a result of their eating healthy school dinners from the Natural Ovens Bakery rather than the sugary fare stuffed down kids' throats in other districts. Food, it seems, is not only about taste, enjoyment or nutrition; what we eat apparently reveals something of our moral character. In this, Super Size Me chimes with the times. On both sides of the Atlantic there's a large portion of moralising in the panics over obesity, school dinners, junk-food-guzzling and the rest. What is presented as straightforward medical concern for our health and wellbeing is often really a judgement on lifestyle and behaviour - and especially the lifestyle and behaviour of a certain class of people. In debates about 'bad' foods (McDonald's), fast foods (microwave meals), and fat mums in clingy leggings who make their kids fat too by feeding them 'junk', there's a barely concealed contempt for the working classes, who are presumed to be lazy, feckless and not sufficiently concerned with healthy cooking and fitness. It's there in the terminology: they are seen as 'junk' people. It isn't fashionable to pass strictly moral judgements in our 'anything goes' age - and certainly no one would do what Tom Harrisson did in the 1930s, discussing the masses as 'scientific specimens'. Instead, at a time when few are willing to say what kind of lifestyle is right and wrong, the lower orders are lambasted for their eating habits and lack of food-consciousness - all in the name of helping to transform them into better healthy happy citizens, of course. The moral divide today isn't between the educated few and the uneducated mob as it was for Harrisson and co, but between those who eat healthily and those who (allegedly) don't, between good foodies and bad burger-eaters. Such cheap McMoralism is best summed up in a leaflet produced by McSpotlight, an anti-McDonald's campaign group that encourages local communities in the UK to resist the building of new McDonald's restaurants. Under the heading 'Litter, noise and smells', the leaflet says McDonald's will 'result in noise and disturbances at all hours....the smell from the kitchens, from waste storage and from litter disgarded [sic] by customers may become offensive and attract vermin' (5). What these campaigns really hate about MaccyD's is the kind of people it attracts; in McSpotlight's leaflet, offensive 'customers' and 'vermin' all merge into a mishmash cautionary tale about the apparent horrors of the modern McDonald's. Meanwhile, inside my local McDonald's, normal-looking families can be seen enjoying their Happy Meals.... Of course McDonald's, like every other big corporation, mistreats its workers and puts the maximisation of profits first. But in the faux class war between anti-McDonald's campaigners and the McMasses, I'm on the side of the 'happy eaters' every time. From checker at panix.com Mon Sep 27 15:11:31 2004 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 11:11:31 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Paleopsych] Observer: The brothel creeper Message-ID: The brothel creeper http://observer.guardian.co.uk/magazine/story/0,11913,1306267,00.html As the debate rages about the pros and cons of legalising prostitution, Sebastian Horsley - a man who's slept with more than 1,000 prostitutes - gives a controversial and candid account of his experience of paying for sex Sunday September 19, 2004 I remember the first time I had sex - I still have the receipt. The girl was alive, as far as I could tell, she was warm and she was better than nothing. She cost me ?20. I was 16 then and I'm 41 now. I have spent 25 years throwing my money and heart at tarts. I have slept with every nationality in every position in every country. From high-class call girls at ?1,000 a pop to the meat-rack girls of Soho at ?15, I have probably slept with more than 1,000 prostitutes, at a cost of ?100,000. I am a connoisseur of prostitution: I can take its bouquet, taste it, roll it around my mouth, give you the vintage. I have used brothels, saunas, private homes from the internet and ordered girls to my flat prompt as pizza. While we are on the subject, I have also run a brothel. And I have been a male escort. I wish I was more ashamed. But I'm not. I love prostitutes and everything about them. And I care about them so much I don't want them to be made legal. In English brothels you shuffle into a seedy room so dim you can only meet the girl by Braille. But in New York last year I sat on a four-poster bed while 10 girls paraded in front of me one by one, like bowls of sushi on a carousel. 'Hi,' they would say, 'I'm Tiffany', 'I'm Harmony', 'I'm Michelle', and I would rise and kiss them. It was so touching, so sweet, so kind. There should always, no matter what, be politeness. It is the way the outside world should work, selfishly but honestly. The great thing about sex with whores is the excitement and variety. If you say you're enjoying sex with the same person after a couple of years you're either a liar or on something. Of all the sexual perversions, monogamy is the most unnatural. Most of our affairs run the usual course. Fever. Boredom. Trapped. This explains much of the friction in our lives - love being the delusion that one woman differs from another. But with brothels there is always the exhilaration of not knowing what you're going to get. The problem with normal sex is that it leads to kissing and pretty soon you've got to talk to them. Once you know someone well the last thing you want to do is screw them. I like to give, never to receive; to have the power of the host, not the obligation of the guest. I can stop writing this and within two minutes I can be chained, in the arms of a whore. I know I am going to score and I know they don't really want me. And within 10 minutes I am back writing. What I hate are meaningless and heartless one-night stands where you tell all sorts of lies to get into bed with a woman you don't care for. The worst things in life are free. Value seems to need a price tag. How can we respect a woman who doesn't value herself? When I was young I used to think it wasn't who you wanted to have sex with that was important, but who you were comfortable with socially and spiritually. Now I know that's rubbish. It's who you want to have sex with that's important. In the past I have deceived the women I have been with. You lie to two people in your life; your partner and the police. Everyone else gets the truth. Part of me used to enjoy the deception. There was something about the poverty of desire with one's girlfriend. Sex without betrayal I found meaningless. Without cruelty there was no banquet. Having a secret life is exhilarating. I also have problems with unpaid-for sex. I am repulsed by the animality of the body, by its dirt and decay. The horror for me is the fact that the sublime, the beautiful and the divine are inextricable from basic animal functions. For some reason money mitigates this. Because it is anonymous. What I hate with women generally is the intimacy, the invasion of my innermost space, the slow strangulation of my art. The writer chained for life to the routine of a wage slave and the ritual of copulation. When I love somebody, I feel sort of trapped. Three years ago I was saved. I found a girl whom I could fall in love with ... and sleep with prostitutes with. She sends me to brothels to sleep with women for her. I buy her girls for her birthday and we go to whorehouses together. I am free forever from the damp, dark prison of eternal love. A prostitute exists outside the establishment. She is either rejected by it or in opposition to it, or both. It takes courage to cross this line. She deserves our respect, not our punishment. And certainly not our pity or prayers. Of course, the general feeling in this country is that the man is somehow exploiting the woman, but I don't believe this. In fact, the prostitute and the client, like the addict and the dealer, is the most successfully exploitative relationship of all. And the most pure. It is free of ulterior motives. There is no squalid power game. The man is not taking and the woman is not giving. The whore fuck is the purest fuck of all. Why does a sleazy bastard like me like whores so much? Why pay for it? The problem is that the modern woman is a prostitute who doesn't deliver the goods. Teasers are never pleasers; they greedily accept presents to seal a contract and then break it. At least the whore pays the flesh that's haggled for. The big difference between sex for money and sex for free is that sex for money usually costs a lot less. But it is more than this. What I want is the sensation of sex without the boredom of its conveyance. Brothels make possible contacts of astounding physical intimacy without the intervention of personality. I love the artificial paradise; the anonymity; using money, the most impersonal instrument of intimacy to buy the most personal act of intimacy. Lust over love, sensation over security, and to fall into a woman's arms without falling into her hands. Having an instinctive sympathy for those condemned by conventional society, I wanted to cross the line myself. To pay for sex is to strip away the veneer of artifice and civilisation and connect with the true animal nature of man. Some men proudly proclaim that they have never paid for it. Are they saying that money is more sacred than sex? But one of the main reasons I enjoy prostitutes is because I enjoy breaking the law - another reason I don't want brothels made legal. There is a charm about the forbidden that makes it desirable. When I have dinner every evening in Soho I always think: isn't scampi delicious - what a pity it isn't illegal. I'm sure I am not alone in this. Even Adam himself did not want the apple for the apple's sake; he wanted it only because it was forbidden. As for the girls, the argument is that making it legal will somehow make it safer, but Soho has one of the lowest crime rates in the country. Anyway, crime and risk are part of the texture of life. Indeed, Freud tells us: 'Life loses interest when the highest stake in the game of living, life itself, may not be risked.' Risk is what separates the good part of life from the tedium. I decided to ask my Claudia, my favourite prostitute. I first spotted her in the street in Knightsbridge 10 years ago and was so taken by her haunted beauty that I decided to follow her. There was an air of great quality about Claudia. The faces of English girls look as if there is not enough materials to go round. They have thin lips and papery eyelids, box jawbones, prominent Adam's apples and withered hearts. Claudia looks Mediterranean - her lips are full and curly, her nostrils flared, her eyes black and as big as saucers. She walked and I stalked all the way to Soho and down Brewer Street. No. No way. She couldn't be! She turned, and walked into a brothel. I couldn't believe it. I could fuck Raquel Welch for ?25. When I ask if she wants prostitution legalised, she reacts violently: 'No way! I tried to take a regular job a few months ago. After tax and national insurance I was left with practically nothing. So I came back here. On a good day here I can take ?500. I don't have a pimp, so after paying the overheads and the maid I've got more than enough.' There you are. Income tax has made more liars out of the British people than prostitution. I know a little bit about the business side. Some years ago I became a madam and a male escort. I turned one of the rooms in my flat in Shepherd Market into a knocking shop and joined an escort agency. I went into prostitution looking for love, not money. That said, I always took cash. The women wanted company, someone willing to please at the midnight hour, and straight sex. It was nerve-wracking wondering if I was going to be able to get it up or get on, but at least I had a valid reason for liking my lovers - they paid me. I didn't care if someone called me a whore and a pimp. So you see, I have always been a prostitute by sympathy. As for the rest of society, prostitution is the mirror of man, and man has never been in danger of becoming bogged down in beauty. So why don't we leave it alone? Or learn to love it, like me? Sex is one of the most wholesome, spiritual and natural things money can buy. And like all games, it becomes more interesting when played for money. And even more so when it is illegal. Hookers and drunks instinctively understand that common sense is the enemy of romance. Will the bureaucrats and politicians please leave us some unreality. I know what you are thinking. That it's all very well for people like me to idealise whores and thieves; to think that the street is somehow noble and picturesque; I have never had to live there. But so what? One day I will. Until such time, I have to pay for it. How else would someone young, rich and handsome get sex in this city? Yes, yes, I know. Prostitution is obscene, debasing and disgraceful. The point is, so am I. From guavaberry at earthlink.net Mon Sep 27 16:10:44 2004 From: guavaberry at earthlink.net (K.E.) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 12:10:44 -0400 Subject: [Paleopsych] The Crude Oil Biz. Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.0.20040927121021.01f95788@mail.earthlink.net> The Crude Oil Biz. http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/ Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1095545411401&call_pageid=968332188854&col=9 683500607 Crude Dudes By Linda McQuaig The Toronto Star Monday 20 September 2004 From his corner office in the heart of New York's financial district, Fadel Gheit keeps close tabs on what goes on inside the boardrooms of the big oil companies. An oil analyst at the prestigious Wall Street firm Oppenheimer & Co., the fit, distinguished-looking Gheit has been watching the oil industry closely for more than 25 years. Selling the modern world's most indispensable commodity has never been a bad business to be in - particularly for the small group of companies that straddle the top of this privileged world. But never more so than now. "Profit-wise, things could not have been better," says Gheit, "In the last three years, they died and went to heaven .... They are all sitting on the largest piles of cash in their history." But to stay rich they have to keep finding new reserves, and that's getting tougher. Increasingly it means cutting through permafrost or drilling deep underwater, at tremendous cost. "The cheap oil has already been found and developed and produced and consumed," says Gheit. "The low-hanging fruit has already been picked." Well, not all the low-hanging fruit has been picked. Nestled into the heart of the area of heaviest oil concentration in the world is Iraq, overflowing with low-hanging fruit. No permafrost, no deep water. Just giant pools of oil, right beneath the warm ground. This is fruit sagging so low, as it were, that it practically touches the ground under the weight of its ripeness. Not only does Iraq have vast quantities of easily accessible oil, but its oil is almost untouched. "Think of Iraq as virgin territory .... This is bigger than anything Exxon is involved in currently .... It is the superstar of the future," says Gheit, "That's why Iraq becomes the most sought-after real estate on the face of the earth." Gheit just smiles at the notion that oil wasn't a factor in the U.S. invasion of Iraq. He compares Iraq to Russia, which also has large undeveloped oil reserves. But Russia has nuclear weapons. "We can't just go over and ... occupy (Russian) oil fields," says Gheit. "It's a different ballgame." Iraq, however, was defenceless, utterly lacking, ironically, in weapons of mass destruction. And its location, nestled in between Saudi Arabia and Iran, made it an ideal place for an ongoing military presence, from which the U.S. would be able to control the entire Gulf region. Gheit smiles again: "Think of Iraq as a military base with a very large oil reserve underneath .... You can't ask for better than that." There's something almost obscene about a map that was studied by senior Bush administration officials and a select group of oil company executives meeting in secret in the spring of 2001. It doesn't show the kind of detail normally shown on maps - cities, towns, regions. Rather its detail is all about Iraq's oil. The southwest is neatly divided, for instance, into nine "Exploration Blocks." Stripped of political trappings, this map shows a naked Iraq, with only its ample natural assets in view. It's like a supermarket meat chart, which identifies the various parts of a slab of beef so customers can see the most desirable cuts .... Block 1 might be the striploin, Block 2 and Block 3 are perhaps some juicy tenderloin, but Block 8 - ahh, that could be the filet mignon. The map might seem crass, but it was never meant for public consumption. It was one of the documents studied by the ultra-secretive task force on energy, headed by U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney, and it was only released under court order after a long legal battle waged by the public interest group Judicial Watch. Another interesting task force document, also released under court order over the opposition of the Bush administration, was a two-page chart titled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfields." It identifies 63 oil companies from 30 countries and specifies which Iraqi oil fields each company is interested in and the status of the company's negotiations with Saddam Hussein's regime. Among the companies are Royal Dutch/Shell of the Netherlands, Russia's Lukoil and France's Total Elf Aquitaine, which was identified as being interested in the fabulous, 25-billion-barrrel Majnoon oil field. Baghdad had "agreed in principle" to the French company's plans to develop this succulent slab of Iraq. There goes the filet mignon into the mouths of the French! The documents have attracted surprisingly little attention, despite their possible relevance to the question of Washington's motives for its invasion of Iraq - in many ways the defining event of the post-9/11 world but one whose purpose remains shrouded in mystery. Even after the supposed motives for the invasion - weapons of mass destruction and links to Al Qaeda - have been thoroughly discredited, talk of oil as a motive is still greeted with derision. Certainly any suggestion that private oil interests were in any way involved is hooted down with charges of conspiracy theory. Yet the documents suggest that those who took part in the Cheney task force - including senior oil company executives - were very interested in Iraq's oil and specifically in the danger of it falling into the hands of eager foreign oil companies, rather than into the rightful hands of eager U.S. oil companies. As the documents show, prior to the U.S. invasion, foreign oil companies were nicely positioned for future involvement in Iraq, while the major U.S. oil companies, after years of U.S.-Iraqi hostilities, were largely out of the picture. Indeed, the U.S. majors would have been the big losers if U.N. sanctions against Iraq had simply been lifted. "The U.S. majors stand to lose if Saddam makes a deal with the U.N. (on lifting sanctions)," noted a report by Germany's Deutsche Bank in October 2002. The disadvantaged position of U.S. oil companies in Saddam Hussein's Iraq would have presumably been on the minds of senior oil company executives when they met secretly with Cheney and his task force in early 2001. The administration refuses to divulge exactly who met with the task force, and continues to fight legal challenges to force disclosure. However a 2003 report by the General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, concluded that the task force relied on advice from the oil industry, whose close ties to the Bush administration are legendary. (George W. Bush received more money from the oil and gas industry in 1999 and 2000 than any other U.S. federal candidate received over the previous decade.) The Cheney task force has been widely criticized for recommending bigger subsidies for the energy industry, but there's been little focus on its possible role as a venue for consultations between Big Oil and the administration about Iraq. One intriguing piece of evidence pointing in this direction was a National Security Council directive, dated February 2001, instructing NSC staff to co-operate fully with the task force. The NSC document, reported in The New Yorker magazine, noted that the task force would be considering the "melding" of two policy areas: "the review of operational policies towards rogue states" and "actions regarding the capture of new and existing oil and gas fields." This certainly implies that the Cheney task force was considering geopolitical questions about actions related to the capture of oil and gas reserves in "rogue" states, including presumably Iraq. It seems likely then that Big Oil, through the Cheney task force, was involved in discussions with the administration about getting control of oil in Iraq. Since Big Oil has sought to distance itself from the administration's decision to invade Iraq, this apparent involvement helps explain the otherwise baffling level of secrecy surrounding the task force. It's interesting to note that the Cheney task force deliberations took place in the first few months after the Bush administration came to office - the same time period during which the new administration was secretly formulating plans for toppling Saddam. Those early plans were not publicly disclosed, but we know about them now due to the publication of several insider accounts, including that of former Treasury secretary Paul O'Neill. So, months before the attacks of 9/11, the Bush White House was already considering toppling Saddam, and at the same time it was also keenly studying Iraq's oil fields and assessing how far along foreign companies were in their negotiations with Saddam for a piece of Iraq's oil. It's also noteworthy that one person - Dick Cheney - was pivotal both in advancing the administration's plans for regime change in Iraq and in formulating U.S. energy policy. As CEO of oil services giant Halliburton Company, Cheney had been alert to the problem of securing new sources of oil. Speaking to the London Petroleum Institute in 1999, while still heading Halliburton, Cheney had focused on the difficulty of finding the 50 million extra barrels of oil per day that he said the world would need by 2010. "Where is it going to come from?" he asked, and then noted that "the Middle East with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies." Cheney's focus on the Middle East and its oil continued after he became Bush's powerful vice-president. Within weeks of the new administration taking office, Cheney was pushing forward plans for regime change in Iraq and also devising a new energy policy which included getting control of oil reserves in rogue states. His central role in these two apparently urgent initiatives is certainly suggestive of a possible connection between the U.S. invasion of Iraq and a desire for the country's ample oil reserves - the very thing that is vehemently denied. One reason that regime change in Iraq was seen as offering significant benefits for Big Oil was that it promised to open up a treasure chest which had long been sealed - private ownership of Middle Eastern oil. A small group of major international oil companies once privately owned the oil industries of the Middle East. But that changed in the 1970s when most Middle Eastern countries (and some elsewhere) nationalized their oil industries. Today, state-owned companies control the vast majority of the world's oil resources. The major international oil companies control a mere 4 per cent. The majors have clearly prospered in the new era, as developers rather than owners, but there's little doubt that they'd prefer to regain ownership of the oil world's Garden of Eden. "(O)ne of the goals of the oil companies and the Western powers is to weaken and/or privatize the world's state oil companies," observes New York-based economist Michael Tanzer, who advises Third World governments on energy issues. The possibility of Iraq's oil being reopened to private ownership - with the promise of astonishing profits - attracted considerable interest in the run-up to the U.S. invasion. In February 2003, as U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell held the world's attention with his dramatic efforts to make the case that Saddam posed an imminent threat to international peace, other parts of the U.S. government were secretly developing plans to privatize Iraq's oil (among other assets). A confidential 100-page contracting document, drawn up by the U.S. Agency for International Development and the U.S. Treasury Department, laid out a wide-ranging plan for a "Mass Privatization Program ... especially in the oil and supporting industries." The Pentagon was also working on plans to open up Iraq's oil sector. In the fall of 2002, months before the invasion, the Pentagon retained Philip Carroll, a former CEO of Shell Oil Co. in Texas, to draft a strategy for developing Iraqi oil. Carroll's plans apparently became the basis of a proposed scheme, which became public shortly after the war, to redesign Iraq's oil industry along the lines of a U.S. corporation, with a chairman, chief executive and a 15-member board of international advisers. Carroll was chosen by Washington to serve as chairman, but the plans were shelved after they encountered stiff opposition inside Iraq. Still, the prospect of privatizing Iraq's oil remained of great interest to U.S. oil companies, according to Robert Ebel, from the influential Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). Ebel, former vice-president of a Dallas-based oil exploration company, retains close ties to the industry. In an interview in his Washington office, Ebel said it was up to Iraq to make its own decisions, but he made clear that U.S. oil companies would prefer Iraq abandon its nationalization. "We'd rather not work with national oil companies," Ebel said bluntly, noting that the major oil companies are prepared to invest the $35 to $40 billion to develop Iraq's reserves in the coming years. "We're looking for places to invest around the world. You know, along comes Iraq, and I think a lot of oil companies would be disappointed if Iraq were to say `we're going to do it ourselves' " Along Comes Iraq? How fortuitous. U.S. oil companies just happened to have billions of dollars that they wanted to invest in undeveloped oil reserves when Iraq presented itself, ready for invasion. Along comes Iraq, indeed. In the past 14 decades, we've used up roughly half of all the oil that the planet has to offer. No, we're not about to run out of oil. But long before the oil runs out, it reaches its production peak. After that, extracting the remaining oil becomes considerably more difficult and expensive. This notion that oil production has a "peak" was first conceived in 1956 by geophysicist M. King Hubbert. He predicted that U.S. oil production would peak about 1970 - a notion that was scoffed at at the time. As it turned out, Hubbert was dead on; U.S. oil production peaked in 1970, and has been declining ever since. Hubbert's once-radical notion is now generally accepted. For the world as a whole, the peak is fast approaching. Colin Campbell, one of the world's leading geologists, estimates the world's peak will come as soon as 2005 - next year. "There is only so much crude oil in the world," Campbell said in a telephone interview from his home in Ireland, "and the industry has found about 90 per cent of it." All this would be less serious if the world's appetite for oil were declining in tandem. But even as the discovery of new oil fields slows down, the world's consumption speeds up - a dilemma Cheney highlighted in his speech to the London Petroleum Institute in 1999. For every new barrel of oil we find, we are consuming four already-discovered barrels, according to Campbell. The arithmetic is not on our side. Particularly worrisome is the arithmetic as it applies to the U.S. With its oil production already long past peak, and yet its oil consumption rising, the U.S. will inevitably become more reliant on foreign oil. This is significant not just for Americans, but for the world, since the U.S. has long characterized its access to energy as a matter of "national security." With its unrivalled military power, the U.S. will insist on meeting its own voracious energy needs - and it will be up to the rest of the world to co-operate with this quest. Period. Canada plays a greater role in this "keep-the-U.S.-energy-beast-fed" scenario than many Canadians may realize. A three-volume report prepared by a bipartisan Congressional team and CSIS, the Washington think tank, highlights how important Canada is in the U.S. energy picture of the future. The report, The Geopolitics of Energy into the 21st Century, notes that Canada is "the single largest provider of energy to the United States," and that "Canada is poised to expand sharply its exports of oil to the United States in the coming years." Fine as long as Canada doesn't want to change its mind about this. Well, in fact, Canada can't change its mind about this - a point celebrated in the report. When Canada signed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1993, we gave up our right to cut back the amount of oil we export to the U.S. (unless we cut our own consumption the same amount). Interestingly, Mexico, also a party to NAFTA, refused to agree to this section, and was granted an exemption. The U.S. report points out that that, under NAFTA, Canada is not allowed to reduce its exports of oil (or other energy) to the U.S. in order to redirect them to Canadian consumers. Redirecting Canadian oil to Canadians isn't permitted - regardless of how great the Canadian need may be. Some outside observers, like Colin Campbell over in Ireland, find the situation striking. "You poor Canadians are going to be left freezing in the dark while they're running hair dryers in the U.S.," says Campbell. It's a situation that comforts the U.S. senators, congressmen and think-tank analysts who wrote the report. With obvious satisfaction, they conclude: "There can be no more secure supplier to the United States than Canada." Alas, for the U.S., not every part of the world is as pliant as Canada. Most of the world's oil is in the Middle East. And while different oil regions will reach their production peaks at different times, the Middle East will peak last, underlying Cheney's point that the region is where "the prize ultimately lies." Whoever controls the big oil reserves of the Middle East will then be positioned to, pretty much, control the world. But we're supposed to believe that, as the Bush administration assessed its options just before invading Iraq in the spring of 2003, the advantages of securing vast, untapped oil fields - in order to guarantee U.S. energy security in a world of dwindling reserves and to enable U.S. oil companies to reap untold riches - were far from mind. What really mattered to those in the White House, we're told, was liberating the people of Iraq. ===================== Adapted from It's The Crude, Dude: War Big Oil, And The Fight For The Planet, by Linda McQuaig, 2004. Published by Doubleday Canada. Reproduced by arrangement with the Publisher. All rights reserved. Toronto-based political commentator Linda McQuaig is a past winner of a National Newspaper Award and an Atkinson Fellowship for journalism in public policy. Her column appears Sundays on the Star's op-ed page. From shovland at mindspring.com Mon Sep 27 17:58:39 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 10:58:39 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] The Crude Oil Biz. Message-ID: <01C4A480.F24F50F0.shovland@mindspring.com> So if we wipe out all the Iraqi's we can pick the fruit unimpeded :-) What happens if they beat us? There are 30,000 dead Brits in a cemetary in Baghdad from their misadventure. Of course, we are covering the country in radioactive dust from "depleted" uranium bullets, which means that anybody who spends much time there will probably get sick. Ohh, dat weel of quarma, she turn soo kwik soom dais. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Mon Sep 27 18:33:22 2004 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 11:33:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Paleopsych] priorities In-Reply-To: <200409271800.i8RI0D016638@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20040927183322.73916.qmail@web13424.mail.yahoo.com> >>That's pretty alarming stuff, and some people may be tempted to dismiss Roberts's and Klare's analyses as anti-Bush, anti-oil rhetoric. But the questions they raise transcend approval or disapproval of any one administration, and go to the core of whether any country can -- purposefully and without vast disruptions -- make the transition from an economy dependent on one finite resource to an economy based on renewable, nonpolluting resources.<< --I'm beginning to wonder what it takes for people to prefer a small sacrifice by a lot of people to a large sacrifice by a designated minority. We won't pay higher taxes or reduce consumption of finite energy, because the sacrifice falls on those who enlist in the military, with a national debt running up from military spending that falls to later generations. What would it take for us to prefer a smaller sacrifice that everyone participates in (i.e. walking more, driving less, driving more fuel efficient cars, etc), as opposed to a designated "sacrificial minority"? Are problems and solutions just not real to us until they become a fad in the media? Is it a lack of compelling visuals rendering powerful verbal warnings and suggestions "media impotent"? Or are people consciously unwilling to change their lifestyle, aware of the sacrififes that fall on others? What do sociology, psychology and history say about the shifting of consequences and the tipping point where greater numbers take responsibility, prodded by escalating consequences for mass behavior? Michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From shovland at mindspring.com Mon Sep 27 19:22:42 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 12:22:42 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] priorities Message-ID: <01C4A48C.AFE8E8F0.shovland@mindspring.com> Like any large organism, our country has a lot of inertia. This protects us from chasing after crazy ideas, but also sets us up for disaster when it keeps us from making timely decisions. Over the years I have regretfully concluded that most people learn best from feeling the pain of their bad decisions, not from being told how to avoid mistakes. Up until the last few days I had been thinking that Paul Werbos was more pessimistic than circumstances justified. But now I am thinking that we are caught up in something that may as well be called "The Apocalypse." Of course, this does not mean THE END OF THE WORLD, but just The End Of The World As We Know It. I have thought for years that the Elite has concluded that the current population of the planet cannot be sustained and that it cannot be controlled by reducing the birth rate, which means that it will be controlled by the death rate. I do believe that they have adopted a policy of picking up all the marbles they can and pulling up the ladder, leaving the rest of us to do what we can. My word to the wise is: half the personal income in this country goes to the top 20%. Find something to sell to them. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Michael Christopher [SMTP:anonymous_animus at yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, September 27, 2004 11:33 AM To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org Subject: [Paleopsych] priorities >>That's pretty alarming stuff, and some people may be tempted to dismiss Roberts's and Klare's analyses as anti-Bush, anti-oil rhetoric. But the questions they raise transcend approval or disapproval of any one administration, and go to the core of whether any country can -- purposefully and without vast disruptions -- make the transition from an economy dependent on one finite resource to an economy based on renewable, nonpolluting resources.<< --I'm beginning to wonder what it takes for people to prefer a small sacrifice by a lot of people to a large sacrifice by a designated minority. We won't pay higher taxes or reduce consumption of finite energy, because the sacrifice falls on those who enlist in the military, with a national debt running up from military spending that falls to later generations. What would it take for us to prefer a smaller sacrifice that everyone participates in (i.e. walking more, driving less, driving more fuel efficient cars, etc), as opposed to a designated "sacrificial minority"? Are problems and solutions just not real to us until they become a fad in the media? Is it a lack of compelling visuals rendering powerful verbal warnings and suggestions "media impotent"? Or are people consciously unwilling to change their lifestyle, aware of the sacrififes that fall on others? What do sociology, psychology and history say about the shifting of consequences and the tipping point where greater numbers take responsibility, prodded by escalating consequences for mass behavior? Michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From checker at panix.com Tue Sep 28 14:47:03 2004 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 10:47:03 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Paleopsych] Economist: Technology Quarterly Message-ID: Economist: Technology Quarterly [Too many articles to send separately. Something of interest to everyone! I omitted some from the Quarterly and included articles not in the issue but were linked.] Twin studies, genetics and the environment: Claiming one's inheritance http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/PrinterFriendly.cfm? Story_ID=3084532&subjectID=348894 SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY Aug 12th 2004 | TWINSBURG, OHIO The relationship between genes and experience is becoming better understood THE scientific study of twins goes back to the late 19th century, when Francis Galton, an early geneticist, realised that they came in two varieties: identical twins born from one egg and non-identical twins that had come from two. That insight turned out to be key, although it was not until 1924 that it was used to formulate what is known as the twin rule of pathology, and twin studies really got going. The twin rule of pathology states that any heritable disease will be more concordant (that is, more likely to be jointly present or absent) in identical twins than in non-identical twins--and, in turn, will be more concordant in non-identical twins than in non-siblings. Early work, for example, showed that the statistical correlation of skin-mole counts between identical twins was 0.4, while non-identical twins had a correlation of only 0.2. (A score of 1.0 implies perfect correlation, while a score of zero implies no correlation.) This result suggests that moles are heritable, but it also implies that there is an environmental component to the development of moles, otherwise the correlation in identical twins would be close to 1.0. Twin research has shown that whether or not someone takes up smoking is determined mainly by environmental factors, but once he does so, how much he smokes is largely down to his genes. And while a person's religion is clearly a cultural attribute, there is a strong genetic component to religious fundamentalism. Twin studies are also unravelling the heritability of various aspects of human personality. Traits from neuroticism and anxiety to thrill- and novelty-seeking all have large genetic components. Parenting matters, but it does not determine personality in the way that some had thought. More importantly, perhaps, twin studies are helping the understanding of diseases such as cancer, asthma, osteoporosis, arthritis and immune disorders. And twins can be used, within ethical limits, for medical experiments. A study that administered vitamin C to one twin and a placebo to the other found that it had no effect on the common cold. The lesson from all today's twin studies is that most human traits are at least partially influenced by genes. However, for the most part, the age-old dichotomy between nature and nurture is not very useful. Many genetic programs are open to input from the environment, and genes are frequently switched on or off by environmental signals. It is also possible that genes themselves influence their environment. Some humans have an innate preference for participation in sports. Others are drawn to novelty. Might people also be drawn to certain kinds of friends and types of experience? In this way, a person's genes might shape the environment they act in as much as the environment shapes the actions of the genes. Twin research: Two of a kind http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/PrinterFriendly.cfm? Story_ID=3084541&subjectID=348894 SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY Aug 12th 2004 | TWINSBURG, OHIO Researchers have descended on a small town in Ohio for two frenzied days of work. Twin research has never been so popular IN THE first weekend of every August, the town of Twinsburg, Ohio, holds a parade. Decorated floats, cars and lorries roll slowly past neat, white houses and clipped lawns, while thousands of onlookers clap and wave flags in the sunshine. The scene is a perfect little slice of America. There is, though, something rather strange about the participants: they all seem to come in pairs. Identical twins of all colours, shapes, ages and sizes are assembling for the world's largest annual gathering of their kind. The Twinsburg meeting is of interest to more people than just the twins themselves. Every year, the festival attracts dozens of scientists who come to prod, swab, sample and question the participants. For identical twins are natural clones: the odd mutation aside, they share 100% of their genes. That means studying them can cast light on the relative importance of genetics and environment in shaping particular human characteristics. In the past, such research has been controversial. Josef Mengele, a Nazi doctor working at the Auschwitz extermination camp during the second world war, was fascinated by twins. He sought them out among arrivals at the camp and preserved them from the gas-chambers for a series of brutal experiments. After the war, Cyril Burt, a British psychologist who worked on the heredity of intelligence, tainted twin research with results that appear, in retrospect, to have been rather too good. Some of his data on identical twins who had been reared apart were probably faked. In any case, the prevailing ideology in the social sciences after the war was Marxist, and disliked suggestions that differences in human potential might have underlying genetic causes. Twin studies were thus viewed with suspicion. Womb mates The ideological pendulum has swung back, however, as the human genome project and its aftermath have turned genes from abstract concepts to real pieces of DNA. The role of genes in sensitive areas such as intelligence is acknowledged by all but a few die-hards. The interesting questions now concern how nature and nurture interact to produce particular bits of biology, rather than which of the two is more important (see [5]article). Twin studies, which are a good way to ask these questions, are back in fashion, and many twins are enthusiastic participants in this research. Laura and Linda Seber, for example, are identical twins from Sheffield Village, Ohio. They have been coming to Twinsburg for decades. Over the years, they have taken part in around 50 experiments. They have had their reactions measured, been deprived of sleep for a night and had electrodes attached to their brains. Like many other twins, they do it because they find the tests interesting and want to help science. Research at the Twinsburg festival began in a small way, with a single stand in 1979. Gradually, news spread, and more scientists began turning up. This year, half a dozen groups of researchers were lodged in a specially pitched research tent. In one corner of this tent, Paul Breslin, who works at the Monell Institute in Philadelphia, watched over several tables where twins sat sipping clear liquids from cups and making notes. It was the team's third year at Twinsburg. Dr Breslin and his colleagues want to find out how genes influence human perception, particularly the senses of smell and taste and those (warmth, cold, pain, tingle, itch and so on) that result from stimulation of the skin. Perception is an example of something that is probably influenced by both genes and experience. Even before birth, people are exposed to flavours such as chocolate, garlic, mint and vanilla that pass intact into the bloodstream, and thus to the fetus. Though it is not yet clear whether such pre-natal exposure shapes taste-perception, there is evidence that it shapes preferences for foods encountered later in life. However, there are clearly genetic influences at work, as well--for example in the ability to taste quinine. Some people experience this as intensely bitter, even when it is present at very low levels. Others, whose genetic endowment is different, are less bothered by it. Twin studies make this extremely clear. Within a pair of identical twins, either both, or neither, will find quinine hard to swallow. Non-identical twins will agree less frequently. On the other side of the tent Dennis Drayna, from the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, in Maryland, was studying hearing. He wants to know what happens to sounds after they reach the ear. It is not clear, he says, whether sound is processed into sensation mostly in the ear or in the brain. Dr Drayna has already been involved in a twin study which revealed that the perception of musical pitch is highly heritable. At Twinsburg, he is playing different words, or parts of words, into the left and right ears of his twinned volunteers. The composite of the two sounds that an individual reports hearing depends on how he processes this diverse information and that, Dr Drayna believes, may well be influenced by genetics. Elsewhere in the marquee, Peter Miraldi, of Kent State University in Ohio, was trying to find out whether genes affect an individual's motivation to communicate with others. A number of twin studies have shown that personality and sociability are heritable, so he thinks this is fertile ground. And next to Mr Miraldi was a team of dermatologists from Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland. They are looking at the development of skin diseases and male-pattern baldness. The goal of the latter piece of research is to find the genes responsible for making men's hair fall out. The busiest part of the tent, however, was the queue for forensic-science research into fingerprints. The origins of this study are shrouded in mystery. For many months, the festival's organisers have been convinced that the Secret Service--the American government agency responsible for, among other things, the safety of the president--is behind it. When The Economist contacted the Secret Service for more information, we were referred to Steve Nash, who is chairman of the International Association for Identification (IAI), and is also a detective in the scientific investigations section of the Marin County Sheriff's Office in California. The IAI, based in Minnesota, is an organisation of forensic scientists from around the world. Among other things, it publishes the Journal of Forensic Identification. Mr Nash insists that the work on twins is being sponsored by the IAI, and has nothing to do with the Secret Service. He says the organisation collects sets of similar finger and palm prints so that improvements can be made in the ability to distinguish ordinary sets of prints. Although identical twins tend to share whorls, loops and arches in their fingerprints because of their common heredity, the precise patterns of their prints are not the same. Just who will benefit from this research is unclear. Although the IAI is an international organisation, not everyone in it will have access to the twin data. Deciding who does will have "a lot of parameters", according to Mr Nash. He says that the work is being assisted by the American government at the county, state and federal level, and that government agencies will have access to the data for their research. He takes pains to stress that this will be for research purposes, and says none of the data will be included in any criminal databases. But this cloak-and-dagger approach suggests that, while twin studies have come a long way, they have not shaken off their controversial past quite yet. If they are truly to do so, a little more openness from the Feds would be nice. Genetics and embryology: nobody's perfect http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/PrinterFriendly.cfm? Story_ID=2705295&subjectID=348894 BOOKS May 27th 2004 GENETICS is a science of dysfunction. A smoothly running organism provides few insights into the way it is built and run by DNA. But if part of that DNA goes wrong, inferences can be made about what the faulty bit is supposed to do when it is working properly. Nowadays this can be done systematically, as the technology exists to knock genes out, one at a time, from experimental animals. But historically--and still today for people, as opposed to laboratory rats--genetics has mainly been a study of those natural genetic accidents called mutations. It is this history, as much as the present, that Armand Marie Leroi, an evolutionary biologist at Imperial College, London, addresses in his book, published recently in Britain. Freaks of nature have always attracted the attention of the curious and the prurient. Many of them are caused by genetic abnormalities, and it is with famous human freaks of the past--both their deformities and their intensely human lives--that Mr Leroi fills much of his book. There are stories of tragedy. People whose sexual identities have been scrambled seem to have had a particularly difficult time throughout the ages. There are also triumphs, such as that of Joseph Boruwlaski, a man who turned his short stature into a brand, and ended his days rich and ennobled. But Mr Leroi never loses sight of the underlying biology. Boruwlaski's lack of height, for example, looks to Mr Leroi as if it was caused by a failure of one of the genes involved in making, or responding to, growth hormone. Achondroplasia, a more common stature-reducing mutation, is caused by a change in the receptor protein for a series of molecules called fibroblast growth factors. Indeed, in 99% of cases a change in a single link in the amino-acid chain that makes up the receptor is what causes the problem. On such chances do lives turn. And sciences too. "Mutants" contains, artfully arranged, an excellent layman's guide to human embryology--much of it knowledge that has been built up by analysis of those chance mistakes. For those who truly wish to know their origins without consulting a dry academic tome, this is a book to read. Nor are punches pulled about the sometimes dubious history of the subject. The science of dysfunction was often a dysfunctional science. Anatomists of earlier centuries engaged in ruthless scrambles to acquire, dissect and boil for their bones the bodies of those dead mutants who had come to the public notice. And eugenics, with all its ghastliness and evil, was the child of genetics when it thought it knew far more than it really did (a state of affairs which, to listen to some geneticists today, has not completely gone away). Mr Leroi does not fall into that error. Instead, he uses genetics's ignorance to raise the question of who, exactly, is a mutant. Red-headed people, for example, might balk at the description. Yet genetics suggests it would be a justified one, since red-headedness is due to a dysfunctional gene for one of the two forms of melanin that form the palette from which skin and hair colours are painted. If red-headedness conferred some selective advantage to the Celts (in whom it is common), then it would count in biological parlance as a polymorphism. But if it does, that advantage has never been discerned. However, as Mr Leroi points out, the statistics of mutation rates and gene numbers suggest that everyone is a mutant many times over. The average adult, according to his calculations, carries 295 deleterious mutations. Moralists have long pointed out that nobody is perfect. Genetics seems to confirm that. Mutants: On Genetic Variety and the Human Body. By Armand Marie Leroi. Viking Press; 448 pages; $25.95. Harper Collins; ?20 Mental health: Psycho politics http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/PrinterFriendly.cfm? Story_ID=3182371&subjectID=348945 BRITAIN Sep 9th 2004 The government responds to worries about mad people who kill MENTAL health is the Cinderella of the National Health Service. It generally registers on politicians' radar screen only when the public gets worked up about the dangers posed by mad people. New government proposals to reform mental health law are a response to such concerns. The draft bill will make it easier to detain people with a mental disorder who pose a threat to others. Popular worries about this danger are stoked whenever someone with a history of mental illness commits a murder. Such tragedies are often blamed upon the switch to treating people in the community, which has gathered momentum in the past two decades. When mentally ill people are discharged from hospital, they can fail to follow the treatments they need. The bill deals with this by allowing mandatory treatment within the community. It also closes a loophole in the current legislation under which individuals with a personality disorder cannot be detained unless there is a good chance that treatment will improve the condition. The new legislation allows them to be detained if psychiatrists think treatment is clinically appropriate even if it may not work. The proposals are a step back from the broader powers of detention envisaged in an earlier version of the bill. However, Paul Farmer, chair of the Mental Health Alliance, is "deeply disappointed at the failure to address the fundamental flaws in the first draft". The bill's opponents believe that it will infringe the rights of mentally ill people. "It is discriminatory to say that people who retain their full decision-making capacity can be forced to have medical treatment," argues Tony Zigmond, vice-president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists. But according to Rosie Winterton, the health minister, the bill is designed to take account of the Human Rights Act. Patients will be able to choose for themselves who represents them; at present, this role is automatically assigned to their closest relation. All compulsory treatment beyond the first 28 days will have to be authorised by a new, independent tribunal. Aside from their ethical objections, the bill's opponents say that the case for more compulsory treatment is weak. The mentally ill are responsible for a relatively small number of murders and other killings (see chart). An historical analysis of homicides found that the proportion committed by the mentally ill fell between the late 1950s and the mid 1990s. Other research suggests that popular concern is misplaced. A recent study in the British Medical Journal found that killings by strangers are more often linked to alcohol and drug misuse than to severe mental illness. Clearly there is some trade-off between the number of mentally ill people who are detained and the homicide rate. But Mr Zigmond says that up to 5,000 people with a mental disorder would have to be detained to prevent one homicide. Such arguments have not swayed the government. Ministers know that they are much more likely to be blamed for a murder committed by someone with a history of mental disorder than for a stabbing after a night of binge-drinking. If nothing else, the reforms will allow them to enter a plea of diminished political responsibility. Health spending: the older they get, the more they cost http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/PrinterFriendly.cfm? Story_ID=3222332&subjectID=348945 UNITED STATES Sep 23rd 2004 How much spending on health care goes to old people? IN THIS election no group is treated with more respect than "seniors" are. One in six adult Americans is above 65 years old, but they may well account for one in four voters; hence the attempts to spend ever more on their health. But do the elderly really get such a rough deal? The main chunk of public money spent on old people's health is Medicare, which cost $281 billion--2.6% of GDP--in 2003. Not all this money goes to old people: around 15% of Medicare's 41m beneficiaries in 2003 were under 65, because the programme also covers some of the working-age disabled. But the oldsters more than make up for this elsewhere. Take, for instance, Medicaid, the joint federal-state programme that pays for health care for poor people and cost about $270 billion last year, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Some three-quarters of the 51m individuals enrolled in Medicaid in 2003 are poor children, their parents and pregnant women. Yet they receive little more than a quarter of the benefit payments. The lion's share of the money goes to the old and the disabled. The old, who comprise only 10% of the beneficiaries, account for 28% of Medicaid spending. Put these numbers together, and the elderly, who make up about 12% of America's total population, consume nearly 60% of spending on the country's two biggest health-care programmes: an amount equal to around 3% of GDP. And that does not include other ways in which old people get their health care paid for by the government--such as the close-to-$30-billion that goes to veterans' health care. In one way there is nothing unusual in this. The costs of medical care are concentrated in the final years of life--something that is reflected in health-care spending in every country. But two things may begin to irk younger Americans. First, America's generosity to the old stands in marked contrast to the lack of coverage offered to other age groups--notably the 45m people who have no health insurance. Second, the elderly's share of the pie is bound to increase. In 2006 Medicare will start to pick up a big chunk of the cost of prescription drugs for the elderly, pushing up the cost of that programme alone to 3.4% of GDP. At the end of this decade, the huge generation of baby-boomers will start to swell the ranks of the old. By 2024, outlays on Medicare will exceed those on the Social Security pension system. By 2030, when there will be almost 80m beneficiaries, spending on Medicare alone will reach 7% of GDP--the same proportion as Britain spends on its National Health Service, which covers everyone. Down on the pharm http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/PrinterFriendly.cfm? Story_ID=3171546&subjectID=526354 TECHNOLOGY QUARTERLY REPORTS Sep 16th 2004 Biotechnology: Will genetically engineered goats, rabbits and flies be the low-cost drug factories of the future? EARLIER this year, the regulators at the European Medicines Agency (EMEA) agreed to consider an unusual new drug, called ATryn, for approval. It was developed to treat patients with hereditary antithrombin deficiency, a condition that leaves them vulnerable to deep-vein thrombosis. What makes ATryn so unusual is that it is a therapeutic protein derived from the milk of a transgenic goat: in other words, an animal that, genetically speaking, is not all goat. The human gene for the protein in question is inserted into a goat's egg, and to ensure that it is activated only in udder cells, an extra piece of DNA, known as a beta-caseine promoter, is added alongside it. Since beta caseine is made only in udders, so is the protein. Once extracted from the goat's milk, the protein is indistinguishable from the antithrombin produced in healthy humans. The goats have been carefully bred to maximise milk production, so that they produce as much of the drug as possible. They are, in other words, living drug factories. ATryn is merely the first of many potential animal-derived drugs being developed by GTC Biotherapeutics of Framingham, Massachusetts. The company's boss, Geoffrey Cox, says his firm has created 65 potentially therapeutic proteins in the milk of its transgenic goats and cows, 45 of which occurred in concentrations of one gram per litre or higher. Female goats are ideal transgenic "biofactories", GTC claims, because they are cheap, easy to look after and can produce as much as a kilogram of human protein per year. All told, Dr Cox reckons the barn, feed, milking station and other investments required to make proteins using transgenic goats cost less than $10m--around 5% of the cost of a conventional protein-making facility. GTC estimates that it may be able to produce drugs for as little as $1-2 per gram, compared with around $150 using conventional methods. Goats' short gestation period--roughly five months--and the fact that they reach maturity within a year means that a new production line can be developed within 18 months. And increasing production is as simple as breeding more animals. So if ATryn is granted approval, GTC should be able to undercut producers of a similar treatment, produced using conventional methods, sales of which amount to $250m a year. GTC is not the only game in town, however. Nexia, based in Montreal, is breeding transgenic goats to produce proteins that protect against chemical weapons. TransOva, a biotech company based in Iowa, is experimenting with transgenic cows to produce proteins capable of neutralising anthrax, plague and smallpox. Pharming, based in the Netherlands, is using transgenic cows and rabbits to produce therapeutic proteins, as is Minos BioSystems, a Greek-Dutch start-up which is also exploring the drugmaking potential of fly larvae. It all sounds promising, but the fact remains that medicines derived from transgenic animals are commercially untested, and could yet run into regulatory, safety or political problems. At the same time, with biotechnology firms becoming increasingly risk-averse in response to pressure from investors and threats of price controls from politicians, transgenic animal-derived medicines might be exactly what the pharmaceuticals industry is lacking: a scalable, cost-effective way to make drugs that can bring products to market within a decade or so, which is relatively quick by industry standards. Just say no to Frankendrugs? So a great deal depends on the EMEA's decision, particularly given previous European scepticism towards genetically modified crops. But as far as anyone can tell, the signs look promising. In a conference call in August, Dr Cox told analysts that the EMEA had so far raised no concerns about the transgenic nature of his firm's product. But as the fuss over genetically modified crops showed, public opinion is also important. While some people may regard the use of animals as drug factories as unethical, however, the use of genetic engineering to treat the sick might be regarded as more acceptable than its use to increase yields and profits in agriculture. Conversely, tinkering with animal genes may be deemed to be less acceptable than tinkering with plant genes. A poll conducted in America in 2003 by the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology found that 81% of those interviewed supported the use of transgenic crops to manufacture affordable drugs, but only 49% supported the use of transgenic animals to make medicines. Even some biotech industry executives are unconvinced that medicines made primarily from animal-derived proteins will ever be safe enough to trust. Donald Drakeman of Medarex, a firm based in Princeton, New Jersey, is among the sceptics. His firm creates human antibodies in transgenic mice, clones the antibodies and then uses conventional processes to churn out copies of the antibodies by the thousand. "With goat and cow milk, especially, I worry about the risk of animal viruses and prions being transferred in some minute way," he says. (Bovine spongiform encephalitis, or "mad cow disease", is thought to be transmitted by a rogue form of protein called a prion.) Another concern, raised by lobby groups such as Greenpeace and the Union of Concerned Scientists, is that transgenic animals might escape into the wild and contaminate the gene pool, triggering all kinds of unintended consequences. There is also concern that an animal from the wild could find its way into GTC's pens, make contact with one of the transgenic animals, and then escape to "expose" other animals in the wild. Or what if the transgenic animals somehow got into the human food chain? Short of sabotage, none of these scenarios seems very likely, however. Since transgenic goats, for example, are living factories whose worth depends on their producing as much milk as possible, every measure is taken to keep them happy, healthy, well fed and sequestered from non-transgenic animals. As animals go, goats and cows are relatively unadventurous creatures of habit, are more easily hemmed in than horses, and are usually in no mood to run away when pregnant--which they are for much of the time at places like GTC and TransOva. The uncertainty over regulatory and public reactions is one of the reasons why, over the past four years, at least two dozen firms working to create drugs from transgenic animals have gone bust. Most were in Europe. GTC, which leads the field, has nothing to worry about, however, since it is sitting on around $34m in cash. Also sitting pretty is Nexia, particularly since it began to focus on the use of transgenic animals to make medicines that can protect against nerve agents. Nexia became known as the spider-silk company, after it created transgenic goats capable of producing spider silk (which is, in fact, a form of protein) in their milk. It is now working to apply the material, which it calls BioSteel, in medical applications. Using the same approach, the company has now developed goats whose milk contains proteins called bioscavengers, which seek out and bind to nerve agents such as sarin and VX. Nexia has been contracted by the US Army Medical Research Institute of Chemical Defence and DRDC Suffield, a Canadian biodefence institute, to develop both prophylactic and therapeutic treatments. Nexia believes it can produce up to 5m doses within two years. Today, the most common defence against nerve agents is a post-exposure "chem-pack" of atropine, which works if the subject has genuinely been exposed to a nerve agent, but produces side-effects if they have not. "You do not want to take this drug if you haven't been exposed," says Nexia's chief executive, Jeff Turner. The problem is that it is not always possible to tell if someone has been exposed or not. But Nexia's treatment, says Dr Turner, "won't hurt you, no matter what." The buzz around flies But perhaps the most curious approach to making transgenic-animal-derived medicines is that being taken by Minos BioSystems. It is the creation of Roger Craig, the former head of biotechnology at ICI, a British chemical firm, and his colleagues Frank Grosveld of Erasmus University in the Netherlands and Babis Savakis of the Institute of Molecular Biology and Biotechnology in Crete. While others concentrate on goats, Minos is using flies. "Mice won't hit scale, cows take too damn long to prepare for research, GM plants produce GM pollen that drifts in the wind, chickens have long-term stability of germ-line expression issues, and they carry viruses and new strains of 'flu--I quite like flies, myself," says Dr Craig. A small handful of common house flies, he says, can produce billions of offspring. A single fly can lay 500 eggs that hatch into larvae, a biomass factory capable of expressing growth hormone, say, or antibodies, which can then be extracted from the larval serum. The set-up cost of producing antibodies using flies would, Dr Craig estimates, be $20m-40m, compared with $200m to $1 billion using conventional methods. "In addition to getting some investors, the key here is gaining regulatory and pharma acceptance of the idea that flies have to be good for something," he says. This will take time, he admits, and could be a hard sell. But if the idea of using transgenic goats to make drugs takes hold, flies might not be such a leap. For the time being, then, everything hinges on GTC's goats. The EMEA's verdict is expected before the end of the year. Yet even if Dr Cox wins final approval to launch ATryn next year, he too faces a difficult task convincing the sceptics that transgenic animals are a safe, effective and economical way to make drugs. As Monsanto and other proponents of genetically modified crops have learned in recent years, it takes more than just scientific data to convince biotech's critics that their fear and loathing are misplaced. Digital bioprospecting: Finding drugs in the library http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/PrinterFriendly.cfm? Story_ID=3219828&subjectID=531766 SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY Sep 23rd 2004 Researchers are searching for new medicines lurking in old herbal texts IT IS a miracle that the "Ambonese Herbal", a 17th-century medical text compiled by Georg Everhard Rumpf, a German botanist, ever made it to the printing press. Rumphius, as the author styled himself in Latin, was an employee of the Dutch East India Company. He was stationed on Ambon, in the Malay archipelago (now part of Indonesia). He began collecting and drawing plants in 1657, and continued even after going blind in 1670. Four years later he survived an earthquake that killed his wife and daughter, but he then lost all his work in a fire in 1687. Undaunted, Rumphius dictated a new version of his book, the first volume of which was shipped to Europe in 1692, only to be sunk by the French. Fortunately there was a copy, and Rumphius went on to compile six more volumes, completing the last just before his death in 1702. His employers sat on the book for decades, however, fearing that rival nations would benefit from the medical knowledge it contained. Finally, a botanist in Amsterdam published the work between 1741 and 1755. The "Ambonese Herbal" explains the medical uses of nearly 1,300 species native to the Malay archipelago, based on Rumphius's quizzing of the local population. Medicines shipped from Europe were either useless or unavailable in sufficient quantities, Rumphius complained in the preface, so using local remedies made much more sense. His epic work is just one of many historical texts that contain such "ethnomedical" information. The medicinal value of plants is still recognised. Roughly half of the anti-cancer drugs developed since the 1960s, and about 100 other drugs on the market, are derived from plants. In the past, figuring out which plants to screen for therapeutic potential involved ethnomedical study in which traditional healers--from village shamans to tale-telling old wives--were asked to identify valuable species. More recently, this approach has given way to high-throughput screening, in which thousands of random specimens are methodically tested by robot technicians. But both methods have their drawbacks: the knowledge of traditional healers is being lost as they die out, and high-throughput screening has not proved to be very efficient. That is why a team led by Eric Buenz, a researcher at the Mayo Clinic College of Medicine in Rochester, Minnesota, has proposed a new, hybrid approach. Hundreds of unstudied herbal texts, dating from Ancient Greece to the modern age, are sitting in libraries around the world. By sifting through these texts and comparing the results with modern medical databases, it should be possible to identify promising candidate species for further examination and screening. The researchers explain this strategy in a paper published this month in Trends in Pharmacological Sciences. To test their idea, Mr Buenz and his colleagues analysed the first volume of the "Ambonese Herbal". The text, originally in Dutch and Latin, is in the process of being translated into English. Two reviewers went through the English translation of the first volume and extracted all the medical references. They then drew up a table listing each species, the symptoms for which it was prescribed, and hence its probable pharmacological function. The sap of Semecarpus cassuvium, the wild cadju tree, for example, is listed as a treatment for shingles. This suggests that it has antiviral properties. The list of species was then checked against a database called the International Plant Names Index, to identify misspellings and synonyms. After that, each species was looked up in NAPRALERT, a database listing all known biochemical and ethnomedical references to plants, to see if it had been mentioned in the medical literature. It was thus possible both to determine how accurate the information in the "Ambonese Herbal" is, and to identify candidates for further investigation. Of the 42 plants described in Rumphius's first volume as having medical properties, 24 had biochemical matches in NAPRALERT, which suggests that they are indeed effective. Nine of the others had ethnomedical matches, which means their potential use as medicines is already known about, but has not been followed up by modern science. But nine plants did not appear in NAPRALERT at all, and are therefore potential sources of novel drugs. The next step, says Mr Buenz, is to scale up and automate the process. "Our work with the Rumphius herbal was a proof of concept," he says. "The push now is to make the project high throughput with bioinformatics." Book scanners, he observes, have become cheaper and more efficient in recent years. The latest models can scan 1,000 pages an hour, yet are gentle enough to handle old and delicate tomes. And by using natural-language processing software to look for particular expressions, and cross-referencing potential matches with medical and botanical databases, the text can be analysed quickly. Manually combing through the text of the first volume of the "Ambonese Herbal" took four weeks, says Mr Buenz, but his experimental automated system did the same work in a few hours. The big challenges are dealing with foreign languages, old typefaces and variations in terminology--but translation systems and databases are improving all the time. Text mining will never replace other methods of drug discovery, but tapping the accumulated medical expertise locked up in old documents could, it seems, provide some helpful shortcuts. Supercharching the brain http://www.economist.com/science/tq/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=3171454 Sep 16th 2004 Biotechnology: New drugs promise to improve memory and sharpen mental response. Who should be allowed to take them? DO YOU have an important meeting tomorrow, or perhaps an examination, for which you would like your mental powers to be at their peak? Within a few years, you may have the option of taking a "cognitive enhancer"--a drug that sharpens your mental faculties. During the 1990s--declared "decade of the brain" by America's Congress and the National Institutes of Health--much progress was made in understanding the processes of memory and cognition. Advances in genetics, molecular biology and brain-imaging technologies allowed researchers to scrutinise the brain's workings and gave them the potential to create drugs to enhance aspects of its performance. Though there are very few products on the market that reflect this increased understanding, that may soon change. At least 40 potential cognitive enhancers are currently in clinical development, says Harry Tracy, publisher of NeuroInvestment, an industry newsletter based in Rye, New Hampshire. Some could reach the market within a few years. For millions, these breakthroughs could turn out to be lifesavers or, at the very least, postpone the development of a devastating disease. In America alone, there are currently about 4.5m people suffering from Alzheimer's disease, and their ranks are expected to grow to 6m by 2020. Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI), defined as memory loss without any significant functional impairment, is estimated to afflict at least another 4.5m people. Because the majority of MCI patients will eventually develop Alzheimer's, many doctors believe that intervening in the early stages of the disease could significantly delay its onset. But there is a fine line between curing the ill and enhancing the well. The gradual deterioration of mental faculties is part of the natural process of ageing. There are now about 85m people aged 50 and over in America, many of whom may already fit the definition of "age-related cognitive decline", a category so vague it includes people who become distressed over such mild glitches as forgetting their keys or glasses. Should they be offered "cognitive enhancers" too? And the interest in such drugs will not stop there, predicts James McGaugh, who directs the Centre for the Neurobiology of Learning and Memory at the University of California at Irvine. Next in line could be executives who want to keep the names of customers at the tips of their tongues, or students cramming for exams. "There's an awful lot of sales potential," says Dr McGaugh. That is putting it mildly. But are such drugs really feasible--and if they are, who should be allowed to take them? Thanks for the memories A handful of small companies are at the forefront of the fledgling field of cognitive enhancement. Among them is six-year-old Memory Pharmaceuticals, based in Montvale, New Jersey, which has two compounds in early-stage clinical trials and recently went public. The company's visionary and Nobel prize-winning co-founder, Eric Kandel, has been unravelling the processes of learning and memory for more than four decades with the help of Aplysia, a type of colossal sea slug that grows up to a foot in length. While it has only about 20,000 neurons (humans have 100 billion), individual neurons are large enough to be distinguished by eye--making them easy to study. When a shock is applied to Aplysia's tail or head, messages travel around a circuit of neurons, causing it to retract its gill for protection. The same fundamental process occurs in humans too: neurons "talk" to each other across a gap, the synapse, via chemicals called neurotransmitters, which bind to receptors at the receiving end. One shock in Aplysia creates a memory that lasts for minutes; several shocks spaced out over time will be remembered for days or longer. Dr Kandel showed that the process of acquiring long-term memories does not change the basic circuitry of nerve cells. Rather, it creates new synaptic connections between them, and solidifies existing ones. In 1990, Dr Kandel's laboratory at Columbia University found the first clue to one of the key elements underlying that process--"cyclic AMP response element binding protein", or CREB. It turns out that CREB functions like a molecular switch that can turn genes off or on, thus manipulating the production of proteins that bring on lasting structural changes between neurons. Lowering the threshold for turning on that switch causes memories to be consolidated more easily. After creating compounds that successfully manipulated the CREB pathway in rodents, the company signed a partnership with Swiss pharmaceutical giant Hoffmann-La Roche worth up to $106m. Helicon Therapeutics of Farmingdale, New York, is pursuing the same target, with competing patents, albeit more slowly. In the mid-1990s the firm's co-founder, Tim Tully, a neuroscientist at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory of Long Island, New York, performed his own groundbreaking CREB studies in fruit flies. In one particular experiment, Dr Tully and his colleagues compared normal flies with those that had been genetically engineered so that the CREB switch was permanently turned on. While crawling in a small tunnel in the presence of an odour, the insects received an electric shock. Just one such jarring experience was enough to teach the enhanced flies to run away from the same odour in future: they had, in effect, perfect recall, or what is sometimes called "photographic memory" in humans. The normal flies, however, required a total of ten training sessions to learn the same lesson. By the end of this year, Helicon hopes to move one particularly promising compound into clinical trials. You must remember this Not everyone believes CREB-enhancers will boost human mental performance, however. Among the sceptics is Joe Tsien, director of the Centre for Systems Neurobiology at Boston University, who created a buzz a few years ago when he engineered "Doogie," a strain of intelligent mice. Dr Tsien points to a study published in the Journal of Neuroscience last year, which found that mice with CREB "deleted" from a part of the brain called the hippocampus showed little impairment of long-term memory formation. Moreover, he notes, CREB is not a brain-specific molecule, but is present throughout the body. "That doesn't bode well for the notion that it's a memory switch," argues Dr Tsien. Even if the drugs work, he adds, nasty side-effects could appear--one of the main reasons promising compounds never make it to the market. Saegis Pharmaceuticals, based in Half Moon Bay, California, is taking a different approach--three of them, in fact. The company has licensed in three compounds, each one acting on a different pathway in the brain. Moreover, all of them have already demonstrated efficacy in animals, and two of them safety in humans. The company's lead candidate, SGS742, which has just entered a mid-stage clinical trial for Alzheimer's disease, appears to alter brain chemistry in several distinct ways. Most importantly, the drug binds to GABA B receptors, which act as pre-synaptic gatekeepers for various neurotransmitters. By docking on to these receptors, SGS742 blocks their inhibitory actions. This enables many more neurotransmitter messengers to travel from one nerve cell to another. Besides pursuing compounds that originated elsewhere, Saegis is busy developing its own drug pipeline. The firm enlisted Michela Gallagher, a research psychologist at Johns Hopkins University, to help identify new drug targets in animal models. Dr Gallagher, who has studied the ageing brains of rats for more than a decade, has developed an elaborate system with which she grades the rats based on their ability to master a variety of cognitive challenges, such as memorising a specific location in a maze. Interestingly, she has found that both humans and rats develop age-related memory loss gradually and in similar proportion. By comparing the gene-expression profiles of rats of different ages and abilities, she has been able to pinpoint over 300 genes that play a part in the process. Because people share those genes, Dr Gallagher reckons her research will hasten the development of memory drugs. Currently only a handful of drugs to treat Alzheimer's are approved in America, and none for MCI. Most of them prevent the breakdown of acetylcholine, a neurotransmitter. Unfortunately, these medications are not that effective. While patients show small gains on tests, many doctors doubt that the scores translate into meaningful lifestyle improvements, such as the ability to continue living at home. Moreover, the drugs often have unpleasant side-effects, such as nausea and vomiting, which may be why they have failed to interest healthy people. But that could change with the next generation of drugs. Because of their huge market potential, any drug approved for MCI will have to show an immaculate safety profile, predicts Dr Tracy. For an indication of what might happen if a safe and effective cognitive enhancer were to reach the market, consider the example of modafinil. Manufactured by Cephalon, a biotech company based in West Chester, Pennsylvania, and sold under the names "Provigil" and "Alertec", the drug is a stimulant that vastly improves alertness in patients with narcolepsy, shift-work sleep disorder and sleep apnea. Since it first reached the market in America in 1999, sales have shot through the roof, reaching $290m in 2003 and expected to grow by at least 30% this year. Much of the sales growth of modafinil has been driven by its off-label use, which accounts for as much as 90% of consumption. With its amazing safety profile--the side-effects generally do not go beyond mild headache or nausea--the drug is increasingly used to alleviate sleepiness resulting from all sorts of causes, including depression, jet lag or simply working long hours with too little sleep. Cephalon itself is now focusing on moving the drug through late-stage clinical trials for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in children. Ritalin, an amphetamine now widely used to treat this disorder, is in the same category as morphine for its addictive potential. Most experts believe that modafinil, by contrast, is far less likely to be abused. Nothing new under the sun While there are those who scoff at the idea of using a brain-boosting drug, Arthur Caplan, a bioethicist at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, does not think it would be particularly new, or inherently wrong, to do so. "It's human nature to find things to improve ourselves," he says. Indeed, for thousands of years, people have chewed, brewed or smoked substances in the hopes of boosting their mental abilities as well as their stamina. Since coffee first became popular in the Arab world during the 16th century, the drink has become a widely and cheaply available cognitive enhancer. The average American coffee drinker sips more than three cups a day (and may also consume caffeine-laced soft drinks). Prescription drugs, though never intended for widespread use, have followed suit. Ritalin, for example, is used by some college students to increase their ability to study for long hours. Not surprisingly, some worry about the use of such drugs to gain an unfair advantage. Modafinil has already surfaced in doping scandals. Kelli White, an American sprinter who took first place in the 100-metre and 200-metre competitions at last year's World Championships in Paris, later tested positive for the drug. Initially she insisted that it had been prescribed to treat narcolepsy, but subsequently admitted to using other banned substances as well. As a result, she was forced to return the medals she won last year and, along with a handful of other American athletes, was barred from competitions for two years. Nonetheless, such performance-enhancing properties are exactly why the armed forces have taken an interest in brain-boosting drugs. For soldiers on the battlefield, who may sleep only four hours a night for weeks, a boost in alertness could mean the difference between life and death. Pilots on long missions are also at risk: fatigue means they have slower reaction times and impaired attention spans, says John Caldwell, a research psychologist at the US Air Force Fatigue Countermeasures Branch, who has been studying the effects of sleep deprivation in pilots for a decade. Worst of all, pilots are prone to "microsleeps"--short, involuntary naps that can last up to 30 seconds. Since the second world war, pilots of American fighter jets have been known to use amphetamines, known as "go pills", to stop them dozing off at the controls. But there are drawbacks to amphetamines. Besides their addictive potential, they are strong stimulants, which can prevent soldiers from sleeping when a legitimate opportunity arises. But with modafinil, which has a much more subtle effect on the nervous system, napping is an option, says Dr Caldwell. Last December, America's air force authorised the use of modafinil as an alternative to dextroamphetamine for two-seater bomber missions lasting more than 12 hours. While the drug has not yet been approved for use by solo fighter pilots, approval is expected soon. Better than coffee? Last year, Nancy Jo Wesensten, a research psychologist at the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research in Silver Spring, Maryland, compared the effects of three popular alertness drugs--modafinil, dextroamphetamine and caffeine--head to head, using equally potent doses. Forty-eight subjects received one of the drugs, or a placebo, after being awake for 65 hours. The researchers then administered a battery of tests. All of the drugs did a good job restoring wakefulness for six to eight hours. After that, says Dr Wesensten, the performance of the subjects on caffeine declined because of its short half-life (a fact that could be easily remedied by consuming another dose, she points out). The other two groups reached their operational limit after 20 hours--staying awake for a total of 85 hours. When the researchers looked at the drugs' effects on higher cognitive functions, such as planning and decision-making, they found each drug showed strengths and weaknesses in different areas. Caffeine was particularly effective in boosting a person's ability to estimate unknown quantities. When asked 20 questions that required a specific numeric answer--such as "how high off a trampoline can a person jump?"--92% of volunteers on caffeine and 75% on modafinil showed good estimation skills. But only 42% on dextroamphetamine did so--the same proportion as the sleep-deprived subjects who had received a placebo. The Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the research arm of America's defence department, is funding an initiative to find new and better ways to sustain performance during sleep deprivation. Among its collaborators are Yaakov Stern, a neuroscientist, and Sarah Lisanby, a psychiatrist, both of Columbia University. Using functional magnetic-resonance imaging, Dr Stern has been observing the brains of healthy volunteers before and after forgoing sleep. In the process, he has discovered a neural circuit that is linked to prolonged periods of wakefulness while performing memory tasks. Interestingly, its areas of activation vary from person to person, depending on the ability to tolerate sleep deprivation. Dr Lisanby is an expert in transcranial magnetic stimulation, the use of strong magnetic fields to facilitate or impede the communication of nerve cells using a coil held close to the head. She now plans to test stimulating the very regions in the brain that appear to correspond to better cognitive performance during long hours of wakefulness. DARPA is also supporting the research of Samuel Deadwyler, a neuroscientist at Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, who is studying the effects of ampakines, so called because they bind to AMPA receptors. There, they amplify the actions of glutamate, a neurotransmitter involved in two-thirds of all brain communications. Roger Stoll, the boss of Cortex Pharmaceuticals, which has been developing the compounds, has called them "a hearing aid for the brain". According to Dr Deadwyler's tests in primates, Cortex's new drug candidate, CX717, which just entered human clinical trials, appears to eliminate the cognitive deficits that go hand in hand with sleep loss. Monkeys deprived of sleep for 30 hours and then given an injection of the compound even do slightly better in short-term memory tests than well-rested monkeys without the drug. And unlike amphetamines, which put the whole body in a state of alert, CX717 only increases activity in key brain areas--without any addictive potential. What pills cannot do Drugs that can boost wakefulness or provide a short-term improvement in mental agility exist today, and seem likely to proliferate in future. But since coffee does both already--caffeine is humanity's most widely consumed drug--there is little reason to object to this state of affairs, provided no laws are broken and the risks of side-effects or addiction are minimal. Besides, cognitive enhancers merely improve the working of the brain: they cannot help people remember something they never learned in the first place. No single pill will make you a genius, says Fred Gage, a neuroscientist at the Salk Institute in California, as there is no pharmaceutical substitute for a rich learning environment. In experiments with genetically identical mice, he found that the ones brought up with lots of toys and space had 15% more neurons in an area of the brain important for memory formation. And the brain had not just created more cells: fewer of them were dying off. "Any pill coming down the road", says Dr Gage, "is going to be taken in the context of how you behave." And too much enhancement might even be counter-productive--at least for healthy people. As Dr Kandel and his colleague Larry Squire, of the University of California, San Diego, point out in their book "Memory: From Mind to Molecules", there is a reason why the brain forgets things: to prevent cluttering up our minds. People with the natural ability to remember all sorts of minute details often get bogged down in them, and are unable to grasp the larger concepts. So it remains to be seen whether a pill can be any more effective than a good night's sleep and a strong cup of coffee. Deus ex machinima? http://www.economist.com/science/tq/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=3171417 Sep 16th 2004 Computer graphics: Hollywood movies increasingly resemble computer games. Now a growing band of enthusiasts is using games to make films PAUL MARINO vividly recalls the first time he watched an animated film made from a video game. It was 1996, and Mr Marino, an Emmy award-winning computer animator and self-described video-game addict, was playing "Quake"--a popular shoot-'em-up--on the internet with a handful of friends. They heard that a rival group of Quake players, known as the Rangers, had posted a film online. Nasty, brutish and short, the 90-second clip, "Diary of a Camper", was a watershed. It made ingenious use of Quake's "demo-record" feature, which enabled users to capture games and then e-mail them to their friends. (That way, gamers could share their fiercest battles, or show how they had successfully completed a level.) The Rangers took things a step further by choreographing the action: they had plotted out a game, recorded it, and keyed in dialogue that appeared as running text. Pretty soon, Mr Marino and others began posting their own "Quake movies", and a new medium was born. Is it a game or a film? Eight years on, this new medium--known as "machinima" ("machine" crossed with "cinema")--could be on the verge of revolutionising animation. Around the world, growing legions of would-be digital Disneys are using the powerful graphical capabilities of popular video games such as "Quake", "Half-Life" and "Unreal Tournament" to create films at a fraction of the cost of "Shrek" or "Finding Nemo". There is an annual machinima film festival in New York, and the genre has seen its first full-length feature, "Anachronox". Spike TV, an American cable channel, hired machinima artists to create shorts for its 2003 video game awards, and Steven Spielberg used the technique to storyboard parts of his film "A.I." At machinima.com, hobbyists have posted short animated films with dialogue, music and special effects. All of this is possible because of the compact way in which multi-player games encode information about different players' movements and actions. Without an efficient means of transmitting this information to other players across the internet, multi-player games would suffer from jerky motion and time lags. Machinima exploits the same notation to describe and manipulate the movements of characters and camera viewpoints. The same games also allow virtual environments to be created quickly and easily, which allows for elaborate sets and props. Games publishers have now begun to incorporate machinima into their products. Epic Games has built a movie-making tool into its spectacularly successful "Unreal Tournament" series, for example, and many games include level-design software that both gamers and machinima artists can exploit. Later this year, Valve Software plans to release "Half-Life 2", a long-awaited game that will include tools specifically geared toward machinima: in-game characters will have realistic facial expressions with 40 different controllable muscles, and eyes that glint. Conversely, machinima creators have built movie-making tools on the foundations of games. Fountainhead Entertainment licensed "Quake III" to create a point-and-click software package called Machinimation, which it used to produce "In the Waiting Line" by the British band Zero 7. It became the first machinima music video to be widely shown on MTV last year. Those in the video-games industry are fond of quoting the statistic that sales of games now exceed Hollywood's box-office receipts. Could film-production technology also be overshadowed by games software? "Machinima can be considered Hollywood meets Moore's law," says Mr Marino, the author of a new book on machinima[3]* and executive director of the Academy of Machinima Arts & Sciences, which holds an annual film festival in New York. He points out that a 30-strong animation team at Pixar took four years and $94m to create "Finding Nemo". Animation studios' desire to cut costs and production time, coupled with advances in video-game graphics technology offering the potential for photo-realistic "cinematic computing" could, he believes, eventually allow machinima to take over the animated-film business. It is affordable, allows for a great deal of creative freedom and, when compared with conventional forms of manual or computer-based animation, is both faster and, says Mr Marino, more fun. A glimpse of the future of animation? This is not to say that machinima is ready for prime time just yet. The production quality is good, and will only get better with the next generation of video games, such as "Doom 3". But it still has a long way to go to match Pixar's "Monsters, Inc." some frames of which (there are 24 per second) took 90 hours to generate using over 400 computers. And because machinima movie-makers have been for the most part video-game nerds, their films have historically lacked two crucial elements: story and character. "There are no Ingmar Bergmans yet," says Graham Leggat of the Film Society at Lincoln Centre. "Last year's machinima festival winner, `Red vs Blue', was based on sketch comedy. Most other efforts are of the standard video-game shoot-'em-up variety." It is, in short, a situation akin to the earliest days of cinema. The tools will also have to improve. At the moment, machinima-makers must use a patchwork of utilities developed by fellow enthusiasts. "Quake", for example, has its own programming language that can be used to build movie-making tools. This enabled Uwe Girlich, a German programmer, to create a program called LMPC (Little Movie Processing Centre), which translated a particular sequence of in-game actions into text. David Wright, an American programmer, then released a program called "KeyGrip" to convert this text back into visual scenes, and to allow simple editing. Other programs allowed machinima-makers to add dialogue and special effects. As the games have advanced over the years, so have their associated tools. But the machinima-making process is still nowhere near as slick as desktop video-editing, for example, which together with the rise of digital video cameras has placed liveaction film-making tools in the hands of everyday computer users. Another problem is that if a machinima-maker were to score a hit, there might be legal trouble. So far, makers of video games have looked the other way as their games were used in ways they never intended. But if someone were to make money from a film that relied on one of its games, a game-maker might be tempted to get the lawyers involved. For now, this does not concern Mr Marino, who believes that machinima is here to stay. "Five years ago, the games were not nearly as vivid as they are today," he says. "The same goes with Machinima. We may not be on the level of `Shrek', but that will change. It's inevitable." * "[4]3D Game-Based Filmmaking: The Art of Machinima", Paraglyph Press, $40. 4. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1932111859/theeconomist Science fiction? Not any more http://www.economist.com/science/tq/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=3171407 Sep 16th 2004 Communications: Taking its cue from "Star Trek", an American company has devised a clever new form of voice-driven wireless communicator SCIENCE fiction has often been the source of inspiration for new technologies. The exo-skeletons and head-mounted displays featured in the film "Aliens", for example, spawned a number of military-funded projects to try to create similar technologies. Automatic sliding doors might never have become popular had they not appeared on the television series "Star Trek". And the popularity of flip-top or "clamshell" mobile phones may stem from the desire to look like Captain Kirk flipping open his communicator on the same programme. Now it seems that "Star Trek" has done it again. This month, American soldiers in Iraq will begin trials of a device inspired by the "comm badge" featured in "Star Trek: The Next Generation". Like crew members of the starship Enterprise, soldiers will be able to talk to other members of their unit just by tapping and then speaking into a small badge worn on the chest. What sets the comm badge apart from a mere walkie-talkie, and appeals to "Star Trek" fans, is the system's apparent intelligence. It works out who you are calling from spoken commands, and connects you instantly. The system, developed by Vocera Communications of Cupertino, California, uses a combination of Wi-Fi wireless networking and voice-over-internet protocol (VoIP) technologies to link up the badges via a central server, akin to a switchboard. The badges are already being used in 80 large institutions, most of them hospitals, to replace overhead paging systems, says Brent Lang, Vocera's vice-president. Like its science-fiction counterpart, the badge is designed so that all functions can be carried out by pressing a single button. On pressing it, the caller gives a command and specifies the name of a person or group of people, such as "call Dr Smith" or "locate the nearest anaesthesiologist". Voice-recognition software interprets the commands and locates the appropriate person or group, based on whichever Wi-Fi base-station they are closest to. The person receiving the call then hears an audible alert stating the name of the caller and, if he or she wishes to take the call, responds by tapping the badge and starting to speak. That highlights a key difference between the "Star Trek" comm badge and the real-life version: Vocera's implementation allows people to reject incoming calls, rather than having the voice of the caller patched through automatically. But even the most purist fans can forgive Vocera for deviating from the script in this way, says David Batchelor, an astrophysicist and "Star Trek" enthusiast at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Centre in Greenbelt, Maryland. For there are, he notes, some curious aspects to the behaviour of the comm badges in "Star Trek". In particular, the fictional badge seems to be able to predict the future. When the captain of the Enterprise says "Picard to sick-bay: Medical emergency on the bridge," for example, his badge somehow connects him to the sick-bay before he has stated the destination of the call. Allowing badge users to reject incoming calls if they are busy, rather than being connected instantly, was a feature added at the request of customers, says Mr Lang. But in almost all other respects the badges work just like their fictional counterparts. This is not very surprising, says Lawrence Krauss, an astrophysicist at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, and the author of "The Physics of Star Trek". In science fiction, and particularly in "Star Trek", most problems have technological fixes. Sometimes, it seems, those fixes can be applied to real-world problems too. Vocera's system is particularly well suited to hospitals, says Christine Tarver, a clinical manager at El Camino Hospital in Mountain View, California. It allows clinical staff to reach each other far more quickly than with beepers and overhead pagers. A recent study carried out at St Agnes Healthcare in Baltimore, Maryland, assessed the amount of time spent by clinical staff trying to get hold of each other, both before and after the installation of the Vocera system. It concluded that the badges would save the staff a total of 3,400 hours each year. Nursing staff often end up playing phone tag with doctors, which wastes valuable time, says Ms Tarver. And although people using the badges sometimes look as though they are talking to themselves, she says, many doctors prefer it because it enables them to deal with queries more efficiently. The system can also forward calls to mobile phones; it can be individually trained to ensure that it understands users with strong accents; and it can even be configured with personalised ringtones. In Iraq, soldiers will use the Vocera badges in conjunction with base-stations mounted on Humvee armoured vehicles. Beyond medical and military uses, Vocera hopes to sell the technology to retailers and hotels. And the firm's engineers are now extending the system to enable the badges to retrieve stored information, such as patient records or information about a particular drug, in response to spoken commands. Their inspiration? Yet another "Star Trek" technology: the talking ship's computer. Home is where the future is http://www.economist.com/science/tq/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=3171381 Sep 16th 2004 THE idea of the smart, automated home of the future has a surprisingly long history. As early as 1893, Answers magazine enthused about the electrical home of the future, "fitted throughout with electricity, electric stoves in every room...all the stoves can be lighted by pressing a button at the bed-side...doors and windows fitted with electric fastenings". By 1959, the designers of the "Miracle Kitchen" that went on show at the American National Exhibition in Moscow promised that "household chores in the future will be gone for the American housewife at the touch of a button or the wave of a hand." Modern visions of the smart home feature fridges that propose recipes based on available ingredients, cupboards that order groceries just before they run out, and various internet-capable kitchen appliances. Despite all the hype, however, the home of the future has resolutely remained just that. Yet the idea refuses to die. In Seattle, for example, Microsoft's prototype home of the future is so thoroughly networked that when you ask for the time, the house answers, and when you put flour and a food processor on the kitchen counter, it asks if you would like to make some bread and offers to project the recipe on to the counter. Over at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Media Lab, Ted Selker and his colleagues are experimenting with a smart spoon. It has salt, acidity and temperature sensors, and can even understand what it is stirring. "This spoon is basically a tongue," says Dr Selker. Using a simple display, the spoon advises you when, for example, you put too much salt or vinegar in the salad dressing, or your pudding is too hot. Counter Intelligence, another Media Lab project, uses talking ingredients to walk you through the preparation of various dishes. Dr Selker's group is also working with Stop & Shop, a retail chain, to develop handheld computers that help shoppers find the ingredients they want, and then suggest ways to prepare them. Meanwhile, at Accenture's Sophia Antipolis laboratory in France, researchers are developing a device called a "persuasive mirror". Why persuasive? Because it does not reflect what you actually look like, but what you will look like if you fail to eat well and exercise properly. Accenture's researchers are also dreaming up ways for the elderly to share digital scrapbooks online with their grandchildren, and smart systems that talk you through simple home-improvement tasks, such as installing a new light fixture. Clearly, the dream of the smart home is alive and well. Indeed, the spread of broadband internet links, mobile phones and, in particular, home wireless networks over the past few years has led some people to conclude that the dream might even be about to become a reality. "The thing that has changed over the last five years," says Franklin Reynolds of Nokia's research centre in Boston, "is that five years ago we talked about all of this and there didn't seem to be any movement in the marketplace. Now I see a hint that things are changing." Wireless networks are a key building block for smart homes, since they enable devices to talk to each other, and to the internet, without the need to run cables all over the place. Always-on broadband links help too, since they enable appliances to send and receive information whenever they want to. Wireless chips embedded into every device could transform an ordinary home into a distributed computing system. "The era of the stand-alone device is over," says Jonathan Cluts, Microsoft's head of consumer prototyping and strategy. "Soon, you literally won't be willing to buy anything that doesn't somehow communicate with the other things in your home or your life." Proponents of the smart home are also heartened by the proliferation of mobile phones, which are now the world's most ubiquitous digital devices. Nokia, the world's largest handset-maker, hopes to turn its tiny phones into universal remote-control devices, able to control everything from the television to the lights to the microwave. "It's the Swiss Army knife approach," says Mr Reynolds. "After all, everyone--in our dreams at least--carries a mobile phone around with them." You might, for example, use your mobile phone to turn on the heating while you are out, or check the view from your holiday home's security camera. But there are still several large obstacles to overcome. The first is the challenge of making devices easy to use and simple to connect to each other. The aim, says Mr Cluts, "is to keep you free from thinking about the technology." Robert Pait of Seagate Technologies, a maker of hard disks, says that will not happen until technology companies shift the burden of learning from consumers to machines. "Humans should be able to intuitively tell devices what to do," he says. "Today we're all on a sharp learning curve with almost everything we buy." Agreeing on standards will be just as much of a challenge. The smart home will remain out of reach as long as devices from different manufacturers cannot talk to each other. For a start, that means agreeing on a wireless-networking standard: but there are several rival technologies. HomeRF, once touted as the ultimate home-networking standard, has been wiped out by Wi-Fi, but newer technologies such as ZigBee and ultrawideband are now in the running too. ZigBee is good for low-speed, low-power transmissions (automated meter readings, for example), while ultrawideband is ideal for linking up home-entertainment devices, though it is currently mired in a standards war (see [3]article). But several standards initiatives are afoot, says Brad Myers, who is in charge of the Pebbles project, an effort at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh to streamline the connectivity of home appliances. The Universal Plug and Play Forum, for example, aims to encourage "simple and robust connectivity" between devices from different manufacturers. The Internet Home Alliance, which has the backing of companies such as IBM, Microsoft and Whirlpool, is also working to improve connectivity between household devices. And in Europe, 168 companies have joined the Digital Living Network Alliance to streamline communication between PCs, handheld devices and home entertainment systems. "We're making progress," says Dr Myers. Perhaps believers in the smart home can take heart. For even a standards war is a step forward, since it suggests that there will, someday, be a market worth fighting over. Pictures as passwords http://www.economist.com/science/tq/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=3171359 Sep 16th 2004 Computer security: Passwords are a cheap, cheerful and ancient security measure. But might it make more sense to use pictures instead? HOW many passwords do you have? Of course, you do use separate passwords for your various e-mail accounts, office or university logons and e-commerce sites, and change them regularly--don't you? Actually, the chances are that you don't. Despite the advice of security experts, most people use the same one or two passwords for everything, because it is simply too difficult to remember dozens of different ones. Worse, many people use common words as passwords--such as hello, god and sex. About half choose family or pet names, and a third choose the names of celebrities. This makes life easy for malicious hackers: they can download dictionaries of the most popular passwords from the internet, and having worked out the password for one account, often find that it works on the owner's other accounts too. A nonsense word made up of numbers and letters, or the first letters of each word in a phrase, is more secure. But too many such pA55w0rds can be difficult to remember, particularly since office workers now, on average, have to remember passwords for between six and 20 systems. No wonder 70% of workers forget their password at some time or another, forcing companies to spend an average of $18 per user per year dishing out new ones. And forcing employees to use different passwords, and to change them regularly, can be counterproductive: they are then even more likely to forget their passwords, and may end up writing them down. Might the idea of the password, which is thousands of years old, have finally had its day? Proponents of graphic or pictorial passwords certainly think so. In May, the United States Senate deployed a system called Passfaces, developed by Real User, a firm based in Annapolis, Maryland, and formerly a British-based company called ID Arts. In essence, Passfaces uses a random series of faces (photographs of British students, in fact) as a password instead of a series of numbers and letters. Users are shown a series of faces, and are encouraged to imagine who each face reminds them of, or what they imagine that person to be like. When logging on, the same faces are then presented in order, but each one is shown together with eight other faces. The user clicks on the familiar face in each case, and if the correct sequence of faces is chosen the system grants access. Unlike a password, a series of faces cannot be written down or told to another person, which makes it more secure, says Paul Barrett, Real User's chief executive. And recalling a series of faces is easier than it sounds, because of the human brain's innate ability to remember and recognise faces. Passfaces builds on the results established by earlier picture-recognition security systems. In the late 1990s, for example, Rachna Dhamija of the University of California at Berkeley developed a graphical password system called D?j? Vu, and asked students on the Berkeley campus to test it. She found that over 90% of the students could remember their pictorial passwords, while just 70% could recall character-based passwords. However, when allowed to choose their own pictures, most opted to choose the most easily recognisable ones. Over half, for instance, chose a picture of the Golden Gate Bridge, which can be seen from the campus. Using abstract images instead proved far more secure. The study prompted two other computer scientists, Fabian Monrose of Johns Hopkins University and Mike Reiter at Carnegie Mellon University, to build a password system called Faces. Like Passfaces, it uses mug shots. But the researchers found that allowing users of the system to choose their own series of faces was a bad idea. They demonstrated that given the race and sex of the user--neither of which is terribly difficult to guess in the US Senate--they could predict the sequence of faces on the first or second attempt for 10% of users. People, it turns out, tend to favour faces of their own race and opt for attractive people over ugly ones. So, like character-based passwords, picture-based passwords are more secure when generated randomly, rather than chosen by the user. Pictorial passwords need not rely on faces, however, as two Microsoft Research projects demonstrate. The first, called Click Passwords, replaces passwords with a series of clicks in particular areas of an image. The clicks need not be pinpoint accurate: the required accuracy can be set to between ten and 100 screen pixels. Darko Kirovski, the researcher who created the system, uses an image of 60 flags from around the world, which allows users to click either on a whole flag or on a detail of the flag. But any image can be used. The second system was developed by Adam Stubblefield, a research intern. While driving home from Microsoft's campus one day, he realised that cloud formations reminded him of real-world objects. By substituting inkblots for cloud formations, he could draw on decades of psychological testing using the Rorschach Inkblot test. In particular, if the same inkblot is shown to different people they will come up with different associations--and individuals tend to make the same associations even after long intervals. With Mr Stubblefield's method, users are shown a series of computer-generated inkblots, and type the first and last letter of whatever they think the inkblot resembles. This series of letters is then used as their password: the inkblots are, in other words, used as prompts. Neither of these projects has made it out of the laboratory yet. But Microsoft is clearly thinking beyond passwords. Speaking at the RSA data-security conference earlier this year, Bill Gates, Microsoft's chairman, predicted the gradual demise of passwords. "They just don't meet the challenge for anything you really want to secure," he said. Like many people, Mr Gates believes that a combination of smart cards and biometric devices, such as fingerprint scanners and facial-recognition systems, are the ultimate answer. But with an average price tag of $50-100 per user and lingering questions about their reliability, biometric devices have yet to spread beyond a few niche markets. Password-based security, in contrast, is cheap to implement since it requires no special hardware, but its limitations are becoming daily more apparent. Using pictures as passwords seems an attractive middle ground, since it provides more security for very little additional cost. It could be an idea whose time has come. Gadgets with a sporting chance http://www.economist.com/science/tq/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=3171369 Sep 16th 2004 Consumer electronics: New sports equipment, from tennis rackets to running shoes, uses processing power to enhance performance. Is that fair? WHY should aspiring athletes stand on the sidelines when a spot of electronic assistance can put them in the middle of the game? That is the question many sports-equipment makers are asking as they sense an opportunity to boost their sales with high-tech products. You could call it the revenge of the nerds: a new wave of microchip-equipped sporting goods promises to enhance the performance of novices and non-sporting types alike--and could even make difficult sports easier. Take cross-country skiing. Victor Petrenko, an engineer at Dartmouth College's Ice Research Lab in New Hampshire, has invented some smart ski-brakes that, he believes, will increase the popularity of cross-country skiing by making the sport less challenging for beginners. The brakes, currently being tested by a ski manufacturer in the Alps, offer the necessary friction for a bigger "kick-off force" and make the skis less likely to slide backwards in their tracks. To make this happen, an electric current from the bottom of the skis pulses through the ice, melting a thin layer of snow that instantly refreezes and acts as a sort of glue. This is not the only form of smart ski to hit the slopes. Atomic, a leading ski-maker based in Austria, plans to introduce a system later this year that runs a diagnostic safety check to ensure that the ski binding is properly closed, with the result being shown on a tiny built-in liquid-crystal display. Meanwhile, tennis equipment manufacturers are hoping that innovation will bring new zip to their business as well. They certainly need to do something: according to SportScanInfo, a market-research firm based in Florida, sales of tennis rackets in America fell 12.5% during the first half of 2004 compared with the first half of 2003. With the ball clearly in their court, researchers at Head, a maker of sporting equipment, have devised a product that should appeal to players suffering from tennis elbow. A chip inside the racket controls piezo-electric fibres, which convert mechanical energy from the ball's impact into electrical potential energy. This energy is then used to generate a counter-force in the piezo-electric fibres that causes a dampening effect. All of this, the firm says, translates into less stress on the elbow. Head claims that residual vibrations in the racket are dampened twice as fast as in conventional rackets, reducing the shock experienced by the player's arm by more than 50%. No doubt purists will object that this is simply not cricket. Rule-makers in many sports are now being forced to consider the implications of equipment that promises to augment athletes' performance with electronic muscle. The International Tennis Federation, that body that is responsible for setting the rules of the game, has specified in its most recent guidelines that "no energy source that in any way changes or affects the playing characteristics of a racket may be built into or attached to a racket." Yet despite such wording, the guideline does not actually eliminate the use of Head's smart rackets, because there is no external energy source--the damping effect relies solely on energy from the ball's impact. Though high-tech equipment may cause controversy on the court, tennis clubs have to adhere to the guidelines set for the sport, explains Stuart Miller, the ITF's technical manager. And if the rules allow self-generated forces to modify a racket's response, so be it. Adidas Put on your smart shoes Different sports have encountered different technologies, though the future will undoubtedly bring more overlap. In golf, gadgets that pinpoint the location of the green using the global positioning system (GPS), for example, face challenges from the game's standards-setting institutions. The rule-making body of the Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St Andrews, which oversees the game in all countries except America and its dependencies, currently prohibits the use of distance-measuring devices. As a result, golfers cannot rely on GPS aids in a tournament. While technological innovation in golf equipment should continue, the player's skill should remain the predominant factor, says David Rickman, who is in charge of the club's rules and equipment standards. The trend towards high-tech assistance is not limited to sports with a reputation for expensive gear, however. Even running, that most basic of sports, provides scope for electronic enhancement. The Adidas 1 running shoe, which is due to be launched in December, incorporates a battery-powered sensor that takes about 1,000 readings a second. A microprocessor then directs a tiny embedded electric motor to adjust the characteristics of the sneaker, enabling it to change the degree of cushioning depending on the surface conditions and the wearer's running style and foot position. The race for the smartest use of microchips in sporting equipment, it seems, has begun. Data you can virtually touch http://www.economist.com/science/tq/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=3171347 Sep 16th 2004 Computer interfaces: Is haptic technology, which allows users to "feel" virtual objects, finally ready to come out of the laboratory? IN THE virtual world of a computer's imagination, you can look, but you can't touch. Advances in computer graphics have made it possible to create images that can fool the eye, yet they remain out of reach, mere phantoms trapped behind the glass of a computer monitor. With the right technology, however, it is possible to create a physical illusion to match the optical one. Such "haptic" technology is currently restricted to a few niches. But it is falling in price, and could be about to become rather more widespread. Haptics is the science of simulating pressure, texture, temperature, vibration and other touch-related sensations. The term is derived from a Greek word meaning "able to lay hold of". It is one of those technologies much loved by researchers, but rarely seen in commercial products. In the laboratory, haptic systems are becoming increasingly sophisticated and capable. William Harwin, the head of a haptics-research team at the University of Reading, believes that such systems are now ready for much wider use. "Our latest project has seen a significant step towards creating the hardware, software and control foundations for a high-fidelity, multi-finger, haptic interface device," he says. The user's fingers fit into rubber cups mounted on robot arms, the movement of which is carefully constrained by a computer to give the illusion of contact with a hard surface. It is then possible to model free-floating three-dimensional objects that can be explored from all sides. It is even possible to mimic impossible objects. By joining two M?bius strips along their boundaries, you create a structure known as a Klein bottle. The bottle has only one surface: its inside is its outside. This strange mathematical object is impossible to construct in real life, yet the Reading team has made a virtual one that you can reach out and touch. What can this technology be used for? So far, the most mature market is in medicine, where haptics are often used in training devices for doctors. Surgical-simulation devices are currently the bread and butter of many haptics companies. Immersion, a firm based in San Jose, makes virtual "keyhole surgery" simulators and needle-insertion simulators that provide a realistic "pop" as the needle enters the virtual vein. It is a far cry from the days when oranges were used as training devices. Dean Chang, the firm's chief of technology, believes that eventually all surgical training will be done this way, just as all pilots now train using flight simulators. Recently, haptics have also been finding their way into consumer products. Many video-game controllers, such as force-feedback steering wheels and joysticks, already contain simple haptic devices to enable virtual rally drivers and pilots to feel the bumps of artificial roads or the rumble of machine guns. Mobile phones are next: Immersion has collaborated with Samsung, the world's third-largest handset-maker, to produce a technology called VibeTone, which will make its first appearance at the end of the year. Just as existing phones can be programmed to play different ring tones depending on the caller, VibeTone allows for different vibrations. Without reaching into your pocket, you will be able to tell whether it is your boss, spouse, or babysitter who is calling. The falling cost of processing power is helping to make haptics feasible in new areas, says Mr Chang. "Every year when computing power gets cheaper, you can do haptics simulations with a cheaper microprocessor," he says. The processing power required to control a force-feedback steering wheel, for example, once required a desk-sized computer, but can now be handled easily by a simple commodity microprocessor. That still leaves the cost of hardware. But here, too, prices are falling, notes Curt Rawley, chief executive of SensAble Technologies, a company based in Woburn, Massachusetts. In the past, he says, the technology has been expensive, hard to program, and difficult to integrate with other software. But where the prices of haptics devices used to start at $30,000, some systems now cost less than $3,000. SensAble has just launched a development toolkit that allows haptics to be added to almost any piece of software, and costs $1,950, including hardware. The firm hopes to stimulate demand for its haptic gear, which is currently used in the design and visualisation of products from running shoes to toys. The ultimate goal is the integration of haptics with computer graphics, to create touchable holograms. Just such a system was demonstrated by SensAble last month at SIGGRAPH, a computer-graphics conference in Los Angeles. The holographic virtual-reality home theatre is still decades away, no doubt. But the advent of haptics in joysticks and mobile phones is a step in the right direction. Last gasp of the fax machine http://www.economist.com/science/tq/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=3171500 Sep 16th 2004 Office technology: That most exasperating piece of equipment, the fax machine, is on its way out. But it will take a very long time to die WHO hasn't felt the urge to smash up the office fax with a hammer at least once? The machines are slow, testy and prone to breaking--usually at the worst possible moment. They became indispensable items of office life in the 1980s and 1990s, when huge rolls of paper curled from out-trays as lengthy documents arrived. (More advanced machines cut the paper, but then the individual pages ended up on the floor in random order.) Such clunkiness was nonetheless a major advance from 150 years earlier, when Alexander Bain, a Scottish inventor, patented the first fax--a device that connected two styluses using a pendulum and a telegraph wire. Thank goodness, then, that faxes are now going the way of the typewriter and carbon paper. E-mail is mostly responsible: it is easier, cheaper (especially for communicating abroad) and paperless. Whereas fax machines must be checked constantly to see whether something has come in, e-mail simply pops up on screen. Stand-alone fax machines have been especially hard-hit, though multi-function machines--which combine the fax machine with a copier, printer and scanner--have also struggled. Peter Davidson, a fax consultant, says that sales of fax machines worldwide fell from 15m in 2000 to 13m in 2001 and are still falling. He estimates that faxes now account for just 4% of companies' phone bills, down from 13% ten years ago. Americans especially are shedding them fast: by 2006, Mr Davidson predicts, their spending on fax machines will be less than half what it was in 2002. Junk faxing has helped to keep the machines whirring. But it too is fading as governments crack down. In January, for example, America's telecoms regulator, the Federal Communications Commission, fined [3]Fax.com, a marketing company based in California, $5.4m (the biggest such penalty ever) for mass-faxing unsolicited advertisements in violation of a law passed in 1991. Fax.com had defended itself on the grounds of free speech, an argument echoed by telemarketers, who are also under fire as people rebel against intrusive salesmanship. As well as fining six companies in the last five years, the FCC has issued more than 200 warnings. Stronger limits on fax marketing, requiring anyone sending an advertising fax to have written permission from the recipient, are due to come into force in January 2005, though Congress may yet soften this to allow businesses and charities demonstrating an "established business relationship" with customers to send them faxes without prior permission. Even so, new technologies and regulations will not kill off faxes just yet. The machines are still helpful for communicating with people in rural areas or poor countries where internet access is spotty. They also transmit signatures: although electronic signatures have been legally binding in America since 2000, hardly anyone actually uses them. Besides, some companies are only just adopting e-mail. Abbey, a British bank, used to rely heavily on faxes to transmit information between its headquarters and branches. Personal e-mail for branch employees was only installed this year as part of a technological overhaul. Publishers, among the first to embrace fax machines because they sped up the editing process, may be the last to bid them goodbye. Stephen Brough of Profile Books, a London publisher affiliated with The Economist, says that faxes are still useful in transmitting orders to distributors, and in allowing authors to indicate changes on page proofs easily. (Electronic editing, in which multiple versions of the same file swiftly proliferate, can be a nightmare.) Publishing contracts, which involve lots of crossing-outs and additions, can also be edited by fax. At Lonely Planet, a travel-guide company, a publishing assistant says she is sometimes asked to fax pages of company stationery to other publishers as proof of identity. The persistence of the fax has much to do with the perils of e-mail. Because it is such a pain to operate, the fax is generally used with discretion (a relief after e-mail overload). Faxes also allow lawyers, among others, to have exchanges that they can later shred, without leaving an electronic record. The biggest gripe about document transmission via e-mail, however, is attachments: unless you have the right software, they are meaningless. "One of the most common academic experiences is the failed attachment: a person sends you an attachment with incomprehensible formatting of immense length that crashes your system," says Gillian Evans, a history professor at Cambridge University. "Then there is an irascible exchange of often quite stylish e-mails--at the end of which one of the parties says, `For goodness' sake, send me a fax!'" This is especially true, she says, during summers, when professors are often at home using slow, dial-up internet connections. Unless e-mail improves drastically, in other words, the fax machine seems likely to retain a devoted, if shrinking, following. And the winners are... http://www.economist.com/science/tq/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=3171490 Sep 16th 2004 THIS newspaper was established in 1843 to take part in "a severe contest between intelligence, which presses forward, and an unworthy, timid ignorance obstructing our progress". One of the chief ways in which intelligence presses forward is through innovation, which is now recognised as one of the most important contributors to economic growth. Innovation, in turn, depends on the creative individuals who dream up new ideas and turn them into reality. The Economist recognises these talented people through our annual Innovation Awards, presented in five fields: bioscience, communications, computing, energy and a special "no boundaries" category. This year we added a sixth award for social and economic innovation, to acknowledge the way in which social-policy and business-model innovations can have just as much impact as high technology. The awards were presented at a ceremony in San Francisco on September 14th. And the winners were: o Bioscience: David Goeddel, chief executive of Tularik, for gene cloning and the expression of human proteins. In 1978, Dr Goeddel went to work at Genentech as its staff scientist--making him the first employee of the first biotech firm. His pioneering work in the field of gene cloning and expression research made it possible to produce insulin in the laboratory for the first time, and led to the first drug produced using recombinant DNA technology. He is now chief executive officer of Tularik, a firm he co-founded. o Communications: Vic Hayes, former chair of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 802.11 working group, for the development and standardisation of Wi-Fi wireless networks. Considered the father of Wi-Fi, Mr Hayes chaired the IEEE 802.11 committee, which was set up in 1990 to establish a wireless networking standard. Wi-Fi now enables wireless connectivity in millions of homes, schools and offices, and an increasing number of hotels and airports. o Computing: Linus Torvalds, Open Source Development Labs fellow, for the development of the Linux operating system. Mr Torvalds released the first version of the Linux kernel in 1991, when he was a 21-year-old computer-science student at the University of Helsinki, Finland. He made the source code behind Linux freely available so that others could modify it to suit their needs, or contribute their own improvements. Linux now runs on millions of devices from handhelds to mainframes, and has attracted wide industry support. o Energy: Takeshi Uchiyamada, senior managing director, Toyota, for developing the Prius hybrid car. In 1994, Mr Uchiyamada joined Toyota's project to develop an eco-friendly car for the 21st century. He became chief engineer for the Prius, the world's first mass-produced petrol-electric hybrid car, in 1996. Given a free hand in the design, his team developed a continuously variable transmission system that allows the petrol engine and electric motor to work separately or in tandem. The hybrid design improves fuel efficiency and dramatically cuts emissions. By 2003, Prius sales had topped 150,000 units worldwide. o No boundaries: Gerd Binnig, Heinrich Rohrer and Christoph Gerber, researchers at IBM's Zurich Research Laboratory, for the development of the scanning-tunnelling microscope (STM). In 1981 Dr Binnig, Dr Rohrer and Dr Gerber developed the STM, a device that made it possible to image and study structures and processes on the atomic scale and in three dimensions (see [3]article). The STM, which now exists in dozens of variants, is a vital research tool in such fields as materials science, nanotechnology and microbiology. In 1986, Dr Binnig and Dr Rohrer shared half of the Nobel prize in physics for their work in developing the STM. o Social and economic innovation: Muhammad Yunus, founder, Grameen Bank, for the development of microcredit. Dr Yunus is the managing director of Grameen Bank, whose 1,300 branches serve more than 3.5m people in 46,000 villages in Bangladesh. He devised the concept of rural microcredit, the practice of making small loans to individuals without collateral. Typical customers are women who borrow $30 to start a small business by, for example, buying a sewing machine. Grameen's repayment rate is 98%. The microcredit model has been emulated in 50 countries around the world, including America. We extend our congratulations to the winners, and our thanks to the judges: Denise Caruso, executive director, The Hybrid Vigor Institute; Martin Cooper, chairman and chief executive, ArrayComm; Shereen El Feki, bioscience correspondent, The Economist; Rodney Ferguson, managing director, J.P. Morgan Partners; Hugh Grant, president and chief executive, Monsanto; Fran?ois Grey, head of IT communications, CERN; Leroy Hood, president and director, Institute for Systems Biology; Louis Monier, director of advanced technologies, eBay; Shuji Nakamura, director, Centre for Solid State Lighting and Displays, University of California, Santa Barbara; Andrew Odlyzko, professor of mathematics and director, Digital Technology Centre, University of Minnesota; Tim O'Reilly, founder and chief executive, O'Reilly & Associates; Rinaldo Rinolfi, executive vice-president, Fiat Research; Paul Romer, professor of economics, Graduate School of Business, Stanford University; Paul Saffo, director, Institute for the Future; Vijay Vaitheeswaran, global environment and energy correspondent, The Economist; CarlJochen Winter, professor of energy and engineering, University of Stuttgart. Televisions go flat http://www.economist.com/science/tq/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=3171478 RATIONAL CONSUMER Sep 16th 2004 Consumer electronics: TVs based on bulky cathode-ray tubes are giving way to flat-panel models. How will the market evolve? TELEVISIONS, it seems, can never be too wide or too thin--and increasingly, they are wide and thin at the same time, thanks to the growing popularity of flat-panel televisions based on plasma and liquid-crystal display (LCD) technology. Flat-panel TVs are stylish, do not take up much room, and do justice to the crystal-clear images produced by DVD players, digital-cable boxes and games consoles. Sales of LCD TVs in particular are expected to account for an ever larger portion of the market (see chart) as consumers embrace these new technologies at the expense of bulky models based on old-fashioned cathode-ray tubes (CRTs). LCD-based models are expected to account for 18% of televisions sold in 2008, up from just 2.2% in 2003, according to iSuppli, a market-research firm. LCD TVs are the latest example of a technology from the computer industry causing a stir in consumer electronics. For years, anyone who wanted to buy a flat-panel television had to buy a plasma screen, a large and expensive (a 42-inch model costs around $3,500) option. LCD technology, already used in flat-panel computer monitors and laptop displays, makes possible smaller, more affordable flat-panel TVs: a 17-inch model costs around $800, for example. The prospect of a much bigger market has prompted new entrants, including PC-makers such as Dell and HP, and established consumer-electronics firms, such as Motorola and Westinghouse (both of which stopped making TVs decades ago) to start selling televisions alongside the established television-set manufacturers. For PC-makers, which already sell flat-panel monitors, diversifying into TVs is no big leap. For consumer-electronics firms, the appeal of flat-panel TVs is that they offer much higher margins than conventional televisions. During the late-2003 holiday season, makers of flat-panel TVs, both LCD and plasma, succeeded in creating a tremendous buzz around their products, says Riddhi Patel, an analyst at iSuppli. But it did not translate into sales to the extent that the manufacturers had hoped. Although more people are now aware of flat-panel TVs, many are still deterred by their high prices. The expense is difficult to justify, particularly since a 30-inch LCD television can cost up to four times as much as a comparable CRT-based model, with no real difference in picture quality. Flat-panel TV-makers have now, says Ms Patel, begun to cut their prices. For one thing, they are sitting on a lot of unsold inventory: the panel-makers made too many panels, the TV-makers built too many TVs, and the retailers ordered more than they could sell. Prices are also expected to fall as production capacity is stepped up. Sharp opened a new "sixth generation" LCD factory in January. In May, Matsushita, the Japanese firm behind the Panasonic brand, announced that it would build the world's biggest plasma-display factory. And in July, Sony and Samsung announced that their joint-venture, a "seventh-generation" LCD factory at Tangjung in South Korea, would start operating next year. There is concern that this year's record investment in LCD plants could lead to overcapacity next year. For consumers, however, this is all good news: a glut will mean lower prices. The prospect of sharp price declines over the next few years means the flat-panel TV market is on the cusp of change. At the moment, LCD is more expensive than plasma on a per-inch basis: a 30-inch LCD TV costs around the same as a 40-inch plasma model. The vast majority of LCD TVs sold are currently 20 inches or smaller; larger sizes cannot yet compete with plasma on price. So plasma has the upper hand at larger sizes for the time being, while LCDs dominate at the low end. For anyone looking to buy a flat-panel TV, this makes the choice relatively simple: if you want anything smaller than a 30-inch screen, you have to choose LCD; and if you are thinking of buying bigger, plasma offers better value. (Above 55 inches, TVs based on rear-projection are proving popular, having benefited from the buzz around flat-panel displays.) Watch out plasma, here comes LCD As the new LCD plants start running, however, LCD TVs will increasingly be able to compete with plasma at sizes as large as 45 inches. The new seventh-generation LCD plants will crank out screens on glass sheets measuring 1.9 by 2.2 metres, big enough for twelve 32-inch or eight 40-inch panels. LCD could thus push plasma upmarket, unless makers of plasma TVs drop their prices too. The result is expected to be a fierce battle around the 42-inch mark. This may prompt buyers to look more closely at the relative merits of the two technologies, each of which has its pros and cons. Plasma offers higher contrast, which means deeper blacks. But although the longevity of plasma panels has improved in recent years, from 10,000 hours to 30,000 hours, LCD panels have a lifetime of 60,000 hours. LCD TVs also have the advantage that they can also be used as computer monitors. But their response is slower than plasma, so they are less suitable for watching sports. With prices about to tumble, when is the right time to buy? There will be some good deals around in the next few months, says Ms Patel, as manufacturers start hyping their products again during the holiday season. Some prices will have fallen by as much as 40% compared with the same time last year. That may prompt many more people to take the plunge. You're hired http://www.economist.com/science/tq/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=3171466 REPORTS Sep 16th 2004 Computing: By unloading work on to their customers, firms can grant them more control--and save money in the process MEET your airline's latest employee: you. You may not have noticed, but you are also now working for your phone company and your bank. Why? Because of the growth of the self-service economy, in which companies are offloading work on to their own customers. It is, you could say, the ultimate in outsourcing. Self-service can have benefits both for companies and customers alike. It is already changing business practices in many industries, and seems likely to become even more widespread in future. The idea is not new, of course. Self-service has been around for decades, ever since Clarence Saunders, an American entrepreneur, opened the first Piggly Wiggly supermarket in 1916 in Memphis, Tennessee. Saunders's idea was simple, but revolutionary: shoppers would enter the store, help themselves to whatever they needed and then carry their purchases to the check-out counter to pay for them. Previously, store clerks had been responsible for picking items off the shelves; but with the advent of the supermarket, the shoppers instead took on that job themselves. On the heels of supermarkets came laundromats, cafeterias and self-service car washes, all of which were variations on the same theme. But now, with the rise of the web, the falling cost of computing power, and the proliferation of computerised kiosks, voice recognition and mobile phones, companies are taking self-service to new levels. Millions of people now manage their finances, refinance their home loans, track packages and buy cinema and theatre tickets while sitting in front of their computers. Some install their own broadband connections using boxes and instructions sent through the post; others switch mobile-phone pricing plans to get better deals. They plan their own travel itineraries and make their own hotel and airline bookings: later, at the airport, they may even check themselves in. And they do all of this with mouse in hand and no human employees in sight. Self-service appeals to companies for an obvious reason: it saves money. The hallmark of all of these self-service transactions is that they take place with little or no human contact. The customer does the work once done by an employee, and does not expect to be paid. So to work well, self-service requires the marriage of customers with machines and software. That union, says Esteban Kolsky of Gartner, a consultancy, is now doing for the service sector what mass production once did for manufacturing: automating processes and significantly cutting costs. "From the corporate side you hear, `Well, we want to make sure the customer gets what he wants,' or whatever, but, bottom line, it does reduce costs," says Mr Kolsky. Francie Mendelsohn of Summit Research, a consultancy based in Rockville, Maryland, agrees. "People don't like to admit it, but self-service is used to reduce head count and therefore improve the bottom line," she says. "It's not politically correct, but it's the truth." Netonomy, a firm that provides self-service software to telecoms operators, reckons online self-service can cut the cost of a transaction to as little as $0.10, compared with around $7 to handle the same transaction at a call centre. As operators offer new services, from gaming to music downloads, the logical way to manage their customers' demands, says John Ball, Netonomy's co-founder, is to let customers do it themselves. There can be advantages for customers, too: convenience, speed and control, says Mr Kolsky. "Rather than wonder if we're going to get good service, we'd much rather go to a website or a kiosk or an ATM and just do it on our own," he says. A win-win situation, then, in which companies reduce their costs and customers gain more control? Not necessarily. If companies extend self-service too far, or do it in the wrong way, they could alienate their customers. In particular, consumers will embrace self-service only if the systems are well designed and easy to use. Shopping online, for example, with round-the-clock access and no crowds, traffic or pesky salespeople, lends itself to self-service. But when customers want a question answered or a problem with a transaction resolved, automated systems often fail them--and may deter them from doing business with that company again. If companies are going to jump on the self-service bandwagon, says Mr Kolsky, they had better be prepared to do it right. "They have to look at self-service strategically, not just as a cost-cutter," he says. Most airlines, for example, are simply using online self-service to cut costs, rather than to cater to their customers' needs, he suggests. Booking a complex itinerary online is often difficult or impossible. And, says Mr Kolsky, "you can book a ticket on the web, but how many times have you tried to cancel a ticket online?" Help yourself Airlines are having more success with another form of self-service: kiosks. Automated teller machines (ATMs) and self-service petrol pumps have been around for years, but other kinds of kiosk now seem to be proliferating like rabbits. Most airports and large railway stations in America, Europe and Japan are lined with touch-screen machines that will sell you a ticket or spit out a boarding pass in far less time than it takes to queue up and deal with a human being. According to this year's Airline IT Trends Survey, 33% of airlines expect that by the end of the year, more than half of their domestic customers will buy their tickets from kiosks. Kiosks are also showing up in cinemas, shops and car-rental centres, and moving into hotels, amusement parks and malls, allowing customers to buy what they want with the swipe of a credit card and then quickly move on. According to Ms Mendelsohn, the number of retail kiosks worldwide will grow by 63% over the next three years, to 750,000. This is partly because a new generation of customers is more comfortable with using computers, keyboards and screens, whether at home or in the mall. The technology has improved in recent years, too. "Kiosks have been around for decades, but the technology wasn't always up to the job and people were far more fearful of using them," says Ms Mendelsohn. But the main reason for kiosks' growing popularity, she says, is that they let users jump the queue. Kiosks are even proliferating at the birthplace of self-service itself. Some retailers are experimenting with automated check-out counters that allow shoppers to scan their own groceries. The most sophisticated systems actually "talk" to customers, telling them what each item costs as it is scanned and walking them through the process step-by-step. Less fancy kiosks simply let shoppers scan purchases, pay and move on. Either way, the customer is doing all the work. But shoppers do not seem to mind. "People tell me, `This is faster. This is fun'," says Ms Mendelsohn. "Actually, it is not faster, but when was the last time you applied the word `fun' to shopping in a supermarket?" In a study commissioned by NCR (a maker of ATMs and other kiosks), IDC, a market-research firm, found that nearly 70% of customers in five different countries said they were willing to use self-check-out. In America, the figure was 78%. That would suit the supermarket chains just fine, since a kiosk can handle the workload of two-and-a-half employees at a fraction of the cost. Photo kiosks, which can make prints from digital-camera memory cards, are now popping up in many shops. After that, kiosks could start to colonise fast-food restaurants. McDonald's is trying out several systems with varying degrees of success. And Subway, a sandwich chain, is installing kiosks to free employees who make sandwiches from the job of having to take orders and handle payments (though it has, so far, stopped short of simply asking customers to make their own sandwiches). Despite their growing popularity, however, kiosks have not been universally embraced. Some, it seems, talk too much. "They get vandalised," says Ms Mendelsohn--not by customers, but by people who work in the vicinity, and who cannot stand to listen to their incessant babbling. Self-service need not involve websites or kiosks. It can also be delivered over the phone. The latest systems do away with endlessly branching touch-tone menus in favour of interactive voice-recognition (IVR) technology, which supposedly allows customers to talk directly to machines. IVR systems greet callers with a recorded human voice and then use voice-recognition software to engage in something like a human conversation. The talking cure? In 2001, America's perennially cash-strapped rail system, Amtrak, introduced a perky IVR system called "Julie" (after the human owner of the service's voice), created by SpeechWorks, a software firm based in Boston. Julie greets callers in a lively but businesslike manner, and then, very informally, explains how the system works. The same old branching system is there, but since callers are answering "Yes" or "No" or providing other simple one-word answers to Julie's questions, it does not feel quite as tedious. If you say "reservation", for example, Julie walks you through the process, asking for your starting point and destination, and filling you in on schedules and costs. By keeping the "conversation" simple, the software reduces misunderstandings and moves the process along pretty smoothly. If you get stuck, you can still reach a human simply by asking for one. (Julie tells you how to do that, too.) Amtrak says the system now handles a third of the rail system's bookings, and surveys show 80% of callers are happy with the service. In its first two years of operation, Julie saved Amtrak $13m. Last year Julie was given the ability to handle credit-card transactions directly, without passing the call on to a human agent, which should lead to further savings. Phone companies, brokerage firms, utility companies and insurance firms are all now replacing old touch-tone systems with IVR. In Britain, the Royal Mail installed an IVR system in 2003 that combines technologies from two software companies, Aspect and Nuance. Last year it handled 1m customer inquiries, reducing customer-service costs by 25%. While a carefully designed IVR system can work well, a recent study by Forrester, a consultancy, suggests that not all of the kinks have been entirely worked out. The firm surveyed 110 large companies and found that IVR systems met the needs of their customers a paltry 18% of the time, less than any other form of customer contact. "Clearly," says Navi Radjou of Forrester, "usability needs to be improved." And that seems to be the ultimate self-service challenge. Machines are fast, reliable workers with prodigious memories. But they are more inflexible than even the rudest salesperson. "As customers realise they can't get everything they need, they give up and then you have dissatisfied customers coming through other channels," says Mr Kolsky. But when done correctly, self-service systems have proved that they can both save money and make customers happy. This suggests that they could indeed transform the service economy in much the same way that mass production transformed manufacturing, by allowing services to be delivered at low cost in large volumes. Though it may take five years before most transactions are conducted via self-service, says Mr Kolsky, "we're definitely moving in that direction." In other words, you never know who you might be working for next. How Google works http://www.economist.com/science/tq/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=3171440 CASE HISTORY Sep 16th 2004 Internet searching: With all the fuss over Google's IPO, it is easy to overlook its broader social significance. For many people, Google made the internet truly useful. How did it do it? ONE thing that distinguishes the online world from the real one is that it is very easy to find things. To find a copy of The Economist in print, one has to go to a news-stand, which may or may not carry it. Finding it online, though, is a different proposition. Just go to Google, type in "economist" and you will be instantly directed to economist.com. Though it is difficult to remember now, this was not always the case. Indeed, until Google, now the world's most popular search engine, came on to the scene in September 1998, it was not the case at all. As in the physical world, searching online was a hit-or-miss affair. Google was vastly better than anything that had come before: so much better, in fact, that it changed the way many people use the web. Almost overnight, it made the web far more useful, particularly for non-specialist users, many of whom now regard Google as the internet's front door. The recent fuss over Google's stockmarket flotation obscures its far wider social significance: few technologies, after all, are so influential that their names become used as verbs. Google began in 1998 as an academic research project by Sergey Brin and Lawrence Page, who were then graduate students at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California. It was not the first search engine, of course. Existing search engines were able to scan or "crawl" a large portion of the web, build an index, and then find pages that matched particular words. But they were less good at presenting those pages, which might number in the hundreds of thousands, in a useful way. Mr Brin's and Mr Page's accomplishment was to devise a way to sort the results by determining which pages were likely to be most relevant. They did so using a mathematical recipe, or algorithm, called PageRank. This algorithm is at the heart of Google's success, distinguishing it from all previous search engines and accounting for its apparently magical ability to find the most useful web pages. Untangling the web PageRank works by analysing the structure of the web itself. Each of its billions of pages can link to other pages, and can also, in turn, be linked to. Mr Brin and Mr Page reasoned that if a page was linked to many other pages, it was likely to be important. Furthermore, if the pages that linked to a page were important, then that page was even more likely to be important. There is, of course, an inherent circularity to this formula--the importance of one page depends on the importance of pages that link to it, the importance of which depends in turn on the importance of pages that link to them. But using some mathematical tricks, this circularity can be resolved, and each page can be given a score that reflects its importance. The simplest way to calculate the score for each page is to perform a repeating or "iterative" calculation (see [3]article). To start with, all pages are given the same score. Then each link from one page to another is counted as a "vote" for the destination page. Each page's score is recalculated by adding up the contribution from each incoming link, which is simply the score of the linking page divided by the number of outgoing links on that page. (Each page's score is thus shared out among the pages it links to.) Once all the scores have been recalculated, the process is repeated using the new scores, until the scores settle down and stop changing (in mathematical jargon, the calculation "converges"). The final scores can then be used to rank search results: pages that match a particular set of search terms are displayed in order of descending score, so that the page deemed most important appears at the top of the list. While this is the simplest way to perform the PageRank calculation, however, it is not the fastest. Google actually uses sophisticated techniques from a branch of mathematics known as linear algebra to perform the calculation in a single step. (And the actual PageRank formula, still visible on a [4]Stanford web page includes an extra "damping factor" to prevent pages' scores increasing indefinitely.) Furthermore, the PageRank algorithm has been repeatedly modified from its original form to prevent people from gaming the system. Since Google's debut in 1998, the importance of a page's Google ranking, particularly for businesses that rely on search engines to send customers their way, has increased dramatically: Google is now responsible for one in three searches on the web. For this reason, an entire industry of "search-engine optimisers" has sprung up. For a fee, they will try to manipulate your page's ranking on Google and other search engines. The original PageRank algorithm could be manipulated in a fairly straightforward fashion, by creating a "link farm" of web pages that link to one another and to a target page, and thus give an inflated impression of its importance. So Google's original ranking algorithm has grown considerably more complicated, and is now able to identify and blacklist pages that try to exploit such tricks. Mr Page and Mr Brin made another important innovation early on. This was to consider the "anchor text"--the bit of text that is traditionally blue and underlined and forms a link from one page to another--as a part of the web page it referred to, as well as part of the page it was actually on. They reasoned that the anchor text served as an extremely succinct, if imprecise, summary of the page it referred to. This further helps to ensure that when searching for the name of a person or company, the appropriate website appears at the top of the list of results. Ranking the order in which results are returned was the area in which Google made the most improvement, but it is only one element of search--and it is useless unless the rest of the search engine works efficiently. In practice, that means compiling a comprehensive and up-to-date index of the web's ever-changing pages. PageRank sits on top of Google's extremely powerful and efficient search infrastructure--one that draws on the lessons learned from previous, and now mostly forgotten, search engines. As the web grew in the early 1990s, a number of search engines, most of them academic research projects, started crawling and indexing its pages. The first of these, the World Wide Web Wanderer and the World Wide Web Worm, used very simple techniques, and did not even index entire web pages, but only their titles, addresses and headers. A number of commercial engines followed, springing out of academic projects (as Google later did). WebCrawler, the first to index entire pages, emerged in 1994 at the University of Washington and was later bought by America Online. It was followed by Lycos and InfoSeek. But the first really capable search engine was AltaVista, unveiled by Louis Monier of Digital Equipment Corporation in December of 1995. The day before the site opened for business, on December 15th, it already had 200,000 visitors trying to use it. That was because AltaVista successfully met two of the three requirements that later led to Google's success. First, it indexed a much larger portion of the web than anything that had come before. This, says Dr Monier, was because AltaVista used several hundred "spiders" in parallel to index the web, where earlier search engines had used only one. Second, AltaVista was fast, delivering results from its huge index almost instantly. According to Dr Monier, all earlier search engines had been overwhelmed as soon as they became popular. But the AltaVista team had used a modular design right from the start, which enabled them to add computing power as the site's popularity increased. Among some geeks, at least, AltaVista came into use as a verb. Seek, and Google shall find Even so, AltaVista still lacked Google's uncanny ability to separate the wheat from the chaff. Experienced users could use its various query options (borrowed from the world of database programming) to find what they were looking for, but most users could not. Although AltaVista's unprecedented reach and speed made it an important step forward, Google's combination of reach, speed and PageRank added up to a giant leap. When you perform a Google search, you are not actually searching the web, but rather an index of the copy of the web stored on Google's servers. (Google is thought to have several complete copies of the web distributed across servers in California and Virginia.) The index is compiled from all the pages that have been returned by a multitude of spiders that crawl the web, gathering pages, extracting all the links from each page, putting them in a list, sorting the links in the list in order of priority (thus balancing breadth and depth) and then gathering the next page from the list. When a user types in a query, the search terms are looked up in the index (using a variety of techniques to distribute the work across tens of thousands of computers) and the results are then returned from a separate set of document servers (which provide preview "snippets" of matching pages from Google's copies of the web), along with advertisements, which are returned from yet another set of servers. All of these bits are assembled, with the help of PageRank, into the page of search results. Google manages to do this cheaply, in less than a second, using computers built from cheap, off-the-shelf components and linked together in a reliable and speedy way using Google's own clever software. Together, its thousands of machines form an enormous supercomputer, optimised to do one thing--find, sort and extract web-based information--extremely well. Mr Page and Mr Brin created the prototype of Google on Stanford's computer systems. However, as visionaries do, they thought ahead clearly, and from the beginning had sound ideas both for searching and for creating the system of servers capable of handling the millions of queries a day that now pass through Google. It was the clarity of their ideas for scaling the server architecture, and their ability to think big, that made it so easy for them to turn their research project into a business. Andy Bechtolsheim, one of the founders of Sun Microsystems and an early investor in Google, did not even wait to hear all the details: when Mr Page and Mr Brin approached him, he reputedly said, "Why don't I just write you a cheque for $100,000?" He wrote the cheque to "Google Inc."--a firm which did not yet exist. So Mr Page and Mr Brin were forced to incorporate a business very quickly, and the company was born. What was still missing, though it was unfashionable to worry about it in the early days of the dotcom boom, was a way of making money. Initially, Google sold targeted banner advertisements and also made money by providing search services to other websites, including Yahoo! and a number of other, smaller portals. But, says John Battelle, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, who is writing a book about search engines, Google's revenues did not really take off until 2000, when it launched AdWords--a system for automatically selling and displaying advertisements alongside search results. Advertisers bid for particular search terms, and those who bid the highest for a particular term--"digital cameras", say--have their text advertisements displayed next to Google's search results when a user searches for that term. Google does not simply put the highest bidder's advertisement at the top of the list, however. It also ranks the advertisements according to their popularity, so that if more people click on an advertisement halfway down the list, it will be moved up, even if other advertisers are paying more. Google's philosophy of ranking results according to their usefulness is thus applied to advertisements too. The only fly in the ointment, from Google's point of view, was that Overture, a rival firm, claimed to have patented the idea for AdWords-style sponsored links. Overture filed a lawsuit against Google in 2002: it was settled out of court last month when Google agreed to give Yahoo! (which acquired Overture last year) 2.7m shares, worth around $230m, to resolve the matter. Google was eager to settle the AdWords dispute before its initial public offering, which took place on August 19th. Google now faces a three-way fight with Yahoo! and Microsoft, which have both vowed to dethrone it as the dominant internet search engine. Yahoo!'s strategy is to interconnect its various online services, from search to dating to maps, in increasingly clever ways, while Microsoft's plan is to integrate desktop and internet searching in a seamless manner, so that search facilities will be embedded in all its software, thus doing away (the company hopes) with the need to use Google. Both firms are also working to improve their basic search technology in order to compete with Google. Beyond searching? In response, Google has gradually diversified itself, adding specialist discussion groups, news and shopping-related search services, and a free e-mail service, Gmail, which is currently being tested by thousands of volunteers. It has also developed "toolbar" software that can be permanently installed on a PC, allowing web searches to be performed without having to visit the Google website, and establishing a toe-hold on its users'PCs. Google's technical credentials are not in doubt. The question is whether it can maintain its position, as search, the activity where it is strongest, moves from centre stage to being just part of a bundle of services. Yet the example of Gmail shows how search can form the foundation of other services: rather than sorting mail into separate folders, Gmail users can simply use Google's lightning-fast search facility to find a specific message. So the technology that made Google great could yet prove to be its greatest asset in the fight ahead. Let battle commence. How PageRank Works http://www.economist.com/science/tq/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=3172188 CASE HISTORY Sep 16th 2004 1. Google's PageRank algorithm is a mathematical recipe that uses the structure of the links between web pages to assign a score to each page that reflects its importance. In effect, each link from one page to another is counted as a "vote" for the destination page, and each page's score depends on the scores of the pages that link to it. But those pages' scores, in turn, depend on the scores of the pages that link to them, and so on. As a result, calculating the scores is a complicated business. 2. Initially, all pages are given the same score (in this case, 100 points). 3. Each page's score is recalculated by adding up the score from each incoming link, which is simply the score of the linking page divided by the number of outgoing links. The "About us" page, for example, has one incoming link, from the "Home" page. The "Home" page has two outgoing links, so its score of 100 is shared equally between them. The "About us" page therefore ends up with a score of 50. Similarly, the "Our products" page has three incoming links. Each comes from a page with two outgoing links, and therefore contributes 50 to the "Our products" page's total score of 150. 4. Once all the scores have been recalculated, the process is repeated using the new scores, until the scores stop changing. In fact, Google uses sophisticated mathematical techniques to speed up the calculation, rather than performing multiple calculations across the entire web. 5. The final scores are used to rank the results of a search, which are displayed in order of descending score. The "Home" page ends up with the highest score, so that searching for "Widgets.com", which appears on every page, produces a list with the "Home" page at the top. Similarly, searching for "Product A" or "Product B" produces a list with the "Our products" page at the top, since this page has a higher score than either of the individual product pages. Touching the atom http://www.economist.com/science/tq/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=3171516 BRAIN SCAN Sep 16th 2004 Scientists' ability to see individual atoms, and manipulate matter one atom at a time, is due in large part to Gerd Binnig, co-inventor of the scanning-tunnelling microscope THE mad scientist, with his white coat and frizzy hair, is a familiar figure from countless Hollywood movies. Gerd Binnig, by contrast, is a much rarer beast: a gleeful scientist. He is renowned for co-inventing the scanning-tunnelling microscope (STM), a device that allows researchers to examine and manipulate matter at the atomic scale. This invention, made by Dr Binnig in 1981 with his colleagues Heinrich Rohrer and Christoph Gerber, laid the groundwork for nanotechnology, enabled new methods of semiconductor production and generally broadened the understanding of the nature of matter. Yet to Dr Binnig, it was just an opportunity to play around in the laboratory. Indeed, visit the site of his seminal work, IBM's Zurich Research Laboratory, and you will find a cartoon posted on the office wall. It depicts a smiling Dr Binnig, surrounded by equipment and holding up a hand clad in an iron glove, with the caption: "Now I can really feel the atoms!" The characteristic playfulness evident in this cartoon is a hallmark of Dr Binnig's career and interests. His life's work has taken him down some unusual paths, but he has had a lot of fun along the way. The ideas that led to the STM, and thence to the 1986 Nobel prize in Physics, came mere months into Dr Binnig's work at IBM, which he joined under Dr Rohrer in 1978. Good-natured cartoons are usually a sign of being held in fond esteem, and Dr Binnig is indeed well liked, not least because he is quick to deflect individual praise and cite the work and help of others. It was Dr Rohrer who set him the task of building a device that could detect tiny defects in thin films of material--a problem that IBM was trying to overcome in order to build faster computers. But while Dr Binnig collaborated closely with other physicists at IBM to conceive and build the STM, the key ideas were his, says Dr Gerber. In particular, Dr Binnig solved a couple of significant problems that had plagued previous efforts to see atoms. He devised a cunningly simple mechanical approach that involves scanning the fine tip of the microscope's probe--just a ten-billionth of a metre wide, or about the width of an atom--across the surface being studied. Even though the tip does not touch the surface, a quantum-mechanical effect called "tunnelling" causes an electric current to pass between them. By measuring this current and adjusting the tip's position as it travels across the surface, the distance between the tip and the surface can be kept constant. The record of the tip's movements can then be turned into an image of the surface's contours--an image so detailed that the lumps and bumps of individual atoms are visible. Dr Binnig's second innovation was the clever method he devised to keep the probe stable, using the ingenious combination of a vacuum chamber, superconducting levitation and Scotch tape. To be sure, the STM was not the beginning of atomic-scale microscopy. Ernst Ruska, who would share the Nobel with Dr Binnig and Dr Rohrer, invented the first electron microscope in 1931, while still a graduate student at the Technical College of Berlin. Erwin Mueller of Pennsylvania State University, who invented the field-ion microscope in 1951, became the first person to "see" atoms. But Dr Mueller was secretive and his results were difficult to reproduce. In the late 1960s one of his students, Russell Young, working at America's National Bureau of Standards, developed a device called the Topografiner, which has been called a precursor to the STM. And in the 1970s, Albert Crewe of the University of Chicago built a "scanning transmission electron microscope" and used it to create an image of a single uranium atom. But compared with the STM, previous atomic-resolution microscopes were difficult to use and had particular problems with surface atoms, which tended to interact with the tip of the probe, thus distorting the results. Dr Gerber says only a "genius" like Dr Binnig could have had the idea for the STM: he puts his colleague on a par with Einstein, Schr?dinger or Feynman, with a talent for experimentation that matches those great scientists' ability as theorists. The STM was also significant because other scientists were able to build their own relatively easily, recalls Don Eigler, now also a research fellow at IBM but a graduate student at the time of the STM's invention. It is also quite an inexpensive device: atomic resolution can be achieved for just $20,000. Dr Binnig's talent almost went unrealised. Born in 1947, he studied physics, but found the conventional approach to teaching the subject tedious. It was dry, textbook stuff, revealing none of the mis-steps, mystery and mess that constitute the drama and delight of scientific discovery. And it was only after serious reflection, anxious discussions with his wife and some time on the excellent football field near the Zurich laboratory that Dr Binnig finally decided to go to work for IBM. But once there, he thrived in its free-wheeling research environment. That Dr Binnig's design made sense, let alone that it would become so successful, was far from obvious: some people said it could not possibly work. Indeed, even Dr Binnig's fellow physicists at IBM were initially dubious. "People thought I was crazy," Dr Binnig recalls. There were whispers that Dr Rohrer might have hired the wrong man. Initially, Dr Binnig had to steal time to work on the tunnelling idea from his other research work. But he managed to convince both Dr Rohrer, who gave the project his support, and Dr Gerber, who immediately saw that Dr Binnig's counterintuitive approach had the potential to generate extremely high-resolution images. Some might argue that the STM is a mere tool, and is therefore less significant than a theoretical breakthrough in advancing the understanding of nature. But George Whitesides, a distinguished chemist and nanotechnologist at Harvard University, asserts that tools can have enormous influence in shaping scientific progress. Such is the importance of the STM, he suggests, that in the past 50 years only recombinant DNA has had a similar impact. He estimates that some 50 variations on the basic idea of the STM have been devised in various scientific and industrial fields. Both the STM and its successor, the atomic-force microscope (AFM), have become essential laboratory workhorses for researchers in fields such as lithography, nanotechnology, polymer science and microbiology. Even so, Steve Jurvetson, a Silicon Valley venture capitalist who specialises in nanotechnology, thinks the STM's greatest impact has been as a motivational tool: it has, he says, spurred an entire generation of scientists to think about controlling matter at the atomic scale. Just as the discovery of the structure of DNA transformed biology into an information science, he suggests, the ability to manipulate individual atoms could do the same for physics. Making the breakthrough of the STM in 1981, at the age of 34, was the start of a difficult time for Dr Binnig. He knew, he says, that he "would never experience anything like it again". In his Nobel lecture he confessed to a period of disillusionment, during which he wondered what he could possibly do next. Dr Rohrer helped him through this difficult time by encouraging him to produce a stream of papers. Together they published the so-called "7x7" paper, which used the STM to reveal the atomic structure of a silicon surface for the first time. Their controversial result was not immediately accepted by other scientists, but its publication generated a flurry of interest in the IBM team's new instrument. Dr Binnig, Dr Rohrer and Dr Gerber became evangelists for their microscope, opening their laboratory to other scientists and travelling widely to promote their ideas. Their first convert was Calvin Quate, an electrical engineer at Stanford University, who flew to Zurich to see the STM, and later joined with Dr Binnig and Dr Gerber to create the AFM. (Unlike the STM, which can only produce images of conducting or semiconducting materials, the AFM can produce atomic-scale images of non-conducting materials too.) Whatever next? Dr Binnig and other IBM researchers subsequently adapted ideas from the AFM to create a nano-mechanical storage device called the Millipede, which uses individual atoms to store and retrieve digital information. IBM is currently considering how to make this into a commercial product. Now partly retired, Dr Binnig remains an adviser to IBM, and is still very much a creative force. One young researcher working on the Millipede project sighs to a visitor that any session with Dr Binnig means hearing far more ideas than one could possibly pursue. Dr Binnig thinks nanotechnology will be very important, and must be pursued despite its supposed environmental risks. "There is always a danger any time you do something new. But if you don't do it, there's also a danger," he says. For instance, he notes that in the very long term, the sun will burn out, dooming humanity--unless some clever, playful scientist can figure out a way to manage without it, that is. Another of Dr Binnig's interests, and something that he believes could end up being even more important than the STM, is fostering creativity in computers. His aim is not to create artificial intelligence, a term Dr Binnig dislikes, but systems capable of creativity and deduction. In 1989 he published a book on creativity which was well received, and in 1994 he helped to found a start-up, now called Definiens, to develop software to emulate human thought processes. The company's first products, which are designed to spot patterns in large volumes of data, are being applied in the field of bioinformatics. With characteristic playfulness, Dr Binnig says his ultimate hope is that someday, two quantum computers will be chatting to each other--and one will say: "Binnig? Yeah, he's one of the guys who made us possible." Down on the pharm http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/PrinterFriendly.cfm? Story_ID=3171546&subjectID=526354 TECHNOLOGY QUARTERLY REPORTS Sep 16th 2004 Biotechnology: Will genetically engineered goats, rabbits and flies be the low-cost drug factories of the future? EARLIER this year, the regulators at the European Medicines Agency (EMEA) agreed to consider an unusual new drug, called ATryn, for approval. It was developed to treat patients with hereditary antithrombin deficiency, a condition that leaves them vulnerable to deep-vein thrombosis. What makes ATryn so unusual is that it is a therapeutic protein derived from the milk of a transgenic goat: in other words, an animal that, genetically speaking, is not all goat. The human gene for the protein in question is inserted into a goat's egg, and to ensure that it is activated only in udder cells, an extra piece of DNA, known as a beta-caseine promoter, is added alongside it. Since beta caseine is made only in udders, so is the protein. Once extracted from the goat's milk, the protein is indistinguishable from the antithrombin produced in healthy humans. The goats have been carefully bred to maximise milk production, so that they produce as much of the drug as possible. They are, in other words, living drug factories. ATryn is merely the first of many potential animal-derived drugs being developed by GTC Biotherapeutics of Framingham, Massachusetts. The company's boss, Geoffrey Cox, says his firm has created 65 potentially therapeutic proteins in the milk of its transgenic goats and cows, 45 of which occurred in concentrations of one gram per litre or higher. Female goats are ideal transgenic "biofactories", GTC claims, because they are cheap, easy to look after and can produce as much as a kilogram of human protein per year. All told, Dr Cox reckons the barn, feed, milking station and other investments required to make proteins using transgenic goats cost less than $10m--around 5% of the cost of a conventional protein-making facility. GTC estimates that it may be able to produce drugs for as little as $1-2 per gram, compared with around $150 using conventional methods. Goats' short gestation period--roughly five months--and the fact that they reach maturity within a year means that a new production line can be developed within 18 months. And increasing production is as simple as breeding more animals. So if ATryn is granted approval, GTC should be able to undercut producers of a similar treatment, produced using conventional methods, sales of which amount to $250m a year. GTC is not the only game in town, however. Nexia, based in Montreal, is breeding transgenic goats to produce proteins that protect against chemical weapons. TransOva, a biotech company based in Iowa, is experimenting with transgenic cows to produce proteins capable of neutralising anthrax, plague and smallpox. Pharming, based in the Netherlands, is using transgenic cows and rabbits to produce therapeutic proteins, as is Minos BioSystems, a Greek-Dutch start-up which is also exploring the drugmaking potential of fly larvae. It all sounds promising, but the fact remains that medicines derived from transgenic animals are commercially untested, and could yet run into regulatory, safety or political problems. At the same time, with biotechnology firms becoming increasingly risk-averse in response to pressure from investors and threats of price controls from politicians, transgenic animal-derived medicines might be exactly what the pharmaceuticals industry is lacking: a scalable, cost-effective way to make drugs that can bring products to market within a decade or so, which is relatively quick by industry standards. Just say no to Frankendrugs? So a great deal depends on the EMEA's decision, particularly given previous European scepticism towards genetically modified crops. But as far as anyone can tell, the signs look promising. In a conference call in August, Dr Cox told analysts that the EMEA had so far raised no concerns about the transgenic nature of his firm's product. [spacer.gif] [gray.gif] [spacer.gif] "Transgenic animals could be just what the pharmaceuticals industry needs: a fast, scalable and cost-effective way to make drugs." [spacer.gif] [gray.gif] But as the fuss over genetically modified crops showed, public opinion is also important. While some people may regard the use of animals as drug factories as unethical, however, the use of genetic engineering to treat the sick might be regarded as more acceptable than its use to increase yields and profits in agriculture. Conversely, tinkering with animal genes may be deemed to be less acceptable than tinkering with plant genes. A poll conducted in America in 2003 by the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology found that 81% of those interviewed supported the use of transgenic crops to manufacture affordable drugs, but only 49% supported the use of transgenic animals to make medicines. Even some biotech industry executives are unconvinced that medicines made primarily from animal-derived proteins will ever be safe enough to trust. Donald Drakeman of Medarex, a firm based in Princeton, New Jersey, is among the sceptics. His firm creates human antibodies in transgenic mice, clones the antibodies and then uses conventional processes to churn out copies of the antibodies by the thousand. "With goat and cow milk, especially, I worry about the risk of animal viruses and prions being transferred in some minute way," he says. (Bovine spongiform encephalitis, or "mad cow disease", is thought to be transmitted by a rogue form of protein called a prion.) Another concern, raised by lobby groups such as Greenpeace and the Union of Concerned Scientists, is that transgenic animals might escape into the wild and contaminate the gene pool, triggering all kinds of unintended consequences. There is also concern that an animal from the wild could find its way into GTC's pens, make contact with one of the transgenic animals, and then escape to "expose" other animals in the wild. Or what if the transgenic animals somehow got into the human food chain? Short of sabotage, none of these scenarios seems very likely, however. Since transgenic goats, for example, are living factories whose worth depends on their producing as much milk as possible, every measure is taken to keep them happy, healthy, well fed and sequestered from non-transgenic animals. As animals go, goats and cows are relatively unadventurous creatures of habit, are more easily hemmed in than horses, and are usually in no mood to run away when pregnant--which they are for much of the time at places like GTC and TransOva. The uncertainty over regulatory and public reactions is one of the reasons why, over the past four years, at least two dozen firms working to create drugs from transgenic animals have gone bust. Most were in Europe. GTC, which leads the field, has nothing to worry about, however, since it is sitting on around $34m in cash. Also sitting pretty is Nexia, particularly since it began to focus on the use of transgenic animals to make medicines that can protect against nerve agents. Nexia became known as the spider-silk company, after it created transgenic goats capable of producing spider silk (which is, in fact, a form of protein) in their milk. It is now working to apply the material, which it calls BioSteel, in medical applications. Using the same approach, the company has now developed goats whose milk contains proteins called bioscavengers, which seek out and bind to nerve agents such as sarin and VX. Nexia has been contracted by the US Army Medical Research Institute of Chemical Defence and DRDC Suffield, a Canadian biodefence institute, to develop both prophylactic and therapeutic treatments. Nexia believes it can produce up to 5m doses within two years. Today, the most common defence against nerve agents is a post-exposure "chem-pack" of atropine, which works if the subject has genuinely been exposed to a nerve agent, but produces side-effects if they have not. "You do not want to take this drug if you haven't been exposed," says Nexia's chief executive, Jeff Turner. The problem is that it is not always possible to tell if someone has been exposed or not. But Nexia's treatment, says Dr Turner, "won't hurt you, no matter what." The buzz around flies But perhaps the most curious approach to making transgenic-animal-derived medicines is that being taken by Minos BioSystems. It is the creation of Roger Craig, the former head of biotechnology at ICI, a British chemical firm, and his colleagues Frank Grosveld of Erasmus University in the Netherlands and Babis Savakis of the Institute of Molecular Biology and Biotechnology in Crete. While others concentrate on goats, Minos is using flies. "Mice won't hit scale, cows take too damn long to prepare for research, GM plants produce GM pollen that drifts in the wind, chickens have long-term stability of germ-line expression issues, and they carry viruses and new strains of 'flu--I quite like flies, myself," says Dr Craig. A small handful of common house flies, he says, can produce billions of offspring. A single fly can lay 500 eggs that hatch into larvae, a biomass factory capable of expressing growth hormone, say, or antibodies, which can then be extracted from the larval serum. The set-up cost of producing antibodies using flies would, Dr Craig estimates, be $20m-40m, compared with $200m to $1 billion using conventional methods. "In addition to getting some investors, the key here is gaining regulatory and pharma acceptance of the idea that flies have to be good for something," he says. This will take time, he admits, and could be a hard sell. But if the idea of using transgenic goats to make drugs takes hold, flies might not be such a leap. For the time being, then, everything hinges on GTC's goats. The EMEA's verdict is expected before the end of the year. Yet even if Dr Cox wins final approval to launch ATryn next year, he too faces a difficult task convincing the sceptics that transgenic animals are a safe, effective and economical way to make drugs. As Monsanto and other proponents of genetically modified crops have learned in recent years, it takes more than just scientific data to convince biotech's critics that their fear and loathing are misplaced. From checker at panix.com Tue Sep 28 14:48:46 2004 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 10:48:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Paleopsych] NYT: This Pill Will Make You Feel Better, but We're Not Sure Why Message-ID: This Pill Will Make You Feel Better, but We're Not Sure Why NYT September 28, 2004 By DENISE GRADY Most people have heard of the placebo effect, in which patients given sugar pills feel better because they think the pills are medicine. But few would like to be on the receiving end of a placebo: a person who asks for a painkiller wants the real thing. The medical profession, at least officially, frowns upon prescribing placebos, because it usually involves lying, implies disrespect and can destroy trust in doctors. Some hospitals ban placebos, except in experiments, and then participants must be told that they might be given inert pills or shots. A new survey, though, suggests that the profession may not always practice what it preaches. In the survey, of 89 doctors and nurses in Israel, 60 percent said they had given patients placebos. Many said placebos could sometimes work, and more than a third reported prescribing them as often as once a month. The patients given fake medicine included women in labor and people suffering from pain, anxiety, agitation, vertigo, sleep problems, asthma and drug withdrawal. Most had no idea that they were getting placebos. Among the prescribers, 68 percent told patients they were receiving real medicine, 17 percent said nothing at all, 11 percent said the medicine was "nonspecific" and 4 percent told patients the truth. Asked why they prescribed placebos, 43 percent said patients had made "unjustified" demands for medicine; 28 percent did it to test whether a patient's symptoms were real or imaginary; 15 percent hoped to buy time before the next dose of real medicine; and 11 percent said their reason was "to get patient to stop complaining." The doctors who conducted the survey said they had expected that no more than 10 percent of those who responded would have used placebos. "This is apparently a common practice," said Dr. Pesach Lichtenberg, a psychiatrist at Herzog Hospital and Hadassah medical school in Jerusalem. He conducted the survey, with Dr. Uriel Nitzan, at two large hospitals and various community clinics in the Jerusalem area. Their report was published online Sept. 17 by BMJ, a British medical journal (www.bmj.com). The notion of a placebo effect dates at least as far back as Hippocrates, who observed that certain gravely ill people seemed to recover through sheer "contentment" with their doctors. Thinking the mind could heal the body, later physicians sometimes tried to help it along by giving inert pills or powders to sick people they could not otherwise help. Today, some researchers are studying the placebo effect, while others doubt that it even exists. In a telephone interview, Dr. Lichtenberg said he thought the placebo effect was real, could sometimes help patients, and could do so more safely than many drugs. "I think the placebo has a legitimate place in medical treatment," he said, but he added that it was wrong to lie to patients. "There are certain ethical questions," he said. "Do you tell a patient, 'I'm giving you an antibiotic or a painkiller,' when it's not? Or do you tell them, 'You are getting an agent which has been proven effective repeatedly in research, which will help you feel better; we're not exactly sure how it works, but it has been shown to cause changes in brain imaging, to have physiological effects in the body and we are confident you will get relief?' Do you say something like that?" Dr. Lichtenberg said he became interested in the placebo effect because he had been helped by it himself. He had suffered for years from repeated throat infections, and consulted a friend who practiced alternative medicine. "He spoke to me for five hours," Dr. Lichtenberg said, recalling that he free associated about his throat and described being made to sing as a child for his elderly aunts. The friend told him that he would become slightly ill and then recover. That was exactly what happened, Dr. Lichtenberg said. The experience convinced him that there was something to the placebo effect. He said: "People in our day and age are surprised that a nonpharmacologic intervention could be useful, and I think that ultimately is the message of the placebo effect. There are other ways of bringing comfort and succor to a suffering patient." A survey of Danish doctors published in 2003 also found that many of them prescribed placebos, but Dr. Lichtenberg said it was not known whether doctors and nurses in other countries behaved the same way as those in Israel and Denmark. Dr. Robert M. Wachter, chief of the medical service at the medical center at the University of California at San Francisco, said in an e-mail message, "The use of placebos in day-to-day clinical care is virtually unheard of in the United States." He continued, "They are thought of as a subtle form of deception - both unethical and potentially creating a small risk of a malpractice suit." But Dr. Wachter also said that every doctor knew about the placebo effect and that it accounted for much of the benefit people got from antidepressants and all of the benefit from antibiotics taken for viral infections, which are not affected by the drugs. " 'Take this - I'm sure you'll feel much better' is a placebo maneuver," Dr. Wachter said. "But in the U.S., it would be accompanied by a real medicine, not a sugar pill." http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/28/health/28plac.html From checker at panix.com Tue Sep 28 14:51:32 2004 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 10:51:32 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Paleopsych] NYT: Toonology: Scientists Try to Find Out What's So Funny About Humor Message-ID: Toonology: Scientists Try to Find Out What's So Funny About Humor NYT September 28, 2004 By GLENN COLLINS So this group of scientists is setting out to study humor, and they wire up their research subjects and - hang on. Is this a New Yorker cartoon? Absolutely. But now it is The New Yorker cartoon itself that will become the object of scientific study. As in: How do people perceive that specific things are funny? What happens when they laugh? How does humor evolve? And just why are people born with a gift for laughter and a sense that the world is, er, mad? These and many other not obviously risible mysteries will be addressed by researchers at the University of Michigan as they examine a vast, ready-made database of mirth: virtually every cartoon published by the magazine since it began on Feb. 1, 1925. The three-year interdisciplinary experimental project is called Humor at Michigan, in which wit will be studied from psychological, medical, anthropological, cultural, historical and other points of view. "We need to know a whole lot more about humor," said the project's organizer, Charles R. Eisendrath, director of the Knight-Wallace Fellowship at the university. "We hope to learn why we think things are funny, and whether it matters. And if the joke is on us, that's fine." Actually, the joke could be on everyone: the cartoon database is available not only to researchers but, for the first time, to the general public. It resides on two compact discs included in "The Complete Cartoons of The New Yorker," a 656-page book being published next Tuesday by Black Dog & Leventhal ($60). The book will include 2,500 cartoons, but the discs hold all 68,647 cartoons published up to the magazine's 79th anniversary last February. "These cartoons nicely match the kinds of empirical methods we can employ," said Dr. Richard L. Lewis, associate professor of psychology and linguistics at the university. He explains that cartoons-as-specimens are relatively uniform; most consist of a single-panel black-and-white illustration with a short-sentence caption. "The fruit fly is used in decoding the mysteries of the genome," said Robert Mankoff, cartoon editor of The New Yorker and editor of the new anthology, "because the chromosomes are not complicated, and because its short life cycle makes it ideal for following hereditary changes. Well, the ideas in cartoons are like that: easily visible. And the ideas that prompted them have an easily observable life cycle." Dr. Lewis is a cognitive psychologist who studies psycholinguistics, the mental processes involved in language comprehension. In previous studies he has tracked research subjects' eyeball movements as they read texts at a rate of 300 or 400 milliseconds per word. Now this technique will confront the cartoon. "There is an incredible amount of cognitive machinery involved in understanding a cartoon, and one interesting thing about humor is that you get it or you don't after two or three seconds or so," Dr. Lewis said. During one planned experiment, test viewers will eyeball cartoon images as well as captions, "and every four milliseconds we'll get a readout of where people are looking." Beyond an understanding of comprehension itself, medical studies, planned to begin next year, may explore the relation of laughter to serotonin levels, or test for links to the immune system. Researchers will also be looking for physiological markers that could be humor signatures. Dr. Lewis said there was some evidence to suggest that eye-pupil dilation "might correlate with the rating of cartoons for wit" (the larger the pupil, the funnier the cartoon). Beyond this, "if we can map certain processes of humor perception onto brain regions," he said, "we could use functional magnetic resonance imaging tests to depict blood flow in the brain on a second-by-second basis, possibly revealing other signature effects." The investigators' working hypothesis "is that humor is evolutionary, an adaptive response," said Dr. Richard Gonzalez, chairman of the university's psychology department. "But it could have developed as a function of our brain size, or something else; we don't really know." Although thinkers from Plato to Hobbes and Freud to Wittgenstein have indulged in the grim sport of humor hypothesis, "the kinds of theories we have about humor are so rudimentary as to be pathetic," said Dr. Daniel Herwitz, director of the university's Institute for the Humanities. There is some consensus that humor is a complex phenomenon subsuming external social context, interior emotional response and the human capabilities of perception, memory and judgment. "But these elements are part of most social and linguistic transactions," he said, "and much of that just isn't funny." To Mr. Mankoff, who qualifies as something of an expert, "the core of all humor, the reason for it all, is unhappiness," he said, though he added that he spent a mostly enjoyable year editing the cartoon database for the new anthology. He describes his role in the research project as "a stimulator and gadfly," explaining that the academic collaboration started after he began lecturing at the university in 2002. He will spend a year as a varsity fellow during the research project. Mr. Mankoff, 60, is a former Skinnerian Ph.D. candidate in experimental psychology at Queens College in the 1970's. ("I quit when my experimental animal died," he said of a pigeon with a number but not a name. "I took it as an omen and became a cartoonist.") He began selling his work to The New Yorker in 1977, became a contract cartoonist in 1981 and the editor in 1997. Mr. Mankoff said it would be possible to study the evolution of comic forms through cartoon elements. For example, Dr. Gonzalez, the Michigan psychologist, said the anthology could provide a window into sexual stereotyping and how it had changed over time. Before sexual harassment was seen as a serious offense, the "geezer chasing maiden" cartoon was a staple. So were women wielding rolling pins like baseball bats. New Yorker cartoons are organized by decades in the book, and the database can be used to track such comic evolutions as the one that saw Father Time mutate in the late 1960's into the Grim Reaper - who, in turn, evolved from a menacer in a land of pestilence into a scold in a consumerist paradise. ("Relax," says the modern Reaper to a worried woman, "I've come for your toaster.") But Mr. Mankoff says it is possible to organize cartoons not just chronologically but taxonomically, in relation to four vectors: caption, image and two values he terms "real" and "unreal." "Most gags consist of an unreal image with a rather ordinary caption," he said, citing a cartoon that shows a party guest speaking to a desperate woman on a window ledge, referring to a man on the same ledge around the corner. The guest says, cheerfully, "There's someone I'd like you to meet." Or, Mr. Mankoff went on, they might couple a commonplace image (married couple) with an outlandish caption ("I'm sorry, dear. I wasn't listening. Could you repeat what you've said since we've been married?"). His two other categories are "surreal" and "slice of life." The first applies when both caption and image are unusual (crocodiles talking about eating their young); slice of life applies when neither caption nor image is unusual, just funny. The Michigan levity project is to get $100,000 in financing from the university's Institute for the Humanities, the psychology department, the Depression Center of the medical school and the university's Rackham Graduate School. After that money runs out, it may have to turn to outside sources. Dr. Gonzalez was asked if he thought the project would be taken seriously. "I hope that we could do work that would not be easy to mock," he replied. And Mr. Eisendrath noted that "depression is a major health problem in the United States," adding, "So anyone who questions the value of a study of humor literally needs his head examined." There is always, of course, the Heisenbergian concern that the more humor is studied, the more elusive it will become, or as Dr. Herwitz put it: "Humor is like Groucho Marx. It refuses to join any club that would have it as a member." Mr. Mankoff preferred to paraphrase E. B. White, who said dissecting humor was like dissecting a frog: nobody is much interested, and the frog dies. "I come here not to bury the cartoon," Mr. Mankoff said of the project, "but to praise it." http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/28/science/28toon.html From checker at panix.com Tue Sep 28 14:52:57 2004 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 10:52:57 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Paleopsych] NYT: Acupuncture Moves Toward the Mainstream Message-ID: Acupuncture Moves Toward the Mainstream NYT September 28, 2004 By ANAHAD O'CONNOR [Did the Sage of Baltimore ever say anything about acupuncture? He denouced chiropractic many times.] Three years ago, Alfred Szymanski could not seem to get his blood pressure under control. He ran 10 miles a week, stuck to a healthy diet and was on a hypertension medication, all to no avail. His doctor suggested switching medications, but Mr. Szymanski, wary of side effects, decided to try something he had always wondered about: acupuncture. After three 20-minute sessions, each covered by his medical plan, his blood pressure plunged 20 points. "Every time I left I was so relaxed; it was like euphoria," said Mr. Szymanski, 61, who lives in New York. "My blood pressure stayed down for quite a while." Acupuncture, long shunned by mainstream medicine but for centuries considered the crown jewel of alternative therapy, is slowly gaining ground in doctors' offices around the country. While some experts still question its effectiveness, studies in recent years - including one at Duke last week - have thrown scientific weight behind its benefits, supporting its usefulness in alleviating conditions from morning sickness to carpal tunnel syndrome. In the past few years, the number of hospitals offering acupuncture and other alternative therapies has doubled. At the same time, postgraduate training programs in alternative medicine have sprung up at universities around the country, most recently at Harvard and the University of San Francisco. "There's a greater demand for these programs now because so many physicians are interested in learning acupuncture," said Dr. Nader E. Soliman, an anesthesiologist in Rockville, Md., and president of the American Academy of Medical Acupuncture. "A lot of physicians who used to be extremely reluctant to refer patients for the treatment are now doing it regularly." Patients curious about alternative medicine and increasingly skeptical of the drug industry are also seeking out the procedure, experts say. A visit to an acupuncturist can cost $50 to $100. For people working at the right companies, however, it runs a lot less. More and more employers looking for low-cost additions to medical plans are embracing the treatment. Nearly 50 percent of workers with benefits received coverage for it in 2004, compared with just over 30 percent two years ago, according to a survey this month by the Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research and Educational Trust. The trend, it seems, is not limited to humans. In a society of people attached to their pets, it may be no surprise that veterinarians around the country say they are also seeing a greater demand for the service. Dr. Barbara Royal, a vet in private practice in Chicago, says she has been fully booked virtually since the day she received her acupuncture license eight years ago. "People were desperate for it," she said. Dr. Royal uses the technique mostly on cats and dogs hobbled by arthritis, but recently she has been summoned to treat more exotic animals. At Brookfield Zoo in Chicago, she regularly uses acupuncture to alleviate arthritis in a 1,600-pound Bactrian camel, now able to run again for the first time in years. "I think the trend in animals is correlating with what's happening in humans," she said. "There's a holistic movement out there, and if people have found something that works for them, they want it for their pets, too." But as acupuncture slowly blends into the mainstream, some experts are calling for tighter regulation. Dr. Joseph J. Fins, a member of the White House Commission on Complementary and Alternative Medicine Policy two years ago, said that while acupuncture was relatively safe and effective, there was no system for tracking harmful side effects. Without closer monitoring, he said, a careless acupuncturist who reuses needles that become infected with hepatitis, for example, might easily go unnoticed. "Because of how many people are using it, it's important that we have some kind of surveillance system in place," said Dr. Fins, who is chief of the division of medical ethics at Weill Medical College of Cornell University in New York City. "There's no real mechanism to collect information about the safety and efficacy of these treatments. It's the same problem with over-the-counter supplements." Experts say that a vast number of alternative therapies, like oil drips and aromatherapy, have little scientific base or have yet to be studied properly. But government financed research on acupuncture dates from the 1970's, about the time the treatment first started gaining popularity in the United States. It originated in China over 2,000 years ago. "Of the many different alternative therapies, this was really the first one to be studied seriously by the National Institutes of Health," said Dr. Richard Nahin, senior adviser for scientific coordination and outreach at the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine in Bethesda, Md. Some of the results of the decades of research on acupuncture have been ambiguous. Because it involves inserting needles into the skin, creating the equivalent of placebo pills for control groups in some studies can be complicated, experts say. And, in some cases, acupuncture has been shown to help ease certain conditions - like drug addiction - when combined with other treatments, but not necessarily when used alone. For other ailments, however, acupuncture has been found to work better than standard medications - and without side effects. It has been widely used for years to ease chronic pain conditions, and studies have repeatedly endorsed its usefulness. Last week, researchers at Duke showed that it was far more effective for postoperative sickness and vomiting in a group of subjects than Zofran, a widely used antinausea drug. Roughly a quarter of all people who undergo major surgery in the United States experience retching and illness afterward, usually brought on by anesthesia. Antinausea medications offer relief, but because they sometimes cause severe headaches and cramps a number of patients are reluctant to take them, said Dr. Tong J. Gan, an author of the new study, published in the journal Anesthesia & Analgesia. Dr. Gan's study looked at a group of 75 women who were either given Zofran before major breast surgery or hooked up to an electroacupuncture machine that delivered low doses of current during the operation. The high-tech acupuncture technique prevented illness in all but 27 percent of those who received it, while about half of the women given the antinausea drug complained of sickness the next day. The rate of sickness in a control group that received neither treatment was about 60 percent. "This is sort of an interesting time right now," Dr. Gan said. "We are seeing more and more evidence suggesting that alternative therapies are beneficial, and patients are gradually demanding it." To some extent, the increased acceptance of acupuncture reflects a growing understanding of its biological mechanism, Dr. Gan said, which until now has largely been a mystery. Research suggests that stimulating acupuncture points somehow prompts the flow of endorphins and other hormones that soothe pain. Other studies find that it affects parts of the central nervous system that mediate blood pressure and body temperature, among other things. Dr. Nahin said several imaging studies that can shed light on how the treatment influences brain activity are under way. But whatever acupuncture's underlying effects turn out to be, experts say its gradual merger with conventional medicine will have broad implications, eventually opening the door to closer examination of other popular therapies that lie outside the mainstream. "Until now, we've had very little in the way of credible scientific evidence to compare Eastern or traditional medicine to a pharmaceutical approach," said Dr. Steven Eubanks, chairman of the department of surgery at the University of Missouri. "Hopefully, this will add to our willingness to evaluate other alternative therapies, and to do so with our usual scientific scrutiny." http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/28/health/policy/28acup.html From checker at panix.com Tue Sep 28 14:55:07 2004 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 10:55:07 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Paleopsych] NYT: Aging: Sharper Minds With Bustling Feet Message-ID: Aging: Sharper Minds With Bustling Feet NYT September 28, 2004 By ERIC NAGOURNEY [Those who do not have time for exercise now will make up for it later when they get sick. I forget who said that.] Just going out regularly for an easy walk appears to help elderly people ward off a decline in their mental abilities, two new studies have found. One of the studies, which tracked the health and exercise habits of more than 18,000 women over a period of about 12 years, found that those who walked regularly had the mental acuity usually associated with people several years younger. "We're looking at two or three hours of walking at an easy pace," said the lead author, Dr. Jennifer Weuve, an epidemiologist at the Harvard School of Public Health. The second study, led by Dr. Robert D. Abbott of the University of Virginia School of Medicine, followed the health of almost 2,300 men, ages 71 to 93, and found that those who walked the least had twice the risk of developing dementia as those who walked two or more miles a day. Both studies were published in the Sept. 22 issue of The Journal of the American Medical Association. The women's study, conducted by researchers from Brigham and Women's Hospital and the public health school, drew data from participants in the long-term Nurses' Health Study followed from ages 70 to 81. It found that women who reported walking at least six hours a week had a 20 percent lower risk of mental impairment than inactive women. The researchers for the studies said they had taken into account the possibility that mental impairment had led the participants to exercise less, and the benefit still appeared clear. Among the possible explanations, Dr. Weuve said, was that the good overall cardiovascular health helped the brain. She also pointed to research suggesting that physical activity encouraged the growth of brain cells and the connections between them. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/28/health/28exer.html From checker at panix.com Tue Sep 28 19:15:20 2004 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 15:15:20 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Paleopsych] Robotic Nation Evidence 2004.8 Message-ID: Robotic Nation Evidence 2004.8 http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004_08_01_roboticnation_archive.html [None for September yet. Maybe Marshall Brain has dropped this feature. And I'm late myself getting around to going to his site.] News of the developing Robotic Nation 8.31.2004 More examples of Moore's Law Many examples of Moore's Law this week: * [6]AMD demos first dual-core processor - "The chips -- which contain two processor cores and 1M byte of Level 2 cache for each core -- use the same 940-pin socket used by AMD's single-core Opteron processors manufactured with a 90-nanometer process, according to information posted on the AMD's Web site. This compatibility will allow HP, Sun Microsystems Inc. and IBM Corp. to incorporate dual-core Opterons in existing systems that are designed for the Opteron, AMD said." * [7]Intel's 65nm chip will make laptops go further - "Intel has built a fully functional 70Mb static random access memory (SRam) chip with more than half a billion transistors, using 65nanometer (nm) process technology." * [8]Computer hard drives perform better, last longer with novel polyester lubricant * [9]NIST Unveils Chip-Scale Atomic Clock - "The heart of a minuscule atomic clockbelieved to be 100 times smaller than any other atomic clockhas been demonstrated by scientists at the Commerce Departments National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), opening the door to atomically precise timekeeping in portable, battery-powered devices for secure wireless communications, more precise navigation and other applications." * [10]96 Processors Under Your Desktop - "A small Santa Clara-based company, Orion Multisystems, today unveils a new concept in computing, 'cluster workstations.' In October, you'll be able to choose between a 12-processor unit for less than $10,000 and a 96-processor system for less than $100,000. These new systems are powered by Efficeon processors from Transmeta and are running Fedora Linux version 2.6.6." The last one is interesting. It echoes the "workstation boom" in the 1980s, when players like Sun, Apollo, DEC, IBM, etc. battled it out for the scientific desktop with UNIX workstations. This machine is not quite as impressive as it sounds at first. According to [11]this page, an Efficeon is only about one-quarter as fast as a Pentium. So this machine might "only" be as powerful as a 20- or 25-Pentium workstation. The reason for using the Efficeon, despite its relative slowness, is its low wattage per calculation. If you put 25 Pentiums in a box, they would consume 3,000 or 4,000 watts -- it would blast you out of your office with the heat, and you would need to run a special 30-amp circuit to plug it in. For comparison, a typical electric clothes dryer uses [12]4,000 watts. By using Efficeon chips, at 8 watts per chip, the whole machine uses "only" as much power as a blow drier. The thing that is interesting about this machine is the amount of horsepower it makes available in an "off-the-shelf" package. If history repeats itself, then in ten years this is the horsepower that a "normal" $500 desktop machine will have available. Along with [13]many terabytes of storage space. See [14]Robotic Nation for details. // [15]permalink 8.29.2004 Robotic mobility [16][sitnlift_main_photo.jpg] This is a good example of the unusual forms robots can take in the future: [17]GM Mobility - Sit-N-Lift From the article: GM is the only automotive manufacturer in the U.S. to offer a fully motorized, rotating lift-and-lower passenger seat to help people stay on the move. Sit-N-Lift(TM)(1) provides convenient access to the right-hand second-row seating area. Operated by a handheld remote control, the power bucket seat rotates, then extends out of the vehicle and lowers for easy entry and exit. This dealer-installed accessory called Sit-N-Lift(TM)(1) is available on 2001 through 2004 extended wheelbase models of Chevy Venture, Pontiac Montana and Oldsmobile Silhouette. Imagine hospital beds that automatically load, roll and bathe patients. Imagine sofas and chairs that rearrange themselves, come when you call them and that move themselves for easy cleaning. And so on. // [18]permalink 8.26.2004 Robots and jobs [19]Rise in offshoring breeds job insecurity among U.S. workers From the article: "With an expanding array of jobs vulnerable to being moved offshore, many Americans will migrate to such fields as health care and education, which require face-to-face contact, the experts predict." Automation isn't just allowing individuals to do more work than they once did, it's eliminating the need for many of those individuals in the first place. Technology is wiping out whole categories of lower-wage jobs such as supermarket cashiers, airport ticket agents and bank tellers. This is exactly the point of [20]Robotic Nation. If this transition happened slowly, that would be one thing. The problem is that the transition is going to happen very quickly -- much faster than we've seen before. That speed will cause a great deal of turmoil. People will try to transition to "health care and education", but then those fields will be automated as well. See for example: * [21]Robotic Education * [22]Robots and Teachers * [23]The arrival of the robotic hospital * [24]More Hospital Robots Every aspect of our economy will be automating simultaneously. Retail stores will be eliminating millions of employees. The tranportation sector will be turning to robotic cars, trucks and planes. And so on. See [25]Robots taking jobs for a fascinating list. See [26]Robotic Nation for details. See [27]yesterday's census numbers for statistical evidence of the trend. // [28]permalink 8.25.2004 Robotic insects at war [29]Australian scientists turn to insect swarms for new generation weapons From the article: Alex Ryan, a mathematician with the government's defense Science and Technology Organisation, heads a team that is working on computer software recreating swarm behaviour for use on the battlefield. The goal is to develop swarms of small, expendable unmanned vehicles that can carry out missions in ground, sea and aerial environments too dangerous for humans. It is easy to imagine a number of scenarios: * A bank robber walks into the bank's lobby, and 250 robotic insects jump out of the woodwork and encase him. * A protestor shouting at a presidential candidate out of turn is encased by 250 robotic insects who inject him with tranquilizers. * A famous person does not have body guards, but instead has a swarm of robotic insects hovering overhead ready to descend at a moment's notice. * On a battlefield, a C-130 airplane releases 1,000,000 robotic insects behind enemy lines, and the insects find and poison every enemy combatant. * Those same 1,000,000 robotic insects could do the same thing at a riot, or at a peaceful demonstration. * And so on... // [30]permalink 8.24.2004 Robots in Japan [31]Land of the rising robot [32][story.robot.jpg] From the article: Hiroshi Kobayashi, one of Japan's leading robot scientists, says he believes the concept of a moving humanoid robot will become invaluable in the future. His own designs include a muscle suit to help physically disabled people with movement, and his robotic receptionist will be on the market within the next year. Also: Yoichi Takamoto, CEO of Japanese robotics business TMSUK, says his company is working closely with the Japanese fire service to make its "Hyper Robot" become a key member of a fire fighting crew. // [33]permalink 8.23.2004 Humanoid combat robots in Japan [34]Combat robots wow crowds From the article: A robot fighting contest that draws huge crowds in Japan each year has highlighted sophisticated technological trends in robotics, experts say. Also: Richardson adds that the fighting machines highlight the trend for making robots more robust. "There's a definite trend in the last few years to have more fault-tolerant humanoid robots," he says. "At some point they are going to fall over, so make them so they don't get damaged and can get back up again." The article links to two videos, including [35]this one (3.90MB MPG) and [36]this one (3.48MB MPG). See also [37]Robotic Security. // [38]permalink NASA robot rides a Segway [39]NASA engineers refine Robonaut From the article: Robonaut B, a robot built with human-like hands and television camera eyes, now has the option of rolling around Earth on a modified two-wheeled Segway scooter or grappling the International Space Station with what researchers call a "space leg." "We built Robonaut B to be portable," said Robert Ambrose, robonaut project lead at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston,Texas. "It really exceeded our expectations." The second in the robonaut series, Robonaut B is a self-contained robot controlled remotely by a human operator. Future incarnations of the mobile robot could prove vital companions for astronauts living and working on the moon and in space. "We're looking at other lower bodies for the moon, with a four-wheel or six-wheel base," Ambrose said. "We're not going to take a Segway to the moon, but it's a good way to emulate the idea on Earth." See also [40]Robots and NASA and [41]Robotic repair. // [42]permalink 8.22.2004 Smallest robotic helicopter [43]Mini helicopter unveiled in Japan [44][xinsrc_510801191638625276610.jpg] From the article: The latest tiny flying robot has been unveiled in Japan, armed with top-of- the-range high-tech gadgetry. Seiko Epson launched the FR-II, which is lighter than an empty drinks can [12 grams]. It carries a digital camera, and, unlike other flying robots, a battery. // [45]permalink 8.18.2004 Interplanetary robots [46]NASA Develops Robust AI For Planetary Rovers From the article: NASA is planning to add a strong dose of artificial intelligence (AI) to planetary rovers to make them much more self-reliant, capable of making basic decisions during a mission. Scientists at NASA Ames Research Center, in the heart of California's Silicon Valley, are developing very complex AI software that enables a higher level of robotic intelligence. In the past, very simple artificial intelligence systems on board rovers allowed them to make some simple decisions, but much smarter AI will enable these mobile robots to make many decisions now made by mission controllers. // [47]permalink 8.17.2004 Tomato-picking robots [48]Ohio State University develops robotic tomato harvester for the J.F. Kennedy Space Center Further research in robotic farming is being helped by NASA of all people. According to the article: The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) considers farming a matter of survival for future long-term space missions. Plants provide food when deliveries from Earth aren't feasible and make air breathable and water drinkable. But who will care for and harvest crops when astronauts are so busy carrying out key mission tasks? "Labor requirements to grow and harvest the crops must be reduced through automation," said Peter Ling, an Ohio State University Extension specialist. Also: The harvester includes a sensing unit and a robotic hand integrated with a commercial robotic manipulator provided by Motoman Inc., West Carrollton, Ohio. The sensing unit, or robotic eye, scans the tomato plant and determines the number and position of red fruits. With this information, the four-finger prosthetic hand moves in the direction of the fruit. The fingers then open around the tomato and get a hold of it before a pulling, bending or torsion movement is applied to detach it. There are plans to expand the research into other fruit crops like apples and oranges. See also: * [49]Produce picking robot * [50]Agricultural robots to take over the farm * [51]Farms and robots // [52]permalink 8.16.2004 Robots and guns The company called Metal Storm creates guns that can fire bullets at rates "in excess of one million rounds per minute". It is probably safe to say that a gun that can shoot a million rounds a minute is fairly lethal. So the obvious thing to do is to give such a gun to a robot, as demonstrated in this video collection: [53]Metal Storm - Video - Latest Releases [54][may14A3_talon.jpg] See also: [55]Successful X-45 robotic bomber // [56]permalink 8.14.2004 The Coming Robot Revolution [57]The Coming Robot Revolution From the article: Robots, from mechanical dogs that can learn new tricks to automated vacuum cleaners that avoid furniture, are steadily becoming a part of everyday life. But the real robot boom lies just ahead, experts say. // [58]permalink 8.11.2004 Olympic security [59]CNN.com - Olympics' digital security unprecedented From the article: If you're going to the Olympics, you'd better be careful what you say and do in public. Software will be watching and listening. Recent leaps in technology have paired highly sophisticated software with street surveillance cameras to create digital security guards with intelligence-gathering skills. Also: It gathers images and audio from an electronic web of over 1,000 high-resolution and infrared cameras, 12 patrol boats, 4,000 vehicles, nine helicopters, a sensor-laden blimp and four mobile command centers. This is an extremely good example of a [60]Robotic Bubble. As we create [61]humanoid robotic guards and [62]armed robotic security forces these bubbles will get bigger and much tighter. The bubble around Washington is being noted in articles like these: * [63]Street Closing Irks D.C. Leaders (washingtonpost.com): "...set up 14 vehicle checkpoints, creating a huge security perimeter around powerful symbols..." * [64]The New York Times: Safety Precautions Transform Appearance of Capitol Hill It is very easy to imagine the day when you cannot enter any American city unless you have permission to do so. They will all be protected by bubbles. See also [65]Robotic Surveillance and [66]Manna for details. // [67]permalink 8.10.2004 What robotic memory will look like in 10 years [68]Taiwan firms to launch 2TB memory card From the article: The format will support up to 2TB of storage capacity within a 3.2 x 2.4 x 0.1cm card - the same size as a standard MMC unit. The new cards are said to be connector-compatible with the older format. The new cards will have a data transfer rate of 120MBps, ten times that of SD memory cards. Like the Secure Digital format, ?card will support I/O devices, such as Bluetooth and 802.11 adaptors. It is very rare today to find a personal computer with one terabyte of disk space. If it has it, it is made up of 4 to 10 drives and has an access rate of 30 or 40 MB/sec. The drive array takes up a cubic foot or more of space, consumes lots of electricity, generates lots of heat and weighs 20 pounds. In 10 years, robots will be running around with two terabytes of memory that is 4 times faster, uses no power to speak of and fills a cubic centimeter of space. That's the effect of [69]Moore's Law. See also: * [70]Keeping up with Moore's Law * [71]Moore's law and hard disks * [72]The effects of Moore's law Another example of the same trend: [73]Holographic discs look like DVDs but hold a terabyte of information. Today. // [74]permalink 8.9.2004 Robotic assembly [75]Popular Science | A Limber Future The article notes: At this stage, however, NanoSonic is busy meeting the demand for its 12-inch-by-12-inch samples, which take custom-built robots up to three days to create. That's speedy, if you consider that Metal Rubber, a product of nanotechnology, must be fabricated molecule by molecule. // [76]permalink 8.5.2004 Kids and multi-tasking [77]The screen-age: Our brains in our laptops From the article: A student may have a textbook open. The television is on with sound off (perhaps with the CNN Headline News modular screen). They've got music on headphones. On a laptop hooked in to the Internet there's a homework window, along with e-mail and instant messaging in the background. The Web has become an essential part of checking facts and figures for the homework (not to mention plagiarizing with copy and paste). On top of that, the student may field phone calls or talk with a roommate. One of the most striking observations in Turkle's findings was a quote from one multi-tasking student who preferred the online world to the face-to-face world. "Real life," he said, "is just one more window." College students are the leading edge in adapting to this new goldfish bowl, these new multi-tasking sense ratios. Some of us will hold on to the old ways by our fingernails, afraid of losing a coherent self. Others will plunge into the new collective nerve center, our various selves loosely joined in a partial free-fall at all times. This goes back to the post entitled [78]Robots and teachers, and helps explain why "traditional education" using a human lecturer standing at a whiteboard simply will not last that much longer. It it too boring, too slow... // [79]permalink 8.4.2004 Keeping up with Moore's Law I gave a [80]talk to a group of robotics folks on Monday night, and one of the concerns that came up in the Q&A session afterwards was that [81]Moore's Law will somehow "run out of steam." Two of the problems that people brought up included, a) the ever-shrinking size of transistors cannot continue forever, and b) increasing power consumption cannot continue forever. One point made is that current supercomputers (the kind with 10,000 Pentium chips running in parallel) can consume 10 to 20 megawatts of power. Certainly a robot cannot consume 20 megawatts. I understand both points, but I think they are both irrelevant. First, we KNOW it is possible to produce a high-performance, low power CPU. Each one of us has a brain that performs something on the order of one quadrillion operations per second, yet it consumes only [82]20 watts. Second, Scientists and engineers make discoveries all the time, and things simply get faster and faster. 20 years ago a Cray computer ran so hot that the entire computer (as big as a refrigerator) was immersed in [83]liquid FC-77 to extract the prodigious amounts of heat it created. [84]Today you can get that same power in a little desktop computer cooled with a small fan. That's normal progress, and there's nothing going to stop that sort of progress. Here are two articles that show current trends in making computers faster and more efficient: [85]Sun chips away at wireless chip connections From the article: It will take a lot of work, but Sun Microsystems says it is making headway on a technology that will allow chips to communicate without circuit boards or wires. The technology, called "proximity communication," aims to let one chip transmit signals directly to another next to it, instead of through the tangle of pins, wires and circuit boards employed today. If successful, the technique could greatly alter many aspects of computer design. Performance, for instance, could greatly escalate because the speed of transferring data among chips and the number of channels for the transfers would increase. Energy consumption could also decline. Just as important, overall costs could fall, because defective chips could be removed like Scrabble tiles. Also: The technique could also allow designers to remove the cache--the large pool of memory currently found on the processor--and put it on a separate chip. Caches were integrated onto processors to amplify bandwidth. Adding cache, however, bumps up manufacturing costs, as it greatly increases the number of transistors. With the bandwidth constraint gone, caches could once again be made independent without it having an impact on performance. If you take out the cache -- representing millions of transistors -- you can use those transistors for something else. See [86]this page for some thoughts. This article talks about a whole new paradigm for computing: [87]Nanotech leads way to quantum computing From the article: Plastic chips and quantum computing could be among the new ways of keeping up with Moore's Law in the future, according to a new study on nanotechnology, the science of manipulating matter on a molecular level. One point I made in my talk and in my article discussed how quickly airplanes advanced between 1903 and 1954: Imagine that you could travel back in time to the year 1900. Imagine that you stand on a soap box on a city street corner in 1900 and you say to the gathering crowd, "By 1955, people will be flying at supersonic speeds in sleek aircraft and traveling coast to coast in just a few hours." In 1900, it would have been insane to suggest that. In 1900, airplanes did not even exist. Orville and Wilbur did not make the first flight until 1903. The Model T Ford did not appear until 1909. Yet, by 1947, Chuck Yeager flew the X1 at supersonic speeds. In 1954, the B-52 bomber made its maiden flight. It took only 51 years to go from a rickety wooden airplane flying at 10 MPH, to a gigantic aluminum jet-powered Stratofortress carrying 70,000 pounds of bombs halfway around the world at 550 MPH. That is the kind of progress we will continue to see in computing power over the next 50 years. We will see progress in [88]transitor size and power consumption, packaging, etc. We will also see completely new paradigms arise. What these developments mean is a [89]dramatic increase in robotic intelligence over the next several decades, along with [90]dramatic changes in the world economy. See also: * [91]Moore's Law continues * [92]Moore's law and hard disks * [93]Future processors * [94]The effects of Moore's law * [95]Robotic AI using Neural Nets // [96]permalink 8.3.2004 Robotic Spacecraft Europe has a new spacecraft to ferry supplies up to the International Space Station. It is just about ready for its maiden flight, and it is completely robotic -- it has no accomodations for human pilots or passengers, and burns up on re-entry so it has no use as a "life boat" either. [97]Europe Creates its Own Space Vehicle [98][0,3772,94927_10,00.jpg] From the article: After the launch of the Jules Verne, one ATV will be launched by ESA about every year, carrying 7.5 tons of cargo from the Kourou launch site in French Guyana. The cylindrical vessel weighs 20 tons and measures 10.3 meters long (33.79 feet) and 4.5 meters in diameter. After a journey of up to five days, it will dock with the space station's Russian service module using a precision laser tracking system that looks like a scene straight out of "Star Wars." By eliminating humans from the system, the design and manufacturing process is highly simplified -- no life support; no extra weight and space for chairs, controls, displays; no need to worry about re-entry; No "escape hatches"; etc. See also [99]Robots and Nasa and [100]Robotic repair call to Hubble taking shape. // [101]permalink 8.1.2004 Cars that express emotion If this takes off, it his will be a very short-lived phenomenon: [102]A car that winks, laughs and cries From the article: Four inventors working for Toyota in Japan have won a patent for a car that they say can help drivers communicate better by glaring angrily at another car cutting through traffic as well as appear to cry, laugh, wink or just look around. The inventors explain in the patent that they want drivers to have more than a one-note horn and on-off headlights to signal other drivers. The horn sounds the same, they write, whether a driver is asking for permission to cut in front of another car or showing gratitude for having been allowed to cut in front, so other people often do not know what the honking is about. The reason it will be short-lived is because, within 15 years or so, cars will all be driving themselves and communicating with each other and a central data center continuously. There will be no need for something as primitive and silly as tears. The cars will be sharing reams of data at the speed of light. See also: [103]Robot drivers. // [104]permalink References 6. http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/08/31/HNamddualcore_1.html 7. http://www.vnunet.com/news/1157714 8. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-08/acs-hd081604.php 9. http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/miniclock.htm 10. http://radio.weblogs.com/0105910/2004/08/30.html 11. http://www.vanshardware.com/reviews/2004/04/040405_efficeon/040405_efficeon.htm 12. http://www.wisconsinpublicservice.com/home/appcalc.asp 13. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/08/what-robotic-memory-will-look-like-in.html 14. http://marshallbrain.com/robotic-nation.htm 15. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/08/more-examples-of-moores-law.html 16. http://www.gm.com/automotive/vehicle_shopping/gm_mobility/vaa_snl.html 17. http://www.gm.com/automotive/vehicle_shopping/gm_mobility/vaa_snl.html 18. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/08/robotic-mobility.html 19. http://www.menafn.com/qn_news_story.asp?StoryId=CqqxtqeienJaWn1jPC2vPBM9MzNnOB3jPBG 20. http://marshallbrain.com/robotic-nation.htm 21. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2003/10/robotic-educationnew-champion-of-fire.html 22. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/04/robots-and-teachers.html 23. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/05/arrival-of-robotic-hospital.html 24. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/07/more-hospital-robots.html 25. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/03/robots-taking-jobs.html 26. http://marshallbrain.com/robotic-nation.htm 27. http://concentrationofwealth.blogspot.com/2004/08/poverty-and-concentration-of-wealth.html 28. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/08/robots-and-jobs.html 29. http://sg.news.yahoo.com/040823/1/3mlzz.html 30. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/08/robotic-insects-at-war.html 31. http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/08/09/japan.robots/ 32. http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/08/09/japan.robots/ 33. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/08/robots-in-japan.html 34. http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996286&lpos=home3 35. http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2004/0810/robo84.mpg 36. http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2004/0810/robo23.mpg 37. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2003/10/robotic-securitymartial-arts-robots.html 38. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/08/humanoid-combat-robots-in-japan.html 39. http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/08/23/robot.nasa/index.html 40. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/06/robots-and-nasa.html 41. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/06/robotic-repair-call-to-hubble-taking.html 42. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/08/nasa-robot-rides-segway.html 43. http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/sci_tech/newsid_3579000/3579922.stm 44. http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-08/18/content_1816189.htm 45. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/08/smallest-robotic-helicopter.html 46. http://www.spacedaily.com/news/mars-robot-04c.html 47. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/08/interplanetary-robots.html 48. http://www.seedquest.com/News/releases/2004/august/9601.htm 49. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2003/09/produce-picking-robotsresearchers.html 50. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/07/agricultural-robots-to-take-over-farm.html 51. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/06/farms-and-robots.html 52. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/08/tomato-picking-robots.html 53. http://www.metalstorm.com/04_video_latest.html 54. http://www.metalstorm.com/04_video_latest.html 55. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/04/successful-x-45-robotic-bomber.html 56. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/08/robots-and-guns.html 57. http://www.computerworld.com/printthis/2004/0,4814,94386,00.html 58. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/08/coming-robot-revolution.html 59. http://edition.cnn.com/2004/TECH/08/10/olympics.security.ap/index.html 60. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/06/israel-to-build-robotic-borders.html 61. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/04/future-of-robotic-police.html 62. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/04/successful-x-45-robotic-bomber.html 63. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33730-2004Aug2.html 64. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/04/politics/04capitol.html?ei=5006&en=4969bf8531187190&ex=1092283200&partner=ALTAVISTA1&pagewanted=print&position= 65. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/07/robotic-surveillance.html 66. http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm 67. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/08/olympic-security.html 68. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08/06/taiwan_mem_card/ 69. http://marshallbrain.com/robotic-nation.htm#moore 70. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/08/keeping-up-with-moores-law.html 71. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/03/moores-law-and-hard-disks.html 72. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/06/effects-of-moores-law.html 73. http://www.optware.co.jp/english/what_040823.htm 74. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/08/what-robotic-memory-will-look-like-in.html 75. http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science/article/0,12543,676853,00.html 76. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/08/robotic-assembly.html 77. http://edition.cnn.com/2004/TECH/08/02/school.internet/index.html 78. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/04/robots-and-teachers.html 79. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/08/kids-and-multi-tasking.html 80. http://marshallbrain.com/robotic-nation.htm 81. http://marshallbrain.com/robotic-nation.htm#Moore 82. http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/JacquelineLing.shtml 83. http://www.electronics-cooling.com/Resources/EC_Articles/MAY96/may96_04.htm 84. http://compnetworking.about.com/library/weekly/aa051902b.htm 85. http://news.com.com/Sun%20chips%20away%20at%20wireless%20chip%20connections/2100-1006_3-5291289.html 86. http://marshallbrain.blogspot.com/2004/02/intels-prescott-chip-latest-pentium-4.html 87. http://www.vnunet.com/news/1156996 88. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2003/11/moores-law-continuesintel-reports-new.html 89. http://marshallbrain.com/robotic-nation.htm 90. http://marshallbrain.com/robotic-freedom.htm 91. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2003/11/moores-law-continuesintel-reports-new.html 92. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/03/moores-law-and-hard-disks.html 93. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/06/future-processors.html 94. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/06/effects-of-moores-law.html 95. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2003/10/robotic-ai-using-neural-nets.html 96. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/08/keeping-up-with-moores-law.html 97. http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,3367,1446_A_1280481_1_A,00.html 98. http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,3367,1446_A_1280481_1_A,00.html 99. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/06/robots-and-nasa.html 100. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/06/robotic-repair-call-to-hubble-taking.html 101. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/08/robotic-spacecraft.html 102. http://www.iht.com/articles/531134.html 103. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/02/robotic-drivers.html 104. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/08/cars-that-express-emotion.html From shovland at mindspring.com Tue Sep 28 19:28:56 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 12:28:56 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] Robotic Nation Evidence 2004.8 Message-ID: <01C4A556.BA21E310.shovland@mindspring.com> If you've done any kind of work with 3D modeling, you know why the Orion system will be a hit, but the other manufacturers will also begin offering multi-processor units. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Premise Checker [SMTP:checker at panix.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 12:15 PM To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org Subject: [Paleopsych] Robotic Nation Evidence 2004.8 Robotic Nation Evidence 2004.8 http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004_08_01_roboticnation_archive.html [None for September yet. Maybe Marshall Brain has dropped this feature. And I'm late myself getting around to going to his site.] News of the developing Robotic Nation 8.31.2004 More examples of Moore's Law Many examples of Moore's Law this week: * [6]AMD demos first dual-core processor - "The chips -- which contain two processor cores and 1M byte of Level 2 cache for each core -- use the same 940-pin socket used by AMD's single-core Opteron processors manufactured with a 90-nanometer process, according to information posted on the AMD's Web site. This compatibility will allow HP, Sun Microsystems Inc. and IBM Corp. to incorporate dual-core Opterons in existing systems that are designed for the Opteron, AMD said." * [7]Intel's 65nm chip will make laptops go further - "Intel has built a fully functional 70Mb static random access memory (SRam) chip with more than half a billion transistors, using 65nanometer (nm) process technology." * [8]Computer hard drives perform better, last longer with novel polyester lubricant * [9]NIST Unveils Chip-Scale Atomic Clock - "The heart of a minuscule atomic clockbelieved to be 100 times smaller than any other atomic clockhas been demonstrated by scientists at the Commerce Departments National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), opening the door to atomically precise timekeeping in portable, battery-powered devices for secure wireless communications, more precise navigation and other applications." * [10]96 Processors Under Your Desktop - "A small Santa Clara-based company, Orion Multisystems, today unveils a new concept in computing, 'cluster workstations.' In October, you'll be able to choose between a 12-processor unit for less than $10,000 and a 96-processor system for less than $100,000. These new systems are powered by Efficeon processors from Transmeta and are running Fedora Linux version 2.6.6." The last one is interesting. It echoes the "workstation boom" in the 1980s, when players like Sun, Apollo, DEC, IBM, etc. battled it out for the scientific desktop with UNIX workstations. This machine is not quite as impressive as it sounds at first. According to [11]this page, an Efficeon is only about one-quarter as fast as a Pentium. So this machine might "only" be as powerful as a 20- or 25-Pentium workstation. The reason for using the Efficeon, despite its relative slowness, is its low wattage per calculation. If you put 25 Pentiums in a box, they would consume 3,000 or 4,000 watts -- it would blast you out of your office with the heat, and you would need to run a special 30-amp circuit to plug it in. For comparison, a typical electric clothes dryer uses [12]4,000 watts. By using Efficeon chips, at 8 watts per chip, the whole machine uses "only" as much power as a blow drier. The thing that is interesting about this machine is the amount of horsepower it makes available in an "off-the-shelf" package. If history repeats itself, then in ten years this is the horsepower that a "normal" $500 desktop machine will have available. Along with [13]many terabytes of storage space. See [14]Robotic Nation for details. // [15]permalink 8.29.2004 Robotic mobility [16][sitnlift_main_photo.jpg] This is a good example of the unusual forms robots can take in the future: [17]GM Mobility - Sit-N-Lift From the article: GM is the only automotive manufacturer in the U.S. to offer a fully motorized, rotating lift-and-lower passenger seat to help people stay on the move. Sit-N-Lift(TM)(1) provides convenient access to the right-hand second-row seating area. Operated by a handheld remote control, the power bucket seat rotates, then extends out of the vehicle and lowers for easy entry and exit. This dealer-installed accessory called Sit-N-Lift(TM)(1) is available on 2001 through 2004 extended wheelbase models of Chevy Venture, Pontiac Montana and Oldsmobile Silhouette. Imagine hospital beds that automatically load, roll and bathe patients. Imagine sofas and chairs that rearrange themselves, come when you call them and that move themselves for easy cleaning. And so on. // [18]permalink 8.26.2004 Robots and jobs [19]Rise in offshoring breeds job insecurity among U.S. workers From the article: "With an expanding array of jobs vulnerable to being moved offshore, many Americans will migrate to such fields as health care and education, which require face-to-face contact, the experts predict." Automation isn't just allowing individuals to do more work than they once did, it's eliminating the need for many of those individuals in the first place. Technology is wiping out whole categories of lower-wage jobs such as supermarket cashiers, airport ticket agents and bank tellers. This is exactly the point of [20]Robotic Nation. If this transition happened slowly, that would be one thing. The problem is that the transition is going to happen very quickly -- much faster than we've seen before. That speed will cause a great deal of turmoil. People will try to transition to "health care and education", but then those fields will be automated as well. See for example: * [21]Robotic Education * [22]Robots and Teachers * [23]The arrival of the robotic hospital * [24]More Hospital Robots Every aspect of our economy will be automating simultaneously. Retail stores will be eliminating millions of employees. The tranportation sector will be turning to robotic cars, trucks and planes. And so on. See [25]Robots taking jobs for a fascinating list. See [26]Robotic Nation for details. See [27]yesterday's census numbers for statistical evidence of the trend. // [28]permalink 8.25.2004 Robotic insects at war [29]Australian scientists turn to insect swarms for new generation weapons From the article: Alex Ryan, a mathematician with the government's defense Science and Technology Organisation, heads a team that is working on computer software recreating swarm behaviour for use on the battlefield. The goal is to develop swarms of small, expendable unmanned vehicles that can carry out missions in ground, sea and aerial environments too dangerous for humans. It is easy to imagine a number of scenarios: * A bank robber walks into the bank's lobby, and 250 robotic insects jump out of the woodwork and encase him. * A protestor shouting at a presidential candidate out of turn is encased by 250 robotic insects who inject him with tranquilizers. * A famous person does not have body guards, but instead has a swarm of robotic insects hovering overhead ready to descend at a moment's notice. * On a battlefield, a C-130 airplane releases 1,000,000 robotic insects behind enemy lines, and the insects find and poison every enemy combatant. * Those same 1,000,000 robotic insects could do the same thing at a riot, or at a peaceful demonstration. * And so on... // [30]permalink 8.24.2004 Robots in Japan [31]Land of the rising robot [32][story.robot.jpg] From the article: Hiroshi Kobayashi, one of Japan's leading robot scientists, says he believes the concept of a moving humanoid robot will become invaluable in the future. His own designs include a muscle suit to help physically disabled people with movement, and his robotic receptionist will be on the market within the next year. Also: Yoichi Takamoto, CEO of Japanese robotics business TMSUK, says his company is working closely with the Japanese fire service to make its "Hyper Robot" become a key member of a fire fighting crew. // [33]permalink 8.23.2004 Humanoid combat robots in Japan [34]Combat robots wow crowds From the article: A robot fighting contest that draws huge crowds in Japan each year has highlighted sophisticated technological trends in robotics, experts say. Also: Richardson adds that the fighting machines highlight the trend for making robots more robust. "There's a definite trend in the last few years to have more fault-tolerant humanoid robots," he says. "At some point they are going to fall over, so make them so they don't get damaged and can get back up again." The article links to two videos, including [35]this one (3.90MB MPG) and [36]this one (3.48MB MPG). See also [37]Robotic Security. // [38]permalink NASA robot rides a Segway [39]NASA engineers refine Robonaut From the article: Robonaut B, a robot built with human-like hands and television camera eyes, now has the option of rolling around Earth on a modified two-wheeled Segway scooter or grappling the International Space Station with what researchers call a "space leg." "We built Robonaut B to be portable," said Robert Ambrose, robonaut project lead at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston,Texas. "It really exceeded our expectations." The second in the robonaut series, Robonaut B is a self-contained robot controlled remotely by a human operator. Future incarnations of the mobile robot could prove vital companions for astronauts living and working on the moon and in space. "We're looking at other lower bodies for the moon, with a four-wheel or six-wheel base," Ambrose said. "We're not going to take a Segway to the moon, but it's a good way to emulate the idea on Earth." See also [40]Robots and NASA and [41]Robotic repair. // [42]permalink 8.22.2004 Smallest robotic helicopter [43]Mini helicopter unveiled in Japan [44][xinsrc_510801191638625276610.jpg] From the article: The latest tiny flying robot has been unveiled in Japan, armed with top-of- the-range high-tech gadgetry. Seiko Epson launched the FR-II, which is lighter than an empty drinks can [12 grams]. It carries a digital camera, and, unlike other flying robots, a battery. // [45]permalink 8.18.2004 Interplanetary robots [46]NASA Develops Robust AI For Planetary Rovers From the article: NASA is planning to add a strong dose of artificial intelligence (AI) to planetary rovers to make them much more self-reliant, capable of making basic decisions during a mission. Scientists at NASA Ames Research Center, in the heart of California's Silicon Valley, are developing very complex AI software that enables a higher level of robotic intelligence. In the past, very simple artificial intelligence systems on board rovers allowed them to make some simple decisions, but much smarter AI will enable these mobile robots to make many decisions now made by mission controllers. // [47]permalink 8.17.2004 Tomato-picking robots [48]Ohio State University develops robotic tomato harvester for the J.F. Kennedy Space Center Further research in robotic farming is being helped by NASA of all people. According to the article: The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) considers farming a matter of survival for future long-term space missions. Plants provide food when deliveries from Earth aren't feasible and make air breathable and water drinkable. But who will care for and harvest crops when astronauts are so busy carrying out key mission tasks? "Labor requirements to grow and harvest the crops must be reduced through automation," said Peter Ling, an Ohio State University Extension specialist. Also: The harvester includes a sensing unit and a robotic hand integrated with a commercial robotic manipulator provided by Motoman Inc., West Carrollton, Ohio. The sensing unit, or robotic eye, scans the tomato plant and determines the number and position of red fruits. With this information, the four-finger prosthetic hand moves in the direction of the fruit. The fingers then open around the tomato and get a hold of it before a pulling, bending or torsion movement is applied to detach it. There are plans to expand the research into other fruit crops like apples and oranges. See also: * [49]Produce picking robot * [50]Agricultural robots to take over the farm * [51]Farms and robots // [52]permalink 8.16.2004 Robots and guns The company called Metal Storm creates guns that can fire bullets at rates "in excess of one million rounds per minute". It is probably safe to say that a gun that can shoot a million rounds a minute is fairly lethal. So the obvious thing to do is to give such a gun to a robot, as demonstrated in this video collection: [53]Metal Storm - Video - Latest Releases [54][may14A3_talon.jpg] See also: [55]Successful X-45 robotic bomber // [56]permalink 8.14.2004 The Coming Robot Revolution [57]The Coming Robot Revolution From the article: Robots, from mechanical dogs that can learn new tricks to automated vacuum cleaners that avoid furniture, are steadily becoming a part of everyday life. But the real robot boom lies just ahead, experts say. // [58]permalink 8.11.2004 Olympic security [59]CNN.com - Olympics' digital security unprecedented From the article: If you're going to the Olympics, you'd better be careful what you say and do in public. Software will be watching and listening. Recent leaps in technology have paired highly sophisticated software with street surveillance cameras to create digital security guards with intelligence-gathering skills. Also: It gathers images and audio from an electronic web of over 1,000 high-resolution and infrared cameras, 12 patrol boats, 4,000 vehicles, nine helicopters, a sensor-laden blimp and four mobile command centers. This is an extremely good example of a [60]Robotic Bubble. As we create [61]humanoid robotic guards and [62]armed robotic security forces these bubbles will get bigger and much tighter. The bubble around Washington is being noted in articles like these: * [63]Street Closing Irks D.C. Leaders (washingtonpost.com): "...set up 14 vehicle checkpoints, creating a huge security perimeter around powerful symbols..." * [64]The New York Times: Safety Precautions Transform Appearance of Capitol Hill It is very easy to imagine the day when you cannot enter any American city unless you have permission to do so. They will all be protected by bubbles. See also [65]Robotic Surveillance and [66]Manna for details. // [67]permalink 8.10.2004 What robotic memory will look like in 10 years [68]Taiwan firms to launch 2TB memory card From the article: The format will support up to 2TB of storage capacity within a 3.2 x 2.4 x 0.1cm card - the same size as a standard MMC unit. The new cards are said to be connector-compatible with the older format. The new cards will have a data transfer rate of 120MBps, ten times that of SD memory cards. Like the Secure Digital format, ?card will support I/O devices, such as Bluetooth and 802.11 adaptors. It is very rare today to find a personal computer with one terabyte of disk space. If it has it, it is made up of 4 to 10 drives and has an access rate of 30 or 40 MB/sec. The drive array takes up a cubic foot or more of space, consumes lots of electricity, generates lots of heat and weighs 20 pounds. In 10 years, robots will be running around with two terabytes of memory that is 4 times faster, uses no power to speak of and fills a cubic centimeter of space. That's the effect of [69]Moore's Law. See also: * [70]Keeping up with Moore's Law * [71]Moore's law and hard disks * [72]The effects of Moore's law Another example of the same trend: [73]Holographic discs look like DVDs but hold a terabyte of information. Today. // [74]permalink 8.9.2004 Robotic assembly [75]Popular Science | A Limber Future The article notes: At this stage, however, NanoSonic is busy meeting the demand for its 12-inch-by-12-inch samples, which take custom-built robots up to three days to create. That's speedy, if you consider that Metal Rubber, a product of nanotechnology, must be fabricated molecule by molecule. // [76]permalink 8.5.2004 Kids and multi-tasking [77]The screen-age: Our brains in our laptops From the article: A student may have a textbook open. The television is on with sound off (perhaps with the CNN Headline News modular screen). They've got music on headphones. On a laptop hooked in to the Internet there's a homework window, along with e-mail and instant messaging in the background. The Web has become an essential part of checking facts and figures for the homework (not to mention plagiarizing with copy and paste). On top of that, the student may field phone calls or talk with a roommate. One of the most striking observations in Turkle's findings was a quote from one multi-tasking student who preferred the online world to the face-to-face world. "Real life," he said, "is just one more window." College students are the leading edge in adapting to this new goldfish bowl, these new multi-tasking sense ratios. Some of us will hold on to the old ways by our fingernails, afraid of losing a coherent self. Others will plunge into the new collective nerve center, our various selves loosely joined in a partial free-fall at all times. This goes back to the post entitled [78]Robots and teachers, and helps explain why "traditional education" using a human lecturer standing at a whiteboard simply will not last that much longer. It it too boring, too slow... // [79]permalink 8.4.2004 Keeping up with Moore's Law I gave a [80]talk to a group of robotics folks on Monday night, and one of the concerns that came up in the Q&A session afterwards was that [81]Moore's Law will somehow "run out of steam." Two of the problems that people brought up included, a) the ever-shrinking size of transistors cannot continue forever, and b) increasing power consumption cannot continue forever. One point made is that current supercomputers (the kind with 10,000 Pentium chips running in parallel) can consume 10 to 20 megawatts of power. Certainly a robot cannot consume 20 megawatts. I understand both points, but I think they are both irrelevant. First, we KNOW it is possible to produce a high-performance, low power CPU. Each one of us has a brain that performs something on the order of one quadrillion operations per second, yet it consumes only [82]20 watts. Second, Scientists and engineers make discoveries all the time, and things simply get faster and faster. 20 years ago a Cray computer ran so hot that the entire computer (as big as a refrigerator) was immersed in [83]liquid FC-77 to extract the prodigious amounts of heat it created. [84]Today you can get that same power in a little desktop computer cooled with a small fan. That's normal progress, and there's nothing going to stop that sort of progress. Here are two articles that show current trends in making computers faster and more efficient: [85]Sun chips away at wireless chip connections From the article: It will take a lot of work, but Sun Microsystems says it is making headway on a technology that will allow chips to communicate without circuit boards or wires. The technology, called "proximity communication," aims to let one chip transmit signals directly to another next to it, instead of through the tangle of pins, wires and circuit boards employed today. If successful, the technique could greatly alter many aspects of computer design. Performance, for instance, could greatly escalate because the speed of transferring data among chips and the number of channels for the transfers would increase. Energy consumption could also decline. Just as important, overall costs could fall, because defective chips could be removed like Scrabble tiles. Also: The technique could also allow designers to remove the cache--the large pool of memory currently found on the processor--and put it on a separate chip. Caches were integrated onto processors to amplify bandwidth. Adding cache, however, bumps up manufacturing costs, as it greatly increases the number of transistors. With the bandwidth constraint gone, caches could once again be made independent without it having an impact on performance. If you take out the cache -- representing millions of transistors -- you can use those transistors for something else. See [86]this page for some thoughts. This article talks about a whole new paradigm for computing: [87]Nanotech leads way to quantum computing From the article: Plastic chips and quantum computing could be among the new ways of keeping up with Moore's Law in the future, according to a new study on nanotechnology, the science of manipulating matter on a molecular level. One point I made in my talk and in my article discussed how quickly airplanes advanced between 1903 and 1954: Imagine that you could travel back in time to the year 1900. Imagine that you stand on a soap box on a city street corner in 1900 and you say to the gathering crowd, "By 1955, people will be flying at supersonic speeds in sleek aircraft and traveling coast to coast in just a few hours." In 1900, it would have been insane to suggest that. In 1900, airplanes did not even exist. Orville and Wilbur did not make the first flight until 1903. The Model T Ford did not appear until 1909. Yet, by 1947, Chuck Yeager flew the X1 at supersonic speeds. In 1954, the B-52 bomber made its maiden flight. It took only 51 years to go from a rickety wooden airplane flying at 10 MPH, to a gigantic aluminum jet-powered Stratofortress carrying 70,000 pounds of bombs halfway around the world at 550 MPH. That is the kind of progress we will continue to see in computing power over the next 50 years. We will see progress in [88]transitor size and power consumption, packaging, etc. We will also see completely new paradigms arise. What these developments mean is a [89]dramatic increase in robotic intelligence over the next several decades, along with [90]dramatic changes in the world economy. See also: * [91]Moore's Law continues * [92]Moore's law and hard disks * [93]Future processors * [94]The effects of Moore's law * [95]Robotic AI using Neural Nets // [96]permalink 8.3.2004 Robotic Spacecraft Europe has a new spacecraft to ferry supplies up to the International Space Station. It is just about ready for its maiden flight, and it is completely robotic -- it has no accomodations for human pilots or passengers, and burns up on re-entry so it has no use as a "life boat" either. [97]Europe Creates its Own Space Vehicle [98][0,3772,94927_10,00.jpg] From the article: After the launch of the Jules Verne, one ATV will be launched by ESA about every year, carrying 7.5 tons of cargo from the Kourou launch site in French Guyana. The cylindrical vessel weighs 20 tons and measures 10.3 meters long (33.79 feet) and 4.5 meters in diameter. After a journey of up to five days, it will dock with the space station's Russian service module using a precision laser tracking system that looks like a scene straight out of "Star Wars." By eliminating humans from the system, the design and manufacturing process is highly simplified -- no life support; no extra weight and space for chairs, controls, displays; no need to worry about re-entry; No "escape hatches"; etc. See also [99]Robots and Nasa and [100]Robotic repair call to Hubble taking shape. // [101]permalink 8.1.2004 Cars that express emotion If this takes off, it his will be a very short-lived phenomenon: [102]A car that winks, laughs and cries From the article: Four inventors working for Toyota in Japan have won a patent for a car that they say can help drivers communicate better by glaring angrily at another car cutting through traffic as well as appear to cry, laugh, wink or just look around. The inventors explain in the patent that they want drivers to have more than a one-note horn and on-off headlights to signal other drivers. The horn sounds the same, they write, whether a driver is asking for permission to cut in front of another car or showing gratitude for having been allowed to cut in front, so other people often do not know what the honking is about. The reason it will be short-lived is because, within 15 years or so, cars will all be driving themselves and communicating with each other and a central data center continuously. There will be no need for something as primitive and silly as tears. The cars will be sharing reams of data at the speed of light. See also: [103]Robot drivers. // [104]permalink References 6. http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/08/31/HNamddualcore_1.html 7. http://www.vnunet.com/news/1157714 8. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-08/acs-hd081604.php 9. http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/miniclock.htm 10. http://radio.weblogs.com/0105910/2004/08/30.html 11. http://www.vanshardware.com/reviews/2004/04/040405_efficeon/040405_effic eon.htm 12. http://www.wisconsinpublicservice.com/home/appcalc.asp 13. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/08/what-robotic-memory-will-look- like-in.html 14. http://marshallbrain.com/robotic-nation.htm 15. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/08/more-examples-of-moores-law.html 16. http://www.gm.com/automotive/vehicle_shopping/gm_mobility/vaa_snl .html 17. http://www.gm.com/automotive/vehicle_shopping/gm_mobility/vaa_snl.html 18. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/08/robotic-mobility.html 19. http://www.menafn.com/qn_news_story.asp?StoryId=CqqxtqeienJaWn1jPC2vPBM9 MzNnOB3jPBG 20. http://marshallbrain.com/robotic-nation.htm 21. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2003/10/robotic-educationnew-champion- of-fire.html 22. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/04/robots-and-teachers.html 23. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/05/arrival-of-robotic-hospital.html 24. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/07/more-hospital-robots.html 25. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/03/robots-taking-jobs.html 26. http://marshallbrain.com/robotic-nation.htm 27. http://concentrationofwealth.blogspot.com/2004/08/poverty-and-concentrat ion-of-wealth.html 28. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/08/robots-and-jobs.html 29. http://sg.news.yahoo.com/040823/1/3mlzz.html 30. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/08/robotic-insects-at-war.html 31. http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/08/09/japan.robots/ 32. http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/08/09/japan.robots/ 33. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/08/robots-in-japan.html 34. http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996286&lpos=home3 35. http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2004/0810/robo84.mpg 36. http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2004/0810/robo23.mpg 37. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2003/10/robotic-securitymartial-arts-r obots.html 38. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/08/humanoid-combat-robots-in-japa n.html 39. http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/08/23/robot.nasa/index.html 40. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/06/robots-and-nasa.html 41. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/06/robotic-repair-call-to-hubble- taking.html 42. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/08/nasa-robot-rides-segway .html 43. http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/sci_tech/newsid_3579000/3579922.stm 44. http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-08/18/content_1816189.htm 45. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/08/smallest-robotic-helicopter.html 46. http://www.spacedaily.com/news/mars-robot-04c.html 47. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/08/interplanetary-robots.html 48. http://www.seedquest.com/News/releases/2004/august/9601.htm 49. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2003/09/produce-picking-robotsresearch ers.html 50. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/07/agricultural-robots-to-take-ov er-farm.html 51. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/06/farms-and-robots.html 52. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/08/tomato-picking-robots.html 53. http://www.metalstorm.com/04_video_latest.html 54. http://www.metalstorm.com/04_video_latest.html 55. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/04/successful-x-45-robotic -bomber.html 56. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/08/robots-and-guns.html 57. http://www.computerworld.com/printthis/2004/0,4814,94386,00.html 58. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/08/coming-robot-revolution.html 59. http://edition.cnn.com/2004/TECH/08/10/olympics.security.ap/index.html 60. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/06/israel-to-build-robotic-border s.html 61. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/04/future-of-robotic-police.html 62. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/04/successful-x-45-robotic-bomber .html 63. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33730-2004Aug2.html 64. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/04/politics/04capitol.html?ei=5006&en=496 9bf8531187190&ex=1092283200&partner=ALTAVISTA1&pagewanted=print&position= 65. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/07/robotic-surveillance.html 66. http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm 67. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/08/olympic-security.html 68. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08/06/taiwan_mem_card/ 69. http://marshallbrain.com/robotic-nation.htm#moore 70. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/08/keeping-up-with-moores-law.html 71. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/03/moores-law-and-hard-disks.html 72. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/06/effects-of-moores-law.html 73. http://www.optware.co.jp/english/what_040823.htm 74. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/08/what-robotic-memory-will-look- like-in.html 75. http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science/article/0,12543,676853,00.html 76. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/08/robotic-assembly.html 77. http://edition.cnn.com/2004/TECH/08/02/school.internet/index.html 78. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/04/robots-and-teachers.html 79. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/08/kids-and-multi-tasking.html 80. http://marshallbrain.com/robotic-nation.htm 81. http://marshallbrain.com/robotic-nation.htm#Moore 82. http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/JacquelineLing.shtml 83. http://www.electronics-cooling.com/Resources/EC_Articles/MAY96/may96_04.htm 84. http://compnetworking.about.com/library/weekly/aa051902b.htm 85. http://news.com.com/Sun%20chips%20away%20at%20wireless%20chip%20connecti ons/2100-1006_3-5291289.html 86. http://marshallbrain.blogspot.com/2004/02/intels-prescott-chip-latest-pe ntium-4.html 87. http://www.vnunet.com/news/1156996 88. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2003/11/moores-law-continuesintel-repo rts-new.html 89. http://marshallbrain.com/robotic-nation.htm 90. http://marshallbrain.com/robotic-freedom.htm 91. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2003/11/moores-law-continuesintel-repo rts-new.html 92. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/03/moores-law-and-hard-disks.html 93. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/06/future-processors.html 94. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/06/effects-of-moores-law.html 95. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2003/10/robotic-ai-using-neural-nets.html 96. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/08/keeping-up-with-moores-law.html 97. http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,3367,1446_A_1280481_1_A,00.html 98. http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,3367,1446_A_1280481_1_A,00.html 99. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/06/robots-and-nasa.html 100. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/06/robotic-repair-call-to-hubble- taking.html 101. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/08/robotic-spacecraft.html 102. http://www.iht.com/articles/531134.html 103. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/02/robotic-drivers.html 104. http://roboticnation.blogspot.com/2004/08/cars-that-express-emotion.html << File: ATT00004.txt >> From anonymous_animus at yahoo.com Tue Sep 28 20:31:53 2004 From: anonymous_animus at yahoo.com (Michael Christopher) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 13:31:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Paleopsych] armageddon fantasies In-Reply-To: <200409281801.i8SI1f006436@tick.javien.com> Message-ID: <20040928203153.47287.qmail@web13426.mail.yahoo.com> >>But now I am thinking that we are caught up in something that may as well be called "The Apocalypse." Of course, this does not mean THE END OF THE WORLD, but just The End Of The World As We Know It.<< --It does seem there is a convergence of beliefs about the end of the world. Christians are eagerly awaiting the End Times, complete with Big Brother and WWIII and Jesus returning to rule with an iron rod. New agers talk of the end of the Mayan calendar and "timewave zero". Radical Muslims are doing their best to revive the Crusades and prepare for a new Islamic empire. It's as if there's a strange attractor in the global imagination. Expectations are more powerful than the will. It's very hard to prepare for a future you don't believe is possible, and with so many people preparing for Armageddon, it seems there is great potential for self-fulfilling prophesies to take on a life of their own, regardless of what individuals want. I can only imagine the guilt this generation will carry when its children hold it accountable for what was left to them. Michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From shovland at mindspring.com Tue Sep 28 21:11:15 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 14:11:15 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] armageddon fantasies Message-ID: <01C4A565.04CE5ED0.shovland@mindspring.com> It's also a convergence of events- bad weather and all its side effects like famine and property destruction, catastrophic competition for basic resources like energy and water, along with the rise of exteme belief systems on various sides. In the past I have speculated that if Jung visited America today he would have the same misgivings he had when he visited pre-War Germany. There is a darkness rising from our collective psyche for which I think we will pay a terrible price. There are many Baby Boomers who did not engage the Vietnam issue, and I think that many of them will be getting their kids back in body bags because they did not learn the lessons then. Those of us who process our stuff in therapy instead of projecting it onto the world in the form of mass violence need to keep thinking about what we want the reconstruction to look like. Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Michael Christopher [SMTP:anonymous_animus at yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 1:32 PM To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org Subject: [Paleopsych] armageddon fantasies >>But now I am thinking that we are caught up in something that may as well be called "The Apocalypse." Of course, this does not mean THE END OF THE WORLD, but just The End Of The World As We Know It.<< --It does seem there is a convergence of beliefs about the end of the world. Christians are eagerly awaiting the End Times, complete with Big Brother and WWIII and Jesus returning to rule with an iron rod. New agers talk of the end of the Mayan calendar and "timewave zero". Radical Muslims are doing their best to revive the Crusades and prepare for a new Islamic empire. It's as if there's a strange attractor in the global imagination. Expectations are more powerful than the will. It's very hard to prepare for a future you don't believe is possible, and with so many people preparing for Armageddon, it seems there is great potential for self-fulfilling prophesies to take on a life of their own, regardless of what individuals want. I can only imagine the guilt this generation will carry when its children hold it accountable for what was left to them. Michael __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From paul.werbos at verizon.net Wed Sep 29 00:30:25 2004 From: paul.werbos at verizon.net (Werbos, Dr. Paul J.) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 20:30:25 -0400 Subject: [Paleopsych] armageddon fantasies In-Reply-To: <01C4A565.04CE5ED0.shovland@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.0.20040928202920.00c32bd0@incoming.verizon.net> At 02:11 PM 9/28/2004 -0700, Steve wrote: >It's also a convergence of events- bad weather and all >its side effects like famine and property destruction, >catastrophic competition for basic resources like energy >and water, along with the rise of exteme belief systems >on various sides. > >In the past I have speculated that if Jung visited America >today he would have the same misgivings he had when >he visited pre-War Germany. There is a darkness rising >from our collective psyche for which I think we will pay >a terrible price. There is a disturbance in the Force... yes, but not just in America. >There are many Baby Boomers who did not engage >the Vietnam issue, and I think that many of them will be >getting their kids back in body bags because they did not >learn the lessons then. > >Those of us who process our stuff in therapy instead of >projecting it onto the world in the form of mass violence >need to keep thinking about what we want the reconstruction >to look like. > >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > >-----Original Message----- >From: Michael Christopher [SMTP:anonymous_animus at yahoo.com] >Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 1:32 PM >To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org >Subject: [Paleopsych] armageddon fantasies > > > >>But now I am thinking that we are caught up in >something that may as well be called "The Apocalypse." > Of course, this does not mean THE END OF THE WORLD, >but just The End Of The World As We Know It.<< > >--It does seem there is a convergence of beliefs about >the end of the world. Christians are eagerly awaiting >the End Times, complete with Big Brother and WWIII and >Jesus returning to rule with an iron rod. New agers >talk of the end of the Mayan calendar and "timewave >zero". Radical Muslims are doing their best to revive >the Crusades and prepare for a new Islamic empire. >It's as if there's a strange attractor in the global >imagination. > >Expectations are more powerful than the will. It's >very hard to prepare for a future you don't believe is >possible, and with so many people preparing for >Armageddon, it seems there is great potential for >self-fulfilling prophesies to take on a life of their >own, regardless of what individuals want. > >I can only imagine the guilt this generation will >carry when its children hold it accountable for what >was left to them. > >Michael > > > > >__________________________________ >Do you Yahoo!? >New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! >http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From shovland at mindspring.com Wed Sep 29 00:57:59 2004 From: shovland at mindspring.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 17:57:59 -0700 Subject: [Paleopsych] armageddon fantasies Message-ID: <01C4A584.B125FF20.shovland@mindspring.com> If you think of it in neural net terms, you might conclude that we will have to go through some learning cycles before a new equilibrium is established :-) Steve Hovland www.stevehovland.net -----Original Message----- From: Werbos, Dr. Paul J. [SMTP:paul.werbos at verizon.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 5:30 PM To: The new improved paleopsych list; 'The new improved paleopsych list' Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] armageddon fantasies At 02:11 PM 9/28/2004 -0700, Steve wrote: >It's also a convergence of events- bad weather and all >its side effects like famine and property destruction, >catastrophic competition for basic resources like energy >and water, along with the rise of exteme belief systems >on various sides. > >In the past I have speculated that if Jung visited America >today he would have the same misgivings he had when >he visited pre-War Germany. There is a darkness rising >from our collective psyche for which I think we will pay >a terrible price. There is a disturbance in the Force... yes, but not just in America. >There are many Baby Boomers who did not engage >the Vietnam issue, and I think that many of them will be >getting their kids back in body bags because they did not >learn the lessons then. > >Those of us who process our stuff in therapy instead of >projecting it onto the world in the form of mass violence >need to keep thinking about what we want the reconstruction >to look like. > >Steve Hovland >www.stevehovland.net > >-----Original Message----- >From: Michael Christopher [SMTP:anonymous_animus at yahoo.com] >Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 1:32 PM >To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org >Subject: [Paleopsych] armageddon fantasies > > > >>But now I am thinking that we are caught up in >something that may as well be called "The Apocalypse." > Of course, this does not mean THE END OF THE WORLD, >but just The End Of The World As We Know It.<< > >--It does seem there is a convergence of beliefs about >the end of the world. Christians are eagerly awaiting >the End Times, complete with Big Brother and WWIII and >Jesus returning to rule with an iron rod. New agers >talk of the end of the Mayan calendar and "timewave >zero". Radical Muslims are doing their best to revive >the Crusades and prepare for a new Islamic empire. >It's as if there's a strange attractor in the global >imagination. > >Expectations are more powerful than the will. It's >very hard to prepare for a future you don't believe is >possible, and with so many people preparing for >Armageddon, it seems there is great potential for >self-fulfilling prophesies to take on a life of their >own, regardless of what individuals want. > >I can only imagine the guilt this generation will >carry when its children hold it accountable for what >was left to them. > >Michael > > > > >__________________________________ >Do you Yahoo!? >New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! >http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych >_______________________________________________ >paleopsych mailing list >paleopsych at paleopsych.org >http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych _______________________________________________ paleopsych mailing list paleopsych at paleopsych.org http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych From checker at panix.com Wed Sep 29 14:51:25 2004 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 10:51:25 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Paleopsych] Wired News: Engineering God in a Petri Dish Message-ID: Wired News: Engineering God in a Petri Dish http://wired.com/news/print/0,1294,65066,00.html By [17]Kari Lynn Dean 02:00 AM Sep. 28, 2004 PT SAN FRANCISCO -- On a steep, narrow street above Chinatown works Jonathon Keats, a tweed-suited, bow-tied 32-year-old who, with assistance from a phalanx of scientists, is genetically engineering God in his apartment. Advisers to Keats' organization, the International Association for Divine Taxonomy, include biochemists, biophysicists, ecologists, geneticists and zoologists from the University of California at Berkeley, the Smithsonian and other institutions of scientific repute. The mission: to determine where on the phylogenetic map -- the scientific [19]tree of life -- to put God. Keats, as you may suspect, is not a scientist. He's a conceptual artist. But legitimate scientists, such as Smithsonian zoologist [22]Mark Moffett and Berkeley geneticist Tom Cline, happily lend Keats credibility by helping him design experiments and interpret the results. "He's applying a rigorous scientific question to the absurd," Cline said. "That's where the irony comes in, what makes you think about it. "But then the question is: What is ludicrous about it? It introduces people to the kinds of systems used to answer questions -- though this isn't the kind of question people usually ask." Keats' project asks some serious scientific questions -- and no small number of religious ones: If evolutionary theory is accurate, then God's genetic makeup should most resemble Earth's first life forms. Or, [23]if creationists are right, then God's DNA is more like the life forms he created in his own image. Said another way: Is God more like blue-green algae or the fruit fly? After all, blue-green algae (aka cyanobacteria) are the first known organism on Earth, evolutionarily more primitive than mammals or even slime molds. At the other end of the tree, the fruit fly sits on the same phylogenetic branch as man. Without flinching or cracking a smile, Keats explains that the first step in his study -- which will be made public at San Francisco's Modernism gallery Wednesday -- was to hypothesize where exactly God might sit in the three-domain tree of life. Recognizing that God probably is unique enough, genetically speaking, to warrant a category of his own, Keats added a fourth domain to the existing Archaea, Bacteria and Eucarya, dubbed Divinea. It includes Pagan and Hindu gods, as well as Diveneus deus, Keats' scientific moniker for the monotheistic God known as Jehovah, Yahweh or Allah. "All the same god with different names, just like different plants in different countries all have the same name," Keats said. In keeping with his "blue-green algae or fruit fly" premise, Keats created two hypothetical four-domain versions of the tree of life. The Divinea are near the domain Bacteria in one version, and near domain Eucarya, home of the animal and plant kingdoms, in the other. "Ordinarily, to fit a species on the phylogenetic tree would be to sequence its genome," he explains, "but nobody I contacted had a sample of God's DNA." So he decided to genetically engineer a god. Since testing his hypotheses for all gods in Divinea might overwhelm the lab in his apartment, he focused on Divineus deus. Using "continuous in-vitro evolution," Keats tried to mutate a species -- bacteria or fruit fly -- to make it more godlike. He calls it "an accelerated form of Darwinian natural selection," which, he points out, is a standard scientific procedure. To begin, he gathered petri dishes and bell jars, light and decibel meters, a healthy supply of cyanobacteria and about 160 caged fruit flies. "Then I put it in controlled lab conditions that would be amenable to God," he said. Based on readings of those who have observed God in the field, from St. Augustine to Muhammad, Keats determined that worship was one such condition. So his laboratory also acquired MP3 recordings of prayer. He prepared three recordings: the Jewish Shema, the Muslim Allahu Akbar, and the Christian Kyrie Eleison. "I didn't know which prayer would be most effective for mutation," he said. Keats played the prayers on an endless loop for seven days and nights -- a standard Biblical time period -- while control-group flies listened to live talk radio. He documented light and sound intensity daily to ensure consistency between groups. But how does one measure the godliness of bacteria versus a fruit fly? (Keats opted for flies in lieu of humans, which, he said, would require "a really big bell jar.") After briefly considering omnipotence, Keats decided to measure omnipresence. Did the number of organisms increase? How fast? In the case of the fruit flies, Keats, who considers himself Jewish "by heritage," found the Christian Kyrie prayer brought about increased and statistically significant reproduction compared to the control group. "By a random mutation, the fruit flies appear to have become more godlike, capable of metabolizing worship into divinity," he said. Unfortunately, the results aren't definitive: Keats also detected abnormal population growth after he exposed cyanobacteria to the Kyrie, but couldn't compare the cell count to the flies because he used petri dishes instead of a liquid medium. So, at the First Congress of the [24]International Association for Divine Taxonomy, Wednesday at Modernism, Keats will run the experiment again, this time putting the cyanobacteria in liquid to enable an accurate count using a microscope. Whatever the outcome, Keats' real interest is to explore whether faith and reason can peaceably coexist. "There's a schism between science and religion, a sense that you have to pick sides, and it threatens to turn us all into fundamentalists of one sort or another," he said. "Science rejects God for want of empirical evidence, and religion rejects the scientific method the moment it contradicts the Bible. "I'm trying to explore whether faith and reason can peaceably coexist. I think they can. So this project is truly a thought experiment: By taking the assumptions of extremists on both ends of the spectrum, and combining them, I'm hoping we can sort out the implications." As if in direct answer to Keats' stated motivations, William Dembski, a proponent of intelligent design, called the project "scientifically jejune and theologically incompetent." Dembski, a Baylor University professor of science, religion and philosophy, also noted that if the God element were removed, the project would be "strictly conventional biological research." Other observers, however, may be picking up on Keats' decidedly dadaist undertone. "It's hard to tell from this whether Mr. Keats is just having some fun or is seriously deranged," said Michael Behe, Lehigh University biology professor and [25]renowned anti-Darwinist author. "I wish him well and look forward to hearing of his results." For now, Keats has an organization to run. Wednesday he'll be signing up new members to the International Association for Divine Taxonomy, which so far includes web entrepreneur Craig Newmark and [26]best-selling author Po Bronson. [27]Modernism gallery will also be screening a documentary on the project by filmmaker [28]Paul Lundahl. And, perhaps most important of all, given the contentious questions at stake, refreshments will be served from 5:30 p.m. until 8 p.m. References 17. http://wired.com/news/feedback/mail/1,2330,0-656-65066,00.html 18. http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,65066,00.html 19. http://www.internet-encyclopedia.org/wiki.php?title=Phylogenetic_tree 22. http://www.doctorbugs.com/ 23. http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Creationism%20versus%20evolution 24. http://www.cnewmark.com/keats2.html 25. http://www.arn.org/behe/behehome.htm 26. http://www.pobronson.com/index_nudist.htm 27. http://www.modernisminc.com/ 28. http://www.emotionstudios.com/ From checker at panix.com Wed Sep 29 14:58:38 2004 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 10:58:38 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Paleopsych] VV: At Your Service Pack by Brendan I. Koerner Message-ID: The Village Voice: Machine Age: TechLove With Mr. Roboto: At Your Service Pack by Brendan I. Koerner http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0439/koerner.php [General interest article.] TechLove With Mr. Roboto by Brendan I. Koerner At Your Service Pack Medicine, please: Microsoft's big fix just sent my computer to the infirmary September 23rd, 2004 4:50 PM Q: I recently installed Service Pack 2 on my Windows XP machine, and now the system's gone all screwy: Internet Explorer won't display animations right, I can't play WarCraft III, and Yahoo Instant Messenger is toast. Is it just me, or is Service Pack 2 nothing but a gremlin? A. Mr. Roboto's been deluged with SP2 gripes since Microsoft released the fix back in August. Count yourself blessed that you've only experienced some performance quirks; there's been many a horror story of deleted drivers or system files, leading to wiped hard drives and the like. You can try a few tweaks to smooth things out, though truly righting the ship might require going back to square one for a reinstall. Now, don't get the impression that SP2's all bad. Aside from closing some gaping security holes, the massive patch also beefs up XP's Wi-Fi capabilities, adds Bluetooth support, and installs a fairly effective pop-up blocker. You can probably survive without installing SP2, of course, but Mr. Roboto's going to err on the side of caution and say it's worth the effortespecially for you broadbanders out there, who make tasty prey for hackers. (Feel free to install SP2 if you're a dial-up user, too, but don't download it; rather, order the free CD from [59]microsoft.com.) Before you installed SP2, you should've give your system a thorough cleansing. Spyware, in particular, can muck up SP2, so it's imperative that everyone run either Spybot ([60]safer-networking.org) or Ad-Aware ([61]www.lavasoftusa.com) first. It's also good to sanitize your storage areas, by right-clicking on all your hard disks, selecting Properties, and hitting the Disk Cleanup button. Above alland Mr. Roboto hates to be a broken record with this adviceyou must, must, must back up your system before installing SP2. That means downloading all your documents and personal data to an external hard disk, and using Norton Ghost or a similar program to take a "snapshot" of your settings. Okay, so you've got SP2, and things are amok despite your best efforts. For starters, if you have applications that are acting up, check out article 884130 on Microsoft's Knowledge Base ([62]support.microsoft.com) for a list of programs that get agita from SP2. A lot of antivirus scanners, firewalls, and multiplayer games don't work right with SP2. Microsoft says that it's dealing with these compatibility issues and that the blacklist should shrink considerably in the coming months. The big problem seems to be that, with SP2 installed, the Windows Firewall is switched on by default, and is overly wary of programs that request Internet access. Rather than fiddle with the built-in settings, Mr. Roboto recommends that you turn the firewall off entirely, and opt instead for ZoneAlarm ([63]zonelabs.com), which is much smarter and easier to contol. As for those Web animations and Yahoo IM, sounds like it's a case of SP2 turning off ActiveX by default. Not a terrible idea, as ActiveX can be a good way for malware to infect your system, but a real bummer if you're, like, trying to IM someone. Easy enough to fix, thoughjust go to the Security tab under Internet Options, and customize the ActiveX settings to your liking. Worse comes to worst, you can always just uninstall SP2 and try again. Just don't touch anything in the Add/Remove Programs panel that says "Hotfix." Do that, and you're in a world of pain. The bad kind of pain. _________________________________________________________________ Catch a spark Let us sing the praises of Firefox, shall we? Firefox is Mozilla's latest open-source Web browser, and it's a doozya much quicker worker than Internet Explorer, and much more immune to the menace known as spyware. Also, Firefox's pop-up blocker is more agile than IE's latest. Snag the free download from [64]mozilla.org, import your IE bookmarks and page-view history, and you'll become a convert right quick. _________________________________________________________________ Begathon Congrats to Wikipedia ([65]wikipedia.org), the world's largest encyclopedia, for garnering its millionth entry. It's an all-volunteer affair, you realize, and they don't accept ads, either. Won't you be a saint and kick them over a few bucks during their pledge drive? Visit [66]wikimediafoundation.org for the details; pledge enforcement vans are standing by to shake you by the ankles. _________________________________________________________________ [67]bkoerner at villagevoice.com [68]Letter to the Editor | [69]E-Mail Story | [70]Voice Newsletter | [71]Printer Recent TechLove With Mr. Roboto columns [72]At Your Service Pack Medicine, please: Microsoft's big fix just sent my computer to the infirmary [73]Fax of Life Yes, Virginia, you can send and receive through a desktop. Here's how. [74]When Open-Source Wins Weird name and all, Ogg Vorbis files are a great way to share music [75]Times Squared Beware the deals in NYC's land of lights, where bargains bite back [76]Cowhide Logic Not asking for much? Gateway's cheap laptops are (finally) worth a look. [77]Tracks of Your Tears Don't cry when an iPod breaks a big house mix into a jillion pieces [78]An iPod for Your Eyes Portable video looks great, and in a couple of years it may be affordable [79]TXTmobs take on the GOP Protesters spend real bucks, save real headaches with text messaging [80]Real American Zero Twenty bucks a month for dial-up is too much, but $10 is just too cheap [81]Fossil Fool Palm pilots head for Jurassic Parkand that means bargains for you. References 59. http://www.microsoft.com/ 60. http://www.safer-networking.org/ 61. http://www.lavasoftusa.com/ 62. http://www.support.microsoft.com/ 63. http://www.zonelabs.com/ 64. http://www.mozilla.org/ 65. http://www.wikipedia.org/ 66. http://www.wikimediafoundation.org/ 67. mailto:bkoerner at villagevoice.com 68. http://www.villagevoice.com/aboutus/letters.php 69. http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/sendmail.php3?eid=57080 71. http://www.villagevoice.com/print/issues/0439/koerner.php 72. http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0439/koerner.php 73. http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0438/koerner.php 74. http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0437/koerner.php 75. http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0436/koerner.php 76. http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0435/koerner.php 77. http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0434/koerner.php 78. http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0433/koerner.php 79. http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0432/koerner.php 80. http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0431/koerner.php 81. http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0430/koerner.php From checker at panix.com Wed Sep 29 17:47:21 2004 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 13:47:21 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Paleopsych] Guardian Special: The World in 2020 (fwd) Message-ID: Guardian Special: The World in 2020 [Many articles from the past three Saturdays in the (London, formerly Manchester) Guardian, that is, 2004 Saturday 11, 18, and 25. There may be more to come. Something for everyone, though not everyone will like every development! This is very long and may get truncated at some sites, in case you are reading it there. If that happens, I can simply e-mail the series (so far at least, that is). Let me know.] Blurred visions http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5010243-114398,00.html Blurred visions Don't believe what writers and novelists have had to say about the future: they see only the extremes by David McKie Saturday September 11, 2004 The Guardian The following correction was printed in the Guardian's Corrections and Clarifications column, Saturday September 18 2004 In the article below we stated that the word utopia derived from the Greek words eu meaning not or non and topia meaning place. The word eu in Greek means well. The word for not or non is ou. Some readers suggest a kind of pun was involved in the concept of utopia, suggesting that a place where all was always well (eu-topia) could not exist (ou-topia). _________________________________________________________________ "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth," says St John in the Book of Revelation. He wasn't the only one. Visionaries of every variety have been doing much the same thing, from Plato in Republic through to the present day. Few who imagine the future limit themselves to trying to plot what is likely to happen. That is left to such science fiction writers as Arthur C Clarke, who, among other triumphs, accurately foretold the development of the geosynchronous communication satellite - though even Clarke declines to be classed as a prophet, saying he merely extrapolates from the evidence all around us. Much more of this genre, though, is concerned with dreams. And more often than not, those dreams are nightmares. Where such dreams are dreams of perfection, we tend to call their products utopias. But that is not what Thomas More meant when he invented the term for use in the book of that name, which he published in 1516. Topia comes from topos, a place; the u before it from eu, the Greek equivalent to the Latin non. Utopia, in other words, means, strictly speaking, a place that does not exist and probably never will. The kind of world where the wolf lies down with the lamb and the leopard with the kid, where the crooked are made straight and the rough places plain - as envisaged in the cheerier thoughts of the prophet Isaiah - is not More's business. Some later "utopian" writers provide such delights in abundance. James Hilton, for instance, whose 1934 novel Lost Horizon invented a kingdom lost in the Himalayas, where prevailing philosophies, partly Buddhist and partly Christian, have created a kind of paradise. He called it Shangri-la, and its prospects seemed so enticing that when Franklin D Roosevelt created the presidential holiday retreat now known as Camp David he named it Shangri-la. But More's purpose in writing Utopia was to criticise and mock the world he lived in rather than proposing a handy alternative. In 1932 Aldous Huxley published a book set six centuries in the future called Brave New World - a classic example of what, by derivation from "utopia", we nowadays call a "dystopia"; that's to say, a place which is wretched to live in (the word was invented by John Stuart Mill). By setting his story so far ahead, Huxley avoided the fate of George Orwell, who in 1948 pushed the present forward only as far as its anagram, 1984, thus ensuring that when the real 1984 arrived and wasn't nearly as ghastly as Orwell's, people who should have known better alleged that Orwell had got it wrong. But that's to mistake the purpose of these dystopias. They aren't prophecies; they are warnings. They say: there are tendencies in our world which, if allowed to persist and burgeon, could produce these results. In Huxley's imagined world, what matters is purchasing and consumption. Pleasure is equated with happiness, and effortlessly sustained on a tide of appropriate drugs. If the wolf lies down with the lamb, and the crooked are made straight, that's because we've discovered genetic engineering. If you don't watch out, it could happen, says Huxley; and 72 years on, in this age of "must have", "to die for", "to kill for", of drugs such as Prozac and Viagra, and a runaway revolution in genetic manipulation, you can see all too well what he feared. But Huxley also created a utopia, in the Shangri-la sense, in a book he published at the end of his life called Island. A London reporter is shipwrecked in a far distant spot called Pala, unpenetrated till now by any western journalist, and discovers a state with echoes of Shangri-la. All is peace and prosperity, swords have long ago been beaten into ploughshares, crime is almost unknown, and envy and greed have given way to equality. This society is the creation of a local ruler and a Scottish doctor, which means, as in Shangri-la, that the best of Buddhist and Christian traditions prevail. But the outside world has its eye on the island: it is ripe for the arrival of progress, which means exploitation; and in the concluding pages, progress, fuelled by oil company money, old-time Billy Graham religion and the successful reawakening of greed and ambition duly, and bloodily, sweeps shangri-la away. Huxley's Island is a wistful fantasy. Other utopian writers are aiming at something more. In 1948, the year of Orwell's dark invention, the behavioural psychologist BF Skinner published a novel called Walden Two, set in a community modelled on the Walden of that hammer of consumptionism Henry David Thoreau. The belief behind this community is that if the world is to be changed, politics cannot do it: the only way would be through the successful application of behavioural psychology - a teaching Skinner had advanced in his works of non-fiction. Much the same calculation had inspired Edward Bellamy to publish, in the final years of the 19th century, a novel called Looking Backward, in which a Bostonian falls asleep in 1887 and awakes in 2000 to find his city transformed. Peace, honesty and equity prevail; the city is fair to look upon; crime and war are concepts scarcely now thought of. Unsurprisingly, the teachings which have brought this about are those advanced by Bellamy in his earlier philosophical books. Books like these seem to be saying: if we mended our ways, some, perhaps all, of this might be possible. But Bellamy's ambitions went further than that. In a postscript, he boldly asserts not just that all he writes of is possible, but that it's now very probable, and that signs are appearing on every side to suggest it might be achieved quite soon. One doesn't need to visit Boston today to believe that reality falls wretchedly short of Bellamy's expectations. The heartening thing about works of this genre is that the pessimists get things wrong. The disheartening thing is that the optimists are probably even more wrong. ----- A world at war? http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5010234-114398,00.html Will Africa be run by visionary female leaders? Are Libya and Kashmir set to become tourist havens? Our experts give the best, worst and likely scenarios for the world's political hotspots Saturday September 11, 2004 The Guardian Central Africa What's the worst that could happen? Over recent decades, central Africa has seen a series of bitter and bloody civil wars and a genocide, with millions dying or uprooted. Because the roots of these conflicts spill over national boundaries, the security of the central African nations is interlinked; any dramatic deterioration in this interlinked security during the next 20 years could mean the virtual collapse of central governments in the region. If that happens by 2020, anarchy could have spread through the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Rwanda, Burundi, Central African Republic, Sudan, Uganda and Congo. The neighbouring countries will then also face deepening insecurity as refugees pour over their borders. Expect more of the same chilling stories we have seen in recent years: reports of mass rape, kidnapping, and forced recruitment drives taking men and boys off the land and into armed rebel factions. The DRC would be the centre of this regional political and security vacuum, but intervention would be impossible. Given the level of lawlessness, forces under the mandate of the UN, the EU or the African Union would become targets of ambushes or kidnappings by increasingly reckless and confident armed groups. As a result central Africa could become, as parts of eastern DRC and Sudan are now, a no-go area for outsiders, making it impossible to deliver the humanitarian aid that would be desperately needed. A circular process of dedevelopment could engulf the whole region. If war becomes a permanent state, it will destroy hopes of improved health and education, and reverse the gains of the post-colonial years of the late 20th century. If millions are unable to access any sort of modern healthcare, rampant malaria will run unchecked and could kill tens of thousands, especially babies and small children. Dengue fever and sleeping sickness would attack all sectors of the population, while the failure of inoculation programmes for children would mean epidemics of measles and the probable re-emergence of diseases such as polio. The constant war would also have the side effect of causing HIV/Aids to spread faster than ever: it would be transmitted through the migration of impoverished people forced into refugee status and through the use of rape as a weapon of war (this would be a militarised culture in which powerless women are despised and men live outside any traditional community except their shifting armed groups). The most productive section of society would be hardest hit by deaths from Aids, which in turn would tighten the cycle of poverty. With health disasters piling on the population one after another, life expectancy could drop as low as 30 to 35, and households headed by children or old men and women would be the norm. Those kind of family groupings do not have the strength to cultivate land, and they will be forced into the most marginal subsistence agriculture, or, in some places in DRC, dangerous artisan mining of diamonds, gold and coltan. Girls would be compelled to join the sex trade to survive in the corrupt, swollen mega cities. After years of warfare, a generation of uneducated youth would know only the brutalised life of the gun, meaning that the gulf between the political elite of the countries and the rest of the population would be wider than ever. The possibility of moving any part of the region towards democracy might disappear for generations. The civilian brain drain would worsen, depriving the civic culture and leaving the military in the ascendant. That would set the stage for new dictatorial regimes as debased as those of Idi Amin in Uganda, or Mobutu Sese Seko in the former Zaire. Africa's standing in the rest of the world would be completely debased, and African writers and artists would no longer be portraying life in the continent, only life in exile. Would the US seek to make its presence felt to help guarantee security? Yes, but only out of self-interest. With regional war on the horizon, the US would quickly upgrade its warm relations with Uganda and establish a permanent military base for the region, in order to maintain access to the oil reserves of southern Sudan. Like other western governments, however, it will have given up on the people of the region. What's the best that could happen? In 2020 central Africa could be a completely different place, where the warlords and kleptocrats of the present day would be nothing but historical curiosities, and where new visionary leadership, much of it female, could lead the continent in transformed relations with the rest of the world. Under this leadership, arms sales to Africa would be banned by the newly invigorated African Union, and the war zones of central Africa would begin to hold regular competitions for the biggest and longest burning bonfires of small arms. The spark for this would be a major western political figure - perhaps Gordon Brown - taking the initiative in the very near future and persuading the G8 to cancel Africa's debt and remove all agricultural subsidies in Europe and the US, providing equal access to EU and US markets. The 2004 annual global figure of $300bn in subsidies to farmers in the rich nations would be abolished. And if the European leaders would make the leap to fight terrorism by first fighting poverty and injustice, that money could be put into the weakest states in the world - many of them in central Africa. Massive funding for health and education would then pour into the continent, especially into central Africa's former war zones. New HIV/Aids vaccines could prevent a disastrous shift in the demographics of Africa and successfully arrest the decline of the productive age group, ensuring the the region would not lose their farmers, teachers and nurses. Education funding on an unprecedented scale would be a priority. By 2020 it might at last be recognised that UN and aid agency piecemeal projects to eliminate illiteracy have failed postwar societies. What Africa's new generations really need is tertiary education if they are to create both civil societies and a political class able to make an impact in the wider world. That could be achieved with a mass of new initiatives planned in the region and funded from outside. Devices such as twinning African universities with western universities and increased use of distance learning for African students could be the fashionable causes for western academic institutions. The judicious use of targeted funding could also address the long-standing problem of the brain drain. The combination of political stability and money could lure back those who have left and keep those who had planned to leave. If that can be achieved, by 2020 central Africa would have leaders capable of transforming the region. With secure, democratic governments free of corruption, the rule of law could become a priority. Warlords would be delivered to the International Criminal Court to stand trial for their war crimes. At home there would be trials for corruption, truth commissions would be established, and governments would be able to compensate survivors. If Africa, aided by resources from the rich countries, can manage two decades of building skills, free and open communication, and pluralist politics, we can hope by 2020 for the growth of a confident political class unlike any since the first years of independence from colonialism, when Congo's Patrice Lumumba was the region's hero. The impact of these leaders on international bodies such as the UN, the World Trade Organisation, the World Bank and the IMF could help produce by 2020 the new world order so elusive over the previous half century. What's likely to happen? By 2020 central Africa will be divided into two types of country. In failing states, such as DRC, large areas of the country will be out of contact and control of the weak central authority. But two decades of strong and visionary leaders in states such as Rwanda and Tanzania will lead to huge investment in education and technology in those countries, which will have emerged as regional leaders. They'll also be recognised across as the first countries to transcend ethnic politics, which will be widely considered old-fashioned and destructive. In these flourishing countries the population will be moving out of poverty. New computer-based industries will provide work for the educated, as has already happened in Bangalore and Chennai. Ecotourism will be a magnet for high-spending foreigners and bring infrastructure and income to rural areas. The brain drain to the west will be a forgotten phenomenon, and the universities will be linked to the best specialised departments across the world. The west will have long since cancelled Africa's debt, and vastly increased aid will flow to the continent. And the agricultural subsidies to western farmers that used to be thought an essential part of European and American domestic politics will seem a curious piece of old history. But in places where the leadership is weak and lacks vision, the new external resources will not have been enough to break the cycle of poverty. Violence will still hold sway, and poor education and poor health - especially the scourge of HIV/Aids - will still cripple the population. In these countries, life expectancy will be the lowest in the world. Ethnic loyalties will still be the determining factor in politics, and a ready supply of small arms into the region means armed factions will still control many areas in shifting alliances with each other, leaving the populations as desperately insecure and poor as they are now. The rich natural resources of those countries will not enable them to escape this bleak future. Outsiders will control the rich mining areas of DRC and the oil wealth of southern Sudan, and the profits will flow out of Africa as they have for centuries. Victoria Brittain has worked on Africa since 1975 and lived in several African countries, some as the Guardian's correspondent Middle East What's the worst that could happen? The US will blame Iranian interference for the turmoil in Iraq and will launch military strikes against the Tehran regime. Resistance to the US will stiffen in Iran and among Shia Muslims across the region: Shia rebellions could break out in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states. Anarchy in Iraq will give Kurds the excuse they need to declare independence and foment a Kurdish uprising in Syria. The "war on terror" will destroy al-Qaida as an organisation but it will not dampen Islamist militancy. Its greatest effect will be to spawn hundreds of small autonomous groups that prove impossible to monitor. The Yemeni elections of 2009 will prove to be the last in the Arab world as governments backtrack on democracy, blaming the deteriorating security situation. The EU will deal with that same problem by approving a Middle East stability pact that lifts all restrictions on weapon sales to regimes that are deemed to be combating terrorism. The threat of Islamist terror will continue to spread beyond the Arab world. London will face its gravest threat when an Islamist group threatens to explode a dirty nuclear device unless Britain stops supporting "Arab lackeys of Zionism and Crusaderism". There will be no progress towards peace with Israel, so the Palestinians will abandon their claim for a separate state and demand equal rights with Israeli citizens. By 2015, the UN will have accepted a plan to divide the whole of historic Palestine into a series of Jewish and Arab cantons, but it will not end the conflict. By 2020, Nato forces sent to implement the plan will still be struggling to impose peace in the face of stiff resistance from extremists on both sides. What's the best that could happen? The Arab-Israeli conflict will end by 2008 with the creation of a viable Palestinian state, and a peace treaty between Israel and Syria. All the Arab states, plus Iran, will then recognise Israel and exchange ambassadors. Talks can begin on ridding the Middle East of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and by 2012 UN inspectors will be able to declare the region a WMD-free zone. Peace with Israel would remove one of the main driving forces behind Islamic militancy in the region, which would in turn lead to a decline in terrorism. Political reform throughout the region would also follow peace, since Arab leaders would no longer be able to blame Israel for their countries' problems. Iraq will avert civil war and stay in one piece - but only just. Amid the chaos left by its elected civilian government, the return to military rule later this decade will be greeted with widespread relief. By 2020, the Iraqi regime will still be promising elections "next year or as soon as the situation permits". Elsewhere, the strategy of gradual but steady reform is largely successful. By 2020, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states will have become constitutional monarchies, while Yemen, Egypt and Syria will have all held elections that - for the first time - result in changes of government. In Africa, Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia will be readying themselves to join the EU, probably by 2030. Libya, which could be the Mediterranean's fastest-growing tourist destination by 2020, will remain politically eccentric: all government decisions will be made by citizens voting on the net. What's likely to happen? How will Iraq be faring in 2020? It will be a toss-up between rule by Saddam Lite (authoritarianism with American blessing) and the fragmentation of the state. The underlying conflicts over religion and ethnicity will take years to play out - probably through violence, unless a strong national leader emerges. Continued instability in Iraq will harm all its neighbours. But that does not mean the region will have been dragged into continual conflict. By 2020 there will be a new generation of Arabs who have known satellite TV and the internet all their lives; the significance of that should not be underestimated. So far, globalised media has achieved three things in the Middle East: it has engaged ordinary Arabs in international politics in a way that was impossible before; it has given them a view of western lifestyles that some covet and others reject; and it has given them a sense of common Muslim/Arab identity that cuts across borders and the nationalism of individual states. The belief that Arabs and Muslims are victims of American and Israeli designs is almost universal in the Middle East, as is the feeling that the current leaders are powerless to do anything about it. One response - the dominant one at present - is Islamist militancy, but there are others, especially among the urban young, who want to be like the rest of the world. Among religious believers, too, there are many who privately question the confrontational, backward-looking interpretations of Islamists. There is a chance that, by 2020, the fundamentalist trend will have peaked and that new, more progressive interpretations of Islam will have begun to emerge. The idea that Arab/Muslim societies can survive as islands of cultural authenticity or religious purity in a globalised world is nothing but pure fantasy. Today, Saudi censors go through every imported newspaper, obliterating "undesirable" material while millions of Saudi citizens are able to watch whatever takes their fancy on satellite television. Moves towards a form of Islam that is more compatible with modern life will also be reflected in social and political changes. The need here is not for cosmetic democracy but for ideas of tolerance and openness to take hold, for accountability and transparency in public life, and for political parties based on policies rather than tribal, ethnic or religious allegiances. It's a tall order, but it will have to happen sometime. The two factors most likely to hold it back are American policies towards the region and continued conflict with Israel. It is difficult to imagine that Israeli voters, at some point before 2020, will not weary of the strategy pursued by their present government and decide that there has to be a better way. Whether American voters will reach the same conclusion is more doubtful. The old, confrontational cold war themes play well with American voters when reapplied to the Arab and Muslim world, but don't really serve American interests. The best thing the US can do for the Middle East over the next 16 years is stop prescribing solutions and ask: "Is there anything we can do to help?" It should also not be too offended when the reply is "Yes. Please go away." Brian Whitaker is the Guardian's Middle East editor Kashmir What's the worst that could happen? India and Pakistan's rivalry over Kashmir could, by 2020, have finally have erupted into a nuclear exchange that might leave 100 million people dead and lay waste to half a million square kilometres of rich agricultural land in Asia. The roots of such a disaster would lie in a series of political miscalculations and in chronic economic mismanagement. The main problem will be the two neighbours refusing to make the tough decisions required for peace. Political misjudgments would see India failing to realise its potential as an economic powerhouse, with successive governments introducing policies that favour the rise of a small urban elite, rather than lifting the fortunes of the rural poor. This could spark armed insurrection among the poor of northern and eastern India. The Maoist rebellion in Nepal would exacerbate the problem, providing ideological coherence from the Himalaya to the plains of India. Governance will be a thing of the past in many of India's large northern and eastern states. The country's southern regions, which have their own distinctive culture and languages, will begin to agitate for a form of independence. The north will react differently to the political chaos, electing a hardline Hindu nationalist leadership that would stress national unity. Its plea would fail. The Indian union will unravel if a south Indian fiscal union is formed between Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Andra Pradesh and Karnataka. These four wealthy states, with close ties to the hi-tech US defence industry and burgeoning software industries, might refuse to subsidise the central government and the north, leading to a major political crisis. In Pakistan, the modernisers will lose out to the religious zealots by 2010 after Nato ends all its operations in Afghanistan. The military, in effect, will become the armed wing of a theocracy - one armed with a nuclear bomb. This fundamentalist state would begin to neglect education and would do little to stem the rise of Islamic institutes, preferring instead to produce an army of willing volunteers for jihad in Kashmir and Afghanistan. Religion would not be a strong enough glue for the nation. The simmering tension between the states of Sindh, Balochistan and Punjab would begin to boil over. The argument will be that Punjab's plains soak up most of Pakistan's water and its industry consumes most of the country's coal, depriving other states. Militant groups would declare independence in Sindh and Balochistan and begin targeting Punjabi officials. Pakistan's civil war would have begun. In Kashmir, the issue of water is going to be crucial. The three rivers that feed Pakistan - the Indus, Chenab and Jhelum - run through Indian Kashmir. With the water table of Pakistan decreasing and north-west India facing shortages, the two nations will abrogate their mutual water treaty by 2015. America might by then have decided that an independent Kashmir is the answer and arm insurgency groups via China. And by then Kashmir will have become a killing field, with Indian and Pakistani-backed fighters engaged in open warfare. This war in Kashmir, Pakistan's anarchy and political chaos in India will turn the region into a live bomb: all that would be needed is someone to light the fuse. Kashmir will be the excuse, not the reason. But by this point apocalypse will be inevitable; the world will have seen its first case of mutually assured destruction. What's the best that could happen? By 2020 no one will believe that almost 20 years before, Pakistan and India were poised in a nuclear stand-off over the then restive Kashmir, which will have become the tranquil tourist haven of Kashmir Autonomous Region. The turning point was the summer of 2002, which marked the end of history for the region. Not long after, the leaders of the two nations began to escape from the prison of the past. India and Pakistan made the commitment to develop friendly relations and leave the settlement of the Kashmir question to the diplomatic process which began this year. The factor that will lead to peace is the realisation of the leadership of both countries that neither can win militarily. That, and the emergence of a new South Asian Union (SAU) as a single economic area, which will grease the development of sound bilateral relations. Instead of Hindu nationalism and Islamic chauvinism, leaders in both countries would then opt for good governance and development. The simple fact is that to house, feed and provide jobs for ever-growing populations, both India and Pakistan need to start working together. By making social and economic policies the priority for government, rather than nurturing nationalism, both will lift tens of millions out of poverty. Trade will be the proving ground of the new relationship. If the energy-hungry metropolises of the subcontinent can be supplied by pipelines from Iran and Turkmenistan, then both countries will stand to benefit. Islamabad will gain wealth from transit fees while India will be able to buy cheap energy. The two countries will discover that trade is a game of mutual interests, where both will be able to seek and gain benefit. Delhi will allow Pakistani goods to travel by road to reach south-east Asia. In return Islamabad will open transit routes to central Asia for Indian wares. The cultural and religious antagonisms between India and Pakistan will then fade, reducing the need for perpetual war-footing. No longer will their people consider each other to be in the grip of obscurantist preachers and zealots. They will be too busy setting up factories, rediscovering lost relatives and friends on the other side of the border, as well as taking holidays in hill stations and balmy sunspots. The signing of a nuclear-arms reduction treaty between India and Pakistan will also reduce tensions, and China will play a key role, aware that nuclear war in its backyard will hamper its own peaceful rise. In Kashmir, under the guidance of an American peace envoy, a ceasefire will be in place by 2007. The Indian army will finally withdraw from the Kashmir Valley and Delhi can then address the human rights violations perpetrated since the insurgency began in 1989. Pakistan, too, will end its shadowy intelligence operations and close down militant camps in Kashmir. Home-grown armed separatists can then move towards the use of the ballot box, not the bullet. If a settlement is reached, the pace of change could be so fast that the problem will be not peace, but deciding what follows peace. Kashmir's complicated geography and the fact its territory is fractured along the fault lines of national identity and state allegiance mean there would be no easy answers. There are minorities who would fight for the status quo as viciously as they would for independence. To defuse these tensions will require a peace plan that first devolves power from Islamabad and Delhi to the state capitals of the two halves of Kashmir. Also elections in Pakistani and Indian Kashmir would allow representation from all political shades. The border would remain but crossing it would require no travel documents. By 2020, a single Kashmir political entity could be a reality, in one of the world's most tense and bitter rivalries. What's likely to happen? The concept of a separate Kashmiri identity is going to disappear over the next 16 years, as the independence movement is submerged by the crashing waves of Indian and Pakistani nationalism. Kashmir will be simply carved into two by both countries, with China being handed the mountainous portion its army has occupied for decades. India and Pakistan will accept the deal, and the people of Kashmir will pay the price. Lacking an inspirational leader, Kashmiris will be unable to tell the world of their plight. The likely sop to the Kashmiri people will be a form of travel documents which both India and Pakistan will pledge to upgrade, eventually, into passports. Talk of a cross-border Kashmiri parliament will come to nothing: all that is likely to happen is a regular meeting of Indian and Pakistani-appointed politicians. Such a Kashmir settlement would not be accepted by separatists on either side of the border, but they will be unable to mobilise resistance. A joint Indo-Pakistan covert military operation will pick off the militant leaders and simply repress all forms of dissent. The reason for the diminishing importance of Kashmir in both national psyches is that both countries simply have more to lose than to gain over the issue. Pakistan will in time come to realise its primary advantage over India lies in its geopolitical location, which gives it access to the huge and growing market across the border. It will be in both countries' interests to agree a nuclear no-first-use pact, probably sponsored by the Americans The two countries will also be brought closer by the movement towards a south Asian common market. When an agreement to establish a SAU is finally signed in 2015, the region's legal and economic institutions will be forced to improve their services and, to some extent, harmonise their activities. The SAU would have to grant Kashmir special status, but to tempt investors restrictions on land acquisitions will be lifted, leading to a buy up by big business. That will mean the arrival of a migrant workforce for Kashmir's new industrial sector. The distinctive character of the region will start to fade, just like Tibet since its annexation by China. A less confrontational relationship between India and Pakistan will mean that by 2020 the shadow of conflict will no longer hang over south Asia. Randeep Ramesh is the Guardian's south Asia correspondent ------------- Chinese walls come down http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5010204-114398,00.html China will have the world's worst Aids epidemic by 2020. But the spread of the disease could also hasten political reform. Jonathan Watts reports Saturday September 11, 2004 The Guardian By 2020, China will have overtaken Japan as the world's second biggest economy. It may even have started to rival the US in terms of the hard power of its military. But if it is to achieve the government's goal of once again being the world's leading civilisation, the country will also have to acquire the "soft power" of universally appealing values. How can it do that? Paradoxically, the best hope for softening China may be the same thing that poses its greatest threat: the HIV/Aids epidemic. China is on course to suffer the biggest epidemic of Aids in the world, but in the process it may find the illness acts as one of the main drivers for social change over the coming years. "By 2020, Aids will have transformed society," says Wan Yanhai, an Aids activist who was arrested two years ago for disclosing details about China's HIV problem, which was then deemed a state secret. "Both people and the virus will be more active in China. It is not something we can ignore. People have to ask questions about their way of life, they have to get involved in social politics and get organised. From my personal experience I'm absolutely certain that this kind of activity will lead China towards a democracy." It is already possible to get a glimpse of China in 2020. It is an impressive sight. Barring a war over Taiwan or an economic crash - both distinct possibilities - the country will have been transformed by the greatest spurt of development in world history. Beijing - currently thick with cranes and noisy with hammers and drills - will have hosted an Olympics to dwarf all its predecessors in terms of scale and spectacle. With annual growth of more than 7% per year, Shanghai, the country's commercial capital, will have overtaken Tokyo, Hong Kong and Singapore as Asia's leading financial centre. Further south, Guandong province will be the unrivalled workshop of the world. Its giant factories on the Pearl River delta will not only be churning out the labour-intensive goods of old, but also cutting-edge products developed by China's premier institutes of nanotechnology and cloning. China will have become a land of superlatives. By 2020, a host of world-beating projects will be completed: the biggest hydroelectric project, the Three Gorges Dam in Sichuan Province; the longest bridge and tunnel, near Shanghai; and the highest railway, which will rise above 4,000 metres through the Himalayas to connect Tibet with Qinghai. China will also be leading the world, reluctantly, in HIV/Aids. According to government estimates, the world's most populous nation had 840,000 cases of the disease in 2003. That amounts to less than 0.01% of the population, far lower than the 35% infection rates in parts of sub-Saharan Africa. But with the number of new cases rising at between 20% and 40% per year, the United Nations has warned that China could have 10 million cases by 2010 - double the number at present in South Africa, which is currently the world's worst affected nation. Despite the huge numbers, health officials insist the disease will not derail China's economy. According to the government's latest HIV/Aids impact assessment, the epidemic will cost the country no more than 15.9bn renminbi (?1.1bn) by 2010 - equivalent to only 0.03% of GDP. But that optimistic view was contradicted last year by the former US president Bill Clinton, who warned that lost working hours and rising health costs could derail progress. "China is moving in a positive direction. The headlines are hopeful and the future looks bright," he told a conference at Tsinghua University last year. "But the weight of 15 or 30 million people living with HIV/Aids could blunt a lot of your progress, especially if the burden falls most heavily on young people." Officials admit the figures are guesswork. Government cover-ups, social taboos and a dilapidated healthcare system mean very few cases of HIV/Aids are reported. Some provinces, led by Yunnan - a major centre for the drug trade - have been very open about their problem and have sought international help to establish condom promotion and needle-exchange programmes that ought to help control the epidemic by 2020. Earlier this year, the government followed that lead, extending Yunnan's policies across the country, as well as offering free tests and treatment to sufferers. But not all China's rulers have been so decisive. Henan province, for example, continues to cover up a blood-collection scandal - in which villagers sold their blood en masse, with the result that infected blood became mixed in to the supply - that produced infection rates of more than 50% in countless villages. Official figures suggest Henan has 40,000 people who are HIV-positive, but Aids activists believe the figure is over 1 million and rising because infected villagers are migrating to work in cities and their tainted blood is still being used in hospitals. Given that 23 provinces ran blood-selling operations, the problem could be widespread. "I'm still very pessimistic about the control of Aids, especially about its spread," says Gao Yaojie, a local doctor who received international plaudits - and official intimidation - for helping to expose the problem in Henan. "The government has started to act on blood collection, but it hasn't done anything on the [black market] blood transfusion problem, which is also very serious. In Henan, Inner Mongolia, Guangdong and Sichuan, there are many underground clinics which offer cheap - and probably polluted - blood." An equally grim picture is painted by Wan Yanhai,who has set up an NGO called Aizixin in Beijing. "I don't think that infection rates will slow over the next 10 years," he says. "The government has not invested enough in intervention and it is still underplaying the scale of the problem. My guess is that there are already 5 million to 10 million cases. By 2020, this will rise above 20 million." The World Health Organisation disputes those claims, saying the government has done enough to keep the epidemic in check. Dr Zhao Pengfei, the HIV-Aids coordinator at the WHO's Beijing office, believes that by 2020 the target should be to keep the number of cases below 5 million. "Even in the worst case scenario, I don't think there will be 10 million cases by 2020," he says. But he warned China must brace itself for the disease spreading from the current high-risk groups of blood-sellers and drug users - who are mostly concentrated in inland rural communities - to sex workers and the general population in urban areas on the eastern seaboard. Zhao's biggest concern is that gay men could pass on the disease to their wives and children. "Because of social pressures in China, most of the gay population is married and lead bisexual lives, so they could act as a bridge for HIV to cross into the general population," he says. "But social stigma has constrained the government from developing a policy to reach out to this group, even though measures are now in place for sex workers and drug users." The fact that these things can be discussed openly represents a significant break with the past. That - and the influx of international funds to deal with the crisis - explains why so many of China's sharpest minds are drawn to working in the fight against Aids, which is now attracting the sort of idealists who would have been campaigning for democracy 15 years ago. The slaughter of students and civilians in and around Tiananmen Square in 1989 has taught subsequent generations that engaging in direct political confrontation is dangerous and futile. Graduates of the country's top universities are now more likely to concentrate on making money - either through business or the Communist party. But for those still driven to change the world, HIV is an opportunity. Whether they work as healthcare professionals, journalists or NGO volunteers, they can not only help the sick, but highlight the growing threat of the disease as a means to indirectly shape China's values. This reform by stealth is working. As the Sars crisis demonstrated last year, health is a vulnerable spot for a communist government that has presided over a growing income gap between rich and poor and a steady deterioration in the quality of rural hospitals. It has also become an opportunity for the new leadership of the Communist party to prove its compassion. Last December, in a marked break with his predecessors, Prime Minister Wen Jiabao visited an Aids hospital, where he told a patient: "We need care and love, equality and opposition to prejudice." Many NGOs and health workers see the more compassionate approach to Aids as a sign that the government has shifted from a single-minded pursuit of economic growth to a more holistic policy of balanced development."HIV is already making a huge impact on society," says Lily Liquing of Marie Stopes International, one of an increasing number of foreign NGOs that have been allowed to operate in China. "It is helping to nurture a civil society and greater internationalism because the authorities and NGOs are working with their counterparts overseas in ways that wouldn't have been imaginable before. Homosexuals are getting organised for the first time, schools are working harder on sex education, and women are more conscious of family planning issues. HIV is bringing some very positive social changes. It has brought problems out into the open. We are seeing less taboos in China now." While the disease has made life a misery for countless Chinese, it also appears to have given others strength. Ren Guoliang, a 23-year-old Aids activist, had to give up his job in the army and he now conducts lectures, works with an Aids hotline and appears on television to talk about the disease. Although he does not expect misunderstanding and discrimination to disappear for many years, his life has been made easier by the government's increased openness and the provision of free retroviral drugs. "In 2020, I believe China will have more democracy, that there will be better policies for care and treatment of Aids. Civil society will have matured and we'll be more open about the disease, which will help to control its spread." But he also fears another bleaker version of the future. "If the government fails to keep up the recent good momentum, Aids will spread out of control. It will be a disaster threatening millions of lives. China will be the next Africa." Jonathan Watts is the Guardian's China correspondent ----------- The east is ready http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5010196-114398,00.html By 2020 China will be on the verge of superseding the US as the world's leading economic power. Time for the US to wake up and smell the soy sauce, reckons by Mark Leonard Saturday September 11, 2004 The Guardian China's rise through America's eyes: "When a speeding freight train is heading towards you, you either get on board or you get out of the way. We want to get on board." The locomotive is China, whose economy is forecast to become the second largest in the world by 2016 and to have overtaken America by 2041. "We" are the people of South Carolina, the southern US state whose textile-based economy is under increasing threat from cheap labour in the People's Republic. And getting on board means trying to get the Chinese to invest in the state rather than trying to keep them out by erecting protective trade barriers. The speaker is Mark Sanford, South Carolina's Republican governor, who has travelled to Beijing to attract Chinese investment to revive its beleaguered economy. He is speaking at a private dinner in a club so exclusive that it doesn't have a name, just an unmarked red door in a windowless wall. The late Deng Xiaoping used to come here to relax, but today the mix of privacy and transparency has become an irresistible magnet to China's nouveau riche. In his Southern drawl, Sanford speaks elegiacally of a knitwear factory that closed in his neighbouring state of North Carolina. This closure, and others like it, have led to a heated debate about attempts to restrict "off-shoring". Sanford explains that his goal is to attract investment from Chinese companies such as Haier, which built a fridge factory in South Carolina in 2000, completing an integrated system of production and sales with its design centre in Los Angeles and trade centre in New York. He speaks about turning his state into a "poster-boy" for globalisation, a Chinese gateway into America, reversing the sense of an inexorable flow of jobs and business from the US to China, and creating a "win-win" scenario. The Chinese roar with approval at his speech: they like this new face of America, as supplicant rather than bully. But Sanford is a lonely voice in preaching the need to woo China, despite the overwhelming force of the statistics: China has a population of more than a billion, an economy that is growing year-on-year by more than 8%, and had a trade surplus with the US of $124bn in 2003; Chinese imports into the US are outpacing American exports to China by more than five to one. More typical, perhaps, are the words of Roger W Robinson Jr, the former chairman of the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission, the official body charged with assessing the security implications of the trade between the US and China. "The US-China economic relationship is heavily imbalanced and undermining our long-term economic health," he said at the launch of the commission's last report. John Edwards, the vice-presidential nominee who represents the neighbouring state of North Carolina in the Senate, has taken a much tougher line than Sanford: he promises to review US trade agreements and investigate workers' rights abuses in China. China's growing economic power is doing much more than harming America's trade figures. Its development needs huge quantities of oil, forcing up prices on the world market. That is another big campaign issue in the world's most oil-hungry nation. According to the International Energy Agency, China will generate one-third of global incremental demand for oil between 2002 and 2004. Martin Wolf of the Financial Times has argued: "As Asian growth continues, the global balance between demand and supply will continue to be tight, unless (or until) a vast increase in investment takes place. With such tight markets, relatively modest disruptions could lead to explosive jumps in oil prices, as happened twice in the 1970s." If the US Democrats are exercised by China's economic threat, the Republicans have focused on its military one. President George Bush's first intelligence briefing from the CIA listed China as one of three strategic threats, along with terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. The thin red mist descends and China becomes, in the neo-con imagination, a Soviet Union of the east, intent on establishing puppet regimes, governed by a modern mandate from heaven. Though not all would go as far as denouncing Deng Xiaoping as a "chain smoking communist dwarf", as the rightwing firebrand Pat Buchanan did, there is a segment of the US political class that recoils at reports of double-digit increases in Chinese military spending, an intense focus on military modernisation and the simmering tensions over Taiwan. Back in 1997, Paul Wolfowitz, the neo-conservative flag-carrier who is now deputy defence secretary, wrote an article in the journal Foreign Affairs that compared the rise of China at the dawn of the 21st century to the rise of Germany a century earlier. He characterised China as "a country that felt it had been denied its place in the sun", that believed it had been mistreated by the other powers, and that was determined to achieve its rightful place by nationalistic assertiveness. He warned there may be another world war. But rather than a hot war, the two have engaged in a competition for influence in the Asian region. The establishment of US bases in central Asia, America's tightening defence ties with Japan and Australia, and its growing relationship with India are all seen by China's elite as part of Washington's design to keep them in check. China's response has been to bend over backwards to prove it is no threat either to the US or its neighbours. Li Junru, the vice president of the Central Party School, one of the Communist part institutions, has said the policy of heping jueqi (literally "merging precipitously in a peaceful way") means other nations need not fear. "China's rise will not damage the interests of other Asian countries," he told the Beijing Review. "That is because as China rises, it provides a huge market for its neighbours. At the same time, the achievements of China's development will allow it to support the progress of others in the region." He talks of the Chinese developing free trade areas and security organisations for the region on the model of the European Union and Nato. As part of this strategy, Beijing has resolved virtually all its land border disputes with its neighbours: it has signed a non-aggression pact with the Association of South East Asian Nations (Asean); it is working to help resolve the North Korean nuclear issue; it is signing a treaty of friendship and cooperation with Asean which includes free trade agreements and economic aid; and it is conducting joint military exercises with Russia, Kyrgyzstan, India and Pakistan. The American analyst Robert W Radtke, writing in the Christian Science Monitor, argued that China's soft sell appeals to America's allies in Asia: "China's peaceful rise was introduced to Asia by Chinese President Hu Jintao on his tour of south-east Asia in October - on the heels of President Bush's visit to the region that month. The contrast in tone between the two leaders couldn't have been more striking. In short, China's message was, 'We're here to help,' while the US message was 'You're either with us or against us' in the war on terror. It's not hard to imagine which was the more effective diplomatic strategy." But the Chinese will not push this competition too far: their biggest fear is that the neo-cons in Washington will encourage Bush to ratchet up the pressure over Taiwan, whose government has been making noises about declaring independence from the mainland, to the displeasure of the Beijing administration. Since the spat early in Bush's term when a US spy-plane crashed into a Chinese fighter, relations between the world's two leading powers have thawed. Beijing has provided Washington with useful intelligence and, like Russia, used the war on terror as an excuse to damn its own separatist movements. Even over Iraq, the Chinese supported the first UN resolution and kept a low profile over the second. During Kosovo, by contrast, Chinese spokesmen were on a 24-hour rota condemning Nato's illegal action. This time the risk of causing a rift with the Americans was judged too great. American policy towards China is trapped between an imperative for engagement and a preference for containment. Earlier this year US policymakers welcomed a Chinese trade delegation for a multi-billion dollar buying and spending spree, during which the Chinese were to look at making investments. Within days of the delegation's departure, however, the US threatened sanctions that would make the purchases impossible. And in the security sphere the US is seeking the People's Republic's help on the proliferation of WMD in North Korea at the same time as pushing a missile defence shield that could launch a new arms race between the two nations. What is becoming clear is that the Chinese are no longer easily manipulated. China's welfare is so intimately woven into the international order that its welfare affects the hope and dreams of others across the world. China is already on its way to becoming America's chief banker: the $400bn of foreign reserves it has accumulated allows the US to sustain its astronomical budget deficit. If Beijing stopped buying dollars, the US currency would collapse. The security analyst Fran?ois Heisbourg has even compared the Chinese hold on the dollar to a nuclear weapon: "Breaking the dollar would be the functional equivalent of using a nuclear weapon," he wrote in 2003. "The possession of such a capability cannot be ignored by the weaker party." Because of this mutual dependence it is unlikely that Wolfowitz's predictions of world war will come true. But as China rises, the balance of power will continue to shift to the east and more and more Americans will follow Sanford's example: approaching China with a begging bowl rather than a stick. China itself will face intense pressures over the coming years - unemployment, labour unrest, environmental problems and financial problems - but any problems in the People's Republic will also threaten American interests. Maybe the neocons have got it wrong. Perhaps the only thing worse for the US than a China that is too strong in 2020 will be one that is too weak. Mark Leonard is director of the Foreign Policy Centre (fpc.org.uk) How China is wooing the world In my local curry house I was greeted like a long-lost friend. A huddle of young waiters gesticulated excitedly towards me. Eventually I realised they were pointing at my bag, picked up during a recent trip to China, and emblazoned with the Chinese script for Shanghai. "You've been to China," they said, "China have just put a man in space - they're taking over from America." These young Bengalis are not just motivated by regional passions. Everywhere in the developing world people are sitting up and taking notice of the Chinese juggernaut. As a model for development it is a source of inspiration, its giddy growth rates of over 8% a year lifting millions of people out of poverty. But even more exciting is the prospect of a new superpower that might challenge US hegemony and the American way of doing things. In a paper for the Foreign Policy Centre, Joshua Ramo, a former foreign editor at Time who is based in China, laid out the elements of a new "Beijing consensus", which he sees as a direct challenge to the "Washington consensus" that defined attitudes towards the development debate in the 1990s. Beijing is "driven not by a desire to make bankers happy, but by the more fundamental urge for equitable, high-quality growth", he wrote. China treats the ideas of privatisation and free trade with caution rather than pursuing them with zeal; the country is defined by its ruthless willingness to innovate and experiment and has created a series of "special economic zones" to test out new ideas. Its foreign policy is driven by a lively defence of national borders and interests (see its attitude towards Taiwan) and an increasing commitment to multilateral institutions such as the United Nations, which it hopes will pin the US down. Together these policies have allowed China to grow without surrendering its independence to such financial institutions as the World Bank and IMF, global companies, or the Bush administration. This recipe for success is so intoxicating that, on visits to countries as diverse as Iran and South Africa, I have been drawn into discussions about the "Chinese model of development". China's model is seducing leaders in countries as different as Vietnam (which is taking business tips from the thoughts of the former Chinese president Jiang Zemin), Brazil (which is sending study teams to Beijing), and India (Ramgopal Agarwala, an eminent sociologist, observed: "China's experiment should be the most admired in human history. China has its own path."). Few in the west have picked up on this excitement, because they have looked at China's power simply by measuring the size of its economy or the technology of its army. But by focusing on Chinese hard power (its ability to use military force or economic might to get its way) people are missing the extraordinary rise of the country's "soft power" - the ability of its ideas and values to shape the world. It is an unwritten rule in the minds of the west that though China might become wealthy, it is western values and culture that will continue to define the rules of the world. That is already changing. For the first time there is an emerging pole that is strong enough to change the way things are done on the global stage. Japan was too small and inward-looking; India is too protectionist; Russia too weak. As China emerges as a superpower, it is desperately trying to present itself as a force for good in the world. The past few years have seen a successful Olympic bid, the creation of an English language international TV channel, a series of high-level visits by President Hu Jintao and Prime Minister Wen Jiabao to key countries, and a concerted attempt to befriend not just China's neighbours but other countries as far afield as Africa and Latin America. Two centuries ago Napoleon warned China was a "sleeping giant" that "once awake would astonish the world". That prediction looks like it is about to be fulfilled. Rise of the east The Chinese president, Hu Jintao, laid down a marker for the world in April when he outlined China's ambitions in a speech to the Boao Forum for Asia. "We will quadruple the 2,000 GDP to $4 trillion with a per capita GDP of $3,000, and further develop the economy, improve democracy, advance science and education, enrich culture, foster greater social harmony and upgrade the texture of life for the people," he said. Some in America responded positively to the remarks - former president George Bush Sr said China's peaceful rise was "very reassuring and very, very important to the Asian horizon and Asia's landscape" - but there are many in America who are disquieted by China's rise. Its military expenditure is rising, though it will still not compete with US defence spending and it has become increasingly bullish over Taiwan. In July, Jiang Zemin - the former president who heads China's armed forces - said China would have recovered the island by 2020. His remarks coincided with military exercises involving 18,000 troops, designed to demonstrate China's air superiority in the Taiwan Strait. It is also seeking to compete in space: Luan Enjie, the head of the national space programme, said last November that China intends to land a man on the moon by 2020. One motor of China's growth is its increasing population but with such rapid expansion come problems. Some relate to China's programme of population planning. The one-child policy has created a shortage of female babies, and the government has admitted that by 2020 China might have as many as 40 million single men, which could pose a threat to social stability. ----------- Water, water everywhere http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5010140-114398,00.html The world is not drying up, says Tony Allan. All we need to ensure the whole world has clean, safe water is some political backbone Saturday September 11, 2004 The Guardian It won't be as bad as you think. There is no need for the world in 2020 to be one in which nation fights nation over the contents of a drying river bed. There is no need for the world's poorest people to be dying for want of clean water, nor for droughts to cause mass starvation as whole regions see their food supplies wither away in waterless heat. That might happen, but if we can summon the political and economic will, we can avert it. In fact, we can address the most crucial area of water scarcity - finding enough water to feed the world - without ever getting our hands wet, thanks to the concept of "virtual water", which has nothing to do with computers. We will be helped in getting water to the world by social trends that are already underway, such as the flight from the country to the cities. And the rich - that's us - will probably not be as selfish with water as one might fear. We are likely to continue to adapt our usage of the water we are endowed with, and we are likely to be putting water back into the environment - by using less fresh water in farming, for example. Water shortages don't pose serious problems to gardeners in Hampshire or to Californian homeowners with pools to fill. The rich can find a way through. Their water suppliers can build a desalination plant; they can use their water more carefully; they can sometimes even get farmers to stop using water for a while. The people who suffer when water is in short supply are the poor. About one in six of the world's 6.5 billion people do not have a safe and secure water supply, and most poor families are short of water for the daily needs we take for granted. But the water-saving measures open to the rich are not open to them. If you get your water from a well you cannot stick a brick in the toilet cistern to use less water when you flush. Farmers in poor countries cannot stop farming. If they did, their families would die. And because poor communities cannot change the way they manage water, they are the ones who will suffer if water is scarce in 2020. The key to avoiding catastrophic water shortages is bringing people out of poverty, and the world is getting richer. At the moment there are between 1 billion and 1.5 billion rich people in the world; by 2020 there could be 2 billion to 2.5 billion. That would not have the desired effect if the world's population was expanding at the rate the "scary science" of the 1970s postulated. Fortunately, it is not. In 1994, demographers at the UN population conference in Cairo argued that the world's population would level off in the second half of the 21st century at around 50% higher than the current level. While this increase might sound like a great deal, it is within our capabilities to make sure the world has the water it needs. Food production accounts for 90% of water consumption, but there is sufficient water in the global system to meet the food needs of a world population at that level, and farmers have shown over the past century they can mobilise the world's natural resources - including water and energy - to meet huge increases in demand for food. Energy, in fact, is likely to be a far more crucial factor than water in slowing down production, even in agriculture. Water will not be such a problem because we will have achieved major economies in water use, which will mean more production per drop. Production in regions that currently can manage only low yields is likely to improve by between 50% and 100%. Why, then, do headline writers insist on the notion of water as source of crisis and conflict? In part, because it is easier to see water as a geographic feature, a seemingly static resource: we think of water as being lakes and rivers. In fact, water is everywhere, in many forms. In the past half-century, for example, we have discovered that the industrialised economies in temperate regions, such as Europe and North America, have surplus soil water resources. Soil water is the effective rainfall used to produce a wide range of rainfed crops, and especially the staple grains that are needed to meet the world's food needs. Though it rarely comes up in discussions of water crises, soil water is what makes possible well over half the world's crop production. Water is present in the food we produce, as well: not as an ingredient, but as an element in its production (remember, 90% of water consumption takes place during food production). To understand the full implications of that, take the case of the desert regions of the Middle East and North Africa. Those areas entered a period of dangerous strategic water deficits in the early 1970s. If ever there was a good time to suffer a severe water shortage, that was it. The early 1970s saw the farmers of North America and Europe putting staple grains on the world market at half their production cost. They are still doing that, aided by production and export subsidies that will be difficult to unpick within the next 20 years. It takes so much water to produce those vast mountains of grain that when they are exported they amount, in effect, to a global trade in water. That process can spectacularly fix water shortages. It takes 1,000 tonnes of water to produce a tonne of grain, so by importing grain, water-scarce economies can avoid the stress of trying to develop their own water sources for food production. And because 20% of the world's agricultural production is traded internationally, farmers and traders can move this "virtual water" in volumes and over distances beyond the wildest imaginings of engineers. The trade in virtual water addresses the biggest water challenge for both individuals and nations facing water scarcity: how to use water to produce enough food. Virtual water also eases the pressure that irrigated agriculture places on water in the environment. It is true that large-scale irrigation is an inefficient use of water, but the trade in virtual water means those regions where irrigation is crucial can put water back into the environment. What of the 10% of water used for activities other than agriculture? Come 2020, domestic water will still be in short supply for the very poor, who will have neither the resources nor the quality of government to address their problems. But the issue is not that there is too little water, rather that too little effort has been expended on finding economic solutions to the problem. If strong, diverse economies can be established in the poor countries, that will enable investment to ensure the necessary supplies of fresh water for non-agricultural use. And virtual water will account for the volumes needed for food production. Technology will also help the world make water available for domestic and commercial use. Desalination costs, for example, have fallen over the past five years, and the process can provide affordable water for the 70% of the world's population that lives close to major bodies of water. At a cost of around 30p per cubic metre, desalinated water is well within the price range of those living in industrialised economies. At present, the poor can pay nearly ?2 per cubic metre for water that is not even safe to drink. The problem with desalination is that it depends on a secure energy supply, and energy futures are much more uncertain than water futures. The water future could be constrained by the availability of affordable energy. So although we can project that by 2025, and certainly by 2050, a significant proportion of the world's population will be augmenting their freshwater supplies using desalination technology, the possible brake on the process is that energy prices will rise as the economies of east and south Asia expand in the next two decades, exerting new demands on the global energy supply. It is impossible at this point to guess how high a priority of water manufacture will be in an energy-short world. As an optimist, I believe the manufacture of fresh water is such a huge imperative that the world's leaders will have to address it. I do not believe the politics of allocating energy to water creation will be a problem. And desalination is not the only option. Each drop of London tap water has been through several people; there is no reason why domestic water cannot be reused in the developing world, where economies facing water scarcity are increasingly treating waste water. Some countries gain 20% of their supply from reuse. Only 10% of water is for non-agricultural use: we could, in theory, get 70% of that back by treating waste water (although there are social problems with water recycling - some people will not drink water that has already been drunk by someone else). So there is no need for a global water shortage. And there is no need for conflict over water. But still we find it difficult to understand the issues surrounding water scarcity, and because we do not understand them we find it difficult to address them all. We do not include soil water in our reckonings, even though it is the major source of water for rural economies. We forget the equalising role of virtual water, which moves commodities that require huge amounts of water to produce from the water-rich to the water-scarce economies. And there is too little understanding of the role of socio-economic development in giving the water-short access to virtual water. The problem is that what we need to do to supply water to all runs counter to one of the most deeply rooted human needs: the desire for familiarity and security. Most people - western consumers of expensive foreign bottled waters and imported delicacies aside - feel intuitively insecure if they cannot drink local water and eat locally produced food. Across the world, the hundreds of millions who comprise the rural poor do not have the levels of consumer and economic sophistication that are second nature to people in the industrialised world. As a result they are uneasy about accepting any dependence on what they regard as a complex and unfathomable economic system. But surely it is easy to inform people they have nothing to fear and everything to gain? Sadly, no. The politicians responsible for more than half the world's rural population do not have the resources or political capital, nor the economic policy options, to confront the beliefs of the rural poor. For those people, new ways of thinking and new approaches to water are not an option. There are no other jobs. Once again, however, there is a bright side. It has been estimated that by 2025 two-thirds of the world's population will live in cities, where life is more water efficient. The policeman in Nairobi, the call-centre worker in Mumbai and the teacher in Mexico City will use negligible volumes of water each day but can be far better paid than their counterparts in the fields. A building occupying a site of a hectare could accommodate 1,000 workers. Those people could generate an annual turnover of ?30m, but would use only 10,000 cubic meters of water each year. If that hectare were to be used as a wheat field, it might use the same amount of water, but would generate a turnover of less than ?2,000 per year and would only support one tenth of one job. So the key to efficient use of water, through the deployment of virtual water, is job creation and removing people from poverty. The challenge facing the world between now and 2020 is making sure poor people have access to small volumes of safe water - the 10% needed to keep families healthy and employable. And the best way to do that is to develop diverse economies. That is the powerful invisible process that will enable the water rich to improve the lives of the millions of people living in economic and water poverty. Tony Allan is professor of geography at SOAS in London. He convenes the Water Issues Group there and has written many books about water --------- The drowned world http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5010137-114398,00.html Icecaps will be melting, sea levels will be rising ... If you don't like today's weather, says Tim Radford, then wait for the horrors we could face by 2020 Saturday September 11, 2004 The Guardian "Good morning. Here is the shipping forecast for midday, June 21 2020. Seas will be calm, and visibility will range from good to excellent for the next 24 hours. The sea lanes from Bergen to Tokyo via the north-east passage will largely be free of ice, but occasional small floes may drift near the Siberian coast. The north-west passage from Europe to Fairbanks, Alaska, and Vancouver will also be clear, although iceberg hazards cannot be ruled out between Greenland and Ellesmere Island. The Bering Strait was, for the fourth time in the past decade, free of ice for the entire winter and will remain open for the rest of the summer." That's just the Arctic. By the summer of 2020, global warming will have had such devastating effect on the northern icecap that European ships may routinely cross the high latitudes to take the short routes to Asia and the Pacific. The Arctic Ocean, once frozen solid all winter and choked with hazardous floes for most of the summer, could be one of the friendlier seas. The perilous shortcuts that defied the heroic attempts of the Englishman Martin Frobisher and the Dutchman Willem Barents more than 400 years ago may soon become not just plain sailing, but the standard summer sea route from Europe to the Pacific. Cruise tourists and shipping magnates might wish to thank global warming. But the chances are they will not. That is because one of the Arctic's great spectacles, the polar bear, will have taken a dive: they need the sea ice to survive. For them, the ice is the way to a diet of seals, walruses and small whales. When the floes go, ursus maritimus will be on the road to extinction. The polar bear's base of operations has been shrinking inexorably as the planet warms. Over the past 40 years, the sheath of ice that covered the Arctic Ocean has thinned by 40%. The area covered by ice has also shrunk by more than 25%. Although much climate science is necessarily based on indirect evidence, the state of the Arctic Ocean has been monitored directly by people whose lives depend on the accuracy of their measurements. US, Russian and British nuclear submarines began charting the thickness of Arctic ice at the height of the cold war, and satellite cameras have been recording seasonal changes in ice cover for more than three decades. The conclusions are beyond dispute and the process is unstoppable. By 2020, according to the US Office of Naval Research, the north-east and north-west passages should be navigable. By 2050, according to the UK Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction, the Arctic Ocean could be free of ice in summer. That will happen because although the planet as a whole is warming perceptibly, the Arctic is warming eight times faster - largely because of a phenomenon called the albedo effect. Put simply, white reflects light, but dark absorbs it. So the sunlight crashing on to the Arctic and Antarctic ice sheets, the Alpine and tropical glaciers, and the snows of the great mountain chains bounces back into space. In effect, ice is its own insulator: glaciers tend to keep themselves glacial even in the summer. But once ice starts to melt, dark ocean or rock is exposed. That absorbs the heat, and begins to accelerate the melting process. As long as the average temperatures stay low, there is a natural brake: in high summer, snow evaporates but falls again in winter, to replace the melting ice and to keep conditions more or less stable. The problem is that things have begun to change. Glaciers in Alaska and the mountains of tropical Africa are in retreat, and climate scientists have predicted that by 2020 the snows of Kilimanjaro and Mount Kenya will have vanished. In Europe, Alpine economies built on skiing and other mountain sports will have begun to fail. In south Asia, for at least part of the year, snow melt is the only source of water for millions of farmers. Adventure tourists will lose their holidays. Others stand to lose rather more. On the Indian subcontinent, half a billion people depend on the Indus and Ganges rivers, whose sources lie among melting snows of the the Hindu Kush, the Karakoram and the western Himalaya. But these great snowfields, too, are disappearing. All this is on the basis of an annual global average temperature rise of 0.1C a decade up to now. But it wouldn't take much to make things change faster, and those changes would be irreversible. If global average temperatures rise by more than 2.7C, according to calculations published in Nature in April, then the great sheet of ice that covers Greenland will start to melt faster than it can be replaced. The Geological Survey of Greenland and Denmark warned this summer that the ice sheet, which covers 772,000 square miles and is up to two miles thick, is melting 10 times quicker than previously thought. The sheet is thinning at 10 metres per year, not one metre. It could take 1,000 years for the sheet to completely disappear, but as it does so, sea levels will begin to rise by about 7mm a year. Once all the ice has gone, the world's oceans will have risen by around seven metres. This will happen, because global temperatures seem likely to rise by far more than 2.7C. Ten years ago, the UN's Intercontinental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) set up to study global warming proposed a maximum temperature rise of about 3C by 2100. Three years ago, IPCC revised that prediction. The maximum temperature rise during the present century is set at almost 6C. And the predicted maximum temperature rise for Greenland is put at up to 8C. That is not the only danger posed by the thawing of the world's cold places. The Arctic regions are rimmed by permafrost: regions of tundra that enjoy an urgent spring, a brief, brilliant summer and then a long, hostile winter. These landscapes hold stores of ancient carbon and methane in the form of decaying vegetation imprisoned for 10,000 years or more. Once the permafrost starts to melt, awesome quantities of carbon dioxide and methane - two potent greenhouse gases - will be released from thawing peat bogs to accelerate the warming process yet further. This climate phenomenon is known as "positive feedback". By 2020, then, the Arctic will have begun to change for ever. The adventure tales of the past will be distant history: stories of explorers fighting their way by sled across the perilous frozen seas will be science fiction to young readers and nostalgic yearnings for a lost world to their parents. "Here is the long-term weather forecast for the tropical and temperate zones at midday, June 21 2020. After a series of increasingly wet winters, northern Europe could once again be at risk of a lethal heat wave. Forest fires are raging in the Iberian Peninsula, southern France and the Balkans. Water rationing has once again been imposed in California. Relief agencies have warned that late rains raise the spectre of widespread hunger in the Sahel and southern Africa. Bangladesh, however, is once more preparing for catastrophic floods." It's a matter of simple physics: a warmer world means a rising sea level. Warm water is less dense than cold, so some of the sea level rise will happen just because the water already in the oceans has begun to expand. But sea levels have begun to rise still further with the melting of continental ice and the retreat of the glaciers. The effects of the rise will only slowly become apparent - even the most pessimistic predictions suggest that by 2100 the sea level will only be a metre higher - but even at that slow rate many millions of people will be imperilled. Sea level rise is a threat to anybody who lives at or a fraction above sea level, and especially to citizens of those countries classed as developing. That, of course, means poor. For such people, the future looks very bleak. There are 54 members of the Commonwealth. Only six of these are classed as developed nations. Around 93% of the Commonwealth lives in the other 48. Some of these countries may have no future at all. "If the scientific forecasts prove correct, then by the end of the century membership of the Commonwealth will have declined because two or three nations will have disappeared," warned Clive Hamilton, director of the Australian Institute, in September 2003. Two Commonwealth states - the Maldives and Tuvalu - are at risk of complete submersion by 2080. Two other groups of islands - Kiribati and the Bahamas - will be in a bad way, because almost all their territories lie below the four-metre mark. Each of those states will already be facing periodic devastation and permanent crisis by 2020. The bedrock of many of the islands is coral limestone. Coral is a living thing, so if sea levels were to rise slowly enough - over 1,000 rather than 100 years - then coral could grow to keep up with the water levels. But coral is extremely sensitive to rising temperatures: the corals that make up most reefs and atolls are already at the limits of their temperature tolerance. Those reefs near human settlements are choked by man-made pollutants, and their ecologies have been permanently altered by intensive fishing. Any increase in ocean temperatures means death by bleaching - the corals turn white and die. This has happened a number of times in the Caribbean, the Indian Ocean and the Great Barrier Reef near Australia, with cyclical rises in water temperatures. Those rises have been followed by cyclical falls, so the corals have had the chance to recover. But global warming means permanent heating, and the living corals that support life - both human and non-human - in the Pacific and Indian Oceans are expected to perish on a massive scale. The coral won't be the only thing to suffer. The oceans will seep into the bedrock, polluting the subterranean fresh water. Agriculture will become impossible, supplies of drinking water will be minimal and as the waters rise the islands will start to drown in seawater. Island dwellers, of course, will not be the only ones at risk. Hundreds of millions of people in densely populated countries with low-lying coastal plains or vast estuaries will come under threat from rising sea levels. According to Sir John Houghton, a former director of the UK Met Office and author of Global Warming: The Complete Briefing, a sea level rise of half a metre could sweep away or make uninhabitable about 10% of the habitable land of Bangladesh. That land is currently home to at least six million people. Sea levels will not need to rise by half a metre worldwide to make this happen: the delta region of Bangladesh is subsiding, partly because groundwater is being abstracted for agriculture to feed the nation's 140 million citizens. By 2050, waters could have risen by a metre, claiming 20% of Bangladesh and displacing 15 million people. By 2100, the ocean may have encroached up the rivers almost as far as Dhaka, one of the world's fastest growing cities, and across the Indian border to the edge of Calcutta. A glance around the world shows the same pattern being repeated again and again. In Egypt, a metre rise in the Mediterranean will mean the fertile lands of the Nile delta will disappear beneath the sea, claiming 12% of the country's arable land and displacing seven million people. A sea level rise of half a metre would also cause havoc in the Netherlands and in the Mississippi delta. But the difference between those two regions and those in the developing world is that the Dutch and the Americans already spend money on sea defences and can afford more. In China, a half-metre rise in the sea level could inundate the alluvial plains of the eastern coast, covering an area of land the size of the Netherlands, leaving 30 million homeless. And if the sea doesn't get you, the storms will. Hurricanes and cyclones are freak events whose existence is controlled by sea temperatures. If the surface temperature of the ocean is below 26.5C, typhoons, tropical cyclones and hurricanes hardly happen. But with each rise of the mercury beyond that point they become more frequent and more ferocious. Savage storms, and the sea surges they bring, will pose huge threats to small island states and could scour low-lying land completely clear. Twenty years ago, climate scientists warned that in a greenhouse world, the kind of fierce storms that had been once-a-century occurrences would come around every decade. The fatal combination of very high tide and tropical cyclone has hit Bangladesh and the Bengal coast of India many times. In 1991, one such storm surge claimed an estimated 139,000 lives. In 1970, another killed 300,000 people. UN researchers warned in June that an estimated one billion people live in the path of the kind of flood that used to occur every 100 years: by 2050, the number of potential victims could reach two billion. If two billion people are at risk of dramatic inundation in 2020, around 2.3 billion others living in the world's water-poor nations could face an even more wretched future. They will see increasingly parched landscapes, empty wells, polluted lakes and rivers that run dry. UN experts calculated that in 2000, people in 30 nations faced water shortages. By 2020, they predict, that number will have risen to 50 nations. As temperatures rise, more water will evaporate, but rainfall will remain capricious. Countries in the monsoon belt will face more severe droughts in the dry season but could also have to deal with more catastrophic flooding. Other regions - the southern Mediterranean, north Africa, southern Africa and the Sahel - could become even more arid, with olive groves succumbing to desertification. The great plains of North America, the breadbasket for the planet, could turn again into a dustbowl, delivering less and less grain to a world that acquires an extra 240,000 mouths to feed every single day. The pattern of falling crop yields will be seen all over the planet. They are expected to decline by at least 10% in most African Commonwealth countries, and by even more in Mozambique, Tanzania, Botswana and Namibia. There could also be dramatic falls in food production in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, although harvests could increase by 10% in Brunei, Malaysia, Singapore and Papua New Guinea. Canada and New Zealand could also see dramatic increases in crop yields but Australia, already largely arid, will be one of the economic losers. And forget the glib remarks about the one good side-effect of global warming being decent summers. In 2003, more than 20,000 people died in northern Europe because of a heat wave that saw Germany roasting in its hottest temperatures for 450 years. Climate scientists believe that if atmospheric warming continues unchecked, such heat waves can be expected every 20 years or so - so expect summer 2020 to be every bit as oppressive as last year. "The summer of 2003 was a summer of the future," said Gerhard Berz, head of natural risks research at Munich Re, one of the insurance giants that has to calculate hazard and pick up the bill for floods, heat waves, ice storms, hurricanes, forest fires and droughts. Global warming is expected to bring good news for some. But right now it looks like it will be delivering bad news to most people by 2020. The IPCC, the international consortium of climate scientists that has delivered increasingly urgent warnings since it was established in 1988, is that rare thing: a group of scientists who would love to be proved wrong. Their predictions have been made in the hope that governments will take action, and in doing so direct the planet towards a less fearful future. There is evidence that governments have been listening. Action, however, has been slow. Acting now would be too late to avert the challenges of 2020. We are starting to see the effects of carbon emissions of a few decades ago: your fuel-efficient small car is an investment in the future, because we're currently paying for that great gas guzzler your family was driving in the 70s. Every cook who knows a bit about science understands a concept called thermal inertia: the gas is on full, but the kettle takes a few minutes to boil, and though the gas is off, it takes a while to cool down. We're still waiting for the earth to start simmering, but by 2020 the bubbles will be appearing, whatever we do today. Tim Radford is the Guardian's science editor Can we predict the weather? As Sam Goldwyn said, prediction is always difficult, especially of the future. There are huge uncertainties in climate forecasting. The planet is a complicated place: its climate is influenced by the interplay of sunlight, atmosphere, dust, ocean currents and rainfall; by the temperature gradient between the tropics and the poles; by the topography of continents; by the balance of forests, wetlands, deserts, savannahs and oceans, as well as by the chemistry and biochemistry of the seas. To grasp the patterns of the future, climate scientists have to know the pattern of climate change in the past. That means they have to examine the indirect evidence provided by ice cores, tree rings, coral growths, and mud samples from oceans and lakes in order to estimate greenhouse gas levels and average temperatures in the distant past. Then they must monitor the oceans, the upper and lower atmosphere, and weather patterns around the whole planet to understand the mechanics of climate now. Only then can they start composing computer models of what might happen the day after tomorrow. So when politicians - and, sometimes, other scientists - make accusations of uncertainty, speculation and possible error, they have a point. There is no doubt the planet is warming, but how much of that is caused by some natural cycle nobody yet understands? And how much is the result of human interference? And what will humans do in the future that might make conditions better or worse? Atmospheric chemists say they understand the principal greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, quite well. But methane, though shorter-lived, is an even more potent greenhouse gas: what role could it play in the future? Water vapour, too, is a greenhouse gas: a warmer world means more water vapour in the atmosphere. Will it make the world an even hotter place? Or will it mean greater cloud cover, which might then act as a brake on global warming by cutting out more sunlight? Those questions are unanswered and the debate goes on. Through 15 years of intensive climate study, however, the broad message from the scientists has remained much the same. They are now convinced that indiscriminate burning of fossil fuels is steadily increasing the global average atmospheric temperature. And the only way to halt or at least slow global warming would be to make dramatic cuts in carbon emissions. Which leads to the other great unanswered question: can we meet that challenge? TR Earth blows hot and cold Earth's climate has always been subject to ups and downs, and there is nothing novel about a warm Arctic. Ninety million years ago, during the Cretaceous era, deciduous forests stretched into the Arctic circle, and carnivorous dinosaurs roamed Antarctica. Five years ago, palaeontologists uncovered the bones of an eight-foot champosaur, a reptile with a crocodile-like snout and razor-sharp teeth, under the Alaskan snows. Such a creature could only have survived in a warmer world, and experts calculate that the average annual temperature in Alaska must have been 14C. That is, it may never have frozen, even in the coldest winters. The globe can blow both hot and cold: much earlier, glaciers reached almost to the equator. Some climate scientists have hypothesised a "snowball Earth" - a completely frozen world - for at least four spells between 750m years ago and 580m years ago, before things warmed up again. Human civilisation is generally adapted to a cooler world. Around 21,000 years ago, during the height of the last ice age, sea levels were 135 metres lower than they are today, and the continents were covered by an extra 52 million cubic kilometres of ice. The interglacial thaw that took place 11,000 years ago gave agriculture, metalwork and urban civilisation its kickstart. For a while back in the 1970s some climate scientists wondered about the possibility of an imminent return of the ice age. And earlier this year, European scientists drilling in the Antarctic settled an answer to that question. The evidence from the ice cores suggests that, even if carbon dioxide levels were normal, there could still be another 15,000 years before the glaciers return to southern England. But carbon dioxide levels are not normal. They're rising and they're rising fast. The evidence from the same ice cores confirms that both temperatures and carbon dioxide levels are now higher than at any time in the last 400,000 years. The evidence from fossil plankton drilled from the seabed tells an even more ominous story: carbon dioxide levels are higher than at any time in the last 20m years. And they are expected to double in the coming century. That means higher temperatures, for longer - and it means that any existing forecasts of a new ice age are likely to be way off course. TR ------------- The balance of power http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5010121-114398,00.html We can still have all the electricity we want in 2020, says Paul Brown. But we need to learn to love renewables Saturday September 11, 2004 The Guardian What will happen when the gas runs out, when the deepest oil well of the Arabian peninsula finally runs dry, when the giant drills of the offshore platforms reach nothing but dry rock? Will we face a future of blackouts and electricity rationing, or will we find a way to avert the doomiest scenarios and continue living lives in which energy consumption is crucial to everything we do. Think of the electricity you use in a day. You are woken by the clock radio buzzing into life, and you turn the bathroom light on as you climb into your power shower. After dressing you head downstairs, where you turn on another radio, put some bread into the toaster and turn on the kettle, getting the milk from your fridge to put in your tea. After breakfast you head to work, where the lights are burning - and on go the computer and desktop fan. Those are just the most obvious of personal uses and the day has barely even begun. How can we possibly sustain such a level of usage? In short: renewable energy sources. There is no longer any doubt that renewable energies will play a large part in the future of mankind. If politicians show sufficient will and intelligence, and invest in a raft of new technologies, then we should be able to maintain our electricity supply and, as a beneficial side-effect, avert the disaster of rapid global warming. But as with the debate about nuclear power in the 1980s, it will not be environmental arguments that win the day, but economics. Nuclear power lost out not because of the vexed question of radioactive waste but because the truth finally emerged that it was a very expensive way to keep the lights on. When oil and natural gas begin to run out - and, more importantly, when demand exceeds supply - their prices will escalate and the cost of using them to generate electricity will become prohibitive. Continuing to use coal or, worse, increasing the quantity we burn will be more and more unacceptable, because it will add to the excessive quantities of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Those factors make both renewables and nuclear more and more competitive. The renewables revolution has begun already, because researchers are anticipating the moment when renewables become economic. Although there are a range of renewables already in use, the contribution to world energy production - hydropower aside - remains relatively minor, at less than 1%. But there is a large selection of new renewables under research and development. Hydropower is already one of the largest and most established forms of renewable energy, providing 19% of the world's electricity. Of the others, geothermal is a long established and growing energy resource, and wind power is already a mainstream technology. A variety of other smaller technologies are also already economic, the best of which involves using methane from landfill sites. Across the world a mixture of other fuels from specially grown trees, forest offcuts, pig slurry, straw and even chicken litter are generating power. And there are others that are, as yet, underexploited but with great potential: solar is growing fast, and tidal, ocean currents and wave power are also undergoing rapid development. Further ahead, though not before 2020, lots of other possibilities exist - the prospect of the hydrogen economy and completely clean energy production has led to much excited speculation. In Europe, money is being poured into wave and tidal power. Undersea turbines, working on much the same principle as wind turbines, are already in operation in the UK and Norway. Their potential is huge, particularly because all along the Atlantic coast with its large tides, and many inlets and islands, there are countless sites for exploiting the power of the sea. And unlike the winds, tides are completely predictable. Wave power has great potential in exactly the same areas, and although the technical difficulties already encountered in its development means it has been expensive, there are many companies confident they can make it work. There is a race among developed countries to become leaders in these new technologies because of their vast potential to create jobs and exports. Geothermal technology is increasing in regional importance, particularly in countries that do not have a wind, tidal or wave resource. This heat is as inexhaustible and renewable as solar energy and comes from hot rocks near the earth's surface. Water is pumped into the hot ground and used on its return to the surface to create electricity and for district heating. The main geothermal areas of this type are located in New Zealand, Japan, Indonesia, Philippines, the western coastal Americas, the central and eastern parts of the Mediterranean, Iceland, the Azores and eastern Africa. But while all that sounds very exciting, leading environmental groups and engineers to take on the challenges of developing energy technology, mainstream organisations such as the World Energy Council still see fossil fuels dominating the agenda in 2020. That is mainly because the worldwide demand for electricity is escalating so fast they cannot see renewables catching up with the demand. The council is first to admit it could be wrong. It all depends on how quickly the oil and gas begin to run out. And then there is the nuclear question. It is not only the renewable industry that sees opportunities in the coming energy crisis and in our fears about the devastating effects of global warming. The nuclear industry rightly claims it provides a reliable source of energy that does not produce the carbon dioxide that fossil fuels do. But nuclear power is still dogged by the old, familiar problems: it takes a long time to take a nuclear power station from the drawing board to production; nor has anyone yet come up with a satisfactory method of disposing of nuclear waste. Neither of those disadvantages are attached to the new renewables. Currently there are 444 nuclear reactors worldwide, producing 16% of the world's electricity. Some countries rely on nuclear power for most of their electricity. France is the top of the list, generating 75% of its electricity in nuclear power stations. But most of the countries that have a lot of reactors - particularly in North America and Europe, with Japan also on the list - have stopped building new ones or have curtailed their programmes. As a result the closure programme is exceeding the rate of new building. But that does not mean there will be no nuclear revival. The nuclear industry is looking to expand into the growing economies of Asia, particularly in China, South Korea and India. China has just ordered four new stations and may confirm another four before Christmas. There are said to be plans to build two a year but even that expansion would only account for a tiny part of the massive need for power in that vast and fast-growing economy. Even the fourfold increase in the rate of Chinese nuclear expansion which the industry hopes to see by 2020 would provide less than 20% of the country's power. Other solutions are needed. The nuclear industry's other hope for a big push is the United States, not only because it is the world's largest economy but also because it is the one most dependent on oil and gas, and the one that wastes most of both. The energy crisis, when it comes, is going to hit first, and worst, the US. It is from there that the political push to make the world change course may come. The current administration does not give the world many reasons to hope. President George Bush was the man who repudiated the Kyoto protocol, which was designed to reduce greenhouse gases. Kyoto was one of the drivers of the renewable revolution and the fact that it has stalled because of the objections of the US and indecision of Russia has slowed progress towards their greater use. Despite his links to the oil industry, Dick Cheney, the vice president, pushed hard at the start of Bush's four-year term for a revival of the nuclear dream. So far nothing has happened, partly because of continued public resistance in the US and partly because of the lack of private investment. But the main barrier still remains the large capital cost of building a new nuclear power station. If you forget the costs of the pollution caused by fossil fuels (which is what the US does in its energy planning) then new coal or gas stations are far cheaper. But part of America's charm is its diversity of view. In August, California announced a plan to subsidise solar power for one million homes by surcharging consumers about 15 pence a month. The state aims to rival Japan and Germany in being a world leader in solar power. This debate about whether nuclear power is a viable energy source for the future has also started to grip Europe. Despite the heat being generated in the debate, expansion does not seem a viable option, mainly because of public resistance. Instead, many of the countries of western Europe have invested heavily in wind power, particularly Portugal, Spain, France, Denmark and Germany. In the UK, where nuclear stations are closing on a regular basis as they reach the end of their lives, about 20% of electricity still comes from reactors. However, there would be serious obstacles to building a new station, as a minority demands. It is estimated it would be 2020 before a new station could be finished, even if planning began now. By that time wind power will be producing about 15% of the UK's power, replacing the lost nuclear production. The opponents of the nuclear option say the future lies in the new breed of renewables, the potential of which is only now being fully understood. Although there is still room for more hydropower, it is the new technologies that hold out most hope. The new generation of energy, then, is likely to lie with forces as old as the earth itself: the elemental powers of the wind, waves and sun. The very things that have shaped so much of our past will also, with the application of the human factor of technology, help shape our future. Paul Brown is the Guardian's environment correspondent ---------------- Oil and troubled water http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5010117-114398,00.html Nobody expects the world's oil reserves to last forever. The question is, when will they run out, and how serious will the knock-on effects be? by Paul Brown Saturday September 11, 2004 The Guardian The oil jitters we saw this summer are likely to become commonplace as this decade progresses. This year, oil prices became news when the price of a barrel approached the $50 barrier. The knock-on effects were huge. For motorists, the prospect of the price of a litre of petrol rising towards a pound edged closer. For the stock markets, however, rising oil prices spelled panic. Energy prices affect the world economy more than any other single factor. A stable economic future depends on the oil supply always keeping pace with worldwide demand. But an increasing number of experts believe that stability will soon disappear. This is known as the tip-over point, the moment at which demand exceeds supply and prices begin to rocket. The result, apart from the possibility of a worldwide recession, will be to spur investment in alternative energies. But will they be sufficiently developed to take the strain? The problem is who to believe. Oil is still being discovered, but consumption is rising at around 3% a year and oil wells elsewhere are running dry. Oil production is well past its peak in the US, and is running out in the North Sea - just 30 years after it was first exploited. Most of the world's reserves remain in the Middle East. The amount Iraq and Saudi Arabia pump into the world economy over the next 10 years will make a decisive difference to whether the tip-over point is reached. Some experts believe it will be reached by 2007. Dr Colin Campbell, a founder of the Association of Peak Oil, says the number of new oil discoveries has been declining since 1964. Given the need for continually increasing production, he believes oil supplies won't be able to keep pace with demand within three years. Traditionally inclined experts, including the World Energy Council, expect discoveries to continue, and shortfalls to be made up by new extraction technologies that will allow oil to be taken from shale deposits. But these predictions rest on a lot of assumptions. What is clear is that everyone is guessing, even if everyone claims their guess is better informed than anyone else's. One point they all agree on is that the oil and gas will run out: the arguments are about when, and how soon demand will exceed supply. But for now, the world carries on as if oil was going to last for ever. Everyone must accept that the more oil we use, the quicker tip-over point will be reached. At the present rate that could be well before 2020, which will not be good news for the global economy. ------------- No city limits http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5010101-114398,00.html You might hate them, but the world's expanding cities are a way out of poverty for millions, says John Reader Saturday September 11, 2004 The Guardian Rubbishing cities is a popular sport. Not simply because of the garbage, graffiti, pollution, congestion and crowds people complain about - there is something about the very essence of cities and their inhabitants that offends. too. When Brighton and Hove succeeded in its bid to become a Millennial city, for instance, Julie Burchill declared that wanting to be a city was "about as sensible and life-affirming as wanting to be a wart". Surveys have shown that, while around three-quarters of Britain's town- and country-dwellers are satisfied with their quality of life, only about 10% of urbanites are happy. According to Burchill, that's why you see so many of them on the Brighton seafront every weekend - "thousands of Londoners set free for the day, blinking and smiling with surprise at all this light and space, poor mole-people above ground at last." But whatever people say about cities, their behaviour tells a different story. More people live in cities now than ever before. In the 1700s less than 10% of the world's population were city-dwellers. By 1900 the proportion had reached 25%; today it stands at around 50% and the trend is set to continue. Soon, two out of every three people on Earth will be living in a city. Will they all be complaining, or will the city have become a better place? At the very least, life in cities should offer more variety and be more fulfilling than a life spent scratching a bare living direct from the soil; it might even be more fun. But as cities have severed the ties that once bound people firmly to the land, so the links between urban and rural environments have become more important than ever. The inhabitants of today's cities are more utterly dependent on the services of nature than at any previous time in history. We tend to forget that, while London, Paris, Venice, New York and numerous other cities sustain and entertain millions of us, cities are monstrous parasites, consuming the resources of regions vastly larger than themselves and giving very little back. In fact, though cities today occupy only 2% of Earth's land surface, they consume more than 75% of its resources. The implications of that are powerfully illustrated by a concept environmental scientists developed during the 1990s: the ecological footprint. Question: "What is 120 times the size of London?" Answer: "The land area required to supply London's needs." Having analysed the workings of London as though the city were a giant machine, consuming resources and spewing out wastes, researchers found that although the city itself occupies an area of only about 1,500 square kilometres, London actually requires roughly 20 million square kilometres of territory for its supplies and waste disposal. This is London's ecological footprint. Though the city is home to just 12% of Britain's population, it uses the equivalent of all Britain's productive land. In reality, of course, the horizons that supply London extend beyond the British Isles to the wheat prairies of Kansas, the soybean fields of the Mato Grosso, the forests of Scandinavia - and thousands of other locations. The ecological footprints of many cities have been assessed in this way, and the results are uniformly alarming. Vancouver, for instance, though rated highly in terms of the quality of life its half a million residents enjoy, has an ecological footprint more than 200 times the size of the city. The 29 largest cities of the Baltic Sea drainage system appropriate the resources of an area 565 times larger than the land they occupy. Furthermore, the assessment of ecological footprints puts a measure on the enormous disparities in resource appropriation that have opened up between the world's developed and developing regions. For example: each of North America's 300 million inhabitants consumes the resources of about 4.7 hectares (11.75 acres) per year on average - the equivalent of almost 10 soccer pitches. That is a huge, disproportionate chunk of Earth's surface, especially when compared with the average of just 0.4 hectare (about half the size of the centre court at Wimbledon) that each of India's one billion inhabitants manages on. And consider this: 80% of North Americans live in cities - many without even a windowbox, never mind a productive garden the size of 10 soccer pitches. In India only 30% of people live in cities; the remainder are sustained entirely by their notional half a tennis court. Meanwhile, of course, global resources have remained finite. Ominously, as the human population has risen above 6 billion, and cities have grown to accommodate an ever larger proportion of them, the ecologically productive land "available" to each person has decreased, from about 5.6 hectares per person in 1900 to three hectares in 1950, and down to no more than 1.5 hectares now. That means that the ecological footprint of the average North American (4.7 hectares) is more than three times his or her share of Earth's resources. So, if living standards everywhere were raised to levels that the average North American enjoys, we would need three planets to provide for them all. That's not an option, but redressing the balance between urban and rural environments could help. Given the success of the evolutionary trajectory humanity pursued for the first few million years - no other species has achieved such total dominance of the global environment - cities are a complete contradiction. It is biology that drives evolution and, from a biological point of view, cities are a seriously bad idea. The dangers of disease multiply when people are crowded together, and our aversion to squalor and unpleasant odours is a measure of the depth at which an innate acknowledgement of those dangers is set in our evolutionary history. We are social animals, true enough, but there are limits, and our hunting and gathering ancestors probably had the numbers about right. They were nomadic, moving around in groups of up to 40 or so, and never staying long enough in one place for pathogens to build up to potentially deadly levels. But cities have been - quite literally - the breeding grounds of disease. Bacterial and viral diseases are the price humanity has paid to live in large and densely populated cities. Virtually all the familiar infectious diseases have evolved only since the advent of agriculture, permanent settlement and the growth of cities. Most were transferred to humans from animals - especially domestic animals. Measles, for instance, is akin to rinderpest in cattle; influenza came from pigs; smallpox is related to cowpox. Humans share 296 diseases with domestic animals. Thus, until comparatively recent times, cities had a well-earned reputation for being unhealthy places. In the early 19th century half the children born in Manchester died before they were five years old; in London half died before the age of three, and conditions were even worse in Vienna and Stockholm, where half died before they were two. No wonder demographers and historians write of the "urban graveyard effect". Deaths exceeded births in all great cities. The amazing thing is that cities continued to grow. Despite their deathly reputation, more and more people wanted to live in them. Between 1551 and 1801, for instance, the population of London grew more than tenfold, from 80,000 to 865,000, even though deaths consistently exceeded births throughout those 250 years. Left to its own reproductive capacity, London would have died out. It survived and grew by attracting thousands of migrants from the countryside, where death rates were generally 50% lower than in the cities, and birth rates 13% higher. Clearly, living conditions were healthier in the countryside. But, as agriculture and cottage industries such as spinning and weaving were mechanised, redundant labour had no choice but to seek employment elsewhere - and the industrial cities beckoned. In the 30 years to 1910, Vienna's population trebled to more than 2 million in this way; the population of Paris soared from 2.25 million to 4.8 million during roughly the same period, and London gained 3.5 million new residents. New York grew from a city of 1.9 million in 1875 to become the home of nearly 8 million people by 1925, making it the world's largest city. New York was still leading in 1950, with 12.3 million inhabitants; and again in 1960, with 14.2 million; but by 1970 the greatest growth had moved around the globe. Japan's postwar economic achievements had pushed Tokyo into first place, with 16.5 million inhabitants, a position it still holds. At the time of writing, second place is taken by Mexico City, an ascendancy indicating that economic vitality is no longer a primary determinant of city growth. Huge cities have been appearing in all parts of the world - in poor countries as well as in the regions of greatest wealth. In 1970 only three cities - Tokyo, New York and Shanghai - had 10 million or more inhabitants; 30 years later there were 19 of them, 14 in the developing world. And the trend is set to continue: by 2020 at least 23 cities will have passed the 10 million mark, all but four in developing countries. By then, several cities in the developing world are likely to have populations of more than 20 million. In all, nearly 600 cities will have a million or more inhabitants by 2020. Of those, more than 400 will be in developing countries. The quality of life for many in the cities of the developing world is desperately low, with squatter or slum housing being the norm rather than the exception. But, contrary to the idealised western view of the countryside as a haven to which city-dwellers yearn to escape, conditions are far worse in the rural areas. The cities may be poor, but the countryside is poorer still. The brutal fact is that, while one-third or more of city-dwellers in the developing world live on or below the poverty line, only about one-third of the rural population lives above it. A typical study of urbanisation in the developing world concludes that despite appalling housing conditions, lack of fresh water and services, minimal health care and few chances of finding a job, the urban poor are on average "better off than their rural cousins, on almost every indicator of social and economic well-being". Better off? Well-being? Don't ask how the lives of these impoverished city-dwellers compare with those of the 90% of British urbanites who are dissatisfied with their quality of life. Only note that, for many millions of people, cities are the solution, not the problem. John Reader is the author of Cities (William Heinemann, ?20) ----------- Take issues http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5015581-114398,00.html Will we have solved the big political questions - education, transport, the economy and immigration - by 2020? Saturday September 18, 2004 The Guardian Education This year lies halfway between 2020 and 1988, when Kenneth Baker, the then education secretary, delivered a package of measures that continue to define the modern educational era. In schools alone, the Education Reform Act introduced the national curriculum and testing at seven, 11 and 14; handed control of budgets to headteachers; and invented grant-maintained schools and city technology colleges, the precursors of specialist schools and city academies. Sixteen years on, some of the act's roughest edges have been smoothed, but the educational landscape is more than merely Baker-lite. Since 1988 Whitehall has meddled virtually at will in the content of the curriculum, prescribing huge chunks of the daily school timetables of children across the country. On the other hand, headteachers have become the most influential lobby group in education, as successive Tory and Labour governments pass ever greater power - and responsibility - towards them and away from local councils. And specialist schools have become this government's preferred model for (it believes) raising standards and (it hopes) persuading into the state fold some of the stubborn 7% of parents who continue to send their children to private schools. Maybe somebody - perhaps Gordon Brown if he changes his address by one digit - will abandon specialist schools and the perverse logic of expecting big rural comprehensives to focus on a particular area. But how wide will the changes in education really be by 2020? Heads will still hold the purse strings and local education authorities will probably not even exist. The best guess is that something called, and reminiscent of, the national curriculum will still be in place. Possibly this will be confined to five- to 14-year-olds, especially if trends to greater specialisation and differentiation from 14 on continue. If the government can get a positive consensus on the proposals in Mike Tomlinson's final report, in October, on reform of education of 14- to 19-year-olds, that will become more likely. Fourteen will have replaced 16 as the watershed moment in secondary education, with many more students taking vocational courses. There will be new qualifications to replace GCSEs and A-levels, the exams hardly anyone fails. But students will also take fewer exams: the generation at university now have had the worst of that. But there are almost bound to be complaints in 2020 about the failure to deliver "parity of esteem" between work-related and academic learning. There is nothing to suggest industry will deliver the input and enthusiasm to really turn that around. Taking a wider view, it is likely that many children will be taught in classes of 50 or more, with teachers working in teams, with other teachers or groups of classroom assistants. No counter-revolution will be able to obliterate that trend. The status of the teaching profession will still be diminished and the government will not have been able to convince jobseekers that the classroom is the place for them. Most of the best graduates will continue to turn their backs on teaching, to the constant complaints of the (by then) single classroom teachers' union. Will Woodward is the Guardian's education editor Transport As they power along eight-lane motorways in their Asian-built electric cars - set to cruise control, naturally - drivers in 2020 will have plenty of time to think about how they will pay their next road-charge bill. A monthly envelope totting up the cost of each car journey will be routine by the end of the next decade if the government's long-term transport plans are anything to go by. Satellite tracking technology will enable the authorities to monitor every car journey - how long it took, how far it was, how fast it was - to calculate a journey charge of up to ?1.30 a mile. Driving in many of Britain's cities will require a congestion charge; many motorway journeys will be punctuated by toll booths. The transport secretary, Alistair Darling, wants to begin levying a price for road space. The Conservatives support the idea in principle. But without such a radical change, the future for motorists will be bleak. Wages, wanderlust and globalisation are fuelling a desire to travel. Professor Marcial Echenique of Cambridge University reckons that, by 2021, we will all clock up an extra 1,000 miles a year by road or rail - raising the prospect of rush hours lasting from 5am until midday. "The congestion will extend, so there will be no period without congestion," Prof Echenique warned in a study published earlier this year. Maverick motoring groups who blow up speed cameras will have more to get militant by 2020. A government-funded initiative on trial at Leeds University is examining the possibility of cars having "intelligent" accelerators that resist when drivers try to break the speed limit. Traditional speed humps are likely to go in favour of advanced models, which will sink for slower vehicles but stiffen to impede speeders. Many commuter routes will have high-occupancy vehicle lanes for cars with at least two people on board. To help pay their five-figure annual tuition fees, students will be hiring themselves out as passengers. The alternatives to motoring are likely to suffer from familiar problems. Network Rail reckons that by 2015 it can bring punctuality on the railways up from 81% to 91.7%. Says Tony Travers, of the London School of Economics: "There are some eternal verities about transport policy. One is the maladministration of the railways and the fact that they're forever teetering on the brink of some form of Beeching's axe." On the bright side, both east and west coast mainlines ought to have been upgraded by 2020, with superior signalling allowing twice as many trains between London, the north of England and Scotland. But while tilting technology will be commonplace, there is little indication the money will be forthcoming to push speeds beyond the present maximum of 125mph. Commuters in the south-east will benefit from an upgrade to Thameslink and from high-speed local trains through Kent on the Channel tunnel rail link. The East London Line will be extended and joined to other suburban tracks to create an "inner rail ring road" around the capital. But only the most devoted optimists can confidently predict that Crossrail, the ?10bn east-west link across London, will be built by 2020. Britain's Victorian railway network will never be likely to match its German or Japanese rivals in speed and reliability for long-distance journeys. The disastrous ?7.5bn, decade-long struggle to model the west-coast mainline is likely to cast a shadow over rail policy for decades, deterring ambitious state schemes. Aviation could play a much bigger part in domestic transport. In a white paper on aviation last year, the government backed new runways at Stansted, Heathrow, Birmingham and Edinburgh. Government figures say the number of passengers using Britain's airports will leap from 189m to 460m by 2020. Heathrow will no longer be the world's busiest international airport, losing out through lack of space to Paris and Amsterdam. But journeys from Bournemouth to Newcastle or between London and Plymouth could well be on fast, cheap aircraft. Whether a Labour, Conservative or UK Independence party government is in power in 2020, the job of secretary of state for transport will still be a hiding to nothing. The challenges of congestion and pollution will persist. Travellers are likely to have more choice in how they get from A to B and their journeys will probably be safer. But whether moving around will be quicker, cheaper or more reliable than today is deeply doubtful. Andrew Clark is the Guardian's transport correspondent Immigration Immigration will feature ever more strongly in daily politics as the 21st century unfolds. In Britain immigration will be seen as an essential component of economic growth and a prerequisite for a healthy economy. But this will not happen in the same way as in the US and Australia in the 19th and 20th centuries, when they built multicultural societies on a positive historical legacy of integrating waves of migrants through the common goal of citizenship. Instead, by 2020 British immigration policy will be founded on the fact of our ageing society. Britain will have fewer people of working age trying to support a growing number of retired people. Britain is likely to encourage immigration on a scale that current levels only hint at, but in the process there is a danger we will develop a two-tier workforce that has more in common with the gastarbeiter economy of the old West Germany than on any American melting pot example. The basis for that prediction lies in the United Nations report Replacement Migration, published in 2000. It estimated that Britain needs to attract a million people a year between now and 2050 to maintain the balance between the workforce and the retired population. That might be regarded as unduly pessimistic, but even the most recent figures from the government actuary suggest that by 2020 there will be 20% more older people than younger adults. The majority of people in their 60s and 70s will be healthy and active; they will demand ever more consumer items and the personal services that go with increased leisure time. There will also be a growing welfare sector to care for the ageing population. The retirement homes of Bournemouth and Eastbourne will become key models for economic regeneration projects across the country. Home Office studies predict this will mean an increase in low-paid, low-skilled jobs that may be difficult to fill from the existing labour force. The pattern is already beginning to emerge in the hospitality and catering industries, where low-wage jobs with little security are increasingly being filled by migrants. The government's role is to ensure they can come here legally and get paid the minimum wage. But for this strategy to succeed longer-term, British governments will have to have come to terms with the flourishing hidden economy of illegal migrants. Otherwise the two-tier workforce will be even more likely. That means that a way to "regularise" the position of illegal migrants already in Britain will have to be found. By 2020 it could become a regular feature of British life, with amnesties granted to illegal immigrants before each general election. And if you think that could not happen, look to the US. Earlier this year, President George Bush thought it politic to give three-year work permits and possible citizenship to up to eight million "undocumented" workers living mainly in New Mexico and Arizona. His "compassionate conservative" move was, of course, really an attempt to capture the increasingly powerful Hispanic vote. Migrants here could soon hold equivalent political power. Alan Travis is the Guardian's home affairs editor Economy Forecasting the economy is a mug's game. Who in the aftermath of the three-day week in 1974 would have predicted that by 1990 Britain would be down to a handful of pits and that the National Union of Mineworkers would be shrivelled and beaten? Who in 1984 would have bet that the early brick-like mobile phones would become the fastest-spreading technology in history? On the big assumption that current trends continue, we should expect the UK to become even more dominated by the service sector, the City and the south-east. Europe's wealth is concentrated in a so-called golden banana that runs from northern Italy, through western Germany, eastern France and the Benelux countries and on across the Channel. While Europe's centre of gravity has moved eastward with enlargement, the plains of Lombardy, Bavaria, the Seine basin and the London diaspora will be the continent's unchallenged economic powerhouse for the next two decades at least. As far as the rest of the world is concerned, the big story will be the continued emergence of the three big developing countries - China, Brazil and India. In sheer size, rather than per capita incomes, these countries may soon rank behind only the US. Europe's demographics and its sluggish growth rate mean it will stay rich but be in relative economic decline. That's the easy bit. In reality, things will probably work out differently. The optimistic scenario is that the new wave of inventions over the past couple of decades has pushed the global economy to the cusp of a new golden age. All previous long upswings were based on technological change, and in this view the internet, the mapping of the human genome and robotics are to the coming boom what the car, the plane and the cinema were to the postwar golden age. The pessimistic view is that the future of the global economy is jeopardised by two big threats - one financial, the other environmental. Over the past decade, there has been a rise both in the number of financial crises and in the damage they have caused. With the US awash with personal debt, and running massive trade and budget deficits, the danger is that the next crisis will not be in a developing country like Argentina but at the very heart of the global economy. The other danger is that nobody has worked out what to do if and when the oil runs out. This is an issue that has been ducked by policy makers since the Yom Kippur war in 1973 brought to an end the long postwar boom. So there you have it. You can be an optimist and you can be a pessimist. Or, like me, you can be an optimistic pessimist: things look good in the long term, but there's plenty of choppy water to navigate first. Larry Elliott is the Guardian's economics editor -------------- Losing our religion http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5015587-114398,00.html Will the church evolve to cope with modern beliefs, asks Stephen Bates Stephen Bates Saturday September 18, 2004 The Guardian Predictions of the imminent demise of God - and His churches - have been around for a very long time but have never quite come to pass. Michael Ramsey - a famously saintly Archbishop of Canterbury in the 1960s - once startled an audience of journalists when asked whether he thought the church would survive into the 21st century by replying: "Well, you know, that is not certain, not certain, not certain at all. Not certain. It might easily, easily, it might easily, quite easily, just fall away after 20 years or so. Just fall away." Those remarks brought incredulity in a more church-attending and maybe more complacent age 40 years ago, as Ramsey perhaps intended. But his prediction has not been borne out, even though church-going has indeed fallen away sharply in recent years. Periodically, statisticians draw up projections showing that in 40 years no one will be attending church at all, but that does not seem very likely either. One prediction that is quite certain is that by 2020 - for believers - God will still be in His heaven and still of crucial importance for those who follow Him, of whatever faith. What is less clear is how many of those followers there will be, which religious services they will be attending and where and how central faith will still be to the life of the nation. If the past few years have made anything clear, it is that religious belief still matters to many people. It still divides worshippers fundamentally and can still rouse a few of them to levels of fanaticism at odds with what their faith purports to teach them - especially when it is fuelled by grievances that have other roots and which give them a sense of identity that belief alone cannot furnish. Ecumenism still has a very long way to go. Christians cling to several straws of hope for the future. They draw comfort from the knowledge that, in a country where fewer than 7% of the population attend church most weeks, two-thirds of the population consistently tell researchers that they have a sense of spirituality, or longing. That is sometimes ill-expressed - along the lines of David Beckham telling an interviewer that he and Posh wanted their son Brooklyn to be christened but weren't yet sure into what religion - but is there to be tapped. The Church of England has not been able to take advantage of that desire for a spiritual side to life terribly well, despite its self-proclaimed "decade of evangelism" in the 1990s, which ended with fewer people attending church at the end than at the start. Nevertheless, the established church is proud to maintain its presence in every parish in the country, from the inner cities to the villages, from the great cathedrals to the most modest, smallest parish churches. The CofE is likely to remain the established church, too, despite its declining attendances. Although its senior bishops may eventually lose their privileged places in the House of Lords, no prime minister is likely to relish giving up the powers of patronage that come from appointing those bishops and a raft of other placements each year. That is the real nature of establishment power nowadays. However, the church is going to have to adapt to changing times if it wants to keep its position at the heart of the state. The marital relationship of the heir to the throne, Prince Charles, who will inherit the title of defender of the faith and receive an Anglican coronation, will doubtless be finessed. When or if he chooses to marry Camilla Parker Bowles, the Church of England will doubtless accommodate him, even though she does not fulfil the conditions by which the church agrees to remarry divorced people (she was instrumental in the break-up of her former marriage). Someone will be prepared to conduct the service. And if Prince William eventually falls for a Catholic girl, expect the 1701 Act of Settlement, which ensures that the throne is only occupied by a Protestant, to be repealed in an afternoon. Otherwise, however, the tangle of ancient laws and statutes cementing the church's established status in place will probably remain, being too complicated, arcane and time-consuming to unravel. Governments these days, even with enormous majorities, have difficulty abolishing fox hunting, so establishing who owns a cathedral or even who controls rights of access to granny's grave will probably be beyond them. It is always possible that the Church of England will unravel of its own accord without secular political assistance, of course. Its divisions over sex, particularly homosexuality, are deep and precarious, with an intransigent conservative evangelical faction refusing to allow any compromises in its view of Biblical injunctions on a matter that directly affects a minority of the population. Many have been preparing for an impending split over that issue with unseemly relish for a number of years; the normal Anglican methods of dealing with division - fudge and procrastination - are incapable of assuaging their anger. Even if the gay issue were to be resolved, however, the church still faces a further problem with the ordination of female bishops. Irreconcilables, who never accepted that women could be ordained as priests in the first place, will almost certainly demand their own privileged, semi-autonomous status with their own bishops and hierarchy, a church within a church. Women bishops seem inevitable sooner or later, now women clergy fill one in seven of all paid ordained posts and nearly half of those that are unpaid, but a few will not accept it. The Church of England, then, is likely to be very different in 2020: more fissiparous, with problems of internal authority and probably, as a consequence, congregations in still further decline. "We have a special relationship with the cultural life of our country and we must not fall out of step with this if we are not to become absurd and incredible," contends the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams. This may have a hollow ring if the established church becomes increasingly divorced from the attitudes of the society around it, to which it is supposed to minister indiscriminately. Britain's Catholics are likely to have similar problems. The current crisis of falling numbers of ordinations - just 18 new priests this year in England and Wales, compared with 230 in 1964 - may be exacerbated further if the hierarchy is unable to surmount the authority and esteem gap that has opened up across the western world in the wake of the priestly child abuse scandal. The Vatican has seemed unable or unwilling to address this catastrophic decline in trust. Parishes are being amalgamated and, where once priests were recruited from Ireland to fill the gaps, now they are coming from the developing world, and sometimes have a poor command of English or an inadequate understanding of British society. By 2020 there will, presumably, be a new Pope but will the church have changed? Will its injunctions still be being followed more in the breach than the observance by the Catholics of the western world? If Rome has not allowed the ordination of women priests by 2020, will the Catholic church have resolved its recruitment crisis by at least permitting married male ones? One faith that will almost certainly still be growing in 2020 is Islam, if only because of the demographics of its adherents. Already Muslim worshippers each week almost certainly outnumber Christian ones. The great unanswered social question is, will second and third generation Muslims shed their faith, as previous immigrant groups have done in the process of assimilation, or will their faith reinforce and strengthen their sense of social and cultural identity and isolation within an alien, secular, nation? No question is more vital for British society. Religion is far from dead. Stephen Bates is the Guardian's religious affairs correspondent ------------- The back page http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5015619-114398,00.html How does it feel to live in a village that may not even exist by the time 2020 rolls around? Laura Barton Saturday September 18, 2004 The Guardian The haze of mid-July hangs over Happisburgh. A great fug of warmth smothers the tourists and motor cars flowing as sluggishly as treacle towards the coast in search of some brisk maritime air. They find it where wind whips off the North Sea, through the dunes, up Beach Road, and over the cricket field to dance among the branches in the churchyard. Happisburgh is a village of some 850 people, sitting on the Norfolk coast, 40 miles north-east of Norwich. There is a pub, a post office, a primary school, and tentative claims to have housed Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and Charles Dickens. There is even a resident ghost, who goes by the rather gruesome moniker of the Happisburgh Torso. Rising up out of the cluster of houses are St Mary's Church and, a little way out, a red-and-white-striped lighthouse, each gazing staunchly out over the sea: God and man levelling an ever watchful eye over the waves. In the case of Happisburgh that watch is increasingly necessary. For centuries the coast here has been steadily, silently eroding; the sedimentary rock that formed 12,000 years ago is proving no match for the might of the North Sea. In the past few years, the erosion has gathered pace and it is now moving six times faster than the experts had predicted - in just 15 years, 25 seafront homes have been lost and many more teeter on the edge. A 2001 report claimed the parish church might be likely to disappear within 20 years. By 2020, Happisburgh as we know it may very well not exist. The government has already written it off. It is a most forlorn tale, one exacerbated by bureaucracy, politics and the lack of hard cash. In 1958 wooden revetments were built along the beach in an effort to damp the force of the waves, reducing the rate of erosion to a mere couple of inches a year. When the revetments were worn away in the early 1990s, after 35 years of faithful service, the district council removed them and began to speak of a concrete sea wall. Funds, however, were not forthcoming. Since then, there have been no replacement revetments, and the council has grown quiet on the subject of the sea wall. Meanwhile the sea has continued to lick slowly but steadily away at the coast, like a child with an enormous lollipop. "It is a little worrying for a village which holds the backdoor key to the Norfolk Broads," says Malcolm Kirby, a retired company director who moved to Happisburgh five and a half years ago and now runs the Coastal Concern Action Group. He says there are a number of reasons for Happisburgh's terrible problems with erosion: an offshore granite reef system, for one; the hulking great concrete sea walls further up the coast, for another; and the aggregate dredging off Great Yarmouth, where, in the 11 years between 1992 and 2002, over 114 million tonnes were dredged from the area, making a hole in the coastline's natural defence system. "There's nothing natural about this 3km gap where Happisburgh sits," Kirby says. "Man has interrupted the natural situation, so he has no choice but to continue that defence." Meanwhile, the sea rises stealthily, tip-toeing up the coast when our backs are turned, each year adding to the weight of water that is sweeping away the rocks upon which Happisburgh stands. Global warming brings the sea level up 3mm every 12 months, and the shifting of tectonic plates adds a further 2mm, to make a net rise of 5mm a year. "It doesn't sound very much," says Kirby. "But when you look at the North Sea, the vastness of it, you can't imagine how much water is contained in that 5mm rise. It's mind-bogglingly huge." The next homes to succumb to the waves will be the stately Edwardian houses on Beach Road. "And they can't be insured for landslip or heave," Kirby sighs. As the sea sneaks closer, the houses will be demolished and the residents offered council accommodation, but there will be no government compensation. The village suffers in other ways, too: should the erosion continue at its current pace, tourism will inevitably decline, and "those eight weeks of summer to put enough meat round the bone" - as Kirby puts it - will grow thinner. It is a strange truth that as our metropolises grow ever more corpulent, our island's very seams seem to be fraying. Happisburgh's passing will not only be the death of a village, but the loss of a sweet kernel of British life. It is how we all like to think of the British seaside, a Betjeman poem writ large: it is doors left unlocked, ice cream wafers on the front and the soft, slow swish of the sea against the shore. This is how we remember it, and this is how we wish it preserved, as in aspic. But the cold truth is that when we go back, it may not be there. If one wished to speculate on the future of Happisburgh, one need only gaze out to sea, where the remains of most of the village of Eccles lie beneath the waves. Legend holds that the village was swallowed up by the sea during the 17th century: one storm saw the loss of more than 70 houses, and with them, 300 lives. Skeletons from the Eccles churchyard still wash up on the shore. In the cool, quiet north-eastern end of St Mary's churchyard, away from the chatter and whooping of the tourists on the front, lies a mound, said to be where 119 men from the first HMS Invincible are buried. The ship set out from Yarmouth in 1801 as part of the Copenhagen fleet, but floundered offshore, with the loss of 400 of the ship's 552 members of crew. One hundred and nineteen were washed up on the coast at Happisburgh. "Those 119 sailors are now many metres closer to the coast than when they were buried," muses Kirby. "Are we going to let the sea have them back?" ------------- Who will be who http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5015614-114398,00.html Ever wondered who will be holding down Britain's top jobs - from Labour leader to Queen Vic licensee - in 2020? We canvassed expert opinion to bring you the definitive list. Just don't hold us to it ... Interviews by Adrian Butler Saturday September 18, 2004 The Guardian James Bond Who Ioan Gruffudd Current job Actor, best known as Horatio Hornblower for ITV Age now 30 Nominated by Nick James, editor of Sight & Sound magazine Ioan Gruffudd made the leap from TV heartthrob to blockbuster star this summer when he appeared as Lancelot in King Arthur. He's already shown the versatility to go far, and Nick James believes he could become the second Welsh James Bond, following in the footsteps of Timothy Dalton. "He's got the right kind of mysterious look about him," says Dalton. "What kind of Bond he will be depends on how he would play it, but he'll be 46 by then, and will have more physical presence. I think he could be quite sardonic." Vice-chancellor, University of Cambridge Who? Martha Lane Fox Current job Non-executive director, [3]Lastminute.com Age now 31 Nominated by Lee Elliot Major of the Times Higher Education Supplement "In 2020, the Cambridge vice-chancellor - or rather chief executive - will be preoccupied with marketing its global brand in an increasingly cut-throat marketplace," says Edward Luce. "With dwindling state funding, the challenge will be to maximise revenues from fee-paying students - sorry, customers - star professors, spin-off companies, alumni contributions and business sponsorship deals. Forget scholarly credentials; what will be needed is a name and a brain that can spearhead marketing campaigns - with an entrepreneurial zeal to match." Monarch Who? Queen Elizabeth II Current job Monarch Age now 78 Nominated by James Whittaker, royal correspondent for the Daily Mirror Prince Charles will still be waiting for his day on the throne come 2020, reckons James Whittaker, although the Prince of Wales will be 71 by the time the year arrives. Nor will Prince William, with middle age approaching, be donning the crown. Instead, the Queen will have reached her 94th year and be entering her 68th year as monarch. "I would think it's unlikely that Prince Phillip will still be around then, but the Queen will still be going strong," Whittaker says. "I hope she will, anyway. She'll be a merry widow." England football manager Who? Leroy Rosenior Current job Torquay United manager Age now 40 Nominated by Hugh Sleight, editor of FourFourTwo magazine Torquay United isn't famed as a breeding ground for football legends, but the Gulls' current manager is tipped for the country's top football job. "He could be the first black England manager," says Hugh Sleight. "There are very very few black managers anywhere in English football, and he's part of a new wave." Football culture will need to change for that to happen, however, because black people still face discrimination in non-playing roles. "You simply have to work a lot harder," Rosenior said earlier this year. "It is a challenge. You have to change people's perceptions." Leader of the Labour party Who? Hilary Benn Current job Secretary of state for international development Age now 50 Nominated by Mark Seddon, editor of Tribune magazine Hilary Benn will have only have been a cabinet minister for a year next month. Since entering parliament in 1999, Tony's boy - the third of successive generations of his family to reach cabinet level - has made a rapid rise through the ranks of government and has attracted a number of admirers. "His political dynasty, track record as a minister, and regard in which the Labour party holds him would all make him a good choice," says Mark Seddon. "But he will have to reinvent himself, as by then the Labour party will have moved to the left." BBC director general Who? Helen Boaden Current job Head of news, BBC Age now 48 Nominated by Conor Dignam, editor of Broadcast magazine Helen Boaden took over from Richard Sambrook as head of BBC News in July, charged with steering the corporation's news output back on course after the trials of the post-Hutton period. She had previously been the controller of Radio 4, which last year enjoyed a record-breaking audience of 10 million - and which Boaden claimed had "reconnected with the rock'n'roll generation". The DG in 2020 is "likely to be one of the younger, high-profile women in the BBC's management", says Conor Dignam, "and she's the most likely choice". Poet Laureate Who? Mark Ford Current job Poet, senior lecturer in English at University College London Age now 44 Nominated by John Sutherland, professor of modern English literature at University College London "There's no question that the most promising poet of the age is Mark Ford - he's the man of the moment," says the Guardian columnist John Sutherland of his UCL colleague Mark Ford, who has authored two acclaimed collections , Landlocked and Soft Sift, as well as a study of the French writer Raymond Roussel. "He's come out of the New York school, and is the British Ron Silliman. John Ashbery and Helen Vendler, who is the kingmaker of British poets, have both anointed him." Archbishop of Canterbury Who? Canon Dr Judith Maltby Current job Chaplain of Corpus Christi College, Oxford Age now 46 Nominated by Rev Giles Fraser, vicar of Putney, writer and lecturer in philosophy at Wadham College, Oxford An awful lot would have to change in the Church of England before Judith Maltby could be enthroned in Canterbury: the church doesn't currently allow women to be ordained as bishops. She would also be the first American to head the worldwide Anglican communion. She has denied any interest in becoming a bishop, but her admirers would be keen for her to change her mind. "She's clever, she has a strong sense of social justice, and we need women in positions of power in the CofE," says Giles Fraser. Licensee of the Queen Vic, EastEnders Who? Chloe Jackson Current job Infant Age now Three Nominated by Kevin O'Sullivan, Daily Mirror features editor and soap fan When Sonia Jackson gave birth to her daughter Chloe in October 2000, it came as a huge shock to the residents of Albert Square - Sonia didn't even know she was pregnant. Although Sonia and Martin Fowler, Chloe's father, had her adopted, the laws of soap demand she return to the show. "If I was an EastEnders scriptwriter I'd bring her back into the show when she is grownup and put her behind the bar," says Kevin O'Sullivan. He fears, though, that Peggy Mitchell, played by Barbara Windsor, might well cling on to the licence at the Vic - "and by then she'll have had about 400 facelifts". Leader of the Conservative party Who? David Cameron Current job Chief policy coordinator for the Conservative party Age now 37 Nominated by Quentin Letts, Daily Mail parliamentary sketchwriter David Cameron is at the centre of the "Notting Hill set", the group of young Tories close to Michael Howard's heart, and is charged with masterminding the party's election strategy. The old Etonian became an MP in 2001, having previously been head of corporate affairs for Carlton. "By 2020 he will be greying nicely around the temples, and will look a bit like Richard Gere," says Quentin Letts. "His raffish good looks will help, as Tory leaders always used to be good-looking - Anthony Eden and Edward Heath were both pin-ups in their day." Chief excecutive of Marks & Spencer Who? Karan Bilimoria Current job chief executive of Cobra Beer Age now 43 Nominated by Adrian Chiles, presenter of BBC2's daily business programme, Working Lunch Recently it has been tricky predicting the top people at M&S from one week to the next. But Karan Bilimoria could be a good bet for the longer-term future. He is one of the UK's most successful businessmen, and this year returns to his alma mater in the unlikely sounding post of visiting entrepreneur at Cambridge University. "He took Cobra Beer from nothing into one of the big beer brands," says Adrian Chiles. "He may not be as passionate about the M&S brand, as it's not his own, but having spent some time with him, he's my man." Director of Tate Who? A current student on the MA course in Curating Contemporary Art at the Royal College of Art Age now Mid-20s Nominated by Brian Sewell, art critic for the London Evening Standard It will be little surprise that Brian Sewell, the scourge of so many artistic institutions, is not wholly optimistic about the future of the Tate, and believes it will be a long job to make it great. "My inclination is to say the director would be somebody who comes out of the curating course at the RCA. They would be about 25 at the moment; by then they'd be about 40 or so," he says. "But anybody with half an ounce of sense would clear out all the present reconstruction of the Tate Modern building and do something sensible with it." Governor of the Bank of England Who? Shriti Vadera Current job Economic adviser to Gordon Brown Age now She's not saying Nominated by Evan Davis, BBC economics editor Shriti Vadera, a publicity-shy former banker, is one of the key figures behind the scenes in the Treasury, where she has been central to the development of public-private partnerships. She's the main point of contact between the Treasury and the City, and has impressed those she has dealt with. "She combines financial expertise and political common sense," says Evan Davis. "Her appointment would be greeted with gushing enthusiasm everywhere, from City wine bars to high-street charity shops - she is on Oxfam's council of trustees." Archbishop of Westminster Who? Right Rev Declan Lang Current job Bishop of Clifton Age now 54 Nominated by Catherine Pepinster, editor of the Tablet Declan Lang was ordained as a priest in 1975 and has become a rising star in Britain's Roman Catholic church. He was ordained a bishop in 2001 and has taken an active role in promoting Catholicism. He was one of the leading figures in the recent launch of a new agency to promote evangelisation. "The people of Bristol have found him to be an imaginative, effective bishop," says Catherine Pepinster. "Being a successful cardinal requires all kinds of skills - being a good communicator, able administrator and inspiring pastoral leader. Lang has shown he has these abilities." ------------------ Eat up! http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5015545-114398,00.html Saturday September 18, 2004 The Guardian One of the biggest challenges facing us is how to feed the world. It can be done by 2020, but it means the rich world changing its diet. Britons need to say goodbye to burgers and meat pies, because the over-emphasis on meat in the western diet is one of the things that stifles sustainable food production. Put simply, growing food for animals to eat is a vastly inefficient way to use the land. Instead, we should use more of the land to grow more food for human consumption and eat less meat. If we give over more land to growing food and increase yields, we can produce enough food even for the increased populations of the future. In 1999 the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency produced a sustainable diet (see below). It looked at the implications of reducing the environmental impact of the farming and food production system, and produced a diet that, if implemented, would reduce energy consumption in food production by 30%, reduce artificial fertiliser use by between 20% and 40%, and reduce the acreage needed to produce food. A weekly diet that would mean enough food for the whole planet Dried legumes 350g Root vegetables 700g Cereals 315g Potatoes 1,890g Bread 1,400g Vegetables 1,360g Fruit 1,225g Fish 210g Margarine/butter/oil 350g Milk products 2,100g Snacks/sweets 980g Soft drinks 560g Cheese 140g Eggs 70g Meat/poultry 245g -------------- Only connect http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5015548-114398,00.html Wireless living will have transformed our lives by 2020, says David Adam David Adam Saturday September 18, 2004 The Guardian Some people look to the future and see the rise of the machines. Others wonder how their machines will ever make them rich. In 1943, for example, the founder of IBM, Thomas Watson, was asked how he viewed the future of technology. His response, it is said, was that there would one day be a worldwide market "for maybe five computers". It is not clear whether Watson actually made such a rash statement - and if he did, his apparent lack of vision clearly did his emerging business no harm - but even if the story is untrue, he would surely be astonished at our reliance on his electronic tabulating machines. HG Wells, by contrast, would probably be a little surprised by how backward we are when it comes to getting around. In 1901 he envisaged public transport taking the form of a series of parallel moving walkways, each a little faster than the previous one. Commuters would step from walkway to walkway in order to reach their destinations. Predictions of technological advance have always emphasised the headline-grabbing pipedreams - robot housemaids to lift us out of domestic drudgery, for example - and we still boast of the potential of new developments before we know how to unlock it. Stem cell technology and quantum computers, for example, remain no more than an alluring promise. We can predict everything, after all, except the future. The sticking point in technological development is often not the technical wherewithal but the financial will. "People can have a base on the moon now if they are willing to pay for it," says Jim Lewis, director of technology policy at the US Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington DC. "It's not clear to me that people want to, but we could do it." As Paul Saffo, director of the Institute for the Future in California, puts it: "What defines each decade is not a technology's invention, but rather a dramatic shift in price and performance that triggers a sudden burst in diffusion from lab to marketplace." Lunar accommodation is still at the pricey end of the market - and that is unlikely to change by 2020. So what will change? The answer lies in the way information technology will transform our day-to-day lives. "The big trends that are going to change things are the availability of cheap sensors that provide digital data, cheap computing power and ubiquitous connectivity - the ability to connect to networks," Lewis says. "Then part of what I think people will do over the next decade is start to look for things they can automate, so you won't have to do them any more." In other words, by 2020 everything large enough to carry a microchip probably will, and from there the possibilities are endless. We could have fridges that can read the use-by date on the milk carton and order another litre before the current one goes off. We could be sent gas bills that include an electronic reminder to pay them. We could do our laundry in washing machines that contact service engineers when their bearings wear down, and that automatically arrange a visit after finding a window in your electronic organiser. "You won't have to worry about whether you took your medicine," says Lewis. "The medicine jar will know when it was last opened and how much its weight went down." Even low-value items such as household bricks could be fitted with individual electronic identifiers, allowing an architect or surveyor to walk round a half-finished school or hospital and see an image of the building skeleton pop up instantly on their ultra-thin laptop. The driver of this revolution will be the dreaded radio frequency identification (RFID) chip, the use of which to guard easily pocketed items such as razor blades against shoplifters has already attracted the attention of privacy groups in the UK. The chips, which can be as small as a grain of dust, communicate with detectors several metres away and transmit information, ranging from unique serial numbers to more complex product details. There are concerns they could be used as covert surveillance devices. Anyone with a detector could read any active chip in their vicinity, raising the possibility that embedded tags in clothing could be used to trigger customised adverts on nearby billboards, or that people could be tracked as they move. "There is a loss of privacy that is going to be very difficult for people and we haven't figured out how to deal with that," Lewis says. "But if you explain what is does, how much information it provides and where it goes - and that the trade-off is that you don't have to wait as long in line at the supermarket - then people will take the trade-off. With the right rules and regulations this sort of stuff should be more acceptable." Some of the trade-offs do seem appealing. How about RFID chips in your clothes that automatically programme your phone to different settings, depending on whether you are in your work or casual clothing? No more work calls in the pub, and no more football text messages in the middle of business meetings. By 2020, it is even possible that such devices will be able to communicate in ways vastly more sophisticated than the clumsy radio signals of today's wireless devices: in June this year the computer giant Microsoft was awarded a patent to transmit data by exploiting the electrical conductivity of human skin. Microsoft envisages using skin's conductive properties to link a host of electronic devices around the body, from pagers and personal data assistants (PDAs) to mobile phones and microphones. According to the patent, the technology could usher in a new class of portable and wearable electronic devices, such as earrings that deliver sounds sent from a phone worn on the belt, or special spectacles with screens that flash up images and video footage. Linking electronic devices raises other possibilities. Gadget lovers could use a single keypad to operate their phone, PDA and MP3 music player, or combine the output of their watch, pager and radio into a single speaker - assuming watches, pagers and radios still exist in their current form. It is certain that by 2020 a whole range of technologies will be on stream to make our daily lives simpler. One of the first could be a handheld "electronic paper" device, on to which books and the ultimate compact newspapers could be downloaded. Sony unveiled the latest and best prototype earlier this year in Japan, and as the price tag falls (it currently costs ?220), so demand will rise. Others are working on electronic paper that, just like the real thing, can be rolled up and stuffed into a pocket. But as everyone who still prints their emails - to the dismay of acolytes of the paperless office - will swear, paper is a hard thing to make redundant. Other electronic boxes of tricks will be able to monitor our health. By 2020, we could have earrings able to read our pulse rates and bracelet monitors that analyse the composition of your sweat. Medical information would be sent through the skin to a central chip, which would be able to transmit all the necessary information to your doctor, back through the skin, when you shake hands with them at your appointment. Your updated medical history could be on the doctor's computer before you had even sat down. The rise and rise of RFID chips raises a new environmental problem: data pollution. "When you walk down the street with your PDA, cellphone and laptop they will be bombarded with information. There will be all this noise out there and controlling this noise will be one of the problems we haven't thought about," Lewis says. Another will be the computing power needed to handle the deluge of information streaming from every angle. "Hopefully one of the things that will change over the next 15 years is that we'll have much better software that will be much easier to use, much more transparent and will fail less often," he adds. One of the first areas of our lives likely to be affected by the coming information saturation will be transport, specifically the car. As the number of cars on the roads continues to rise, many believe the current system - in which each individual vehicle effectively goes where it pleases - is simply unsustainable. "One reason why we have these enormous pile-ups and bumper-to-bumper gridlocks is because everybody is expressing their free will to go where they want, when they want to," says Stephen Millet, the "thought leader" and manager of technology forecasts at Battelle, a US company that publishes regular reviews of developing strategic technologies. "I think what we're moving towards is every time we leave our garage we're going to file a driving plan to some central system, which will send back a message saying go ahead or don't go that way, it's all jammed up." Intelligent highways could pass back information on driving conditions, traffic density and roadworks to the master system, which would reduce speed limits or set up diversions accordingly. Speeding could even be made impossible - trials of "smart" GPS tracking satellite systems that prevent the car going over the limit for a particular stretch of road are already under way. "I think if we had better information and better coordination then we could really go a long way to relieving gridlock," Millet says. What free driving we do should get easier - nobody was surprised when GPS navigation technology filtered down from luxury models to production cars; expect the same to happen with everything from smart cruise control, which uses radar to match the speed of the car in front, to infrared night-vision displays on windscreens. "The big problem we'll run into is that as we put more computers and more electronics in the cars then where is the electricity going to come from?" Millet says. "I think we'll see fuel cells come on board to generate electricity because the alternator cannot bear the demand we'll be putting on it." Fuel cells - hi-tech batteries that draw power from a simple chemical reaction between fuel and air - could replace the current electric batteries found inside the increasingly popular hybrid cars. However, barring an extraordinary rise in oil prices, it's unlikely that anything will arrive by 2020 to seriously challenge the dominance of the internal combustion engine. Ignition keys could be consigned to a museum, however, and there is good news for the generation that grew up watching Knight Rider. "Voice-pattern recognition is coming," Millet says. "It's been slower than we thought but this business of being able to talk to your computer is definitely possible within 20 years. People are just going to have to be careful about what they say." And although expensive prototypes capable of crossing water and even taking to the skies have already been developed, the future of the automobile is undoubtedly a little more down to earth. Just don't expect technology to have delivered that sight beloved of science fiction movies: cars flying down the street, hovering in the air next to aerial doors. "We've looked at flying cars and I'm very sceptical," Millet says. "Having helicopters or flying cars is an enormous control problem and we have so much further we can go to improve land transportation. I think that will remain the preferred method." And what of robots? Will the current crop of hi-tech vacuum cleaners, expensive electronic pets and clumsy humanoids evolve into anything you would actually want to have around the house for more than novelty value? "Do we really want that?" says Paul Newman, a robotics expert at Oxford University. "If I built a robot to do the dishes and it got it right 98% of the time then I'd be pretty pleased with it because it's way beyond what we can do now. But if it broke two out of 100 dishes then you would throw it out after a month." We are still a long way from developing robots that can interact with humans on any meaningful level, because their artificial intelligence brains simply cannot cope with change and unpredictable events - or anything they are not programmed to respond to. "That's why robots do so well in car factories because you can engineer a situation to be absolutely predictable," explains Newman. Where robots will definitely make strides by 2020 is in places where sending a person would be hazardous, costly or impossible: there is already talk of sending a robot to fix the Hubble space telescope later this decade; by 2020 fleets of underwater robots could patrol the oceans, surfacing regularly to beam back environmental data on temperature, acidity and salinity. "Then if we had a machine that was only 70% successful that's a whole lot better because previously we couldn't do it in the first place," Newman says. But to go beyond the performance of repetitive data-gathering or maintenance tasks, robots must be able to answer the simple question: where am I? "Fundamentally it's just very difficult to get a robot to tell the difference between a picture of a tree and real tree," Newman says. Still, great advances in artificial intelligence by 2020 cannot be ruled out - although they would be dependent on the kinds of things we cannot predict. "You're talking about the Isaac Newton of AI coming along," Newman says. "It could happen next month - someone could produce something and we all say, 'Of course, why didn't we think of that?'" The same is true in other fields, too. "If we could find different ways to create energy or lift things off the ground, that would be really helpful," says Lewis at the CSIS. "That's the kind of breakthrough that doesn't appear to be on the horizon, but if someone locks on to something then someday we might see something very different emerge. That's what I would look for." As speculative peeks into the future go, that's the closest you will get to a hot tip. Just remember that even HG Wells got the future wrong. ---------------- Building a new Briton http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5015538-114398,00.html By 2020 our national identity will have been reconfigured, says Tom Bentley, and Britishness will have a new meaning Saturday September 18, 2004 The Guardian Baked beans. Big Ben. The blitz. Bobby Moore. Bannockburn. Some symbols of our identity appear as fixed cultural points in a changing landscape. Others crystallise particular moments, helping us define exactly who we are and how we are seen. The current British self-image largely rests on images of expansionism and ingenuity. The idea of "overcoming the odds" runs deeply through our histories of ourselves. But like our faces as we age, our cultural identity can change imperceptibly. Suddenly, a reflection seen from a new angle shows an accumulation of tiny changes that significantly alters the overall appearance. Such reinterpretations of national identity are often triggered by an unexpected event: the abdication crisis of 1936; the blitz; Suez; the intervention of the International Monetary Fund in 1976; the 1984 miners' strike; the death of Diana - all had an impact on our national sense of self. So who might we be in 2020? Which of the myriad small changes currently taking place will define us? Which activities and institutions will dominate our sense of ourselves? One way to gauge the nature of the changes the nation is likely to undergo by 2020 is to look back the same distance in time. In 1988 EastEnders was Britain's most popular soap opera and Thatcherism was in its high summer. The major privatisations were behind us, but the poll tax was only just beginning to glimmer. House prices were booming but the stock market had crashed. Mobile phones were a novelty item and the second summer of love was in full swing in Manchester's clubland. Rumours about Charles and Diana's marriage troubles were beginning to spread. Nobody had uttered the words "New Labour" in public and conventional wisdom saw race riots as a thing of the past. The Berlin Wall stood intact. Much of that seems reassuringly familiar, but there have also been abrupt changes. The television programme that prompts office conversation is a real-life soap opera, with people locked in a house for three months. A CND supporter of the 80s is prime minister - and led us to war. The poll tax is a distant memory and that the nature of the monarchy has changed is beyond doubt, despite the leadership of the Firm remaining in place. The utterly unexpected can therefore materialise alongside the easily predictable. This will remain true as we go forward to 2020. We make sense of change partly by falling back on shared national or cultural characteristics: a psychological dependence on a successful past; confidence in one's own tolerance and sense of fair play; the maintenance of a particular family or religious tradition; a belief in one's own formative beliefs and values as radical, even once the comfortable trappings of middle age have been bought and paid for. But all these types of self-image will be tested by the way our society changes over the next generation. The question is whether we can respond in ways which strengthen or diminish them. The traditional analysis holds that the story of Britain over the past half-century is one of decline. Despite rising wealth, social freedoms and political projects dedicated to national renewal, we have struggled to overcome the pervasive decay. Our grand institutions - the trade unions, the church, the monarchy - are all in retreat. Britons' willingness to make an emotional or political investment in those external institutions has fallen dramatically. The number of people prepared to say they have great confidence in the legal system, the church, the civil service or parliament has more than halved since the early 1980s, from a healthy majority to a creaking minority. But asked who they trust to tell the truth, the British are more likely than 20 years ago to identify teachers, doctors, professors and newsreaders, and overall levels of trust appear not to have declined catastrophically, apart from trust in politicians. Although the erosion of traditional social organisations has not diminished our sociability, the onward march of individualism - either through choice or fate - is still probably the major force shaping our society. British society in 2020 will be significantly older than today, which will further that process of individualisation. Those over 65 will be a third as many again as those of working age, as opposed to a quarter as many again today. The combination of the postwar baby boom, increased life expectancy and declining fertility rates will mean a million more people over 65 than under 16. As a result we will spend twice as much money on health and long-term care. Intertwined with ageing is the shrinking size of our households, so that by 2020 about a third of us will be living alone, and as many as 2 million older people may have no regular contact with friends or family. These new household structures will also drive suburbanisation, as more people spill into the space between the inner-city neighbourhoods and the rural villages. How we communicate will help determine who we are - a transformation that has already begun with the mobile phone culture. Mobiles were barely a feature of life in 1988, but a recent survey found that 46% of young British adults described the loss of their phone as akin to bereavement. Phones are just one way we tell the world about ourselves. We can already construct historical and family narratives from the internet, create newsgroups and meet strangers with shared interests. We design our bodies in gyms and tattoo studios; by 2020 we could be doing so in the genetics lab and the prosthetic workshop. The use of diet and drugs to enhance performance will spread from elite sport and start a new mass debate about how to boost intelligence and educational achievement. So the cultural pressure to define and design ourselves will only grow between now and 2020. We cannot know how we will respond to those choices, but their very existence will make discussion of human nature and identity central to our self-perception. The changes in society will pit personal identity against the more traditional markers of collective belonging - the belief systems and rituals underpinning everything from politics and the church to television viewing and football supporting. People will still care about these activities, but they will be much less likely to organize their own lives around fixed institutional routines. Television over the past 50 years has reinforced our common identity and culture by amplifying shared social events. We would remember key TV moments, such as Gazza crying or Angela Rippon on Morecambe and Wise, and talk about them the next day. But the same forces that are fragmenting our cultural loyalties are at work on television, too. Already, about 60% of households have multichannel TV and the internet, and by 2020 the model of terrestrial broadcasting most of us grew up with will be a dusty memory. Given all this, the central question is: will the slow collapse of institutions that have been vehicles for our shared identity mean the collapse of the identity itself? The answer is that we should not be too afraid, for our essential cultural characteristic as Britons is, arguably, not the way we cling to past verities but the way we change with the cultural tides. A mixture of pragmatism and self-preservation has blended British culture and politics into new forms many times over the centuries. It is why Chaucer's 14th-century English would be unrecognisable to today's English speaker, and probably why English is now the global business language. This quality of pragmatism is experienced as tradition by many Britons, but as arrogance and ingenuity in equal measure by much of the rest of the world. It has enabled us to reinvent ourselves by stealth while maintaining a pose of continuity. In working out how this pattern might unfold over the next 16 years, three features of the landscape are especially influential. The first is hybrid culture, which is the art of mixing different elements to create a coherent whole - that is the logic by which ours was identified as a "mongrel nation" in Philip Dodd's 1995 Demos essay The Battle Over Britain. The second area is the rise of the city-region as a source of economic dynamism and a vehicle for identity. While regional government may continue to stutter, regional identities are strengthening. Third comes Britain's cultural relationship with the rest of the world; as power and wealth swing east towards Asia, this will develop into a form of reverse colonialism. This year's film of King Arthur self-consciously relocated the familiar legend to a different period - the end of the Roman occupation of Britain. If you forget the acting, the film is a masterclass in the art of myth-making through breeding hybrids. It purports to document the birth of a Greater Britain and the rise of its English icon, Arthur. The plot races through imperial withdrawal, Saxon invasion, Celtic resistance, the compassionate defence of women and children, an embryonic theory of equality through free will, military triumph against the odds, and romance, climaxing in intermarriage and the birth of a new British dynasty. Not bad for two hours, especially given the number of battles the film-makers had to slot in. King Arthur both portrays and typifies the art of cultural mixing that has made up the British identity. Our sense of what it means to be British has evolved from successive waves of settlement, conquest, intermingling, trade and exchange. One way in which we have done this is to construct institutions - the monarchy, armed forces, the civil service, the British Museum, the BBC - that have all enabled successful mixing by establishing shared symbols and traditions. Throughout the waves of change, however, those institutions - with their own distinct culture - have maintained a serene view that Britain exports civilisation through commonsense values and organisational methods. Helpful though it has been, that view does not match the reality. From baked beans to gin and tonic, from Birmingham balti to tea with milk, our trademark foods are the result of combining foreign cultural practices with local tastes. My great-grandfather entered family history in the 1940s on visiting a Chinese restaurant, inspecting the menu and declaring, "I can't deal with any of this foreign nonsense; bring me a cup of tea." Hybridity has always been part of our lives, whether we realised it or not. Hybrid culture will have a special claim on the next generation, precisely because it holds the greatest cultural dynamism and energy. As tradition declines, we are left to form our identities while increasingly exposed, by global communications, travel and trade, to a much wider range of cultural influences and pressures. Amid an ageing population, for example, the fastest-growing ethnic category in Britain is "black - mixed race". Half the people in this group are under 16, while just 8% are over 45. The number of people from ethnic minorities grew by half during the 1990s, from less than 5% to almost 8% of the population. Film, television and literature are increasingly fascinated by what happens when cultures connect, collide and combine. From East is East and Goodness Gracious Me to Massive Attack and Mike Skinner, from Monica Ali to Ms Dynamite, Salman Rushdie to Irvine Welsh, our most potent pieces of culture emerge from the ability to meld the disparate elements at work in Britain into a coherent but edgy whole. This will spread from the arts into the wider culture. The brokers of our society will increasingly be those who can interpret and navigate such differences. Just as our culture evolves new hybrids, so will our politics. Politicians are increasingly absorbed in trying to handle the conflicts generated by cultural collision, from the US-EU split over Iraq to community division in Bradford and Burnley. However, despite the accelerating demographic trends, by 2020 it is unlikely that more than 15% of the whole British population will come from ethnic minority backgrounds. Race should not be the dominant issue of our political debate, but it will still be a trigger for wider debates about shared culture, as it is now. Perhaps most intriguing are the newly blended national cultures of Scotland, Wales and Ireland. In Scotland, the long wait for a constitutional settlement has been immediately followed by a wave of anti-political disillusionment. A recent survey found that only 2-3% of voters considered the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly to have serious influence over their lives. One of Scotland's main newspapers refused to endorse any party in the most recent Scottish parliamentary elections, an extraordinary event for so new a system. Yet as a current Demos project on Scotland in 2020 has found, there is strong commitment to creating a distinctive, creative and optimistic Scottish political identity that can circumvent dependence on political institutions. New, flexible governing arrangements will offer scaffolding to hybrid identities. It is no coincidence that this is happening at sub-national level. In Northern Ireland, the political rules are actually designed to allow two opposing nationalist cultures to coexist peacefully. In England the renaissance of city-regions is obscured by London's impact as a city-state and its tendency to suck in skills and wealth from surrounding areas. But, partly driven by economics, the cultural character and influence of major British cities are changing. The shape of these cities, from housing to neighbourhoods to transport links, was formed around the industries that provided most jobs: steel in Sheffield, the Liverpool docks, shipbuilding in Glasgow, chocolate-making in Birmingham and so on. Now they are being transformed by new patterns of wealth arising from other kinds of work: law, finance, media, software, science. Cultural activities, symbols and buildings play a newly important part in the shaping of city centres. "Doughnut" structures of wealth and travel - whereby money concentrates in city centres by day and travels into outer suburbs, new towns and commuter villages by night - are entrenching poverty at the neglected edges of cities. But the city-regions offer new symbols and forms of congregation. In the wider world, the global shift of economic, cultural and technological power eastwards will have a profound influence. China's rise will challenge the assumptions underpinning layers of our identity - from western interpretations of democracy to philosophies of class and well-being. But the economic dynamism of Asian nations will create a new need for us to compete for their attention, and to succeed in supplying services and know-how to them, rather than simply competing against them for jobs and investment. In a generation's time our wealth will be drawn, as it was in past eras, from our place within global networks of exchange. In navigating this new world, Britain has a great opportunity. Our colonial legacy ought to prompt mutual understanding and empathy with other cultures and nations, not just resentment at decline of our power or the injustices of past British rule. Much of the most important cultural production in English now arises from the cultures of the commonwealth, from places that were dominated and then abandoned by British institutions and have generated their own hybrid identities. By 2020 we will need to have turned our past to our advantage and engaged with our former empire again - this time as collaborator, rather than conqueror. But doing this requires us to overcome our equally strong tendency towards insularity, to engage more confidently with the unfamiliar, and to understand cultural difference better. Too often, a British (and especially English) attitude to the world has rested on the aggressive assertion of "common sense" - a tactic still used by Britons of all classes. In turn, our ability to engage properly with the world may rest on our success in finding new, popular vehicles for shared identity within Britain. Our capacity for creating hybrid identities from disparate ingredients is beyond dispute. But our success in doing so again by 2020 is not assured. It is perfectly plausible to see the splintering of identity and allegiance into many different cultural tribes; some socially conservative, insular and resentful, some hedonistically self-absorbed, some cosmopolitan but detached from the everyday life of most others. The diminishing influence of our institutions could leave no one with the power to mediate successfully between these mutually ignorant clans. So it would be too easy to conclude that we can all become naturally confident cosmopolitans. In a survey last year 77% of those polled said different cultures in Britain coexist rather than connect with each other. At the same time, however, 80% of the same survey thought we could not build a new British society without interacting with different cultures. Learning to live in a new society - especially one reflecting cultures profoundly different from the one you were born into - is a painful process, and for many people the incentives to make the effort are weak. But there are some grounds for hope. A study last year by Richard Florida, the prophet of the "creative class" in North America, found that tolerance and respect for difference in Britain are comparatively high in Britain compared to other European societies. There is clear evidence that people's interest in political issues and social fairness remains strong, even though they are less likely to engage through traditional channels. Who, then, will the new Briton be in 2020? Imagine a millennium baby, born in 2000, approaching 20 years old. She will have a life expectancy of 90 and will be trying to imagine a working life of at least 50 years. Her job prospects will depend heavily on her educational credentials, and she will expect at least five more years of formal training. Specialist skills, particularly ones that can be used creatively, will determine her earning power. She is already likely to be accumulating big debts in order to finance her pathway towards this specialist skill. Our young woman's network of friends and family will be crucially important to her; more so than her ethnic or national identity. That will continue a trend already in process: a study in the mid-90s found that most people saw their own values, principles and friends as being more important to their own identity than being a Briton; in the 2001 census, only 46% of people described themselves as British. This woman's informal network, though she may not yet know it, will have a profound influence on her future opportunities and life chances, and may play the most direct role in how far she travels in later life. The likelihood is that her social values will be more liberal even than today's typical young people, and that economic liberalism will largely look like common sense. Some specific "ethical" issue - maybe climate change or human rights or stem cell research - will dominate her political sense, but if she has joined a political party she will be among a tiny minority. Her knowledge of the detail of British history and sense of allegiance to a "national" culture will be significantly weaker than it might be today, but her critical abilities - communication, and the ability to access and investigate different forms of culture - are likely to be much sharper. She will customise her use of the dizzying array of media services with a degree of discrimination and fluency we would find surprising today. That sense of discernment might apply equally to her sense of identity, which will be moulded from family, neighbourhood and city. She might be a devout Christian, though she would be slightly more likely to be a practising Muslim. Either way, if it is a strong and explicit part of her identity, she may well have discovered a faith for herself and opted to join a specific community rather than simply inheriting a general tradition. By 2020 it is unlikely that our young adults will be "citizens of the world" in any full-blooded sense that really banishes British identity. Although a global outlook is increasingly common, it is hard to see how anyone could find forms of identity strong enough to channel allegiance in any meaningful way. But the attachments we form to particular organisations, causes or routines are the institutional expression of our values. If we take the globally connected outlook our millennium child will have, we can see that exclusively national institutions will have begun to overlap and blur with other layers of identity: time spent studying at European universities, working with American NGOs or living in cities to which she feels especially drawn. The strongest desire among younger generations in western societies is to shape their lives in accordance with their own values. That is not mindless hedonism or historical amnesia, but in 2020 we will still need strong institutional attachments. A healthy, durable collective identity will not flourish without them. But the most successful institutions of 2020 could be anything: colleges or campuses, new kinds of cooperative, online communities, sports clubs, issue-based campaigns or neighbourhood associations. They could thrive in a world where the Church of England, the civil service, the broadsheet newspaper or the BBC have ceased to exist. But whatever form they take, and whatever myths and symbols they project, theirs will be the task of negotiating the mix of foreign and familiar on which Britain has always been based. Tom Bentley is the director of the Demos thinktank ([3] www.demos.co.uk) ----------- A foreign country http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5015514-114398,00.html By 2020, Britain's green and pleasant land will also be one of palm trees and pomegranates. But watch out for the mosquitoes, warns Alok Jha Saturday September 18, 2004 The Guardian Very soon, you will be able to buy British figs in your supermarket. Lines of palm trees will sway on the south coast. Devon and Cornwall will begin to resemble the Azores, with blankets of ferns and evergreen trees crowding the countryside. Migrating birds will stay in the country for longer. And the seasons will become even more blurred. Unfortunately, pests will also be on the increase. The mosquitoes so common in the sticky climes of southern Europe will start to invade Britain, too; rats and cockroaches will proliferate as we become increasingly urban and temperatures rise enough for them to survive the relatively mild winters. Environmental futurology is an inexact science. But it is certain our climate is changing. The effects of this change over the next 16 years will be subtle. If the predictions are correct (and the Gulf Stream stays where it is), the trend towards wetter winters and hotter, drier summers will continue. Summer droughts will become more commonplace and some of the southern parts of England (particularly Essex) will be subject to frequent flooding. Indeed, some parts of the county at the mouth of the Thames will probably become uninhabitable - because the homes there will be uninsurable. While the physical landscape of Britain undergoes these changes, the country's flora and fauna will see a much more subtle, often unnoticeable, alteration. Look out of your window and you will probably see leaves turning red and golden well before the supposed start of autumn. Frogspawn, usually an indicator of the start of spring, has been spotted in ponds on the south coast of England before Christmas. And some flowers - snowdrops, for example - have started to bloom at the height of winter. Tim Sparks, an environmental scientist at the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology at Monks Wood in Cambridgeshire, says his studies in phenology - an intricate science that involves recording the exact times during a year that things happen in the natural world - show that the blurring between the beginnings and ends of the seasons will only get worse. "We have some records going back to the 18th century - there's been a lot of phenological change, particularly in the last 20 to 30 years," he says. "As a rough rule of thumb, we've seen spring events advance by some three weeks over the last 50 years. Between now and 2020, we may well see a similar advance in phenology if the country warms as predicted." The occasional sightings of snowdrops and frogspawn before the end of the year will become much more common. There is also evidence that trees are starting to break bud much earlier. Dr Simon Leather, an ecologist at Imperial College London, studies trees. "I've seen big changes in timing of bud burst - when the leaves start to come out," he says. "And that's a temperature effect." Sycamore and bird cherry trees are classic examples. These changes in the seasons are not just a scientific curiosity. Many animals rely on their sources of food - plants, for example - being ready to eat exactly when they are needed. At the start of spring when there are plenty of young around, for example. "We're probably already going to see some evidence of a mismatch between different bits of the natural world working together," says Julian Hughes, the head of species conservation at the RSPB. "You can imagine that if spring [bird] migrants start arriving from Africa earlier than they do at the moment, they would therefore arrive before quite a lot of the food does, in terms of emerging insects. Even for common things like blue tits and great tits, if the caterpillar hatches emerge at a different time from when the broods are hatching, then clearly it's going to have a problem. We might also be starting to see some evidence of that." The fractionally warmer weather will also ensure that new types of plant will thrive in Britain. "You have to recognise that this is a country of gardeners, and what is more and more in fashion now is that we have exotic plants in the gardens," says Dr Johannes Vogel, the keeper of botany at the Natural History Museum. "And more and more are going to escape and establish in the wild." Plants such as laurel - certainly not hardy enough to be a native of these shores - have already been identified as having established themselves from a gardener's seeds in the south-west of England. The last time laurel grew in Britain was literally in another age - well before the last ice age, in fact. "We will get more and more of these non-hardy plants, the ones which hard winters would normally knock back," says Vogel. Rhododendron is growing wild in north Wales - one of many plants for which the conditions just keep getting better. "There's undoubtedly going to be other species which are not quite in their optimal climate at the moment, but if you raise it by a few degrees in the summer and make the winters milder, then they might be and they may take off," says Sparks. Palm trees already manage to survive on the south coast of England and it is only a matter of time before they, too, are thriving further north. The warm weather will not just affect the "exotic" plants introduced by gardeners. "At the moment about 31% of people cut their grass in the winter in the south-west of Britain and 8% in Scotland. The numbers in both are likely to increase - many more people are likely to be cutting the grass in winter because it will continue to grow," says Sparks. If climate change will have the biggest effect on our changing wildlife, what we do with the land will also have an impact. Plans to build thousands of houses, for example, are sure to change the shape of the countryside. "We're going to see a lot more concrete and asphalt in the south, which is going to have major impacts on a lot of wildlife," says Leather. And increased urbanisation will mean cities exert a stronger "heat island" effect. London is a few degrees warmer than its surroundings, for example, and the bigger it grows, the greater the effect of the heat island. In some German cities, warmer conditions have led to the establishment of termite colonies. Devon has already had these unwelcome visitors and it could be London next. Anyone in buildings with structural timbers should watch out. More houses also means more household waste. "We're going to get more flies around," says Leather. "We're going to get the sorts of things that are associated with sticky climates - we have mosquitoes but what we may get are some of the mosquitoes that can transmit some of the nasty things." In short, that could mean malaria (see panel). But there is good news. The increased flooding due in the south of England thanks to climate change has the potential to cause the birth of new wetlands and marshlands. The government is currently scratching its head on what to do about people living in the flood plains (the options include moving them out or installing flood barriers). If it decides to allow the waters to run and move the people out, wildlife will benefit. Then, says Vogel, we will once more have extensive river ecosystems. "If you let the rivers meander and don't stem them and don't try to protect houses from flooding, you will get superb wildlife areas." Historically, farming has been one of the great drivers of countryside change, and that will continue. "The focus of agriculture since the war has been to maximise productivity," says Dr Matthew Thomas, an agricultural ecologist at Imperial College. "One of the changes that's happening in farming at the moment is an increased awareness of managing the landscape, not just for goals of productivity but to see how one can balance productivity with benefits for wider society and the environment." One big contributor to that process currently is reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). "What this means is that farmers won't get subsidised for production per se - subsidies will be on the basis of production based on market forces," says Professor Richard Ellis, the head of the school of agricultural policy and development at Reading University. "You could see changes in the incentives to grow certain crops," adds Thomas. "You could see a shift to new energy crops, for instance, or fibre crops or pharmaceutical crops. Very large, uniformly managed environments or landscapes can be maintained relatively profitably. Smaller, individual farmers might find it more difficult to respond to some of these changes." Some land will simply drop out of production. The hills of Wales, the Pennines and Scotland, for example, are already difficult to eke a living from. After CAP reform the farmers who work them may be forced to give up. And how will the changes in farming affect our wildlife? "The extent to which those are going to impact on individual species is, in many cases, rather unclear," says Thomas. "Many species of invertebrate have scope and capacity to shift their ranges and shift with the changing landscape and changes in land use." How we perceive our countryside will also affect how we allow it to change. "There could be considerable pressure to maintain the classic patchwork landscape of hedgerows and fields and a few cows or sheep dotted around, because that's what society wants from the landscape and that's what it perceives as a healthy and vibrant landscape," says Thomas. But what people want from an aesthetic point of view may go against what is actually best for conservation. "Coppice woodland is better on a rotational basis for biodiversity than a wood that's dying and hasn't been cut back for 70 to 80 years," says Ellis. "But often mature woodland looks extremely attractive to people, even though it's dying." Will we have to adapt to a new idea of the British green and pleasant land, then? That really depends on how you define "British". "Our perception of what flora and fauna we perceive as being British will change," concludes Vogel. "Also, it will become much more difficult for 'experts' to recognise what is actually British." By experts, he means not only botanists and zoologists toiling in the country's universities and museums, but also the armies of amateur naturalists who spend their evenings and weekends scouring the country in search of rare birds, plants and insects. The country will still be populated by species of animal and plant. They may not be the species we want to protect; in fact, they are more likely to be the ones capable of adapting to more extreme conditions. The species we are already trying to save are liable to be more susceptible to the changes ahead. Summer droughts may have an adverse effect on some of the rarer butterflies, for example. Conversely, the milder winters may increase the number of pest species we get - rats would thrive simply because their winter survival rate will be better. "There are always species that will succeed in any environment, but they will change and we may not necessarily like the ones we end up with," says Sparks. "If you want to say that there is a need for us to protect what is British, then of course we are going to lose," cautions Vogel. "If you want to say we want to maximise diversity, then we are on to a winner." Ellis points out that change is a natural part of the life of the British countryside. "It's worth remembering that the landscape has gone through quite a lot of changes in the last 70 to 80 years," he says. "Often when people are looking back, they're looking back to a small snapshot in history which is the one that they want - maybe the 1930s, when things were difficult for agriculture, whereas many non-farmers think of it as a golden time." The difference now, though, is the pace of the change. "I don't think that we've ever seen changes at the sort of speed that we are experiencing and that we are predicted to experience in the next 20 to 50 years," adds Hughes. Here we get into politics. We can be fairly sure what will happen to our climate - and hence to our countryside - in the next 20 years because we know about the carbon that is already in the atmosphere. What happens after that is less certain and depends on what the governments of the world do to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. That matters because we can't know if we are making the right preparations for change if we do not know what changes are likely to happen. "You can overspeculate and there is a risk that we make a whole load of decisions to change things now that actually prove to be the wrong thing," says Hughes. We are also hampered by our lack of knowledge about the present: we have records for only a fifth or so of the flora and fauna on these islands. "There's still great uncertainty," says Sparks. "While we probably know more about our wildlife than anywhere else in the world, we're still conscious of the lack of knowledge in some areas." That ignorance is unlikely improve in the immediate future. Vogel says getting to know more about the country's flora and fauna and creating a comprehensive inventory of wildlife is a major objective for scientists. "For politicians, it might be more opportune to remain ignorant and say, 'Well, we didn't know.'" A little bit of knowledge, he adds, might actually be a dangerous thing for politicians, because they would then be forced to address some of the concerns for the future that understanding the present would bring. Nevertheless, says Vogel, we need to know exactly what lives on these shores, and on this earth. "For the long-term survival of humans with the creatures that share this planet, it is of very great importance." -------------- Sick to our stomachs http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5021143-114398,00.html Is there any way to stop the impending obesity epidemic? Sarah Boseley reports on the state of our health in 2020 Saturday September 25, 2004 The Guardian We live, literally, off the fat of the land. We've never had it so good. Life has never been so easy. And it's killing us. We used to die of disease. In 2020 we will die of life - or more specifically, of the way we live. Modern life is storing up trouble for us. Our health is paying for our convenience. Do you want to know how bad it could be? "Should the gloomier scenarios relating to obesity turn out to be true, the sight of amputees will become much more familiar in the streets of Britain. There will be many more blind people. There will be huge demand for kidney dialysis. The positive trends of recent decades in combating heart disease, partly the consequence of the decline in smoking, will be reversed. Indeed, this will be the first generation where children die before their parents as a consequence of childhood obesity." That comes not from the Daily Mail, but from the House of Commons' health select committee, which issued its report on obesity in May. It all seemed to be going so well in the late 20th century. Life expectancy has been steadily increasing. Medicine has conquered diseases such as pneumonia, typhus and cholera, which used to kill young as well as old. But the truth is that many of us will not enjoy healthy, long life. We will be burdened for years by chronic, debilitating illnesses brought on by our lifestyle, which will also be cause our death. Men born in 2001, who will be 19 in 2020, can expect to live to 76, but will be healthy only until 67. Women will live to 81, but healthy life expectancy is 69 years. That gap between the end of good health and the end of life is increasing. How do we live in 2004? We live fast. Our food is fast. Our communications are fast, by phone and internet, allowing us to work fast without leaving our desks. Our supermarkets allow us a one-stop fast shop, which we load into our car and drive home quickly. Most of the effort we make and will continue to make involves pressing keys and pushing buttons, not digging, hewing or heaving as we did just a few decades ago. Today's children are the NHS chronic disease patients of the future because of the way we live: the boy who goes into a burger bar for breakfast before school, the girl who is driven from door to door because her parents are afraid she will be knocked down by a car while crossing the road. They eat crisps at break and a chocolate bar at lunch. She sneaks a cigarette with friends behind the bike shed. They go home after school and play on the computer for two hours or watch cartoons while snacking on biscuits and more crisps. Dinner is a microwave meal. This big-food, little-effort lifestyle is a recipe for obesity, with its attendant risks of heart disease and diabetes. Obesity links directly into diabetes - a chronic condition that takes two forms. Type one can set in young for genetic reasons and require lifelong insulin, while type two can develop later in life, usually because of weight problems. There can be distressing complications, involving blindness, kidney problems and foot amputation. Our lifestyles also put us at risk of stroke and cancers, a risk exacerbated if we smoke, as girls and young women are doing in increasing numbers. Heart disease and strokes are the leading causes of death in the UK today, accounting for 39% of fatalities, followed by cancers at 26% and respiratory disease at 13%, according to the Office for National Statistics. In all regions of the world except Africa, where HIV is wreaking such devastation, these chronic non-communicable diseases are the biggest killers, says Robert Beaglehole, the director of chronic diseases prevention and health promotion at the World Health Organisation. "The situation in 2020 will remain the same, even if we get serious," he predicts. We know what to do to fight the problem, he says, but we're not doing enough of it. "Obesity is one risk factor for these conditions. The most important and the most preventable one is tobacco smoking. We have known about the deleterious effects for 50 years." We have made an effort with tobacco control in the UK and smoking rates are going down. Lung disease and the cancers and heart disease and strokes associated with cigarettes should also decline, but the improvements are much more marked among the best educated, most affluent groups in the country, who find it easiest to quit. "For a single mother living under terrible conditions on benefit, smoking might be her only succour," says Beaglehole. And so with diet. Obesity is more prevalent in poorer parts of the country. Junk food is cheap and filling. "The availability of fruit and vegetables is socially patterned," says Beaglehole. "If you go to a poorer neighbourhood, the supermarkets will have a different approach to what they are flogging. There might even be some price differentials. Hence the important role of governments in setting the environment. The government has a fundamental obligation to protect the health of its population. You can call it a nanny state if you like. I would say it is setting the conditions which allow individuals to make healthy choices." But first recognise your enemy. In 2004, it appears that obesity has crept up on us almost without our noticing. Our lives have been transformed over just a few decades - an extraordinary pace in evolutionary terms - and the consequences have taken until now to be realised. But according to Weight Concern, a charity that is trialling programmes to help overweight families, the perceptions of many of us have also altered so we do not recognise obesity when we see it, because in some parts of the UK it is all-pervasive. Jude Cohen, the charity's executive director, says it has had angry calls from parents or grandparents who have calculated a child's body mass index (BMI - a formula based on height and weight) on the website and refused to believe there is a problem. "They are really upset. They say, 'According to your website my grandson is obese but he's not - he's just chunky.' It is more likely the child goes to a school where so many children are obese or overweight that they are beginning to think that what their child looks like is normal." Jane Wardle, a professor of psychology who works in the Cancer Research UK health behaviour unit at University College London, and who also works with Weight Concern, thinks the prognosis for 2020 is bleak. "Nothing yet suggests this inexorable rise is going to plateau, because we're running a few years behind the US," she says. The situation across the Atlantic is even worse. Will obesity-related diseases increase in the UK as well? "I'd say that will happen and they will be coming on progressively earlier in people's lives." We can try to modify our culture, she says. "There's quite a strong political will to do this, motivated by the potential health costs, but not a very strong public will at the moment except in relation to children." The problem is that the changes we would have to make would unpick the advances of the convenience society. Do we want to have to walk further than the fridge, take hours instead of minutes preparing food, eat less and cut out the high-fat tastes we have come to like? "I think it is going to be quite difficult to make changes in the world because the things that have caused obesity are more convenient homes and workplaces. We have designed physical activity out of modern life and it is difficult to design routine physical activity back in. We have designed convenience into our food supply," she said. The alternative, she suggests, is to help people to take deliberate physical exercise and limit themselves in the face of food temptation, so they say: "I'd like this but I won't have it; I'd like more but I won't have it; I'd like it now but I'll have it this evening." But that route depends on a cultural shift. She notes the numbers of young girls in cropped tops, showing off rolls of fat around their middles in a way that used to be unusual. She wonders whether a concern about anorexia has gone too far the other way. Parents, and she includes herself, she says, have become worried about suggesting to their daughters any other relationship to food than a free-for-all. "A spectre has hung over us and while we weren't looking, the world changed," she says. Professor Sir Charles George, the medical director of the British Heart Foundation, is not so pessimistic as the MPs of the health select committee. Although overeating and lack of exercise will push heart disease rates up, he thinks we can stave off the worst of the problems with medical interventions, such as widespread use of the class of drugs called statins, even if we face an uphill struggle convincing people to change their lifestyles. "We will have more and more people over the age of 65 and a still greater proportion over the age of 75. But we're going to see postponement of coronary heart disease events by quite a long period. There's going to be a still further decline in death rates in the under-65s and some deferment of those aged 65-74 into a later age," he says. Prevention is key, though, he says, whether by better diet and more exercise or through preventive drug treatment. Other chronic diseases that will become more prevalent for the foreseeable future are harder to prevent. Asthma, for instance, has a whole panoply of possible underlying causes and triggers. But it is undoubtedly a disease of our times and our lifestyle: it is possibly associated with diet, possibly with modern hygiene and possibly with the quality of the air we breathe. Nothing looks likely to derail the upward trend in the incidence of asthma. Cancers, too, are linked to our lifestyle in complex ways that are not fully understood. The numbers of cancer cases will continue to rise, although the mortality rates will probably also continue to fall with ever better treatment, as has been the pattern for some years now. Breast cancer is linked to the decline in breast-feeding, as we have fewer children, later in life, and hurry to wean them, but diet may also play a part, as it does in many cancers. Some chemicals in general use are known carcinogens. We can do something to improve our environment and our lifestyle, but we can't do anything about the genes we inherit, and these can play a big part in our health expectancy. However, by 2020 we may choose to stop ourselves passing them on. Fertility clinics can already test and select embryos, created in the laboratory, that carry certain genes, such as the gene for early-onset Alzheimer's disease and for some cancers. These could be replaced in the womb with disease-free embryos. Only a few of the "problem" genes can be identified as yet, but within 16 years we may well all have the option to choose our future child's health and "breed out" certain genetically determined conditions. But even genetically perfect babies, free of all the disease genes we can identify, can become couch potatoes doomed to a life of medication and chronic disease clinics. We will undoubtedly have a longer life expectancy in 2020, but how good a life may depend on how much we are willing to scrutinise our lifestyle and reform it in the years to come. It may be that life will have to become just that little bit less easy if we are to enjoy it to the full. Sarah Boseley is the Guardian's health editor ---------------- Tear down the barriers http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5021144-114398,00.html If we can draw in rather than exclude the dispossessed, we could build ourselves a better society by 2020 David Aaronovitch Saturday September 25, 2004 The Guardian The bus goes downhill all the way, a metaphorical as well as a physical journey from the pleasant heights on which I live, to the centre of the city where I work. We leave behind the houses of bankers, therapists and writers, pass the huge hospital, and then pick up and set down among inner-city housing estates, Victorian terraces, canals, railway stations and, finally, offices. The day before writing this I was at the back of the bus when two immense women got on. The first must have weighed nearly 20 stone, was wearing a singlet and short skirt and carrying a teddy bear. The second, whom she called "Muuuuuuum!", had dyed blonde hair and clung to a red and white checked handbag with the words "fuck you" written on it. They occupied four seats between them and began a loud conversation. A week earlier on the same bus, coming the other way in the late afternoon, a girl of about 14, with bleary eyes and smelling of alcohol, had taken a call on her mobile. For several minutes this girl maintained a unilateral shouting match with her unseen companion, throwing in every swearword she knew. After a particularly blue patch I suggested, very gently, that she might swear less. It didn't work. A fortnight before that - once again on the bus - I had watched as a woman with small daughter, outraged by some infraction I didn't see, whacked the tiny girl round the side of her head. The kid never shed a tear, but an elderly middle-class man behind them leaned over and said, "You shouldn't hit her like that." "Mind your own business!" replied the woman. "It is my business," he said. It didn't have to be his business. And maybe in the future it won't be. If we hadn't been on the bus we would not have seen the child being struck, or heard the drunk child cursing, or been disconcerted and vaguely threatened by the "fuck you" handbag. Perhaps we would have viewed these things from the window of the car as we drove past. What had all this dysfunction and difficulty to do with us, after all? There are a thousand ways of escaping it if you have the money; you need never feel threatened or uncomfortable again. There is plenty - as we are always being reminded - to feel uncomfortable about. The so-called feral children, allowed to run wild and neglected by mothers and fathers who, having fulfilled their biological role, have nothing left to offer their wild offspring. The moronic gangs of Game Boy-maddened adolescents who congregate on the pavement outside your house and engage in mass urination. The swearing drunks, predatory addicts, pit-bull owners, beggars, buggers and lunatics. The alienated and unintelligible huddled masses from other lands, cast up on the concrete beaches of our inner cities. Would you want your child to attend a school where they have to employ a machine to detect flick knives, and where the teachers are assaulted by the pupils or by parents? If you will not even court the possibility of that happening then you can go private, or move to an area where you think the schools aren't like that. You can sequester yourself away from the worst of the otherness. Or, if your resources don't stretch to a place in a leafy paradise, you can sequester the worst of it away from you - do the exiling rather than becoming the exile. The former is, apparently, well under way in America. In this most mobile and rootless of societies, there is a huge demand to recreate that idealised community of the 50s, the small town of It's A Wonderful World. It was estimated recently that 7m households, or 6% of the total, had "forted up", by going to live in gated communities, protected by fences and security guards, permitted access on the production of key cards or entry codes. Affluent black people were less likely to live in gated communities than their wealthy white or Hispanic counterparts, perhaps because of their own very recent experience of exclusion. Where would all this lead? Margaret Atwood, in her dystopic novel Oryx and Crake, takes this a step or two further and creates a world in which gated communities have become the Compounds, where the knowledge and scientific workers for biotech corporations live and work, guarded by armed security men. Outside, visible from the trains and toll-ways that link the Compounds, are the Pleeblands, where people toil, consume and exist in a state of under-educated chronic insecurity. As the hero's father explains to him, it is like a throwback to the days of castles and moated manor houses. Or (as he does not say) to Edgar Allan Poe's Masque of the Red Death, where the denizens of a high-walled fortress imagine themselves to be immune to the plague raging in the countryside round about. The British have not given themselves over to "forting up", except insofar as some people imagine we can prevent immigration to these islands by treating asylum seekers badly. Instead we have "white flight", in which thousands of middle-class families move to the countryside or semi-rural areas, and spend the rest of their lives transporting their children from place to place in people-carriers, or writing columns about adultery in Warminster and buying bantams in Ludlow. But there are other ways to create space between you and the unwanted others. If you cannot get out of the areas with bad people in them, maybe you can throw the bad people out of the areas. You can make entry to prisons easier and exit from them harder, you can make admission to schools more conditional on anticipated behaviour, and expulsion from them - when that anticipation is disappointed - more common. You can expand the use of antisocial behaviour orders, lowering the annoyance threshold and covering a greater range of antisocial actions. You can throw out your human refuse and wonder where all that anger and despair will eventually fetch up. Small acts of exclusion are certainly preferable to the alternative of social apartheid. If they are used rarely, and as part of a strategy to rejuvenate or restore threatened neighbourhoods or schools, then they can help to prevent the exodus of those who are mobile enough to get out. But if they are your weapons of first and only resort, then by 2020 we will have created psychological shanty towns, inhabited by those whom we have decided we don't want among us. There are other, better possibilities, and the evidence for them too is all around us. The young who are helping to reconstruct our inner cities as diverse and dynamic places to live and work; the expansion of higher education to sections of the population for whom, 20 years ago, education would have ended at 16; the normality, in some places, of mixed relationships and marriages; the education of disabled children in regular schools; the provision of more and better childcare for those who work and for those who don't; the recognition of the widespread and complex nature of mental illness - all these are contraindications to the dystopic vision of our future. I don't take this optimistic view simply because I love flowers, Lassie movies and the ickle children, but because I don't believe apartheid works. Though treating well those who are easily marginalised or excluded can sometimes seem impossibly difficult and very expensive, treating them badly almost always costs more. And then (who knows), you could, somehow, become one of the excluded yourself. The "others" almost always want the same thing as the rest of us, even if their ways of achieving it seem so intolerable. They aren't after impossible amounts of easily gotten wealth, or the right to live in filth and criminality, but they need recognition as human beings. They piss on us because no one notices them when they don't. The only time someone like me looks at that drunk girl on the bus is when she calls everyone a cunt. That's the thing we have to change. ------------- Work this way http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5021167-114398,00.html You'll need to be flexible to get a job in 2020, But firms will also have to be flexible to keep you says Liz Stuart Saturday September 25, 2004 The Guardian A trip forward in time to Head Office, 2020. You cannot even begin to think about the new skills required of you, the new methods of getting the day's graft done, because one thing keeps nagging at you: where are the desks? And where are the people who used to sit at those desks? There seems to be just a handful of people about, gathered in small groups. Some stand as they work on handheld computers, others sit in groups, on clusters of chairs. Even the office itself is tiny. The huge glass and chrome monstrosity the company put up in the 1980s has long since been sold off - with fewer people to accommodate, there will be no need for sprawling blocks. Predicting the future of work is not a science. The vision above is that of Michael White of the Policy Studies Institute, the co-author of Managing to Change, which was published as part of the Future of Work research programme. Will his prediction be any more accurate than those of some of the illustrious names who have preceeded him in foretelling the future? John Maynard Keynes wrote in 1930, in The Economic Possibilities for Our Grandchildren, that by the end of the 20th century we would all be working just five hours a week. In 1996, Jeremy Rifkin soothsaid the end of work altogether. In the 21st century, he predicted, employment would be phased out, at least in the industrialised world. Jobs would be taken over by machines and workers forced on to the dole. The German sociologist Ulrich Beck, in The Brave New World of Work, published in 2000, claimed the work society was disappearing. The working environment of the future, he said, will resemble that of Brazil, with no permanent jobs, only informal and insecure labour. Going by current trends, Keynes's proposition is impossible and Rifkin's and Beck's seem implausible. So can we take a guess at how we will be working in 2020? In 16 years' time, most employment in Britain will still be structured much as it is now: the majority of us will still be working for other people, mostly in a place other than our homes, doing a job instantly recognisable today. There probably will not have been a wholesale shift to an itinerant workforce. An example from the immediate past proves the need for caution when predicting change: the fastest-growing occupation in the 90s was not software engineering (although the numbers employed in that trade grew by 185% between 1992 and 1999) or even telephone sales or business consultancy (106% and 93% respectively). The real growth industry, at a massive 302%, was the distinctly low-tech job of hairdressing. In the words of Richard Pearson, the director of the market research centre the Institute for Employment Studies, rather than being about sweeping changes, the future is about "evolution, rather than revolution". So how will we be working in 16 years' time? The answer, of course, is far from certain. Most of the government's peering into the future takes us only as far as 2010 - such as the work done by the Department of Work and Pensions, and the Department of Trade and Industry's Foresight team. As Alexandra Jones, a senior researcher at the Work Foundation, says, predictions past that date become "a lot wobblier". But there is some evidence to provide us with ideas. From his base in Leeds, Professor Peter Nolan runs the Future of Work programme, a huge research project which has been running under the auspices of the Economic and Social Research Council for six years and across 22 UK universities. He paints a picture of a growing divergence between those employed in highly skilled, highly paid professions, and those at the bottom of the employment chain. The economy of work, he believes, will be increasingly hourglass-shaped. "At the top end of the jobs hierarchy, people are likely to enjoy substantial discretion over their hours, places and patterns of working time. But this will be fuelled by the growth of low-paid and unskilled labour, doing jobs that would have been familiar 100 years ago," says Nolan. He predicts managers and those in the professions will have job security. And, contrary to the predictions of futurologists, the majority of employees are likely to continue working for an organisation, rather than for themselves, or for a series of different people. In 2020 nine out of 10 jobs will still be permanent, although maybe not full time, he says. Flexible working is the mantra of those who seek change in the way our working lives are structured - in the first six months of this year, this newspaper alone carried 67 stories that mentioned the phrase "flexible working". The government has given employees the right to request flexible working patterns, and last month's Guardian/ICM poll showed a strong appetite for greater flexibility, especially among young workers. That hunger is likely to have been satisfied by 2020, by which time the way our jobs are structured will have changed massively. Many people will work as employed freelancers. People will be trained to work on a wide range of different projects, liaising with experts outside the company when additional help is needed. Companies will be smaller and more specialised. Jones says management structures and hierarchies will flatten out, giving workers more control over their jobs. Offices will be for "face time" only, when meetings in the flesh are essential, says Jones. Everything that can be done from home, will be. That will have wider benefits, too. Half the greenhouse gas emissions in Europe are the result of office work - people's journeys to and from their workplace, and heating and air conditioning once they are there - according to figures from the European commission. While homeworkers will still need to keep warm, there will be much less wasted energy use. But our connections with our employers might actually become more profound, even if we spend less time with co-workers. We are likely to stay in our jobs for longer as we learn and develop within the company, and so become less likely to look for another job. Keeping staff is vitally important in the service sector, and Jones believes employers will finally have woken up to the paradox that to keep someone on, you need to keep developing in them precisely those skills that would equip them to leave and find a job elsewhere. Companies that want to retain staff will also have to take a more relaxed attitude to time. Jones envisages careers being seen as a landscape, with peaks and valleys of working hours, allowing the young to work longer, those with families to work less, and retirement to be phased in gradually. All workers, not just those with children, will be allowed to take time out to study or travel. Inevitably, that would require us to manage our own careers and finances, particularly securing our pension provision. John Cridland, the deputy director general of the CBI, agrees. He thinks that by 2020 there will be no fixed hours, or job descriptions: everything will be up for negotiation. "This will definitely be the case with managerial and professional jobs, but also in other service jobs too. Obviously you need staff in a restaurant at the same time as customers, but provided the basics are covered, there'll be no point in having lots of people with the same set of skills." More jobs will be open to more people as well. White hopes that by 2020 every other person working would be a woman, particularly in senior roles, "although I think it's unlikely to be 50-50 by then", he says. While gender parity will not yet be a reality, women in the 2020 workplace will be better able to realise their career aspirations. "Put it this way, it's going to have to change because women are just not going to put up with things like glass ceilings in the future," says Nolan. That process will be aided by men playing a greater role in caring for their children and their parents: by 2021 there will be 12 million people over the age of 65, so the burden of care will have to be more evenly shared. Instead of men working 60 hours a week and women working 20, it is likely that many couples will opt to split the workload, as well as their responsibilities at home - so we could well see both partners choosing to work a 35-hour week, with the costs of additional care subsidised by the government. Care provision will be another area in which employers see the chance to build loyalty among their staff. Workplace nurseries will be more common, and technology will boost parental confidence in them, with webcams allowing mothers and fathers to check on their children whenever they choose. It will not only be women who secure higher status in the workplace. There are already a million disabled people who say they want to work, according to the Disability Rights Commission, and that figure will grow as the workforce ages - particularly as disability includes conditions such as diabetes and severe heart problems, as well as long-term depression. In the sardine-tight labour market of 2020, that will be a group employers will not be able to ignore. Cridland feels more progress will also have been made towards racial integration in the workplace. "For instance, many African-Caribbean male teenagers have a greater tendency to rebel and opt out of education when they are younger, although they go back into learning when they are older," he says. "Some employers are already realising they need to do more outreach work to get to these groups: in a tight labour market, and as service sector employers realise they need employees who reflect the communities where they work, they really need to attract them as employees." There may also be more Pakistani and Bangladeshi women at work by 2020. Those two groups are currently badly underrepresented in the workforce, but research from Manchester University suggests that more of these women, particularly those with qualifications, will want jobs. Older people, too, will be more prevalent in the workplace. Jones says the likely retirement age by 2020 will be 70, and many future-watchers predict that will rise even further - not only to counter the pensions crisis, but also to release the pressure on the labour market. Nolan, however, disputes the notion that older people would stay on at work out of choice. "That's fine if you're a lawyer or company director where you can pick and chose your hours and projects," he says, "but if we're talking about someone who's been working in a factory for 40 years, do you really think that they'd want to carry on for another five?" The real beneficiaries of the changing nature of the workplace will be those who have low levels of skills but can none the less master technology, predicts White. At the moment, the opportunities open to those people may be no more exciting than working in a call centre, but new technologies should open up other possibilities. Cridland agrees, adding that everyone will be better qualified (by 2010 there will be 2m fewer jobs that require only GCSEs, for example), so employees will be valued for their skills rather than just for turning up. If they cannot master technology, however, the least skilled will have to settle for supporting the freer lifestyles of the their better-paid peers. And many, reckons Richard Pearson of the IES, will be forced to take second jobs. Outsourcing, the issue currently animating both the incumbent and the aspirational president in the US, will continue. Reservation agents, computer programmers, database managers, financial analysts - all those whose jobs that depend, in part, on an ability to master repetitive tasks performed on a computer - will have been relocated abroad. "Only the customer-facing jobs will be left," says Cridland. But, he points out, the lost jobs will be replaced with shiny new ones, more suitable to our developing economy. He points to the banking giant HSBC, which creates two jobs for every one it sends offshore. The bottom line about work, of course, is that we do it for money. Those who do it for hard cash in the hand might not be happy about some of the changes ahead: identity cards and the decreasing use of cash will make back-pocket payments harder, in effect formalising the black economy. That will, however, be a positive for those people, mainly women, who work off the books not to avoid tax but because their employers want to avoid giving them full employment benefits. The minimum wage is also likely to increase, and childcare and housework are likely to attract tax breaks, meaning people can afford to pay their nanny and cleaner more. Ian Hopkinson, the head of employment tax at KPMG, thinks salaries will consist of totally flexible remuneration packages: we will be able to choose between pay and a combination of benefits, such as buying days off. While this is already happening in some workplaces, it will be the norm by 2020. He adds that while there are still likely to be behemoth salaries paid to City executives, wages will be far more transparent. Sadly, he also thinks it unlikely that teachers or nurses will see radical increases in their relative salaries. "These are likely to remain in the private sector and future governments aren't going to be able to afford to pay them huge amounts," he says. Public sector workers will still negotiate their pay collectively, through trades unions. But in the private sector, where only 18% of the workforce now carries a membership card, the unions will have been transformed into professional service organisations. "This needn't just be about providing things like insurance," says Cridland. "The downside of negotiating individual contracts is that you're not protected by collective bargaining. Unions in the future are likely to step in to assist individual members to negotiate pay." The presence of more women in senior positions and in better-paid professions means the gender pay gap will narrow, but it will not disappear. "For that to happen would require a major revaluation of the contribution of women at work. We'd have to see the political will for things to change," says Alastair Hatchett, the head of pay services at Incomes Data Services. The Work Foundation predicts there will be a major revaluation, however, in the measurement of work. Some method will be found to measure output - the number of books edited or meals served - rather than input, the number of hours spent at your desk, it says. Others, however, are more sceptical. Pearson says: "Theoretically it's a good idea for output to be measured rather than input but in reality, for the majority of jobs, it just isn't possible to evaluate in an equitable and affordable way. You start getting into value judgements - how do you judge that the output of one person editing a book is better than that of another?" Finally, to the most important question. Will we be happy in our jobs? Sadly, in spite of all the corporate attempts to woo us, and the chance to work from home a couple of days a week, it seems likely we will be as discontent as ever. "People are being more intensely critical and demanding about everything. They expect more from their jobs. It could be harder for companies to make people satisfied: they'll do what they think necessary to make people committed and content, but I think they just won't be quick enough on the work-life balance issues," predicts Michael White. It seems the technological advances pictured by Keynes may not bring us joy. Look on the bright side though: at least we'll be able to discuss our woes via video-imaging, rather than by standing around the water cooler. --------------- The back page http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5021158-114398,00.html Welcome to Hollywood's vision of the future: a world of brightly coloured separates and sperm chic Hadley Freeman Saturday September 25, 2004 The Guardian In the future, we will have no bladders. Nor, equally surprisingly - although it is rather less medically unsettling - will issues of practicality, comfort or even basic aesthetics hold any sway over what we wear. Thus sayeth Hollywood's costume designers, anyway. >From the 1936 Saturday-morning series Flash Gordon onwards, the consensus among film-makers has always been that at some time in the future we will undergo some kind of collective lobotomy that will free us of any quibbles we might have about wearing, say, one-piece suits in primary colours (Flash Gordon, various parts of the Star Trek franchise) or angrily ripped-up leather (Blade Runner, The Terminator series - sooo Camden early 70s, Harrison and Arnie). Clothes in sci-fi films tend to make the audience wonder if they have been slipped the same hallucinogenics the screenwriter and director took to come up with the tosh in the first place. I shall take this moment to mention Gary Oldman's luminous multicoloured waistcoat in The Fifth Element and then I shall mention it no more. But leaving aesthetics aside for the moment, convenience, too, seems to be of little importance. Also in The Fifth Element, think of the poor police officers, who wear so many bulky layers they more closely resemble Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles than upholders of the peace. As for the women ... Don't even get me started on Milla Jovovich's bondage leotard in - yes, again - The Fifth Element. Not since Donna Karan introduced "the body" (a leotard that did up at the crotch) in the 80s has a woman worn an item that held the potential for so many disturbing personal hygiene issues. When we think of the imagined costumes of the future, we tend to assume they fall into two camps: either the weirdly asexual catsuits used to symbolise a fresh, modern society or the grungier torn leather and denim that signify the hell of society's breakdown. These, however, tend to be the more extreme manifestations. Visions of the future are often, in fact, surprisingly prosaic. I refer you to the garb donned by crew members of Federation vessels in the various Star Trek series: brightly coloured crew necks and black trousers, with spangly red jackets for formal wear, a combination oddly suitable for life as holiday camp entertainer. Similarly, little jerkins and tunics crop up with disturbing familiarity - Buck Rogers (in his late 70s guise, as played by Gil Gerard), and Logan 5 (Michael York's 23rd-century character in Logan's Run) all don the tunic. It's as if the directors thought picking a garment from any time other than the present - even ones that scream "16th century ahoy!" to most cinemagoers - would be enough to place the events in the future. More often, though, the imagined dress of other eras is a reflection of contemporary concerns, reflecting our greatest fears or dearest hopes. Take Soylent Green, made in 1973. Set in New York in 2022, it is, ostensibly, a warning about the perils of future overpopulation. Now, however, it is hard not to see it as an enjoyably kitschy bit of anti-communist propaganda, about as balanced as you'd expect of a film starring Charlton Heston, a future president of the National Rifle Association. Hence, everyone wears colourless institutional outfits with a distinctly Mao-esque flavour: beige button-down shirts and trousers for the boys, brown muu-muus for the girls, which certainly makes the red wave more credibly unappealing than the film's ultimate threat that we will all be forced into cannibalism because of the dreadful food shortages. Which brings us to the wretchedly portentous 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968). Here, too, there is a touch of Mao to the men's suits, but more memorable are the sweetly anachronistic spacesuits, with their Slinky-like arms and duvet-style padding. Far from 2001 being a hugely imaginative view of the future, as has been claimed by its many supporters, the weird curvy furniture and the awkward spacesuits show it to be solidly rooted in its own time. George Lucas's THX 1138 (1971) also rocked the institutional look, but with somewhat different results. According to the critic David Thomson, the white body-suits and shaven heads represent "a fusion of cleanliness and death". That may very well be true, but to the more low-minded of us they are also snigger-inducingly similar to the sperm in Woody Allen's Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Sex, But Were Afraid to Ask, made the following year. Coincidence? Or tribute? Far more fun is Logan's Run (1976). The posters claimed it portrayed "a world of perfect pleasure". And how did film-makers of the immediately pre-punk era visualise that perfect pleasure? Obvious, really: lots of people wearing primary-coloured togas. In other words, a Roman orgy with the added fun of acid, which sounds like a very 70s swingers party with marginally better clothes. The best (and most 70s) fashion moment comes when Michael York tries to seduce Jenny Agutter by slipping on a Talitha Getty-style poncho and raising a G&T. It seems the mid-70s was when Elizabeth Taylor achieved fashion apotheosis, as the defining style icon for both sexes. Not that we can be smug. Instead of recreating sperm style, this generation is content to aspire to a decidedly bland future. Look at Gattaca, with its slicked-down department-store suits. Or Steven Spielberg's AI (2001), in which our future perfect is a world in which men wear button-down shirts and jeans, and there are tasteful knits and slacks for the ladies - the only relief is the occasional foray into yoga whites. In other words, it's all very American lifestyle catalogue, proof that some aspirations will never die. The future, perhaps, is a little too bright. -------------- It's all for your own good http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5021102-114398,00.html Drink too much? Eat the wrong foods? By 2020, no aspect of your life will be safe from prying eyes, or from interfering official nannies Paul Lashmar Saturday September 25, 2004 The Guardian You are at work. The morning coffee break has occasioned a need to visit the loo. As you get back to your desk a red-tinged internal company email message flashes on your computer screen. "Analysis of your urine deposit at 11.24am shows that you have consumed excessive alcohol in the past 24 hours. This is the fourth time in the past month that urine sampling has registered you at excess of 140mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood. This is a formal company notice. You must immediately register for the company alcohol abuse management scheme. Failure to do so will result in the termination of your contract." A few seconds later another message pops up on your screen. This time it is from the police. "Under the mandatory requirement your employers have notified us of your excessive alcohol consumption in the past 24 hours. Your car has been recorded by roadside cameras using the numberplate recognition system as having travelled between your registered home address and your place of work at 8.03-8.31am today. The camera images were checked with the national facial recognition system and it has been confirmed you were the driver." It continues: "You are believed to be in breach of current drink-driving legislation, which permits a maximum of 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood. Your car will be immobilised using the integral satellite-to-vehicle communication system until we have further investigated the matter. Your company will now provide us with blood sample analysis. Please contact your local police station. Do not drive." It is a bad morning already, but it is set to get worse. A message from the NHS Genetic Monitoring Authority pops up in your email inbox (snail mail ceased to operate years ago). "From your recent blood sample we have detected serious flaws in one your genes. You are hereby notified that you are to cease any sexual relations until you have undergone genetic rectification therapy. Failure to comply is an imprisonable offence." It sounds a bit far-fetched, doesn't it? But maybe it's not such a leap. Much of this surveillance technology is already in place or under development. And this scenario is just one example of the power of data matching - the sharing of someone's personal data across different computer systems to draw up a complete detailed picture of their lifestyle. A Japanese company has already developed a toilet - targeted for use in large companies - that can analyse whether an employee has recently used illegal recreational drugs such as cocaine or heroin. Numberplate recognition cameras are in place in a number of key British motorways, enabling police to track stolen or suspect vehicles. Facial recognition for CCTV is still in the early stages of development but has already been tried out in the London borough of Newham and other locations. The trials were not wholly successful, but the technology will improve. Leeds University's Institute for Transport Studies has developed a communication box that could be fitted to all vehicles to regulate traffic speed and flow. Immobilisers will be no great problem. As for gene surveillance, experts only need a tiny piece of hair or other cells from our bodies to draw all sorts of conclusions about our genetic inheritance, our parentage, the diseases we are prone to and what is likely to cause our eventual death. All that technology will be at the service of the government, and by 2020 its use will force us to consider the delicate balance between the freedom of the individual and intrusion into our daily lives by the state. The excuse given to justify this technological encroachment into our everyday lives is that our rulers are acting for the "common good". Forcibly restricting a heavy drinker's alcohol intake seems like a mundane intervention - and almost a helpful one - compared with the threats from totalitarian regimes of the past. Does punishment for drink-driving really compare with being carted off to the gulags in the days of the Soviet Union? It should do: it is part of the same continuum of state intervention, and it raises the question of where that intervention will end. The apocalyptic school of civil libertarianism holds that the freedom of the individual is already being seriously compromised, and that the terrorist attacks of September 11 2001 gave politicians an excuse to introduce ever more repressive laws and technology. "The 'war on terrorism' has turned into an ongoing 'war on freedom and democracy', which is now setting new norms - where accountability, scrutiny and human rights protections are luxuries to be curtailed or discarded in defence of 'democracy'," says Tony Bunyan of Statewatch, which monitors civil liberties in the EU. The members of this apocalyptic school believe liberal democracy, which historically has protected us from the tendency of the state to encroach in our lives, is now either dying or already dead. It is being replaced by a creeping authoritarianism. Bunyan says liberal democracy reached its zenith during the last days of the cold war. "During this period liberal democracy had to have some substance, some tangible reality in opposition to Soviet-style communism. With the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 it was not just the USSR that disappeared but with it, too, the content of liberal democracy's political culture." Simon Davies of Privacy International has an equally bleak take on the state of civil liberties: "The default has clearly shifted from privacy to surveillance. Almost all large government projects attempt to compromise the right of privacy. The proclaimed need for the protection of children and the fight against terrorism has often been shamelessly used as the pretext for privacy invasion." Others, such as Barry Hugill of Liberty, take a less pessimistic view of the state of our freedoms, but even these relative optimists warn that many threats to personal liberty have already manifested themselves. But, Hugill warns: "People are not aware of much of what is happening." Twenty years ago, fears of a Big Brother state were commonplace. Not only were we in the year of Orwell's dystopia, but during the miners' strike the Thatcher government had used the state's ability to make covert interventions in our lives in its fight against the National Union of Mineworkers. The undercover operations of MI5 and the police have disgusted many who bore no sympathy for Arthur Scargill or his fight. Surely we are really in much less danger from the thought police than we were then? The answer, of course, is no, not least because the battleground on which we fight to preserve our liberties and privacy is now so much wider. Civil libertarians are now as concerned about the right to individual privacy as about the issue of political control. "Privacy is the right on which all other rights rest," says Davies. That is why campaigns against developments such as mandatory ID cards and the surveillance culture are couched in the terms of protecting individual privacy. "What has occurred in the last 15 years is that there has been a systematic attack on the concept of individual rights, especially privacy," says Davies. Where has the state extended itself too far into the private sphere? "It is easier to give examples of where it hasn't gone too far. Nearly every piece of legislation in the past five years has gone too far." Why, then, have we not risen up in protest? Perhaps because we trust our government more than we used to. That is the perspective of Conor Gearty, the director of the Centre for the Study of Human Rights at the London School of Economics. He believes there has been a profound political shift over the past 20 years. "Maybe I'm getting old but I think we live in a different world from the days of Mrs Thatcher. The days when my Irish mates would get hauled out of their homes in Kilburn by the police are gone, I hope," says Gearty, an Irishman whose view of state power was shaped by the Troubles. "My impression is that there is not an inevitable spiral towards Big Brother and the repressive state. I think this culture is much more open than people expected. The detention [of terror suspects] is a huge political crisis, but I would be cautious about saying 'Oh, Big Brother is just around the corner.' "Where I would differ with some of the more republican/socialist libertarians is that I do not believe that advance of technology always fuels the antagonistic state." He thinks a new social contract has been drawn up between the government and the public. That is what has allowed the recent legislation to extend the powers of the state, through the police, in dealing with terrorism and crime. "These laws are passed but the public expects checks and balances to them to be put in place. The issue for me is one of accountability." As long as people are sure the state can be held accountable in the event of an abuse of its powers, says Gearty, they are willing to see changes to their liberties as a process to be managed rather than resisted. He cites the recent ruling by the House of Lords that allowed the police to take DNA samples of suspects even if they are not charged. The Lords were willing to allow the police that right, he says, because the safeguards concerning the use of the DNA were sufficient to ensure there was no contravention of human rights legislation. Simon Davies profoundly disagrees with Gearty's analysis. He believes the current government's authoritarian tendencies have been heavily influenced by the philosophy of communitarianism, as espoused by the US sociologist Amitai Etzioni, the author of The Limits of Privacy. The Etzioni model of communitarianism holds that individual rights must be balanced against the concern for the common good. He favours testing infants for HIV, opposes encrypted messages, favours national ID cards, and proposes isolating sex offenders in villages akin to leper colonies. "If you look at Labour's policy documents and legislation it is riddled with concepts of 'the common good' which take their cue from Etzioni's philosophy," says Davies. "It is this concept of acting in the interest of the majority that has caused the erosion of the idea of individual freedom and privacy. In this dogma all individualism is seen as an expression of selfishness. It allows the government to justify potentially repressive laws." But do we not still have privacy in much of our personal life? No, says Davies, we don't. "You might not want your bank account to be public knowledge, but just look at the tranche of people, from the police to civil servants, who are now entitled to look at your account without your knowledge. That's not privacy." Gearty, however, argues there is no immutable right to privacy. "What's the big deal about privacy? I'm not just for individual autonomy," he says. "It's just out of kilter with the way we live. Part and parcel of society is the invasion of privacy, it is why we live together. It is part of civilised society." He suggests the public do not share campaigners' concerns about the multiplication of CCTV cameras - of which we have more per head of population than any other country in the world - and other surveillance devices. The reason is that people see the benefits - helping the police crack down on crime and antisocial behaviour - as outweighing the drawbacks. "The disjunction between state and the public may be less wide than we may generally think," he says. "Liberal concerns over CCTV and its impact on privacy may not be shared by the public at large." It matters that these issues are thrashed out now, because the rights we are currently surrendering to the state are those we will not have in 2020. And governments - the bodies that exercise the powers we grant them - change. So while you may trust Tony Blair, David Blunkett et al to use wisely the powers to interfere in your life that they have accumulated since 1997, how will you feel if a government of a different shade comes in and takes a different view about what constitutes appropriate usage? The possibility of today's anti-crime legislation becoming the planks of tomorrow's repressive state increases with every rise in global tension, because a threatened government is a dangerous government. What happens if Britain's security is in question? What if Islamic fundamentalism develops into an even more potent political force, or if oil shortages lead to global political instability? How, then, would the government of 2020 use the powers it will have at its disposal? "That's a serious point," says Gearty. "I don't see that happening at the moment, but if we did have a new Thatcher who saw the enemy within and if the police reverted to their ways of the 1980s, that's a real concern. It is not vacuous." Some argue the repressive state is already taking root in our society. Tony Bunyan suggests some sections of the community are already bearing the full force of new laws. British Muslims, for example, have felt pressure from both the state and non-Muslim Britons with the launch of large-scale anti-terrorism operations over the past three years. Nor is the fear confined to radical Islam: moderate community leaders in areas where young Muslim men have been arrested under the Terrorism Act fear that Muslims - like the miners and black youths before them - will become tainted as the enemies within. For many, though, the most likely threat to liberty in 2020 will be not political control but overweening nannyism. You are more likely to see your privacy encroached upon "for your own good" than because you pose a threat to the peace and democracy. So if you have an obesity problem but cannot resist slipping an eight-pack of burgers and half a dozen doughnuts into your supermarket trolley, expect trouble at the checkout. It is not too far-fetched to believe that the supermarket, under mandatory government requirements, will have programmed your storecard to stop you buying food with a high fat content. You might be prevented from buying more than 10 cigarettes a day or 12 units of alcohol a week. And the government will fall back on a "common good" argument to justify this: why should responsible eaters and drinkers have to pay the costs to the NHS of treating indisciplined sybarites who brought their woes on themselves? "My sense is that by 2020, if current trends continue, the right to privacy for the individual will be an exception," says Simon Davies. But in another curious twist, there will be those who will benefit from the extension of surveillance technology. People who at present are, of necessity, dependent on others may find themselves gaining a greater measure of personal independence. Jeremy Myerson, who is professor of design studies at the Royal College of Art, has examined the relationship between design and social and technological change and sees benefits accruing from surveillance. "By 2020 it is forecast that more than half the European population will be over 50. This is going to have a dramatic effect on the way we care for people, and the burden it puts on the NHS," he told the Guardian in July last year. "Surveillance systems in the home can monitor people and keep them out of institutions. It may seem Big Brotherish, but it's actually about giving people their independence." There are no easy answers to the questions raised by the incursions into our liberties. If people are going to accept ever increasing surveillance - in the home, at work, on the street, in the shops - they will need to be convinced it really is for their benefit, not for some sinister purpose. The problem we face in securing the future is that we live in a time of centrist government and economic prosperity, where there are no great issues rending society: exactly the kind of period in which freedoms can be limited without anyone kicking up too much of a fuss. As Gearty, who rejects the view that our liberties are doomed, says: "We need to keep the culture vigilant about abuse of executive power and to keep parliament mindful to insist on safeguards to new laws." We might also recall the observation of another Irishman, the Georgian statesman and judge John Philpot Curran: "The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime, and the punishment of his guilt." ------------------ Life in plastic http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5021135-114398,00.html Will we use the advances in plastic surgery techniques to remake our identities at will? Vivienne Parry Saturday September 25, 2004 The Guardian We all think we know what cosmetic surgery is going to mean to us over the coming years. The path has been pointed out by a series of reality TV shows in which contestants go under the scalpel to look like their favourite celebrity, or have an "extreme makeover" at the hands of the surgical team. By 2020, surely, cosmetic surgery is going to be the tool of those who want a new look for their Saturday night out, an adjunct to the make-up compact. Of course, that view rather typecasts cosmetic surgeons as Nip/Tuck merchants out to make a quick buck. The reality is rather different. Plastic surgery is the biggest trauma specialty after orthopedics and its practitioners are primarily concerned with function, not appearance. Its increasing use is because there are more complaints now that can be treated with surgery. And though it will be an even more important branch of medicine by 2020, with dazzling innovation in materials and techniques, it will still be used principally for sound medical reasons. "It's driven by public demand," says David Soutar, a consultant plastic surgeon at Glasgow University and a past president of the British Association of Plastic Surgeons. He points out that even 10 years ago, a plastic surgeon would not have been called to A&E when a child arrived with a cut on their face. Now such a call is routine, as is an offer of reconstruction after surgery on cancer around the breast, face or neck. And legs or fingers that would have been amputated are now expected to be saved. Soutar expects that level of demand to continue. There have been two major brakes on the use of plastic surgery so far, he explains. One is the problem of rejection, which limits the transplant of "spare parts" from donors. But the burgeoning field of tissue engineering is creating the possibility of "tissues to go", whereby tissues or structures such as ears are grown to order using the patient's own cells, eliminating the possibility of rejection. The mouse with an ear on its back that I introduced to a startled public on Tomorrow's World a decade ago was the start of this revolution, which should be fully realised by 2020. The field has been slower to advance than originally predicted, partly because there is more caution about the introduction of new technologies that are not immediately lifesaving, but that enhance appearance in the otherwise healthy. There are concerns that this approach will only work for elective surgery, for which doctors have time to prepare, but as Simon Withey, a plastic surgeon at the Royal Free Hospital in London, says: "Even for emergency surgery, it may still be possible to close wounds temporarily, whilst growing new tissue to order." He suggests that a development we may see sooner is immunomodulation, in which the recipient receives bone marrow from the donor in advance, thus lessening the chances of rejection when the donor's tissue is introduced. Either way, the ability to grow bone and skin in 3D shapes, both essential to the plastic surgeon's art, will shape the practice of the science. The other big restraint on plastic surgery has been scarring. The shine on a burn victim's face, the loss of full joint function after injury, or the rough raised edges of a graft are all the result of scar tissue. But scar-free healing will be available by 2020. It has long been known that at extremes of life - among newborns and the old - scarring is minimal or, in the case of babies in the womb, non-existent. It is most extensive during adolescence and on certain parts of the body, such as the chest and shoulders. Over the past two decades, the science of wound healing and scar formation has been extensively investigated, principally by Professor Mark Ferguson and his team at Manchester University. Their research has helped in the development of drugs to prevent scarring after healing, and these will be available by 2020. They should have an immense impact on the use of surgery. The techniques, too, are developing rapidly. Withey is part of one of the two teams in the world serious about offering face transplants to the severely disfigured - though don't expect it to be anything like Face/Off. At the moment the disadvantages - the need to take lifelong toxic immunosuppressants after the surgery and the risks of the procedure itself - outweigh the benefits. What's more, the disfigured - rather patronisingly - are felt unable to give proper consent. The work to develop facial transplants has also foundered on the threat it poses to individual identity. As the demand for cosmetic surgery continues to soar, there may be a blurring in the public mind about what constitutes cosmetic and what reconstructive work, with the former being made unavailable on the NHS. But should a 14-year-old who has Poland syndrome, a congenital condition that causes only one breast to develop, have reconstruction available on the NHS, even though it is cosmetic work? Of course, but expect to see NHS funding bodies wriggle all the same. Soutar is clear, though, that cosmetic surgery offers real medical benefits. "Cosmetic surgery may be more effective and do more for an individual than sewing a leg back on someone that won't ever work properly," he says. In fact, the real worry about cosmetic surgery and the NHS is that by 2020 the burgeoning private sector will have taken all the talented surgeons, as has already happened in the US, to the detriment of burns and trauma work in public hospitals. And what of the worry that, by 2020, cosmetic surgery will be an everyday lifestyle choice? Should we take action to prevent that possibility? Perhaps we should instead be asking why stopping people having surgery should be an option: if people are prepared to pay for it and it makes them feel better, then why shouldn't they do so? Professor Sheila McLean, the director of the Institute of Law and Ethics in Medicine at Glasgow University, does not see more cosmetic surgery as an ethical issue for the future, but she worries about what drives people to surgery. "In an emotionally driven decision, there is every likelihood that people are duressed by an emotional perception of themselves and are unable to give proper consent." What concerns her is that, when the expectation levels for what surgery will achieve are so high, the risks must be properly explained. And while consumer demand may benefit patients by increasing what plastic surgery can do for them, the downside is that people think of surgery as a consumer purchase. Changing your appearance becomes the ultimate pick-and-pay choice. That trend will continue, underpinned by future government agendas on choice. But choice or not, some people feel serial patients - such as Jocelyn Wildenstein (below) - should be stopped, in order to avert the prospect of countless others following suit. That view is driven partly by snobbery and partly by envy, but there is also a genuine worry that in a sector dominated by profit, doctors working outside the NHS will say yes to every last demand for knee lift and stomach suction by the surgery junkies, putting their health at risk. So one of the major dilemmas for plastics in 2020 will be trust in doctors. "Doctors have a legal right to refuse treatment," says McLean, "if they don't think that it is in the best interests of the patient. They are under an obligation to positively do good but also negatively to do no harm." There is already a raft of civil and criminal law to protect patients in this regard and the General Medical Council is already noticeably tougher with dodgy cosmetic surgeons than other doctors - so there seems little need to fear cosmetic surgery becoming an ethics-free zone. "We are a society obsessed by looks," observes David Soutar. Don't expect that to change, and expect our own desires to fuel the development of technologies that might make some beautiful. But remember that they will be few: those who benefit from improved function, social acceptance and comfort will be far more, and far more important. --------------- Home truths http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5021063-114398,00.html Where will we be living come 2020? In beautiful bespoke homes or in soulless suburban estates? The choice is ours, says Jonathan Glancey Saturday September 25, 2004 The Guardian New homes spread like so much detritus discarded across thousands of hectares of southern England. Plots of land the size of handkerchiefs, crumpled into the nowhere lands of the Thames Gateway, the M11 corridor and greater Milton Keynes. Hundreds of thousands of new homes: red-tiled, UPVC-windowed, developers' junk. That is what many of us fear when we think of future housing. An England made more subtopian than suburban. A Britain divided between overcrowding and underachieving. Every last corner of a southern English field that once was forever cornflowers, dog rose and meadowsweet now built on in the most meretricious, money-wringing manner. Ever more cul-de-sac housing estates linked together by raging arterial roads lined with chain stores - with a bit of swooping-roofed architectural fantasia sculpted in between. Breeze-block homes - or "consumption units" as they will be known by 2020 - with twin garages for two Jags, or a brace of Jeeps. Petrol-powered still, despite the insoluble problems of the Middle East. Superstores. Multiplexes. Distribution depots. An England 100% England free. A getting- and-spending, logoed and baseball-capped land, chock-full of call centres and staffed by customer service facility managers. An England stripped of public-minded public services and punished by even more CCTV cameras, by congestion charges, creativity charges, intelligence charges. An England where no one will remember Adlestrop, much less Grantchester or Little Gidding. A nation of mass housing with as much poetry as the infinite sub-clauses of a particularly turgid and much-delayed government report. A land stupefyingly bland and irredeemably boring. A country offering good old English staples: cappuccinos, quarter-pounders, barbecued ribs and deep-pan pizzas, all you can eat at every bloated turn, every blubbery day. A self-righteous, increasingly foul-mannered nation valuing "accessibility", "inclusivity", "sustainability" and rights rather than duties. A country of shopaholic, drunken, TV-eyed excess, signifying not very much at all. Depressing? Yes, and this is the indolent world we are in danger of creating, while governments, quangos and worthy professional bodies bang on about shaping "sustainable communities", their idea for the New Urbanism of the future. But this glum, dystopian world is already with us. It has been, in one form or another, since the 1920s: only its rate of expansion and the places it is colonising are changing. Along the once silver-fringed and bird-haunted marshes of Thamesside Essex are new estates of witless housing, which have been approved - as blustering signposts at Barking Reach boast - by Whitehall. They are so dismal, strung out under high-voltage electricity cables, scented by sewer works and scored by roaring dual-carriageways, that anyone with a choice - something we are all meant to be endowed with in New Britain - would surely opt for a caravan, a tree-house or a lean-to. How can the country - how can London, which once boasted some of the best respected low-cost and middle-class housing in the world - have stooped so very low? Architectural students from around the world now come to gawp at and video the staggeringly inept new world we are creating with which to punish our citizens. By 2020, those who have not been imprisoned for increasingly petty offences to satisfy the baying of moral cretins will, increasingly, live in jails of their own buying, if not making. Or will they? Is there a chance that we might yet use our architectural and design talent, latent though it might be, to shape a very different Britain? Could our housing enjoy a renaissance between now and 2020? Cynics and fatalists will shrug their shoulders and argue that what will be will be: London and the south-east will metamorphose into one amorphous economic hothouse, one big dormitory suburb, a snook to cock at continental Europeans with their elitist, un-American obsession with compact, cultured cities. Sod them for a game of urban warriors. The towns and cities north of the Humber-Severn divide, these cynics argue, will shed their residents like a moulting dog, leaving their centres top-heavy with "iconic" City of Culture-style architectural follies, heaving nightclubs, drunken ravers, ailing PFI hospitals and graffiti-sprayed public art in pedestrian precincts. Thankfully, there are alternatives, and we are not too late to build them. Housing does not need to be so vapidly dull, nor so very cynical. If we are honest with ourselves, we might learn to admit that neither suburban sprawl nor stock suburban housing is for all of us. Planning authorities, housebuilders and architects should be able to respond more fluidly, and fluently, to people's dreams. Admittedly, by 2020 we are unlikely to be able to buy the sort of houses evoked in JG Ballard's Vermilion Sands - the very structures of which mutate according to the emotions of those who live, or once lived in them - but we might be able to buy, and even build for ourselves, homes that have more meaning and life than mass-produced, brick-dressed breezeblock boxes. To enable that to happen, planners and those who draw up the planning laws need to think hard, and laterally. If we are going to house people on floodplains, as we are doing in the Thames Gateway, we might offer them houses on stilts, or boat houses - or just boats. The house types already under construction in the area are the architectural equivalent of King Canute ordering back the waves, except Canute did it to prove that even a king had no power over the gods of nature. Contemporary housebuilders appear to believe they have gone one better. High waters, though, will come to the Thames Gateway as surely as they did over Canute's knees, and to ancient Mesopotamia, as recounted in Genesis. Noah built his ark, and survived the flood. We would be wise to follow the mythical example of Noah and assume the waters will come. Or we might choose to build houses that soar above future floodwaters and that, instead of gobbling up land, use as little of it as possible. On pages 16 and 17 we show the ideas for Skyhouse by Marks Barfield, architects of the London Eye. Skyhouse, as Marks Barfield is keen to stress, is not a proposal for a new generation of tower blocks, structures now largely discredited. It is, rather, a kind of giant artificial stem off which grow flats, houses, shops, health clubs and gardens. Powered by recyclable solar and wind energy sources, Skyhouses could provide clusters of ultra-modern homes, offering peerless views without destroying the land from which they rise. They would, in all likelihood, be popular with the young, those without dogs and children, and those happily retired from the Ricky Gervais-style office, customer service facility and chain store world below them. Equally, we might want to build new land, reclaimed from the water, as the Dutch have done with their polder for generations. Or we could build lightweight cabins, or the equivalent of Mr and Mrs Peggotty's boat, on soil unsuitable for conventional homes. We could add cabins along old lanes, flanked by allotments, instead of thumping down executive estates and their dream-shattering houses. But there is a tremendously strong vein of snobbery running through planning departments the length and breadth of Britain. Conventional housing schemes designed in garish, pseudo-vernacular styles - meaning they look the same wherever you go - are given the go-ahead pretty much willy nilly, because they look like the proper homes depicted in children's drawings, even if they undermine the character of the villages they desecrate and make a mockery of centuries of local architectural styles, and run counter to an area's building character and materials. Yet when people try to build truly local homes that would blend in to their surroundings, or add to the character of a locale, they are usually told by their local planning departments that they cannot do so. But think of the startling places of Britain, and consider for a moment the fact that their attraction is owed to what sets them apart from a thousand other places. Then think of how their characters could be destroyed in weeks. Imagine, for example, if Dungeness in the far south-east corner of Kent was to be rebuilt with contemporary, pseudo-vernacular developers' housing. No more black-tarred fishermen's cottages. No more railway-carriage homes. There would be no particular reason to live here. It would be just like anywhere else. It is an irony that Dungeness, a very special place, has been saved by a product of the modern world less attractive to most than even the boxiest of starter homes. It has avoided the fate of much of the rest of Romney Marsh, which once seemed safe from crass housing developments, not so much by its remote, end-of-the-world location on a shingle beach looking across a rough stretch of sea, but because there is a nuclear power station there. Most people want cheap(ish) electricity on demand, but few want to face up to the reality of the nuclear power that helps to provide it. Just a few miles from Dungeness is St Mary-in-the-Marsh; the ancient parish church celebrated by artists for centuries is now faced by a singularly unsuitable row of pseudo-vernacular-style executive houses. That is a dumb piece of building work, but it has been replicated throughout the country. The character of charming old villages throughout Oxfordshire - a county of home workers sitting behind computer screens, SUV in the yard - is being undermined as fast as I can type this by mind- numbingly banal new housing. This same housing can be seen from the windows of any number of garishly painted, privatised trains. Swindon, for example, once the proud home of the Great Western Railways locomotive works, is swamped with the stuff, wilfully badly planned and designed to numb brains. Ely, all of a sudden, is even worse. Didcot, a disaster. This new, ever-extending subtopia is not a patch on Bekonscot Model Village in Beaconsfield, Buckinghamshire. Bekonscot was built in 1929 as an idyllic vision of a contemporary Britain. But it was a dream even then: three-quarters of a century ago, critics were aiming the same criticism at crass new housing developments as we hear today. There were solutions then, as there are now, but clearly the idea of extending the sub-Metroland style of housing and living throughout the country has been, and may yet remain, unstoppable. There is no reason to doubt that in 2020 we will still be building this kind of poorly planned, pokey, two-fingers-up-at-local-character housing, and it will still be marketed in the property pages as some sort of domestic dream. Over the past decade we have seen a rise in the number of new "apartments" and "lofts", converted from old warehouses, in revitalised city centres, but these are only a small part of the housing market and they will remain so, as will some of the fascinating and even romantic designs by many architects trying to inject fresh ideas into housing. We could, of course, build more on what are known as brownfield sites on former industrial land, especially in any number of the all but forgotten corners of London and its inner suburbs. Why build on virgin land when we have great patches of the London borough of Brent, for example, to build on? And many other inner suburbs in need of upgrading and general redevelopment. The reason we rape so many virgin sites with crude housing is that there is still cheap land to buy. It is much easier, and more profitable, to build cheap, conventional houses for sale on greenfield sites rather than to clear redundant city sites and design intelligent architecture. It is certainly easier to sell those houses than to convince buyers they need not be sceptical about an elegant flat, perhaps with a balcony and a roof garden, or maybe looking over a courtyard or a town square garden. Instead the shoddy little house is sold as a dream, yet it is nothing of the sort, out in the wind-scythed Thames Gateway, where public transport will never be as good or as well connected as it is further into central London. Beyond the question of cheap virgin land versus more expensive used land, we need to think about what our inner suburbs might be like in 2020 if current trends prevail. To ensure they are truly attractive places to build and live, we need to make sure they retain some of their essential and distinctive services - post offices, family-owned shops, libraries, street markets, swimming pools. All those things, however, are in danger of being swept away by dull-minded corporations, which appear to despise the very people they are meant to serve (as in the case of the Post Office), or else by the chain stores pressing hard on the frontiers of even the most special of our old inner suburbs. Who would want to work so very hard and save enough money to buy a home in an area meant to be special, but which ends up - certainly by 2020 - almost 100% free of independent shops and cafes and pretty much 100% full of boring chain stores? The trouble is that there is no grown-up - much less joined-up - thinking in local or national government, much less in planning offices, to prevent the destruction of the distinctive nature of our high streets and suburban centres. Policy in general is aimed at undermining local character, and small family businesses; it encourages powerful national and global business interests better able to pay high taxes. Property is simply too expensive for anyone's long-term good or happiness in Britain. That is unlikely to change by 2020. And yet there is so much talk of "urban regeneration", of government quangos working with the best architects, with a desire, however superficial, to raise the standards of housing design and improve the ways we live. That, though, is so much hot air, because the economy does not need to follow such high-flown ideas to keep functioning. It needs only to perform its task at the most prosaic level. By 2020, then, more and more people will live in execrably dull new homes, in increasingly characterless extended suburbs lined with chain stores. Such homes will be described by ministers of parties right and right (there will be no "left" or even "centre" by then) as "cutting-edge designs" in "sustainable communities". They will claim to have "delivered" (ministers, it seems, would care to be regarded like the milkmen of yore) the half-million new homes, or whatever the figure will be by then, that the south-east of England so badly needs, while palming off northerners with some cultural festivals, more nightclubs, fancy department stores and bread-and-circus architecture. But, what if ... what if we revolted against this trash, this "delivery" hype, this wilful blandness, and went for what, in our hearts, and even in our minds' eyes, we might be really happy with, and delighted by? Houses with local character, whether cobbled together from rags and patches or the very latest in leading-edge design. Suburbs revitalised, and given form, with new homes built around squares, along canals, with communal as well as private gardens, shot through with covered markets, street markets, libraries (instead of dumbed-down Idea Stores), served by intelligent public transport services run, not by some bullying, punitive, power-hungry mayor, but by a new, forward-looking public corporation with the aim of providing the very best to ordinary people. On the skyline, there may well be some of Marks Barfield's elegant Skyhouses. Down on the Romney Marshes, or in the byways of Cambridgeshire, there will be cabins - some clapboard, some made of ultra-modern materials - tucked in between hollyhocked hedgerows, choired by songbirds, replacing crass pseudo-vernacular housing estates. Ely and Swindon, Didcot and Doncaster will gang together to demolish trash cul-de-sac housing, and rediscover both their local identities and their place in the world in the third decade of the 21st century. In towns, new housing, whether truly traditional or super-new, will be squeezed into any number of unlikely sites, so people can live cheek-by-jowl with their history as well in the present, while looking to the future. The Thames Gateway will be given back to marshes and fowls, with those who truly choose to live here investing in houses on stilts and houseboats. Independent shops and cafes will be encouraged by planning and local taxation laws; chains will be curbed in their ambition to turn us into a nation of all-consuming dullards. We will learn to stop "delivering housing" and to design decent homes and rewarding places to live. In 2020. Maybe. Jonathan Glancey is the Guardian's architecture critic --------------- Family fortunes http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5021062-114398,00.html The conventional nuclear family is already a thing of the past: the challenge for 2020 is dealing with the results of its disappearance. By Madeleine Bunting Saturday September 25, 2004 The Guardian The past 30 years has been a generation of dramatic change in the shape of family life. That pace will not be continued in the next 20. The next two decades will be a period in which already well-established trends are consolidated. That is the consensus among researchers. And all are agreed that by 2020 it will be very hard to talk of a "typical family", such will be the variety of shapes and types of families. The most marked characteristic of families since the 1960s has been that the traditional conception of the British family has disintegrated. The married couple with 2.4 children is disappearing. The sequence of life events - marriage, sex and children - has been radically reordered. Marriage rarely comes first and increasingly does not happen at all. Over the past 30 years, levels of cohabitation have trebled, the number of babies born outside marriage has quintupled, and the number of single-parent families has trebled. The most dramatic change, however, has been to the "happy ever after" bit in the picture of family life. In the past 30 years, the rate of divorce has doubled; and half of all children now experience their parents' divorce before they are 16. All four trends - cohabitation, divorce, births outside marriage and single parents - are likely to be even more pronounced by 2020. There is no evidence that any of them are easing. Much has been made of the fact that the divorce rate appears to have reached a plateau - Britain has the highest divorce rate in Europe - but it is still rising in first marriages. Cohabitation arrangements are even more likely to break down than marriages. So what will be accepted as a general rule of family life in 2020 will be the brittle nature of the core relationship between the parents. "There have been 20 years of dramatic change and the diversity of family structures is much greater. The proportion of single-parent families will probably continue to bob around 20%, but there will probably be more stepfamilies in the future," says David Utting of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, who is also one of the authors of The Handbook of Parenting. While the underlying trends reshaping families will not change, our attitudes to those trends will. The recent period of revolutionary upheaval will bed down into social acceptability. The stigma that used to surround divorce and illegitimacy will be a subject only for the history books. Gay and lesbian partnerships, with rights enshrined in law, will no longer prompt comment. Family life will have adjusted to a pattern of serial monogamy, with a much larger number of stepfamilies. Lone parenthood will be a common phenomenon, but not necessarily a long-lasting one: on average, single parenthood lasts five years now, but that could drop lower by 2020 as the "churn rate" of relationship breakdown increases. The diversity of family forms will be striking by 2020. Children living with both their biological parents in the same household will be in the minority. There will be dozens of different types of co-parenting arrangements, with combinations of stepfamilies, or adults with children from previous relationships entering long-term relationships with others in the same position but choosing not to live together. >From the vantage point of 2020, there will be some amusement at the heated debates this scenario inspired at the turn of the century. Talk of family breakdown will cause wry smiles as people attribute the kind of moral panic seen in the late 20th century to a particular kind of centennial angst. At least, that is the view of Christina Hardyment, author of The Future of the Family. She argues that the overriding picture is not so much one of family breakdown as of a radical restructuring that allows for just as much emotional commitment as ever. "There is an alternative view to the doom-laden prophesy that families are falling apart," says Hardyment. "In fact, the future of the family is stronger than ever - all the research shows that families are hugely valued and will continue to be." That is borne out by successive British Social Attitude Surveys, which show clearly that while family members live further apart, they turn to each other when important life events take place. Hardyment points to the fact that families are still responsible for the bulk of socialising in British life and that family members talking to each other account for a large proportion of telephone usage. For Hardyment, the most important factor is that "the relationship between adults is chosen rather than one of economic necessity. That's a tremendous change in the basis of the relationship." One of the most dramatic social changes of the past 30 years has been in women's patterns of employment. In the UK the proportion of women in full-time employment has trebled in the past 30 years and maternal employment has leapt from 57% to 65% during the 1990s. With their new economic power, women are able to negotiate more equal relationships - already one in five women earn more than their partners. That proportion is likely to increase over the next decades as a generation of high-achieving schoolgirls arrives in the labour market. Women now make up more than half the intake of traditional professions such as law and medicine. The norm in families now is for one male full-time worker and one female part-time. By 2020, more women will be the primary breadwinner, though that shift will be restricted by the fact that while earning power is being redistributed within the heterosexual couple, caring responsibilities have proved more resistant to change. A disproportionate amount of housework and childcare is still done by women. This renegotiation of the economics of the couple is what the social theorist Anthony Giddens celebrated as the "pure relationship" in his Reith Lectures of 1999. He heralded a new era for the family as the old structures of patriarchy, duty and deference crumble to give way to a more democratic model between partners, and between parents and their children. Giddens argued that "individualisation" - how people define their identity - shapes family experiences, as people choose to develop only those relationships that promise them emotional integrity. Fiona Williams has led the Care, Values and the Future of Welfare research project at Leeds University for five years. She argues that Giddens' thinking has overstated the extent to which people are atomistic individuals who seek fulfilment in personal relationships. "There may be seriality in sexual relationships, but that doesn't lead to fragmentation of the family," she says. "People will have different experiences over their lifetimes - of marriage, of cohabitation, of single parenthood - but in many of them they are negotiating complex and deeply held commitments." In fact, the major characteristic of the 21st-century family is that the relationship between parents and children has been charged with a much greater intensity, commitment and pleasure. "Parenting has gained in political, economic and emotional significance," says Williams. "Parents and children have more emotional investment in each other. The issue is the quality of the relationship, not just its functionality. Children and their parents talk of each other as friends whom they can talk to - now, fathers want as much of that quality of relationship as mothers have. The relationship between parents and children has got stronger." What goes along with the greater emotional investment is a longer financial dependency. Children used to be off their parents' hands by 18, but the combination of student loans, university fees and rising property prices has already reversed that, and the trend is likely to continue. Parenthood is well on its way to becoming a minimum 25-year deal. The way generations in the family are connected by vertical links is sometimes characterised as the "beanpole family" - long and thin. As family sizes shrink, the number of siblings and cousins will dwindle while the intergenerational relationships become more intense. That beanpole family will present the state with some particular challenges in the 2020s, adds Williams. The strength of the parent-child relationship might mean that today's children will expect a lot of support from the state to care for their aged parents. Meanwhile, grandparents will want to help with the care of their grandchildren but will have to carry on working to fund their pensions. Many researchers believe the past 30 years have seen not so much the breakdown of the family as its reinvention. The baby-boomers adapted family structures in line with their aspirations to autonomy, self-definition and emotional integrity. Over the course of a generation, they have taken the family unit apart rather as a car mechanic might an engine. The great shibboleths of western family life have been dismantled: sex and marriage used to be interlinked - as did marriage and children, as did heterosexuality and marriage. Those links have been broken and people can assemble the bits as they wish: the worth accorded to individual autonomy has hugely increased and will continue to grow. Despite the moral panic generated by these shifts, one aspect of the reinvented family that has been less controversial - in relative terms - has been the delinking of genetic material and parenthood. Donated semen to help couples in which the man is infertile has been used since the 1960s, and donated eggs are a common part of infertility treatment. Test-tube babies and surrogate mothers are no longer a novelty. What has been firmly established is that parenthood does not always entail direct genetic inheritance; the bonding and strength of relationship is not determined by common genetic material. But the strong resistance in British public opinion to some developments of reproductive technologies - such as cloning and choosing a baby's characteristics, the creation of so-called designer babies - shows no sign of abating. By 2020, the techniques to develop a cloned embryo will almost certainly exist (the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority has already given a centre in Newcastle the go-ahead to begin research) and will probably be practised elsewhere in the world. It will be almost impossible for the government to prevent people becoming fertility tourists, travelling to find the treatment they want. But it is a moot point as to whether public opinion will have shifted to allow parents these choices in their own country. The baby-boomers' reinvention of family has ensured that increasingly there will be no collective narrative about how intimate relationships should be structured and the order in which major life events should unfold. Adulthood will not carry with it expectations of achieving certain relationship milestones, such as getting married or becoming a parent. But while the options for personal freedom will have been enormously enlarged, that will bring with it a degree of confusion and disorientation, because individuals' wishes are sure, in many cases, to conflict: to have children or not; to marry or not; to stick together or separate. Without norms, some individuals will happily negotiate their way through the choices, but others will find it more difficult. Despite the rising tolerance of relationship breakdown and divorce, there is still a tremendous attachment to the ideal of a stable, lifelong commitment, points out Mary MacLeod, chief executive of the National Family and Parenting Institute. The vast majority of people tell surveys they want to spend their life with one other person. Children, in particular, are very attached to living in a household with both their mother and father. MacCleod acknowledges it is "troubling" that, in effect, children's expectations of family life are not, and increasingly will not be, met. There is some evidence we are getting better at divorcing - there is still a long way to go - but there is no getting away from the fact that the serial monogamy of the future will be disruptive and difficult for children. Research has already shown that children of divorced parents have, on average, a lower rate of educational achievement and higher incidence of mental health problems in adulthood. There will be increasing pressure on couples to achieve a "good divorce" for the sake of their children. The increased freedom of the reinvented family has also brought a doubling in single-person households and a sharp rise in the proportion of childless women. In part, these developments are attributable to increased choice but, in part, it is the cost that is paid for choice. In a significant minority of people's lives by 2020, family will not play a major role and friendship will be much more important in these people's emotional lives. Those friendships may often entail strong commitment to mutual support so friends can help each other through life crises. For many in 2020, "significant others" will be as likely to refer to a few close friends as a husband or mother. But the attenuated family structures will leave some vulnerable. Loneliness and depression will be more common, and some groups, such as the elderly, will be particularly vulnerable. As geographical mobility continues to spread families over greater distances and the smaller family size increases the dependency of the elderly on their one or two children, loneliness in the final decades of our longer lives will be a huge issue. Given that women live longer than men, they will be disproportionately affected; by 2020 we will be discussing the feminisation of loneliness and searching for strategies to develop greater peer sociability to compensate. The ageing of the British population by 2020 will be a major political and social issue - the number of people over pensionable age will increase from 10.9 million now to 13.2million in 2026. But the workers of 2020 will be bracing themselves for an even older age profile when they retire, because we are expected to reach the peak of 15 million pensioners in 2040. We know we will work for longer and live for longer. But the big unknown is how the medical treatment and care we need in our old age will be financed. Utting points to research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation that indicates that by 2020 the funding implications for care will be acute. Will taxes have to rise to pay for the number of heart operations needed for octogenarians? These will be the dilemmas for the electorate in the 2020s. Alongside financing the huge costs of medical treatment will be the enormous challenge of funding the much more prosaic matter of caring for the frail elderly - dressing them, cooking their meals, doing their housework and helping them to wash. By 2020, we will be in the middle of the debate on the care deficit. This could be the single most difficult issue facing the family in the 21st century. Historically, women were responsible for care within the family. They raised the children and cared for the elderly according to the traditional, early-20th-century model. But the transfer of their labour from the family to the paid economy has opened up a care deficit. That is one part of family life the baby-boomers singularly failed to reinvent. Women are still expected to take on the bulk of the care responsibilities within the family and some research indicates that men (particularly those in professional jobs) are now doing fewer household chores and less childcare than they did 20 years ago. What is fuelling the care deficit is the growing pressure of long hours at work. The number of long-hour workers in the UK has doubled in the past five years to 26% of the workforce. At the moment, the centre of the debate over the care deficit is how to care for children, which is likely to be a major issue at the next general election as demand grows on the state to step in and help families with this part of the care deficit. As birth rates decline dramatically in countries such as Spain and Italy, the European Union will add to the domestic pressure in the UK for the government to adopt family-friendly policies, including state childcare provision and greater encouragement for flexible working. By 2020, it is possible that the childcare question will have been solved - there will be enough provision and the state will ensure it's affordable - but another part of the care deficit, the care of the elderly and chronically ill, will be provoking much greater concern. On every aspect of the care deficit over the coming decades, people will turn to technology for help. Japan, which has the highest proportion of those over 60 in the world, has already pioneered the kind of remote, web-based technology that can administer health checks such as taking a pulse rate and measuring blood pressure. There will be moves to further extend the role of technology in providing care. Webcams might by 2020 be playing the role the telephone did in the 20th century, a vital communication link for families who might live hundreds of miles apart. Already some nurseries are linked up to their parents' office by webcam so they can see their children at play. More and more communication within the family is likely to be mediated by technology - the internet, email or the mobile phone. Already, technology has facilitated the family life of people who have migrated from their home country. For example, a South African nurse working in the UK can now be involved in daily decisions about the upbringing of her children and care of her parents. Involvement in family life no longer requires geographical proximity. Technology will alleviate some of the loneliness arising from the care deficit, but it can offer few solution to the basics of sustaining a person's daily life. There have been suggestions that robots could be programmed to respond to a baby's crying and that they could play a role in the care of tiny babies. But there will be strong cultural reservations about such an idea, reinforced by the emerging research on the importance of affection towards babies in the development of their brains in the first year, so it is hard to see robot nannies being a major feature of family life. The big problem in 2020 will be to find the workforce to meet the care needs of families. It is predicted that by 2020 the US will absorb the entire global workforce of nurses, such will be the demand of its ageing population for medical care. It will be able to offer high enough wages to poach them from all over the world. The declining birth rate in many European countries - Britain's has been declining also but at a slower rate - will post the acute problem of finding enough people to care for their ageing populations. Perhaps governments will finally have to tackle the chronic low pay and low status of care work to recruit sufficient numbers. Or perhaps they will adopt the short-term solution of importing care, allowing women migrant workers on short-term contracts to staff our nurseries, old people's homes and hospitals. We do not yet know. But whatever course policymakers choose, they - and we - face some tough challenges. Madeleine Bunting is a Guardian columnist and the author of Willing Slaves: How the Overwork Culture is Ruling Our Lives (HarperCollins, ?12.99) From HowlBloom at aol.com Thu Sep 30 05:58:04 2004 From: HowlBloom at aol.com (HowlBloom at aol.com) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 01:58:04 EDT Subject: [Paleopsych] the roots of Omnology Message-ID: <7e.5a2dce1f.2e8cfa6c@aol.com> Back in 2001, I wrote a manifesto for a new discipline, ?Omnology,? a field for those with a gaggle of curiosities and with the potential to use their multiple intellectual and artistic hungers to provide unusual perspectives to the scientific community. At least two major figures tried to establish their own forms of omnology in the 19th Century. One was Herbert Spencer, who devoted his life to the creation of a Grand Synthesis that encompassed all the sciences. The other was William Whewell, who took on every science that his mind and curiosity could comprehend, then demonstrated his ?omnicompetence? by showing his own insight into each field AND by exploring the big-picture linkage between the narrowly specializing disciplines. Whewell was called a ``metascientist'' by historian Richard Yeo and ?universal scientist? by the author of the piece below, sent to me by David Berreby. Would the term ?omnologist? have allowed Whewell and Spencer to lay a path for synthesis as a necessary function of science and for the synthesist as a key contributor?s to science?s digestive process? Perhaps. But without a term other than ?polymath? to describe what the Spencer and Whewell attempted, others with a broad range of curiosities were left to flounder for the next century and a half. But it?s the synthesists who often see the set of questions?and answers? over the next horizon. Darwin, Freud, Einstein, Mandelbrot, and even Newton were wildly unconventional synthesists, linking elements they found in the nooks and crannies of many obscure?and not so obscure?specialties. If omnology can be established as a legitimate discipline, my hope is that kids with promiscuous creativity will be told that their multiple enthusiasms are their gifts, not their liabilities. My hope is that those who have a taste for big-picture syntheses will be added to the community of legitimate scientists, given their own dignity, given their own budgets, given their own made-to-order, cross-disciplinary degree programs and will be recognized for their contributions. What follows is the material David Berreby sent on Whewell and a copy of The Omnologist Manifesto. Howard ?Omnology???an academic base for the promiscuously curious, a discipline that concentrates on seeing the patterns that emerge when one views all the sciences and the arts at once.? The Omnologist Manifesto We are blessed with a richness of specializations, but cursed with a paucity of panoptic disciplines?categories of knowledge that concentrate on seeing the pattern that emerges when one views all the sciences at once. Hence we need a field dedicated to the panoramic, an academic base for the promiscuously curious, a discipline whose mandate is best summed up in a paraphrase of the poet Andrew Marvel: ?Let us roll all our strength and all Our knowledge up into one ball, And tear our visions with rough strife Thorough the iron gates of life. ? Omnology is a science, but one dedicated to the biggest picture conceivable by the minds of its practitioners. Omnology will use every conceptual tool available?and some not yet invented but inventible?to leapfrog over disciplinary barriers, stitching together the patchwork quilt of science and all the rest that humans can yet know. If one omnologist is able to perceive the relationship between pop songs, ancient Egyptian graffiti, Shirley MacLaine?s mysticism, neurobiology, and the origins of the cosmos, so be it. If another uses mathematics to probe traffic patterns, the behavior of insect colonies, and the manner in which galaxies cluster in swarms, wonderful. And if another uses introspection to uncover hidden passions and relate them to research in chemistry, anthropology, psychology, history, and the arts, she, too, has a treasured place on the wild frontiers of scientific truth?the terra incognita in the heartland of omnology. Let me close with the words of yet another poet, William Blake, on the ultim ate goal of omnology: To see a World in a Grain of Sand And a Heaven in a Wild Flower, Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand And Eternity in an hour. Copyright 2001 Howard Bloom ---------------- William Whewell 1794?-1866 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ William Whewell was born in Lancaster on 24 May 1794 and died in Cambridge on 6 March 1866. He was the eldest of four surviving children born to John and Elizabeth Whewell. Whewell was a teenager when his mother died in 1807. After grammar school at Heversham in Westmorland, Whewell entered Trinity College, Cambridge and graduated second Wrangler. His father was a carpenter, and Whewell only attended Cambridge thanks to a scholarship for the underprivileged. With his father?s death in 1816, Whewell was without family support. The rest of his career depended solely on his own talents. He became a Fellow at Trinity in 1817, taking his MA in 1819 and eventually becoming Master in 1841, a position Whewell held for twenty-five years. Tragically, Whewell outlived two wives, losing Cordelia Marshall in 1855 and Everina Frances Lady Affleck in 1865. Neither marriage produced any children. His reputation is twofold: as a philosopher and a historian of science. His intellectual output was enormous, consisting of over twenty major books and numerous articles on the history and philosophy of science. Whewell is not primarily remembered as a scientific innovator or researcher. As early as the mid 1830s he described himself as an observer and philosopher of science, while deprecating his own research efforts. This did not mean that he had contributed nothing. In 1819 he published An Elementary Treatise on Mechanics, which was the first differential calculus text in English consistently to use the more algebraic Continental symbolism. It became the standard undergraduate text at Cambridge, thus supplanting Newton?s symbolizations at his own university. A Treatise on Dynamics, published in 1823, brought Continental analytic methods into British science. Exhibiting an interest in mineralogy, Whewell did the equivalent of postdoctoral work on crystallography, travelling to Berlin, Freiburg and Vienna in 1825. Between 1826 and 1828 he worked with astronomer George Biddell Airy on methods for determining the mean density of the earth. The experiments necessitated taking data at the bottom of a 1,200-foot Cornwall mineshaft, and thus rather rigorous fieldwork. Lastly, Whewell produced a survey of global tidal patterns, for which he was heavily reliant on reported observations rather than his own work. He created no particular theory of tidal action. In his day Whewell held a commanding position in British science. In part, this prominence depended upon his position at Cambridge. When he first accepted a fellowship at Trinity College, it represented a tremendous achievement, the first of a series. After being ordained an Anglican priest in 1825, Whewell accepted the Professorship of Mineralogy, though thanks to political disputes about the election, he could not assume the post until 1828. He became Professor of Moral Philosophy in 1838, and three years later was appointed to the mastership of Trinity College. His Elementary Treatise on Mechanics gained him entry into the Royal Society in 1820; his research with Adam Sedgwick and Airy earned him an invitation to the Geological Society in 1827. Eventually he served as its President. Whewell aspired to be a universal scientist. An accomplished mathematician, he also studied mineralogy, ocean tides and geology, and reviewed scientific papers and texts from a wide range of fields. While the possibility of a single person possessing a universal scientific knowledge had diminished considerably since the latter eighteenth century, the role was still a plausible one in the 1830s. Whewell was one of the last figures in British science to attempt such a comprehensive competence . Though secure in an academic career by the early 1830s, Whewell sought to command an omnicompetent public scientific authority. He concentrated on book review writing, especially between 1831 and 1834. He usually published in conservative journals such as the Tory Quarterly Review and the High Church British Critic. These reviews typically diverged from the subject at hand, a tactic expected because of the nature of the genre and its target audience: an educated but non-specialist conservative elite. In early 1831 Whewell published a lengthy review article, Science and the English Universities?, in the British Critic. Ostensibly reviewing the Transactions of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, Whewell tackled the broader issue of the state of English science. A critical article in the Edinburgh Review had accused the English university system of falling behind Continental scientific inquiry. Whewell?s lengthy defence cited the growth of experimental studies, the increasing number of scientific fields, and the importance of balancing pure research with the educational mission. These arguments were taken up as the general defence of the English universities against reform-minded critics. The article thus propelled Whewell into a respected position as a pundit of science and higher education. Another 1831 review, this time appearing in the Quarterly, established him as an important voice in the philosophy of science. The subject was John Herschel?s A Preliminary Discourse on the Study of Natural Philosophy ? a comprehensive, popular survey of the history of scientific progress and the development of scientific method. Though lauding Herschel?s book, Whewell did not hesitate to challenge the pre-eminent Herschel. First, he differed with him regarding the hierarchy of sciences ? how to classify them by specific methods and how to rank them in importance. Second, he treated Herschel?s work as somewhat incomplete, and used the review to elaborate his own views and tout his own credentials as a critic and theorist of science. Herschel?s work represented one of the first British attempts to survey the state of scientific knowledge and provide a detailed account of the scientific method that had been responsible for the accumulation of such knowledge. In part, Whewell had praised it because he saw Herschel fulfilling a serious need in educating the British public about the nature of scientific inquiry, especially crucial due to growing concerns about British science and Oxbridge Falling behind? the Continent. But in another way, Whewell wanted to surpass Herschel by portraying himself as what historian Richard Yeo calls a ?metascientist? ? one whose role is synthesis, commentary and education rather than research (Yeo, Defining Science, pp. 50?52). Specifically, Whewell set out to build a comprehensive theory of scientific method based upon his analysis of what Inductive method? really was. He also began a legacy which, unlike his inductive theory, lives on today: his creation of new vocabulary for science ? Nebular hypothesis?, ?ion?, ?cathode?, ?anode?, ?catastrophist?, ?uniformitarian? and ?scientist? are all credited to Whewell. In addition to reviewing the work of others, Whewell bolstered his ? metascientist? credentials and propounded his theory of induction by authoring three major monographs of science theory. The first of these, a tremendous success reaching a large popular science audience, was his contribution to the Bridgewater Treatises. In 1829 the estate of the late Earl of Bridgewater had granted ?8,000 to the Royal Society to sponsor a grand project of synthesizing Christian theology with contemporary science, to show, as the earl had stated in his will, The goodness of God as manifested in the Creation?. Ultimately, the grant was divided into eight parts, with ?1,000 allotted to each author. The results, published between 1833 and 1840, became known as the Bridgewater Treatises. Whewell contributed Astronomy and General Physics Considered with Reference to Natural Theology (1833), a classic example of the design argument that ran through seven editions and was continuously in print through the mid 1860s. Whewell argued that precisely because the universe operated according to regular and identifiable law-like processes, the order and the whole of creation indicated an active and beneficent Designer. Far from eliminating God, the rationality and regularity of the universe demonstrated God?s great mind and the overall magnificence of creation. While this argument lay at the heart of the treatise, it was not Whewell?s most important contribution. Critics and supporters alike noticed rather his arguments about the moral and ethical implications of deductive versus inductive methods in scientific thought. As will become clear below, Whewell believed that this logical division in scientific method actually entailed competing epistemological and therefore ethical systems. First, however, it is necessary to see what Whewell meant by ?true? inductive method. Whewell attempted to recast ?induction? as more than the simple enumeration of instances of evidences. Believing Francis Bacon a model ?inductivist?, Whewell thought that Bacon?s detractors had unfairly maligned him as a mere data collector. Whewell contended this prevailing popular interpretation of Bacon?s legacy was far too impoverished to account for the success of science. Whewell reintroduced the view that induction involved a mental operation linking a number of empirical facts through the addition of a concept that unites them under a general principle. Facts became scientific knowledge when a scientist reinterpreted them under a new conception to demonstrate the True bond of Unity by which the phenomena are held together? (Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences, 1847, vol. 2, p. 46). Whewell called this process ?colligation? and held that any proper understanding of science must account for the introduction of new colligating, the real engines of adducing natural patterns. Whewell?s famous example was Johannes Kepler?s discovery of elliptical planetary orbits. Kepler, who was steeped in mathematics and geometry, was able to analyse the known empirical data points of the orbit of Mars to infer its elliptical orbit. Afterwards, Kepler generalized this finding to posit elliptical orbits for all the planets. Whewell noted that even though the individual observations of planetary positions were well known to Tycho Brahe, the major advance in understanding came when Kepler added the geometric concept of the ellipse. For Whewell, the choice of the colligating idea did not result from guesses but rather from an inference, an informed judgement, only made possible by the pre-existing education of the researcher?s mind. Thus, Whewell?s account of induction involved not only the collection of empirical data, but also required an explication of the subsequent imposition of colligating concepts. Whewell understood knowledge as composed of two elements he called Ideas and Perceptions? (On the Philosophy of Discovery, p. 307). In setting out his version of induction, Whewell criticized both the empiricism of John Locke and the idealism of Immanuel Kant, each for being too narrow. He criticized Locke, and subsequently John Stuart Mill, for placing too much emphasis on empirical observation in knowledge gathering without offering a satisfactory account of the active role of the mind. Drawing on German idealism, Whewell contended that the fundamental ideas of Resemblance, Space, Cause and Time provided structure to experience. Whewell agreed with Kant that the fundamental ideas are not given by experience, but rather that they result from the very constitution of our minds. In contrast with Kant, Whewell did not provide an exhaustive list of fundamental ideas and he included among them ideas that allow for the colligation of scientific observations under a general principle. In fact, he thought that new fundamental ideas would emerge from the development of new sciences. In his most striking departure from Kantian idealism, Whewell denied that the fundamental ideas are subjective and claimed that they specify objective features of the world. He contended that once we explicate the fundamental ideas, it is possible to derive from them all necessary truths. Further, he maintained that we must undertake empirical science in order to explicate initially the fundamental ideas. He claimed that science used empirical demonstrations to elucidate fundamental ideas; yet once explicated, the idea would then appear knowable independent of experience. Whewell?s epistemology, with its accompanying interpretation of induction, rejected the traditional distinction between laws of nature and axiomatic knowledge. He opted instead for a ?symbiotic? view of knowledge in which empirical investigations aid in the explication of fundamental ideas that in turn order experiences and provide a basis for claims about necessary truths. For this reason, Whewell contended that debates about scientific method actually boiled down to debates about epistemology, and these included ethics and moral philosophy. In his Bridgewater Treatise Whewell had considered both the strengths and weaknesses of natural theology. At issue was whether or not a career in science destroyed the faith of scientists. Following a long tradition, Herschel had once argued that exposure to the wonders of nature would elevate the mind to the Creator. Critics responded that this failed to explain why many important men of science in the previous century had not been inspired by religious faith. Whewell, like Herschel, contended that a deep observational knowledge of the universe intensified one?s sense of the Creator; thus Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler and Newton all evinced an admirable piety intensified by their scientific careers. However, Whewell recognized men of science for whom scientific careers seemed to have led them away from, or to have substituted for, faith. Herschel simply denied that there existed any axiomatic relationship between one?s religiosity and a scientific career. Whewell contended that the most important scientific theorizers had been not observational scientists, but rather what he called ?experimentalists?, who were not in his view great discoverers. Separating science into two processes ? the discovery of laws and the later explanation and practical application of them ? Whewell argued that discovery emphasized inductive thinking of the sort described in his Kepler example. The scientists he called ?experimentalists? concentrated on deductive reasoning: the quest to prove the inductive principle. Whewell distinguished between deduction, which involved inferences from general principles to particular occurrences, and induction, which he described as inferring general principles from particulars. According to Whewell, experimentalists focused their attention on showing how particular phenomena could be accounted for under already known laws and this distanced them from the wonder and awe inherent in discovering order in the universe. The experimentalists took such law as a given for their purposes; thus, they failed to appreciate the wonder of discovering new laws ? a process Whewell credited with reinforcing the scientist?s appreciation of God?s role in the universe. Whewell?s attribution of moral significance to the different forms of reasoning was novel and contentious. Critics did not accept his claim that because the ?deductivists? proceeded from assumed generalities to particulars, their successes might mislead people to value deductive explication over other forms of knowing, such as politics or morals. They rejected both Whewell?s self-imposed definitions and his explication of the scientific method. Whewell shifted the argument about the proper role of science to concern with the proper character and ethos of scientists, their choices of method, and also proper epistemology. This was significant since these issues remained fundamental to debating the role of science and its validity right through Darwin?s publication of the Origin of Species. Some of the most frequent criticisms of Darwin?s work in the years immediately following 1859 were charges of Unwarranted deduction? as exemplified by Adam Sedgwick?s critiques (Hull, p. 160). Additionally, there were aspersions cast upon his character and his work based upon the status of his personal faith. Years earlier, Whewell had succeeded in confirming the notion that who said something in science could, for example, be just as important as what the person said. Though not unchallenged, this assumption remained important in British public scientific debate until the 1860s when Darwinians such as Joseph Hooker and T.H. Huxley effectively undermined this sort of attack. After the debates about Darwin, the force of Whewell?s gambit waned; however, in modern times, it has been revived. The Strong Programme in Sociology of Scientific Knowledge?, as exemplified by Barnes (1982) and Shapin (1982), maintains that questions concerning truth cannot be answered in the abstract, but rather must be reframed as questions about ?Whose truth?? and ?Truth for what purpose(s)?? Late in his career, Whewell devoted himself to the philosophy of science. In this vein he is best known for two monumental works ?History of the Inductive Sciences (1837) and The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences (1840). Viewed as an extended introduction to the Philosophy, the History purported to trace the development of the sciences from ancient Greece to Whewell?s time. The most innovative part was an attempt to ?schematicize? the course of scientific development. Whewell argued that the history of science followed a recognizable pattern with periods of generalization, inductive epochs with preludes and sequels, and stationary periods. Generalization described periods wherein thinkers began to articulate general scientific laws. These moments were the ?great moments? of intellectual history. Some generalizations were particularly fruitful because of an explosion of ?inductive process?, meaning a very active period of data gathering, perfecting of method, clear expression of ideas all leading to a great generalization. Stationary periods were those when the inductive process was slowest and science seemed to concentrate on deductive explorations of knowledge, trying to derive implied truths from known science. The point of it all, Whewell argued in his Preface, was to found a philosophy of science drawn from actual historical practice rather than from a theory of science. In Whewell?s day the book filled an important niche, running through three editions over twenty years, as well as American reprints into the 1890s. Whewell?s other ?great book? was The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences. The Philosophy had a definite context, as Whewell sought to counter the influence of the work of John Stuart Mill and the utilitarians by securing his own definitions and theories of ? induction? and scientific method, as described earlier. In the Philosophy Whewell made explicit the full implications of his contention that various scientific methods entailed different ethical commitments. As Yeo has pointed out, contemporaries well understood that Whewell was predicating a moral science (Yeo, Defining Science, pp. 236?9). It was aimed at Mill because Whewell rejected utilitarian atheism and moral relativism. By now, Whewell had long argued that Lockean epistemology, citing sense perception as the basis of all knowledge, was a flawed attempt merely to transform morals because it described all knowledge as contingent. On the contrary, Whewell held that morals existed and must be held to exist as the discovery by the mind of innate, pre-existing ideas. Whewell therefore believed that his neo-idealist description of inductivism substantiated this moral philosophy. In the History and the Philosophy Whewell believed he had demonstrated that the actual practice of science validated an anti-empiricist epistemology. Therefore, according to Whewell, Locke was simply wrong, as were his descendants, including Mill and other utilitarians. Even Whewell?s friends were not convinced; Herschel recorded his dissent in his review of the Philosophy in 1841, though he and most of Whewell?s critics agreed that scientific method and the philosophy of morals overlapped (Herschel, pp.177?238). For his part, Mill took the Philosophy as something of a godsend, because as he was producing his Logic it gave him an explicit and detailed idealist argument against which to aim his own barbs. Ultimately, Mill?s view triumphed in his own day; however, both Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn explicate views of induction that are closer to Whewell?s than Mill?s. In the mid 1840s, with the anonymous publication of the Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation, Whewell entered the public debate about evolution. In his pamphlet, ?Indications of the Creator?, he argued against transmutation. He also explicitly denied that science could even broach the question of life origins because as a one-off, contingent event it could not be subjected to scientific method. He repeated similar objections to transmutation through the 1850s and rejected evolution as portrayed in Darwin?s Origin of Species. He had long before argued that species had a real existence and that ?transmutation? did not occur. Perpetuating his idealist themes, he further concluded that there must exist real qualities and properties to which the words used to describe them could refer, or else language would be in fact ultimately meaningless and real thought impossible. No real knowledge could exist if meaning itself were mutable. Thus biological ?types? must exist. Beyond these restatements of his idealist biology, he made no other salient contributions regarding the Origin of Species, though he remained intellectually active in moral philosophy right up to his death. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bibliography An Elementary Treatise on Mechanics (1819). A Treatise on Dynamics Bound with: An introduction to Dynamics, Containing the Laws of Motion and the First Three Sections of the Principia (1823). Astronomy and General Physics Considered with Reference to Natural Theology (Cambridge, 1833). History of the Inductive Sciences, 3 vols (1837; 2nd rev. and continued edn, 1847; 3rd edn, with additions, 1857). The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences, Founded upon their History, 2 vols (1840; 2nd edn, 1847). The Elements of Morality, Including Polity (1845). Lectures on Systematic Morality (1846). ?Indications of the Creator?, The Living Age, vol. 9 (11 April 1846), pp. 57?63. On the Philosophy of Discovery: Chapters Historical and Critical (1856). The History of Scientific Ideas, 2 vols (1858). Novum Organon Renovatum (1858). On the Philosophy of Discovery: Chapters Historical and Critical (1860). Collected Works of William Whewell, ed. Richard Yeo,16 vols (Bristol, 2001). ---------- Howard Bloom Author of The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History and Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The Big Bang to the 21st Century Visiting Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University; Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute www.howardbloom.net www.bigbangtango.net Founder: International Paleopsychology Project; founding board member: Epic of Evolution Society; founding board member, The Darwin Project; founder: The Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New York Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Psychological Society, Academy of Political Science, Human Behavior and Evolution Society, International Society for Human Ethology; advisory board member: Youthactivism.org; executive editor -- New Paradigm book series. For information on The International Paleopsychology Project, see: www.paleopsych.org for two chapters from The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History, see www.howardbloom.net/lucifer For information on Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century, see www.howardbloom.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From checker at panix.com Thu Sep 30 13:40:15 2004 From: checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 09:40:15 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Paleopsych] Re: Guardian Special: The World in 2020 (fwd) In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.2.20040930182354.0597a650@mail.vicnet.net.au> References: <6.0.3.0.2.20040930182354.0597a650@mail.vicnet.net.au> Message-ID: Are you saying the word dystopia is unfamiliar to you? If so, I'm very surprised. The OED (2 ed, 1980) gives the first usage, possibly coinage, to John Stuart Mill in _Hansard Commons_ in 1868. Later quotations are given from 1952, 1962, 1967, and 1968. Bentham coined cacotopia as the imagined seat of the worst government in 1818. A kakistocracy, from 1829, is government by the worst, a coinage not unnoticed when Michael Dukakis was running for the Presidency. Eutopia, the original spelling of Utopia, comes from Tom More's classic of 1516. On 2004-09-30, James Guest opined [message unchanged below]: > At 01:47 PMWednesday 29/09/2004 -0400, Premise Checker wrote: >> Guardian Special: The World in 2020 >> >> [Many articles from the past three Saturdays in the (London, formerly >> Manchester) Guardian, that is, 2004 Saturday 11, 18, and 25. There may be >> more to come. Something for everyone, though not everyone will like every >> development! This is very long and may get truncated at some sites, in case >> you are reading it there. If that happens, I can simply e-mail the series >> (so far at least, that is). Let me know.] > > For some reason I did know that "utopia" was derived from the Greek for "no > place" but your note has drawn attention to a usage that I have not hitherto > questioned, namely "dystopia", formed no doubt on the lines of "dyslogistic" > for which one could so easily substitute the simple "pejorative" - and > "dysfunctional" which seems to mix Greek and Latin elements in a way which > ought to offend purists. (I believe the Greeks didn't punctuate, any more > than the Romans did. It occurs to me that the loss of inflexions must have > had quite a lot to do with the rise of punctuation in the linguistically > decadent heirs to Latin. Not everyone being a Hemingway. So to speak). > > JG