Category Archives: Science & Technology

The Ghost in the Machine … is a Human Being!

Posted on by
Reply

Last week or so Matt was asking what new gadgets we’d see in the future. Some suggested Star Trek style devices, but I think they (and Star Trek) are wrong to suggest that we’ll continue with our current model of humans using separate function, hand-held devices. Rather we’ll soon see human integration with devices in ways analogous to the evolution from spectacle to contact lens to corneal implant. When that corneal implant can go online you can sign me up for one whether I need it or not.
Although many people cringe at the idea that we’d implant chips in ourselves and connect them to our brains they are ignoring the logical progression of biology and technology. The recent invention of a bionic arm controlled by nerve feedback is only the beginning.

Seems to me that we want to *completely* erase the physical distinction between gadgets – especially phones and computers – and ourselves. In fact I think most sci -fi treatments really miss this as an inevitability of our technologically innovative future lifestyle.

I’m Hoping to see more human/gadget interfaces so we can directly access computerized info with our non-computerized brains. This would really enhance creativity, and I’d even suggest we’ll see a lot of spin off benefits.

For example if world leaders can instantly access extensive, encyclopedic treatment of history, languages, and other topics their ability to make wise decisions will be elevated.

Well, maybe that’s too optimistic.

Millions die. Millions more wait to die. All due to our narrow and irrational focus. Man do we suck!

Posted on by
2

Another one for the “narrow focus kills millions” department:

Wikipedia on Rotavirus Vaccines, which are improving and will save *millions* of people:

An earlier vaccine, Rotashield by Wyeth-Ayerst, had to be taken off the market in the late 1990s after it was discovered in rare cases to be linked to a severe complication called intussusception. This event was so rare that widespread adoption of Rotashield in developing countries would nevertheless have saved millions of lives, but use of a vaccine deemed unsafe in the U.S. was seen as unacceptable.
Also notable is the fact that the new vaccines are very expensive in USA but heavily subsidized in developing world.  However still it appears too expensive for widespread use.   I remain unclear on how the pharma industry fits into the big picture but it’s a topic I’d like to take on soon as personal research.

When I’ve looked into specifics it generally appears they actually are NOT profiteering from the poor (though certainly they milk the rich like crazy, manipulating people with TV advertising and doctors with freebies). However it seems to me that in developing countries the big pharmas often do the right thing and either give away or heavily discount life saving drugs.  But many activists argue they are the major part of the problem – I think due to big pharma’s opposition to widespread generics.

Unfortunately much of that debate is mired in socialist economic diatribes which often suggest that anything corporate is evil, and therefore not reasonably considered part of a solution, rather than looking for the optimal solution point.

Clinton Global Initiative

Posted on by
Reply

The Clinton Global Initiative is tackling the world’s major problems. It’s a great effort with the backing of one of the world’s most effective superpower schmoozers, Bill Clinton. Although I’d suggest that the Copenhagen Consensus is a more rational way to prioritize spending, Clinton’s group is far more likely to bring big money and big corporations and Government interests to the table.

Today’s announcement is that Richard Branson will donate 3 billion towards reduction of Global Warming via the Clinton Global Initiative. Although I’d much rather see the group put more towards current catastrophes at least this donation is consistent with the notion that big providers of greenhouse gasses like Branson’s many transportation interests should do the most to alleviate the effects of those gasses on the environment.

Perhaps my friend Linda was right to suggest that some people will support Global Warming initiatives in ways they won’t get behind those confronting global poverty. If we can do it all that’s great and for the first time in my life I do think there is a great, driving force on the part of most people, policy makers, and even Governments to initiate “Global Improvements”. Let’s do it!

Dow’s Advertising … creepy or cool?

Posted on by
1

The DOW Chemical TV and internet ad campaign about “The Human Element” always strikes me as odd, though I think in some ways fits with my Dad’s excellent notion that advertising often talks about a company’s weaknesses as if they were strengths. Using people and faces in an attempt to get across the point that DOW is about people, not chemicals and technology, backfires for me and gets me wondering “what are they trying to hide here?”.

Maybe it’s a generational thing as I always make the Vietnam era “Dow = napalm” reference which in turn leads to the world famous photo of a Vietnamese girl burned by napalm.

DOW can hardly lay much claim to moral, people focused “high ground” but I also don’t buy into the narrow vision of corporations as heartless. Somewhat like people, a corporation is a curious blend of innovation, competition, selfishness, profiteering, good will and more. I believe corporations are as much a reflection of the forces that built that particular company (the “corporate culture”) than subject to standard rule sets. This suggests that DOW may be a bit off with their version of the old Coca Cola campaign about the world singing together.   In fact it kinds of creeps me out like the people in invasion of the body snatchers – is anybody even SMILING in those commercials?

University of VA Professor gets coal in his stocking – and likes it!

Posted on by
Reply

Laurie David, Global warming crusader, is very right to challenge professors that take corporate contributions. Her Huffington Post post entitled A Conflict of Interest in the Halls of Academia suggests that taking money from companies that benefit from weaker environmental regulations may bias the science.   Good point, and worth follow up.
But she fails to point out a similar problem, but also one that should be of great concern to the clear minded. This is the fact that grant funding from the US Government may also have political strings attached. They are not as direct but funding does relate to the emphasis, direction, and scale of research.

It’s obvious (and appropriate) that big money grants for research on potentially catastrophic things is far more likely to go through, than, say, a grant to fund research into the basket weaving habits of pliocene hominids.

This is hugely important because bias can easily creep into this equation in the form of exaggerating the peril of the topic under scrutiny – not so much in the peer reviewed studies which are subjected to close methodological scrutiny – but in the quotes of scientists and the lack of concern by scientists when the popular press spouts alarmist nonsense about their research often interpreting anecdotal observations associated with the science or reviews of the science by non-scientists as part of the research.

I’m actually looking for a way to test this hypothesis scientifically.  Something along the lines of “scientists describe their own research topics as more life threatening than their own research suggests.”

Common sense suggests it is going on around us all the time, especially now with the dramatic difference between the actual science aboout Global Warming that suggests it’s a bad thing but unlikely to be catastrophic versus the popular alarmist concerns that suggest the tipping point is here and planetary peril is paramount.

If planetary health is at the top of your agenda the answer to the clear minded is obvious:

* Invest our tax money and time heavily in current catastrophic things like Malaria, AIDs, and Poverty. This type of work clearly has the highest ROI by any reasonable human measure.

* Decrease massive military spending in favor of infrastructure spending here and in developing nations and invest heavily in marketing the USA as helping and not crusading.

* Invest in Global warming remediation schemes that have a high ROI but don’t buy into all the catastrophe mongering going on.  It’s deflecting attention from actual catastrophic conditions we affluent type first world people tend to simply … ignore.

Bionic Woman

Posted on by
Reply

Claudia Mitchell lost her arm in a Motorcycle Accident, but the Rehabilitation institute of Chicago has created a prosthetic arm for Claudia that moves, *controlled by her own thoughts*.   This is done by implanting the arm nerve endings in her chest wall where she can control them using her mind.  Incredible.

So, what happens when we can start to control a computer cursor with our mind and have web browser enabled eyeglasses?   Wow, we’d be …. smart.

Kids, cars, costs, and risks

Posted on by
Reply

Time to buy a car that’ll be used by my son, a new driver. Here we have the intriguing but rarely discussed intersection of safety, cost, and coolness factors. As for most parents, the safety of my kids is my top priority. However like most parents I won’t be seeking the single safest vehicle available for my new driver. Rather I’ll balance various concerns according to behavior formulas I do not understand and hope for the best. At times like these I wish there were simple programs for a family decision maker to allocate risk rationally, but I doubt you could make money on them. I don’t think evolution prepared humans much for allocating long term risks and rewards. It would be nice, for example, to see if the substantial risks associated with bicycling swamp out the differences in risks between a car with and without airbags. ie can I get the same “safety boost” I get with airbags by just having my son foresake a few hours of bike riding or other “riskier than driving” behavior.
Here’s a summary of some old Natl Transportation Safety Data from OK Police (I couldn’t find more recent data or the direct source at NHTSA.

Air bags save lives. Air bags in passenger cars and light trucks prevented an estimated 1,136 fatalities from 1986 to 1995, with another 600 saved in 1996. Once these life saving devices are equipped in all cars, it is estimated that 3,000 lives will be saved each year.

Driver-Side Air Bags
Driver-side air bags reduce the overall fatality risk of car drivers by a statistically significant 11 percent.

In other words, a fleet of cars equipped with driver-side air bags will have 11 percent fewer driver fatalities than the same cars would have had if they did not have air bags. Still, air bags can be dangerous to short stature adults sitting too close to the air bag module, especially when unbuckled.

Passenger-Side Air Bags
Passenger-side air bags reduce the overall fatality risk of car passengers age 13 and older by a statistically significant 13.5 percent.

It is estimated that an additional 88 right front passengers ages 13 and older would have died from 1986 to 1995 if passenger cars or light trucks had not been equipped with passenger-side air bags.

To date only one passenger, a 98-year-old female, has died as the result of an adult passenger-side air bag-related injury.

MORE: Here’s more data including a study (see left side of page) that suggests over 12,000 deaths from US state’s failures in more aggressively implementing seat belt laws.   If we assume these folks are worth 2.7 million each as the transportation department likes to do,  then in simple terms it would have been worth 12000 x 2.7 million = 32.4 billion dollars to prevent these deaths.     Assuming EPA’s higher value of life number we get even more life bang from our bucks by getting people to buckle up, which is one of the cheapest ways to save lives.    The cheapest of all for USA life saving, if I recall correctly from a study printed in the book “The Skeptical Environmentalist”, is increasing the use/quality of smoke detectors in buildings and homes.    For life saving on a global scale I think it’s oral rehydration therapy or mosquito nets, which at .15 per dose / 2.50 per net are quite the deal if you see *human life* as the thing we should be optimizing for as we allocate limited resources to big problems.

Which Universe are you from again?

Posted on by
Reply

To me the most appealing and mind-bending aspect of string theory – now considered a fairly mainstream approach to a mechanistic understanding of the world – is Brane Cosmology, which suggests we may be “surrounded” by inhabitants of other parallel universes.   More fanciful than any new age guru speak, Brane Cosmology opens an almost unbelievable world of possibilities that fit squarely within the theoretical constraints of this notion of how our mechanistic universe works.

We’d be unable to interact directly with these other systems due to complications that arise from living on a “brane”, or large extension of a string.  However we might be able to communicate using gravitational forces which may be the product of closed strings and can therefore move between Branes, visualized in Brian Green’s excellent book and PBS series “The Elegant Universe” as slices of bread within a multidimensional loaf.

Please pass the butter?

Hurricanes! Not.

Posted on by
Reply

I’ve been assuming that Global Warming was in fact contributing to an increase in the severity and number of hurricanes, but wondering if the alarmists had been exaggerating the effects for psychological effect. But here is the NOAA Hurricane data and this more recent NOAA analysis.  Neither suggest any catastrophes are looming. In fact we may have one of the *least* severe Hurricane seasons on record this year unless some big ones are brewing out there in the twinkling eyes of …. mother nature.

Excuse me but I’d like people to separate the politics from the science. Why is this so hard for *scientists* to do these days? I’m rapidly, and with great frustration, coming to the conclusion that it is because alarmism fuels research and focuses more attention on scientists.

Global warming is clear but catastrophic consequences from it appear to be so uncertain, so ill defined that it would be immoral and foolish to base hugely expensive public policy decisons on delaying warming for a few years.

Let’s try an experiment for a few years.

1) Take $80 billion – each year – from our bloated defense and homeland security budgets.

2) Ignore Global Warming

3) Solve *every major human problem* on earth. (The UN estimates that approximately 80 billion per year would solve virtually all major health, water, food problems).