The Politics of the Elderly

Population growth estimates as we approach 2050 bear a significant impact on where we are going as a political animal.

It is common knowledge that the number of the elderly is growing as a percentage of the overall global population. Estimates indicate that by 2050, that percentage will be roughly 32% of all people. Today, it is below 17%. The average debt for "twenty-somethings" today is $16,120 (USD), according to a USAtoday's report on a statement from Experian. So while the overall cost-per-individual of healthcare will continue to rise, fewer and fewer people will be able to provide for their own as they go through senescence, barring any other changes.

And those healthcare costs will rise. This all boils down into one very disturbing image for the future; Social Security's 'reserve' is estimated only to last until 2017. (After that time, it will be spending more than it is taking in.) It isn't exactly news to anybody that the elderly are a powerful voting block in the continental US. The much-vaunted overturning of the "anti-gay marriage amendment" in Arizona was in fact overturned by the senior population; they rely heavily on domestic partnerships in that state, as a means of preserving SSI & "widow's" benefits. So already the politics of the nation are being strongly affected by the voting power of the senescent.

These trends, as that population expands, will only continue. And there is absolutely no reason to expect that those who look to their retirement will be held to some greater standard when the economic strains they create are greater than ever. In fact, the history of the "Social Security" movement shows exactly otherwise. The Bread-and-Circuses addiction our country already possesses -- entitlements, subsidies, 'ear-marks', etc -- has the potential to bankrupt our nation. Social Security was created as an institution with certain elements in mind: 1) that our elderly lived relatively short periods; 2) that there were a great number of individuals per senior citizen; 3) that there were relatively few costs associated with the combating of senescence.

None of these remains true. By 2050, the ratio of seniors to working adults in the world will be 4:1; for the US that number will be closer to 2:1. As economies continue expand, this trend will result in the absolute need for greater manpower than any developed nation will possess; potentially more than is available, across the board. Much of that needed manpower will be in areas that traditionally aren't available from less-developed countries -- namely, "experts" such as engineers, doctors, and the like. It has been estimated, however, that as much as 50% of the world's economy -- at least in the "industrialized" nations -- will be entirely automated. While that number is essentially a raw guess, it is at least one based in a solid fact; computer programs, online services, and robots have been finding themselves more, and more integrated into the economy as a whole. And that one element might be the key factor in redeeming this whole -- absolutely there's no reason to discount it; while manufacturing jobs have been on a downslide in this nation, manufacturing output has reached all-time highs in the last few years. (Biased documentation here).

So where does this leave the young in the future? Their output will be -- prognosticating here -- more and more heavily taxed for a more and more expensive, larger and larger population of seniors whom will be predictably less, and less, willing to give up their benefits; in fact, without such benefits many won't be able to support themselves at all. Unless something changes in the game altogether -- such as significantly increased "healthy" lifespans -- the entire scenario is a bit gloomy: After all -- the young of today and tomorrow will have to carry the burden of those previous to them while saving to preserve themselves; yet will be precisely the least able to do so.

The answer to this problem is not 'reform.' There is really no way to change the way we do business as a species that will allow for us to care for the great albatross economically speaking that is a 32% of the total population that is non-productive monetarily speaking, yet consumes much, much more than any other individual on an individual-by-individual basis. New technologies are the necessary answer.

Rather than fearing the advent of extreme automation of the economy, perhaps we ought to embrace it. It's better than the alternative of telling the elderly of the future that they're SOL and to not let the door hit them on the way out. If it can be made feasible to avoid the burden of over-taxation to support our seniors, then perhaps the young of the future can look to brighter lives for themselves; or at least ones relatively uninfluenced by what will be the most powerful single voting block "ever". (At least, as long as it lasts.)

Joke of the Day

Okay, so maybe you have to be a bastard to find this funny. Apart from the irony of this happening in a nation which spirals further and further towards theocratic controls, there's the simple fact that somebody, somewhere, decided it was even newsworthy.

Church to be razed to build technology park.

Keep in mind; the church itself was sold over a year ago, and not through eminent domain. The congregation wasn't eve planning on continuing to hold services, regardless of whether the building was destroyed or not. So... essentially, this headline could also read, "Building owner plans to demolish own building." Not so newsworthy if it were put that way, eh?

As always --

Enjoy.

Energy Scarcity & Government Action: Happy Bedpartners?

Or:

"ARPA-E: Genius or Folly?"

Rep. Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.), said during a hearing on Thursday (April 26), "We've got to be willing to push the envelope and think outside the box to get the job done."

The concept that he is pushing is to create an agency which is the equivalent of DARPA, saving that where DARPA is concerned with military technology applications, this new ARPA-E will be concerned with energy production/conservation technologies. DARPA is actually one of the few areas of government action that has been effective; the military as a whole has had that success -- they come up with some zany stuff over at DARPA, and arguably it couldn't have been developed elsewise; at least, not anywhere near so soon. And in the military world, there's certainly no doubt at all that "Damn the cost!, Get me those [fill in the blank]s!!" is a viable way of, well, doing business. But does that same statement hold true for energy production? Because the one thing we can guarantee about this project, this ARPA-E, if it were to actually be passed, is that it would be a massively expensive project, which will wind up costing pretty much all taxpayers some hard-won moolah.

Furthermore, one has to ask -- is creating a new government agency for research really 'thinking outside of the box'? After all, this is supposedly an incredibly important area -- so important that if we don't overfund it, our country -- that's "the good ol' U.S. of A!" -- is doomed to destruction at the hands of, well, foreign investors. So wouldn't it be a better option to just dump that money onto the think-tanks and university energy research departments that are already working on energy production alternatives, and tell them, "The sky's the limit. Think outside the box!"? After all, one of the first things that goes to the wayside when you centralize something is innovation.

Government action isn't always the best option. In research, government funding tends to produce theoretical research that wouldn't have existed otherwise. But given that the oil companies are already attempting to find other markets that they can make more profit in (such as ethanol production), and that electricity utilities are already seeking other production sources (such as tidal turbines, wind turbines, and solar collectors & photovoltaic cells), is it really necessary to add all of that? Certainly it could help. But as it stands, the economy is still growing. Growing slower, perhaps, but growing it is. And when energy starts becoming scarce to the point where it hurts the economy, someone is guaranteed to come up with a solution -- because it'd make them rich.

So the question is -- is another government agency a good idea? Consider: If it is created, how long will it 'stick around' -- will it find another 'problem' to 'solve' once the problem of energy production is resolved? How long are we as a nation going to be expected to foot the bill for early advent of new energy technologies? Even subsidies have a tendency to far, far outlive their usefulness.

Think outside the box, indeed.

Joke of the Day

' "We are profoundly sorry that approach was taken ... setting up a situation for tyranny to thrive," he said. '

It would seem that the Utah State prosecutors are now sorry that they "created a situation for tyranny to thrive" when they decided to enforce one law that tells you what morality to follow whether you like it or not.

Not to imply that the FLDS people are entirely on the side of the righteous, but seriously -- in what way shape or form does the fact that some hick in the middle of a desert wants to shack up with two women he calls "wife" instead of just the one have any impact on me? Is it the tax advantage?

Either way -- who in the world would have believed that the Law Enforcement Officers of Utah and Arizona would ask people they view as criminals to trust them?? "Oh, yes. Terribly sorry about all that enforcing the law that makes your religion criminal and all that. Won't let it happen too badly again. Now would you horribly mind lining up on this wall? Nevermind the nooses over there."

I seem to recall that someone else once asked to be trusted... (You know, the story about the parlor?) But of course, I'm sure this time things will go dashingly.

The Revenge of the Ovis Maxwellius!

Alternate Title: Neurophilosophy is Fun!

Main Title Explanation: Maxwell; Ovis


In a recent article, the concept of the BMI was discussed, as was its vitality to our future as a people. Consider this the, "But Wait -- There's More!!" piece.

One of the major problems in creating a viable Brain/Machine Interface is, well, the interface part. Current techniques are far too crude and sensitive to failure to be effective in the long run. As an example, current platinum-based microelectrodes have a lot of "slippage" in their current and are unable to target individual nerve-cells.

There are now a few different approaches to solving this problem. Neither is 100% exclusive to the other. One approach is the use of carbon nanotubules to stimulate specific cells. (The difficulty of ensuring that the nanotubes actually reach their targets has a solution in this article from the same source; which discusses the use of self-assembling protein scaffolds to encourage cell growth -- including neural growth -- in specific directions.)

Now, what is interesting about this use of carbon nanotubes is that due to the individual-cell basis of this interface, each cell 'firing' -- that is, producing a short-lived electrical current -- would affect the nanotube's current as well as allowing the tubes to directly stimulate the cell. Two-way street. Even better; nanotubes are flexible, and as such they won't create scarring in the area they are implanted in. Better still: the body doesn't recognize carbon as a foreign body; ergo, no immune response.

But there is also another approach to this two-way street problem, which that same protein scaffold would also be involved in the use of. And that is the growth of new neurons which are already attached to a silicon-wafer microchip, which are then 'grown' into the brain normally. This approach is perhaps less flexible than is the nanotube approach, but possibly less problematic in terms of power provision; if the microchip itself were small enough, this would be a grand addition of Dr. Berger's thalamus implant; no external bits at all. It also potentially benefits from higher interface speed; with no electrode relay from the chip to the neurons, there is no worry about "bus speeds".

Of course, there is yet another approach to this whole brain/machine interface, one that is frankly... fascinating. Rather than integrate the machine into the brain, what would happen if someone were to integrate the brain into the machine? In terms of robustness and survivability, the neural ganglion is far, far more powerful than is the silicon wafer. If provided an environment of sufficient oxygen, water, and glucose, said Petri-dished neurons could survive for decades if not longer. While the potential today seems somewhat limited; the neural masses only move simple robots or a mouse on a computer screen -- even that in and of itself is phenomenal as a starting point. The end results could literally be something like biological computers that never break down, never need to re-boot, and require almost no power to speak of. While the neuron's relay is, today, slower than is that of the silicon wafer by orders of magnitude, its parallelism is incomparable. Add in the use of nanotubules to bypass the stopgap point of synaptic connections, and the raw power of such an organic machine would be almost beyond description.

It's hard to explain why, fully, but simply the concept of machines taking on organic qualities is almost painfully fascinating to this author.

Joke of the Day

This guy is for real. And, while a little bit on the kooky side, for sure -- look to the reality. A man (group of people, apparently), is taking responsibility for the safety of his fellow man and not looking for government approval to do it! A hero, indeed.

A Box of Crabs With an Open Lid Will Never Empty

Why Trusting to Religion Won't Get You Rich

There is a popular conception in America these days. It is thrown back and forth amongst the two sides of the political spectrum that holds sway in this nation. It is the "Culture of Poverty." Now, anthropological/sociological studies have shown that this is something of a misnomer. ( Such as: Goode, Judith and Edwin Eames (1996). "An Anthropological Critique of the Culture of Poverty")

It all hinges, however, on the old adage -- "It takes money to make money." Now, the veracity of the statement isn't in question. But the accuracy? That's a whole different ball of wax. It does indeed take money to make money; just like it takes seeds to grow a crop. But just having seeds won't get you food on the table. You need land, sunlight, and water. So for money to turn into more money, you need the opportunity to invest, you need the skill to place money effectively, the ability to recapitalize your investments, and moreover the ability to conserve your spending a priori. For those subsisting at or below the poverty level; those whom survive as much -- or more so -- through charity and the gift economy as/than they do the commodity/market economy, this is plainly a difficult thing to do. The skill of investing money primarily comes from the habit of investing money. If most of your income is allocated to debt remediation, then you will never have an opportunity to gain that skill, or that habit. And as this is a real world skill, it's exceedingly difficult for it to be taught.

Now, of charities, it is eminently true that private and local charity groups have a far, far greater impact on a "per dollar" basis than do efforts like Federal Welfare programs. This is practically a tautological statement. Local charities develop inevitably into centralized hubs for a local 'gift economy' and in general this is a good thing. It is a way of allocating needed resources to people who have no funds in a way that uses no money. But what happens when the hub performing this function also has a view on money which negatively reinforces any skills involving its use? Christianity in particular has a long and powerful history of outright forbidding profit. (Though it is by no means alone in this.) And the theology still frowns upon profiteering. So those whom partake of the ideology receive preferential treatment within the gift economy, and are thus supported more freely. But for those who disavow the religious proscriptions on behavior, this gift economy is no longer available to them. Take for example the single mother who turns to being a "webcam girl" or "phone sex operator" in order to make enough money to get her child(ren) fed and clothed. If it comes out that she is in a sex-oriented career, suddenly all those doors close to her. That is an overt example.

But there are also subvert examples as well. The church -- and for that matter, the state -- actively encourages a reliance upon it. Be good, and all shall be provided for you. This very thinking is anathema to the development of new economies, which is the main route by which those most deeply stricken by poverty can hope to reach above their level. If you are being provided for, then you are not developing the skills necessary to provide for yourself. The church's cultivation of the pure gift economy (through forbidding profit) further doesn't help matters. If you do start to succeed, you have but two options; sacrifice your success for "the good of the community" -- which is like throwing water into the ocean: a small amount of concentrated money can earn more; spread about, it is powerless. Or, you can 'forsake' your prior community, and take your success and the economic growth it represents elsewhere. (There are some examples of something of a middle line, but it is trends that are being discussed here.)

Gift economies and market economies are notoriously unstable when present simultaneously. Usually, this is to the detriment of the gift economy; however, the market economy can be degenerated as well: corruption, graft, and exploitation tend to settle in. This needn't always happen, but it generally does. It is difficult enough for those caught within the gift-economy/subsistence 'mode' to reach above it. Having a culture of contempt for economic success doesn't help. The gains to self-worth and community identity are valuable, and not to be overlooked -- that is certain and absolute.

But it is highly worth mentioning that in general, as communities become more successful, they become less and less religious. The largest, most opulent churches can be found in the most deeply poverty-stricken regions. It was no mistake of history that the three hundred years of greatest power for Christendom in Europe in specific was also the darkest period Europe had faced for centuries. (That would be the Medieval period, between 1000 AD & 1400 AD.) Similarly, it is no mistake of history that the Middle-East, so torn by religious discontent and hatred, is also one of the poorest areas in the world. Africa as a continent is known for two things: powerfully devout religious belief in both Islam and Christianity, and equally in those areas where those two religions hold sway there is deep, abiding, and overwhelming poverty. The same is true of the poor areas in Mexico, less the Islam. China has finally begun to disavow itself of the 'religion of the state' (read: Communism), and it is undergoing a massive financial revolution. Russia underwent something similar; and as it was unprepared for this transition the depth of corruption there remains extreme.

Should effort be made to raise the quality of life for the poor? Absolutely. Only a monster would say otherwise. But perhaps a little dose more of reason would work more wonders than simply tossing more money. It should be easier, not harder, to escape poverty. Taxation on subsistence goods doesn't help this. Decrease the costs of all goods, and there's more money to spread around; thus there are more opportunities for the poor to invest. Charity is useful, but wouldn't it be better for those most stricken if it were easier to simply rise above on their own? Increased education could potentially also help, but it would have to be a major overhaul of the modern educational system; which is again designed to indoctrinate rather than inform. Reducing the cost of education would also help greatly. Subsidizing colleges only causes college tuitions to keep rising ad nauseum. This makes a decent high-level education available to fewer and fewer. It would be pleasant to see a localized gift economy develop around the sharing of education and information, but so long as the focus for such communities remains to seek provision from above, that will never happen.

Get God and Country out of the pocketbooks of the people, and there will be fewer poor.

BBC News is a Techno-Geek's Best Friend

...or: "Bigger Isn't Always Better; and The Times, They Are A-Changin'."

There are a lot of concerns these days about where this whole rat-race we call the human experience is headed. Now, fears of the apocalypse aren't anything new. That's not where this discussion is going to go.

In a previous post, the topic of "stand-alone complexes" was discussed -- when disparate groups with different motivations happen to cooperate in such a manner that they produce a very real effect; this can be considered a byproduct of high human population density. The below could be viewed as another example of such.

Researchers for for space-programs around the world -- along with many, many more forward-thinking people -- are considering using what has come to be called colloquially as "Smart-Dust" (that's microelectromechanical systems -- really, really tiny computer/robots) for more in-depth exploration of other worlds. What is unique about this process is that the space-program researchers are studying more about how these "dust clouds" would be linked together to provide for extremely "intelligent" behaviors, like mapping out the surface of Mars. Now, right now these things are about as large around as the average person's pinkie-nail is wide. The below image is one such "grain" of smart-dust as they are made today. It's about 5 or 6 millimeters wide. Imagine a hundred -- or a thousand, or ten thousand, or just ten -- such "grains" floating in the air, maintaining a formation like a starfish, scanning the area around them for whatever information the person receiving their telemetry asks for. This could be what the ground of Mars looks like, it could be the face of Osama bin Laden, or it could be the ambient temperature of Dave Smith's cubicle down in Processing.


But how far can we take this thing? Well, to get much smaller we would need a way to produce machines that operate on the scale of individual molecules. For some time now -- a few decades -- the "holy grail" if you will of nanotechnology has been the "molecular motor." If a viable molecular motor could be developed, then it would stand to reason that Man could start to build machines so small that they would be physically invisible to the naked human eye. Well, it looks like that has been accomplished. This is important, and significant. The implications of such a development are in fact greater than there is room here to discuss entirely. So instead a few possibilities will be delineated.

1) Should such nanomachines be made capable of self-replicating, they could also be "collectively programmed" using the techniques being researched for 'smart-dust' and thus produce effects from what appears to be telekinesis by the person controlling them, to the wholesale conversion of raw materials by what appears like a dull grey 'goo' into whatever design the person controlling them has in mind. Yes, this is scary and disturbing on far, far too many levels. But it is also extremely hopeful.
2) The human mitochondria is a cell-within-a-cell that converts stored chemical energy into mechanical energy, allowing biological functions & processes to occur. Should these motors be truly viable, then electromechanical motors could be integrated into the species on a cellular level, resulting in humans being able to convert ambient electromagnetic fields into "food-energy" -- thus reducing significantly the amount of food any individual person needs to eat -- not to mention reducing the amount of oxygen required to keep going comfortably & safely.
3) That same principle, applied to power-generation, would allow for incredible increases in the efficiency of energy conversion; every increase in efficiency means another decrease in the rate of use of limited resources like oil, coal, sunlight, or geothermal energy.
4) There's more, I'm sure.

There's another direction this "nanotech train" is steaming towards, however. Rather than integrating nano-machines into biology, it could be possible to incorporate biology into machinery. The implications here are actually quite staggering. If this, as a field, could be exploited we could be on the verge of developing an entire industry around the principle of biological 'machines' -- custom-tailored organisms that grow up to be the things we need of them; anything from cars & ovens to light-bulbs and computers. This approach seems to be resolving a major limitation in the process of nanotech machine development: the cost. Other researchers have created what amounts to a 'walking robot' out of strands of DNA. And DNA is getting cheaper and cheaper to manufacture.

What is amusing in the face of all of this is simply that the industrial/research community as a whole seems to continue to have a skeptical look on the advent of "molecular manufacturing" being a possibility at all, let alone "the next twenty years."

There's a great deal to look at here, and a great deal to be concerned about. But the question of whether it will happen -- that's a question that has already been answered. It seems much like just another 'emergent development'. Whether we like it or not, our species is ready for this development to come out, on a technological level, and so it will reach advent. Just let's please be careful that we get the Good Santa and not the Evil Robot Santa?

A face nobody wants to meet in a dark alley...

Joke of the Day

"He then turned serious and said he agreed with President Bush that the United States must protect Israel from Iran."

Not exactly my best work -- but here's a thought for the The Evil Midnight Bomber What Bombs At Midnight:

The United States of America (Read the link) has no colonies in the Middle East.

Morality ex Fiat

Criminalizing Abortion Only Makes Things Worse

This article touches on abortion. This is, understandably, a very touchy subject. There's a lot of opinion both ways. I will attempt to prevent my own personal bias on the matter from entering, despite this being an argument. For the sake of honesty, I support a woman's right to do with her own body as she sees fit; even fetuses don't have the right to force someone else to support them.

But that's not what's at debate here. What is, is the impact or effectiveness of criminalizing abortion. An article I was recently pointed to by IEET.org discussed the impact on birth rates and rates of abortions in a country where all forms of contraceptives were banned wholesale for almost forty years; Romania. There is one line in particular that stands out in the forefront of the rest of this article: Women who failed to get official approval were forced to seek illegal abortions, which could be had for a carton of Kent cigarettes.

The statement occurs over and over again; whenever abortions are made criminal, or difficult to obtain, those whom seek them resort to more and more desperate measures. Lives are ruined. And yet the laws to ban them continue to be pushed as though the laws themselves could correct this problem. There is a common argument that there are women who use abortions as their primary means of birth control; and it seems to be so. But it seems to me that the real problem here isn't that society doesn't value life enough -- it probably doesn't -- but rather that our society has such a deep and abiding taboo about sexuality that we have gone to insane lengths to 'repress' it.

And the bottom line is, IT HAS NOT WORKED. Declaring laws to require morality -- especially to require morality out of children -- is ineffective and only leads to misery and destroyed lives. Women die because they can't get abortions legally so they stab themselves from the inside out until the fetus miscarries. 13 year old girls with 12 year old boyfriends get themselves registered as sex offenders for life. (It has become almost 'routine' for registered sex offenders to be murdered simply because they were on the list; and the lists don't specify the crimes -- so those kids are now as likely targets as child rapists.)

Could possibly simply being open and informative at an age before sexual development clouds reason with hormones make this all go away? I say, information is power. But then, education in this country is going so well.

Something Strange is Going on at FOXNews.com

Is it perhaps that my feeds simply are reporting biased material?

Or has FOXNews.com begun to part ways with both the President and the GOP?

Not that one can count it as an unbiased source... but something very strange is going on over there.

Joke of the Day

The "Surge" Is Working.

Enjoy.