Reader's Input Time

Leave a bit 'bout yourself. What's your handle, or name? What's your interest in reading this blog?

How often do you check in? What would you like to see more of? Fire off a line, people, make your voices heard!

(For you feed subscribers, make your comments here.)

Farming 2.0: Food By Factory?

One of the greatest challenges facing the world today is global hunger. Regardless of any other changes that may or may not come – global warming or cooling, the onset of multiple-drug-resistant bacterial diseases like tuberculosis, global pollution, or lost energy resources – the simple fact is that this is one problem that will absolutely, definitely, no matter what, get worse.

Or will it?

Food production – farming – has seen some major changes in the last few decades. But fundamentally, much of it remains almost exactly as it was a thousand years ago. The techniques might have improved, the equipment might have improved, but the process is overall the same. You set up acres upon acres of plants in monoculture, spread the fertilizer, and harvest come fall. In the case of meat production, the similarities are even worse; herding cattle is herding cattle. It is a little-talked about fact that cattle-herding is one of the most ecologically destructive practices man has to offer up to the world; and even when that is discussed, the ecological impact of our current farming techniques generally is not. But it is precisely this fact – the ecological negative externalities of crop-farming – that you can thank for the ongoing destruction of the Australian Great Barrier Reef, for example; the fertilizers used are hyperstimulating the growth cycle of the crown-of-thorns starfish, which really loves to “chow down on them corals”. For those of you whom follow the line that carbon dioxide is responsible for global warming, consider: 25% of all human outgassing of CO2, reportedly (the numbers vary), is the responsibility of crop farming. This doesn’t even begin to take into account the methane outgassing of animal herding, methane being nominally a far more (by orders of magnitude) powerful greenhouse gas than CO2.

Once again, however, it turns out that simple technological progress and economic pressures – the need to make more money, that is – are turning up opportunities for solving these major ecological problems. Both of the traditional areas of farming – plants and animals, that is – are being eyed by the venture-capitalists & scientists of the world. In the case of plants, there are already venture capitalists looking to cash in on this process by turning profits within 15 years:

Traditional farms are beautiful. They're sweeping, green, majestic even, and without them we wouldn't have the Archers. They're also a waste of space. We will need 60 per cent more food to meet the needs of the world's ever-growing population in the next thirty years, according to UN figures. Unfortunately, expanding planet earth is not an option. […]His theory, that 'skyscraper farms' could provide plentiful food organically, without herbicides, pesticides or fertilisers, has attracted venture capitalists and scientists from around the world, intent on making the theory into reality within 15 years.

Apparently, Dubai will be the first to carry out this sort of farming – which makes perfect sense: land is at a premium there, since the country is basically just one big city; the ruler of Dubai likes absurdly huge projects (hence his effort to create island real-state shaped exactly like a map of the Earth); and while the oil money is flowing there for now, they already have their eyes on sustaining their economy once the oil production days go the way of the dodo. This would certainly help greatly.

Ahh, but what about the meat? Surely you couldn’t simply raise cows in skyscrapers – imagine what would happen should one fall out of a window from 50 stories up! That’d be one messy road clean up – and a pretty bad way to go, while you’re at it: imagine the headlines -- “Man Crushed By Cowflesh From The Sky: Pigs to Fly Next!” Well, as it turns out, that might even be easier to do than the crop-farming. For one, meat cells can be cultured en masse:

Matheny's team developed ideas for two techniques that have potential for large scale meat production. One is to grow the cells in large flat sheets on thin membranes. The sheets of meat would be grown and stretched, then removed from the membranes and stacked on top of one another to increase thickness.[…] "The challenge is getting the texture right," says Matheny. "We have to figure out how to 'exercise' the muscle cells. For the right texture, you have to stretch the tissue, like a live animal would."

Different techniques have been proposed for the exercising of the muscle cells; from direct electrical stimulation to leaving them on materials that stretch with changes in temperature. Now, of course, the next problem would be arranging the cells cheaply: not everybody is fine with eating nothing but chicken nuggets, artificial crab meat, and hamburger on the cheap but never getting a good juicy steak, now are they? Well, as it turns out (of course), there’s a solution there, as well – and it turns out it’s a relatively inexpensive one. Inkjet printers can print living tissues:

According to NewScientist’s Richard Fisher a new inkjet printer device that prints tiny living tissues is out. In his article it is even claimed that surgeons one day can use the technology to repair various damaged tissues at the same time. Inkjet technology uses a fine stream of droplets to build structures and is employed across many industries – from computer chip design to large scale manufacturing. It also has biomedical applications: researchers use it to place very precise amounts of biological material, on the microscale. For example, some groups have used the technology to print cells, and “build” organs.

As an aside, this will literally mean that those people who think that meat just comes in slabs without animals having gone through bizarre or horrendous conditions will finally be right, those poor naïve souls.

Imagine, thusly, a day when most all food production takes place within urban centers, and the entire vast fields which are now dedicated pastoral lands are allowed to simply go fallow; and take into consideration that with each passing year, the percentage of all human population which is found within urban centers (read: cities) is growing – already that number has turned to the majority being city-dwellers. And before the cries of economic disparity come into question here (i.e.; how will these things help the starving peoples of Africa?), consider also the following: once these technologies are developed, the meat production at least (although, frankly, the production of vegetable matter would be relatively as easy as meat would; if not easier if you don’t mind the shape the product comes out as) will be no more difficult to accomplish than will the production of alcohol in stills.

For further fun, consider this as an early-onset of a form of the concept of arcologies.

Scientific Experiment to Disprove God?

One of the many questions which an atheist is asked is, “Isn’t saying there is no god just another form of faith?” – or variations of that same theme; that there is no evidence that “God” does not exist. This is much of the basis behind the many-times rebuked idea of “magisteria” – that faith and science don’t mix because science does not and cannot attempt to answer the “Why”s – only the “How”s.

That concept, of course, has been many-times rebuked because it is many-times false. But so, too, is the statement that there is no evidence that there is no god – science has turned the existence of god into a falsifiable statement. All that needs to be done, is to ask: is the “tellurian” – everything that is, has been, or may yet be – itself something that could possibly have been created?

As to the matter of science and religion being separate, the argument typically looks a great deal like this:

"The relationship between religion and science takes many forms as the two fields are both extremely broad. They employ different methods and address different questions. The scientific method relies on an objective approach to measure, calculate, and describe the natural/physical/material universe. Religious methods are more subjective (or intersubjective in community), relying on varying notions of authority, ideas believed to have been revealed, intuition, belief in the supernatural, individual experience, "reasoned" observations about life or the universe or a combination of these to understand the universe. Science attempts to answer the "how" and "what" questions of observable and verifiable phenomena; religion attempts to answer the "why" questions of value, morals and spirituality. Some religious authority also extends to "how" and "what" questions regarding the natural world, creating the potential for conflict."

While we’re on the practice of using quoted material, something worth mentioning here is that it is only rather recently that the idea of science and religion being “wholly separate” even came into existence:

In popular mythology, the "scientific revolution" of the seventeenth century is commonly said to mark a fundamental break between science and religion. But nothing could be further from the truth. Almost all the great pioneers and founders of the new science were religious men who wanted a science that would harmonize with their faith. All three founders of the new heliocentric cosmology - Nicholas Copernicus, Johannes Kepler, and Isaac Newton - saw their new vision of the universe as an offshoot of their theology. Newton. in particular, was a religious fanatic whose whole life work can be seen as a search for God. Even the infamous Galileo was a committed Catholic who wanted nothing more than for the Pope to endorse his vision of the heavens.

Not until the eighteenth century do we see a fundamental break between science and religion. In the new rationalistic climate of the Enlightenment philosophers such as ImmanuelKant and Jean-Jacques Rousseau argued that science and religion were two separate domains that must be kept apart. But even in the eighteenth century there was no idea of a warfare between the two spheres. That idea only arose in the late nineteenth century, particularly after the publication of Charles Darwin's revolutionary book, "On the Evolution of Species by Means ofNatural Selection." In the wake of this book, some Christian believers and theologians began to see science as a threat to their faith. On the other hand, some scientists also began to see religion as a threat to scientific freedom. Although there have always been people on both sides who did not see a conflict between science and Christian faith, nonetheless this "warfare" model has had a powerful influence on Western thinking throughout the twentieth century."

(Author’s Note: Yes, this isn’t something that frequently gets mentioned by atheists these days, but the truth is the truth.) Unfortunately, this theme – of separation of domains – remains rather strong in the popular culture, despite having been so thoroughly rebuked by such individuals as Richard Dawkins (that blowhard of a man). It is for this reason that arguments like this still exist:"Science, by its very definition requires "evidence." Evidence does not mean opinion or guessing. Science attempts to answer questions about the physical world using a long-established method of trial and error, repeated experiments, and a rigorous standard for establishing answers. [...] Faith is beyond science, and science is beyond faith. You don’t use a hammer to saw a board, and you don’t use a saw to hammer a nail."(Emphasis added). It is only recently that the idea of one informing and correcting the other was eliminated (and more often than not, of course, it was science correcting religion; little things like the Copernican solar model come to mind. Or daVinci’s work with expanding Galen’s anatomy, through the dissection of the deceased.) So it would seem that one more coming model might just force yet another change or correction on the part of religion – that of the existence, or more precisely the lack thereof, of a “God-as-creator”; the concept is also referred to as “First Cause”, which has also been called “Prime Mover”. The reasoning here is actually fairly simple enough. First, a few background concepts. One is that of M-Theory:

In physics, M-theory (sometimes also called U-theory) is a proposed "master theory" that unifies the five superstring theories. Drawing on the work from a number of string theorists (including Chris Hull, Paul Townsend, Ashoke Sen, Michael Duff and John H. Schwarz), Edward Witten of the Institute for Advanced Study suggested its existence at a conference at USC in 1995, and used M-theory to explain a number of previously observed dualities, sparking a flurry of new research in string theory called the second superstring revolution.

One of the concepts within M-theory is that all of our physical existence could be described as a single membrane (hence “M”-theory). This concept has been extended, and there is mathematics to support it, that there are, in fact, other membranes. It is actually rather widely believed at this moment that these other branes make up an entire cosmology, referred to as the “bulk”. This, as it turns out, is a falsifiable statement: it can be experimentally confirmed through its theoretical stipulations about gravity being a stronger force at the sub-millimeter scale, because it supposedly “bleeds out” into the emptiness between the branes. This brane cosmology has also been successfully used to create a mathematical model that explains the how of the Big Bang itself – something that physicists had been struggling to do ever since the concept had been derived in the first place. A second concept that needs to be described is that of the “Arrow of time”:

Entropy is the only quantity in the physical sciences that "picks" a particular direction for time, sometimes called an arrow of time. As one goes "forward" in time, the Second Law of Thermodynamics says that the entropy of an isolated system can only increase or remain the same; it cannot decrease. Hence, from one perspective, entropy measurement is thought of as a kind of clock.

By contrast, all physical processes occurring at the microscopic level, such as mechanics, do not pick out an arrow of time. Going forward in time, an atom might move to the left, whereas going backward in time, the same atom might move to the right; the behavior of the atom is not qualitatively different in either case. In contrast, it would be shocking if a gas that originally filled a container evenly, spontaneously shrunk to occupy only half the container.

Certain subatomic interactions involving the weak nuclear force violate the conservation of parity, but only very rarely. According to the CPT Theorem, this means they should also be time irreversible, and so establish an arrow of time. This however is not linked to the thermodynamic arrow of time, which is the main issue of this article, nor has it anything to do with our daily experience of time irreversibility.

Now, one of the things that any physicist will tell you, is that the physical laws of the universe have a great number of “constants” within them – completely arbitrary numbers that, if altered, would fundamentally and radically alter the way in which our universe takes shape. Play with one number by a few digits, for example, and the proton would be an unstable particle, thus reducing the entire universe into one massive electrical plasma field. Matter literally would not exist; only energy. The entropic arrow of time is another such arbitrary phenomenon. So it could be – and, in fact, given the approaching infinite number of branes expected to exist, that time moving forward instead of backwards, sideways, or “twisty-like” – who knows? – that time itself is an entirely “localized” phenomenon. Meaning that the “bulk” itself has an absolutely timeless characteristic about it; and as such is essentially “immune” to causality: I.e.; causality does not exist at the level of the “bulk”.

The argument for deity has always been that “we have to have come from somewhere”. What science now tells us, should the supergravity experiment come through as the mathematical models expect it to, that in fact – no. We come from nowhere – because we didn’t “come from” at all. Existence simply is, free of causal concerns. The separate magisteria argument attempts to dictate that god is for morality and values, and that science is for the hows and the whens. But if science demands that there is no god – where, then, does morality and value come from?

Read more:
On Secularism

Libertarianism vs. Libertarians

If there’s one thing that most libertarians have in common, it is that they share the trait of being idealists. Even the cynical are, at heart, idealists. This is necessary to confront an increasingly un-libertarian society each day. It also opens up the common “defender of liberty” to the ministrations of ideologues.

It would amaze the common person to realize just how many conspiracy theories run throughout libertarian circles… and how quickly they tend to do so. It is the presence of such “crazies” that has attributed to the inability of the “run-of-the-mill” libertarian from gaining “mainstream media” recognition. That is not to say that they are solely responsible for such; merely that the extreme ideals held by many otherwise rational people has in an attribution sense limited our appeal to outside circles. It has occurred to this author, however, that there is a perspective on how to handle them that just isn’t “out there”, so to speak. Please bear with me while I take my circuitous path to get there.

One element worth noting is, as discussed below, is political bias:

The study was carried out during the pre-electoral period of the 2004 presidential election on 30 men, half who described themselves as strong Republicans and half as strong Democrats. During a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) scan, the subjects were asked to assess contradictory statements by both George W. Bush and John Kerry. The scans showed that the part of the brain associated with reasoning, the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, was not involved when assessing the statements. Conversely, the most active regions of the brain were those involved in processing emotions (orbitofrontal cortex), conflict resolution (anterior cingulate cortex) and making judgment about moral accountability (posterior cingulate cortex)

Notice, especially, “The scans showed that the part of the brain associated with reasoning, the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, was not involved when assessing the statements.” Do otherwise reasonable people suddenly become unthinking creatures the moment their political beliefs come into conversation? Does some wondrous physiological change occur that turns normal, intelligent (or otherwise) human beings into mindless automatons? If so, this author for one would really like to know the trick of creating a personal army of willing slaves. It has a nice ring to it, don’t you think? Obviously, what is going on here is really nothing more than yet another iteration of the results of the confirmation bias:

In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias is a tendency to search for or interpret new information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions and avoid information and interpretations which contradict prior beliefs. It is a type of cognitive bias and represents an error of inductive inference, or as a form of selection bias toward confirmation of the hypothesis under study or disconfirmation of an alternative hypothesis. Confirmation bias is an area of interest in the teaching of critical thinking as the skill is misused when rigorous critical scrutiny is applied to evidence supporting a preconceived idea but not to evidence challenging the same preconception.[1]

In other words: I know it is so, so the evidence that supports it is what matters. We see this all the time. This sort of thinking runs the gambit, as it were, from overt and unabashed extremes, to things that seem reasonable on their surface but in application have, well, issues. As an example of an extreme, take this case, taken from the Attacks on Ron Paul by SPLC by means of LOS(sic) . The SPLC logic is this. Since Ron Paul posts on Lew Rockwell, and since some of the LOS members post on Lew Rockwell, there is a connection! Could it be that both Ron Paul and the League share some common sense answers to problems. Could it be that both stand for decency?" The “sic” above refers to the bad link provided. The actual article can be found Southern Poverty Law Center, is a tenuous one -- but also a solid one, and one that needs dealing with in the here-and-now.” (Emphasis added) Somehow, this has become translated into my being a proponent or mouthpiece for the SPLC. Rather curious, no? This sort of thing is relatively easily handled in reasonable circles. When dealing with extreme ideologues, you really just can’t “win” by calling to reason, however, so they will believe what they believe: all enemies or detractors are really just one group conspiring against them, or something else along those lines. Harkens to mind the John Birch Society.

What is perhaps more dangerous, in general, to the efforts to make people free, however, are when the more subtle forms of confirmation bias rear their ugly head. As noted by the fellows over at Cato@Liberty:

One of the most interesting trends in tech policy over the last decade has been the emergence of free software as a major force in the computer industry. [...] But some libertarians have gotten so used to defending the market against those who want to impose collectivism that they start criticizing purely voluntary efforts to organize people on more communal lines. They are forgetting that libertarianism is not necessarily about increasing the role of for–profit enterprise in every aspect of our lives. Commercial activity is one alternative to statism, and an extremely important one. But it’s just one possible mode of cooperation, and it’s not necessarily the best choice in every situation.

Why is this dangerous? There has been some effort of late – such as that espoused by one Ian Bernard, the host of Free Talk Live, a daily libertarian radio/podcast – to replace the term “libertarian” with “Free Marketeer”. It is this insularization of the ideology that has lead many people to see any form of non-monetary exchange as entirely anti-libertarian.

Which is precisely what we cannot afford: further “sectarianization”, if you will, of those of us who care about real freedom and opportunity and are at least relatively sane, (Author’s Note: relatively speaking – I make no guarantees about myself). There is a world of difference, for example, between pirated software and open-source software. The latter is something that we truly need to be endorsing, and perhaps even pushing rhetorically: it is free-handed, voluntary, collaborative works that are our best hope of keeping our heads above the water when it comes to the strength of the “massive corporations” which in many dystopian visions could easily come to replace government – and make even fascists look like liberals. Think: “MSGov™”. Not pretty. It seems almost surreal: the one group that prides itself on the keen intellectual mastery of voluntary exchange economics has no idea of the mechanisms of a gift economy, as a group.

Remember that circuitous route to “get there”? Well, here you go: while ideologues and ideals cannot share space and have the ideals succeed, the only way to separate the two is with a critical eye – on yourself. Nobody’s perfect – most people (such as this author) never get anywhere near close to it – but the key to recall is that nobody else has any reason to believe what you say simply because you say it. Ever. Doesn’t matter how powerful the message is; there is no message that rests on its own laurels. TANSTAAFL, anybody?

Converging Nano/Bio-tech, and the Energy Future

In many very real ways, the future of civilization can be determined expressly by how much energy is available to it. And while energy generation might come in many forms, it is only its concentration that determines what form of energy will base the economy.

While this may seem tautological for some, for others it is less precisely certain. Certainly, however, it was thoughts along these lines that drove Dr. Angela Belcher, of MIT, to conduct her research with viruses to create strains of them (bacteriophages, to be precise), that not only could carry an electrical charge, but do so far more efficiently than can traditional batteries – something on the order of two to three times more efficiently than is currently done, and once industrially developed there is a great deal of promise for this technique to be even cheaper than current battery-production techniques. Further details on this here.

In laboratories around the world, ever-ready scientists are charging to overhaul the common battery--for which the basic science hasn't changed much in a century. Their quest: new combinations of materials yielding cells that are much smaller and last a lot longer. In these very pages ("If Popeye Were a Biochemist," November 2005), we reported on an effort to squeeze electrical juice from spinach.

The latest potential power aid: harmless viruses called bacteriophages. Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have figured out how to genetically manipulate viruses to build structures packed with tiny conductive wires. They expect to deliver a prototype in two years, and their technology could eventually supplant today's lithium ion with thin, transparent cells boasting two to three times the energy.

This is research, mind you, that was announced as having been applied more than a year ago. The delay, now, we are told is to get this technique to an economical prototyping stage; there’s always a delay between theoretical developments and their industrial applications – sometimes a delay of “forever”, but that’s a different story. The most heavily invested-in venture capital field today is the biotech industry. What that means to this conversation is simple; for once, this is a technology we can be fairly assured will be implemented on a wide-spread basis. And the potential for this is, frankly, revolutionary; it’s worth gushing over. It may not be the end-all and be-all of our energy woes (in fact, it doesn’t even come close to such) – but what it does promise, is the ability to make electrochemical energy a viable alternative to petrochemical energy. Perhaps even a superior one, if cheaper forms of electrical generation can be developed.

It certainly isn’t as though people aren’t trying to pull that one off, either. Take, for example, another item – again from the applied biotech field, and again from about a year or so ago – that deals with the use of chlorophyll to create polymerized, non-silicon-based, solar cells. While nowhere near as efficient as current “traditional” photovoltaic cells – yet – these techniques promise to be vastly cheaper able to be applied in places that standard PV cells just can’t: like films for windows, for example. (Imagine for a second your nearest city’s downtown district; all those glass skyscrapers. Now imagine all the sunlight hitting those glass windows being utilized for electrical generation.)

What both of these technologies have in common, above and beyond their being applications of biology into energy industry, is that they are applications of a technique that has been somewhat "all the rage" of late: self-assembly. The concept is actually fairly simple: you set up a vat of the necessary chemicals or elemental materials, what-have-you; you then introduce some of the polymer or virus. This stuff has the habit of attaching the resources around it into more of itself, which presto -- you have your self-assembling material. Life has been using this approach for millions of years. Dr. Belcher referenced red abalone shells as part of her inspiration, for example. The good folks over at IBM have developed a similar technique to provide for more energy-discrete microchips; they self-assemble an insulation that has nanoscopic pockets of vacuum within them.

This is all fairly solid evidence, mind you, of the "coming nanotech revolution." Which is a very important thing, for a couple of reasons. One fairly simple one is this: in the face of the world's continuing increasing rate of consumption of energy, even if our petroleum reserves were a hundred times what they are now -- which, frankly, they very well may be -- there's no way we could keep this up indefinitely. Luckily, however, we have people working on things such as solar cells that utilize 40% of the sun's energy, by concentrating it mainly -- a technique that also allows for the utilization for electrical generation of the heat energy as well, perhaps approaching a 60-70% energy conversion rate; we have that, and we also have researchers looking to develop techniques to convert waste products more effectively and completely into energy-useable materials... again, shocker of shockers, through the use of biological processes.

It is becoming somewhat self-evident that the concept of converging technologies is at last having tangible results; this entire article has been centered around an area where they are doing exactly that. Two separate but equally vital conclusions are also self-evident from the trend revealed by the items thus far discussed:

1) We cannot afford for the so-called "bio-luddites" to stand in the way of biotech progress along this vein (or those similar, such as use of bacteria to create "biological fuel cells".)

2) This trend in technology makes it self-evident that simple progress will solve the "energy crisis" long before any governmental regulations or mandates (such as the absolutely failed Kyoto Protocol), would accomplish anything but dampening the economy -- which itself might halt such research before it even occurs. And as we have only the one planet -- the question of whether we can afford this, either, is painfully obvious.

Fully Commercial Wearable PC -- $1700 USD + Tax & Shipping

Wearable computers is a futuristic fad these days: yet most people lack the patience or know-how to actually construct a "truly wearable" computer that is non-obtrusive. For those of us in this category: good news! The prices have dropped significantly.

Ever wish you had access to the internet to look up some random bit of information, right when you didn't have access to a computer? Or that you didn't have to lean into that screen, or could IM your buddy while pacing around? Then this one's for you.

Take a little bit of this:
Retail price: $999.00

Add a little bit of this:

Retail price: $199.00 (Stock is iffy)

And finally, add a little bit of this:

Retail price: 499.00


And there you have it, ladies and gentlemen. Some assembly required (plugging into ports); battery life of roughly 4-5 hours continuous use. Get your geek on!

Initial Goals of the Praxis Teleios

Previous articles have made mention of the "Praxis Teleios": the effort by this author to formalize an irreligious modality for improving the moral self -- yet actual techniques and applications have been somewhat scarce. The following is an attempt to remedy this.

Morality is a big thing to take on. No doubt about that, not at all. It has been argued on this blog that religiosity, as opposed to secularism, is detrimental to a widely moral society. This is something that has been addressed, of course. Some initial goals for this methodology have already been addressed: rationality under stress, self-improvement. A stab has also been made at addressing methodologies: meditation as a technique. One thing is definitely certain in this: there is great, great room for improvement.

It is no secret, of course, that much of this author's efforts come from a transhumanist perspective. And I am certainly far from the first "H+'er" to attempt to make a connection between secular thought and spirituality. One of the greatest dangers of any such attempt is that it might degenerate into something like Raëlism:

Raëlism is a naturalist^[1] UFO religion promoted by the Raëlian Movement, which was founded by former auto racing journalist Claude Vorhilon. Followers, the Raëlians, believe in the rights of individualism, sexual self-determination, distributive economy, and accountability, claiming that this will be fostered by greater intelligences and will bring a new age of wealth and peace, as predicted by the main religions.

This is plainly unacceptable. But how can one safeguard against the misguided intentions of the followers and/or leaders of a movement (to engage in an act of hubris)? One possible means would be to open the topic to public review, much like is done with a "Wiki". So: openness within "the movement" must remain an additional goal: so that intellectual mistakes do not turn into painfully absurd beliefs. Categorize this one under, "honesty." Of course, so many people claim that they value honesty that attempts to emphasize it usually are equally absurd. Entire philosophies have centered around attempting to discern whether or not such a thing as "truth" even exists, or in what form it may. In the end, however, it will always remain at least partly useful to remember that this is a topic that we all understand without needing it to be defined for us. And that will suffice, given what is to follow.

Another element is the thought that we are, all of us, penultimately responsible for our own selves. We cannot control in any reliable sense of the word anything but our own selves and actions. Many would argue that we cannot even reliably control ourselves, but the entire thought behind the praxis teleios is to obtain that control. This line of thinking, while related to "self-ownership", is not to be mistaken with that ideology. Rather than being a declaration that, "Self-ownership could be viewed as a decentralized bottom-up philosophy, as opposed to totalitarianism being a centralized top-down system. Henry David Thoreau regarded self-ownership as a key component in achieving utopia, while Robert Nozick, an influential libertarian political philosopher, based his theory of property-ownership on the premise of self-ownership,"(Emphasis added), it is important to recognize that this does not imply that there is nothing outside the self, socially. I.e.; there are so few "absolutes" that attempting to apply this as one is futile. (Author's Note: Utopia is a good word for the idea: seeing as the word literally means, "No-place".)

So far we have; rationality under stress; self-improvement; personal honesty and social openness; self-responsibility and individual action; and rigorous self-control or self-determination. Okay, great. Now, how do we get there? For the vast majority of people, the sheer amount of discipline necessary to obtain such control is not only too great an investment for them, the very approach is so alien as to make it fruitless: it isn't like everybody has a Zen monastary around the corner with Tummo classes every Monday and Thursday from 7-9 PM. There is, however, an answer to this problem:

Neurofeedback, sometimes called NFB, neurobiofeedback or EEG biofeedback, is a method which attempts to train brainwave activity, as measured by electrodes on the scalp, and is presented to an individual as feedback in the form of a video display, sound or vibration. If brain activity changes in the direction desired by the therapist, a positive "reward" feedback is given to the individual, and if it regresses, either a negative feedback or no feedback is given (depending on the protocol). [...]

There are a lot of conjectural approaches to this: what one chosen seems to be more a matter of personal choice rather than overt efficacy. They run the range from simple biofeedback techniques which have no cost associated at all save the time it takes to get the practice, to more expensive set-ups that cost hundreds or thousands of dollars and require medical training to use effectively, in a therapeutic/clinical model (A trial sample of one such approach, entrainment -- using external resources to train one's neural patterns to specific frequencies, can be found here -- the actual cost would be ~$50-$60 USD).

The goal, for the practitioner teleios, is to obtain the mental focus through such techniques necessary to begin to "tie-in" specific mental responses as more "natural"; this is perhaps on-par with "affirmation". This is precisely what meditation has granted the practitioner for centuries or even millennia. Consider it the application of that much-aligned concept, autosuggestion, to consciously direct the change in a person in accordance with a pre-mapped plan. To be truly effective, however, requires that the practitioner teleios be proficient in inducing specific psychological responses; thus be able to intentionally associate specific ideas and concepts with either negative or positive responses, on an emotional level. This is precisely what neurofeedback hopes to accomplish in a clinical setting; however, since it is entirely based on the personal experience, the clinical setting while contributive, is hardly necessary.

Remember; the idea is to use technology to assist one's self in retraining the mind to associate the following things positively: rationality under stress; self-improvement; personal honesty and social openness; self-responsibility and individual action; and rigorous self-control or self-determination. It is not enough, however, to use simple "catch-phrases"; the words themselves. They must be "actuated", or they mean nothing.

The next question becomes: does this sort of approach -- with the use of non-invasive technologies to accelerate or assist the learning process, to reach a level that would be unreachable without said technology or without radical changes in lifestyle -- does it qualify as an early stage of transhuman "application"?

See More:
-- On the Praxis Teleios
-- On Secular Morality

Future Government

Wild conjecture is a fun practice where guessing what the future might turn out like. However, it is also sometimes a powerful tool to discern where we are, "in the here and now". With all the coming changes in technology, already we are beginning to see the passive sort of revolution in the way we govern ourselves: take the Diebold electronic voting machines, with all their troubles, for example.

If there is one adage about today which is true, it is this: barring all else, 'progress' is inevitable. It is in many ways like a hulking, unstoppable monolith off in the distance: You know it's coming, but it never quite seems to be here. We can point to change in the past, but never quite witness the moment. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing seems to be purely a function of personal choice; it says more about the person than it does about the situation.

So -- here's a hypothetical scenario: It is up to the reader to decide whether this is a positive or a negative. Researchers develop a means by which to guarantee the "Friendliness" of a super-human artificial intelligence. This technique is infallible, and is applied. Slowly but surely, this super-human AI takes it upon itself to redirect the course of human events in such a fashion that the governments of the world all wind up turning over their authority over to it (or its clones in each government-state, whom [the software-clones, that is] would all cooperate with one another). This goal is along the lines of maximizing the range of action potential for all human beings, collectively: no violence permitted without consent of both parties, for example.

This sort of thought might seem like a wild conjecture, but in fact it is really little more than an extrapolation of things already going on:

A new convergence process is taking place that will dramatically affect every aspect of human life. This convergence process results from the adoption of digitization in almost every form of human activity. Digitization creates a 'unified language'́ of human behavior that allows phenomena to be examined on an unprecedented scale using computers. When advanced data mining procedures are applied to these activities as a whole using cutting edge technologies that enable analysis of huge quantities of information, behavioral patterns emerge from a myriad of mundane activities. Such patterns will allow monitors -- ̃ be they social scientists, marketing experts or political leaders --̃ to arrive at an individualized form of what this paper labels personal ̈psycho- social DNAi that will allow those who possess this knowledge to scientifically predict human behavior with a high degree of accuracy -- ̃ down to the level of the individual, based on personal cognitive and other psychological traits expressed in the ëdigital footprintś we leave behind with every purchase we make, every website we visit, every event we attend, every group we belong to. The prospect of our psycho-social DNA being manipulated with the ̈right stimuli to express desired behavior threatens to usher in a new era of behavioral control, one already observes in attempts to use subliminal messages planted in TV programs...only on a much more effective and focused level.

(Emphasis original.) This so-called "smart mob" development could be viewed as the early onset or "birthing pangs" as it were of a 'cybernetic society': a society which is quite literally directed by machines. This is a prime example of how a "liberal