Video: China Attempts To Go Green

It's a message some of us don't seem to want to hear; that there is a balance between the cost of 'alternative technology', and the cost of energy. Once that threshold is crossed, without incentives and without mandates, the crossover will happen on its own. And for China, water heating seems to have already reached that point.

Video: Interview with Craig Venter, advocate of Human Genetic Engineering and Synthetic Life

This man is the quintessential libertarian transhumanist success story: listen to him talk and you'll hear that as he advocates advances in genetic understanding, he's also published his own mapped genome, what many people consider highly private. And yet, he also talks in terms of how private activities are far more effective than government endeavors. Watch and see for yourself.

Joke of the Day -- GOP Top Contenders: "We're Not Racist. Honest!"

Sometimes, it becomes painfully true that stereotypes are created for a reason. Despite a strong and republican sentiment, last night's Republican Presidential debate was missing four people: Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney, and John McCain. What was different about this particular debate? It was held by a race/minority interest group.

Quoth CNN:

BALTIMORE, Maryland (AP) -- Republican presidential candidates discussed the importance of reaching out to people of color during a minority issues debate Thursday night and criticized the leading four GOP contenders for skipping it.

"I think this is a disgrace that they are not here," said Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback. "I think it's a disgrace to our country. I think it's bad for our party, and I don't think it's good for our future."

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee said he was "embarrassed for our party, and I'm embarrassed for those who didn't come."

The four no-shows -- former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Sen. Fred Thompson, Arizona Sen. John McCain and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney -- cited scheduling conflicts in saying they could not attend the debate at historically black Morgan State University.

[...]

Paul received loud applause when he told the audience that minorities are unfairly punished in the criminal justice system. He also called for ending the war on drugs. "It isn't working," Paul said.

I make no secret of the fact that I am an avid Ron Paul supporter, despite his many faults -- which I have listed elsewhere, and don't care to repeat. But it is worth saying something that the applause for the man was the loudest of those whom were present, especially when he insisted that "I don't care about race, I care about individuals."(Or words to that effect.) It is also worth noting that I live in the home city of one of the "major" Republican contenders ... and while I have seen no fewer than thirty Ron Paul signs on highways and highly-trafficked surface streets, I have yet to see a single poster, sign, or ad for another contender -- Republican or Democrat. Still think "Dr. No"'s support is only online?

In case you missed it, you can find video and audio of the debate here.

Video: Death "Raises Questions" About Gene Therapy

Not too long ago, a woman died tragically and unexpectedly. Her name was Jolee Mohr. A detailed report can also be found here. In short, she died of a fungal infection that became developed, acutely, the day after she received her second injection of a gene-therapy trial viral vector for rheumatoid arthritis. This death is tragic. But given that it was a trial, and that the company involved is doing everything in its power to act responsibly, do we really need to "question" Gene Therapy, or is this just luddist activism encompassing one family's tragic loss? Watch this video, and form your own opinions.

Is Moderate or Bipartisan Politics The Enemy of America?

There is a saying: "[...]extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice [...] moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.". It was spoken by the failed Republican presidential candidate, Barry Goldwater, in 1964. It would seem that, today, somehow this has been transmogrified into an endorsement of "extremism in the defense of moderation." Or so, anyhow, our political leadership would have us believe.

It doesn't take very much digging to find it: bipartisanship is apparently the greatest virtue of politics today. Our very own President (I didn't vote for the guy), Mr. Bush, was hailed on this very issue once upon a time. He was to be a "Uniter, not a divider." We were told that he was a "compassionate conservative" and thus could bridge the gap. Now, compassionate conservatism is a separate issue that I won't be going into today, but suffice it to say that I think it is one of the greater deceptions pulled over the eyes of the public today: when you hear "compassionate conservative", expect a theocratic/religious political agenda.

There is, however, a more subtle evil at work in this; "We the People" have been fooled into believing that extreme politics is bad. We have been deceived into thinking that bipartisanship is good moderation. And I am here today to say, that just isn't so. Now, the chances are fairly strong that neither the democratic-socialist agenda (before you respond here, you need to realize that democratic-socialist is a mainly european appelation that specifically applies to American liberalism) nor the conservative agenda will be going away anytime soon. They seem to be too firmly rooted in the basal psyche of the human race. I could not count, if I used all my fingers, toes, and teeth, the number of times I have heard mostly non-political people state that "what we really need in this country is a party that represents the moderate perspective."

There is no such thing as a -- in the singular, unified sense -- moderate perspective. Nor should there be. It is as simple as that.

What our country (America, that is) needs is not moderation. What we need is not bipartisanship. What we need is extremism.

By way of example, there is a much larger than you'd think number of extremists whom belong to the political philosophy called liberal conservatism. That philosophy can be described -- and is, by Wikipedia -- as follows:

Liberal conservatism is a political philosophy which generally means combining elements of "conservatism" with elements of "liberalism". As these latter two terms have had different meanings over time and across countries, liberal conservatism also has a wide variety of meanings.

Historically, it often referred to the combination of economic liberalism, which stressed the importance of laissez-faire markets, with the classical conservative concern for established tradition, respect for authority and, sometimes, although in an increasingly lesser-sense, religious values. In this way it contrasted itself with classical liberalism, which supported freedom for the individual in both the economic and social spheres.

By way of contrast, there is also "classical liberalism", which today has far more in common with American conservatism than it does American liberalism. Wikipedia again comes to my rescue:

Classical liberalism (also known as traditional liberalism^[1] and laissez-faire liberalism^[2]) is a doctrine stressing the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, constitutional limitations of government, free markets, and individual freedom from restraint as exemplified in the writings of Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill,^[3], Montesquieu, Voltaire ^[4] and others. As such, it is seen as the fusion of economic liberalism with political liberalism.^[5] The "normative core" of classical liberalism is the idea that laissez-faire economics will bring about a spontaneous order or invisible hand that benefits the society,^[6] though it does not necessarily oppose the state's provision of a few basic public goods that the market is seen as being incapable of providing.^[7] The qualification classical was applied in retrospect to distinguish early nineteenth-century liberalism from the "new liberalism" associated with Thomas Hill Green, Leonard Trelawny Hobhouse,^[8] and Franklin D. Roosevelt,^[9] which grants a more interventionist role for the state.

Compared to standard conservatism and standard liberalism, both of these political philosophies could be -- quite easily -- called "moderate". And yet, when you see a political moderate in an electoral campaign, they never represent this -- in action, at least.

There's a very good reason for that: the ones who appeal to moderation are in fact appealing to compromise, not moderation. That's precisely why you'll never hear, all too often, of the so-called "radical middle". By way of exemplifying exactly where this sort of compromise thinking leads us, I will now direct your attention (if you're still reading this far in, that is) to the Moderate Party. Or, more specifically, their platform. Reading through it, you'll notice that there is a great deal of "Supports this" and "Supports that" -- but almost no details on how they intend to accomplish it. And when they do engage in actual details, they tend to be contradictory in nature:

The Moderate Party believes that the United States must return to its primary role as international peacekeeper.

The Moderate Party believes that although the United States may disagree with other nations' politically and/or socially inhumane ideologies, where those nations have not directly threatened American security, we do not have the right to preemptory invasion.

Hate to break it to 'em, but you gotta pick one or the other. You can't both be a pacifist nation and have a 'primary role as international peacekeeper'. The two are somewhat contradictory to each other. Now, that doesn't mean that we can't act in other nations; pacifism or non-interventionism is not isolationism. But it does mean that if you're going to walk softly and carry a big stick, you can't go playing whack-a-mole with other countries' petty dictators. (My mind imagines Iran yelling out, "Don't Tase Me, Bro!" -- while wearing a burkha, since countries are traditionally referred to in the feminine sense. A characteristic I've always found peculiar.)

So what is the general argument I make here, today? It's relatively simple enough: if extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, then let us no longer shun the kooks, the crazies, and the extremists, from the arena of politics. Let's give up on the appearance of agreement and consensus; instead, let us move on to having politicians who say what they mean, are respected for it, and actually attempt to accomplish what they say they will. As opposed to the shenanigans we now get to endure, where a Democratic majority was elected on the basis of getting us out of Iraq... and what we get is a non-binding resolution that can't get passed and a Speaker of the House who refuses to act on the articles of Impeachment despite there being a number of members of congress having endorsed them against both Bush and Cheney. And why? Because it won't get the votes. That is sheer weak-willed duplicity, and it's time we as a nation called both the White House and Capital Hill on it; that we told them, effectively, "We're mad as hell, and we're not going to take it anymore."

Videos: Differences of Perspective -- Blackwater In Iraq

What a difference two days and an accent make. Notice, as you watch the two videos below, that the AP piece mentions 'differences of opinion' as to who shot first, whereas the Reuters piece mentions that these acts have 'further isolated America'. And yet, it is the AP piece which reveals the more damning information on Blackwater. Watch for yourself and notice the subtle differences.

10 Reasons I Am A Transhumanist

Yes, apparently the icy fingers of Digg reach far and wide; even to the face of this blog. It's like they always say; stare into the void long enough, and the void stares into you. That being said, let's begin; and please try to keep in mind that this list is of ten semi-random reasons, and isn't in any particular order.

10. Who wants to live forever? Me -- and I'll take it with or without the scottish accent.

Researchers such as Aubrey deGrey are working on human longevity increase. Now, this could be 'radical life extension' -- i.e., living for 10,000 years -- or it could just be an extra 20 years of good health. But either way, if we don't do something to increase human lifespans, our falling reproductive rates (much of the first world is now in negative population replacement rates), will result in a major economic collapse. The added benefit of avoiding arthritis and Alzheimers' are just plain bonuses where I'm concerned. This is especially true considering that many studies indicate that today's seniors do not wish to retire like they did in the past. If medical science can make that feasible, then why not? Besides; if life is the greatest game of all, why not give in to the impulse to play "just one more turn"?

9. Because I'm enough of an anime fan that the idea of living 'catgirls' makes me giggle inside.

Body modification is a very real, and thriving, activity today. As the technology develops for somatic genetic engineering (that is, genetic engineering that only affects the person it's used on, and isn't inheritable), advanced surgical modification, and yes -- even biomechanical devices, this range is likely to increase. And while most of this will be applied to standard modification of the self; remember -- plastic surgery is meant to make us more attractive -- that is in no way an argument against achieving it. There are naysayers whom would have us believe that if everyone was beautiful, nobody would care. Most of these people aren't aware of evolutionary psychology's implications for the "baby's beauty-response studies" which did just that -- judged what newborn babies found more attractive (by studying eye-motion with comparative faces). Since there is a well-known link between satisfaction in life and physical attractiveness, it seems patently unfair to prevent people from choosing to take the chance on a new look.

8. I, for one, welcome our new robotic overlords. Especially the servile ones that will likely eradicate human toil and sweat.

Everyone today is familiar with the old story of the worker whose job was replaced by a machine. The associated economic displacement has in many ways given the 'robot' a dirty name. But the simple fact of the matter is that as these machines do their 'dirty work', the products they make become more affordable -- and thus more easily used by the poor, directly enhancing the lower-income range's quality-of-life and standards of living -- as well as expanding the economy, which historically speaking has always created more jobs than it has destroyed. Now, at some point in the future that might very well change; when our robots can start doing all of the thinking we are capable of, they might 'automate' the services industry completely, for example. There have been estimates that by the year 2030 or so, fully 50% of the economy will be completely automated -- that is, 0% human input. What such studies ignore is that the economy will also expand by more than 2x what it is today. And who knows what effect that kind of wealth will have on society-at-large, eh? Perhaps we might even reach a point where simple charitable giving will be sufficient to make a perfectly comfortable life for the permenantly unemployed. Failing that, there's always the socialized answer -- one this libertarian despises -- but with a "robotic" twist; establish laws that require portions of profits derived from automation to be 'redistributed' to those whom are left on their backs. But hopefully society can work those kinks out on its own.

7. We've come too far technologically to turn our backs on it and have anything other than the catastrophic failure of human civilization as a result.

When was the last time you, my reader, hunted and killed an animal for you and your family's consumption over a fire that you yourself had lit without the benefit of any kind of non-hand-manufactured devices? Either for the hunting or for the fire? There's an adage that 'the progress of technology is inevitable' or something like that. Some people -- the neo-Luddites -- see this as the most horrific possible scenario; an answer I've always found quite odd considering the impact of technological progress on the human condition. It's been my experience that most people who talk about "the simple life" have never seen an animal skinned; nor have they seen someone's arm mangled in a loom (many wouldn't even know what a loom is). While that's no excuse to run full-throttle into the future, all bright-eyes and bushy tails, it's also no excuse to turn our backs on something that could radically and fundamentally improve our existence.

6. The average person today is stupid, damnit!

All impact of the Flynn Effect aside, we live in a condition today where nearly one in three people will say that the sun goes 'round the earth. One area of progress that we have seemingly specifically avoided is the improvement of our own minds; however, if we don't do something to change this, it is very likely that the impact of Rational Ignorance will continue to degrade our democratic society as it continues to feel the heavy burden of the inefficiencies derived from the governance of an ever-expanding number of people.
In other words; if we don't do something with science/technology to make people smarter, we can look forward to entire generations of Presidents whom are worse and worse than George Bush. Consider; the "term-average" approval rating for each Congress and President has been on a continual downward spiral for decades. Over 50% of the American population doesn't bother to vote -- ever. Democracies (and republics) can only retain their freedom if the public is well-informed and active in politics. As it stands right now, that burden is simply beyond the capacity of the average person. Does anyone else smell that "Failure of the Nation" pie cooking in the oven?

5. I want to know Kung-Fu.

Currently, one of the funded goals of DARPA is to acheive what is referred to as an "in-out brain-computer interface". (In 'popular culture' this has also been referred to as a "Data-Jack".) The potential benefits to such devices are enormous. Think; you'd never forget the phone-number of the girl/guy you met in the bar last night, or where your keys were, ever again. But that's only the vulgar. Imagine the cost-reduction to education if multi-variable calculus was something that you could learn by paying $100.00 USD and installing a software patch? They also say that those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it. So much for that little problem, eh? Now, there are some significant hurdles to achieving such technology -- but they are well worth overcoming, and effort is being made specifically to do so.

4. It would be nice to have a backup of myself in case of accident.

One of the many topics being discussed within transhumanism is the idea of "mind uploading". We discuss the idea of mapping the brain and storing that in digital format. Now, there is still, apparently, some debate as to whether such a 'stored format' could operate; that is, could a human mind exist as pure data? But regardless of this, if we can map the mind, we can also rebuild that mind. While this wouldn't actually be the same person as you -- the laws of quantum mechanics and physics in general demand otherwise -- it would be who you were up until that point. And it's a pretty comforting thought to think that you could, technically speaking, 'live forever.' Even if you couldn't remember your own death.

3. I want some say in who will inherit the earth.

Think about it. As they say, "Nothing lasts forever". Some day, the 'reign' of humankind will come to an end.. Now, we could just idly evolve into the next species, or we could just wipe ourselves out through some variant of the game called "Global Thermonuclear Warfare" (Remember, kids; if the computer asks if you'd rather play chess, Say YES). But it simply makes more sense to do what we can to ensure that what inherits the planet (or cosmos, if you like), will be Friendly.

2. I believe it's part of every person's duty as a human being to improve themselves.

Let's face it, we indulge those funny-looking guys in white coats and thick glasses with so damned much money because they improve life for everybody else. So in a real way, science is about improving ourselves. Why not cut out the middleman, as it were, of improving our environment so our lives are better and simply improve ourselves with science? Now, don't get me wrong; this is not an implication that humans are somehow 'intrinsically flawed' or 'inferior'. Compared to the species that preceeded us, homo sapiens is practically god-like. But why stop there? Are we to be so incredibly arrogant as to believe that the human being is the perfected pinnacle of creation, never to change and with no room for improvement? Nature used only four of the twelve known viable base-pairs for DNA. An estimated 5-10% of our DNA is directly from bacteria. Nobody know what effect introns have on the genetic code. But as some in transhumanist society love to point out, the silicon transister's baud rate (speed by which it transfers information) is some several orders of magnitude greater than the neuron's.

1. Since everything in life is connected, if you improve one thing you improve the rest.

Will transhuman alterations improve society for the greater? Who knows. Certainly it will improve life for those whom are so modified, Francis Fukuyama be damned. But, hell -- if it's good enough for the Mormons, then it's good enough for everybody. Moving aside from the infernal/religious imagery, at the end of the day, whenever you ask any explorer why he did what he did, the answer is generally one of two:

• Because I could.
• To see what was there.

For transhumanism, it's good to add just one more:

• I want to be better.

Video: Fixing Health Care

The following video footage is an interview by the Wall Street Journal of the CEO of Kaiser Permanente. The topic is, of course, how to 'fix' America's health-care system. There's a not-so-subtle point I wish to make to the viewer; please notice where the CEO indicates that "the buyers [of insurance] -- that's the corporations -- need to start demanding quality of care". I humbly suggest that the well-known mechanism of quality degradation as a function of degrees of fiscal separation from the consumer just might have something to do with how we got here. There's more to this vid than just that, though -- so, watch.

Proof Positive -- The Bush Administration Is Using Unlawful Combatants

Blackwater is a mercenary force. Yes, we use the more "politically correct" term of 'security consultant', but as they say, "A rose, by any other name..." In light of recent news, however, this takes on a somewhat more... disturbing cast.

As this blog has reported in the past, more than 100,000 'security consultants' are in active service in a combat or combat-supportive role in Iraq. For now, please keep that in mind as I go in what will seem like a 90° angle from that point. The LA Times today reported on the fact that, apparently, the Bush Administration is set on invoking military tribunals on its military prisoners -- you know, the 'unlawful enemy combatants' that we hear so much about? Consider:

The central issue in Khadr's case seemed to some to be ridiculously technical. In 2004, Khadr was ruled an "enemy combatant." The Military Commissions Act of 2006 set up the tribunals to try "alien unlawful enemy combatants."


In Monday's decision, Navy Capt. John W. Rolph, the deputy chief judge of the court, wrote that the trial judge was correct in determining that only unlawful combatants could come before the court. The appeals court also noted that the original Combatant Status Review Tribunal that ruled Khadr was an enemy combatant used a "less exacting standard" than was laid out in the Military Commissions Act.

So whether someone is an enemy combatant or an unlawful enemy combatant is a 'ridiculous technicality' is it? Well, what is the difference between the two, then? According to Wikipedia, To Qualify for prisoner of war status [by being a lawful combatant,] persons waging war must have the following characteristics [...]:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict


2. or members of militias not under the command of the armed forces
   
   
   
   • that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
   
   
   • that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
   
   
   • that of carrying arms openly;
   
   
   • that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
   
   
3. or are members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.


4. or inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

The same Wikipedia entry notes that mercenaries are unlawful civilian combatants. And then you have the US requirements to be an Unlawful Combatant:

In the United States, the Military Commissions Act codified the legal definition of this term, and invested the U.S. President with broad discretion to determine whether a person may be designated an unlawful enemy combatant. The assumption that such a category as unlawful combatant exists is not contradicted by the findings by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in the Celebici Judgment.

Note that this only allows Mr. Bush to add to the 'rolls' of unlawful enemy combatants.

The conclusion is clear: The United States of America Is Actively Using Unlawful Combatants.

Not that this ought to surprise anybody, really: this country I love has been lead by hypocrites for far too long. And in case you still need evidence of this, consider this, brought to us by the NY Daily News:

President Bush announced news sanctions today against the military regime in Myanmar and called on UN members to support struggles against dictatorships around the world.

"The people of Lebanon and Afghanistan and Iraq have asked for our help, and every civilized nation has a responsibility to stand with them," Bush told the UN General Assembly.

"Every civilized nation also has a responsibility to stand up for the people suffering under dictatorship," he said. "In Belarus, North Korea, Syria and Iran, brutal regimes deny their people the fundamental rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration" of the United Nations.

[...]
[UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon] called peace in the Middle East is [sic] vital to the stability of the region and the world.

"We know what is required: an end to violence, an end to occupation, the creation of a Palestinian state at peace with itself and Israel, and a comprehensive regional peace between Israel and the Arab world," he said.

Notice the subtle digs by the UN Secretary-General against the two most significant US foreign policies; the ending of the Iraqi occupation (which is, operationally, exactly what we're doing in Iraq), and the creation of an independent Palestinian state -- which would, of course, fly directly in the face of traditional US support of Israel.

Now, as a libertarian I have nothing against private armies. That's not where this argument is being directed. What I have a problem with is the use of private armies in an unregulated, 'above-the-law' manner by my government. If we're going to raise a furor over the use of unlawful combatants by our enemy, what the devil are we doing, using them ourselves?

Video: Insurgents Hit Oil Refinery In Iraq

This video, from September 19th, purports to discuss the fact that Iraqi 'insurgents' struck at and severely damaged an oil pipeline for the largest oil refinery in Iraq. It'll be interesting to see what happens to energy prices as this impact sinks in -- although it is worth noting that energy futures in America were largely unaffected; whereas when the Gulf of Mexico had a hurricane 'scare', energy prices reached record highs. Enjoy the visual-learning goodness.

Joke of the Day: Equipping The Young

The image is also a link to the source.

When Satire Fails You -- Or; Because Poking Fun of The Government Is a Patriotic Duty.

Not everything can be gloom-and-doom. Since satire has been a powerful tool since at the very least the days of the Modest Proposal, which was itself modeled after the style of the ancient greeks, it is always useful to remember to poke fun at our 'illustrious leaders'.

It is with this thought in mind that I bring you these three items, each drawn from the top online news items of today, September the 24th, 2007.

Forbes.com brings us, "The Biggest FDA Reform In A Decade":

You wouldn't know it from the lack of fanfare, but the Food and Drug Administration is getting its biggest overhaul in a decade in a dramatic