Slashdot Mirror

According to Dan Koeppel in his book linked here, Banana: The Fate of the Fruit That Changed the World there are scores of species and varieties of bananas. Many have annoying seeds, but many also have large amounts of vitamin A, and Koeppel discusses the fact that on some islands these are a major source of vitamin A for the populace. So, I'm not dead-set against GMOs, but why should anyone take the risks (even if they are low), when we could instead merely introduce more cultivars already bearing copious amounts of vitamin A, and let the best one win? This would not only avoid the whole GMO issue, but it would also introduce new flavors, and may reduce the chances of the plants from being wiped out by Panama disease or black sigatoka, which threaten bananas mainly because likely every banana you've ever eaten is genetically identical, which usually predisposes a population to diseases, if you didn't know.

Greenwald was actually pretty libertarian/non political, but as a constitutional law litigator, he got sick of what he felt were a series of abuses by the prior and then current administration post 9/11.

I'd go more for "non-political" than "libertarian", based on his preface to "How Would A Patriot Act".

As for Greenwald's current political views, see his Frequently Told Lies" blog post, where he explicitly answers claims that he's a "right-wing libertarian" with some pretty good indications that he's not one (I suspect few "right-wing libertarians" would strongly advocate a "public option" for health insurance, for example).

The truth is that most whistleblowers are generally conservative.

"Conservative", or libertarian? "Conservative" is used in multiple different ways, few if any of which are equivalent to libertarian.

No, I was talking about Mead. Gandhi's quote is taken out of context. Mead's quote is just plain wrong.

There's a somewhat depressing book called "Under The Banner Of Heaven" by Jon Krakauer, talking mostly about the history and context of the Mormons, but also talking about how easy it is for scammers to make headway in mormon communities because everyone trusts churchmembers. That's a fundamental part of human communities, and even computers working with game theory predict that in groups that repetitively interact, initial trust benefits the members of the group, which is why this scam works so well.

Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. There is some evidence that there's a biological basis for a number of religious experiences, and that religions produce measurable positive personal and cultural effects. We just need to create a religion that can't be exploited for personal gain as easily as all the current ones have. This is a difficult, but perhaps achievable, goal even though a fundamental aspect of most religions is belief with few or no supporting facts.

Belief does predispose someone to uncritical acceptance of other memes. However, to innoculate against pathogenic memes, it may be possible to make critical investigation of any idea part of the core memes of a religious system. This can be achieved without contradiction if you can show that the religious beliefs themselves have purely positive effects for the individual and society (and should be discarded, updated, or set aside in unforeseen situations where negative effects occur).

Reason and rationality may lead you to embrace a belief, when it does not conlict with established fact, for its positive benefits to yourself and society.

Soul of a New Machine by Tracy Kidder (book teaser) My favorite chapter was The Case Of The Missing NAND Gate.

Recommended bedtime reading.

An excerpt and review can be found at: Bookbrowse.com : Fear Nothing: Review.

The original writer and the bulk of the discussion participants take a hostile, superior stance towards mass-market pop culture. I'd like to direct y'all's attention towards a bit of writing by Dave Eggers, author of A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius and editor of McSweeney'sand generally recognized as the hippest, most po-mo dude in the room. He gave an online interview in the Harvard Advocate last year, and the interviewer asked him, in light of his recent exposure in the evil corporate media, what he was doing to "keep shit real." He responded with an articulate, impassioned rant on the stupidity of the question, and of the notion of trying to increase one's own cool by distancing oneself from the "mainstream," "mass-marketed" notion of cool.

Here's the entire interview. It's rather long; I'll follow up w/ a reprint of the relevant section below, if /. will allow...