http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superiority_(short_story) ""Superiority" is a science fiction short story by Arthur C. Clarke, first published in 1951. It depicts an arms race, and shows how the side which is more technologically advanced can be defeated, despite its apparent superiority, because of its own organizational flaws and its willingness to discard old technology without having fully perfected the new. The story was at one point required reading for an industrial design course at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.[1]"
It depends on how public works are paid for and what is going on in the rest of the economy at the time. Consider the situation of too little cash is in the real economy, and too much cash is in the "casino" economy of the FIRE sector (much of it rich people gambling with teach other in zero-sum games). I would say that is the case today -- there is lots of money floating around but it could be all stuffed into mattresses for the effect it is having on our economy. In that case, a government printing money to pay for public works puts money immediately in the hands of many people who will spend it in the real goods economy. Any extra inflation will have the positive effect on the economy of sucking money as a tax out of the casino economy. Higher inflation also forces those with huge bank balances earning no interest to inject that money into the economy as investments or consumption rather than lose it to inflation.
By the way, I put together a lot of possibilities on dealing with joblessness here, and yes, increasing pointless bureaucracy was one of them: http://www.pdfernhout.net/beyond-a-jobless-recovery-knol.html "Here is a list of possible ways to deal with joblessness.[53] Some "cures" emerge mostly on their own; some require political action to start or to prevent. This list is intended to be complete in order to help in understanding the interaction between social changes and job creation; not all possibilities are desirable by most societies. The ones in the first half of the list (like wage subsidies, a shorter work week, or a basic income) in general would usually be considered more positive and adaptive responses than the ones in the second half of the list (like war, escapism, and luddism), although actual preferences or ordering of desirability and acceptability may vary depending on political beliefs and feelings about things like government intervention and taxation. Many of the items in the second half of the list have profit-making aspects for some individuals within the current economic system, although usually directly at the cost of others in society (like crime). Not all items on this list are compatible with each other. Not all might be considered moral or would be legal under international law or existing trade agreements. Some of these "cures" create new jobs (like public works), others make it easier to survive without a job (like frugality), others eliminate the unemployed individuals from the official statistics in various ways (like prisons), others in some way destroy abundance which has a side effect of creating jobs to build it back up (war), and some allow someone unemployed to take a job that someone else was doing but who no longer can do the job anymore for various reasons (like mandatory retirement). Some of the "cures" that help individuals survive without a job may actually increase the unemployment rate as they reduce demand for items in the market place produced by paid employment, contributing to overall increased joblessness even as the individual may be helped locally. Because these items may interact in unexpected ways, and people have many different feelings about them as different groups may benefit or be harmed in different ways, and many vested interests are involved, it is challenging for any economist, political scientist, politician or private citizen to make sense of all these issues or to pick a best way forward, even though people are trying in various ways to do that.[4] New approaches in social science involving computer simulation and agent-based modelling may also help in understanding the way these issues interact to gain insight into them.[54]"
Stuff I wrote five years ago about Princeton, but applies to MIT as well: http://www.pdfernhout.net/reading-between-the-lines.html "Post-Scarcity Princeton, or, Reading between the lines of PAW for prospective Princeton students, or, the Health Risks of Heart Disease... We are witnessing a historic end to scarcity of many things (maybe not all, but enough to be a new global Renaissance). But is Princeton University helping prepare either students or the rest of society for these changes? Or is it instead an institution under stress, crashing into these trends instead of moving with them? Or is it perhaps conflicted in how it sees itself and its future, and so trying to do both these conflicting approaches at once?:-) "
There is a lot you can do with stories once they are tagged for emotional intensity, whether automatically, by the teller, or by other people. Stories are all around us, as we try to make sense of our lives and events in our communities. So this sort of technology to tag emotions in stories is much more far reaching than just being about fiction. It can be used to design better products, to help communities figure out what to do about a pressing issue, to resolve conflicts, and to see emerging trends. That is one reason such work is funded by the intelligence sector (as well as businesses and some non-profits). She's been trying to make these ideas freely available to everyone, but it has been a slow going slog to follow the path of free and open source for all this.
That said, nothing works everywhere. Still, Izzy Kalman says it is rare that physical violence among humans (at least related to schoolyard bullying) is not preceded by some kind of verbal escalation beforehand. If you can prevent the escalation, you probably can prevent the violence.
Anyway, it can be fun to try what Izzy demonstrates at home, He goes into more details on his CD and book, but basically, you get a friend, spouse, child whoever, and say you are going to play a game. The game is they are going to insult you and you are going to make them stop. If they stop, you win, If you give up, they win. The first time, try to disagree with them like he shows, getting upset, and so on. The second time, say it is OK if they think that, and so on, also like he illustrates. See which one they win and which one you win.
Note that as Izzy explains, you need to do these techniques 100% of the time, and you will still experience some teasing, showing, and so on. If you do them 95% of the time and get upset the other 5%, the cycle will continue because the bullying is being randomly reinforced (see operant conditioning).
Anyway, different things work in different environments. Sounds like you grew up in some tough situations. I could believe that what might work in most typical schools with typical bullying won't work in some with a certain kind of entrenched macho culture (without a lot of other changes).
It includes one testimonial about groups: ""A child was sent to me who had been teased by a whole group of children as a result of an incident at recess. I took him through the steps that I learned from Bullies to Buddies and within 15 minutes this child was able to go back to class and continue learning. The teacher was amazed at the transformation. I was able to teach the whole class the technique, which resulted in more time on task and more learning. The students got along better and the learning environment became more pleasant and enjoyable for everyone. Izzy is a master of making this learning fun and easy to teach.â -- Malda Burns, Rockdale Elementary School Counselor, Rockdale, Texas"
I don't know how long ago you deal with a bully that way, but these days you might be arrested and jailed for assault for intentionally giving someone a concussion in school. Times have changed. Also, maybe nobody messed with you, but did you lose out on other relationships that you will never know about based on people's perceptions of you? (Maybe not in many schools, but consider what the implications would be in the workplace...)
Also, as Izzy Kalman points out, fighting back can work, but only when you are absolutely sure you can defeat the bully. Also, what if that bully had a gun or knife, or a friend who did? Once you take a swing in response to bullying (whether verbal or physical), it could be seen as "self-defense" by the bully to seriously hurt you. These things are tough calls sometimes.
Yes, you stopped the bullying that time. But words leading to endless rounds of violence also are how gang wars and endless vendettas can get started. Other aspects: http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/31/living/bullying-fight-back/index.html "This type of "superior force" advice shows a lack of appreciation for the complexities of the bully-victim dynamics of today's world, where bullying often takes place in new arenas, such as on the Internet. Sure, if a victim fights back and flattens his bully, the bully tends to back off. But what if the bullies are hiding behind computer screens? What if the target is physically incapable of taking down the bully, which is more often the case?
The truth is that there are many bullying situations in which the victim cannot simply beat up the bully and end the problem. The very nature of bullying renders victims fearful, frozen and incapable of defending themselves. According to bullying researcher Dan Olweus, bullying is characterized by three factors: 1) It is repetitive (not a one-time event in the hall, but a regular ongoing problem). 2) It is unwanted (not two-way teasing where both parties are having fun, but instead a situation where someone is on the receiving end of taunts and aggression). 3) It takes place in the context of a power imbalance (a bigger kid against a smaller kid, or multiple kids against a single kid, or a kid with more social capital against a kid with less social capital).
When multiple kids are targeting one child, the situation can feel completely overwhelming...."
Nothing works for every situation. For example, Izzy Kalman says his approach requires the "bully" to be reasonable emotionally stable -- which is almost always the case, but not 100% of the time.
BTW, Izzy Kalman's approach does not work by reporting bullying. In fact, he generally discourages reporting as just something that will escalate the problem (except if the bully is extremely unstable or causing significant physical harm).
Izzy Kalman's approach is more complex than "blame the victim". In most cases, "bullying" emerges from an interaction of "bully" and "victim" (generally in the context of some community). In practice, "victims" have the most at stake in changing the situation and also are most able to intervene for themselves. While it is great to create caring communities where people respect each other in all ways, in practice humans have a certain back and forth of joking with and about each other and so on. Conventional anti-bullying campaigns run the risk of destroying communities and relationships out of some theory of how to fix them. They can actually make the problem worse (like encouraging tattling, where accusing someone of bullying can become a new form of bullying, etc.). According to the testimonials on his site, Izzy Kalman's approach works in practice, when most zero-tolerance and also tattle-promoting strategies don't work well. His approach works by breaking the feedback loop between bully and victim by the victim not responding in ways that gives the bully encouragement to continue. There are exceptions to this; Izzy Kalman suggests a few where his strategy does not work like where the bully is very emotionally unstable and violent, and then yes, you would need to bring in higher authorities including potentially law enforcement. But in general, Izzy points out that getting picked on now and then is part of community life; the issue is whether that escalates into bullying, and that mostly is under the "victim's" control -- as much as that might not sound "fair" in some ways.
Where I might fault Izzy Kalman is not talking about how poor nutrition from junk food (lack of omega 3s, artificial colors and flavors, lack of phytonutrients, lack of vitamin D, etc.) may be leading to more violence and other anti-social behavior in our society. Also, the spread of computers, while not necessarily causing violence directly itself, takes away from time spent learning to interact with other human beings. And there are probably other similar factors as well (economic stress, failing communities, two-wage-earner families or single parents, etc.). I'm also all for teaching emotion coaching and conflict resolution and all sorts of other things that some anti-bullying efforts due. Also, I'm all for alternatives to compulsory schooling, where conventional schooling forces random children to spend all day with each other whether they want to or not (so children can't avoid conflicts that are escalating). But, as much as one can make people saying intentionally hurtful things less frequent, I feel Izzy is on to something in breaking the positive feedback cycle where negative comments spin out of control as the victim responds in ways that encourage the bully to keep going.
Here is one example testimonial: http://bullies2buddies.com/evidence-testimonials/does-bullies-to-buddies-work/ ""Bullies to Buddies is the most effective anti-bullying program I have encountered in my 14 years as a school counselor. It gives victims the tools and strategies necessary to handle difficult situations, thus increasing their self esteem. Parents are thrilled and some of them are practicing the skills with their children. The teachers and aides feel relieved that they no long need to handle every tiny little tattle or situation. This saves an enormous amount of time in the classroom and children find that they have more time to play. The teachers not only used the strategies of Bullies to Buddiesâ in their classroom but also with their husbands, children and exes." -- Vickie Kolb, School Counselor, Brandon Valley School District, Brandon, South Dakota"
In the case for the original article, maybe if the "victim" had learned these skills of managing these situations, then things would not have escalated to the point where the "victim" was pretending to kill people using a phone? Maybe the bullying would have never got that bad if the vict
Good points, along the lines of books like "Brave New World" and "Amusing Ourselves to Death". Although it seems lots of systems link together to support power, so there is probably not just one, even if one may be stronger at one time.
The movie "Elysium" features security robots, for example. I envisioned something related here with robots enforcing the "rules": "The Richest Man in the World: A parable about structural unemployment and a basic income" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p14bAe6AzhA
But right now, the laws the human police (and legal bureaucracies) enforce are created through political means: http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica "Q: So, who does rule America? A: The owners and managers of large income-producing properties; i.e., the owners of corporations, banks, other financial institutions, and agri-businesses. But they have plenty of help from the managers and experts they hire.... Q: Then how do they rule? A: That's a complicated story, but the short answer is through lobbying, open and direct involvement in general policy planning on the big issues, participation (in large part through campaign donations) in political campaigns and elections, and through appointments to key decision-making positions in government."
That said, perhaps the world will always be run by the "1%" who are paying attention in any community? Even those who showed up at "Occupy Wall Street" were, in a sense, part of a "1%"?
OWS's "We are the 99%" was actually a divisive slogan. A focus on increasing egalitarianism might have been better: http://www.kurtz-fernhout.com/oscomak/
Maybe the main issue is whether those who are paying attention have an egalitarian mindset to some degree, at least as far as distributing most of what nature and industry produces? If you look at Western Europe, there is a somewhat different sense of political and moral accountability among leadership. Granted, that is driven by a more active and aware populace building upon ideas from the USA's past: http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2010/08/25/german_usa_working_life_ext2010 " How did Germany become such a great place to work in the first place?... The Allies did it. This whole European model came, to some extent, from the New Deal. Our real history and tradition is what we created in Europe. Occupying Germany after WWII, the 1945 European constitutions, the UN Charter of Human Rights all came from Eleanor Roosevelt and the New Dealers. All of it got worked into the constitutions of Europe and helped shape their social democracies. It came from us. The papal encyclicals on labor, it came from the Americans."
Thus: "How Germany Builds Twice as Many Cars as the U.S. While Paying Its Workers Twice as Much" http://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickallen/2011/12/21/germany-builds-twice-as-many-cars-as-the-u-s-while-paying-its-auto-workers-twice-as-much/ "In 2010, Germany produced more than 5.5 million automobiles; the U.S produced 2.7 million. At the same time, the average auto worker in Germany made $67.14 per hour in salary in benefits; the average one in the U.S. made $33.77 per hour. Yet Germanyâ(TM)s big three car companies --- BMW, Daimler (Mercedes-Benz), and Volkswagen -- are very profitable."
That comes down somewhat to culture and mythology and the stories we (including the "1%") tell ourselves about who we are and who we want to be (and why).
Well, by your logic, would you suggest private property rights to land are only OK as long as we make respecting them non-mandatory? Or are you starting with the assumption that government will enforce such a system?
If we allow government to enforce any such rights like to private land, then we've structured a system of economics. Then we can ask all sorts of questions about "fairness" and distributing the gains of the system. In practice, all modern economies are run by certain rules. We can always discuss the rules, even though people currently doing well (by their own standards) in the current system may wish that the rules be left alone or not even discussed.
In any case, since robots, AI, and other automation are going to take most of the jobs pretty soon, or at least allow a few people to do so much that most workers are not needed, it's a moot point about whether wealth needs to be redistributed -- unless you'd prefer to see most of the world's population starve while grain silos overflow with grain?
I write on my personal website about similar themes related to automation and distribution. A "basic income" is one way forward, as is expanding the gift economy, improving local subsistence (maybe via your 3D printers and energy devices and also gardening robots), and/or better democratically planned economics. While you say "the only way to solve this is individual action", and that is true to some point because individuals (or small groups as Margaret Mead said) can make a big difference, ultimately politics like for a "basic income" is about collective action by millions as far as voting and such.
Note also that "natural selection" can select towards cooperation in various situations.
See also James P. Hogan's "Voyage from Yesterear" for one alternative vision, where human competitive inclinations are redirected towards excellence and gift-giving. See also the "Potlatch" for a historical example of a gift economy in North America (which according to the Wikipedia article politicians tried to stamp out as "uncivilized").
Also, to echo your point on "family", raising children well can easily take as much effort as most adults can put into it... And the solar system could support quadrillions of humans in high-tech style in space habitats.
Although automation also inherently shifts political power in a few ways (making it easier to concentrate wealth at first like Marshall Brain talks about). If we keep capitalism, we'll probably need a "basic income" for it to keep working (other than pointless mandated make-work), We can also strengthen the gift economy, the subsistence economy, and the democratically planned economy. See my website for related ideas, especially this: http://www.pdfernhout.net/beyond-a-jobless-recovery-knol.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwslBPj8GgI "Eric Mazur: "I thought I was a good teacher until I discovered my students were just memorizing information rather than learning to understand the material. Who was to blame? The students? The material? I will explain how I came to the agonizing conclusion that the culprit was neither of these. It was my teaching that caused students to fail! I will show how I have adjusted my approach to teaching and how it has improved my students' performance significantly." Eric Mazur is the Balkanski Professor of Physics and Applied Physics at Harvard University. An internationally recognized scientist and researcher, he leads a vigorous research program in optical physics and supervises one of the largest research groups in the Physics Department at Harvard University."
I guess teaching physics is close to teaching rocket science?:-) So, even rocket scientists who care can imporve their teaching...
Basicall, he expects students to do reading before class, then he asks a question, then gets responses, and then has students talk to their neighbors int he classroom to justify the answers to each other. Sounds similar to the approach in the original article.
I have the same gut reaction... This research as described in the article summary seems to twist together aspects of horror, torture, and slavery.
But then again, I feel somewhat the same way about the development of AI... And we all may be simulated humans already: http://www.simulation-argument.com/
But somehow that it is not quite the same visceral feeling as thinking about small human brains being created to do arbitrary experiments on...
By the way, on the person who brought up the Parkinson's question: http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/lack_of_DHA_linked_to_Parkinsons.aspx "According to the researchers, among the mice that had been given omega-3 supplementation - in particular DHA - omega-3 fatty acids replaced the omega-6 fatty acids in their brains. Due to the fact that concentrations of other omega-3s (LNA and EPA) had maintained levels in both groups of mice, the researchers suggested that the protective effect against Parkinson's indeed came from DHA.2"
Although that was experiments on mice... Not to say mice don't suffer or probably dream too...
Going far down the slippery ethical slope...
That said, somehow I doubt all scientists will abstain from this research. A couple ideas on scientists: http://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/crunch_art.html http://www.disciplined-minds.com/ http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm "For the scientific method can teach us nothing else beyond how facts are related to, and conditioned by, each other. The aspiration toward such objective knowledge belongs to the highest of which man is capabIe, and you will certainly not suspect me of wishing to belittle the achievements and the heroic efforts of man in this sphere. Yet it is equally clear that knowledge of what is does not open the door directly to what should be. One can have the clearest and most complete knowledge of what is, and yet not be able to deduct from that what should be the goal of our human aspirations. Objective knowledge provides us with powerful instruments for the achievements of certain ends, but the ultimate goal itself and the longing to reach it must come from another source. And it is hardly necessary to argue for the view that our existence and our activity acquire meaning only by the setting up of such a goal and of corresponding values. The knowledge of truth as such is wonderful, but it is so little capable of acting as a guide that it cannot prove even the justification and the value of the aspiration toward that very knowledge of truth. Here we face, therefore, the limits of the purely rational conception of our existence. (Albert Einstein)"
So, what is the moral foundation for our work in any profession?
http://www.prevention.com/food/healthy-eating-tips/gmo-foods-linked-weight-gain "As part of a long-term project studying the health effects of GM foods -- crops that have had their DNA modified to resist pesticides and drought -- researchers from Norway fed food containing GM corn to one group of rats and food containing non-GM corn to another group. Over the course of 90 days, the rats on the GM-corn diet grew fatter and ate more food than the rats on the non-GM diet. The researchers also noticed that rats got fatter when they ate fish that had been raised on GM corn."
What's the likelihood that Purina rat chow and Purina monkey chow (yes they exist) are made with cheaper GMOs? The article suggests also that food grown these days may be less nutritious in terms of micronutrients than in the past (due to depleted soils and different high-yield varieties of crops), and so creatures need to ingest more calories to get the same amount of needed micronutrients.
But I agree with the article's author when David Berreby writes: "The trap is deeper than that, however. The 'unifying logic of capitalism', [Jonathan C K ] Wells continues, requires that food companies seek immediate profit and long-term success, and their optimal strategy for that involves encouraging people to choose foods that are most profitable to produce and sell -- 'both at the behavioural level, through advertising, price manipulations and restriction of choice, and at the physiological level through the enhancement of addictive properties of foods' (by which he means those sugars and fats that make 'metabolic disturber' foods so habit-forming). In short, Wells told me via email, 'We need to understand that we have not yet grasped how to address this situation, but we are increasingly understanding that attributing obesity to personal responsibility is very simplistic.' Rather than harping on personal responsibility so much, Wells believes, we should be looking at the global economic system, seeking to reform it so that it promotes access to nutritious food for everyone. That is, admittedly, a tall order. But the argument is worth considering, if only as a bracing critique of our individual-responsibility ideology of fatness."
On stress and obesity, evolutionarily, eating more when stressed makes a lot of sense, because historically stress probably means you are uncertain about where your next meal is going to come from, so best to stock up now if you can, which means it is more likely you will survive to have and raise children later on.
"Also a modern jet fighter is a testimony to mankind's ingenuity, not his wisdom."
Yes, including because the same technologies (including the surrounding bureaucracy) if organized differently could likely relieve the resource-related conflict that the jet fighter was invented to solve in other ways. Thus my sig and essay on the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity. Or, as Isaac Asimov had one politician character (Salvor Hardin) say in "Foundation" series, "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent". Or Einstein's point on the need to change our way of thinking to adapt to the change from high technology (unleashing the atom especially, but it applies generally). Or Bucky Fuller's words about how whether it will be utopia or oblivion will be a touch-and-go relay race to the very end.
The fact that the US missions to the moon started by President Kennedy were, as you say, funded mainly to prove a military point about ICBMs by the US is sadly a big part of why significant further work on space settlement never happened... From: http://whitehousetapes.net/clip/john-kennedy-james-webb-robert-seamans-hugh-dryden-jerome-wiesner-fly-me-moon "President Kennedy: So obviously you wouldn't put it on that priority except for the defense implication..."
Although I guess one could argue some clever engineers took advantage of the military-oriented political dynamic to do something more worthwhile for humanity? While playing catch-up to the Russians who stated explicitely they wanted to build space settlements?
Still, as US$30 a watt, OTEC is going to have trouble competing with less than US$1 a watt solar panels (and falling). Sounds like OTEC's big economic benefit may be improving fishing harvests.
I was under 10 when the moon landings happened, so maybe just a little too young to understand the significance of the initial landing. Somehow, I can't say that affected me as much as seeing sci-fi movies like "Silent Running" though, or various other TV programs (Space 1999, Thunderbirds, Star Trek) even though some of those were no doubt inspired by the spirit of the times. James P. Hogan's scifi novels set in space habitats or huge space ships were a huge inspiration as well (like voyage from yesteryear, two faces of tomorrow).
These days, as the USA descends into what seems to be self-destructive madness as it becomes an obese unhealthy unequal fearful addicted surveillance state, putting cameras in living rooms instead of on the Moon, profiling potential troublemakers to imprison them instead of help them be contributing engineers or whatever, and letting its physical, moral, health, and political infrastructure decay for ideological neoconservative/neoliberal reasons, these days it's kind of hard to remember there was a time that both young kids and politicians in USA seriously aspired to walk on other planets whatever the political justification... It's even hard to remember there was a time when half of Congress passed something like a "basic income" law under Nixon (passed the House, but failed in the Senate in part because some thought it not big enough), or even just that we aspired politically to have bridges and water mains and roads everywhere that were in good shape.
More on China vs. the USA: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/09/opinion/09friedman.html?_r=0 "Watching both the health care and climate/energy debates in Congress, it is hard not to draw the following conclusion: There is only one thing worse than one-party autocracy, and that is one-party democracy, which is what we have in America today."
Still, to be optimistic, the world is waking up globally, including via the internet, and it is overall becoming wealthier and healthier (see Hans Rosling), so the future is still in play even as the USA be
http://www.bluezones.com/programs/blue-zones-communities/albert-lea-mn/ http://www.bluezones.com/live-happier/thrive-centers/ "Our team of experts Dan Burden, Dr. Brian Wansink, and Dr. Leslie Lytle, empowered the community to make a few small lifestyle and environmental changes. Citizens improved in four areas: eating better, becoming more active, connecting with one another and finding a greater sense of purpose, and reaped the positive benefits of revitalizing their bodies, their spirits and their town. The community made a variety of changes including adding workplace wellness policies, revised restaurant menu and vending machine offerings, community gardens, walking clubs, walking school buses and new hiking trails.
Community Successes * Life expectancy increased an average of 3.1 years * Participants lost a collective 12,000 pounds * An average 21% drop in absenteeism by key employers * City employees showed a 40% decrease in health care costs"
Yes, people are up against tough odds. But isn't the point of a "health care" as opposed to "sick care" system to help people succeed in implementing known effective solutions towards greater health?
All have similarities. By reducing foods with high glycemic loads, in the diet, while also reducing a person's body fat, and also improving the nutrient density of the food so the human body works better in general, and also getting adequate vitamin D and exercise which also help improve bodily functioning, most Type 2 diabetics can reach the point where they do not need supplemental insulin or other drugs because their needs for insulin have fallen to what their bodies can manage without aid.
But yes, it can be hard. Maybe the biggest part of the issue is that doctors are trained to write permission slips for unhealthy behavior (called prescriptions) instead of being trained in how to help patients change their lifestyle. How many hours of training does the typical MD have in lifestyle discussions? Especially in the ten minutes at most a typical doctor will spend with a typical patient. More than ten minutes, and a doctor's partners will yell at him or her.
And where is the sick care system's profit in curing diabetes? There is so much money to be made in glucose test strips, drug prescription renewals, insulin pump operations, amputations, and so on. There is a fundamental conflict of interest here.
Meanwhile, when a patient does not make the change, the doctor can just blame the subsequent health problems on genetics and the patient's lack of willpower to follow whatever advice was haphazardly given. Convenient for the well-paid doctor.
Contrast with the advice from the True North Health Center which includes training on how to cook healthier ood (as do other like McDougal's approach): http://www.healthpromoting.com/ http://www.drfuhrm
Are you suggesting Dr. Joel Fuhrman is lying (or self-deluding) about this patient? It only takes one anecdote to prove a possibility: http://www.drfuhrman.com/disease/HeartDisease.aspx "John Pawlikoski is a typical patient I see everyday. I am reporting his case here because he has been my patient for 10 years now, so I can report on his long-term results. He first came to see me at the age of 65 with a history of steadily worsening angina. His chest pains interfered with his daily life, so he was unable to perform physical work. He had a stress thallium test which suggested multi-vessel coronary artery disease. He then underwent a cardiac catherization, which revealed a 95 percent stenosis of the left anterior descending artery and had diffuse blockages throughout the left circumflex. He had normal heart function. His cholesterol was 218, with an LDL of 144. He weighed 180 pounds. He was on two medications - one for high blood pressure and nitroglycerin to relieve chest pains.
Within a few weeks of following my dietary recommendations, his chest pains ceased, and he no longer required nitroglycerin. In two months, his weight dropped to 152, a loss of 28 pounds in eight weeks. He remains exactly at 152 pounds today, 10 years later. He has been entirely well these last ten years and is extremely physically active. He takes no medication, and his blood pressure is normal. His LDL cholesterol runs about 80, and his stress test has normalized too. He has no signs or symptoms of heart disease."
More lies, including by a comment here which might be a paid shill? "Caldwell Esselstyn MD - Reverse Heart Disease Study" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0X31QKDhQUY "yycman1 wrote: I'm 45, and it will be one year in Nov. since I switched to a vegan diet to address my high cholesterol and blood pressure. ï After just 5 months, I was off 5 different medications...2 for high cholesterol, 2 for high blood pressure and one for prostate. My doctor was so impressed, he told me I made him want to eat better. A vegan diet really does work to reverse cholesterol and blood pressure issues. I was inspired by Bill Clinton to try this. I also lost 18 lbs. without exercising. Amazing!"
Or that Ornish is lying or self-deluded here? http://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/features/can-you-reverse-heart-disease "In his 2007 book The Spectrum, Ornish describes patients waiting to undergo a heart transplant -- those with the worst possible damage -- who enrolled in his program while on the transplant list. Some of them, he says, improved so much that they no longer needed a transplant.
"Our studies show that, with significant lifestyle changes, blood flow to the heart and its ability to pump normally improve in less than a month, and the frequency of chest pains fell by 90% in that time," Ornish says. "Within a year on our program, even severely blocked arteries in the heart became less blocked, and there was even more reversal after five years. That's compared with the natural history in other patients in our study, in which the heart just got worse and worse.""
"In this riveting book about the world of professional work, Jeff Schmidt demonstrates that the workplace is a battleground for the very identity of the individual, as is graduate school, where professionals are trained. He shows that professional work is inherently political, and that professionals are hired to subordinate their own vision and maintain strict "ideological discipline"."
"The problems I've discussed are not limited to psychiatry, although they reach their most florid form there. Similar conflicts of interest and biases exist in virtually every field of medicine, particularly those that rely heavily on drugs or devices. It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine. (Marcia Angell)"
"Much of what medical researchers conclude in their studies is misleading, exaggerated, or flat-out wrong. So why are doctors -- to a striking extent -- still drawing upon misinformation in their everyday practice? Dr. John Ioannidis has spent his career challenging his peers by exposing their bad science."
As with Ignaz Semmelweis advocating handwashing after doing autopsies to prevent surgeons causing disease that killed their pregnant patients, change is a tough sell. Semmelweis ended up in an insane asylum. Doctors could not accept they could be unclean (plus the suggestion of using carbolic acid was painful). Only decades later did handwashing become accepted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis
Similarly, modern day highly paid heart surgeons are not going to accept how much harm they are doing compared to advocating nutritional interventions. Studies begin with anecdotes and observations. Those abound.
Who benefits by studies done on nutrition reversing clogging of arteries? Not most highly paid doctors. Most researchers or universities would not benefit either from such studies, because nutritional interventions as simple as eat more whole foods can't be patented. So why would anyone in a position to do so suggest that such studies be funded? Maybe some dedicated public servant in a government medical bureaucracy might; but we've seen from Manning and Snowden etc. how long radicals with a public conscience last in big institutions (not to say some might not keep a lower profile or pick legal strategies for going forward and maybe indeed make some change eventually).
To go back to the car analogy, people pushing a position love to say "there is no evidence for the alternative" when the reason there is no evidence is the politics of funding. So, where is the peer reviewed evidence that fixing an oil leak and refilling an engine with oil will prevent it from melting down? None that I know of. It is just common sense to someone who has worked in the automotive field and seen a lot of cars go by. Yet, by your logic, you could argue that there is plenty of (making this up) evidence through peer reviewed studies funded by General Motors that disconnecting the oil light leads to motorists who are in less pain of worry for a time. And plenty of (making this up) peer reviewed evidence funded by Ford that replacing engines when they melt down leads to people being able to keep their cars running on average for six more years. Those would be profitable studies to fund.
Clogged arteries lead to a host of problems, including probably dementia and cancer from lack of adequate oxygen getting to the tissues. Replacing a clogged heart does not fix thos
It's not the calories total so much as where the calories are coming from in terms of whole plant foods. The richest Egyptians thousands of years ago probably ate more like most US Americans today as far as refined grains and lots of meat, so they probably had similar "diseases of affluence" such as heart disease, gout, arthritis, diabetes, cancer, dementia, etc.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diseases_of_affluence
Slashdot Mirror
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superiority_(short_story)
""Superiority" is a science fiction short story by Arthur C. Clarke, first published in 1951. It depicts an arms race, and shows how the side which is more technologically advanced can be defeated, despite its apparent superiority, because of its own organizational flaws and its willingness to discard old technology without having fully perfected the new. The story was at one point required reading for an industrial design course at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.[1]"
Of course, that ignores the irony implicit in most high-tech military systems, which I explain here:
http://www.pdfernhout.net/recognizing-irony-is-a-key-to-transcending-militarism.html
Maybe if more people, including high schoolers, realized that, the world would be a place with less needless suffering and more joy.
It depends on how public works are paid for and what is going on in the rest of the economy at the time. Consider the situation of too little cash is in the real economy, and too much cash is in the "casino" economy of the FIRE sector (much of it rich people gambling with teach other in zero-sum games). I would say that is the case today -- there is lots of money floating around but it could be all stuffed into mattresses for the effect it is having on our economy. In that case, a government printing money to pay for public works puts money immediately in the hands of many people who will spend it in the real goods economy. Any extra inflation will have the positive effect on the economy of sucking money as a tax out of the casino economy. Higher inflation also forces those with huge bank balances earning no interest to inject that money into the economy as investments or consumption rather than lose it to inflation.
By the way, I put together a lot of possibilities on dealing with joblessness here, and yes, increasing pointless bureaucracy was one of them:
http://www.pdfernhout.net/beyond-a-jobless-recovery-knol.html
"Here is a list of possible ways to deal with joblessness.[53] Some "cures" emerge mostly on their own; some require political action to start or to prevent. This list is intended to be complete in order to help in understanding the interaction between social changes and job creation; not all possibilities are desirable by most societies. The ones in the first half of the list (like wage subsidies, a shorter work week, or a basic income) in general would usually be considered more positive and adaptive responses than the ones in the second half of the list (like war, escapism, and luddism), although actual preferences or ordering of desirability and acceptability may vary depending on political beliefs and feelings about things like government intervention and taxation. Many of the items in the second half of the list have profit-making aspects for some individuals within the current economic system, although usually directly at the cost of others in society (like crime). Not all items on this list are compatible with each other. Not all might be considered moral or would be legal under international law or existing trade agreements. Some of these "cures" create new jobs (like public works), others make it easier to survive without a job (like frugality), others eliminate the unemployed individuals from the official statistics in various ways (like prisons), others in some way destroy abundance which has a side effect of creating jobs to build it back up (war), and some allow someone unemployed to take a job that someone else was doing but who no longer can do the job anymore for various reasons (like mandatory retirement). Some of the "cures" that help individuals survive without a job may actually increase the unemployment rate as they reduce demand for items in the market place produced by paid employment, contributing to overall increased joblessness even as the individual may be helped locally. Because these items may interact in unexpected ways, and people have many different feelings about them as different groups may benefit or be harmed in different ways, and many vested interests are involved, it is challenging for any economist, political scientist, politician or private citizen to make sense of all these issues or to pick a best way forward, even though people are trying in various ways to do that.[4] New approaches in social science involving computer simulation and agent-based modelling may also help in understanding the way these issues interact to gain insight into them.[54]"
Stuff I wrote five years ago about Princeton, but applies to MIT as well: http://www.pdfernhout.net/reading-between-the-lines.html ... We are witnessing a historic end to scarcity of many things (maybe not all, but enough to be a new global Renaissance). But is Princeton University helping prepare either students or the rest of society for these changes? Or is it instead an institution under stress, crashing into these trends instead of moving with them? Or is it perhaps conflicted in how it sees itself and its future, and so trying to do both these conflicting approaches at once? :-) "
"Post-Scarcity Princeton, or, Reading between the lines of PAW for prospective Princeton students, or, the Health Risks of Heart Disease
Mainly by hand though. Free book: http://www.workingwithstories.org/
Free software for communtieis: http://www.rakontu.org/
Related business process patent (sadly) when at IBM Research: http://www.google.com/patents?hl=en&lr=&vid=USPAT7136791
Past commercial software: http://www.sensemaker-suite.com/
National security (does have some automatic aspects): http://app.rahs.gov.sg/public/www/content.aspx?sid=2955
There is a lot you can do with stories once they are tagged for emotional intensity, whether automatically, by the teller, or by other people. Stories are all around us, as we try to make sense of our lives and events in our communities. So this sort of technology to tag emotions in stories is much more far reaching than just being about fiction. It can be used to design better products, to help communities figure out what to do about a pressing issue, to resolve conflicts, and to see emerging trends. That is one reason such work is funded by the intelligence sector (as well as businesses and some non-profits). She's been trying to make these ideas freely available to everyone, but it has been a slow going slog to follow the path of free and open source for all this.
By someone else on the relation between emotion and reason:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descartes'_Error
My entry to make better software tools: https://www.newschallenge.org/challenge/healthdata/feedback/health-sensemaking-software-tools
We could connect the dots based on approaches pioneered by the intelligence community.
To answer your curiosity of whay I encourage people looking at this approach, I'd be curious what your reactions to these three examples of the difference between two approaches to handling negative comments:
"Victim Proof School for Kids (part 2)"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_JVojbfNV0
"Victim Proof Your School for Teachers"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ei7CzlyPJTQ
"Golden Rule in the Workplace"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7j3GLS9aKo0
That said, nothing works everywhere. Still, Izzy Kalman says it is rare that physical violence among humans (at least related to schoolyard bullying) is not preceded by some kind of verbal escalation beforehand. If you can prevent the escalation, you probably can prevent the violence.
Anyway, it can be fun to try what Izzy demonstrates at home, He goes into more details on his CD and book, but basically, you get a friend, spouse, child whoever, and say you are going to play a game. The game is they are going to insult you and you are going to make them stop. If they stop, you win, If you give up, they win. The first time, try to disagree with them like he shows, getting upset, and so on. The second time, say it is OK if they think that, and so on, also like he illustrates. See which one they win and which one you win.
Note that as Izzy explains, you need to do these techniques 100% of the time, and you will still experience some teasing, showing, and so on. If you do them 95% of the time and get upset the other 5%, the cycle will continue because the bullying is being randomly reinforced (see operant conditioning).
Anyway, different things work in different environments. Sounds like you grew up in some tough situations. I could believe that what might work in most typical schools with typical bullying won't work in some with a certain kind of entrenched macho culture (without a lot of other changes).
Another relate video:
"Victim-proof your School demo"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Txz_BtJV_w
Maybe these techniques would not have worked for you. As Izzy says, when serious physical injuries are involved, you may need to do something else. But they may still work for most bully-victim relationships. One pilot study of that, but it still needs more validating research:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/files/attachments/2610/pilot-study-the-bullies-buddies-program.pdf
See my other comment here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4214133&cid=44856279
It includes one testimonial about groups:
""A child was sent to me who had been teased by a whole group of children as a result of an incident at recess. I took him through the steps that I learned from Bullies to Buddies and within 15 minutes this child was able to go back to class and continue learning. The teacher was amazed at the transformation. I was able to teach the whole class the technique, which resulted in more time on task and more learning. The students got along better and the learning environment became more pleasant and enjoyable for everyone. Izzy is a master of making this learning fun and easy to teach.â -- Malda Burns, Rockdale Elementary School Counselor, Rockdale, Texas"
I don't know how long ago you deal with a bully that way, but these days you might be arrested and jailed for assault for intentionally giving someone a concussion in school. Times have changed. Also, maybe nobody messed with you, but did you lose out on other relationships that you will never know about based on people's perceptions of you? (Maybe not in many schools, but consider what the implications would be in the workplace...)
Also, as Izzy Kalman points out, fighting back can work, but only when you are absolutely sure you can defeat the bully. Also, what if that bully had a gun or knife, or a friend who did? Once you take a swing in response to bullying (whether verbal or physical), it could be seen as "self-defense" by the bully to seriously hurt you. These things are tough calls sometimes.
Yes, you stopped the bullying that time. But words leading to endless rounds of violence also are how gang wars and endless vendettas can get started. Other aspects: ..."
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/31/living/bullying-fight-back/index.html
"This type of "superior force" advice shows a lack of appreciation for the complexities of the bully-victim dynamics of today's world, where bullying often takes place in new arenas, such as on the Internet. Sure, if a victim fights back and flattens his bully, the bully tends to back off. But what if the bullies are hiding behind computer screens? What if the target is physically incapable of taking down the bully, which is more often the case?
The truth is that there are many bullying situations in which the victim cannot simply beat up the bully and end the problem. The very nature of bullying renders victims fearful, frozen and incapable of defending themselves. According to bullying researcher Dan Olweus, bullying is characterized by three factors: 1) It is repetitive (not a one-time event in the hall, but a regular ongoing problem). 2) It is unwanted (not two-way teasing where both parties are having fun, but instead a situation where someone is on the receiving end of taunts and aggression). 3) It takes place in the context of a power imbalance (a bigger kid against a smaller kid, or multiple kids against a single kid, or a kid with more social capital against a kid with less social capital).
When multiple kids are targeting one child, the situation can feel completely overwhelming.
Nothing works for every situation. For example, Izzy Kalman says his approach requires the "bully" to be reasonable emotionally stable -- which is almost always the case, but not 100% of the time.
BTW, Izzy Kalman's approach does not work by reporting bullying. In fact, he generally discourages reporting as just something that will escalate the problem (except if the bully is extremely unstable or causing significant physical harm).
Here is the core of his approach:
http://bullies2buddies.com/how-to-stop-being-teased-and-bullied-
Izzy Kalman's approach is more complex than "blame the victim". In most cases, "bullying" emerges from an interaction of "bully" and "victim" (generally in the context of some community). In practice, "victims" have the most at stake in changing the situation and also are most able to intervene for themselves. While it is great to create caring communities where people respect each other in all ways, in practice humans have a certain back and forth of joking with and about each other and so on. Conventional anti-bullying campaigns run the risk of destroying communities and relationships out of some theory of how to fix them. They can actually make the problem worse (like encouraging tattling, where accusing someone of bullying can become a new form of bullying, etc.). According to the testimonials on his site, Izzy Kalman's approach works in practice, when most zero-tolerance and also tattle-promoting strategies don't work well. His approach works by breaking the feedback loop between bully and victim by the victim not responding in ways that gives the bully encouragement to continue. There are exceptions to this; Izzy Kalman suggests a few where his strategy does not work like where the bully is very emotionally unstable and violent, and then yes, you would need to bring in higher authorities including potentially law enforcement. But in general, Izzy points out that getting picked on now and then is part of community life; the issue is whether that escalates into bullying, and that mostly is under the "victim's" control -- as much as that might not sound "fair" in some ways.
Where I might fault Izzy Kalman is not talking about how poor nutrition from junk food (lack of omega 3s, artificial colors and flavors, lack of phytonutrients, lack of vitamin D, etc.) may be leading to more violence and other anti-social behavior in our society. Also, the spread of computers, while not necessarily causing violence directly itself, takes away from time spent learning to interact with other human beings. And there are probably other similar factors as well (economic stress, failing communities, two-wage-earner families or single parents, etc.). I'm also all for teaching emotion coaching and conflict resolution and all sorts of other things that some anti-bullying efforts due. Also, I'm all for alternatives to compulsory schooling, where conventional schooling forces random children to spend all day with each other whether they want to or not (so children can't avoid conflicts that are escalating). But, as much as one can make people saying intentionally hurtful things less frequent, I feel Izzy is on to something in breaking the positive feedback cycle where negative comments spin out of control as the victim responds in ways that encourage the bully to keep going.
Here is one example testimonial:
http://bullies2buddies.com/evidence-testimonials/does-bullies-to-buddies-work/
""Bullies to Buddies is the most effective anti-bullying program I have encountered in my 14 years as a school counselor. It gives victims the tools and strategies necessary to handle difficult situations, thus increasing their self esteem. Parents are thrilled and some of them are practicing the skills with their children. The teachers and aides feel relieved that they no long need to handle every tiny little tattle or situation. This saves an enormous amount of time in the classroom and children find that they have more time to play. The teachers not only used the strategies of Bullies to Buddiesâ in their classroom but also with their husbands, children and exes." -- Vickie Kolb, School Counselor, Brandon Valley School District, Brandon, South Dakota"
In the case for the original article, maybe if the "victim" had learned these skills of managing these situations, then things would not have escalated to the point where the "victim" was pretending to kill people using a phone? Maybe the bullying would have never got that bad if the vict
Good points, along the lines of books like "Brave New World" and "Amusing Ourselves to Death". Although it seems lots of systems link together to support power, so there is probably not just one, even if one may be stronger at one time.
The movie "Elysium" features security robots, for example. I envisioned something related here with robots enforcing the "rules":
"The Richest Man in the World: A parable about structural unemployment and a basic income"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p14bAe6AzhA
Marshall Brain talks about robots enforcing things in "Manna":
http://www.marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm
But right now, the laws the human police (and legal bureaucracies) enforce are created through political means: ...
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica
"Q: So, who does rule America?
A: The owners and managers of large income-producing properties; i.e., the owners of corporations, banks, other financial institutions, and agri-businesses. But they have plenty of help from the managers and experts they hire.
Q: Then how do they rule?
A: That's a complicated story, but the short answer is through lobbying, open and direct involvement in general policy planning on the big issues, participation (in large part through campaign donations) in political campaigns and elections, and through appointments to key decision-making positions in government."
That said, perhaps the world will always be run by the "1%" who are paying attention in any community? Even those who showed up at "Occupy Wall Street" were, in a sense, part of a "1%"?
OWS's "We are the 99%" was actually a divisive slogan. A focus on increasing egalitarianism might have been better:
http://www.kurtz-fernhout.com/oscomak/
Maybe the main issue is whether those who are paying attention have an egalitarian mindset to some degree, at least as far as distributing most of what nature and industry produces? If you look at Western Europe, there is a somewhat different sense of political and moral accountability among leadership. Granted, that is driven by a more active and aware populace building upon ideas from the USA's past: ... The Allies did it. This whole European model came, to some extent, from the New Deal. Our real history and tradition is what we created in Europe. Occupying Germany after WWII, the 1945 European constitutions, the UN Charter of Human Rights all came from Eleanor Roosevelt and the New Dealers. All of it got worked into the constitutions of Europe and helped shape their social democracies. It came from us. The papal encyclicals on labor, it came from the Americans."
http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2010/08/25/german_usa_working_life_ext2010
" How did Germany become such a great place to work in the first place?
Thus:
"How Germany Builds Twice as Many Cars as the U.S. While Paying Its Workers Twice as Much"
http://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickallen/2011/12/21/germany-builds-twice-as-many-cars-as-the-u-s-while-paying-its-auto-workers-twice-as-much/
"In 2010, Germany produced more than 5.5 million automobiles; the U.S produced 2.7 million. At the same time, the average auto worker in Germany made $67.14 per hour in salary in benefits; the average one in the U.S. made $33.77 per hour. Yet Germanyâ(TM)s big three car companies --- BMW, Daimler (Mercedes-Benz), and Volkswagen -- are very profitable."
That comes down somewhat to culture and mythology and the stories we (including the "1%") tell ourselves about who we are and who we want to be (and why).
... Or also, space is not so nasty if you have the technology to make whatever you want from local materials (including a towel). :-)
Mostly still just a dream:
http://www.kurtz-fernhout.com/oscomak/
Well, by your logic, would you suggest private property rights to land are only OK as long as we make respecting them non-mandatory? Or are you starting with the assumption that government will enforce such a system?
If we allow government to enforce any such rights like to private land, then we've structured a system of economics. Then we can ask all sorts of questions about "fairness" and distributing the gains of the system. In practice, all modern economies are run by certain rules. We can always discuss the rules, even though people currently doing well (by their own standards) in the current system may wish that the rules be left alone or not even discussed.
In any case, since robots, AI, and other automation are going to take most of the jobs pretty soon, or at least allow a few people to do so much that most workers are not needed, it's a moot point about whether wealth needs to be redistributed -- unless you'd prefer to see most of the world's population starve while grain silos overflow with grain?
http://www.bullies2buddies.com/
http://bullies2buddies.com/resources/free-manuals/
"This manual will teach kids why they are being picked on and how to make it stop without anyone's help and without getting anyone in trouble!"
I write on my personal website about similar themes related to automation and distribution. A "basic income" is one way forward, as is expanding the gift economy, improving local subsistence (maybe via your 3D printers and energy devices and also gardening robots), and/or better democratically planned economics. While you say "the only way to solve this is individual action", and that is true to some point because individuals (or small groups as Margaret Mead said) can make a big difference, ultimately politics like for a "basic income" is about collective action by millions as far as voting and such.
Note also that "natural selection" can select towards cooperation in various situations.
See also James P. Hogan's "Voyage from Yesterear" for one alternative vision, where human competitive inclinations are redirected towards excellence and gift-giving. See also the "Potlatch" for a historical example of a gift economy in North America (which according to the Wikipedia article politicians tried to stamp out as "uncivilized").
Montly "Social Security" payments from birth: http://www.basicincome.org/bien/aboutbasicincome.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income
http://www.marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm
Also, to echo your point on "family", raising children well can easily take as much effort as most adults can put into it... And the solar system could support quadrillions of humans in high-tech style in space habitats.
Although automation also inherently shifts political power in a few ways (making it easier to concentrate wealth at first like Marshall Brain talks about). If we keep capitalism, we'll probably need a "basic income" for it to keep working (other than pointless mandated make-work), We can also strengthen the gift economy, the subsistence economy, and the democratically planned economy. See my website for related ideas, especially this:
http://www.pdfernhout.net/beyond-a-jobless-recovery-knol.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwslBPj8GgI
"Eric Mazur: "I thought I was a good teacher until I discovered my students were just memorizing information rather than learning to understand the material. Who was to blame? The students? The material? I will explain how I came to the agonizing conclusion that the culprit was neither of these. It was my teaching that caused students to fail! I will show how I have adjusted my approach to teaching and how it has improved my students' performance significantly." Eric Mazur is the Balkanski Professor of Physics and Applied Physics at Harvard University. An internationally recognized scientist and researcher, he leads a vigorous research program in optical physics and supervises one of the largest research groups in the Physics Department at Harvard University."
I guess teaching physics is close to teaching rocket science? :-) So, even rocket scientists who care can imporve their teaching...
Basicall, he expects students to do reading before class, then he asks a question, then gets responses, and then has students talk to their neighbors int he classroom to justify the answers to each other. Sounds similar to the approach in the original article.
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/crunch_art.html
http://philip.greenspun.com/careers/women-in-science
http://disciplinedminds.com/
http://www.villagevoice.com/content/printVersion/182889/
http://news.slashdot.org/story/13/04/05/1522215/getting-a-literature-phd-will-make-you-into-a-horrible-person
http://www.bio.net/bionet/mm/bioforum/1997-December/025426.html
http://100rsns.blogspot.com/
I have the same gut reaction... This research as described in the article summary seems to twist together aspects of horror, torture, and slavery.
But then again, I feel somewhat the same way about the development of AI... And we all may be simulated humans already:
http://www.simulation-argument.com/
But somehow that it is not quite the same visceral feeling as thinking about small human brains being created to do arbitrary experiments on...
By the way, on the person who brought up the Parkinson's question:
http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/lack_of_DHA_linked_to_Parkinsons.aspx
"According to the researchers, among the mice that had been given omega-3 supplementation - in particular DHA - omega-3 fatty acids replaced the omega-6 fatty acids in their brains. Due to the fact that concentrations of other omega-3s (LNA and EPA) had maintained levels in both groups of mice, the researchers suggested that the protective effect against Parkinson's indeed came from DHA.2"
Although that was experiments on mice... Not to say mice don't suffer or probably dream too...
Going far down the slippery ethical slope...
That said, somehow I doubt all scientists will abstain from this research. A couple ideas on scientists:
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/crunch_art.html
http://www.disciplined-minds.com/
http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm
"For the scientific method can teach us nothing else beyond how facts are related to, and conditioned by, each other. The aspiration toward such objective knowledge belongs to the highest of which man is capabIe, and you will certainly not suspect me of wishing to belittle the achievements and the heroic efforts of man in this sphere. Yet it is equally clear that knowledge of what is does not open the door directly to what should be. One can have the clearest and most complete knowledge of what is, and yet not be able to deduct from that what should be the goal of our human aspirations. Objective knowledge provides us with powerful instruments for the achievements of certain ends, but the ultimate goal itself and the longing to reach it must come from another source. And it is hardly necessary to argue for the view that our existence and our activity acquire meaning only by the setting up of such a goal and of corresponding values. The knowledge of truth as such is wonderful, but it is so little capable of acting as a guide that it cannot prove even the justification and the value of the aspiration toward that very knowledge of truth. Here we face, therefore, the limits of the purely rational conception of our existence. (Albert Einstein)"
So, what is the moral foundation for our work in any profession?
http://www.prevention.com/food/healthy-eating-tips/gmo-foods-linked-weight-gain
"As part of a long-term project studying the health effects of GM foods -- crops that have had their DNA modified to resist pesticides and drought -- researchers from Norway fed food containing GM corn to one group of rats and food containing non-GM corn to another group. Over the course of 90 days, the rats on the GM-corn diet grew fatter and ate more food than the rats on the non-GM diet. The researchers also noticed that rats got fatter when they ate fish that had been raised on GM corn."
What's the likelihood that Purina rat chow and Purina monkey chow (yes they exist) are made with cheaper GMOs? The article suggests also that food grown these days may be less nutritious in terms of micronutrients than in the past (due to depleted soils and different high-yield varieties of crops), and so creatures need to ingest more calories to get the same amount of needed micronutrients.
Another factor is "Supernormal Stimuli" of carefully crafted food to appeal in the strongest way to human desires like the American-style fast food you mention:
"Supernormal Stimuli: How Primal Urges Overran Their Evolutionary Purpose"
http://www.amazon.com/Supernormal-Stimuli-Overran-Evolutionary-Purpose/dp/039306848X
See also, "How to escape The Pleasure Trap!":
http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/article16.aspx
But I agree with the article's author when David Berreby writes: "The trap is deeper than that, however. The 'unifying logic of capitalism', [Jonathan C K ] Wells continues, requires that food companies seek immediate profit and long-term success, and their optimal strategy for that involves encouraging people to choose foods that are most profitable to produce and sell -- 'both at the behavioural level, through advertising, price manipulations and restriction of choice, and at the physiological level through the enhancement of addictive properties of foods' (by which he means those sugars and fats that make 'metabolic disturber' foods so habit-forming). In short, Wells told me via email, 'We need to understand that we have not yet grasped how to address this situation, but we are increasingly understanding that attributing obesity to personal responsibility is very simplistic.' Rather than harping on personal responsibility so much, Wells believes, we should be looking at the global economic system, seeking to reform it so that it promotes access to nutritious food for everyone. That is, admittedly, a tall order. But the argument is worth considering, if only as a bracing critique of our individual-responsibility ideology of fatness."
On stress and obesity, evolutionarily, eating more when stressed makes a lot of sense, because historically stress probably means you are uncertain about where your next meal is going to come from, so best to stock up now if you can, which means it is more likely you will survive to have and raise children later on.
Related: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2006/oct/17/prisonsandprobation.ukcrime
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolutionary-psychiatry/201105/diet-and-violence
Might be food additives like artificial color or flavor more than the sugar itself? As well as displacing healthy foods.
"Also a modern jet fighter is a testimony to mankind's ingenuity, not his wisdom."
Yes, including because the same technologies (including the surrounding bureaucracy) if organized differently could likely relieve the resource-related conflict that the jet fighter was invented to solve in other ways. Thus my sig and essay on the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity. Or, as Isaac Asimov had one politician character (Salvor Hardin) say in "Foundation" series, "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent". Or Einstein's point on the need to change our way of thinking to adapt to the change from high technology (unleashing the atom especially, but it applies generally). Or Bucky Fuller's words about how whether it will be utopia or oblivion will be a touch-and-go relay race to the very end.
The fact that the US missions to the moon started by President Kennedy were, as you say, funded mainly to prove a military point about ICBMs by the US is sadly a big part of why significant further work on space settlement never happened...
From: http://whitehousetapes.net/clip/john-kennedy-james-webb-robert-seamans-hugh-dryden-jerome-wiesner-fly-me-moon
"President Kennedy: So obviously you wouldn't put it on that priority except for the defense implication..."
Although I guess one could argue some clever engineers took advantage of the military-oriented political dynamic to do something more worthwhile for humanity? While playing catch-up to the Russians who stated explicitely they wanted to build space settlements?
Still, as US$30 a watt, OTEC is going to have trouble competing with less than US$1 a watt solar panels (and falling). Sounds like OTEC's big economic benefit may be improving fishing harvests.
I was under 10 when the moon landings happened, so maybe just a little too young to understand the significance of the initial landing. Somehow, I can't say that affected me as much as seeing sci-fi movies like "Silent Running" though, or various other TV programs (Space 1999, Thunderbirds, Star Trek) even though some of those were no doubt inspired by the spirit of the times. James P. Hogan's scifi novels set in space habitats or huge space ships were a huge inspiration as well (like voyage from yesteryear, two faces of tomorrow).
These days, as the USA descends into what seems to be self-destructive madness as it becomes an obese unhealthy unequal fearful addicted surveillance state, putting cameras in living rooms instead of on the Moon, profiling potential troublemakers to imprison them instead of help them be contributing engineers or whatever, and letting its physical, moral, health, and political infrastructure decay for ideological neoconservative/neoliberal reasons, these days it's kind of hard to remember there was a time that both young kids and politicians in USA seriously aspired to walk on other planets whatever the political justification... It's even hard to remember there was a time when half of Congress passed something like a "basic income" law under Nixon (passed the House, but failed in the Senate in part because some thought it not big enough), or even just that we aspired politically to have bridges and water mains and roads everywhere that were in good shape.
More on China vs. the USA:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/09/opinion/09friedman.html?_r=0
"Watching both the health care and climate/energy debates in Congress, it is hard not to draw the following conclusion: There is only one thing worse than one-party autocracy, and that is one-party democracy, which is what we have in America today."
Still, to be optimistic, the world is waking up globally, including via the internet, and it is overall becoming wealthier and healthier (see Hans Rosling), so the future is still in play even as the USA be
http://www.bluezones.com/programs/blue-zones-communities/albert-lea-mn/
http://www.bluezones.com/live-happier/thrive-centers/
"Our team of experts Dan Burden, Dr. Brian Wansink, and Dr. Leslie Lytle, empowered the community to make a few small lifestyle and environmental changes. Citizens improved in four areas: eating better, becoming more active, connecting with one another and finding a greater sense of purpose, and reaped the positive benefits of revitalizing their bodies, their spirits and their town.
The community made a variety of changes including adding workplace wellness policies, revised restaurant menu and vending machine offerings, community gardens, walking clubs, walking school buses and new hiking trails.
Community Successes
* Life expectancy increased an average of 3.1 years
* Participants lost a collective 12,000 pounds
* An average 21% drop in absenteeism by key employers
* City employees showed a 40% decrease in health care costs"
Yes, people are up against tough odds. But isn't the point of a "health care" as opposed to "sick care" system to help people succeed in implementing known effective solutions towards greater health?
Related resources on diabetes reversal with various slightly different approaches -- McDougal may be easier for many than Fuhrman as far as diet -- and medically suprvised fastign may work for others:
http://www.drmcdougall.com/med_hot_diabetes.html
http://www.drfuhrman.com/disease/Diabetes.aspx
http://www.rawfor30days.com/
http://drhyman.com/blog/2010/05/20/5-steps-to-reversing-type-2-diabetes-and-insulin-resistance/
http://drbass.com/disease-cure.html
http://www.healthpromoting.com/condition/diabetes
All have similarities. By reducing foods with high glycemic loads, in the diet, while also reducing a person's body fat, and also improving the nutrient density of the food so the human body works better in general, and also getting adequate vitamin D and exercise which also help improve bodily functioning, most Type 2 diabetics can reach the point where they do not need supplemental insulin or other drugs because their needs for insulin have fallen to what their bodies can manage without aid.
But yes, it can be hard. Maybe the biggest part of the issue is that doctors are trained to write permission slips for unhealthy behavior (called prescriptions) instead of being trained in how to help patients change their lifestyle. How many hours of training does the typical MD have in lifestyle discussions? Especially in the ten minutes at most a typical doctor will spend with a typical patient. More than ten minutes, and a doctor's partners will yell at him or her.
And where is the sick care system's profit in curing diabetes? There is so much money to be made in glucose test strips, drug prescription renewals, insulin pump operations, amputations, and so on. There is a fundamental conflict of interest here.
Meanwhile, when a patient does not make the change, the doctor can just blame the subsequent health problems on genetics and the patient's lack of willpower to follow whatever advice was haphazardly given. Convenient for the well-paid doctor.
Contrast with the advice from the True North Health Center which includes training on how to cook healthier ood (as do other like McDougal's approach):
http://www.healthpromoting.com/
http://www.drfuhrm
Are you suggesting Dr. Joel Fuhrman is lying (or self-deluding) about this patient? It only takes one anecdote to prove a possibility:
http://www.drfuhrman.com/disease/HeartDisease.aspx
"John Pawlikoski is a typical patient I see everyday. I am reporting his case here because he has been my patient for 10 years now, so I can report on his long-term results. He first came to see me at the age of 65 with a history of steadily worsening angina. His chest pains interfered with his daily life, so he was unable to perform physical work. He had a stress thallium test which suggested multi-vessel coronary artery disease. He then underwent a cardiac catherization, which revealed a 95 percent stenosis of the left anterior descending artery and had diffuse blockages throughout the left circumflex. He had normal heart function. His cholesterol was 218, with an LDL of 144. He weighed 180 pounds. He was on two medications - one for high blood pressure and nitroglycerin to relieve chest pains.
Within a few weeks of following my dietary recommendations, his chest pains ceased, and he no longer required nitroglycerin. In two months, his weight dropped to 152, a loss of 28 pounds in eight weeks. He remains exactly at 152 pounds today, 10 years later. He has been entirely well these last ten years and is extremely physically active. He takes no medication, and his blood pressure is normal. His LDL cholesterol runs about 80, and his stress test has normalized too. He has no signs or symptoms of heart disease."
Or that Esselstyn is lying (or self-deluding) about these patients?
http://www.heartattackproof.com/patientprofiles.htm
More lies, including by a comment here which might be a paid shill?
"Caldwell Esselstyn MD - Reverse Heart Disease Study"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0X31QKDhQUY
"yycman1 wrote: I'm 45, and it will be one year in Nov. since I switched to a vegan diet to address my high cholesterol and blood pressure. ï After just 5 months, I was off 5 different medications...2 for high cholesterol, 2 for high blood pressure and one for prostate. My doctor was so impressed, he told me I made him want to eat better. A vegan diet really does work to reverse cholesterol and blood pressure issues. I was inspired by Bill Clinton to try this. I also lost 18 lbs. without exercising. Amazing!"
Or that Ornish is lying or self-deluded here?
http://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/features/can-you-reverse-heart-disease
"In his 2007 book The Spectrum, Ornish describes patients waiting to undergo a heart transplant -- those with the worst possible damage -- who enrolled in his program while on the transplant list. Some of them, he says, improved so much that they no longer needed a transplant.
"Our studies show that, with significant lifestyle changes, blood flow to the heart and its ability to pump normally improve in less than a month, and the frequency of chest pains fell by 90% in that time," Ornish says. "Within a year on our program, even severely blocked arteries in the heart became less blocked, and there was even more reversal after five years. That's compared with the natural history in other patients in our study, in which the heart just got worse and worse.""
And T. Colin Campbell is full of it, too?
http://www.tcolincampbell.org/courses-resources/article/reversing-heart-disease-with-diet/category/cardiovascular
Still, as Upton Sinclair said:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Upton_Sinclair
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not und
Quotes I collected here: http://www.pdfernhout.net/to-james-randi-on-skepticism-about-mainstream-science.html#Some_quotes_on_social_problems_in_science
"In this riveting book about the world of professional work, Jeff Schmidt demonstrates that the workplace is a battleground for the very identity of the individual, as is graduate school, where professionals are trained. He shows that professional work is inherently political, and that professionals are hired to subordinate their own vision and maintain strict "ideological discipline"."
"The problems I've discussed are not limited to psychiatry, although they reach their most florid form there. Similar conflicts of interest and biases exist in virtually every field of medicine, particularly those that rely heavily on drugs or devices. It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine. (Marcia Angell)"
"Much of what medical researchers conclude in their studies is misleading, exaggerated, or flat-out wrong. So why are doctors -- to a striking extent -- still drawing upon misinformation in their everyday practice? Dr. John Ioannidis has spent his career challenging his peers by exposing their bad science."
As with Ignaz Semmelweis advocating handwashing after doing autopsies to prevent surgeons causing disease that killed their pregnant patients, change is a tough sell. Semmelweis ended up in an insane asylum. Doctors could not accept they could be unclean (plus the suggestion of using carbolic acid was painful). Only decades later did handwashing become accepted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis
Similarly, modern day highly paid heart surgeons are not going to accept how much harm they are doing compared to advocating nutritional interventions. Studies begin with anecdotes and observations. Those abound.
Who benefits by studies done on nutrition reversing clogging of arteries? Not most highly paid doctors. Most researchers or universities would not benefit either from such studies, because nutritional interventions as simple as eat more whole foods can't be patented. So why would anyone in a position to do so suggest that such studies be funded? Maybe some dedicated public servant in a government medical bureaucracy might; but we've seen from Manning and Snowden etc. how long radicals with a public conscience last in big institutions (not to say some might not keep a lower profile or pick legal strategies for going forward and maybe indeed make some change eventually).
To go back to the car analogy, people pushing a position love to say "there is no evidence for the alternative" when the reason there is no evidence is the politics of funding. So, where is the peer reviewed evidence that fixing an oil leak and refilling an engine with oil will prevent it from melting down? None that I know of. It is just common sense to someone who has worked in the automotive field and seen a lot of cars go by. Yet, by your logic, you could argue that there is plenty of (making this up) evidence through peer reviewed studies funded by General Motors that disconnecting the oil light leads to motorists who are in less pain of worry for a time. And plenty of (making this up) peer reviewed evidence funded by Ford that replacing engines when they melt down leads to people being able to keep their cars running on average for six more years. Those would be profitable studies to fund.
Clogged arteries lead to a host of problems, including probably dementia and cancer from lack of adequate oxygen getting to the tissues. Replacing a clogged heart does not fix thos
It's not the calories total so much as where the calories are coming from in terms of whole plant foods. The richest Egyptians thousands of years ago probably ate more like most US Americans today as far as refined grains and lots of meat, so they probably had similar "diseases of affluence" such as heart disease, gout, arthritis, diabetes, cancer, dementia, etc..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diseases_of_affluence