From: http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/PCI_angioplasty_article.aspx "Interventional cardiology and cardiovascular surgery is basically a scam based on a misunderstanding of the nature of heart disease. Searching for and treating obstructive plaque does not address the areas of the coronary vascular tree most likely to rupture and cause heart attacks. If there was never another CABG or angioplasty performed or stent placed, patients with heart disease would be better off. Doctors would be forced to educate our citizens that their heart disease risk is determined by what they place on their forks. Millions of lives would be dramatically extended. To abandon the theory of stretching and cutting out areas with plaque would shut down interventional cardiology, nearly all cardiovascular surgery, and many suppliers of the biotechnology. In many cases, interventional cardiology is the major income generator to hospitals. The ending of this ill-conceived, out-dated and ineffective technology would dramatically downsize hospitals in the United States and free up over $100 billion annually in medical care costs. Besides being ineffective, interventional cardiology places the responsibility in the hands of the doctor and not the patients. When patients finally realize they must take control of their heart problems with aggressive dietary modifications (and when needed medications for temporary periods) we will essentially solve the health crisis in America.
The sad thing is surgical interventions and medications are the foundation of modern cardiology and both are relatively ineffective compared to nutritional excellence. My patients routinely reverse their heart disease, and no longer have vulnerable plaque or high blood pressure, so they do not need medical care, hospitals or cardiologists anymore. The problem is that in the real world cardiac patients are not even informed that heart disease is predictably reversed with nutritional excellence. They are not given the opportunity to choose and just corralled into these surgical interventions.
Trying to figure out how to pay for ineffective and expensive medicine by politicians will never be a real solution. People need to know they do not have to have heart disease to begin with, and if they get it, aggressive nutrition is the most life-saving intervention. And it is free."
When I heard about his treatment a couple weeks ago, I tried to figure out how to contact him, but to no avail. Neil Armstrong benefited from the best of 1960s technology, but sadly did not benefit from the best of 21st century medicine (aggressive nutritional intervention). Sad. We could have had him healthy and vibrant and as a witness to the better side of human kind for another decade or two. Instead some heart surgeons can afford to make a few more payments on luxury cars and big houses.
We just lost Martin Fleischmann (just as LENR aka "cold fusion" is resurging) probably from the same kind of widespread nutirional ignorance in the medical profession.
"Toxic dose for D is less than 5 times the daily mRDA."
That comment on vitamin D toxicity is misleading, and that misinformation has caused untold huge amounts of suffering in the industrialized world. (Even ignoring that you have not specified a time period -- in one day, in one year, in ten years?) See: http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/about-vitamin-d/what-is-vitamin-d/vitamin-d-toxicity/
The US RDA for Vitamin D for a child or adult (currently 600 IU per day, recently raised) effectively is the same for a 30 pound child as a 300 pound adult; how can that make any sense, given that vitamin D is used by every cell in the body? (The level of 400 IU D3 daily for a newborn infant is probably OK though.)
I am not sure what you mean by "mRDA" whether minimum RDA or maximum Upper Limit (UL). The maximum upper limit there is currently 2,500-4000 IU D3 daily depending on age (after being recently raised from much lower amounts) or about four to seven times the minimum RDA. Again, it is about the same for a 30 pound child as a 300 pound adult. (And that is after the maximum upper limit was recently increased a lot.) Those maximums for children and adults are more likely what the daily US RDA should be, and the real maximums are probably a few times higher than that for most people.
If you meant mRDA as minimum RDA, then your statement is just clearly wrong, because five times is pretty much below the upper limit now accepted as safe by even mainstream-conservative medical boards.
But, let me assume, charitably, that you meant maximum "Upper Limit" by "mRDA". So, you are then suggesting that the toxic level for vitamin D supplementation is less that five times the UL published by the Food and Nutrition Board, which would mean toxicity at 12,500 to 20,000 IU D3? But you did not specify even a time amount (per day, for how long?). It's been said: "The dose makes the poison." So it is hard to know what you mean by that. Charitably, let me assume you meant taking that amount daily over a period of several years?
But consider this. Most people with sufficient sun exposure in a day, like wearing bathing suit at the beach in summer in the USA around noon, will make about 10,000-50,000 IU D3 (in about 15-30 minutes if you are light skinned, and about two to four hours if you are dark skinned). That is between about 15 and 100 times above the US RDA of vitamin D. It is about two-and-a-half to twelve times the "upper limit". How can what you suggest (that a toxic amount is less that five times the maximum RDA which would be less that 20,000 IU, assuming the most defensible interpretation of what you wrote) be true then if the body makes so much when exposed to sunlight? It pretty much can't, at least not wit
"Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose. Not having your kid eat whole mainly nutritious foods like Dr. Joel Fuhrman outlines in "Disease-Proof Your Child: Feeding Kids Right" and "Super Immunity: The Essential Nutrition Guide for Boosting Your Body's Defenses to Live Longer, Stronger, and Disease Free", or not breastfeeding for the first two to four years, or not getting plentiful sleep, or not getting lots of outdoor exercise in the sunlight plus supplemental vitamin D, or not getting enough iodine and omega-3s, or not homeschooling and working from home to avoid disease transmission centers like schools and workplaces, or not living in a relatively stress-free home exposes mine to potentially life-threatening disease because yours has an immune system working less than optimally. If you think that the (vanishingly small) risk of complications from living a healthy lifestyle or short-term difficulties of breaking out of the "pleasure trap" your family is stuck in ( http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/article16.aspx ) is more important than my (well-nourished) kid's risk of contracting a disease that has mutated inside your (poorly fed) kid.. well, you're bad at math. And, a selfish short-sighted asshole.
I've never really understood why it is that something you were going to do anyway becoming mandatory means that you should automatically resist it. You've lost nothing except the choice you weren't going to make, and society has benefited. Making eating well and getting good sleep and playing outdoors in the sunshine and so forth mandatory is not the same as Hitler storming across Europe, get a grip. If the slope were really that slippery, we would have fallen down into the abyss a long long time ago.
Obligatory car analogy: Sure, you have the right to drive around with faulty brakes. At least in this state, you do not need working brakes to pass the yearly inspection. You can argue that you're risking nobody except yourself.. except, you're not. Your passengers, and the other people on the roads that you slam into because you can't stop, would disagree.
Part of living in a civilized society is recognizing when your actions have consequences for others that have no say in the matter. Yes, you can make the choice not to feed your kid really well or to send your kid daily to a disease transmission center like a public or private school. But realize that your actions have consequences for others. (It may come as a shock to you that there are other people in the world besides you and your child.) One of the major problems we (USA) have as a society is the attitude of "I've got mine, fuck you." Take responsibility for your choice; keep your kid away from mine. If your idealism leads to my kid's death.. then it's not worth protecting. Die for your ideals if you want; it's your life to throw away."
It may also turn out that some children are better at dealing with excreting heavy metals and other toxins than others for whatever reasons. See also Dr. David Brownstein on Iodine and Dr. Joel Fuhrman on vegetables and children's nutrition.
If you look into the science, you'll see there is plenty of evidence that things like cruciferous vegetables, vitamin D3, iodine, fasting, and some other things (including avoiding refined carbs and various toxins) can help prevent cancer, and in some cases even reverse it. But, it is indeed hit-and-miss once you have cancer -- prevention of cancer by such methods is much more reliable than cure, and it depends on the exact nature of the cancer. You can look at the evidence Dr. Joel Fuhrman has amassed in the book "Eat to Live" for a start. A starting point: http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/article24.aspx "As reported by the U.S. government and Center for Disease Control (CDC), cancers of the colon, breast, prostate and lung are the top four deadliest cancers in the modern world. After billions of dollars devoted to researching drug treatments for cancer and minimal increases in life expectancy for those undergoing chemotherapy for most common cancers, many authorities such as the National Institute of Health and the American Cancer Society, have been issuing a stronger voice advocating more preventive measures to reduce cancer incidence. Diet has become a key element in the fight against cancer.
The most recent scientific advancement in the anti-cancer research is the identification of specific foods and food elements that offer powerful protection against cancer. These foods are essential for both prevention of cancer and also increased odds of survival after diagnosis. Harmful foods and supplements have also been identified, and avoiding or minimizing these is equally as important.
Though most people would prefer to take a pill and continue their eating habits, this will not provide the desired protection. Unrefined plant foods, with their plentiful anti-cancer compounds, must be eaten in abundance to flood the body's tissues with protective substances. Vegetables and fruits protect against all types of cancers if consumed in large enough quantities. Hundreds of scientific studies document this. The most prevalent cancers in our societies are plant-food-deficiency diseases. The benefits of lifestyle changes are proportional to the changes made. As we add more vegetable servings, we increase our phytochemical intake and leave less room in our diets for harmful foods, enhancing cancer protection even further. Let's review some of these research findings and then review what a powerful, anti-cancer diet will look like."
But, as I said in that other comment, we really need both better diets and better interventions for the times when that is not enough. One place working towards "integrative therapy" for cancer: http://www.healingcancer.info/ebook/andrew-weil
"The man does not need the surgery, chemotherapy radiation one-two into an early grave but vitamins and nutrition. Start educating yourself about health and nutrition first before you come begging for wagon loads of money to pay for "treatment". This may not sound very sympathetic in your ears if you can't move your mind past the pink-ribbon Susan-Komen TM cancer industry programming, but it is from the viewpoint of someone who beat cancer with proper nutrition and avoiding those many many toxins they put in our food and drink."
Well, the AC got modded down to -1, plus disagreed with, but their certainly is a germ of truth in the comment. I won't agree 100% with it, though. I'd agree (based on what Dr. Fuhrman writes) that most cancer is preventable by good nutrition and lifestyle choices (especially lots more vegetables, vitamin D, iodine, fasting, avoiding refined carbs and food additives, etc.). However, once you have cancer, whether nutrition can cure it is pretty iffy. It depends on the exact nature of the cancer and other factors. Slow growing cancers are more likely to be amenable to cure or management by excellent nutrition (we are talking aggressive nutritional intervention here like Dr. Fuhrman specializes in, not just eating a few extra greens now and then). Fast growing cancers that are localized, like Steve Jobs had, are places where surgery etc. may make a lot of sense, but good nutrition may still be needed to prevent recurrences. In that sense, cancer like Steve Jobs had is not so much the *disease* but it is a *symptom* of root causes like sunlight deficiency disease (like from working indoors too much and not supplementing with vitamin D3), vegetable deficiency disease, iodine deficiency disease, toxic food excess disease, etc..
I'd still be very curious what diet style AC worked from. Certainly the Rave Diet, Dr. Fuhrman's work, Dr. Mercola's work, and many others suggest that an excellent diet does max a difference in dealing with cancer. The problem is, there is so much conflict-of-interest, group think, advertising pressure, and risk adverseness from malpractice worries in the medical community these days, that it is hard to find unbiased advice. Good nutritionally-aware doctors can be hard to find (and then hard to get appointments with), given the expense and academic qualifications requirements and limited number of slots of medical schools have created an artificial scarcity of good doctors (in part to keep their fees up).
Related: "Doctors' woeful lack of training about nutrition dooms millions to early graves " http://www.naturalnews.com/036702_doctors_nutrition_fatalities.html "The largest source of funding for medical schools comes from drug companies and medical schools curricula are set by the American Medical Association (AMA). Is it any surprise that doctors are taught to treat patients primarily with drugs and surgery? Given the power of proper nutrition, doctors' inability to give informed nutrition advice surely dooms millions to early graves due to illnesses which might have been prevented or healed. It is a national health tragedy which begs to be corrected."
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/12/the-science-of-success/307761/ "Most of us have genes that make us as hardy as dandelions: able to take root and survive almost anywhere. A few of us, however, are more like the orchid: fragile and fickle, but capable of blooming spectacularly if given greenhouse care. So holds a provocative new theory of genetics, which asserts that the very genes that give us the most trouble as a species, causing behaviors that are self-destructive and antisocial, also underlie humankind's phenomenal adaptability and evolutionary success. With a bad environment and poor parenting, orchid children can end up depressed, drug-addicted, or in jail -- but with the right environment and good parenting, they can grow up to be society's most creative, successful, and happy people."
So, rather than address issues of society making good parenting difficult, it sounds like this "ethicist" would just terminate in advance all the children at risk of "potential alcoholism" who just need good parenting and good societies to blossom in -- places with walking trails (see "Blue Zones"), with people getting vitamin-D from sunlight, lots of cheap vegetables and healthy fats like omegas-3s, with toxins like many artifical colors and flavors excluded from the food supply, and so on... As Dr. Fuhrman says in "Eat to Live", genes may give us weak links, but how much those links are pulled on is a function of diet and lifestyle (and upbringing).
Note also that nature is often more concerned about parasite resistance and disease resistance than many other factors this ethicist might focus on instead -- so that ethicist's plan put in practice might produce a society of great-looking high-IQ people who collapse at the first sniffle. Just look at what industrial breeding of tomatoes has brought us as far as what you see in your typical supermarket (compared to heirloom varieties).
It's sad what passes for overly-cerebral "ethics" these days (as much as I too might have said much the same when I was younger, brought up in a hyper-competitive US culture); here is part of why that is (but a bunch more is just a cultural pendulum swinging perhaps): http://disciplinedminds.com/ http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/11b.htm "The eugenics movement begun by Galton in England was energetically spread to the United States by his followers. Besides destroying lesser breeds (as they were routinely called) by abortion, sterilization, adoption, celibacy, two-job family separations, low-wage rates to dull the zest for life, and, above all, schooling to dull the mind and debase the character, other methods were clinically discussed in journals, including a childlessness which could be induced through easy access to pornography.2 At the same time those deemed inferior were to be turned into eunuchs, Galtonians advocated the notion of breeding a super race. Humanist Scott Nearing wrote his masterpiece, The Super Race: An American Problem, in 1912, just as the drive to destroy an academic curriculum in public schools was reaching its first crescendo. By "problem," Nearing wasn't referring to a moral dilemma. Rather, he was simply arguing that only America had the resources to meet the engineering challenge posed in creating supermen out of genetic raw stock."
Gatto suggests even the reason school rooms were called "class rooms" is linked with the eugenics notion that "classes" of people kept together would end up breeding with the same class, to produce superior offspring for the high ranked classes, and easily exploitable and disposable ones for the lower ranked ones.
As you say, today's defect can be tomorrow's salvation. There seems to be plenty of room for more people with more unique ideas and perspectives as part of a global (or someday galaxy-wide) cooperative discussion:
Thanks for asking.Well, my feelings on squatting based on what I've read and learned about other cultures (including indigenous people in various places. etc.); but see for example the various benefits listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squatting_position "Young children squat instinctively as a continuous movement from standing up whenever they want to lower themselves to ground level. One and two year olds can commonly be seen playing in a stable squatting position, with feet wide apart and bottom not quite touching the floor, although at first they need to hold onto something to stand up again.... Most western adults cannot place their heels flat on the ground when squatting because of shortened Achilles tendons largely caused by habitually: * sitting on chairs or seats [&] * wearing shoes with heels (especially high heels)... For this reason the squatting position is usually not sustainable for them for more than a few minutes as heels-up squatting is a less stable position than heels-down squatting."
Actually, I was going to add "climbing" to that list as well (considering likely human heritage...) which for humans is a set of movements in some way similar to swimming.
I have a treadmill workstation set up and walked on it for four hours this morning (at 0.5 mph) while writing email (although according to Dr. James Levine at the Mayo Clinic anywhere from 0.7 to 1.2 mph is a better rate). I have a keyboard resting on a stick and bungee cord across the handles. The treadmill faces the wall where I have three LCD monitors on a shelf at a good viewing height when standing in the treadmill. I use a trackball mouse.
Sadly, I have had various technical issues with the particular treadmill itself (mostly with a poor design of the bracket holding the optical encoder for the motor), requiring repairs over the past five years. When that happens I have gotten out of the habit of turning it on, otherwise I'd have used it more. It really is nice to realizing after a period of writing or programming that you have walked for a couple hours. Exercise is best when built-into daily life; see: http://singularityhub.com/2009/07/20/blue-zones-places-in-the-world-where-people-live-to-100-and-stay-healthy/
I agree with you that switching positions makes a lot of sense. I alternate walking, standing, and sitting on a tall stool (though some days I don't use the treadmill for whatever reason).
I feel the human body is well adapted to a few positions for extended durations -- walking, lying down (up to ten hours per day), squatting, and swimming. Pretty much any other position is ergonomically problematical for more than a short time (including sitting or standing). The problem with standing by itself, as opposed to walking, is that the blood can pool in the legs. However, you can combat that somewhat by shuffling your feet now and then and taking walking breaks now and then.
I had a standing desk before the treadmill (alternating with sitting on a tall stool), and liked it better than a chair. But I like the treadmill option a lot more. They are not that expensive to set up, especially considering how much time they can get used. (~US$800 plus some carpentry probably.)
That said, we also set a treadmill workstation up for my wife, but she finds she can't type when walking on it (but she likes to use it to watch video). So, her treadmill is essentially a standing desk most of the time. So, YMMV.
A big problem with treadmills is they weigh 200 pounds typically, and people can easily get hurt moving them (especially up or down stairs). That can make it harder to rearrange or move offices. And as above, they may require maintenance. Also, treadmill walking may be tougher on the ankles and knees than walking outdoors on a nicer surface. Also, beware becoming Vitamin D deficient if using the treadmill replaces outdoor exercise in the sun.
Or see my parable video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p14bAe6AzhA "A parable about robotics, abundance, technological change, unemployment, happiness, and a basic income."
There's more stuff on other alternatives on my site.
See Michael Kay's work: http://www.ise.ncsu.edu/kay/pln/index.htm "A public logistics network is proposed as an alternative to private logistics networks for the ground transport of parcels. Using the analogy between the packages transported in the network and the packets transmitted through the Internet, a package in a public logistics network could, for example, be sent from a retail store and then routed through a sequence of public distribution centers (DCs) located throughout the metropolitan area and then delivered to a customer's home in a matter of hours, making a car trip to the store to get the package unnecessary. The DCs in the network, functioning like the routers in the Internet, could also be located at major highway interchanges for longer distance transport.
Currently, it is common for a single logistics firm like UPS and FedEx to handle a package throughout its transport. The such a private logistics network, much of the technology used to coordinate the operation of the network is proprietary. As a result, the principal competitive advantage that a private logistics company has is the barrier to entry due to the very large scale of operation (national or international) required in order to be able to underwrite the development of private facilities and propriety technologies. Nevertheless, a single firm, unless it becomes a monopoly, is ultimately limited in the scale of its operation, resulting in the use of a limited number of large-scale hub transshipment points that can result in packages making many circuitous hops before reaching their destinations. In a public logistics network, the different functions of the network would be separated so that a single firm is not required for coordination. This would enable scale economies to be realized in performing each logistics function since each element of the network has access to potentially all of the network's demand. The increase in scale would make it economical to have many more transshipment points. Each transshipment point, or distribution center (DC), could be an independently operated facility that serves as both a freight terminal and a public warehouse, and could be established in small cities and towns that would never have such facilities if they were served as part of a proprietary, private logistics network."
Theodore Sturgeon also predicted the mobile internet in the 1950s and its possible social, political, and military implications. And much, much more. That one story inspired Ted Nelson and project Xanadu and Hypertext (so, ultimately the World Wide Web), as well as many other technologists (like for nanotech). http://books.google.com/books?id=wpuJQrxHZXAC&pg=PA51&lpg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false
Although I'd agree with others that Stanislaw Lem and Ursula K. Le Guin are awesome.
And my person favorite is James P. Hogan, who predicted the difficulties with a transition from scarcity thinking to abundance thinking: http://www.jamesphogan.com/books/info.php?titleID=29&cmd=summary "In the meantime, Earth went through a dodgy period, but managed in the end to muddle through. The fun begins when a generation ship housing a population of thousands arrives to "reclaim" the colony on behalf of the repressive, authoritarian regime that emerged following the crisis period. The Mayflower II brings with it all the tried and tested apparatus for bringing a recalcitrant population to heel: authority, with its power structure and symbolism, to impress; commercial institutions with the promise of wealth and possessions, to tempt and ensnare; a religious presence, to awe and instill duty and obedience; and if all else fails, armed military force to compel. But what happens when these methods encounter a population that has never been conditioned to respond?
The book has an interesting corollary. Around about the mid eighties, I received a letter notifying me that the story had been serialized in an underground Polish s.f. magazine. They hadn't exactly "stolen" it, the publishers explained, but had credited zlotys to an account in my name there, so if I ever decided to take a holiday in Poland the expenses would be covered (there was no exchange mechanism with Western currencies at that time). Then the story started surfacing in other countries of Eastern Europe, by all accounts to an enthusiastic reception. What they liked there, apparently, was the updated "Ghandiesque" formula on how bring down an oppressive regime when it's got all the guns. And a couple of years later, they were all doing it!"
Also by me, as a shorter version of the above: http://www.pdfernhout.net/open-letter-to-grantmakers-and-donors-on-copyright-policy.html "Foundations, other grantmaking agencies handling public tax-exempt dollars, and charitable donors need to consider the implications for their grantmaking or donation policies if they use a now obsolete charitable model of subsidizing proprietary publishing and proprietary research. In order to improve the effectiveness and collaborativeness of the non-profit sector overall, it is suggested these grantmaking organizations and donors move to requiring grantees to make any resulting copyrighted digital materials freely available on the internet, including free licenses granting the right for others to make and redistribute new derivative works without further permission. It is also suggested patents resulting from charitably subsidized research research also be made freely available for general use. The alternative of allowing charitable dollars to result in proprietary copyrights and proprietary patents is corrupting the non-profit sector as it results in a conflict of interest between a non-profit's primary mission of helping humanity through freely sharing knowledge (made possible at little cost by the internet) and a desire to maximize short term revenues through charging licensing fees for access to patents and copyrights. In essence, with the change of publishing and communication economics made possible by the wide spread use of the internet, tax-exempt non-profits have become, perhaps unwittingly, caught up in a new form of "self-dealing", and it is up to donors and grantmakers (and eventually lawmakers) to prevent this by requiring free licensing of results as a condition of their grants and donations. "
I was around Princeton in the late 1980s when this idea of using lasers to modify the rates of chemical reactions was being talked about. In general, I've been thinking about this nuclear proliferation issue for a long time (not just for that reason, a professor I had there, Frank von Hippel, who worked on non-proliferation issues, was upset/concerned when I raised the issue in a paper for his seminar that people would soon be able to make weapons at home or in small communities as technology proliferated, like we see now with 3D printed gun parts). Some possible answers I've come to are in my sig and on my site. http://www.pdfernhout.net/recognizing-irony-is-a-key-to-transcending-militarism.html "Nuclear weapons are ironic because they are about using space age systems to fight over oil and land. Why not just use advanced materials as found in nuclear missiles to make renewable energy sources (like windmills or solar panels) to replace oil, or why not use rocketry to move into space by building space habitats for more land?"
Izzy Kalman points out that behavior that is not rewarded tends to extinguish itself over time. Bullying victims participate in that cycle by their reactions. What sustains bullying as a social process is intermittent rewards for those who bully (seeing the rise they get out of their victims). That is why the grandparent's post is insightful. However, that is not to suggest your personal experience might be unusual either. I liked your "Yeah. No." comment in that sense.
Still, what is the ultimate alternative to encouraging freedom of speech in school (including accepting people will say unpleasant things for all sorts of reasons)? Is it turning school staff into judges and juries (as if they did not have enough difficulties already)? What happens when reporting "bullying" itself is taken as an offensive act by the one labelled now as a "bully", leading to further escalation of the problem? Will such a change towards less and less tolerance (as many other anti-bullying programs promote) even invite new forms of manipulation and misuses of the quasi-legal system as well? What happens when the bullies become those who can use the quasi-legal system to harass innocent victims by making them look like the "bullies"? Is that a place we want to go? For example, what it that tweet was made by someone else in such a way as to look like the now arrested teenager was the one who made it? Like maybe someone who had access to the teenagers phone for two minutes? How can the teenager prove otherwise? That is an example of the law of unintended consequences...
Izzy Kalman does point out that some very small percent of bullies do indeed need to be deal with legally by involving the police (when extreme violence is in the picture). That part also echoes your comment, though one can argue about percentages (as in 10%? 1%? or 0.1%? of the entire population of teenagers). Izzy Kalman mainly focuses on breaking the cycle of escalation that can lead to violence. As he points out, generally these issues start small. They key is to prevent them from escalating. That means breaking the feedback loop. In practice, that means educating the "victim" about better ways to respond to the situation. Focusing mainly on changing the behavior of the one labeled "bully" just does not work that well in practice according to Izzy Kalman.
However, I would agree that cooping up lots of people in a small space where they are compelled by law to be there every day, regardless of personal relationships with others in that small space, is a recipe for creating bad behavior, whatever the institution is called or whatever its supposed aims. One might even argue compulsory schooling models "bullying" itself -- forcing kids to do things they don't want to do for fairly arbitrary reasons (witness the recent slashdot discussion on whether algebra should be forced on everyone).
That's one reason why I prefer the idea of a "public library" to the idea of a "public school" -- where "public" means a completely different thing in the two terms. If someone is mean in a public library, you can generally avoid that person in that part of the library, go to the library at some other time when that person is not there, or just use a different library, or even bring your brother or mother or friend along, etc.. You don't have those choices in a public school where you must legally be in a certain room at a certain time of day most days. If you don't go along with the public school's authority, then ultimately you will be forced to go to an even more controlling institution where you don't get to go home nights and weekends. Unless you opt out of the public system in some formal way, like homeshooling/unschooling, tutors, special private schooling, etc.. But those options in practice so often seem beyond most families given our society's economics (even if more might manage them than think to try).
I just watched the related videos, and it is impressive just what an up and down tail can do. But you're right that a tail that can move side-to-side, or that can curl or corkscrew can probably do even more to maintain a desired 3D orientation. No doubt that will be future directions for this work. So, in the real world, it seems like a common situation that you want to maintain the orientation of 90% of the mass of an object, and are willing to sacrifice the 3D orientation of 10% for a short time to do that (until the tail orientation can be reset at no body-orientation cost when the creature is on a surface again). Brilliant. These robot videos really show how amazing nature can be. I really appreciate tails in a way I never had before watching those videos. I especially found of interest video about a predecessor robot to this which includes video footage of the long-tailed lizard used as a prototype: http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/diy/dinosaurlike-tails-make-terrestrial-mobile-robots-more-agile
You could ask yourself, could life be made worth living for you? Also, you could look into vitamin D deficiency, iodine deficiency, phyto-nutrient deficiency, omega-3 deficiency, sleep deficiency, and so on (and avoiding refined carbohydrates like sugar and white flour). More info on heath issues here: http://www.changemakers.com/discussions/discussion-493#comment-38823
A life is like a growing tree. What keeps a tree from toppling over in the storms of life is deep roots. To reduce the risk of toppling over in a strom, grow your roots -- friends, family, community, neighbors, hobbies, recreations, communing with the infinite, nature, music, and so on.
See also: "Dark Nights of the Soul: A Guide to Finding Your Way Through Life's Ordeals" http://books.google.com/books/about/Dark_Nights_of_the_Soul.html?id=EG1E8boPodQC "Every human journey is filled with emotional tunnels: the loss of a loved one or end of a relationship, aging and illness, career disappointments, or just an ongoing sense of dissatisfaction with life. Society tends to view these "dark nights" in clinical terms as obstacles to be overcome as quickly as possible. But Thomas Moore's extensive career as a psychologist and theologian has taught him that honoring these periods of fragility as periods of incubation and opportunities to delve into the soul's deepest needs can provide healing and a new understanding of life's meaning. Dark Nights of the Soul presents these metaphoric dark nights not as the enemy, but as times of transition, occasions to restore yourself, and transforming rites of passage. Moore shows specific ways to engage life more deeply through particular challenges and shares a powerful new outlook. With the soothing, accessible tone and practical philosophy that have made Moore an internationally beloved author, Dark Nights of the Soul will help you tend to the deepest needs of the heart and spirit in a modern world full of life's challenges, and is sure to be a comforting companion during your most difficult times. Every human life is made up of the light and the dark, the happy and the sad, the vital and the deadening. How you think about this rhythm of moods makes all the difference. From the #1 New York Times bestselling author of Care of the Soul comes the long-anticipated sequel, an uplifting and groundbreaking approach to life's darkest hours. Moore shows specific ways to engage life more deeply through particular challenges and shares a powerful new outlook on such topics as: The healing power of melancholy; The sexual dark night and the mysteries of matrimony; Finding solace during illness and in aging; Anxiety, anger, and temporary Insanities; Linking creativity, spirituality, and emotional struggles; Finding meaning and beauty in the darkness."
Or, as Howard Zinn said: http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1108-21.htm "In this awful world where the efforts of caring people often pale in comparison to what is done by those who have power, how do I manage to stay involved and seemingly happy? I am totally confident not that the world will get better, but that we should not give up the game before all the cards have been played. The metaphor is deliberate; life is a gamble. Not to play is to foreclose any chance of winning.
To play, to act, is to create at least a possibility of changing the world. There is a tendency to think that what we see in the present moment will continue. We forget how often we have been astonished by the sudden crumbling of institutions, by extraordinary changes in people's thoughts, by unexpected eruptions of rebellion against tyrannies, by the quick collapse of systems of power that seemed invincible. What leaps out from the history of the past hundred years is its utter unpredictability. This confounds us, because
A: The owners and managers of large income-producing properties; i.e., corporations, banks, and agri-businesses. But they have plenty of help from the managers and experts they hire. You can read the essential details of the argument in this summary of Who Rules America?, or look for the book itself at Amazon.com.
Q: Do the same people rule at the local level that rule at the federal level?
A: No, not quite. The local level is dominated by the land owners and businesses related to real estate that come together as growth coalitions, making cities into growth machines.
Q: Do they rule secretly from behind the scenes, as a conspiracy?
A: No, conspiracy theories are wrong, though it's true that some corporate leaders lie and steal, and that some government officials try to keep things secret (but usually fail).
Q: Then how do they rule?
A: That's a complicated story, but the short answer is through open and direct involvement in policy planning, through participation in political campaigns and elections, and through appointments to key decision-making positions in government.
Q: Are you saying that elections don't matter?
A: No, but they usually matter a lot less than they could, and a lot less in America than they do in other industrialized democracies. That's because of the nature of the electoral rules and the unique history of the South.
Q: Does social science research have anything useful to say about making progressive social change more effective?
A: Yes, it does, but few if any people pay much attention to that research. =====
See also my essay "On dealing with social hurricanes (like the US CIA)": http://www.pdfernhout.net/on-dealing-with-social-hurricanes.html "This approximately 60 page document is a ramble about ways to ensure the CIA (as well as other big organizations) remains (or becomes) accountable to human needs and the needs of healthy, prosperous, joyful, secure, educated communities. The primarily suggestion is to encourage a paradigm shift away from scarcity thinking & competition thinking towards abundance thinking & cooperation thinking within the CIA and other organizations. I suggest that shift could be encouraged in part by providing publicly accessible free "intelligence" tools and other publicly accessible free information that all people (including in the CIA and elsewhere) can, if they want, use to better connect the dots about global issues and see those issues from multiple perspectives, to provide a better context for providing broad policy advice. It links that effort to bigger efforts to transform our global society into a place that works well for (almost) everyone that millions of people are engaged in. A central Haudenosaunee story-related theme is the transformation of Tadodaho through the efforts of the Peacemaker from someone who was evil and hurtful to someone who was good and helpful."
http://code.google.com/p/openvirgle/wiki/SpacePod People need space pods instead (like in 2001). Why would anyone want to put on a space suit in space? If you need something in an emergency, NASA has a big bag people can go into developed for the shuttle. If you need to go into a confined space, use a tele-operated small robot. Can anyone cite any reason to put a person in a "space suit" suit other than for generating "people in space" publicity? Shirt-sleeve pods are also much more comfortable than space suits.
From the link: ==== The "shirtsleeve" utility space pod is probably common to all space efforts. It is a self-contained and portable/drivable container/ship that allows for the operator to work in the field, but in an environmentally controlled space that requires no special equipment for life support (working in nothing more than your "shirtsleeves").
Any project that is attempted in space will require extended periods of construction or repair in a Zero-G environment. This is especially true in terms of space stations and space shipyards.
Spacesuits, while advantageous in tight environments, are ultimately inadequate to jobs lasting more than a few hours. This is because they are rather inadequate protection from micrometeorites and other spaceborne debris, and the maneuverability requirements of a suit limit the oxygen supply size that can be attached.
The space pod allows for a larger and more rigid protective shell, room for greater air supply, as well as room for a more numerous and varied assortment of tools. Ultimately, this allows for the opportunity to take jobs further from base, and to tackle larger and more complex jobs that require many different types of tools or large scale tools that would be otherwise impossible to carry around and/or utilize without mechanical assistance. The pod also has the added advantage of completely eliminating the operator specific customization requirements that spacesuits pose - pods do not need to be sized or tailored for the operator, and can be handed off from one worker to the next at shift change time with no modifications.
And here are copies of some emails I sent to Ray Kurzweil over the years (someone else made a copy of them here) trying to get him to think more deeply about evolutionary and social issues related to the singularity: http://heybryan.org/fernhout/
Basically, I tried to say much like what you are saying. Our trajectory coming out of any singularity may have a lot of influence on our path coming out of one. It just seems like common sense that more compassion, community, and cooperation now might make a big differnece later. See also Alfie Kohn's work: http://www.alfiekohn.org/books/nc.htm "No Contest, which has been stirring up controversy since its publication in 1986, stands as the definitive critique of competition. Drawing from hundreds of studies, Alfie Kohn eloquently argues that our struggle to defeat each other -- at work, at school, at play, and at home -- turns all of us into losers."
My sig below sums up my years of thinking on all this.
http://johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/16a.htm "I'll bring this down to earth. Try to see that an intricately subordinated industrial/commercial system has only limited use for hundreds of millions of self-reliant, resourceful readers and critical thinkers. In an egalitarian, entrepreneurially based economy of confederated families like the one the Amish have or the Mondragon folk in the Basque region of Spain, any number of self-reliant people can be accommodated usefully, but not in a concentrated command-type economy like our own. Where on earth would they fit? In a great fanfare of moral fervor some years back, the Ford Motor Company opened the world's most productive auto engine plant in Chihuahua, Mexico. It insisted on hiring employees with 50 percent more school training than the Mexican norm of six years, but as time passed Ford removed its requirements and began to hire school dropouts, training them quite well in four to twelve weeks. The hype that education is essential to robot-like work was quietly abandoned. Our economy has no adequate outlet of expression for its artists, dancers, poets, painters, farmers, filmmakers, wildcat business people, handcraft workers, whiskey makers, intellectuals, or a thousand other useful human enterprises -- no outlet except corporate work or fringe slots on the periphery of things. Unless you do "creative" work the company way, you run afoul of a host of laws and regulations put on the books to control the dangerous products of imagination which can never be safely tolerated by a centralized command system.
Before you can reach a point of effectiveness in defending your own children or your principles against the assault of blind social machinery, you have to stop conspiring against yourself by attempting to negotiate with a set of abstract principles and rules which, by its nature, cannot respond. Under all its disguises, that is what institutional schooling is, an abstraction which has escaped its handlers. Nobody can reform it. First you have to realize that human values are the stuff of madness to a system; in systems-logic the schools we have are already the schools the system needs; the only way they could be much improved is to have kids eat, sleep, live, and die there."
However, schooling is certainly effective in keeping young people out of the work force. What most of the comments here seem to ignore is that 200 years ago, children at age 4 or 5 were working on farms and in mines and in factories. Now, with automation and electric motors, children are out of the work force generally until they turn 21 (or longer if they go to grad school). Things have changed so much, and many people posting here seem unaware of that. At this point, most work is "make work" related to guarding or pointless zero-sum competition.
I agree with your point about decision makers being out-of-touch with emerging technological realities. See my site for more on that.
Slashdot Mirror
From: http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/PCI_angioplasty_article.aspx "Interventional cardiology and cardiovascular surgery is basically a scam based on a misunderstanding of the nature of heart disease. Searching for and treating obstructive plaque does not address the areas of the coronary vascular tree most likely to rupture and cause heart attacks. If there was never another CABG or angioplasty performed or stent placed, patients with heart disease would be better off. Doctors would be forced to educate our citizens that their heart disease risk is determined by what they place on their forks. Millions of lives would be dramatically extended. To abandon the theory of stretching and cutting out areas with plaque would shut down interventional cardiology, nearly all cardiovascular surgery, and many suppliers of the biotechnology. In many cases, interventional cardiology is the major income generator to hospitals. The ending of this ill-conceived, out-dated and ineffective technology would dramatically downsize hospitals in the United States and free up over $100 billion annually in medical care costs. Besides being ineffective, interventional cardiology places the responsibility in the hands of the doctor and not the patients. When patients finally realize they must take control of their heart problems with aggressive dietary modifications (and when needed medications for temporary periods) we will essentially solve the health crisis in America.
The sad thing is surgical interventions and medications are the foundation of modern cardiology and both are relatively ineffective compared to nutritional excellence. My patients routinely reverse their heart disease, and no longer have vulnerable plaque or high blood pressure, so they do not need medical care, hospitals or cardiologists anymore. The problem is that in the real world cardiac patients are not even informed that heart disease is predictably reversed with nutritional excellence. They are not given the opportunity to choose and just corralled into these surgical interventions.
Trying to figure out how to pay for ineffective and expensive medicine by politicians will never be a real solution. People need to know they do not have to have heart disease to begin with, and if they get it, aggressive nutrition is the most life-saving intervention. And it is free."
When I heard about his treatment a couple weeks ago, I tried to figure out how to contact him, but to no avail. Neil Armstrong benefited from the best of 1960s technology, but sadly did not benefit from the best of 21st century medicine (aggressive nutritional intervention). Sad. We could have had him healthy and vibrant and as a witness to the better side of human kind for another decade or two. Instead some heart surgeons can afford to make a few more payments on luxury cars and big houses.
We just lost Martin Fleischmann (just as LENR aka "cold fusion" is resurging) probably from the same kind of widespread nutirional ignorance in the medical profession.
Some attempts by me to try to help with improving human health:
https://www.changemakers.com/morehealth/entries/health-sensemaking
http://www.changemakers.com/discussions/discussion-493#comment-38823
Something to keep in mind:
http://www.pdfernhout.net/to-james-randi-on-skepticism-about-mainstream-science.html#Some_quotes_on_social_problems_in_science
"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 challengin
Links in my earlier comment: http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3068759&cid=41115073
"Toxic dose for D is less than 5 times the daily mRDA."
That comment on vitamin D toxicity is misleading, and that misinformation has caused untold huge amounts of suffering in the industrialized world. (Even ignoring that you have not specified a time period -- in one day, in one year, in ten years?) See: http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/about-vitamin-d/what-is-vitamin-d/vitamin-d-toxicity/
In general, Wikipedia medical information tends to be extremely mainstream, so you should be cautious when relying on it if you have a serious health issue. There is so much conflict-of-interest and group-think in the mainstream medical system that it is hard to sort through it all. Here are links to relations between vitamin D deficiency and mental issues (see the sidebar):
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health-conditions/mental-health-and-learning-disorders/
And related to autism specifically, see:
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/news-archive/2009/new-harvard-paper-on-autism/
To explore why your statement is misleading, first, here is what the US government says on vitamin D RDAs for reference:
http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/VitaminD-HealthProfessional/
Also summarized here:
http://www.vitamind3-cholecalciferol.com/vitamin-d-rda.htm
The US RDA for Vitamin D for a child or adult (currently 600 IU per day, recently raised) effectively is the same for a 30 pound child as a 300 pound adult; how can that make any sense, given that vitamin D is used by every cell in the body? (The level of 400 IU D3 daily for a newborn infant is probably OK though.)
I am not sure what you mean by "mRDA" whether minimum RDA or maximum Upper Limit (UL). The maximum upper limit there is currently 2,500-4000 IU D3 daily depending on age (after being recently raised from much lower amounts) or about four to seven times the minimum RDA. Again, it is about the same for a 30 pound child as a 300 pound adult. (And that is after the maximum upper limit was recently increased a lot.) Those maximums for children and adults are more likely what the daily US RDA should be, and the real maximums are probably a few times higher than that for most people.
If you meant mRDA as minimum RDA, then your statement is just clearly wrong, because five times is pretty much below the upper limit now accepted as safe by even mainstream-conservative medical boards.
But, let me assume, charitably, that you meant maximum "Upper Limit" by "mRDA". So, you are then suggesting that the toxic level for vitamin D supplementation is less that five times the UL published by the Food and Nutrition Board, which would mean toxicity at 12,500 to 20,000 IU D3? But you did not specify even a time amount (per day, for how long?). It's been said: "The dose makes the poison." So it is hard to know what you mean by that. Charitably, let me assume you meant taking that amount daily over a period of several years?
But consider this. Most people with sufficient sun exposure in a day, like wearing bathing suit at the beach in summer in the USA around noon, will make about 10,000-50,000 IU D3 (in about 15-30 minutes if you are light skinned, and about two to four hours if you are dark skinned). That is between about 15 and 100 times above the US RDA of vitamin D. It is about two-and-a-half to twelve times the "upper limit". How can what you suggest (that a toxic amount is less that five times the maximum RDA which would be less that 20,000 IU, assuming the most defensible interpretation of what you wrote) be true then if the body makes so much when exposed to sunlight? It pretty much can't, at least not wit
"Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose. Not having your kid eat whole mainly nutritious foods like Dr. Joel Fuhrman outlines in "Disease-Proof Your Child: Feeding Kids Right" and "Super Immunity: The Essential Nutrition Guide for Boosting Your Body's Defenses to Live Longer, Stronger, and Disease Free", or not breastfeeding for the first two to four years, or not getting plentiful sleep, or not getting lots of outdoor exercise in the sunlight plus supplemental vitamin D, or not getting enough iodine and omega-3s, or not homeschooling and working from home to avoid disease transmission centers like schools and workplaces, or not living in a relatively stress-free home exposes mine to potentially life-threatening disease because yours has an immune system working less than optimally. If you think that the (vanishingly small) risk of complications from living a healthy lifestyle or short-term difficulties of breaking out of the "pleasure trap" your family is stuck in ( http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/article16.aspx ) is more important than my (well-nourished) kid's risk of contracting a disease that has mutated inside your (poorly fed) kid.. well, you're bad at math. And, a selfish short-sighted asshole.
I've never really understood why it is that something you were going to do anyway becoming mandatory means that you should automatically resist it. You've lost nothing except the choice you weren't going to make, and society has benefited. Making eating well and getting good sleep and playing outdoors in the sunshine and so forth mandatory is not the same as Hitler storming across Europe, get a grip. If the slope were really that slippery, we would have fallen down into the abyss a long long time ago.
Obligatory car analogy: Sure, you have the right to drive around with faulty brakes. At least in this state, you do not need working brakes to pass the yearly inspection. You can argue that you're risking nobody except yourself.. except, you're not. Your passengers, and the other people on the roads that you slam into because you can't stop, would disagree.
Part of living in a civilized society is recognizing when your actions have consequences for others that have no say in the matter. Yes, you can make the choice not to feed your kid really well or to send your kid daily to a disease transmission center like a public or private school. But realize that your actions have consequences for others. (It may come as a shock to you that there are other people in the world besides you and your child.) One of the major problems we (USA) have as a society is the attitude of "I've got mine, fuck you." Take responsibility for your choice; keep your kid away from mine. If your idealism leads to my kid's death.. then it's not worth protecting. Die for your ideals if you want; it's your life to throw away."
FTFY.
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health-conditions/neurological-conditions/autism/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mark-hyman/autism-research-discovery_b_794967.html
Another indirect datapoint about the link between autism an vitamin D deficiency: http://www.futurity.org/health-medicine/higher-autism-risk-for-march-conception/
It may also turn out that some children are better at dealing with excreting heavy metals and other toxins than others for whatever reasons. See also Dr. David Brownstein on Iodine and Dr. Joel Fuhrman on vegetables and children's nutrition.
A book on dealing with tough times when all else fails:
"Dark Nights Of The Soul: A Guide To Finding Your Way Through Life's Ordeals"
http://books.google.com/books?id=RKZreNYKNHQC
Good luck!
Please see my own reply to the AC, disagreeing in part and agreeing in part:
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3058445&cid=41052955
If you look into the science, you'll see there is plenty of evidence that things like cruciferous vegetables, vitamin D3, iodine, fasting, and some other things (including avoiding refined carbs and various toxins) can help prevent cancer, and in some cases even reverse it. But, it is indeed hit-and-miss once you have cancer -- prevention of cancer by such methods is much more reliable than cure, and it depends on the exact nature of the cancer. You can look at the evidence Dr. Joel Fuhrman has amassed in the book "Eat to Live" for a start. A starting point:
http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/article24.aspx
"As reported by the U.S. government and Center for Disease Control (CDC), cancers of the colon, breast, prostate and lung are the top four deadliest cancers in the modern world. After billions of dollars devoted to researching drug treatments for cancer and minimal increases in life expectancy for those undergoing chemotherapy for most common cancers, many authorities such as the National Institute of Health and the American Cancer Society, have been issuing a stronger voice advocating more preventive measures to reduce cancer incidence. Diet has become a key element in the fight against cancer.
The most recent scientific advancement in the anti-cancer research is the identification of specific foods and food elements that offer powerful protection against cancer. These foods are essential for both prevention of cancer and also increased odds of survival after diagnosis. Harmful foods and supplements have also been identified, and avoiding or minimizing these is equally as important.
Though most people would prefer to take a pill and continue their eating habits, this will not provide the desired protection. Unrefined plant foods, with their plentiful anti-cancer compounds, must be eaten in abundance to flood the body's tissues with protective substances. Vegetables and fruits protect against all types of cancers if consumed in large enough quantities. Hundreds of scientific studies document this. The most prevalent cancers in our societies are plant-food-deficiency diseases. The benefits of lifestyle changes are proportional to the changes made. As we add more vegetable servings, we increase our phytochemical intake and leave less room in our diets for harmful foods, enhancing cancer protection even further. Let's review some of these research findings and then review what a powerful, anti-cancer diet will look like."
Or lots of studies here for vitamin D helping with both preventing cancer and improving outcomes:
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health-conditions/cancer/
But, as I said in that other comment, we really need both better diets and better interventions for the times when that is not enough. One place working towards "integrative therapy" for cancer:
http://www.healingcancer.info/ebook/andrew-weil
But there is so much conflict-of-interest in the medical profession, it can be hard to wade through it all as a stressed patient or family member or friend; here is a related book by a former oncologist:
"Money Driven Medicine -- Tests and Treatments That Don't Work."
http://cancercaremalaysia.com/2011/09/02/book-review-money-driven-medicine-%E2%80%93-chemotherapy-for-non-responsive-cancers-%E2%80%93-denying-reality/
"Medical oncologists are paid almost nothing for talking with patients and their families. Their income depends entirely on the number o
"The man does not need the surgery, chemotherapy radiation one-two into an early grave but vitamins and nutrition. Start educating yourself about health and nutrition first before you come begging for wagon loads of money to pay for "treatment". This may not sound very sympathetic in your ears if you can't move your mind past the pink-ribbon Susan-Komen TM cancer industry programming, but it is from the viewpoint of someone who beat cancer with proper nutrition and avoiding those many many toxins they put in our food and drink."
Well, the AC got modded down to -1, plus disagreed with, but their certainly is a germ of truth in the comment. I won't agree 100% with it, though. I'd agree (based on what Dr. Fuhrman writes) that most cancer is preventable by good nutrition and lifestyle choices (especially lots more vegetables, vitamin D, iodine, fasting, avoiding refined carbs and food additives, etc.). However, once you have cancer, whether nutrition can cure it is pretty iffy. It depends on the exact nature of the cancer and other factors. Slow growing cancers are more likely to be amenable to cure or management by excellent nutrition (we are talking aggressive nutritional intervention here like Dr. Fuhrman specializes in, not just eating a few extra greens now and then). Fast growing cancers that are localized, like Steve Jobs had, are places where surgery etc. may make a lot of sense, but good nutrition may still be needed to prevent recurrences. In that sense, cancer like Steve Jobs had is not so much the *disease* but it is a *symptom* of root causes like sunlight deficiency disease (like from working indoors too much and not supplementing with vitamin D3), vegetable deficiency disease, iodine deficiency disease, toxic food excess disease, etc..
I'd still be very curious what diet style AC worked from. Certainly the Rave Diet, Dr. Fuhrman's work, Dr. Mercola's work, and many others suggest that an excellent diet does max a difference in dealing with cancer. The problem is, there is so much conflict-of-interest, group think, advertising pressure, and risk adverseness from malpractice worries in the medical community these days, that it is hard to find unbiased advice. Good nutritionally-aware doctors can be hard to find (and then hard to get appointments with), given the expense and academic qualifications requirements and limited number of slots of medical schools have created an artificial scarcity of good doctors (in part to keep their fees up).
Related:
"Doctors' woeful lack of training about nutrition dooms millions to early graves "
http://www.naturalnews.com/036702_doctors_nutrition_fatalities.html
"The largest source of funding for medical schools comes from drug companies and medical schools curricula are set by the American Medical Association (AMA). Is it any surprise that doctors are taught to treat patients primarily with drugs and surgery? Given the power of proper nutrition, doctors' inability to give informed nutrition advice surely dooms millions to early graves due to illnesses which might have been prevented or healed. It is a national health tragedy which begs to be corrected."
At the end of my comment linked below are lots of background health links that ultimately link to the science of why nutrition and lifestyle make a big difference in health outcomes:
http://www.changemakers.com/discussions/discussion-493#comment-38823
I posted other stuff in various replies to an article on IBM's Watson's involvement in cancer treatment.
http://science.slashdot.org/story/11/09/12/2059243/ibms-watson-to-help-diagnose-treat-cancer
Here is one of those:
http://science
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/12/the-science-of-success/307761/
"Most of us have genes that make us as hardy as dandelions: able to take root and survive almost anywhere. A few of us, however, are more like the orchid: fragile and fickle, but capable of blooming spectacularly if given greenhouse care. So holds a provocative new theory of genetics, which asserts that the very genes that give us the most trouble as a species, causing behaviors that are self-destructive and antisocial, also underlie humankind's phenomenal adaptability and evolutionary success. With a bad environment and poor parenting, orchid children can end up depressed, drug-addicted, or in jail -- but with the right environment and good parenting, they can grow up to be society's most creative, successful, and happy people."
So, rather than address issues of society making good parenting difficult, it sounds like this "ethicist" would just terminate in advance all the children at risk of "potential alcoholism" who just need good parenting and good societies to blossom in -- places with walking trails (see "Blue Zones"), with people getting vitamin-D from sunlight, lots of cheap vegetables and healthy fats like omegas-3s, with toxins like many artifical colors and flavors excluded from the food supply, and so on... As Dr. Fuhrman says in "Eat to Live", genes may give us weak links, but how much those links are pulled on is a function of diet and lifestyle (and upbringing).
Note also that nature is often more concerned about parasite resistance and disease resistance than many other factors this ethicist might focus on instead -- so that ethicist's plan put in practice might produce a society of great-looking high-IQ people who collapse at the first sniffle. Just look at what industrial breeding of tomatoes has brought us as far as what you see in your typical supermarket (compared to heirloom varieties).
It's sad what passes for overly-cerebral "ethics" these days (as much as I too might have said much the same when I was younger, brought up in a hyper-competitive US culture); here is part of why that is (but a bunch more is just a cultural pendulum swinging perhaps):
http://disciplinedminds.com/
http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/11b.htm
"The eugenics movement begun by Galton in England was energetically spread to the United States by his followers. Besides destroying lesser breeds (as they were routinely called) by abortion, sterilization, adoption, celibacy, two-job family separations, low-wage rates to dull the zest for life, and, above all, schooling to dull the mind and debase the character, other methods were clinically discussed in journals, including a childlessness which could be induced through easy access to pornography.2 At the same time those deemed inferior were to be turned into eunuchs, Galtonians advocated the notion of breeding a super race. Humanist Scott Nearing wrote his masterpiece, The Super Race: An American Problem, in 1912, just as the drive to destroy an academic curriculum in public schools was reaching its first crescendo. By "problem," Nearing wasn't referring to a moral dilemma. Rather, he was simply arguing that only America had the resources to meet the engineering challenge posed in creating supermen out of genetic raw stock."
Gatto suggests even the reason school rooms were called "class rooms" is linked with the eugenics notion that "classes" of people kept together would end up breeding with the same class, to produce superior offspring for the high ranked classes, and easily exploitable and disposable ones for the lower ranked ones.
As you say, today's defect can be tomorrow's salvation. There seems to be plenty of room for more people with more unique ideas and perspectives as part of a global (or someday galaxy-wide) cooperative discussion:
Thanks for asking .Well, my feelings on squatting based on what I've read and learned about other cultures (including indigenous people in various places. etc.); but see for example the various benefits listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squatting_position ... Most western adults cannot place their heels flat on the ground when squatting because of shortened Achilles tendons largely caused by habitually: * sitting on chairs or seats [&] * wearing shoes with heels (especially high heels)... For this reason the squatting position is usually not sustainable for them for more than a few minutes as heels-up squatting is a less stable position than heels-down squatting."
"Young children squat instinctively as a continuous movement from standing up whenever they want to lower themselves to ground level. One and two year olds can commonly be seen playing in a stable squatting position, with feet wide apart and bottom not quite touching the floor, although at first they need to hold onto something to stand up again.
Actually, I was going to add "climbing" to that list as well (considering likely human heritage...) which for humans is a set of movements in some way similar to swimming.
http://www.squidoo.com/walkingwhileworking
I have a treadmill workstation set up and walked on it for four hours this morning (at 0.5 mph) while writing email (although according to Dr. James Levine at the Mayo Clinic anywhere from 0.7 to 1.2 mph is a better rate). I have a keyboard resting on a stick and bungee cord across the handles. The treadmill faces the wall where I have three LCD monitors on a shelf at a good viewing height when standing in the treadmill. I use a trackball mouse.
Sadly, I have had various technical issues with the particular treadmill itself (mostly with a poor design of the bracket holding the optical encoder for the motor), requiring repairs over the past five years. When that happens I have gotten out of the habit of turning it on, otherwise I'd have used it more. It really is nice to realizing after a period of writing or programming that you have walked for a couple hours. Exercise is best when built-into daily life; see:
http://singularityhub.com/2009/07/20/blue-zones-places-in-the-world-where-people-live-to-100-and-stay-healthy/
I agree with you that switching positions makes a lot of sense. I alternate walking, standing, and sitting on a tall stool (though some days I don't use the treadmill for whatever reason).
I feel the human body is well adapted to a few positions for extended durations -- walking, lying down (up to ten hours per day), squatting, and swimming. Pretty much any other position is ergonomically problematical for more than a short time (including sitting or standing). The problem with standing by itself, as opposed to walking, is that the blood can pool in the legs. However, you can combat that somewhat by shuffling your feet now and then and taking walking breaks now and then.
I had a standing desk before the treadmill (alternating with sitting on a tall stool), and liked it better than a chair. But I like the treadmill option a lot more. They are not that expensive to set up, especially considering how much time they can get used. (~US$800 plus some carpentry probably.)
That said, we also set a treadmill workstation up for my wife, but she finds she can't type when walking on it (but she likes to use it to watch video). So, her treadmill is essentially a standing desk most of the time. So, YMMV.
A big problem with treadmills is they weigh 200 pounds typically, and people can easily get hurt moving them (especially up or down stairs). That can make it harder to rearrange or move offices. And as above, they may require maintenance. Also, treadmill walking may be tougher on the ankles and knees than walking outdoors on a nicer surface. Also, beware becoming Vitamin D deficient if using the treadmill replaces outdoor exercise in the sun.
See near the end: http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm
Or see my parable video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p14bAe6AzhA
"A parable about robotics, abundance, technological change, unemployment, happiness, and a basic income."
There's more stuff on other alternatives on my site.
Thansk for the insightful post.
"If only there were a way to make that happen..."
See Michael Kay's work: http://www.ise.ncsu.edu/kay/pln/index.htm
"A public logistics network is proposed as an alternative to private logistics networks for the ground transport of parcels. Using the analogy between the packages transported in the network and the packets transmitted through the Internet, a package in a public logistics network could, for example, be sent from a retail store and then routed through a sequence of public distribution centers (DCs) located throughout the metropolitan area and then delivered to a customer's home in a matter of hours, making a car trip to the store to get the package unnecessary. The DCs in the network, functioning like the routers in the Internet, could also be located at major highway interchanges for longer distance transport.
Currently, it is common for a single logistics firm like UPS and FedEx to handle a package throughout its transport. The such a private logistics network, much of the technology used to coordinate the operation of the network is proprietary. As a result, the principal competitive advantage that a private logistics company has is the barrier to entry due to the very large scale of operation (national or international) required in order to be able to underwrite the development of private facilities and propriety technologies. Nevertheless, a single firm, unless it becomes a monopoly, is ultimately limited in the scale of its operation, resulting in the use of a limited number of large-scale hub transshipment points that can result in packages making many circuitous hops before reaching their destinations. In a public logistics network, the different functions of the network would be separated so that a single firm is not required for coordination. This would enable scale economies to be realized in performing each logistics function since each element of the network has access to potentially all of the network's demand. The increase in scale would make it economical to have many more transshipment points. Each transshipment point, or distribution center (DC), could be an independently operated facility that serves as both a freight terminal and a public warehouse, and could be established in small cities and towns that would never have such facilities if they were served as part of a proprietary, private logistics network."
I liked your point in general. Presumably these front-door codes (or a home delivery box with a code) coud be integrated in with a Public Logistics Network? I elaborated on that idea here:
http://www.pdfernhout.net/post-scarcity-princeton.html#Princeton_University_Freecycle_Transportation_Network_--_an_internet_of_physical_packages
Theodore Sturgeon also predicted the mobile internet in the 1950s and its possible social, political, and military implications. And much, much more. That one story inspired Ted Nelson and project Xanadu and Hypertext (so, ultimately the World Wide Web), as well as many other technologists (like for nanotech).
http://books.google.com/books?id=wpuJQrxHZXAC&pg=PA51&lpg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false
Although I'd agree with others that Stanislaw Lem and Ursula K. Le Guin are awesome.
And my person favorite is James P. Hogan, who predicted the difficulties with a transition from scarcity thinking to abundance thinking:
http://www.jamesphogan.com/books/info.php?titleID=29&cmd=summary
"In the meantime, Earth went through a dodgy period, but managed in the end to muddle through. The fun begins when a generation ship housing a population of thousands arrives to "reclaim" the colony on behalf of the repressive, authoritarian regime that emerged following the crisis period. The Mayflower II brings with it all the tried and tested apparatus for bringing a recalcitrant population to heel: authority, with its power structure and symbolism, to impress; commercial institutions with the promise of wealth and possessions, to tempt and ensnare; a religious presence, to awe and instill duty and obedience; and if all else fails, armed military force to compel. But what happens when these methods encounter a population that has never been conditioned to respond?
The book has an interesting corollary. Around about the mid eighties, I received a letter notifying me that the story had been serialized in an underground Polish s.f. magazine. They hadn't exactly "stolen" it, the publishers explained, but had credited zlotys to an account in my name there, so if I ever decided to take a holiday in Poland the expenses would be covered (there was no exchange mechanism with Western currencies at that time). Then the story started surfacing in other countries of Eastern Europe, by all accounts to an enthusiastic reception. What they liked there, apparently, was the updated "Ghandiesque" formula on how bring down an oppressive regime when it's got all the guns. And a couple of years later, they were all doing it!"
On that, from a decade ago: http://www.pdfernhout.net/on-funding-digital-public-works.html
Also by me, as a shorter version of the above:
http://www.pdfernhout.net/open-letter-to-grantmakers-and-donors-on-copyright-policy.html
"Foundations, other grantmaking agencies handling public tax-exempt dollars, and charitable donors need to consider the implications for their grantmaking or donation policies if they use a now obsolete charitable model of subsidizing proprietary publishing and proprietary research. In order to improve the effectiveness and collaborativeness of the non-profit sector overall, it is suggested these grantmaking organizations and donors move to requiring grantees to make any resulting copyrighted digital materials freely available on the internet, including free licenses granting the right for others to make and redistribute new derivative works without further permission. It is also suggested patents resulting from charitably subsidized research research also be made freely available for general use. The alternative of allowing charitable dollars to result in proprietary copyrights and proprietary patents is corrupting the non-profit sector as it results in a conflict of interest between a non-profit's primary mission of helping humanity through freely sharing knowledge (made possible at little cost by the internet) and a desire to maximize short term revenues through charging licensing fees for access to patents and copyrights. In essence, with the change of publishing and communication economics made possible by the wide spread use of the internet, tax-exempt non-profits have become, perhaps unwittingly, caught up in a new form of "self-dealing", and it is up to donors and grantmakers (and eventually lawmakers) to prevent this by requiring free licensing of results as a condition of their grants and donations. "
I was around Princeton in the late 1980s when this idea of using lasers to modify the rates of chemical reactions was being talked about. In general, I've been thinking about this nuclear proliferation issue for a long time (not just for that reason, a professor I had there, Frank von Hippel, who worked on non-proliferation issues, was upset/concerned when I raised the issue in a paper for his seminar that people would soon be able to make weapons at home or in small communities as technology proliferated, like we see now with 3D printed gun parts). Some possible answers I've come to are in my sig and on my site.
http://www.pdfernhout.net/recognizing-irony-is-a-key-to-transcending-militarism.html
"Nuclear weapons are ironic because they are about using space age systems to fight over oil and land. Why not just use advanced materials as found in nuclear missiles to make renewable energy sources (like windmills or solar panels) to replace oil, or why not use rocketry to move into space by building space habitats for more land?"
Thanks for the great post.
http://bullies2buddies.com/ He's a school psychologist.
Izzy Kalman points out that behavior that is not rewarded tends to extinguish itself over time. Bullying victims participate in that cycle by their reactions. What sustains bullying as a social process is intermittent rewards for those who bully (seeing the rise they get out of their victims). That is why the grandparent's post is insightful. However, that is not to suggest your personal experience might be unusual either. I liked your "Yeah. No." comment in that sense.
Still, what is the ultimate alternative to encouraging freedom of speech in school (including accepting people will say unpleasant things for all sorts of reasons)? Is it turning school staff into judges and juries (as if they did not have enough difficulties already)? What happens when reporting "bullying" itself is taken as an offensive act by the one labelled now as a "bully", leading to further escalation of the problem? Will such a change towards less and less tolerance (as many other anti-bullying programs promote) even invite new forms of manipulation and misuses of the quasi-legal system as well? What happens when the bullies become those who can use the quasi-legal system to harass innocent victims by making them look like the "bullies"? Is that a place we want to go? For example, what it that tweet was made by someone else in such a way as to look like the now arrested teenager was the one who made it? Like maybe someone who had access to the teenagers phone for two minutes? How can the teenager prove otherwise? That is an example of the law of unintended consequences...
Izzy Kalman does point out that some very small percent of bullies do indeed need to be deal with legally by involving the police (when extreme violence is in the picture). That part also echoes your comment, though one can argue about percentages (as in 10%? 1%? or 0.1%? of the entire population of teenagers). Izzy Kalman mainly focuses on breaking the cycle of escalation that can lead to violence. As he points out, generally these issues start small. They key is to prevent them from escalating. That means breaking the feedback loop. In practice, that means educating the "victim" about better ways to respond to the situation. Focusing mainly on changing the behavior of the one labeled "bully" just does not work that well in practice according to Izzy Kalman.
However, I would agree that cooping up lots of people in a small space where they are compelled by law to be there every day, regardless of personal relationships with others in that small space, is a recipe for creating bad behavior, whatever the institution is called or whatever its supposed aims. One might even argue compulsory schooling models "bullying" itself -- forcing kids to do things they don't want to do for fairly arbitrary reasons (witness the recent slashdot discussion on whether algebra should be forced on everyone).
That's one reason why I prefer the idea of a "public library" to the idea of a "public school" -- where "public" means a completely different thing in the two terms. If someone is mean in a public library, you can generally avoid that person in that part of the library, go to the library at some other time when that person is not there, or just use a different library, or even bring your brother or mother or friend along, etc.. You don't have those choices in a public school where you must legally be in a certain room at a certain time of day most days. If you don't go along with the public school's authority, then ultimately you will be forced to go to an even more controlling institution where you don't get to go home nights and weekends. Unless you opt out of the public system in some formal way, like homeshooling/unschooling, tutors, special private schooling, etc.. But those options in practice so often seem beyond most families given our society's economics (even if more might manage them than think to try).
I am also reminded a bit of the fall of Rome, wh
I just watched the related videos, and it is impressive just what an up and down tail can do. But you're right that a tail that can move side-to-side, or that can curl or corkscrew can probably do even more to maintain a desired 3D orientation. No doubt that will be future directions for this work. So, in the real world, it seems like a common situation that you want to maintain the orientation of 90% of the mass of an object, and are willing to sacrifice the 3D orientation of 10% for a short time to do that (until the tail orientation can be reset at no body-orientation cost when the creature is on a surface again). Brilliant. These robot videos really show how amazing nature can be. I really appreciate tails in a way I never had before watching those videos. I especially found of interest video about a predecessor robot to this which includes video footage of the long-tailed lizard used as a prototype:
http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/diy/dinosaurlike-tails-make-terrestrial-mobile-robots-more-agile
You could ask yourself, could life be made worth living for you? Also, you could look into vitamin D deficiency, iodine deficiency, phyto-nutrient deficiency, omega-3 deficiency, sleep deficiency, and so on (and avoiding refined carbohydrates like sugar and white flour). More info on heath issues here:
http://www.changemakers.com/discussions/discussion-493#comment-38823
A life is like a growing tree. What keeps a tree from toppling over in the storms of life is deep roots. To reduce the risk of toppling over in a strom, grow your roots -- friends, family, community, neighbors, hobbies, recreations, communing with the infinite, nature, music, and so on.
See also:
"Dark Nights of the Soul: A Guide to Finding Your Way Through Life's Ordeals"
http://books.google.com/books/about/Dark_Nights_of_the_Soul.html?id=EG1E8boPodQC
"Every human journey is filled with emotional tunnels: the loss of a loved one or end of a relationship, aging and illness, career disappointments, or just an ongoing sense of dissatisfaction with life. Society tends to view these "dark nights" in clinical terms as obstacles to be overcome as quickly as possible. But Thomas Moore's extensive career as a psychologist and theologian has taught him that honoring these periods of fragility as periods of incubation and opportunities to delve into the soul's deepest needs can provide healing and a new understanding of life's meaning. Dark Nights of the Soul presents these metaphoric dark nights not as the enemy, but as times of transition, occasions to restore yourself, and transforming rites of passage. Moore shows specific ways to engage life more deeply through particular challenges and shares a powerful new outlook. With the soothing, accessible tone and practical philosophy that have made Moore an internationally beloved author, Dark Nights of the Soul will help you tend to the deepest needs of the heart and spirit in a modern world full of life's challenges, and is sure to be a comforting companion during your most difficult times. Every human life is made up of the light and the dark, the happy and the sad, the vital and the deadening. How you think about this rhythm of moods makes all the difference. From the #1 New York Times bestselling author of Care of the Soul comes the long-anticipated sequel, an uplifting and groundbreaking approach to life's darkest hours. Moore shows specific ways to engage life more deeply through particular challenges and shares a powerful new outlook on such topics as: The healing power of melancholy; The sexual dark night and the mysteries of matrimony; Finding solace during illness and in aging; Anxiety, anger, and temporary Insanities; Linking creativity, spirituality, and emotional struggles; Finding meaning and beauty in the darkness."
Or, as Howard Zinn said:
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1108-21.htm
"In this awful world where the efforts of caring people often pale in comparison to what is done by those who have power, how do I manage to stay involved and seemingly happy? I am totally confident not that the world will get better, but that we should not give up the game before all the cards have been played. The metaphor is deliberate; life is a gamble. Not to play is to foreclose any chance of winning.
To play, to act, is to create at least a possibility of changing the world. There is a tendency to think that what we see in the present moment will continue. We forget how often we have been astonished by the sudden crumbling of institutions, by extraordinary changes in people's thoughts, by unexpected eruptions of rebellion against tyrannies, by the quick collapse of systems of power that seemed invincible. What leaps out from the history of the past hundred years is its utter unpredictability. This confounds us, because
"The American people have lost control of their government."
That assumes the "people" ever did control their government? See:
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/
=====
Q: So, who does rule America?
A: The owners and managers of large income-producing properties; i.e., corporations, banks, and agri-businesses. But they have plenty of help from the managers and experts they hire. You can read the essential details of the argument in this summary of Who Rules America?, or look for the book itself at Amazon.com.
Q: Do the same people rule at the local level that rule at the federal level?
A: No, not quite. The local level is dominated by the land owners and businesses related to real estate that come together as growth coalitions, making cities into growth machines.
Q: Do they rule secretly from behind the scenes, as a conspiracy?
A: No, conspiracy theories are wrong, though it's true that some corporate leaders lie and steal, and that some government officials try to keep things secret (but usually fail).
Q: Then how do they rule?
A: That's a complicated story, but the short answer is through open and direct involvement in policy planning, through participation in political campaigns and elections, and through appointments to key decision-making positions in government.
Q: Are you saying that elections don't matter?
A: No, but they usually matter a lot less than they could, and a lot less in America than they do in other industrialized democracies. That's because of the nature of the electoral rules and the unique history of the South.
Q: Does social science research have anything useful to say about making progressive social change more effective?
A: Yes, it does, but few if any people pay much attention to that research.
=====
See also my essay "On dealing with social hurricanes (like the US CIA)":
http://www.pdfernhout.net/on-dealing-with-social-hurricanes.html
"This approximately 60 page document is a ramble about ways to ensure the CIA (as well as other big organizations) remains (or becomes) accountable to human needs and the needs of healthy, prosperous, joyful, secure, educated communities. The primarily suggestion is to encourage a paradigm shift away from scarcity thinking & competition thinking towards abundance thinking & cooperation thinking within the CIA and other organizations. I suggest that shift could be encouraged in part by providing publicly accessible free "intelligence" tools and other publicly accessible free information that all people (including in the CIA and elsewhere) can, if they want, use to better connect the dots about global issues and see those issues from multiple perspectives, to provide a better context for providing broad policy advice. It links that effort to bigger efforts to transform our global society into a place that works well for (almost) everyone that millions of people are engaged in. A central Haudenosaunee story-related theme is the transformation of Tadodaho through the efforts of the Peacemaker from someone who was evil and hurtful to someone who was good and helpful."
And also this suggestion: http://pcast.ideascale.com/a/dtd/The-need-for-FOSS-intelligence-tools-for-sensemaking-etc./76207-8319
http://code.google.com/p/openvirgle/wiki/SpacePod People need space pods instead (like in 2001). Why would anyone want to put on a space suit in space? If you need something in an emergency, NASA has a big bag people can go into developed for the shuttle. If you need to go into a confined space, use a tele-operated small robot. Can anyone cite any reason to put a person in a "space suit" suit other than for generating "people in space" publicity? Shirt-sleeve pods are also much more comfortable than space suits.
From the link:
====
The "shirtsleeve" utility space pod is probably common to all space efforts. It is a self-contained and portable/drivable container/ship that allows for the operator to work in the field, but in an environmentally controlled space that requires no special equipment for life support (working in nothing more than your "shirtsleeves").
Any project that is attempted in space will require extended periods of construction or repair in a Zero-G environment. This is especially true in terms of space stations and space shipyards.
Spacesuits, while advantageous in tight environments, are ultimately inadequate to jobs lasting more than a few hours. This is because they are rather inadequate protection from micrometeorites and other spaceborne debris, and the maneuverability requirements of a suit limit the oxygen supply size that can be attached.
The space pod allows for a larger and more rigid protective shell, room for greater air supply, as well as room for a more numerous and varied assortment of tools. Ultimately, this allows for the opportunity to take jobs further from base, and to tackle larger and more complex jobs that require many different types of tools or large scale tools that would be otherwise impossible to carry around and/or utilize without mechanical assistance. The pod also has the added advantage of completely eliminating the operator specific customization requirements that spacesuits pose - pods do not need to be sized or tailored for the operator, and can be handed off from one worker to the next at shift change time with no modifications.
Marshall Brain and James P. Hogan are two authors worth reading on these topics.
http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm
http://www.jamesphogan.com/books/info.php?titleID=29&cmd=summary
Martin Ford also has a great website in this area:
http://econfuture.wordpress.com/
Lots more links and stuff on my site: http://www.pdfernhout.net/
And here are copies of some emails I sent to Ray Kurzweil over the years (someone else made a copy of them here) trying to get him to think more deeply about evolutionary and social issues related to the singularity:
http://heybryan.org/fernhout/
Basically, I tried to say much like what you are saying. Our trajectory coming out of any singularity may have a lot of influence on our path coming out of one. It just seems like common sense that more compassion, community, and cooperation now might make a big differnece later. See also Alfie Kohn's work:
http://www.alfiekohn.org/books/nc.htm
"No Contest, which has been stirring up controversy since its publication in 1986, stands as the definitive critique of competition. Drawing from hundreds of studies, Alfie Kohn eloquently argues that our struggle to defeat each other -- at work, at school, at play, and at home -- turns all of us into losers."
My sig below sums up my years of thinking on all this.
http://johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/16a.htm
"I'll bring this down to earth. Try to see that an intricately subordinated industrial/commercial system has only limited use for hundreds of millions of self-reliant, resourceful readers and critical thinkers. In an egalitarian, entrepreneurially based economy of confederated families like the one the Amish have or the Mondragon folk in the Basque region of Spain, any number of self-reliant people can be accommodated usefully, but not in a concentrated command-type economy like our own. Where on earth would they fit? In a great fanfare of moral fervor some years back, the Ford Motor Company opened the world's most productive auto engine plant in Chihuahua, Mexico. It insisted on hiring employees with 50 percent more school training than the Mexican norm of six years, but as time passed Ford removed its requirements and began to hire school dropouts, training them quite well in four to twelve weeks. The hype that education is essential to robot-like work was quietly abandoned. Our economy has no adequate outlet of expression for its artists, dancers, poets, painters, farmers, filmmakers, wildcat business people, handcraft workers, whiskey makers, intellectuals, or a thousand other useful human enterprises -- no outlet except corporate work or fringe slots on the periphery of things. Unless you do "creative" work the company way, you run afoul of a host of laws and regulations put on the books to control the dangerous products of imagination which can never be safely tolerated by a centralized command system.
Before you can reach a point of effectiveness in defending your own children or your principles against the assault of blind social machinery, you have to stop conspiring against yourself by attempting to negotiate with a set of abstract principles and rules which, by its nature, cannot respond. Under all its disguises, that is what institutional schooling is, an abstraction which has escaped its handlers. Nobody can reform it. First you have to realize that human values are the stuff of madness to a system; in systems-logic the schools we have are already the schools the system needs; the only way they could be much improved is to have kids eat, sleep, live, and die there."
However, schooling is certainly effective in keeping young people out of the work force. What most of the comments here seem to ignore is that 200 years ago, children at age 4 or 5 were working on farms and in mines and in factories. Now, with automation and electric motors, children are out of the work force generally until they turn 21 (or longer if they go to grad school). Things have changed so much, and many people posting here seem unaware of that. At this point, most work is "make work" related to guarding or pointless zero-sum competition.
I agree with your point about decision makers being out-of-touch with emerging technological realities. See my site for more on that.
And see also:
http://overpopulationisamyth.com/
http://anwot.org/
http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm
http://p2pfoundation.net/backups/p2p_research-archives/2009-October/005379.html
http://overpopulationisamyth.com/
http://overpopulationisamyth.com/content/episode-5-7-billion-people-will-everyone-please-relax