It is amazing to me how history repeats itself and we fail to learn it's lessons.
Lest we forget, the Nazi's were quite popular, and were supported by all right-thinking people up until the point where they started executing people in concentration camps.
They all marched around together in unison shouting slogans and demanding change in the polticial system. The kind of change that they liked anyhow. Funny how similar the "anti-globalization" protestors, with their vacuous chants and army boots now seem.
They used to smash windows too. Only they were the windows of stores owned by Jews, instead of the windows of stores owned by Capitalists, or "corporations".
I know people in the radical enivronmentalist and radical left movements. I know they truly believe that what they are doing is right. I know they really have themsleves convinced that "the system" is against them, designed to brainwahs the population into supporting it. That violence is the only way. That their ideals are truly and obviously the right ones, and that anyone who fails to see it is a tool of the corporate system. Funny how all encompassing and self-conclusive such a thought system is. It justifies itself. People don't agree with you? Still more evidence that the corporate media control their minds! Amazing isn't it. It's like the old saying 'Of coarse the Bible is true, it says so, right there in the Bible.'
The Nazi's were equally convinced of the righteousness of their own cause. The felt just as strongly that violence was justified in it's name.
So did the Bolsheviks, who instituted a totalitarian system based upon their ideals. When you are so convinced that your ideals are the correct ones, of coarse any action is justified to bring them to reality.
It is amazing to me, how blind the environmentalist are to this obvious glaring similarity. To them, the environment is the only value, superior to all others, and whatever is deemed best for the environment is what must be done, at any cost. They even rail against cost-benefit analysis for regulations, on the grounds that the value of the environment is immesurable.
Immesuarable value. Infinite value. Priceless. No wonder they think it justifies any action in it's name.
The only question is whether their ideal government should be called theocracy or facism.
Trying to get the facts out on biotechnology.
on
Biotech in the UK
·
· Score: 1
That site sure as hell IS biased.
Just to quote one single sentance :
The trials have been dismissed as a "scientific farce" by Friends of the Earth, because they "amount to 'creeping commercialisation'"
There are two things wrong with the above statement that are immediately obvious.
First, Friends of the Earth is NOT a scientific organization, and therefore is not qualified to comment on whether crop trials are "scientific" or not. The fact that this site cites Friends of the Earth as a scientific source should set of alarm bells immediately.
Second, the stated reason for why Friends of the Earth considers these crop trials unscientific is that they are commercial. This is utter propaganda. The safety or lack thereof of genetically modified organisms depends upon the characteristics of the plant involved, not on the motives of the people who may be interested in selling it. Thats like saying that if I give you apple juice for a dollar, it must be unsafe, but if I give you arsenic for free, it's gotta be safe, because hell, I'm not making a profit!
The campaign of fear currently being waged against genetically engineered foods is anti-intellectual and pseudo-scientific in the extreme, and I am suprized to find beleivers in it posting on slashdot, of all places. In the words of GreenPeace FOUNDER Patrick Moore: "the campaign of fear now being waged against genetic modification is based largely on fantasy and a complete lack of respect for science and logic." www.agbioworld.org
Try THESE sites for a little unbiased information, just for starters.
List of links to statements by Scientific (non-industry) sources
in regards to genetally modified foods.
American Society
for MicroBiology The ASM believes that labeling on the basis of process is not scientifically
warranted. Genetic modification has long been used to enhance the production
of plants and animals for food. Indeed it is doubtful that there exists
any agriculturally important product that can be labeled as not genetically
modified by traditional breeding procedures or otherwise. Biotechnology
as practiced in agriculture today is part of a continuum of ever more refined
attempts to breed better plants and animals for food or show.
American Society for
Cell Biology Many individuals and groups have raised concerns about the safety
of transgenic BT crops despite the fact that the bacteria that naturally
produce BT have been applied directly to crops as a form of organic pest
control for over 40 years. Transgenic BT crops have passed rigorous testing
in the US, Canada, and Japan, and they have been found to pose no threat
to other insects, animals, or humans. The primary alternative to
BT is large-scale spraying of pesticides which kills both beneficial and
harmful insects and has other negative environmental consequences.
Since the National Academy of Sciences is the nations premier scientific
organization, they best represent the current scientific consensus in the
field, so I will quote from their report, first stated in a 1987 white
paper and reitterated April 2000:
There is no evidence that unique hazards exist either in the use of
rDNA techniques or in the movement of genes between unrelated organisms.
The risks associated with the introduction of rDNA-engineered organisms
are the same in kind as those associated with the introduction of unmodified
organisms and organisms modified by other methods.
Assesment of the risks of introducing rDNA-engineered organisms into
the environment should be based on the nature of the organism and the environment
into which it is introduced, not on the method by which it was produced.
American
Medical Association There is no scientific justification for special labeling of genetically
modified foods, as a class, and voluntary labeling is without value unless
it is accompanied by focused consumer education.
American Dietetic
Association Society for In-Vitro Biology American
Society of Plant Physiologists You'll note that ASPP treats the issue as self-evident that there is
nothing especially dangerous about transgenic crops, as their page acts
as a resource and communication site for scientists interested in countering
anti-GMO propaganda. This shows just how strong the consensus on this issue
is within the scientific community. Very, very few scientists seriously
think that genetic engineering is inherently unsafe. Those who do are less
common than creationist biologists
Univeristy of California - Biotechnology
Working Group .
I couldn't agree more.
I also work in the space industry, and I can atest to the excessive scrutinizing of every detail of everything that is done. Often, people who have no clue what it is that you do feel that they have a right to nitpick things that are totally irrelevant. It is Standard Operating Procedure to make sure that the know-nothings are kept on a need-to-know-only basis.
I am certain that there are plenty of tiny procedural details of what is done on the space stattion that can be blown totally out of proportion by people who don't know what the procedures are for or why they are designed the way they are.
On top of that, the ships log may very well be a kind of ad-hoc running journal that the astronauts keep, not a precise engineering log.
I find it unfortunate that this book has resorted to feeding the flames of anti-science sentiment in an era when one of our greatest problems is the public's ignorance, and subsequent fear, of science and technology.
Capitalizing on society's fears may be a good way of selling copies of your book, and the book may actually be informative for those of us who have received a decent scientific education, but the most likely result is that a lot of people who know little about science, or who are activly opposed to the scientific enterprise will buy copies of this book and use it as ammunition to oppose researchers who are not, in fact, doing anything unethical or dangerous.
It's true that excessive faith in the infallibility of science cannot be a good thing. Among certain segments of the high-tech and scientific communities this may actually be a problem. But the public at large is experiencing a much different and far more severe problem with scientific ignorance. Everyone is aware of the dismal scientific education that most people in our society receive. That lack of education leaves the public without the skills to understand what is good science and what is bad science. This allows people with political agendas to manipulate public sentiment with skewed statistics and studies that masquerage as being scientific, when in fact they would not even be considered for publication in a scientific journal. I am not solely referring to UFOlogists, ESP, the paranormal, and astrology. I am also including a large amount of dubious pop psychology, relgious based research such as "creationism", and quasi-religious beleifs such as faith healing, "alternative" medicine, and certain aspects of the environmental movement that blend mysticism and spiritualism into their "science".
It is especially problematic in areas where there may be some scientific truth. Some alternative medicines and herbal remedies probably do work, but they need to be evaluated in an objective way. A lof of people out there currently don't have the knowledge to be able to tell the difference between a properly controlled scientific experiment, and the anecdotal and unscientific methods used by many of the promoters of these therapies. They are having a hard enough time telling the difference as it is, and this book will likely be used by the promoters of dubious "alternative" therapies to argue that their methods are no worse than the methods used by scientific studies. Those who profit from unproven and unverifiable remedies have a lot to gain from attempts to "de-legitimatize" the scientific enterprise.
Similarly, there are genuine environmental problems that need to be addressed, as scientificly as possible, but there is also a strong strain of mysticism in the environmental movement, and many groups that promote causes based not on scientific evidence, but on spiritual or mystical beleifs. One prime example is the common beleif that "natural" things are inherently preferable to "artificial" things. This is not a scientificly grounded belief. It is fundamentally a religious, moral, or (in some cases) asthetic position. I have no objection to people having such moral beleifs, as long as they admit when they are moral or religious, and don't attempt to pass them off as science. Unfortunately, due the the horrible scientific education in our society, many people are unable to understand the difference between scientificly based theories and religious or morally based theories. They consider them equivalent.
In addition, those who are advocates of certain religious or moral positions (such as creationism or luddism) often advance the beleif that the scientific process is no better a means of determining the nature of reality than religion. Beleive it or not, there are those who think that science is a racist, even sexist, western concept that is inherently oppressive to the third world and destructive to the environment. The actually prefer mythological and religious systems of thought. The "de-legitimization" of science is one of their primary goals, and they will undoubtably use this book as ammuntition.
A case in point is the current protest movement against geneticly modified foods. The vast, vast majority of the scientific community supports the consensus that there are no risks unique to the process or techniques genetic engineering, and that the risks that do exist can be effectivly regulated and controlled, which is what the current regulatory policy does. In fact, most of those involved in the study of plant genetic think the current process is excessive. The fear of geneticly modified foods is based almost entirely on fears of the unknown. i.e. "What if there is something that hasn't been tested for?", "What if we don't fully understand DNA?" These kinds of questions can be raised in opposition to any new technology, and often have been. Overall, the pattern is similar. Irrationally extreme apocalyptic scenarios are proposed, which are later shown to be of virtually nil probability. The oppoents of the technology concoct their own research to "prove" the technology is too dangerous to use, and cite individual "unorthodox" scientists who support their beleifs, often who are operating outside their specialization. The argument is made that unless scientists can ensure "zero risk", that the technology should not be used. And finally, scientific objections to the validity of their arguments are met by attacks on the validity of the scientific process. In short, "Heres my fantastic speculation, here are three scientists (picked by me), who think it might happen, you can't prove it won't, and besides that, you get paid by Monsanto/the FDA/the establishment, so you are obviously biased anyway."
I understand what the book is trying to say, and there are undoubtably some valid points in it. The book is trying to point out flaws in the current scientific process, which we need to be aware of, not to claim that the scientific process itself is invalid. However, I think this book addresses a problem which is not really a serious concern in our society, quite the opposite. Our society suffers from an inability to tell good science from bad science as the most basic levels. The finer points of scientific credibility are way beyond the public's ability at this point. As a result the book will only serve to cast blanket suspicion on the entire scientific community. For many people, all they are going to get out of it is a blanket suspicion of the entire scientific enterprise.
Re:Higher Ground that we won't see...
on
The High Frontier
·
· Score: 1
There is actually a massive backlog for launch services at the moment.
Personally, I think globalization will lead to the kind of markets that will allow for the development of cheap mass produced launch vehicles.
What encryption and rocket science have in common.
on
The High Frontier
·
· Score: 2
One of the problems in the space industry that makes it damn near impossible to do anything that will make money is continuous government interference.
Okay, the space industry is about 50% government funded, so I guess they have a right to interfere, but it also is a major hurdle to growth in the commercial side of space.
One major problem is that ITAR, the same law which prevents export of encryption technology, also prevents the export of space technology. Since the space industry is extremely capital intensive and relies heavily on international markets to sell its products (satellites and launch services), the export control laws severly cripple the growth prospects for the commercial space sector.
ITAR is intended to prevent weapons from falling into the hands of potentially threatening "rogue" states. But it's also used to prevent any technology of potential military use from being developed by countries other then the US. Basically, since the knowledge of how to build spacecraft is potentially militarily useful, the government makes it illegal to export a satellite to a foreign country without official government approval and even then only under strict supervision.
In addition, the launch services market is heavily protectionist. If you are a US company building a satellite, the government practically forces you to use Boeing Deltas rather than use Chinese or Russian rockets. Also, due to the heavy military government involvement in the space sector, huge Aerospace conglomerates benefit from large defense contracts and subsidies to the development of new launch technologies. this results in a kind of subsidized "design by committe", philosophy that drives anyone with an innovative new technology out of the market.
For example, in the past two years, three promising small launch development companies have shut down - Rotary Rocket company, Kistler Aerospace , and Beal Aerospace. Beal was developing cheap, simple, expendable rocket technology that would have competed directly with Boeing. After Boeing received a large grant to develop its more complex (and expensive) EELV program, Beal shut down operations declaring they could not compete with a subsidized monopoly.
Kistler and Rotary were more risky, small reusable launch vehicle designs, which ran out of money after the market for small launch vehicles collapsed in the wake of the Iridium fiasco. But they also were hampered by gov't interference. Kistler was forced to relocate to Australia after the government refused to grant Kistler permission to lands its prototype in US territory.
Well, this has been a long rant, but in closing, I think that people really need to take a look at the economics at work inside the space industry if they want to understand the slow rate of development. The technological problem exists,but it isn't the only one.
I know it would be nice to find a miracle solution to the chicken-and-egg problem of space development, but SPS is probably not going to be it.
The cost of building and launching such a system is far higher than the cost of simply designing better Earth based generation and storage capacity.
Beaming power through the atmosphere is inefficent and carries risks to birds or people who might stray too near the beam. It is also affected by the same weather uncertainties that ground-based solar is susceptible to. Basically, fi you go with solar power, it makes a lot more sense to build it on the ground than to launch it into space.
Slashdot Mirror
It is amazing to me how history repeats itself and we fail to learn it's lessons.
Lest we forget, the Nazi's were quite popular, and were supported by all right-thinking people up until the point where they started executing people in concentration camps.
They all marched around together in unison shouting slogans and demanding change in the polticial system. The kind of change that they liked anyhow. Funny how similar the "anti-globalization" protestors, with their vacuous chants and army boots now seem.
They used to smash windows too. Only they were the windows of stores owned by Jews, instead of the windows of stores owned by Capitalists, or "corporations".
I know people in the radical enivronmentalist and radical left movements. I know they truly believe that what they are doing is right. I know they really have themsleves convinced that "the system" is against them, designed to brainwahs the population into supporting it. That violence is the only way. That their ideals are truly and obviously the right ones, and that anyone who fails to see it is a tool of the corporate system. Funny how all encompassing and self-conclusive such a thought system is. It justifies itself. People don't agree with you? Still more evidence that the corporate media control their minds! Amazing isn't it. It's like the old saying 'Of coarse the Bible is true, it says so, right there in the Bible.'
The Nazi's were equally convinced of the righteousness of their own cause. The felt just as strongly that violence was justified in it's name.
So did the Bolsheviks, who instituted a totalitarian system based upon their ideals. When you are so convinced that your ideals are the correct ones, of coarse any action is justified to bring them to reality.
It is amazing to me, how blind the environmentalist are to this obvious glaring similarity. To them, the environment is the only value, superior to all others, and whatever is deemed best for the environment is what must be done, at any cost. They even rail against cost-benefit analysis for regulations, on the grounds that the value of the environment is immesurable.
Immesuarable value. Infinite value. Priceless. No wonder they think it justifies any action in it's name.
The only question is whether their ideal government should be called theocracy or facism.
American Society for MicroBiology
The ASM believes that labeling on the basis of process is not scientifically warranted. Genetic modification has long been used to enhance the production of plants and animals for food. Indeed it is doubtful that there exists any agriculturally important product that can be labeled as not genetically modified by traditional breeding procedures or otherwise. Biotechnology as practiced in agriculture today is part of a continuum of ever more refined attempts to breed better plants and animals for food or show.
American Society for Cell Biology
Many individuals and groups have raised concerns about the safety of transgenic BT crops despite the fact that the bacteria that naturally produce BT have been applied directly to crops as a form of organic pest control for over 40 years. Transgenic BT crops have passed rigorous testing in the US, Canada, and Japan, and they have been found to pose no threat to other insects, animals, or humans. The primary alternative to BT is large-scale spraying of pesticides which kills both beneficial and harmful insects and has other negative environmental consequences.
National Academy of Sciences
http://www.nap.edu/books/0309069300/html/
Since the National Academy of Sciences is the nations premier scientific organization, they best represent the current scientific consensus in the field, so I will quote from their report, first stated in a 1987 white paper and reitterated April 2000:
American Medical AssociationThere is no scientific justification for special labeling of genetically modified foods, as a class, and voluntary labeling is without value unless it is accompanied by focused consumer education.
American Dietetic Association
Society for In-Vitro Biology
American Society of Plant Physiologists
You'll note that ASPP treats the issue as self-evident that there is nothing especially dangerous about transgenic crops, as their page acts as a resource and communication site for scientists interested in countering anti-GMO propaganda. This shows just how strong the consensus on this issue is within the scientific community. Very, very few scientists seriously think that genetic engineering is inherently unsafe. Those who do are less common than creationist biologists
Univeristy of California - Biotechnology Working Group
.
I couldn't agree more. I also work in the space industry, and I can atest to the excessive scrutinizing of every detail of everything that is done. Often, people who have no clue what it is that you do feel that they have a right to nitpick things that are totally irrelevant. It is Standard Operating Procedure to make sure that the know-nothings are kept on a need-to-know-only basis. I am certain that there are plenty of tiny procedural details of what is done on the space stattion that can be blown totally out of proportion by people who don't know what the procedures are for or why they are designed the way they are. On top of that, the ships log may very well be a kind of ad-hoc running journal that the astronauts keep, not a precise engineering log.
I find it unfortunate that this book has resorted to feeding the flames of anti-science sentiment in an era when one of our greatest problems is the public's ignorance, and subsequent fear, of science and technology.
Capitalizing on society's fears may be a good way of selling copies of your book, and the book may actually be informative for those of us who have received a decent scientific education, but the most likely result is that a lot of people who know little about science, or who are activly opposed to the scientific enterprise will buy copies of this book and use it as ammunition to oppose researchers who are not, in fact, doing anything unethical or dangerous.
It's true that excessive faith in the infallibility of science cannot be a good thing. Among certain segments of the high-tech and scientific communities this may actually be a problem. But the public at large is experiencing a much different and far more severe problem with scientific ignorance. Everyone is aware of the dismal scientific education that most people in our society receive. That lack of education leaves the public without the skills to understand what is good science and what is bad science. This allows people with political agendas to manipulate public sentiment with skewed statistics and studies that masquerage as being scientific, when in fact they would not even be considered for publication in a scientific journal. I am not solely referring to UFOlogists, ESP, the paranormal, and astrology. I am also including a large amount of dubious pop psychology, relgious based research such as "creationism", and quasi-religious beleifs such as faith healing, "alternative" medicine, and certain aspects of the environmental movement that blend mysticism and spiritualism into their "science".
It is especially problematic in areas where there may be some scientific truth. Some alternative medicines and herbal remedies probably do work, but they need to be evaluated in an objective way. A lof of people out there currently don't have the knowledge to be able to tell the difference between a properly controlled scientific experiment, and the anecdotal and unscientific methods used by many of the promoters of these therapies. They are having a hard enough time telling the difference as it is, and this book will likely be used by the promoters of dubious "alternative" therapies to argue that their methods are no worse than the methods used by scientific studies. Those who profit from unproven and unverifiable remedies have a lot to gain from attempts to "de-legitimatize" the scientific enterprise.
Similarly, there are genuine environmental problems that need to be addressed, as scientificly as possible, but there is also a strong strain of mysticism in the environmental movement, and many groups that promote causes based not on scientific evidence, but on spiritual or mystical beleifs. One prime example is the common beleif that "natural" things are inherently preferable to "artificial" things. This is not a scientificly grounded belief. It is fundamentally a religious, moral, or (in some cases) asthetic position. I have no objection to people having such moral beleifs, as long as they admit when they are moral or religious, and don't attempt to pass them off as science. Unfortunately, due the the horrible scientific education in our society, many people are unable to understand the difference between scientificly based theories and religious or morally based theories. They consider them equivalent.
In addition, those who are advocates of certain religious or moral positions (such as creationism or luddism) often advance the beleif that the scientific process is no better a means of determining the nature of reality than religion. Beleive it or not, there are those who think that science is a racist, even sexist, western concept that is inherently oppressive to the third world and destructive to the environment. The actually prefer mythological and religious systems of thought. The "de-legitimization" of science is one of their primary goals, and they will undoubtably use this book as ammuntition.
A case in point is the current protest movement against geneticly modified foods. The vast, vast majority of the scientific community supports the consensus that there are no risks unique to the process or techniques genetic engineering, and that the risks that do exist can be effectivly regulated and controlled, which is what the current regulatory policy does. In fact, most of those involved in the study of plant genetic think the current process is excessive. The fear of geneticly modified foods is based almost entirely on fears of the unknown. i.e. "What if there is something that hasn't been tested for?", "What if we don't fully understand DNA?" These kinds of questions can be raised in opposition to any new technology, and often have been. Overall, the pattern is similar. Irrationally extreme apocalyptic scenarios are proposed, which are later shown to be of virtually nil probability. The oppoents of the technology concoct their own research to "prove" the technology is too dangerous to use, and cite individual "unorthodox" scientists who support their beleifs, often who are operating outside their specialization. The argument is made that unless scientists can ensure "zero risk", that the technology should not be used. And finally, scientific objections to the validity of their arguments are met by attacks on the validity of the scientific process. In short, "Heres my fantastic speculation, here are three scientists (picked by me), who think it might happen, you can't prove it won't, and besides that, you get paid by Monsanto/the FDA/the establishment, so you are obviously biased anyway."
I understand what the book is trying to say, and there are undoubtably some valid points in it. The book is trying to point out flaws in the current scientific process, which we need to be aware of, not to claim that the scientific process itself is invalid. However, I think this book addresses a problem which is not really a serious concern in our society, quite the opposite. Our society suffers from an inability to tell good science from bad science as the most basic levels. The finer points of scientific credibility are way beyond the public's ability at this point. As a result the book will only serve to cast blanket suspicion on the entire scientific community. For many people, all they are going to get out of it is a blanket suspicion of the entire scientific enterprise.
There is actually a massive backlog for launch services at the moment. Personally, I think globalization will lead to the kind of markets that will allow for the development of cheap mass produced launch vehicles.
One of the problems in the space industry that makes it damn near impossible to do anything that will make money is continuous government interference. Okay, the space industry is about 50% government funded, so I guess they have a right to interfere, but it also is a major hurdle to growth in the commercial side of space. One major problem is that ITAR, the same law which prevents export of encryption technology, also prevents the export of space technology. Since the space industry is extremely capital intensive and relies heavily on international markets to sell its products (satellites and launch services), the export control laws severly cripple the growth prospects for the commercial space sector. ITAR is intended to prevent weapons from falling into the hands of potentially threatening "rogue" states. But it's also used to prevent any technology of potential military use from being developed by countries other then the US. Basically, since the knowledge of how to build spacecraft is potentially militarily useful, the government makes it illegal to export a satellite to a foreign country without official government approval and even then only under strict supervision. In addition, the launch services market is heavily protectionist. If you are a US company building a satellite, the government practically forces you to use Boeing Deltas rather than use Chinese or Russian rockets. Also, due to the heavy military government involvement in the space sector, huge Aerospace conglomerates benefit from large defense contracts and subsidies to the development of new launch technologies. this results in a kind of subsidized "design by committe", philosophy that drives anyone with an innovative new technology out of the market. For example, in the past two years, three promising small launch development companies have shut down - Rotary Rocket company, Kistler Aerospace , and Beal Aerospace. Beal was developing cheap, simple, expendable rocket technology that would have competed directly with Boeing. After Boeing received a large grant to develop its more complex (and expensive) EELV program, Beal shut down operations declaring they could not compete with a subsidized monopoly. Kistler and Rotary were more risky, small reusable launch vehicle designs, which ran out of money after the market for small launch vehicles collapsed in the wake of the Iridium fiasco. But they also were hampered by gov't interference. Kistler was forced to relocate to Australia after the government refused to grant Kistler permission to lands its prototype in US territory. Well, this has been a long rant, but in closing, I think that people really need to take a look at the economics at work inside the space industry if they want to understand the slow rate of development. The technological problem exists,but it isn't the only one.
I know it would be nice to find a miracle solution to the chicken-and-egg problem of space development, but SPS is probably not going to be it. The cost of building and launching such a system is far higher than the cost of simply designing better Earth based generation and storage capacity. Beaming power through the atmosphere is inefficent and carries risks to birds or people who might stray too near the beam. It is also affected by the same weather uncertainties that ground-based solar is susceptible to. Basically, fi you go with solar power, it makes a lot more sense to build it on the ground than to launch it into space.