Thursday, January 2, 2014

1. PHILOSOPHICAL - YEAR 2013

1.1 The Subconscious
1.2 Is scientific genius extinct?
1.3 Energy Transition
1.4 The Light bulb Conspiracy
1.5 The most profound of all statements

 1.6 Michael Behe at the University of Toronto: What Are the Limits of Darwinism?
1.7 Globalism and Technology 
1.8 "We don't have a sense of our final  destination."
1.9 The Three-Speed Economy
1.10 "Scientist are humans, too"

1.11 The new sharing economy
1.12 The Future of Engineering
1.13 Scientific Research
1.14 Seeing indifference To Art And Science
1.15 Earth's carrying capacity - subjective and objective

1.16 Improving the scientific method (continued) 
1.17 Taking a Stand for Science?
1.18 War is a racket
1.19 Debate on Religion and Science 
1.20 Process operators

1.21 Classical liberal arts education
1.22 The Party's Over
1.23 Video of insect gearbox in action
1.24 The Copernican revolution in management
1.25 'Religion' of intelligent design banned, atheism OK

1.26 Children aren't feral enough
1.27 The death of nation states?
1.28 Maslow's hierarchy of needs (A different perspective)
1.29 Spontaneous co-operation
1.30 The power of spinning stories

1.31 A Great Case for Intelligent Design 
1.32 Everybody is a genius
1.33 Reductionism / Holism (Improving the Scientific Method - Continued)
1.34 The Green, Yellow and Red Stages of Pollution
1.35 Metaphors in science communication

1.36 Human intelligence is declining according to Stanford geneticist
1.37 Confessions of an Economic Hit Man



--------

1.1  The Subconscious (2/2/2013)

 Fig: Like the Earth which consists of the outer crust, the mantle and the outer and inner cores, we can characterize the brain as consisting (functionally) of the Conscious, the Subconscious and a Core which controls all the autonomous functions (some parts of which are also accessible to the subconscious).
http://humanposure-subconsciousmind.blogspot.in/


1.2  Is scientific genius extinct? (3/2/2013)


Modern-day science has little room for the likes of Galileo, who first used the telescope to study the sky, or Charles Darwin, who put forward the theory of evolution, argues a psychologist and expert in scientific genius.
Dean Keith Simonton of the University of California, Davis, says that just like the ill-fated dodo, scientific geniuses like these men have gone extinct.
"Future advances are likely to build on what is already known rather than alter the foundations of knowledge," Simonton writes in a commentary published in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/03/is-scientific-genius-extinct/#ixzz2JrD0uzl8

--------------------

Who says scientific genius is extinct? We have used scientific genius to mess-up our planet :-)

Selvaraj


1.3  Energy Transition (20/2/2013)


The long switch from wood to coal was driven by the systematic deforestation of Europe while the difficult shift from human slavery to inanimate slaves energized by steam took one of the world's most dramatic protest movements: abolition.
Realism and hope
History shows that energy transitions are invariably a utopian's worst nightmare or a novelist's best idea: they are protracted, difficult and unpredictable.
And one more thing: energy transitions are often ripe with conflict.
All the more reason to begin today thinking and talking about that transition, and so this is the first of many articles to come in a series we are calling "The Big Shift" -- a clear-eyed exploration of what limits we face in our fossil fuel energy supplies, the potential of green energy, the resilience of our societies, the fragility of our political systems.



1.4  The Light bulb Conspiracy (5/3/2013)

The Light bulb Conspiracy

(Planned obsolescence)

1.5  The most profound of all statements (7/3/2013)


Jules,

"In 100 years time every one of those 7.2 billion alive today will be dead", this is the most profound of all statements.

Clearly as a human society we need to collectively work for the betterment of that something which will be there even after 1000 or 10,000 years. Only Nature qualifies for this distinction in so far as conditions on Planet Earth are concerned. Firmly setting out to establish human presence in Space would qualify as another goal if we consider possibilities removed from Planet Earth.

Unfortunately our crazy market driven economy seems to miss this important point.

Regards,
Selvaraj from Trivandrum, India


1.6  What Are the Limits of Darwinism?  (10/3/2013)


Michael Behe at the University of Toronto: What Are the Limits of Darwinism?



1.7  Globalism and Technology (31/3/2013)

 The rise of U.S. research and development is merely a special case of a more general phenomenon. Down through history, rich nations have gotten to the future first. They can afford to equip their tinkerers and visionaries with the most advanced materials, instruments, and knowledge, and the result has often been a superior capacity for innovation. http://www.forbes.com/sites/eamonnfingleton/2013/03/31/globalism-and-technology-a-hidden-misconception-that-dooms-the-u-s-economy/



1.8  "WE don't have a sense of our final destination." (2/5/2013)

Our main indicator of progress, GDP, is a measure of economic activity—of money changing hands. It doesn't tell us anything about what kind of activity is occurring. If the police came to your door and said that "activity" in your neighbourhood had increased by 3% last year, you'd want to know what kind of activity. Was it more children playing in parks, or more break-and-enters? We need to ask the same kinds of questions about GDP. Did it grow because our society became wealthier, or did it grow because we ran up huge debts and liquidated our natural assets?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/economics-blog/2013/may/01/economics-of-enough

--------------------------
Destinations we need to aim for:
- A healthy global environment (including biodiversity) - cutting across national boundaries.
- Physical and Mental health of human beings.
- The conquest of Space

1.9  The Three-Speed Economy (2/5/2013)

The Traditional Economy has its origins in the private sector, but the practices of hierarchical bureaucracy have spread disastrously into government, non-profits, education and health. The focus is on growth, efficiency and outputs rather than human outcomes. In these fields, “reforms” often involve intensified implementation of hierarchical bureaucracy rather than a shift towards the more productive practices, attitudes and values of the Creative Economy. Such “reforms” push these fields even further from the frontier of what is possible speed, cost, size and reliability of communications and transactions. The ‘reforms” end up constituting a further drag on widespread prosperity. Since the public is coming to expect from these sectors responsiveness similar to what the Creative Economy has accomplished, public satisfaction with government, education and health is low.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2013/05/01/leadership-in-the-three-speed-economy/



1.10  "Scientists are humans, too" (4/5/2013)

It was once thought that misconduct was behind fewer than half of retractions, but it turns out to be responsible for two-thirds of them, Oransky said. The problem is compounded by the fact that retracted papers remain in scientific-article databases, so people continue to read and cite them.
In light of all these problems, science loses some of its luster. But as in any profession, it's important to remember that "scientists are humans, too," Garner said.
http://news.yahoo.com/dark-dirty-cutthroat-side-science-191807301.html

1.11  The new sharing economy (21/5/2013)

 Time and space limitations, uneasy economic times, and increasing sustainability and community values have collided to trigger a shift in in behavior, a new business philosophy. While “sharing” has been around for some time, mobile applications, advances in payment technologies and connected social networks are putting in place an infrastructure that supports trust and accessibility for community sharing – pushing this movement to a whole new level.
Read more at http://venturebeat.com/2013/05/20/collaborative-consumption-the-new-sharing-economy/#RRMsiRglqPPtR2B2.99



1.12  The Future of Engineering (23/5/2013)

 Good, but engineers and scientists also need to understand natural systems. Very little scientific effort is being invested in this area. I would say half our effort should be invested in high tech and the other half in low tech. The unique feature of our planet is that it supports life (without the help of engineers and scientists).
Selvaraj


1.13  Scientific Research (6/6/2013)

Open letter: We must encourage scientific journals to accept studies before the results are in:

In an ideal world, scientific discoveries would be independent of what scientists wanted to discover. A good researcher would begin with an idea, devise a method to test the idea, run the study as planned, and then decide based on the evidence whether the idea had been supported. Following this approach would lead us step-by-step toward a better understanding of nature.
Unfortunately, the life sciences are becoming increasingly estranged from this way of thinking. Early in their training, students learn that the quest for truth needs to be balanced against the more immediate pressure to "publish or perish". For a junior scientist to compete at securing a permanent academic position, her top priority must be to publish in journals with the greatest prestige and impact. If she survives to become a senior scientist, she's likely to then pass this lesson on to her own PhD students.
This publishing culture is toxic to science...
CONVINCING THE PUBLIC:
Scientists, here's the bottom line. If you don't convince the public that your science matters, your funding will quickly vanish and so will your field. Put another way, the era of outreach being optional for scientists is now over.
Researchers have been able to cloister within an academic ivory tower - conducting their research without paying much attention to what's going on in the wider world - only because there has been a relatively stable funding base for science. Governmental sources have been vital to that funding base, particularly for basic research where the government picks up most of the tab...
http://news.yahoo.com/scientists-outreach-science-dies-190200298.html


1.14  Seeing indifference To Art And Science (9/6/2013)

The first is that in a show that claims, according to the wall text, to "initiate an inquiry into the many ways in which images have been used to organize knowledge and shape our experience of the world," the work on display is openly indifferent to anything that might be called knowledge, science or learning. Instead the exhibition is a disturbing celebration of the work of mystics and self-styled visionaries.

... Art and science are different, to be sure. But they have a common origin in our joint engagement with a shared reality; and each thrives only in the crucible of community. Where there is no knowledge, there can be no art. And where there is no art, there is not even the desire for knowledge.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2013/06/07/188895997/seeing-indifference-to-art-and-science-at-the-2013-biennale


1.15  Earth's carrying capacity - subjective and objective  (18/6/2013)

 The objective view of carrying capacity is the view of an observer who adopts a position outside the species in question ...


This confusion may arise because we tend to confuse two very different understandings of the phrase “carrying capacity”.  For this discussion I will call these the “subjective” view and the “objective” views of carrying capacity.

The subjective view is carrying capacity as seen by a member of the species in question. Rather than coming from a rational, analytical assessment of the overall situation, it is an experiential judgment.  As such it tends to be limited to the population of one's own species, as well as having a short time horizon – the current situation counts a lot more than some future possibility.  The main thing that matters in this view is how many of one’s own species will be able to survive to reproduce. As long as that number continues to rise, we assume all is well – that we have not yet reached the carrying capacity of our environment.

From this subjective point of view humanity has not even reached, let alone surpassed the Earth’s overall carrying capacity – after all, our population is still growing.  It's tempting to ascribe this view mainly to neoclassical economists and politicians, but truthfully most of us tend to see things this way.  In fact, all species, including humans, have this orientation, whether it is conscious or not.

Species tend to keep growing until outside factors such as disease, predators, food or other resource scarcity – or climate change – intervene.  These factors define the “objective” carrying capacity of the environment.  This objective view of carrying capacity is the view of an observer who adopts a position outside the species in question.It’s the typical viewpoint of an ecologist looking at the reindeer on St. Matthew Island, or at the impact of humanity on other species and its own resource base.

This is the view that is usually assumed by ecologists when they use the naked phrase “carrying capacity”, and it is an assessment that can only be arrived at through analysis and deductive reasoning.  It’s the view I hold, and its implications for our future are anything but comforting.

When a species bumps up against the limits posed by the environment’s objective carrying capacity,its population begins to decline. Humanity is now at the uncomfortable point when objective observers have detected our overshoot condition, but the population as a whole has not recognized it yet. As we push harder against the limits of the planet’s objective carrying capacity, things are beginning to go wrong.  More and more ordinary people are recognizing the problem as its symptoms become more obvious to casual onlookers.The problem is, of course, that we've already been above the planet’s carrying capacity for quite a while.

One typical rejoinder to this line of argument is that humans have “expanded our carrying capacity” through technological innovation.  “Look at the Green Revolution!  Malthus was just plain wrong.  There are no limits to human ingenuity!”  When we say things like this, we are of course speaking from a subjective viewpoint. From this experiential, human-centric point of view, we have indeed made it possible for our environment to support ever more of us. This is the only view that matters at the biological, evolutionary level, so it is hardly surprising that most of our fellow species-members are content with it.

The problem with that view is that every objective indicator of overshoot is flashing red.  From the climate change and ocean acidification that flows from our smokestacks and tailpipes, through the deforestation and desertification that accompany our expansion of human agriculture and living space, to the extinctions of non-human species happening in the natural world, the planet is urgently signaling an overload condition.

Humans have an underlying urge towards growth, an immense intellectual capacity for innovation, and a biological inability to step outside our chauvinistic, anthropocentric perspective.  This combination has made it inevitable that we would land ourselves and the rest of the biosphere in the current insoluble global ecological predicament...



1.16  Improving the scientific method (continued)  (14/7/2013)


Dear All,

A method to improve the scientific method was posted by me in this group and later incorporated as a blog: http://www.improvingthescientificmethod.blogspot.com/

The above method calls for identifying a 'Problem Space' (where problems are identified) and then systematically progressing to populating a 'Solution Space'. The assumption made in this model is that as we make more number of issues less-critical we will stabilise the system and make it stronger.

A refinement to the above model will be to assume that all the elements are linked in series. When such an assumption is made it becomes obvious that the system as a whole will be no stronger than the weakest link.

Force <------ LINK - link - LINK - link - LINK - LINK -------> Force

The weakness with the earlier model is that we could become complacent and end up delaying acting on individual issues, which as we can observe from the 'chain model' will compromise the system.

----------------

The chain model I am certain is applicable to the problem of 'posture'. The weakness exposed by this model could explain why we have not been able to solve this problem in many thousands of years.

(I would urge the public in this connection to play close attention of the attire of young children - belts, elastic, nappies, shoes. It is worth keeping in mind that this is also the stage in which rapid development of the brain takes place. Do we wish to put children under this unnatural stress during this critical phase?)

Clearly this method will also be invaluable in making us less complacent about our environmental issues. 

Regards,
Selvaraj


1.17  Taking a Stand for Science?  (15/8/2013)

“Intelligent design is overwhelmingly deemed by the scientific community as a religious belief and not a scientific theory,” President Jo Ann Gora said. “Therefore, intelligent design is not appropriate content for science courses. The gravity of this issue and the level of concern among scientists are demonstrated by more than 80 national and state scientific societies' independent statements that intelligent design and creation science do not qualify as science.”
The question is not one of academic freedom, but one of academic integrity, she added. “Said simply, to allow intelligent design to be presented to science students as a valid scientific theory would violate the academic integrity of the course as it would fail to accurately represent the consensus of science scholars.”

Read more: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/08/01/scientists-applaud-ball-state-presidents-position-intelligent-design#ixzz2c2T7ZKVx
Inside Higher Ed 

--------------------

On the contrary science has everything to gain and nothing to lose by admitting that life is very complex, it involves intelligence in some form and that there is no way that by random mutation and natural selection alone, it is possible to create complex systems. It is very unlikely that this admission will lead to any real change in the teaching of the physical and biological sciences.

It will also lead to humans (and our scientists), respecting nature a little more than it is being respected at present. 

This admission could literally save our bacon, as our scientists seem to be directionless at present.

Unless scientists are able to prove mathematically that evolution is possible by the process of random mutation and natural selection (within a finite time); by holding on to this belief, they do not add to academic integrity. 

Selvaraj


1.18  War is a racket  (26/8/2013)

I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902–1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oilwent on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.


In War Is A Racket, Butler points to a variety of examples, mostly from World War I, where industrialists whose operations weresubsidised by public funding were able to generate substantial profits essentially from mass human suffering.
The work is divided into five chapters:
  1. War is a racket
  2. Who makes the profits?
  3. Who pays the bills?
  4. How to smash this racket!
  5. To hell with war!
It contains this key summary:
"War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."
The book is also interesting historically as Butler points out in 1935 that the US is engaging in military war games in the Pacific that are bound to provoke the Japanese.
"The Japanese, a proud people, of course will be pleased beyond expression to see the United States fleet so close to Nippon's shores. Even as pleased as would be the residents of California were they to dimly discern through the morning mist, the Japanese fleet playing at war games off Los Angeles."
Butler explains that the excuse for the buildup of the US fleet and the war games is fear that "the great fleet of this supposed enemy will strike suddenly and annihilate 125,000,000 people."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_is_a_Racket

1.19  Debate on Religion and Science  (31/8/2013)

We need a new debate on Religion and Science.

We must keep in mind that both Religion and Science get their oxygen from NATURE.

However, in order to promote themselves both Religion and Science have covered up this issue.

This was harmless deception till about a hundred years back.

Now the situation has risen where this deception is no longer harmless, and we are actually attacking the foundation of what actually supports life on this planet.

Both Science and Religion need to make themselves more relevant by shifting to a type of Science and a type of Religion that connects with NATURE.

Selvaraj


1.20  Process operators  (1/9/2013)

Years ago, Northwest Indiana residents could get out of high school and find work at a mill or on the factory floor.
Ivy Tech Northwest professor Tom Box, who is nearing retirement, recalls how steelmakers used to say they would take anyone who could lift 50 pounds and fog a mirror.
... In the globally competitive manufacturing industry, machines have in many cases replaced the waves of immigrant laborers who flocked to Northwest Indiana factories. Two men used to strap a binding band around a newly made coil of steel, but now a robotic arm does. Such automation means fewer jobs overall, but the positions that are left are more highly skilled and better paying, Box said.
"U.S. manufacturing is the most productive in the world because of a high level of automation," said Mark Maassel, president and CEO of the Northwest Indiana Forum, a regional economic development corporation. "That automation requires a high level of skills. It's not just lugging heavy things around anymore. Workers have to be able to think, and to have a command of a high level of details."
Modern-day factory jobs often involve the use of computers, CNC (computer numerical control) machines and robotic devices that stack inventory on warehouse shelves, Maassel said. Working with such equipment often requires more than a high school degree, whether a certificate program or a two-year associate degree. ....
----------------
High degree of automation needs to be balanced with providing an environment where (1) humans do have jobs (2) humans can engage in activities that keeps them physically and mentally active.
- Spend 50% of your working time in a regular organisation.
- Spend the remaining 50% in a social organisation (which includes agricultural activities)
Due to increasing energy scarcity, the balance of power could shift to manual work in many activities. Hence we need to develop intermediate level of technologies as envisaged by Schumacher. 
Small Is Beautiful: A Study of Economics As If People Mattered
Selvaraj

1.22  The Party's Over  (18/9/2013)

For a book, it’s the end of a decade. But it’s not the end of the story.

-----------------

It was known 50 years back when the world population was around 3 billion , that we were headed in this direction. The media could have made a difference (alas!).

Selvaraj

1.23  Video of insect gearbox in action  (24/9/2013)

Stunning imagery and video has been released of a tiny insect that uses a gearbox, complete with interlocking gears, to move.
“A species of plant-hopping insect, Issus coleoptratus, is the first living creature known to possess functional gears, a new study finds. The two interlocking gears on the insect’s hind legs help synchronize the legs when the animal jumps,” reported LiveScience.
... The odds against such complex machinery assembling itself on day one are said to be so huge that it gives rise to the question of whether they are evidence of intelligent design in nature.
http://www.investigatemagazine.co.nz/Investigate/4267/insect-with-its-own-gearbox-more-proof-of-intelligent-design/


1.24  The Copernican revolution in mangement  (27/9/2013)

In reality, efforts to improve management failed because management was suffering from a dysfunction, not a malfunction. Repairing a malfunction can succeed: with repair, the organization can resume functioning the way it was meant to. But when institutions suffer from a dysfunction, simple repair can’t work. Today’s organizations are functioning precisely the way they were designed to function. What is wrong with our institutions is the very design. To deal with the dysfunction, our management and institutions have to be designed differently.
As Roger Martin told me, “Malfunction is doing the right things wrong, something that Peter Drucker argued is quite fixable. It is a shame to waste energy on doing the wrong things right.”
.. The Copernican revolution in management is similar: as Joseph Bragdon wrote in Profit for Life (2006): “We are finally waking to the fact corporations are not the center of our economic universe, with people and Nature orbiting around them. In fact the opposite is true.”
Once we make the Copernican shift in management, everything looks and feels different. It involves a different understanding of how the world works. It’s not a gradual shift from one perspective to the other. The shift is fundamental and abrupt and discontinuous. Just as the reptiles and dinosaurs became birds, not by becoming better at crawling or walking, but by acquiring feathers and wings and learning how to fly, so managing in the new mode involves not merely becoming better at managing in the old ways, but living new mindsets, attitudes and values and acquiring new capabilities.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2013/09/16/the-meaning-of-management-the-great-awakening/


1.25  'Religion' of intelligent design banned, atheism OK  (6/10/2013)

“There is no God; no Intelligent Designer; no higher purpose to our lives.” 
OK, no God, no Intelligent Designer, but no 'higher purpose to our lives'??? This gives a valid excuse to our scientist, Industrialists and economists, for all the environmental damage they have inflicted over the last hundred years. If there is no higher purpose why bother about global warming and the destruction of the natural world?
(There is little doubt that our teaching shops - that are turning out robots who can 'compete successfully in the global economy' - are a big part of the overall problem).
Selvaraj
-------------------------------
The Seattle-based Discovery Institute, which has been in a pitched battle with Ball State University over the school’s decision to ban faculty from talking about intelligent design, is demanding the university treat all beliefs the same and eliminate atheism from an honors course.
“If Ball State is going to ban faculty speech favoring intelligent design by claiming that it would violate the separation of church and state, then it must apply the same ban to faculty speech that promotes atheism or attacks intelligent design in the classroom,” John West, vice president of Discovery Institute, said in a statement.
The institute is asking the Muncie, Ind., school to investigate its honors seminar called “Dangerous Ideas.”
The sole textbook used in the course is an anthology edited by a prominent atheist. The authors assert that “Science Must Destroy Religion.” The book also declares: “There is no God; no Intelligent Designer; no higher purpose to our lives.” It even states that scientists should function as society’s “high priests.” The book contains an afterword by atheist evangelist Richard Dawkins, author of “The God Delusion.”
The institute said in a letter to the school’s president and board of trustees that no favoritism should be allowed.
“Unlike BSU, we favor freedom for professors to express their views on controversial issues. But if BSU insists on censoring professors who favor intelligent design, we insist BSU comply with the Constitution and apply its speech ban equally to all professors,” the organization said.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/09/religion-of-intelligent-design-banned-atheism-ok/#jxe4bzYW2fJ5r0Xg.99


From Copernicus to Darwin, to current-day thinkers, scientists have always promoted theories and unveiled discoveries that challenge everything society holds dear; ideas with both positive and dire consequences. Many thoughts that resonate today are dangerous not because they are assumed to be false, but because they might turn out to be true.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/10/04/holy-war-breaks-out-at-public-university-over-atheism-evolution-and-intelligent-design/
 
1.26  Children aren't feral enough  (8/10/2013)

The 10-year-old Londoners I took to Wales were proof that a week in the countryside is worth three months in a classroom ....


What is the best way to knacker a child's education? Force him or her to spend too long in the classroom. An overview of research into outdoor education by King's College London found that children who spend time learning in natural environments "perform better in reading, mathematics, science and social studies". Exploring the natural world "makes other school subjects rich and relevant and gets apathetic students excited about learning".
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/07/education-children-not-feral-enough
1.27  The death of nation states?  (14/10/2013)

The Statue of Liberty reopened Sunday after New York state agreed to pay for running the site during the federal shutdown. Associated Press

---------------

The US government has also practically shut down all the scientific institutions. 

Do we see a weakening of central governments worldwide, as they struggle to deliver?

Central Governments:

1) Enforce the identity of nation states - the need now is to view the whole world as environmentally integrated.

2) Due to the above a central preoccupation of nation states is to spend huge amount of money on defense.

3) Due to the above it is impossible for them to coordinate any activity on a global level. (They will permanently be jockeying for their own space, rather than putting all cards honestly on the table and moving swiftly to solve problems).

Selvaraj
1.28  Maslow's hierarchy of needs (A different perspective)  (17/10/2013)

Dear All,

You must all be familiar with Maslow's hierarchy of needs, in which the distinguished psychologist Abraham Maslow establish the conditions required for an individual to self actualize. The basic theory is that lower level needs must be satisfied before an individual will work selflessly to realize higher level goals.

.......................*..............
.....................*....*---------------> Self-actualization needs
...................*********.............
..................*............* -------------> Social needs
.................**************......
...............*....................*-----------> Basic needs
.............*********************

While the above pyramid is for an individual it would be interesting to visualise a similar hierarchy for society and governments. Will certain conditions have to be fulfilled before these large groups 'actualize'? In the case of governments we can visualize the hierarchy as follows:


.......................*.................... Actualization needs
.....................*....*---------------> (Long term, creative planning?)
...................*********.............
..................*............* -------------> Short term economic needs
.................**************......
...............*....................*-----------> Basic needs (Need for security?)
.............*********************

In the case of individuals, the need for food, shelter, transport etc. becomes part of basic needs. In the case of Governments and society in general, which have to provide these commodities, it must be separated out and have a box of its own. 

What the above figure points out is: 

1. We must make time and space to visualise our collective future.
2. This will not be easy since the immediate economic priority is to plan for tomorrow. Economics as presently practiced, where people smile and frown with every rise and drop of stock market indices, essentially focuses on our short term needs.

Selvaraj 
P.S. Self-actualization: Maslow considered self-actualizing people to possess "an unusual ability to detect the spurious, the fake, and the dishonest ....".

1.29  Spontaneous co-operation  (26/10/2013)

to iit-global
In his manifesto-like piece for the New Statesman, actor, comedian and social commentator Russell Brand quotes the late American philosopher, futurist and architect Buckminster Fuller’s goal of making “the world work for 100 per cent of humanity in the shortest possible time through spontaneous co-operation without ecological offence or the disadvantage of anyone.”
http://www.greenfudge.org/2013/10/24/russell-brand-on-revolution-and-the-environment/

1.30  The power of spinning stories  (7/11/2013)

http://www.npr.org/2013/11/07/243535684/across-america-voices-rise-to-reinvent-india

For most humans it is easier to sing an ode to God than to a scientific equation :-)

Still, I agree with Kannan partly. Our religions are very old, we need something different to represent our  new realities. Unfortunately Science and Technology in the present form do not provide the full answers. Science and Technology have failed to fathom the mysteries of Life, and presently are hell bent (along with those who worship God), in destroying life on this planet. Yes we need Science and Technology, but of a different form, which respects NATURE.

Here is an ode to Science ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLmiYeqVSkk ... Unfortunately in my view it rings hollow, since the Darwinian concept of science does not recognise any purpose in Nature and indeed any purpose to human life.
Selvaraj

1.31  A Great Case for Intelligent Design  (17/11/2013)

Life, like a solved Rubik's Cube, is incontrovertible evidence for intelligent design. -

See more at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/11/from_am_unexpec079091.html#sthash.weY50Xfj.dpuf


1.32  Everybody is a genius  (1/12/2013)

“Everybody is a genius. But, if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will spend its whole life believing that it is stupid.” - Einstein

http://newindianexpress.com/editorials/Numbers-Cant-Pin-Down-Ability-or-Intelligence/2013/11/30/article1918606.ece

1.33  Reductionism / Holism (Improving the Scientific Method - Continued)  (14/12/2013)

(Reply to a comment made in another forum)

.. Some phenomena can be reduced to other phenomena and some can’t. If science is the search for truth, it has to recognise that, and many scientists do...

It would be interesting to know of a complex phenomenon that can't be reduced to simpler phenomenon. True, when discussing something like Life we find that the whole is more (much more) than the sum of its parts. Even a motor car can be said to be more than the sum of its parts, since a car will take you places, a gear box by itself will not take you anywhere. 

From a practical point of view however it is better to view reductionism and holism as being complimentary.

Part 1 + Part 2 + Part 3 ... <===> THE ASSEMBLED COMPONENT

It is easy to see how this is so in a mechanical device. We may wax poetic on the beauty of a car and most people need not know what is inside a car, but if the car refuses to budge we will have no option but to deal with the parts.

Perhaps the lack of progress in understanding postural issues is entirely due to the belief that reductionist approach will not work. (I have long been puzzled that people do not care to break the overall problem into simpler parts).

Science I am afraid is not simply the search for truth (I too believed this once upon a time). Science is practised by humans and is subject to all human frailties. Modern science is also heavily manipulated by our economic system. Those who control the flow of money also control the kind of science that is done. (For instance the lack of progress in the field of human psychology since Sigmund Freud is surprising; it is however not surprising when you realise that any advance in the understanding of human psychology would have been counterproductive for our market based economy).
Regards,
Selvaraj

1.34  The Green, Yellow and Red stages of pollution  (26/12/2013)

.. In the green stage of pollution, pollutants are introduced into a biological system and are broken down into harmless chemicals and/or are expelled by the system's natural cleansing processes. The overriding characteristic of this stage is that pollutants are introduced at a rate where there is no net buildup within the system. The cleansing processes function fast enough to handle the influx of unwanted material.
In the yellow stage of pollution, pollutants are introduced into a biological system at such a rate that the cleansing processes cannot cope with the influx and a backlog of unwanted material begins to accumulate. The overriding characteristic of this stage is that if the rate of ingestion is slowed or stops, the biological system, of its own accord, will return to the green stage and no irreversible damage has occurred. However, if the influx continues, then this will drive the biological system into the red stage of pollution.
In the red stage of pollution, the yellow stage has persisted for so long that the resulting buildup of pollutants destroys or alters the biological systems natural cleansing processes. The overriding characteristic of this stage is that permanent damage has been done to the system that is irreversible unless someone or something external to the system takes action. The red pollution stage is critical for a biological system, because without outside intervention, death is assured.
If a person ingests poison, the correct antidote will cure him. If a lake becomes choked with algae and all life in it dies, the algae can be removed, the water treated, and living things reintroduced. These actions will restore the lake to its original vitality. If man acts in a timely manner and takes the proper corrective action, he can save almost all troubled biological systems from destruction. However, what if the biological system we are talking about is the world's oceans, or its atmosphere, or the entire planet itself. What will man be able to do to save himself when the entire planet enters the red pollution zone?
No intelligent person with a smattering of knowledge about what is going on in the world today believes that our planet is presently in the green pollution zone. On the other side of the coin, very few people believe our planet is in the red or lethal pollution zone. Therefore, it should be clear that most people would agree that we are in the yellow pollution stage; the real issue being how close are we to the red stage? I think the answer to this question is that we are too close for comfort and that we should be doing everything possible to reverse the direction we are heading. Furthermore, I also believe that if the population of the world doubles in the next fifty years, as predicted, we are doomed. This being the case, what can we do to save ourselves? It may already be too late to do that, but the only hope we have is to radically change how we think and how we behave.
Let's pretend for a moment that this nation has constructed a spaceship to colonize a planet in a distant galaxy which will take several human lifetimes to reach. The number of people sent on this mission would be limited by the physical space available and the spacecraft's biological ability to sustain its population of inter-planetary pilgrims. For survival's sake, the population level of our starship would have to be carefully controlled and the right to procreate indiscriminately would be suspended. Additional children would only be allowed to replace existing travelers who have died. Obviously, these restrictions would be willingly accepted by those brave enough to make such a dangerous journey and if not, those who could not live by such rules would not be allowed to go.
The above scenario is hypothetical, but having landed a man on the moon, the possibility of man colonizing other planets is not something that an educated person of today would judge to be impossible. This being the case, it is self-evident that the number of people on the starship would have to be kept under control so as to not overwhelm the crafts environmental and life support systems. If this is so easy to understand and accept in regard to our starship, why is so hard to understand that we are now at a point on this planet where restrictions on procreation are necessary to ensure our survival? We live on an object we call Earth and planet Earth, in truth, is nothing more than a spaceship we travel on, not to a far off planet, but to a questionable and uncertain future.
The huge rock we live on has everything we need to survive, including mechanisms for dealing with pollution. However, there is a finite amount of everything that is here and a limit to how much pollution our world can process. This means that to survive, we have to limit to how many of us are onboard the rock. Technology and the more efficient utilization of resources may be able to increase the sustainable population limit to some degree, but technology also has its limits and even if we do everything in the most efficient manner possible, a limit to how many people can live here will always be there. The undeniable truth is that if we allow too many of us to live on the rock, it will lose its capability of supporting us and we will die. To think this is not the case and that technology will always bail us out, is absurd. The real issue then, is not whether or not the world has a finite capacity to support the doings of man, but at what level of population will we reach the point of no return.
Presently, the world's population is six billion people. Industrialized nations use the most resources and produce the most pollution. The United States with three percent of the world's population, presently consumes about twenty percent of its resources. This consumption results in a similar percentage contribution to the pollution of our planet. The world is presently in yellow pollution stage and the question is, what stage of pollution will we be in if the other ninety-seven percent of humanity is raised to our standard of living? Is there anyone in their right mind that would hold that this wouldn't put us over the edge?
Scientists have calculated that to be safely in the green pollution zone, with all people enjoying the same standard of living as we have in the United States, world population should be no more that two billion people. Presently we are at three times that number and climbing rapidly. How deep into the yellow pollution zone does being three times over a sustainable level of population put us? Indeed, in consideration of these numbers, isn't it more reasonable to wonder if a population level of six billion people has placed us well into the red pollution zone? After all, aren't we already witnessing the die off of most other forms of life on our planet? Like a canary in mine, doesn't this tell us something?
As stated previously, I am old and do not have to worry about the answers to these questions. However, people younger than me do and unfortunately for them, people are still debating these issues instead of doing something about them. I started this travelogue by telling you that I thought there were two many people in the world. Pollution issues aside, this is also true because of quality of life issues. How good are our lives, when we work five days a week, and spend three hours of that same day trying to get to and from work in traffic jams? Is living the good life, hiding in your home or apartment in a major city because it is unsafe to breathe the air outside? Does life have very much value when it is difficult to find a rural road to drive down without homes lining every stretch of the way?
Beyond any doubt, we are in the yellow or cautionary pollution zone and moving deeper into it. This being the case, it is imperative that we take action now before it is too late. Indeed, if we are truly rational creatures as we so pride ourselves on being, then the prudent thing to have done was to address the problem when we first passed from the green pollution zone into the yellow one. Granted, no one knows when this occurred, so we did nothing when it happened. However, we now know beyond any doubt that we are over the line. To argue that there is no need for alarm or that we can forgo addressing the problem until we get a little closer to the red zone is absurd. But this is what the "naysayers" would have us do. They argue, there is no need for concern, not all scientists agree with these more "radical assessments", and the best thing to do now is nothing. In other words, they hold that if we ignore the problem, there is no problem or it will go away.
Recall if you will our starship and the interplanetary pilgrims aboard it. Would any of them be listened to by the others if they argued that they should allow more births because the yellow pollution zone was not really something that they should be concerned about. Of course not! If someone onboard the ship held that it was wise to allow pollutants to continually build up on the starship, they would be judged to be insane. Furthermore, if someone aboard the starship actually became pregnant when they weren't supposed to, that pregnancy would be terminated irrespective of the person's wishes. Doesn't this make sense and wouldn't this be the way things would be if our starship was a reality? Please understand that I am only making a point here. I do not believe that this draconian action is necessary to save this planet. However, what is necessary is to realize we have a problem and to educate people about what must be done to solve the problem.
We did not act when we entered the yellow pollution zone, not because we shouldn't have, but because no one realized what was happening. We now know what is happening and this being the case, there are no sound reasons for not taking action. To argue otherwise is lunacy and a death warrant.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/2/Our-Environment-by-Alan-Adaschik-Environment_Environment-Ecology_Environment-Ecology_Existence-131225-752.html
1.35  Metaphors in science communication  (27/12/2013)

Metaphors are not literal — by design — so if you don’t like non-literal comparisons, you won’t like metaphors. I have argued at great length that one of the major failings of science communication is the failure to use figurative language. For what it’s worth, Aristotle believed, “To be a master of metaphor is a sign of genius, since a good metaphor implies intuitive perception of the similarity in dissimilars.”
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/12/22/3089711/global-warming-hiroshima-bombs/#

1.36  Human intelligence is declining according to Stanford geneticist  (29/12/2013)

“I would wager that if an average citizen from Athens of 1000 BC were to appear suddenly among us, he or she would be among the brightest and most intellectually alive of our colleagues and companions, with a good memory, a broad range of ideas, and a clear-sighted view of important issues. Furthermore, I would guess that he or she would be among the most emotionally stable of our friends and colleagues. I would also make this wager for the ancient inhabitants of Africa, Asia, India or the Americas, of perhaps 2000–6000 years ago. The basis for my wager comes from new developments in genetics, anthropology, and neurobiology that make a clear prediction that our intellectual and emotional abilities are genetically surprisingly fragile.”
http://rt.com/usa/intelligence-stanford-years-fragile-531/


1.37  Confessions of an Economic Hit Man  (31/12/2013)

 John Perkins describes himself as a former economic hit man–a highly paid professional who cheated countries around the globe out of trillions of dollars.
http://www.democracynow.org/2004/11/9/confessions_of_an_economic_hit_man
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)