It's time to stop scratching at those crystal balls.
This is the thread in which prognostication is the name of the game.
While I'd rather this thread weren't a sci-fi haven, technological predictions are an inevitable facet of any analysis of the future.
Mostly, though, thoughts on the future of political structures, nationhood, language, society, the law, bio-med, gender, and social interaction will hopefully be this thread's emphases.
Also, if you'd like to write short, fictional or satirical pieces on certain aspects of the future, that would be great.
3. khaval alazman - 5/30/2001 3:31:34 AM
If the above comes up as a double post, please let me know, and I'll delete it. Like the young Sade, am still learning the ropes.
4. ycmeehan - 5/30/2001 6:05:16 AM
Good luck, Khaval.
5. PelleNilsson - 5/30/2001 6:22:41 AM
Most new hosts first of all learn how to use the delete function. It is an interesting phenomenon.
Last week I re-read The Club of Rome's Limits to Growth. It was published in 1972. I guess many of you haven't read it or even heard of it. But it created a big stir when it came and its influence can still be seen in concepts such as "Sustainable Development".
The book was based on research done at MIT where a team developed a "world model" which described the interaction between population growth, mineral resources, food production, industrial production and pollution. The research team found that no matter what assumptions they made, civilisation as we know it would cease to exist around 2020 and 2-3 decades later, the world's population would start to decrease because of depleted resources and poisoned nature.
It is interesting to note that sometime in the 90's our worries for the future ceased to focus on the resource problem. Now the deposit problem occupies pole position, in particular the greenhouse gases.
What strikes one when re-reading the book is its underestimation of the dynamics of economic and technical developments leading to new patterns of resource consumtion. My own field, telecom, is a good example. Up to 1980 it was a big consumer of copper. Since then it has become increasingly silicon-based.
6. transient1a - 5/30/2001 8:37:18 AM
You need some related links.
Here are two:
Can we see the near future -- Year 2025
Does Sex Have a Future?
7. Dusty - 5/30/2001 8:53:09 AM
transient1a
Excellent link (the first, I haven't yet checked out the second) thanks
For those who haven't yet checked out the first link, it includes a discussion moderated by David Brin. Brin is the author of Transparent Society, a book/article we have discussed with much interest in other threads.
8. Fielding - 5/30/2001 10:23:02 AM
Good luck Khaval.
9. Fielding - 5/30/2001 10:23:49 AM
I predict that in the future, this thread will be in the past.
10. PelleNilsson - 5/30/2001 10:29:35 AM
Well, I read that book and recently I had reason to look into some of my own work related to long-term forecasting 20-25 years ago. The striking thing is the static approach. The future becomes essentially an extrapolation of the past and the present. Consider three things which have changed our lives:
1. The ability to pack more computer power into a lap top than in the largest mainframes of 1975.
2. The Internet.
3. The cellphone.
These were not even on the horizon 25 years ago. And the Internet exploded because www became available which it did because some guys at CERN wanted to design system for internal information and happened on one that was immensely versatile and scaleable.
All we can say about the world in 2025 is that it will be different, and I mean qualitatively different. Some things will probably not change though. Some hundreds of millions of people will live in absolute poverty, millions will die of curable diseases and so on.
11. Dusty - 5/30/2001 10:44:42 AM
PelleNilsson
Exactly!
I recently reviewed the report of the Long Term Planning Committee of my professional society. At a meeting, I pulled aside the chair, and asked him if he had reviewed the long term projections done by his predecessors. He said he hadn't but it was an excellent idea. I had mixed emotions. I was happy he thought it was a good idea, but chagrined it wasn't obvious. I had expected him to tell me what they had learned from it, not that they hadn't done it.
I bring it up because of the same phenomenon. I think they did too much simple extrapolation of present issues. The 1996 presentation of issues expected to be important in 2001 is largely a commentary on things that were important in 1996, not any insight into the future.
12. PelleNilsson - 5/30/2001 10:58:23 AM
Even if we can see technological change coming it is extraordinarily difficult to predict all its ramifications. The cellphone in its present, digital form emerged in 1991-93. Who could have foreseen then that today I can use my phone to pay my parking fees in the city? Admittedly, that is not a big thing, but it is the aggregation of small things and the way they interact that changes society.
13. arheles - 5/30/2001 11:27:33 AM
By 2005, the lights come back on in CA, but the political & economic costs are steep. Silicon Valley is a ghost town, migrating to ID,CO,OR,WA. CA goes Repub, ensuring a national Repub majority. CA becomes a tourist/retirement state, a FL west.
14. arheles - 5/30/2001 11:28:17 AM
By 2010, US Dems are destroyed by the left. NE seaboard Repubs immediately bolt to re-form the Dems as a permanent minority fiscal con/soc lib party. With consensus on economic issues, Red v Blue values politics become the norm. Roe is overturned, abortion rights are re-affirmed in most states, eliminating the issue from national politics. Crime continues to decline. Without these issues, a vigorous values politics can't be sustained. US world-wide dominance in business/science/tech increases. The US becomes peaceful, materially rich, and perpetually striving. They are too busy to notice their unhappiness.
15. arheles - 5/30/2001 11:29:13 AM
By 2015, France tries and fails to construct an anti-US EU. A German dominated Federation of Europe forms. Third Way EU adopts neutrality in world affairs. Hollywood, UN relocate to EU. WWF moves to England adopting medieval costumes. EU becomes peaceful, culturally rich, and seemingly contented. Wooden shoes become hugely popular, as do ABBA revivals. Suicide rates unexpectedly soar.
16. arheles - 5/30/2001 11:29:46 AM
By 2020, WWIII starts when internally troubled China invades Taiwan. Unified Korea joins US led alliance. EU remains neutral, despite massive French support of China. AU is neutral. Japan is neutralized by Chinese offer of Korea in secret treaty. Japan reclaims US bases, ejects US. India refuses to support Alliance, immediately attacking and conquering Pakistan. Indonesia sides with China. Brazil supports China, war breaks out in South America.
17. Cellar Door - 5/30/2001 11:31:33 AM
The AIDS crisis of this decade will make the late 80's and early 90's look like a blip on th radar.
Get ready for a LOT of funerals.
18. arheles - 5/30/2001 11:32:01 AM
By 2030, McDonalds closes it's 2 millionth store.
19. marjoribanks - 5/30/2001 11:37:38 AM
Good predictions Arheles! Some telling thrusts there.
Cellar, I certainly hope you're wrong. What are you basing your predictions on? (By the way, the global effects of the pandemic make the Us deaths in the 80's a blip on the radar anyway).
20. marjoribanks - 5/30/2001 11:38:13 AM
Also BTW, welcome to the mote, arheles, if you're new.
21. JayAckroyd - 5/30/2001 11:53:26 AM
Like Dusty, I thought of The Transparent Society when I saw this topic. 0ne of the things in Brin's book that he makes a big deal about is the coming ubiquity of video cameras.
It's a good way to illuminate the increasing transparency of our lives. Your face is showing up on videotape or hard drive storage several times a day, and will appear more and more often in the future. Some people find this intrusive, but anything that captures the truth strikes me as, on balance, a good thing.
I expect cops will be videotaping all their arrests soon, and if they don't they will find themselves being videotaped more and more often.
Is this a good thing or a bad thing? No matter what you think, there will be more and more cameras in your future.
22. JayAckroyd - 5/30/2001 11:56:33 AM
Another interesting issue involves spy agencies like the NSA and the CIA. The combination of the end of the cold war and the widespread use of satellite photography, among not just government but also private agencies makes the CIA's collection of human intelligence increasingly irrelevant.
The NSA is in a heap of trouble, as encryption technology continues to improve. Is it time for the United States to adopt a more transparent foreign policy? Will they?
23. khaval alazman - 5/30/2001 12:13:19 PM
Wow! Thanks for the kind wishes and fantastic posts, folks.
There is so much to read (links, books etc.).
***
Arheles, I really like your political prognostications for the US, though I disagree about WWIII. If China is going to get bolshie over Taiwan, it will happen sooner than you predicted.
Obliquely related to Jay's post: is this the place to discuss Echelon? Is it being discussed in another thread. It seems almost too fantastic (in the literal sense).
And Jay, I'd disagree about the irrelevance of human resources in intelligence gathering. As smart as gadgets may be, you will always need smarter humans who know where and how to implement them. Also, the finer points of espionage require the finesse of the human brain: intuitition is vital when attempting to keep tabs on a target. I cannot conceive of a monitoring system so omnipotent that it would obviate the need for human direction. ANd human direction requires that human's familiarity with the nature and movements of the target.
***
BTW, for the next fortnight, I have exams/essays. I will do my utmost to maintain the thread and post any links that any of you feel would be useful, but I'll be temporarily limited in my participation in discussions.
24. JayAckroyd - 5/30/2001 12:18:20 PM
What I meant when I was talking about human intelligence (humint in the spy business vs signal intelligence [sigint]) which entails the use of people in foreign countries obtaining information. The recent Hanson counterespionage case is an example of a Russian human intelligence operation.
Yes, I think Echelon and Carnivore should be part of the discussion here. In fact, I think they will be counterproductive for the agencies involved because they will encourage the use of strong cryptography. Right now, encrypting a message is itself evidence of sensitive material being exchanged, and therefore lends itself to traffic analysis. When everybody encrypts everything, that won't be possible anymore. And Carnivore will be out of business.
25. rubberducky - 5/30/2001 12:35:26 PM
i liked your posts, arheles.
this made me take notice: They are too busy to notice their unhappiness. because, well, i think a lot of people are in this boat already. but it is a trend that will most assuredly increase.
26. arheles - 5/30/2001 12:45:01 PM
Thanks Marg, Khaval, rubberducky. I'm surprised how easy it is to generate plausible scenarios. I better finish the war, then on to easier predictions:
Despite initial success (including destruction of the Panama Canal) and massive conventional effort, no Chinese soldier survives more than 24 hours on Taiwanese soil. Thwarted in Taiwan, China expands war into Indochina, India and Russia. VN dominated Indochina joins Alliance. US and VN conventional forces successfully defend Indochina. Indonesia disintegrates into civil war. Brazil, Venezuela et al, are beaten by Mexican led SA alliance. Russia withdraws from EU, forms alliance with India and extends NMD shielding to India. Ind-Rus v China nuclear exchange destroys China as political entity. WWIII ends. EU led Marshall Plan saves millions from starvation, India becomes world power, Korea occupies Japan.
27. arheles - 5/30/2001 12:46:22 PM
Humans continue worldwide migration to coasts. By 2100 the interior of Africa is largely depopulated. Noticing that 90% of Canadians live within 150 km of US border, Canada votes to begin merging with the US. Canada depopulates, effectively becoming an enormous eco-reserve. US Mexico adopt open borders and begin political partnership. NZ and AU merge, NZ depopulates. Most of sub-saharan Africa becomes protectorate of UN.
28. arheles - 5/30/2001 12:47:08 PM
The dictatorships of the Middle-East continue to oppose peace, fearing the spread of democracy. Israel becomes disgusted and resolves to leave. Their right of return claim is refused by Argentina, Spain and Zimbabwe. They eventually end up in New York, Massachusetts and Nebraska, benefitting the US enormously. Except communal farming doesn't work in Nebraska, either.
29. labwabbit - 5/30/2001 12:54:30 PM
Wooo Hooo
Predictions for 2002:
-PP will have helped at least one person to find their way to the light. However, another year of the RedSux losing to the Yanks will take a toll that will induce heavy drinking and social withdrawal forcing the doors to permanently close at the Sportsbar.
-marjori will sell his cab company upon receiving the Golden Turban award for consistently finding the longest possible route to the airport. (Will receive honorable mention for most pedestrians taken out in a crosswalk at one time).
-Judith will finally achieve the perfect drunk without a hangover. Will celebrate by killing 50 lobsters.. and while coated in melted butter, will dance naked in the kitchen as they scream.
-seadate will shun golf shorts and will move inland to establish a shoe store chain specializing in sandals.
-MsNo will open a very successful Institution of Whips and Bondage in North Carolina by the discovering a new interpretation of Sodom and Gomorrah that clearly points out they truly lived as God intended all mankind to be like.
-ycmeehan will have passionately taken up the cause to protect and preserve all birds of prey. Her realization and application that if speaking french brings out the animal in men, why wouldn't it bring out the men in animals will eventually establish her as the Dr. Doolittle of raptors.
-TheDiva will...well remain the Diva. (Some things do spring eternal.)
-CalGal will be incarcerated to a total solitary confinement cell for life. Although she will at some time during this period discover the secret of life, the world will still be unable to interpret her salivitations and hence be doomed to continue on in ignorance. (msgreer will be assigned the task of making sure her outfit is securely fastened and monitoring the IVs.)
-CellarDoor's penus will fall off from too many fantasies of a gay Tom Cruise drinking white zinfandel in his personal hot tub.
30. labwabbit - 5/30/2001 12:54:41 PM
-Pelle will be nominated for Kora Temple World Headquarters Emirate. Sadly however he will not be able to accept proving that vodka, coffee, and chainsaws will inevitably cost him more than an arm and a leg. (He will however lead the way for establishing a handicapped world bowling league.)
-TheMote will come to an end. Wabbit, Alistair, and Jay will eventually come to realize that it is more profitable and rewarding to open a Schizo-Affective Disorder forum for the many who have already taken the first step of admitting, (unwittingly by registering into the Mote), that there is an overwhelming need to exploit such a lucrative market opportunity, while simultaneously satisfying humanitarian desires.
-labwabbit will still be maintaining the same stupid grin as always while sitting daily on the front porch sipping Beam.
31. khaval alazman - 5/30/2001 1:08:10 PM
Let the love fest begin!
Arheles, I simply adored your last three posts. I disagree with parts of them vehemently and hope to answer you in detail after I've had my four hours sleep (it's 3:15am here). But what food for thought!
Labwabbit! Yay. What fun!
32. PsychProf - 5/30/2001 1:10:45 PM
Very funny Lab.
33. PsychProf - 5/30/2001 1:12:35 PM
Khaval...nice thread and good to have you at The Mote.
34. JudithAtHome - 5/30/2001 1:14:13 PM
Yep, very funny...except I disagree with mine because the holy grail of it isn't worth the journey.
I like the butter idea, tho...
35. khaval alazman - 5/30/2001 1:16:51 PM
Thanks Mr. Prof. I have been causing great offense and destruction in the International (and a bit in language and sex)thread for a while now (I think since last year), but I felt it was time to venture beyond....
36. Jenerator - 5/30/2001 1:22:22 PM
arheles,
I've enjoyed your predictions as well; however, you're sorely mistaken if you think the WWF will move to England. It's shown once every other week there, but Vince McMahon will not move the cast and crew overseas. William Regal is one of the least popular wrestlers.
Don't ask me why I know this.;-)
37. arheles - 5/30/2001 1:53:10 PM
Thanks Jen. I know little about Moties, so I tried to make remarks as discussable as possible. Apologies for the WWIII scenario, but once I started, it just sort of wrote itself. Here's a scenario from a different source:
Shintaro Ishihara (gov of Tokyo):
("Gendai", December 1999 edition. A special story: A series of 10 exciting opinions "I can't leave without saying this")
Japan is so exploited by the US. It is also a financial slave of the US. Why is it so afraid of America? Japan doesn't need to care the security treaty with the US at all. If America complains to Japan about the treaty, we just ask the US Army to get out of Japan. At present, this country has enough military technology and budget, so we make it become a strong defense nation by using its money and ability. Then, we should do what the US is most afraid of. Japan sell US Treasury bonds (it has bought about 3 trillion dollars). It will be criticized as pulling a trigger of the Depression, but this is Japan's turn to drop atomic bombs.
The world economy will sink after Japan sells all its Treasury bonds. Then, which country or region will recover first? It will be Japan and East Asian Nations that can make high quality products. The best manufacturing country, Japan, as admitted by the US, will survive. And the East Asian nations also have manufacturing technology and a high standard of education. Therefore, the "Greater Asia Yen Sphere" will be established.
38. khaval alazman - 5/31/2001 3:46:27 AM
Hokay, I've now got a chance to respond properly to Arhele's fascinating scenarios.
"By 2020, WWIII starts when internally troubled China invades Taiwan. Unified Korea joins US led alliance."
Firstly, I don't think a Chinese invasion of Taiwan is likely or even feasible. The process of liberalisation in China will occur at a far faster pace than the process of strengthening its military capability. ANd because China knows that any invasion of Taiwan will entail an American response, China must first have the capability to engage with AMerica. Currently, it does not, and by the time it does, it will be a China quite unlike the China of today. With the liberalisation of the economy and the explosion of communications technology and uptake, China is unlikely to have a static hegemonic type. Before Taiwan can even become a realistic issue, there will be all manner of internal strife in China for which the military will be deployed and will have to focus its resources on queslling.
"EU remains neutral, despite massive French support of China. AU is neutral. Japan is neutralized by Chinese offer of Korea in secret treaty. Japan reclaims US bases, ejects US. India refuses to support Alliance, immediately attacking and conquering Pakistan. Indonesia sides with China. Brazil supports China, war breaks out in South America."
Assuming such a war would occur, the EU would most certainly not remain neutral. It could abstain from active troop deployment, but in terms of shared intelligence and other resources, the EU would firmly support the US. Despite the constant grumblings, AMerica and the EU are the only two monolithic structures in the world with such similar political and eonomic philosophies. They are natural allies.
cont....
39. khaval alazman - 5/31/2001 3:48:02 AM
....cont.
Australia will forever - or within my children's lifetimes at the very least - be America's toady in the South Pacific. We are a mini-America, anyway, and indeed have always behaved (since WW2) as an AMerican colonial outpost. We have given our troops to America in every single war (outside the Americas) since WW2.
As for Japan: it will remain neutral or join with the American alliance. But by 2020, if it's current rate of economic decline continues, Japan will have to worry about being taken over by Korea, and not the traditional other-way-around. But I do agree that by 2020, The Koreas will be reunited.
Now, as far as Indian neutrality is concerned, I agree that had such a war taken place ten years ago or earlier, it would have stayed neutral. It's relationship with China is precarious owing to border disputes and previous war, and it has always been wary of becoming a pawn of the US, like Pakistan.
cont....
40. khaval alazman - 5/31/2001 3:48:59 AM
....cont.
Today, however, since Clinton's warm embrace, and since the info=tech explosion in India, India is moving ever closer to the US in its relationship. By 2020, India and the US will be even closer, as India's middleclass blows out out past 400 million (it is already over 200 million), and technology transfer between the two countries increases exponentially.
Also, if China is embarking on expansionist follies, the first large country to become exceedingly nervous would be India, as its own territorial integrity would be threatened. India would very much want to see China neutralised in such a circumstance and would do everything possible to assist the US in this endeavour.
Now, why Indonesia would support China in such circs is difficult to understand. It is undergoing a process of democratisation and has been liberalising economically for many years. Its natural ally is the US.
Brazil is the same, if not more so. Its leading role in Mercosur demonstrates its ideological affinity with the US and by 2020, the Mercosur and Nato blocks will have the most intimate of trade links, if they are already not united in an EEU type economic federation.
More to come....
41. khaval alazman - 5/31/2001 5:11:46 AM
Some more responses to Arheles"
"Humans continue worldwide migration to coasts. By 2100 the interior of Africa is largely depopulated."
This one has a natural limitation. While I agree that generally, interiors will continue to experience emigration, this is not a uniform trend and is very much based on the nature of the resources available in such areas.
As such, already arid areas will not be able to sustain expanding populations; however, the coastal regions will also experience intolerable congestions, at which point disease and conflict will draw people back to habitable interiors while coastal regions will undergo "natural" depopulation from disease as well. Assuming that such coastal regions remain habitable, there will be another return, until the next congestion crisis, at which point there will be yet another retreat to the interior. Such migration patterns will always be inherently cyclical.
cont....
42. khaval alazman - 5/31/2001 5:13:10 AM
....cont.
"Noticing that 90% of Canadians live within 150 km of US border, Canada votes to begin merging with the US. Canada depopulates, effectively becoming an enormous eco-reserve. US Mexico adopt open borders and begin political partnership."
This is an interesting scenario. I don't know enough about it to comment confidently, but from what I can tell, Canadians work very hard at distinguishing themselves and their society from Americans and America. Their society functions much more like one in Northern Europe than it does the US. There are fundamental political and philosophical chasms which I believe will serve to maintain the US and Canada as seperate states.
I do think, though that NAFTA will expand greatly and that an EU type integration is inevitable. In the same way, however, that sovreignty has not been totally abrogated in EU member countries, I don't think we'll see Canada and the US become a single entity.
Also, the southern concentration of Canadians is less to do with their love of the US, and more to do with climate and economics.
"NZ and AU merge, NZ depopulates. Most of sub-saharan Africa becomes protectorate of UN."
Actually, I cannot for the life of me understand why NZ and Australia have not yet merged. Only an idiotic sense of pride is behind continued NZ independence. They are an econmic backwater due to their size and location, we receive countless NZ immigrants every year anyway, our political systems are near identical, and we have absolutely identical political and social cultures. The separation is just too stupid for words. And like most stupidities, it is not sustainable. New Zealand will be an AUstralian state by 2050 at the latest.
cont....
43. khaval alazman - 5/31/2001 5:14:25 AM
....cont.
"The dictatorships of the Middle-East continue to oppose peace, fearing the spread of democracy. Israel becomes disgusted and resolves to leave."
Actually, most Arab countries want peace of some sort -mainly because they want a Palestinian state to take all those pesky, restive Palestinian refugees off their hands. If you think the Israelis don't much like the Palestinians, you should take a look at Syria's, Jordan's, Kuwait's and others' record with them.
Eventually, the Palestinians will have a state. There is simply no alternative.
cont....
44. khaval alazman - 5/31/2001 5:15:01 AM
...cont.
And the Israelis won't be leaving any time soon. They are some of the most tenacious (to the point of idiocy) people on earth. They will fight until either they win, or they are wiped off the map. Most Israelis would be happy if there were a Palestinian state, and the war of attrition were over.
Should such a gift from God occur, eventually (2050) we will begin to see a bloc emerge. First it will include just Israel Palestine and Jordan, but will eventually include Lebanon and Syria. Lebanon, should the Syrian military get out earlier, will become as intimately connected with Israel as Jordan.
The bloc will begin as a free trade and then labour zone. This will be impelled by infrastructural (most particularly water) cooperation.
Future wars in the Middle East will be fought WITHIN nation states, and "artificial" states like Iraq will disintegrate.
"Their right of return claim is refused by Argentina, Spain and Zimbabwe. They eventually end up in New York, Massachusetts and Nebraska, benefitting the US enormously. Except communal farming doesn't work in Nebraska, either."
There will, however, be an exodus of Ashkenazi Jews to the Anglo-world in the next 50 years. Israel, by that time, will be ethnically and culturally Arab, if religiously Jewish. Should the theocrats in Israel win out, it will very much resemble Iran. Otherwise, it will resemble Brazil in its political culture.
45. khaval alazman - 5/31/2001 5:33:31 AM
Oooh. I forgot... when I said that Israel will resemble Iran if the theocrats win out in the current (underreported) struggle between secular and religious, I should have mentioned that the "Iran" I refer to is the Iran of 10 years ago -the Iran of the booga-booga stories aired on Western TV.
Iran's in the process of some pretty fundamental liberalisation, both on the official levels and grassroots levels. The reformist leader, Khatami, has his greatest support from the young and from women. Over 50% of the Iranian population is under 25. Over 50% of medical students are women (ie. Women in Iran are not women in Saudi Arabia).
The majority of the population today in Iran was not alive or "conscious" during the reign of the last Shah. There is growing ancient-Persian revivalism, with a re-(near)-deification of the first king, Cyrus, and the reemergence of Hafez's poetry's premier place in the Iranian cultural lexicon with the Quran (it never really left, but people are more open about it now).
So, my prediction is this: that by 2050, Iran will be like the Israel of 1993(Oslo), and that Israel, in 2050, will be like the Iran of 1989.
46. stostosto - 5/31/2001 5:44:46 AM
Wooden shoes become hugely popular, as do ABBA revivals. Suicide rates unexpectedly soar.
Strike "unexpectedly" - the causality is highly plausible.
47. stostosto - 5/31/2001 6:21:00 AM
Ian Pearson is a "futurologist", employed at BT (British Telecom). Quite intriguing chap. I've met him.
Motto: "Just occasionally, everyone else IS wrong".
Perhaps Pelle knows him too?
48. stostosto - 5/31/2001 6:47:31 AM
A snippet to give a feel:
"[B]y 2020, new babies can expect to live to well over 100, perhaps 130 might be common. In fact, for a while, life expectancy will increase faster than people get older. By the time today's babies are due to die we will probably be able to download their minds into electronic storage and they will be able to carry on digitally even when their bodies are dead and buried. Imagine making a speech at your own funeral! Many of today's children will survive long enough to enjoy this effective immortality."
49. transient1a - 5/31/2001 6:50:57 AM
Gee!
I wonder where pseudoerasmus went?
The least he could do is show up and argue with himself.
50. pseudoerasmus - 5/31/2001 7:44:04 AM
How do you know I'm not already doing that?
51. transient1a - 5/31/2001 8:03:51 AM
As usual, you don't read my posts carefully.
Where have ruled that out?
52. transient1a - 5/31/2001 8:05:00 AM
Oops!
Where have I ruled out?
53. transient1a - 5/31/2001 8:06:36 AM
Damn!
Where have ruled that ou?
(I have a very bad head cold.)
54. khaval alazman - 5/31/2001 8:11:20 AM
Transient, a head cold's one thing. I'd be more inclined to ask you what you've been smoking. That is one weird and off topic series of posts.
55. MsIvoryTower - 5/31/2001 8:33:20 AM
By 2010, US Dems are destroyed by the left.
It's much more likely that by 2010 US Repubs are destroyed by the right.
There really never was a true left in this country, and what remains of what was is quite tame and somewhat pitiful.
It's hard to be wealthy (GNP per capita) and radical.
The extreme right, on the other hand, is becoming more frightening daily (interestingly, this is a world-wide phenomenon). My guess is that they merge with the fringe gun-toting isolationists, and make a move to overtake the Republican party for the sake of God and country.
56. transient1a - 5/31/2001 9:01:39 AM
BT technology timeline -towards life in 2020 (From related links.)
Note that this was written in 1999.
The Addendum is probably the most interesting part.
Two predictions worth commenting on:
1
>2005 Computers that write most of their own software<
This implies very fast evolution of computer software.
2
>2040 Robots physically and mentally superior to humans <
The mental part has now been set at about 2060.
This means that all mathematics and science will be performed by computers. As well as, of course, computer hardware will be designed by computers -- leading to very fast evolution of computers.
A dumbed down version of computer language, especially designed for humans, will eventually become the universal human language. (Although facile computer translation may slow this down.)
The moon and mars will be inhabited by computers. Most manufactured products, and possibly energy as well as some food will be shipped back to earth.
Computers will allow the complete deciphering of the human genome. Designing human genetic structure will allow human intelligence to compete with computer intelligence in short term. The genome of every human being will be routinely recorded and analyzed.
Cybergs will be common.
ALSO
It has been predicted that, within a few hundred thousand years, the only humans around will be pets of computers.
57. transient1a - 5/31/2001 9:16:30 AM
Message # 54
khaval alazman. Damn, I meant pseudoerasmus. Or do I mean khaval alazman?
I don't know. It's this damn head cold.
58. khaval alazman - 5/31/2001 9:21:06 AM
Transient, that's very interesting. I look forward to others' responses.
BTW, is a Cyberg a Jewish cyborg, or are Cyborgs Swedish cybergs?
(Sorry... couldn't help myself :))
59. arheles - 5/31/2001 11:01:28 AM
Message # 38 Of course a Chinese invasion of Taiwan invasion is feasible!!!! It would have happened in Carter's second term!! Or Gore's!!! I agree it's unlikely, given Chinese security needs. But internally, I don't think that China can liberalize peacefully, and they'll go looking for some popular foreign dragon to slay. Taiwan, not because they need to externally, but because they need a distraction internally.
The thinnest book in the world has got to be 'European Intelligence Findings for the US for the Year 2XXX'. How can an organization whose members are individually tending to neutrality form a meaningful military? Neutral EU is almost a natural fact.
60. arheles - 5/31/2001 11:10:52 AM
I didn't know you are AUslander!! AU is no one's toady, but at some future point, they will deal with an aggressor China diplomatically. They'll sign a treaty guaranteeing the integrity of the Barrier Reef or some other silliness. Outpost America. Pfui!!!
India I know little about, they seem so inconstant in their affairs. My scenario was designed to draw Mr. Banks in. FWIW, India evaluates the Taiwan lunge as stemming from internal needs, not an expansionist impulse.
Brazil formed Mercosur TO OPPOSE US interests!!!!
Africa doesn't have a chance. Or rather, the world can't effectively help Africa without taking over (most of) it. Which the world won't do.
Canadians all secretly yearn to be USers. HAHAHA.
61. Wombat - 5/31/2001 11:12:03 AM
Arheles:
Explain to me how China plans on crossing Taiwan straits in force in the face of heavy resistance and US intervention. Seizing Quemoy and Matsu, yes. Bombardment with IRBMs until Taiwan gives in, possible.
62. arheles - 5/31/2001 11:19:09 AM
Well, Americans think Israelis are well tanned Europeans in a sea of hostile Arabs. Your comments are most appreciated. I'm surprised how dour you are about Israeli religios and Israel in general. O, Israel!! Poor Nebraska!!
63. arheles - 5/31/2001 11:37:04 AM
Message # 62 was to khaval. Wombat, I don't think China goes against Taiwan without internal problems forcing it to. Since they won't be responding to an external threat, they don't have to win militarily. Since (via scenario) their gamble doesn't succeed in quelling their internal problems, they desperately expand the war to some place where they can succeed.
64. arheles - 5/31/2001 11:53:48 AM
Message # 55 MsIT surprised by your comments about the US right! Their big problem was the Christian Right. Moral Majority gone, ibid Christian Coalition. What's left to scare liberals with, certainly not Promisekeepers. Agree with you about the left generally but not left v liberals specifically. See The Future Once Happened Here by uber-lib Fred Siegel on how the left undermines liberals.
65. thoughtful - 5/31/2001 11:54:19 AM
Hmmm. In 20 years, I predict we will have poverty, crime, malnutrition, disease, natural disasters, pollution, sun spots and plant and animal extinctions. Reagan will be dead, though it's up in the air about Strom Thurmond, and they still will not have located Jimmy Hoffa.
Unless of course the Mayan's are right.
66. arheles - 5/31/2001 12:17:29 PM
MsIT, if you're saying that for the Dems to win, the Right must self-destruct, I agree. Dems are blocked by 'tax and spend' politics. And Naderism. If the US Right doesn't implode, over time these will prove decisive. I think R v L in the US is mostly explained by liberals losing, not conservatives winning.
Thoughtful, you are completely right...
67. arheles - 5/31/2001 12:19:47 PM
Er, I think R v L in the US is mostly explained by liberalism losing, not conservatism winning.
68. khaval alazman - 5/31/2001 12:26:24 PM
Arheles, ich bin ein Austlander after a fashion. I have citizenhip here. Let's leave it at that.
As for my being "dour" about the religos... good God, sir. DOn't get me started - well, not tonight anyway. The destruction of the State of Israel as we know it will have nothing to do with Arabs. There will be an eventual civil war between the secular and the Orthodox.
As for Yankees thinking that Israelis are tanned Euros, er.... Maybe they are confused by Israel's being a democracy. There is almost nothing European about Israel. The Jews of the Muslim countries and their descendents (also those from mixed marriages) constitute the vast majority of Israelis. There are very few "pure" Euro-Jews of my generation (I'm 25).
Interestingly, when there is a mixed marriage, the usual result is that the "Euroness" of one parent is subsumed by the "Easternness" of the other in terms of the environment in which children are raised. This has two reasons, I believe: firstly, easterners constitute the cultural majority in the country, so the Eastern parent's culture will find an easier reception, and also the Easterner families are huuuge. The kids will therefore have numerous Easterner cousins and relatively few Euro cousins, if any.
What confuses the Yankees is the ostensible liberalism of Israel. Yes, compared with Arab countries, Israel is far more liberal; but attitudes are shaped by the US, not Europe. European liberalism certainly underpinned the establishment of political and social institutions at Israel's birth; however, this founder generation is largely dead, and we are now seeing an evolution of Israeli political culture which might be broadly described as "Mediterranean". Corruption and cronyism are ever increasing, and are now encouraged by the large influx of Russians whose political experience in Russia informs their political behaviour in Israel.
cont....
69. khaval alazman - 5/31/2001 12:26:55 PM
...cont.
As for China: seriously! Right now (and even more so back in Carter's day), China's military capability is unbelievably primitive. It would never take action which could lead it to confrontation with the US.
I agree that there will be internal problems in China, though, and the trigger will be democracy, but the deeper causes will be increasing social stratification due to economic liberalisation coupled with and inflamed by access to unpredented amounts of information through info-tech.
Regarding Mercosur: of course its role is as counterpoint to NAFTA. This is, however, irrelevant. The Mercosur countries would encounter economic stagnation without access, in the future, to the markets of Nafta. They will not be competing blocs - they will be trading blocs.
But even if I did subscribe to the notion of competition, I'd still say that your argument is irrelevant in relation to Brazil and the US. Mercosur represents an ideal which is very much in keeping with the American liberal ethos. There is simply no point of conflict in this arena.
Also, Mercosur will be redundant by 2050. Instead, there will be a pan-Americas free trade zone. Nafta will transform into a political designation rather than one purely concerned with trade.
I think that's it. If I remember anything, I'll post it when I wake up. Good night.
70. MsIvoryTower - 5/31/2001 12:28:45 PM
arheles reMessage # 64
I disagree. Extremists have been growing in this country (on the right) while withering on the left. There is no reputable left in the US today, IMHO. On the other hand, whacko's abound in this country, and are growing in numbers and whackiness.
The interesting thing is that the Republican party is their natural home given the party's platform as opposed to the liberal party agenda. While the religious right has been quiet of late, I don't discount their silence either, it is a thing to be watched.
I agree that this country's politics is marked more by liberals losing then conservatives winning, but that's changing too.
As for the Republicans imploding, it's more likely now then it ever was, given the lack of any clear middle base in the party. Just compare Bush's actions in the first 100 days to Clinton's. Bush moved quickly to pander to his extreme right base, while Clinton moved to cut his extreme liberal base off at the knees.
The left has no teeth anymore, whereas the extreme right is a force still to be reckoned with in this country.
71. Ronski - 5/31/2001 12:55:03 PM
I disagree. Clinton's first hundred days paralleled Bush's. Both made gestures to the non-center, as it were. Clinton issued his executive order on abortion, Bush issued his to rescind it (or rather, to reinstate what Clinton had rescinded). And Clinton made his announcement on gays in the military. Fortunately, Bush has not answered this with any overtly anti-gay gestures.
Eventually, Clinton raised taxes, while Bush quickly lowered them.
Clinton did have his famous Sista Souljah moment, but that was in the campaign. He did not triangulate, that is move to the center appreciably, until after the disastrous (for the Dems) midterm elections in '94.
72. Ronski - 5/31/2001 12:56:21 PM
And frankly, I don't think either major party is in any danger of collapsing for the forseeable future.
73. JJBiener - 5/31/2001 12:58:27 PM
Labwabbit - I am disappointed. I liked your posts (29 & 30), but there was no prediction for me. Go back to your crystal ball, come up with something.
74. JJBiener - 5/31/2001 1:00:01 PM
Ronski - And frankly, I don't think either major party is in any danger of collapsing for the forseeable future.
You are probably right, but one can still hope.
75. Ronski - 5/31/2001 1:03:49 PM
JJ,
I'm always hopeful, but despite what some may think, I'm also a realist.
76. PelleNilsson - 5/31/2001 1:09:32 PM
Is this to become another boring thread about contemporary American domestic poltics?
77. Ronski - 5/31/2001 1:13:52 PM
I can't see that far into the future.
But we could direct U.S. political discussions back to Politics.
78. khaval alazman - 5/31/2001 1:15:42 PM
*PREDICTION INCOMING*
Should this become a purely American Politics thread, I will be impelled to ritual suicide.
79. khaval alazman - 5/31/2001 1:17:33 PM
Look, I don't want to move any posts simply because they are about US politics. I think that's a big problem, because of the degree of influence the US has on the rest of the world.
On the other hand, if posts do degenerate into party political internecine arcana, I will shift them.
80. PelleNilsson - 5/31/2001 1:21:04 PM
An interesting point in the future will be when China surpasses the US as the world's biggest economy, to be followed by India. I wonder what that will do to American self-esteem?
81. Ronski - 5/31/2001 1:23:07 PM
Pelle,
How are into the future do you see those things happening?
82. Ronski - 5/31/2001 1:23:26 PM
How far, that is.
83. Indiana Jones - 5/31/2001 1:30:31 PM
I wonder what that will do to American self-esteem?
Lower it to the same level as Sweden's.
Looking forward, I predict the Swedish Riksdag will regret this move, as it encourages wanton drunkenness not seen outside of roadside diners in Texas.
Likely, the unpopularity of the measure will lead to the violent overthrow of the Swedish government by the Radical Temperance League of Bjork-Abba. Violence will take the form of throwing sour milk and pickled herring at all who oppose the new Temperance Party and its music.
84. PelleNilsson - 5/31/2001 1:34:43 PM
I don't know, but I don't think it's terribly far off. China has three times the population and grows faster. PE should be able to answer. Intriguing how he popped out of the blue, wasn't it?
85. ElliottRW - 5/31/2001 1:36:22 PM
when China surpasses the US as the world's biggest economy...what [will that] do to American self-esteem?
Won't happen unless it happens soon. After about 2030, machines will trump people as producers and the U.S. will have an insurpassable lead. As for American self-esteem: it would be unaffected. The people who loved America because it was the most productive economy in the world learned their lesson in the 70's and 80's courtesy of Japan. Now they love America because of its bad-ass military.
86. Ronski - 5/31/2001 1:37:52 PM
I can't think of any ways that Japan's economic success hurt American self-esteem, except possibly for a handful of lunatics whose self-esteem was already well-compromised and who attacked Asians in bias cases.
87. PelleNilsson - 5/31/2001 1:39:35 PM
Indy
I must refrain from comment or be accused of turning this into a thread for domestic Swedish politics.
88. thoughtful - 5/31/2001 1:41:07 PM
Well, I thought about how much has changed in the last 20 years as a measure of how much things might change in the next 20 years. What a frightening revelation! 20 years ago:
o I was married to the same man I am today
o I was living in the same house I am today
o I was working in the same department of the same firm as I am today
o I was struggling with my weight, diet and exercise level as I do today
o I gardened, mowed lawn, split wood, watered and weeded plants just as I do today
o I spoke with my mother every day as I do today
o I had a cat, no children, a married brother and a nephew just as I do today.
o I have the same water pump, clothes dryer, toaster oven and kitchen cabinets.
o There hasn't been a day of TV listings without Lucy reruns on it.
In other words, much remains the same. In many respects, that is a good thing.
89. thoughtful - 5/31/2001 1:42:54 PM
Pelle, by my estimates if China & the US grow at the same rate as they have since 1980, China's GDP will get larger than the US in real terms in about 30 years.
90. thoughtful - 5/31/2001 1:43:15 PM
India will take much longer.
91. ElliottRW - 5/31/2001 1:45:14 PM
Pelle, if you turn this into a Swedish politics thread, I will be forced to do an imitatation of a performance of ritualistic suicide.
92. Indiana Jones - 5/31/2001 1:46:56 PM
Pelle: But at least it wouldn't be another discussion of US politics.
At one time, many believed the Soviet Union's economy would pass that of the US. And then of course there was the Japanese miracle economy.
Before China or India's economy could pass ours, the world economies would be so integrated as to make such discussions meaningless.
93. thoughtful - 5/31/2001 1:53:00 PM
So, for the next 20 years, I hope to be married to the same man, but living in a new house including anew water pump, clothes dryer, toaster oven and kitchen cabinets. I hope to be retired from the firm. I truly hope I am healthy enough to continue to struggle with my weight, diet and exercise and be able to do things like water plants, split wood, garden, etc. I will consider myself most fortunate if I am still able to talk to my mom on a daily basis, hope for a different cat, though the same brother, nephew.
However, I fear the only one I'll be able to count on with any certainty is that they will still be rerunning Lucy.
94. arheles - 5/31/2001 2:01:02 PM
Khaval of the Outback. Don't Israelis reject all things US, excepting currency and the occasional aliyah guilt expiating tourist? Ex religios conflictus, a novel based on this would certainly sell well. Why not write it and become a world famous author. Your knowledge of Israeli marriage dynamics is fascinating. How are you interested in this?
The Chinese people see Taiwan as a repatriation project. As long as that is true Taiwan is at risk. Period. How is dependent on circumstances. Not why.
Brazil was a gambit, a way to involve SA and further isolate the US. They're big and they're down there. For all I know they say pro-US novenas every night.
95. arheles - 5/31/2001 2:01:52 PM
MsIT, you're expressing the anti-Republican sentiment that helps prevent liberals from forming an affirmative politics. Whacko, schmako. I sneer at the VRWC liberal hype. Piffle. I conceded that the left is adentria generally. You elide my point about l v l. If you don't like what Siegel has to say about the left ask Gore.
96. arheles - 5/31/2001 2:06:21 PM
Pelle, US self-esteem is almost completely explained by US self-aborption. If China, or India ever 'overtake' the US economically it will be hardly noticed except by US politicos.
97. khaval alazman - 5/31/2001 2:10:48 PM
Arheles, I am the most urban of cow-girls to whom you're ever likely to post. To put me and the outback in the same sentence is truly bizarre.
And did you know that Australia is the most urbanised country on earth? All those Croc Dundee stereotypes are totally off base.
Also, in International thread, I've written at length about how very un-Australian I am. SO do not read my comments as in any way representative of Australian thinking.
And Israelis most certianly do NOT reject all things American. Every Israeli dreams of spending serious time in New York and LA. They watch the movies, listen to the music, take their cultural cues, and formulate their attitudes to the non-ME world according to US direction. America is adored in Israel, as a general rule.
I know about Israeli marriage because I have spent chunks of my life living in Israel and the majority of my family lives there. And my mother is writing a book about religos (though not Israelis) and she's already a world famous author, so I might have to forget about your suggestion :)
98. arheles - 5/31/2001 2:15:03 PM
Oooops! Hear me O Khaval. From this day on, I shall write no more on US politics in this thead. Forever.
99. thoughtful - 5/31/2001 2:27:39 PM
Interesting question will be the role of genetics and bioengineering over the next decades....will we be generating classes of people hybridized for specific tasks? Custom-ordering children as we do cars? Will having babies the old fashioned way become obsolete instead rearing fetuses in sterile environments with all the correct nutrition, immunities, and genes eliminating birth defects and genetic disorders? (Day care beginning at conception rather than birth?)
100. Fielding - 5/31/2001 2:29:09 PM
Mine.
101. JJBiener - 5/31/2001 2:53:10 PM
Thoughtful - I don't think we will ever see the Brave New World. It is waaaaay too much fun to make babies the old fashioned way. There is a biological imperative that I don't think technology can ever touch.
I also don't think mothers will give up being mothers and be satisfied being egg donors. Maternal and nesting instincts tend to be very strong.
I do believe that more and more birth defects will be detected early and in some cases corrected before birth. This is already being done to a limited extent. I think it become common and cover a wide range of defects.
102. Fielding - 5/31/2001 2:56:08 PM
I do believe that more and more birth defects will be detected early and in some cases corrected before birth.
And as a corrolary, people will determine their unborn child's gender, eyecolor, height and sexual orientation.
103. JJBiener - 5/31/2001 3:04:39 PM
Fielding - I disagree. Genetic manipulation implies artificial fertilization. Once a genetic sequence has been intiated, I don't think we will ever be able to change it successfully. I don't believe that people will ever accept and be comfortable with that level of manipulation in the mating process. It is very dehumanizing. The more we advance technologically, the more people will be drawn to natural methods. We have seen this over the last 25 years.
104. amax - 5/31/2001 3:06:02 PM
I'm pretty sceptical about self aware machines or self programming machines. It may happen, but it would take a breakthrough of a fairly high order for it to happen. More likely to dominate the tech agenda in the coming decade is, IMO, the biotech field. For instance, I expect the first generation of anti-aging drugs will go to clinical trials in about 10 years -- the demographic implications of that should stir up the wonkish crowd somewhat, not to mention the usual crowd of technology commentators...
105. thoughtful - 5/31/2001 3:07:45 PM
jj, there are some forces I see countering that:
o mothers are also very protective of their children and if test-tube conceptions or mechanical uteri present the best hope for healthier babies, mothers' will do it. For other mothers with fertility problems may find this their only alternative.
o mothers may be given no choice -- if the So. Carolina ruling maintains...the state will take fetuses away from mothers who drink, do drugs, have HIV, etc. etc.
o pregnancy is no lark and "mail order" babies if a safe and viable alternative may become popular among a certain types of woman: those with economic/business pressures who feel they can't afford pregnancy and/or those who, once they have the babies typically ship them off to the nanny/boarding school, etc. Sorta of the modern-day wet nurse approach.
106. amax - 5/31/2001 3:10:47 PM
PE, I recall the club of Rome's best case scenario involving depletion in 2020 -- that scenario assumed that the world would reduce demand for materials and scale back economic growth. Under their forecast of then-present trends, the world was supposed to hit a total resource depletion sometime in the mid 1990's. They had a sophisticated computer model that predicted this. The problem was in fact their assumptions, as I recall.
107. ElliottRW - 5/31/2001 3:12:15 PM
It is waaaaay too much fun to make babies the old fashioned way.
You mean it's fun to have sex. There is a difference.
108. JJBiener - 5/31/2001 3:13:31 PM
thoughtful - You make valid points. I don't dispute what you say. I agree that there will probably be a segment of the population that will choose that route. I have trouble believing that it would ever be more than a handful. I don't see that those things are strong enough to overcome biological imperatives and maternal instincts. Given the choice of biology or technology, I will go with biology every time.
109. JJBiener - 5/31/2001 3:17:48 PM
amax - You mean it's fun to have sex. There is a difference.
No, I meant what I said. Yes, sex is great fun. However, when you are having sex with someone you love and you are creating a child in the process, the act takes on much greater significance. I don't think most humans will ever give that up.
110. labwabbit - 5/31/2001 3:19:51 PM
There is an old saying, "...you can never lose a wife, you just lose your turn."
Must have been the postman's turn Elliot?
111. JJBiener - 5/31/2001 3:23:00 PM
lab - I loved your predictions. Why no prediction for me?
112. PelleNilsson - 5/31/2001 3:37:09 PM
amax
I assume your last was directed at me, but please don't use "PE", which usually stands for pseudoerasmus.
The most serious flaws in the Club of Rome study was assuming that
113. thoughtful - 5/31/2001 3:41:40 PM
jj, you may be right as there are some women who feel if they've had to have a c-section, they haven't really given birth!
114. labwabbit - 5/31/2001 3:43:18 PM
Ran out of time JJ. Usually I get 15 mins of uninterrupted time first thing in the morn and sometimes use it to post. Sometimes it is actually a complete sentence.
The rest of the day is crash/slash, bob and weave.
I began more predicts this morning but had no chance after replying to someone's counter-point. I predict more to come...(you know absurdity is never far away when I come to play)
115. thoughtful - 5/31/2001 3:47:04 PM
jj, having sex to make a baby is something many couples are already forced to give up due to fertility issues...and that is something entirely different from carrying for 9 mos with associated nausea, pain, swelling, physical deformities, frequent urination, painful breasts, heart burn, hemmorhoids (?) not to mention the "joy" of the equivalent of passing an 8-10 lb. ham!
Further, I've known of several women who suffered the heartbreak of miscarriage multiple times. If there were a technical solution that allowed the baby to reach full term, I'm sure they'd go for it in a NY minute.
116. arheles - 5/31/2001 3:48:36 PM
Amax/Pelle aren't COR types stopped at the gate since non-linear processes can't be modelled with linear methods? I don't know why this isn't pointed out in the global warming debate.
117. ElliottRW - 5/31/2001 3:52:35 PM
Must have been the postman's turn Elliot? If you're accusing me of being a cuckold you can take it to the Inferno. I personally don't think that cuckoldry is a laughing matter. Just thinking about it gets my dander up. My comment was an allusion to the discomfort, pain, and risks of pregnancy, not the participants.
118. labwabbit - 5/31/2001 3:54:32 PM
I personally don't think that cuckoldry is a laughing matter.
I understand.
119. CalGal - 5/31/2001 4:00:43 PM
Re babies: at a certain point, insurance will step into the picture. It's dangerous to have a baby, and if test tubes can eliminate the risk of costly medical procedures--to say nothing of an unintrusive way of guaranteeing a better percentage of results--then that is what will happen.
120. MsIvoryTower - 5/31/2001 4:08:04 PM
MsIT, you're expressing the anti-Republican sentiment that helps prevent liberals from forming an affirmative politics.
So sayeth you. Actually, I'm not anti-Republican at all, only ant-extremist, in any form.
Et al.
I was thinking about transportation issues. How are those likely to change?
I can't see much improvement in jet travel in the next 25 years. Maybe incremental improvements in speed, but not anything spectacular to wow us from our budding 21st century myopia.
121. MsIvoryTower - 5/31/2001 4:16:42 PM
What about cloning? Where will we be on that issue?
I tend to agree with amax that the most progress will be made in the biotech field, and particularly in medicine.
122. thoughtful - 5/31/2001 4:17:34 PM
MsIT, if oil/energy prices keep rising we can expect to see big improvements in fuel efficiency and maybe technology related to that at least for autos. However, for air travel, I suspect few technical "wows" as they are very expensive to develop and I would suspect RPMs (revenue passenger miles) growth to slow as much business travel and perhaps even recreational travel will be replaced with "virtual" visits.
123. Wombat - 5/31/2001 4:20:35 PM
MsIt:
Dramatic increases in airplane capacity (seen the latest Airbus?) will--theoretically--lower costs.
Maglev trains?
Hybrid autos become common. Fuel cell autos are introduced.
124. MsIvoryTower - 5/31/2001 4:22:12 PM
Thoughtful
Yes, fuel efficiency should drive some significant changes in ground transportation. Perhaps we'll really get that electic automobile after all.
We agree on air travel, but I'm hoping that virtual visits don't replace actual physical travel, the thought brings forth images of drone-like sci-fi scenes.
We go to some virtual center, lay down and go into a coma for two weeks. Ugh. No thanks.
125. MsIvoryTower - 5/31/2001 4:23:43 PM
Wombat
Airbus's? I already feel like a piece of cattle when traveling by air, this should certainly cement the experience.
126. MsIvoryTower - 5/31/2001 4:24:05 PM
that's airbusses....
127. thoughtful - 5/31/2001 4:25:18 PM
Not that....I had more in mind sparing the entire family from having to blow a whole February vacation to fly/drive to visit Old Aunt Sadie with the clacking dentures who smells funny, can't hear, and gives very sloppy, wet kisses. A virtual visit has its advantages...unless you want to spend a week beaching in the caribbean!
128. CalGal - 5/31/2001 4:31:36 PM
Ace and I once were talking--I forget which thread--about why it is that science fiction scenarios from 50 years ago are so off base. But in reality, they are pretty close in a lot of areas--medicine, computers, even gender equality. Except transportation. We haven't been able to move off our reliance on fossil fuel in any meaningful way.
129. MsIvoryTower - 5/31/2001 4:36:51 PM
By the way khaval
Is this going to be just another international thread? If so, then it should simply be a sub-topic of the main international thread.
If we can't talk about US politics while we can talk about other countries, then I'd say you have an imbalanced perception of what is acceptable.
130. janjon - 5/31/2001 4:44:18 PM
In some ways, commerical air travel will regress from what it achieved in the late 20th century.
Oh sure, there will soon be even larger cattle-cars-in-the-sky, and they no doubt will come with little shopping malls on a lower level, a soda fountain, etc.
But - once the remaining Concordes go, when will there ever be another commercial SST?
131. CalGal - 5/31/2001 6:23:46 PM
No, I don't think so.
But why is it we never progressed all that much on fuels, I wonder? Is it because nuclear technology was so unpopular? (although it is coming back).
132. janjon - 5/31/2001 6:35:08 PM
I think we've not progressed as far as we should in terms of alternative or synthetic fuels (as compared to oil or even coal) because we Americans have not yet bought into the idea that supplies of the fossil fuels not only are indeed finite per se but also that there may be prices too high (environmental damage, etc.) to extract some of that which exists.
We are still beholden to this concept that we Americans are somehow entitled to our cheap gas.
I mean, I could perhaps go along with this crap that Cheney and others are now spouting about upholding the AMERICAN LIFE STYLE if - and only if - that was coupled with an allout effort to put together a truly farreaching energy policy instead of one that is so clearly dedicated to principally coming up with new supplies of fossil fuels.
There also is undue faith in American ingenuity. I think it was concerned who said some time ago words to the effect that heck what's the big deal in terms of using up our oil supply, when it becomes apparent that we are running out we'll invent something to take its place.
Right.
133. CalGal - 5/31/2001 6:53:11 PM
instead of one that is so clearly dedicated to principally coming up with new supplies of fossil fuels.
Yes, I agree with this, and it doesn't have anything to do with which party is in power.
I am, in fact, one of those who believes we'll come up with something else. The problem is, though, that the less time we have, the less likely it is that our solution will be palatable and cheap.
I just remember when I was a kid, there were Disney special interest (or maybe it was Woody Woodpecker) cartoons about the marvels of atomic energy, and how soon our homes would be powered by them for nearly free. Now we watch those and snicker. But when will we have cheap and easily acquired energy? Who is looking for it?
134. joezan - 5/31/2001 11:30:29 PM
I believe that the problems associated with fossil fuels will reach critical mass long before we have developed any viable alternative. At that point, we will be left three choices; increase oil exploration efforts, go nuclear, or decrease the amount of time we spend driving.
One of the promises of the computer age which has never lived up to its full potential (mainly, I believe, because of our refusal to significantly reduce our dependence on fossil fuels), is that much - if not most - of our work would be accomplished from our homes. This to me is the solution that makes the most sense, especially when you consider all the birds that could be killed with this one stone.
135. khaval alazman - 5/31/2001 11:32:43 PM
MsIvoryTower, I do not think you are being fair.
This is very far from being an International thread duplicate, with discussions of technology and medicine prominent.
My sphere of knowledge does not incorporate info/bio-tech, so I do not feel qualified to make pronouncements on the issues. I am, however, fascinated to read other posters' predictions on the issues.
To discourage discussion of American politics in general would be unreasonable, and I have never done such a thing. Indeed, I previously wrote that no analysis of the future could exclude such discussion.
What I was requesting was simply that this thread did not totally degenerate into more of the highly partisan Democrat/Republican bickering that can be seen in a number of other threads already.
And it is not reasonable to draw an analogy with International's possible duplication. If we are talking about the future of "the world", we are compelled to discuss the nature of of nation states other than America (as well as America), along with discussions of info/bio-tech. It is not reasonable to expect this discussion to avoid looking at future world structures.
All I am asking is that discussions of AMerica occur in a more global context, because there is ample opportunity for the exploration of the minutiae of Americana elsewhere, whereas similar opportunity for other countries does not exist.
136. MsIvoryTower - 5/31/2001 11:39:56 PM
MsIvoryTower, I do not think you are being fair.
I think I was being as fair as you were in prejudging a conversation before it even got off the ground.
Someone made a prediction. I disagreed for the reasons stated. Before the conversation even went into a tailspin about "insular" american politics you made your comment.
I simply want to know, what are the rules of this thread? Are we to avoid any predictions about american political parties?
Can someone make a prediction but then we're not supposed to respond?
What precisely will qualify as derailing the conversation and pulling it into "just another discussion of american politics"?
137. khaval alazman - 6/1/2001 12:10:34 AM
Oh honestly, MsIvoryTower!
You can't be serious.
If you want "rules", I am afraid you will be disappointed.
I stated quite clearly that I will not be removing American politics posts (I doubt I'll remove any posts), and simply expressed a strong preference that this did not become an Amercan politics obscurantist's thread.
This request is fair enough. If you expect me to don the jackboots and begin wielding the delete button in a manner that will induce off-topic conflagration, again, I am terribly sorry to disappoint.
Here is a prediction: I will not continue this discussion with you.
138. angel-five - 6/1/2001 12:36:26 AM
A prediction: European energy consortiums are going to get a tremendous leap on American ones in the field of alternative sources of energy -- that is to say, more of one than they have now. One that is going to be VERY noticeable in the American economy once fossil fuels go south on us completely. Why? Because there is much less pressure here in America to develop those sources of energy.
139. angel-five - 6/1/2001 12:41:42 AM
Another prediction: Elective gene induction therapy -- not medical gene therapy, but the transgenic enhancement of human tissue and organs -- will be available in ten years to a significant percentage of the population. This isn't really a prediction know, because it is possible now.
140. angel-five - 6/1/2001 12:44:55 AM
A third prediction: We will have sufficient technology placed in orbit (or on the moon) within ten to fifteen years to find oxygen-rich planets in orbit around other stars.
This is, btw, near-universally accepted as proof that life exists on the planet in question.
We will find O2-rich planets. And reaching them will be the cause celebre among scientists and cognoscenti that SETI currently is now.
141. angel-five - 6/1/2001 12:57:42 AM
Human babies will be born from genetically enhanced sperm and ova. These children will probably be notable for growing up to lead tragic lives because of all the bewildering attention they will get. The ones who come out best won't learn about it until they're in their twenties. The ones who get the best genes will probably, however, figure it out early on. There will be psych people who specialize in treating these children, as a result.
142. arheles - 6/1/2001 1:12:47 AM
US feminism will continue to decline chiefly due to an inablility of the movement to produce the next generation of leaders.
143. arheles - 6/1/2001 1:13:33 AM
The left will never get past their contempt for bourgeoisie values, dooming their project of principled criticism of society. They will turn to comedy writing for a living making us all laugh while inside they weep.
144. arheles - 6/1/2001 1:13:56 AM
Lit Critters will be as rare in 2100 as classical Greek scholars are today.
145. arheles - 6/1/2001 1:14:38 AM
Seduced into making scientific arguments by the global warming issue, environmentalists open themselves up to rational argument and are crushed. They should have stuck with perfectly useful pseudo-religious principles. Having Barney tell small children that the earth is a sacred entity was their best long term strategy.
146. arheles - 6/1/2001 1:18:40 AM
I will own an F-15 fighter jet. IwillIwillIwill.
147. stostosto - 6/1/2001 6:13:55 AM
80. PelleNilsson - 5/31/01 6:21:04 PM
An interesting point in the future will be when China surpasses the US as the world's biggest economy, to be followed by India. I wonder what that will do to American self-esteem?
It depends on two things: The initial GDPs of the two economies, and the assumed future average annual growth rates.
The formula can be written thus:
x = [ln(a)-ln(b)]/[ln(ib)-ln(ia)],
where
x: the number of years until catch-up
a: GDP today for country a
b: GDP today for country b
ia: assumed future average annual growth rate for country a
ib: assumed future average annual growth rate for country b
The World Development Report 2000/2001 gives the GDP for USA (a) for 1999 as $8,351.0bn; China's (b) put at $980.2bn.
Assuming US growth (ia) at 2% (ia=1.02), and Chinese growht at 7% (ib=1.07), x is 44.8 years.
Note that this is GDP at current exchange rate. If we use the so-called Purchasing Power Parity exchange rate, China's GDP is much larger, at $4,112. If this is taken as the starting point, assuming the same growth pattern, China will overtake the USA in 14.8 years.
148. stostosto - 6/1/2001 6:20:24 AM
Of course, you can try for yourself with different values of a, b, ia, and ib.
Here are some alternatives copied from a spread sheet I made:
a 8351 8351 8351 8351 8351
b 980,2 4112 980,2 980,2 980,2
ia 1,02 1,02 1,02 1,015 1,03
ib 1,07 1,07 1,05 1,1 1,07
x 44,7 14,8 73,9 26,6 56,2
149. stostosto - 6/1/2001 6:21:13 AM
Ack, that didn't come out very elegantly. But I am not going to take the time to do a neat table. Sorry.
150. stostosto - 6/1/2001 6:22:08 AM
FWIW, I think GDP at current exchange rate is the better indicator for this type of calculations.
151. MsIvoryTower - 6/1/2001 9:05:27 AM
khaval
You're right, I was misdirected in my comments. I went back and saw that it was Pelle who was so quick to whine about a few comments directed at an American prediction. You then voiced your request that it not be turned into another american politics thread.
I simply note that there have been several posts about the political futures of other countries, so why the knee-jerk anti-american mantra?
I could, of course, whine about how international is simply a pseudonym for Israeli politics, but that would be petty, wouldn't it.
And I've been engaged in a small battle regarding host duties and powers, and my comment about you defining the rules was directed as much at that conversation as this thread.
In any case, I'm tired of the different rules for the different threads, and what is or isn't an appropriate topic for discussion.
Here's my prediction.
This site will implode within a year if it doesn't become more interesting and open to free-flowing discussions.
Here's another one.
I predict the thread hosts will begin establishing their own mercenaries, so that they can "take over" the territories of the other hosts: all for the sake of expanding their power base.
Maybe they'll be in the form of kamakazi posters, whose mission will be to go in and ruin a competitor's thread. Maybe they'll be in the form of sweet, inane, little posters, who will kill the other threads by their banalities.
It could happen.....
And feel free to move, delete or otherwise rail against this admittedly off-topic little tirade.
152. MsIvoryTower - 6/1/2001 9:05:55 AM
toys
154. pseudoerasmus - 6/1/2001 9:18:54 AM
Message # 112
Smelle Nipson said:
The most serious flaws in the Club of Rome study was assuming that * World population will continue to grow exponentially. * Food production is directly proportional to the area under cultivation. * Pollution is directly proportional to industrial production
But you forgot the most elementary flaw: the assumption that households and firms would not change their behaviour in response to changing market prices of raw materials. For example, it was assumed that a fixed amount of natural resources was required for each unit of output produced by the economy. Therefore increasing production was assumed to put increasing strains on the world's resources. But that's true neither theoretically nor empirically. We know from various OPEC crises that the principal response of the world to high energy prices was to retrench on the consumption of oil. CoR models, in effect, denied the rationing role of prices.
155. pseudoerasmus - 6/1/2001 9:26:18 AM
I suppose that's not the most elementary. Assuming a constant agricultural productivity, failure to notice that birth rates have declined with affluence, and assuming that pollution levels do not vary with technological innovation --these, mentioned by Pelle, are also pretty elementary flaws.
156. khaval alazman - 6/3/2001 12:19:50 AM
MsIvoryTower said:
Here's my prediction.
This site will implode within a year if it doesn't become more interesting and open to free-flowing discussions.
Good God! Should this thread survive for a year, I would be both surprised and pleased.
The thread idea was something of a selfish enteprise: I love prognostication in any sphere; I am impressed by the breadth and depth of knowledge of many of the posters on this forum, and want to pick their brains; it's nice to have my own fantasies about the future argued with and challenged by informed people.
For as long as it survives, I'll consider the whole exercise a wonderful diversion and something of a privilege.
MsIvoryTower also said:
Here's another one.
I predict the thread hosts will begin establishing their own mercenaries, so that they can "take over" the territories of the other hosts: all for the sake of expanding their power base.
Maybe they'll be in the form of kamakazi posters, whose mission will be to go in and ruin a competitor's thread. Maybe they'll be in the form of sweet, inane, little posters, who will kill the other threads by their banalities.
It could happen.....
*LOL* I like this prediction very much. Indeed, if there is enough support, I sill set up a sub-thread in which we can plan (hypothetically, of course), the violent overthrow of other threads' leadership. Or perhaps, it might be nice to set up a simulation sub-thread in which each poster represents a nation state or a faction within a nation state. We could have a scenario such as, "In 2020, President X decides it's time to invade X". Each representative would respond to the scenario as he/she sees fit.
We'll see if anyone bites.
157. khaval alazman - 6/3/2001 12:21:29 AM
Bugger. Toys
158. khaval alazman - 6/3/2001 12:22:12 AM
How do you stop this monster?
159. khaval alazman - 6/3/2001 12:22:30 AM
Phew.
160. angel-five - 6/3/2001 12:47:36 AM
Well, MSIT is cheating. Something like that has happened more than once in this community and the Fray before it, so it hardly smacks of Nostradamus to say it might happen again.
161. khaval alazman - 6/3/2001 3:36:05 AM
ARheles, you've written more really interesting stuff to which I'd like to respond:
142. arheles - 6/1/01 6:12:47 AM
US feminism will continue to decline chiefly due to an inablility of the movement to produce the next generation of leaders.
Arheles, I don't think it's just US feminism that is in decline. In all Anglo countries, there is a crisis. I also think that it is too simplistic to blame this decline on a failure of leadership. Why is there such a failure?
1) Feminism has been hijacked by the lunar left and is only countered by rdiculous right - there is no centre to which women who do not subscribe to ideological strictures within "mainstream" (read: campus) feminism might gravitate;
There is no place beyond the narrow discourses of the Dworkian/MacKinnonesque neo-Victoriana, unless one decides to abrogate all conventional feminist thought (and thought in general) in turning to the Paglia camp.
The only feminist academic who doesn't make me want to hurl because of rape/penetration fetish (Dworkin/MacKinnon), or idiotic, intellectually flacid post-modern drivel (Paglia), is Katie Roiphe. Her attack on the prudery underpinning the date-rape hysterics, while repudiating the "well, women should just be tough and who's to say that we are not all Venus anyway" idocy of Paglia is exhilarating.
But one writer does not a movement make. Indeed, Roiphe is not embraced as a fresh, young academic, pushing the boundaries of a stale ideology. Instead, Roiphe is castigated, excoriated, adn reviled by almost all "conventional" feminists.
This inability to countenancne dissent and the refusal to allow injections of original thought is deadly to any movement. Cannibilising all newness ensures the stagnation of feminist thought.
cont....
162. khaval alazman - 6/3/2001 3:38:58 AM
...cont.
2) There is a crisis of meaning;
While MacKinnon is wetting herself over porn, and Dworkin is doing her bit for penetration theory, it emerges that "representations" of women have become more important than the women themselves.
Feminism is perhaps the best example of the mindless destruction that post-modernism wreaks on analysis.
It is an abomination to run around screaming: "PORN = RAPE" when, in certain places, forms of rape are sanctioned by law (and pornography is almost non-existent, BTW), in which women's clitorises are being sliced off, in which women are beaten legally, in which women are enslaved. The navel gazing which characterises ANglofeminism is nothing short of an abomination when there is a whole world of genuine abuse against women, and few champions with limited resources are waging an impossible battle.
Again, Po-Mo raises its pustular, suppurating head - this time, in the guise of cultural relativism. Well, say many of these feminists, it's not for us to dictate how or when a woman's clitoris is hacked through with a piece of glass or a rusty razor. That would be cultural imperialism.
That leaves feminism reduced to battles over body hair and pornography. I'd call this a crisis of meaning.
3) There is an alienation of young women
A crisis of meaning is hardly the thing to attract a new generation to the cause. Also, because we have grown up in relatively liberated circs, we cannot get excited about wearing ugly clothes and seeing men as the enemy. To what end might a young woman become a feminist? You will find that on all the campuses in Australia, feminist clubs are almost synonymous with lesbian clubs.
cont....
163. khaval alazman - 6/3/2001 3:39:27 AM
...cont.
If we are not lesbian and refuse to submit to penetration theory, and if we find the Paglia alternative offensively idiotic, where to?
4) The refusal to cast men as the enemy
The biggest downfall of a feminism which refuses to modernise, is the casting of all men in an adversarial role. To most young women, this is no longer acceptable, even if it may once have been necessary.
143. arheles - 6/1/01 6:13:33 AM
The left will never get past their contempt for bourgeoisie values, dooming their project of principled criticism of society. They will turn to comedy writing for a living making us all laugh while inside they weep.
You're a genius! :)
But also, the left is doomed by its internal theoretical inconsistencies, its inability to accept that ideology does not make for good economics, and that a large, productive and affluent bourgeoise is the greatest bulwark against tyranny through its contribution to liberal politics and to the maintenance of a healthy economy.
144. arheles - 6/1/01 6:13:56 AM
Lit Critters will be as rare in 2100 as classical Greek scholars are today.
From your mouth to God's ears.
164. joezan - 6/3/2001 11:22:14 AM
Khaval:
Please delete my post 153. It should not have been posted here.
Thanks
165. khaval alazman - 6/3/2001 2:20:46 PM
OK, Joezan
166. stostosto - 6/3/2001 5:49:48 PM
I have a question.
What will be considered 'natural' in the future? It seems to me what is 'natural' to us humans is frequently a matter of legitimising social behaviour and social structures. And when these change, there will be a pressure for changing the perception of what is 'natural'.
For instance, the big objection to gene modicfication technology is, arguably, that this is not natural. It's human interference with nature in an artificial way. Of course, humans have been interfering with nature in all sorts of ways for thousands of years, but we're sort of used to the old ways, so they have become 'natural'. But don't paradigms change when it's socially expedient, not just when it's scientifically necessary?
Example: Fetal screening? Will it be considered 'natural' in the future to have examined the genetic makeup of your fetus in order to determine whether to have an abortion or not?
Will it be natural to have specific genes selected in order to secure specific characteristics for your off-spring?
Will it be considered 'natural' to use brain enhancing drugs that might be available in the future? (You might ask, will refraining be a viable option?)
Etc...
167. JudithAtHome - 6/3/2001 6:26:29 PM
Once we kill off all the natural food, will artificially engineered food become "natural"?
168. stostosto - 6/3/2001 6:33:02 PM
Judith,
I don't doubt it - and that's my point exactly.
169. angel-five - 6/3/2001 9:34:00 PM
I suppose it boils down to what you consider 'natural'. There are enough different folk definitions of 'natural' to bedevil the point. And Sto has so far mentioned two fields where the question 'What is natural?' applies, two different fields, moreover, in which different ideas of what is 'natural' obtain.
I think in the field of foodstuffs there will always be the notion that some foods are natural and others not. We've even appropriated other words, like 'organic' or 'whole', to designate what used to be considered 'natural' and an entire industry (paradoxically enough) has sprung up around these kinds of foods. There is a similar trend in horticulture and gardening, where 'heirloom' cultivars are often preferred to hybridized or modified plants. A smaller but still thriving industry has sprung up around providing these 'threatened' cultivars to those people who prefer their plants to come without the aura of laboratory alteration. That suggests to me that there is enough interest in preserving 'natural' foods, at least to those wealthy enough to consume them, for 'natural' food to stick around.
This doesn't mean that GM food will always have the aura of Frankensteinian tinkering around them, because I expect that people will rapidly become accustomed to them once they get over their untutored fears. The rate at which they get over their fear will also depend on prices and economic necessity in each individual case. But I think there's always going to be a demand for 'purer' foods.
170. angel-five - 6/3/2001 9:34:15 PM
WRT the other field Sto mentions -- medicine -- I expect humanity will get over their fear of new technology pretty rapidly. Modern medicine, after all, is hardly 'natural' in the first place. While there is some demand for more 'natural' forms of healing or improvement of the human lot in life, as in 'homeopathic' medicine or healing, modern medicine is so much more efficacious in general that homeopathy will never really capture enough of the market to be a factor.
Surely, there will continue to be medicines and cures and whatnot which have a certain cachet because they are touted as 'natural' and therefore somehow 'better' -- look at the massive market in herbal medicines such as St. John's Wort and gingko biloba, and those horrible tasting Ricola cough drops. These are, however, remedies that people turn to when they have the luxury of choice. When it's a serious medical matter they tend to worry less about how 'natural and wholesome' a medicine is and more about whether or not it's going to save their life or ease their condition.
171. angel-five - 6/3/2001 9:35:17 PM
It's sort of amusing to consider that in the future, only the very rich and the very poor may end up eating 'natural food' -- the rich out of preference and the poor rural folk out of economic necessity.
172. MsIvoryTower - 6/3/2001 11:08:21 PM
The navel gazing which characterises ANglofeminism is nothing short of an abomination when there is a whole world of genuine abuse against women, and few champions with limited resources are waging an impossible battle.
Not that I don't agree with your analysis, but you are aware aren't you that Anglo (specifically American) feminists have been soundly routed by third world feminists for imposing their values regarding women, women's rights, and what is or isn't oppressive onto them. I believe the most public of the chastizing was at the 1976 World Conference (or something).
So while I don't keep track of feminist theory, I'm not the least bit surprised that anglo feminists (again read american) stay away from critiquing women's lives in other countries.
173. MsIvoryTower - 6/3/2001 11:13:00 PM
And please don't jump down my throat for using the term "third world", if it offends anyone, just substitute "developing".....
Sto
I suspect that in America, we will eventually adopt any means technologically available to enhance our own lives (physically) and/or the lives of our offspring; particularly if it means obtaining a competitive edge over others.
174. MsIvoryTower - 6/3/2001 11:17:10 PM
Sto,
To clarify: the concept of natural will adapt to whatever meaning is most beneficial to soothing the american psyche while at the same time allowing us to take full advantage of bio-tech and medical advances that improve our physical, mental and economic capabilities.
175. khaval alazman - 6/3/2001 11:29:50 PM
Aytchman, I really like your #171.
And I think it demonstrates one component of what has and will determine what is "natural".
The term (natural)is so culturally laden. It is almost meaningless as an objective designation. It finds its use in dichotomising and binary opposition which serve four purposes (often in combination): political/economic, control, conservative, religious.
natural/artificial:
.organic/gm modified
.herbal remedies/synthetic medicine
.infanticide/foetal screening
.homesexuality/heterosexuality
All four of these binary opposites are problematic and are prone to definitional dispute, existing in a highly politicised context, ie. gentically manipulated vs. non-naipulated, processed herbal remedies (containing synthetic components) vs munching on the hypericum plant itself, penicilin vs tamoxifan, primitive agriculture utilising GM seeds vs. intesive agriculture without GM seeds, pederasty vs. loving homosexual relationship (LHR), rape vs. lvong heterosexual relationship.
cont....
176. khaval alazman - 6/3/2001 11:31:04 PM
...cont.
These are only a tiny number of the variations within the categories, and what they demonstrate is the ability to reduce all human endeavour/behaviour/production, via this process of binary opposition, to the distinction between primitive v. non-primitive. Its logical conclusion is hunter gatherer vs. urban citizen.
This is not, however, the definition by which most people (excluding wacko feral types) approach the "natural" designation. What people mean by natural is, "something which seems basic".
Now, I'm stating the bleeding obvious when I write that what is basic to me is not basic to you. It is basic to me that women should keep the hair under their arms - to me, this is "natural". To you, probably, this is not "natural"(although it is the primitive state. "Natural" to you is bald armpits. "Natural" to both of us in this context is simply a pseudo-objective way of saying, "normal".
"natural" and "normal" are designations which are conservatism's best friend (and I am NOT using "conservative" in the party-political sense).
cont....
177. khaval alazman - 6/3/2001 11:32:30 PM
...cont.
It suits a conservative to call GM food unnatural while muching a nectarine. The nectarine is an "unanatural" fruit. It is a hybrid. Indeed, almost none of the fresh food we eat in any ways resembles the wild ancestors from which they originate. They have been "genetically manipulated" over the past 10,000 years - selecting for size, taste, and in some cases, poison (absence of). The only appreciable differences between GM and the domestication process are speed of change, and the class of person responsible for the manipulation.
Whereas 10,000 years ago, the consumer was usually the producer who had been selecting for favourable characteristics, today, there is a massive gap in the production chain between producer and consumer.
I think it's this gap which raises the ire of anti-GMers so. They feel that they don't know what 's in their food - a very primitive fear. The primitivism of this fear is expressed in their terminology - "Frankenstein Food" - lifted directly from that bastion of logic and rigorous fact-checking, the British tabloids.
As for natural medicine, again, the "natural" designation is in no way based in logic, but deals with the primitive fear that in taking synthetic drugs, one cannot self prescribe, one does not really know what's going on, and one feels a lack of control.
To support this, first think of the composition of a basic antibiotic: penicillin, a doctor prescribed drug, and probably not considered "natural" despite the obvious.
Now take a look at the ingredients in my "natural remedy" snot preventer, Echinacea: echinacea, betacarotene, ascorbic acid, calcium panthonenate, pyrydoxine hydrochloride, d-alpha-tocopheryl acid, zinc amoni acid cholate.
cont....
178. CalGal - 6/3/2001 11:33:27 PM
I'm not sure what the feminism discussion is doing in this thread, but I think the single biggest failure of feminism in Western countries is that it has become synonomous with what women want. As if women couldn't be self interested slobs who cheerfully accept equal pay while also being held less responsible for their families, or think that they should get equal opportunities in the military but not have to meet the same standards, or have the right to abort a child but not give the man the same right (a "paper" abortion). NOW was losing membership in the 80s until they realized that they were, and had always been, a special interest group for their members and that any definition of "feminism" better be exactly what the membership said it was.
Likewise, Western feminists bend over backwards to avoid offending those women in developing countries who angrily resist the notion that slicing a clitoris off with a piece of glass is barbaric and demand that we all "tolerate" their culture.
Feminism is, or should be, about the equal rights and responsibilities of women. The fact that many women don't want true equality is, or should be, irrelevant. If only there were someone who could fund the effort, blithely unconcerned about the wailings of the sisterhood who like all the cake they've had for the past 30 years.
Which leads me to an improbable but delightful prediction for the future: that the final steps towards equal rights for women will be initiated by court cases and new laws demanded by men.
179. khaval alazman - 6/3/2001 11:33:56 PM
...cont.
All of this stuff is contained in a small pill. Now I'd get most of this stuff just by eating fruit&veg, but there is no one food in which all of these ingredients are combined "naturally", and it must be less natural to take this pill than to eat those foods and suck on an echinacea root.
But this pill is preferable to antibiotics to many, not because of medical concerns about anti-biotics resistence, but because it is "natural" and can therefore be self-prescribed - giving the illusion of control.
Another screech fest occurs over the topic of foetal screening. What is rarely discussed is how common throughout human history - how natural -infanticide has been. A lame baby, an unwanted baby, or a baby of the wrong gender (where such a baby endangers the family's food production, wealth, or status) has rarely had the chance until recently to live to adulthood.
The "naturalness" of such behaviour is utterly ignored when its far less barbaric logical descendant, foetal screening, comes under attack. Humans have always selected for an absence of "damaging" traits in offspring. When foetal screening is decried for its opposition to nature, we often forget how natural infanticide used to be and, in some areas, still is.
It is far less natural (in the literal sense) to stick a premature baby into an incubator than it is to leave it to perish outdoors. The latter, however, is repugnant to us. It has BECOME natural to use technology to save the life of a baby, and UNnatural to leave it to die on a hilltop.
If such life saving intervention - such unnaturalness - can become natural, then why not preventative screening as well?
cont....
180. khaval alazman - 6/3/2001 11:34:27 PM
...cont.
The last opposition is homo/heterosexuality. The 2 most oft-used arguments by those opposing gay rights is that homosexuality is unnatural both in the reproductive sense and in the biblical sense.
It is a truism that two homosexuals will not be able to reproduce with each other. So what? An infertile couple cannot reproduce. Is their union unnatural?
Homosexuality is prevalent in other species. In the "primitive" sense, homosexuality is entirely natural.
That the bible designates homosexuality as unnanatural is also a truism. But biblically, woman-superior sex is also unnatural, slavery is natural, pig eating is unnatural, and polygamy is natural.
Obviously, in the West, we do not take much of what is designated "natural" in the bible as truly natural. Even the most fundamentalist Christian will not admit to condoning slavery (despite the Bible's assent to such behaviour), or that women on top during sex are sick, but not as sick as the man underneath her.
In itself, the term "natural" has neither typological nor theoretical consistency.
Essentially "natural" is the designation used to protect a desirable status quo, an excuse for oppression, and the expression of an opposition to powerlessness.
181. MsIvoryTower - 6/3/2001 11:36:49 PM
Likewise, Western feminists bend over backwards to avoid offending those women in developing countries who angrily resist the notion that slicing a clitoris off with a piece of glass is barbaric and demand that we all "tolerate" their culture.
Well, yeah, that's what I was getting at in my initial comment.
Which leads me to an improbable but delightful prediction for the future: that the final steps towards equal rights for women will be initiated by court cases and new laws demanded by men.
This is already underway in the US. It won't be much longer till we get to the hardcore issues, either.
182. khaval alazman - 6/3/2001 11:46:02 PM
Ms.IT, I wouldn't jump down anyone's throat for using the term, "third world". That sort of PC induced obsessive compulsive behaviour - the concentration on irrelevant minutiae to the detriment of the "issues - is exactly that for which I castigate Anglo feminists.
As for the third world getting upset with "cultural imperialism" of first world feminists, I think this is a perfect example of what I am talking about.
Feminist activity which gives concrete assistance to poverty alleviation, the building of crisis centres and attendant infrastructure, and joint efforts with third world feminists to ameliorate women's political situations have NEVER been criticised and hopefully never will.
The anger stems from western masturbation which obsesses over "representation", and the ignorance displayed by most Anglo feminists of the history, economics, politics and culture of the society's which they are critiquing.
Both these "sins" are the direct results of the Agnglo feminist unwillingness to collaborate as opposed to dictating what are ultimately useless exercises in theoretical idiocy.
183. CalGal - 6/4/2001 12:06:17 AM
Ms,
I should have referenced that it was your comment. My focus was that Western feminists don't stare these reactionary freaks down and say, "Fuck you, it's torture" but rather fall meekly back on "well, it's what they want". After all, feminists here in the US use what the majority of women want as a definition of their goals all the time, so what on earth would make them suddenly start being more absolute in their standards? The only absolute in feminism doctrine is the evil of the patriarchy. Everything else bends and stretches to the interests of fundraising.
This is already underway in the US. It won't be much longer till we get to the hardcore issues, either.
What do you see as the hardcore issues? I eagerly await the first real debate on "paper" abortions. The laws and policies all declare a man financially responsible for the children of pregnancies he participated in, whether he consented or not to be a parent. Give a man the same ability to opt out of parenthood that a woman has, and the justification for AFDC from birth as well as a fair amount of child support battles goes right out the window. (which is why society won't be thrilled with the idea)
Divorce laws are already equalizing, but I really feel they have a long way to go. I don't see equal rights and responsibilities in the military coming along any time soon. I'm so tired of hearing that the nation "isn't ready" for women to come home in body bags; as the mother of a son my response is the nation can go fuck themselves for devaluing men.
There are so many little ways in which women are marginalized, but I think all the major laws and policies that institutionalize inequality involve pregnancy and children. Which of course also involves money.
184. MsIvoryTower - 6/4/2001 12:07:48 AM
Both these "sins" are the direct results of the Agnglo feminist unwillingness to collaborate as opposed to dictating what are ultimately useless exercises in theoretical idiocy.
Undoubtedly this was the source of the challenge to western feminists by women in developing countries in the 1970's, I think it inaccurate to speak of it as the current state of affairs.
Calgal's comment is probably more accurate, that western feminists bend over backwards to accomodate third world feminists. The problem, of course, is that third world feminists still want resources (money) without strings, and that is certainly not going to happen in the US.
Women in the US would simply not support organizations that funnel resources into countries that do nothing to address the quite real problems you identified earlier: slavery, legal rape, clitorectomies, and the like.
Perhaps you should start your own movement in Australia, you might have more success in raising funds to do what you suggest.
185. angel-five - 6/4/2001 12:08:21 AM
Thanks for the compliment, but I'm not Aytchman.
You wrote a lot and I have little time, but I would like to add that I think the 'natural' cachet centering on herbal remedies has far more to do with the idea that the active ingredients come directly from plants (which are after all natural biochemical factories) and that our bodies are somehow more prepared for them than they would be for a biochemical cooked in a flask.
It's typically bunk, but it's still a prevalent idea. Just because nature produces it... well, hell, last I checked, Nature produces a lot of stuff that will kill you deader than Disco. And whereas humans have been engineering chemicals for specific purposes for a very short time, nature, through evolution, has been producing toxins specifically designed to do everything from make one mildly ill to kill them in a few heartbeats for a couple of billion years.
186. khaval alazman - 6/4/2001 12:14:07 AM
I must take a friend to the airport now, but there are so many interesting things to which I want to respond. In the words of the immortal feminist icon, Arnold Schwarzenegger (sp?), Ah'll bi buck... assuming I don't total the car.
Just before I go, Cal, I'm with you all the way on this one (clit slicing and western timidity).
187. angel-five - 6/4/2001 12:14:16 AM
Of course a concept like 'natural' finds itself in binary oppositions. It's not useful otherwise... inasmuch as it is useful ever. And binaries are illusion.
We consider a beaver dam, or a black walnut's cambium (which poisons most other kinds of competing plants) or such to be natural, and shopping malls and car exhaust to be unnatural. But they're really the same thing. The fossil record is replete with examples of a core group of species coming to dominate an ecosphere and completely changing it as a result. We've just been more successful in a shorter period time than blue-green algae or the dinosaurs.
188. MsIvoryTower - 6/4/2001 12:14:54 AM
The laws and policies all declare a man financially responsible for the children of pregnancies he participated in, whether he consented or not to be a parent. Give a man the same ability to opt out of parenthood that a woman has, and the justification for AFDC from birth as well as a fair amount of child support battles goes right out the window.
I don't think this will happen, primarily because then the state becomes responsible for the care of the child (by default) if the mother is unable to support it. From a policy perspective alone, the courts will reject this right for men.
And I don't see how giving men the right to opt out of financial responsibility for their child would eliminate the need for AFDC.
189. CalGal - 6/4/2001 12:17:58 AM
Feminist activity which gives concrete assistance to poverty alleviation, the building of crisis centres and attendant infrastructure, and joint efforts with third world feminists to ameliorate women's political situations have NEVER been criticised and hopefully never will.
I criticize much of that. There is something quite nauseating about the UN Women's whatever going to a developing country, seeing disease, starvation, death, misery, and publishing a paper about how all of this is bad for women and children. Someone should take the prism these bitches peer through and crack it over their heads.
Besides, children aren't a feminist issue. The right to an abortion, surely. But not children. Get children their own UN organization and keep women out of it. Someone who is interested primarily in the wellbeing of women will never be the proper representative for children, since he or she will never be able to make recommendations that are against the interests of women, even if they are far better for their children.
The political issues are fine, and within the purview of feminism. But I don't think there's much point to them, although they make activists feel better.
190. MsIvoryTower - 6/4/2001 12:19:23 AM
My focus was that Western feminists don't stare these reactionary freaks down and say, "Fuck you, it's torture" but rather fall meekly back on "well, it's what they want".
Well, yeah, that too. However, in defense of feminists (weakly), they got slapped pretty damn hard by the international community in the 70's for doing precisely this. Add to this the fact that anthropology has now become consumed with "respect" for other cultures, and an ideology that "outsiders" can never fully understand developing cultures (tribal or otherwise), and you get a sort of paralyzation of western intellectuals on the subject.
191. CalGal - 6/4/2001 12:32:49 AM
Ms,
I specified AFDC from birth for a reason. If a woman has never had any means of supporting herself and not even the myth of a father she was expecting to support the child, much of the rationalization for longterm AFDC goes away. This is as opposed to the majority of AFDC which is short term and incurred because the father did leave, lose his job, etc.
Remember that both conservatives and feminists endorse the fantasy that women who get pregnant and go on AFDC can be helped if only the father is found. Conservatives blame her for not pinning him down, feminists blame him for leaving the poor dear, but the premise is that the guy is there, somewhere. But if he opts out, then the woman has no excuse for having the baby and there's no one to blame but her.
I don't think this will happen, primarily because then the state becomes responsible for the care of the child (by default) if the mother is unable to support it.
But that is what is happening now anyway. What else is welfare, but the state acting as the wallet? I think your parenthesis "(by default)" is entirely the point. Right now, we allow the myth that a man is somewhere to be found who we can force into being the wallet. But the reality is that the state is the wallet for many, and in many cases where the man is solvent, the state assumes the cost of hunting down the guy so that he can be a wallet, whether he consented to be a parent or not.
Someday, somewhere, someone is going to remove that inequality and then the ugly truth will be out there all by itself: that far too many women choose consciously to have children they have no ability to support and in all probability they view the child as a means of getting support (either by unwilling guy or the state).
192. CalGal - 6/4/2001 12:41:39 AM
It is profoundly unfair that a woman has full control as to whether or not she becomes a parent and a man does not. Society's interests really should not force a man to be a parent if he doesn't want to, and it is evidence again of how irrelevant men are considered to familial matters that they are viewed primarily in terms of their ability to provide money, not their rights.
I agree that society won't want to sign on for this. They not only need the myth, they don't want to pay even more of the bill for women's irresponsibility. More importantly, they aren't ready to do what needs to be done, which is to treat women as equals to men and hold them responsible for their actions.
If nothing else, a societal expectation that an abortion is the best choice for a pregnant woman who can't provide for a child and has no consent from a father willing to provide would be a terrific first step. If she really doesn't want an abortion, put the woman in debt for her welfare payments, so that any money she gets she will be expected to work off once her child is in school.
But I would expect any such changes (fantasies though they are) to take place after men are given equal rights, undoubtedly over the screaming objections of society.
193. CalGal - 6/4/2001 12:44:19 AM
However, in defense of feminists (weakly), they got slapped pretty damn hard by the international community in the 70's for doing precisely this.
I swear, it's like the 70s were the last time that feminists had anything approaching integrity. But they had a choice (or at least the major organizations did). They could "evolve" into special interest groups and keep their standing as powerful organizations, or they could stick by their guns and lose a lot of their membership, but keep their integrity.
194. Stumbo - 6/4/2001 1:03:28 AM
Khaval:
I don't read Paglia all that much, but she doesn't strike me as the type to approve of (or even excuse) cliteridectomies. Your posts #161-2 seem to imply that she does. If that's what you meant to imply, could I see some evidence?
195. khaval alazman - 6/4/2001 6:50:56 AM
Stumbo, I apologise if my writing was unclear. I did not mean to imply that Paglia is a supporter of clitoridectomy. Indeed, she is an example of the sort of meaningless/useless feminism which is so offensive WHILE such horrors as clitoridectomy is occurring. While women are being sliced, Paglia enjoys ruminating on vagina dentata.
196. khaval alazman - 6/4/2001 6:54:49 AM
Cal, I understand your opposition to children's and women's right being lumped in together.
Children are, however, in most underdeveloped environments, advantaged by their mothers' empowerment.
Development theorists are almost unanimous in their assertion that development and poverty alleviation must begin with the amelioration of women's positions.
Abuses of children, most notably, child labour and prostitution, are very much only able to be attacked successfully if there are significant improvements in the general economic situations of their families in general, and their mothers specifically.
197. MsIvoryTower - 6/4/2001 8:24:26 AM
Calgal
The current rationalization for ADFC rests on the precarious notion that we(as a country) don't endorse abortions even though we've reluctantly extended women the right to seek them for a limited period (during the pregnancy).
For your scenario to hold true, that the rationale for ADFC would be undercut by allowing males to opt out of any responsibility for a child requires the state to fully endorse and support abortion on demand. Without it, men simply get a free pass from taking any responsibility for their sexual behavior while the state picks up the tab.
Nice gig if you can get it.
198. Dusty - 6/4/2001 8:47:19 AM
Sorry to interrupt, but since the Ms is around:
In Message # 150 sto3 said:
FWIW, I think GDP at current exchange rate is the better indicator for this type of calculations., referring to a comment in Message # 147. I would have thought PPP was superior to current exchange rates.
What say you?
(And sto3, I'd like to hear your reasoning.)
199. CalGal - 6/4/2001 9:48:28 AM
Ms,
Well, the state actually does support that. There's just a reluctance to take that line of thinking the entire way. But I'm not sure what the state would have to do with it, once men got the bit between their teeth on the unfairness angle. What surprises me is why no one has really thought of it up to now, or seriously challenged it. It also seems to me that you could make a similar "right to privacy" argument, but I'm certainly no constitutional expert.
200. JayAckroyd - 6/4/2001 10:21:12 AM
A5 says this:
We've just been more successful in a shorter period time than blue-green algae or the dinosaurs.
That's an interesting comment in the context of the future. In the polemical, and sorta crazy stuff by Daniel Quinn, like Ishmael, he argues that this success is necessarily going to be short-lived. The last 6000 years (of from between 100,000 to 2 million years of human existence, depending on when you declare a particular instance of homo as us) of human history has been the steady adoption of sedentary agriculture. There are almost no people left who do not practice this way of living.
Sedentary agriculture produces a surplus of food, generally speaking. And because people are made of food, populations grow, at a current rate of about 1.2 percent. The UN (page 6) expects the rate to slow, as fertility rates have been falling in the OECD, resulting in a population level of 9 or 10 billion in 2050. I also assume they've figured in the coming population crash in China, as the effects of having families consisting of one son starts becoming manifest. If the rate doesn't fall, it'll be 13 billion.
Note the time spans we're talking about here. A little more than a couple of generations in the future, and we'll be between half again as many people and twice as many.
Looked at broadly, the rate of growth for these last 6,000 years has been astronomical. Is it sustainable? For how long?
201. MsIvoryTower - 6/4/2001 10:28:40 AM
Cal
First, abortion laws are driven at the state level, so not all laws are the same, but generally, abortion on demand is not available.
First, many states have restricted it to medical reasons, or have imposed waiting restrictions, consent restrictions, and access restrictions.
Second, funding of abortion clinics has been declining, with federal funds almost completely gone now.
Third, almost all states that I know of restrict when a woman can have an abortion, with increasing prohibitions as the pregnancy matures. I don't know if any state allows third trimester abortions unless there is clear evidence that the life of the mother is endangered (and this means really, really, at risk.
Finally, access to low cost abortions for women has been declining for the last few decades.
I would hardly call this a reluctant acceptance of abortion on demand.
202. MsIvoryTower - 6/4/2001 10:33:04 AM
Dusty
Do you mean the purchasing power parity or some producer price index? If you mean the former, then I agree with Sto.
203. CalGal - 6/4/2001 10:34:43 AM
Ms,
I don't think any of that is untrue, but the fact remains that abortion is legal (points about third trimester aside, since there's plenty of time before that). The fact that the public is reluctant to fund abortions for poor women does not change the fact that it is legal, but that's only because no one has made the case properly. Tell the public that if they fund abortions they can reduce AFDC because women won't have an excuse to require it and things might change.
I've already said that social approval is a long time in coming. But abortions are, and will continue to be, legal. At some point, I hope that it will be pointed out that an abortion is the ability to opt out of parenthood, and that we give this to only one gender, while expecting the other to live with her decision and be forced into parenthood without any consent.
204. JayAckroyd - 6/4/2001 10:37:23 AM
MsIT,
I've come to believe that the current abortion access situation is an unintended consequence of organizations like NARAL and NOW trying to 1) make abortion affordable to poor women and 2) campaign against restrictions on access by talking about coat hangers and back alleys.
Specialized, inexpensive abortion clinics had the effect of ghettoizing the procedure for many doctors. Rather than being part of a normal ob/gyn practice, as with contraception, the procedure was given special status--which was turned into a taint by the anti-choice folks.
Then, trying to keep access as available as possible, they mounted campaigns about the bad old days. IMO, that added to the taint. Even if a doctor in a special clinic wasn't using coat hangers, the procedure was tainted by the imagery. I think that makes the anti-choicers imagery more effective, as well.
205. MsIvoryTower - 6/4/2001 10:38:17 AM
Jay
I don't see how it is sustainable. The countries least in need of expanding food and water resources are those who are most likely to develop technology that extends their production. If we can generate more food to feed an ever expanding population, it will likely be under the control of the western industrialized countries.
So do you think that the future wars will be fought over water and food resources?
206. MsIvoryTower - 6/4/2001 10:40:00 AM
Tell the public that if they fund abortions they can reduce AFDC because women won't have an excuse to require it and things might change.
I really don't see this happening. There is such strong opposition to abortion that I can't see this situation ever being resolved because of the logic of a rationale.
207. MsIvoryTower - 6/4/2001 10:42:10 AM
Jay,
I don't disagree with your point, I simply commented that the issues I raised were indicative that neither the federal government or state governments have supported abortion on demand (except for a brief few years after Roe v Wade).
208. MsIvoryTower - 6/4/2001 10:48:06 AM
I've already said that social approval is a long time in coming. But abortions are, and will continue to be, legal. At some point, I hope that it will be pointed out that an abortion is the ability to opt out of parenthood, and that we give this to only one gender, while expecting the other to live with her decision and be forced into parenthood without any consent.
I don't know that abortions will continue to be legal, I'm not sure the law hasn't been almost gutted as it is. States are free to impose most any restriction they want onto the procedure. The only thing the Supremes have balked at is the requirement that a woman notify her mate of her intentions.
Given our conversation here, I find that the height of irony. The one thing that would give men greater equality in determining when an abortion should occur is precisely the one thing the Supremes won't allow. Everything else is okay.
209. JayAckroyd - 6/4/2001 10:56:25 AM
Wars over resources like food and water? No, I think technology will keep pace. The despotic and evil government of China has also done the rest of the world an enormous service by forcing their population into a growth rate below the replacement rate.
In the one or two generation framework, that is.
But I think there is a real chance for a crash--changes in the ecosystem that will make the innovations inadequate, or worse.
I'm afraid I am something of a Gaeist. There were global warming discussions here a year or so ago. At the time I thought the case was still not proven. The studies were suggestive, but I thought that results were being exaggerated by scientists who felt morally certain they were right, and feared the effects of delay. I don't think so anymore. The evidence has piled up pretty high.
One thing in particular struck me at the time. One argument made by people who thought global warning to be bunk was that human output only represents 2% of global CO2 emissions. However, in the same chart that showed this, it showed that global CO2 levels are rising at the rate of about two percent a year. In other words, remove human production, and CO2 production equals CO2 consumption. That is, the world is stable in the O2/CO2 cycle, absent human production.
That's also not possible to sustain indefinitely with the current collection of living things. Something has to change to bring the system back into balance (that's the Gaeist in me talking), presumably at some higher level of CO2, as has been true in the past.
In all of the future discussions here, we've been looking maybe a hundred, two hundred years out. Is there any point in thinking about 1,000 years out?
210. CalGal - 6/4/2001 6:22:02 PM
Ms,
Actually, I don't see men ever being able to stop the woman from having an abortion. But while men can't force women to be parents, women can force men to be parents.
The bulk of female voters want abortion to be legal--the Republicans discover this whenever they try to get too hardline on it. But so long as most middle and upper class women can get an abortion, they have no real reason to care about how the access of others is restricted.
I suspect that another reason the abortion debate has moved off the immediate radar of this population (middle and upper class women) is because the economy has been booming for most of the past ten years. It wouldn't surprise me at all if a woman outside of her college years who gets pregnant is more likely to shrug and have the kid, particularly if she is married, than in the 70s and 80s.
So a majority of women (and men, for that matter)seem to want the option available (particularly for their daughters) but they don't really have any hotbutton issues about funding or poor women, and maybe they really don't feel it personally because most of them would have a child if they got pregnant accidentally.
In any event, my guess is that the right of men to "abort" will most likely come through the courts, well ahead of what society wants.
211. angel-five - 6/4/2001 6:38:29 PM
Jay:
It's obviously not sustainable forever. We, as you know, are seeing strong evidence that it will stop being sustainable in the near future.
The question to me seems to be twofold -- how well technology will advance in the field of agriculture and foodservice and how well society will lend itself to the most efficient means of distributing the food.
212. pogie - 6/4/2001 8:59:15 PM
A thousand years in the future, either all sorts of groovy stuff will be happening (space travel/colonisation, wildly nifty genetic advancements--cf. Bruce Sterling's Schismatrix gene-engineers and cyborgs) or there will be no humans/few humans due to delightful war-related disasters. Which makes it hard to extrapolate much of anything from current trends more than a few decades in advance. ;D
213. sakonige - 6/4/2001 9:42:04 PM
CalGal, an abortion is a surgical procedure with serious health risks associated with it. I don't think it is very likely that women will be required by law in the foreseeable future to undergo that kind of surgery.
214. CalGal - 6/4/2001 9:47:45 PM
Actually, I believe that abortion has fewer risks than pregnancy (or at least I've read that many times before). But that's besides the point, since I said that I didn't think that would ever happen. I'm talking about a man's right to "abort", or opt out of the parenthood or responsibility for a child if he doesn't give his consent.
215. sakonige - 6/4/2001 9:53:36 PM
A law that allows a man to excuse themselves of financial responsibility for his children simply by claiming he wishes they didn't exist doesn't seem very likely either.
216. sakonige - 6/4/2001 9:54:54 PM
excuse himself, rather.
Abortion rights for men aren't going to be workable by any scheme.
217. alistairconnor - 6/5/2001 3:13:41 AM
Message # 211 Angel: how well technology will advance in the field of agriculture and foodservice
It won't. As a quantitative thing, technological improvement of the world's food supply is pretty much a thing of the past. The Green Revolution expanded food production greatly, in the 70s and 80s, principally by large inputs of technology, chemicals, and irrigation, plus breaking in virgin lands. That expansion levelled out in the 90s and is now pretty flat : the benefits are behind us, and the sustainability of that production increase is a huge problem, in particular due to exhaustion of the supply of chemicals and water.
A lot of people imagine that genetic engineering is the new Green Revolution, i.e. it will produce huge quantitative and qualitative gains, to feed those extra billions over the next decades.
Er, have you seen any sign of such a phenomenon, Angel? Anywhere in the world?
218. alistairconnor - 6/5/2001 4:07:32 AM
Message # 143 arheles : The [US] left will never get past their contempt for bourgeoisie values, dooming their project of principled criticism of society.
I find this the most interesting of your comments (though an insight, not a prediction). It illuminates for me why the US left never got anywhere, and doubtless never will. The chasm between the true-believers and those who have "sold out" is vast because the adoption of bourgeois values is seen, in itself, as a sell-out. This is pretty much incomprehensible from the point of view of the European left, which is implicitly Gramscian.
219. alistairconnor - 6/5/2001 4:23:49 AM
Message # 171 angel-five
It's sort of amusing to consider that in the future, only the very rich and the very poor may end up eating 'natural food' -- the rich out of preference and the poor rural folk out of economic necessity.
What a dingbat non-prediction! What you describe is the current state of affairs, not the future.
220. alistairconnor - 6/5/2001 4:31:14 AM
Khâvââââl, in your series Message # 175 to 180 you valiantly vanquish a whole army of fearsome strawmen... I'm so impressed, I don't know where to begin!
So I'll do some work instead...
221. khaval alazman - 6/5/2001 6:40:52 AM
Alistair, what exactly is your problem?
I enjoy almost all disagreement with anything I write, but the sheer idiocy of "well, it's all straw men, so I won't bother getting into it" is a bit of a joke, really.
Indeed, it's the laziest form of dispute. It is in itself unarguable. All you are saying is: that's a load of shit, so I won't bother responding with anything substantial.
Basically, if you have something to criticise, go for it. If you are just flopping out your peenie for a bit of flagelatory fun, do it in private.
222. alistairconnor - 6/5/2001 7:41:55 AM
Yeah, that's fair comment. Since the morning is stuffed anyway, I might as well address some oblique comments to your remarks about what's "natural".
"Natural" is obviously a cultural construct; what is natural varies widely from one culture to another. However, as Jay or somebody pointed out, we are all peasants (NOT hunter-gatherers, Khaval, unless you're actually of Aboriginal or Bushman origin), at a remove of only a very few generations. Which means that our cultural references of what's natural and what isn't, are (naturally enough) rooted in sedentary agriculture, and are to a very great extent common to all cultures of peasant stock (99% of humanity, surely).
Then there are the modern, urbanised, sophisticated and cosmopolitan populations, like us. We are alienated from that fundamental agricultural culture, to a certain extent; particularly those countries which industrialised early, and which adopted bourgeois culture as their paradigm (the bourgeoisie, though tiny everywhere before the 20th century, becomes culturally hegemonic and absorbs the urban working class, detaching them from their recent peasant roots).
223. alistairconnor - 6/5/2001 7:49:21 AM
Meandering on... So, having adopted our cultural values from our betters, who have been buying food rather than growing it themselves for the few centuries that the bourgeoisie have existed, our instincts about food are somewhat blunted. This leads to two tendencies, to caricature a bit : techno-freaks who would actually prefer it if all their food was manufactured from petrochemicals in a sterile environment; and neurotics who are ready to fall for the shallowest marketing gimmick, as long as it says "natural" or "organic" on the label.
224. khaval alazman - 6/5/2001 8:00:29 AM
Alistair, while I like very much what you say about concepts of what is natural's being rooted in sedentary agriculture, I think you misunderdstood my reference to hunter gatherers.
I did not state that we are all using as our ultimate paradigm the hunter gatherer structures. In fact, I stated the diametric opposite: that no one, save the "wacko ferals" seriously believes that return to such a way of life would be conceivable, let alone natural for most of humanity.
What I *was* saying, was that "natural" - obviously a construct: a truism not worth stipulating; I'm interested in the *nature* of the construct - is a process of reduction and regression. That its fundamental and universal defuinition lies in regression to something which is not "tainted" by progress.
Now, considering that even we most "sivilized" urbanites are only 10,000 years away from living as hunter gatherers, within a human history of 100,000 years, I was merely stating that philosophical/ideological adulation of "natural" is synonimous with adulation of regression, and if so, taken to its extreme, such regression must find its end point in hunter gatherer modes of sustenance.
This is where I stated that most people (save wacko feral types) who exalt in all things "natural" do not take this regression to its logical conclusion, and place an arbitrary semantic designation (derived from an arbitrary historical point) on "natural", which is, in the broader context of human history, quite erronious.
225. alistairconnor - 6/5/2001 8:02:44 AM
It's interesting to note that those countries which have the most recent peasant tradition, are the ones which are going heavily into organics right now. In France, for example, industrialisation is largely of the last 50 years (France's population was still more than 50% rural after WWII). And a large proportion of the French buy a significant amount of their food from markets, either directly from the producer or at only one remove. So the natural, organic (sic) link to food is much more alive than it is in, for example, England and its colonies, or the USA. So to a large extent, organics has found its place as a means of formalising the requirement for quality that a large proportion of the population has always had, and which has become more and more difficult to satisfy due to increasing industrialisation of food production and distribution.
226. khaval alazman - 6/5/2001 8:05:24 AM
Alistair, your #225 is really interesting.
227. alistairconnor - 6/5/2001 8:11:03 AM
Interesting cross post... I believe I've addressed a major part of your 224. You have this strawman : the wacko feral, who, in your view, is the "logical conclusion" of the "regression" that "back-to-nature" tendencies lead to. That's because you're posting from a techno-freak point of view. Whereas, as I am trying to point out in 225, that is by no means the logical conclusion for most people, or not in Europe in any case. It's mostly a sort of conservative response to very real dangers (how many more mad-cow epidemics is the agro-industry preparing for us? What will we know in 30 years about the dangers of genetic engineering, that we don't know now?), coupled with a very human quest for quality in what we eat. The fewer the intermediaries between us and the producer, the more we know about the quality of the food; and the more accountable the producer in the case of problems.
228. alistairconnor - 6/5/2001 8:12:26 AM
And thank you for goading me into a proper response. I'll put my peenie away now and do some work.
229. alistairconnor - 6/5/2001 8:16:34 AM
One more thing : Foetal screening : is this really controversial, in terms of identifying potential birth defects in order to abort? I don't get around much, I wouldn't know. I can't imagine anyone but religious anti-abortion monomaniacs getting upset about it.
(My grandfather, who as a country doctor, delivered thousands of babies, once said that no malformed baby ever got out of the birthing room alive while he was in charge. circa 1920-1950. That is a very upsetting idea; I prefer screening.)
What is problematical, in my opinion, is the non-ethical use of foetal screening to select children's characteristics, e.g. sex. As this technology becomes more widely available, particularly in the third world, the effects are likely to be disastrous.
230. khaval alazman - 6/5/2001 8:41:05 AM
Like, I said, I really liked your #225.
I suppose I should have defined my perameters better, but in truth, it didn't really occur to me not to discuss the developed world monolithically.
While what you say about France is indisputable, I think the "wacko feral strawman" is a furphey: in the ENglish speaking developed world, industrialisation is well and truly entrenched, as - and I could be wrong - it is in Germany. Yet thee are parts of the world shrieking particularly loudly about GM food, and in which there are very large "natural" movements. I have no idea where I read this, but Germany is per capita the biggest consumer of hypericum as opposed to SSRIs.
When I write about "wacko ferals", I am not talking about these people. These people are mainstream. I only say that the feral movement is noteworthy because it is at least relatively philosophically consistent in its idealised regression.
As for France, and analogous places in Europe, I think also that one cannot discount the political nature of opposition to GM. The massive power wielded by French farmers is quite potent in inciting hysteria about GM amongst the general population and they do this, not because they are natural "environmentalists" but because they are protecting their closed shop methods. The last thing French farmers want is competition from producers elsewhere who have the GM advantage.
231. stostosto - 6/5/2001 8:42:58 AM
The last thing French farmers want is competition. Period.
232. alistairconnor - 6/5/2001 8:58:08 AM
Dead wrong in your last paragraph of 230. In France, the opposition to GM is not, in majority, lead by farmers (a majority of French farmers probably would have gladly adopted GM a few years ago, as did most American farmers, for the same reasons : the promise of a better financial return; a huge majority now would reject planting GM crops, for the same reason : can't sell the friggin' stuff).
We need Webfeet to weigh in on this, she wrote a paper on it in France last summer.
José Bové, the modern Asterix, is the most visible anti-GM campaigner; and he is in fact president of a farmers' union; but not a very influential one. They got about 20% in the recent union elections.
There is a whole body of argumentation as to the opposition between peasant farming, in general (and most of Bové's 20% consider themselves peasant farmers), and GM, as representing the paroxysm of corporate agro-alimentarism. (Neologism? Copyright.) However, the pressure on European governments which has led to partial bans on planting GM crops, and especially the pressure on food distributors which has to a certain extent kept GM foods out of supermarkets, has been driven by consumer organisations, not farmers.
233. alistairconnor - 6/5/2001 9:01:21 AM
Pontification from Sto. How come Denmark is going organic, Sto? Cos there's money in quality, bud. Why keep GMOs out of France? Same reason.
There is big money in GMOs, but not for farmers.
234. alistairconnor - 6/5/2001 9:05:26 AM
in the ENglish speaking developed world, industrialisation is well and truly entrenched, as - and I could be wrong - it is in Germany.
Yes, you're wrong about Germany. Though the food is not as good, they are even more conservative about it than in France.
235. alistairconnor - 6/5/2001 9:13:28 AM
Sto and Khaval are both pontificating about French farmers, from what evidence may I ask? (oh boy you're going to regret getting me started on this...) The union that represents 80% of farmers, which is very powerful, has never been opposed to GMOs. They call for, and obtain, subsidies for anything and everything. In particular, they defend tooth and nail the quantitative subsidies that are the death of European agriculture (in this, they are really representing the small proportion of their members who produce in huge quantities using industrial methods, and drive Porsches paid for by the European taxpayers). The small farmers, who are forced into environmentally damaging productivism by this system, are being led by the nose.
There is hope for European agriculture however : the Germans have finally understood a thing or two, and are moving towards subsidising quality rather than quantity.
236. stostosto - 6/5/2001 9:31:34 AM
Alistair: You call my quick jab in #231 "pontification"? That seems a stretch.
Here is a little, though: France has a long tradition of protecting its farm production. It goes back to the mid-19th century.
I am not saying the opposition to GM is solely an expression of this tradition -indeed, my remark was to the effect that French farmers weren't so much objecting to GM as to competition in general, though I strongly suspect it wouldn't be beyond French farmers to use the GM spectre as an argument as long as it furthered there protective interests.
I am not saying other countries' farmers can't and don't employ the very same tactics. The US farmers have been successfully blocking Danish pork exports for months now, pointing to the danger of foot-and-mouth disease. Non-existing as it were. (At least according to the Danish ag-lobbies who admittedliy also know their way around the political extraction game...).
237. Webfeet - 6/5/2001 9:43:41 AM
Alistair is quite right. I would love to discuss this further, but I have an extremely cranky tot and will have to wait until nap time.
What was most surprising about my reserach, which consisted of interviews with peasant farmers, representing a broad spectrum of views, is their indifference toward GM's and Bove's cause in general. Bove is the hero of consumer groups whose hysterical books decrying the evils of GM's have received prominent attention in bookstores all over FRance. It's a psychosocial phenomenon, the fear over la malbouffe and I will talk more about this later. It is what is driving the opposition, not the so-called peasant farmers who are definetely skeptical about Bove, barring the ones from his syndicate.
It is actually impossible to think with a shrieking baby. Morelater.
238. alistairconnor - 6/5/2001 9:59:57 AM
Damn; now I've pressed Webfeet's button. We don't actually agree on the malbouffe thing. - she after all is an alienated techno-freak. Though there is hope : I suspect her French husband will bring her into line. Though it will probably take 10 or 20 years.
Actually, I've been wasting my spit refuting this fallacy that French farmers are behind the anti-GMO movement, but it's unnecessary :
The last thing French farmers want is competition from producers elsewhere who have the GM advantage. says Khaval : that's a straightforward non-sequitur.
How, indeed, can banning the planting of GM crops in France, give French farmers a competitive advantage? Insofar as the importation of GM foodstuffs is not banned (and it's not), that is the exact opposite of a competitive advantage : French farmers are prevented from competing with others who are allowed to grow GMOs.
There is, however, a concrete commmercial advantage which is enjoyed by farmers in all countries which ban GM crops : they can be thankful that they were prevented from planting them, after seeing the collapse of prices for GM crops which US farmers have suffered from.
239. JayAckroyd - 6/5/2001 10:02:17 AM
Now, considering that even we most "sivilized" urbanites are only 10,000 years away from living as hunter gatherers, within a human history of 100,000 years, I was merely stating that philosophical/ideological adulation of "natural" is synonimous with adulation of regression, and if so, taken to its extreme, such regression must find its end point in hunter gatherer modes of sustenance.
These are some awfully value laden positions. It is a regression from urban to rural environments? It is a regression to hunter gatherer methods?
I asked above if our current model of sedentary agriculture with a continually growing population is a sustainable model. A-5 replied that it obviously isn't. I agree that it is not. You say we will continue following the model because it is unthinkable to do otherwise.
In that weird Ishmael book I mentioned earlier, the author writes at some length about how common it is to hear people say things like this--that it is clearly impossible for us to keep living in this way, and that it is clearly impossible for us to stop living in this way.
Before you can support your claim that different living styles are regressions, I'd like you to outline how we are going to match the 90,000 years of human history that preceded the development of sedentary agriculture. Can you see us continuing to follow the current model for 90,000 years?
240. amax - 6/5/2001 10:10:45 AM
Hey all,
Been a while since I was in Europe, but the farmer I stayed with said while I was there that yields per acre were much higher than in the US, primarily because the CAP system makes ag prices artificially high. European farmers respond by increasing inputs into farming (primarily by using massive quantities of chemicals & hormones) to increase production per acre. When the GM thing came out, the inevitable cynicsm that results when naturalist ideology meets economics made me nostalgic for the old days in DC. But I digress. Is this still an accurate picture of what the agricultural regime is in Europe?
241. khaval alazman - 6/5/2001 10:33:14 AM
Aaaaargh!!!!
After this post, I'll be out of action for a bit. I can't afford to spend any more time on non-essay activity:
Alistair, you are the KING of misrepresentation. My supposed "non-sequitur" is nothing of the sort, if you actually read what I said.
I was talking about the hysteria which french farmers could whip up which would REDUCE competition from GM foods from elsewhere. Their "advantage" lies in their political power - their power to be heard by the media and heeded by the general population who would boycott "dangerous" foods.
Now, if you tell me that most French farmers are not opposed to GM, I will defer to your greater knowledge of the situation. But DO NOT misunderstand me: IF French farmers did want to make a hullaballoo about GM, it WOULD behove them to run a scare campaign which would be well received and massively publicicsed.
****
JayAckroyd, I am benning to think that I need to take remedial English classes, such is the misunderstanding of what I've been writing over the last couple of days.
NOWHERE did I write that high density, sedentary living is SUPERIOR to hunting/gathering. NOWHERE.
When I use a term such as "regression", I use it in the chronological sense: before sedentary living, there was hunting/gathering. I use "regression" also in the sense of an idealised state IN THE PAST (regressing means "going backwards" - not necessarily in the "value" sense, but also in the sense of returning to a previous state).
As an avid reader of Jared Diamond, I have read the convincing arguments for hunting/gatherings' superior nutritional and quality of life elements when compared with contemporaneous agricultural existences.
Please do not attribute to me value judgements which I did not make.
242. JayAckroyd - 6/5/2001 10:37:20 AM
Regression certainly carries a negative connotation.
243. alistairconnor - 6/5/2001 10:38:50 AM
Perfectly. It's the quantitative subsidies I'm groaning about in 235.
The environmental effects are disastrous, of course. Though chemical inputs are now decreasing, the ground water will never be the same again.
How does the US subsidise its farmers while avoiding this problem?
(How come France always ends up as the whipping boy in these discussions? Like, the US does not subsidise or protect its farmers? Yeah.)
244. alistairconnor - 6/5/2001 10:40:34 AM
(243 in response to amax's 240).
244. JayAckroyd - 6/5/2001 10:40:34 AM
Well, I'm a little annoyed at what the CAP is doing to delay the inclusion of Eastern European countries into the EU.
245. alistairconnor - 6/5/2001 10:50:52 AM
Message # 241Khaval, I accept that my reading of a non-sequitur was not what you intended, though it is a legitimate reading of your original post.
What you are in fact talking about, is the old free-trade canard that any qualitative restrictions on imports are, by definition, protectionism. For example, if the US bans imports of cars from China or India because they don't meet US safety standards, that's protectionism, right?
Well, it could be. But not automatically.
246. Webfeet - 6/5/2001 11:08:37 AM
Alistair
It's true France is always the whipping boy. US spends billions on subsidies to French farmers and yet they are always wagging their finger at the French as though they alone were responsible for the impass at the WTO last summer.
My point is that the argument against malbouffe-- GM's and hormone treated beef-- is used as a way of defending french agriculture from free trade. It reminds me of the scare campaign the communists used back in the '30s against coca cola --how it was harmful to health, blah blah when they feared its effect on the wine industry.
Mind you, I am not for GM's. I side with the little artisans who sell cheese from their homes in the mountain valleys and have Marianne tattoed upon their forearms, but I do think Bove and the consumer groups whipped up the french public to a gastro-culinary anxiety that went far beyond its risks. And that was easy to do, given the mad cow epidemic and the fear that ensued. The politics of malbouffe were used to great effect, and that was namely resistance to the WTO.
247. pseudoerasmus - 6/5/2001 11:12:29 AM
The domesticated crops used in sedentary agriculture which Connor takes as the benchmark for naturalness have been genetically modified -- just through a much slower process than those designed GM.
248. Webfeet - 6/5/2001 11:15:45 AM
Correction: THat's US spends billions on subsidies to US Farmers.
Anyway, my point is really the cultural, psycho-social context within which the anti-WTO protest bove generated were played out. It's not really germane in this discussion.
But you did press my button.
249. pseudoerasmus - 6/5/2001 11:17:32 AM
errata
designed = designated
250. Webfeet - 6/5/2001 11:20:33 AM
That's what I understood as well, pseuder. The corn now used is hybrid corn that is technically manipulated, according to a farmer I interviewed.
The resistance to this corn, which I think was introduced inthe 60s, was just as strong as the protest against GM"s now.
251. khaval alazman - 6/5/2001 11:27:03 AM
Uh, during my rants about the bullshit inherent in "Naturalism", I believe I emphasised this a number of times (domestication = gen manipulation), to which JayAckroyd responded: sure, but now it's reeeal fast.
When da boyz were all snarky about how "obvious" it was that "natural" lends itself to dichotomisation, what they obviously did not understand, was that any dichotomies I may have provided were only in order to demonstrate how foolish this binary opposition (natural/unnatural) really is.
The best argument for this was the teensy weensy corn, pre-domestication, which existed in American continental wilds transforming into the thumpiung ears on which we munch today.
252. pseudoerasmus - 6/5/2001 11:28:41 AM
No, what I meant was that the very process of domestication which first began thousands of years ago, was just a slow and inefficient method of genetic engineering.
253. pseudoerasmus - 6/5/2001 11:29:31 AM
#252 was for webfeet
254. khaval alazman - 6/5/2001 11:31:03 AM
I was not referring to you, PE.
I merely seagued from your #247 to an excoriation of posters such as Angel, Alistair and Jay Ackroyd.
The post of mine to which I referred was #175
255. marjoribanks - 6/5/2001 11:31:33 AM
Excellent discussion, folks. I see that Khaval's thread is serving the exact purpose she intended.
---
I think 252 is a bit disingenuous. There's a big difference between aided natural selection and wholescale grafting of genes between species.
256. khaval alazman - 6/5/2001 11:32:03 AM
Oh. Sorry.
257. pseudoerasmus - 6/5/2001 11:33:04 AM
Message # 255
The point, filthy HIndooo, is that there is no natural selection involved at all in the domestication of crops. It's all human selection. Like breeding.
258. khaval alazman - 6/5/2001 11:37:57 AM
Aaargh! Above apology meant for #253
Marji! Delighted to see you! :)
I am procrastinating in a way which is designed to endanger my academic career. But this thread is addictive :)
It's not disingenuous, though. If you think about any food which has been domesticated, it is far far different from its wild ancestor - far more different, in fact than any GM food is likely to be from its original crop.
It is not "aided" natural selection at all. Domestication may have begun originally by unintetional selection for favoured traits, but very soon, the manipulation was conscious and resulted in highly obvious changes.
Indeed, any sort of hybrid is far beyod "aided" natural selection. The nectarine would never have eventuated had it not been for the conscious acts of farmers (death by nectarine yet?), and an even more extreme example is the mule.
There is absolutely no appreciable difference save the speed of change.
259. marjoribanks - 6/5/2001 11:40:33 AM
Lissen up, savage tribal, you can tortuously stretch the definition to meaninglessness, or you can acknowledge that what is underway right now with the (inaptly-termed) GM foods is an unprecedented genetic experimenting involving combinations that have never and could never occur in nature.
260. marjoribanks - 6/5/2001 11:41:48 AM
Hiya Khaval. You're not the tribal savage I'm referringh to in #259.
261. khaval alazman - 6/5/2001 11:42:39 AM
Why not?!
262. pseudoerasmus - 6/5/2001 11:42:42 AM
Message # 259
Filthy Hindooo, almost none of the foodstuffs you eat ever occured in nature.
263. marjoribanks - 6/5/2001 11:47:52 AM
What crap. The tribal savage is undoubtedly going to distend his head to fit through a definition unique to him.
But we'll play along, for kicks. Tribal savage, elaborate on #262 for today's dose of sick humour please.
264. marjoribanks - 6/5/2001 11:50:39 AM
A soybean is a soybean is a soybean. Hundreds of generations removed from the original soybean, it is recognizably a descendant of that first primordial soybean. Just as our savage tribal is, say, a half-dozen generations removed from his paleolithic forbears.
A soybean conveniently grafted with pig genes for scent and owl genes for nocturnality, on the other hand, is not really a soybean anymore. This kind of mixing is unknown in "nature". Pleas to the contrary are disingenuous and dishonest.
265. khaval alazman - 6/5/2001 11:57:16 AM
Hold on, Marji: vast multitudes of things we currently enjoy and/or consume have previously been "unknown to nature". Some of these things are harmful -some of them are not.
It is an emotive thing to rail against pig/owl genes in a soybean. It is meaningless hysteria. You would not rail similarly if a pig heart were modified genetically so that it could be used in temporary transplants in humans, I suppose.
Or - let's take something already extant: it is unknown in nature to consume the vast majority of synthetic colours and flavours which we do in a year.
Even the most fastidious gormand will eat a cake in a cafe and enjoy it, despite the colouring and other additives.
266. pseudoerasmus - 6/5/2001 12:04:34 PM
Message # 264
"A soybean is a soybean is a soybean. Hundreds of generations removed from the original soybean, it is recognizably a descendant of that first primordial soybean."
Not at all. You should take a look at wild maize. Compare and contrast with modern, human-bred maize. Of course looking at it does not allow you to notice the difference in taste, texture, colour, yield and many other fundamental modifications in a domesticate which simply don't exist in the wild version.
In other words, a soybean is not a soybean is not a soybean.
A soybean conveniently grafted with pig genes for scent and owl genes for nocturnality, on the other hand, is not really a soybean anymore."
What hysteria. More common is the tomato which has been given an added boost to its natural insecticidal properties, a longer shelf life, and/or higher vitamin content.
"This kind of mixing is unknown in "nature"."
Vitamins and insecticidal properties?
267. marjoribanks - 6/5/2001 12:07:37 PM
I*'m not a zealot, Khaval. I'm merely wary. I'd prefer that these fuckers get tested ad infinitum before being released to the market, and then I'd not buy them anyway out of fastidiousness and a certain snootiness.
On the issue of colouring and additives, I'm also not a zealot, but having read the recent rather shocking muckraking polemic entitled 'Fast Food Nation' I read labels closely and am definitely trying to further shun all processed foods (which are rife with additives).
268. angel-five - 6/5/2001 12:08:15 PM
A lot of people imagine that genetic engineering is the new Green Revolution, i.e. it will produce huge quantitative and qualitative gains, to feed those extra billions over the next decades.
Er, have you seen any sign of such a phenomenon, Angel? Anywhere in the world?
No, but then again, that's a strawman, isn't it -- the notion that GM is being touted as something that will produce huge gains in food production. Most of the more extreme claims about genetic engineering of plants rather tend toward the opposite -- that farms will have the possibility to turn into 'natural' factories for pharmaceuticals and raw materials for construction.
Not to say that GM can't increase the amount of nutrition produced from a plant. It's just that no one I know of expects that this fledgling science should be able to currently increase food production as much as other intensive agriculture technologies have done.
269. marjoribanks - 6/5/2001 12:12:20 PM
I comprehensively disagree with the example of the maize. The wild maize may be extremely different in most ways from the domesticated sweet corn I munch regularly, but the path from one to the other is pretty clear, unmuddled with outrageous inter-spcies meddling. I look at the apple for an even clearer example. The wild apples I've seen are miniscule, bitter, and about as different from a golden delicious as a bullock-cart is from the space shuttle. But again, the path from one to the other is discernable. For lack of a better word, the one is "naturally" derived from the other.
A soybean with animal genes spliced in is no longer just a soybean.
270. marjoribanks - 6/5/2001 12:13:39 PM
I've eaten some GM corn, by the way. Nice-looking, but absolutely sickly-fucking-sweet.
271. amax - 6/5/2001 12:19:59 PM
As I understand it, the difference between European (not just french)and US ag subsidy policies is that the Euros indirectly subsidize their farmers by maintaining artificially high prices for ag products. The US tends to give money to farmers directly via various schemes, and also creates government approved oligopolies in areas like sugar and tobacco. Buying off the farmers directly is a much less inefficient way of bribing them than the Euro way, since food prices remain low for the consumer, and it isn't nearly as expensive to the public sector. When I was last there, the EU spends something like 70% of its budget on the Common Agricultural Policy. This also explains much about the GE scare -- no significant faction in any country within the core EU stands to gain from GM foods. If GM dramatically increases yields, the EU loses, because it has to come up with yet more cash to pay for more ag products it already has too much of. The existing ag industrial support companies like Glaxo might see substitution of GM expertise for their chemicals, so they most likely will only lose. The only benfit would be to the consumer and the enviornment, and those are two constituencies which are very underrepresented in any democracy.
272. angel-five - 6/5/2001 12:23:38 PM
What a dingbat non-prediction! What you describe is the current state of affairs, not the future.
Goof ass Green. I am neither very rich nor very poor and I eat them constantly.
Khaval, though interesting, is apparently just another person who needs a remedial reading course if she can read what I said about binary opposition and think I believe the 'natural'/'unnatural' opposition is of any fundamental value. It was pretty plain that I felt otherwise.
Marj and Psoo-Psoo:
Hybridized and other non-GM modern crops are certainly the result of millenia of selective interference by humans. They, however, could potentially have arisen in nature, because although humans aided the process it was arrived at through entirely natural means -- plant fertilization. There is no corresponding way that, say, a cotton plant could end up with a luciferase gene so it lightly glows when it's at it's peak. I think it's a very minor point as it stands, but it IS a point.
273. pseudoerasmus - 6/5/2001 12:23:57 PM
Are there soybeans with animal genes spliced in, or is this hysteria induced by some bad sci-fi thriller? I've heard of soybeans which have been modified by the introduction of certain bacteria genes.
"For lack of a better word, the one is "naturally" derived from the other.
Again, it's just not "naturally" derived in the sense that domesticates don't occur in nature. Chihuahas and dachshunds don't occur in nature, either.
"The wild apples I've seen are miniscule, bitter, and about as different from a golden delicious as a bullock-cart is from the space shuttle. But again, the path from one to the other is discernable."
The path from a non-modified corn to GM corn is barely discernable. It's not as though tomatoes are being given wings or eyes.
274. angel-five - 6/5/2001 12:26:02 PM
Are there soybeans with animal genes spliced in, or is this hysteria induced by some bad sci-fi thriller?
Yes, there are. For starters, genes to produce insulin or other animal-derived products that could potentially be produced in a cheaper, cruelty-free manner.
275. marjoribanks - 6/5/2001 12:35:51 PM
A5,
"They, however, could potentially have arisen in nature, because although humans aided the process it was arrived at through entirely natural means -- plant fertilization. There is no corresponding way that, say, a cotton plant could end up with a luciferase gene so it lightly glows when it's at it's peak."
Xactly. I'm not diagreeing that it MAY turn out to be a minor point, a cause for little concern. But who the fuck knows? It's a bit early to start crowing the values of GM foods. And there are umpteen potential dangers lurking, as we know.
Did everyone watch the PBS special on GM foods? The accompanying website is here, pretty good, and pretty evenhanded.
276. angel-five - 6/5/2001 12:37:18 PM
It's extremely important to bear something in mind here when you flirt with the idea that domestication of plants is 'unnatural'. Humans are only one of many kinds of animal which has 'domesticated' a plant. Plants, throughout the time animals have been complex enough to eat and digest them, have been 'domesticated' -- i.e. the best tasting, most nutritious or easiest fertilized plants have been selected for. There would be no flowers if not for pollinating insects; there would be no fruits if not for wandering hungry beasts.
The act of domestication itself is quintessentially natural. It's simply that humans do it by design.
277. sakonige - 6/5/2001 12:38:20 PM
khaval,
I was merely stating that philosophical/ideological adulation of "natural" is synonimous with adulation of regression
This line of reasoning is bunk. I can tell you to begin with, it isn't the view of nature taken by American aboriginals who actually maintain hunting and gathering traditions within the context of the modern world. Their respect for nature arises from humility, an acknowledgement of the incomprehensible complexity of natural processes. I'm sure that's the same reason many people value natural qualities.
278. pseudoerasmus - 6/5/2001 12:38:45 PM
They, however, could potentially have arisen in nature, because although humans aided the process it was arrived at through entirely natural means --plant fertilization.
But the key word is "potentially". What is "natural" in the domestication process is the mutations that occurred in the ancestor of the modern crop. Perhaps it's plausible to believe that a few mutations would have survived on their own, but the whole series of mutations which separate ancient maize from modern maize? That seems improbable in the extreme. What selective pressure would have made the ancient maize to evolve into the modern maize on "its own"?
Perhaps it's only slighly less improbable than direct intervention in the genome.
279. amax - 6/5/2001 12:39:17 PM
Just a point about current crop breeding practices: The most common method, which has been practiced for close to (over?) 100 years is subjecting large numbers of seed to a violent chemical or radioactive mutagen and then planting the mutated seeds en masse, looking for particular traits (e.g. pest resistance), and then attempting to breed out the negative traits that the mutagen caused. This is also true for almost all of the so called 'organic/natural' crops save the legacy ones. I don't see much difference bwetween GM and this method, or if there is, it is more the difference between a scalpel and a sledgehammer.
280. marjoribanks - 6/5/2001 12:39:33 PM
"Again, it's just not "naturally" derived in the sense that domesticates don't occur in nature. Chihuahas and dachshunds don't occur in nature, either."
Pseuder, I get the sense that you're purposely misunderstanding this for some stubborn reason. Yes, chihuahuas and dachschunds don't occur in nature, but anyone with a brain can see that they're derived from a dog that exists in nature and has for tens of thousands of years.
Are you saying that a soybean with a pig gene is anything like this?
281. amax - 6/5/2001 12:43:19 PM
What I am saying is, we have been directly changing the genes of plants for a very long time, and not by 'natural' methods. The only thing that we are doing now is doing it blindly and with no real idea of what it is we are changing.
282. sakonige - 6/5/2001 12:44:55 PM
Are there soybeans with animal genes spliced in, or is this hysteria induced by some bad sci-fi thriller?
CNN has a story about a jelly plant with genes spliced in from jellyfish that make them glow under conditions of stress. There's being developed to grow on Mars.
283. marjoribanks - 6/5/2001 12:45:03 PM
There's nothing alarming about domestication or hybridization. It takes place over time, and is constrained by all kinds of physical factors.
Splicing genes, when it comes to food supply, is a whole other ballgame. How can anyone not be at least wary?
284. angel-five - 6/5/2001 12:46:08 PM
Marj:
Well, I'm not really one who worries about GM food. To me, they're slightly more risky than 'normal' crops because plants are, in essence, organic biochemical factories that grow and differentiate according to what they start with and currently have in their system. It's extremely hard to tell in advance what incorporating some odd protein into a plant's production will do -- next to nothing, or will it feed back into the production system and activate other genes that produce a dangerous product?
Yet. If Alistair has yet to hear of any major triumph in GM food as far as increasing production, I have yet to hear of any GM horror stories where the production of a transgenic biochemical by the plant caused something horrible to happen. I think this obsessive observation of GM plants, watching for the slightest thing to go wrong, is much more necessary because people are fearful of them, than because those fears are valid.
285. pseudoerasmus - 6/5/2001 12:50:04 PM
Message # 280
"Yes, chihuahuas and dachschunds don't occur in nature, but anyone with a brain can see that they're derived from a dog that exists in nature and has for tens of thousands of years."
Well, you seem to be assuming that the genetic properties in the domesticated breed of plant or animal have always existed in the genomic history of the species and that human beings have merely rearranged them. But that's not necessarily so. Some traits of the modern breed originate in mutations from the past which would not have survived (i.e., propagated and generalised) in the population but for the human intervention.
"Are you saying that a soybean with a pig gene is anything like this?">
See Message # 278.
286. pseudoerasmus - 6/5/2001 12:50:39 PM
287. amax - 6/5/2001 12:51:03 PM
I would observe that the famous/infamous 'roundup ready' crops probably increase production, if not in absolute yield per acre (altho it may) - at least in terms of requiring fewer inputs for the same yield as a non-GM crop. Look at it this way: if it didn't increase real yields in some way, then why would there be any market for it?
288. marjoribanks - 6/5/2001 1:00:29 PM
"Well, you seem to be assuming that the genetic properties in the domesticated breed of plant or animal have always existed in the genomic history of the species and that human beings have merely rearranged them. But that's not necessarily so. Some traits of the modern breed originate in mutations from the past which would not have survived (i.e., propagated and generalised) in the population but for the human intervention. "
I see I have to express myself almost monosyllabically in order for you to acknowledge that you understand the point. So:
Human intervention, per se, not bad.
Domestication, not bad.
Transgenic splicing, possibly bad.
Willy-nilly rushing of GM foods to food supply, very unwise, bad.
Pooh-poohing of reasonable concerns, bad, idiotic.
Any widespread threat to biodiversity, bad, bad, bad, bad, marj no like.
289. angel-five - 6/5/2001 1:08:41 PM
Perhaps it's only slighly less improbable than direct intervention in the genome.
Well... it's a poor way to put it, given that it's not only improbable but impossible for a soybean to end up with an animal gene. But.
If you want to talk about viral genes, that's another story entirely. Nature's been implanting them in other species for time out of mind, through phages and retroviruses.
290. pseudoerasmus - 6/5/2001 1:08:54 PM
288. marjoribanks - 6/5/01 6:00:29 PM
I see I have to express myself almost monosyllabically in order for you to acknowledge that you understand the point.
Human intervention, per se, not bad. Domestication, not bad. Transgenic splicing, possibly bad. Willy-nilly rushing of GM foods to food supply, very unwise, bad. Pooh-poohing of reasonable concerns, bad, idiotic. Any widespread threat to biodiversity, bad, bad, bad, bad, marj no like.
But you are no longer arguing the original point and have now moved on to a different one.
Earlier, you were arguing why GM produce are fundamentally different from domesticates. I was arguing that they are not necessarily so.
The problem with you is that you see all GM foods as akin to crossing bananas and owls. Most are a good deal less melodramatic than that.
291. angel-five - 6/5/2001 1:09:37 PM
...
I think it's important to understand exactly what it is we're talking about. The fundamental concern about GM crops isn't that they wouldn't have arisen in nature. PE is quite right to point out that they wouldn't have -- they could have, but would not have. And the fundamental concern about GM crops isn't that they have genes added to their genome. Hell, dogs are about 80% viral DNA, last I checked. That happens in nature.
No, the problem is that even though these things happen in nature there are numerous checks and balances which weed out problematic plants before they ever get to be a problem. There is no such evolution at work checking and balancing GM crops. Nature has done no quality assurance on them. That, and only that, is why they are observed.
Plants suseptible to phage infection have, over time, evolved so that their genes are not going to react strangely with phage DNA. Plants which can interbreed in nature have a common ancestor in the recent past and therefore their genes are likely to be totally compatible, or at least close enough to not make a difference. But when you speak of combining genes that have been subject to entirely different evolutionary pressures since the first difference between animals and plants arose, you have to remember that there is no such engineered-in assurance that something odd will not happen.
Please don't mistake me -- by odd I mean nothing more drastic than a plant becoming toxic within a few generations, or it becoming invasive enough that local ecosystems are suborned. That's the limit of what can go wrong with GM foods, at least in terms of impact.
292. vonKreedon - 6/5/2001 1:13:34 PM
Amax - What you describe is at least as alarming as bio-engineered crops. At least in the bio-engineering we think we have some idea about what might occur, plus it's, presumably, in a more tightly controlled enviroment than simply planting all of the altered corn and seeing what shows up.
293. angel-five - 6/5/2001 1:19:54 PM
Even GM crops that don't rely upon genes from other branches of the evolutionary tree can cause a problem, and, indeed, seem even more likely to.
Say you have a variety of corn, and you want it to produce much more protein -- so you take the zein gene and shotgun it back into the plant about ten or twelve times. Now whenever zein is produced, much more of it will be produced because ten genes will turn on instead of one whenever it comes time to produce zein.
The thing is, this sort of production is regulated by feedback within the plant. And it's possible to swamp certain kinds of feedback systems, overload them. It's also possible that great increases in zein levels will activate genes which typically don't turn on, and the activation of which has been selected against in domestication -- in other words, it's a throwback to the original wild crop, the way cyanide production is a throwback to wild almonds.
I say this sort of strange by-product is even more likely in situations where plant genes are altered rather than in situations where animal genes are implanted in plants, because whereas it's a gamble whether the animal proteins will interact in any of the feedback systems within the plant, it is much more likely that the transgenic plant proteins will do so.
294. pseudoerasmus - 6/5/2001 1:28:27 PM
Anyway, wasn't Khaval's original point that it is illegitimate to argue against GM foods on the grounds that they are "unnatural", because they are no less unnatural than domesticates?
Angelfive's point that there may be unintended consequences to GM foods is well taken.
But Marzipranks NOT ONCE made the same point. He just kept babbling about domesticates being directly derived from their wild ancestors.
295. angel-five - 6/5/2001 1:40:59 PM
Khaval made so ... many points. That may well have been one of them, but another was surely that 'natural' is largely a useless term.
296. sakonige - 6/5/2001 2:43:48 PM
khaval's earlier remarks trying to equate a desire for natural qualites with a fear of civilization were so inaccurate from my frame of reference that I had to wonder whether she was reflecting common attitues of her society or whether she is just warped.
297. sakonige - 6/5/2001 2:45:06 PM
attitudes
crap, I'm making a lot of typos today for some reason.
298. angel-five - 6/5/2001 2:54:32 PM
I don't believe that a desire for 'whole' foods necessarily equates to an atavistic impulse to live a presumably cleaner, simpler, more natural life. People who prefer the latter generally prefer the former, but the reverse is extremely far from being true.
299. amax - 6/5/2001 3:02:36 PM
VonK,
Precisely, which is why I have trouble taking seriously the scientific side of the anti-GM debate. There are no commercial crops that I know of that are not the result of what can be thought of as shotgun genetic modification techniques. Just about all species currently grown for food have been having this done to them, yet we do not see any real problems of the type that the anti-GM crowd suggests. Meanwhile, there are 'natural' agricultural products, like peanuts, that invoke violent allergic reactions in some people. A GM product that was as lethal as organic, natural peanuts would be non-viable commercially, and if it were released, would invite massive governmental and legal sanctions.
300. angel-five - 6/5/2001 3:16:23 PM
There are no commercial crops that I know of that are not the result of what can be thought of as shotgun genetic modification techniques.
This is not only misleading and wrong, but it also demonstrates that you haven't read recent posts. The products of genetic engineering are completely different from the products of selective breeding and hybridization.
301. vonKreedon - 6/5/2001 3:19:57 PM
A-5 - Read Amax's Message # 279, what is described is not selective breeding and hybridization.
302. marjoribanks - 6/5/2001 3:33:52 PM
#294 is further disingenuousness. Particularly this throw-away:
"But Marzipranks NOT ONCE made the same point. He just kept babbling about domesticates being directly derived from their wild ancestors."
This discussion, or my bit, started when I hastened to correct your pooh-poohing of GM as something not unlike what has already occurred in the process of domestication. My first, baldly stated, point is that there is much more happening on the GM front than a simple furtherance of the age-old agricultural process. The transgenic manipulation that splices animal genes into plants, for instance, is something entirely new and cannot be dismissed nearly as facilely as you attempted.
Part two of my statements was the explicit concern aired about the speed with which GM crops have entered the mainstream food supply, and the lack of time (mentioned twice, I think) to fully gauge the potential hazards.
There are all kinds of potential hazards involved, by the way, some of which go beyond those mentioned by A5. There is the very real threat of a GM crop overrunning the existing strains. Crop pollination, after all, is a hell of a lot more difficult to control than most other forms of reproduction.
303. angel-five - 6/5/2001 3:34:48 PM
In selective breeding you are manipulating chromosomes -- that is, extensive suites of genes that are packaged together and complement each other (by dint of the fact that the ones that didn't complement each other would have been removed from the gene pool.) You are trying, in plant breeding, to match chromosomes together for an optimum product. The chromosomes in question, as they necessarily possess common ancestors or else there would be no breeding between their hosts, are already tailored to complement each other, or at least to not disrupt the organism.
The analogy is similar to a man who owns several car factories and wants to produce a superior product -- so he takes the best one of each type of production department from the pool and puts them together under the same roof, all working on the same product.
304. angel-five - 6/5/2001 3:35:13 PM
Genetic engineering takes a single gene out of one organism and places it into another organism that is unrelated. And it is no more complex or smooth a transition than that -- you find a restriction enzyme that will cleave the donor DNA so that one fragment contains the entire desired gene, treat the host DNA with it so that it cracks up all over the place, and then inject the gene so it's taken up at random locations throughout the host DNA. (Or you use a vector like a phage, which does the same thing and sticks the donor gene in wherever it can.) Sometimes in the middle of an important gene. Sometimes in the middle of several. Sometimes in a stretch of DNA that usually never becomes available for translation.
Continuing the analogy, genetic engineering is like the owner of an auto factory looking at a nice machine in the middle of a golf ball factory and deciding it might make his factory a better place. And then having someone buy a few dozen of the machine and airdrop them through his roof at random spots in the factory. Some crack up and stop working. Some are whole but out in the middle of nowhere where there's no way to supply them and get people to work them. Some fall on other machines and break them. And some are close enough to a good spot that they can be put to work and the finished product is incorporated into the factory's finished product.
And, of course, sometimes you end up with an arcing, electric machine in the middle of a painting assembly line, and your factory swiftly converts itself to superheated gas and ash.
305. angel-five - 6/5/2001 3:38:25 PM
VonK:
Even so, you're talking about point mutation of a single pre-existing gene within an extant genome, as opposed to incorporation of an entirely foreign gene in a randomized manner. You do spot the difference, right?
306. alistairconnor - 6/5/2001 4:25:34 PM
Message # 284 Angel: If Alistair has yet to hear of any major triumph in GM food as far as increasing production, I have yet to hear of any GM horror stories where the production of a transgenic biochemical by the plant caused something horrible to happen.
The key word is: "yet". If these new, composite organisms that we are expected to swallow unawares, were medicines rather than foods, there would be a long and complex validation process before any of them were released for clinical trials. What is the primary difference? As foods, we are eating many thousands of times the dose...
307. alistairconnor - 6/5/2001 4:36:47 PM
Message # 287I would observe that the famous/infamous 'roundup ready' crops probably increase production, if not in absolute yield per acre (altho it may)
(on average, it doesn't)
- at least in terms of requiring fewer inputs for the same yield as a non-GM crop.
(again, on average, it doesn't)
Look at it this way: if it didn't increase real yields in some way, then why would there be any market for it?
The answer to that : ever heard of... marketing? Yeah, farmers really believed in GM. Farmers, in general, are eager to adapt new techniques to increase yields and lower costs, and are happy to believe what the experts tell them. The experts are called Monsanto and so on. On the whole, this has worked pretty well for farmers over the past 50 years. Tough luck this time : the experts didn't have anything much for them. The companies don't yet really know what they're doing with GM technology. Proof : the most widely planted GM cultivars are "Roundup Ready", which produce zero in terms of increased production (rather the reverse) and zero in terms of added virtues to the crop itself... all it does is not get killed by the weedkiller sold by... the same company that sells the seeds! It's a dead giveaway. The company increases its profits by selling a package to the farmer (seeds and obligatory inputs) on which they have a monopoly, rather than ordinary old seeds and weedkillers that he can buy from anyone.
This is the real joke about GM : up until now, it's a complete joke with respect to adding value to agricultural output. Yet the general public (farmers are beginning to get wise to the scam) are still completely sold on the idea that it's scientific, it's progress, therefore it must be good!
308. ElliottRW - 6/5/2001 4:40:35 PM
Angel-five has made a good observation about chromosomes vs. individual genes. When two genes are found on different versions of the same chromosome, the only way to reliably get them both is to clone an animal with both versions of the chromosome. If you have three important genes on three different versions of the same chromosome, you're screwed.
I wonder if a kind of chromosomal reshuffling--that is, using genes that are all from the same species, but creating novel versions of chromosomes that have genes not naturally found together--might be an acceptable "first step" into GM. It would be more productive than simple selective breeding (where there may be no optimal combination of available chromosomes) but yet not so freaky as transgenic engineering.
309. alistairconnor - 6/5/2001 4:42:00 PM
Message # 302 Marj: Crop pollination, after all, is a hell of a lot more difficult to control than most other forms of reproduction.
That's an important point : the GM industry has pursued a "burnt bridges" approach to the spread of modified genes. Because of cross-pollinisation, ALL soybeans now grown in the US incorporate modified genes : all non-GM crops have been contaminated. If there turns out to be a problem with the GM stuff, well, tough.
Needless to say, this is not in accordance with the advertising blurb of the GM companies.
310. pseudoerasmus - 6/5/2001 6:29:01 PM
Marzipranks, I've reread all the posts you addressed to me. They contain nothing about some nonsense about GM plants not being "natural". The rhetoric about unintended consequences of GM only enters your remarks when A5 weighs in.
311. pseudoerasmus - 6/5/2001 6:30:39 PM
....contain nothing but some....
312. sakonige - 6/5/2001 6:35:47 PM
pseudoerasmus,
I'm still fascinated by the way you never, ever predict any event in the future. Even when you do "wager", it's on an event is occuring or has already occured.
313. sakonige - 6/5/2001 6:38:07 PM
With all the tools of analytical science and history at your disposal, you will not venture a single guess.
It makes you seem older than you are.
314. angel-five - 6/5/2001 9:40:41 PM
The thing about the debate over GM foods is that very few people on both sides are really being fair or truthful. Monsanto's spokesmen have nothing but glorious things to say about how their product will change lives and transform agriculture and so on. It's a rare person in the industry who will allow that there are damned good reasons to scrutinize GM trials.
But the people railing out against GM foods, in turn, are typically content to let an uninformed fear of Frankenstein food be their best weapon.
I'd expect that less than one in five hundred Westerners could give you any real specifics about what genetic modification consists of. I don't mean the technical aspects of it, like what a restriction endonuclease does or how you match an initiation complex to your host organism. I mean explain, without stumbling, what is done and what the result is and why it works.
315. angel-five - 6/5/2001 9:41:00 PM
You figure out that you want a particular protein, a completely natural molecule, to be produced in an organism, you either find the responsible gene in nature or you generate a copy of it through reverse transcriptase, you excise the gene from some donor cells, breed a bunch of copies of it in a dish, then you introduce it into the host nucleus. If it doesn't take, it doesn't take. If it does, the host will begin producing the new protein. Because it is doing so, your plant is now transgenic, and people the world over will look at it and you with marked fear -- the plant because it is unnatural, God didn't make it that way, it is going to mutate into some kind of killer species and devour our children alive, whatever. You because you are tinkering with the unknown. Didn't you see Frankenstein? We all know what happens to people who fuck around like that.
There are perfectly good reasons to be worried about transgenic crops. I've laid those reasons out already in this thread, Alistair has laid out more, and although neither one of us has really gotten into it yet, the economic considerations of these new patented crops is something that could potentially be really really nasty. But the fact of the matter is that if you were to take a group of people who hated and feared genetic modification and were to carefully explain everything that happens and why and what the result is and why, a good part of them would find their personal concerns ameliorated. This fact is not lost on anti-GM types.
316. angel-five - 6/5/2001 9:46:07 PM
A lot of the people who are dead set against eating genetically modified crops hold to their beliefs because they think there's a chance that eating those crops could somehow cause some monstrous change in themselves. Which is flat fucking ridiculous, it makes the myth of Spiderman's genesis seem like sound science. But that's precisely it -- so few people are ever taught enough about the subject that they never get the chance to learn how ridiculous such an idea really is.
Like I said, there's plenty of GOOD reasons to be chary, but no real reason at all to panic like these folks do. No one, least of all the consumer, has anything to lose at all from there being a clearer understanding of the process of producing and growing transgenic crops.
317. angel-five - 6/5/2001 9:59:03 PM
Plants sometimes spontaneously double their chromosome count, or are artificially induced to do so. What happens is that the chromosomes in a germ cell double in preparation for division and then they end up staying in one cell. Some plants thrive with doubled chromosomes -- they produce much larger amounts of needed nutrients and whatnot because there are two copies of every gene. (Marijuana smokers across the world are very familiar with plants that have undergone this process -- 'gold' or 'kind' varieties of weed are strains with doubled or quadrupled chromosomes.) Sometimes, however, the plant doesn't do as well, or even becomes dangerous, because the plant's cellular apparatus isn't configured to handle higher levels of all the proteins that get double-produced in such a plant.
In this case a GM version of the crop -- where just the desired proteins are doubled or tripled up -- is safer and healthier than the natural alternative.
I come out pretty neutral on GM food -- I'll eat it with few concerns but generally prefer not to support companies like Monsanto. I believe in careful testing of GM crops, but, then again, I believe in careful testing of any new mutant or hybridized cultivar, for the exact same reasons. I empathize totally with people who share my concerns about GM food and have little time for people who are afraid of it because it's something we shouldn't tinker with.
318. alistairconnor - 6/6/2001 6:44:11 AM
Message # 315But the fact of the matter is that if you were to take a group of people who hated and feared genetic modification and were to carefully explain everything that happens and why and what the result is and why, a good part of them would find their personal concerns ameliorated. This fact is not lost on anti-GM types.
Conversely, the "silent majority" who happily eat GM food, do so because
a) they are unaware of it (don't bother me with pesky little labels about what's in my food : what I don't know won't hurt me)
b) they are vaguely reassured that GM is "good science" : because all science is good for us, it's progress; and because GM food is necessarily better, or at least cheaper (otherwise, why would anyone make it, eh amax?)
If they were aware of
a) the inadequate testing of GM foods, and the almost complete absence of scientific appraisal by people who are not on GM companies' payroll
b) the fact that current cultivars are not designed to be better in any way that actually benefits the consumer, nor cheaper, but merely more profitable for the seed merchant,
well, a good part of them would be pretty pissed off about it, and would choose not to buy such foods.
319. JayAckroyd - 6/6/2001 12:17:21 PM
Back in 1998 the NYTimes Magazine ran an article about a GM potato.
In it the reporter described a complex relationship between American farming technology--high capital to labor ratio, high land to labor ratio--that leaves them perenially in debt. That's how they pay for the land the and combines. This puts pressure on them to maximize their return to capital. The GM products are designed to fit into this kind of cultivation pattern.
There were several interesting tidbits in the piece. One was the useful life of the potato in question was thought to be about 20 years. Another was the farmer who pointed to the potato expanse to the south and said "that's what I sell" and then pointed to much smaller plot to the north and said "that's what we eat." The small plot had traditional potatoes.
320. angel-five - 6/6/2001 9:10:23 PM
GM is good science. It's perfectly sound science and as you tacitly admitted there have been NO reported problems with it so far, beyond people complaining that it's genetically modified. It is something that should be carefully examined for the reasons I have already mentioned, but then again, I can't think of ANY new scientific discovery that lends itself to wide and integral implementation in human society that shouldn't be carefully tested for unforeseen consequences.
Your rhetoric seems to infer (please correct me if I'm wrong) that GM food should be subjected to the sort of test procedure that the American FDA uses to approve medicines. Is this a correct assumption to take?
As far as GM cultivars not being an improvement to anything but the pocketbook of seed corporations -- this seems like quite an outlandish statement. Do you have a non-anecdotal basis for this assumption?
You are, of course, quite right that many people, Americans notably, have little idea that the food they consume is genetically modified in some part --whether it contains corn syrup or canola oil where some GM plants are a part of the raw material of manufacture, or something similar. And they would likely raise a huge hue and cry if more of them were made to understand this.
And then, once again, if they were to be educated about genetic modification -- I don't mean sold on it, I mean educated about it -- many if not most of them would drop the hue and cry.
321. angel-five - 6/6/2001 9:18:42 PM
Genetic modification isn't going to go away. It's far too potentially useful for it to be done away with. The primary question in my mind is not whether it is here to stay but who will get a chance to use the technology. It lends itself to large company profits and Green community decentralization alike.
322. alistairconnor - 6/7/2001 4:15:02 AM
Potentially useful. Exactly. If you can point out any currently cultivated GM crops which are designed to be truly useful, other than to the bottom line of the seed merchant, then that would tend to contradict my "outlandish" statement. I'm listening.
I am in favour of transparency and traceability in all aspects of life. Particularly in food. I am sure that you personally, Angel, are much more concerned than the average American about the quality of the food you eat. You have said that you are wary about eating GM foods yourself. Implicitly, you reject the right of other consumers to choose whether or not to eat GM foods (you rightly assume that many would choose not to, if foods were labeled as such), because they would do so for the wrong reasons. I find that a strangely elitist attitude.
323. alistairconnor - 6/7/2001 4:28:01 AM
You agree that GM crops should be carefully tested for unforeseen consequences. Do you assert that this is currently the case? Current testing regimes are absurdly perfunctory, and carried out unsupervised by the GM companies themselves.
This raises a huge problem with enormous consequences for the future of the planet : the collapse of independent science.
All over the world, over the past couple of decades, scientific research, both pure and applied, has increasingly come into the thrall of private enterprise. Even the most prestigious public universities are tied by funding of their research to major corporations. This poses a number of problems, particularly in the field of molecular biology (of which GM is a part), but other disciplines are, obviously, subject to the same constraints.
In particular, research results these days are rarely in the public domain. Biotech companies claim patents on living organisms (even pre-existing unmodified ones, which is... patently absurd).
So, Angel, your starry-eyed dreams about how nice the world will be when "green community decentralisation" will have access to the (presumed future, as yet unknown) benefits of genetic modification... how do you envisage this coming about?
324. marjoribanks - 6/7/2001 11:36:52 AM
When this thread started out, I considered posting about my own favorite futurist topic - the geopolitical impact of climate change especially global warming. I held off for a while, since so many very interesting predictions and discussions started up.
But now may be a good time, especially because of today's news of this report.
The only relevant previously tabled discussion topic may be arheles' idea that global populations will move to the coasts. Obviously, I disagree. I think many of the coastal areas currently heavily populated (think Bangladesh) will be rendered inhabitable. I am certain that there will be massive outflows of population due to rising ocean levels from any number of places, and in some cases severe refugee crises.
Again thinking of Bangladesh, India will most certainly face a huge influx of refugees by the middle/end of this century. Plus, the entire populations of lowlying island nations nearby (the Maldives for instance) will almost certainly decamp wholesale.
Some European countries will declare emergencies and perhaps manage to stave off the rising oceans by deploying ever more-advanced breakwater technologies. But places like the Netherlands and large parts of Sto's Denmark will face these rising oceans as the greatest threat to their very existence since time immemorial. London will be under threat, New York (Manhattan at least) is vulnerable, and so are scores of our other "world" cities.
325. marjoribanks - 6/7/2001 11:39:17 AM
And the second part of the climate change equation will be drought and water supply. Clean water will, in the end, be more valuable than oil. Countries like Canada will become staggeringly rich, though perhaps in fact Canada will sinply be coopted into the US as water-supplier with vast canals and pipelines draining down from the North.
The already hostile ME and huge swathes of Africa and Asia will essentially become completely inhospitable desert, and wars will inevitably and unavoidably be fought over water. Tens of millions will die as a result of being without it.
Even within countries, like China and India and probably even the USA, access to water will create formidable tensions. It would not surprise me at all to see civil wars in the first two, at least, over access to it. In India, fwiw, states are already fighting bitterly over river water and the right to drain it.
326. marjoribanks - 6/7/2001 11:40:18 AM
In 324, I obviously meant to say that countries like Bangladesh will be rendered UNinhabitable.
327. ElliottRW - 6/7/2001 1:15:14 PM
UNinhabitable -- inhabitable by the United Nations?
328. khaval alazman - 6/7/2001 1:21:30 PM
QUICK!!! Tune in IMMEDIATELY to BBC World Service if you can. Amazing stuff on the GM battle.
329. ElliottRW - 6/7/2001 1:25:10 PM
Alistair -- one of the purposes of patents is to encourage the public disclosure of scientific and engineering knowledge. Without patents, nothing of value would be published, and sometimes, without patents, nothing would be attempted. In light of this, it does not seem absurd to me to issue patents for living organisms when the research is non-trivial.
But your larger point I agree with--as the research required to discover and document genetic material becomes increasingly trivial, patents are overkill. To issue a patent on, say, pictures of Mount Rushmore would indeed be absurd.
330. marjoribanks - 6/7/2001 2:45:20 PM
I guess my nifty doomsday climate change predictions can wait for a bit.
I looked at the BBC website to check on what Khaval mentioned and found very interesting transcript.
I urge you all to check it out.
331. angel-five - 6/7/2001 2:57:28 PM
Potentially useful. Exactly. If you can point out any currently cultivated GM crops which are designed to be truly useful, other than to the bottom line of the seed merchant, then that would tend to contradict my "outlandish" statement. I'm listening.
Long-storage life cultivars which require fewer preservatives to store. There's breeds of tomatoes that I know of and I believe there are trials with other plants. I understand they aren't as tasty as some of the better brands, but you did ask about design intent. So there's one. Another would be cultivars of corn which are engineered to produce more oil or sugar.
I actually got to participate in a biotechnology trial for a plant which produced a natural and biodegradable plastic polymer. Yes, participate; it was part of a senior seminar, a course on the ethics of biotechnology taught by two dedicated scientists and one ethics professor who were all very cognizant, even back then, of the concerns which we are bandying about today.
Implicitly, you reject the right of other consumers to choose whether or not to eat GM foods (you rightly assume that many would choose not to, if foods were labeled as such), because they would do so for the wrong reasons. I find that a strangely elitist attitude.
Well, you're right about it being a generally elitist attitude. Most people are quite ignorant about genetic modification, in a long and infamous tradition of popular ignorance and fear of modern science. But I never said that I'm against labeling. I'm not. I'm a little wary of it -- I'd rather that any labeling were accompanied by efforts to educate the public -- but if for no other reason than an economic one, I believe people should have the right to know they are consuming GM products.
332. angel-five - 6/7/2001 2:58:10 PM
Current testing regimes are absurdly perfunctory, and carried out unsupervised by the GM companies themselves.
Well, I DO know that the trials done on seeing if you can get a common cultivar to produce a medication are VERY rigorous, but, in the terms of GM cultivars used for food production, yes, you're right. There's too little research done on the unforeseen consequences of mass plantings of ANY new strains of plant. You seem to be a great deal more concerned with GM varieties than other varieties; my concern is much more evenly distributed, although I do believe GM plants should be scrutinized with a little more care, for the reasons I mentioned.
This raises a huge problem with enormous consequences for the future of the planet : the collapse of independent science.
You expecting an argument? I'm willing to bet a pint that I'm even more concerned about this than you are.
So, Angel, your starry-eyed dreams about how nice the world will be when "green community decentralisation" will have access to the(presumed future, as yet unknown) benefits of genetic modification... how do you envisage this coming about?
A nice start would be in your political camp abandoning its reflexively reactionary stance on biotechnology. Anyone with access to a decent biology lab will find the ingredients they need to produce a test strain of genetically modified plants. Whether you're talking about engineering amaranth so that it can sustain a community, or inserting a gene complex to produce a locally needed medication (such as, say, drugs to treat malaria) -- or just engineering a strain of corn which will produce twice the amount of ethanol when fermented, to fuel a local turbine or various combustion engines -- I'm sure you can conceive of uses which would allow small communities to be more self-sufficient and less dependent upon outside industries.
333. angel-five - 6/7/2001 3:00:38 PM
Interestingly enough, it's the demands pushed by you and yours -- to raise the requirements of testing to a prohibitive degree -- that would prevent smaller interests taking part in biotechnology, and would leave it the exclusive domain of large biotech conglomerates.
Isn't it ironic? Don't you think.
334. angel-five - 6/7/2001 3:17:46 PM
That's an outstanding transcript, Marjori. Thank you for linking it.
335. marjoribanks - 6/7/2001 3:39:49 PM
No prob. It seemed extremely evenhanded to me.
I have no problem with many of the stated aims of GM crop producers. However, there are all kinds of potential hazards which seem, to me, to be glossed over in a race for this magic corn (for instance) to be not only "invented" but rushed to dominance in global agriculture. I have a real fear, and it's not particularly scientific I grant you, of seeing our biodiversity further reduced especially when the replacement hasn't even gone through a few cycles of use.
In any case, I had the nagging idea I'd been reading something about pollination just recently when I posted in this thread about it a couple of days ago. It's not at all strictly on topic, but what I'd been reading was this book review. I'll definitely be checking it out when I get the chance.
336. transient1a - 6/7/2001 4:00:22 PM
1
Here is a simple graphical description of genes and gene splicing.
See Links under Interactive Images
2
Key problem:
Greed.
Yes, companies are in business to make money.
So the farmers can grow the crop, but legally can't plant the seed from their crops. (The companies wanted to use a terminator gene to render the seeds sterile. But the results could have been -- well, maybe disastrous is too feeble a word. And, to be fair, the probability of a real disaster occurring was thought to be very low.)
And do the farmers have a chance?
BCC summary of Monsanto versus Schmeiser
Monsanto versus Schmeiser
The Implications of the Schmeiser Decision
Well, not in Canada!
Or, at least, not yet.
AND
Some products appear to be simply hype:
Compare:
No hurdles seen to golden rice tech transfer -- Licence for non-commercial use soon
Golden-A rice is not safe, says Greenpeace
337. RosettaStone - 6/7/2001 4:17:23 PM
Q. What time is it?
A. You mean now?
--Yogi Berra
338. alistairconnor - 6/8/2001 5:20:00 PM
I've been waiting to see if the "Golden Rice" thing would come up... It's in the BBC transcript, fair enough, that was recorded in March 2000. But I find it hard to believe that anyone can still publish serious articles about this outrageous scam.
No doubt the scientist behind the project was sincere about it. But the fact that it has been aggressively "marketed" by the GM lobbies to try to popularise GM, to convince people that it's going to feed the "starving millions", is an illustration of how morally bankrupt the biz is.
I'm not saying that there won't be useful cultivars, one day. I just can't see them being produced by the likes of Monsanto and co. Their own record damns them. I am glad to see that they have taken a severe financial beating over recent years, and that their bid for dominance and control of the world's seeds has largely failed. I think this is a necessary precondition to any beneficial development of GM.
339. angel-five - 6/9/2001 1:42:31 AM
Golden A Rice isn't a problem, at least outside its marketing. Some vitamin A is certainly better than none and I don't see any other viable alternatives that we can implement on any real scale yet. Of course it'd be best if we could educate the starving people on proper subsistence farming methods and the importance of seeking balanced nutrition, and of course it'd be best if they could solve the problem of Vitamin A deficiency on their own hook without some tainted corporation helping them out to get a little good PR.
It is past being obvious that Vitamin A deficiency syndromes aren't currently being helped. Golden A rice won't solve the problem on it's own --some studies suggest it will, but I don't think it can. But if it will help, it's a ridiculous misplacement of scruples to try and block its implementation in the third world.
340. angel-five - 6/9/2001 1:44:34 AM
I mean, what, are the Greens going to dress up as Mohawks and throw the King's rice into Boston Harbor? That's what this smacks of.
341. khaval alazman - 6/9/2001 2:13:50 AM
Angel5, your #339 is simply *it*! You really have ennunciated the reality perfectly.
342. angel-five - 6/9/2001 11:31:25 PM
Take away the fact that Vitamin A enriched rice is one of those nasty dangerous genetically modified things. Take away the fact that it hasn't harmed anyone yet. Treat it, minus the baggage, exactly as it is in the most fair but cynical terms. It's an unproven and therefore theoretically dangerous product that stands to alleviate the suffering of a large impoverished and undereducated population. It is produced by a large biochemical conglomerate, one that is undoubtedly looking for a widespread test-market to see if its product is viable. If the product works the company and the new, unproven technology will get a huge boost, both in profitability from increased domestic sales and in public opinion. And this is undoubtedly something that will help the conglomerate a great deal, because it has a bit of a public relations problem back home. The catch is, although nobody can foresee any problems right now, that the product is as of yet unproven and may have unintended side effects.
Is that fair?
Moreover, does it sound familiar?
It should. Substitute 'experimental AIDS drugs' for 'Golden Rice,' read it again, and then think of how these two products elicit such a different reaction.
343. angel-five - 6/9/2001 11:38:47 PM
Once you consider that, and then realize that we in the West have many more selfish reasons for wanting to deal with the AIDS pandemic outside our own borders, whereas we stand to gain little based on whether or not third-world children go blind. In other words, distributing vitamin-A enriched rice is much more of a liberal and humanitarian act, and much less of a case of enlightened self-interest, than is distributing experimental AIDS treatments to those nations where AIDS runs unchecked.
344. ScottLoar - 6/10/2001 7:16:02 AM
Angel-five's comments are correct. Golden rice is necessary and I know it will be widely, wildly accepted in Asia - the very colour is one of good fortune.
345. labwabbit - 6/10/2001 11:52:29 AM
YC
Message # 29
346. transient1a - 6/10/2001 2:18:13 PM
347. transient1a - 6/10/2001 2:20:03 PM >>>> 348. transient1a - 6/10/2001 2:21:29 PM >>>>> 349. angel-five - 6/10/2001 3:52:08 PM The problem is that no one really knows. And no one really cares. And, by necessity, everything is skewed by the need to make money as quickly as possible. This is an oversimplification where it isn't outright wrong. We know that Vitamin A will prevent the diseases caused by a Vitamin A deficiency and we know that golden rice is fortified with that vitamin. Plenty of people care whether the problem of Vitamin A deficiency syndromes are addressed. And while biotechnology companies are definitely interested in making money, this is a case where that interest may well converge with providing Golden Rice at a low price to nations where these syndromes are rampant. Sometimes a charitable act is the best advertisement you can obtain, and when that is combined with the chance to perform what is in essence a large-scale trial of a product and prove your new technology, it all happily is in agreement with the financial constraints these companies must work within. Your arguments about how big money can obscure the known harm of a product are of course correct, but they aren't terribly applicable here -- there is a large, outstanding difference between a crop such as golden rice and tobacco, or the psychoactive medications you mention. It's even one you mention -- there are reams of evidence suggesting that these latter products were dangerous and unhealthy. There is no such evidence at all WRT Golden Rice -- the most ardent oppositionists are reduced to stating that there MAY be unforeseen consequences. Unlike AIDS' experimental treatment, we don't know the harm will outweigh any potential benefit. You mean, we know that experimental AIDS treatment will do more harm than good? That seems to be grammatically what you just said. 350. angel-five - 6/10/2001 3:53:06 PM IF you intended to say that we know AIDS drug trials will do LESS harm than good, we know no such thing. While I favor doling out test AIDS treatment to the hot zones, I'm also quite cognizant of the fact that it's risky. Not just because the drugs may kill people if improperly used (or perhaps even if used according to directions) but that the widespread proliferation of test drugs in an unsophisticated populace is a great chance for the virus to acquire resistance to the drugs. Simply put, introducing a monoculture to replace all the current diverse types of rice that have been carefully genetically selected by various indigenous populations in different environments seems like 'quick fix' that has the potential for disastrous repercussions that outweigh any potential benefits of 'golden rice'. Might you be more specific? Plenty of people are quick to talk about the disastrous repercussions, few offer any reasonable explanation of what they might mean, and as long as I'm playing devil's advocate we might as well get some out. And it will be years before GM, in any form, becomes a reality. You're joking, right? If we were really serious about the GM, then massive amounts of money would be funneled into the project. ... Massive amounts of money HAVE been funneled into genetic modification. Further, it should be noted that all sorts of benefits could, theoretically, be built into genetically modified rice. So the rice could be a full protein food like soya beans and also could require virtually no fertilizers. In theory. YES, the food potential of GM is enormous. The question is: Is the West willing to give this potential away. They are trying pretty damned hard to give it away right now. Of course they are doing so with an eye for future profits and good PR. Nevertheless, they are doing it. 351. Uzmakk - 6/10/2001 5:56:57 PM As much money has been funneled into the Human Genome Project as was funneled into the Apollo Project. 352. angel-five - 6/10/2001 6:25:49 PM Simply put, introducing a monoculture to replace all the current diverse types of rice that have been carefully genetically selected by various indigenous populations in different environments seems like 'quick fix' that has the potential for disastrous repercussions that outweigh any potential benefits of 'golden rice'. No answer yet, so I'll make a few statements. The word 'monoculture' is breathtakingly irrelevant to the subject at hand. The very works you cite -- ones you cautioned us all to read carefully -- state, in black and white, that the plan is to implant the vitamin A gene complex into strains of those 'current diverse types of rice' which you mention. And then do the same rigorous testing on the output that they have done thus far, which although necessary will further delay the implementation of golden rice for another four to six years. The varying strains will all share the same Vitamin A gene complex. Considering that they share about ninety percent of their other genes, this in and of itself is of no concern whatsoever. 353. Uzmakk - 6/10/2001 6:35:53 PM Makes sense to me, A-5. Others? 354. Uzmakk - 6/10/2001 6:36:35 PM Your fucking pin head. 355. transient1a - 6/10/2001 6:37:38 PM angel-five, 356. transient1a - 6/10/2001 6:39:27 PM >>>> 357. angel-five - 6/10/2001 6:46:24 PM >However, even one of the inventors of the variety Ingo Potrykus has accepted that there was no evidence showing to what extent the human body could utilize the Pro-vitamin A of Golden Rice and convert into Vitamin A.< Of course there isn't. You can't yet do trials on humans with the rice. I feel the need to point out here that the italicized statement centers on extent, and therefore we are still speaking of a net gain in vitamin A. I also feel the need to point out that many of the vegetables we eat every day suffer from the same lack of proof of the extent to which their nutrients are absorbed into the body. This is a failure not of the vegetable, but our testing methods, which are still very imprecise. Nevertheless, the evidence that the human body benefits from eating vegetables like spinach is still overwhelming, despite the quibbles as to the exact count of nutrients which we can indeed metabolize. 358. angel-five - 6/10/2001 6:53:11 PM Then the point is quite different, but I still believe it is wrong, and once again it is for reasons which you have already mentioned. These are biotech companies and Golden A Rice is hardly a giant moneymaker. It's more charity than anything, with a slight chance that it will somehow turn out to be profitable. Mostly, it is for PR -- and, trust me, the amount of money that's been spent on this project already is not small. Why do you imagine they would fund the project much more heavily than they already have, under these conditions? 359. ilyavinarsky - 6/10/2001 8:02:09 PM In 2020, 360. sakonige - 6/10/2001 8:38:50 PM 361. marjoribanks - 6/10/2001 9:37:40 PM Extremely cogent article from today's NY Times. 362. transient1a - 6/10/2001 11:02:46 PM angel-five, 363. transient1a - 6/10/2001 11:05:20 PM >>>> 364. transient1a - 6/10/2001 11:06:43 PM >>>> 365. angel-five - 6/10/2001 11:18:15 PM And, if sufficient money were available, then this should have been one the first questions tackled. As well as, of course, the acceptability of golden rice to various populaces. Once again, how would they have conducted the trials? 366. transient1a - 6/10/2001 11:21:25 PM I forgot to add another URL: 367. alistairconnor - 6/11/2001 3:08:03 AM Message # 340I mean, what, are the Greens going to dress up as Mohawks and throw the King's rice into Boston Harbor? That's what this smacks of. 368. alistairconnor - 6/11/2001 3:09:41 AM "Golden Rice" is not just a PR stunt, it's a confidence trick. Proof : it has the enthusiastic support of the idiot savant ScottLoar, who thinks it's great because it's a pretty colour. 369. angel-five - 6/11/2001 3:13:31 AM The Boston Tea Party reference can be stricken from the record if it offends. I made it, however, for a logical reason -- people tossing out a perfectly good product that many would like to have, simply because they do not like the politics behind its sale. And, furthermore, are concerned that the sale will establish a foothold which endangers their own goals. As far as the numbers go, I have looked at them. I believe I also said that Golden A rice alone probably won't solve the problem -- it may, but likely will not. It will, however, greatly contribute to a solution, and to my way of thinking that's much better than nothing. If further sources of Vitamin A are necessary, let's look for ways to provide them as well. The fact that the rice alone probably will not provide each person with enough Vitamin A to stave off blindness syndromes, however, does not make it pointless. 370. angel-five - 6/11/2001 3:19:42 AM As far as being 'denigrating'... I'm openly sympathetic to many stated Green aims, and I believe I also posted here the fact that I voted Green in the last election. It is a party with its heart in the right place, usually, as far as I am concerned. Nevertheless, I have little time for people who oppose GM food and the GM industry 'just because' and will scorn it on that basis. You and I both know that this is not an unknown rationale in the camp of people who protest genetic modification of crops. I ought probably to have chosen a much narrower brush, but the reasoning remains. 371. alistairconnor - 6/11/2001 3:55:27 AM By the way, that BBC transcript that everyone was ooh-ing and aah-ing about, is seriously dated (March 2000) : not only has the "golden rice" scam since been discredited, it doesn't expose the principal problem with BT gene implantation. 372. ScottLoar - 6/11/2001 3:57:33 AM re Message # 368, your comment was mean and petty, inappropriate to the argument; the "pretty colour" as you derisively dismiss my comments fails to allow this strain will be wildly accepted. But you, ever a man of extremes in some outlandish spot known only to yourself, see little Asian kids with funnels down their throats getting stuffed with golden rice in the vain hope of absorbing their daily quantity of vitamin A as their parents abandon all reason. 373. alistairconnor - 6/11/2001 4:15:13 AM "Golden Rice" is not a perfectly good product. It's a pretty marketing concept. The fact that you have looked at the numbers, and still defend it, is a sign that you are a cynic, more interested in propaganda than science in this case. If you wish to maintain your claim that it "will, however, greatly contribute to a solution", then let's attempt a cost/benefit analysis of replacing the rice varieties the target population are currently using, with golden rice (which may provide, oh let's be generous, maybe 10% of a daily vitamin A requirement, if it's established that the pro-vitamin A is effectively assimilable), and contrast that with a cost/benefit analysis of providing vitamin A through a balanced diet of the target population (which would probably entail encouraging polyculture, rather than the monoculture associated with GM techniques). 374. alistairconnor - 6/11/2001 4:15:40 AM Sorry. 375. alistairconnor - 6/11/2001 4:17:24 AM This strain will advance, it will come to being 376. ScottLoar - 6/11/2001 4:21:06 AM No, it is an understanding of the dynamics of the market. Yes, I know, you become quite upset at any mention of "market" as being unethical and conspicuously greedy. 377. alistairconnor - 6/11/2001 4:28:37 AM Yes, Scott, I accept that in some respects, my "pretty colour" remark was a cheap shot; however you emphasise yourself that the yellowness of the rice is a useful marketing tool in Asia. i.e. here is a product designed to sell on aesthetics and emotion rather than its usefulness. I have no objection to buying and selling things, contrary to your portrayal, nor even to marketing gimmicks; but yes, I object to marketing gimmicks dressed up as grandiose humanitarianism. That's confidence trickery. 378. alistairconnor - 6/11/2001 4:31:54 AM As to whether the product will ever hit the market : given the lead times we're talking about, I'm sceptical. 379. ElliottRW - 6/11/2001 9:53:22 AM I'm curious: how did seed companies profit from the seed business before GM? Specifically, did they use the courts aggressively as Monsanto did in the (seemingly) absurd round-up ready canola case cited earlier? If not, then the problem is not so much GM but Monsanto's approach to profiting from it. 380. transient1a - 6/11/2001 9:59:51 AM In majoribanks URL Message # 361, it is interesting to that the amount spent on attempting eradicate Starlink has been estimated at ONE BILLION dollars. Compare this to the total of the estimated $150 million dollars ($50 million of which was spent on ADVERTISING) for the development of golden rice. 381. transient1a - 6/11/2001 10:00:32 AM angel-five Message # 365 Once again, how would they have conducted the trials? 382. Rama - 6/11/2001 10:11:50 AM This global decline in breastfeeding and subsequent "commerciogenic malnutrition" has been attributed in part to the aggressive marketing of breastmilk substitutes by the babymilk and babyfood industry1. 383. marjoribanks - 6/11/2001 10:18:33 AM My aunt (the dean of a huge municipal hospital) is a crusader for breastfeeding in India. She hates the babyfood industry. In India, they have indulged in some truly disgusting advertising and marketing. 384. marjoribanks - 6/11/2001 10:22:14 AM But as mentioned above, the role of the multinationals cannot be downplayed. In India, it has been proven that they can sell vast quantities of formula to people who (a) can't really afford it and (b) don't really need it by claiming vastly exaggerated benefits. In the 70's, the company selling Farex was caught actually telling consumers that their babies would look more like Western babies (ie fair) if they were fed the product. 385. marjoribanks - 6/11/2001 10:25:27 AM I find the GM analogy to the babyfood industry quite apt. Here is a product no one asked for, and no one needs, with all kinds of potential faults, with some real social and cultural costs. It is portrayed as somehow a boon, and marketed enough to create a niche despite it being unnecessary at best. 386. PelleNilsson - 6/11/2001 12:51:22 PM Elliott 387. angel-five - 6/11/2001 3:07:11 PM If you wish to maintain your claim that it "will, however, greatly contribute to a solution", then let's attempt a cost/benefit analysis of replacing the rice varieties the target population are currently using, with golden rice (which may provide, oh let's be generous, maybe 10% of a daily vitamin A requirement, if it's established that the pro-vitamin A is effectively assimilable), and contrast that with a cost/benefit analysis of providing vitamin A through a balanced diet of the target population (which would probably entail encouraging polyculture, rather than the monoculture associated with GM techniques). Sure. Let's. Now let's examine the number of institutions which have demonstrated the capability of funding and carrying out the latter programme. And based on this information, we should be able to choose what course of action we will take, right? Alistair, Alistair. You persist in misunderstanding me. 35% (not 10%) of the USRDA is better than zero percent, and it is available to small growers for free, and moreover there is NO reason why the rice cannot be a part of the latter programme of establishing sound subsistence farming and nutrition in the target areas. I certainly maintain my objection to your "boston tea party" : my objection go "golden rice" is coherent and science-based; your promotion of it is not; it is designed to stampede people into support for GM based on completely false feel-good assumptions about how it's going to feed the starving millions, and save children from blindness. Now who is reduced to trivial denigration? My support of Golden Rice is entirely scientifically sound and entirely coherent. Prove otherwise. And as far as my comments being designed to stampede people into supporting GM... what the fuck are you talking about? 388. angel-five - 6/11/2001 3:11:22 PM Transient1a: The opposition will only concede that the carotenoids are absorbed and metabolized to vitamin A in humans once it's demonstrated in tests. And they will scream bleeding murder if any wide-scale trials in humans are conducted before the safety testing process is complete and vetted. Do you begin to see? 389. transient1a - 6/11/2001 11:00:04 PM angel-five: 390. angel-five - 6/11/2001 11:04:26 PM Obviously, in the end golden rice will be tested on people -- since the goal is to use it as food. Therefore prior testing on small target groups is mandatory and, as would be expected, is planned: ... I'll say it again. You complained that if people were serious about the rice that they would have tested the absorption ratio of provitamin A and the metabolic ratio of provitamin A to vitamin A. I explained why this was not feasible. Your response is confusing, to say the least. 391. PelleNilsson - 6/12/2001 4:38:39 AM In the early days of this thread I posted about the Club of Rome and its doom-and-gloom forecasts of thw early 70's. It was on my mind because I had just written a brief paper. I'm now playing with the thought of expanding it to a thesis for next term. I would also expamd the subject to something like "Forecasting on a Global Scale" and include optimistic forecasts as well. I think I have a good optimist in Herman Kahn. I also have a couple of Swedish guys who fit nicely into the pessimist/optimist pattern. I would be greatful for any hints and tips about other writers on the subject, and, indeed, on the subject itself (except the perennial Lester Brown of World Watch). 392. stostosto - 6/12/2001 8:42:49 AM Pelle: 393. ElliottRW - 6/12/2001 9:20:41 AM Pelle, thanks for the info. To recap what Pelle said, the way seed companies make money is by selling the most profitable strains. They can do this year-after-year because these seeds degrade in quality when used in production. I'm guessing that this approach doesn't work for GM crops or Monsanto wouldn't bother with all the lawyers. I can think of the following reason why the traditional planned-obsolescence profit model might not work for GM: Kind of makes me wish the "terminator gene" had been more successful. 394. transient1a - 6/12/2001 10:45:35 AM angel-five, 395. PelleNilsson - 6/12/2001 12:53:20 PM sto 396. transient1a - 6/12/2001 1:36:42 PM ElliotRW, 397. transient1a - 6/12/2001 1:38:50 PM ElliotRW, 398. PelleNilsson - 6/13/2001 2:13:32 AM God, transient, why do you have to make everything so mysterious and dramatic? Go to your nearest farmer and ask him from where he gets the seed for his perfectly ordinary wheat or alf-alfa or potatos. From a seed company he will tell you. This has been the case for decades. Remember the 1962 book Silent Spring by Rachel Carson which warned of quicksilver poisoning among birds? Where did that quicksilver come from? From seed bought from seed companies. 399. transient1a - 6/13/2001 10:28:39 AM PelleNilsson, 400. transient1a - 6/13/2001 10:32:37 AM >>>> 401. transient1a - 6/13/2001 10:37:18 AM "while slowly prevail" should be "will slowly prevail" 402. marjoribanks - 6/13/2001 10:39:09 AM There is also the small matter of changing eating habits, transient. People, no matter how poor, have ingrained tastes. I don't know how you're going to persuade the "starving millions" to eat rice husk. 403. transient1a - 6/13/2001 11:51:39 AM marjoribanks, 404. marjoribanks - 6/13/2001 12:01:09 PM Transient, 405. marjoribanks - 6/13/2001 12:03:20 PM But think again about these starving millions, and even about beriberi. Who gets beriberi these days? A small concentration of people in the Horn of Africa, that's who. Juice up their rice with everything including whole cows and they'll still be malnourished. The famine there is caused by human machinations, and that is where the problem lies, not in polished rice. 406. transient1a - 6/13/2001 2:13:00 PM marjoribanks, 407. transient1a - 6/13/2001 2:25:30 PM marjoribanks, 408. marjoribanks - 6/13/2001 4:38:42 PM Hmm, I was overstating matters regarding the beriberi. But I still maintain that almost all the malnutrition that exists across the planet exists not because the food consumed is insufficently pumped-up but because of politics and official callousness. You can engineer the worlds greatest rice but it has to get to people. The transit is the crucial bit that results in famines or oversupply. 409. marjoribanks - 6/13/2001 4:40:03 PM The reason I'm 100% sure its different is because your link states that it is completely unusable in risotto and the red rice is eminently suitable as a substitute for arborio. 410. ElliottRW - 6/14/2001 9:53:39 PM I, for one found the GM argument quite fascinating. Three cheers for marjibanks, transientia, Pelle, A-5, and the other contributors. 411. iiibbb - 6/14/2001 10:46:02 PM I predict the future never arives. It is nothing but a vapor of possibility, immediately materializing and falling away into a false recollection... you don't know what's coming, you don't know what's here, and you don't know what's happened. 412. khaval alazman - 6/14/2001 11:51:48 PM Elliot! Thankyou for ennunciating what I was too much of a pussy to suggest: thins endless pawing over the rotting, mutated flesh of the GM debate will kill this thread. 413. CalGal - 6/15/2001 12:22:00 AM Thank goodness. 414. concerned - 6/15/2001 12:29:02 AM Promises, not predictions for our future: 415. khaval alazman - 6/15/2001 12:36:00 AM Cal, any sort of predition that can be verified within 7 days, on any topic which has appeared in the international news (including Yanqi stuff, but nothing too obscure or obvious - like, Rudy Guiliani will have another public spat with his estranged wife. 416. khaval alazman - 6/15/2001 12:37:12 AM Concerned, what makes you so sure about your first prediction (promise)? Am not disputing it, just interested in the source of your certainty. 417. concerned - 6/15/2001 12:55:42 AM Re. 416 - 418. iiibbb - 6/15/2001 12:57:12 AM I propose we Predict Kyoto's temperature 7 days from now. Friday June 22, 12 pm, Kyoto time. 419. iiibbb - 6/15/2001 1:04:01 AM That can be verified on Thursday, June 21, at 10 pm EST, USA 420. khaval alazman - 6/15/2001 1:24:19 AM Concerned, thanks for that. When I have more time, I'll ask you some questions about what you've written. It's particularly interesting, becasue I've not heard from someone dirctly, such strong support for the proposal. 421. khaval alazman - 6/15/2001 1:32:35 AM Er... there's a small problem with our Kyoto plan. 422. concerned - 6/15/2001 1:48:42 AM I predict that the average level of the world's oceans will rise less than six inches by the year 2100. 423. khaval alazman - 6/15/2001 1:55:45 AM Actually, Concerned, I'll ask my questions now. Please know that elite Australian media have a serious anti-MDS position, so my views will be skewed thus: 424. khaval alazman - 6/15/2001 1:56:35 AM ...cont. 425. khaval alazman - 6/15/2001 1:57:00 AM ...cont. 426. angel-five - 6/15/2001 2:03:06 AM Don't worry about the Clinton administration reference. Tommy is totally incapable of posting for any length of time without suddenly mentioning Clinton and how he was really Satan in disguise. He has attributed everything from a y2k take-over-America plan to the notion that roving thugs roamed the nation in packs, murdering anyone who stood up to Clinton, to our former president. 'Obsession' and 'compulsion' are two words commonly used in conjunction with concerned and Clinton. 427. khaval alazman - 6/15/2001 2:06:59 AM Why did I think Concerned was a woman? (this is not meant to be incendiary, BTW). 428. khaval alazman - 6/15/2001 2:09:45 AM Fuck. I just off-topicked in my own thread.... 429. concerned - 6/15/2001 2:15:18 AM Re. 425 - 430. concerned - 6/15/2001 2:24:35 AM Then we have A5, with his apparent reflexive disagreement with most of what I post. 431. concerned - 6/15/2001 2:26:20 AM Plus, every specific that A5 mentioned in his post wrt me was a false accusation. 432. khaval alazman - 6/15/2001 2:28:56 AM Concerned, oy veh! 433. khaval alazman - 6/15/2001 2:29:20 AM ...cont. 434. khaval alazman - 6/15/2001 2:30:45 AM Has there ever been a poster Angel has actually agreed with? 435. khaval alazman - 6/15/2001 2:33:09 AM Concerned, I musty lay the table for the holy Sabbath, now. Hopefully, we can continue later. 436. concerned - 6/15/2001 2:41:23 AM Why on earth would ICBM technology not improve apace with defence technology? 437. concerned - 6/15/2001 3:00:28 AM As you can probably tell, I object to MAD personally. It's day is done. Please don't take anything I posted personally. I know that my opinion is the minority one around here, but, hey, I'm used to that, as others can attest. 438. PelleNilsson - 6/15/2001 3:33:09 AM Of the things to worry about for the future, NMD comes very low on my list. If Bush wants to throw billions to the military complex to develop something that is probably not workable againsta potential threat that will probably not become actual, so bit. There could even be some interesting civilian spin-offs. 439. ScottLoar - 6/15/2001 6:58:33 AM A Modest Proposal 440. Wombat - 6/15/2001 9:20:14 AM Concerned's take on the "barbarism" of MAD fascinates me. There is nothing obsolete about it at all. The threat--and the knowledge that the US has the capacity and the will to follow through--has so far been very successful at concentrating the minds of even "rogue" states when it comes to an attack on the US itself. The threat--if anything--is now greater to a state contemplating an attack on the US than it was before, because they lack the capacity to "destroy" the United States in a nuclear exchange. 441. ElliottRW - 6/15/2001 9:23:51 AM My temperature prediction (white font): 18oC. 442. iiibbb - 6/15/2001 9:49:49 AM another amendment... the _first_ person to declare the correct temperature (without going over) is the winner. That way if you wait until Monday your prediction may already be taken. 443. ElliottRW - 6/15/2001 9:53:05 AM Japan Predicts Century of More Floods, Downpours TOKYO (Reuters) - Japan will be plagued with more heavy rains and floods this century due to expected temperature rises in urban areas, the Cabinet Office said in its annual white paper released on Friday. Such phenomena will lead to more landslides, and government steps will also be needed to protect the 4.75 million people living less than one meter above sea level, the paper on disaster preparedness said. At least 10 people died last September when the heaviest rainfall in more than a century hit the central city of Nagoya, flooding more than 37,800 houses. The city is home to some two million people. Average annual temperatures have been rising around the globe due to the emission of greenhouse gases and a shrinking green belt, leading to unusual weather patterns such as unseasonal thunderstorms and downpours. The report also repeated that central Japan and regions surrounding the capital, Tokyo, could be hit by a devastating earthquake some time this century. Noted astrologer ElliottRW responded to the report by saying that Japanese engineers will invent giant floating concrete apartment houses and shopping malls shaped like eggs and powered almost exclusively by tides. 444. khaval alazman - 6/15/2001 10:36:35 AM Hey guys. Great stuff. 445. PelleNilsson - 6/15/2001 12:54:55 PM khaval 446. khaval alazman - 6/15/2001 1:12:07 PM Listen here, you great Swedish meatball! If you have a suggestion for a more rarified topic for the competition, by all means, proffer it. 447. iiibbb - 6/15/2001 1:20:56 PM Well... I never meant it to be a _serious_ challenge. 448. PelleNilsson - 6/15/2001 3:03:45 PM iiibbb 449. iiibbb - 6/15/2001 3:14:29 PM well, It's as good as Scandie music 450. iiibbb - 6/15/2001 3:15:02 PM I predict ABBA will never have a comeback 451. PelleNilsson - 6/15/2001 3:33:20 PM If you mean ABBA in person(s) you are very likely right. But their music will never die (said with quivering voice in heavy accent, think Swedish Cook). 452. iiibbb - 6/15/2001 4:06:30 PM I've always been a fan of the swedish chef. 453. iiibbb - 6/15/2001 4:13:17 PM the hot links will still work too... you can follow any link and it will keep translating for you. 454. PelleNilsson - 6/15/2001 4:21:49 PM It's funny but it bears no resemblance to Swedish. 455. iiibbb - 6/15/2001 4:28:06 PM none?... dang... I've been studying 456. PelleNilsson - 6/15/2001 4:29:13 PM Swedish looks like this (report from US Open): 457. iiibbb - 6/15/2001 4:32:42 PM that translated to redneck 458. khaval alazman - 6/16/2001 2:06:43 PM ********NOTICE!******** 459. khaval alazman - 6/16/2001 2:13:22 PM Er... how do you add sub-threads? 460. khaval alazman - 6/16/2001 2:16:19 PM Oh yeah... one last thing: assuming someone is kind enough to show me how to do the sub-thread creation, if someone posts something really mindblowing in one of the subthreads, I'll copy it and repost it in the general thread. 461. PelleNilsson - 6/16/2001 3:54:04 PM khaval 462. khaval alazman - 6/16/2001 3:57:31 PM Pelle, thankyou :) 463. Hamsa - 6/17/2001 4:05:22 AM The science of prediction has a spotty past. Abundant tales show the folly of attempting to foresee how one or another invention might fare in daily life. "Radio has no future. Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible. X-rays will prove to be a hoax," said the eminent British scientist, William Thomson. In 1946, Darryl F. Zanuck, head of 20th Century Fox, took a dim view of television's future. "People will soon get tired to staring at a plywood box every night," he predicted. President Rutherford B. Hayes said of Bell's telephone: "That's an amazing invention but who would ever want to use one of them?" Concurring with that sentiment, a Western Union memo commented: "This telephone has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communications." 464. khaval alazman - 6/17/2001 4:48:05 AM Hamsa, great! Thanks. Will add that site to the list. 465. alistairconnor - 6/17/2001 6:08:41 AM OK. Here's a prediction that I've been making for a couple of years, but it seems only too obvious now, because it's already come true for the most part. 466. ScottLoar - 6/17/2001 6:12:17 AM It was suggested a prediction be realized within seven days of posting. 467. khaval alazman - 6/17/2001 6:54:06 AM Scott, no. Not necessarily. The 7 day time limit is only for the competition. This entire thread is devoted to predictions and other matters connected with the future. 468. PelleNilsson - 6/17/2001 7:05:17 AM alistair 469. ScottLoar - 6/17/2001 7:10:28 AM Now you can call a person rather than the place where you think that person is. 470. khaval alazman - 6/17/2001 7:41:27 AM Pelle, that really was a hot-shit response. 471. alistairconnor - 6/17/2001 8:57:10 AM OK Pelle, now for your defence of the financial model (which I imagine you know quite a lot about)... how many major phone companies do you think will survive the current disaster? 472. concerned - 6/17/2001 4:07:13 PM How new, really are implementations of ideas such as faxes and mobile phones? Now new at all. Some form of each existed since the 30's or 40's. It's really the implementation, coverage, costs and auxiliary features which change. 473. concerned - 6/17/2001 4:08:47 PM Let me rephrase the first sentence of my last: 474. concerned - 6/17/2001 4:13:06 PM now new? I quit. 475. dusty - 6/17/2001 4:22:15 PM The fax goes back to 1924. 476. PelleNilsson - 6/17/2001 4:33:58 PM concerned 477. PelleNilsson - 6/17/2001 4:36:04 PM dusty 478. PelleNilsson - 6/17/2001 4:37:20 PM By "mechanical" I mean the end equipment. The transmission was electrical. 479. angel-five - 6/17/2001 11:51:47 PM Within ten years the usage rights to fiberoptic cable will be so valuable, many of the original owners of these rights will go bankrupt trying to retain those rights. And within fifteen years every single line of communication into and out of most houses (where it's available) will be condensed into one fiberoptic line. A single media unit which multiplexes and demultiplexes this traffic, linkable to a computer but more importantly a part of the entertainment center, will be the sine qua non of home technology. 480. angel-five - 6/18/2001 12:00:14 AM Thus, bandwidth will cease to be a problem for most folks, and the rate of transfer will be dictated by a) the level of muxing/demuxing which home service providers can afford to make available and b) the muxing/demuxing capacity of your home unit. The rate at which your home computer can chit-chat with other ported pieces of equipment will be a hot item. This capacity for interplay between desktop and television screen will of course change the entire nature of home television. Commercials will either be fully integrated into the shows or else there will be no truly free television. 481. angel-five - 6/18/2001 12:04:38 AM The system which was established by pay-per-view -- blocks of movies are available at given starting times and you pay to have the right to choose one --will progress into subscription services where there will be literally thousands of movies available, several hundred at any one time. You will select the one you want to watch at any one time (or program it in in advance, if that is your whim) and watch it. This will be wildly popular. It is interesting to think of this happening with shows too. 482. khaval alazman - 6/18/2001 12:53:43 AM Nice one, Angel. 483. angel-five - 6/18/2001 1:56:41 AM Oh, I forgot: Having all traffic run through a multiplexer will let everyday people run a high enough level of encryption on their phone traffic, let alone their other electronic traffic, that there will be significant pressure on the government to change the NSA's charter and allow it to participate in FBI wiretapping. This will not matter much at all except for the screaming outrage it will provoke from American citizens who fear Big Brother. 484. His Masters Voice - 6/18/2001 4:39:29 AM Prediction : 485. alistairconnor - 6/18/2001 4:43:28 AM Oh. Sorry. That was me. 486. khaval alazman - 6/18/2001 9:22:21 AM I predict that His Master's Voice will lead him to the good doctor's couch for treatment! 487. Hamsa - 6/18/2001 2:14:51 PM My prediction for the future. Men will have the ability to carry a fetus for 9 months and then give birth, perhaps by means of cesarian section to a bouncing baby boy or girl. 488. alistairconnor - 6/18/2001 2:24:52 PM Oh yes. I can see them lining up around the block for that privilege! 489. ElliottRW - 6/20/2001 12:43:16 PM Prediction: Affirmative Sobriety Test I predict that a passive testing device will be invented that, instead of testing for the presence of substances known to cause impairment, it will instead test for actual impairment. (How, I'm not sure). It will be built into cars and will alert the driver to possible intoxication, sleepiness, etc. Such a device might take many forms, but might involve a computer (and necessary sensors) that watches the movements of the driver's head, foot pedals, steering wheel, etc. Abnormal movements would be noted: failure to use rearview mirrors, sluggish eye movements, weaving, etc. Another possibility is a device that somehow induces and measures reflexes. Prediction: High-tech Mood Rings I also predict the development and widespread use of implanted devices that monitor levels of chemicals such as hormones, neurotransmitters, and critical nutrients in the blood stream and alert to the person to important states. While initially introduced for people with special needs (e.g. diabetics, athletes, truck drivers) there will eventually be a cheap universal model that nearly everyone will use. 490. ScottLoar - 6/20/2001 1:29:21 PM Sunken Treasures Uncovered, Mysteries on Land Revealed 491. Hamsa - 6/29/2001 4:17:13 AM As I was lying in my bed last night, I began to think about the current effects of global warming on business. 492. concerned - 6/29/2001 6:54:12 AM People will become imprisoned in their homes as the heat becomes unbearable. 493. PelleNilsson - 7/1/2001 3:59:46 PM Some statistics from Sweden. What about the next 300 years? What data will seem relevant then? 494. ScottLoar - 7/1/2001 8:02:29 PM The proportion of more or less indentifably human strains as compared to genetically engineered "helper" strains comprising human/animal DNA augmented by nanotechnology and chemically fabricated and strengthened muscle. 495. khaval alazman - 7/1/2001 8:05:14 PM Shit, Loar! Wow. That is EXACTLY what I was thinking, but I coouldn't worrk out how to say it intelligently or coherently. Thanks :) 496. ScottLoar - 7/1/2001 8:06:28 PM Great minds think alike, but experience tells. 497. khaval alazman - 7/1/2001 8:13:19 PM Loar, *rueful smile* you really are a graceless twat. :) 498. ScottLoar - 7/1/2001 8:27:33 PM And you of the angelic face have a harpy's tongue and, I suspect, a medieval code of pride and honour. 499. marjoribanks - 7/1/2001 8:30:59 PM Ah, priceless exchange. 500. khaval alazman - 7/1/2001 8:34:50 PM Darling! Harpy's tongue? Moi? Surely not! 501. khaval alazman - 7/1/2001 8:37:06 PM Akh! Missed marji's post. I strongly disagree. I would charge $3.23(NZ dollars) for audience to that exchange in real life. 502. ScottLoar - 7/1/2001 8:37:25 PM My Guileless Khaval, you are one whose character will clearly show through even on a young face. Angelic, yes; moral, not necessarily. 503. khaval alazman - 7/1/2001 8:37:51 PM So no wonder you love the internet: this stuff becomes... 504. khaval alazman - 7/1/2001 8:41:15 PM *tantrum tantrum tantrum banging delicate fists on unmade bed* 505. ScottLoar - 7/1/2001 8:43:08 PM Khaval, you are the best thing to hit this forum in a long, long while. Now, don't bother me any more tonight. 506. marjoribanks - 7/1/2001 8:45:00 PM hahahahahaHAHA! 507. khaval alazman - 7/1/2001 8:52:12 PM Scott, and you are so very handsome that I am forced to bite my knuckles. Now go wash your mouth out! :) 508. PelleNilsson - 7/6/2001 7:16:58 AM Here is one view of the future. 509. ScottLoar - 7/6/2001 8:13:28 AM I read the tables, some of which words are impenetrable to me, then read a few paragraphs from the descriptions, then gave it all up as a useless exercise as I'm just reading one vision of the future. Silly, really. 510. Uzmakk - 7/21/2001 3:20:38 PM Hey, Pelle, you have that weird guy in Sweden, Anders Sandburg. 511. PelleNilsson - 7/21/2001 3:24:06 PM Link not working. 512. Uzmakk - 7/21/2001 3:27:15 PM Will try again later. Off to blues festival. 513. Uzmakk - 7/23/2001 9:49:49 AM 514. PelleNilsson - 7/23/2001 12:40:01 PM Ineresting chap: 515. jexster - 7/27/2001 6:41:13 PM I predict that the world will end on August 27, 2001 at 11:22GMT.... 516. concerned - 7/27/2001 6:44:28 PM I predict that the 'r.i.p.' label will soon be removed from this thread. 517. khaval alazman - 7/27/2001 8:36:58 PM Actually, I think Concerned has a point. 518. transient1a - 7/28/2001 9:07:56 AM "Whatever will be, will be 519. khaval alazman - 7/28/2001 1:13:58 PM LOL!!! 520. amax - 8/2/2001 6:41:00 PM JoelOnSoftware has a pretty interesting analysis & links of 3GL. 521. amax - 8/2/2001 6:43:10 PM 522. MaxMacks - 8/4/2001 7:06:33 PM Who wooduv thunk it.???..another max in the world!!! 523. MaxMacks - 8/10/2001 2:43:42 PM I predict the sun WILL INDEED come thru the gray 524. RustlerPike - 8/30/2001 11:56:28 PM 21 days between posts - that's pretty heavy traffic we're talking about. 525. uzmakk - 8/31/2001 9:43:29 AM The Steppelord shall conquer all !! 526. MaxMacks - 8/31/2001 1:38:27 PM We shall never surrender, NEVER. 527. uzmakk - 8/31/2001 2:15:52 PM THERE IS ONLY ONE STEPPELORD, you fool. 528. Jenerator - 8/31/2001 2:18:41 PM Yeah, and he has a potty mouth! 529. uzmakk - 8/31/2001 2:28:16 PM Now what the fuck do you mean by that, Jenerator? 530. Jenerator - 8/31/2001 2:34:43 PM I'm going to tell on you Uzzie. 531. MaxMacks - 8/31/2001 4:40:48 PM Kuz Uz ...you bot into that story ??. 532. uzmakk - 8/31/2001 4:45:00 PM Max: 533. MaxMacks - 8/31/2001 7:07:57 PM uzmackk :You know I believe you don't lie very often to me ( btw are you sure you never lived in Butte,Montana?) ...but The Mote | Mote Archive
The problem is that no one really knows. And no one really cares. And, by necessity, everything is skewed by the need to make money as quickly as possible.
I do not like Greenpeace. I think they are simplistic. But so is the idea that, in some way we cannot comprehend, the best approach is to let transnational companies dictate the future of world.
I am a scientific skeptic; simply put, I buy into science but I want proof of efficacy.
I think that molecular biology is the cat's whiskers, but I think that a lot of hard work, research and understanding is required before initial results are accepted as the way to go.
It is easy to prematurely attempt to implement complex technology. About 1960, a lot of people thought the time had come to completely automate plants using current computer technology. It had not.
Scientists are fallible. A Noble Prize was awarded for the 'beneficial' operational of prefrontal lobotomy.
When large amounts of money are involved, the 'truth' is very difficult to find. Look how long it took before cigarettes were 'proved' to be harmful. Back in the 1960's, a leading British geneticist and statistician at Cambridge University, Sir Ronald Fisher (a smoker), was paid by the tobacco companies to 'discover' that the statistical arguments connecting various diseases with smoking were invalid. Now large tobacco companies are trying to sell their product to the third world.
The market in the USA for non-evidential medicine is vast. Evidential medicine is poorly practiced in the development and sales of new drugs. Prozac has been claimed to be the cause of about 50, 000 suicides . And is now being prescribed for children :
>>>>>
>Approximately twenty-eight million Americans or one in every ten have taken Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil or a similar antidepressant. Over half a million of these Americans are children. Pediatric use is considered to be one of the fastest growing "markets." This is occurring in spite of the fact that repeated studies have shown antidepressant drugs are no more effective in children than placebos. The United States is the only country in the world where these potent synthetic drugs that alter brain chemistry are routinely prescribed to children.<
AND
The massive use of Ritalin for so-called 'Attention Deficit Disorder' children is still controversial. Even the existence of the disorder has been seriously question in articles in recent issues of Skeptic magazine.
There have also been curious money-making fads. One of the 'funniest' being the genital deodorants. The cosmetic industry developed them mainly for women. By 1971, there were 30 brands of "feminine hygiene spray" which garnered 67 million dollars. Many formulations included the anti-bacterial, hexachlorophene, which was banned in 1972. One company developed the slogan: "You aren't sleeping with your teddy bear anymore."
Giving away GR, 'golden rice', to the third world looks like a simple attempt to sell GM, genetically modified, foods to the rest of the world. (Which, by the way, really is not giving away GR since farmers with a crop worth over $10 k will have to pay.)
>>>>>
Unlike AIDS' experimental treatment, we don't know the harm will outweigh any potential benefit. Simply put, introducing a monoculture to replace all the current diverse types of rice that have been carefully genetically selected by various indigenous populations in different environments seems like 'quick fix' that has the potential for disastrous repercussions that outweigh any potential benefits of 'golden rice'.
Careful reading of the articles I referenced Message # 336, give some indication of the problems in bringing GR to market. And it will be years before GM, in any form, becomes a reality.
If we were really serious about the GM, then massive amounts of money would be funneled into the project. Then threats and benefits could be realistic evaluated.
Further, it should be noted that all sorts of benefits could, theoretically, be built into genetically modified rice. So the rice could be a full protein food like soya beans and also could require virtually no fertilizers.
YES, the food potential of GM is enormous. The question is: Is the West willing to give this potential away.
I think the answer is obviously: NO. And YES we do live in a DYSTOPIA.
I think the answer is obviously: NO.
First, thanks for carefully reading my posts. Something I am prone not to do.
1
You state:
Message # 349 We know that Vitamin A will prevent the diseases caused by a Vitamin A deficiency and we know that golden rice is fortified with that vitamin.
Well not really.
WHY?
Because golden rice does not contain vitamin A, but a precursor to vitamin A.
Please read my reference from Greenpeace carefully and note:
>However, even one of the inventors of the variety Ingo Potrykus has accepted that there was no evidence showing to what extent the human body could utilize the Pro-vitamin A of Golden Rice and convert into Vitamin A.<
In other words, under conditions that now prevail, tests must be done to see if golden rice will live up to
any of its promise.
2
I stated:
„« Unlike AIDS' experimental treatment, we don't know the harm will outweigh any potential benefit.<
Here I was automatically implying:
Unlike AIDS' experimental treatment (where the harm does not outweigh any potential benefit), (IN CONTRAST) we don't know(, for golden rice, whether) the harm will outweigh any potential benefit.
Sorry to be more than somewhat cryptic.
>>>>
3
I wrote:
„« And it will be years before GM, in any form, becomes a reality.<
I should have written, NOT GM, but GR for golden rice.
See my other reference: Licence for non-commercial use soon
>Golden rice is not yet a final product because you need to engineer the beta-carotene biosynthetic pathway into Indica varieties that are grown in India and other Asian countries. Besides, the transformed varieties have to be subjected to local risk assessment and biosafety procedures. The whole process would take 4-5 years before it reaches the farmer's fields,'' Dr Beyer observed.<
ALSO
I wrote:
„« If we were really serious about the GM, then massive amounts of money would be funneled into the project.<
Again I meant to write GR, for golden rice, NOT GM.
Again I meant to write GR, for golden rice, NOT GM. Siberia will have a Chinese majority.
Bangladesh will be destroyed by global warming.
Manhattan will be destroyed by a suitcase nuke built with materials stolen from Russia.
Your predictions are very bold, ilyavinarsky.
I'll add a few bold predictions to yours.
By 2020,
Epidemics of new strains of contagious diseases will be a major concern worldwide.
Everyone will be a vegetarian.
Men will wear skirts.
Message # 352 The word 'monoculture' is breathtakingly irrelevant to the subject at hand.
I said 'simply put' because I assumed that biodiversity would be greatly reduced even if there was an effort to introduce a dozen or less strains. Hopefully, this will not be the case because of something I was unaware of; namely, the farmers will also be able to save seeds from their crop for future plantings because rice is a self-pollinating plant that breeds true year after year so that farmers may be in the position to help preserve biodivesity through their own efforts.
Even so, this seems to contradict the comment in a review in Science of Jan. 14, 2000 that suggests that breeding true was not that easy:
>But only when true-breeding lines are available will it be possible to accurately determine levels of each type of carotenoid.<
A prior statement should also be noted:
>Initial calculations suggest that these engineered plants can provide enough provitamin A to satisfy the recommended dietary allowance with a daily ration of rice.<
Which turned out to be incorrect.
The Science article deals with the technology and its problems and promise.
>>>>
His final comment sums up the problem of making plants more nutritious via GM:
>The road to better nutrition is not paved with gold and, hence, agribusiness has not centered its efforts on the nutritional value of food. The work that culminated in the production of golden rice was funded by grants from the Rockefeller Foundation, the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology and the European Community Biotech Program [HN17]. Like the plant varieties that made the green revolution so successful, the rice engineered to produce provitamin A will be freely available to the farmers who need it most. One can only hope that this application of plant genetic engineering to ameliorate human misery without regard to short-term profit will restore this technology to political acceptability.<
Message # 359
>You can't yet do trials on humans with the rice.<
The whole point of the exercise is to try and use rice to alleviate a vitamin A deficiency.
It seems reasonably that it should help. (Although, if the body requires other nutrients which may be missing in poor diets -- as some claim -- to convert provitamin A to vitamin A then it may not help the most needy.) But it seems imperative to show efficacy, simply because without adequate efficacy the exercise is a farce. And, a tragic one, at that.
And, if sufficient money were available, then this should have been one the first questions tackled. As well as, of course, the acceptability of golden rice to various populaces.
It will be interesting to see if this project will have any success. I hope it does. But I think it will be limited.
>>>>
Most importantly it will give a much better understanding of how to genetically manipulate organisms. For this reason alone it should be strongly supportedspending.
ANYWAY
Here is a good URL Golden Rice
Great Yellow Hype
This is from the New York Times Magazine and summarizes some of the negatives.
And stresses low tech schemes.
Beg your pardon? Can you find me a quote? You're short of arguments, Angel, you've sunk to trivial denigration.
Personally, I wouldn't physically oppose the planting of golden rice. That would be a pointless exercise, just like the growing of golden rice is a pointless exercise. Look at the numbers, for christ's sake! I get this image of little Asian kids with funnels down their throats, getting stuffed with wonderful golden rice until they've absorbed their daily dose of pro-vitamin A! That's what this smacks of to me. (Tit for tat.)
As used in organic agriculture, the BT toxin is only released when the bacterium is ingested and digested by specific insects; it then degrades and is not detectable in the environment. By contrast, genetically modified cultivars containing the BT gene, produce the toxin non-stop, and saturate the environment with it. This environment thus becomes toxic not only to boll worms, but to most insect life. Except of course to BT-resistant mutations. Which are, unsurprisingly, on the increase.
The fact that these two examples of the "upside" to GM are now looking a great deal less rosy, only 15 months later, surely tells us something about the haste and the hype associated with the technology. Take this stuff back to the lab for ten years.
This strain will advance, it will come to being, it will be wildly accepted despite AlistairConnor's dubious wisdom and misplaced social concerns.
I certainly maintain my objection to your "boston tea party" : my objection go "golden rice" is coherent and science-based; your promotion of it is not; it is designed to stampede people into support for GM based on completely false feel-good assumptions about how it's going to feed the starving millions, and save children from blindness.
Maybe there will be GM cultivars which will forward these aims. Some day. Golden Rice ain't it.
That's very touching, but that isn't science, it's more akin to religious faith.
Honestly, Angel, I was surprised (and delighted) that you picked up on "golden rice" as an argument in favour of GM. I had considered introducing it into the discussion myself, but I decided that it would be labeled as a strawman argument.
The usual way: guinea pigs, primates, followed by humans.
But the experts should be able to figure exactly what is the best experimental path.
If this cannot be done the project to should be scrapped, and any money left over spent on medicine, crop diversification as well as birth control.
The more I think about it, the less chance of any meaningful success appear possible.
Unfortunately, this reminds me of the attempt to sell baby food in the third world . As a result many infants starved to death after their mothers lost the ability to breast feed them.
It all to do with money!
"According to the World Health Organization (WHO) and UNICEF about 1.5 million babies die every year because they were not breastfed. Many more millions suffer from infectious diseases and malnutrition, never reaching their full potential because they were bottlefed. This global decline in breastfeeding and subsequent "commerciogenic malnutrition" has been attributed in part to the aggressive marketing of breastmilk substitutes by the babymilk and babyfood industry1. Subsequently the World Health Assembly ratified a marketing code2 designed to protect breastfeeding and ensure the proper use of artificial feeding when necessary.
Nestlé is the world's largest babymilk seller and in the past has agreed to adhere to the World Health Organization International Code of Marketing of Breast-Milk Substitutes. However, breastfeeding action groups around the world discovered quickly enough that Nestlé's claims and Nestlé's actions are two different things."
What are the other factors this has been attributed to?
Anyway, other factors in the decline worldwide of breastfeeding are quite simple. The big one is - many more mothers now work in jobs which do not facilitate nursing (office jobs, etc). Another pervasive reason is fashion, the desire to "maintain" figures.
Plus, if the example of the babyfood is any indicator, the worst, most unproved, most risky, past-due-date, products will be the ones foisted on the people of the developing world.
I'm curious: how did seed companies profit from the seed business before GM?
Ask any farmer (of non-GM crops) in the US from where he gets the seed and he will answer: from a seed company.
I guess we all carry a picture of the industrious farmer harvesting his crops setting aside part for sowing the next year. That picture is false. Today's highly productive strains will yield less in the 2nd or 3rd generation. I learnt about these things from a couple of seed specialists in Mozambique, who were there to restore seed farms which had lapsed during the civil war.
Obviously, in the end golden rice will be tested on people -- since the goal is to use it as food. Therefore prior testing on small target groups is mandatory and, as would be expected, is planned:
Golden Rice Background
>Golden Rice began arriving in the Philippines in January of 2001, where it is undergoing a comprehensive set of tests to determine its efficiency, safety and usefulness for people in the developing world.
At the same time, Syngenta will explore commercial opportunities for sale of Golden Rice into expanding markets for healthy foods in more developed countries, with particular focus on Japan and North America. Syngenta will also provide regulatory, advisory and research expertise to assist in making Golden Rice readily available to developing nations.<
Besides simple distrust that biodiversity can be maintained, uncertainty over the level of provitamin A that can be maintained in small farmers' crop and puzzlement why there has not been cost/benefit analysis showing that the money spent is best spent on developing golden rice, here is an in-depth analysis of why the small third world farmer and the starving will not benefit:
Genetic Engineering of Food Crops for the Third World: An Appropriate Response to Poverty, Hunger and Lagging Productivity?
Check out Julian Simon.
Hence the no-seed-saving contracts, and the legion of ex-tobacco-company lawyers.
Message # 390 Your response is confusing, to say the least.
It should be obvious that I did not have the information when I asked if testing on humans was planned.
When I found that it was probably already underway, I relayed this reassuring information.
Thanks. Simon looks good unless he is just a crank. Senior fellow at the Cato Institute? What do the Americans say? A-5's views welcome.
First term definition:
Sex in the Field–and in the Laboratory
NOW
Here is the way seed companies make money:
POLICY AND INSTITUTIONAL CONSTRAINTS TO THE DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF HYBRID RICE TECHNOLOGY IN THE MEMBER COUNTRIES OF THE IRRI/ADB HYBRID RICE PROJECT
And here is an overview of the technology:
Manual for hybrid rice production
ALSO
Monsanto can make money by incorporating GM technological advantages into hybrid rice:
A Promising Debut for Bt Hybrid Rice
And so any variety hybrid rice could probably be converted to a variety of 'golden' hybrid rice.
And so, if hybrid rice is very profitable for the small farmer, the idea of the small farmer saving some of his crop as seed rice -- to ensure biodiversity -- is unrealistic.
First term definition:
Sex in the Field–and in the Laboratory
NOW
Here is the way seed companies make money:
POLICY AND INSTITUTIONAL CONSTRAINTS TO THE DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF HYBRID RICE TECHNOLOGY IN THE MEMBER COUNTRIES OF THE IRRI/ADB HYBRID RICE PROJECT
And here is an overview of the technology:
Manual for hybrid rice production
ALSO
Monsanto can make money by incorporating GM technological advantages into hybrid rice:
A Promising Debut for Bt Hybrid Rice
And so any variety hybrid rice could probably be converted to a variety of 'golden' hybrid rice.
Also, if hybrid rice is very profitable for the small farmer, the idea of the small farmer saving some of his crop as seed rice -- to ensure biodiversity -- is unrealistic.
Message # 398 God, transient, why do you have to make everything so mysterious and dramatic?
Because everything is so mysterious and dramatic.
I am always very curious and the truth is in the details. And I can never find enough information about the details.
Consider rice the staple food of hundreds of millions. Many of whom are starving.
And what do they eat? White rice.
And what is thrown away? The most nutritious part of the rice: the rice germ and the rice bran.
And why is it thrown away? Because it rapidly goes rancid due to an enzyme, lipase (or some variant of it).
And why doesn't seed rice go rancid? Because in the process of removing the hull of the rice, so we can utilize it for food cells, in the rice germ and rice bran are crushed releasing lipase to oxidize the oily components to an unacceptably level of rancidity within a few hours.
BUT
Oats have the same problem. So how do we utilize oats? All the rolled oats we buy at the Supermarket or health food have been heat processed to destroy the heat sensitive lipase.
SO
Why hasn't this been applied to rice? Well scientist in rice growing countries have been working on this problem for 50 years. (I bet they never spent anything close to the $100 million spent on golden rice research.)
A couple of years ago, a US company, RiceX "created a process that reliably denatures the lipase in rice bran without causing very much damage to the rest of the food's chemistry. This is done with a mechanical extrusion process - forcing the somewhat ductile grain to deform as it squeezes through small openings in a metal die. The high rate of sheer deformation during extrusion causes just the right amount of internal heating for just the right amount of time."
>>>>
The product is being marketed as
horse feed and a specialty food for humans .
Starting in 1998, RiceX in conjunction with Monsanto tested the process in India. I can't find the outcome of this test. RiceX is still trying to interest rice producing countries in the process.
BY THE WAY
Rice bran also contains
beta carotene, a precursor
of Vitamin A, and other
carotenoids as well as most of
the important minerals (low in
Ca) and fiber.
Naively, it would seem that boosting pro-vitamin A in rice bran and rice germ would be much easier than the golden rice route.
ALSO
Naively, there seems to be many approaches to utilizing the high nutritional value in rice bran and rice germ:
1
The simplest is just to store the rice with its hull and remove the hull just before use.
2
The development of a hybrid rice which has no lipase in the rice bran and rice germ.
3
Some variant of the RiceX process.
4
Milling the rice and then immediately vacuum packaging the rice bran and rice germ to exclude oxygen that is required for rancidity.
ANYWAY
If I can easily come up with various solutions in a few minutes, then I am sure these approaches have serious problems. But it would be interesting to know what they are.
AS TO THE FUTURE
I would guess that hybridized rice while slowly prevail. And, even if golden rice was initially successful, unless it becomes available in hybridized varieties it will not prevail.
By the way, though my sympathies are always with those who make the claim, where are these starving millions anyway? In general those people on the planet now who are starving aren't doing so because their rice is unsuitably nutritious. In most cases that I can think of it is due to war or simple government callousness that's not going to be solved by juicing up some strain of rice.
Here is quote from Compton's Enclyc.
"Processing. The harvested rice kernel (also called paddy, or rough, rice) is enclosed by an inedible hull, or husk. This hull is removed in a process called milling. In many countries, milling of rice for home use may consist simply of hulling the kernels in a hand-operated wooden mill. Most marketed rice is shipped in bags to mills where machinery does the hulling. Most modern milling machinery removes both the hull and bran layers of the kernel. Rice that is processed to remove only the hulls, leaving the germ and outer bran layer intact, is called brown rice. It contains about 8 percent protein and a small amount of fat and is a source of thiamine, niacin, riboflavin, iron, and calcium. Rice that is milled by machine to remove the bran and part of the germ as well as the husk is called white rice. It is greatly diminished in nutrients because the milling process has removed about 75 percent of the thiamine, most of the minerals, and part of the fat. Sometimes a coating of glucose and talc is applied to give the kernel a glossy finish.
When simple white rice forms a major portion of the diet, there is a greater risk of beriberi, a disease resulting from a deficiency of thiamine and minerals. The Chinese and East Indians, who ate brown rice for centuries, began to suffer from widespread malnutrition after the British introduced white rice."
Note:
1
The husk is inedible. The bran and germ are nutritious.
2
Removing the husk on a hand operated machine at home, could leave the bran and germ intact -- and the rice could be eaten before the oils in the bran and germ went rancid.
3
The Chinese and East Indians tolerated rancid brown rice before the British introduced white rice.
So? The demand has changed, probably permanently.
I grew up eating lots of that "rancid" brown rice, though we called it red rice or (for some reason) parboiled rice. It's common village food where I come from, and in fact is preferred alongside certain staples like fish curry. I even know some enterprising Italians (now resident on the Indian coast) who use it to make risotto to great effect.
But the average consumer, even the poor everage consumer, in India shuns the stuff. It's not satisfactory to them. Nutritional concerns often go out the window when you're talking about ingrained cultural attitudes towards food. And as for the political point about the British introducing it - such appeals are meaningless. Tell the East Africans to stop eating cassava in such massive quantities because its (a) not terribly nutritious and (b) because slavers introduced it and check out the reaction.
Vitamin A deficiency and poor nutrition is not only war torn Africa:
Indonesia
Nepal
Worldwide from WHO
Africa
Ultra-rice (rice blended with Vitamin A) for use Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Nepal and the Philippines (among the 23 countries at highest risk)
Unfortunately, the WHO data bank appears to be inaccessible.
ANYWAY
I don't have any brilliant ideas on changing people's eating habits. Hopefully, someone has.
By the way, look here:
For paboiled rice
Interesting link on par-boiled rice. I guess we Konkan coasters have been mislabelling our preferred fat rice. It's not prepared anything like the way you describe (as far as I know) and is red rather than tan or yellow. A very meager and inadequate description of it is here.
Now, a moment of silence everyone; I am now going to make a prediction.
I predict that this thread will return to wild, seat-of-the-pants, humorous and/or thought provoking speculations or get R.I.P.ped.
There. Prove me wrong.
It has been extremely enlightening, and I'll second Elliot's praise of the posters who contributed.
But from here on in, any more GM talk will be modified into a great big mutant sub-thread.
So I'd like to thank iiibbb for taking this discussion to a somewhat philosophical/whimsical level.
***
I am interested in a competition based around extreme near future predictions. Basically, we'll take an issue of import from the news which can expect resolution within a week, and make predictions as to the nature of that resolution.
Ideas, suggestions for rules, topics, and - of course - for PRIZES will be greatly appreciated and thoughtfully considered.
Your loving,
Foil-clad,
Orbital,
And visionary,
Host(ess),
Khaval.
What sort of predictions?
1) NMD
2) Space based mining & manufacturing.
Other than that, the whole thing's ammenable to suggestions.
Several reasons for my assertion here.
1) Countries such as Taiwan and Israel are vigorously pursuing the same or very similar anti-missile defenses.
2) Workable regional anti-missile systems already exist (i.e.: Aegis, Patriot missile defense).
3) Most objections to NMD are ideologically, not factually based.
4) The bipolar MAD concept became obsolete with the end of the cold war a decade ago, and a new paradigm is required in a multi-polar nuclear world.
5) Nuclear 'non-proliferation', which is a questionable approach at best, has been rendered into a pathetic joke by the Clowntoon administration.
6) Prior SDI research has already spun off technology which is being used to design the next generation of linear accelerators, and other leading edge technological goodies which will keep the US economically competitive well into the 21st Century.
7) The only detectable advances in space based technology where anyone with a three digit IQ who is not brainwashed by Leftist propaganda knows preeminence will soon become of great and wide ranging importance are currently being driven by NMD.
8) The inhumanity of MAD needs to be deserted at the earliest opportunity. I'd much rather spend a trillion dollars to gain the potential to save hundreds of millions of human lives than otherwise.
9) A NMD system will preserve us from most nuclear blackmail by rogue countries or terrorists.
10) A MIRVED missile will cause tens or hundreds of times more destruction than any number of 'suitcase' bombs.
I could go on, but you get the picture....
Entries must be Celcius
***
iiibbb, OK. Great. 'S'not exactly what I was thinking of, but it's certainly verifiable and a good start.
But before the comp can begin, we need suggestions for PRIZES for the winner(s).
Anyone online just before the deadline will have something of an advantage, don't you think? Predictions must be in by Monday 10:00pm California time. This will avoid any sart arses relying on the four day forecast. Any submissions after that time will not be considered.
We can have more than one prediction going at atime, though. So if there are any other ideas, please feel free to provide.
Your ever-loving futurista,
Khaval.
Why? Because the best oceanographic data shows that the variation in oceanic level between the peak of the Medieval Warm Period and the trough of the Little Ice Age, which amounted to a 3 degree C average global temperature variation if not more was only eight (8) inches. And keep in mind that this was over a period of about 600 years, which would have allowed such a change to be much more fully expressed than it could possibly be by the year 2100 with the projected degree or so of warming expected by then.
It looks like a pissant will hardly be able to take a decent bath in a bathtub filled to the level that the world's oceans are going to rise in the next hundred years.
1) Countries such as Taiwan and Israel are vigorously pursuing the same or very similar anti-missile defenses.
So? These are not and never have been countries which have posed any threat to the US. There is no arms race with these countries, and these countries are anyway heavily dependent on the US for their arms purchases. How is their pursuit of defensive systems in any way relevant to the US?
2) Workable regional anti-missile systems already exist (i.e.: Aegis, Patriot missile defense).
I thought the Patriot was an unmitigated disaster. The missile defense technology which the US sold to Israel and was used during the Gulf War was an abysmal failure.
3) Most objections to NMD are ideologically, not factually based.
Not true. There are many defense analysts who believe that such a system is unworkable - like trying to hit a pingpong ball with a swimming-pool-sized slab of concrete. ALso, foreign policy specialists believe the multilateral diplomatic fallout will outweigh any possible benefits. These are not ideological positions.
4) The bipolar MAD concept became obsolete with the end of the cold war a decade ago, and a new paradigm is required in a multi-polar nuclear world.
cont....
Says who? Why cannot MAD still apply. SUrely the knowledge that AMerica possesses a nuclear arsenal sufficient to destroy the planet many times over is suitable deterrant for a "rogue state" considering an attack. Why would MAD not be appliccable with other nuclear armed states? WHy can such deterrant forces only apply to the former USSR?
5) Nuclear 'non-proliferation', which is a questionable approach at best, has been rendered into a pathetic joke by the Clowntoon administration.
Huh? Apart from not quite understanding what you mean, I cannot discern any relevance. America has a nuclear arsenal which still oustsrips that possessed by any other state.
6) Prior SDI research has already spun off technology which is being used to design the next generation of linear accelerators, and other leading edge technological goodies which will keep the US economically competitive well into the 21st Century.
Prior SDI also helped create the largest defecit the US has ever knoen. Why can such scientific advances not take place within a civillian context? Creating unimaginably expensive military systems is hardly justified by the potential for discover of civillian application.
7) The only detectable advances in space based technology where anyone with a three digit IQ who is not brainwashed by Leftist propaganda knows preeminence will soon become of great and wide ranging importance are currently being driven by NMD.
I must be a brainwashed leftie, then (or else have a double digit IQ). I had no notion that without NMD there were no appreciable advances in Space tech. International Space STation, Hubble and Pathfinder were meaningless, I suppose.
cont....
8) The inhumanity of MAD needs to be deserted at the earliest opportunity. I'd much rather spend a trillion dollars to gain the potential to save hundreds of millions of human lives than otherwise.
The *inhumanity* of MAD? Er... no one got blown up under MAD. Had their been no mutual assurances, and there had been leeway for one pole to nuke the other, this would have been more humane? I din't quite see the logic. And would you still rather spend the trillion dollars on something which is actually less likely to save ANY lives than it is to act a political pacifier? The electorate gains a false sense of security and military contractors make a *er* killing.
9) A NMD system will preserve us from most nuclear blackmail by rogue countries or terrorists.
This is what I mean by false sense of security. The potential to wreak havoc is much greater for ANYONE - domestic or international terrorists - who are actually ON American soil. It may require more man power (though this is doubtful), but a well co-ordinated, multi-location series of attacks by terrorists already in AMerica, will do far more to damage the US.
10) A MIRVED missile will cause tens or hundreds of times more destruction than any number of 'suitcase' bombs.
But that's the thing. If you have NMD, and IF NMD is in any way effective (and this is itself debatable), then no "rogue" state is going to be stupid enough to lob ICBM over your way, and the "suitcase" threat will proliferate.
But if ANYWAY you look at the modus operandi of such "rogue" states, you will see that the suitcase is the far bigger threat than the ICBM will ever be, and that the NMD will do more harm than good, simply because the false sense of security will entail US defenses' being down in precisely those places in which they are most vulnerable.
Angel, I have been perusing Religion (because I hate myself), and I would like to proffer congrats over Wanko, the blue-arsed ferret. Kinda makes me wish I were still studying undergrad philosophy. That one would have been fun... naaah. NOTHING could make me wish for ugrad philosophy.
Ameliorator:
In the future, genetic modification will lead to a preponderance blue-arsed ferrets which will pose grave theological problems.
Then... the Revolution.
1) Because their best minds know that NMD works. I take their judgment (in addition to that of all of the other best qualified opinions) over your blithe dismissal. Sorry 'bout that.
2) Disaster? Simply because it wasn't perfection itself? Not at all. But, since it appears think your mind is pretty well set on the issue...
3) What system are these analysts talking about? The obsolete stuff that's been declassified? Face it. ICBMs aren't going to go any faster, but the defensive techniques are rapidly improving. Thus, these soi-disant experts are really Luddite naysayers married to a barbaric anachronism.
4) Says Henry Kissinger, the architect of the ABM treaty who now says it's long past time to SCRAP it.
5) I take it you agree with me here.
6) So did increases in Social Security payouts over the same period. Your point? The necessary incentive is not there at this point for commercial development, IAC.
7) Perhaps I overdrew this point a bit, but most of these (Hubble, etal, were on the drawing boards well before SDI made the scene).
8) MAD was no better than a rationalization to justify a nearly intolerable mutual nuclear threat which has now been largely ameliorated and can be further reduced and possibly eliminated through NMD. God, yes, it's barbaric. I think it's fully as barbaric as cannibalism and genocide and just as acceptable, which is to say, not at all. I simply don't care if it hasn't 'claimed lives' yet. I want the possibility of it ever claiming lives gone forever. That's where I'm arguing from.
9,10) Once the greater threat is gone, that's when the lesser threat can be more fully addressed, ne?
I particularly enjoyed burying him in the argument where I showed that wood framed houses form a net sink of Carbon Dioxide.
1) Because their best minds know that NMD works.
I have three words for you: George... Walker... Bush....
2) Disaster? Simply because it wasn't perfection itself? Not at all. But, since it appears think your mind is pretty well set on the issue...
Er... BIG fuckin' difference between "imperfect" and "disaster", friend. "Imperfect" implies that SOME things went right. Patriot technology in Israel was absolutely useless - a disaster of epic proportions... just ask the people of Ramat Gan and Holon how well Patriot technology worked. In this case, NOTHING went right.
3) What system are these analysts talking about? The obsolete stuff that's been declassified? Face it. ICBMs aren't going to go any faster, but the defensive techniques are rapidly improving. Thus, these soi-disant experts are really Luddite naysayers married to a barbaric anachronism.
See, those are pretty words which mask a dearth of meaning. Why on earth would ICBM technology not improve apace with defence technology? This seems to be a product of wishful thinking rather than any argument based on logic.
4) Says Henry Kissinger, the architect of the ABM treaty who now says it's long past time to SCRAP it.
Heh heh heh. Ole Hnery, eh? Yup. The Great Peace maker Himself.
5) I take it you agree with me here.
Yo! Pass me the bong, dude.
cont....
6) So did increases in Social Security payouts over the same period. Your point? The necessary incentive is not there at this point for commercial development, IAC.
SOcial security produced a defecit blow-out of Star Wars proportions? Really? People must have been reeeal hungry in the 80s. Necessary incentive for Hubble, ISS, and PathFinder came from where, then?
7) Perhaps I overdrew this point a bit, but most of these (Hubble, etal, were on the drawing boards well before SDI made the scene).
Er.. yeah.... So what if they were on the drawing board? Were they military inpirations? The Space Station wasn't as far as I know.
8) MAD was no better than a rationalization to justify a nearly intolerable mutual nuclear threat which has now been largely ameliorated and can be further reduced and possibly eliminated through NMD. God, yes, it's barbaric. I think it's fully as barbaric as cannibalism and genocide and just as acceptable, which is to say, not at all. I simply don't care if it hasn't 'claimed lives' yet. I want the possibility of it ever claiming lives gone forever. That's where I'm arguing from.
Yeah. Fine. But if it worked, and the alternative was a nuclear attack on a country without the capacity to respond would have caused ACTUAL (rather than wank-theory) genocide was avoided, does that still make it worse than genocide? Good God. Them's some fucked up priorities you got there. DOn't think youve had much contact with genocide, have you, Concerned.
9,10) Once the greater threat is gone, that's when the lesser threat can be more fully addressed, ne?
ne.
Concerned, I wouldn't take Angel's tendency to nigglitude to personally. :)
If you knew what the limitations of liquid and solid propellant technologies were, you would understand that a launched ICBM today would not travel significantly faster or be much harder to detect than its counterpart forty years ago.
Wrt to the 'cloaking' and decoy missile techniques that are bandied about by the Lefty fashionistas, know that most of those reduce the effective throw weight and are easily sidestepped with the multistage NMD systems that are being developed.
4) Go ahead and laugh at Henry while I chuckle at you. Ol' Henry the eee-vile Republican who came up with MAD and now MAD's a total Lefty mindfuck. What irony.
6) Yep. We're talking three billion or so a year here for twenty years. How about the 5 trillion the US spend on Welfare to destroy the Black Family and create an underclass? Why are you so enamored of that vastly more expensive disaster? Where is your criticism (and integrity) wrt the Moon program?
7) So you've got a thing against the military. No skin off my nose.
MAD's barbaric. It's no better than the basest of retaliation. If you think MAD is the only alternative in a multipolar nuclear world, you might as well put on a bearskin and live in a cave, philosophically speaking, as far as I'm concerned.
And to the extent that the US will offer som quid pros to get Russia and Europe to go along, it could actually be a good thing. Not very cost-effective but the one with the dollars decides how to spend them.
I full agree with your proposal (Message # 412: I am interested in a competition based around extreme near future predictions. Basically, we'll take an issue of import from the news which can expect resolution within a week, and make predictions as to the nature of that resolution and suggest we stick to it.
The prize should be two hours in public with our foil-clad hostess. I'll proxy. I am dead serious.
My first prediction will come after I've read today's newspaper over breakfast.
my prediction 29 .
Particular thanks to iiibbb for the rules of the game, and Scottie for the prize suggestion.
My Kyoto weather prediction is: 25 degrees Celcius
***
There is only one small problem: What if I should win this competition? Let us not forget that I enjoy my own foil clad company nearly all the time.
***
Elliot, your post #443 was really interesting. Thanks.
***
Scott, is this your way of saying you are going to be in OZ sometime soon? If so when? Is Melbourne on the itinerary?
Thank you for turning this thread into a real intellectual challenge. "Predict the temperature in Kyoto in 7 days": what could be more important and more appropriate in the face of today's problems?
I must warn you guys about the price. Spending two hours with our horse-faced, skinny, yet fat-bottomed hostess will most likely leave you with crushed balls and demolished self-esteem.
Let the competition start.
Otherwise, you can just come on over and bite my horsey bum! Now, you know very well that I am a magnificent specimen of womanhood, and you should not rob your fellow compeititors of the unparallelled incentive of going on a proxy-date with me. That is not good sportsmanship, Pelle.
Shame!
Where's your sense of humor?... sheesh
What else of import is there to predict in 7 days?
I predict, that in one week there will be no article covering Bush's visit to Europe on either the front pages of CNN, MSNBC, or USATODAY's websites.
I intended no offense. And you have just been exposed to Scandie humour. The kind that made Ingmar Bergman famous. Very funny man that.
In fact you can convert all kinds of stuff to swedish with this translator
Including the mote (just hit the dialectize button upon following this link).
Doesn't that make you feel more at home Pelle?
Goosen leder med ett slag före amerikanen Hale Irwin och kanadensaren Mike Weir. Första dagens spel i Tulsa, Oklahoma, avbröts på torsdagseftermiddagen sedan oväder brutit ut. Många spelare fick fortsätta spela sina ronder på fredagsmorgonen. Bland dem fanns Goosen som trivdes när regnet gjort greenerna långsammare, solen sken och det bara blåste lätt. Han gjorde tre birdies på de första sex hålen, men tappade två slag på de svåra avslutningeshålen.
Goosen leder med ett slag före amerikanen Hale Irwin och kanadensaren Ichabod Weir. Första dajuns spel i Tulsa, Oklahoma, avbröts på to'sdagsef'ermiddajun sedan oväder brutit ut. Många spelare fick fo'tsätta spela sina ronner på fredagsmo'gonen, as enny fool kin plainly see. Blan' dem fanns Goosen som trivdes när regnet gjo't greenerna långsammare, solen sken och det baree blåste lätt. Han gjo'de tre birdies på de första sex hålen, min tappade två slag på de svåra avslutningishålen, as enny fool kin plainly see.
OK - this could be the product of fatigue induced madness (4:00am Australian EST), but I have an idea!
What if I create a couple of sub-threads. One can deal with GM foods. The other can deal with Americana and the future. That way people can have a bit of a chin wag (finger wag?) about these topics without wholesale thread derailment.
ANd perhaps I might create a third sub-thread in which posters can suggest links to cool sites dealing with prognostication or other elements of the future.
If people think this is a shit idea of unconscionable proportions, feel free to let me know.
If people would like other sub-threads, also feel free to share ideas.
I'd only include sub-threads, though, for those topics which endager the thread's ability to sustain diverse topics of conversation.
If this whole sub-thread business doesn't work, for any number of reasons, I'll be more than happy to get rid of them and re-introduce sub-thread posts back into the general discussion.
Kisses.
Your foil clad,
technologically illiterate,
Ever hospitable,
Thread hostess,
Khaval.
I can fix you up with sub-threads but experience shows that they don't work very well in terms of attracting posts.
I thought that maybe there was one simple and easy function on the menu which could enable me to do it.
Not to worry.
Thanks anyway. :)
http://www.worldhistorysite.com/prediction.html
"Third generation portables" will be a huge failure, both technologically and, especially, in terms of market share. All those companies who fronted up with billions of dollars to buy the frequencies are idiots of Brooklyn Bridge-esque proportions. Not that the technology isn't useful, but people don't actually need to browse 3D virtual shopping malls while they are at the beach, or whatever the hell we were supposed to do with these hypothetical hand-held devices : or certainly, not to the extent that 30% of the population of the developed world will be happy to pay $100 a month for the priviledge, as the underlying financial model seems to imply.
Yours,
Ludd.
If what Alistair is saying is true, then he was quite precient.
Lottery numbers, Al?
I think your prediction fits well with the examples Hamas quoted above. (I could add to that list a former Swedish minister of culture who in 1996 opined that "the Internet is just a fad".)
Like the persons in the examples you look at present problems and imperfections while seriously underestimating future potentials, of which they (and we) know little. The mobile technology as such has already had an impact on how society works. Now you can call a person rather than the place where you think that person is.
And it is not the big flashy apps like "brows[ing] 3D virtual shopping malls while they are at the beach" that are important, but rather the myriad of minor conveniences. I'll give you two examples. The first is that I can use my GSM-phone to pay parking fees in Stockholm and pay them on my phone bill. The second is that I can subscribe to 24 hour use of the archives of the two largest dailies here, also payable on the phone bill. There are two points here. First, I don't really need those services but I use them because they make life easier. Second, when the GSM technology was developed 10-15 years ago nobody could have foreseen that it would be put to uses such as these. There are many other examples. There is a trend now that devices such as soft-drink vending machines, copying machines, etc. are equipped with communications devices which tell service stuff when they need being attended to. The potential savings on labour is of course frightening to a neo-luddite.
That is so simple and so true; I had never thought of it that way before.
Any thoughts on possible future applications for 3G?
My point is that 3G is a paroxysm of extreme technology-push. The telephone was a great leap of technology which changed the world; portable phones also, though to a lesser extent. Yet telephone technology didn't change substantially for nearly a hundred years : there was no need for a different technology to do the same job. Why on earth do we need to change portable phone technologies every five years? Paying parking bills by portable phone is handy, but that's not what justifies the expense of a portable phone (and it certainly doesn't justify the far greater expense of a 3G system). People can already play Lotto or send text messages with current portables. The argument "we don't know what it's for, but I'm sure we'll think of something to justify all those billions of dollars" is an intriguing one, but a shonky business position : the technology is useful (though unready), but the mass market won't be there in the next ten years.
History is littered with great technological ideas that turned out to be bad ideas once they hit the market. The most recent one I can think of, is in the same field : the Motorola satellite network. 3G telephones are a blunder of even more epic proportions.
How new, really are implementations of some versions of ideas like faxes and mobile phones? Now new at all. Some form of each existed since the 30's or 40's. It's really the implementation, coverage, costs and auxiliary features which change.
That's a good observation. The fax dates to the end of the 19th century, television is 80 years old (I think colour TV was demonstrated in the 30's), mobile communications became strong during WWII at the latest, while mobile telephony came, I think, in the late 50's. The technology used for the third generation mobiles (wide spectrum code division multiplex) is funded on work done by Claude Shannon in the 40's. It was first used for military communications in the 60's.
GSM and 3G illustrates a common develoment curve in computer and communications technology. First, the theoretical work is done but it cannot be turned into practice due to lack of suitable physical components. Second, it becomes practically possible but so expensive that it used only where cost is no object as in the military or very advanced research. Third, costs come down and it can be used for mass-market products. Fourth, innovators and market forces find new, unforeseen uses for the technology.
I take it you mean that commercial fax service ("wirephoto") came in 1924. The first, mechanical faxes were demonstrated well before that.
Now people, get your predictions in FAST for the Kyoto temperature. Remember: the prize is a red hot proxy-date with your glorious, foil-clad hostess. This is a one off (or maybe not) offer, too good to to pass up. White font please.
In ten years, there sure won't be no fibre optic cable coming to my house (although France's telecommunications network will still be superior to that of the USA). I will probably have a two-way satellite link which will give me access to much the same range of home entertainment options, but I will use it almost exclusively for work.
Prediction : in ten years' time, TheMote will still exist, in a substantially unchanged format. (Why mess with something that works?) And I will still occasionally make embarrassing mistakes while maintaining it.
Alistair, that was very very funny! :)
The sonar and side-looking radar locating devices originally developed by the military but now used by Ballard and some few others coupled with deep-water submersibles and related gear will become increasingly cheaper, more effective and common, resulting in an unprecedented mapping of the shallower ocean floors and uncovering a wealth of archeological finds. Shipwrecks from early BCE to circa WWII will be uncovered, mapped, and plumbed. The treasure trove of information and artifacts will beggar all that has heretofore been uncovered. Amphorae will again become commonplace. The detection and sounding technology on land will also rapidly develop with equally dramatic results.
If the planet continues to "warm itself up," more business and homes will install airconditioning to battle against the longer and hotter summers.
The clothing business will also see a drastic change in consumer habits as people will be indulging in the purchase of summer clothing. As Winters, become less frigid, the sales of fur, wool, and other warming fabrics will drop and perhaps will may see their demise.
People will become imprisoned in their homes as the heat becomes unbearable.
People who once saw miniscul electric bills during the warmer months, will now be spending more to operate the airconditioning.
Those who work in the outdoors will demand higher wages due to extreeme weather effects.
Skin cancer, which is already on the rise will continue to be life threatening.
Perhaps there will even be some new diseases popping up.
Help! It's 86 F out there!
1700 2000 Population 1.4 million 8.9 milliion Farmers 80% 2% Urbanisation 12% 85%
Sometimes I love the Internet, and its possibilities.
And you have no idea whether my face is angelic or Satanic. I am perhaps less Gibreel Farishta, and more Salahuddin Chamcha.
EVIL!
ho ho ho! (that's meant to be demonic laughter but looks more Juljupukkian - Santaclausian, in FInnish... BTW, "Juljupukki" is candidate for the world's silliest word.)
Priceless.
I am NOT guileless! I have heeeeaps of guile. I am the guiliest coyote on the block!
And me? An immoral faced harpy?! Too too much!
You know, before we changed it upon arrival in Australia, our name used to mean "Nice Face"
Some German a couple centuries ago had one hell of a sense of humour. The faces on Poppy's side scream...
"INBREEDING! INBREEDING! More genes... PLEASE"
(I'm so glad I uncharacteristically signed on for a bit on Sunday night)
Marji, yeah - me too :) ALthough I'm off soon to... laze by the pool, drink a Mai Tai, sexually harrass the bar boy, and learn Farsi.
Whoops: wrong thread.
Anders Sandberg is a symbiotic entity consisting of a website, user account and internet activity linked with a humanoid being approximately located in Stockholm, Sweden, most of the time. The digital part deals with most I/O and memory storage while the human part acts as a cognitive co-processor and interface with the physical world.
Bend over and kiss your ass g'bye!
To me, this is the sort of thread that can - and maybe should - languish at the bottom of the list for days or weeks, only to be revived when some brilliant nugget occurs to someone.
And that's the point: apart from the initial flurry of people discussing tthe fundamentals of futurism and extrapolating on their own beliefs - which is a finite exercise - discussion of the future requires less of a "xhat" style of posting, and more a "statement/response" style.
What I mean by this is that it is the sort of subject in which which occasionally, a bizarre, futuristic thought will occur to someone in the middle of the night. Such thoughts cannot be forced into a constant stream of dialogue.
All that said, I am not too fussed either way about the ongiong survival of this thread. But now that I think about it, it does seem a shame that because people don't post quickly enough or in a certain style, it is only fit for archiving.
If server space is not an issue, I would ask that maybe the RIP be reconsis=dered - for a while, at any rate. There is nothing lost in leaving this thread up for a while longer.
I will now spam this post into the Features/Suggestions thread.
Que sera, sera"
I predict that khaval will be outed as a persona of Pseudoerasmus.
BUT
Not before, she slowly and painfully dies from the ravages of smoking.
Transient, you are like a pit-bull with a baby.
I would have thought the volume of my typographical errors alone would have distinguished me from PE.
Also, apparently PEE gave up smoking. ANd I have not.
I am quite surprised that you have not yet complained about the passive smoke in this thread. :)
and I thought I was the only one until I read
the population of the world in Pelle's link.
Was it Pelle's link above.?
I have a fabulous memory but only for certain selective items . not who posted what.
cold fog one of these days and that the temperature will climb to above 65 Fahrenheit.
Hard tho it may seem to believe this these days.
We shall fight the Steppelords on the beaches,
in the air , on the land, in the mountains--(even if there are none) from village to village,
and, and, and....if it comes to that even in the nearest coffee house.
Shit man
every Steppelord I have ever met says they are
the only one. Now who is the fool ????
You tit blister Ofcourse there is only one.
is there any way you can prove your rather shakey
theory regarding those Steppel guys?
back to top
