Approximately some two hundred and thirty five years ago the great city of Boston gave the loudest and most persistent voice to the clarion call for Revolution. Of all the many injustices perpetrated by Great Britain against the colonies, none affected a greater insult than that known as Taxation without Representation. It was this grievance above all others that provided the colonists with their greatest justification to overthrow the yoke of British oppression.
Today, the Legislative and Executive branches of our Federal government, by virtue of a mixture of cowardice, stupidity, and/or corruption, are committing acts against the citizenry that easily rival those perpetrated by The British Monarchy against the colonists. It is my belief that The Legislature and The Executive have, by their egregious actions, effectively abdicated their responsibility as our elected representatives. Whether through ill advised and possibly criminally negligent bailouts for corrupt and insolvent investment banking houses, to, in the case of primarily (but not exclusively) this most recent Executive Branch's clear disregard for almost all of the original Ten Bill of Rights, the interests of "We The People" have been systematically ravaged.
Many of you may be holding out hope that President-elect, Barack Obama, will, in due course, set the American ship of state on the right course. This is understandable, but given Mr. Obama's series of appointments (insider and status quo purveyors all) and given the many false dawns that American politics has for generations delivered, I submit that NOW is the time to take matters into our own hands for the purposes of enacting revolutionary change.
There is much more to say about what sort of change is in order, but further discussion of the crucial details can wait. What I want to know now is who is with me regarding the imperative for Revolutionary change? Who believes that the United States must seek a path that has barely been imagined let alone articulated by those of our so called leaders? Who is serious about the necessity of aligning ourselves with the forces of history, forces that are, I believe, at odds with our government's so far successful attempts to compel us to invest, literally, in the revival of the now dead FIRE economy? My fellow citizens, we are letting ourselves be led off a cliff, and we can not wait one minute longer to start acting in our own best interests. If we do not we will have no wherewithal with which to resist our own ruin. WHO IS WITH ME?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
42 comments:
There is much more to say about what sort of change is in order, but further discussion of the crucial details can wait.
Therein lies the rub.
But yes, I believe that "Revolutionary change" is in order so "I'm with you!" But getting us all to agree with what sort of change is needed, and how to go about it, may be far more difficult.
First principles and a mission statement are the tasks at hand, at least right now. That is what I am focusing on. Any ideas you come up with that you would like to pass on either here, or via a post on your blog, would be most appreciated.
I am trying to get something started here in Boston,
ahead of what I am certain is going to be a most restive time in the U.S. in '09 and beyond.
Are you looking for 10,000 foot level ideas or specifics? At this point, I'd be happy just to see the Constitution enforced and not used as toilet paper by the federal government.
I've got a disgruntled bunch of friends here in Western CT, but I'm not sure what can be done to overcome the 8-year malaise of defeatism.
Edwardo, I have missed your comments of late so I came over to see what was up... I know I am in one of those border states you Yankees so hate so I may sound a little biased, but for what it's worth, I seriously don't think you'll get nearly as much traction with your neighbors on this endeavor as as you think.
It was no accident of fate that Massachussets was the first state to pass universal health coverage, and contrary to certain self delusions we all share, I don't think it had as much to do with greater Bostonian compassion for one's fellow man than Bostonians might like to believe.
People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
Those 'sheeple' you complain about down south just so happen to be funding a significant part of your local economy.
Finance is down, construction is down, what is left???...
Oh yes, health care! (I forgot about that).
I wonder who is spending all the money in our health care system? Mississippi or Massachusetts? I wonder's who's economy is more vulnerable?
Universal health care is coming, and some of us already suspect who the winners and losers are going to be. Could it be that some of your neighbor's fear the end of that sucking sound as money flows from other places like Mississippi to the Ivory medical towers of Boston comes grinding to a halt?
When you convince your neighbors to wean themselves off the tit of big heath care spending funded by the labor of citizen's in other states, come back and talk with the rest of us in the collective about your succession plans.
As I know you know all too well so that I hate (at least to you) I hate to be a told you so, bubbles can take the form of much more than just currency and debt. Your economy is in the throws of A REALLY BIG BUBBLE, and most of you don't see it, so don't kid yourself.
... Arn't you sure you don't just want to cooperate? ;-)
Anyway, Happy Holiday's and best wishes, I do hope you are well, and do hope to 'read' your voice at Hell's saloon again soon.
Thai
Ded,
Both high altitude notions and more down to earth specifics are appreciated.
As always, Thai, you are provocative.
You wrote:
...I know I am in one of those border states you Yankees
-I was born and raised in the South as a matter of fact.
... so I may sound a little biased, but for what it's worth, I seriously don't think you'll get nearly as much traction with your neighbors on this endeavor as as you think.
- You may be right, Thai, but even if that is true, it may not be for reasons you are imagining (but have yet to state).
It was no accident of fate that Massachussets was the first state to pass universal health coverage, and contrary to certain self delusions we all share, I don't think it had as much to do with greater Bostonian compassion for one's fellow man than Bostonians might like to believe.
-Interesting data you've put forward Thai.
Well, at the risk of raising some ire, I do reckon Bostonians in the aggregate are a tad more forward thinking than some folks in other parts of the U.S. That said, I think it is probably true that self interest has certainly played a larger role than altruism in motivating Massachusetts to push for universal health care.
Now if YOU really care to engage in an honest and thorough discussion about national political and fiscal distortions brought on by regional players, you might begin by addressing the inordinate influence of the south on governance for the last several generations. See the writings of, among others, and for starters, Michael Lind.
Those 'sheeple' you complain about down south just so happen to be funding a significant part of your local economy.
-I may be dense on this point, but it is not clear to me how the folks in Mississippi are funding Massachusetts economy to any substantial degree.
Finance is down, construction is down, what is left???...
Oh yes, health care! (I forgot about that).
-Yes, indeedy, there could be cause for concern around these parts on that score.
I wonder who is spending all the money in our health care system? Mississippi or Massachusetts? I wonder's who's economy is more vulnerable?
-Well, since Mississippi barely has an economy to speak of, other than one in poverty, I'm not sure it's
a question worth raising. Let me put it another way, why do birds fly upside down over Mississippi?
Universal health care is coming, and some of us already suspect who the winners and losers are going to be. Could it be that some of your neighbor's fear the end of that sucking sound as money flows from other places like Mississippi to the Ivory medical towers of Boston comes grinding to a halt?
When you convince your neighbors to wean themselves off the tit of big heath care spending funded by the labor of citizen's in other states, come back and talk with the rest of us in the collective about your succession plans.
-I'm reminded of the fact that there was no Mississippi at the time of the American Revolution, and the next great national crisis had Massachusetts and Mississippi on opposite sides.
Perhaps solidarity just isn't in the cards.
As I know you know all too well so that I hate (at least to you) I hate to be a told you so, bubbles can take the form of much more than just currency and debt. Your economy is in the throws of A REALLY BIG BUBBLE, and most of you don't see it, so don't kid yourself.
-It's a very interesting thesis you are putting forward, namely that the health care business is about to come down with a very serious cold.
... Arn't you sure you don't just want to cooperate? ;-)
With who?
Anyway, Happy Holiday's and best wishes, I do hope you are well, and do hope to 'read' your voice at Hell's saloon again soon.
Thai
Thanks. All the best to you as well.
Edwardo, my response.
Also, there is a flaw in you Mississippi logic I wont respond to now as my wife will kill me if I don't get out the door.
Regards
Edwardo, any specifics of the plan?
I mean, are we storming the statehouse with pitchforks and muskets?
Edwardo- if a rich industrialist (or hedge fund manager) who makes his money taking a fraction of the labor of people all over the world happens to live in Boston, are his federal income taxes and social security taxes and medicare taxes the property of the citizens of Massachusetts or the property of ALL Americans regardless of where they live?
What is your commons?
Hi, Mike. I'll say this much for now, having hundreds of citizens peacefully marching on the nation's capital and staying for an extended period of time is part of the plan.
Thai asked:
Edwardo- if a rich industrialist (or hedge fund manager) who makes his money taking a fraction of the labor of people all over the world happens to live in Boston, are his federal income taxes and social security taxes and medicare taxes the property of the citizens of Massachusetts or the property of ALL Americans regardless of where they live?
What is your commons?
You've lost me, sir. Clearly, if they are federal taxes, by definition they are being used on behalf of the nation as a whole. My commons su commons, Thai.
One "movement" I'd like to see get off the ground would involve those of both the nominal left and right, finding common ground in their anger that a consortium of government, banks (both central and "private"), and business are looting the nation.
The fact, however, that no one seems to understand this issue is a primary problem.
Mike, I couldn't agree more. I have spent most of my whole life trying to come up with a theory of 'oneness'.
The problem as I see it is our inability to get past our own illusions.
People of all strips and persuasions are looting the nation at all levels of society and liberals simply refuse to admit this as it runs too contrary to certain illusions they tend to share. In aggregate, these individuals are looting the commons far more than big business.
Unless liberals give ground on this issue I do not see unity emerging with conservatives.
We have moved very far as a society from the platonic ideal of at least some individual responsibility for one's own actions. We have moved very far from being allowed to say "no" as a collective to someone who simply ask 'too much' from the commons without being labeled monsters.
I understand what is too much to me may not be too much to you, but it is very easy to promise the world when you believe someone else's labor will pay for your promises- you look like a hero and it costs you very little.
I think until liberals admit this fundamental truth, they will not get much traction with conservatives.
Take my latest discussion with Edwardo. Supposedly 'forward looking and liberal (with an implication of compassion) Boston' was unable to solve its commons dilemma where the outcomes are quite literally life and death and everyone can see it.
So why pick on conservatives' views on banking deregulation? Why focus your attention on only 15 degrees of spherical coordinates on what is really a much larger three dimensional structure?
I think common ground is necessary- I just don't see liberals recognize the ground they need to cross yet.
At least that is how I see it
Thai, I agree with you.
I assume you acknowledge, as well, that there are very few of the so-called "Conservatives" in America right now. Most self-titled "conservatives" and Republicans are just as bad as the "liberals" you speak of. They also want to loot in the name of the commons, but their definition of the latter is different.
The whole repulsive bailout regime we're living through is a left/right/center phenomenon. Whenever Barney Frank and George Bush excoriate the nation to do something (and that something is identical for both) you know you're living in a kleptocracy.
LOL and well said.
I tend to look at prior notions of liberals and conservatives as kind of the left and right halves of a sphere. The left rightfully reminding us that in a world of scare resources and nearly infinite risk, forgetting to help each other out is our surest path to ruin, while the right have reminded us that there have to be limits on what the collective can do in its generosity lest the whole ship sink.
Sadly whatever the terms mean today I have no idea... Perhaps an instance of the political class trying to figure out how to save its own skin?
If housing, finance, currency and health care can all be bubbles, boy oh boy can politics as well.
Edwardo, I like how you don't allow anonymous comments.
I am enjoying and edified by the insightful comments. Thank you Thai, Mike and Ded.
I think we have come to the point that we must acknowledge that our entire culture is something of a bubble, literally and figuratively.
And now I can't help thinking about the global population explosion that began in the 20th century (the biggest bubble of them all perhaps?) and the attendant impact on the U.S. We are bubble nation are we not?
I say this since we are over stretched in absolutely every direction it seems. Revolutions must swim with the tide to get any traction. Generally they do swim with the tide, and this revolution must swim against bubble politics, bubble big pharma/medicine, big central cartelized banking, the MSM, etc. etc. etc.
Now, what is the first step? I say it is the pitch to a zombified, (or are they just terrified and paralyzed) citizenry. What is the most compelling thing one could say to people to get their interest, and even, perhaps, their enthusiasm?
Sadly, I think that "the most compelling thing one could say to people to get their interest, and even, perhaps, their enthusiasm" is: free money.
Well, Ded, that's not too far off from what I have in mind, which is telling them "YOU ARE BEING ROBBED" right now in broad daylight, and if you don't wake up, and more importantly, take action, you will become destitute before Obama's first term is up as the purchasing power of that contained in your wallet, banks accounts, portfolio statements, and paychecks will be destroyed. Not diminished, DESTROYED!
"Let me put it another way, sir" Bernie Madoff=The U.S. Government. In both cases there is no there there.
Edwardo I couldn't agree more, our culture has become a bubble.
We can literally no longer discuss messy subjects. We can no longer discuss when adding three months of life to someone's lifespan is allowed to be a lower priority than (say) smaller classroom sizes for our children, or more police on the streets of dangerous neighborhoods for improved safety, etc...
It is as if the modern world somehow thought it got immunized to the subject of rationing. Even though every person must make budget priorities in their personal lives, somehow we were immunized to the idea that the same applies to the collective.
DED, the irony of all this is that were people able to come to a consensus on when 'enough is enough'/rationing, it would literally be the same thing as finding enormous amounts of free money for most people- albeit at the expense of a few who currently take a lot from the collective right now.
Make no mistake, we are spending this money as a collective. You may not see all the ways in which we are spending it on a few but trust me we are. We just keep hoping the bill will fall on our children somehow because we don't want to have to face the tough choices.
But when the musical chairs stops, someone will pay. Life always demands its pound of flesh. I have seen it over and over and over in my career.
And god only knows what trends like this portend.
I am not saying I have any right to limit another person's reproductive choices, but who pays for her child when she is dead and the child is but a teenager, etc...? Is that a new commons requirement we are all supposed to work a few extra months a year to support?
And if her new child is ill, and she is obviously too old to work to pay the her medical bills, does that mean you and I need to now pick the tab for her child up? It is a child after all that would now suffer and the child did not make a decision to be born.
And yet do I have the right to limit another person's 'lifestyle' choices? But if I don't, am I required to care for the consequences of those choices when I didn't create limits on the person originally but now witness somewhat predictable negative consequences? What do I owe the commons? What does the commons owe this woman? What does the commons owe her child? What does the woman owe the commons?
And what does things like this do to world fertility rates and human carbon footprints? And is it fair to even ask such questions when my footprint is already so much larger than hers?
And on and on and on...
I have no answer, yet certain outcomes are somewhat predictable
The idea that it is only the rich who are destroying the commons is simply crazy... And yet certain rich are clearly destroying it. No "ifs ands or buts" on that point.
It is so easy to become a nihilist if one lets oneself
With regard to the seventy year old woman having children, I'll offer the following (not terribly charitable) comment:
If God/nature had wanted seventy year old woman to have children he/she would not have made menopause part of women's biological makeup.
We humans have difficulty accepting many things, and one of the things we have trouble accepting is our very strong tendency to become servants to our technology. In this case reproductive technology. To bowdlerize the famous line from "Field of Dreams" "If you build it they will use it." Often this is not advisable.
The problem in this particular case, as you point out, is that the costs are, ahem, not likely to be shouldered primarily by the beneficiary of the application of this bit of technology.
Yes
But 'God' did give us the ability to use our minds to make tools to help ourselves survive on this planet.
And this woman had never had any children before.
Can we use technology to improve our own genetics? Can we eliminate sickle cell disease with genetic engineering? It is a nasty illness.
Hardin was right, these things are aesthetics and it comes down to whose aesthetic wins? Mine or yours or some 50/50 hybrid neither of us is really happy about?
But eventually you just got to chose a side in life, however arbitrary it may be.
I tend to chose personal freedoms but recognize you have to live with the consequences of your own actions as do your offspring (they always will anyway as any good parent knows). But I do recognize that any other way to skin the cat is just as valid.
It is what it is
You may not see all the ways in which we are spending it on a few but trust me we are.
Oh, I do. I've followed it long enough to see.
We just keep hoping the bill will fall on our children somehow because we don't want to have to face the tough choices.
Children, grandchildren, great grandchildren. Let's not kid ourselves. With a couple exceptions, there hasn't been a serious attempt at fiscal responsibility on the part of the federal government, as a whole, for decades. And I don't see that changing for any length of time. If we can't borrow it, we print it. I'm at a loss as to how this maddening spiral will end except in catastrophe.
Indeed, nature did give us humans fecund minds with which to do fantastic things, but we are too much with ourselves (or so it would seem) when we manufacture tools that are then used by seventy year old women to conceive.
It's hit and miss in the world of human tools. On the one hand there are obvious hits such as the plow, the widget, the incandescent light bulb, the sun dial, the wheel, the windmill and the victrola. On the other hand: name your five favorite crummy inventions.
Ded wrote:
"If we can't borrow it, we print it. I'm at a loss as to how this maddening spiral will end except in catastrophe."
It likely won't end in anything but catastrophe, Ded, because the U.S., in the absence of any self control, or a clear and present danger that would compel us to change, will continue with our profligacy daring the rest of the world to do something about the atrocious way we abuse our global reserve currency status.
I'll be looking for signs (there are some early ones) that someone or other is up to calling the U.S. bluff, because I suspect that is how it will play out. We won't change our ways, and we won't go quietly.
"...but we are too much with ourselves (or so it would seem) when we manufacture tools that are then used by seventy year old women to conceive."
I am unsure what you mean?
Technology designed for one purpose being reused for another is a story as old as humans have recorded history. There will always be the law of unintended consequences. There has always been the law of unintended consequences.
And if people want to live to the ripe old age of 120-150 and not radically alter world populations, perhaps they would need to have their kids in their 70's or 80's. The problem of course is that people's use of technology will always be faster than the collective's controls on that technology. And when the collective does control it (i.e 'regulations), as it always tries, the cat will still always have been let out of the bag.
I read blogs from people like Maggie Mahar, who rightfully point out that obesity is largely genetic and that a little more compassion is required of people toward this illness which is definitely trampling the commons (and which I couldn't agree more with), but then her own cognitive dissonance does not admit to the equally difficult truth that human morality is just as genetically determined.
And if it is (as it clearly is), does that mean immoral people get a pass as well? And if I am dishonest and a thief, doesn't the same logic of compassion apply to me as well? And if it does, does it also mean compassion for my genetic immorality means I get a free pass on my behavior or does it mean I get a "oh how unfortunate" pat on the back but still need to go to jail"? BUt if my obesity is more expensive to the collective than my immorality, which should the commons say "no more under any circumstances" to?
Edwardo, are there really any other nations on this planet where the commons is not being spoiled? Are there a group of national non-spoilers who will call America's bluff? I am very patriotic, so please do not misunderstand me, but I am not sure an end to the despoiling of the commons will come from any one nation. I think savers all over the world with less appetite for risk will wake up one day and say at a larger 'meta-national' level: "this commons will no longer allow itself to be spoiled". It is really a notion of identity that has prevented the change so far.
Savers are wherever they are
Quite right, the technology was not devised with pregnant seventy year olds in mind. Having said that, this is the issue. We have come too far along in human history now with our tools not to recognize and deliberate more thoroughly on how new tools are to be used.
The cat may be out of the bag from the get go, but she can still have a collar around her neck with a leash attached.
Thai said:
I read blogs from people like Maggie Mahar, who rightfully point out that obesity is largely genetic and that a little more compassion is required of people toward this illness which is definitely trampling the commons (and which I couldn't agree more with), but then her own cognitive dissonance does not admit to the equally difficult truth that human morality is just as genetically determined.
- with all due respect to you, Dr. you are on somewhat shaky ground with me regarding genetic determinants of human behaviour since my model for human behaviour is that there is a dynamic interplay between nature and nuture. But, let me play Devil's Advocate on this issue.
And if it is (as it clearly is), does that mean immoral people get a pass as well? And if I am dishonest and a thief, doesn't the same logic of compassion apply to me as well? And if it does, does it also mean compassion for my genetic immorality means I get a free pass on my behavior or does it mean I get a "oh how unfortunate" pat on the back but still need to go to jail"? BUt if my obesity is more expensive to the collective than my immorality, which should the commons say "no more under any circumstances" to?
-My answer is that obesity on an evolutionary psych basis clearly does not warrant the same punitive response from us humans as other types of unsavory determined behavior. Perhaps now, at this point in human history, our evolutionarily determined responses are not serving us so well? But then who said nature was perfect. Nature is a gifted improviser in my view, providing us moments of inspired brilliance alongside some deeply flawed concoctions.
Edwardo, are there really any other nations on this planet where the commons is not being spoiled?
-Probably not, but perhaps the better question is
are the commons being spoiled everywhere by indigenous populations? You may not think that is a distinction worth making, namely who is doing the spoiling hither and yon.
Are there a group of national non-spoilers who will call America's bluff? I am very patriotic, so please do not misunderstand me, but I am not sure an end to the despoiling of the commons will come from any one nation. I think savers all over the world with less appetite for risk will wake up one day and say at a larger 'meta-national' level: "this commons will no longer allow itself to be spoiled". It is really a notion of identity that has prevented the change so far.
Savers are wherever they are
You may be right, Thai. I will only offer the idea that bluff calling doesn't have to be by some one or other who want to save the commons as such, but by some group that are simply in a better position to exploit what's left and who have the wherewithal to usurp our position as chief despoilers.
Let me put it another way: Two bare foot men are running from a tiger, and one stops to put on shoes. The man without shoes says, "You'll never out run the tiger in those, to which the man in shoes says, "I don't have to, I just need to outrun you."
LOL!!!!!!!!!! ;-)
Life is a Red Queen game
And yes- nature vs. nurture is a boring argument. It is always both. No need to think I do not understand this. But at some level even this is a useless statement since it is always true so it is not all that helpful either.
It still is aesthetics in the end and whose aesthetics wins.
I imagine that you do well understand the Na V. Nu argument. And though it isn't all that helpful, and at this stage, quite tedious, it's all we've got.
Edwardo said: "Perhaps now, at this point in human history, our evolutionarily determined responses are not serving us so well? But then who said nature was perfect. Nature is a gifted improviser in my view, providing us moments of inspired brilliance alongside some deeply flawed concoctions."
The market is not perfect, the government is not perfect, nature is not perfect? Then why get upset over this whole financial debacle. All of it is what it is and that is about the only thing we can say.
Edwardo said : "with all due respect to you, Dr. you are on somewhat shaky ground with me regarding genetic determinants of human behaviour since my model for human behaviour is that there is a dynamic interplay between nature and nurture"
I still sense you misunderstand my point. The differences between people for any thing you can imagine in behavior or morality is defined by A. Differences between our environments are defined by B and differences between our genetics are defined by C. The in a simple model of human morality/behavior A= B+C.
To the extent the differences in B shrink, it becomes the differences in C that explain differences in A. To the extent we control and 'improve' our environmental variables, the differences between us become even more and more the result of 'nature' and not nurture. It's basic math. (I think it is also one of the reason's the Harvard crowd loves to remind us of the importance of nurture- the more we focus on it the better they do, your two men racing from a tiger analogy so to speak)
Further, to the extent differences in C already exist in a population, changing B for some people's C can actually increase differences in A (this is the evil side of socialism or "hive" politics for socialism as the average person understands it is clearly a variant of hive game theory.
The idea of 'nurture' can be practical as a policy response to minimize differences in B but that is it (and understand you have harmed a lot of C's in the process).
Beyond that, wrapping one's self in some kind of 'protective' idea of nurture is a complete waste of time from any practical standpoint (is really rather nihilistic). "Yes", we would all be dead if we lived in space without a space suit or under water without a breathing apparatus.
It is what it is
I am not on shaky grounds at all
Krugman said: "What bothered me about the incident was that it was what Digby would call Village behavior: Moore is an outsider, he’s uncouth, so he gets smeared as unreliable even though he actually got it right."
Sometimes you just got to love this guy.
"Village behavior"="The Collective"="The hive"= "Socialism", etc... (pick your term)
Now if he would just wake up one day and see the self similar nature of reality he might just see his own cognitive dissonance and why his Keynesianism is absolutely batty- unless he is defining the peers of his collective as much more than America (in which case it does nothing but transfer wealth and power from point A to point B within a closed system). And i that is his purpose, that is a very disingenuous policy to recommend to a president who was elected to protect his 'American' team.
There are standards of care and malpractice for physicians. Why don't talking heads have similar standards?
Oh well
Krugman said: "What bothered me about the incident was that it was what Digby would call Village behavior: Moore is an outsider, he’s uncouth, so he gets smeared as unreliable even though he actually got it right."
Sometimes you just got to love this guy.
"Village behavior"="The Collective"="The hive"= "Socialism", etc... (pick your term)
Now if he would just wake up one day and see the self similar nature of reality he might just see his own cognitive dissonance and why his Keynesianism is absolutely batty- unless he is defining the peers of his collective as much more than America (in which case it does nothing but transfer wealth and power from point A to point B within a closed system). And i that is his purpose, that is a very disingenuous policy to recommend to a president who was elected to protect his 'American' team.
There are standards of care and malpractice for physicians. Why don't talking heads have similar standards?
Oh well
Okay, I think I understand your model for human behaviour, Thai. Thanks for clarifying it for me.
The genes responsible for the metabolic issues that have given us obesity in this day and age served a useful purpose to the "feast or famine" lifestyle or our hunter-gatherer ancestors. It is entirely possible that, in the future, these gene(s) responsible will be engineered out of the genome.
As for the genetic potential for aberrant sociopathic behavior, there may come a day when genetic screening with identify those individuals early on, perhaps infancy, and those individuals will be placed in an environment where said malevolent potential will be inhibited from developing.
Once again genetic engineering might be utilized to cull these genes from the genome, but the morality of behavioral modification at this level will have to be debated when that day comes.
Things will heat up as your initial reaction suggests.
DED, don't kid yourself, it is already here. The problem you may be having is just what do you define as 'OK" genetic modification and what do you define as "not OK".
We already have "family balancing" and it is a big business, if you were unaware. And one of the most fascinating dirty little secrets in the west (vs. our attack on the boy loving east) is how westerners prefer girls (I have 4 boys- best kids you ever met in your life). I know a surgeon who did this as well as a local CIA analyst.
We have female eggs for sale and there have now been auctions as high as $500,000 (young woman at Stanford University) that I have read of (and I am sure there have been transactions for higher rices which have not made the news media).
We can now screen for marital success.
This is genetic engineering (you could of course argue mate selection is genetic engineering as well), only we are not using a test tube (actually we are with the liquid chromatography and the family balancing).
The kind I think you are suggesting is very very close. Don't you remember when U Penn was sanctioned a few years ago for the death of the young boy whose DNA they tried to alter to cure a terrible inborn error of metabolism?
Oh, and you don't think those aberrant morality genes also served us well in the past?
They let my and yours and Edwardo's ancestors outrace the other guy from the tiger of oblivion
Why are there 4 recent ashkenazi jewish women who are now known to be the direct descendants of 40% of all Ashkenazi jewish women living today?
You think it was a mitochondrial mutation that caused the event? It is possible, but WAY improbable.
The idea of putting a lid on certain genes is absolutely playing with fire
Would you recommend we destroy the biodiversity in a rainforest?
If you understand why such an idea might be inherently dangerous, then think about what you are suggesting? Are we really sure we will ever understand the biodiversity of the human mind/morality and society?
To make a financial analogy, people may not like traders who short stocks, but they also definitely serve a very useful role to the collective
Don't you remember when U Penn was sanctioned a few years ago for the death of the young boy whose DNA they tried to alter to cure a terrible inborn error of metabolism?
No, I missed it.
The idea of putting a lid on certain genes is absolutely playing with fire
Would you recommend we destroy the biodiversity in a rainforest?
If you understand why such an idea might be inherently dangerous, then think about what you are suggesting? Are we really sure we will ever understand the biodiversity of the human mind/morality and society?
I am not suggesting we do it. Far from it. I am saying that someday we'll have the capability to do it and there will be those within our society who will insist that we do it, either ignorant of the potential consequences of such a move or in spite of them.
I misunderstood. Blog communications are hard with new strangers
Here is a Wikipedia on how Jessie Gelsinger died at U Penn. DNA therapy is here.
Without sounding like a conspiracy type, and without any specific knowledge otherwise, it wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that gene therapy has moved overseas after the regulatory backlash. There are simply too many people who can absolutely see Edwardo's Tiger of oblivion in their own future family tree unless they alter their genes.
It is what it is
I misunderstood. Blog communications are hard with new strangers.
True. No harm, no foul. :)
I've been reading about the potential of DNA therapy for some time. To say that "it's here" seems premature to me. That implies a regular run of successes and frequent use. To me, it seems like it's still experimental. But then again, maybe I'm just quibbling over semantics. ;)
One thing I forgot to mention about the health care bubble is the issue of asymmetric costs and asymmetric losses (and "yes", you are correct, I think education is every bit the bubble that health care is- we now demand a 4 year degree at a cost of $150,000 to be a secretary, crazy!).
If you spent 20% of your entire working career investing the time and money to make yourself a health care provider, and then you are told that your investment is a waste, your personal costs are enormous (so a neurosurgeon would get hit far more than (say) a primary are physician though primary care will get hit too- though in truth it already has been hit with the wide usage of mid-level providers (nurse practitioners and physician's assistants) who are clearly encroaching into their market share.
YOu would take a much large asymmetric risk just like an investor who put all his/her money into one high risk investment and lost.
And the same holds true for someone with advanced academic credentials who is made redundant from the popping of the health care bubble.
So remember, you will see the greatest fight coming from the ivory towers of health care that currently have the most power. Many of the have the most to lose.
And they will do everything in their power to control the terms of the debate so if people are going to lose, their loss will at least be much less.
I don't think this bubble will pop quickly but when it does, god help those in my industry who weren't prepared and/or didn't see it coming.
And just like all the people complaining about Wall Street, I predict when the bubble does pop everyone will start pointing their fingers and saying "it was your fault, why didn't you see it coming". And of course, everyone will forget they were warned numerous times.
It is what it is
Your initial question is the key - try getting just five people to care enough to sacrifice just a tiny bit and email or fax a political representative...
The Ron Paul movement was one of the best I've witnessed in some time and it fizzled out pretty quick when squelched by the MSM.
Lest you underestimate the power of the media might I mention that I have two upper middle class white colleges who spent their own money to go to Obama's inauguration....
Here's two guys who make $200k+ a year (apiece) excited about a partial black man becoming president who spent 20+ years in the pews listening to violent anti-white rhetoric, who has promised to level the economic playing field (meaning taking money from them), who spent his early childhood development years as a practicing Wahhabi Sunni (the most violent sect), who was mentored from his early teens by a self proclaimed sexual deviant, and who most likely isn't even a legal US citizen.
Another quick example - remember how positive the media was about John McCain until he won the Republican nomination - the day after they started thrashing him.
If you want to know where we are headed - figure out who owns the media and what their agenda is...
Yophat, I think you are a little behind the times. The media is dying. I am sure some new 'master order' will come to replace it soon enough (Pareto is invariant in scale free networks whether we wish it to be so or not, and if I had to guess, I would bet the next media 'big fish' will be/is Google) but right now the media is dying as its readers (like you and me) have moved to blogs so enjoy the illusion of a moment of freedom.
As for this black white stuff, true/not true, why continue this war? Do you really think race war is REALLY what matters to Obama? Do you really think Americans, even considering his likability factor, are that clueless that they completely missed that about him? Even conceding that race was a bigger factor in this election than ever before do you REALLY think Americans care as much about race as they do about (say) health care? crime? war? lifestyle? etc... In the end something had to give and the one that did seemed the best possible one to go of all.
I read your profile, your favorite book is Ender's game? I would assume you therefore understanding the concept of sacrificing a skirmish to win a war? I think 'sacrificing the truth' on race or religion, whatever that 'truth' may be, is a cheap price to pay to win a much larger war on so many other much larger (at least to me and I think many others) issues.
Very few people are interested in the truth because it is so hard to discern and where we do find it, it is usually worthless in any 'practical sense'... There is a reason the term 'Tautology' has such disdained in philosophy.
Thai -
Race wasn't the issue. Who cares what color the man is. The point is race is a factor to him a tool to be used to create division. You will see the impact of that in the months ahead.
I agree to disagree. To me truth is everything. The search is difficult and the path is hazardous but its worth it - each to his own.
I agree with your assumptions though concerning the concerns of the populace.
So be it. We will reap what we sow.
Post a Comment