tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8902921887068783713.post7032638239866276773..comments2023-11-03T04:19:17.635-07:00Comments on Disaster Porn: WHO IS WITH ME?Edwardohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03613197383283896190noreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8902921887068783713.post-8764958753448066782009-01-24T11:46:00.000-08:002009-01-24T11:46:00.000-08:00Thai -Race wasn't the issue. Who cares what color...Thai -<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>I agree with your assumptions though concerning the concerns of the populace.<BR/><BR/>So be it. We will reap what we sow.Yophathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14077220981968704171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8902921887068783713.post-9423829202221374792009-01-23T17:30:00.000-08:002009-01-23T17:30:00.000-08:00Yophat, I think you are a little behind the times....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.<BR/><BR/>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? <A HREF="http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/racialpolarization-0120.html" REL="nofollow">Even conceding that race was a bigger factor in this election than ever before</A> <B>do you <I>REALLY</I></B> 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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.Thaihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00700253024420397221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8902921887068783713.post-57559274746954445002009-01-23T14:22:00.000-08:002009-01-23T14:22:00.000-08:00Lest you underestimate the power of the media migh...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....<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>If you want to know where we are headed - figure out who owns the media and what their agenda is...Yophathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14077220981968704171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8902921887068783713.post-41076239079600742892009-01-23T14:12:00.000-08:002009-01-23T14:12:00.000-08:00Your initial question is the key - try getting jus...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...<BR/><BR/>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.Yophathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14077220981968704171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8902921887068783713.post-72020767741634532492009-01-14T21:42:00.000-08:002009-01-14T21:42:00.000-08:00One thing I forgot to mention about the health car...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!).<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>And the same holds true for someone with advanced academic credentials who is made redundant from the popping of the health care bubble.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>It is what it isThaihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00700253024420397221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8902921887068783713.post-32850910539320194042009-01-11T13:12:00.000-08:002009-01-11T13:12:00.000-08:00I misunderstood. Blog communications are hard with...<I>I misunderstood. Blog communications are hard with new strangers.</I><BR/><BR/>True. No harm, no foul. :)<BR/><BR/>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. ;)DEDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07266406676643270732noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8902921887068783713.post-5343144102127396042009-01-09T18:14:00.000-08:002009-01-09T18:14:00.000-08:00I misunderstood. Blog communications are hard with...I misunderstood. Blog communications are hard with new strangers<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Gelsinger" REL="nofollow">Here is a Wikipedia on how Jessie Gelsinger died at U Penn</A>. DNA therapy is here. <BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>It is what it isThaihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00700253024420397221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8902921887068783713.post-8393966725961985082009-01-09T15:05:00.000-08:002009-01-09T15:05:00.000-08:00Don't you remember when U Penn was sanctioned a fe...<I>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?</I><BR/><BR/>No, I missed it.<BR/><BR/><I>The idea of putting a lid on certain genes is absolutely playing with fire<BR/><BR/>Would you recommend we destroy the biodiversity in a rainforest?<BR/><BR/>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><BR/><BR/><B>I</B> am not suggesting we do it. Far from it. I am saying that someday we'll have the <I>capability</I> 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.DEDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07266406676643270732noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8902921887068783713.post-68701678858729979192009-01-07T19:53:00.000-08:002009-01-07T19:53:00.000-08:00Oh, and you don't think those aberrant morality ge...Oh, and you don't think those <I>aberrant</I> morality genes also served us well in the past?<BR/><BR/>They let my and yours and Edwardo's ancestors outrace the other guy from the tiger of oblivion<BR/><BR/>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?<BR/><BR/>You think it was a mitochondrial mutation that caused the event? It is possible, but WAY improbable.<BR/><BR/>The idea of putting a lid on certain genes is absolutely playing with fire<BR/><BR/>Would you recommend we destroy the biodiversity in a rainforest? <BR/><BR/>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?<BR/><BR/>To make a financial analogy, people may not like traders who short stocks, but they also definitely serve a very useful role to the collectiveThaihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00700253024420397221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8902921887068783713.post-29729822460639756862009-01-07T19:38:00.000-08:002009-01-07T19:38:00.000-08:00DED, don't kid yourself, it is already here. The p...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". <BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.givf.com/familybalancing/whatisfamilybalancing.cfm" REL="nofollow">We already have "family balancing"</A> 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.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.ronsangels.com/index2.html" REL="nofollow">We have female eggs for sale</A> 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).<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.genesisbiolabs.com/ruthlessness.php" REL="nofollow">We can now screen for marital success</A>. <BR/>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). <BR/><BR/>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?Thaihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00700253024420397221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8902921887068783713.post-77410821719286736762009-01-07T19:19:00.000-08:002009-01-07T19:19:00.000-08:00Things will heat up as your initial reaction sugge...<A HREF="http://chronicle.com/free/v55/i18/18b00601.htm" REL="nofollow">Things will heat up</A> as your initial reaction suggests.Thaihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00700253024420397221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8902921887068783713.post-38599703298075018252009-01-07T19:18:00.000-08:002009-01-07T19:18:00.000-08:00The genes responsible for the metabolic issues tha...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 <I>possible</I> that, in the future, these gene(s) responsible will be engineered out of the genome. <BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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.DEDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07266406676643270732noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8902921887068783713.post-52322613076865658932009-01-07T11:46:00.000-08:002009-01-07T11:46:00.000-08:00Okay, I think I understand your model for human be...Okay, I think I understand your model for human behaviour, Thai. Thanks for clarifying it for me.Edwardohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03613197383283896190noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8902921887068783713.post-28540463012727785632009-01-07T08:37:00.001-08:002009-01-07T08:37:00.001-08:00Krugman said: "What bothered me about the incident...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." <BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/the-trouble-with-sanjay-gupta/" REL="nofollow">Sometimes you just got to love this guy</A>. <BR/><BR/>"Village behavior"="The Collective"="The hive"= "Socialism", etc... (pick your term) <BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>There are standards of care and malpractice for physicians. Why don't talking heads have similar standards?<BR/><BR/>Oh wellThaihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00700253024420397221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8902921887068783713.post-40949861369130677652009-01-07T08:37:00.000-08:002009-01-07T08:37:00.000-08:00Krugman said: "What bothered me about the incident...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." <BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/the-trouble-with-sanjay-gupta/" REL="nofollow">Sometimes you just got to love this guy</A>. <BR/><BR/>"Village behavior"="The Collective"="The hive"= "Socialism", etc... (pick your term) <BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>There are standards of care and malpractice for physicians. Why don't talking heads have similar standards?<BR/><BR/>Oh wellThaihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00700253024420397221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8902921887068783713.post-37767740103956000762009-01-07T04:59:00.000-08:002009-01-07T04:59:00.000-08:00Edwardo said: "Perhaps now, at this point in huma...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."<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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"<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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) <BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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). <BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>It is what it is<BR/><BR/>I am not on shaky grounds at allThaihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00700253024420397221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8902921887068783713.post-52046158898115481332009-01-07T03:42:00.000-08:002009-01-07T03:42:00.000-08:00I imagine that you do well understand the Na V. Nu...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.Edwardohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03613197383283896190noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8902921887068783713.post-26321584150905903362009-01-06T21:03:00.000-08:002009-01-06T21:03:00.000-08:00LOL!!!!!!!!!! ;-)Life is a Red Queen gameAnd yes-...LOL!!!!!!!!!! ;-)<BR/><BR/>Life is a Red Queen game<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>It still is aesthetics in the end and whose aesthetics wins.Thaihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00700253024420397221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8902921887068783713.post-33765464431097302462009-01-06T20:52:00.000-08:002009-01-06T20:52:00.000-08:00Quite right, the technology was not devised with p...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. <BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>Thai said:<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>- 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.<BR/><BR/>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?<BR/><BR/>-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.<BR/><BR/>Edwardo, are there really any other nations on this planet where the commons is not being spoiled? <BR/><BR/>-Probably not, but perhaps the better question is<BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>Savers are wherever they are<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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."Edwardohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03613197383283896190noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8902921887068783713.post-54505324746442088082009-01-06T20:20:00.000-08:002009-01-06T20:20:00.000-08:00"...but we are too much with ourselves (or so it w..."...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."<BR/><BR/>I am unsure what you mean?<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>I read blogs from people like <A HREF="http://www.healthbeatblog.org/2008/11/fat-what-the-ex.html" REL="nofollow">Maggie Mahar</A>, 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 <A HREF="http://www.edge.org/q2009/q09_4.html#haidt" REL="nofollow">human morality is just as genetically determined</A>. <BR/><BR/>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?<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>Savers are wherever they areThaihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00700253024420397221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8902921887068783713.post-58929266804228939332009-01-06T14:54:00.000-08:002009-01-06T14:54:00.000-08:00Indeed, nature did give us humans fecund minds wit...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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>Ded wrote:<BR/><BR/>"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."<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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.Edwardohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03613197383283896190noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8902921887068783713.post-86693188017029815802009-01-06T07:51:00.000-08:002009-01-06T07:51:00.000-08:00You may not see all the ways in which we are spend...<I>You may not see all the ways in which we are spending it on a few but trust me we are.</I> <BR/><BR/>Oh, I do. I've followed it long enough to see.<BR/><BR/><I>We just keep hoping the bill will fall on our children somehow because we don't want to have to face the tough choices.</I><BR/><BR/>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.DEDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07266406676643270732noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8902921887068783713.post-79745729954805706282009-01-05T21:18:00.000-08:002009-01-05T21:18:00.000-08:00YesBut 'God' did give us the ability to use our mi...Yes<BR/><BR/>But 'God' did give us the ability to use our minds to make tools to help ourselves survive on this planet.<BR/><BR/>And this woman had never had any children before.<BR/><BR/>Can we use technology to improve our own genetics? Can we eliminate sickle cell disease with genetic engineering? It is a nasty illness.<BR/><BR/>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?<BR/><BR/>But eventually you just got to chose a side in life, however arbitrary it may be.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>It is what it isThaihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00700253024420397221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8902921887068783713.post-25714272465332607582009-01-05T21:05:00.000-08:002009-01-05T21:05:00.000-08:00With regard to the seventy year old woman having c...With regard to the seventy year old woman having children, I'll offer the following (not terribly charitable) comment:<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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.Edwardohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03613197383283896190noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8902921887068783713.post-79701117425523614762009-01-05T19:41:00.000-08:002009-01-05T19:41:00.000-08:00And god only knows what trends like this portend. ...<A HREF="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/4032316/Worlds-oldest-mother-wants-to-have-another-child.html" REL="nofollow">And god only knows what trends like this portend</A>. <BR/><BR/> 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? <BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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?<BR/><BR/>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?<BR/><BR/>And on and on and on...<BR/><BR/>I have no answer, yet certain outcomes are somewhat predictable<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>It is so easy to become a nihilist if one lets oneselfThaihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00700253024420397221noreply@blogger.com