Debonair David

Happy Valentine’s Day!

2012-02-14T08:33:00.001-05:00

Choose(?) your own adventure

2012-02-13T09:20:00.001-05:00

KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!!!!

2012-01-24T23:05:00.001-05:00

~I recently went to the North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences to see a special exhibit titled “Genghis Khan: The Exhibition”:

The exhibit was a series of rooms containing Mongol artifacts and modern reproductions, educational displays, and the mummy of a Mongolian woman from the time of the Big G Himself.

The exhibit also included a clever “character” system, in which you received a bookmark at the beginning of the exhibit with the name and description of one of six fictitious people who might have lived during the lifetime of Genghis Khan. Throughout the exhibit, there were electronic displays that let you track your character’s life and development. I had Ivan, a Russian who was going to be a priest, but drank too much and later became a spy in service of the Mongols.

^ My favorite part of the exhibit was this life-size display of Mongolian warriors. I wouldn’t want to meet these guys on the steppes, unless of course I was carrying one of the diplomatic passports issued by the Khan to messengers and dignitaries such as Marco Polo.

^ There were plenty of ancient weapons on display. These bad boys were probably used by Mongolian warriors, such as the bad boys in the previous picture.

^ Me in front of the statue of Genghis Khan at the entrance to the exhibit.

One of the principal aims of the exhibition was to, in at least some ways, “reform” the popular image of Genghis Khan as a bloodthirsty conquering warlord. It pointed out the many cultural achievements of the Mongolian empire, which integrated many different cultures, religions, ethnicities, and territories. Under Genghis’ rule, there was a significant increase in travel, trade, and cultural exchange between Europe and East Asia, as well as the development of legal codes and the construction of an amazing capital city.

That being said, I couldn’t help but notice that according to a timeline in the exhibit, by around 150 years after Genghis Khan’s death in 1227 (which occurred of sickness during a campaign to subdue a rebellious province in China), his empire had ceased to exist. His glorious capital city of Khara Khorum was razed, and is now little more than a few shattered stone walls. His homeland is now sandwiched between and dominated by its far more powerful neighbors. While Genghis Khan’s rule may have stimulated trade and cultural exchange, this was done at the cost of tens of millions of lives and unfathomable suffering and destruction; entire advanced civilizations, such as the Xi Xia, were wiped out by the Mongol horde. It’s a bit like wondering if the technological achievements that came out of World War II (such as space travel) somehow justify the toll in human suffering that conflict engendered. I think most (sane) people would favor a more peaceful path to development, even if it takes longer.

The mummy was interesting – her clothes were amazingly well-preserved – but the biggest prize of Mongol history (and perhaps that of the entire discipline of archaeology itself) remains undiscovered: the tomb of Genghis Khan himself. Perhaps somewhere out there on the Mongolian steppes lies a tomb of such incredible riches and archaeological value that it is rivaled only by the tomb of King Tutankhamen! I hope I live to see the day that the Khan’s legacy is brought to light.

Of course, no piece of writing about Genghis Khan would be complete without this:

If I Had a Nickel For Every Time I’ve Been to Monticello…

2012-01-08T23:27:00.002-05:00

~…I’d have exactly 5 cents. That’s because last week, I went to Charlottesville, Virginia, to see the late Thomas “T.J.” Jefferson’s house. You may have heard of him: he was ambassador to France, argued a lot with Alexander Hamilton, designed gadgets (like an automatic door), and I think he may have been elected to some sort of political office, and possibly wrote a paper of some kind.

^Anyway, our first stop was a park on the outskirts of town, home to the Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center. Charlottesville was where the famous Lewis & Clark expedition began (more or less), and outside of the (unfortunately closed) Exploratory Center was a full-size replica of a riverboat similar to that used by the titular explorers.

^ The Rivanna River flowed past the park. It looks great for kayaking!

^ Dad, hanging out on a boat ramp along the river.

^ The next day, we were ready for Monticello. After driving up the mountain, we encountered this statue of T.J. outside the visitor’s center.

^ The famous house itself that we’ve all seen a thousand times on the back of five-cent coins. Jefferson designed the house himself and continued to add to it throughout his life. Built on land he inherited, the architectural style was inspired by classical Greco-Roman buildings Jefferson admired while living in Europe.

^ From the other side.

^ [Please click on the above panoramic image for a much better view]
Monticello isn’t just a house, it’s an estate. It has two wings with rooms built into the hillside (slave quarters, stables, and storage), and two outbuildings on either side. The building on the left was an office of Jefferson’s son-in-law, while the one on the right was actually the home of Jefferson and his wife while the main building was being constructed.

^ The left wing of Monticello. The main house is just visible on the right. Notice how the ground slopes down and the outlying wing is built into the ground. Tunnels lead into basement storage and work areas. Most of the work was done in these underground areas: cooking, washing, storage, and so forth (by slaves, of course); this left the rooms in the main house free for rest and entertainment.

^ Stables under one of the wings of the estate. Debatably more comfortable than the slave quarters.

^ Monticello was (and is) a productive, working plantation, not a rest home for a retired politician. Hundreds of workers, both free and slave, worked here to produce a large variety of foods and goods. The picture above shows part of the garden area. Of course, this being winter it was mostly fallow, but each section of the garden was marked with replica signs showing Jefferson’s unique classification system, displaying the wide variety of vegetables grown here.

^ Another view of the gardens. They are still in use today. Incidentally, Monticello has been owned by the Thomas Jefferson Foundation since 1923, and is also listed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site. As you can see from the above image, it also commands an impressive view of the surrounding countryside, especially in the winter.

^ Taken from the back of Monticello, showing another mountain behind the estate. Farther down the path is a cemetery with Jefferson’s grave (and his impressive tombstone).

^ The vineyards. These must be impressive in the summer! Jefferson loved his wine; in fact, when I heard him speak recently, he described wine as “A panacea for all ills and conducive to fine conversation!”

^ This chimney and foundation stones are all that remain of a building near the vineyards that was once a house for some of the slaves.

^ Mom in front of one of the many impressive trees on the estate grounds.

^ Another bizarre tree!

The interior of the house was as impressive as the outside, filled with interesting artifacts (both original and replicas), as well as many of Jefferson’s inventions, such as a weighted clock that displayed both the time and the day. However, photography is prohibited inside, so if you want to know what it looks like, you’ll have to visit Monticello yourself!

Mars Science Laboratory: Launch is Successful

2011-11-27T23:22:00.001-05:00

~Yesterday, the Mars Science Laboratory mission launched from Cape Canaveral, beginning an eight-month voyage to the fourth planet of our solar system:

In a bit over 250 days, the mission will reach Mars to deploy Curiosity, a nuclear-powered, SUV-sized rover equipped with a sophisticated suite of scientific instruments to meet eight scientific objectives in the fields of biology, geology, planetology, and radioactivity:

With a successful launch, the mission has completed its second-most-difficult step. The greatest challenge will come when the rover deploys to the surface of the planet using a new method that combines a parachute and a rocket-guided sky crane:

I’m looking forward to the July landing of Curiosity on Mars, and I hope you are too!

NOPE

2011-10-18T01:44:00.001-04:00

~I’m a bit late to the party on this one (it’s been viewed over 6.2 million times), but in case you haven’t seen it, here is the most hilarious viral marketing commercial you’re ever likely to see:

NOPE!

Umstead Adventure

2011-10-15T01:22:00.001-04:00

~I’ve discovered an unmarked back entrance to Umstead Park near where I live, so I’ve been spending a fair amount of time there. Recently, I rode my bike along one of the cycling/horse trails, and took a few pictures along the way:

^ Umstead is a state park, and I find it to be a calming oasis, away from the traffic of the highways that surround it. It’s also adjacent to an airport, but the direction of the runway is such that airplanes never fly over the park.

^ A rocky steam under a bridge.

^ A strange, solar-powered contraption. Whatever could it be? Let’s take a closer look…

^ So, it’s a device operated by the U.S. Geological Survey that monitors water levels. Sounds like a useful thing to have around.

In fact, the website of the USGS has a real-time water monitoring system that lets you download state- and region-wide water information (groundwater, river depths, precipitation, etc.) from these stations. I zoomed in on Umstead Park and sure enough, there was a green triangle icon marking this particular station (identified as “Station 0208726005”). This station even has its own webpage where you can see the most recently-gathered water data!

According to the most recent reading from the monitoring station (just over an hour ago), the nearby stream is discharging 29 cubic feet of water per second, and is 3.61 feet deep.

^ Near the end of the bike trail, I encountered an obstacle: the path continued through water! Not to be daunted, this fearless blogger plowed through the shallow stream on his bike and emerged victorious! And by victorious, I mean dry.

^ What looks like a mysterious hatch near a bridge. I wonder what lies below?

^ Beautiful yellow flowers. I don’t have my guide to wildflowers handy, so feel free to take a shot at identifying this plant.

^ AVISO DE PESDACO! Mmmm, PCBs. I hear they go great with seafood.

^ Wait a minute…this trail is clearly marked with a sign, but it isn’t on the official park map! I wonder where it leads? I will explore it later, and report to you on this blog!

Cat-O-Vision

2011-09-20T22:40:00.001-04:00

~In the video below (from 2009), scientists at UC-Berkeley demonstrate how they can directly capture images of what a cat sees, not from its eyes, but directly from its brain.

Sure, it’s a neat use of technology…but watch until the video reaches the 1:04 mark. That’s when things get interesting. If you’ve ever wondered what your cat really sees when it looks at you, wonder no longer:

Rise of the Machines

2011-09-14T01:35:00.001-04:00

~The chart below shows yesterday’s top stories on the BBC News website. Perhaps they’re onto something?

Links:

Now it’s only a matter of time before Skynet develops time travel:

The wonders all around us

2011-09-07T14:42:00.000-04:00

~Yesterday evening, while I was at work, there was a sudden intense storm that lasted for about half an hour. When it was over, a break in the clouds let some sunlight through, and a beautiful rainbow appeared on the horizon.

I ducked my head into the nearby computer lab, a windowless room where around a dozen students were variously typing, talking, and looking at Facebook. "If anyone's interested," I said, pointing out the door, "there's a rainbow outside." Some of the students glanced up, looking at me blankly. I returned to my desk and enjoyed watching the rainbow through a window. After a couple of minutes, the clouds closed, and the rainbow disappeared.

None of the students bothered to look.

Apollo Site Pictures from Lunar Orbit

2011-09-07T00:02:00.001-04:00

~The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) has been orbiting the Moon since 2009, creating detailed maps of the lunar surface. NASA recently released several images showing the landing sites from Apollo 12, 14, and 17. Here’s one showing the Apollo 17 site:

^ “The Apollo 17 landing site: To the far right, the Lunar Roving Vehicle; Toward the center, the descent stage of the Challenger lunar module. The lines are tracks and cables.”

Click on the above image for a larger view, or see more of the images here. Or explore the surface of the moon with Google Moon!

Arboretum Pictures

2011-07-19T23:22:00.001-04:00

~Last Sunday I visited the JC Raulston Arboretum in Raleigh. Here are some pictures from the trip:

^ Row after row of carefully-tended, colorful flowers. They are used to test different kinds of flowers to see how well they grow in this part of the country.

^ Dad, in front of the flowers. Nice hat!

^ Bees, like the one crawling around in this flower, were everywhere in the Arboretum. But they didn’t bother me at all – they were far too busy with the abundant flowers.

^ More test flowers. I assume there’s some sort of underground drip irrigation, since I didn’t see hoses anywhere. The staff at the Arboretum must be hard-working and dedicated to tend all of these plants, especially with the hot & dry weather we’ve had lately.

^ Relaxing on a bench.

If you live in the Raleigh area, why not visit the Arboretum? It’s free, and open every day from 8:00am – 8:00pm.

Pirates!

2011-07-12T01:51:00.001-04:00

~Last week I went to a concert called PIRATES!, in which the North Carolina Symphony orchestra performed music from pirate-related films and operas, as well as other seafaring music. They played the overture from Captain Blood, some music from The Pirates of Penzance, some English sea shanties, and of course some of the soundtrack from the more recent Pirates of the Caribbean films.

The piratical theme was strong at the concert, with plenty of pirate-related promotions and decorations. My favorite was this “enhanced” statue at the entrance to the amphitheater:

^Arrrr, this be Cap’n Koka “The Visionary” Booth, former mayor of Cary and proponent of the amphitheater that is named after him. Who knew that he was actually a bloodthirsty, buccaneering, plundering pirate?

It’s Turtles All the Way Down

2011-07-06T02:52:00.001-04:00

After a massive storm yesterday, I saw this little guy hanging out near my car:

^ An Eastern Box Turtle (Terrapene carolina), which also happens to be the North Carolina State Reptile.

Big Lake

2011-05-22T22:41:00.001-04:00

~Here’s a panoramic image I constructed from six separate photographs:

^ It’s a picture of the creatively-named Big Lake, an artificial lake in Umstead Park between Raleigh and Raleigh-Durham International Airport. Click on the picture for a larger view.

NOVA!

2011-04-29T02:47:00.001-04:00

No no, not that kind of nova.

Nope, not that one either.

Yes, that one! I’m writing about the venerable PBS science show NOVA, which, as I have recently discovered, has an excellent website filled with interesting and interactive multimedia about science,technology, engineering, history, nature, and more.

For example, just today an online interactive exhibit about Norse runes appeared. You can learn what each of the runes looks like, what sounds it corresponds to, and what meaning the rune holds. Best of all, you can type in your name, and it creates an image of it in runes! Here’s my name:

D A U I D

Yes, that’s a “U”, because there’s no V in the runic alphabet. Here are the names and meanings of the individual runes according to NOVA:

D (Dagaz) = Day

A (Ansuz) = a deity, usually Odin

U (Uruz) = strength, speed, and health

I (Isa) = Ice

So, by this runic logic, I am apparently a god of winter daytime, who is strong, fast, and healthy. Sounds about right.

There are many other interesting pages on the NOVA site, complete with videos, animations, articles, interviews, and more. How about a slide show of European megalithic sites? Or a tour of the electromagnetic spectrum? An interview with a NASA engineer about solar sails? A video about next-generation space suits? Best of all, you can watch full episodes of NOVA online for free.

If you’re at all interested in science (and if you are human, you ought to be), the NOVA site is well worth a visit.

Cassini Saturn Flyby

2011-04-06T14:31:00.000-04:00

~It's been a while, but I'm back! For now, enjoy this video animation of Saturn images taken by Cassini. It's not computer-generated; these are actual images taken by the space probe and placed consecutively, just like a film.

[For a better view, after the video starts to play, click on the '360p' button at the bottom of the video and select a higher resolution (like 720p), then click the full-screen button on the lower-right]

You Look Like You Need A Monkey

2011-02-25T02:25:00.001-05:00

Monkeys relaxing in hot springs at the Wild Monkey Park in Japan:

Now there are some primates who know how to relax!

Carl Sagan’s COSMOS (edited for rednecks)

2011-01-25T15:55:00.001-05:00

Geology Hike

2011-01-23T20:57:00.001-05:00

~Yesterday I went on a hike at Occoneechee Mountain State Natural Area, which is next to Hillsborough, North Carolina. The hike was led by a volunteer geologist and was coordinated by the state park office. I’d never been to Occoneechee (pr: oh-ko-knee-chi) Mountain before – I’d never even heard of it – so this looked like an interesting opportunity.

^ On the left is our guide, Jean-Michel Margot, a retired Swiss geologist who also worked for IBM. He now conducts these monthly walks on the mountain and has also helped produce a guidebook to the geology of the Eno River area.

^ Before Occonneechee Mountain became a state area, there were farms and homesteads on the mountain. Now they lie in ruins; there’s little left of this house except the collapsed chimney. Many of the trees on the lower parts of the mountain are comparatively younger than trees near the top, because the original trees were cut down for farmland. The trail we hiked crossed what were originally roads between farms, but were now little more than collapsed, overgrown ditches.

^ Embedded quartz, with red iron oxide (rust).

Geologically speaking, Occoneechee Mountain is very interesting. Travelling west from the North Carolina coast, it marks the very beginning of the Appalachian Mountains, which are some of the oldest mountains in the world. The mountain consists almost entirely of quartz (SiO2), which is a very hard rock and so resists weathering – which is why the mountain is still here (albeit smaller than younger mountains such as the Rockies) after hundreds of millions of years of precipitation.

^ Yellow paint on tree trunks marks the boundaries of state parks in North Carolina. Blue paint marks trails. Triple rings mark the geographical corners of a state park. These markings may come in handy if you get lost…however, Occoneechee Mountain is not very large and is also near a highway. I was informed by M. Margot that there are no bears on the mountain, although I have my doubts. I don’t think I could bear that.

^ Now, I know what you’re thinking. “It’s just a rock.” Just a rock? JUST a rock?! I’ll have you know that this is genuine Appalachian bedrock, that forms the interior of the mountain itself! There are several ways to tell that it’s bedrock, but the most obvious is that it’s aligned to the southwest, which is the direction the Appalachian Mountains go. Imagine the mountains being pushed up from underground hundreds of millions of years ago; the rocks that got pushed up against harder rock all ended up facing the same way.

^ Like any self-respecting geologist, M. Margot brought along a rock hammer. To really “do” geology, you have to break open rocks and see what’s inside, because it’s often hard to tell what a rock is from the outside due to lichens, discolorations caused by weathering, oxidation, and so forth. He let one of the hikers break open a couple of rocks. One of the rocks was brittle shale and broke easily, but the quartz bedrock in the above picture was much harder to break.

^ There’s more to the mountain than rocks and trees; the area is also a biological sanctuary for a variety of plant and animal life. The above picture is a laurel; in the summer, the area is also filled with blue- and blackberry plants. The mountain is also home to large numbers of Brown Elfin butterflies (Callophrys augustinus); the trail we walked on was the Brown Elfin Trail.

^ Some more bedrock. Another way to tell that it’s bedrock is that it has distinctive splits, which again are aligned to the southwest. The kids in our group had a good time climbing on them. Yes, so did I.

^ The destination for the hike was an abandoned quarry along the north side of the mountain. The quarry has been abandoned for many decades, and there’s a scenic overlook above it. However, a rockslide several years ago resulted in it being closed off. Fortunately, at some point in our hike we acquired a park ranger who gave us permission to proceed; park management is gradually re-opening the overlook for the general public.

^ The day was clear, and the view from the overlook was fantastic. I stitched together the above panoramic picture; please click on it for a better view.

^ The quarry…Fred Flintstone would be right at home! The soft mineral pyrophyllite was once mined here, which is quite rare (albeit not extremely valuable) and has many industrial applications. Among other things, pyrophyllite was and is used in space shuttle nose cones, ceramics, gaskets, bricks, and in chemical manufacture. It was also used as filler for North Carolina’s first east-west railroad. This quarry is inactive, but there’s another still-active quarry just next to Occoneechee Mountain that’s the largest pyrophyllite quarry in the world.

^ Compare the two types of rocks in the above image. On the right is quartz bedrock: grayish, rigid, split, and aligned southwest. On the left is soft, reddish-brown pyrophyllite.

^ View of the Eno River from the overlook.

^ The cube-shaped brick building in the back (the one with battlements on the roof) was once the headquarters and commandant’s house of the Hillsborough Military Academy, which recruited and trained soldiers for the Confederate Army during the Civil War. After the war, the Academy was intermittently used as a school and for storage, and the barracks were dismantled as part of a WPA project in the 1930s. The headquarters was renovated in the 1960s and is now a private residence.

I enjoyed the hike very much, and I hope you enjoyed these pictures. I’ll definitely be returning to Occoneechee Mountain in the near future to walk down some of the other trails, perhaps in the spring when the plants are in bloom and the animals are out.

DAG GUMMIT!

2011-01-21T20:10:00.001-05:00

~A small selection of blooper outtakes from sport fisherman Bill Dance’s television show, “Bill Dance Outdoors”:

^ While watching this video, I kept hearing this voice in the back of my head saying, “That would be wrong…”

Russian to Antarctica

2011-01-21T11:25:00.001-05:00

This time-lapse video shows a Russian expedition to resupply and transfer personnel to research stations in Antarctica:

[РАЭ-54 с борта НЭС "Академик Фёдоров" from North Pole on Vimeo.]

For a rough translation of the expedition objectives, see here. The expedition began in St. Petersburg and stopped in Cape Town before proceeding to the bottom of the world. The An-2 airplane that was unpacked and put together (assembly with duct tape in field conditions is allegedly in the official manual under the heading "Normal operation procedures") was used to deliver supplies to the inland Vostok Station. And doesn’t the crew look like they’re having a good time in that hot tub at the end?

Also, note the coffin that appears at the 4:30 mark; it contains the body of a construction worker who died in a fire at the Russian research station “Progress” in Antarctica.

Creating Humans: Ethical Questions, part 11 -Population Control

2011-01-14T03:27:00.001-05:00

~Somewhat belatedly continuing my bioethics lecture analyses, today’s topic is population control. The other reproductive technologies I’ve previously discussed are largely available only in developed nations (i.e. screening), although some are becoming increasingly available in developing nations (i.e. gender selection). But population control is different, and has been a bioethical issue among human societies for…well, as long as there have been human societies.

Most developed nations are experiencing declines in growth, and some are in fact experiencing a decrease in population. The reasons for this have to do with smaller family sizes, emigration, and economic changes. Although zero or negative population growth results in an aging population and subsequent economic headaches, this is not the focus of my analysis today although I did discuss it earlier with regards to Japan. [Although, the question of whether or not growth, in both the population and the economy, is always a good thing is in fact a very good question.]

These days, population control issues are largely confined to developing nations, as a result of improvements in hygiene and medicine that have not (yet) been matched with a decrease in birthrates. In these nations, population control is a question of scarce resources. Burgeoning populations, particularly China and India, are already placing tremendous stress on available resources and services, as well as catastrophic environmental degradation and pollution resulting in health issues and long-term socioeconomic problems.

The key bioethical question when discussing population control is: How can we reconcile human rights with any coercive policy of population control, especially in developing nations? Some question the need for any controls, pointing out that the Malthusian disaster of global famine has been averted again and again as a result of technological improvements leading to increased food production. But although food is a key limiter of population, it is not the only resource humans consume; water shortages, for example, are predicted to be a major problem in the next few decades. Access to medicine and medical care, especially in a time where global travel can allow pandemics to quickly spread, is another limited resource. Jobs and limited economic opportunity may also prove scarce, which can lead to mass unrest. These challenges and others have convinced some people and nations that population control is necessary.

I don’t think most people (except perhaps the “be fruitful and multiply” fundamentalist crowd) have any problem with long-term efforts to reduce birthrates. For example, the most reliable method of decreasing the birth rate of a nation in the long term is the education and empowerment (via economic opportunities and availability of birth control) of women. This will almost always decrease birth rates…but it takes time, and with the population of some nations rising so rapidly, it may not be fast enough to prevent the problems mentioned above.

The bioethical problems begin when such national (and possibly global) methods of population control become coercive. As with so many of the reproductive technologies I’ve discussed, international conventions on population control are either unclear or nonexistent. From what I can tell, this seems to be because international discussions on population control inevitably devolve into arguments over contraceptives (opposed by conservative Muslim and Catholic nations and the Catholic Church) and abortion laws. Unfortunately, these disagreements have so far prevented a truly global dialog on population control in the context of individual nations or the planet as a whole.

The quintessential example of coercive population control is the “One Child" policy enacted by the People’s Republic of China in 1979. With extensive propaganda and the motto “later, longer, fewer”, it aimed to stymie that nation’s rapidly rising population, particularly in urban areas, by levying fines on families that had more than one child (for a full history of the policy, see here). The policy seems to have been successful (although not as successful as predicted) in reducing long-term population growth and is slowly being dismantled, but it has resulted in two problems:

Human rights violations ranging from infanticide, forced sterilizations and abortions, and underreporting of births resulting in “undocumented” people.
Potential unrest caused by an aging population, gender imbalances (since the policy favors boys), and ethnic & socioeconomic discrimination in the way the policy is enacted.

In a political sense, such unrest might be perceived by Westerners as a good thing, (since it may result in an increased democratization of China), but it does show that this sort of coercive population control is not without its flaws. Such a policy can only be achieved by an authoritarian government such as that of China; conspiracy theories aside, such a policy is very unlikely to be enacted in a democracy without major political upheaval (i.e. no more democracy).

But such changes are not entirely beyond the bounds of possibility, especially in a poisonous political environment where a segment of society is targeted as causing problems or taking up too much resources. To the Nazis, it was Jews, Gypsies, gays, etc.; in the American south, it was blacks; in America today, hatred is directed at undocumented immigrants and their fictitious “anchor babies”; tomorrow, when robots do most of the work, it might be the unemployed masses.

I’m reminded of one of my favorite science-fiction stories from when I was younger: Invitation to the Game by Monica Hughes. Most of the main characters are the children of unemployed people, and because there are no jobs for them, they too become “unemployeds”, confined to an urban ghetto. Early in the novel, the protagonist reads a newspaper article in which a senator calls for the sterilization of the unemployed.

But I don’t think things will go that far, at least not for a while. Although I believe that educating women and increasing access to birth control are better solutions to long-term population pressures, I recognize that my perspective is shaped (some might say warped) by the fact that I live in a wealthy developed nation. In the meantime, we must ask ourselves how to reconcile human rights with the issue of population control. Consider the following questions:

Imagine you live in a developing nation with a rapidly rising population and extreme inequality. Would you support/obey a one-child policy, if it meant that your family could only have one child?
Assume that a chemical is developed that, when added to drinking water, decreases fertility rates by, say, 50% with no other harmful side effects. Would it be ethical for the state to (publicly) add this chemical to drinking water, just like we do now with fluoride? What about in developing nations?
Imagine you are a delegate to an international meeting intended to craft a convention on what is and isn’t ethically acceptable as a means of population control. What methods, if any, would you support? Which would you oppose? Imagine you’re the delegate from Russia (growth: –0.19%/yr). Now imagine you’re from Liberia (+4.5%/yr). How might your decisions be different?
Is coercive population control ever ethically acceptable? On a national level? On a global level? Why or why not?

Sugar Mountain

2011-01-06T20:36:00.001-05:00

~Last week, just after Christmas, I went skiing with my parents at Sugar Mountain, a ski resort in the mountains of western North Carolina. Due to snow and ice, we almost didn’t make it up the mountain to the cabin we stayed in (actually, we almost didn’t make it out of the house in Cary), but we did eventually make it there.

The day my dad & I went skiing was perfect, and while I was on the mountain, I managed to take some pictures:

^ I took this picture from the top of the mountains. The altitude here is 5,300 feet, and with the cloudless sky, the visibility was fantastic. The beautiful mountains in the distance are the Blue Ridge Mountains.If you’re wondering why the mountains appear blue (and hence where their name comes from), here is the answer (from the National Parks Service Blue Ridge Parkway FAQ):

“According to "A Naturalist's Blue Ridge Parkway” by David Catlin, "it can be legitimately claimed that trees put the "blue" in Blue Ridge, for hydrocarbons released into the atmosphere by the forest contribute to the characteristic haze on these mountains and to their distinctive color." The entire Appalachian Chain is extraordinarily diverse and rich in its vegetation, so there is perhaps more "blue" to the Blue Ridge and more "smoky" to the Great Smoky Mountains.”

^ Me striking a pose. I’m the King of the Mountain!

^ Dad is ready to go downhill! For an old man, he’s still spry on those skis…

^ I’m ready to go as well!

^ Just southeast of the mountaintop is Sugar Top, a large building of condominiums located on top of the nearby mountain. Although the building is, in my opinion, truly ugly (but good for holding many Russian comrades, da?), the view from there must be magnificent.

^ A map of the Sugar Mountain ski trails. I tried out most of the runs; my favorite was to take the central lift all the way to the top, then go down Northridge to Switchback, then go down either Upper Flying Mile or Big Birch to the bottom. Most of the pictures in this post were taken either at the summit or at the top of Big Red.

^ We stopped at the top of Big Red for a snack, and I took this picture of dad with the mountains behind him.

I really enjoyed skiing at Sugar Mountain. Next time, however, I think I’d like to try snowboarding. The way snowboarders maneuver seems to more closely match my skiing technique…or lack thereof!

Lunar Eclipse Tonight!

2010-12-20T15:58:00.001-05:00

~Just a reminder to catch the lunar eclipse tonight (that is, tomorrow the 21st of December very early in the morning) as the Earth's shadow briefly covers the Moon. The eclipse will be visible from most of North America. So brave the cold tonight for a show in the heavens that you won't soon forget!

For more details, see the NASA lunar eclipse page for the event. Below is a quick guide from that page, showing the time when the eclipse will take place:

‘Tis the Season

2010-12-12T16:35:00.001-05:00

~Happy Holidays to all of my wonderful readers! Whatever you celebrate, I wish you all a very joyful December.

Here’s my miniature Christmas tree:

American Journal of Bioethics through NC LIVE

2010-12-09T15:03:00.000-05:00

~I've recently been exploring some recent articles and discussions in bioethics, and came across the American Journal of Bioethics, the world's largest peer-reviewed bioethics journal, which was started in 1999. Unfortunately, it's not open-access, but using my mad librarian skills, I found that NC LIVE carries the journal with a one-year delay on published articles. Not ideal, but I've enjoyed looking through some older articles, on issues about providing medical treatment to captured terrorists, gender selection, nano-medicine, and assisted reproduction.

If you live in North Carolina, you too can look through the journal (and thousands of other resources on everything from car repair to downloadable e-books) through NC LIVE. Just pull out your library card and go here to get started.

Pining for Spring

2010-12-01T19:46:00.001-05:00

~A picture I took yesterday while out on an evening walk:

Creating Humans: Ethical Questions, part 10 -- Spare-Part Children

2010-12-01T01:40:00.001-05:00

~Today's topic is spare-part children (also known as "savior siblings"), in which an embryo is created in order to benefit someone else. Now obviously, that first sentence carries strong negative connotations, but the practice is not as obviously bad as you might initially think. Specifically, it refers to the result of of a couple using reproductive screening to select for genetic match for an existing, sick child, in order to use the new child's umbilical stem cells. These stem cells have the potential to grow into any part of the body, and therefore, implanting matching stem cells into a the afflicted area of a sick person can often result in a cure.

A good example of this, and the first family to make use of this procedure, was the Nash family of Colorado. Their six-year old daughter, Molly, was dying of a rare and fatal genetic disease called Fanconi anaemia. In the fall of 2000, they used in-vitro fertilization to fertilize twelve embryos, and chose the one that most closely matched Molly. The resulting son, Adam, not only did not inherit the disease, but stem cells from his umbilical cord saved Molly's life. Initial reaction was strongly negative from both fertility experts, clergy, and others who considered it a slippery slope towards designer babies. But this doesn't change the fact that the Nash family now has two happy, healthy children.

Most Americans who have heard of spare-part children know of the practice through Jodi Picoult's novel (and related film) My Sister's Keeper. In the novel, a couple uses screening as described above to harvest stem cells from their new daughter’s umbilical cord, in order to treat an existing daughter who has leukemia. Although initially this procedure is successful, years later the older daughter relapses, and the now-teenage "spare-part" sister is pressured to donate a kidney to her sister, causing all sorts of drama! and tension!.

I have not read the book or seen the film, but before I move further into this discussion, it's important to note that that organ donation is not the usual arrangement for a spare-part child. Ethically speaking, there are three different and increasingly problematic levels:

First, there is umbilical cord harvesting. Since the umbilical cord is usually discarded anyway, there is no direct harm to the newborn "spare-part" child (aside from emotional & philosophical issues that I will delve into below).
Second, there is the more extreme form that occurs in My Sister's Keeper, in which a spare-part child donates material beyond their stem cells. This is fraught with ethical problems, especially when considering organ donations or painful bone-marrow extraction.
Finally, the most extreme and ethically problematic area is for a spare-part baby's material (especially organs, etc.) to be used not for a sibling, but for an adult with health problems. This is a disturbing and nightmarish scenario which I will also discuss.

The arguments against people having spare-part children are fraught with emotion. Is such a child simply a commodity? Will they be psychologically damaged when they learn they were created "merely" to help a brother or sister to live? Is this an example of having “designer babies”? Is it the same as “playing God"? If so, what if anything makes having spare-part children somehow different from the other reproductive technologies that I have examined?

In a bioethical sense, having a spare part child is considered ethically acceptable if two criteria are met. First, the child's tissues can only benefit a sibling, not anyone else. Second, the couple must actually want another child, to love and care for the same as an existing child or children. In other words, a couple should not have another child only for its tissues; they have to actually want another child even without said tissues. Although this second criterion is in some ways impossible to adjudicate, it at least makes sense. The goal is to avoid a couple having a spare-part child and treating it like…spare parts.

If this still worries you, consider that evidence from existing cases of families having spare-part children seem to show no negative emotional effects. Such spare-part children seem loved, normal, and as well-adjusted as non-spare-part children, even if they know they were conceived as tissue donors (such as Adam Nash from the above example). Also, as with so many of the other reproductive technologies from the course, it's very easy for us to slip into the trap of judging those who make use of them, without considering the needs of others and picturing ourselves in their place.

Also (although it may not be cheering to consider), humans have been having children for specific purposes for all of recorded history. Consider kings and aristocrats who demand a male heir, or parents who want offspring to carry on the family name (or because their own parents demand grandchildren). Having children was something simply expected of many ancient cultures, and royal families especially needed to have "backup" children to assume the throne in case of the death of the primary heir. Nowadays, some women have children to avoid (or delay) execution or prison time, while other families and individuals may want children simply for tax breaks, welfare payments, or citizenship. The only real difference between this sort of reproduction and families having spare-part children is that in the latter case, parents are forced to be honest about their reasons. Considering that the child may very well save their sibling’s life, if anything they are likely to be quite loved.

However, there is another, darker dimension to a discussion about spare-part children. It revolves around the third and most danger-fraught ethical level that I discussed earlier, where a spare-part child is born not to benefit a sibling, but someone else. Perhaps a parent who needs a tissue match, or perhaps a wealthy individual who pays the parents a great deal of money in order to secure a match for him or herself. Or perhaps something even stranger.

A (fictitious) example of this is the science-fiction film The Island, which involves an illegal underground center run by a corporation and filled with clones. The clones, it turns out, have been "ordered" by wealthy individuals who have cloned themselves in order to harvest organs and tissues when needed; the clones, of course, are perfect tissue matches for their "parents". While such a large-scale operation (and also cloning) is presently the stuff of fiction, I wouldn't put it past an unscrupulous dictator or other wealthy individual to cook up a close tissue match of themselves using their own genetic material, simply to harvest the organs and tissues of their "child".

The idea is frightening: such children are literally no more than spare parts. They are likely to live their lives locked away, pampered and kept healthy, but isolated without social contact, education, or freedom. I think the existence of such spare-part people may already be happening, which is one reason why this practice must be internationally regulated. [On a side note, now that medical science has recognized the usefulness of umbilical stem cells, more and more parents are choosing to have the umbilical cords of their children frozen for the child's future use.]

So to recap, when considering the ethics of spare-part babies, ask this key question: is the child being born solely to serve as a donor? If so, then it's probably unethical to have the child. If not, and if it just involves umbilical cells, it’s probably alright. But consider:

If a set of embryos are fertilized with the intention of having a spare-part child, and none of the embryos proves to be a good match, are the parents somehow ethically obligated to undergo embryonic implantation anyway, and thus have a non-matching child? Obviously, we can't force someone to impregnate themself, but if the parents don't want to do it, should we (as a society) take that reluctance to mean the parent's don't really want a child for its own sake?
What happens if the ill child (the intended tissue recipient) dies or severely deteriorates during the pregnancy for the donor child? Does this place increased pressure on the parents to abort the pregnancy? If they do so, should they be legally accountable, even if abortion is legal where they are? Does the fact that it's a spare-part child make any sort of legal difference?
Since the child has no choice about whether or not to be born and donate its tissues, is having the child in the first place somehow unethical? I think this is only the case if the child must donate additional organs or tissues beyond their umbilical stem cells. On the other hand, none of us had a choice about being born. In a sense, we're all here without our consent, so asking "what does the child want?" or "what would the child choose to do in this situation?" is absurd.

What do you think? If you had a young child dying of a disease and matching stem cells were the only cure, would you consider screening for another child who was a tissue match? Why or why not?

Creating Humans: Ethical Questions, part 9.3

2010-11-13T16:19:00.002-05:00

~Today I conclude my discussion of germ line modification, an inheritable form of genetic enhancement/engineering (G.E.), from the audio course Creating Humans: Ethical Questions Where Reproduction and Science Collide. Previously, I’ve discussed some of the scientific, legal, and social consequences of this technology. Now, I come to some philosophical thoughts about the implications of genetic enhancement.

What I find most interesting of all about germ line modification, the thing that makes it the most interesting reproductive technology from the course, is that it forces us to confront some of the deepest questions of human existence. We all want what’s best for our children, but if we choose to make use of this technology, we must ask what exactly that means. What do people really want out of life? Why are we here? Can direct genetic changes make life “better” for our children and humanity as a whole?

The answers, if there are answers, are more complex (and interesting) that you might think. As with all of the technologies I’ve discussed so far, the question is the same: where do we draw the line? Most of us would likely not have a problem with engineering out fatal genetic disorders (e.g. Tay-Sachs). But what about nonfatal but crippling genetic diseases (e.g. Lou Gehrig’s Disease)? Again, I think most people would think it’s ok to prevent those. Going farther, is it ok to remove obviously “bad” but not necessarily fatal or disabling problems, such as an increased likelihood of Alzheimer’s or breast cancer? …again, I think most people would not really have a problem with altering the DNA of their unborn children to prevent them from suffering this, even if the fix in question concerns one’s mental capabilities (again, such as Alzheimer’s), rather than purely physical problems.

It’s when we move from the realm of “cure” or “prevention” to “enhancement” that people get squeamish. While I think many of us are rightly uncomfortable with allowing parents to use genetic engineering to create specific physical traits such as height or hair and eye color, can we really object to parents altering an embryo’s DNA to be, say, resistant to HIV or other diseases? Or to have less likelihood of developing diabetes? Or to have teeth that won’t require braces? Or to not develop severe acne? Or to be less likely to have poor eyesight? To have more balanced cholesterol levels? Or, if we colonize the Moon or Mars, to be more resistant to radiation?

I could go on and on, of course, but you get the idea. Personally, I don’t really have a fundamental ethical problem with genetic enhancements like the ones I describe; the problem as I see it is societal, as I discussed previously. I think people see germ line engineering, rightly or not, as an unavoidable slippery slope from small changes (removing the chance of a fatal genetic diseases) to overwhelmingly bad changes (creation of an oppressive genetic “master race” that will enslave us all!). Genetic engineering, like the other technologies examined in the course, is merely a tool, one we would be foolish to outright ban or ignore. Instead, making decisions about what can and can’t be done, what is and isn’t morally, ethically, and legally allowed, will be a long, complicated, and international effort.

But where use of this technology veers into the realm of mind-bending philosophical speculation is when we consider its power (not yet, but in the future), to affect not only our descendant’s physical traits, but their mental ones. It’s from these that we recoil (consider my discussion of genetics vs. mind control from the previous post), but if that’s also your reaction, take a moment to ask yourself exactly why you find the idea so disturbing (“from the gut” is not an acceptable answer). For example, consider the list of physical genetic alterations I listed two paragraphs ago. Now ask yourself, is it ok for parents to genetically engineer their offspring to be less likely to develop severe depression? Why or why not? What about ensuring that one’s child is not born with severe retardation? What about making sure the child is, in fact, highly intelligent? Or has a perfect sense of musical pitch? Or, for that matter, has a cheerful disposition? I mean, we all want our children to be happy, right? Right??

Consider the extremely disturbing implications of this research paper. Here’s the abstract (colors added for emphasis):

“Happiness or subjective wellbeing was measured on a birth-record based sample of several thousand middle-aged twins using the Well Being (WB) scale of the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire (MPQ). Neither socioeconomic status (SES), educational attainment, family income, marital status, nor an indicant of religious commitment could account for more than about 3% of the variance in WB. From 44% to 53% of the variance in WB, however, is associated with genetic variation. Based on the retest of smaller samples of twins after intervals of 4.5 and 10 years, we estimate that the heritability of the stable component of subjective wellbeing approaches 80%.”

In other words, whether or not one is “happy” most of the time is, believe it or not, largely a matter of genetics. Now, I’m sure that many people, perhaps almost all people, are uncomfortable with the idea of altering the genetic code of their unborn children to ensure that said children are happy. But why, exactly? Because the child should be able to make their own choices? But…what if they’re genetically predisposed towards being unhappy (or worse, severely depressed)? We might say that civilization is built on unhappy people wanting to improve their lot in life, or expound on the brilliant art, etc. created by “tortured genius” types. But is that enough of a reason to leave “sad” genes intact? I mean, the whole point of civilization and so forth is to make us happier…right? Can you really fault parents for not wanting their children to start life with this sort of genetically predetermined burden?

That’s why I find the philosophical dimensions of germ line modification so fascinating. It makes us ask what we (speaking through our unborn descendants) really want out of this life that we’ve all been thrust into without our consent. Why are we here? What’s the point? Is it to suffer, endure our lot, and take what we can get? To worship and praise a deity? To free ourselves from suffering? To find meaning in suffering? Is it to enjoy each moment as best we can? To learn things? To help others (…to enjoy themselves?)? To uncover the secrets of the universe? To perpetuate our genes by having children? To rebuild a shattered God? To find True Love? To just make it to the weekend??

…because if any of the above reasons sounds like a good, or even acceptable, meaning for life, I think it’s intellectually dishonest to dismiss germ line engineering, even for…no, especially when it comes to influencing the mental and personality traits of our descendants. If you think we’re here to enjoy life & control our suffering, and have the capability via G.E. to make it even a little bit more likely that your children, grandchildren, etc. are more likely (and remember, this is all tinkering with probability, not certainty) to enjoy their lives regardless of external circumstances, is it your duty to do so? Should it not, in fact, be one of your top priorities if you could do it? And if you think we’re here to learn more about the world, then shouldn’t you ensure that your child is smart? But if you increase your child’s intelligence, are you possibly decreasing their happiness? Does making them more likely to be happy make them less likely to be productive/ambitious? Should we strive for ambitious children? …I could go on for hours!

Honestly, the only real objection I can ultimately see (assuming we actually acquire a reliable, non-experimental understanding of this technology) is religious: that we shouldn’t mess around with human DNA because God, etc. etc. And I think that’s the position that a lot of people will take, but not for the same reasons. Some people that feel this way will, I hope, actually take the time to think about why their religious/philosophical beliefs prohibit such alterations. But I think that a lot of people will retreat into religious objections (not only for G.E. but for many of the other reproductive technologies from the course), simply because it’s easy to do so. Although I find these sorts of ethical dilemmas fascinating, I know that most people don’t; they just want simple, easy-to-understand solutions to challenging ethical problems.

With it’s strong, almost overwhelming religiosity (especially in politics), the United States is especially prone to this, and I think that will make it difficult for us to have a real, national dialog to decide on these and other important bioethical issues. It will make it even more difficult to involve America in an international framework to regulate and enforce the decisions we are able to make. Because, like all the other reproductive technologies, regulation of them is useless without international conventions; otherwise, those with the means to do so will simply travel to genetic clinics in nations or other areas (or perhaps hospital ships in international waters?) where G.E. and so forth is legal or uncontrolled.

As for myself, I’m terribly torn on the issue of germ line engineering. Part of me sees this technology as one of the great hopes for humanity’s future, bringing with it the eventual promise of freeing humanity from a great deal of painful evolutionary baggage that we’ve accumulated over millions of years, but which now weighs us down. It’s a vision of a world in which people don’t die from fatal genetic diseases, or are born with diabetes, or get Alzheimer’s and thousands of other health issues, and where people don’t need to get braces for their teeth or backs or legs, or wear eyeglasses, or get zits (…but would that be considered beautification?), or die from cancer in their 30s, or take drugs for genetically-induced depression, anxiety, blood problems, and so forth. A world where people are healthier, happier, and live longer even without expensive pharmaceuticals or therapies, even if we all went back to living in caves. Such modifications to the human genome are certainly “unnatural”, but is the world I describe really so bad?

However, with so many emerging technologies, science fiction has a half-century advantage on us. Genetic engineering is a time-tested staple of speculative fiction. In general, owing to the need to create dramatic plotlines, it’s generally depicted as a bad thing. Star Trek, for example, postulated “Eugenics Wars” in the near future (i.e. the 1990s) led by genetically engineered “Augments” such as KHAAAAAAAN!, leading the outlawing of genetic enhancement in the Federation. S.M. Stirling’s Domination novels take the use of G.E. to create a “master race” to a horrifying conclusion, with humanity divided between the “Draka” rulers and their “Servus” slaves. The Japanese show Gundam Seed depicts a world divided between genetically-enhanced “Coordinators” and unaltered “Naturals” mostly on Earth, with massively destructive wars (which, naturally, involve giant robots) waged between the two groups. I think these scenarios speak from our visceral fear against altering the fundamental nature of humanity.

Although the worlds they depict are extreme, I think they make some good points about the social and legal dimensions of G.E. If we allow free, or even limited use of this technology, will we have to keep track of who’s been enhanced? Should people whose physical capabilities (such as strength, speed, etc.) have been genetically enhanced be barred from the Olympics? What about the Tour de France? What about professional sports? College sports? High school swim teams?

And what of those whose brains have been enhanced, giving them, say, a better memory or savant-level math skills? Should they be forced to disclose this on college applications? What about job applications? Should there be a box that you have to check if you’ve received G.E. (whether in the germ line or in a somatic cell line sense), and if so, disclose exactly how? Will non-enhanced people need some sort of affirmative action law? Or is that too much government intervention? Should those who can afford it be free to use G.E. on themselves or their children?

As you can see, the ethical, legal, social, and even philosophical implications of genetic enhancement are mind-boggling. But the genetic genie may very well have already left the bottle. As a society, we can’t simply stick our heads in the sand and pretend this technology doesn’t exist; nor, I believe, will we be able to effectively ban it entirely even if we wanted to. It’s going to be used, one way or another, but exactly how we decide to use it will be one of the most important issues facing humanity over the next century.

So what do you think about all this? Should we allow G.E. or not? To what degree? Would you use it if it were available? Why or why not?

Creating Humans: Ethical Questions, part 9.2

2010-11-11T21:29:00.005-05:00

~A far more controversial form of genetic engineering is germ line modification, also called germline engineering. This is a catch-all term for any changes in a person’s DNA that will affect their descendants regardless of use of any other genetic engineering. If the genetic engineering affects a patient’s reproductive system (i.e. their gametes), it would be considered germ line modification. Another example would be if the DNA of an in-vitro fertilized embryo is altered in a lab prior to implantation into a womb; the resulting child would then carry the engineered changes, and pass them on to his or her offspring.

Germ line modification is not yet technologically feasible, but as biotechnological research progresses it will quickly become so. Understandably, this type of technology, although it remains theoretical for now, is highly controversial. First of all, there’s an inherent concern that it will provide an unfair advantage to children whose parents have them enhanced. As I’ve mentioned before, most of the reproductive technologies in this course are and will be the domain of the wealthier people and nations of the world, and modifying the DNA of offspring seems, to many, to create an even more unbalanced playing field in the arena of life. Some fear this will lead to a genetic aristocracy or hierarchy; for example Aldous Huxley’s novel Brave New World features hatchery-raised children genetically slotted into genetically-determined roles within society, with the brilliant “Alpha-double-plusses” ruling at the top and the “Epsilon semi-morons” doing manual labor. The film GATTACA also features a society divided on the basis of genetics, with genetically “inferior” humans relegated to menial roles.

But consider: the children of wealthy families (whether in one’s own nation, or compared to families of poorer nations) are already born with huge advantages over their less-wealthy “peers”. The Declaration of Independence may assert that All Men Are Created Equal, but strictly speaking that’s only in a legal sense (and only for white male landowners); the moral sense is far more fungible. Do you think it’s right that some expectant mothers receive excellent prenatal care and nutrition, while other mothers give birth on their own with no medical treatment and babies born half-starved into a life of malnutrition? That some children receive excellent medical care and educations, while others have nothing? Of course it’s not morally “right”, but the entire history of human civilization is one of inequality. The question here is, does germ line modification go too far, and if so, why? What makes it different?

I think a major objection to germ line engineering is suspicion of parental motives, whether for the aforementioned class division or because nudging genes around can unduly influence a child towards a particular course in life, especially if you alter genes affecting personality or mental capabilities. Most people are uncomfortable with altering the very nature of a child to force them onto a specific path; it seems to much like brainwashing. Yet consider: human society universally acknowledges the right of parents to intervene in the lives of their children, in many cases strongly influencing (and yes, even forcing) into certain situations, careers, marriages, and so forth. Is it really any of your business if a family chooses to engage in genetic enhancement to increase the chances of their child doing better in a particular area? Remember, genetics is not mind control; nature may be stronger than nurture most of the time, but environment still plays a significant role in the development of a person.

Also, consider that humans have been genetically “enhancing” plants, animals, and yes, our own children, since before the invention of agriculture. We’ve bred docile cattle, loyal bloodhounds, nutritious vegetables, beautiful flowers, prettier children, and more, but until recently, it’s all been mostly haphazard. We hope that the person we marry and have children with will prove a good genetic match and that our children won’t have genetic disorders. We hybridize two flowers, hoping the result will be both attractive and viable. We breed racehorses until we get a winner. But now, with an exact knowledge of the genetic code, much of the guesswork can be removed or minimized, and we can simply go about what we’ve been doing all along, but with more precision. Or so the logic goes.

Another argument against germ line modification is vaguely fatalistic, often with religious overtones. The idea here is that by altering The Very Basis of Life, we are tampering with Things Man Was Not Meant To Know (yes, I enjoy capitalizing clichés). Some feel that directly altering DNA is “unnatural” and tantamount to meddling with the handiwork of God, saying in effect that we know better than Him and that the lives we are “given” are somehow not good enough.

While there are many good arguments against germ line modification, I find this argument weak. I mean, we’ve already altered existing species and driven other species into extinction. We’ve already altered our environment and living conditions precisely because they weren’t good enough for our needs. How is altering our genetic code, which is full of evolutionary baggage and problems, any different?

Also, it’s both callous and ridiculous to take a family whose line is plagued with a particular genetic defect (for example, hemophilia) and say that their affliction is the handiwork of a deity, so their descendants must piously suffer it. Are the other reproductive technologies discussed in the course (IVF, surrogacy, donation, screening) equally “unnatural”? What makes them different?

Like so many ethical controversies, this is hardly a new dilemma. I periodically read or hear about families who refuse vaccinations and/or medical care for their children on religious grounds, saying that only God has the power to heal, etc. In an era of plane travel and increasingly disease-resistant microbes, society may eventually be force to deal with vaccine refusers who may inadvertently spread diseases. Do you think it’s ok for a family to refuse medical treatment for an ill child, or refuse to vaccinate them, on religious grounds? Should the parents be legally culpable if the child dies from a lack of treatment? Many (including myself) think the parents should be held liable. Yet vaccinations are an alteration of one’s body. So is medical treatment. How is germ line engineering to prevent genetic diseases so different? And it that’s ok, where do we draw the line from “treatment” to “enhancement”. Should we draw a line, or leave it up to the parents?

I’ve barely scratched the surface of genetic engineering controversies, and I’m not done with germ line engineering just yet. Tomorrow, I’ll go into what I find to be the most interesting aspect of this technology: how it forces us to confront the deepest and most profound questions of our own existence.

Creating Humans: Ethical Questions, part 9.1

2010-11-10T21:48:00.001-05:00

~Continuing my course analysis of Creating Humans: Ethical Questions Where Reproduction and Science Collide, the next topic is genetic enhancement. Of all the topics examined in the course, this is the one that interests me the most in its ethical, social, legal, and scientific implications. And of all the reproductive technologies we’ve looked at, genetic enhancement is the most fundamental, directly altering the nature of a living creature at the molecular level.

From the discovery of the double-helix structure of the DNA molecule to the completion of the human genome project, researchers have barely begun to scratch the surface of how miniscule changes in our DNA can result in profound changes. We’ve learned that genes can even be switched on and off in response to other factors (such as hormones).

As I discussed earlier, the terms "genetic enhancement” or “genetic engineering” often leave a bad taste in people’s mouths, tainted as they are by the legacy of the eugenics movement, which was largely based on sterilization and pseudoscientific/nationalistic ethnic stereotyping. It was particularly hard-hit by World War II and the Nazi “Master Race” ideal. Some people react to the idea of genetic enhancement with scorn, saying that in the hands of a dictator or Nazi-like group it could be devastating. Although that’s a valid view, recent advances in genetic technology have revived eugenics as an individual choice, rather than a social policy, making the idea of genetic engineering more acceptable to many people.

Broadly speaking, there are two different types of genetic enhancement. The first is somatic cell line engineering, also called gene therapy, which affects the genetic code of an individual patient. Trials are still underway regarding the efficacy of gene therapy, and results have been both promising and disappointing in different cases. An example of a recent promising gene therapy study involved implanting certain genes into the joints of patients afflicted with rheumatoid arthritis. In response to the genes, the patients’ bodies produced a protein that, in turn, blocked the action of the protein causing the arthritis.

In general, somatic cell line engineering for medical purposes is not a morally controversial subject and is therefore ethically acceptable. Think of it as a form of medicine that may help cure genetic diseases or conditions; although the treatment may be dangerous and/or useless, so is taking experimental medicines. The risk, and resulting changes, affect only the individual. And so far the changes we can create are small; we’re still a long way from creating syfy mutants with extra arms or super-soldiers with incredible combat skills simply by injecting someone with some genes (although that would be awesome).

However, somatic cell line engineering is quickly becoming an issue in athletics, where it is known as “genetic doping”. Although the efficacy of such “doping” is questionable at best and certainly high-risk, unscrupulous athletes will use any advantage they can get, and genetic doping has the advantage (for now) of being undetectable, unlike testing urine for traces of steroids. The International Olympic Committee formally banned gene doping in 2003, but it may be only a matter of time until the first genetic doping scandal erupts. Will it be in baseball? Swimming? Perhaps the Tour de France?

Tomorrow, I will discuss germ line modification, a far more controversial form of genetic engineering. For now, here’s a link to the Human Genome Project section on the Ethical, Legal, and Social issues surrounding genetic knowledge and engineering.

San Antonio: Time to Par-tay!

2010-11-02T22:03:00.002-04:00

~This is the last set of pictures from last week’s trip to San Antonio, Texas:

^ We were in San Antonio to celebrate my paternal grandmother’s birthday. Happy 80, grandma!

^ Grandma and her great-granddaughter (my niece…yeah, I’m an uncle, it’s kind of scary). And of course, the cake…

^ ...what cake?? OM NOM NOM.

^ Dad, my nephew, and my sister. Nice vest & tie, little guy!

^ The cake lid somehow turned into an improvised bongo drum. I may have had something to do with that.

^ My aunt Hannah, with her cookie-cake and gift: a wine monkey (yes, we’re a strange family).

^ The cookie-cake was discounted at the store. I wonder why?

San Antonio: Remember the Alamo

2010-10-30T01:09:00.001-04:00

~Here’s part two of pictures from my recent family trip to San Antonio, Texas. Naturally, a top tourist attraction, and the heart of the city, is the Alamo. Here it is in all of its beat-up glory:

^ The area that is now Texas was once part of Mexico, and many Americans immigrated there to build farms and ranches. They brought their slaves with them, but unfortunately for them, Mexico outlawed slavery when it became independent from Spain in 1821. The first solution to this problem was for the settlers to declare their slaves (~5,000 by 1836) indentured servants for life. The second solution (and for numerous other reasons) was to declare independence from Mexico, launching the Texas War for Independence in 1836.

Just before full independence was declared, soldiers from the Provisional Government of Texas seized the Alamo, which at the time was a large compound surrounded by an outer wall that would today occupy a significant chunk of downtown San Antonio (the Alamo is smack in the middle of the city). We all know the rest of the story, immortalized as it is in American mythology: the Texans, led by Davy Crockett, temporarily hold the Alamo against a much larger Mexican army, fighting to the last man against impossible odds. “Remember the Alamo!”

Inside, the Alamo isn’t really a museum; there are only a few artifacts (such as Crockett’s rifle) and a diorama of what the Alamo compound originally looked like. Just outside, however, is the Museum of the Alamo, which, from what I could tell, consisted of a gigantic gift shop. I guess it’s not history unless you commercialize it.

Interesting fact: a Hyatt hotel in downtown San Antonio near the Alamo was originally planned to be much taller than it is today, but had to be scaled back after it was determined that the hotel would cast a shadow over the Alamo.

^ Of course, I wouldn’t be me if I didn’t seek out the nearest library wherever I go. This is The Daughters of the Republic of Texas Library, build near the Alamo in 1950.

^ The library from the front. Inside it holds an impressive collection of historical documents & maps relating to the history of Texas from its years as an independent nation, including one of the original signed copies of the Texas Declaration of Independence. The library staff and volunteers were very pleasant and helpful.

^ Dad again, relaxing on a bench in the pleasant garden outside of the library. He’s a cool guy, isn’t he?

^ Both of my adorable parents, in front of a statue of a giant rooster. The area in the background is an artists’ workshop in the La Villeta Historic Arts Village.

^ A sign on the Fig Tree Restaurant in La Villeta.

^ A Predator taking a break from hunting to mingle among the lowly humans. Actually, this is a wax sculpture displayed at the Ripley’s Believe It Or Not! Plaza Wax Museum near the Alamo. I wonder how the Texan (and Mexican) soldiers during the battle would have reacted to this fellow, using his invisibility shield and plasma cannon, hunting among them? Gotta sell that idea to Hollywood…

^ A river tour by night. Clearly not as popular as the daytime tours.

Pictures from both birthday celebrations to follow!~

The More the Merrier

2010-10-28T18:18:00.005-04:00

~The furor over the recent Arizona law intended to catch illegal immigrants has largely died down over here in North Carolina, although with the election in a few days I imagine it’s still an important issue in Arizona. Among other provisions, the new law (originally Arizona Senate Bill 1070, now the “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act”) requires police officers to question people they suspect are illegal immigrants, and, if they fail to produce valid documentation, to arrest them.

Emotions on this law are very strong on both sides. Some people say this is tantamount to racist fascism, requiring people of Latino descent – even if they are U.S. citizens – to carry documentation (“papers, please”), at the risk of arrest if they are unable to produce it. But on the other hand, Arizona does have large and increasing problems stemming from illegal immigrants, especially with violence spilling over from the all-out war between competing drug cartels just over the border. Many Arizona residents feel very frustrated over ineffectual federal border enforcement and increasing drug & gang violence, so their support for tough new rules is understandable.

But regardless of what you think about the new law, it’s very interesting – and revealing – to discover some of the forces behind its drafting and adoption. As the following story from National Public Radio demonstrates, lobbyists working for private prison companies were a strong influence on Arizona legislators, “suggesting” much of what the bill would eventually become. The reason is obvious: these companies stand to make (and now, are making) huge amounts of (taxpayer) money by providing prison services to house the many new illegal immigrants to be rounded up as a result of the new law. Read (or listen to) the whole story here:

Prison Economics Help Drive Ariz. Immigration Law

[...on the other hand, this story is from National Public Radio, which has caught a lot of flak recently over firing a contractor for his remarks on Fox News. So if you think that because of that (and a asinine comment from the NPR CEO) NPR has lost all credibility, should lose all public funding, secretly hates America, etc., feel free to ignore the above story. Corrections Corporation of America thanks you for your ignorance.]

Some might argue that if CCA can incarcerate illegal immigrants for cheaper than it would cost to pay for a state-operated prison, then that’s a good thing. But that’s a very short-sighted view that ignores one of the key underlying causes of more illegals being incarcerated at all. In this case, private prison lobbyists have pushed laws to generate more business (i.e. imprison more people) then they had been doing before the law was passed. Regardless of whether of not CCA can incarcerate more cheaply per prisoner, it’s money that they would not get at all without the new, stricter immigration enforcement law.

Would Arizona have passed such a strict law without corporate "suggestions"? Maybe, maybe not. Should companies that stand to profit from certain laws being passed be allowed to influence those laws? Absolutely not. The bottom line: whether or not you agree with the morality/constitutionality of the new law, the private prison industry has succeeded in extracting a new and potentially very large revenue stream straight from the pockets of Arizona taxpayers.

San Antonio: The River Walk

2010-10-27T16:44:00.004-04:00

~Last weekend, I went on a voyage to San Antonio, Texas, to meet some of my relatives, in honor of my paternal grandmother's 80th birthday. Here are some pictures from the trip:

^ The River Walk of San Antonio. Constructed by the WPA in 1939, this is one of the city's most scenic attractions: a series of walkways and canals along the San Antonio river. It's lined with bald cypress trees, flowers, restaurants, shops, hotels, and other attractions.

In the above picture, the river is only three feet deep; once a year for a week, the entire system is drained and cleaned out of the debris that has accumulated over the past year. Apparently, riverfront hotel rooms are very cheap that week.

^ Flowers along the River Walk.

^ One thing you must do in San Antonio is take a boat tour of the River Walk. It's relatively short and a fun way to learn more about the history and attractions of the river. The people in the above image are all members of my extended family...

^ ...but who's that fellow with the awesome hat?

^ This bird was eying us as we were waiting for the boat tour to begin. I imagine he lives off of the largess of tourists.

^ One of the many pedestrian bridges that go over the river.

^ The Aztec Theater, listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

^ A mural on the wall of the Henry B. Gonzales Convention Center (click on it for a closer look). It represents the meeting of cultures of America and Europe, with America on the left and Europe on the right, and the child in the middle being, of course, San Antonio. The motto Libertatis Cunabula is Latin for "Cradle of Liberty" and appears on the San Antonio coat of arms.

^ The Rivercenter mall. Not the largest shopping mall in San Antonio, but probably the best-looking.

^ The sign of the Rainforest Cafe along the River Walk. What a great sculpture!

^ Right outside of the hotel we stayed at, there's a small, heart-shaped island along one side of the river, connected by a small footbridge. Appropriately named "Marriage Island", It's among the most popular places to get married in the city, with around 300 weddings held here annually. The above picture shows a sculpture on the island.

^ A sculpture of Saint Anthony along the River Walk. "San Antonio" is Spanish for "Saint Anthony", and the city and river were named such because a Spanish expedition stopped to rest in the area in 1691 on the 13th of June, which is the feast day of St. Anthony of Padua in the Catholic Church.

^ A historical marker on a wall next to the River Walk. "Old Mill Crossing -- Last Known Place Where Horses Drank And Forded The River. Dedicated to the memory of our fathers. Erected by the daughters of Texas Trail Drivers."

^ Another example of the lush foliage found along the River Walk. Maintaining this is a lot of work: city gardeners periodically ride boats along the river and water the plants by pumping river water through hoses.

^ One of the many fountains along the River Walk. To keep the canals from becoming stagnant, the water is continuously recirculated through fountains and artificial waterfalls. As a result, the water does not stink, and there are very few mosquitoes (since they lay eggs in stagnant water).

^ One of the many colorful restaurants along the River Walk.

Next: more photos from San Antonio, including the Alamo and the birthday party. Stay tuned!

The Origin of Job Interviews

2010-10-19T21:52:00.002-04:00

~Apparently, some things were not so different back then:

Terror Management Theory

2010-10-19T01:25:00.000-04:00

~Terror Management Theory (TMT) is an interesting idea I've run across recently in the field of social psychology. The theory was inspired by anthropologist Ernest Becker's Pulitzer Prize-winning book The Denial of Death (1973), which posits that most of what people do is done as reaction against the knowledge of their own mortality. In other words, most of the things we do every day are ways of distracting ourselves from the idea that one day we won't be around anymore. These actions include such trifles as civilization, culture, religion, reproduction, etc.

TMT focuses on the emotional reactions of individuals when confronted with their own mortality. Two interesting hypotheses have arisen out of this psychological research. The first is the "mortality salience hypothesis", which posits that as people are confronted with the idea of death (for example, news of a natural disaster, war, bombing, etc.), they will increasingly identify with their culture as a way of boosting self-esteem and thereby forcing away thoughts of their own mortality. "Culture" in this sense refers to whatever one identifies with: nation, tribe, religion, job, sports team, whatever. The "anxiety-buffer hypothesis" simply states that self-esteem (which is bolstered by identification with culture) serves as a buffer to insulate people against the anxiety of eventual death. There have been a number of interesting research studies that support these hypotheses.

Some evolutionary psychologists have been critical of TMT, because it goes against the idea that behavior changes in response to environmental challenges to facilitate survival and reproduction, whereas in TMT behavior is motivated by the terror of death. But I don't see a conflict, simply because humans occupy a unique niche in the evolutionary tree of life: we're the only creatures that have the mental capacity to be aware of our mortality. Other animals may be saddened by the death of another, but it's unlikely that they think to themselves "Oh no, that will be me one day!"

This is hardly a new concept. The Epic of Gilgamesh concerns the exploits of King Gilgamesh of Uruk to achieve immortality after he becomes enraged by the knowledge that one day he will die (making the fear of mortality literally the oldest story ever written). Similarly, in the first book of the Bible, man is said to eat of the "tree of knowledge" and is cursed with the knowledge that one day he will die. Out of that impending knowledge of death and the need to "live" beyond our lifetimes we eventually get civilization, culture, reproduction, religion, work, and all sorts of other fun things to keep us from ever really thinking too much about that dark knowledge that lurks deep down inside each and every one of us, that terrifying question: "Must I die too?"

But hey, it could be worse! After all, do you really want to live forever? And an immortal life would be rather dull without the very distractions people have made to avoid contemplating their deaths in the first place. Terror Management Theory, while not perfect, does offer an interesting explanation for why people behave they way they do when they become afraid of the specter of their unavoidable death, and how this fear is exploited by politicians and other scruple-less people and groups to control the fearful masses.

So the next time you're confronted with mortality (perhaps on the news, hopefully not in your own life), take a moment to consider your own reaction and how you feel about whatever it is you identify with before and after the event. Remember that there is no "right" or "wrong" reaction; it's simply something to be aware off. And of course, something to do to keep your mind off of a certain concept...

Badgers?! We Don't Need No Stinkin' Badgers!

2010-10-14T20:32:00.001-04:00

~Don't let the cutesy name fool you: the Honey Badger, native to the Kalahari Desert in Africa, is one of the most fearless and tenacious land animals in the world. See for yourself:

Sure, the hangover is a bitch, but there's nothing like some delicious, delicious adder venom to unwind after a long day of hunting and digging.

The Best Chemistry Video Ever

2010-10-13T17:08:00.000-04:00

This requires no explanation. Enjoy.

Super Mario Bros. Theme on Violin

2010-10-11T19:24:00.001-04:00

~If I were an eccentric billionaire, I would hire this man (white tux and all) to play the violin for me while I play Super Mario Brothers with the sound turned off:

Creating Humans: Ethical Questions, part 8

2010-10-09T15:55:00.011-04:00

~The next lecture in Creating Humans: Ethical Questions Where Reproduction and Science Collide is on the subject of reproductive screening. This practice is highly controversial, in some ways even more so than abortion, because it plays upon our imaginations with questions of what might be and what could be. Some people believe that failing to screen is irresponsible, while for others, the practice is horrific and nothing less than a crime against humanity.

So what is this "screening", anyway, and what's the big deal about it? Prenatal screening (or antenatal screening) is testing for diseases or conditions in an embryo or fetus before it is born. There are many ways to do this, ranging from DNA analysis of a fertilized embryo in a lab prior to implantation, to taking blood samples from a fetus in the womb, to the use of ultrasound. Broadly speaking, there are invasive procedures (which involve taking actual samples from a fetus), and non-invasive procedures (just about everything else).

The reason that people have screening performed is that it provides an enormous wealth of information on the future child. With our knowledge of genetics growing every day, screening tests allow parents to learn not only the possible medical conditions and abnormalities their future child may have, but also broad physical characteristics such as hair color, expected height, and of course gender. The ability to determine mental characteristics such as intelligence may not be far off, although the complexity of that subject merits a discussion all of its own.

Screening is most often used by affluent individuals or ethnic groups who are genetically predisposed towards a certain defect. The classic example are ethnic Ashkenazi Jews, whose offspring have a significantly higher chance than most other groups for Tay-Sachs disease, a painful and incurable genetic disorder that kills by around age four. Successful prenatal screening can prevent children from being born with this disease. Other disorders commonly screened for include neural tube defects (such as spinal bifidia) and Down's Syndrome.

So now we come to the mind-boggling ethical dimensions of this technology. The potential uses (and misuses) of this technology are tremendous. The key question is: what should we, as a society, allow in screening? Here are some questions that you should consider:

Is there a moral difference between screening (and discarding) an embryo in a lab, and screening (and aborting) a fetus? Why or why not?
Is it acceptable to screen for fatal genetic disorders such as Tay-Sachs disease? Or should we accept and cherish all children, knowing in advance how short and painful their lives will be?
Is it acceptable to screen for non-fatal genetic disorders? What about spinal bifida, which is not fatal but causes paralysis and requires extensive surgeries? What about Down's Syndrome?
Should financial considerations play any role in screening? Do more affluent families bear greater responsibility to raise children with serious defects? Are less affluent families justified in choosing not to have such children because they cannot pay for the necessary care?
Is it acceptable for would-be parents to screen for a desired gender or specific physical characteristics? Why or why not?

As you can see, the corollary to the main question of what we should allow is, where do we draw the line? We can say we don't want to allow screening based on, say, hair color, but we can hardly force a woman to implant an embryo inside her if she doesn't want to do it, now can we? Ultimately, this comes down to one more question: to what extent does that state have the right to withhold information from parents?

By this I mean that any regulation of screening will ultimately involve forcing a reproductive screening technician to not tell his or her client(s) certain information about their future child. Technicians might know the gender, hair color, eye color, height, intelligence, predisposition to Alzheimer's, etc. of the child, but should they be allowed to tell the parents all of this if it might influence the decision to have or not to have the child? Or does this kind of enforced regulatory ignorance undermine the very personal decision to reproduce in a free society?

Most discussions about screening are saddled with the historical baggage of eugenics. In the old sense of the word, eugenics was a Social Darwinist belief adopted by certain state and local governments to "improve" society, primarily through the sterilization of those deemed defective or otherwise inferior by those in power. Exactly what constitutes inferiority, and how far some governments were willing to go (i.e. Nazis) varied broadly. Today, most of us would consider the forced sterilization of certain social groups to be abhorrent, but unlike old-style eugenics, screening is (at least for now) a personal decision. Ultimately, state regulation of screening will be not about forced use (i.e. mandatory sterilization), but forced restriction (of the use of screening and information divulged to parents).

I imagine those who consider the question of screening fall into three categories:

Moral/religious absolutists, who are absolutely against all types of screening, period. This category also includes those who simply don't want to deal with the challenges this technology brings, and hope that it can be legislated into nonexistence.
Those who think screening is acceptable, but only for severe or fatal genetic conditions.
Those who think screening should be left entirely to parents, without any restrictions.

So ask yourself: where do you fall in this spectrum, and why? As for myself, I (like most, I imagine) fall into category 2. I don't have a problem with screening for severe defects, but I don't think people should be allowed to screen for specific characteristics or genders. My reasoning on this is not so much that it is somehow morally "wrong", but that perhaps we shouldn't be so quick to get rid of "defects" that, while detrimental to the individual, may offer benefits to the group. Consider the resistance to malaria granted by the otherwise-painful condition of sickle-cell anemia, not-so-coincidentally found highest amongst those of African descent (malaria still being a major problem in Africa). Or the surprising resistance to cancer among those with Down's Syndrome. Pardon my rapier-edged verbal wit, but I think we must be careful not to throw the genetic baby out with the bathwater.

There is another reason we ought to be very careful in selecting physical traits via screening. In his book Our Posthuman Future, Francis Fukuyama suggests after a few generations of unrestricted access to this technology, you'd be able to tell from looking at someone whether or not they're a product of screening. Will this create a sort of genetic aristocracy, with pretty, smart, healthy "genrich" on one side and everyone else on the other?

As bizarre as that outcome may sound, I believe that a discussion of screening forces us to confront a far more immediate problem. Although I have said that this technology, like the others in this course, remains the province of the wealthy, they are becoming increasingly accessible throughout the world (consider the use of ultrasound in sex selection in dirt-poor rural India that I discussed previously). Increasingly, health insurance plans, whether public or private, are offering options for prenatal screening. As access to information about our future children becomes increasingly available (and in increasing detail), we must re-examine this question: does society have any obligation to support families of children with severe genetic problems? This becomes especially problematic if the child is known to have problems in advance, but the parents choose (or are forced) to have it anyway. Many would applaud (and enforce) such a decision, but without considering whether they and the rest of society bear any obligation to help out. Do they?

In the United States, the answer is no. If a child is born with a severe defect, treatable or otherwise, it's up to the family to meet the often-exorbitant medical costs. If the family is not wealthy, health insurance/medicaid and charity may cover treatment, or it may not. This sort of thinking makes a lot of people uncomfortable and inevitably descends into political squabbles about the viability or lack thereof of national/socialized health care systems. Those who argue against such coverage for children adopt a fatalistic approach: people have been having children with problems for all of history, and society responds with charity and so forth, but it's the responsibility of the parents to care for whatever child they have. If the child receives inadequate treatment, it's the fault of the parents (unstated: for being poor yet reproducing), not the fault of the child.

Do you think this is a good answer? Does charity always meet the needs of children with medical problems? Should a child pay the consequences of being born into the "wrong" family if they need treatment but can't get it? Is that Just The Way Things Are, and The Way They'll Always Be?
Stephen Hawking is widely acknowledged as one of the world's most brilliant astrophysicists, but he developed Lou Gehrig's disease which has almost completely paralyzed him. He once said that,

"I wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS [National Health Service]...I have received a large amount of high-quality treatment without which I would not have survived."

Consider: if Stephen Hawking's embryo (or any embryo of a child with a genetic defect) had been screened before his birth, do you think his parents would have felt more pressure not to have him if they were not assured (via the NHS) that their child would receive care?

Or consider the case of the Girl Without A Face (no, I'm not providing you with a link. Google it yourself if you want to, but be warned: you may find your belief in a benevolent deity shaken, and find it difficult to sleep tonight). Juliana's parents are fortunate in that her father works for the U.S. Federal Government, and thus has excellent health insurance to at least partially cover Juliana's incredibly expensive surgeries, but what if he didn't have such coverage? Would it be okay, or just The Way Things Are, for her to die because of it? Or for the family to be bankrupted into oblivion?

I don't have any answers to these questions, but the increasing use of prenatal screening will only exacerbate the question of society's obligation, or lack thereof, to provide medical care for some, none, or all. We can't stick our heads in the sand by trying to outlaw screening; even if we could, it would be cruel to deny this technology to those at risk of having children with certain terrible genetic diseases. Furthermore, as with sex selection and the other reproductive technologies discussed in the course, regulating screening will only be useful if it is done internationally...otherwise, those with the means can simply travel to have it done elsewhere.

If we refuse to regulate screening at all, we may end up with "designer babies", increasing divergence in society, and a loss of genetic diversity. And if we only allow screening to be used in some ways or by some people, we must decide where to draw the line and somehow justify our decision to withhold information from parents. And as more and more information becomes available to parents, it will become harder to say we have no obligation to help the families of children who drew bad straws in the genetic lottery.

Despite all of these tough questions, remember that screening is only a tool. And like any tool, if used wisely, it can help us a great deal. Screening offers hope to at-risk families (and society as a whole) that their children can be free of hereditary health conditions that have plagued humanity since time immemorial. If given the choice between a healthy child and a child in constant pain who will die young, I think all but the most absolutist of parents would seriously take a look at screening.

Anger as a Private Company Takes Over Libraries

2010-09-29T23:51:00.006-04:00

~I'll get back to the medical ethics lecture series review soon, but for now, here's an interesting (and disturbing) article from the Times:

As L.S.S.I. Takes Over Libraries, Patrons Can't Keep Quiet

The "journalism" here is a bit on the shoddy side (no library staff were interviewed...maybe they're afraid they'll be fired?), but reading the comments section does warm my heart. The vast majority of commenters are horrified by the library privatization in Santa Clarita, especially since this was done not to a failing or budget-crippling library system, but in hopes of nebulous future savings.

So here's a question for you to ponder: are there some public services which ought not to be privatized, even if doing so would make it less expensive for taxpayers? Imagine if your police were privatized to an out-of-state (or even out-of-country) contractor. We've all seen the problems that result from "security contractors" in Iraq. The potential for abuse is enormous, and I believe libraries fall squarely into this category of "not to be privatized". This isn't for vague reasons about them being cornerstones of democracy, etc., but because a private, for-profit company has little incentive to provide good library services to patrons (who are, after all, not the ones signing the service contract), and every reason to slowly but surely skimp on the operating budget to line their own pockets.

As many of the commentors point out, the way that Library Systems & Services (headquartered in Maryland, anonymously owned by Islington Capital Partners of Boston, finances undisclosed) makes money is by taking over existing services (conveniently with no capital costs to themselves), firing the workers, then re-hiring them at lower wages and benefits. In this case, the CEO justified the takeover by spinning a story about over-paid, lazy, unionized librarians who "never have to do anything" for decades. How DARE they! Why, it's almost as if librarians think they need a master's degree or something. I mean, everything's on the interwebs now, right? Right?

And what of those other annoying operating costs, like books and other new materials? What's to keep the company from reducing the acquisitions budget and pocketing the resulting savings? Or dictating acquisitions from a central location, resulting in homogenization of library branches? Or not buying books or materials that the company owners personally dislike or otherwise disapprove of?

Most disturbing of all is the final paragraph of the article: "...And the volunteers are still showing up — even if their assistance is now aiding a private company. “We volunteer more than ever now,” Mr. Ceragioli said."

Wow, free labor! How convenient!

I can only hope that this decision is reversed, but I have a chilling feeling that this is the future of public libraries in America, regardless of what (former?) library patrons actually want.

Portugal

2010-09-13T20:29:00.000-04:00

Food for thought:

Creating Humans: Ethical Questions, Parts 6 & 7

2010-09-08T02:00:00.000-04:00

~Lectures 6 and 7 of the course discuss the ethical and legal issues surrounding abortion and surrogacy, respectively. I've already covered most of the thorny issues surrounding the ethics and legality of abortion, and it's a depressing topic to revisit, so I'll be brief. The lecture reiterates that the "debate" between moralistic crusaders consists of two utterly irreconcilable positions, while the actual laws in most countries are an elaborate series of legal compromises. The lecture did, however, note that the rate of abortion in nations with few restrictions vs those nations with tight or full restrictions are actually not that different. To the moralist, this fact is irrelevant: the principle of the position often outweighs the actual effects of enacting such a principle on either side of the debate.

I see the ossified abortion debate as a form of smoke and mirrors, masking more challenging, less clear-cut moral issues. Instead, marching in pro-life & pro-choice rallies and so forth is an easy way for protesters to feel better about themselves on what they see as a clear moral issue. After all, if the abortion question was "solved" to the satisfaction of one side or the other, those same marchers might have to put just as much effort into other moral issues such as poverty, corruption, and social justice -- things that most people just don't want to think about or deal with.

The importance of these other issues is masked or otherwise ignored by the imperative that because abortion is the murder! of helpless children! or a violation! of a woman's rights! over her body!, the issue renders all other moral issues utterly irrelevant by comparison. In other words, many people seem to feel that because abortion is so important, all other issues must remain on the back-burner until abortion is legally "solved" (not going to happen...). I find this to be a dangerous and manipulative way of looking at the many ethical challenges humans face today

Moving on, surrogacy is a fascinating area of medical ethics and laws, and contains many possible and actual problems that society and the law are forced to confront. The origin of surrogacy -- having a woman bear a child for another couple -- stretches back thousands of years. For example, the book of Genesis in the bible tells the story of Sarah, wife of Abraham, who was unable to conceive a child. To "solve" this problem, she gave her maid, Hagar, to Abraham, so the maid could have his child, which would be raised by Sarah. Obviously, Hagar and Abraham used a controversial (to say the least) standard method of surrogate insemination, but surrogacy in the modern sense usually refers to the use of in-vitro fertilization, allowing a woman to bear a child for another couple, while not herself being genetically related to the child.

Even with technology removing the sexual aspects of surrogacy, the practice is still controversial. Some feel that surrogacy is a commercialization of reproduction, which, being such an intensely personal and private act, should not involve a third party. We saw this same argument earlier in the course, during the discussions of genetic donors. But surrogacy is a far more obvious, in-your-face commercialization: a couple pays a woman (almost always a less-well-off woman) to bear a child for them.

The question here is: does surrogacy result in children becoming a commodity? Is it ever acceptable to pay money for a child? Of course, a proponent of surrogacy would argue that the payment is not for the child, but for the services of the mother, much in the same way that an adoption fee is not tantamount to buying a child (such as buying a slave might have been). Our modern legal system clearly distinguishes between parental rights and ownership rights; parents have near-total control over their children, but do not own them and cannot sell them. What do you think? Is it acceptable to exchange childbearing services (in a crude sense, to rent a womb) for money?

This involvement of money for services can create the perception that surrogacy is exploitative, because in almost every case it involves a couple paying a less-economically-advantaged (i.e. poor) single mother to bear their child. Some would say that this is market economics at work, but is it really alright to allow it for reproductive purposes? What do you think?

Another argument against surrogacy is that even though the child is not genetically the offspring of the surrogate mother, parenthood is so strongly ingrained into us that many find it disturbing that a mother would ever give up a child she bore in exchange for cash. This becomes an even more difficult issue when you consider the question of whether or not a surrogate mother has any legal rights or legal relationship to the child she bears. Consider the example of a surrogate mother who agrees (and signs a legally binding contract) to bear a child for a couple, but upon having the child, finds herself so attached that she no longer wants to give it up.

While the contract may be binding and enforced by the law, many people would find it very difficult to literally pull a child out of its mother's arms and hand it off to another person. Whose moral rights are stronger, the genetic donors', or the surrogate mothers'? What do you think should happen in this scenario? Does the law trump all emotional considerations, or should there be exemptions?

Surrogacy laws by state in 2007. It's not easy to read, but note that the white states have no regulations covering surrogacy. See this page for details by state.

The lecture brought up the fascinating (and again, disturbing) example of the Beasley-Wheeler dispute. In this case, a British legal secretary named Helen Beasley agreed to be a surrogate mother for the Wheelers, a couple living in California, in exchange for $19,000. Embryonic implantation went normally until the seventh week of Beasley's pregnancy, when she discovered that the embryo had divided into twins. The Wheelers requested that she abort one of the fetuses (!), as the contract they'd made with Beasley stipulated that she bear one child for them; the Wheelers didn't want two. Beasley sued them in court in 2001 to terminate the Wheeler's parental rights and collect the unpaid fee; she found another family to pick up the contract and adopt the twins.

While I haven't been able to find the outcome of this case (perhaps it hasn't been resolved, as the wheels of justice can grind more slowly than those of Amtrak), it shows how complex surrogacy can be. I imagine that most people, upon reading the above paragraph, would be horrified at the behavior of the Wheelers and consider them bad people for not agreeing to take both children. Whether or not you agree with this assessment, it shows the weakness of the law in this area. In many states and nations, there are few or no laws explicitly regulating surrogacy to prevent these sorts of practices. Do you think there should be? Or would that be an unacceptable government interference in the market for surrogates?

Finally, we must consider the legal rights of children born to surrogate mothers. Does a child have the right to know that they were carried by a surrogate? Most of us would agree that an adopted child has the right to know that he or she was adopted, and to know the identity of his or her biological parents. Is surrogacy different? How so?

Modern IVF-assisted surrogacy, like many of the other reproductive technologies in this course, are still in their infancy and the law has, in many cases, not caught up with the available technologies. For example, the above chart shows that the legislatures of many U.S. states haven't taken up the issue of surrogacy or are unwilling to do so. The Beasley-Wheeler dispute (which was between a British woman and an American couple) also shows us yet again that laws regulating reproductive practices can only have a real effect if they are international conventions; otherwise, bans on practices such as abortion, surrogacy, genetic enhancement, and so forth can be easily flouted by those with the means to travel to places where such practices are allowed.

I hope this lecture analysis has made you think about the legal and ethical dimensions of some highly controversial subjects. My next lecture analysis will be on the fascinating issue of pre-natal screening, so look forward to it!

On Books

2010-09-05T22:47:00.004-04:00

An insight:

All books are self-help books.

Another Reason Why I Like Rain

2010-09-03T15:57:00.000-04:00

~After some light rain yesterday, upon exiting the grocery store I was greeted with the sight of a beautiful rainbow stretching across the sky to the north:

Another picture:

Creating Humans: Ethical Questions, Part 5

2010-09-03T00:40:00.003-04:00

~Our next lecture in the course is about gender selection. The first major idea is that despite technological advances in reproductive technology, gender selection has been going on for a very, very long time, usually in favor of male children. Many societies, both past and present, either overtly or subtly favor having male children, or at least more males than females. There are many reasons for this: the need for a male heir to carry on the family line, a greater perceived usefulness of a man in a labor-intensive and/or violent society, an unwillingness to pay a dowry for a daughter, and (perhaps most importantly) the tradition of sons caring for their parents in their old age.

For most of human history, the practice of gender "selection" was simple and brutal: infanticide (often by exposure). But within the last few decades, the widespread availability of ultrasound technology has enabled gender identification in relatively early stages of pregnancy, widely influencing the decision of whether or not to abort. Although many regard abortion as morally equivalent to murder, there are many who don't, and even for those that are squeamish, it's presumably less agonizing to abort an unborn child than it is to kill a newborn infant.

With this technology has come a significant and subtly dangerous side-effect: a gender imbalance in some societies. The two nations most affected are India and China; the latter was especially affected by the One Child policy instituted in 1979 to control China's rapidly-rising population. When you combine a society in which families need a son for a variety of cultural and economic reasons, with a policy harshly penalizing families that have more than one child, you end up with a lot of boys, and fewer girls. Adding to the problem of gender imbalance is the transfer of unwanted girls to foreign parents via adoption; 99% of such foreign adoptions are of girls.

Although the One Child policy has been largely phased out, the gender gap was created over decades and has yet to play out. But is a gender imbalance in a given population really a problem? Consider this: In 2009, for every 100 girls born in China, 119.5 boys were born (the usual ratio is 105:100). By 2020, the nation is expected to have 24 million men of marriageable age unable to find a wife. The effects are already being seen: a rise in the trafficking of women from other countries, increased migration (and overpopulation) from rural to urban areas, economic strains as elderly single men have no family to support them, and possible correlations to increases in crime. While some have argued that the gender gap helps empower women (as they are in a better bargaining position for selecting a mate), others have argued the opposite (i.e. the aforementioned trafficking of women).

I think it's reasonable to assume that a healthy society has a fairly equal ratio of males to females. Significant gender gaps correlate to societal problems, while extreme gender gaps (often the subject of speculative fiction), are disastrous.

The problem is widely recognized, and there have been steps to correct the ratio. For example, China has outlawed sex-selective abortions (although the problem persists), and the nation is attempting to reform its pension system (leaving the elderly less dependent on sons to care for them in their dotage). Assuming gender-imbalanced nations can weather their gap-related issues, I think (hope?) the problem will eventually solve itself as cultures mature towards equality of the sexes, where girls are as valued just as much as boys.

Now, consider this question: given the effects of a gender imbalance, is sex selection ever ethically acceptable? I think many people, especially readers from Western nations, would quickly come to the conclusion that it is not, and that it should be illegal (or at least severely frowned upon), even for pre-pregnancy procedures such as In-Vitro Fertilization. However, remember that it's very, very easy to judge others when we ourselves are not faced with the same problems.

Imagine a poor farming family in rural India with several daughters and no sons. To have the girls marry well, dowries must be paid, and the family has no savings or pension for their impending old age, and equally-poor relatives. If the means are available, can we really blame the parents for ensuring their next-born child is a boy? The course presented another difficult scenario: a married woman in a misogynist culture (I'm looking at you, Saudi Arabia), who has given birth to several daughters, angering her potentially-violent husband who wants a male heir. Can we really blame her for using assistive technology to ensure her next child is a son? Is sex selection always wrong, or are there cases when it might be acceptable?

Summary:

Gender selection is an old issue that has been a problem for a long time, and some cultures are still adjusting to its effects. Although the morality of the issue may seem clear-cut to many, as with so many ethical issues, it's important to take personal and cultural realities into account before we condemn.

A better approach to the problem is to focus on the underlying societal pressures which cause parents to practice sex selection, rather than condemning the practice outright. For example, pension reforms to support the elderly in developing nations, giving parents there less reason to prefer having a boy.

Creating Humans: Ethical Questions, Part 4

2010-08-04T22:48:00.004-04:00

~The next lecture in the course is about cloning. The public perception of cloning has been irrevocably shaped by (bad) science-fiction films such as The 6th Day and Attack of the Clones. As a result, many people (and lawmakers) have distorted views on what cloning is and isn't. As an added complication, cloning technology is still in its infancy, and the ability to create human clones is not yet available (despite over-hyped "breakthroughs" every few years that turn out to be hoaxes or fakes).

So what exactly is meant by "cloning"? The science of cloning can be said to have begun with the successful cloning of Dolly, a sheep, who was created by taking a cell from an adult sheep and fusing it with an unfertilized egg of an ewe in 1996. Her creation was hailed as both a major scientific breakthrough and a serious ethical concern, because it was assumed by many that it wouldn't be too long until humans were being cloned. As I mentioned above, the distorted public view of cloning led many to fear that we'd be copying ourselves and having our own doppelgängers running amok. This is an example of the "slippery slope" logical fallacy: that the cloning of animals (even a single animal cloned purely as an experiment) will somehow automatically lead to the cloning of humans.

So human cloning is seen as "bad" by most. Why? Part of it is an argument against hubris: that by cloning people, we are somehow "playing god" and meddling with Things Man Was Not Meant To Meddle With. People also seem repelled by the individual hubris of people so vain that they might want to create copies of themselves simply to "live on" in them, more so than with the genetic mixing in "normal" children. Finally, and most importantly in my view, are the as-yet-unknown risks to a cloned child. 277 cell fusions were required to produce Dolly, but only 29 viable cloned embryos were created, and only one survived to birth. Even with genetic and technological advances over the past 14 years, the ethical consequences of creating so many miscarriages are simply too ugly for most respectable (and publicly-funded) research laboratories to seriously consider, and serious future health risks to the child are quite possible. I imagine most people don't like the idea of creating a clone child simply as an experiment, to see what (if any) health problems it develops as a basis for future, healthy clones.

Fortunately, widespread cloning isn't likely to happen even if the technology is safe and available. People are hardly lining up to be cloned, and cloning is a frequent target of biomedical ethics laws and international conventions. Part of this is because cloning is such an easy target: unlike the divisive issue of abortion, since "everybody" sees cloning as bad, it's easy for a politician to score ethical points by denouncing cloning and vowing to ban it. It also helps that doing so is effectively banning something that doesn't actually exist yet, which makes it all the easier to ban. I wonder how many politicians actually know what cloning is and what we are (and aren't actually) capable of.

So at present, the ethical issues of cloning humans are something of a moot point. But of course, those sci-fi movies continue to rear their ugly heads. Sure, we upstanding, moral citizens might oppose cloning, but what about totalitarian nations eager to create clone-armies of their best soldiers? Crazed dictators and kings with god-complexes who want to rule eternally though a clone lineage? A nightmarish corpocracy where companies create, own, use, and sell clones as merchandise? The potential misuses of cloning technology are endless, but are also presently more than a bit fanciful.

If human cloning does actually occur in the near future, it is likely to be the result of an unethical (and condemned) experiment by volunteers who are in it for fame and money. The first cloned child is likely to be something of an oddity, and may become moderately famous. But society is fickle, and there are no prizes for second place in science, so I doubt there will be a sudden wave of clones. However, a far more sinister scenario, taking place a bit later, is for wealthy, morally-bankrupt people (perhaps the aforementioned dictators) to clone themselves using surrogate mothers, not to perpetuate their lineage but to ensure a perfect match for organ donations. Clones created for such a dark purpose are likely to spend their miserable lives locked away, pampered but isolated, only to be used and disposed of as needed. Outlandish? I wouldn't put it past someone like Kim Jong Il or unscrupulous billionaires.

Still, I don't see this as becoming a major problem in society at large, at least not for a long time. And even if the unfortunate scenarios I've outlined do take place, they are likely to be rare and hidden away by their perpetrators, like all despicable crimes. I think most people can accept that a clone is not the same as the person they are cloned from; they are an independent human with their own mind and differences created by their life experiences. A healthy democracy would not treat clones as slaves, property, or second-class citizens, but as normal people, no different from the way we treat identical twins or people with genetically-inherited handicaps.

To summarize: the possibility of cloning raises serious ethical and medical challenges, but cloning isn't likely to be problematic in the near future.

Oregon Trail: The Movie

2010-08-03T17:12:00.005-04:00

~Hitch your oxen, load up on ammunition, and prepare for some serious dysentery: it's Oregon Trail: The Movie! [note: this is fake]

^ "Nobody wants to be the carpenter!"

Creating Humans: Ethical Questions, Part 3

2010-08-02T18:25:00.008-04:00

~The next topic in this course is The Science of Reproduction. The first (and most obvious point) made by the lecture is that, in a global sense, infertility is not really a problem. The population of the Earth continues to rise at an astounding pace; despite an overall decline in the actual rate of growth, it's still growth. While fertility rates have declined in some areas, for our species, infertility is not likely to wipe us out any time soon. We're hardly in a Children of Men situation yet.

However, declining birthrates are a problem in some societies. For example, the population of Japan is falling and, barring a major change in society, will continue to do so. This has led to some unusual attempts at solutions; for example, Japan's largest business association urged its members to allow workers to go home earlier in order to "have more babies". In Russia, loosened immigration restrictions in the post-Soviet era, combined with societal and economic problems, has led to a mass exodus of young Russians and a corresponding decrease in population (the nation is expected to lose 30 million people over the next few decades). In response, Russia has severely restricted abortions, although population experts expect this to have little impact on the decline of Russia's population. Or consider Israel, with the largest number of fertility clinics per-capita in the world and extensive socialized medical benefits for reproductive assistance...and an intense need to increase its Jewish population. This results in a great deal of social pressure to use these technologies, especially among Orthodox communities in which female infertility is grounds for divorce.

The upshot of all this is that in the developed world, populations are likely to level out and, in some areas, fall. In the developing world, populations will continue to rise, although not as fast as in the past century due to improvements in hygiene and education, as well as from infections such as HIV. So if the global population is still rising fast, should people with fertility problems have the right to use assistive technology? I imagine the response of many people would be, "Can't they adopt?" Yet what right does society, and by extension the law, have to restrict this fundamental human drive? After all, from a biological perspective, the entire purpose of life is to reproduce itself (not to enjoy itself, although luckily for humans evolution has cleverly combined enjoyment with reproduction).

But the increasing availability of assistive technology raises another, more subtle problem. In nations with falling birthrates and declining populations, or in societies/cultures/ethnicities within those nations with similar problems, do these technologies pressure otherwise-infertile women to use them? In other words, if a woman is unable to naturally become pregnant, will she feel a social obligation to "go the extra mile" and partake of these technologies? Does reproduction become a social responsibility? I don't think we're likely to end up in some Orwellian nightmare where people are forced to reproduce; this is a question of societal pressures and overall direction.

Consider this article, which describes the intense guilt felt by childless women in Japan. While this is in some ways a product of Japanese culture, I can see the same thing happening in other countries as well. For example, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, white Americans will no longer be the majority in the U.S. within a few decades, and I'm sure we will see less tolerant people (i.e. racists) bemoaning this fact and pressuring white couples to have more children. Consider the creepy Quiverfull movement, where Christian fundamentalist couples seek to have as many children as possible. Although often couched in terms of faith, there is a not-so-subtle subtext of "race suicide" they're trying to prevent.

Disturbing.

I think that it's important that as reproductive technologies become increasingly available, steps are taken to ensure that people do not feel pressured to use them. Perhaps some pressure is inevitable, if only because there may be choices where before, no choice existed for an infertile couple. Still, I'd hate to see the kind of social pressure that exists in Japan spread to other countries with declining birthrates. I think it's fine that health insurance programs now cover many reproductive procedures, but it would be interesting to see a study of whether or not women (and men) feel pressured to make use of them.

Reproduction is an intensely personal and private act, and these technologies force it partially into the public sphere. So what do you think about all this? Do you see societal pressure to use this technology as a problem, or a future problem? Why or why not? Do you think that we as a society need to do anything about it? I don't really see America banning advertisements for these services; instead, it's up to you and other people, as individuals, to keep in mind that the fertility problems of other people are none of your business.

Road Trip

2010-07-31T16:32:00.002-04:00

~For my birthday (last Wednesday), I decided to go on a road trip to Fairfax, Virginia, because I wanted to experience the joys of D.C.-area traffic. Ok, I was actually in the area for an interview, but I did manage to look around the town a bit and take a few pictures:

^ The Fairfax Museum and Visitor Center. I found some useful maps here. I didn't have time to look through the museum, but it's supposed to have an impressive Civil War collection and displays.

^ University Boulevard, just outside of the gigantic Fairfax City Regional Library (which, of course, I had to visit).

^ Fenwick Library, on the main (Fairfax) campus of George Mason University. This picture doesn't do it justice; there's a huge tower connected to it just to the right of this image, housing the main stacks.

^ The Johnson Center at George Mason University, a sort of combined student union, library, computer center, and office building. Also, as I found out, a good place to get a late lunch.

^ Guess who?

Creating Humans: Ethical Questions, Part 2

2010-07-26T21:39:00.004-04:00

~Lecture 2 of Creating Humans dealt with a question central to reproductive ethics: When does life begin? For many people, this is an easy, blatantly obvious answer, and they cannot understand why other people might want to answer this question differently. We've all heard these answers, mostly in the context of abortion. The pro-life crowd howls, "Life begins at conception!". The pro-choice crowd snaps that "Life begins at birth!" There is no middle ground in the arena of moral absolutes.

[Source: Englehart, Bob. "When Does Life Begin?" The Hartford Courant: 1981.]

That being said, the lecture makes the point that although people don't morally agree on a definition of when life begins, the actual law in place in the U.S. and U.K. is in fact an elaborate series of compromises between the two extremes. This results in the law being rigid in some areas of assistive technology, and slack in others. This is especially apparent with newer technologies that either do not loom large in the public imagination, or are morally ambiguous. For example, some U.S. state laws are as restrictive as possible in limiting abortion, but allow IVF and prenatal screening almost without regulation. It's easy for politicians to score points with voters by taking a very public position on a hot-button issue, while ignoring a morally-equivalent issue that doesn't get the same amount of press (this comes up again in the lecture on cloning).

Much of lecture 2 was devoted towards attempting to establish a scientific, objective definition for when a person is really a "person" and thus entitled to legal protection. Although I found the science in this area to be interesting, I also thought it was mostly a waste of time to apply such science to the law. Regardless of what the facts are, I don't think any definition will find universal acceptance; the emotions simply run too high, and are too tightly bound to the endless, fossilized abortion "debate". It would be nice if we could agree on a definition to help guide us in the use of other reproductive technologies, but I don't think it's going to happen in a social sense. Even (or rather, especially) any attempt at a legal definition would be subject to endless attack.

My view: an embryo is a "person" once it's actually embedded in a person and growing on its merry way. I don't think that an embryo fertilized in a lab and sitting in all of its single-celled glory is a "person", and I don't think that fertilizing (and discarding) embryos for IVF or screening is somehow a monstrous crime against humanity or first-degree murder of a child, etc. But there is one major caveat to my definition: I have no desire whatsoever to legally impose it on anyone by force. This is one of many reasons why I would make a terrible judge or politician; I'm no good at condemnation. Does this mean that I am a wicked/weak, immoral person?

Despite what I've said above about moral absolutism, I've found that the truth is actually much more fungible (great word, fungible). Some people -- I would go so far as to say many people -- will quickly abandon deeply-held beliefs if doing so somehow benefits them personally. They are just as quick to revert to their previous position later on. It's part of how our brains work; humans, like other organisms, are evolved to adapt to changing circumstances. For example, consider the essay "The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion", a collection of exceptionalist anecdotes (displaying a very American mentality). Another theoretical example would be a parent who also believes that life begins at conception, but upon discovering they and/or their partner are having fertility problems, will search out reproductive technology such as IVF...while still clinging to their absolutism. We might shake our heads and call these people hypocrites, but I think it's important not to judge them. Remember, don't judge someone until you've walked a mile in their shoes (that way, you're a mile away, and you have their shoes).

Please consider this question: when do you think a fertilized embryo becomes a "person"? Are you a moral absolutist, with no room for compromise? If your definition is based solely on your beliefs regarding abortion, please try for a moment to look beyond that ossified debate and think about how your definition might affect your views on other forms of reproductive technology, such as in-vitro fertilization, screening for diseases, genetic enhancement, cloning, and so forth. Consider what you would do if you or someone you love needed or wanted to use one of these technologies.

LOL OIL

2010-07-22T15:59:00.000-04:00

~With all the concern over the BP oil spill, car company bailouts, "cash for clunkers", and inevitable future energy shortages, one California driver mocks all others cars on the road:

^ (posted on imgur, found via reddit)

The orange car with the license plate "LOL OIL" is a Tesla Roadster, an all-electric sports car produced by Tesla Motors. It can travel approximately 244 miles on a single charge and goes from 0-60 mph in 3.7 seconds. It creates no emissions, needs no gasoline or motor oil, and can be plugged in from a home charging unit. It also needs much less maintenance than a combustion-powered vehicle. From wikipedia:

"Electric vehicles require much less service and maintenance than internal combustion engine vehicles. They do not require routine oil changes. They do not have any tailpipe emissions and therefore do not require any muffler or exhaust system work. They do not require replacement spark plugs, pistons, hoses or belts. The conventional parts of the car—including the brakes, body work and any interior and HVAC work—can be performed by any qualified automotive technician, exotic car garage or other local provider."

The Roadster currently retails for around $100,000, but has proved very popular and over a thousand have been sold in less than two years. A recent partnership with Toyota has bolstered plans for Tesla Motors to mass-produce a less-expensive, all-electric sedan. Than last sentence used up my hyphen quota for today, so I'll stop writing for now.

Creating Humans: Ethical Questions, part 1

2010-07-16T21:45:00.004-04:00

~To pass the time, lately I've been listening to audio courses in the Modern Scholar series, which I obtained from (where else?) the library. I've finished Ideas that Shaped Mankind, which was very enlightening, and now I'm working on Creating Humans: Ethical Questions Where Reproduction and Science Collide. The course lecturer (and reader) is none other than Alexander McCall Smith, who, aside from authoring the best-selling No. 1 Ladies' Detective Agency series of mystery novels, is also one of the world's foremost authorities on medical law and ethics.

Unlike the course in Ideas that Shaped Mankind, Creating Humans deals with extremely controversial questions that arouse intense feelings in some people over pertinent issues of intervention in the process of human reproduction. Some of the issues everyone has heard of and most have a strong opinion on (for example, abortion rights). Other issues fall into a more ambiguous ethical category, or are simply not something most people think about (for example, prenatal screening or the ethics of surrogacy or intensive care). And some emerging technologies will have a significant impact on human society. As for myself, the topic of ethics and technologies in reproduction has special significance because I have two young relatives who would not exist without the use of technology that did not exist scant decades ago.

It's up to us, as a nation and as a species, to decide how we're going to deal with these issues. Some people simply don't want to deal with the difficult questions of reproductive ethics, so their solution is to ban them all (such opinions are often religiously motivated). At the other extreme are those who think that reproduction is such an intensely private matter that nobody has the right to interfere with parental choice, and that whatever they decide to make use of is their own business. In listening to McCall Smith's lectures and considering the questions in the course guide, I believe the best (indeed, the only practical) response falls between the two extremes. Some of these technologies arouse little protest and have little potential for harm, while others are potentially very dangerous and need to be carefully regulated to prevent harm to both the resultant offspring and to human society as a whole.

All of what I've written up until now is a very broad outline of what the course is about, but I will soon get into specifics. For each of the fourteen lectures in the course, I've taken notes and written my own observations, thoughts, and questions -- which I would like to share with you, my dear readers. In some cases, I've drawn conclusions about how I feel and what I think should be done, but in general the complexity of the issues defies a quick and easy solution. I would love to hear (via comment or email) what you think about these issues, regardless of whether or not you agree with me. If you'd like to follow along, you can download a course guide from the course web site; if you want to know more, you may be able to find this course at (where else?) your local library. I've tried to divide up information and questions from the lecture from my own thoughts; the former are paragraphs, the latter are bulleted.

And so without further ado, here are my brief thoughts on...

--Lecture 1: An Overview of the Techniques for Creating Humans--

As the title suggests, this first lecture is a broad survey of current technologies for reproduction, including sperm and egg donation, in-vitro fertilization (IVF), surrogacy, and cloning (in the near-future). Each issue creates separate legal and social issues, and the emotional reaction to each is often very different. Most opposition to these technologies comes from those who feel, correctly, that the use of such technologies is somehow unnatural. But what is really "natural" in human reproduction and raising children, especially from a legal perspective?

What seems to bother people most is not so much the actual techniques -- the "mechanics" of various assistive technologies -- but rather the social and personal implications. Imagine, for a moment, a future society that births children in hospital "hatcheries" (such as in Huxley's Brave New World). If these children are raised communally and indoctrinated with drugs to control their development as they were in the novel, well, most of us would be horrified. But if the children were adopted into loving families who care for them as families do now, well, it's still unnatural...but not so bad.

As another example, suppose a couple in which the man is infertile chooses to use donated sperm to have a child via IVF: is this a form of adultry -- legally, morally, or religiously? Who is the "real" father in this case? I suspect that, aside from deeply-held religious objections, this case is not really a difficult moral problem, because our society's definition of "fatherhood" is broad enough to encompass someone who is not genetically related to their child. Like a mug in my parent's cupboard attests, "Anyone can be a father, but it takes someone special to be a DAD."

What, if any, responsibilities (legal or moral) do donors have to their biological offspring?

This is covered in much greater depth in a later lecture, but it bought to my mind a frightening aside from the novel Next by the late Michael Crichton. In this brief side-story, a wealthy businessman finds himself suddenly confronted by a young woman claiming to be his daughter, created from sperm he donated to a sperm bank when he was in college. The man isn't sure how to deal with this, but the woman is: she has a lawyer, and her eyes are on the cash -- she claims that he has a legal and financial obligation to provide for her.

Is it acceptable for a single woman to use donor material to have a child? Of course, single women have children all the time, but assistive technology allows for the possibility of children without a father playing any role at all in the relationship. Is that ok? Although studies have shown that children benefit from having two parents when growing up, is this evidence strong enough to consider children as having a "right" to a father?

I think any legal attempt to limit this would be absurd; after all, we don't expect pregnant women whose parter/husband dies before the child is born to remarry, much less legally obligate them to do so.

Similarly, donor material allows for two women in a relationship to have children. With donor material, a resulting child would only be genetically related to one of the women, but new technology may allow for the child to actually be related to both. Do you think it's ok for a lesbian couple to raise children of their own? What about two men -- is it ok for them to adopt? Most objections to this are from those who believe that such couples aren't fit to raise children. Others fear that children raised by a homosexual couple will themselves be more likely to become gay (studies have largely disproven this) or will somehow be maladjusted (studies have also disproven this), while others simply dislike the deviation from the "natural" family on emotional or religious grounds. Here is a good summary of the debate.

I personally see no harm in allowing such couples to raise children; these days, stable two-parent mom 'n dad families are becoming the ideal rather than the norm, and plenty of children are raised in "non-standard" family units. If a couple that is biologically incapable of producing offspring cares enough to go through the difficulties of having a child via technology or adoption, they're probably more committed to lovingly raising a child than many other couples (or single parents) are. While many people will disapprove of allowing such families to exist at all, I see no need for legal restrictions.

More questions to think about from this lecture:

Can the use of reproductive technologies be equated to life support for the terminally ill? They're both an "unnatural" intervention in life. (This issue is covered in much greater depth in a later lecture).
Is the availability and use of reproductive technology good or bad for society as a whole? If we somehow could, would it be better to just forget all about them and never use them?
Are children conceived via technology somehow unnatural themselves? Are they less "human" than naturally-conceived children? Many works of science-fiction depict dystopian futures were clones are somehow sub-human, or those who haven't (or have) been genetically enhanced are treated differently by society and the law. Is there any truth to this? Should they be treated differently by the law? Why or why not?

"Tough Times: Thoughts on the Library Job Market from a Department Head Who Just Hired a Reference Librarian"

2010-07-02T00:55:00.003-04:00

~From a recent blog posting on ricklibrarian. Here are some highlights (or perhaps I should say, lowlights):

"...I was still surprised by the huge response to the posting of a full time reference librarian's position at my library. In the past, we had never gotten more than about forty applicants for a job that we posted...After I posted our position in April, I received seventy-eight applications."

"From my reading of the letters and resumes, I sense that under-employed is the new norm for young librarians...New graduates from library school have these now experienced librarians competing for the same few jobs."

"This is not the time to push prospective librarians to attend library school. Only those people who know the current conditions and who either have a job already lined up or are willing to risk spending a few years under-employed should start working for a degree."

Well...great. That's just great. It hardly qualifies as news, and didn't tell me anything I didn't already know, but still...it really hit home. In six months of near-frantic searching for a library job, I've received exactly two interviews (one of which was over a phone). Perhaps it's time for me to move on, but to what? As time passes, I'm feeling increasingly disconnected, for lack of a better term. Since completing my undergraduate education, I've drifted from job to job, never staying very long in anything. I've never really had a "career". Now I find myself speaking less and less with my friends and relatives, because every conversation, every interaction, somehow wends its way back to employment, what one is "doing"...and that's where it gets awkward. Awkwardness is not conducive to further or future interaction.

I don't really understand how I've ended up here. I had/have all the benefits: great family, excellent education, car, no debt. Things that billions of people would be thrilled to attain, and indeed, I'm very grateful. But I can't shake the idea that I really should be doing better as a way of returning this cosmic favor. I ought to be a young professional, perhaps starting a family of my own. Or perhaps I should be an entrepreneur or self-employed, building a business and reputation. Instead, I feel as if I'm in stasis, not going anywhere, and not growing as a person. I'm confused as to whether I'm currently doing the right thing ("everyone's in the same situation, just hang in there!"...and hang...and hang...and hang...), or whether I simply lack the willpower to actually take a chance and try something else, as by doing so I would be wasting my increasingly-less-valuable investment.

So what are my options? I can continue to do what I'm doing, chasing down leads, filling out applications, sending out resumes...but perhaps, as the above posting and a disturbing wealth of related information indicates, perhaps that is not the best option for me right now. I've just gotten out of school again (or at least I did six months ago), and I'm not exactly keen to go back, but perhaps I should take a look at what work is actually available, instead of trying to chase down something well-suited for me that does not actually exist.

Sometimes I get the urge to just get in my car and drive off in a random direction (presumably not east, as my vehicle is not amphibious) until I find something worth doing, but I'm pretty sure such an urge comes from having read too many works of fiction. After all, unless you make one up, there is no actual plot-line to life. Besides, gas is expensive.

Scott Pilgrim vs. The World

2010-06-22T21:19:00.003-04:00

~Coming in August, from the producers of "Hot Fuzz" and "Shaun of the Dead", is Scott Pilgrim vs. the World:

^ I love the comic-book visual sound effects. But wait, it gets better: there's a game. One man, seven evil boyfriends, infinite quarters:

The Lyre Bird

2010-06-09T21:15:00.004-04:00

This video shows the amazing Superb lyre bird (yes, that's it's actual name), capable of incredible feats of mimicry. Sure, he's impressive, but it's not until around 1:54 when things start getting strange. At 2:30, they get seriously weird. Watch and hear for yourself:

Here's another lyre bird at a zoo in Adelaide, Australia, that imitates not only the sounds of nearby construction but also human voices with uncanny accuracy:

The Ultimate Rig

2010-05-23T00:27:00.027-04:00

~A few weeks ago, my old laptop (a Dell Inspiron 9300, purchased in 2005), suffered a fatal graphics memory failure, rendering it unusable. That computer served me well, lasting throughout my trip to Japan (my entire previous blog was written on it) and during my two-year graduate studies. I quickly acquired a reasonably-priced replacement that should remain useful for several years.

That's great and all, but one thing I would like to build (when I can afford it) is my own desktop computer. No mere run-of-the-mill system, this would be the Ultimate Rig for David. Sure, I could simply buy a high-end pre-packaged setup from, say, Alienware, but I think I'd enjoy the technical challenge of actually constructing my own system from individual components...and it would probably be less expensive.

As I mentioned yesterday, I've been trying to recognize that it's ok to spend money on things that you like. Unlike most of my college roommates, I'm no comp sci major, but I enjoy working with computers. With that in mind, here is my list of components for the Ultimate Rig. This list is only for the present; one of the advantages of not building it now is that the prices for most of these parts will inevitably fall, while newer, better parts will become available if I decide on top-of-the-line components.

This is mainly a working list for my own use and research, so I will likely change or update it in the future. If anyone has any suggestions, please bring them up. For now, I've excluded the motherboard, case, and power supply; I'll work on those later.

CPU: Intel Core i7

One thing I skimped on in my Inspiron 9300 was the processor; if I recall correctly, I bought either the least powerful or second-least-powerful option when customizing it. It was an Intel Centrino chip, built specifically for mobile computing, meaning that it was relatively low-powered. This being the first system with parts I personally selected, I quickly learned that no matter now much RAM you have or how great your graphics card is, if you have an inferior CPU, overall performance may not be as fast as you want it to be.

The two major players in the desktop CPU market are Intel and AMD. My recently-purchased machine, along with my parent's desktop PC that I helped select a few years ago, use AMD chips. Specifically, my current computer uses a Turion X2 dual-core system. I've been very impressed by its power compared to my old Inspiron, but the Ultimate Rig will make no such compromises. AMD chips are generally less expensive, but I've found that they also run quite a bit hotter. The Ultimate Rig will make no such compromises, and will have the awesome power of a quad-core i7...or whatever is available when I build it.

Memory: 8 GB+ DDR3

I don't really have a brand preference when buying RAM; I'll work on that later. DDR3 SDRAM is a new form of memory, an upgrade on DDR2 used by most modern systems (such as my own current PC).

Data Drive: Solid-state (?)

Data drives are an interesting area in the consumer PC market. Most computers use hard disks, which use the same magnetic storage system used in cassette tapes (remember those?), albeit to a far more refined degree. However, hard drives seem to be slowly but inevitably being replaced by solid-state drives. Also known as flash drives, solid-state drives are the data storage mechanisms found in USB flash drives and the ipod nano, among other gadgets. They offer numerous advantages over hard drives: they're faster, more durable, silent, and utilize far less power (meaning they generate far less heat). For example, this solid-state drive consumes a mere 0.15 watts of electricity when active, and only 0.06 a watt when idle.

However, these drives are fairly expensive, and there are some concerns about their long-term storage viability. Still, I think it may be interesting to experiment with multiple drives, perhaps by using a relatively low-capacity solid-state drive to hold the operating system and applications, and much larger high-speed hard drives to hold everything else. Alternately, I may experiment with RAID configurations to boost drive performance and redundancy. I'll have to look into this more, but for now, time is on my side: the cost of solid-state drives can only fall, while the capacity and speed of standard hard drives continue to rise.

GPU: nVidia 9800 GX2 (?)

The graphics processing unit, also known as a GPU or graphics card, is a processor that handles all display options, reducing the load on the CPU and enabling graphical applications far beyond that of an unassisted CPU. If you want to watch a video or play almost any modern game, a good GPU is essential. As with CPUs, there are two dominant players in this market: nVidia and ATI (which is now a subsidiary of AMD). Both make great cards, and I've used both brands at different points.

I'm currently leaning toward nVidia's 9800 GX2, which has 1 gigabyte of dedicated graphics memory and an integrated system for handling on-screen physics. A few years ago, there was speculation that for serious graphical applications, a dedicated physics processing unit (PPU) would become essential, but modern nVidia cards have integrated graphics and physics functions. Still, ultimately it will come down to what's available and reasonably priced when building the Ultimate Rig.

However, this card runs very hot, hence:

Liquid-Cooling

I really want to try out liquid-cooling the Ultimate Rig. This is one area where experimenting will probably be dangerous, so I'll probably get a liquid-cooling kit that uses pre-assembled parts. The process of liquid-cooling a computer involves attaching flexible hoses from a reservoir of coolant to heat-conducting metal plates that touch components such as the CPU and GPU. The metal plates transfer heat from the computer chips to the coolant, which is then circulated to the reservoir by a pump.

I've never even seen a liquid-cooled system before, so setting one up would be an entirely new experience. Still, I think I'll avoid liquid nitrogen for now, as I like my fingers the way they are.

Display: Multi-monitor

I haven't researched monitors much. When I first bought my Inspiron 9300, it had an absolutely amazing display with a native resolution of 1920 x 1200 pixels. Unfortunately, I soon discovered that actually running any programs at this resolution caused the computer to run very slowly, even when some of the calculations were offloaded to the graphics card (an nVidia Go 6800, which was great for its time).

My first experience using a display made up of multiple monitors was in the computer lab of UNC-SILS. At first I thought it was strange and kind of pointless, but I soon learned to appreciate the extra visual "real estate". Thus, the Ultimate Rig will have two or even three monitors operating simultaneously. For example, ATI Eyefinity technology is the ability of new ATI graphics cards to optimize for up to six monitors, combining them into a single super-monitor. It makes some programs look amazing! Perhaps I'll go with an ATI graphics card after all, although I'm sure there is comparable technology on the nVidia side. More research is necessary.

Optical Drive: Combo Multi DVD/Blu-ray RW

I remember when I first heard that the Apple iMac lacked a floppy disk drive. I thought it was absurd; how, I wondered, would people transfer files such as documents to and from the computer? I thought it would fail completely as a concept. I was certainly proven wrong: a few short years later, floppy disks are museum pieces. I see the same thing happening in the future for optical storage mechanisms such as CDs and DVDs. CDs are already dying, most obviously in the music industry, in favor of digital downloads. And I think SD cards, which use solid-state memory, will soon replace DVDs and perhaps blu-ray technology as well. Eventually, most data transfer will probably occur entirely in the digital realm, with small flash memory cards for manual data transfer.

Still, an optical drive remains essential. When I went shopping for my new computer, I had two models in mind, but quickly scratched one off of my list when I examined it in the store and discovered that it lacked an optical drive. It was a deal-killer. So, the Ultimate Rig will have an optical drive fully-equipped for reading and writing CDs, DVDs, and Blu-ray discs.

Sound Card: Sound Blaster X-Fi Xtreme Audio

A good sound card was once an essential computer component if you wanted anything better than the tinny squalk of the computer's built-in sound. However, in recent years, that built-in sound (as part of the motherboard) has gotten very good, to the point where most people would be hard-pressed to tell the difference between the native motherboard sound and sound produced from a dedicated card.

Still, there is a difference, and a dedicated sound card will further reduce the load on the CPU. Sound Blaster is the undisputed leader in the area of PC sound cards, and their hardware and corresponding software can create incredible environmental sound effects. Their slogan is "Sounds Best on Sound Blaster", and at least for now, they're probably right.

Operating System: Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit

Yeah, yeah, Microsoft bad, open-source good, etc. But part of the purpose of the Ultimate Rig is for games, and unfortunately Linux lacks support for most of them. Hopefully I'll be able to acquire a discounted or free version of Windows 7 from an educational institution...I have my sources...

Peripherals & Interface Devices

Other parts of a computer that are not essential components but nonetheless are needed include a keyboard, mouse (or trackpoint or touchpad) and so forth. Here are some nifty extras that I'd like to have for the Ultimate Rig:

-Novint Falcon. I first tried this out at a Games4learning discussion at UNC. It's a haptic controller that provides force feedback for various games, making them a whole new experience.

-Razer Imperator mouse. A programmable mouse with adjustable side buttons. I prefer wired peripherals; I wouldn't like having to recharge a wireless mouse or keyboard, and sometimes there are response errors when wireless signals encounter interference.

-Razer Lycosa keyboard. A back-lit programmable keyboard.

-Gaming chair. These have integrated speakers and sometimes bass and "rumble" effects. Comfort is also important, especially when sitting down for extended periods of time.

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

Well, that's my "wish list" so far. All of these together would probably cost several thousand dollars, but as I said before, the price for most components will only fall, particularly with in the area of microprocessors. Building this system will be a challenge and a fun experience, assuming I don't accidentally fry essential parts when installing them...

Some things make no cents

2010-05-22T00:17:00.010-04:00

~I find it difficult to spend money on non-essentials. I'll often subconsciously put off purchases of things I'd like to buy, and then I'll sometimes buy something inferior that displeases me simply because it is less expensive than what I originally wanted.

For example, when I was in Japan, one of the first things I bought was a bicycle helmet (making me one of the only people I ever saw actually wearing one) because I considered it essential. It cost me around $30. However, I hated that helmet -- it was heavy, hot, and looked absurd. Shortly after buying it, I found a much better helmet at a sporting goods store, but it was ~$70. I really, really wanted that helmet...but I already had one, so I put off buying the second one for months. When I finally did get around to buying it, I felt a tremendous weight coming off of my shoulders...both literally and figuratively.

Intellectually, I understand the fallacy of sunk costs, but viscerally, I rebel against the entire concept. Frankly, I'm scared to actually spend money whether or not it's mine; when I bought my car with my parent's help, I nearly had a nervous fit. My body was shaking so much that I could barely stand or sign my name, and I assure you they were not shakes of excitement.

I consider this quality to be one of the great personal challenges of my life that I hope to eventually overcome. Part of it, I'm sure, comes from hereditary genetic factors, part of it from formative childhood incidents, the rest from my own financial realities at various stages in my life. That last part is undoubtedly the smallest; my teaching job paid quite well, certainly more than I've made since, but it in no way diminished my avoidance of spending on something as simple as a bicycle helmet. People like me, I'm sure, haunt the nightmares of those who work for the Department of Commerce, who depend on consumer spending and debt to drive the economy.

One idea that I've found useful is this simple idea: that it's ok to spend money on things that you enjoy. Of course, this assumes that you have some sort of income, but as I said, for someone like me it's still a difficult thought to internalize.

Fortunately, twinned to my fear of spending is something I consider much more positive: the enjoyment of simple pleasures. It doesn't take much in the way of material goods to keep me happy. Despite my high school economics teacher's obsession with the phrase "T.I.N.S.T.A.A.F.L.", I believe that the best things in life really are free.

The LHC Rap

2010-05-21T00:13:00.006-04:00

~The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is the largest and most expensive experiment in the history of human science. Its purpose is to smash tiny particles together at speeds near that of light, in hopes that the collisions will momentarily produce new, never-before-seen particles that may help to explain fundamental mysteries of physics, such as the cause of mass and the nature of dark matter.

But that's a bit hard for most people to grasp, so here to explain the LHC better than I ever could is the legendary Large Hadron Rap:

^ This has nearly 6 million views of YouTube.

Some scientifically illiterate morons...I mean, some perfectly reasonable people believe that the collisons caused by the LHC could create a black hole that could destroy the Earth, or open a wormhole into another dimension, etc. Not to worry; this scenario has already been covered. Should the unthinkable occur, this man will take care of it:

^ Who is he, you may ask? He bears a suspicious resemblance to Gordon Freeman, protagonist of the Half-Life games:

As you can see from the short video summary below of the first two Half-Life games, should the LHC go out of control and disgorge horrific monstrosities from a parallel universe, GORDON FREEMAN will do whatever is necessary to stop them.

Half-Life 1 and 2 in 60 seconds:

^ "Blah blah blah, Mr. Freeman."

Terror Beneath the Waves

2010-05-15T01:47:00.011-04:00

~It sounds like the beginning of a horror movie, but unfortunately for us puny air-breathing land-dwellers, this is reality:

^ The population of Humboldt Squid (also known as diablos rojos, or "Red Devils")off the West coast of North America is rapidly increasing. The reasons for the increase in their numbers near the surface is still not fully understood, but marine biologists suspect an increase in oceanic dead zones may be to blame.

At any rate, these carnivorous calamari can grow to be seven feet long and weigh up to 100 pounds. They have razor-sharp beaks, toothy flesh-rending tentacles, color-shifting camouflage, and keen intelligence. They can swim as fast as 20 miles per hour, and can actually leap out of the water to skim across the surface. They also travel in packs (shoals, to use the proper term) of up to 1,200. Last December, three SCUBA divers in the Sea of Cortez were killed when they found themselves in the middle of a Humboldt Squid shoal feeding frenzy. All that was left of them was air tanks and shredded wetsuit chunks.

For the love of god, if you're going diving with the squids don't forget your spear gun, preferably the kind that shoots explosive-tipped spears. Better yet, travel in a nuclear submarine. The kind with torpedoes and depth charges.

The David...He Returns!

2010-05-13T23:17:00.008-04:00

~Sorry for the long absence, folks; I'm blaming it on computer problems. But now that I'm back online, by way of apology I offer this video performance of the Legend of Zelda theme song...played by Tesla Coils (no no, not those Telsa Coils):

I don't deal well with unemployment; but then, who does? In his book Man's Search for Meaning, philosopher (and concentration camp survivor) Viktor E. Frankl described the phenomenon of "unemployment anxiety", in which an out-of-work individual develops an increasing sense of detachment from their own life. This is because in our modern world, the ego (here used in the psychological sense of what makes you you) for most people is defined by one's occupation. What one does with their time is a critical factor in how we as humans evaluate each other, both consciously and unconsciously, and more importantly, how we self-evaluate. I venture that this is still more the case with men than with women, as men tend to define themselves (and other men) more by occupation than anything else.

This is especially acute in the United States, a nation built on individualism, entrepreneurship, and can-do attitudes, where long-term unemployment is often regarded as the result of laziness or some other character defect. Everyone sympathizes with the downsized worker, but if that same person is still out of work after a year or so, it's obviously because he's a lazy bum who's not working hard enough to find a new occupation, etc. While such an attitude may contain kernels of truth, such broad generalizations can be very destructive to both individuals and society during times of economic depression.

Hence, prolonged periods of unemployment can lead to increasing feelings of worthlessness. Even more ominously, recent studies indicate that the psychological scars resulting from long period of unemployment remain even if one is later employed in the long-term. Such formerly unemployed people have higher levels of overall anxiety and statistically earn significantly less than those who have never been unemployed for long periods of time.

I bring this topic up not so much to comment on my own situation (or lack of situation, in the Dickensian sense), but rather because it has interesting sociological ramifications. More and more jobs are being outsourced to other countries; it used to be the factory jobs, but now outsourcing is increasingly shifting to information technology jobs (remember the "information economy"?). Barring a massive societal shift, it's reasonable to predict that, regardless of the business cycle, our nation will see increasing numbers of well-educated but unemployed people.

Just this morning, I read an article about how ever-increasing numbers of new college graduates are finding themselves overqualified and under-experienced for most available positions. The total percentage of jobs requiring a college degree has not increased all that much in the past few decades, while the percentage of Americans holding college degrees continues to inch upwards (along with overall student debt). Businesses can (and do) respond/benefit from this by imposing increased educational requirements to positions that formerly did not require such credentials, but this can only go so far before it drifts into the realm of absurdity (e.g. requiring entry-level lab assistants to have Ph.D.s).

I have no solutions to the socioeconomic issues that this problem engenders, but Frankl does offer ways to counteract the malaise and depression caused by unemployment anxiety. He suggests filling in one's time with meaningful activities. What this means differs from person to person; an outgoing person may become involved in volunteering or politics, while others may immerse themselves in intellectual pursuits or personal projects.

So what am I doing with my time? Being an introverted soul, it would be far to easy to fall into the trap of distracting myself with the endless entertainments available to me; if I wanted to, I could simply ignore my problems by immersing myself in games, novels, movies, television, and so forth. I'm trying to avoid that as much as possible. So, between scouring job boards and listservs and following up on leads, here are some things that I've been up to:

Learning to play the electric guitar and keyboard
Reading through a chemistry textbook and actually doing all the exercises
Experimenting with digital photography and image editing
Learning American Sign Language
Expanding my culinary horizons by trying new foods and recipes
Listening to different kinds of music and new artists than what I normally listen to
Exploring new places near where I live by walking and driving (sadly, cycling near my apartment is tantamount to having a death wish)

Stephen Colbert on Nuclear Explosions

2010-03-23T01:46:00.005-04:00

~Nuclear blasts can cause horribly destructive devastation...but we Americans do like things that go boom, as the always-entertaining Mr. Colbert clearly demonstrates below during his discussion with an anti-nuke activist:

While the video is amusing, in some ways Colbert has a point about "making it ugly". Splitting the atom (and fusing it, in the case of hydrogen bombs) is a tremendous scientific achievement, tapping into the fundamental building blocks of the universe that fuel stars. Like most technology, it can be twisted to do horrible things, but that doesn't make it any less interesting.

Hopefully, we can one day enjoy a world in which nuclear weapons are gone, or at least exist in far fewer numbers. A upcoming nuclear arms treaty between the U.S. and Russia may help reduce the vast stockpiles that still exist in both nations.

Ant Megalopolis

2010-03-10T14:45:00.004-05:00

~In this amazing investigation, liquid concrete was poured into a vast underground ant colony, which was then excavated:

The video clip is from the documentary "ANTS: Nature's Secret Power". It makes me ponder what other wonders (and horrors) may lie beneath our feet, out of sight and out of mind. It also makes me want to play SimAnt again...

(Interesting Fact of the Day: A entomologist who specializes in the study of ants is a "myrmecologist".)

Solar Dynamics Observatory

2010-02-18T22:34:00.011-05:00

~Most of the space news I've been hearing about lately concerns the window recently installed on the International Space Station, but of more interest to me is the Solar Dynamics Observatory, which was launched from Cape Canaveral last Thursday, February 11th (click here for a video of the launch).

The Solar Dynamics Observatory, or "SDO" for short, will gather data on the sun. From a geosynchronous orbit over a specially-constructed communications center in New Mexico, SDO will capture detailed images of the surface of the sun and take accurate measurements of changes in the sun's magnetic field and the solar wind.

Ultimately, the data from SDO should reveal some of the mysterious inner workings of the sun. For example, it's long been known that the sun undergoes a regular eleven-year cycle of magnetic intensity, resulting in a spate of solar flares every eleven years that can damage satellites. However, the cause of this cycle is unclear. SDO should also provide us with better tools to predict solar disturbances that occur seemingly at random, and can harm astronauts and sensitive electronics in Earth orbit. The stated scientific goals of the mission are to answer, or at least gather information on, these seven questions:

What mechanisms drive the quasi-periodic 11-year cycle of solar activity?
How is active region magnetic flux synthesized, concentrated, and dispersed across the solar surface?
How does magnetic reconnection on small scales reorganize the large-scale field topology and current systems and how significant is it in heating the corona and accelerating the solar wind?
Where do the observed variations in the Sun's EUV spectral irradiance arise, and how do they relate to the magnetic activity cycles?
What magnetic field configurations lead to the coronal mass ejections, filament eruptions, and flares that produce energetic particles and radiation?
Can the structure and dynamics of the solar wind near Earth be determined from the magnetic field configuration and atmospheric structure near the solar surface?
When will activity occur, and is it possible to make accurate and reliable forecasts of space weather and climate?

SDO is also the first mission in NASA's Living With a Star program, a series of projects designed to investigate space weather and its effects on Earth. Future program missions include the Geospace missions, which will measure the radiation belts around Earth that result from the Earth's magnetic field interacting with charged solar particles, and a solar probe that will fly into the sun's corona!

You can learn much more about SDO at the mission web site, or by reading the official mission guide.

How To Report The News

2010-02-10T12:11:00.002-05:00

~BBC reporter Chris Booker gives a special report on every boring special report that you've ever seen on the news:

All Who Stand Opposed Will Be Destroyed

2010-02-05T08:31:00.006-05:00

~Here's a new band that's a lot of fun to listen to: Planetoid. The three members that make up the band claim to be aliens from a thousand years in the future, who have been accidentally sent back in time and are now attempting to conquer the Earth through hard rock. They combine great sound with some very clever science-fiction (?) lyrics on their first album, Shadow of the Planetoid. For example, consider the title song, Shadow of the Planetoid:

"...and as the illusion grows, stars start to disappear.

In the spot where the sun once rose, the benighted ring of the Dyson sphere.

And every Venusian knows, the end of the world draws increasingly near.
For we are harbingers of the shadow!

All who stand opposed will be destroyed...in the shadow of the Planetoid."

You can hear four songs from the album on the Planetoid web site, and the rest on Rhapsody.

Why Your Printer Never Works Properly

2010-01-12T00:20:00.008-05:00

I think we can all relate to this:

Did you know that the cost of printer ink is approximately $8,000 per gallon?? Think about that the next time you're pumping gas at the gas station. One reason that the price is so ridiculously high is that large printer manufacturers pressure vendors to squeeze out third-party ink suppliers and refillers, and also create their printers in such a way that they will have "problems" (or simply reject) ink cartridges from other companies.

This amusing comic, titled "Why I Believe Printers Were Sent From Hell to Make Us Miserable", points out that despite vast increases in computing power over the past decade, printers remain just as annoying and unreliable. Why, for example, do many printers refuse to print black-ink-only documents if the printer is low on color ink? Why do printer manufacturers insult consumers by selling printers for less than the cost of ink refills (making it more economical to simply buy new printers that include ink rather than buying ink refills)? Why are consumer "photo printers" so terrible at printing photos?

It seems that for some questions, the world is not ready for answers.

An Investment in Knowledge

2010-01-09T01:15:00.003-05:00

~On Friday morning, I attended the grand opening of the new Orange County Main Library in Hillsborough:

^ It's a beautiful building adjacent to the main Orange County offices in downtown Hillsborough.

^ There was quite crowd in attendance for the ribbon-cutting ceremony. Most of the Orange County commissioners were there, along with the State Librarian of North Carolina and State Senator Ellie Kinnaird.

^ I'm not sure who this guy was, but he wrote a poem about the library and read some inspirational quotes. My favorite was from Benjamin Franklin: "An investment in knowledge always pays the best interest."

Bread For Success

2009-12-30T22:26:00.005-05:00

~For Christmas, I received from my parents (among other things) a bread making machine. I love bread, but frankly, I don't want to go through the bother of making it from scratch, so instead I have turned to modern technology to make life easier. Yesterday, I made my first attempt at bread baking:

^ The Machine: a Panasonic SD-YD250. And I thought Panasonic only made cameras...

^ The Ingredients: strong flour, sugar, salt, butter, active dry yeast, water, and powdered milk. I actually learned quite a bit about what exactly these ingredients are for in the baking process. For example:

There are different kinds of flour: strong, weak, whole-wheat, all-purpose, and others, each of which creates a different kind of bread. For example, strong flour (used in all recipes for this bread machine) has a higher content of the protein necessary for the development of gluten; "weak" flour has less protein, and therefore creates bread with a lighter, crumbly texture (which is good for making cakes and pastries).

Adding milk in baking adds to the flavor and nutritional content of the bread. You can use regular milk, but since baking takes time, it's best to use powdered dry milk to avoid spoilage (especially if you set the timer on the machine to make bread in, say, 12 hours from now).

Salt strengthens the gluten structure, which makes the bread more stretchable. It does this by inhibiting yeast production. It's very important to use EXACT measurements for salt, even more so than with the other ingredients, because using too much or too little salt can easily result in "collapsed" bread with unpleasant texture.

I was pleased to discover that I (mostly) remembered the chemical process that yeast creates when baking: it converts sugars to carbon dioxide (CO2) and alcohol (C2H6O). This gas production is what causes the bread to rise. The alcohol evaporates during baking, which is fortunate, otherwise humans would be drunk all the time on bread products.

^ The Result: a large preservatives-free loaf of soft, warm, delicious bread! If you listen hard enough while staring at this picture, you can hear the late Dr. Atkins screaming in his grave. But who cares what he thinks? It's time to break out the peanut butter!

Busy Busy Busy, Every Day...

2009-12-30T00:20:00.005-05:00

~Merry Christmas/Hanukkah/Kwanzaa/Boxing Day/Generic Holidays to everyone! In other news, I've officially graduated from the UNC-Chapel Hill School of Information and Library Science. I'm now a Master of Library Science, or so they tell me. Of course, this also means that I have to look for a professional full-time job. I'm looking for something in either medical information or public libraries, but I'm not inclined to be overly choosy at this point.

Overall, going to UNC was a great experience. I met a lot of fun people and attended some interesting classes. I even got to go to Prague! I will always look back fondly on my time at UNC-SILS.

King Heron!

2009-12-04T23:27:00.002-05:00

~On a walk around Symphony Lake in Cary last week, I saw the legendary heron that lives there, and took some pictures.

Usually, he (?) flies away when people approach, but he was in an unusually tranquil mood that day and tolerated my presence...barely. He was keeping an eye on me, and would have surely flown off if I'd come any closer:

Finally, here is a swan. Sorry, no breadcrumbs for you today: