This is a most "economic view" of the value of humanity! Recognizing the risk of extinction...and other low probability events.

http://www.upmc-biosecurity.org/website/resources/publications/2007_orig-articles/2007-10-15-reducingrisk.html
Abstract: 

In this century a number of events could extinguish humanity. 

The probability of these events may be very low, 

but the expected value of preventing them could be high, 

as it represents the value of all future human lives. 

We review the challenges to studying human extinction risks and, 

by way of example, 

estimate the cost effectiveness of preventing extinction-level asteroid impacts.

Here's a bit of the summary!

"We may be poorly equipped to recognize or plan for extinction risks (Yudkowsky, 2007). 

We may not be good at grasping the significance of 

very large numbers (catastrophic outcomes) or 

very small numbers (probabilities) over large timeframes. 

We struggle with estimating the probabilities of rare or unprecedented events (Kunreuther et al., 2001). 

Policymakers may not plan far beyond current political administrations and rarely do risk assessments value the existence of future generations.¹⁸ 

We may unjustifiably discount the value of future lives. 

Finally, extinction risks are market failures where an individual enjoys no perceptible benefit from his or her investment in risk reduction.  (Had to read this three times...basically faced with extinction, not much anyone can do to avoid it!)

Human survival may thus be a good requiring deliberate policies to protect."

I'd say with some authority that the type of investment in human survival that this paper suggests ought to be done, is not and will not be done.  "If it didn't happen yesterday, why would it happen tomorrow" is the INERTIA one works against when investing to avoid low probability hi impact events.

...like oil well blow outs, big earthquakes, tsunamis, and nuclear reactors that are no longer functional...not something that happens very often...or with any frequency..

FRISH

Coolest Tech Today! Ray Gun Fire Extinguisher

Fire Suppression via Electrical field!

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110327191034.htm

From my days with Disaster Preparedness I figure a new level of exercise reality...

FIRE!  as Moulage*...I mean, what else...now that it's safe to get back into the water (or something...). 

Insurance companies are going to HATE this news...they can't charge for fire insurance since there won't be any need...

* Moulange is realistic make up used to simulate MAJOR DAMAGE after stuff hits fan for a more realistic disaster simulation.  (This site sells kits from a client of mine!)...

I want to be the marketing guy who wrote this blurb...I need a new job!

"The Master Moulage Kit contains all the makeup materials and tools needed to create hundreds of wounds."

Great commentary: Obstacles to discussing population policy

You can see the comment at the following URL:
http://www.grist.org/article/2010-12-14-ask-umbras-book-club-why-dont-we-talk-about-population/

Obstacles to discussing population policy

Progressives, liberals, environmentalists, social activists, since sometime
in the 80's, have been reluctant to address population for some of the
following reasons (or so it appears to me):

We do not want to engage with conservative, fundamentalist, religious
opposition to birth control

We are embarrassed to suggest that people in poorer countries who have
large families should lower their birthrates (and so appear racist,
ethnicist, and hypocritical because of our own high consumption rates)

We are afraid that population policy requires draconiam measures (as in
China)

We are reassured that there is (has been) enough food produced on the world
for everyone, and that the main problem is unjust access to it.

We are convinced, from past experience, that only development, education of
women and job opportunities will lower birth rates

We shy away from the pessimistic opinion that only famine, plague and war
can make a dent in overpopulation.

We cannot accept the ungenerous position that poor immigrants should be
kept out of developed countries because of their high birth rate, suspecting
racism.

We may not want to think about our own and families' need and love for
children, what joy they give us, and that a low child society may be hard on
some.


There is also the capitalist economists position that economic growth is
imperative, including and partly driven by population growth, to "grow"
GDP, pay for social security, and our elders, and that "birth dearth" is
socially
harmful.

There is the sexist patriarchal male dominant position, that women must be
kept in their procreative place.

There is the libertarian view, (which also fits with much of the media and
commercial advertising), that regards unencumbered sex as freedom.

There is the "tribal" position (usually of oppressed ethnic groups) that
embraces reproduction as a means of gaining power by outnumbering the
oppressor.

And the "feminist" preference for addressing only the individual woman
and ignoring the responsibility (and reproductive needs) of men, families
and communities (I know some must sometimes be exclude from interfering, but
the responsibility should be encouraged there too).

and more: We love children and don't want to think about not having them

and: many US women are now having trouble conceiving, and talking about not
having children makes them feel bad

Beedy Parker, Camden, Maine

For some musically interested folk...

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=music-is-all-in-the-mind

--
FRISH

Deaths down, lives lengthen

"Basically, this is nothing but good news," Kochanek says.

My sister and I consider the following to be the only English Language construction of it's type.

Two positives make a negative. 

But, it's all I can say:  "Yeah, right..." 

FRISH

How the Earth's core, the length of a day, cloud formation and climate chaos caused by humans are interrelated...

"Our study implies that human influences on climate during the past 80 years mask the natural balance that exists among Earth's rotation, the core angular momentum and the temperature at Earth's surface."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110311140706.htm

The variance of Global Temperature is related to the measured force of Earth's magnetic field for data before 1930 in a statistically significant way.

In other words, if left on the trajectory from before the 1930's, things wouldn't be as they are, and the differences are attributable to human activity.

Not that Human Caused Climate Chaos deniers will end their crusade.  Lubricated by oil, and ignorance.

--
FRISH

Japan's Prime Minister: "The radiation levels are not dangerous to human health".

Ahhh, yeah.

 

A. There are radiation levels.

B. What are comfortable levels?
--
FRISH

Re: [atheists-614] Is an Israel company contracting for mercernaries for Gaddafi ?

There's some big news, Gaddafi does business with international criminals (who in this case happen to be Israelis.)

I worked at IBM with guys who worked data processing for the oil companies in Libya under Gaddafi in the 70's.

Different set of international criminals...but a great assignment if you liked shopping at a PX like store in an American 'compound', like living Dennis the Menace's neighborhood, with hot and cold running servants...Frosted Flakes, Campbell's Tomato Soup, Velvetta, Cheap Cigarettes, etc.

Rather like a country club, with an American School http://www.state.gov/m/a/os/56522.htm purpose built for xpat oil workers et al...

---Egyptian sources have revealed that the Israeli company has so far provided Gaddafi's regime with 50,000 African mercenaries to attack the civilian anti-government protesters in Libya.

---The arms company was previously convicted in an African country over illegal deals, News-Israel website reported.

FRISH

Two articles from the land of unintended consequences

Here's a little nano-tech that may have huge impact going forward...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110301111457.htm

And, fascinating adaptation of plants to increasing levels of CO2

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110303111624.htm

The first is an article about technology that will be introduced without delay or proof of it's benign place in the ecosystem.

It will take a commercial turn, and will be yet another experiment of the Earth's tolerance for perfectly natural things that happen to be man-made.

The second is the result of consequences, that few if anyone would predict.

If I read things correctly, it appears that plants transpire less water as they don't have as many pores with which to breathe.

This is in reaction to high CO2 levels.  

I make this up, but I expect that's because plants react to high levels of CO2 as though a drought was occurring, since that much CO2 in the atmosphere must be due to burning trees...per se evidence of drought.

--
FRISH

Perhaps the Robots will Take Over

Dear Buythenet:

You said:

If humans keep working on robots and robot brains such as IBM's Watson who is now champion at the game Jeopardy!, then perhaps we don't have to be concerned with how to make humans extinct. The robots will do it for us. Here are some YouTube videos which discuss this topic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frprCxIerGg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4sTPTsq-UM

While the videos are rather humorous (and as believable as a Davey and Goliath Cartoon, see comments below*...) you are actually on to something.

(BTW, I'm a volunteer)...

As Earth's systems fail, and humans find life is difficult and soon to be impossible, some smart folk will realize the only way "Humanity" will survive is through digital avatars/robots/self replicating and scattered amongst the stars...each with a compendium of human knowledge (WikiWiki)...

The "interesting" thing will be if we can get that together, well enough, before we're wiped clean out of the universe.

I submit no alien "civilization" has yet done so, unless life on Earth is a result thereof!

Therefore, it's unlikely we'll be successful and I'll put real money on that bet, based solely on lack of evidence of alien life...

IMHO.  and LOL, since others may bet otherwise, but neither they nor I will be around to enjoy our bets whichever wins!

Don't have kids.  It's immoral.  Here's why:

People, overall, see an overpopulated planet and say: We need more food.  We need more energy.

If those limitations, just the current crop of nature's forces we've overcome for the last 1,000,000 years, are also over come, do you think we will suddenly adapt to a sustainable relationship with the biosphere?  

If so, do tell.

Human nature not only is to spoil our nest and move on, it is also to overcome any limitation to our existence.  

With enough energy and food, what will then overcome the desire for "all" to have kids, which will simply provide us the opportunity to eat every other living thing on the planet.  Game over.

-- 

FRISH

* I am well aware of technology "evolution" (and market acceptance thereof (MBA Marketing, 15 years with IBM new product development...), CEO of a software firm, etc. but it all began with my BA of Archaeology..always happy to talk about technology from the Atlatl to WATSON!))

 

Humans are subject to Evolution, we survive at the pleasure of the biosphere, but robots must be 

built, redesigned, and "improved"  

What does improved mean to a robot?

By what means will Robots decide what their evolution ought to be?

They are only here to serve, even as they may be dangerous from all sorts of viewpoints.

Firstly they can be immensely powerful (runaway nuclear war command computers anyone?) and couldn't care less about what damage they may do.  

But, think about a car, out of control, we already live in a world where technology is out to get us!

BTW, no robot would be miffed that humans shoot the messenger.  

That datum could be part of it's laws of human behavior, the robot would only find it "interesting" if the human did NOT shoot the messenger, which is SO NON-NOTEWORTHY as to be ignored, by both robots and humans.  

If the messenger does get shot, that's as expected and even less noteworthy!

Robots don't know squat about what's right/wrong or all the other ways our chemistry and culture are expressed.

I would think a world of robots would be at grave risk as a "monoculture".

Think about WHY humans have personalities in the first place and perhaps you'll see what I mean...

Re: [atheists-614] Supreme Court rules to anti-gay protestors at military funerals

I'll bet anything Westboro gets money like Paris Hilton, by being famous for being famous.  

It must be "fund raisin' time in Dixie" whenever they make the national news.

 

I was thinkin'...in order to achieve any chance at a retirement, I ought to fling atheist slurs at funerals so fellow atheists would be motivated to fling money at me!

(I wrote a generally appalling scenario, and realized upon reflection I am too PC to include same in an open forum!)...

1. Unlike Westboro, let's just see how long I'll stay out of jail.

2. Of course, it might be an "early retirement" since I'd be dead as soon as the pall bearers get back to the guns in their cars.

3. But, I'm all about making a point. 

(I'm looking for a job at the Onion, anyone know anyone who knows anyone?)

Okay, what's really disturbing is the length our judicial system will go to defend their non-profit status.

"It's their belief.  Send in money, cure grammy's cancer.".  whoa. 

Doesn't pass the sniff test.

Over 20,000 separate sects of Christianity, always fascinating what gets their rocks off.

(That's weird, I suppose the TRUTH isn't as easy to determine as some might wish.)

Oh, Me of Little Faith - Frish

On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 7:31 PM, :

Wow that's really messed up. A similar story about Christian parents wanting to adopt in England had the opposite result due to their homophobic ideals.

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/03/02/melanesian-frog-worship/

----------------------------------------
Breaking News Alert: Supreme Court rules for military funeral protesters
March 2, 2011 10:23:17 AM
----------------------------------------

The Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment protects fundamentalist church members who mount attention-getting, anti-gay protests outside military funerals.

The court voted 8-1 Wednesday in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan. The decision upheld an appeals court ruling that threw out a $5 million judgment to the father of a dead Marine who sued church members after they picketed his son's funeral.


http://link.email.washingtonpost.com/r/7CWL7Z/8A4XJA/WTFR92/6R89OH/WXLB9/ZH/h

For more information, visit washingtonpost.com

 

tax the rich, not because they are richer

Tax those who get the benefits of taxes.

LIke Rule of Law that keeps their books safe and their families

Like Roads that work so their goods can flow

Like Police and Prisons to keep them down

Like schools to pour out employees and soldiers

Like contracts for planes and bombs and mercenaries and etc.

If they are making 90% of the income and taxed 80% of the taxes, where is the fairness in that?
FIll in the blank on the percentage, but you get the idea, it's not anything to do with the money they have managed to keep thanks to Bush et al.

Our entire systems of economics, education, transportation, manufacturing, etc. are in place to make the rich even richer.

That is why they ought to pay for the privilege!

Those same rich people own the debt and get paid tax payer money tax free for owning the debt that made them rich in the first place.

Follow the money.

--
FRISH