It stands for "Compact Low-Emission Vehicle for Urban Transport:"

The prototype, a skeletal speedster which had safety netting in place of body panels, exhibited the general design and technology of the vehicle rather than its actual, finished appearance.

It has the compactness of a motorcycle but the safety of a car, and cornering is smoothed by a tilting technology developed by mechanical engineering students Matt Barker, 29, Ben Drew, 27 and their instructors.

I've been wondering for some time why somebody doesn't build a car-like frame around a motorcycle. Motorcycles get great gas mileage, but they tend to be invisible to some of the less...attentive drivers out there. This would be as visible as any small car and it gets 108 miles to the gallon.

Who needs a hybrid?

Posted by Phil Bowermaster at 08:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

I was only home one full day last week, Saturday, giving me seven days on the road over a period of eight. As I have noted previously, business travel can be particularly challenging for the weight loss program. So I was very pleased to see no change in my weight with yesterday's weigh-in, meaning that I have maintained my overal loss of 43 pounds.

On the subject of caloric restriction, a topic raised in last week's entry, reader ktistecmmachine made the following very interesting comment:

What about the quality of life associated with CRON. I know it's possible that those few extra years gained could last you through until the next big break, but don't you think that by eating less food, your performance in life and what you can take out of it will be less than what you would get otherwise, despite the extra linear time?

I think I'll have to file that under "crossing that bridge when I come to it." So far, the moderate reduction in calories has been overwhelmingly beneficial where quality of life is concerned. I have more energy, I look better, my blood pressure is down, etc. Obviously, there is a point where these kinds of returns begin to diminish. Otherwise, everybody would just give up eating altogether and live in optimum health.

If and when I start to see energy levels going down rather than up, I'll have a choice to make. But at this point, I can only say that I look forward to having to make that eventual, difficult choice.

It's a New Phil, Week 1

It's a New Phil, Week 2

It's a New Phil, Week 3

It's a New Phil, Week 4

It's a New Phil, Week 5

It's a New Phil, Week 6

It's a New Phil, Week 7

It's a New Phil, Week 8

It's a New Phil, Week 9

It's a New Phil, Week 10

It's a New Phil, Week 11

It's a New Phil, Week 12

It's a New Phil, week 13

It's a New Phil, Week 14

It's a New Phil, Week 15

It's a New Phil, Week 16

Posted by Phil Bowermaster at 10:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Dispatches from a rapidly changing, rapidly improving world

#29 04/28/06

We're a bit overdue on getting this edition out. But that's what you've got to love about good news -- it always arrives at the right time.

Today's Good Stuff:

Quote of the Day Hybrid 2.0 The Bug Eyes  Return of the Ibis Flying Carpet Star Wars The Future and its Friends

Quote of the Day

Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering.

-- Buckminster Fuller

Item 1
Not Your Father's Old Hybrid-Mobile

GM, DaimlerChrysler and the BMW Group have developed a flexible hybrid and four gear system that will challenge the current hybrids from Toyota, Honda and others.

The new technology, which all three manufacturers will integrate into multiple vehicles starting next year, can optimize the combination of the electric motor and ICE for low and high speeds as well as for towing.

The companies say this will enable greater fuel efficiency and power than the current of generation of hybrids, which have similar fuel efficiency ratings for city and highway travel. The trio will reduce the cost of introducing the technology by sharing components and suppliers.

If the technology works as labeled, this could be "the empire strikes back" at the Japanese automakers. Hopefully hybrid diesels will be in the mix, meaning we could see 70 mpg cars.

The good news:

Well, improvements in hybrid technology can only be a good thing. And you have to love this idea of the US and Japan getting into a "war" over who can squeeze the most MPG out of a hybrid vehicle!

Item 2
Scientists Finally Make Something Useful

It's about time::

LOS ANGELES, April 27 (Xinhua)-- Scientists at the University of California, Berkeley, said on Thursday that they have created anew mechanical eye, which looks and works like an insect's eye.

The eye's many lenses and curved shape give it a wide field of view, as well as super-fast motion detection and image recognition, the researchers reported in the April 28 issue of the journal Science.

Minute cameras and motion sensors with these types of lenses could have medical, industrial and military applications, according to the researchers.

The good news:

An artificial insect eye will have tons of applications, especially in conjunction with very small robots that will probably emulate insect flying. In the near future, we'll probably all take a swarm with us wherever we go.

On the other hand:

Not everybody thinks the whole swarm thing is necessarily a good idea.

But that's okay:

Bug-eyed flying robots are an important step along the way towards utility fog. Everyone should be able to agree that we have to have that.

Item 3
A Rare Bird

PHNOM PENH, Cambodia - A flock of one of the world's most endangered birds — the white-shouldered ibis — has been discovered in a remote province in northeast Cambodia, a conservationist said Monday.

A flock of between 20 and 30 white-shouldered ibis, a critically endangered species with only 250 existing in the wild, was found in a protected wetland in Stung Treng province, said ecological adviser Kong Kimsreng of the Mekong Wetland Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use project.

The Good News:

Unless you've got some kind of personal problem with the white-shouldered ibis, this one pretty much speaks for itself.

Item 4
I've Got Some Good News, and I've Got Some Dumb News

First things first, the good news:

A GIANT flexible solar panel that is unfurled into space like a carpet could one day make long-haul space flight possible without using nuclear propulsion. Space scientist Rudolf Meyer at the University of California, Los Angeles, has designed a "flying carpet" formed of a solar-electric membrane. The membrane would supply power to an array of ion engines, in which xenon ions are attracted to a high-voltage grid and pushed out of a nozzle.

So far so good. Sounds like a pretty neat idea.

And now the dumb news:

The proposed design will require significant advances in solar panel technology before it becomes a reality. If successful, it could provide an alternative to nuclear-powered spacecraft such as NASA's planned Prometheus mission to Jupiter and its moons. Nuclear power is considered undesirable because an accident, or the dumping of crippled or spent spacecraft, would pollute interplanetary space with radioactive material.

Er, right. Well, we certainly would want to introduce any dangerous radiation into the otherwise pristine environment of outer space, now would we?

Item 5
Fighting Fire with Fire

As we reported just yesterday on the blog, this might actually work:

It sounds like a Hollywood blockbuster. A potentially deadly asteroid is heading for Earth, and scientists mount a mission to intercept it – using another asteroid. But that is exactly what two French researchers propose in a plan to capture and "park" a small asteroid near the Earth for just such emergencies.

Good News:

Not only will we be saved from a doomsday scenario; our friend Michael Anissimov reports that a captured asteroid would probably yield trillions of dollars -- yes, that's trillions with a t -- in natural resources. Nice!

Item 6

Consistently Inspirational

Earlier this week, Virginia Postrel provided an update on how her friend Sally Satel is doing in her recovery from kidney transplant surgery.

Virginia has been a major influence and a consistent source of inspiration for us at The Speculist. Her books The Future and Its Enemies and The Substance of Style have important things to say about how the world is changing, who is driving those changes, and what the emerging world might look like. Her ideas have been featured in virtually every edition of the Carnival of Tomorrow that we have hosted. Plus, we just end up linking and/or referring to her quite a bit. (Here's an example. Here's another. Here's yet another. Here's one more.)

What we like best about Virginia is that she is the genuine article. Let's face it -- everybody wants to "make a better world." But to what lengths are most of us willing to go? Are we ready to put our money where our mouths are? How about something more precious than money?

The good news:

Unless people like Leon Kass get their way, someday patients with failing kidneys will be able to get made-to-order replacements that are exact genetic matches, either through therapeutic cloning or some now-unknown future technology. Now, however, if your kidneys stop working, you have three options: die, go on dialysis (regularly described as "living hell" by dialysis patients and their loved ones), or find a donor kidney. And donor kidneys are in short supply, made shorter by legal restrictions and social taboos.

Last fall, my friend Sally Satel wrote about the issue in general and her own search for a kidney donor. Between the time she wrote the article and the time it appeared in the NYT, I heard about her situation and volunteered as a donor. Our tissues turned out to be unusually compatible for nonrelatives and, when her Internet donor dropped out, I moved from backup to actual donor. We have our surgeries tomorrow morning.

As surgeries go, the procedure is safe and straightforward--far more so than people think. A donor can live a completely normal life with one kidney. The recipientis not so lucky, since a foreign organ requires a lifetime of immunosuppressant drugs. But that's a lot better than the alternative.

Updates on the successful procedure can be found here and here.

Meanwhile, here's the latest on efforts to produce organs artificially in the lab. We're closing in on it.

It would be so easy for those of us who believe that a radically different future is on the way to use that as some kind of excuse for inaction (or "delayed" action) in the here and now. Not Viriginia Postrel. In coming to the aid of her friend, she affirms those qualities that we need most both in today's world and in the world that's coming -- friendship, compassion, and courage.

Virginia, we salute you.

Better All The Time is compiled by Phil Bowermaster, Stephen Gordon, and Michael Sargent.

Live to see it!

Posted by Phil Bowermaster at 05:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Vernor Vinge says that's not the relevant question. The question is what happens next. Of course, we all knew that. But nobody can talk the Singularity quite like the guy who named it.

Excellent interview via the latest Glenn and Helen Show.

Lots of great stuff, but my favorite part would have to be Dr. Helen on the subject of virtual sex. Let's just say she's skeptical.

Check it out.

Posted by Phil Bowermaster at 08:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

This might actually work:

It sounds like a Hollywood blockbuster. A potentially deadly asteroid is heading for Earth, and scientists mount a mission to intercept it – using another asteroid. But that is exactly what two French researchers propose in a plan to capture and "park" a small asteroid near the Earth for just such emergencies.

But my immediate response is this: if we could divert the course of an asteroid such that we could capture and park it, wouldn't we be able to do something similar with a threatening one? Just send it along its way, perhaps?

Posted by Phil Bowermaster at 09:14 AM | Permalink | Comments (5)

High gas prices are the problem. Black holes are the unlikely ultimate answer:

A new study finds that the supermassive black holes at the hearts of some galaxies are the most fuel efficient engines in the universe.

"If you could make a car engine that was as efficient as one of these black holes, you could get about a billion miles out of a gallon of gas," said study team leader Steve Allen of the Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology at Stanford University. "In anyone's book, that would be pretty green."

Granted, we probably won't really be harnessing them to power automobiles. But they've got to be good for something: probably enormous engineering projects a century or two down the road that we can only vaguely conceptualize at this point.

The article goes on to make the rather offbeat point that black holes are also "green" in the role they play in preventing the galacgtic version of urban sprawl -- by basically sucking everything in the vicinity in and annihilating it all.

Er, okay. Pretty handy, huh?

UPDATE: Meanwhile, here's the low-down on some less exotic energy alternatives.

Posted by Phil Bowermaster at 07:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

1. Flying Cars

2. Jet Packs

3. This Thing:

The Aeroscraft is a heavier-than-air vehicle currently in development for use in the near future -- a prototype should be finished by 2010. It will be able to haul massive amounts of cargo and transport hundreds of passengers in luxury with quiet, electric engines. It will also be able to take off and land without an airstrip. The Aeroscraft is sort of a hybrid -- it carries helium, like a blimp, but its shape provides lift, like an airplane.

I'm telling you, we need more ships in the sky. If you're going to travel with a group, it should be a graceful and elegant experience. If you just need to get from point A to point B as quickly as possible, that's what items 1 and 2 are for.

Posted by Phil Bowermaster at 07:34 AM | Permalink | Comments (5)

I think this mobile office of the future will probably have some use, but perhaps not the use that the designers intend. As a moderate-to-frequent business traveler, I haven't observed the lack of office space to be much of an issue. And where it is an issue, the lack of parking space is going to be an even bigger problem (which the article does acknowledge to an extent.)

Still, something like this might have an application for construction sites or managing emergency relief efforts. Also, the military might have some use for it. In other words, it might be a solution for those who are already charged with setting up temporary, mobile office locations.

But for the business world? I don't know. It seems to me that hotel rooms solve the part of the problem that telecommuting doesn't.

Posted by Phil Bowermaster at 07:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In the case of an interspecies smack-down between human beings and lab-rats, who do you think would win? You might say the answer is obvious, but let's look at this for a moment.

What have we got going for us? Opposable thumbs, big brains, civilization/technology/control firmly in place. The lab rats are ours to toy with (poor things.) They don't stand a chance.

Or do they?

The one thing they would appear to have going for them is a lack of regulatory prohibitions concerning their advancement. For a lot of pretty sound reasons (along with a lot of Luddite/buzzkill reasons), you can't just go out and build Human Being 2.0. But there's little if anything stopping somebody from building Lab Rat 2.0, 3.0, 9i, Lab Rat 2009 Mega-upgrade, etc. The lab rats might go blasting right past us. Then it's their show.

Could it happen? Well, it seems unlikely. But people are talking about it nonetheless. Maybe as a precaution, we ought to give a thought as to how we can make treatment of lab animals as humane as possible. We should probably be doing that, anyway. But, you know, if the shoe might one day be on the other foot...

Posted by Phil Bowermaster at 12:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I mean it. A lot. More than you'd think.

Michael Anissimov has the details.

Posted by Phil Bowermaster at 12:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

On the road with a business trip the past couple of days, I missed this news story:

(Ranger, Ga.-AP, April 20, 2006) - Legendary test pilot Scott Crossfield, the first person to fly at twice the speed of sound, was found dead Thursday in the wreckage of a single-engine plane in the mountains of northern Georgia, his son-in-law said.

Searchers with the Civil Air Patrol and others discovered the wreckage of the plane Thursday afternoon but didn't immediately identify the body inside.

Crossfield was the Lance Armstrong of rocket planes. If the Air Force had been given the space franchise instead of NASA (or rather, if they had been allowed to keep it) he would have been the first man in space, beating Yuri Gagarin by about a year.

So long, Scott. And thanks.

Posted by Phil Bowermaster at 11:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Down two more pounds this week to 254, bringing me to a total weight loss of 43 pounds! Met with the doctor for my bi-monthly checkup. He is pleased with the progress, but still concerned that I may be losing too fast.

Of course, from where I sit, it feels like this thing is taking way too long. But the doc wants me to take a couple or three years to arrive at my goal weight. His thinking is that the longer it takes to come off, the more permanent the change is. I can see where this makes sense physycologically. And I know that physiologically, not permitting my body to go into starvation mode is important for maintaining (and possibly even building) lean body mass while avoiding rapid weight-gain should my daily caloric intake increase along the way -- which it shouldn't, at least not dramatically.

If anything, my daily calories will only continue to go down (as I originally noted here.) I'm still big enough that I can lose weight on about 2000 - 2200 calories per day. When I'm another 40 pounds lighter, I will probably have to drop that somewhat in order to keep losing.

In the end, I may end up practicing something not unlike the healthy life extension technique known as calorie restriction:

A calorie restriction diet aims to reduce your intake of calories to a level 20-40% lower than is typical, while still obtaining all the necessary nutrients and vitamins. CR is also known as CRON, for "calorie restriction with optimal nutrition." Mild CR may be as easy as adopting a much healthier diet, taking a few supplements and not eating snacks.

Looks like I'm already doing mild CR. According to the BMR calculation site I've used in the past, if I weigh 180 pounds when I'm 45 years old (which still has me losing weight faster than the doctor wants, but I think I'm just going to have to keep disappointing him in this regard) I'll need about 1800 calories per day to keep myself at that constant weight. Adopting a more rigorous CR strategy at that point would mean cutting my intake down to 1000 - 1500 calories per day. That would be pretty intense. Of course, at that point, I would start to lose weight again, even though 180 is about the least I can imagine myself weighing.

I'm pretty sure that some of what I'm currently carrying around is muscle, and I would hate to lose that. On the other hand, I don't mind the idea of living longer. Not one little bit.

Stay tuned...

It's a New Phil, Week 1

It's a New Phil, Week 2

It's a New Phil, Week 3

It's a New Phil, Week 4

It's a New Phil, Week 5

It's a New Phil, Week 6

It's a New Phil, Week 7

It's a New Phil, Week 8

It's a New Phil, Week 9

It's a New Phil, Week 10

It's a New Phil, Week 11

It's a New Phil, Week 12

It's a New Phil, week 13

It's a New Phil, Week 14

It's a New Phil, Week 15

Posted by Phil Bowermaster at 07:58 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Just got a nice message from Peter St. Andre' about our last Fast Forward podcast:

I couldn't agree more. Although episode ten was our longest podcast to date, Phil and I were left with the impression that we had barely scratched the surface.

We'll definitely want to have James C. Bennett back on the show in the future.

Peter St. Andre' blogs at "one small voice."

Questions, comments?

(318) 775-0127

Normal long distance charges apply. You can reach the same number (and avoid long distance charges) by using Skype:

All calls are recorded for possible use in a podcast or audio blog entry.

Posted by Stephen Gordon at 04:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

...at least it's lawyers have.

Should online journalists receive the same rights as traditional reporters?

Apple claims they should not. Its lawyers say in court documents that Web scribes are not "legitimate members of the press" when they reveal details about forthcoming products that the company would prefer to keep confidential.

Don't let the last "when they reveal" part confuse you. Apple is arguing that bloggers are not "legitimate members of the press" and therefore should not be given the same protections as "legitimate members."

This is deeply uncool for the company that mocked the rest of the computer industry back in 1984.

An auditorium full of spiritless drones watches as "Big Brother" (IBM) prattles on about the anniversary of the "Information Purification Directives" on a gigantic television screen. Suddenly, from the back of the hall, a blonde woman in shorts and a headband comes running toward the screen, hurls a slow-motion sledgehammer (the new Mac) and shatters it. "On Jan. 24, Apple Computer will introduce Macintosh," the voice over says. "And you'll see why 1984 won't be like "1984."

In other news General Motors has announced that noncommercial civilian drivers are not legitimate users of the Interstate system.

If Apple felt that this position was necessary to win their case, they should have dropped the case. They've thrown the sledgehammer out with the bathwater.

Posted by Stephen Gordon at 08:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I take a break from blogging a few days and the Singularity happens.

John Koza Has Built an Invention Machine

Its creations earn patents, outperform humans, and will soon fly to space. All it needs now is a few worthy challenges.

It uses evolutionary algorithms to evolve solutions to the problems it's given.

Oh well, there's always the next major story - "Death rates plunge" or something.

Oh.

Posted by Stephen Gordon at 07:54 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Here's some really encouraging news:

The National Center for Health Statistics reports that "the age-adjusted death rate reached a record low 801.0 per 100,000 U.S. standard population. This value is 3.8 percent lower than the 2003 rate of 832.7."

Read the whole thing. Check out the graph showing the rapid decline in death; it's dropping faster than my weight.

Posted by Phil Bowermaster at 07:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

There were quite a few more responses to the Singularity Survey, so I've updated the results. Lots more "other" responses and fancy new graphics! Check it out.

Posted by Phil Bowermaster at 06:01 AM | Permalink

I'm an adherant, but only recreationally.

That is to say, I will acknowledge the fact that there's a world somewhere out there in which I, Phil Bowermaster, am captain of the USS Enterprise, but I don't let it change what I do day-to-day.

Not much, anyhow.

Via Reality Carnival.

Posted by Phil Bowermaster at 05:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Reader Eisendorn has an interesting idea:

i recommend a survey on how many speculist readers actually think that the world is in *some* way becomming a better place. or does ACO pertain only technology? not for me at least.

I like the idea of a survey on general attitudes about the future, although I think our Singularity Survey probably provided a good general impression. The overwhelming majority believe it will happen and most of them think it will either be a good thing or at least not a bad thing.

I'm not sure what ACO refers to, but accelerating change can't help but impact everything. Ultimately, every technological development is an improvement on some previous capability. As a species we are becoming generally more capable. Some of that capability is deliberately destructive (weapons technology), some inadvertantly so (carbon emissions) but the vast majority of technology comes into existence in order to enable somebody to do something better than he or she could before. Something useful.

Society can't help but be reshaped by this. Or, if you prefer, reshape itself around these capabilities. Speaking very broadly -- and recognizing that there are excruciatingly horrible exceptions -- I believe that the people of the world are becoming wealthier and more independent largely due to technological development. On a per capita basis, every year fewer are concerned with subsistence and more with improving the quality of their lives.

Ultimately, the State has a lot to say about how free or economically enriched an individual can be. Not all governments are thrilled at the idea of their citizens becoming empowered through technology or by any other means, and will do what they can to slow these effects. And then there are many who are ideologically opposed to technological progress on religious or environmental grounds. As things continue to progress, I think the former ideologies will simply become less important, while the latter will come to recognize that, in the end, technology will do more to protect and nurture the environment than it initially did to harm it.

How will it all end? Well, as several of our astute survey-takers pointed out, we can't really see what's on the other side of the Singularity. That's why it's called the Singularity. But if things don't go horribly wrong -- and of course they might very well go horribly wrong -- we may see a world that has a lot in common with Marx's "worker's paradise."

Poverty might be just one of several of the perennial foes of human happiness that is struck down once and for all. And we may all enjoy freedom that we can scarecly even imagine now.

But as James C. Bennett recently warned us: beware of utopian thinking. Even if everything I just described comes to pass, the world will still be a difficult, risky, place. "Happily ever after" only looks like that from this side of the rainbow.

Posted by Phil Bowermaster at 02:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

...that we're finally going to see the sequel that we've all been waiting for, or that cryonics is finally getting the serious attention it deserves.

Posted by Phil Bowermaster at 11:35 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I love stuff like this:

Archaeologists have begun digging for what they think might be a pyramid hidden beneath a hill in Bosnia.

According to anthropologists there is evidence of 7,000-year-old human settlements in the valley.

German archaeologists also recently found 24,000 Neolithic artefacts one metre below ground.

The world still has quite a few mysteries yet to give up, doesn't it?

Via Mondolithic Sketchbook

Posted by Phil Bowermaster at 10:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Via GeekPress, author Dan Simmons provides about as bleak an outline of the future as can be imagined, in short-story form.

I don't think this future will happen, primarily because I believe that there are other forces at work in the world besides political forces. But could it happen? As scenarios go, this one certainly passes any initial sniff-tests that one might wish to apply.

It could happen.

The answer to a scenario is another scenario. Simmons wants to warn us about dangers he sees as imminent. On this site, we have dedicated a good deal of time and verbiage to spinning out scenarios that speak to a very different kind of future, mapped against what we see as a relentless spiral of improvement. However, we have to concede that there are risks and choices to be made even if these scenarios turn out to be correct.

Ultimately, the future comes down to what choices lay before us, all of us -- the items that occupy our possibility space -- and the actions that we take to bring them about. Simmons' nightmare future is out there. A series of bad choices might just land us there. (Simmons asserts that most of the choices have already been made.) But that future is one of many, and I don't believe -- as the time-traveler from Simmons' story asserts -- that time is a river whose course can't be changed.

We are the river; the choices that we make and don't make. I'm pretty sure Dan Simmons must believe that, too, or why bother writing about any future?

Posted by Phil Bowermaster at 07:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (11)

But when I read this...

SPACE CENTER, Houston - NASA workers and flight crews on Wednesday observed the 25th anniversary of the first space shuttle flight with equal parts pride and optimism.

...all I can think is that it sounds like maybe a few parts are missing. Like for instance the fear part, the grief part, and the remorse over lost opportunities part.

Posted by Phil Bowermaster at 11:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

We need some gifted young PHPer to add some functionality to our future prediction website over on Ning. I want to combine the scenario entry function with a more elaborate rating function, one that allows comments -- like this. Numerical ratings are better than the thumbs-up/thumbs-down thing. And I want people to be able to comment on scenarios they like or think are totally whacked.

Ning will allow you to clone any other app, but I can't figure out how to make these two work together.

Anyone?

UPDATE: Sorry for the inadvertant ageism in the opening line. We'll talk to a gifted PHPer of any age!

Posted by Phil Bowermaster at 08:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Paul Hsieh outlines some refreshingly clear thinking on global warming:

IMHO, one would need to prove the following 6 points before one could make a scientific case that we should implement major changes in our laws with respect to CO2 emissions:

1) That global warming was actually happening.

2) That it was the result of human activity (not just normal cyclical natural variations).

3) That the degree of human-caused global warming would cause significant harmful consequences.

4) That these consequences could be reversed by taking certain actions.

5) That any such proposed action (such as the Kyoto treaty) would actually be effective in preventing/reversing the harm.

6) That any such proposed action wouldn't cause worse harm than it prevented (i.e., that the "cure" wouldn't be worse than the "disease").

So have these criteria been met in a way sufficient to justify the kinds of massive action generally called for? Paul says maybe not.

Posted by Phil Bowermaster at 12:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (11)

The Big Four-Oh

Down 3 more pounds this week to 256 pounds, crossing the 40 pound mark to give me a total weight loss of 41 pounds!

Speaking of the number 40, I also got some new pants with a 40-inch waist. Sure, that still sounds kind of big, but let's not even discuss what I was wearing before.

Okay, full disclosure -- a few 44s and some 46s. I have gone as big as 52 in the past, long before starting this program. That means my circumference is now an entire foot less than it once was. Amazing.

And of course, I've got another half-foot or so to go.

It's a New Phil, Week 1

It's a New Phil, Week 2

It's a New Phil, Week 3

It's a New Phil, Week 4

It's a New Phil, Week 5

It's a New Phil, Week 6

It's a New Phil, Week 7

It's a New Phil, Week 8

It's a New Phil, Week 9

It's a New Phil, Week 10

It's a New Phil, Week 11

It's a New Phil, Week 12

It's a New Phil, week 13

It's a New Phil, Week 14

Posted by Phil Bowermaster at 08:21 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age 18.

-Albert Einstein

Cycorp, Inc. is looking for help with their Cyc Knowledge Base project. Cyc is already the world's largest database of common sense information. Cycorp is hopeful that by interacting with larger groups of people Cyc's knowledge will quickly grow.

They've developed a game called FACTory where Cyc asks players questions. They can be multiple choice or true/false questions. Unike the typical true/false questions we all had back in school, a player has the option of answering, without penalty, "I don't know." This allows Cyc to move on without altering it's confidence on that question.

Players also have the option of stating that a question "doesn't make sense." This, presumably, would make Cyc question its grammar.

Cyc informs the players whether they've answered with the majority or not, whether they are the first to answer a question, and how the answer affects Cyc's confidence in certain facts. For example, I was asked:

"Does the act of Middle Eastern dances expresses freedom?"

Obviously Cyc needs work on its grammar, but I thought, "Yeah, if I was to break out my righteous chicken dance in downtown Riyadh I'd certainly be expressing something... er, let's go with freedom."

When I answered "True" Cyc informed me that it has received 16 answers to this question and that my answer agreed with 60%. It's now more confident that that "The act of Middle Easter dances expresses freedom."

Players have to login with a user name and a password. This makes me think that Cyc is not only evaluating facts, but also participants. I suppose that if a player were to constantly give Cyc bad info, it would eventually get wise to it, thereafter discounting what that player said. And, the opposite could be true. It could develop trust in certain people.

This is not unlike the suggestion I made to improve Ray Kurzweil's chatbot Ramona. Instead of a game that players log into I suggested that Ramona be distributed as a piece of networked software that could serve as an intelligent agent for its users while being trained and getting smarter.

[E]ach user could be a trainer. As she chats with her users about different subjects, different memes will develop and will compete within Ramona's distributed neural net according to evolutionary algorithms.

For example, one user could remark to Ramona that it was a pretty day outside and that the sky is blue. She would no doubt hear from other users that the sky is blue. She might also hear that the sky is grey or black or even red. Ramona would assign a level of confidence to both the information and the trainer as she is trained. As Ramona grows in sophistication she could learn that the sky is indeed blue, grey, black, and even sometimes red according to certain conditions - night or day, cloudy or clear.

Whenever she is in the process of learning a particular thing she will want to ask her users about it. When her confidence about a certain subject reaches a sufficiently high percentage she will consider that knowledge confirmed (more or less) and will seek to talk about other things that she is learning.

By assigning a level of confidence for each of her users Ramona will come to value the opinions of some trainers more than others.

Perhaps FACTory is the first step toward the intelligent web assistant I was contemplating. If you'd like to be a part of the formative years of what could be the world's first strong AI, play the game.

UPDATE: Apparently FACTory is just the latest effort by Cycorp to get the public interacting with Cyc. Doug Lenat of Cycorp said last year that opening Cyc up to the masses could lead to the Singularity in ten years.

Posted by Stephen Gordon at 05:24 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

As James C. Bennett pointed out in The Anglosphere Challenge and in his recent podcast interview with Phil and I, English speaking nations have been successful in large part because they are part of a "high trust" society. The Anglosphere civil society facilitates all sorts of interaction - commerce included.

The Internet has the power to extend and expand these interactions.

Over the last six months I've been shopping, off and on, for a cheap laptop computer for my children. I had hoped that those $100 laptops that are part of that charitable program for the third-world might turn into a for-profit venture here at home - maybe a Fischer-Price $200 kid-proof laptop.

I got tired of waiting on Fischer-Price or Mattel to deliver on that, so I went to eBay and started searching. As I shopped I kept adding features that would not be found on the $100 version. My requirements: wifi (preferably internal), be able to play the kid's DVDs, and use Windows XP. I wanted it to have a processor speed of a 1 Ghz or better, 256 MB ram or better, and a 20 GB harddrive or better.

I found a computer that fit those requirements (although the wifi is from a PCI card rather than internal) for $380 plus $30 shipping.

That might seem a bit much, but I was attracted also by the complete Windows XP Professional Office suite - (Word, Excel, etc.) which is typically $200. I know, this computer is supposed to be for the kids, but if I can get some work done on it too, why not?

Anyway, I bought that computer even though the seller was careful to say that there was no guarantee on the battery. Of course the battery was DOA. What a hassle! The cheap-laptop-for-the-kids idea was turning out not to be so cheap.

I shopped locally for a replacement battery and was not happy with the price. So again, I returned to eBay. As always I looked for a seller with a good feedback score who was selling at a competitive price. $60 got the battery delivered.

I was a bit surprised when the battery arrived. Not with the battery. It works fine and the kids are happily surfing the net all over house. But from the postmarks on the box the battery was obviously shipped directly from China. The battery itself was made in Malaysia.

Because of the Internet, and those companies like eBay that have worked out successful models for harnessing the Internet, people from all over the world can participate in "high trust" society. And, Army of Davids style, a single consumer can bypass distribution channels to have a battery made in Malaysia shipped directly from China.

My battery auction was set up by an American who had built up a good feedback score by finding people in Asia who would reliably drop-ship directly to the U.S. The seller wouldn't have had to be American. The feedback score was the key to my trust. This gives anybody anywhere, even outside of high trust societies, the opportunity to prove that they can be trusted.

High trust society is portable.

Update: This guy is building his own $100 laptop.

Posted by Stephen Gordon at 08:43 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Here's a fun site where you can write and rate quick descriptions of what will happen in the future. If you have an opinion about the future of anything, you're qualified.

But be warned, it's kind of addictive!

Oh, and keep it clean, kids.

As for what L2si stands for...those who know, know. Those who don't? Welcome to the Speculist!

Posted by Phil Bowermaster at 08:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Here are the results of our recent survey about the Technological Singularity. The breakdown on the big question was that 94% of you think the Singularity will occur in some form or another, while 6% think it won't. Several readers observed that there is something incongruous about making predictions about the Singularity -- it being the bound beyond which prediction is no longer possible. But that didn't slow too many of you down.

A few random observations:

The vast majority of participants believe that the Singularity is coming relatively soon. More than 60% believe that it will occur within the next 45 years; more than 80% believe that it will occur in the next 70 years.

There was a nice spread over all the different ways listed that the Singularity might start. About 57% believe that it will be intentional; about 43% believe that it will be an accident.

Nobody bit on "enslavement of the human race" to machines as a worst-case outcome. On the best-case side, there weren't many takers for "finding God" or "preserving the environment."

The most popular write-in for the best-case scenario was "all of the above."

More people voted for the Silent Singularity than for any other variety, good or bad.

One poetic participant wrote: "The purpose of thought is thought. The boon of the singularity is the singularity." He or she might be on to something there. When we talk about all the "benefits" of the Singularity, we are no doubt a bit like poor Tom Canty in The Prince and the Pauper -- hiding away the Great Seal of England because it made such a nifty nutcracker.

Finally, I must add a word of recognition for the Singularity skeptic who suggested that God will one day grab us by the lapels and ask us what kind of crack we were smoking. Thank you very much for participating.

Here, then, are the results in their entirety.

Question 2: If you answered no, thanks for your oh-so-brief-and-yet-valuable participation. If you answered yes, what kind of Singularity are we in for?

Happily Ever After: The world suddenly becomes an amazingly better place.

Rise of the Machines: Emerging intelligences destroy us, either intentionally or inadvertantly in the pursuit of their own goals.

Missed Flight: We aren't really affected by the new intelligences; they go their own way and leave us undisturbed (and unhelped.)

Silent Singularity: The world changes fundamentally, but once it happens it really doesn't seem like that big a deal.

Slow Roll: The Singularity does in fact take place, but takes a long time to kick in.

A) Happily Ever After
B) Rise of the Machines
C) Missed Flight
D) Silent Singularity
E) Slow Roll
F) Other

"Other" responses:

- Apocalypse or Apotheosis.

- Humans augment and combine intelligence with the machine intelligences. The result is a synergy of unknowable characteristics from here.

- #1 or #2, with 50% probability each

- This choices, while not-too-bad, are nonetheless oversimplified. Nanotech-&-robotics will surely come to pass. What is most important is to get the institutions and cultural consciousness right, as well as defensive technologies (such as active shields) right. Then we might just "live long & prosper..."

- Stephen here. I'm closest to "happily ever after" but I think we'll still have problems - problems that we don't have the imagination to contemplate or deal with now. Or, perhaps they are problems that we can contemplate (the end of the Universe for example) but we're too busy dealing with more immediate problems that, post-singularity, won't be problems anymore.

- I don't want to guess

- Strangeness: Egos probably don't apply. Local elements are optimized for doing theory, in a feedback cycle.

- Don't know, it's just too hard to predict.

- Rise of the Machines (inadvertant) or Happily Ever After, depending on who writes the AI. Rise of the Machines is the default.

- This is a edition on a previous survey, a few minutes ago.

---Currently, we can only know (with some degree of certainty) about the past. I submit that, according to your premise above, we are already experiencing upward rise of the singularity, . For the next question (3) the peak (or the crash) of the singularity could take a near infinite amount of time (i.e. in the meantime, we will likely see continuing acceleration of progress). For the time when a self-aware, greater than human intelligence drives progress, in question (3), I will vote 2025-2050.

- The reult of the singularity on humankind is inherently unknowable.

- I can't even guess how it will go. Isn't that the whole point of a Singularity? That said, I expect a mixed bag and unequal effects in different places.

- The singularity happens, then we realize that, even after all that, we've barly scratched the surface of our understanding of the universe.

- Mostly a Slow roll (over 40-50 years) with a majority experiencing a Silent effect and a minority, but significant, percentage opting for the Missed Flight varient.

- It's a split between Happily Ever After and Rise of the Machines, depending on whether or not we solve the Friendly AI problem.

- Hard takeoff, but they destroy us due to *our* own goals, not theirs. The weakest-link, everyone can end the world scenario.

- Your definitions of soft and hard takeoff are simply wrong. These have to do SOLELY with the speed of the change, not with goodness or badness outcomes.

- "When you pray for rain, be prepared for mud". Life will be improved, but there will be new unforseen problems.

A) Before 2025
B) 2025 - 2050
C) 2050 - 2075
D) 2075 - 2100
E) 2100 - 2125
F) After 2125

A) USA
B) Europe
C) China
D) Japan
E) India
F) Widely distributed -- no one location
G) Other

"Other" responses:

- Widely distributed but not evenly distributed. The USA will be at the center.

- S. Korea

- Hopefully USA, currently where I believe most worried rationalists are located

- Widely distributed, this follows the idea that it has started already. (i.e. the initial conditions are in place).

- This question is a red herring. The singularity will take place on planet earth and will emerge from a global civilzation. In other words it will happen everywhere at once.

- The Anglosphere

- As an internet site, collaborating developments worldwide.

A) Deliberately, primarily through AI research
B) Deliberately, primarily through nanotechnology research
C) Deliberately, primarily through biotech research
D) Unintended, with the Internet or some other system "waking up"
E) Unintended, via self-replicating robotics
F) Unintended, via bitoechnological developments
G) Other

"Other" responses:

- Silent Start implies there will be no observable "moment." It will be like TV in US households, at some point it becomes so completely ubiquitous nobody will think about it. Consider the number of people still using dial-up to access the internet. Now stop considering that continuously decreasing population. When the last dial-up user on the planet upgrades to broadband, will anyone notice?

- Unintended but predictable augmentation, ubiquitous computing/communication plus AI. Throw in MNT for faster takeoff.

- A Hybrid- Deliberately in that someone takes some explicit action in that direction, unintended in that the process gets "out of hand"

- Most likely singularity is human interconnection leading to massively parallel thought. AI is hard but biological intelligence is already here.

- Actually, it will be both the first two you list...

- Unintended, through a combination of all three of the above listed realms of study.

- unintended, through incremental biotech and nanotech human enhancement

- Combination of all "deliberately" choices.

- Sorry to keep going with "other." I think we will approach the Singularity deliberately primarily through AI research. But, I think that there will be significant surprises along the way. Surprises certainly for people that aren't aware of how fast technology is developing. I also think there will be some surprises for those who are working toward strong AI. It may "wake up" at a time that even the experts aren't expecting.

- Deliberately, through a combo of AI and nanotech (need the nanotech for faster computers).

- All of the above

- Unintended, with embedded systems not "waking up" so much as becoming autonomous through self-repair and upgrade systems that are better than anticipated. They may not "wake up" at all.

- Likely it has started. Mathematical functions, start with initial conditions, in this case, they occurred at t=0, a long time ago.

- Time to fix your spelling. It will be unintended via the GRIN confluence

- It has already started, a singularity has no definite beginning. The infinite peak of a mathematical singularity has a location in time.

- I think that it will be deliberate, but I don't think that one specific field will be at the forefront - I think that it will require all of them.

- The process leading to the singularity began with the big bang. The singularity is a natural phenomenon that results from the technological nature and evolution of the human species. All technologies are interconnected in feedback loops and all the above technologies will likely be involved.

- all of the above

- -synthesis of deliberate efforts on many fronts

- -synthesis of the products of deliberate effort on many fronts

- Combination of all of the above

- combination of the 3 deliberates

- Probably an unintended expression of a deliberate effort; AI research achieving independent conciousness in a biotech application or some similar varient.

- Deliberately, though likely unexpectedly, from a combination AI, biotech, and nanotech research.

- Delibeately through a combination of bionanoAI.

- As the accumulation of many specific techniques developed for commercial application, or as open-source projects. The tipping point will happen before anyone realizes how close we are.

A) Squandered Singularity opportunity
B) Assumption of power by a group wielding post-singularity technology
C) Enslavement of the human race to machines
D) Environmental cataclysm
E) End of civilization
F) Destruction of the human race
G) Other

"Other" responses:

- The "evolution" of mankind into something unrecognizable by the most imaginative sci-fi writers. Today's philosophers call this a bad thing. To the post-Singularity 'every man' there will be no memory or context of life ever being different. (ex: "the Matrix" with no chance of 'waking up' to some other reality good or bad)

- Economic starvation of the human race

- Total oppression by some government or equiv using high tech to attempt to keep its privileges. This leads to stagnation at best and is the one way we not reach full Singularity.

- People will look back on the present era as the last days of the pure human species, and a bit of an age of innocence.

- We have to guard against these scenarios, but I think we can circumvent them all.

- Rapid change will destablize everything. Super empowered individuals will cause civilization to go through some major pain. Countries will increasingly have the power to destroy each other and fear could cause (more) preemptive wars. Probably local civilization colapses, more failed states, maybe a partial world-wide colapse. It's going to get worse before it gets better.- Rapid change will destablize everything. Super empowered individuals will cause civilization to go through some major pain. Countries will increasingly have the power to destroy each other and fear could cause (more) preemptive wars. Probably local civilization colapses, more failed states, maybe a partial world-wide colapse. It's going to get worse before it gets better.

- obselence

- Our humanity will disappear as we slowly turn ourselves into machines... through implants etc.

- Some of the above things will happen. The machines will break things and kill people literally without a thought.

- Deletion of physical universe

- removel of human drive. We will vew our attempts at understanding the world as second rate, not worth doing

- I don't favor a negative scenario.

- Again (as in my previous response), These are the words of naysayers, ever since the beginning of records. Likely, they will likely continue to be wrong.

- These are the words of naysayers since the beginning of records. The naysayers will continue to be wrong.

- Accelerated technological power will grant fringe movements even greater destructive capability.

- n/a

- possibly

- Once again, I can't begin to guess. The worst thing that could happen is destruction of the human race. The best possible result is probably an end to history as we know it.

- I don't favor negativity.(!) :-)

- Social chaos related to emerging technology, changes of same to economy, use of same in terrorism/warfare, partial collapse due to all of the above. Some sort of independent intelligence or modified human intelligence emerges in the process.

A) The elimination of disease, aging, poverty
B) The end of war, violence, exploitation
C) Preservation of the environment
D) Achieving a new level of understanding the world
E) Achieving the next stage of evolution
F) Finding God
G) Development of viable flying car/ jet pack/ time travel technology
H) Other

"Other" responses:

- All of the above.

- Sorry if answers to 5,6,7 don't flow into easily managed statistics. Not sorry if my answers made someone think of something they had not previously considered.

- Potentially all of the above and much more.

- All of the above

- Existing problems AND existing utopian solutions will both look ridiculously short sighted, blinkered, small in scope. Like a mediaeval asking "does advanced materials tech mean better swords, advanced biotech mean better breeds of horse?". Well yes it does, but that isn't really the point anymore.

- All of the above

- Most of the above...

- We could eliminate disease, aging, poverty and resource base wars.

- All of the above. The elimination of disease, aging, poverty will be a relatively early developments after The Singularity - for that part of the world that is post-Singularity.

There will be war, no doubt, with those parts of the world that resist The Singularity. It will be much like the war being fought now, only more so.

- All of the above

- The purpose of thought is thought. The boon of the singularity is the singularity.

- The greatest boon cannot be easily predicted in advance.

- Most (but not all) of everything listed above, and likely much more (things that at present, we do not know that we either want or need). Nothing is certain, not even death or taxes. Best regards, -Mike Cooper

- By definition, we can't see it from here. Otherwise, it'snot a singularity!

- Most, but not all the above. Nothing is certain (absolute).

- Colonizing other worlds, eliminating the 'all our eggs in one basket' problem

- Break throughs in technology will allow us to approach problems and develop technologies in directions which are now completely unexpected.

- Jeez. Listen guys, I know what I want to have happen. But asking what I think will happen violates the whole idea of this thing. That said; I personally want to upload myself into a couple of million intersteller probes and explore the galaxy. The idea is to have a 'Jack' reunion somewhere with a nice view in a hundred million years where I can show vacation slide shows and tell stories to myself.

- Individual independence from externally imposed obligation to anothers interest.

- All of the above! Except for God and time travel, they're make-believe.

- All of the above

- "Finding God?" Are you kidding? We're going to create machines that will ultimately destroy the reace that God so lovingly created in His own image. The only way we'll find God is when he takes us by the lapels and asks us what kind of crack we were smoking.

- What, no "all of the above" :-)

Posted by Phil Bowermaster at 07:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (8)

Stanford University, May 13.

Look at this lineup. Speakers will include:

Nick Bostrom
Cory Doctorow
Eric Drexler
Tyler Emerson
Douglas Hofstadter
Steve Jurvetson
Ray Kurzweil
Max More
Christine Peterson
John Smart
Peter Thiel
Sebastian Thrun
Eliezer Yudkowsky

For more on these speakers, visit this page on the official Summit site.

Oh, and guess what. It's free.

Anybody interested in carpooling from Colorado? Let me know.

Posted by Phil Bowermaster at 06:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (4)

This episode Phil and Stephen had the opportunity to interview author and space entrepreneur James C. Bennett.

We had a lot to talk about:

• Are we living in the Chinese Century?

• The dangers of utopianism for Singularity enthusiasts.

• Why, instead of a utopia we'll probably "muddle through" to the Singularity as Joel Garreau suggested in his book, Radical Evolution.

  Here's the Speculist book review for Radical Evolution.

• How notions of trust between nations might figure into the immigration mess.

• The future of the Anglosphere in Space.

• Future projects that James C. Bennett is considering.

• This was the first show in which we were able to have outside callers. Our callers were the Speculist's own Kathy Hanson who also blogs at Beyond Words; Will Brown of The Warrior Class blog; and Andrew S - who frequently comments right here at The Speculist. Thanks to all callers for your thoughtful questions!

As always, we are showcasing up-and-coming musicians. This episode its "Judy's Got A Stickshift" from The Hot Rods.

You can subscribe for free to Fast Forward Radio by clicking here if you have iTunes.

Or subscribe with other podcast receiver programs by copying the following URL into the subscribe window:

http://stephent.audioblog.com/rss/fast_forward_radio.xml

Click here to download iTunes, or here to download other podcast receivers.

If you've missed past episodes of Fast Forward Radio, you can find them all at the Fast Forward Radio webpage.

Questions? Comments? Call us:

(318) 775-0127

Normal long distance charges apply. You can reach the same number (and avoid long distance charges) by using Skype:

Click here to download Skype for free.

Call us with any comments about this show, or if you have a question you'd like us to address in a future show. All calls are recorded for possible use in a podcast or audio blog entry.

Posted by Stephen Gordon at 01:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Based on their sad experience trying to sell all-electric vehicles, automobile manufacturers are convinced that the public will not buy cars that have to be plugged in. Unfortunately this has made hybrid manufacturers shy away from giving customers the opportunity to plug in hybrid vehicles.

So, third party companies are filling the gap. EnergyCS has just delivered the first retrofitted Toyota Prius that can be plugged in.

Los Angeles, March 31, 2006--EnergyCS, the Monrovia-based engineering firm, announced today that it has delivered the first Toyota Prius sedan retrofitted with plug-in hybrid technology to California's South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) for testing and evaluation... Using a normal house outlet, a nightly re-charge of about $1 worth of electricity cuts the Toyota Prius gasoline consumption in half for over 50 miles the follwing day.

The conversion involves more than simply adding a plug. New lithium-ion batteries allow the car to hold more electric power than what a driver could expect to harvest from braking.

The FAQ state that most drivers will get about 100 miles per gallon. But with mild acceleration and low speeds - 55 mph on the Freeway - 200mpg could be possible for the 50 - 60 mile boost range.

At low speeds this vehicle will operate all electric. At higher speeds the gasoline engine will engage, but electric power will continue to provide a boost.

You may find at 55mph that 1/4 of the power is coming from gasoline and 3/4 from electricity, but at 75mph the contribution may be 2/3rd gas and 1/3rd electric. Even though the electric contribution is the same in both cases, the gasoline contribution (and thus mpg) can be dramatically different.

The car becomes a normal hybrid after the 50-60 mile boost range. And its still a normal hybrid if you forgot to plug in the car the night before. There's no requirement to ever plug the vehicle in - just the opportunity.

Posted by Stephen Gordon at 06:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (5)

Here's a major development from this week that I never got around to writing anything about.

Patients receiving lab-grown organs.

WINSTON-SALEM, N.C. -- The first human recipients of laboratory-grown organs were reported today by Anthony Atala, M.D., director of the Institute for Regenerative Medicine at Wake Forest University School of Medicine. In The Lancet, Atala describes long-term success in children and teenagers who received bladders grown from their own cells.

“This is one small step in our ability to go forward in replacing damaged tissues and organs,” said Atala, who is now working to grow 20 different tissues and organs, including blood vessels and hearts, in the laboratory.

The engineered bladders were grown from the patients’ own cells, so there is no risk of rejection. Scientists hope that laboratory-grown organs can one day help solve the shortage of donated organs available for transplantation. Atala reported that the bladders showed improved function over time -- with some patients being followed for more than seven years.

Just yesterday, two friends of mine underwent kidney transplant surgery. My friend Kees has been blogging his long struggle with dialysis and search for a donor here. The site also tells about how our mutual friend David came to be that donor. This looks like a happy ending, with everyone doing well and the new kidney "taking."

But as Virginia Postrel commented a while back when preparing for kidney donor surgery, this is a procedure that may not be around that much longer. With bladders grown successfully, and hearts and other organs under development, I don't think it will be long before someone in Kees's position will have options not quite available today: like getting a new kidney without anyone having to give one up -- a kidney that won't require immune system suppressants to avoid rejection.

It's also satisfying to see something that I thought was very likely come to pass. Here we see individualized organ farming/harvesting without any stem cells/bastocysts/human beings with all the rights and privileges appertaining thereunto (whatever terms suits you) being harmed in the process.

No need for a tiresome argument at all. That's a good thing.

Posted by Phil Bowermaster at 10:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Holding steady at 259 pounds this week, still showing an overall loss of 38 pounds!

There has been a lot of blogosphere chatter about dieting the last couple of days, not all of it encouraging. Jane Galt linked to this piece which seems to pretty much say that if you try to lose weight, you're going to fail. And even if you do succeed somehow, it isn't going to help you much. In fact, losing the weight may just kill you quicker.

Well, ouch.

Bless her, Jane takes issue with these findings, at least anecdotally. Meanwhile, Dr. Helen chimes in with a slightly different take.

Count on our old buddy Reason to put everything into perspective. Putting the issues of diet and weight aside for a moment, having excess fat around your middle causes inflamation, which can kill you six different ways. At least.

Besides, I found that I rather liked actually fitting in my airline seat when I flew a couple weeks ago.

I'm sticking with this thing, and that's that.

It's a New Phil, Week 1

It's a New Phil, Week 2

It's a New Phil, Week 3

It's a New Phil, Week 4

It's a New Phil, Week 5

It's a New Phil, Week 6

It's a New Phil, Week 7

It's a New Phil, Week 8

It's a New Phil, Week 9

It's a New Phil, Week 10

It's a New Phil, Week 11

It's a New Phil, Week 12

It's a New Phil, week 13

Posted by Phil Bowermaster at 09:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

You know who you are. We aren't ready to publish full results yet, but the survey results are showing that between 90 and 95 percent of Speculist readers are of the opinion that -- one way or another -- the Singularity will happen.

The results are breaking down in some surprising ways (more on that later) but I guess it's no real surpise where most of you stand on that first question.

Posted by Phil Bowermaster at 10:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

With the popular response to our recent space survey, I thought it would be fun to do a new one, on the topic of the week -- the Singularity. So if you have an opinion about how/when/where/why the Singularity is going to occur (or not occur), please take a moment to set us straight on the matter.

Seven Questions About the Singularity

UPDATE: The definitions of hard and soft takeoff used in this survey are nonstandard or, as one kindly reader put it, "simply wrong." I shall attempt to update the survey without killing the current results. Yes, this will compromise our otherwise pristine, unassailable scientific methodology.

We'll never get funding at this rate!

LATER UPDATE: I replaced Hard and Soft Takeoff with made-up names of my own choosing. The results were not harmed. Looks like we're back on track for a major research grant. Checks can be made payable to P. Bowermaster.

Posted by Phil Bowermaster at 02:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Glenn Reynolds is all over it on TCS. I don't know whether Ken MacLeod is original in his comparison of the Singularity with the rapture -- that is to say, I've heard it several times before, but I don't know whether it is original to him -- but the correct term is "geek," not "nerd." FastForward Radio listeners know the difference between the two. Short explanation: being a nerd is a social condition, being a geek is a lifestyle choice. There's such a thing as geek chic; no such possibility exists for nerds.

Now that we've got that out of the way, the "rapture" part is a given. As we've noted before, the Singularity serves as a kind of secular eschatology. But there are serious questions as to how satisfying a happily ever after the Singularity can provide in and of itself. Glenn makes an interesting observation at the end of his piece:

In fact, rather than serving as a dismissal of the Singularity, it seems to me that the Singularity-as-religion argument cuts the other way. How do we know that people want the kinds of things that advanced technology is supposed to offer? Because they've been trying to get them through non-technological means for all of recorded history. And as history demonstrates, they've been willing to try awfully hard, and in a wide variety of ingenious ways: Jihadists are strapping on suicide bombs today, in the hope of attaining the kind of environment that virtual reality will deliver in 20 years.

That's true in more ways than one. Assuming full-immersion VR is widely available in 20 years, not only could the jihadist submerge himself in his sought-after paradise, with 72 virgins at the ready to meet his every demand, he could also choose a more earthly paradise -- a planet in which the caliphate is restored, Islam is triumphant, and other cultures and viewpoints simply do not exist. Likewise, VR could be the ultimate solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict. Why mess with the real thing, when you can occupy a land indistinguishable from it, only with everything set right? (And everybody gets to decide on his or her own terms precisely what it takes to set things right.)

Glenn observes:

But as Isaac Asimov has noted, the religion of science is distinguished by one chief characteristic: "that it works."

Well, yes and no. Science and technology deliver some of the physical goods that people have sought via religion. But if all the goods are delivered, and we find ourselves in some post-Singularity paradise of infinite abundance and indefinite lifespan, we'll still be human. That's the caution that James C. Bennett offers regarding utopias in The Anglosphere Challenege. And it's what Kurzweil is getting at in The Age of Spiritual Machines when a godlike being in a post-Singularity scenario notes that "life is still hard."

When we confront the mystery of our own existence -- or of all existence -- we encounter a singularity of a different sort. I think that it's this mystery that ultimately drives our religious impulse. VR simulations might distract us from that mystery -- just as TV and movies and, well, blogging do now -- but they will never provide an answer to it.

What are we? What are we supposed to be? How do we get to the ultimate, transcendant truth? Religion? Science?

Today, in our pre-Singularity world, those are good and valid questions. Tomorrow, in a post-Singularity world, they will almost certainly continue to be good and valid questions.

Posted by Phil Bowermaster at 08:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (10)

Here's a new version of the Space Survey results which should be viewable on all browsers.

A) Before 2025
B) 2025 - 2075
C) 2075 - 2150
D) After 2150
E) It will never happen

A) USA (government)
B) Peoples Republic of China
C) European Union
D) Russian Federation
E) Japan
F) Sweden
G) Combined Government Consortium
H) Private Developers
I) Other

"Other" responses:

- None
- Wacko religious cult
- International Space Station is already there
- India
- It will start as a government outpost, but be expanded to be a private permanent settlement.
- I haven't a clue. I think there will be several parties.
- private indutry in cooperation with world governments.
- Religious groups
- USA (Private Developers)

A) Low Earth Orbit
B) The Moon
C) Lunar Orbit
D) Mars
E) Asteroid Belt
F) Other

"Other" responses:

- Nowhere
- One of the Earth-Moon Lagrange points, or geosynchronous orbit.
- LaGrange Points
- L1
- Somewhere in high earth orbit or in a complex orbit in cis-lunar space.
- L1 through 5
- Permanent settlement means bearing children and that means Mars. The Moon will have mining camps before that, however.
- geostationary orbit
- Geosynchronous orbit if the way to space is a space elevator.

A) Reusable orbital spacecraft
B) Expendable rockets
C) Reusable/expendable hybrid (like the Space Shuttle)
D) Space Elevator
E) Sky Hook
F) Balloons
G) Other

"Other" responses:

- None
- Microwave thermal rockets
- Reusable/expendable hybrid not like the Space Shuttle
- Expendable rockets launching expendable vehicles. Later we'll go to hybrids. Almost completely reusable launch systems? I don't know. Mass drivers, space guns, or infra red lasers (ie, anything where a substantial boost or energy is provided from the ground) will eventually be supporting a lot of the cargo sent to space.I'm not a big fan of space elevators. The engineering just doesn't seem there to me. Sky hooks though are a serious possibility (I consider just after 2075 to be a good time, but space tethers of more modest length should be in use for a few decades prior to this).
- Advanced drive such as ani-gravity

A) Before 2025
B) 2025-2075
C) 2075-2150
D) After 2150
E) It will never happen

A) Before 2025
B) 2025-2075
C) 2075-2150
D) After 2150
E) It will never happen

A) Before 2025
B) 2025-2075
C) 2075-2150
D) After 2150
E) It will never happen

A) Before 2025
B) 2025-2075
C) 2075-2150
D) After 2150
E) It will never happen

A) Before 2025
B) 2025-2075
C) 2075-2150
D) After 2150
E) It will never happen

A) Rockets
B) Orion (re-purposed nuclear weapons)
C) Solar/Laser Sail
D) Other

"Other" responses:

- Daedalus Drive with antimater boost
- As yet undiscovered technology.
- None
- Something that is presently exotic (like the Heim drive).
- subspace
- 'Slung from a space elevator' sounds reasonable. A lunar one would be longer (from wikipedia) and thus travel faster at the terminal end. That could be quite a push.
- Not yet developed or concieved
- as yet undiscovered technology
- Nuclear Fusion
- daedalus
- Unknowable.
- Antimatter
- Mass driver.
- Fusion Torch
- Who knows?
- A hybrid system. Acceleration outbound is provided by a trajectory that takes advantage of gravity assists and laser powered sails.Decelleration is provided by ion drive powered by a thermoelectric power source. High impulse low but continuous thrust. Few moving parts. Some decelleration also accomplished by gravity assists. The destination will be well-mapped out by the time the starship arrives. It'll take centuries, but will be in the lifetime of whatever life is on board.Overall acceleration will be very modest with peak speeds up to 1% of the speed of light.
- While a solar sail will be the first propulsion system likely used by robotic craft, a human piloted craft probably wouldn't use it (too many holes after awhile I'm guessing). My prediction is that FTL travel will be possible by manipulating gravity.
- something else
- Physics not yet known
- Neutral particle beams that can be ionized and reacted against may be more efficient means of transferring momentum than using lasers for a laser sail. Rockets can't get things going fast enough without some ridiculous energy density to your matter, such as pure matter/anti-matter anhilation.
- Advanced anti-gravity or warp type drive. Anything else would be too slow.
- fusion torch
- anti-gravity warp drive - of course.
- Ion Rocket
- Technology using as-yet undiscovered principals of physics.
- We're just beginning to discover the connection betwenn the EM spectrum and gravity. I think within a hundred years we'll have a practical "gravity drive" of some sort, and that will take us to the stars.
- Good question
- generation ship
- Very low thrust, high specific impulse plasma or ion drive.
- Fusion, perhaps assisted in the collection of fuel with some varient of the Bussard Ramscoop
- Laser Sail/Fusion with Magsail to brake at destination star system.
- wormhole
- fusion/antimatter or new physics
- a propulsion technology not develloped yet (but not like warp or someting exotic like that, just something we haven't thought of seriously yet)
- Question is poorly formed; not amenable to an exclusive multiple-choice format; STL generation ship will use multiple means including all the above, while FTL ship's propulsion is probably post-Singularity and therefore unpredictable.
- When rich full sensory virtual reality becomes possible (2020-2030 according to Kurzweil) Telepresence in very accurate virtual environments may be very satisfying and more acceptable than long seperation from a humanity entering a technological singularity.
- Heim space drive!
- Ion Thruster
- nuclear
- Undiscovered Technology
- Warp Drive (albequere) Not the Star Trek one
- New technology will be needed to make flights to another solar system feasible. The new technology need not necessarily be propulsion. Radical life extension could increase the probability for Ark-like missions to colonize a new world. (Mostly likely, that kind of commitment would require finding an Earthlike world in a relatively near area.)
- Warp engines.

Posted by Phil Bowermaster at 07:29 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

This is intriguing:

Scientists at Glasgow University have won funding from the European Space Agency to examine the feasibility of building a slingshot that could fire supplies direct to the moon and retrieve cargo coming down the other way.

A rotating network of cables would be set up in low earth orbit into which material would be fired via conventional rocket launches.

These cables, powered by electrical panels and the earth's spin, would provide the extra impetus required to send the packages to the moon, where they would be collected by another slingshot and sent down to the surface.

The article would benefit tremendously from a diagram. I'm having a little diffculty picturing exactly how this would work.

I note that there is no mention of passengers. This is apparently a means of getting only cargo to the moon. Probably too many G's in that slinging action. But it's hard to say without more details.

Posted by Phil Bowermaster at 02:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

I think Lileks would have liked King Kong better if he had seen it on the big screen. I took my Dad to see it at the dollar cinema over the weekend. It was the second time for me.

I agree with most of the criticisms Lileks raises. Yes, there is no reason for a t-rex to abandon a huge haunch of meat in favor of a tiny morsel. And I noticed how quickly the night passed in Manhattan. Although, for that business about how long it takes to get from Times Square to the Empire State Building -- come on. Kong wandered the back alleys for a while, there. Maybe he even crossed over into Jersey -- like he did in the truly bad remake back in the 70's, only in reverse. Then he came back. You know, killed some time.

I would add some criticisms of my own. The first mate of the Venture is kind of tiresome and condescending whenever he lectures the kid from the streets.

"No, Jimmy, it's not an adventure story."

Er, right.

And not only do the dinosaur fights go on too long, but everybody would have died in that initial brontosaurus stampede. My Dad pointed that out while it was going on.

Even so, this isn't really about willing suspension of disbelief. It's about getting with the spirit of the thing. Sometimes that requires being in a big, crowded room with lots of people around (especially kids) and watching the spectacle unfold the way it was meant to. Anyhow, I liked it in spite of all those objections.

On the other hand, there's also the fact that Kong reminds me a lot of someone I love:

UPDATE: Rand Simberg is with Lileks on this one.

Posted by Phil Bowermaster at 11:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

This New Scientist article caught my attention. Apparently the diagnosis of ADHD and prescibing of Ritalin and related drugs to children and youths is nothing short of rampant -- more than 4 million kids nationwide. In an otherwise straightforward article, this bit of weasel-speak up front got my attention:

Just as worrying, large numbers of children who do have ADHD are going undiagnosed.

Seeing as how -- a few years ago -- all cases of ADHD went undiagnosed and yet we somehow managed to function as a society, I'm going to have to allow that I'm just a tad more concerned about the questionable drugging of millions of American kids than I am about the few bona fide ADHD cases which have somehow managed to slip between the cracks.

As grim as all this sounds, it may just be the tip of the iceberg. A long-time Speculist reader who wishes to remain anonymous has provided us with a chilling glimpse into social engineering by way of pharmaceuticals as practiced in his local school system. The endgame of this project appears to be a solution to The Boy Problem (as countered/deconstructed/fisked here.)

The letter is presented here in it's entirety:

What To Do With These Boys?

Since my wife and I have sons, the above title is a question we ask often. Don't take that wrong, we wouldn't trade parenthood for anything. We love these guys, but I have an admission: they just entertain the heck out of me. Who needs television with these kids running around? We've got our own full time comedy/drama going around the clock. They are also thoughtful and very smart. They are a joy.

I'm not so sure that everyone appreciates these comedians quite as much as their mother and I. Our experience with first grade in the public schools has been, to be charitable, mixed. When our oldest child, let's call him "Adam," was in kindergarten he did quite well. By the end of that year he was reading and counting. He was quite ready for the first grade. If only he had gotten a good first grade teacher.

The teacher he got was apparently of the opinion that if there is a problem, a boy is to blame. We saw early that Adam was not thriving in her class. We asked many times to have our son removed from that classroom. The school wouldn't hear of it.

At the end of that first grade year Adam was barely reading. He had to be forced to even try. Worse, he had learned to hate school. I decided that we as parents were partly to blame for this situation because we didn't push hard enough for Adam that year. It was a hard but valuable lesson for us.

We pulled Adam from that school and sent him to a private school. The tuition runs about the price of rent on a small apartment, but we are glad to pay it. Our reason for leaving was more than a single bad teacher. We understand that you will always encounter problems at any school. What chased us away was the complete disinterest of the school to address the problem at all. By pointing out a problem, we were treated as the problem.

Adam is now in the third grade and he's finally back on grade level. It took a year and a half for him to catch up. More importantly, he seems to be enjoying school again.

After that experience we felt that we couldn't trust our local public school with our children. But sending all four of them to private school (and then, hopefully, to college) looked prohibitive. So, for the next child we tried to go the magnet school route. We had our second son, let's call him "Bobby," tested for magnet. He past with an excellent test score.

Like his older brother Bobby did fine in kindergarten. The problem came once again in the first grade. I think Bobby may have gotten off on the wrong foot because he is talkative. And, let me be straightforward about him - he's a challenge everywhere he goes. We knew he was very smart and we suspected that his being smart might lead to problems in class. It seems that the top and bottom of the class always end up being the disruptions.

But his teacher pushed to have him tested for AD/HD. His mother and I knew that this was nonsense. The boy can sit and watch full length movies without moving if he's interested in it. He can play video games for hours and he can engage in elaborate imaginative games with his brothers. In short, he pays attention when he's interested.

We made an appointment with his doctor anyway. When my wife arrived at the doctor's office with Bobby, she was surprised to be given a permission form to allow the doctor to consult with the school about Bobby's possible AD/HD. Further, it would allow the doctor to share Bobby's entire medical records with the school. When my wife called me about this she and I agreed that under no circumstances was the school to be allowed to have Bobby's medical records. And, based on conversations with other parents at the school, we suspected that the school was systematically over-medicating boys. If that was the case they were probably experts at telling the doctor exactly what was required to have children put on meds. So they were not to be consulted by the doctor. We decided that beyond Bobby's shot records, the school had no business with his medicals.

The pediatrician stated that having the school involved was standard procedure, but he was supportive of our decision and stated that the school's involvement would not be necessary for him to make a diagnosis. After a lengthy session, the doctor stated that Bobby had no symptoms of AD/HD. Further, he said that Bobby was obviously very smart and that boredom might be the root of the conduct issue.

The school has a special program for gifted children called "Gateway." We thought that if we could get Bobby into that program that it might help the conduct issue. If he's being challenged for at least part of the school day, we thought, maybe it would help him deal with his normal class for the rest of the day.

Unfortunately his teacher refused to sponsor Bobby for Gateway because of his conduct grades. We saw this as a Catch-22 we had to break out of. We felt his poor conduct was the product of his giftedness - we couldn't let conduct be the reason he was kept out of the gifted program.

So we went behind her back. My wife began meeting with the administration insisting he be tested. On the third meeting she finally wore them down. They hated the idea of having him tested without a teacher-sponsor, but they also hated having to constantly deal with a pushy mother.

When they tested Bobby they were blown away. We were told by the Gateway administrator - a regional official independent of the school - that if any child needed Gateway it was Bobby. He was happy to get him.

Unfortunately this didn't help us with his teacher. By this time she was aggravated because we had refused to have the doctor consult with her about his AD/HD diagnosis. And, as if that wasn't enough, we had the audacity to get him in the Gateway program behind her back.

Big coincidence - about this time Bobby's conduct grades dropped so low that the school told us that he was in danger of "not having his contract renewed for the second grade." This would not be an expulsion exactly, but the effect would be the same.

So my wife and I scheduled a meeting with the school principle and Bobby's teacher. We asked whether they would consider moving Bobby to another class. As was the case in our local public school, the magnet school wouldn't think of moving a child to a different class. If the best interests of a child is the prime goal of a school, why is changing classes never permitted? Certainly this would be the right thing to do on occasion.

But the principle quickly moved the discussion to AD/HD. The principle and the teacher were obviously upset that the school was not consulted by the doctor. My wife and I informed them that it was our decision - not the doctor's - to exclude them and that neither we nor the doctor believed that Bobby had AD/HD. The principle actually suggested at that point that we should consider using another doctor. Any doctor that would agree with parents to exclude a school from the decision to medicate apparently wasn't a good doctor.

I am not a parent who thinks no child should be medicated for AD/HD. The disorder is real and medication often helps these children. But I also believe that some schools are bullying parents into placing children that don't have the disorder on medication. I'm sure that medicated children - especially boys - are easier to manage. But frankly I don't care what's easiest for the school. I want what's best for my son. Bobby is smart, and when challenged he gets excited about learning. I didn't want for him to lose interest in learning like Adam did for a time. And I didn't want him to be a pawn in a power war between the school and his parents.

The next day was the final straw. We learned that the teacher had been taking the word of Bobby's classmates for many of his conduct marks. She had begun giving him conduct marks about things she didn't witness. The tattling of any student - particularly girl students - was sufficient to give Bobby a negative conduct grade. From this we deduced that we no longer had a partner in that teacher. It seemed to us that she had decided that Bobby should not return to magnet school for the second grade.

That day was the last day Bobby attended that school. My wife and I agreed that even if Bobby had to be home-schooled, it would be preferable to continuing under the conditions that existed. We talked first to the private school where Adam is attending. They would discount tuition for a second child, but it was still going to be a challenge to pay for it.

It was then that the regional administrator of the Gateway program came to our aid. Because Bobby had tested into the program, Gateway had developed an IEP - an independent education plan - for him. Once accepted into the program, gifted children in this State have the right to attend the closest school - in or out of their district - that can provide for their special needs. Fortunately, our local school where we had the problems with Adam was not equipped to handle gifted children. Instead another school - a small neighborhood school just down the road - could take Bobby. He was back in school by the following week.

I'd like to say that Bobby's conduct has been perfect at his new school. Bobby has gotten in trouble a couple of times, but there is a significant difference at this new school. This school's conduct expectations of Bobby are reasonable for a normal first grade boy. He is not expected to be a miniature graduate student. Bobby senses this and is making an effort to meet their reasonable expectations. He's happy at the school and they seem happy to have him.

Each day Bobby spends an hour outside his regular first grade class for the Gateway program. In Gateway he is being given the freedom to see what he can do. Last week he pushed forward and completed the fifth grade math curriculum on computer. I suspect that he'll be doing high school math next year.

Bobby is a square peg to the round hole of standard first grade. It might have been possible to make him fit with drugs, but at what cost to him? I'm glad we'll never know. Instead, he's getting what he needs to stay interested in learning. And, for him, it didn't have to come from a pharmacist.

Posted by Phil Bowermaster at 09:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Sure, they sound kind of icky...but potentially useful nonetheless:

THE propulsion system used by slime-squirting bacteria could teach rocket scientists and nano-engineers some new tricks.

Myxobacteria are micrometre-scale filament-shaped organisms that glide along surfaces, leaving a trail of slime in their wake. Biologists were convinced the bugs produced the slime as lubricant, but couldn't explain how they generated the force to move.

Now it turns out that the bacteria push themselves along by ejecting the slime from nozzles on their bodies. "They are little rockets," says Andrey Dobrynin, a polymer scientist at the University of Connecticut in Storrs.

Cool.

Posted by Phil Bowermaster at 10:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Down five pounds this week to 259, giving me a total weight loss to date of 38 pounds!

I lost 13 pounds in March, with 13 now also being my average weight loss per month* since beginning this in January. I lost 19 pounds in January and 6 in February. Obviously, I'll need a few more data points before I know how representative that 13 pound weight loss really is. I do expect to see the rate to slow somewhat. Even if the average falls to 10, I'll be where I need to be by the end of the year.

* Well, okay -- 12 and some change.

It's a New Phil, Week 1

It's a New Phil, Week 2

It's a New Phil, Week 3

It's a New Phil, Week 4

It's a New Phil, Week 5

It's a New Phil, Week 6

It's a New Phil, Week 7

It's a New Phil, Week 8

It's a New Phil, Week 9

It's a New Phil, Week 10

It's a New Phil, Week 11

It's a New Phil, Week 12

Posted by Phil Bowermaster at 11:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)