Category Archives: Web Article Review

RNA interference

Monsanto is trying to use genetic technology to kill honeybee pests.

RNA can also “silence” specific genes, preventing an organism from using them to make proteins. In 1998 scientists discovered that they could engineer stretches of double-stranded RNA to do the same thing. As a lab technique, RNA interference—or RNAi—turned out to be useful for learning about genes by turning them off. It also showed promise in fighting viruses, cancers, and even harmful pests and parasites. The researchers at the seminar were talking about using RNAi to prevent mosquitoes from spreading malaria, but that gave Hayes another idea. “I thought, could this be adapted to honeybee predator control?” In other words: to kill mites…

Traditional pesticides act like chemical backhoes, killing their targets (beetles, weeds, viruses) but harming good things along the way (beneficial insects, birds, fish, humans). RNAi, in theory, works instead like a set of tweezers, plucking its victims with exquisite specificity by clicking into sequences of genetic code unique to that organism. “If you could design an ideal pesticide, this is the stuff you’re looking for,” says Pamela Bachman, a toxicologist at Monsanto.

 

Syria as a proxy war

Jeffrey Sachs says the war in Syria has morphed into a proxy war between the U.S., Saudi Arabia and allies on one side, and Iran and Russia (and the Syrian government) on the other side. He also says the U.S. role is much larger than the public has been led to believe, and the media is not doing its job of asking questions.

the curtain gets lifted from time to time. In January, the New York Times finally reportedon a secret 2013 Presidential order to the CIA to arm Syrian rebels. As the account explained, Saudi Arabia provides substantial financing of the armaments, while the CIA, under Obama’s orders, provides organizational support and training…

Through occasional leaks, investigative reports, statements by other governments, and rare statements by US officials, we know that America is engaged in an active, ongoing, CIA-coordinated war both to overthrow Assad and to fight ISIS. America’s allies in the anti-Assad effort include Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, and other countries in the region. The US has spent billions of dollars on arms, training, special operations forces, air strikes, and logistical support for the rebel forces, including international mercenaries. American allies have spent billions of dollars more. The precise sums are not reported…

The stakes of this war are much higher and much more dangerous than America’s proxy warriors imagine. As the US has prosecuted its war against Assad, Russia has stepped up its military support to his government. In the US mainstream media, Russia’s behavior is an affront: how dare the Kremlin block the US from overthrowing the Syrian government? The result is a widening diplomatic clash with Russia, one that could escalate and lead – perhaps inadvertently – to the point of military conflict.

Obviously, the U.S. and Russia are massive nuclear powers. Iran may have nuclear weapons, and rumor has it Saudi Arabia has a nuclear arsenal ready to go in Pakistan. So in addition to the human tragedy unfolding, the risk of World War 3 appears to be a real one here.

possible alien signal

from KurzweilAI:

On May 15, 2015, Russian astronomers picked up a radio signal on the RATAN-600 radio telescope in Russia “in the direction of HD164595,” an international group of astronomers stated in a document* now being circulated through contact person Alexander Panov, according to Paul Gilster of Centauri Dreams, who blogged about the data on Saturday, August 27, 2016…

Power required for such a signal would be astronomical, he explains. If broadcast in all directions, the required power is 1020 watts (100 billion billion watts) — hundreds of times more energy than all the sunlight falling on Earth. If aimed at us, assuming an antenna the size of the 1000-foot Arecibo instrument, they would still need to transmit more than a trillion watts.

In addition, the signal was received at 11Ghz (2.7 cm wavelength), in a part of the radio spectrum used by the military, so the signal may be due to terrestrial radio-frequency interference, or to gravitational lensing from a more distant source.

Nixon and basic income

In 1969-70, Richard Nixon made an attempt to guarantee a basic income to all families in America.

Richard Nixon was not the most likely candidate to pursue the old utopian dream, but then history sometimes has a strange sense of humor. The same man who was forced to resign after the Watergate scandal in 1974 had been on the verge, in 1969, of enacting an unconditional income for all poor families. It would have been a massive step forward in the War on Poverty, guaranteeing a family of four $1,600 a year, equivalent to roughly $10,000 in 2016…

According to Nixon, this generation would do two things deemed impossible by earlier generations. Besides putting a man on the moon (which had happened the month before), they would also, finally, eradicate poverty.

A White House poll found 90% of all newspapers enthusiastically receptive to the plan to pay an unconditional income to all poor families. The Chicago Sun-Times called it “A Giant Leap Forward,” the Los Angeles Times “a bold new blueprint.” The National Council of Churches was in favor, and so were the labor unions and even the corporate sector. At the White House, a telegram arrived declaring, “Two upper middle class Republicans who will pay for the program say bravo.” Pundits were even going around quoting Victor Hugo – “Nothing is stronger than an idea whose time has come.”

It seemed that the time for a basic income had well and truly arrived.

“Welfare Plan Passes House […] a Battle Won in Crusade for Reform,” headlined The New York Times on April 16, 1970. With 243 votes for and 155 against, President Nixon’s Family Assistance Plan (FAP) was approved by an overwhelming majority. Most pundits expected the plan to pass the Senate, too, with a membership even more progressive than that of the House of Representatives. But in the Senate Finance Committee, doubts reared. “This bill represents the most extensive, expensive, and expansive welfare legislation ever handled,” one Republican senator said. Most vehemently opposed, however, were the Democrats. They felt the FAP didn’t go far enough, and pushed for an even higher basic income. After months of being batted back and forth between the Senate and the White House, the bill was finally canned.

In the following year, Nixon presented a slightly tweaked proposal to Congress. Once again, the bill was accepted by the House, now as part of a larger package of reforms. This time, 288 voted in favor, 132 against. In his 1971 State of the Union address, Nixon considered his plan to “place a floor under the income of every family with children in America” the most important item of legislation on his agenda.

But once again, the bill foundered in the Senate.

personal carbon trading

I heard “personal carbon allowances” mentioned recently, and hadn’t heard of it before, so I grabbed this from Wikipedia:

Personal carbon trading is the generic term for a number of proposed emissions trading schemes under which emissions credits would be allocated to adult individuals on a (broadly) equal per capita basis, within national carbon budgets.[1] Individuals then surrender these credits when buying fuel or electricity. Individuals wanting or needing to emit at a level above that permitted by their initial allocation would be able to purchase additional credits from those using less, creating a profit for those individuals who emit at a level below that permitted by their initial allocation.

Sounds good in principle, although I think a carbon-based sales tax would be simpler and more straightforward. This concept assumes that people have time and motivation to sit around, do research, make rational choices, and engage in transactions to maximize financial gain. Busy people balancing careers, families, and the minuscule leisure time left over don’t necessarily have time to do this. For this to work, I think it would have to be pretty automated. Maybe a future of automated, computer-controlled financial transactions and markets could pull this off.

Bokashi composting

Bokashi is a method that uses anaerobic fermentation to compost almost anything.

You can use the bokashi system to pre-process food waste that normally can’t go into your compost bin and worm farm so it can be used there after it is processed.

All types of food waste can be processed, including:

  • meat
  • seafood & fish
  • cooked food waste
  • cheese
  • dairy
  • bread
  • onions
  • citrus
  • garlic

Since fermentation is much faster than composting, the bokashi system can produce fermented material in one week, that breaks down quickly when dug into the soil. When in the ground, the fermented material breaks down into soil in 4-6 weeks. Ideally, from start to finish, you can turn raw kitchen scraps into soil that can be used for plants in 30-45 days.

more on taxi medallions

The value of a Philadelphia taxi medallion has plunged from a peak of $545,000 in July 2014 to $50,000 in March 2015. That’s a pretty shocking collapse in less than a year, and it’s pretty much all due to UberX.

Since coming to Philadelphia without regulatory approval in October 2014, Uber has pulled the safety net out from under taxi drivers and claimed their place in the city. In the Philadelphia metro area, Uber says, it now has more than 12,000 active drivers – who have taken a ride in the last 28 days – and more than half a million active riders who have used the app in the last three months. In July, Uber pledged $2.5 million to expand its service in the suburbs and subsidize surge pricing, those times when prices jump for passengers in high-demand areas. This came after SEPTA announced that a third of its Regional Rail cars would be off the tracks for the summer due to fatigue cracks in a beam and the need for emergency repairs.

For a while, the PPA tried to keep Uber at bay, refusing to legalize UberX, which allows drivers to use their own cars and personal insurance to shuttle passengers.

But in July, with the Democratic National Convention bringing in 50,000 visitors and SEPTA’s Regional Rail line in turmoil, the PPA conceded to Uber. It agreed to legalize UberX as long as the company paid $350,000 – rather than the millions in fines it had initially slapped on the company – when the state legislature comes back in session and passes regulatory legislation.

As a person who chooses to live without a car, Uber X has made my life a lot better. Taxis were an okay way to get around the busiest part of the city, and to get from the busy part of the city to the airport and back. But they were never a good way to get from a less busy part of the city back to the busy part. I got stranded many times in out-of-the-way places and/or in bad weather, when I would call for a taxi and be told by a surly dispatcher that none were available, or even after being dispatched they just never showed up. Add to that the payment hassles where you had to try to keep small change in your wallet because they often wouldn’t change a 20 and were unable or unwilling to take credit cards. Miscommunications and misunderstandings about where you wanted to go. With UberX, all of this is almost 100% solved.

Now, I will say that some taxi drivers are wonderful people. They work long hours under risky conditions. Many lift heavy luggage and are kind to children, the elderly and disabled. The problems I mention above are not the drivers’ fault for the most part. By limiting the supply of medallions, the government has produced an artificial shortage of transportation. There just weren’t enough taxis to go around, so they stayed in the busy areas where they had a better shot at making a profit and the underserved neighborhoods stayed underserved. The dispatching companies made sure it was hard on the drivers – they had to pay to lease a car for their shift, then fill it up with gas, then try to pick up enough fares to break even, and then enough to make a living. When they are honking at me or trying to run me over in a crosswalk, I try to remember that they are the victims of perverse incentives in a broken system.

So I really don’t feel too bad for the dispatching companies. They could have improved their service, or one of them could have invented UberX. But they didn’t, they just assumed nothing would ever change and they were creatively destroyed. I don’t feel too bad for the drivers who used to lease cars from the taxi companies, because they can just switch to Uber (at least until the cars start driving themselves in a couple years, I don’t think driving any vehicle is a good long-term career choice for any human at this point). I do feel sorry though for the independent driver who saved and borrowed to buy their own taxi medallion at a high price, only to find that it is now worthless and they are in debt. Although I dislike almost everything about the industry, there was an understanding that it was an industry regulated by law, and the rule of law is supposed to apply to everyone equally. I can understand some affected people feeling like the law suddenly is not being enforced evenly on all parties, and they are left holding the bag. It seems like they might have some legal recourse against the regulatory agency that chose not to enforce the law.

horizontal history

I like this post called “Horizontal History” on Wait But Why. The author takes a number of famous people from all over the world and plots their life spans side by side. It sounds simple, but it makes a point about things that were going on in parallel at various times that we tend to think of in isolation because that is how we studied them. I always thought it would be an interesting way to teach history to take a particular year or decade and look at who was alive and what was going on not just in one country or part of the world, but everywhere. You could take it one step further by picking places and times at random, and asking who was around and what they were doing, not just famous people but ordinary people. What were their lives like? What sources of information did that have about what was going on nearby and far away, and what did they think of these events? What did they eat and where did their food come from, what technologies did they use in their daily lives and what technologies were they aware of, what diseases did they have, what holidays did they celebrate, what work or other economic transactions did they engage in, what natural ecosystems did they interact with, what was their climate and weather like? You could ask the latter two questions even in the absence of humans. Start piecing this together for enough places and times, and we might start to have a more holistic understanding of history. We might understand how the past was different from the present, and that might in turn help inform our imagination about how the future will be different from the present.