I remember seeing an article that I thought sounded ridiculous until I read it The headline was something like "What We Can Learn from People Who Live in a Dump." It turned out these people found in the dump what they needed for shelter and cooking and the scrap they sold to earn an income. Their livelihood was recycling writ large. It was just like the train loads of scrap iron that become new steel or the discarded rock piles reprocessed to ferret out every bit of copper. In the same way countries with no lithium mines will have to learn to make new batteries out of lithium extracted from used items.
So, what wisdom can we extract from terrorists? They think about God far more than those who say, "I don't believe in God," and those who blithely assume God created each and every full blown plant, animal, and human.
In his book, The Kingdom of Speech, Tom Wolfe recounts an exchange between Charles Darwin and a group of naive students who wanted to know how evolution "got under way and how exactly, physically, it started up -- from what?" One student was not satisfied with Darwin's answer that evolution probably started with "four or five cells floating in a warm pool somewhere." He asked where the cells came from and who put the cells in the pool. In 1871, Darwin said he didn't know and in 2017, since no one has created even one cell out of nothing and the greatest scientist has discovered what exists rather than created anything, the obvious answer is God.
In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson expressed the self-evident truth that all men are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." The First Amendment of the Constitution went on to guarantee certain rights, including that Congress could not prohibit the free exercise of religion. Through texts, traditions, the words of learned scholars, and the well-formed consciences of individuals, many religious beliefs related to the existence of God have developed. Is He or She? Is God one person, three, or hundreds? Was Jesus God? Did he rise from the dead or was he a hologram, spirit, or frog-like being stimulated by electricity? Are we here to accumulate wealth or to serve the poor, pray, and adore God? Is God vengeful or merciful? Is there life of the body or soul or both after death?
Where Muslim extremists go off the rails is when they use Allah to justify killing infidels who hold different religious beliefs. Similarly, pro-life zealots who use their religion to justify killing doctors who perform abortions are also misguided.
In summary, we can learn two main ideas from terrorists: 1) God is too big a subject to dismiss without study, and 2) religious beliefs do not justify killing those with different religious beliefs.
(See the earlier post, "This We Believe," to learn some of the beliefs of the world's major religions.)
Showing posts with label cells. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cells. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 14, 2017
Wednesday, November 16, 2016
The Challenge of New Technologies: Prepare to Think
IBM recognized what the future would require by showing the lack of space planned for the "K" slipping down the side of its "THINK" signs. The need to think was on display at last night's poster and presentation session given by high school students who spent their summer in science labs and departments at the University of Wisconsin.
Students needed to be willing to expend a major effort just preparing for their experiments. One young woman dragged branches, plants, and flowers to the lab to find that birds need to be motivated by an attractive, secure area in order to breed. Multiple times a young man rowed a boat into the middle of a lake at night in order to scoop up water that showed what destroyed undesirable algae multiplied faster than the invasive species that destroyed the helpful algae remover. Another student had to find a sausage factory where he could procure the pig livers he needed to test how their properties changed during heating in a microwave. Various purifying procedures were needed before testing and careful math calculations were needed before a machine could emit radiation to attack tumors. Findings, such as the dangers of the toxic nano particles lithium batteries give off as they decompose, were preliminary but important.
Heading into the future, artificial intelligence (AI); robotics, CRISPR and other medical technologies; the relationship of technology, human values, and public policy; and other technical subjects will play a major role in lives throughout the world. Yet in recent elections, electorates have cast their votes based on emotion: anger about the rich who are getting richer while they're not, anger about their countries filling up with people who don't look like them, and anger about a perceived attack on their values.
Away from the disillusioned voters back home, members of the World Economic Forum (weforum.org) met in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, this week to discuss the impact of new technologies. Their discussions need to make it back home to those have to understand how they will be affected by the good and bad impacts these technologies will have on their lives.
However, you can't help but sympathize with anyone who tries to deal with the complexity and scientific jargon in an article about a technology, such as CRISPR-Cas9. First there is a description. CRISPR-Cas9 can genetically edit cells to improve crops and fight disease. In humans, if used to alter the genetic make-up of cells in an egg, sperm, or embryo, the same mutation will be transmitted from generation to generation. In order for the latter process to work, genes injected from outside need to be accepted by cells that store the germline, the biochemical unit of heredity.
Then, articles tout the benefits of the new technology. Pig organs could be produced without the genes that prevent transplants in humans. Malaria-carrying mosquitoes could be eliminated the way genetically altered Atlantic salmon already grow double the size of ordinary salmon in half the time. Diseases could be cured, even though the complex interrelationship of genes often makes this unlikely in many cases.
Articles frequently ignore problems associated with new technologies. It is up to the reader to ask, "Couldn't a rogue scientist use CRISPR-Cas9 to inject unhealthy mutations into human cells that would be transmitted from generation to generation?" Or might only wealthy people be able: to afford the cures that CRISPR-Cas9 technology could provide. While CRISPR-altered seeds produce uniform crops that can be harvested by machines, farmers in poor countries may not be able to pay for the annual purchase of patented hybrid seeds that grow food in drought conditions.
Some call the biomedical duel between China and the United States to achieve dramatic CRISPR-Cas9 results "Sputnik 2.0." On October 18, 2016 scientists at Sichuan University in Chengdu, China, used CRISPR-Cas9 technology to see whether they could disable a gene in the patient's immune cells and reprogram the lung cancer patient's cells not only to resist but to fight back against the cancer. To date, results of the test are not known and neither are side effects. At the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, Dr. Carl June also is about to use CRISPR editing to enable three genes in the immune cells of 18 cancer patients, who have not been helped by other treatments, to seek and destroy their cancerous tumors.
Guarding against technology bias also needs to keep up with fast-paced artificial intelligence (AI) developments. Joy Buolamwini's Algorithmic Justice League found facial-analysis software was prone to making mistakes recognizing the female gender, especially of darker-skinned women. AI is developed by and often tested primarily on light-skinned men, but recognition technology, for example, is promoted for hiring, policing, and military applications involving diverse populations.
Finally, we all need to think about and act on the guidelines, regulations, and other checks needed to keep up with the effects of rapidly progressing new technologies.
Students needed to be willing to expend a major effort just preparing for their experiments. One young woman dragged branches, plants, and flowers to the lab to find that birds need to be motivated by an attractive, secure area in order to breed. Multiple times a young man rowed a boat into the middle of a lake at night in order to scoop up water that showed what destroyed undesirable algae multiplied faster than the invasive species that destroyed the helpful algae remover. Another student had to find a sausage factory where he could procure the pig livers he needed to test how their properties changed during heating in a microwave. Various purifying procedures were needed before testing and careful math calculations were needed before a machine could emit radiation to attack tumors. Findings, such as the dangers of the toxic nano particles lithium batteries give off as they decompose, were preliminary but important.
Heading into the future, artificial intelligence (AI); robotics, CRISPR and other medical technologies; the relationship of technology, human values, and public policy; and other technical subjects will play a major role in lives throughout the world. Yet in recent elections, electorates have cast their votes based on emotion: anger about the rich who are getting richer while they're not, anger about their countries filling up with people who don't look like them, and anger about a perceived attack on their values.
Away from the disillusioned voters back home, members of the World Economic Forum (weforum.org) met in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, this week to discuss the impact of new technologies. Their discussions need to make it back home to those have to understand how they will be affected by the good and bad impacts these technologies will have on their lives.
However, you can't help but sympathize with anyone who tries to deal with the complexity and scientific jargon in an article about a technology, such as CRISPR-Cas9. First there is a description. CRISPR-Cas9 can genetically edit cells to improve crops and fight disease. In humans, if used to alter the genetic make-up of cells in an egg, sperm, or embryo, the same mutation will be transmitted from generation to generation. In order for the latter process to work, genes injected from outside need to be accepted by cells that store the germline, the biochemical unit of heredity.
Then, articles tout the benefits of the new technology. Pig organs could be produced without the genes that prevent transplants in humans. Malaria-carrying mosquitoes could be eliminated the way genetically altered Atlantic salmon already grow double the size of ordinary salmon in half the time. Diseases could be cured, even though the complex interrelationship of genes often makes this unlikely in many cases.
Articles frequently ignore problems associated with new technologies. It is up to the reader to ask, "Couldn't a rogue scientist use CRISPR-Cas9 to inject unhealthy mutations into human cells that would be transmitted from generation to generation?" Or might only wealthy people be able: to afford the cures that CRISPR-Cas9 technology could provide. While CRISPR-altered seeds produce uniform crops that can be harvested by machines, farmers in poor countries may not be able to pay for the annual purchase of patented hybrid seeds that grow food in drought conditions.
Some call the biomedical duel between China and the United States to achieve dramatic CRISPR-Cas9 results "Sputnik 2.0." On October 18, 2016 scientists at Sichuan University in Chengdu, China, used CRISPR-Cas9 technology to see whether they could disable a gene in the patient's immune cells and reprogram the lung cancer patient's cells not only to resist but to fight back against the cancer. To date, results of the test are not known and neither are side effects. At the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, Dr. Carl June also is about to use CRISPR editing to enable three genes in the immune cells of 18 cancer patients, who have not been helped by other treatments, to seek and destroy their cancerous tumors.
Guarding against technology bias also needs to keep up with fast-paced artificial intelligence (AI) developments. Joy Buolamwini's Algorithmic Justice League found facial-analysis software was prone to making mistakes recognizing the female gender, especially of darker-skinned women. AI is developed by and often tested primarily on light-skinned men, but recognition technology, for example, is promoted for hiring, policing, and military applications involving diverse populations.
Finally, we all need to think about and act on the guidelines, regulations, and other checks needed to keep up with the effects of rapidly progressing new technologies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)