The Prometheus League
Breaking News and Updates
- Abolition Of Work
- Ai
- Alt-right
- Alternative Medicine
- Antifa
- Artificial General Intelligence
- Artificial Intelligence
- Artificial Super Intelligence
- Ascension
- Astronomy
- Atheism
- Atheist
- Atlas Shrugged
- Automation
- Ayn Rand
- Bahamas
- Bankruptcy
- Basic Income Guarantee
- Big Tech
- Bitcoin
- Black Lives Matter
- Blackjack
- Boca Chica Texas
- Brexit
- Caribbean
- Casino
- Casino Affiliate
- Cbd Oil
- Censorship
- Cf
- Chess Engines
- Childfree
- Cloning
- Cloud Computing
- Conscious Evolution
- Corona Virus
- Cosmic Heaven
- Covid-19
- Cryonics
- Cryptocurrency
- Cyberpunk
- Darwinism
- Democrat
- Designer Babies
- DNA
- Donald Trump
- Eczema
- Elon Musk
- Entheogens
- Ethical Egoism
- Eugenic Concepts
- Eugenics
- Euthanasia
- Evolution
- Extropian
- Extropianism
- Extropy
- Fake News
- Federalism
- Federalist
- Fifth Amendment
- Fifth Amendment
- Financial Independence
- First Amendment
- Fiscal Freedom
- Food Supplements
- Fourth Amendment
- Fourth Amendment
- Free Speech
- Freedom
- Freedom of Speech
- Futurism
- Futurist
- Gambling
- Gene Medicine
- Genetic Engineering
- Genome
- Germ Warfare
- Golden Rule
- Government Oppression
- Hedonism
- High Seas
- History
- Hubble Telescope
- Human Genetic Engineering
- Human Genetics
- Human Immortality
- Human Longevity
- Illuminati
- Immortality
- Immortality Medicine
- Intentional Communities
- Jacinda Ardern
- Jitsi
- Jordan Peterson
- Las Vegas
- Liberal
- Libertarian
- Libertarianism
- Liberty
- Life Extension
- Macau
- Marie Byrd Land
- Mars
- Mars Colonization
- Mars Colony
- Memetics
- Micronations
- Mind Uploading
- Minerva Reefs
- Modern Satanism
- Moon Colonization
- Nanotech
- National Vanguard
- NATO
- Neo-eugenics
- Neurohacking
- Neurotechnology
- New Utopia
- New Zealand
- Nihilism
- Nootropics
- NSA
- Oceania
- Offshore
- Olympics
- Online Casino
- Online Gambling
- Pantheism
- Personal Empowerment
- Poker
- Political Correctness
- Politically Incorrect
- Polygamy
- Populism
- Post Human
- Post Humanism
- Posthuman
- Posthumanism
- Private Islands
- Progress
- Proud Boys
- Psoriasis
- Psychedelics
- Putin
- Quantum Computing
- Quantum Physics
- Rationalism
- Republican
- Resource Based Economy
- Robotics
- Rockall
- Ron Paul
- Roulette
- Russia
- Sealand
- Seasteading
- Second Amendment
- Second Amendment
- Seychelles
- Singularitarianism
- Singularity
- Socio-economic Collapse
- Space Exploration
- Space Station
- Space Travel
- Spacex
- Sports Betting
- Sportsbook
- Superintelligence
- Survivalism
- Talmud
- Technology
- Teilhard De Charden
- Terraforming Mars
- The Singularity
- Tms
- Tor Browser
- Trance
- Transhuman
- Transhuman News
- Transhumanism
- Transhumanist
- Transtopian
- Transtopianism
- Ukraine
- Uncategorized
- Vaping
- Victimless Crimes
- Virtual Reality
- Wage Slavery
- War On Drugs
- Waveland
- Ww3
- Yahoo
- Zeitgeist Movement
-
Prometheism
-
Forbidden Fruit
-
The Evolutionary Perspective
Category Archives: Transhuman News
3 Huge Healthcare Trends and How to Invest in Them (Hint: One Is Marijuana) – Motley Fool
Posted: March 12, 2017 at 7:44 pm
A growing and increasingly longer-living global population makes healthcare one of the most attractive sectors for investors, but I thinkthat genetic research, robotic surgery, and marijuana legalization could be the industry's biggest money-making opportunities. If so, then Illumina Corp.(NASDAQ:ILMN), Intuitive Surgical (NASDAQ:ISRG), and GW Pharmaceuticals (NASDAQ:GWPH) could be smart stocks to buy.
Researchers are increasingly finding that disease is caused by genetic abnormalities, and often, those discoveries are being made using machines and disposable supplies sold by gene-sequencing giant Illumina Corp.
IMAGE SOURCE: GETTY IMAGES.
Illumina is the largest manufacturer of systems used to sequence genetic code, and it's launching new machines this year that could make gene sequencing quicker and cheaper.
There are more than 7,500 of Illumina's machines installed at customers already, and increasing spending on DNA-driven research projects globally, such as precision medicine initiatives in China and the United States, should provide significant revenue and profit tailwinds for years, if not decades.
The company's machines can cost $1 million, or more, but the company really benefits from the ongoing sale of consumables necessary for these machines to operate. As more machines are deployed, revenue for consumables is growing, and since consumables offer more attractive profit margins, that's fueling earnings growth. Since 2011, Illumina's sales and profit have grown by compounded annual rates of 18% and 21%, respectively.
Although the boom-and-bust nature of research budgets means there will be some quarters that are better than other quarters, I believe Illumina's unlikely to lose its dominant position in this market, and if I'm right, then a trend over time toward medicine that aims to correct genetic abnormalities will provide significant opportunities for Illumina to reward investors. The company's newest machines could accelerate that trend, because they could eventually help lower the cost of sequencing genomes from $1,000 today to $100. The NovaSeq 6000, which costs about $1 million, began shipping this quarter.
Good news! Surgery is getting increasingly more precise, and that's reducing recovery times and improving patient outcomes.
At the forefront of this trend is robotics, and when it comes to robotic surgery, there's no better pure-play stock to buy than Intuitive Surgical.
Using research pioneered by DARPA for use on the battlefield, Intuitive Surgical pioneered the development of sophisticated machines that allow surgeons to control robotic arms when performing many surgeries, including prostate and gynecological procedures. Advances in these robotic systems should significantly expand their use in more procedures in the coming decades.
Today, there are almost 4,000 of Intuitive Surgical's da Vinci robotic systems installed at hospitals, and similar to Illumina, the high cost of these machines is only part of the reason I think Intuitive Surgical's going to be a big, long-term winner.
A da Vinci system can cost a hospital $1.5 million, but the average amount spent on replacement instruments and accessories used in operations is especially lucrative. According to management, every da Vinci procedure can produce up to $3,500 in instrument and accessory revenue. That's a lot of margin-friendly revenue when you consider that over 4 million procedures have been performed with these systems, including 750,000 last year alone. Instrument and accessory revenue totaled $1.4 billion, or about 70% of sales, in 2016.
SOURCE: INTUITIVE SURGICAL.
As robotic surgery systems improve, surgeons become more comfortable with them, and as use expands into new areas, such as colorectal surgery and hernia repair, it wouldn't surprise me if Intuitive Surgical's sales and profit march considerably higher over the coming decade.
Overwhelmingly, Americans view on medical marijuana has shifted positive, and as a result, over two dozen U.S. states have passed pro-medical marijuana laws that break down barriers to access.
IMAGE SOURCE: GETTY IMAGES.
While no one knows how a new administration in Washington, D.C. may affect marijuana momentum in the short term, the long-term potential for marijuana to gain ground as a viable alternative medicine is big.
GW Pharmaceuticals could be the drugmaker best positioned to profit from a widespread embrace of medical cannabis. The company's been working on marijuana-based medicines since the 1990s, and it could soon launch its first marijuana derived drug in America.
Last year, GW Pharmaceuticals reported trial results from three separate studies showing that a purified formulation of cannabidiol, or CBD, can reduce the number of seizures experienced monthly by patients with tough-to-treat forms of childhood-onset epilepsy. Specifically, GW Pharmaceuticals showed that patients receiving its Epidiolex experienced about 40% fewer seizures than they did before beginning treatment.
The positive efficacy, plus a safety profile that doesn't seem to be raising eyebrows, suggests that Epidiolex could become an important new drug used by doctors to treat patients who don't respond well to existing epilepsy medications. GW Pharmaceuticals estimates that up to one-third of the 2.2 million epilepsy patients living in the U.S. aren't responding adequately to existing medication.
If the FDA green-lights Epidiolex (management plans to submit an application to the regulator soon), then it can be prescribed by doctors nationwide, regardless of whether medical-marijuana laws have been passed in the doctor's state. That's potentially a huge advantage over medical dispensaries, which only market products without the FDA's blessing in states that have passed laws that are friendly to medical marijuana.
GW Pharmaceuticals isn't stopping its marijuana research with epilepsy, either. The company's studying marijuana cannabinoids in other indications, and while results in the past haven't panned out nearly as well as in epilepsy trials, that doesn't mean programs evaluating it in schizophrenia and autism won't bear fruit.
Because I believe that most Americans will continue supporting access to medical marijuana, and that improving perceptions will remove the stigma associated with its use, the future could prove to be very bright for GW Pharmaceuticals shareholders.
Todd Campbell has no position in any stocks mentioned.His clients may have positions in the companies mentioned.The Motley Fool owns shares of and recommends Illumina and Intuitive Surgical. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
Go here to see the original:
3 Huge Healthcare Trends and How to Invest in Them (Hint: One Is Marijuana) - Motley Fool
Posted in Gene Medicine
Comments Off on 3 Huge Healthcare Trends and How to Invest in Them (Hint: One Is Marijuana) – Motley Fool
The First Results of Gene Editing in Normal Embryos Have Been Released – Futurism
Posted: at 7:44 pm
Viable Editing
One of the most fascinating and promising developments in genetics is the CRISPR genome editing technique. Basically, CRISPR is a mechanism by which geneticists can treat disease by either disrupting genetic code by splicing in a mutation or repairing genes by splicing out mutations and replacing them with healthy code.
Researchers in China at the Third Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University have successfully edited genetic mutations in viable human embryos for the first time. Typically, to avoid ethical concerns, researchers opt to use non-viable embryos that could not possibly develop into a child.
Previous research using these non-viable embryos has not produced promising results. The very first attempt to repair genes in any human embryos used these abnormal embryos. The study ended with abysmal results, with fewer than ten percent of cells being repaired. Another study published last year also had a low rate of success, showing that the technique still has a long way to gobefore becoming a reliablemedical tool.
However, after experiencing similar results with using the abnormal embryos again, the scientists decided to see if they would fare better with viable embryos. The team collected immature eggs from donors undergoing IVF treatment. Under normal circumstances, these cells would be discarded, as they are less likely to successfully develop. The eggs were matured and fertilized with sperm from men carrying hereditary diseases.
While the results of this round of study were not perfect, they were much more promising than the previous studies done with the non-viable embryos. The team used six embryos, three of which had the mutation that causes favism (a disease leading to red blood cell breakdown in response to certain stimuli), and the other three had the mutation that results in a blood disease called beta-thalassemia.
The researchers were able to correct two of the favism embryos. In the other, the mutation was turned off, as not all of the cells were corrected. This means that the mutation was effectively shut down, but not eliminated. It created what is called a mosaic. In the other set, the mutation was fully corrected in one of the embryos and only some cells were corrected in the other two.
These results are not perfect, but experts still do find potential in them. It does look more promising than previous papers, says Fredrik Lanner of the Karolinska Institute. However, they do understand that results from a test of only six embryos are far from definitive.
Gene editing with CRISPR truly has the possibility to revolutionize medicine. Just looking at the development in terms of disease treatment, and not the other more ethically murky possible applications, it is an extremely exciting achievement.
Not only could CRISPR help eradicate hereditarydisease, but it is also a tool that could help fight against diseases like malaria. There is a long road ahead for both the scientific and ethical aspects of the tech. Still, the possible benefits are too great to give up now.
Read the original here:
The First Results of Gene Editing in Normal Embryos Have Been Released - Futurism
Posted in Gene Medicine
Comments Off on The First Results of Gene Editing in Normal Embryos Have Been Released – Futurism
Precision Medicine Project Mulls How to Return Genetic Test Results to 1M Participants – GenomeWeb
Posted: at 7:44 pm
NEW YORK (GenomeWeb) Before the National Institutes of Health can begin to genetically test participants within its precision medicine initiative, it will have to figure out what results to return, how to minimize reporting false positives, and how to provide counseling to help them navigate the often uncertain and evolving evidence on genetic information.
And the project will have to figure out how to do all this on an unprecedented scale, for a million participants that the All of Us Research Program hopes to enroll over the next four years.
A trial upgrade to GenomeWeb Premium gives you full site access, interest-based email alerts, access to archives, and more. Never miss another important industry story.
Try GenomeWeb Premium now.
Already a GenomeWeb Premium member? Login Now. Or, See if your institution qualifies for premium access.
*Before your trial expires, well put together a custom quote with your long-term premium options.
Continue reading here:
Precision Medicine Project Mulls How to Return Genetic Test Results to 1M Participants - GenomeWeb
Posted in Gene Medicine
Comments Off on Precision Medicine Project Mulls How to Return Genetic Test Results to 1M Participants – GenomeWeb
Gene that causes rare disorder, Opitz C syndrome, identified – Science Daily
Posted: at 7:44 pm
Opitz C syndrome is a genetic disease that causes severe disabilities in patients and has been diagnosed in three people in the Iberian Peninsula, and sixty people in the world. A team led by the professors Daniel Grinberg and Susana Balcells, from the Group on Human Molecular Genetics of the University of Barcelona and the Biomedical Research Networking Center of Rare Diseases (CIBERER) has now identified a gene that causes the Opitz C syndrome in the only patient in Catalonia diagnosed with this severe congenital disease. This new scientific advance is a first step to discover the genetic bases of this syndrome which, so far, does not offer treatment possibilities, prenatal diagnosis or genetic counseling.
The new study, published in the journal Scientific Reports, has the participation of John M. Opitz (University of Utah, United States), Giovanni Neri (Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Italy) and a wide group of experts of the Center for Genomic Regulation (CRG) and the Department of Clinical and Molecular Genetics of the University Hospital Vall d'Hebron (VHIR).
Opitz C syndrome: rare but not invisible
The genetic bases of this ultra-minority disease, described for the first time in 1969 by John M. Opitz, are still unknown. It is generally thought that its origin is caused by the apparition of dominant -maternally silenced- novo mutations. At the moment, the diagnose is clinical and it is based on the symptomatology presented on patients with different degrees (trigonocephaly, learning disability, psychomotor disability, etc.) and which, in lots of cases, coincides with similar minority pathologies such as the syndromes of Schaaf-Yang, Bohring-Opitz and Prader-Willi.
In the new study, the experts described for the first time, the existence of a novo mutation -p.Q638*- located in the gene MAGEL2 of the only diagnosed person with Opitz C syndrome in Catalonia. Identifying this mutation, found in the Prader-Willi Region on chromosome 15, widens the knowledge horizons on genetics and the possibilities for a diagnosis on these rare diseases.
"The p.Q638* mutation, identified in the gene MAGEL2, coincides with the one described concurrently and independently in a patient with Schaaf-Yang syndrome, a new minoritary disease affecting fifty people in the world. The first cases were described on a scientific bibliography in 2013 by the team of Professor Christian Schaaf, from the Baylor College of Medicine, Houston," says Professor Daniel Grinberg, member of the Institute of Biomedicine of the University of Barcelona (IBUB), the Research Institute of Sant Joan de Du (IRSJD) and CIBERER.
"Consequently, from a genetic diagnosis perspective -says DanieL Grinberg- this patient initially diagnosed with Opitz C in Catalonia would correspond to the group of patients with Schaaf-Yang syndrome."
Genetics will define the limits of rare diseases
Identifying the genes that cause a disease is a breakpoint to understand the pathology and set new future therapeutic approaches that improve the quality of life of the patients. In the new study, the teams of the UB and the CRG applied techniques of DNA massive sequencing (exome and genome), a powerful methodology that allows identifying altered genes in each patient.
According to Susana Balcells, tenured lecturer at the UB and also member of IBUB and CIBERER, "what we can see from a clinical symptomatology view in these kinds of diseases which are so hard to study and diagnose, is far from the initial molecular defect that generates the disease."
"All these clinical doubts -continued Balcells- will be solved with genetics, which will define the limits of these rare diseases and will ease the scientific consensus on the diagnosis and genetic causes that create them."
According to Luis Serrano, director of CRG, "projects like this one show the important role of genomics in the future of medicine and the way on which we diagnose and treat diseases. To understand the diseases and offering not only a diagnosis but also approaches to possible treatments is very relevant in minority diseases. It is a satisfaction for the CRG to contribute with our knowledge and advanced technologies in a project that gives hope to a vulnerable collective" concluded the researcher.
Crowdfunding: when society supports scientific research
The members of the Group of Human Molecular Genetics of the University of Barcelona and the CRG are currently in contact with the team of Professor Schaaf and three families of patients diagnosed with Schaaf-Yang syndrome in the Iberian Peninsula.
In December 2026, the first author of the study published in Scientific Reports, Roser Urreitzi, researcher of CIBERER and lecturer at the UB, coordinated the meeting between the experts and the affected families. The meeting took place at the Faculty of Biology of the University of Barcelona and was a new encouragement for the collaboration of researchers and affected families in future projects with the participation of the UB, CRG and CIBERER Biobank, in Valencia. This cooperation has also allowed the three patients to be examined by the same clinical expert: the pediatrician Dr Anna M. Cueto, assistant doctor and clinical geneticist at the Department of Clinical and Molecular Genetics of the University Hospital Vall d'Hebron in Barcelona. This is clearly a new progress in the field of ultra-minority diseases.
Continued here:
Gene that causes rare disorder, Opitz C syndrome, identified - Science Daily
Posted in Gene Medicine
Comments Off on Gene that causes rare disorder, Opitz C syndrome, identified – Science Daily
Milo Yianoppoulos’ Own Speech Hurt him More than Censorship Ever Could – Conatus News
Posted: at 7:43 pm
It is fascinating that so many individuals on the censorious left of politics are cheering the demise of Milo Yianoppoulos, but as of yet are still unable to grasp why he fell from grace. After years of attempting to no-platform Milo or shut down Yianoppoulostalks through vicious protests, disruptive riots, seeking to remove him from campus: these actions only fed his growing persona and thrusthim into the media spotlight. Ultimately, it was Milos own words that caused him to fall on his own sword.That free speech brought down MiloYianoppoulos is apt and not entirely unforeseeable. Milos achilles heel is that he served as a controversialist.
Controversialists have a limited pool of resource, much like a watering hole in the Serengeti in the height of the dry season. Making controversial statements shocks individuals that someone dared utter a naughty and contemptible thing. However, dare they say that too many times, then they risk becoming tedious, or monomaniacal: much like the Serengetis drying water hole, the water is limited, you can only drink a single gulp of water once. Hence any provocateur requires to delve into making other statements, or taking even more concerning stances. A controversialist needs to be careful, dare they say too much, then they will run out of material all too quickly. Then, they risk becoming seen as someone who solely exists to shock, and like that Serengeti watering hole, run dry.
Stopping Milo from speaking is what gave him the bizarrely subservient cult like support which he commands. It stopped his voice from becoming hoarse and him running out of opposition or ridiculous stances to take. Milos own messages, often a little vapid and designed to be reviled by the minorities and those who defend them, became slowly dwarfed by opposition to those on campuses who decided that he should not have the right to speech.
Individuals who would be at the forefront lambasting Milos ideas were uncomfortably forced to defend his right to speak.
Milo could have been dismissed, or simply ignored, yet the fierceness of the opposition was what made Milo a credible force. It is a valid piece of advice to give anyone seeking to shut down the career of a controversialist or provocateur, often just let them continue speaking. Giving people enough rope to hang themselves by allowing them to speak is a devastating tactic.
There are so many flaws in Yianoppoulos logic that one can easily pounce on them. Rather than allowing Milo to speak and exposing him for some severe inconsistencies, authoritarian campus troglodytes decided that they would censor him. These people, of course, claimed that they were stopping Milo due to his rampant and many prejudices, but these people became so intolerant of Milo and his argument that their violent reaction became the story of intolerance. Their intolerance of discussion became the intolerance that was focused upon and weaponised against them, even if these liberation and equalities movements made logical points opposing him.
Provocateur should not in itself be a dirty word, it is a good thing that we have individuals who provoke discussion and opinion. Universities and academic spaces that do not challenge established thinking lead to sterile thinkers. These thinkers tend to struggle with controversial ideas, hence requiring protection from them, and this also results in groupthink.Whilst safe spaces are inherently flawed, it is groupthink that poses a real danger. Milo Yianoppoulos presence and ability to be allowed to debate on a campus often reassures me: why? Not because I agree with much of what Milo says, or think he is a helpful proponent of his arguments, rather I believe being able to debate Milo or allow him to speak shows a tolerance of ideas.
If you observe Milo speaking, you might observe that often, whilst he presents some cogent cases for free speech, he is both reactionary and often unable to defend his more controversial outbursts. Cathy Newman, on Channel 4 News, effectively skewered him on his previous writings about women and the headlines he chose whilst he was Breitbart Editor that demonstrated an unnecessary prejudice. Milo really isnt that hard to debate.
So why are students finding it so hard to debate Milo fairly and openly? That elements of the student population violently protested, and later rioted at UC Berkley gave Milo the ability to claim that he was the victim. Any scrutiny was ultimately dismissed in the clamour to condemn the actions of is opposition. Why not, instead of lobbing a Molotov cocktail, walk into a lecture hall and ask him about some of his statements on women or circumcision?
Take circumcision, Milo argues: Women dont want to hurt your feelings, so they say its fine and they dont mind. Butthey do. Cut your kids. Are we really unable to propose an argument that indicates that perhaps engaging in a non-consensual, irreversible, cosmetic alteration because women aesthetically prefer it, may be a deeply flawed argument for the rescinding of fundamental rights to individuals to be protected from irreversible bodily alterations that they cannot consent too? Students really think the most effective way to oppose Milo is to no-platform this individual. It took me 3 minutes to find that link noting his opinions. Consider how much I could find after a day of research.
Perhaps if students had engaged more rationally with Milo, his prominence would never have happened. When students attempts to no-platform, silence and violently riot against his speech, this only led to massive increases in his book sales. A figure over 12,000%, in fact. The no platform was not only ineffective, it became counter-productive.
The Streisand effect seems to be something many modern-day students are unaware of. Preventing individuals from speaking actually draws attention to individuals, others wish to know what was so contemptible an utterance the led to the ban. Additionally, if you seek to constantly silence someone, individuals who may be sympathetic to your argument against that person are often forced to defend the censored. People are then forced to defend an individual they dislike, if they are intellectually honest, from hypocrisy.
If the debate was on Milos ideas and intellectual consistency as merits alone, I suspect he would have faired poorly. Indeed, it was revealing his previous comments led to the cancellation of his book, his resignation from Breitbart and dis-invitation from CPAC, due to seeming inconsistency on child abuse. Also, though Milo claims to have himself never apologised for or supported any form of child abuse and pederasty, there are records of him boasting about underaged sex he witnessed at parties in the United States.
Can students really not see how this individual is easy prey? Simply ask Milo why he didnt report pederasty that he witnessed is a powerful question. Abandoning victims of sexual abuse is a damning weakness. But I have come to the conclusion that many of these individuals dont want to actually silence Milo, or even debate his ideas, they simply need an ideological villain to attack. Milo presents himself as the perfect villain, does he not? With some repulsive and contemptible utterances, he is easily held up as the opposition to these students so keen to silence dissent. They hold him up as a comparison, it seems to be you either have nasty Milo, or benevolent, leftist censorship?
But in all of this, there is a middle ground, surely? Students who can support Milos right to speech, whilst accepting that occasionally, on issues surrounding free speech and hypocrisy on the left, he makes coherent points. However, we should acknowledge that Milo is also controversial for controversys sake and his slurs against minorities and attacks on individual rights cannot be endorsed.
Perhaps it is time for us to remember: one can defend an individuals rights and rights to expression without defending the individual themselves.
Read more:
Milo Yianoppoulos' Own Speech Hurt him More than Censorship Ever Could - Conatus News
Posted in Censorship
Comments Off on Milo Yianoppoulos’ Own Speech Hurt him More than Censorship Ever Could – Conatus News
‘Humane Libertarianism: A New American Liberalism,’ a lecture hosted by SLU slated for March 15 – North Country Now
Posted: at 7:42 pm
CANTON -- St. Lawrence University will host economist Deirdre McCloskey at 7:30 p.m. on March 15, in Hepburn Hall, room 218.
The event is part of the Department of Economics Visiting Speaker Series in Political Economy and is funded by the Charles Koch Foundation.
McCloskeys lecture, Humane Libertarianism: A New American Liberalism, is free and open to the public.
An economist, historian and rhetorician, McCloskey the author of more than 400 peer-reviewed academic articles and 17 books, including "Economical Writing: A Memoir and most recently Bourgeois Equality: How Ideas, Not Capital or Institutions, Enriched the World, the third volume in the trilogy The Bourgeois Era."
McCloskey earned a bachelors degree and Ph.D. in economics from Harvard University and taught at the University of Chicago, the University of Iowa, and the University of Illinois at Chicago, from where she retired as the distinguished professor of economics, history, English and communications at the University of Illinois at Chicago.
For more information, contact the Department of Economics at 315-229-5430 or visit http://www.stlawu.edu/economics.
Posted in Libertarianism
Comments Off on ‘Humane Libertarianism: A New American Liberalism,’ a lecture hosted by SLU slated for March 15 – North Country Now
Follyswaddling Healthcare or How to Abandon Libertarianism in One Intemperate Moment of Political Insecurity – The Libertarian Republic
Posted: at 7:42 pm
Im going to remind libertarians of many thing they already know, but generally forget they know when it comes to the idiotic national conversation weve had about healthcare in the last decade.
First, rights are not what the government gives out to its citizens; rights are what the government in our nation, with our definition of governance is required to protect. That is the sole government responsibility regarding rights. What the government gives out to citizens are called entitlements, and the list of entitlements the US Constitution authorizes our government to dispense are as follows: 1. not a damned thing; 2. the list ended three bullet-points ago.
Second, rights are free for the taking, but they are certainly not free. They are simply what the government leaves the citizen alone to acquire for himself, to the degree the citizen wishes it, and has the capacity to acquire or make use of it. The examples to illustrate this are infinite. The First Amendment, for example, acknowledges a citizens right to property. But property does not appear out of thin air; it generally belongs to someone else first. Does a citizens right to property compel the current owner of the property to deed it over to the citizen who desires it?
Of course not; that is both stupid and confiscatory. What the right to property permits is the current owner and the potential future owner to arrive at a mutually agreeable price and other terms under which the transfer of ownership shall be made. The government isnt obliged to give anyone forty acres and a mule, nor to compel others to provide same. If a citizen wants these things, the citizen is instructed to save his money and find someone who wishes to trade for it.
Third, rights include essentially everything that isnt nailed down. Rights are, Constitutionally: 1] not limited to what Amendments 1-8 specify as rights [9thAM]; 2] include every aspect of human interaction not directly given to the federal government and not prohibited to the states to control [10thAM]; AND 3] the states are prohibited from legislatively controlling anything that was not also given to the feds [14thAM, Sec 1].
Protectable rights are, in a very real sense, any power to act that is not listed in Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution as a power for Congress to make law upon and those Congressional powers to legislate are very very few. Congress is given no authority, for example, to regulate who is allowed to use our roads, therefore driving is a right. States cannot deny that right in their own laws, though they are allowed to regulate how the roads are used speed limits, rights of way, skills tests, et cetera.
Congress is given no authority, for another example, to regulate who may marry whom, therefore marrying your homosexual lover is a right. States may not deny that right in their own laws, though they may regulate certain aspects of marriage, such as the minimum age necessary.
These are all things that libertarians comprehend about rights. Hell, these are all things that virtually all Americans, libertarian or not and adequately inculcated in American civics, understand about rights, even if they do not like the specific consequences. and Im thinking particularly of the religious right morons and gay marriage, here. Even they understand this, as it makes their skin crawl.
So how is it, then, that we conveniently throw all this comprehension of rights to the four winds when the subject becomes healthcare? Healthcare is not an issue given to the government to control; it is therefore a right. Why do we indulge the facile and insupportable, and claim a governmental role in healthcare when government involvement does not join with any other right?
We have the right to say what we wish. But if we have stage fright, does the government provide us assertiveness training? No it does not. If we are inarticulate stumble-tongues, does the government provide us speech therapy? No it does not, not even when Dubya is elected President and could have used it. Does the government provide a bullhorn? a soapbox? Does the government reserve a sidewalk on a popular street corner? compel the first four hundred random passers-by to stop and grant rapt attention? And if we are unable to think of anything to say, does the government provide a pre-written speech?
No. It does not. Our right to say what we wish begins and ends with our own willingness and ability to actually use the damned thing. If we cannot speak in public, or cannot make others listen, or cannot think of what to say that anyone would want to hear, the government has no obligation or duty to assist. The lack of government providence does not negate our freedom of speech.
We have the right to write what we wish. But if we are illiterate and cannot strings words together into sentences, sentences into paragraphs, and paragraphs into thematic essays, does the government provide literacy training? No, it does not. Even when it tries to it doesnt. as anyone even marginally familiar with public education in the United States knows. If we have nothing to write with, does it give us a pen? If we have nothing to write on, does it give us paper? If we have a batshit manifesto burning a hole in our Kaczyniskiist hovel, does the government provide us a publisher?
No. None of these things. And yet, the absence of government assistance does not erase our freedom of the press.
We have the right to marry the person of our dreams, because the Constitution does not give the government the power to stop us. But if that person does not wish to marry us back, does the government compel the object of our affection to meet us at the altar?
Of course not. Logistically, it would be a nightmare for people like Jennifer Aniston. But this doesnt affect our right to marry whom we wish.
We have the right to employment, because the Constitution does not give the government the power to prevent it. But if a citizen wishes to be employed as the bazillionaire CEO of Microsoft, does the government oust Bill Gates and install the new hire? If a citizen wishes to be employed as the next Luke Skywalker in the Star Wars franchise, does the government do lunch with George Lucas and make it happen? If a citizen simply wants to be hired by any old company at any old position making any old amount of money, does the government impose itself to make even that happen?
Absolutely not, and this still doesnt deny our right to a job. Something about a free market.
We have the right to buy the shirt we like, the sports car we want, the home we pine after in the neighborhood we covet; in short, to acquire property. But if we dont have the money necessary to complete the transactions, does the government give us the money? Alternately, does the government coerce the transaction without it?
Certainly not. If we need money to buy what we want, we are advised to avail ourselves of our right to a job. But the governments hands-off attitude toward our right to accumulate property does not invalidate our right to accumulate property. Our failure to accumulate the property we want only speaks to our priorities, financial abilities and other manifestations of a free market, and nothing else.
We have the right to a haircut, a pedicure, a Papa Johns pizza, and a Caribbean cruise and every other service you can name. But if we dont have the money for these because we used all our money on that fancy sports car two paragraphs ago, does the government step in with the cash? with coercion? with even so much as a coupon?
Not a chance. A commercial service being a right does not suddenly imbue the government with the authority to compel the service to be provided, nor its terms and conditions. More free marketeering.
Healthcare is a right simply because the government is given no defined authority to control it. It is a service just like the haircut we have a right to get. Our right to acquire healthcare, as with the haircut, does not grant the government any authority to compel it, nor to set the terms and conditions of its acquisition. Our ability to acquire healthcare rests entirely with us, with our priorities, and with our financial abilities. The free market, when applied to the right of healthcare, does not suddenly mean that the commodity being sought must be free of cost, or that the cost must be borne by the government.
Yet healthcare today is exclusively discussed as a government providence. This is what democrats use to base their baseless belief that it is a right, and what republicans and libertarians use to claim that it is not.
Libertarians should know better. Libertarians should be smart enough to avoid the equivocative word traps laid out by the mealy-mouthed Bernie Trotsky Sanders and other progressives. Any libertarian who does not know, and cannot recite at a moments notice, the very specific and crucial difference between a right and an entitlement has no claim to calling himself a libertarian.
This is a taxation is theft moment in a taxation is theft conversation. Rights are what the government leaves you alone to get for yourself; entitlements are what the government gives you. This is true whether it is speech, press, property, employment, pedicures or a prescription. If the government is providing healthcare, coercing it upon reluctant patients and setting the terms and conditions for its providers, then it is an entitlement and not a right. If healthcare is a right and it is then the government must stay out of the picture.
As libertarians, we know this. Lets pretend were libertarian, mkay?
Read the original post:
Follyswaddling Healthcare or How to Abandon Libertarianism in One Intemperate Moment of Political Insecurity - The Libertarian Republic
Posted in Libertarianism
Comments Off on Follyswaddling Healthcare or How to Abandon Libertarianism in One Intemperate Moment of Political Insecurity – The Libertarian Republic
Tom Starzl: ‘super human’ transplant pioneer and ‘the good man … – Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Posted: at 7:41 pm
By Sean D. Hamill / Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
There are 391 people from thousands of years of human history who are honored in Heinz Chapels spectacularly colorful stained glass windows.
They include important figures from religion, philosophy, the arts, humanities, and the sciences, including William Harvey, an English physician who first mapped the human circulatory system, and Galen, the Greek physician who identified the importance of the arteries.
There is not a window honoring Thomas Starzl, the pioneering Pittsburgh transplant surgeon and researcher who died last week and was memorialized at a nearly two-hour service by more than 400 family, friends, colleagues and transplant recipients in the chapel Saturday, on what would have been his 91st birthday.
But many in attendance agreed: If the 84-year-old windows were being made today, Dr. Starzl would deserve a place in them.
Oh yeah, he deserves a window, Phil Schauer, a Cleveland Clinic surgeon who trained under Dr. Starzl, said just before the service. He deserves his own wing.
Eleven speakers during the service explained why.
Martine Rothblatt, a technologist and chairman of the United Therapeutics Corp., told the story of how she first met Dr. Starzl a decade ago at a meeting and told him her frustration that there must be a better way to create organs to alleviate the shortage that plagues the transplant world.
Ive been thinking about his issue for many years, Dr. Starzl replied, before laying out a plan to make it possible to one day have genetically modified organs from pigs that can be transplanted into humans in a nearly unlimited supply.
She said she has spent the last decade trying to follow that plan he laid out that day. She announced to the crowd that next year they project that the first human transplant from such an organ will occur all of it born from the seed of Thomas Starzl.
While all the speakers acknowledged his super human qualities, force of nature will and impact on history, they spoke, too, of the kind and generous man they knew personally, the man who made his own bed, who walked the family dogs, the man who acknowledged his faults and tried to make up for them.
Alex Dietrich, Dr. Starzls great-niece, said her grandmother used Dr. Starzl as an example for her, but not just for his success.
She held him up as an example of what it meant to be a good man, she said.
The world will miss your genius, she said, speaking to Dr. Starzls memory. We will miss Tom, the good man.
Bob Starzl, Dr. Starzls cousin, said the family understood that they share his loss with the world and another larger family.
We were lucky to have him in our family, said Bob Starzl, his cousin. But he had created a far bigger family, of medical professionals and patients and their families.
Mark Nordenberg, the University of Pittsburghs chancellor emeritus, said the first time he met Dr. Starzl in the early 1980s, Dr. Starzl explained what was happening with the transplant program at a time when anti-rejection drugs were not yet common, and the numbers he presented were not particularly encouraging.
But Mr. Nordenberg said all it took was a look in [Dr. Starzls] determined eyes, and I was convinced that this man was going to meet and defeat any challenges that came his way.
John Fung, Dr. Starzls protg and now director of the Transplantation Institute at the University of Chicago, expressed for many the anguish he felt at the passing of his friend, who seemed as bright as ever, even if his body was failing him in recent years.
His death was unimaginable. This could not happen. Not to our friend and mentor, Dr. Fung said. At first there were no words. Then there was a word: Awe.
Tim Starzl, his son, compared his father to a medieval stone mason, or architect who built a living cathedral.
You can go almost anywhere and see an edge of this cathedral, he said, noting the thousand doctors he trained, and then the thousands those doctors trained, and on and on. You will almost always see somebody who is touched by Dr. Starzl.
The architect is gone, he concluded. But the cathedral remains.
Dr. Starzls wife, Joy, who sat in the front pew during the service with their family golden retriever who famously used to go to the office with Dr. Starzl was the last speaker.
Through her tears, she told the mourners how hard it was in the early days when they arrived in 1981, but how they were still sure they made the right choice by coming to Pittsburgh.
And she concluded by telling the audience she had a request.
I know this is not traditional, but Id like you all to join me in singing Happy Birthday, she said, before the crowd rose and joined her in full voice.
Afterward, in an interview, Ms. Starzl said Saturday had been a tough day. But her spirits were lifted hearing all the memories and stories.
Some of the stories were new to her, she said,But they were all true; they were Tom.
Sean D. Hamill: shamill@post-gazette.comor 412-263-2579 or Twitter: @SeanDHamill
Go here to read the rest:
Tom Starzl: 'super human' transplant pioneer and 'the good man ... - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Posted in Post Human
Comments Off on Tom Starzl: ‘super human’ transplant pioneer and ‘the good man … – Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
The Art of Noises
Posted: at 7:40 pm
Dear Balilla Pratella, great Futurist composer,
In Rome, in the Costanzi Theatre, packed to capacity, while I was listening to the orchestral performance of your overwhelming Futurist music, with my Futurist friends, Marinetti, Boccioni, Carr, Balla, Soffici, Papini and Cavacchioli, a new art came into my mind which only you can create, the Art of Noises, the logical consequence of your marvelous innovations.
Ancient life was all silence. In the nineteenth century, with the invention of the machine, Noise was born. Today, Noise triumphs and reigns supreme over the sensibility of men. For many centuries life went by in silence, or at most in muted tones. The strongest noises which interrupted this silence were not intense or prolonged or varied. If we overlook such exceptional movements as earthquakes, hurricanes, storms, avalanches and waterfalls, nature is silent.
Amidst this dearth of noises, the first sounds that man drew from a pieced reed or streched string were regarded with amazement as new and marvelous things. Primitive races attributed sound to the gods; it was considered sacred and reserved for priests, who used it to enrich the mystery of their rites.
And so was born the concept of sound as a thing in itself, distinct and independent of life, and the result was music, a fantastic world superimposed on the real one, an inviolatable and sacred world. It is easy to understand how such a concept of music resulted inevitable in the hindering of its progress by comparison with the other arts. The Greeks themselves, with their musical theories calculated mathematically by Pythagoras and according to which only a few consonant intervals could be used, limited the field of music considerably, rendering harmony, of which they were unaware, impossible.
The Middle Ages, with the development and modification of the Greek tetrachordal system, with the Gregorian chant and popular songs, enriched the art of music, but continued to consider sound in its development in time, a restricted notion, but one which lasted many centuries, and which still can be found in the Flemish contrapuntalists most complicated polyphonies.
The chord did not exist, the development of the various parts was not subornated to the chord that these parts put together could produce; the conception of the parts was horizontal not vertical. The desire, search, and taste for a simultaneous union of different sounds, that is for the chord (complex sound), were gradually made manifest, passing from the consonant perfect chord with a few passing dissonances, to the complicated and persistent dissonances that characterize contemporary music.
At first the art of music sought purity, limpidity and sweetness of sound. Then different sounds were amalgamated, care being taken, however, to caress the ear with gentle harmonies. Today music, as it becomes continually more complicated, strives to amalgamate the most dissonant, strange and harsh sounds. In this way we come ever closer to noise-sound.
This musical evolution is paralleled by the multipication of machines, which collaborate with man on every front. Not only in the roaring atmosphere of major cities, but in the country too, which until yesterday was totally silent, the machine today has created such a variety and rivalry of noises that pure sound, in its exiguity and monotony, no longer arouses any feeling.
To excite and exalt our sensibilities, music developed towards the most complex polyphony and the maximum variety, seeking the most complicated successions of dissonant chords and vaguely preparing the creation of musical noise. This evolution towards noise sound was not possible before now. The ear of an eighteenth-century man could never have endured the discordant intensity of certain chords produced by our orchestras (whose members have trebled in number since then). To our ears, on the other hand, they sound pleasant, since our hearing has already been educated by modern life, so teeming with variegated noises. But our ears are not satisfied merely with this, and demand an abundance of acoustic emotions.
On the other hand, musical sound is too limited in its qualitative variety of tones. The most complex orchestras boil down to four or five types of instrument, varying in timber: instruments played by bow or plucking, by blowing into metal or wood, and by percussion. And so modern music goes round in this small circle, struggling in vain to create new ranges of tones.
This limited circle of pure sounds must be broken, and the infinite variety of noise-sound conquered.
Besides, everyone will acknowledge that all musical sound carries with it a development of sensations that are already familiar and exhausted, and which predispose the listener to boredom in spite of the efforts of all the innovatory musicians. We Futurists have deeply loved and enjoyed the harmonies of the great masters. For many years Beethoven and Wagner shook our nerves and hearts. Now we are satiated and we find far more enjoyment in the combination of the noises of trams, backfiring motors, carriages and bawling crowds than in rehearsing, for example, the Eroica or the Pastoral.
We cannot see that enormous apparatus of force that the modern orchestra represents without feeling the most profound and total disillusion at the paltry acoustic results. Do you know of any sight more ridiculous than that of twenty men furiously bent on the redoubling the mewing of a violin? All this will naturally make the music-lovers scream, and will perhaps enliven the sleepy atmosphere of concert halls. Let us now, as Futurists, enter one of these hospitals for anaemic sounds. There: the first bar brings the boredom of familiarity to your ear and anticipates the boredom of the bar to follow. Let us relish, from bar to bar, two or three varieties of genuine boredom, waiting all the while for the extraordinary sensation that never comes.
Meanwhile a repugnant mixture is concocted from monotonous sensations and the idiotic religious emotion of listeners buddhistically drunk with repeating for the nth time their more or less snobbish or second-hand ecstasy.
Away! Let us break out since we cannot much longer restrain our desire to create finally a new musical reality, with a generous distribution of resonant slaps in the face, discarding violins, pianos, double-basses and plainitive organs. Let us break out!
Its no good objecting that noises are exclusively loud and disagreeable to the ear.
It seems pointless to enumerate all the graceful and delicate noises that afford pleasant sensations.
To convince ourselves of the amazing variety of noises, it is enough to think of the rumble of thunder, the whistle of the wind, the roar of a waterfall, the gurgling of a brook, the rustling of leaves, the clatter of a trotting horse as it draws into the distance, the lurching jolts of a cart on pavings, and of the generous, solemn, white breathing of a nocturnal city; of all the noises made by wild and domestic animals, and of all those that can be made by the mouth of man without resorting to speaking or singing.
Let us cross a great modern capital with our ears more alert than our eyes, and we will get enjoyment from distinguishing the eddying of water, air and gas in metal pipes, the grumbling of noises that breathe and pulse with indisputable animality, the palpitation of valves, the coming and going of pistons, the howl of mechanical saws, the jolting of a tram on its rails, the cracking of whips, the flapping of curtains and flags. We enjoy creating mental orchestrations of the crashing down of metal shop blinds, slamming doors, the hubbub and shuffling of crowds, the variety of din, from stations, railways, iron foundries, spinning wheels, printing works, electric power stations and underground railways.
Nor should the newest noises of modern war be forgotten. Recently, the poet Marinetti, in a letter from the trenches of Adrianopolis, described to me with marvelous free words the orchestra of a great battle:
To attune noises does not mean to detract from all their irregular movements and vibrations in time and intensity, but rather to give gradation and tone to the most strongly predominant of these vibrations.
Noise in fact can be differentiated from sound only in so far as the vibrations which produce it are confused and irregular, both in time and intensity.
Every noise has a tone, and sometimes also a harmony that predominates over the body of its irregular vibrations.
Now, it is from this dominating characteristic tone that a practical possibility can be derived for attuning it, that is to give a certain noise not merely one tone, but a variety of tones, without losing its characteristic tone, by which I mean the one which distinguishes it. In this way any noise obtained by a rotating movement can offer an entire ascending or descending chromatic scale, if the speed of the movement is increased or decreased.
Every manifestation of our life is accompanied by noise. The noise, therefore, is familiar to our ear, and has the power to conjure up life itself. Sound, alien to our life, always musical and a thing unto itself, an occasional but unnecessary element, has become to our ears what an overfamiliar face is to our eyes. Noise, however, reaching us in a confused and irregular way from the irregular confusion of our life, never entirely reveals itself to us, and keeps innumerable surprises in reserve. We are therefore certain that by selecting, coordinating and dominating all noises we will enrich men with a new and unexpected sensual pleasure.
Although it is characteristic of noise to recall us brutally to real life, the art of noise must not limit itself to imitative reproduction. It will achieve its most emotive power in the acoustic enjoyment, in its own right, that the artists inspiration will extract from combined noises.
Here are the 6 families of noises of the Futurist orchestra which we will soon set in motion mechanically:
In this inventory we have encapsulated the most characteristic of the fundamental noises; the others are merely the associations and combinations of these. The rhythmic movements of a noise are infinite: just as with tone there is always a predominant rhythm, but around this numerous other secondary rhythms can be felt.
Continued here:
The Art of Noises
Posted in Futurism
Comments Off on The Art of Noises
The Era of Ownership Is Ending – Futurism
Posted: at 7:40 pm
In the 20th century we got used to a certain way of thinking: if you needed something, you boughtit. Cars, houses, records, you named it. Efficient manufacturing and logistics made it possible to createan unprecedented global overflow of stuff. Ownership quickly becameabout being someone; it was a way of definingwho you are.
All ofthis is still very much the case today: buying and owning things is a huge part of our lives. Yet something is still markedly different now: most of us have stopped buying CDs and DVDs. Young people arent buying cars anymore. Books are selling fewer copies. Many things we used to buy and keep at home we no longer do.
Let us take a closer look at what is happening with music, for instance. Artists still release albums, but very few people actually buy the physical album. Instead, they might buy the songs digitally on iTunes, and a growing amount of people will listen to the track on-demand. Music is accessed, not owned. The same goes for your favourite film. Ten years ago you would have bought a DVD to watch over and over again. Now you have iton stand-byon Netflix.
And this is just the beginning.
Things get really interesting when we start talking about cars instead of music. What would it be like to access a car on-demand? You might say that we already have taxis. But a taxi isnt as convenient as Netflix is. What would it be like to actually have the convenience of your own car without owning it?
Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS) is a model for traffic without ownership. You pay a monthly fee for it, like with Spotify, tell the app where you are going and get instant access to taxis, Ubers, buses, and so on. Everything is available on-demand and ownership is no longer needed.
MaaS is part of a trend called the as a service model. The frameworkbegan as a simple idea in software development, when companies started paying for access instead of buying permanent licenses for office programs. Now the same model is moving into the material world. Netflix, Spotify, AirBnb and Uber are all as a service companies.
As a service models become more and more feasible when the number of sensors that surround us increases. This development is often called the Internet of Things.But when we consider the Internet of Things from the perspective of disappearing products and the increase in newservice models, we caneffectivelyconclude that it is, in fact, the Internet of No Things.
What is so revolutionary about the as a service model then? Why is it good not to own things? There are two main reasons and these are related: First, ownership makes us lazy. Second, the planet cannot survive with us consuming somuch stuff.
When we buy things we easily get bored with them and forget they exist, or, alternatively, use them only because we own them. On-demand is about using things when we actually need them. It leads to the more effective use of resources. AirBnb gets more people to use the same apartment and Uber gets more people to use the same car.
It takes alarge amountof natural resources to manufacture a car, house, or smartphone in the first place. We are now running out of those resources. Thats why digital as a service platforms show great promise. In the future the as a service model will revolutionise some areas of our lives that are completely unsustainable right now such as housing, mobility and communications.
Can you imagine a world where you no longer have a phone in your pocket but instead pay for communication as a service? It might sound like sci-fi, but companies around the world are already offering housing and even Smart City as a Service.A world without smartphones? It may very well happen.
See the rest here:
The Era of Ownership Is Ending - Futurism
Posted in Futurism
Comments Off on The Era of Ownership Is Ending – Futurism