Garrett Hardin
wrote: Population, as Malthus said, naturally tends to grow
“geometrically,” or, as we would now say, exponentially. In a finite
world this means that the per capita share of the world’s goods must
steadily decrease. Is ours a finite world?
A fair defense can be put forward for the view that the world
is infinite; or that we do not know that it is not. But, in terms of
the practical problems that we must face in the next few generations
with the foreseeable technology, it is clear that we will greatly
increase human misery if we do not, during the immediate future, assume
that the world available to the terrestrial human population is finite.
“Space” is no escape. A finite world can support only a finite
population; therefore, population growth must eventually equal zero.
(The case of perpetual wide fluctuations above and below zero is a
trivial variant that need not be discussed.) When this condition is
met, what will be the situation of mankind? Specifically, can Bentham’s
goal of “the greatest good for the greatest number” be realized? 
No–for two reasons, each sufficient by itself. The first is a
theoretical one. It is not mathematically possible to maximize for two
(or more) variables at the same time. This was clearly stated by von
Neumann and Morgenstern, but the principle is implicit in the
theory of partial differential equations, dating back at least to
D’Alembert (1717-1783).
The second reason springs directly from biological facts. To live, any
organism must have a source of energy (for example, food). This energy
is utilized for two purposes: mere maintenance and work. For man,
maintenance of life requires about 1600 kilocalories a day
(”maintenance calories”). Anything that he does over and above merely
staying alive will be defined as work, and is supported by “work
calories” which he takes in. Work calories are used not only for what
we call work in common speech; they are also required for all forms of
enjoyment, from swimming and automobile racing to playing music and
writing poetry. If our goal is to maximize population it is obvious
what we must do: We must make the work calories per person approach as
close to zero as possible. No gourmet meals, no vacations, no sports,
no music, no literature, no art … I think that everyone will grant,
without argument or proof, that maximizing population does not maximize
goods. Bentham’s goal is impossible.  In reaching this conclusion
I have made the usual assumption
that it is the acquisition of energy that is the problem. The
appearance of atomic energy has led some to question this assumption.
However, given an infinite source of energy, population growth still
produces an inescapable problem. The problem of the acquisition of
energy is replaced by the problem of its dissipation, as J. H. Fremlin
has so wittily shown. The arithmetic signs in the analysis are, as
it were, reversed; but Bentham’s goal is still unobtainable.  The
optimum population is, then, less than the maximum. The
difficulty of defining the optimum is enormous; so far as I know, no
one has seriously tackled this problem. Reaching an acceptable and
stable solution will surely require more than one generation of hard
analytical work–and much persuasion. We want the maximum good per
person; but what is good? To one
person it is wilderness, to another it is ski lodges for thousands. To
one it is estuaries to nourish ducks for hunters to shoot; to another
it is factory land. Comparing one good with another is, we usually say,
impossible because goods are incommensurable. Incommensurables cannot
be compared. (06/20/05)
more…

James Allen wrote: The body is the servant of the mind. It obeys the operations of the
mind, whether they be deliberately chosen or automatically expressed.
At the bidding of unlawful thoughts the body sinks rapidly into disease
and decay; at the command of glad and beautiful thoughts it becomes
clothed with youthfulness and beauty. 
Disease and health, like circumstances, are rooted in thought. Sickly
thoughts will express themselves through a sickly body. Thoughts of
fear have been known to kill a man as speedily as a bullet, and they
are continually killing thousands of people just as surely though less
rapidly. The people who live in fear of disease are the people who get
it. Anxiety quickly demoralizes the whole body, and lays it open to the
entrance of disease; while impure thoughts, even if not physically
indulged, will soon shatter the nervous system. Strong, pure, and happy thoughts build up the body in vigor and grace.
The body is a delicate and plastic instrument, which responds readily
to the thoughts by which it is impressed, and habits of thought will
produce their own effects, good or bad, upon it. Men will continue to have impure and poisoned blood so long as they
propagate unclean thoughts. Out of a clean heart comes a clean life and
a clean body. Out of a defiled mind proceeds a defiled life and corrupt
body. Thought is the fountain of action, life and manifestation; make
the fountain pure, and all will be pure. Change of diet will not help a man who will not change his thoughts.
When a man makes his thoughts pure, he no longer desires impure food.
If you would perfect your body, guard your mind. If you would renew
your body, beautify your mind. Thoughts of malice, envy,
disappointment, despondency, rob the body of its health and grace. A
sour face does not come by chance; it is made by sour thoughts.
Wrinkles that mar are drawn by folly, passion, pride. (06/20/05)
more…

Henry Porter writes in The Observer/UK –
The great lie in the climate debate is that there is still a debate
worth having. Opponents of change insist that the human factors in
global warming are not proven and that we must wait until we have hard
evidence before taking drastic action, which is as about as silly as
saying there are two equally valid views on the issue of whether
pedophilia damages children. What is so destructive about this stance
is that it claims equal weight and equal airtime. The ‘balance’ in
newspaper reports, especially in the United States, is, in fact, a bias
against the truth and weakens the case for immediate action against
emissions of CO². And while we hum and haw, trying to persuade
reluctant skeptics, the permafrost of the Arctic melts, sea levels inch
up and the pH levels of oceans gradually drop because of the carbon
that is absorbed from the atmosphere. The following quote comes from an
article in the Daily Telegraph editorial pages last month. It captures
perfectly the knuckle-headed entrenchment of the last century: ‘Climate
change is an important, perhaps vital, debate, but it remains just
that. Warning of disaster has become a global industry, and the
livelihoods of thousands of scientists depend on our being sufficiently
spooked to keep funding their research. The worry is that many of these
researchers have stopped being scientists and become campaigners
instead.’ The author pretends to even-handedness, but his real message
is that climate change is a scam to keep scientists in work. Yet it is
not scientists who are distorting the evidence, but the US oil lobby
and a co-operative White House. Last week, Philip Cooney, a White House
staffer, was exposed by the New York Times for revising reports on
global warming so that they cast doubt on the link between greenhouse
gases and rising temperatures. Mr Cooney, who has no scientific
training whatsoever, resigned and took a job with Exxon Mobil, which
is, incidentally, the company that produces twice the CO² emissions of Norway and is currently facing a consumer boycott in
Europe. Cooney no doubt contributed to the White House’s successful
efforts to sandbag Tony Blair’s plan of action to tackle climate change
at the G8 summit next month. You have to hand it to the Prime Minister
that he accepts the advice of his scientific advisers and has done all
he can in Britain’s presidency of the G8 to focus world leaders’
attention on the problem. But his chum Bush remains a delinquent
simpleton in such matters. In the second draft of the G8 communiquÈ,
the phrase ‘our world is warming’ has been placed in square brackets,
which means that the statement is disputed by the US and is likely to
be excluded from the final document. American officials also pressed
negotiators to delete sections which tie global warming to human
activity and emphasize the risk to economies. (06/20/05)
more…

BBC Medicine — Researchers
from three US centres found men exposed to a high amount of sun had
half the risk of the disease than those exposed to a low amount.
Writing in Cancer Research,
they suggest that the protection was a result of the body’s manufacture
of vitamin D after sun exposure. But men were warned not to sunbathe
excessively because of the risk of developing skin cancer. Vitamin D is
also found in foods such as oily fish. Experts from the Northern
California Cancer Center, the Keck School of Medicine of the University
of Southern California, and the Comprehensive Cancer Center of Wake
Forest University all worked on the study. They looked at 450 white
patients aged 40 to 79 with advance prostate cancer, from San
Francisco. They compared them with a group of 455 men of similar ages
and backgrounds who did not have prostate cancer. The men were all
asked whether their jobs had involved working outside, and if so, how
regularly they did this. The scientists also looked at the difference
between pigmentation in underarm skin which is usually not exposed to
sunlight, and forehead skin, which is. To do this, they used a portable
reflectometer - a device which measures skin tone by emitting light and
assessing the amount that is reflected back, giving a reading on the
colour of the skin from 0 to 100. The difference in scores taken from
underarms and foreheads provided an indication of how much exposure to
the sun men had experienced. The risk of prostate cancer was found to
be halved in men who had the highest amount of sun exposure - an
average of 20 hours a week, or more. (06/20/05)
more…

BBC Medicine — Health
experts are divided over whether all people over 50 should be given
daily doses of aspirin to protect their heart’s health. The drug can
cut the risk of heart attacks or strokes, but there are concerns it can
increase some people’s risk of experiencing bleeding in the brain or
stomach. … “At a low dose, undesirable effects are unusual and seldom
serious, and probably 90 to 95% of the population could take low dose
aspirin without problems.” They add: “Each person, not a doctor should
evaluate risks and benefits. “A heart attack or stroke has serious
physical and medical effects on the family, work colleagues and
friends. Most older people know this from experience and many will
dread a vascular event [a stroke or heart attack]. They are likely to
accept a small increased risk of a bleed or other side-effect in
exchange for a reduced risk of a heart attack or stroke.” They add that
there is growing evidence to suggest regular aspirin may reduce cancer
and dementia as well.  …  The benefits of taking aspirin
certainly do outweigh the risks for people already known to be at a
high risk of heart disease or stroke, according to Dr Colin Baignet.
But in the BMJ, he adds: “Unfortunately, predicting the benefits and
hazards of aspirin in someone without known disease is far less
straightforward.” And he said studies had suggested that for people
aged 50 to 60, the risk of a cardiovascular problem was lower than that
of a bleed in the stomach. Given the lack of a clear benefit at 60 , we
might consider raising the age limit to 65 or 70. But, whereas the
benefits of aspirin on myocardial infarction (heart attack) are
reasonably well defined in middle age, little is known of its effects
in older people. Given that the observational studies strongly suggest
that the risks of bleeding might increase substantially in older
people, as does fatality from a bleed, we need decisive evidence of
benefit in this age group before exposing large numbers of healthy
people to potential harm.” (06/20/05)
more…

BBC Politics –
Pro-whaling nations seem set to command a majority of votes at the
meeting of the International Whaling Commission which opens in South
Korea on Monday. Four developing countries have joined the IWC and are
likely to vote with Japan which leads the pro-whaling bloc. Japan has
vowed to use any majority to scrap initiatives on conservation and
welfare, but will almost certainly not be able to resume commercial
whaling. Conservation groups are alarmed at what they see as a damaging
development. They are concerned at the impact on whales and their close
relatives such as dolphins and porpoises. “The vote has been on a
knife-edge for a couple of years, and we’ve been wondering at what
point the simple majority would fall towards the whalers,” Mark
Simmonds, director of science for the Whale and Dolphin Conservation
Society, told BBC News. “And with these four new countries coming in,
it could really be that they’ve got it at this point.” The IWC’s four
new members are Cameroon, Gambia, Nauru and Togo. Although there is no
indication yet of which way they will vote, conservation groups allege
that Japan has a history of effectively buying the votes of developing
countries through foreign aid. … Japan abides by the moratorium on
commercial whaling, but catches around 800 of the mammals each year for
a programme of “scientific research”, as it is allowed to under the
international whaling convention. The meat from those whales ends up in
the stomachs of Japanese people; and critics say the scientific
programme is just commercial whaling in disguise. Iceland runs a
similar, much smaller scheme, whereas Norway objected to the moratorium
when it came into place, and catches several hundred whales each year. (06/20/05)
more…