Don Malcolm wrote: Technocracy’s proposed plan is
a scientific/social design to produce and distribute a virtual
abundance equally to ALL North Americans with the least possible
wastage of nonrenewable resources, a minimum of human effort, and a
maximum of efficiency. The industrial mechanism would operate 24 hours
a day, 365 days a year. Efficiency could achieve required production
with less infrastructure. Goods would be better built to last longer,
eliminating built-in obsolescence and lessening the production
equipment necessary. Products, wherever possible, would be designed
with total recycling capability thereby decreasing the drain on
non-renewable resources.

A viable method indicated by Technocracy’s calendar
would show the population, from age 25 to retirement at 45, working
four days onthree days off for 287 days (165 which are work days) plus
78 days vacation per year. Technological improvements since 1933 have
shortened work time considerably. Citizens up to age 25 would receive
education and training. In their greatly increased leisure time, people
would have an opportunity to engage in a variety of familial,
introspective, artistic, scientific or sporting pursuits or extensive
travel.

Money, as we know it, would be replaced with a
non-fluctuating medium of distribution. Instead of having an “elastic
value” (supply and demand) as at present, goods would possess a
measurable energy input and would be distributed on that basis. The
total “cost” of all goods and services produced would be the total
amount of all energy used in their production. Personal consuming power
would be issued to all citizens throughout their lives, in a form of
non-negotiable accounting. It would be used only by the person to whom
it was issued as a medium of distribution. In modern usage it would
likely resemble (physically) the credit card but there the similarity
would end. In conjunction with a modern computer system it would be in
a continual accounting system (detailing expenditure of energy and
natural resources), a continuous inventory, an identification and
record of the holder and a guarantee of security. _ Unlike the credit
card, it would NOT be: a medium of exchange, subject to fluctuation of
“value”, subject to theft or loss, subject to hoarding or gambling, a
symbol of wealth or prestige, a means of creating debt. It would be
useless to everyone except the person to whom it was issued. There
would be no personal “saving”: the unused remainder of individual’s
energy account would be canceled out at two-year intervals and replaced
with a new account. Banks would cease to exist. (11/14/08)
more…

Jay Hanson writes: Many groups are working on the problem of sustainability. I’m an
engineer so I look at sustainability as an engineering problem. First,
it would NOT look like Brundtland’s meaningless, “feel good”definition. Ultimately, sustainability would require limits on human
mobility, reproduction, and consumption.

For many years,
thousands of members on my email lists have investigated all, or almost
all, disciplines and historical examples of sustainability that others
have suggested. With a couple of irrelevant exceptions (e.g., a
religious sect that died out) not one example of an
intentionally-sustainable (engineer’s definition) society could be
found.

The central problem that planet Earth faces today is NOT
a problem of “running out of energy,” or “overfishing,” or “the wrong
kind of farming,” or “the depletion of aquifers,” or “too much CO2 in
the atmosphere,” or [fill in the blanks]…

The problem that
threatens to exterminate most higher forms of life on Earth — and soon
– is the problem of “human behavior.” Therefore, if one is searching
for “solutions,” one must look closely at what one sees in the mirror
every morning. That’s the central problem on planet Earth. It lives
with all of us. WE ARE THE PROBLEM.

The problem of
sustainability can be neatly divided into two sub-problems: 1) An
engineering problem. 2) A political problem.

Even though the engineering problem is gigantic, its solution is fairly
straightforward. We need so much of this type of food here, this much
of that type of vaccine there, water can’t be pumped from an aquifer
any faster than that, wastes can’t be discharged any faster than this,
fishing can’t exceed… And so on. Moreover, the problem must be
approached globally due to the way our ecosystems are interconnected.
Although the problem is immense, I think we could do it.

A
solution to the political problem of sustainability does not presently
exist. Moreover, if we can’t solve the politics of sustainability, then
nothing else matters. That’s Liebig’s limiter: politics. To emphasize
the point: if we can’t solve the political problem, then more efficient
PV panels, wind turbines, etc., won’t help — and may make the die-off
even worse. (11/14/08)
more…

Naomi Klein writes: The more details emerge, the clearer it becomes that Washington’s handling of the Wall Street bailout is not merely incompetent. It is borderline criminal.

In a moment of high panic in late September, the US Treasury unilaterally pushed through a radical change in how bank mergers are taxed—a change long sought by the industry. Despite the fact that this move will deprive the government of as much as $140 billion in tax revenue, lawmakers found out only after the fact. According to the Washington Post, more than a dozen tax attorneys agree that “Treasury had no authority to issue the [tax change] notice.”

Of equally dubious legality are the equity deals Treasury has negotiated with many of the country’s banks. According to Congressman Barney Frank, one of the architects of the legislation that enables the deals, “Any use of these funds for any purpose other than lending—for bonuses, for severance pay, for dividends, for acquisitions of other institutions, etc.—is a violation of the act.” Yet this is exactly how the funds are being used.

Then there is the nearly $2 trillion the Federal Reserve has handed out in emergency loans. Incredibly, the Fed will not reveal which corporations have received these loans or what it has accepted as collateral. Bloomberg News believes that this secrecy violates the law and has filed a federal suit demanding full disclosure.

Despite all of this potential lawlessness, the Democrats are either openly defending the administration or refusing to intervene. “There is only one president at a time,” we hear from Barack Obama. That’s true. But every sweetheart deal the lame-duck Bush administration makes threatens to hobble Obama’s ability to make good on his promise of change. To cite just one example, that $140 billion in missing tax revenue is almost the same sum as Obama’s renewable energy program. Obama owes it to the people who elected him to call this what it is: an attempt to undermine the electoral process by stealth.

Yes, there is only one president at a time, but that president needed the support of powerful Democrats, including Obama, to get the bailout passed. Now that it is clear that the Bush administration is violating the terms to which both parties agreed, the Democrats have not just the right but a grave responsibility to intervene forcefully. …

One thing we know for certain is that the market will react violently to any signal that there is a new sheriff in town who will impose serious regulation, invest in people and cut off the free money for corporations. In short, the markets can be relied on to vote in precisely the opposite way that Americans have just voted. (A recent USA Today/Gallup poll found that 60 percent of Americans strongly favor “stricter regulations on financial institutions,” while just 21 percent support aid to financial companies.)

There is no way to reconcile the public’s vote for change with the market’s foot-stomping for more of the same. Any and all moves to change course will be met with short-term market shocks. The good news is that once it is clear that the new rules will be applied across the board and with fairness, the market will stabilize and adjust. Furthermore, the timing for this turbulence has never been better. Over the past three months, we’ve been shocked so frequently that market stability would come as more of a surprise. That gives Obama a window to disregard the calls for a seamless transition and do the hard stuff first. Few will be able to blame him for a crisis that clearly predates him, or fault him for honoring the clearly expressed wishes of the electorate. The longer he waits, however, the more memories fade.

When transferring power from a functional, trustworthy regime, everyone favors a smooth transition. When exiting an era marked by criminality and bankrupt ideology, a little rockiness at the start would be a very good sign. (11/14/08)
more…

BBC Medical Science – A healthy baby girl has been born in London following the world’s first transplant of an entire ovary, it has been reported. The 39-year-old mother conceived naturally after receiving the ovary from her twin sister. Others have given birth after receiving smaller pieces of ovarian tissue.

A UK specialist said the procedure should be used to preserve fertility before cancer treatment, rather than to try to extend it.

The baby, weighing 7lbs 15 oz (3.6kg), was born to a German-born woman married to a Briton, who became infertile at 15 when her own ovaries failed. It was reported that she did not actually intend to become pregnant, instead hoping that the transplanted ovary from her identical twin could relieve the symptoms of her early menopause and restore her periods. The ovary was implanted with a minimal risk of rejection by her body, using delicate microsurgical techniques to reattach it to its blood supply and hold it in place alongside the fallopian tube, so that eggs could be expelled and travel down the tube towards the womb in the normal way.

Dr Sherman Silber, who carried out the transplant operation at the Infertility Centre of St Louis, Missouri, announced it to the American Society of Reproductive Medicine Conference in San Francisco. He told the conference that the full ovary transplant was likely to last longer than strips of ovarian tissue, and might allow a woman’s ovary to be removed and put back after extended storage. This, he said, could allow women who are delaying motherhood for career or other reasons to improve their chances of having a baby later in life. (11/14/08)
more…

BBC Anthropological Science – A new Homo erectus fossil suggests that females had large, wide pelvises in order to deliver large-brained babies. Being born with a larger brain meant our ancestor became independent far more quickly than modern human infants.

The new finding, published in Science magazine, conflicts with earlier ideas that suggest they had a tall, thin body shape adapted for running.

Homo erectus is thought to be the first human-like creature to move out of Africa to colonise the world. The now extinct hominid species may also have been the first to control fire.

The near-complete 1.4 million-year-old female pelvis was found near Gona in northern Ethiopia. As it was pieced together, the archaeologists were struck by the unusual width of the pelvis.

Scott Simpson, a palaeontologist from Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, US, was one of those who made the discovery.

“Proportionally her hips are wider than those of modern humans,” he says. Earlier hominids such as the three-million-year-old Australopithicus afarensis, made famous by the “Lucy” skeleton found in 1974, have a much narrower pelvic opening. In comparison, more recent hominids found in China, Israel and Spain have wider pelvises.

The researchers say the wider pelvis meant H. erectus could have given birth to babies that were 30% bigger than previously thought.

Having a larger brain size meant the young hominid was dependent on its mother for less time than a modern human baby, a useful survival adaptation in the African savannah where they lived. (11/14/08)
more…

BBC Medical Science — Doctors in Germany say a patient appears to have been cured of HIV by a bone marrow transplant from a donor who had a genetic resistance to the virus. The researchers in Berlin said the man, who suffered from leukaemia and HIV, had shown no sign of either disease since the transplant two years ago. But they stressed it was an unusual case which needed further investigation.

Experts said the result may boost interest in gene therapy for HIV. Berlin’s Charite clinic said the 42-year-old patient was an American living in Berlin, but the man has not been identified. He had been infected with the human immunodeficiency virus, that causes Aids, for more than a decade and also had leukaemia.

The clinic said since the transplant was carried out 20 months ago, tests on the patient’s bone marrow, blood and other organ tissues have all been clear. …

Professor Andrew Sewell, from the Department of Medical Biochemistry and Immunology at the University of Cardiff said in theory a bone marrow transplant such as this one “should work” and it was surprising that no one had tried it before.

“The problem is most people with HIV live in sub-Saharan Africa and
this is hugely expensive, you have to find a matched donor, and it’s a
pretty severe and painful operation. So it’s going to be an option for very few people.” He added that gene therapy to knock out the mutation of the key CCR5 receptor was a possibility for future treatment. (11/14/08)
more…