James Landrith writing in 2001: You
cannot commit racism without first being brainwashed into believing in
“race.” Belief comes first, then the action. All that classification
does is continue to reinforce that hideous belief system. By telling
people that there are different “races” and that we must classify
ourselves by these “races,” and then telling people not to assign
behaviours and traits based on these classifications is wishful
thinking. You first say “we” are different from “them.” Then you say
don’t treat us differently.

Demanding that “racial” differences be acknowledged when the biological evidence says otherwise
is cause to question the motives of the individual or organization
promoting the myth of “racial” differences. Aside from that, using
government to force “racial” classifications on others is a form of
fascist collectivism. These “racial” classifications serve one purpose
only - to classify (read: forcibly divide) people into groups, by
decree of government. Then when these government created groups compete
against each other causing “racial” tensions in a battle for taxpayer
monies, we sit around naively asking why. Hmmm. Let me reiterate this
simple point - “racism” exists as a natural by-product of “race.”Continued use of the government to enforce “racial” classification
schemes is not going to end “racism.” Ending “racial” classification
will not end “racism” overnight either, but it is a necessary first
step in a process that may well take decades. Do not say you are ready
to end “racism” unless you are fully committed to ending “race.” There
must be a point when we say, this stops NOW. I’m going to say it, are
you listening? THIS STOPS NOW.

We don’t have the
time to continue fighting each other over nineteenth century falsehoods
like the concept of biological “races.” We have much more important
work to do and we will need our best minds, operating at the top of
their potential. Deconstruction of all “racial” classifications must
begin in earnest NOW if Humanity is to progress further. We are one
Race and must accept that, then we can decide where to go from there. …

We are going to have to be on top of our game
and in touch with ourselves if we are going to survive our creations.
It’s time to get on with the business of Humanity. We have a lot of
work to do and fighting the same battles over and over is holding the
whole species back.. We are not our ancestors or their sins. We are a
whole new “breed” and it’s time we came to grips with it and the
responsibilities/opportunities that entails. I have a lot of faith in
what we can do as a whole, unencumbered by the irrational belief
systems some of us hold now, but I know that first things come first
and destroying these false boundaries in whatever form they take is an
essential first step.

“Multiracial” America, your childhood’s over. Put away the toys. We have work to do. (03/22/09)
more…

Nate Hagens writes: As cock-sure trainees (in 1992), fresh out of MBA school, our
oft-times swaggering attitudes were held in check, and eventually
dampened, by a cultural meme that existed in our division at Salomon
Brothers (which I was to later understand, was not ubiquitous on Wall
St.). We were often purposefully asked a series of questions - the first
couple answerable if one had done their homework, but the third or
fourth question being very difficult, and most times unanswerable. Our
natural tendency was to look smart, speak with authority and
confidently ’sell’ an answer (or guess) to these tough questions. But
our instructors (a rotating collection of senior people at the firm)
came down on us HARD if we ever guessed, even if we guessed right.

The
correct answer, we were told was “I don’t know, but I can research it and get back to you“.

Perhaps the thinking was that the richest clients on the planet could
smell BS a mile away, and straight talk was not only ethical, but would
lead to more business. This concept of humility was drilled into us to
the point where even in social situations outside of work, we trainees
were conditioned to say “I don’t know” rather than BS our way through
some smug, but wrong, response.
Fast forward 15+ years. Being right is still correlated with social
respect and success. Being wrong drops us a notch socially, if not to
others, at least to ourselves (some more than others). With the
explosion of sub-disciplines in science, it seems that the more data we
have on various aspects of our environment, our economy, and our energy
situation, the more opportunity those with charisma, persuasive skills,
money, connections, etc. can latch on to a particular datapoint or
study or belief and leverage it into an attitude that becomes more
widely held. …

I am a global warming agnostic - a) primarily because I haven’t the
necessary time to become adequately fluent in the complex issues
involved in climate science and b)even if climate change is proven to
be non-anthropogenic, there are myriad other Liebigs limiters to
scaling up the current conspicuous consumption/energy paradigm
globally. I know three IPCC scientists personally (one on my thesis
committee). I also have several close friends who think global warming
is a hoax - who continually send me data on Maunder Minimum, MWP,
solar/sunspot cycles, Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and other things
that look impressive but I don’t fully understand. Occasionally, when I
am emboldened, I cross pollinate ‘new info’ between these various
tribes.

Two emails this Tuesday led to an ‘aha’ moment, and are the genesis
for this post. First, I sent a one hour video presentation given by an
astrophysicist on the natural drivers of climate change to an IPCC
friend. Later that day we spoke. His reply “I watched 5 minutes of it
and it mentioned Maunder Minimum so the rest was likely irrelevant too
- I get 50 of these a week Nate I just don’t have time for such crap - please stop sending it“.
Not being an expert, I didn’t respond and we moved on to talk about a
water/energy paper I am completing. That same night, I had sent a brand
new pdf on methane hydrates to another scientist friend of mine (who
thinks climate change is 90% natural in origin). He lashed out at me
with an email 5 minutes later (pdf was 40 pages so he couldn’t have
read it) saying that “global warming has nothing to do with science -
it is only science that is finally debunking the politicization of
anthropogenic climate change”. How could this be? Two VERY smart
people, not willing (or not able) to incorporate new data into their
belief systems. …

In a society assailed from all angles with social and environmental
problems, and information (in addition to gambling, pornography, and
shopping) available 24/7 on the internet to increasingly ‘full’ minds,
we are moving further and further away from a cultural ability to say
“I don’t know”. Such an answer implies weakness, rather than wisdom,
and someone on TV, someone testifying to Congress, or someone publicly
asked for answers to our financial or environmental problems replying
“I don’t know but I can find out and get back to you” would be quickly
replaced by someone with a pithy, intelligent, or confident answer
(with all three, they’d be branded an ‘expert’ and invited back). Only history will show that uncertainty could have played a much bigger
cultural role than it has, and that the Precautionary Principle should
perhaps have trumped the falsely confident certainty so commonly present in our current world. (03/22/09)
more…

For the first time in Gallup’s 25-year history of asking Americans about the trade-off between environmental protection and economic growth, a majority of Americans say economic growth should be given the priority, even if the environment suffers to some extent. In the latest poll, just over 1,000 American adults were questioned.

Gallup first asked Americans about this trade-off in 1984, at which
time over 60% chose the environmental option. Support for the
environment was particularly high in 1990-1991, and in the late 1990s
and 2000, when the dot-com boom perhaps made economic growth more of a
foregone conclusion.

The percentage of Americans choosing the environment slipped below
50% in 2003 and 2004, but was still higher than the percentage choosing
the economy. Sentiments have moved up and down over the last several
years, but this year, the percentage of Americans choosing the
environment fell all the way to 42%, while the percentage choosing the
economy jumped to 51%.

The reason for this shift in priorities almost certainly has to do
with the current economic recession. The findings reflect many recent
Gallup results showing how primary the economy is in Americans’ minds,
and help document the fact of life that in times of economic stress,
the public can be persuaded to put off or ignore environmental concerns
if need be in order to rejuvenate the economy. (03/22/09)
more…

Nature News — As light as air, yet stronger than steel and bendier than rubber. A
new material made from bundles of carbon nanotubes combines all of
these characteristics in a substance that twitches like a bionic man’s
biceps when a voltage is applied.

The ‘artificial muscle’ is an aerogel — a lightweight, sponge-like material consisting mostly of air — drawn into a long ribbon.

Applying
a voltage across the width of the ribbon electrically charges the
nanotubes that thread through the material. This makes them repel one
another, and the ribbon can expand sideways by up to three times its
original width in an instant. “These muscles are remarkably fast,” says
Ray Baughman at the University of Dallas, Texas, who led the research.

The
artificial muscle can expand about 4,000 times faster than human muscle
does, says Baugman, and can be switched on and off up to 1,000 times a
second with no deterioration (see video).

Applying
a voltage along the length of the ribbon has a very different effect.
It triggers the nanotube structure to contract, making the material
more dense and very stiff (see animation).
This means that the ‘muscles’ could pack a mighty punch — along the
length of the ribbon, the nanotube aerogel is, weight for weight,
stronger than steel. The work is published today in Science¹.

“What really impresses me is that the ribbons show an incredibly large
difference in stiffness depending on which direction is probed,” says
John Madden, a materials scientist from the University of British
Columbia in Vancouver, Canada. “They are perhaps a million times
stiffer in one direction than in the other two. Imagine feeling a
material that is like diamond in one direction and rubber in the other
two.” (03/22/09)
more…

Heidi Ledford reports: A “State of the Birds“report released by the US federal government yesterday estimates that a
third of the United States’ roughly 800 bird species are in danger.

The report is, in a word, depressing. It is the summation of a slew
of depressing bird censuses, which together encompass 40 years worth of
data. (Here are a couple of our previous posts on bird losses in the US and elsewhere.) US Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said the report “should be a call to action” (New York Times).

Half of the shorebird species have declined over the last four
decades, and birds that breed in grasslands have dropped 40%. Also in
trouble: any native bird on the islands of Hawai’i (including the
Hawaiian crow, shown at right), which are threatened not only by human
encroachment but by an army of invasive species. Kenneth Rosenberg of
the Cornell Lab of Ornithology called Hawai’i “a borderline ecological
disaster” (Reuters).

The usual culprits are to blame: loss of habitat, pollution, etc. But one Associated Press
article provides a bizarre spin on the report by pinning much of the
blame on alternative energy efforts. True, the report does mention wind
turbines, but to my quick read it looks like much more space is spent
discussing the consequences of traditional energy pursuits, such as oil
spills and mountaintop removal. (03/22/09)
more…