From this friendfeed discussion:
is tea the old coffee?
Paulo Nuin, Brasilian (connaiseur of coffee ?) and author of The Blind Scientist.
This should make him happy.
From this friendfeed discussion:
is tea the old coffee?
Paulo Nuin, Brasilian (connaiseur of coffee ?) and author of The Blind Scientist.
This should make him happy.
H+ magazine special edition. All quotes below taken from the spring issue of H+ magazine.

1. From Ru Sirius on p.9:
If you embrace these [bio-progressive] rights, expect heavy resistance, because you will find yourself in for a territorial pissing match with most of the leading religions. Religions have traditionally ruled over the “seed” issues – issues around conception, death, the body, self-definition, gender and sexuality. But given the intrusive potentials of advancing technologies, this is a discussion we need to start having now.
2. from Moira A. Gunn on p.27:
….we need to create all this data to figure out who we humans are and how we tick. But unfortunately, we don’t know what data we need for what, and what — in the end — will prove useful. We are still shooting in the dark.
3. From Vernor Vinge on p.31:
The fundamental change that may be taking place humans may not be best characterized as the tool-creating animal but as the only animal that has figured out how to outsource its cognition — how to spread its cognitive abilities into the outside world.
4 + 5. From Alex Lightman on p.33:
If companies are living people, the drop in life expectancy for companies is comparable only to the fastest dying country in the world that is not at war — zimbabwe, where life expectancy has fallen from 60 in 1990 to 34 today.
The moral of the story is that, for those of us in our forties and up, we need to redouble our efforts at birthing problem solving technologies, and we need to make the future happen now or never (at least within the lifetimes of adults in 2008). or we better hope that Vernor Vinge is right and that the Singularity doesn’t require anything close to a healthy economy, in which case those smarter than-us bots can take charge and knock off all of our problems like ducks in a row.
6. From Douglas Rushkoff on p.37:
The way out — as I see it — is to begin making our own money again. I’m not talking barter, but local currency. Money is just an agreement. And the more a community trusts one another, the more effi ciently the moneys they develop can function. We can create units of currency based on anything; if we don’t have grain, we can earn it into existence instead by babysitting, taking care of the elderly, or teaching in a charter school. every hour worked is an “hour” of currency credited to your account.
7. From Jason Stoddard on p. 38:
Let’s be clear on this. We’re not going to wake up in a magical world where iPods and McMansions grow on trees overnight. Before that can happen, every part of today’s value chain has to be overturned. Everything. Production of raw materials, transport and refining, design and engineering, manufacturing, distribution . . . even our own sense of worth.
And there are plenty more. The magazine is highly recommended reading.
Gioachino Antonio Rossini, the famous opera-composer who created The Barber of Seville (the most famous of his 39 operas):
How wonderful opera would be if there were no singers.
And I add: Politics without politicians, news without journalists, stock-exchange without brokers………
Nobel prize winner Frank Wilczek (quote from here):
The most exciting thing that can happen is when theoretical dreams that started as fantasies, as desires, become projects that people work hard to build. There is nothing like it; it is the ultimate tribute. At one moment you have just a glimmer of a thought and at another moment squiggles on paper. Then one day you walk into a laboratory and there are all these pipes, and liquid helium is flowing, and currents are coming in and out with complicated wiring, and somehow all this activity is supposedly corresponds to those little thoughts that you had. When this happens, it’s magic.
1. In a comment on this blog by Andrew Yates of Think Gene:.
……………..educated people don’t have children
2. From this friendfeed discussion:
“I agree. I don’t think too many people from the news industry will read this piece, and those that do will immediately jump to explaining it, why it’s wrong, or what I need to understand, or something else. On the other hand I don’t too many other people will read it either. I’m basically writing this for myself so if I come back here by chance in a couple of years and want to know what I was thinking about, here it will be. If experience is a guide, however, I won’t come back and re-read it. So the real reason I write stuff like this is that it helps my thinking process, having written this I am now ready to move on to the next step or thing or level or what-have-you.” – Dave Winer
“perfect explanation for why we blog!” – Bora Zivkovic
3. From another friendfeed discussion:
any legal or scientific definition will be arbitrary because the development of of a fertilized egg into a human body/brain/person is a gradual process. atheists have a problem here, I wish they’d admit it. – Christopher Harris
4. Ian Mulvany – Twitter
“MS office suite must have retarded human evolution by at least several million man years”
5. Another two from Andrew Yates (I know, ….I’m a fan) in this post:
(The coolest thing about genetics is that leftist don’t believe race exists and rightists don’t believe evolution exists, so if you’re into genetics, you can antagonize your family in the heartland and your friends on the coasts! Science sure is fun.)
6. and this post:
Contrary to the hallmark of every critical journalistic piece about genetics, the future of inequality needs no neo-Hitler concocting blonde-hair, blue-eyed super genius babies in sterile reproductive camps. It only needs to increasingly make raising more successful children more expensive. I’m not aware of any significant counteracting trend.
7. George Dvorsky in this post on his blog:
What is it about sex selection that gives cause to such rejection?
For me this is a no-brainer. Couples in the developed world, where gender discrimination and biases are less prominent, should be allowed to use gender selection for family balancing purposes. I’m absolutely flabbergasted that this is still not a right in some countries, including Canada where couples and their doctors face the threat of large fines and jail terms.
8. Daniel MacArthur of Genetic future in a comment to Steve Murphy of GeneSherpas on this post:
By the way, I didn’t say that you should be embarrassed by your post – I’ve been reading your blog too long to expect you to be introspective about anything you write. I meant that I was embarrassed by reading it.