The Forth Industrial Revolution

The Oxford Martin School predicts 47% of current jobs are at risk of being replaced by robots in the next 25 years. In the film, Blackwell and Walsh identify certain key industries likely to be threatened by automated disruption and come up with the approximate figure of 500 million people who will soon be made redundant.

Typically, these statistics are a launching pad for people to speculate about how humanity will find meaning in a world without labour. Although the film does tackle these questions, it also encourages viewers to think about what will happen to the half-billion-odd workers facing sudden redundancy.

“We saw all these futurists, some of them very articulate and very successful but we found they were just becoming too excited without thinking about the global repercussions on very fragile infrastructures in developing countries,” Blacknell says.

On this point, the Rise of the Robots author, Martin Ford, is especially prescient. Contrary to many of his fellow interviewees, he argues that technology alone offers no solution to the problems of massive job displacement.

Ford believes addressing the challenge will require social and political will to push the boundaries of capitalism – and although the idea of a universal basic income isn’t explicitly mentioned (it’s to be the subject of Blacknell and Walsh’s next film), it does serve as
the backdrop to much of the discussion.

The film-makers decided to intersperse interview footage with archival
footage, much of it in black and white. This helps to place contemporary questions about work in a deeper historical context.



Indeed there have been moments in the past when the rapid expansion of technology has both excited and terrified us. At the 1889 Paris Exhibition, guild artisans were invited to marvel at new labour-saving devices which, as the artisans quickly realized, would destroy their way of life and most likely leave them destitute. Whether they endured or not isn’t easily determined, though several interviewees acknowledge the enormous job displacement that occurred in this period.

Of course, there are strong moral arguments for progress, and Blacknell and Walsh don’t deny the potential benefits. But while The Future of Work and Death encourages viewers to look toward the leading edge of research, it also strongly advises us to keep the other eye on
what’s happening right now.

“You’ve got to ask yourself, what’s important on a global scale?” Walsh says. “I think it’s important to focus on the trailing edge [those in poverty] a little bit if you’re going to move forward at such pace.”

This is perhaps more significant in the discussion of death. The documentary includes a quote from Bill Gates: “It seems pretty egocentric while we still have malaria and TB [affecting impoverished communities] for rich people to fund things so they can live longer.”
When the documentary turns to mortality and humanity’s attempt to conquer death through longevity, the discussion of what the future is likely to look like gets even more opaque.



The film explores two different models of longevity: the attempt to conquer ageing, championed by the gerontologist Aubrey de Grey, and the project of digitally uploading human consciousness so our minds can live on without our bodies.

The unifying tenet behind these approaches is the philosophy of transhumanism, a movement that aims to reject the physical and intellectual limitations of humanity in favour of something greater. Given death is humanity’s greatest limitation, the holy grail of transhumanism is immortality.

The anthropologist Ernest Becker believed human life was defined by its avoidance of death – a theme the anthropologists Joanna Cook and Steve Fuller and the writer Will Self explore at length in the documentary. Becker also believed humans strived for immortality, though he thought we were more likely to achieve it through what we created. Instead of actual immortality, Becker believed humans undertake “immortality projects” to be remembered once they’re gone.
There’s a striking coincidence here: at the same time that humanity seeks genuine immortality, we’ve begun to phase out work – the attempt to fuse our labour with the world to create something new – perhaps the most common immortality project we’ve created.



The irony here is that the transhumanist desire to overcome humanity is motivated by perhaps the most deeply entrenched human instinct there is: survival. The transhumanists claim it is their zeal for life that motivates them.

Chesterton’s words again come to mind. “When men have come to the edge of a precipice,” he says, “it is the lover of life who has the spirit to leap backwards, and only the pessimist who continues to believe in
progress.”

Who the optimists and the pessimists are in the fight for humanity’s future remains to be seen, but The Future of Work and Death lends both a soapbox on which to state their case. And as technology takes us closer to either utopia or the cliff, the film helps along a conversation we desperately need to have.
Source: The Guardian news

YOUR INPUT IS MUCH APPRECIATED! LEAVE YOUR COMMENT BELOW.

Is the Lose of Religious Liberties Inevitable in a Modern Society?

By: Alexandria Addesso

Religion has long been the scapegoat of many of the world’s problems; poverty, ignorance, immorality, backwardness, and war. It is believed and frequently perpetuated that most wars were started and carried out because of religion, such instances were usually deemed “holy wars”. But do these notions suggest that there must be a war fought against religion itself?

Most first-world Western Nations are highly secularized. Where religions were once used to dictate moral standards and laws, now modern “norms” seem to be the guiding light. Such nations that lean toward secularism seem to hold atheism as the highest intellectual belief structure (or rather lack thereof). So what does that mean for those who still practice religions or formal faith structures?

Religious liberty and freedoms are hot-button topics in current events. The newly elected United States president, just days after being inaugurated, signed an executive order that banned people from entering the country if their visas were from 7 particular countries and if they were also Muslim. And while some may not disagree with these measures and brand the United States as a “Christian” nation, the state department completely disregarded the
Christian genocide that was ongoing in the Middle East and Africa for several years.



What is the cost we pay for progressiveness? Technological and scientific advances seem to push the need for the protection of religious liberties and freedoms further and further away. Would a religion-free society be better than a religious one? There is no doubt that many people would fight to establish the former, and there are currently people working for just that.

But with a look back on history to nations that tried to eliminate religions and make all such practices illegal does not paint a perfect picture, but rather just the gruesome opposite. The Cristero Rebellions in the 1920s where the Mexican government tried to suppress Catholicism and kill off clergy is one such example of such wickedness. The religionless Soviet Union is another. Yet in most of these cases the faith of such adherents only seemed to grow stronger, even unto death. So should these religious liberties be protected like any other human right or should they be part of the “final test”? Stay vigilant.

YOUR INPUT IS MUCH APPRECIATED! LEAVE YOUR COMMENT BELOW.

Social Exclusion Leads to Conspiratorial Thinking

After analyzing the data, the researcher’s hypothesis was confirmed: Social exclusion does lead to superstitious beliefs and, according to their statistical analyses, is likely the result of one searching for meaning in everyday experiences. NeuroscienceNews.com image is for illustrative purposes only.

Researchers report people who experience social exclusion are more likely to believe disinformation, fake news and conspiracies.

Recent polls have shown that many white, working-class people in America feel pushed out by society, a reason why many voted for President Donald Trump. Many of these supporters latched onto misinformation spread online, especially stories that justified their own beliefs.

New research may show why so many were willing to believe exaggerated and misleading reports. According to a Princeton University study published in the Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, social exclusion leads to conspiratorial thinking.

The two-part analysis — which did not specifically investigate Trump supporters, but two random samples of people — found that the feelings of despair brought on by social exclusion can cause people to seek meaning in miraculous stories, which may not necessarily be true.

Such conspiratorial thinking leads to a dangerous cycle, said co-lead author Alin Coman, assistant professor of psychology and public affairs at Princeton. When those with conspiratorial ideas share their beliefs, it can drive away family and friends, triggering even more exclusion. This may lead them to join conspiracy theory communities where they feel welcome, which in turn will further entrench their beliefs.



“Attempting to disrupt this cycle might be the best bet for someone interested in counteracting conspiracy theories at a societal level,” Coman said. “Otherwise, communities could become more prone to propagating inaccurate and conspiratorial beliefs.”

Coman published the study with Damaris Graeupner, a research assistant in Princeton’s Department of Psychology. For the first part of the study, they recruited 119 participants through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, a crowdsourcing internet marketplace.

Participants engaged in four phases. First, they were asked to write about a recent unpleasant event that involved a close friend. Next, they were asked to rate the degree to which they felt 14 different emotions, including exclusion, which was the emotion being analyzed.

They then were asked to complete a questionnaire that contained 10 statements and rank their agreement or disagreement using a seven-point scale from absolutely untrue to absolutely true. These statements included phrases like “I am seeking a purpose or mission for my life” and “I have discovered a satisfying life purpose.”

Finally, participants had to indicate the degree to which they endorsed three different conspiratorial beliefs ranging from one (not at all) to seven (extremely). These included the following statements: “Pharmaceutical companies withhold cures for financial reasons”; “Governments use messages below the level of awareness to influence people’s decisions”; and “Events in the Bermuda Triangle constitute evidence of paranormal activity.”

“We chose these particular conspiracy theories for their widespread appeal in the population,” Coman said. “These three are, indeed, endorsed by a significant portion of the American population.”

After analyzing the data, the researchers’ hypothesis was confirmed: Social exclusion does lead to superstitious beliefs and, according to their statistical analyses, is likely the result of one searching for meaning in everyday experiences.

“Those who are excluded may begin to wonder why they’re excluded in the first place, causing them to seek meaning in their lives. This may then lead them to endorse certain conspiracy beliefs,” Coman said. “When you’re included, it doesn’t necessarily trigger the same response.”



In the second part of the study, the researchers wanted to causally determine whether the degree to which someone was socially excluded influenced their conspiratorial beliefs. They recruited 120 participants, all of whom were Princeton University students

Participants were first asked to write two paragraphs describing themselves, one about “What it means to be me,” and another about “The kind of person I want to be.” They were told that these paragraphs would be given to two other participants in the room who would then rank whether they’d want to work with them.

Each of the three participants was then randomly selected to either be in the inclusion group (selected for collaboration in a subsequent task), the exclusion group (not selected for collaboration) or the control group (no instructions about selection). This was deceitful: The participants did not evaluate the other participants’ self-descriptions but instead descriptions created by the researchers. Finally, all participants went through the same four phases as the first study, which measured how social exclusion is linked to acceptance of conspiracy theories.

The second study replicated the findings of the first, providing solid experimental evidence that if a person feels excluded, they are more likely to hold conspiratorial beliefs.

In terms of policy, the findings highlight the need for inclusion, especially among populations at risk of exclusion.



“When developing laws, regulations, policies and programs, policymakers should worry about whether people feel excluded by their enactment,” Coman said. “Otherwise, we may create societies that are prone to spreading inaccurate and superstitious beliefs.
Source: Princeton University - NeuroscienceNews.com

YOUR INPUT IS MUCH APPRECIATED! LEAVE YOUR COMMENT BELOW.

The Philosophy in Modern Times: We Really Need its Values

For many people philosophy is an obscure and largely outdated discipline that has little relevance in the real world. I’ve taught an introductory philosophy course for many years and many of my students come into the course with the idea that philosophy is little more than opinions wrapped in big words and focuses on topics that have no bearing on practical matters like paying for school or landing a job. So what’s the point? Why do people study philosophy and what, if any, value does it have?

I’ve found the study of philosophy to be life changing. This isn’t a slogan for me. Philosophy has proven to be immensely satisfying and valuable. Here are seven reasons why.

It broadens my world
Like the freed prisoner in Plato’ allegory of the cave, studying philosophy forced me to think differently about the world around me. Prior to studying philosophy, the world was simple, dogmatism came cheap, and frankly, the world was pretty bland. Don’t get me wrong, simplicity is great when things are simple. Few of us seek to make life needlessly more complicated. But complexity can actually be quite wonderful when it opens up new vistas. As I’ve aged, I’ve learned to appreciate fine cooking and all the adornments that go along with it (like a good wine and an enveloping atmosphere). As many an epicurean will tell you, the best cooking is generally not simple cooking. Tasting excellent food that has layers of perfectly balanced flavors that were prepared over hours or days and that come alive with the right wine or a hand-crafted bread is among the most enriching experiences one can have. Philosophy does the same for me with ideas. Getting past the boxed mac-and-cheese simple answers to a feast of nuanced philosophy is, simply, wonderful.



It trains my mind
The mind is in many ways like a muscle. It needs to be exercised, stretched, and pushed to the limit to be at its best. Philosophy can be very tough. As Alvin Plantinga has said, “Philosophy is just thinking hard”. Philosophy as a discipline, has forced me to think more precisely and carefully. It is teaching me how to frame problems and where to go to make better sense of those problems. It always pushes me to be a better thinker. For me, there was an unexpected outcome to stretching my mind to my intellectual limits. It makes many of the more mundane, daily challenges I face much easier to handle. And training your body to bench press, two hundred pounds makes opening the pickle jar quite a bit easier.

It continually challenges me
This probably goes without saying and is closely related to the point above. Philosophy is challenging not only because it tackles hard problems, but because it unrelenting in its demand for clarity. A friend of mine who was struggling with the question of God’s existence once expressed exasperation with the unsettled nature of the philosophical literature on the question. “If you read a good argument for one position one month, the next month there will be three journal articles with counterarguments that show why the first argument was wrong.” This constant dialogue with no clear end can be very frustrating. But it also forces us to learn how to evaluate what we’re thinking about and synthesize it. This challenge is something I find invigorating. I expect it to last a lifetime.



It makes me careful
One of the greatest lessons I’m learning from studying philosophy is that there are very few easy answers to life’s intractable problems. Philosophy has pushed me to labor over the nuance of a word or phrase. It encourages me to constantly challenge my assumptions and to slow down and be patient while looking for something that might resemble an answer. Finishing a great book in philosophy most of the time means concluding with more questions than I started with. While this can sound frustrating to some, it has brought a great deal of peace to me. I’m learning that when it comes to ideas, the journey is quite a bit more enjoyable than the destination.

It changes my point of view
There’s a popular bumper sticker that reads, “Hire a teenager while he still knows everything.” It’s funny--at least to everyone but teenagers--because with age we come to learn that life is nuanced and requires changing our minds about a great many things. Philosophy provides the means by which I can consider views of points. I would not otherwise consider and to look in a different way at problems I once thought were solved. Think of where’d you’d be, if you still believed all the things you were certain of when you were twelve. Healthy change generally means growth and that’s a good thing.

It tempers dogmatism
I’m learning that dogmatism may partly be rooted in a desire to be secure. While security generally is something to be prized, when it comes to the life of the mind, too much security can actually be a detriment. Because logic is so central to philosophy, it’s natural to think that intellectual problems all have hard-and-fast logical outcomes and the goal is to find those irrefutable conclusions. If this were the case, dogmatism would be hard to avoid. But philosophy, taken holistically, has led me in the opposite direction. The ambiguity of words, the fuzzy nature of our knowledge of the truth of many facts, the influence of the passions and desires, the imprecision of experience, and the obvious limitations of our mind should introduce a great deal of intellectual humility and tentativeness to our worldview. Philosophy as a discipline (and, in my opinion, when done properly) exposes both the power and the limitations of logic. As G.K. Chesterton rightly observed, “The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason.”



It puts things in perspective
As I alluded to above, philosophy is teaching me how to understand the relative importance of ideas. It’s all too easy to view every idea as equally important and to want to “go to the mat” for every idea we find disagreeable. But by having to go deep on concepts, I’ve learned that some ideas are worth wrestling with and others are not. There are a lot of very interesting ideas to labor over, argue about, and spend time on. There are a lot of others that aren’t. Philosophy is helping me figure out which are which.
Source: Paul Pardi

YOUR INPUT IS MUCH APPRECIATED! LEAVE YOUR COMMENT BELOW.

You should never ‘Argue’ about Religion

The table talk focuses on everyday issues that we discuss with one another and have philosophical significance, and the daily conversation deals with common sense and minding our own business. Statements such as “that’s common sense” and “it’s none of my business” are frequently used but not always evaluated. Certainly, there are other statements that fall into this category such as, “There is one thing that I never argue about: religion”? Normally this statement is made with strong conviction as if it is not to be compromised but it always puzzles me when someone says this. Despite the fact that it is well within the right of the speaker to adhere to this idea, it still brings up two important questions: Why is this statement made? Is the topic of religion worthy of discussion?

There are several reasons why may say, and genuinely accept, this. One is indifference and this indifference can be expressed in two ways. Some are indifferent because they argue that religious issues are hotly disputed and diverse and conclude that there is no hope in finding any truth in the middle of all these differences and disagreements.

The attempt is futile. Some are indifferent because they simply do not care about religion and argue that we should be more concerned with practical matters, while still others are simply impatient with theological and philosophical issues. “The attempt to discuss these matters is preposterous.” They might claim. Moreover, others do not discuss religion because they find the idea so overwhelming. Here we are attempting to just get by each day and trying to understand the mysteries of religion is quite a daunting task. Lastly, this statement is made because of fear and disillusionment with religion. Some fear the discussion of religious and philosophical matters because they simply do not know how they feel about these topics. They have never really examined it. Or they think that they have examined it and are afraid to find out that they may be wrong. Some are simply disillusioned by religion because of violence committed in its name. They think of conflicts and offenses that have occurred because of religious issues and feel that the teachings of religion have lost their credibility. These reactions to the thought of discussing religion raise another issue which is philosophically significant.



Defining religion is a task unto itself. The meaning of the term ‘religion’ has been hotly debated for centuries by theologians, philosophers, politicians, and even scientists. Because religion is so multifaceted it has difficult to come up with a definition that covers the nature of all religions. Nevertheless, I’m going to make an attempt. According to Wikipedia (believe it or not, it’s probably one of the more concise definitions in cyberspace), religion is “the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or more in general a set of beliefs explaining the existence of and giving meaning to the universe, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.” This definition is adequate particularly in how it treats the idea of the divine. Not all religions—notably Buddhism—require a belief in a divine being. The definition contains concepts such as god or gods, existence, meaning, moral code, and human affairs. It is not a stretch to claim that religion is important to our lives, regardless of whether one admires or despises religion.

Religion’s importance lies in the fact that it deals with ultimate issues; matters that are fundamental to human life such as the existence of God, death, morality, meaning of life and human behavior. These issues are a fundamental concern and understanding them appear to be necessary for flourishing in this life. Dr. Thomas Morris explains in his book, Making Sense of It All: Pascal and the Meaning of Life that disputed questions can be divided into two categories: existentially peripheral disputed questions and existentially central disputed questions. According to Dr. Morris, the former are questions that “may be widely or hotly disputed but whose proper resolution is not really crucial for my understanding of my life or for my living of a good life.”



Whereas the latter category are questions that are “widely or hotly disputed among human beings and that matter a great deal to how we understand ourselves and our lives.” For instance, some dispute which operating system is better: Windows or Mac OS X. This debate is worthy of consideration and important for computer usage but the resolution to this question will not affect the ultimate issues of life. However, the existence of God is existentially central because it greatly affects our lives and can lead to important insights into personal meaning, immortality, and ethics.

Religion can be hotly disputed and sometimes this can be discouraging or even repulsive to some but the fact that it is hotly disputed should not excuse us from pursuing an understanding of religion and how it fundamentally affects our lives. There are numerous existentially peripheral questions that are hotly disputed but how many times do you hear those issues being mentioned in the following statement: “There is one thing that I never argue about: …. (fill in the blank).” This is probably not a common statement. It is also important to note that the word “argue” can be misunderstood.
Many times, “argue” is used to mean participation in a heated exchange. In this sense, responsible and rational people would not condone “arguing” about religion. However, the classical meaning of “argue” is to offer reasons for your conclusions. This philosophical sense of the word should be encouraged when it comes to the topic of religion. Offering reasons for our conclusions when it comes to such an important matter as religion is vital to our lives and maybe those who have uttered the statement in question will realize what they are missing.
Source: Rick Pimentel

YOUR INPUT IS MUCH APPRECIATED! LEAVE YOUR COMMENT BELOW.

Minds and Computers: Is there a possibility of a Computational theory of Mind?

There is now a very wide range of sound introductory texts in the philosophy of mind. Matt Carter’s new book offers something rather different. His opening six chapters include material which will be very familiar to any student of the philosophy of mind: dualism, behaviorism, materialism, and functionalism. But his main concern is to outline and defend the possibility of a computational theory of mind. Three chapters outline in a formal, rigorous way a variety of concepts necessary for understanding what computation is, and the remainder of the book aims to show how this formal machinery might be invoked in an explanation of what the mind is and how it works.

Carter’s cautious conclusion is that on the one hand there is no objection in principle to the programme of strong artificial intelligence – ie, that there can be systems which display (and so have) mentality simply in virtue of instantiating certain computer programs – but that on the other hand, our best available programs are ‘woefully inadequate’ to that task.



Carter succeeds admirably in explaining why this might be so. The opening chapters will be fairly simple for philosophy students, but the material thereafter will be almost wholly new and not available elsewhere in such a user-friendly form. For students of artificial intelligence (AI), the book explains very clearly why the whole artificial intelligence project presupposes substantive and controversial answers to some traditional philosophical questions. The book is a model of exercise in interdisciplinary. It’s also written lucidly, with regular summaries of important points. An Appendix supplies a useful glossary of technical terms.

So far so, good, very good in fact. However, as usual among critics, I want to make a number of critical comments, of increasing weight. The first and least weighty: though Carter sprinkles the text with exercises, he rarely supplies any answers, which students will surely find frustrating.

Next, he doesn’t mention one set of reservations some philosophers have about AI. That is the tendency among cognitive scientists to attribute to the brain certain activities which (so the criticism goes) belong only to the whole person. For example, in accounting for perception, the scientists will speak in terms of the brain receiving messages, interpreting data, constructing hypotheses, drawing inferences, etc., as if the brain were itself a small person. Carter may well find such criticism unpersuasive, but it would have been good to give it an airing, as it has been a significant issue between defenders of AI and their critics.

The third reservation is a matter of substance. Computer programs operate on purely ‘syntactic’ features – ultimately speaking, they depend upon the physical form of the inputs, transformations and outputs. By contrast, human thought is always a thought about something, it represents something, it has a contents. It displays what philosophers call ‘intentionality’. One central problem for artificial intelligence is how to get aboutness into computer programs – how to get semantics out of syntactic.

Carter’s answer is to invoke experience. What enables certain expressions of syntax in our heads to represent features of the world is that they are linked with the external world, and the linkage comes about because we experience the world. “In order for our mental states to have meaning, intentionality, we must have antecedent experience of the world, mediated by our sensory apparatus”, (p.179). Now this response might be helpful for a computational theory of mind if experience could be explained in purely computational terms. Some philosophers and AI theorists believe that this can be done, but arguably the move is not available to Carter. For earlier in the book he committed himself to an account of experience which seems to preclude a computational treatment.



Carter thinks that all our experiences have a qualitative aspect: that they include so-called qualia. There is something it is like to see the color red. Visual experience is beyond merely having certain physical inputs in the forms of light waves, undergoing certain transformations in the brain and producing physical outputs such as speaking the sentence “There is something red.” What it is like to be in any given experiential state, says Carter, “can be known only by having the first person experience of being in the state” (p.43). However, if this is correct, it surely cannot be squared with a computational theory of experience. Carter thinks that detecting qualia requires you to have that experience yourself; but there is no reason to think that detecting a particular computer program requires you to be an embodiment of that program yourself. Therefore experience can’t be like a computer program.

Carter tries to avoid the qualia problem by saying that it is not important that we each have qualitative experience unknowable by other people, so long as we agree on which things are red and which are not. But this seems inadequate. If a computational theory of mind requires getting semantics out of syntactic, and this requires a connection with the real world via our sensory experiences, and these experiences essentially involve qualia, we can hardly accept that qualia are unimportant. They are precisely what makes experience experience, and so mind mind.



It seems that Carter is faced with a trilemma. He needs to explain how he thinks a computational account can be provided of qualia; or he needs to abandon a qualia-based account of experience, in favor of some computational account; or he needs to abandon his conclusion that there is no objection in principle to a purely computational account of the mind.

However, it would be unreasonable to expect an introductory text such as this to provide the solutions to these problems. What it needs to do is to give readers a sense of the issues involved. Carter’s text does that extremely well.
Source: Nicholas Everitt

YOUR INPUT IS MUCH APPRECIATED! LEAVE YOUR COMMENT BELOW.

Meditation in virtual reality: When Philosophy and the Business of Synthetic Technology meet

There’s no paradox in finding your true self via virtual reality because everyday reality is a simulation, says self-help guru Deepak Chopra of his latest venture

The cosmos swirls, wisps of purple, yellow and orange light flickering across the darkness of space, then across the visage of Buddha. An otherworldly plain fills the horizon, framed by the branches of a tree – the tree of enlightenment.

A familiar voice intrudes. “What or who is having this experience right this moment, right now?” Pause. “It is your own being. It is your innermost being that is having the experience, your true self.”

The voice continues. “Live here, with no regrets, no anticipation, no resistance, and you will be free. Freedom is always now. Being is now.”



Even if you enjoy psychedelic animation graphics you may struggle to live here, however, because visits last just 20 minutes and they are not real, not free and not quite now.
Welcome – if you have the headset or appropriate app – to Deepak Chopra’s latest venture: virtual reality (VR) meditation.

The new age entrepreneur and self-help guru unveiled the simulation, titled “Finding your true self”, this week at the headquarters of Wevr, a VR firm in Silicon Beach, Los Angeles’ tech hub.

Chopra, who narrates the simulation, hopes to sell the experience via booths at airports, hospitals and other locations, and via phones and laptops enabled with VR platforms.
“In 20 minutes you get a journey to enlightenment. The goal is to feel grounded and understand yourself a little better,” he told the Guardian. The technology, he said, facilitated an understanding of consciousness which eluded even René Descartes, the 17th century French philosopher. “He was good for his time but didn’t have VR to take it to the next level.”
A bold claim for a nascent technology more associated with gaming and pornography than reflection and contemplation. But Chopra, 68, has not built a lucrative brand and sold millions of books such as The Seven Spiritual Laws of Success through timidity.



Meditation’s benefits – improved focus, lower stress, inner peace – require investments of time, effort and discipline which frustrate many would-be practitioners. A vast market, Chopra hopes for a simulation which mixes “insights, contemplation and entertainment”.

Meditation purists may wonder if that is cheating. Those who simply wonder if it works will be able to find out when the product launches, perhaps in a few weeks. “Soon, very soon,” said Anthony Batt, Wevr’s co-founder. The app will cost $10, he said.

For that, according to a three-minute trailer shown to the Guardian and others at the company’s headquarters, you get trippy graphics, heavy on purple, with otherworldly sound effects laid over statements which, depending on perspective, are insightful, gnomic or nonsense.

There was no paradox between finding your true self via virtual reality because everyday reality is itself a simulation, said Chopra. An insect with 100 eyes, for instance, views the world differently than a human.

“For 30 years people have been coming to my lectures saying they don’t get it. Well now they can.”

Asked if the simulation tried to cross Descartes, who coined the maxim “I think, thefore I am,” with the science fiction film The Matrix, Chopra beamed. “Absolutely!”



The simulation features the Bodhi tree under which Buddha is said to have sat.
The project is the brainchild of Chopra’s son, Gotham, a Los Angeles film-maker. “I’ve been hearing my father talk about simulation for 30 years. I realized this would be a tool for him.”

Earlier versions featuring water were discarded for an impressionistic interpretation of the Bodhi tree in eastern India under which Buddha is said to have sat around 500 BC, seeking and eventually finding enlightenment. “We wanted to replicate that,” said Gotham.

Designers worked on the project at Wevr’s headquarters, a Frank Gehry-designed house where Dennis Hopper lived, partied and encountered his own virtual reality through alcohol and drugs.

Strapping on a headset or peering at a computer screen, were not inimical to contemplation, said Chopra. “I’ve never been too attached to tradition. We’re an evolving species. If you don’t keep up with technology you’re not in touch with the zeitgeist and you may as well pack it in.”
Source Rory Carroll, Los Angeles

YOUR INPUT IS MUCH APPRECIATED! LEAVE YOUR COMMENT BELOW.

Glass Solar Roofing: Helpful Innovation or Unrealistic Luxury Item?

By: Alexandria Addesso

Cost-efficient and eco-friendly are buzzwords used in many new product pitches being that they are major concerns of “conscious” consumers. Solar energy has grown as an industry tremendously in the past several years due to its use as a cleaner power source. Solar panels, although initially more expensive when first installed, are believed to save users money on their energy bills in the long run.



Last October Elon Musk, the billionaire CEO of Tesla Motors and SpaceX amongst many other occupational titles, unveiled his newest project which is solar roof made out of many glass tiles. He revealed the solar glass roof at Universal Studios in Los Angeles, CA.

"So the basic proposition will be: Would you like a roof that looks better than a normal roof, lasts twice as long, costs less and—by the way—generates electricity? Why would you get anything else?," said Musk.

The tiles will come in four different variations which include slate glass tile, textured Glass Tile, Tuscan Glass Tile, and Smooth Glass Tile. But could such an innovation really be cheaper than a good old shingled roof? According to Musk the solar glass roofs will be cheaper than the terra cotta or slate roof styles that they are trying to mimic, which are the most expensive roofs on the market.

"The solar roof consists of uniquely designed glass tiles that complement the aesthetics of any home, embedded with the highest efficiency photovoltaic cells," explained a statement released by Tesla. "Customers can choose which sections of their roof will contain the hidden solar technology while still having the entire roof look the same."



The solar glass roofs function by utilizing three levels of glass film, then solar cells. When the sunlight reaches solar cells it is converted to energy and saved on a power wall. The glass solar roofs have not been priced or mass produced yet, the projected date is mid-2017. Although they may be beneficial and aesthetically pleasing, they will most likely be a highly priced luxury item.

YOUR INPUT IS MUCH APPRECIATED! LEAVE YOUR COMMENT BELOW.

Is Labor Necessary for Life?

By: Alexandria Addesso

Ah work. It is usually a word that brings about dread for many employed people. Long caffeinated hours that can, usually, be quite strenuous and taxing on the body and mind. Even workers that are very passionate about their careers can get exhausted and fed up by them. But what if we lived in a workless society? Would things be better, or worst for the individual’s health and psyche? Is work only necessary for financial stability and to accomplish the necessities for life or is there something more?

Philosopher Aristotle described “the complete happiness of man”, as being “self-sufficiency, leisureliness and unworriedness”. But after discussing this he added that man was too lowly for such accomplishments and that they were only suitable for the gods. Conversely, in the first chapter of Genesis in the Bible God is seen as doing three things; creating, working, and resting. If man is to be like Him, he must do the same. But philosophical and religious notions aside, can man lead a meaningful life without labor?



A 2013 Gallup poll found that 68 percent of people would keep working after winning the lottery. Obviously this majority of people polled would not be working simply to pay the bills, so why else would anyone work? Another Gallup poll from the same year found that three out of four employed people surveyed said they planned to keep working part-time after retirement.
When wages and labor is separated, work can become more meaningful. Wage-labor can be viewed as a form of enslavement and forceful. But when labor is separated from wages what an individual accomplishes by the sweat of their brow or creative abilities, can bring about a more in-depth sense of self-worth and accomplishment. Rather than pursuing meaningless work to earn a check, a person can labor to better themselves, others, the greater society and the planet.



The late French social activist Peter Maurin co-founded the Catholic Worker Movement in part to reject and go against wage labor. Although he believed in labor as a beneficial and necessary part of each person’s life, he also believed that labor should only be pursued for four hours a day, followed by four hours of discussion. The following is an excerpt from one of Maurin’s Easy Essays on labor guides:

“But the worker would not be exploited at the point of production
if the worker did not sell his labor to the exploiter of his labor.
When the worker sells his labor to a capitalist or accumulator of labor
he allows the capitalist or accumulator of labor to accumulate his labor.
And when the capitalist or accumulator of the worker’s labor has
accumulated so much of the worker’s labor that he no longer finds it
profitab1e to buy the worker’s labor then the worker can no longer sell
his labor to the capitalist or accumulator of labor.
And when the worker can no longer sell his labor to the capitalist or
accumulator of labor he can no longer buy the products of his labor.
And that is what the worker gets for selling his labor to the capitalist or
accumu1ator of labor.
He just gets left and he gets what is coming to him. Labor is not a
commodity to be bought and sold–. Labor is a means of self-expression,
the worker’s gift to the common good.”

YOUR INPUT IS MUCH APPRECIATED! LEAVE YOUR COMMENT BELOW.

With Robots: Is a life without work one, we’d want to live?

Being gainfully employed is about more than money. We need to consider what will give our lives purpose and connections in the age of auto information.

When Aristotle described “the complete happiness of man”, he thought it would include, among other things, “self-sufficiency, leisureliness and unweariedness”. Unfortunately the philosopher concluded that “such a life would be too high for man” – it was suitable only for the gods. All the same, he encouraged humanity to keep striving to get as close to “complete happiness” as possible.

I reckon he’d be proud of where we’ve got. Today, the fourth industrial revolution– which ranges from artificial intelligence to genetic engineering and automation – promises almost total freedom from weariness and uninterrupted leisure time as demands of work are taken away from us by better, cheaper and more efficient artificial technology.

The robots are coming and apparently they’re here to work.
But will all the free time we’re being promised actually make our lives any better? Is a life without work one we’d actually want to live?

I’ve often debated the merits of continuing to work after winning the lotto with friends and family – I maintain that I wouldn’t but I always find myself in the minority. Apparently this isn’t unique to my social circle – a 2013 Gallup poll found 68% of people would keep working after winning lotto. I’m assuming they’re not thinking they’ll still need the money, so what is it about the daily grind that’s more appealing than putting your feet up on a beach?



People view a robot during the Taiwan Automation Intelligence and Robot Show in Taipei, Taiwan, in August.

The obvious answer is that we don’t only work for income we do it because it adds meaning to our lives and gives a sense of purpose. Even though I insist I wouldn’t work if I struck it rich, what I mean is that I’d choose the type of work I would do and how often I’d do it. For instance, I would still write and give talks on subjects I’m passionate about.

It’s not necessarily because “if you do what you love, you’ll never work a day in your life”. Writing, preparing talks and doing research are all work but it’s work I think is worth doing and the financial wealth would mean I could balance it with everything else I value in life. To put it simply, I’d do it because it would bring me closer to Aristotle’s “complete happiness”.

There’s new research to back up this popular mode of thinking. The economist Paul Dolan’s recent book Happiness by Design shows the happiest people are those who experience feelings of both purpose and pleasure over time. All the work and no play might make Jack a dull boy but all play and no work, isn’t going to make him happy either.

Of course not all work is going to provide us with a profound sense of purpose. Some of it is both pointless and unpleasant – a total happiness suck. Someone in a role they hate, working for a company whose values don’t match their own or not earning enough money to live off isn’t going to be nourished by their work. Assuming their financial needs could be met, they’d seem to be much better off quitting and leaving the work to a robot.



Here’s where the challenges for automation start to arise. It’s easy to say there are certain individuals who would be happier if they left their jobs to a robot but automation isn’t going to replace individual roles – it’s going to replace entire industries. Experts say 47% of jobs in America are likely to be robots and other automated processes and researchers reckon the situation is likely to be similar in Australia.

There are almost undoubtedly people who find purpose or pleasure in the work they do and will not be happier having their jobs replaced. But automation looks likely to capture the satisfied and dissatisfied alike across a range of industries – cabbies, surgeons, accountants, artists, – the list goes on.

YOUR INPUT IS MUCH APPRECIATED! LEAVE YOUR COMMENT BELOW.

Recent UFO Sightings During the Super-moon

By: Alexandria Addesso

Is there anybody out there? Are we all alone in the universe? What about other universes we are already aware of as well as those we cannot even fathom? These are questions that extraterrestrial enthusiasts and alien excavators have long been asking, and those individuals who believe they have actually seen unidentified flying objects (UFOs), or had encounters with the third kind, have been confirming for them.

There are four to six super-moons a year. A super-moon happens when a full moon or a new moon coincides with the closest approach the moon makes to the Earth on its elliptical orbit. The recent super-moon occurring, from November 13-15 2016, was said by NASA scientists to be the “brightest super-moon seen since 1948”. As sky gazers were peering at the heavens in droves more numerous than usual, many UFO sightings occurred.



In Miami, Florida; Worcester, Massachusetts; Forest, Virginia and Turbot Ville, Pennsylvania there were reported sightings of UFOs under or near the moon on November 13, 2016 with pictures to cooperate some of the observances. In all the instances the UFOs were described as “blue orbs”. The next day, there were also several sightings of blue orbs around the moon in Los Angeles and Oceanside, California, Seattle, Washington; Ankara, Turkey and Port-au-Prince, Haiti. The Port-Au-Prince sighting was a recorded event, to watch the video click here.

Some have written off the video and even some of the other sightings as simple lenses flares, yet the movement in the video suggests otherwise. How could so many people in so many different parts of the world see the same thing? Could they all be technologically unsavies when using their cameras? What about the reported sightings from the super-moon nights by those who had no cameras and only the naked eye yet saw the same thing?, or Simple delusions? Does the eye only see what the mind wants it to or have we been long taught to write off all those who claim to have seen such things as delirious?
Stay curious, stay staring upward at the heavens, and keep checking the New Mind Journal, for UFO updates.

YOUR INPUT IS MUCH APPRECIATED! LEAVE YOUR COMMENT BELOW.

World Peace: Is It Attainable?

By: Alexandria Addesso

It is easy to fall into the bleak reality of the status of the world today. Currently 29 countries are actively engaged in wars as well as wars involving militias-guerrillas, terrorist-separatist-anarchic groups that are not official states. World peace has long been preached about, and for a long time viewed as an achievable goal but how probable is it in a world where so many weapons of mass destruction, that could end all forms of life many times over, exist?

There are currently 15,375 nuclear weapons on this planet, in the possession of nine different countries; Russia, the United States, France, India, Pakistan, The United Kingdom, Israel, and North Korea. The U.S. and Russia own the vast majority of the world’s nuclear weapons, with 6,970 and 7,300 respectively with a combined amount of 1,800 on high status alert ready to be detonated in a matter of minutes. For many who spend a lifetime working towards achieving peace, this accomplishment cannot be reached when any nuclear weapons still exist.



"As long as we have nuclear weapons on this earth, one could claim that no real life is actually thriving on the earth. We do not have life actualizing its fullest potential as long as there are nuclear weapons,” said the former Mayor of Hiroshima Tadatoshi Akiba, during his acceptance speech for the 2004 World Citizen Award.

With a ridiculous amount of nuclear weapons, many militarized states, and violence being glorified even to children in every form of entertainment possible, is world peace a realistic goal or a pipe dream? Is the glass half empty or half full? Perspective can definitely dictate how one answers that question, for some further militarization is a way to ensure “peace”, but to most logical people that premise must seem ridiculous. But is there any way that peace advocates can make a difference? In 1980 the Ploughshares Movement, which is an anti-nuclear weapons and Christian pacifist movement that advocates active resistance to war as well as direct actions usually via damaging or vandalizing weapons and military property, began. The name came from the Bible verse Isaiah 2:4 “..they will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore.”



“We spoke out, committed civil disobedience, and went to jail because the peace hangs senselessly and precariously upon weapons costing billions to build and billions to improve — weapons which become more useless as we add to their destructive force,” said Fr. Daniel Berrigan, an American Peace Activist and Catholic priest. “With this money we could have fed the world's people. Half the children on earth go to bed hungry — millions more have retarding and stunting protein deficiencies. Instead of building the peace by attacking injustices like starvation, disease, illiteracy, political and economic servitude, we spend a trillion dollars on war since 1946, until hatred and conflict have become the international preoccupation."

Is this type of resistance enough? Is more political action needed? Before any mass movement to achieve peace is made it most first take place within the individual. Peace must become as necessary as air is to live. In places like Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and the Democratic Republic of Congo this need is real for civilians just trying to exist. Where unmanned drones rain bullets on children and bombs are dropped daily, peace is prayed for unceasingly. Does this level of destruction need to happen in every city around the world for change to happen? Hopefully not, but as long as economic and military success takes priority over life anywhere and everywhere, peace will remain far away.

YOUR INPUT IS MUCH APPRECIATED! LEAVE YOUR COMMENT BELOW.

The Human Draw To ‘Sin City’

By: Alexandria Addesso

Chasing pleasure can lead a man to his demise. Yet the entertainment industry is huge. While it is widely known and accepted that the key to self-mastery is discipline, many humans love to succumb to heathenistic desires. Las Vegas, Nevada is a place where such desires are regularly fulfilled.

"There was every reason to believe I was heading for trouble, that I'd pushed my luck a bit far. I'd abused every rule Vegas lived by—burning the locals, abusing the tourists, terrifying the help. The only hope now, I felt, was the possibility that we'd gone to such excess, with our gig, that nobody in a position to bring the hammer down on us could possibly believe it . . . When you bring an act into this town, you want to bring it in heavy. Don't waste any time with cheap shucks and misdemeanors. Go straight for the jugular. Get right into felonies. The mentality of Las Vegas is so grossly atavistic that a really massive crime often slips by unrecognized,” wrote Hunter S. Thompson in his book Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.



Over 42 million people visited Las Vegas in 2015, a city whose regular population is only slightly above 600,000. While unlimited 24-hour gambling is the number one draw to Sin City, there are also 24-hour clubs, bars, and nearby brothels. It's a place people come to lose their inhibitions, their morals, and run “free”. Public intoxication and drinking alcohol on the strip is completely legal (but glass bottles are not). The saying “what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas” is taken as a literal free pass to many of the people that visit and use the land as their playground as well as their toilet. Even if you aren’t a gambler, the open invitation to sin is usually too overwhelming to turn down.




There are ridiculously sprawling expensive buffets for the gluttons, liquor at every turn for the lushes, and sex being sold everywhere for those who lust, simply allow one of the small middle-aged South American women that saturate the streets of the strip to put a call-girl’s business card in your hand. And almost every type of perversity is embraced, with very little frowned upon. Although the United States is an extremely secular country where sexuality is flaunted, people still come to Las Vegas to escape the formality and morals of everyday life. Which is also why, tourists from more conservative, and traditional countries flock here as well.

"But our trip was different. It was a classic affirmation of everything right and true and decent in the national character. It was a gross, physical salute to the fantastic possibilities of life in this country—but only for those with true grit. And we were chock full of that,” said Thompson.



Las Vegas is always highly glamorized. The bright lights seem to bring an allure uniquely their own. Yet there is a sense of depression in the air on the strip. A mix people coming to party and those locals who survive solely by serving and meeting the tourists’ deranged needs while still many others sleep on the streets. It's a place where people go when their morals need to take a vacation. Where heathenism is embraced and man becomes beast.

YOUR INPUT IS MUCH APPRECIATED! LEAVE YOUR COMMENT BELOW.

The 24 Hour News Cycle Could Be Bad For Your Health

By: Alexandria Addesso

News is everywhere, no longer just in the paper but on the radio, television, social media, and all over your phone. Up-to-date, minute-by-minute, soundbyte-by-soundbyte, in your pocket, and in the palm of your hand.

The news is fed to the consumer at the slant deemed appropriate to the outlet and its backers. Objectivity is no longer the standard the news that is at our fingertips is usually perpetuated to further a particular agenda. It is truly sad times for journalism and the consumers of such information as well. And it is not just the news industry that is suffering, but also the consumer.

After the 2013 bombings at the Boston Marathon a survey was done on how the news coverage affected people. The survey sample included adults from Boston, New York City and other parts of the nation just under 5,000 participants. Of those who reported watching more than six or more hours of news coverage during the 2-4 weeks after the attack were 9 times more likely to report suffering from high acute stress levels than those who only reported minimal media exposure. Those who were actually present at the scene of the bombings, although they did suffer from trauma, reportedly were affected by less high acute stress levels than those who only watched news coverage for long periods of time. A repeated viewing of such traumatic images, have been linked to fear circuitry.



“There are so many factors one needs to consider—prior life history (trauma, stress, health, social, family circumstances), ongoing post-Boston Marathon Bombing stressors, coping skills, and emotion regulation skills,” said E. Alison Holman, PhD, head author of the study. “It is possible that this could happen, although I would caution that many people have acute stress symptoms that dissipate over time. We are currently looking into the question of quantity versus content that might predispose someone to developing lasting posttraumatic stress and other mental health issues. At this point, all I can say is that it seems that both really matter.”

So how can such trauma triggering content be avoided? Should we become oblivious to world events and shun the news completely? Obviously this would not be a good option because it is good for an individual to stay informed and to avoid all such bad news, one would have to cut off contact with society completely and become a hermit (not that there is anything wrong with being a hermit).



Once attaining the information you need to stay abreast of current events, issues, and activism, simply shut off the TV, put down the newspaper and the smartphone. Do not become consumed by it. If you need to be plugged into graphic news coverage for work, add leisurely, stress-relieving activities to your schedule. But it is also important to never let news desensitize you, never become immune to human suffering because in doing so you can lose your own humanity. Also, always question your news sources.

YOUR INPUT IS MUCH APPRECIATED! LEAVE YOUR COMMENT BELOW.

It is Ethical to purchase Human Organs?

Organ transplantation saves lives. People with end-stage kidney disease who receive a transplant tend to live much longer than those who undergo dialysis. A kidney from a living donor will last from 12 to 20 years, on average, compared to eight to 12 years for a kidney from a deceased donor.

But there is a shortage of organs. In the United States, the waitlist for kidneys alone is around 100,000. Those waiting for kidneys make up most of the 120,000 people awaiting organ donation. The need for kidneys has led some to ask: would purchasing organs be a solution?

Since 1988, approximately three of every four kidneys for transplantation have come from deceased donors, the rest from living donors who give one of their kidneys to a relative, loved one or even a stranger. In the United States, live donation seems quite safe. A recent study found that kidney donors have only a slightly higher absolute risk of developing end-stage kidney disease than healthy non-donors.



What might we do to alleviate the shortage of kidneys in the US? One positive step would be to adopt an opt-out system of deceased organ donation like one now in place in Spain, where the rate of organ donation is highest of any country. The default in this system is donation at death when organs are viable, but everyone has well-publicized opportunities to opt out of donation. As it stands, US citizens must now opt in to deceased donation, for example, during driver’s license renewal. The rate of donation in the US is about midway among nations that are tracked.

Unfortunately, changes in deceased donation practices are unlikely to eliminate shortages. Some physicians, lawyers and bioethicists have proposed regulated markets in live “donor” kidneys. Surely a lot more people will be willing to sell a kidney, assuming the price is right, than to donate one, their argument goes.

Yet purchasing kidneys is not only prohibited by international norms, it violates US law. The only country where a legally approved market in kidneys exists is Iran. But market proponents insist that legal prohibition of commerce in kidneys is a grave mistake.
Are the proponents right? The answer depends in part on moral argument. In conducting this argument, it is important to steer clear of two implausible absolute positions.



One position, put forth by market opponents, is that a person’s selling an internal body part is always wrong. Perhaps the best known philosophical proponent of this view is the 18th century philosopher Immanuel Kant. We are obligated always to act in a way that expresses respect for the dignity of humanity, Kant held. He believed that all of us, no matter where on the spectrum of talent, wealth, happiness, or others’ regard we may be, have a worth beyond price.

Kant maintained that a person’s selling one of his internal parts – the example he gives is selling a tooth to be transplanted into another’s mouth – is always wrong, apparently because this action fails to express proper respect for the seller’s own dignity. The action always sends a false message, Kant seems to have believed: that the seller himself has a mere price.

But, as I have tried to show, it is implausible to maintain that every time a person sells one of his internal parts, he is sending such a message. A kidney is not a person. In some contexts, someone could surely sell a kidney (or a tooth) and not thereby convey that he himself has a mere price. For example, suppose a senator sells one of her kidneys in order to raise money for a charity. In our cultural context, she surely wouldn’t thereby be signaling that she herself has mere price.



Another questionable absolute position, put forth by market proponents, is that buying internal body parts from informed, voluntary and autonomous sellers is always right – that is, morally permissible.

Consider this: one way to buy someone’s kidney would be to buy her. Would it be morally permissible for you to buy as a slave a mother who has put herself up for sale in order to get money to educate her kids? The position in question implies that you are buying her would be right, assuming roughly that she is mentally competent, informed of her action’s consequences and under no threat from others to undertake it. But many of us believe that you are buying her would be wrong. In Kantian terms, it would express disrespect for the mother’s dignity by treating her as having mere price.

The implausibility of these absolute positions regarding selling and buying of internal organs suggests that the moral permissibility of markets for organs is a complex and context-dependent issue.

According to the World Health Organization, an estimated 10,000 black market operations involving purchased human kidneys now take place per year. Vendors in such markets, who are typically very poor, undergo serious psychological and physical harms. According to recent research, Bangledesh kidney sellers “suffered from grave sadness, hopelessness, and crying spells, and experienced social stigma, shame, and isolation for selling their body parts”. A study in Chennai, India, found that over 85% of sellers reported a decline in health after kidney removal and that 80% would not recommend that others in similar circumstances sell a kidney.



Proponents of kidney sales insist that regulated markets would not have these dismal effects on vendors. Proposals for such markets incorporate provisions aimed at ensuring the safety of sellers and recipients, for example, through thorough donor screening processes and proper postoperative care.

As I have argued elsewhere, even full compliance with the rules of a regulated market would fail to ensure its ethical acceptability. The existence of such a market might harm poor people. For example, aggressive debt collectors might force the poor to sell the fungible assets they always carry with them: their kidneys.

It is naive to assume that regulated markets would be well-regulated markets. If the United States legalizes markets in kidneys, would not other countries follow, among them some who have had an active illicit trade? These countries, including Brazil, India, Pakistan and the Philippines, seem to have high levels of corruption and thus ineffective regulatory infrastructures. It is reasonable to worry that the kinds of harm that accrue to kidney vendors in unregulated markets would also befall them in some regulated markets.

Whether we should adopt a regulated market in kidneys turns not only on moral argument, but also on whether doing so would actually increase supply. A recent systematic review of studies found support for the hypothesis that offering financial incentives for blood does not increase its supply. Of course, effects of payment might differ for blood and for kidneys. Nevertheless, for all we know market exchange of kidneys might “crowd out” giving associated with altruism. People who would otherwise have donated an organ might refrain from doing so if providing one has connotations not of moral virtue but of financial interest.



It remains unclear how much regulated markets would actually increase supply. In any case, such markets should prompt ethical concern, especially regarding their impact on the very poor. Most of us reject the idea that the end justifies the means: we believe that some means would be wrong to take even to a good end like increasing the supply of kidneys for transplant. Under present societal conditions, markets would, I suspect, be among such ethically unacceptable means. They do not warrant our support.
Source: Samuel Kerstein

YOUR INPUT IS MUCH APPRECIATED! LEAVE YOUR COMMENT BELOW.

Primitivism: Is Resistance Fertile?

By: Alexandria Addesso

Ah!! revolution, the scent is fresh in the air. Yet there are so many different brands and aromas to fill our noses with and devote our lives to. How can you choose just one and not get caught up in the wave of democratic socialism that is currently trending? What is the most radical?

Primitivism, also known as green anarchy, holds true to basic anarchistic ideals while also championing extreme environmentalism. In a quest to become more primitive, green anarchists not only want to abolish the state but also anything that negatively affects man and his existence with nature including science, technology, and civilization as a whole. This is why you won’t see many primitivisms online championing their cause, because most primitivisms do not believe in using the internet.



Primitivisms are also against the domestication of life in any fashion. Whether it be the domestication of people, animals, or other forms of life. The domestication of land in the form of pastoral or agricultural fields is seen as a means to end the open sharing of nature to a more territorial state of possession. While many social movements have preached equality to all and the need to share the Earth’s resources, no one so definitely stands strong to this stance as green anarchists. While anarchists in general are against rulers and authority of humans over other humans, green anarchists are against authority over any life. The rights of indigenous human populations, is also a top priority of many primitivism.

So the question is, is resistance fertile? The Green Anarchist International Association was formed in 1982 and includes collectives and fractions from around the world. As time passes the numbers continue to grow. Many criticize such a movement, even fellow anarchists, but one would never know unless they experienced it themselves.

YOUR INPUT IS MUCH APPRECIATED! LEAVE YOUR COMMENT BELOW.

The Venus Project: Bright Future or Dark Cult?

By: Alexandria Addesso

The current state of our planet can be quite alarming. From politics to environmental activism to social justice movements to various religions, everyone is trying to propose a better way. Yet the promise of a better life with less suffering has been an age old appeal as well as a way to manipulate the masses. The Venus Project is a modern-day organization that promises such ideals, yet is it any different from other escape routes of the past?



The Venus Project is the brainchild of architect and self-taught social engineer Jacque Fresco. According to its official website, the Venus Project “proposes a feasible plan of action for social change, one that works towards a peaceful and sustainable global civilization.” The project calls for the use of technology to better human existence, keeping the planet’s resources as a common heritage for all, an end to nationalism and other prejudices, as well as an end to the monetary system to give birth to a global resource-based economy. The central idea of the project is the global resource-based economy, all else is meant to flow from it.

On the surface such ideals seem like the basis of a utopian-like society. But what exactly is a global resource-based economy? The project’s official website states that most if not all of human suffering comes from our failed monetary system, an argument that definitely holds some validity.

“In a Resource Based Economy all goods and services are available to all people without the need for means of exchange such as money, credits, barter or any other means,” claims Fresco on the official website.



While the claim is that this is a system that has never existed before, humans that lived in community from the beginning of the species have lived like this. Also, in the political world which was created and currently reigns supreme, this idea has already been carried out in the form of socialism. Followers of the project will quickly dispel this claim because the movement seems to be apolitical, and does not believe that politicians are not technologically savvy enough to be in power, instead Fresco believes the most technologically-minded people should be. But a state is a state, no matter if it is global or one of many, and a ruler is a ruler no matter how intelligent.

The ideals of the Venus Project come from technocracy, which means that the government or social control should be in the hands of the elites of the technological industry. Basically handing power from one small group to another. The project’s website calls this the “New World Civilization” which definitely raises red flags in the minds of anyone admittedly against the new world order.

If you think that the Venus Project is just one man’s small idea and nothing to worry about then wrap your mind around this, there is currently a 20-acre research center in central Florida where the ideals of the project are being tested and carried out. Visitors are welcomed to come every Saturday for lectures and information sessions. Furthermore, in 2007 one of the followers of the project named Peter Joseph created a movie called Zeitgeist, the first of a three part series that vehemently denounced religion, particularly Christianity, the federal reserve and claimed 9/11 was an inside job. The movie, though poorly produced and with little to no sources to back up its claims, became a hit among skeptical youth and thus thrusted many of its viewers into support of the Venus Project.



Another red flag that can be found on the Venus Project’s website is in the list of 18 semi-reasonable goals of the organization that states the need to assist in stabilizing the world’s population through “voluntary birth control”. There is nothing inherently evil in choosing not to reproduce, nature actually does this for us by rendering some individuals infertile. But for it to be on a list of goals that are necessary for this new world civilization to take place should be highly thought provoking.

All that glitters are not gold, but don’t just take my word for it, visit the website (thevenusproject.com) for yourself. Stay curious.

YOUR INPUT IS MUCH APPRECIATED! LEAVE YOUR COMMENT BELOW.

The Dead Sea Scrolls

A real Treasure or a terrible Hoax? The Uncover of the greatest Archaeological finds of the twenty century still under controversy

In early 1947 (or late 1946) an Arab shepherd searching for a lost sheep threw a rock into a cave in the limestone cliffs on the northwestern shore of the Dead Sea. Instead of a bleating sheep, he heard the sound of breaking pottery. When he investigated, he found seven nearly intact ancient documents that became known as the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Three of the scrolls, including the Book of Isaiah, were acquired in Bethlehem by Eleazar L. Sukenik of The Hebrew University just as the United Nations voted by a two-thirds vote to partition Palestine, thus creating a Jewish state for the first time in 2,000 years.

The other four scrolls were acquired by the Metropolitan Samuel, the Jerusalem leader of a Syrian sect of Christians. When he was unable to sell them in Jerusalem, he took them to the United States, where they were displayed in the Library of Congress. Still unable to sell them, he placed a classified ad in The Wall Street Journal offering them for sale. Through fronts, they were purchased for Israel by war hero and archaeologist Yigael Yadin, Sukenik’s son.



Père Roland de Vaux of the École Biblique et Archéologique Française de Jerusalem, together with G. Lankester Harding, the British-appointed head of the Jordanian Department of Antiquities, mounted an archaeological excavation early on at Khirbet Qumran, near the cave where the scrolls had been found (by that time, the Bedouin had also found a second cave). Since then, a debate has raged among scholars over the relationship of the Qumran ruins to the scrolls. The majority of scholars believe Qumran was the monastery-like settlement of a Jewish sect known as Essenes, to whom the scrolls belonged. Other suggestions range from a caravanserai to a pottery factory.

Ultimately a total of 11 caves were found (mostly by the Bedouin) containing ancient manuscripts. Scholars date the scrolls between about 250 B.C.E. and about 68 C.E., when Roman legionaries overran the Judean Desert on their way to destroying Jerusalem and the Temple (which they did in 70 C.E.).

The most famous, or infamous, of the caves is Cave 4, found by the Bedouin practically under the noses of the archaeologists digging at the adjacent ruins. Cave 4 contained more than 500 different manuscripts, but all in tatters. About 80 percent of them had been looted by the Bedouin before the archaeologists discovered the cave. The archaeologists retrieved the remaining 20 percent, but they were forced to buy the other 80 percent, chiefly through an Arab middleman known as Kando.



The publication of the Cave 4 fragments was assigned under Jordanian auspices to eight scholars. Over the years the publications of this team gradually dwindled to a trickle and finally disappeared. In the meantime, the unpublished texts were unavailable to the public or to other scholars.

In 1977, Oxford don Geza Vermes declared that the failure to publish these scrolls and make them publicly available was threatening to become “the academic scandal par excellence of the 20th century.”

In the late 1980s, BAR took up the call, publicly demanding the release of the scrolls so that all scholars could study them. After the Six-Day War of 1967, Israel gained control of the scrolls in Jerusalem’s Rockefeller Museum (formerly the Palestine Archaeological Museum), but the Israelis did not change the situation. The scrolls remained under the control of the small, non-Jewish, practically nonfunctioning scroll-publication team.



The then-editor-in-chief of the scroll team was Harvard’s John Strugnell, whose personal emotional problems, including alcoholism, were affecting his work. After Strugnell gave a grossly anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist interview to an Israeli journalist, Israel finally replaced him with Professor Emanuel Tov of The Hebrew University. At first he, too, refused to release the scrolls, although, as Strugnell had also done toward the end of his editorship, Tov appointed additional scholars to the publication team, including Israelis.

The first break in the release of the scrolls came when the Biblical Archaeology Society published some unpublished texts that had been reconstructed with the aid of a computer, based on a private concordance of the Cave 4 fragments. Then the Biblical Archaeology Society published a two-volume work of photographs of the unpublished scrolls, obtained in a still-mysterious way by Professor Robert Eisenman of California State University. Even now Eisenman declines to divulge how he obtained the photographs, although it was always clear they were genuine.

Finally, director William Moffett of the Huntington Library in California decided to release images of the unpublished scrolls on a microfilm strip that had been deposited in the library as a security measure in case the originals were lost. The Huntington’s decision to release its copy of the unpublished scrolls was announced at the top of the Sunday edition of The New York Times on September 21, 1991. Although Israel first considered suing the library (and the Biblical Archaeology Society), saner minds eventually prevailed, and the scrolls were declared open and available to all.

Dead Sea Hoax?

In the years immediately following the discovery, one hotly argued subject was the authenticity of the scrolls themselves. Dis they really date back two thousand years? Could they have been medieval texts innocently mistaken – or worse, purposefully misrepresented – as ancient works? Did some eccentric individual or cabal of oddball prankster engineer a hoax?

One critic who vociferously denied the legitimacy of the scrolls was Dr. Solomon Zeitlin, a professor at Dropsie College in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Writing in the Jewish Quarterly Review, Dr. Zeitlin claimed the “entire find is not an important discovery, but possible a hoax”. A leading authority on the era preceding the time of Jesus, Zeitlin further argued that the manuscript – written by “very ignorant men” – actually dated to the Middle Ages rather than the pre-Christian era.

Professor Zeitlin continued to offer his views in a series of articles appearing in the Jewish Quarterly Review, a journal of which he was d\the editor. With entertaining, dramatic titles such “The fiction of the Recent Discoveries Near the Dead Sea”, “The Alleged Antiquity of the Scrolls,” “Scholarship and the Hoax of Recent Discoveries,” and “The Propaganda of the Hebrew Scroll and the Falsification of History,” Zeitlin regularly challenged the genuineness of the documents. He charged that the contradicting stories told about the discovery of the scrolls were themselves enough to justify questioning the validity of the historic find. An expert in ancient Jewish texts, Zeitlin also pointed numerous expressions found in the manuscript that he believes were of recent vintage, and unknown in early writings. He even railed against scholars studying the scrolls, claiming they were fools “to rely on the word of a goatherd.”



Zeitlin remained undeterred in his attacks long after scholars had presented overwhelming and conclusive evidence of the scrolls’ genuine antiquity and authenticity. In time Zeitlin’s relentless claims were ignored-as was the man who made them.

YOUR INPUT IS MUCH APPRECIATED! LEAVE YOUR COMMENT BELOW.

America’s Problem with Authority

Can It Be A Factor In All These Cop Killings?

By: Alexandria Addesso

Everyday mainstream media reports on some civilian, usually a Black person, being killed by a police officer. After the recent shootings in Dallas and Baton Rouge, it has not become unlikely to also hear a report of police being fatally targeted by fed up civilians. Many trying to make sense of the illogical use of deadly force against civilians by authority, and now retaliations against random cops, have been left scratching their heads. What is the deep-seeded cause of these acts of violence?



The utter brutality that has been taking place in the United States does not occur in other first world countries. Some claim that it is America’s deeply racist past built on slavery that is causing these problems. Yet, there are many countries in which slavery was in place for long periods of time that are not experiencing these acts of violence by authority figures and now even against them. While blatant individual incidents of racism as well as systematic racism cannot be overlooked, could there be another unique aspect adding to this perfect storm?

Since revolutionary times, America has had issues with authority. If there were no resistance to the English overlords the Boston Tea Party would have never occurred and the onslaught of the Revolutionary War would not have happened. Even the Civil War can be attributed to the South rebelling against the authoritative Northern Union and wanting the right to secede.
When speaking about a problem with authority in this country we cannot omit the problem with the abuse of power by those in positions of authority as well. It goes without saying that if more police officers were better trained, supervised, and less “trigger happy” many of the innocent lives lost at their hands would have not occurred.



Although all police officers cannot be painted with the same broad brush of brutality against civilians, most Americans can testify that they have personally experienced some sort of corruption by those in a position of authority. But is this corruption and abuse of authority a new phenomenon or part of American history? Wasn’t the American chattel slave system a grave abuse of authority? Aren’t false flag attacks another grave abuse of authority? As well as the continued ideological colonization of foreign countries, bleeding third world workers dry at very low wages, and disseminating those who live in others not also continued acts of authoritative abuse?

Come to your own conclusions, do your own research, form your own opinion.



But know that the evidence of authority being an ongoing problem in the
United States on both ends of the stick is apparent.

YOUR INPUT IS MUCH APPRECIATED! LEAVE YOUR COMMENT BELOW.