1.

Lib v Con: more personality, edu, and fear of death than rational? From: tbhawaiiowan@...

2.

Age cohort analysis: SDS rises again to "reinvent" activism? From: tbhawaiiowan@...

3.

Futures of Literacy? (Futurist; Mar-Apr 07) From: tbhawaiiowan@...

4.

Past and futures of literacy/English language? From: tbhawaiiowan@...

5.

Human/sheep hybrid From: tbhawaiiowan@...

6.

Fwd: Gen Y (Gen Me?) expectations From: tbhawaiiowan@...

7.

Emerging metalurgy possibilities (without nanotech)? From: tbhawaiiowan@...

8a.

Millennial gen: how much wishful thinking? From: tbhawaiiowan@...

8b.

Re: Millennial gen: how much wishful thinking? From: Sara Robinson

9.

Millennials: gen v kwave v dialectical analysis From: tbhawaiiowan@...

10.

Future/s of narcissism v altruism (as well as individuality and "sel From: tbhawaiiowan@...

11.

Dawkins: Evol future of altruism and "mutational" genetic engineerin From: tbhawaiiowan@...

12.

quantum v photonic v latest Intel+IBM chips From: tbhawaiiowan@...

13.

Faster than light travel/computing? From: tbhawaiiowan@...

14.

Did anyone predict world might want Chinese to INCREASE pop growth i From: tbhawaiiowan@...

15.

Update: likely alt/renewable energy sources? From: tbhawaiiowan@...

16a.

Most likely worst case climate change scenario?? (3) From: tbhawaiiowan@...

16b.

Most likely worst case climate change scenario?? (3) From: tbhawaiiowan@...

17.

Fwd: small scale fuel cells From: tbhawaiiowan@...

18.

Silver (not elderly) Rights Movement: next phase of civil rights? From: 0aol.com", "");'>tbhawaiiowan@...

20.1.

Re: Moderation Reminder: Courtesy First. It is a Privilege to Be On From: Benjamin Goertzel

20.2.

Re: Moderation Reminder: Courtesy First. It is a Privilege to Be On From: J. Andrew Rogers

21.1.

Re: 216 Million Americans Are Scientifically Illiterate From: Sara Robinson

21.2.

Re: 216 Million Americans Are Scientifically Illiterate From: Wayne Radinsky

1.

Lib v Con: more personality, edu, and fear of death than rational?

Posted by: "tbhawaiiowan@..." tbhawaiiowan@...   tbhawaiiowan

Sun Apr 1, 2007 3:57 am (PST)

Subject: Lib v Con: more personality, edu, and fear of death than rational?

From Psych Today, Jan-Feb 2007:

Article entitled "The Ideological Animal" contains the following possibly over-simplified stereotypes:

Psych researchers at NYU, Harvard, and Texas reached these conclusions:

-Liberals messier than Conservatives
-Libs read more--and greater variety of--books
-Libs more likely to be optimists (???)
-Cons more likely to be religious
-Libs like music and art more than Cons (who r more likley to like country music, TV, and talk radio)

Research done between 1969 and 1989 at Cal-Berkeley suggests these diffs are evident in childhood, but based this assertion on the following--I think at least somewhat counter-intuitive--findings. "As kids, Libs more likely to develop close relationships with peers and to be rated by teachers as self-reliant, energetic, impulsive, and resilient. People who were conservative by age 23 had been described by teachers as easily victimized and offended, indecisive, fearful, rigid, inhibited, and vulnerable at age 3." The reason for this difference--the researchers hypothesized--"was that insecure kids most needed the reassurance of tradition and authority" and found it in conservative politics. (NOTE: I THINK THIS MIGHT HAVE INTERESTING IMPLICATIONS FOR RECENT DISCUSSION ON GENERATIONAL ANALYSIS.)

A 2003 meta-analysis of 88 prior studies involving 22,000 participants done by profs at NYU, Maryland, and Berkeley concluded:

- Cons have greater desire to reach decisions quickly and stick to them, and less tolerance for ambiguity
- Cons are more conscientious (which includes neatness/orderliness, duty, and rule-following)
- Libs more open (which includes intellectual curiosity, excitement-seeking, novelty, creativity, and craving for stimulation like travel, color, art, music, and lit)
- Those who think the world is highly dangerous place also more likely to be Cons, while Libs more likely to see reality as gray area and many sides to issues (hence Cons propensity to label Libs as flip-floppers, unprincipled, etc)

When this meta-analysis was used by the media to analyze Bush and Kerry in 04, George Will and the National Review derided it as the "Cons are Crazy" study and that it suffered from Lib bias, while the researchers claimed their study is rigorously empirical and therefore difficult to dismiss. But they admitted that most research in the past has focused on shifts toward Con rather than Lib behavior--esp since 9/11--and that bias may creep into WHICH phenomena to study. One researcher also admitted they look for variables that are unflattering, but contends there is nothing inherently good or bad about neatness v messiness or stability v variety, etc.

A 2004 study sought to explain why Bush's approval rating went from about 50% before 9/11 to 90% after. They found that "when people were in a benign state of mind, they tended to oppose Bush and his Iraq policies. But after being asked to think about either death or 9/11, they tended to favor him." They also found that when the color-coded terror alert was raised, support for Bush increased significantly not only on security issues but also economic issues.

A U of AZ psych researcher concluded this could be explained by "Terror Mgmt Theory (TMT)", which holds that heightened fear of death motivates people to defend their world views. TMT predicts that images of the World Trade Center should make Libs more lib and Cons more con. In the US, Conservatism seems to be the preferred ideology when people feel insecure, while people in China or other current or former Communist countries cling more tightly to communism when feeling insecure.

The NYU researcher mentioned above says thoughts of death may make people more conservative in both capitalist as well as communistic societies because they want to believe the world is just and fair, and that the existing social order is valid rather than in need of change. Both capitalist and Communist theory offer more certain explanations about right v wrong, good v evil, us v them, etc and both emphasize tradition and authority--especially when under real or perceived threats.

To test this theory, BOTH LIBS and CONS WHO WERE ASKED TO THINK ABOUT DEATH WERE ALL MORE CONSERVATIVE ON ISSUES LIKE IMMIGRATION, AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, AND SAME-SEX MARRIAGE THAN THOSE WHO WERE ASKED TO THINK ONLY ABOUT PAIN (ALTHOUGH THE DIFFERENCE WAS RELATIVELY SMALL). So thinking about death seems to make everyone more conservative--at least temporarily. The researchers concluded much of Bush's former support might have been due to both real threats in the world as well as some manufactured as part of a political strategy which may very will swing elections. This prompted the author to ask "If we are so suggestible that thoughts of death make us uncomfortable defaming the flag and compel us to sit farther away from foreigners, is there any way we can overcome our easily manipulated fears and become the informed and rational thinkers democracy needs?

For example, most lifelong Libs did NOT go through outright conversion conservatism after 9/11, but many did crave a strong leader who could punish or avenge. This suggests without 9/11, Kerry might have won in 04. However, studies also have indicated that people who study abroad become more liberal than those who stay home, and those who engage people outside of their own social class are less likely to stereotype and be more tolerant of differences. More edu also seems to increase liberalism--to a point. Not surprisingly, graduate biz students become more conservative, as do docs and attys as they become more established in their careers. So these factors as well as fear can fuel conversion to conservatism, suggesting that Churchill's famous quote still may hold true ("If you are not a Lib when you're 25, you have no heart; and if you are not a conservative when you are 35, you have no brain."). But there are also high-profile examples of adult conversions from Con to Lib (ex-Con journalistic "hit man" David Brock and Arianna Huffington) as well as Lib to Con (Ronald Reagan and journalists David Horowitz and Christopher Hitchens).

So to test the strength of fear relative to other factors in determining Lib v Con points of view, two groups were asked to think about death and then give opinions about pro-American and anti-American authors. As expected, they were more pro after thinking about death. But this experiment was then repeated, this time asking one group to make "gut-level" responses, while the other group was instructed to be as "rational" as possible. The author describes the results as "astonishing." In the rational group, the impact of thoughts of death were ENTIRELY eliminated. Preliminary research also suggests that reminding people that our similarities outweigh our differences--aka the "Common Humanity Prime"--has the same effect.

The author--Jay Dixit--concludes, "the rational analytic mode takes more effort and attention, but the effects of psychological terror on political decision-making can be eliminated just by asking people to think rationally." I hope he is right... I mean correct.


AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.
__________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

Back to top

Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

2.

Age cohort analysis: SDS rises again to "reinvent" activism?

Posted by: "tbhawaiiowan@..." tbhawaiiowan@...   tbhawaiiowan

Sun Apr 1, 2007 4:04 am (PST)

-----Original Message-----
From: dator@hawaii.edu
To: tbhawaiiowan@aol.com
Sent: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 4:59 PM
Subject: Re: Re age cohort analysis: SDS rises again to "reinvent" activism?

Good point, Tom

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 tbhawaiiowan@AOL.COM wrote:

> To the editor:
>
> According to Bill Graves of Newhouse News Service in the 3.18.07 Star
Bulletin, chapters of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS)--first formed in
the 1960s--have sprouted up again at some Oregon and Washington state colleges
(along with growth in college Republican groups).
>
> Apparently several former SDS members now in their 50s and 60s revived the SDS
last spring and staged an official founding convention in Chicago last August.
But Maurice Isserman, an SDS member at Reed College in Portland in the 60s, says
he's encouraged that today's students--not the elders--will "reinvent" SDS for
the 21st century. Isserman says he finds current SDS students to be
"refreshingly nondoctrinaire" who are attracted to 60s-style activism, but don't
think they are living in the 60s.
>
> However, this article did not mention any evidence of "reinvention" in my
opinion. Graves simply stated "the SDS members say they are committed to
nonviolence but also to action, even if it requires civil disobedience." The
only tangible examples cited are protesting the shipment of Stryker vehicles to
Iraq (which subjected some new SDS members to tear gas and rubber bullets) and
trying to get Coca Cola machines removed from campus due to Coke's mistreatment
of workers in Columbia and the water system in India.
>
> I think all of this is admirable, but not real evidence of reinvention of any
kind. My favorite current example--which I read about within the last few
years--of really "reinvented" activism is this: a couple of disaffected Wall St.
wiz kids tried to address the Coca Cola problem by creating a put option hedge
fund in which investors could make money by betting the price of Coke stock
would decline, followed by an attempt to organize a global boycott of Coke
products on the Internet to drive the stock price down. While I confess I
currently do not know what--if any--impact this had or has, I think 21st Century
activism will require this kind of reinvention to be more effective.
>

AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.
__________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

Back to top

Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
zE5NTA5NDg1BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTE0OTI5NwRtc2dJZAMzOTEEc2VjA2Rtc2cEc2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTE3NTQ2NDczNgR0cGNJZAMzOTE-" target=_blank>Futures of Literacy? (Futurist; Mar-Apr 07)

Posted by: "tbhawaiiowan@..." tbhawaiiowan@...   tbhawaiiowan

Sun Apr 1, 2007 4:08 am (PST)

Subject: Futures of Literacy? (Futurist; Mar-Apr 07)

For those who dont have time or interest to read them, what follows is my summary of the collection of seven articles on this topic in this issue. I boiled eight pages down to about two. Opinions range from the end of the written word would mean the end of civ as we know it to our great grandchildren won't know how to read and write and it won't matter. Please feel free to contact me if you have any comments or questions.


1. John Naisbitt--well-known author of Megatrends (1982) and similar books--has a mixed view. He notes the 6000 yr history of the written word, the declining rate of newspaper and book reading, and the ongoing increase in usage of TV, Inet (esp My Space, You Tube), video games--he claims americans now spend more on video games than movies--Ipods etc.

Like most, he worries about the negative near-term socioecon impacts of decline in "literacy" as traditionally/currently defined (NEA considers this a national crisis, and decline in literacy not good for a free, productive, innovative society), but also notes the potential democratizing effect of visual communication (anyone can now make and "broadcast" their own photos and video programming).

Like many, JN thinks maintaining future competitive edge will require edu in tech AND the arts. He then simply concludes that the written word will not go away. However, he expects the recession of the written word--and the increase in visual communication--to continue to accelerate, so we will all have to learn this new "language."


2. Joe Lambert--director of the Center for Digital Storytelling in the UK--is bullish about the potential of digital media to help preserve cultures. While a strong proponent of visual literacy, he thinks the inherent values of "textual communication" will become stronger by contrast, just as oral recitation and musical literacy became stronger with the spread of the written word.

His center uses visual culture to bring people back to the written word. JL states that many educators see this approach as critical tool for increasing quality of writing.

He thinks "the screen" is a "natural" place for people to go because visual communication still requires dialogue and narration, and that collaboration in creating narratives becomes more interesting with the ubiquity of online networks.


3. Michael Rogers--the NYTimes new futurist in residence--has used a fictional future editorial from the yr 2025 to stimulate thought and comment from readers about the futures of literacy. The future "facts" he posited in 2025: most info available in multimedia form, and when text required, computers can take dictation perfectly and read aloud. Only leaders and long-term planners really need to know how to read and write "long-form" text. The rest of society only needs to read labels, signs, text msgs, and short emails. In 2025, it is considered a waste of time and resources to teach long-form reading to most.

Rogers received hundreds of emails calling him an idiot, moron, and worse. He was encouraged that so many readers ardently defended reading, but dismayed that so many did not get that his "editorial" was fictional. He now wonders if this experiment revealed the true nature of future reading--which may consist only of text msgs, emails, and magazines with no text other than photo captions. He concludes reading will survive, but reading skills may inevitably decline.


4. William Crossman--author of Voice In/Voice Out (VIVO); the Coming Age of Talking Computers (2004), and founder of CompSpeak 2050 Institute for the Study of Talking Computers and Oral Cultures--thinks that by 2050 VIVO (talking computers incorporating multisensory, multimodal technologies) will make the written word obsolete, re-creating a global oral culture. WC is very optimistic that writing can and will be replaced by newer technologies that do the same job more effectively, cost-efficiently, and universally.

He thinks talking computers as well as speech, graphics, and video streaming over the internet will replace text-driven computers and written texts (no more keyboards!). Even the functionally non-literate and the disabled will have access to all info without learning to read and write simply by speaking, looking, listening, or signing. VIVO will also make instantaneous language translation possible, so "foreign" language barriers will melt away.

Crossman also thinks humans are genetically/evolutionarily hardwired to access info by speaking, listening, and using our other senses. We start doing this at age 1 or 2, well before we start writing. The pro-VIVO orientation of the young will also change education. The school literacy "crisis" could be reversed through the adoption of a VIVO curriculum. The "three Rs" will be replaced by the "four Cs"--critical thinking, creativity, computer skills, and calculators. Our great-great-grandchildren wont know how to read and it wont matter. They will be as skillfully "literate" in info tech of their generation as we are in ours.


5. Edward Luttwak--senior fellow at Center for Strategic and Intl Studies, and former consultant for US Depts of Defense and State--examined the possible strategic foreign policy implications of the "post-literate" era. EL fears that "pictures contain very little data, and are systematically misleading even if not edited"--"nothing lies like a picture"--and that TV is a "dis-educating" force.

He asserts you can watch TV news coverage of a war and still learn nothing about the conflict other than it makes children cry, that structures and other property are destroyed, soldiers and civilians are injured or killed, etc. Pictures are NOT worth a thousand words in the sense that they cannot convey info about the causes, costs, possible, probable, and certain costs of "stopping that war prematurely"--which I suspect is a veiled ref to Iraq.

But he adds that "imagery does not provide enough data to formulate reasoned views on how to stop a conflict and prevent its renewal. In that sense, he thinks TV is an info 'black hole'." Luttwak concludes by asserting our civilization will be "doomed" by the rise of the image and the death of the written word.


6. Peter Wagschal--author of "Illiterates with Doctorates: The Future of Education in an Electronic Age" (Futurist; 1978)--claims much of what he forecast almost 30 years ago has come true (although he also paraphrases Mark Twain by admitting "the news of print's demise was highly exaggerated"). He thinks the pace at which digital media have replaced paper over the past three decades is "mind-boggling", and that we are not far from the future he described back in 1978: "electronic media will make everything there is to know universally accessible to all globally." He also tried to debunk the notion that people who cannot read and write are stupid (he says Socrates never wrote a word?), and point out the drawbacks of written communication (e.g. much traditional writing done in isolation, in contrast to explosion of interactive list serves, chat groups, and blogs).

Will these techs ever make it possible to be an educated illiterate? He thinks so, but thinks pinpointing a date is still difficult. But he agrees with the author of VIVO above (keyboards will be obsolete, digital devices will translate speech into written word and translate foreign languages, etc.). He also cites the phenomenal growth of My Space, You Tube, and ITunes, and hopes "our schools will eventually emerge from the 19th century." He concludes by quoting now mainstream consensus? thinking from the director of the National Center on Education and the Economy (paraphrased by me): "...comfort with ideas and abstractions will be key to good jobs...creativity and innovation will be key to a good life...and ability to learn how to learn will be the only security you have."

(BTW, I think and hope this will not be completely true--esp his future concept of "security"--due to increased and broadened ownership of income-producing assets combined with completely new and reinvented techs that can cost-effectively increase self-reliance in increasingly decentralized ways.)

7. Christine Rosen--author of My Fundamentalist Education: A Memoir of Devine Girlhood, fellow at Ethics and Public Policy Center in DC, and senior editor for A Journal of Technology and Society--thinks the power to control and manipulate images is democratizing, but it may also undermine trust. She points out how most of us are now usually bombarded with thousands of images per day. But they may have--by their sheer number and ease of replication--become less magical or shocking, a situation unknown until recent human history. Before mass reproduction, images had more power and could evoke more fear. Political and religious leaders have long feared images and some have taken extreme measures to control and manipulate them (she cites Henry VIII, Stalin, and the Taliban as examples).

Today, anyone can produce and alter images (via digital cameras, video camcorders, Photoshop, and Powerpoint, etc., and then distribute via inet). She argues this has diluted the power of images by democratizing ability to produce and disseminate images, while simultaneously strengthening the power of images by fueling the decline of the written word. Historians have examined the human transition from oral to written and then printing cultures, but Rosen thinks it remains to be seen where the current resurgence of images and oral culture will take us.

Will this open up new vistas for understanding and expression that are "better than print?" Or are we making a peculiar and unwelcome return to some--albiet more sophisticated and high-tech--form of pre-literacy? Rosen thinks technology is undermining our ability to "trust" what we see (i.e. its accuracy/veracity), and fears we will prefer appearance to reality and the discipline and patience that "true" things often require to understand and describe. In the process, our ability to communicate may be stunted, and our desire to transmit culture to future generations may be seriously compromised.


"Facts on Literacy" sidebar:

- About 10% of US adults have difficulty with "common" literacy tasks such as completing forms or finding info in a text. Almost one-quarter of US adults read at the lowest literacy level. (Natl Center for Edu Stats)

- Globally, approximately 861 million adults were illiterate in 2002 (out of global pop of over 6 billion?--861 mill seems low to me). About 70% live in nine countries in sub-Saharan Africa and South and East Asia, incl. India, China, Bangladesh, and Pakistan. (UNESCO, 2005)

- In 2001 US manufacturers poll, employers ranked poor reading skills as the second most serious problem among hourly workers, behind only attendance, attitude, and punctuality problems. (NAM)

- Between 1982 and 2002, young adults between 18 and 24 went from being one of the most likely groups to read to one of the least. (NEA survey of literary reading)

- In 2005, 11% of incoming college freshmen required remedial reading--the leading predictor of college drop outs--and 14% required remedial writing (Alliance for Excellent Education; 2006)





AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.
__________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

Back to top

Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

4.

Past and futures of literacy/English language?

Posted by: "tbhawaiiowan@..." tbhawaiiowan@...   tbhawaiiowan

Sun Apr 1, 2007 4:16 am (PST)

-----Original Message-----
From: tbhawaiiowan@aol.com
To: allenwelsh@mchsi.com
Cc: hrcfs-l@hawaii.edu
Sent: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 3:31 PM
Subject: Past and futures of literacy/English language

Al,

Based on your statement:

According to Oxford English Dictionary, "Anglo-Saxon words 'say things better.' Latin words 'communicate information with an incremental degree obfuscation.' If two words can be used to say the same basic thing, one Anglo-Saxon and the other Latin, one should nearly always choose the Anglo-Saxon unless obfuscation is the goal.' What do you want? A clear explanation or a transparent explanation? A hearty welcome or a cordial welcome? Words matter."

Im not sure I understand the basis for your questions on first reading (they seem somewhat obsfucated :)), but suspect that may be due to limitations of email as medium and enjoy the response nonetheless.

I am currently of the opinion that English would not be--and may not always be--the global lingua franca if world history of at least past several hundred years was different, given the hodge-podge English is of many languages with numerous exceptions to every rule. So on its face, I think it may not be even the most economically "efficient" language. Ive also heard that English uses less than half of all possible phonemes (sounds).

On the other hand, perhaps the flexibility and ability of English to constantly evolve may be precisely why it has been--and may remain--the first language of choice (other than mathematics, for which we can primarily thank the Arabs I think) for international communication. And perhaps the use of less than half of all possible phonemes is precisely what makes English more efficient, while still offering users more nuance (or ambiguity?)--at least compared to Latin--as you suggested I think.

But even within English, differences in meaning given to certain phonemes can be humorous. For example, the difference in the UK and US usage of the words "bum" and "fanny" come to mind.:)

Note: my spell checker would not acknowledge "humourous" as a "correct" spelling of that word. This is surprising to me since I've also recently heard that a movement is afoot again to streamline and eliminate multiple spellings of various words (e.g. altho for although), and that this is not new. I think I heard a similar effort was made about a century ago and again about 50 yrs ago. But, so far, not much change--maybe for same or similar reasons Esperanto did not catch on. Would be curious to know your and OED opinions on this, as well as opinions of anyone else on futures of English and possible OED bias.

Aloha,

TB



-----Original Message-----
From: allenwelsh@mchsi.com

AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.
__________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

Back to top

Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

5.

Human/sheep hybrid

Posted by: "tbhawaiiowan@..." tbhawaiiowan@...   tbhawaiiowan

Sun Apr 1, 2007 4:18 am (PST)

-----Original Message-----
From: ecco_fonics@YAHOO.COM
To: HRCFS-l@HAWAII.EDU
Sent: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 12:49 PM
Subject: Checks and Balances

does this scare anyone? should it? are we doing this because we should....or just because we can?

15% Human: Sheep Grown With "Half-Human Organs"
Posted on March 25, 2007 at 1:19 PM.
Scientists have created the world's first human-sheep chimera - which has the body of a sheep and half-human organs.
The sheep have 15 per cent human cells and 85 per cent animal cells - and their evolution brings the prospect of animal organs being transplanted into humans one step closer.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23390256-details/Now+scientists+create+a+sheep+that%27s+15%25+human/article.do
__________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

Back to top

Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

6.

Fwd: Gen Y (Gen Me?) expectations

Posted by: "tbhawaiiowan@..." tbhawaiiowan@...   tbhawaiiowan

Sun Apr 1, 2007 4:20 am (PST)

-----Original Message-----
From: tbhawaiiowan@aol.com
To: hrcfs-l@hawaii.edu
Sent: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 12:50 PM
Subject: Gen Y (Gen Me?) expectations

From Mar-Apr Futurist:

Florida St. U. longintudinal study tracking hi school Srs edu and career plans between 1976 and 2000 found growing gap between aspirations and achievements. In yr 2000, nearly 50% were planning to get advanced degree, incl nearly 2/3rds wanting to be doc, atty, or college prof by age 30--compared to only 20% of 1976 Srs--while ACTUAL # of Srs that did so remained steady between '76 and '00.

A Gen Me psych prof at U of San Diego cites mostly familiar possible reasons for this:

- exposure to nearly constant aggressive marketing, as well as TV, movies, and self-esteem programs at school telling Gen Me how "special" they are
- more permissive parenting by Baby Boomers (which she thinks made Gen Me the "most wanted" gen of children in US history)
- reliable birth control and legalized abortion

USD Psych prof predicts "more young people in their 20s will be disappointed they cannot pursue their chosen profession and by criticisms of their job performance, as well as not being able to afford to buy a house. This will lead to lots of anxiety, depression, and complaining."

FSU study authors also see related set of dangers: misuse of human potential and econ resources. Psych prof suggests better career counselling in hi school and less emphasis on self-esteem.

-----Original Message-----
From: tbhawaiiowan@aol.com
To: ecco_fonics@YAHOO.COM; hrcfs-l@HAWAII.EDU
Sent: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 12:15 AM
Subject: Gen Y and Comsumerism...

Since Starbucks promotes itself as socially responsible and claims to treat its customers like family, it would be interesting to know--based on excerpt below--if students could be convinced that this is "manipulation" as well even if Starbucks is sincere.
"So, there’s hope. When I wear my Nike hat to class, some of the students get it, and inevitably, a student stops by my office at the end of the semester and announces she has stopped going to Starbucks. But this is no easy task, and media activists would be well advised to work hard to relate to Generation Y. The advertisers are certainly paying attention to them, and so should we."

_Naomi Rockler-Gladen is an assistant professor of media studies at Colorado State University and a freelance writer.

-----Original Message-----
From: ecco_fonics@YAHOO.COM
To: hrcfs-l@HAWAII.EDU
Sent: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 6:22 PM
Subject: More on Gen Y and Comsumerism...

This is from the current issue of Adbusters.

Me Against the Media: From the Trenches of a Media Lit Class

AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.
__________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

Back to top

Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

7.

Emerging metalurgy possibilities (without nanotech)?

Posted by: "tbhawaiiowan@..." tbhawaiiowan@...   tbhawaiiowan

Sun Apr 1, 2007 4:22 am (PST)

-----Original Message-----
From: tbhawaiiowan@aol.com
To: hrcfs-l@hawaii.edu
Sent: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 12:05 AM
Subject: Emerging metalurgy possibilities (without nanotech)?

Modern Marvels; History Channel 3.15.07

Nitanol (Nickel titanium)--will return to its original shape when heated (think car bodies that would repair themselves after collisions just by applying hot water)

LIquid metals/metallic glass (stronger, lighter than steel and titanium)--one possible app is refrigerators that are powered by magnets rather than electricity)
__________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

Back to top

Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

8a.

Millennial gen: how much wishful thinking?

Posted by: "tbhawaiiowan@..." tbhawaiiowan@...   tbhawaiiowan

Sun Apr 1, 2007 4:32 am (PST)

-----Original Message-----
From: scandy@hawaii.edu
To: dator@hawaii.edu
Cc: hrcfs-l@HAWAII.EDU
Sent: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 7:32 PM
Subject: Re: More on Millennials

Jim,

I couldn't find the Star-Bulletin piece online, but did find what
appears to be the original version you were referring to from the
Providence Journal website
(http://www.projo.com/opinion/contributors/content/CT_kids23_02-23-07_9C48AQ8.2799657.html,
login courtesy of bugmenot.com). It's copied below this message.

To your comments, I'd add that the New Politics Institute has an
interesting website to check out (http://www.newpolitics.net) using
lots of viral YouTube-style videos to explore its chosen turf. It's
also worth noting that according to his blog at the NPI site
(http://www.newpolitics.net/node/240), Leyden used to work for
scenario consultants Global Business Network. Which makes him sort of
a futurist.

One last thought: the Strauss & Howe-style analysis of generations
which Leyden picks up here seems to me limited in a rather significant
way by its focus on trends within America -- because with
communications and politics trending toward major challenges to the
validity and viability of political community divided definitively at
the nation-state level, global (or if you like, nonspatial) trends in
generational attitudes could give an important insight into the
changing acceptance of national boundaries themselves. In other
words, Strauss, Howe, and now Leyden take the nation-state for
granted, assuming its enduring validity as a politico-sociological
unit of analysis, but a broader lens could illuminate the possible
futures of -- and perhaps fundamentally call into question -- that
assumption.

Stuart

>> The article:

Peter Leyden: 'Millennials' could change politics
07:32 AM EST on Friday, February 23, 2007
By PETER LEYDEN

SAN FRANCISCO -- THE SLEEPER development that was widely overlooked in
the 2006 election was the 22-percentage-point margin of support that
went to Democrats over Republicans in congressional races by the
up-and-coming young millennial generation. The millennial generation
is made up of young people born in the 1980s and 1990s who are pouring
out of college right now. It's an enormous generation, comparable to
the Baby Boomers.

The first wave of "millennials" is now age 26 — at about the same life
stage as the oldest Boomers were in 1970. Similar to the boomers, the
millennials are poised to impact the country at every life stage and
in myriad ways — but particularly in politics. The millennials are an
unusual generation, not like young people we have seen for a long
time. They are not individualistic risk-takers like the Boomers or
cynical and disengaged like Generation Xers. Signs indicate that
millennials are civic-minded, extremely diverse and technologically
savvy. Millennials have consistently shown they hold progressive
values and worldviews — voting more heavily Democratic than other
generations in their first few elections.

Everyone knows the Boomers are a huge generation that's aging and is
about to seriously stress our Social Security system. But few realize
that the millennials are just as huge at 75 million, which is
one-quarter of the current U.S. population of 300 million.

That's the case partly because many are children of the Boomers (the
"echo boom"). The size of the generation is also boosted by the
children of the unprecedented numbers of immigrants in the 1980s and
1990s. The millennials are the most diverse generation by far, with
roughly 40 percent belonging to minority groups, Hispanics in
particular. But generations are more than just numbers; they have
personalities that are shaped by many factors, including what's
happening in the world when they come of age.

The millennial personality comes closest to that of the "GI
generation," the one lauded by some as the "Greatest Generation,"
members of which fought in World War II and built up America and the
world in the postwar boom. Millennials are civic-minded, trust in
leaders and are team-oriented rather than individualistic.

William Strauss — co-author of a series of books on generations,
including Millennials Rising — argues that millennials show deep
concern for today's income inequalities and social stratification, and
that looking out for everyone in society may emerge as their mission
much as it did for the GI generation. Millennials tend toward
progressive positions in other areas, too, as a survey at the New
Politics Institute, among other sources, shows. They take concern for
global warming and the environment as a given, and they don't perceive
differences between genders, races or sexual preferences the way other
generations do. These nascent political beliefs show up in the
elections they have participated in.

For instance, 55 percent of people age 29 and younger voted for
Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry in 2004. Moreover,
young people were the only generation to give Kerry a majority besides
those of the GI generation who are still around. And young people do
not always vote more progressive — the young generation X was very
conservative. The results of the 2006 election, though, were even more
striking. A huge majority of people age 29 and younger voted for
Democrats over Republicans in the congressional elections. These
millennials were also actors in this last election cycle. The campaign
was characterized by people-powered politics, using grass-roots media
such as blogs and videos on YouTube. Also, the millennials are the
generation that came of age completely at home with the new
technologies and new media that are reshaping politics. No one gets
these new tools better than they do.

The great explosion of progressive politics under Franklin D.
Roosevelt in the 1930s and 1940s was partly fueled by energized young
people. They voted in higher numbers for FDR than any other generation
and acted as the foot solders of progressive politics at that time.
We're seeing a very similar development today. The huge numbers of
millennials are poised to drive a new progressive era that will
reinvent what it means to be "progressive" and take on the new
challenges of the 21st Century. Hang on for this ride.

Peter Leyden is director of the New Politics Institute, a San
Francisco-based think tank.


On 04/03/07, Jim Dator <dator@hawaii.edu> wrote:
> I hope everyone interested in the age-cohort discussion we had recently
> read (or will read) the piece about the "Millennials" written by Peter
> Leyden of the New Politics Institute. The Institute recently conducted a
> survey that confirmed the point that the Millennials are more like the old
> GIs in work habits and liberal political preferences than they are to the
> Boomers, and are very different from Gen Xers who tend to be extremely
> individualistic and politically conservative.
>
> I read the piece in the Sunday, March 4, 2007 issue of the Honolulu
> Star-Bulletin, p. E1, but the by-line was the Providence (Rhode Island)
> Journal, and the New Politics Institute was identified as a think-tank in
> San Francisco.
>
> Doesn't make it true, of course, but it does accord with my observations
> and comments, so....
>
> Jim Dator
>

-- Stuart Candy
scandy@hawaii.edu
Researcher | Hawaii Research Center for Futures Studies | www.futures.hawaii.edu
Long Bets Research Fellow | The Long Now Foundation | www.longnow.org
Blogger | The Sceptical Futuryst | www.futuryst.com

-----Original Message-----
From: tbhawaiiowan@aol.com
To: scandy@hawaii.edu; dator@hawaii.edu
Cc: hrcfs-l@HAWAII.EDU
Sent: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 12:52 AM
Subject: Millennials: how much wishful thinking?

Good I think if coming true (even if not as new as Leyden thinks). But puzzled by some factual assertions in the version posted by Stuart below as well as in Star Bull version.

Both versions assert the first wave of Millenials is now 26, and both also asserts that majorities of those 29 and younger voted for Kerry in 04 and even more for Dems in 06. But SB subhead states: "Born in 80s and 90s, these young Americans are civic-minded team players with progressive values."

This is puzzling to me because if first wave now 26--ie born in 1980--only those born between 80 and 88 are now old enough to vote. So in 04 only those born between 80 and 85 old enuf to vote in 04. Both versions also assert millenials number about 75 mill--one fourth of current US pop and same size as baby boom gen. Maybe im splitting hairs, but some under 29 who voted in 04 also technically NOT millenials if born before 80--at least based on assertion above that oldest are only now 26. That would mean maybe only 25% of this "generation" has had chance to vote, and would like to know how many voted--not just how they tended to vote.

Also would like to know how Leyden as well as S and H deduce that those born in 90s--who haven't voted yet--will follow suit? I think I understand S and H basic theory, but wonder--like Stuart--to what extent they factor in the very different? global circumstances this gen may face now and/or in future. As a result, I think assertion that 40% of Millenials are "minorities"--particularly Hispanics, and unlike baby boomers?--may be potentially more relevant to how this ENTIRE generation behaves once all reach current age of majority. Do others agree that Hispanics--IF most remain poor and relatively poorly educated--may remain quite conservative Catholics as adults?

Furthermore, does anyone know how this ethnic mix compares to the "Greatest" Gen? (mostly 1st, 2nd, and 3rd generation decendents of primarily European and primarily Protestant immigrants?). And how do rise of global more-"stateless" Islamic fundamentalism and global enviro problems compare to the problems (more national than global?) of late 19th and early 20th C capitalism and global threats of primarily nation-state based fascism and communism?

In any case, the closing statement in the version below is still music to my ears if true: The huge numbers of
millennials are poised to drive a new progressive era that will reinvent what it means to be "progressive" and take on the new challenges of the 21st Century. That's one of many reasons I often feel more like a Millenial than a "middle of the cohort" baby boomer.

Tom Brandt

AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.
__________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

Back to top

Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (2)

8b.

Re: Millennial gen: how much wishful thinking?

Posted by: "Sara Robinson" srobinson@...   srmercuria

Sun Apr 1, 2007 2:58 pm (PST)

On Apr 1, 2007, at 4:32 AM, tbhawaiiowan@aol.com wrote:

> One last thought: the Strauss & Howe-style analysis of generations
> which Leyden picks up here seems to me limited in a rather significant
> way by its focus on trends within America -- because with
> communications and politics trending toward major challenges to the
> validity and viability of political community divided definitively at
> the nation-state level, global (or if you like, nonspatial) trends in
> generational attitudes could give an important insight into the
> changing acceptance of national boundaries themselves. In other
> words, Strauss, Howe, and now Leyden take the nation-state for
> granted, assuming its enduring validity as a politico-sociological
> unit of analysis, but a broader lens could illuminate the possible
> futures of -- and perhaps fundamentally call into question -- that
> assumption.

Actually, S&H weren't the first ones to identify a four-phase social
change cycle within their culture. Some 50 years ago, Indian
philosopher P. R. Sarkar posited a rather similar four-phase cycle of
change within Indian culture, as each of the four castes took their
turn at leading society. Johan Galtung, in an essay in Sohail
Inayatullah's CLA Reader, describes Sarkar's cycle this way:

"The kshatriya [warrior caste] enter to create order after the people
have had their say, but they are culturally so primitive that the
brahmins [intellectuals] enter to restore culture, but they are
economically so amateurish that the vaishya [merchant caste] have to
put the economy in order, but they are so exploitative that the
shudra [worker caste] people make revolts, and so on."

Though Sarkar never put dates to his cycle, or time limits on the
phases, the four phases he describes above are pretty recognizeable
to S&H groupies as the High, Awakening, Unraveling, and Crisis.
Furthermore, I've recently identified at least five other analogous
four-phase change cycle models, which suggests that the basic idea
(if not the timing) may indeed turn out to be a cultural universal.
That doesn't surprise me: just as most of the world works on base 10
because we all have 10 fingers, most of the world lives in four
seasons -- and many cultures also mark four stages of life
(childhood, youth, maturity, and decline). Experiencing change as a
four-phase cycle seems to be extremely common.

S&H make it very clear that their research only supports the model as
far as the English-speaking world is concerned. (Yes, their model
does cover the UK, Australia, Canada, South Africa, etc.) They don't
foreclose the possibility that their model might extend to other
nations and cultures as well; but they've left it to other historians
with a strong command of other histories to try to make those
connections.

Sara

Back to top

Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (2)

9.

Millennials: gen v kwave v dialectical analysis

Posted by: "tbhawaiiowan@..." tbhawaiiowan@...   tbhawaiiowan

Sun Apr 1, 2007 4:36 am (PST)

-----Original Message-----
From: dator@hawaii.edu
To: tbhawaiiowan@AOL.COM
Cc: hrcfs-l@HAWAII.EDU
Sent: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 4:22 PM
Subject: Re: Millennials: gen v kwave v dialectical analysis

All three.

On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 tbhawaiiowan@aol.com wrote:

> Jim,
>
> Thanks for very good and concise refresher tutorial on S and H. I'm now also
curious to know if and to what extent you and others think generational and
Kwave analysts build on, refute, or ignore Hegelian dialectics.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dator@hawaii.edu
> To: hrcfs-l@HAWAII.EDU
> Sent: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 2:37 PM
> Subject: Re: More on Millennials
>
>
> Age-cohort changes have been noted for many years in most "modern"
> societies. What is unique (as far as I know) about Strauss and Howe is
> that whereas all previous scholars just point out there are
> cohort differences, S & H say there is a repeating pattern of four age
> cohort types related to external factors. Some people believe the things
> driving K-Waves also drive the four cohort-types and attempts have been
> made to comine the two (though the "causes" of K-Waves differ among
> K-Wave analysts too. I naturally believe it is changes in the "level of
> technology"--ie, from water mills to steam engines to internal combustion
> engines, to whatever is next, for example. Others suggest different
> causal factors).
>
> So to this extent their theory is based on "level of development" and
> not any specific nation, though how it actully works out will of course
> always be situational.
>
> I think that Leyden was focusing on the US only to suggest that we should
> not expect the future of the US to continue to see the privatization and
> "hollowing out" of government, but rather a return to more collective
> values that will expect "government" to be more active and effective in
> helping us achieve communal goals.
>
> Whether that is also a global phenomenon NOW, or whether the phasing of
> the "Civics", which is the type name S & H used for both the GIs and the
> Millennials, is different in other parts of the world, is something I
> don't know. What evidence I have seen and heard suggests it is similar in
> Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and much of Western Europe, but not in
> Japan, Korea or elsewhere where the phasing of the types is different.
>
> gain, I may be wrong here.
>
> But we should be able to use S & H to do what Stuart asks: to make
> statements about the future behavior of cohorts under differing external
> conditions. That is one of its utilities--or fantasies.
> __________________________________________________________
> AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from
AOL at AOL.com.
>
__________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

Back to top

Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

10.

Future/s of narcissism v altruism (as well as individuality and "sel

Posted by: "tbhawaiiowan@..." tbhawaiiowan@...   tbhawaiiowan

Sun Apr 1, 2007 4:40 am (PST)

Subject: Future/s of narcissism v altruism (as well as individuality and "self"-reliance-sufficiency-interest)?

A new report suggests that an overdose of self-esteem in college
students could mean a rough road ahead.
9:42 PM PST, February 26, 2007
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-esteem27feb27,0,716236.story?

No wonder YouTube is so popular.

All the effort to boost children's self-esteem may have backfired and
produced a generation of college students who are more narcissistic
than their Gen X (and Baby Boom?) predecessors , according to a new study led by a San
Diego State University psychologist.

To all:

I found this new research on narcissism especially interesting in light of recent lectures at UH by Richard Dawkins (evolutionary biologist and author of books ranging from Selfish Gene 30 yrs ago to God Delusion last year).

Among other questions I asked (eg did Dawkins think human "invention/discovery" of agriculture a truly free choice v no other choice due to pop growth resulting from our very success as hunter-gatherers? would humans still primarily be hunter-gatherers (HG) if Earth as big as Jupiter? if Darwin alive today, did Dawkins think he would be capitalist, communist, or neither? and what evol survival purpose served by human ability to invent and believe in gods and religions as well as ask questions such as why r we here and where did we come from?), I asked Dawkins about the future of altruism.

Dawkins and many others I think (as well as Sahlins, Diamond, etal who also think HG humans worked less than modern humans to meet basic survival needs) have argued that altruistic behavior is at least partly genetic in nature because such behavior had survival value from bio/evol perspective when humans were primarily HGs--which was the case for the vast majority of human history (until gradual develop of agrarian societies beginning approx. 10 to 11 thousand years ago).

I argued that any tendency of agrarian and then even more recent, rapid and over-lapping evolution of industrial and post-industrial societies to devalue bio/evol survival value of altruism/cooperative behavior probably still too recent to breed altruism out of our genome by "natural" selection, but all bets off with advent of what Dawkins called "mutational" selection (ie latest and possible future advances in genetic engineering). Dawkins seemed to agree, but frankly I got the impression he hadn't thought much about this (except stem cell research) because even during his lecture on "future" of evolution, I thought he focused more on what would happen if we could go back in time and re-start "natural" selection again (interesting, but not really futuristic IMHO).

I'm also surprised and impressed with Chris' recall of what I called Self-Sufficient Dwelling Units (SSDU) 20 years ago--preferably mobile and fully functional in multiple environments (eg on and under ground and water as well as within and outside of Earth or Earth-like atmosphere)--which would eventually be capable of max possible self-sufficient closed-cycle food, water, fuel and breathable air production (as long as all still necessary for survival) which we collectively would agree to make a universal birthright (at least upon reaching "adulthood"--however that might be defined in future) in 21st century or later version of new social contract.

This was the most futuristic (at least in my mind at the time) end of a spectrum of policy* and tech advances that would eventually make some form of property ownership a universal birthright at some point in future that does not have to be earned in some way--but NOT based primarily or exclusively on "property" defined as "real estate"--and which might finally make the near total dependency of most people on some combo of wage, welfare, and/or charity and inheritance something closer to a truly free choice. (*e.g. "baby bond" or "grubstake" accts which already exist in UK and Singapore, and Individual Development Accounts (IDAs) which have generated bipart interest in US congress, Peter Barnes "Skytrust" and similar proposals for generating new sources of universal income based on citizenship rather than need similar to Alaska's Permanent Fund, and universal stock ownership plans--because financial wealth, unlike real estate, can theoretically expand infinitely, thereby reducing need for more confiscatory type schemes eg land reform, etc). Conceptually, these would be more like Lincoln's (largely unsuccessful) Homestead Act of 1862 and/or post-WW2 G.I. bill than New Deal or Great Society programs.

My interest in this was based on the "fact" (I think) that no human ever born has ever had anything close to "informed consent" regarding the actual or implied "social contract" one is born into at any time or any place in human history. Most liken this to complaining about the law of gravity, but I think maybe not. Nevertheless, nothing original about any of this (except perhaps my personal synthesis of some ideas)--even SSDU idea based in part on existing or possible tech advances already IDed by others. But I also argued that true self-reliance/self-sufficiency might paradoxically increase truly voluntary altruistic and cooperative behavior in the future.

So would be interested in what others think. Based on my own current life situation, I'm increasingly feeling like a "mutant" in the sense that my sense of altruism still overrides my self-preservation instincts even if and when the latter is increasingly at risk.

Finally, at risk of offending some with politically incorrect attempt at humor, I think this research on perceived increase in narcissism also may help to explain the "new" AIDS (American Idol Delusional Syndrome). :) To "real" AIDS sufferers and advocates, no offense intended. After stand-up comic with cerebral palsy won Last Comic Standing TV competition last yr--in part by making "cripple" jokes--I thought this might be more humorous than offensive.

Tom Brandt

-----Original Message-----
From: jones@NEOFUTURES.COM
To: HRCFS-L@HAWAII.EDU
Sent: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 12:33 PM
Subject: Re: Gen Y Narcissism

Well, I would not be a good student of Dator and McLuhan if I didn't point out the dramatic effect and impact of new technology from an age-cohort perspective. I think cell phones and iPods and Materialism resonate on the hyper-individualism and narcissistic chord as Dator has noted (situational ethics). It will only accelerate as the middle classes grow in Asia, Latin America, and Africa and globalize. I think it was Dator who once said everyone should be/wanted to be a sovereign state, their own ideology. Why not?

I am still waiting for one of Tom's survival capsules, too. (Ancient listserv history.)

On Feb 28, 2007, at 2:54 PM, Frankus wrote:

interesting article. however, i don't know if is so much of an overdose of self-esteem as a severe underdose of community and cooperative skills learning. Our culture takes gleeful satisfaction at the failure of others...telling me i'm special is good; at the expense of others..well...

Well, let's see here.

I pretty much follow Strauss and Howe. My observation is that what are
being called Gen Y are NOT individualistic at all, but rather extremely
group-oriented. It is true they were all told how Special they were, and
they all played in games where there were rules, uniforms, coaches and
umpires with no one keeping score so that at the end everyone got an award
and had ice cream together.

They expect the world to play by the rules--they have never had one minute
of spare time, running from soccer to violin lessons to Mandarin practice
to No Child Left Alone schools.

And if there are no Rules for them to follow, and no one fairly enforcing
them (ie., the real world), then they turn to each other for guidance and
have little respect for Authorities and Experts who tell them what to do
outside of a consensual situation. That's what My Space and all the rest
are for, it seems to me.

Jim Dator

=

AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.
__________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

Back to top

Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

11.

Dawkins: Evol future of altruism and "mutational" genetic engineerin

Posted by: "tbhawaiiowan@..." tbhawaiiowan@...   tbhawaiiowan

Sun Apr 1, 2007 4:42 am (PST)

-----Original Message-----
From: dator@hawaii.edu
To: william.r.kramer.ctr@NAVY.MIL
Cc: tbhawaiiowan@AOL.COM; hrcfs-l@hawaii.edu
Sent: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 9:30 AM
Subject: RE: Dawkins: Evol future of altruism and "mutational" genetic engineering?

We'll never know.

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007, Kramer, William R CTR NAVFAC PAC wrote:

> If we become "one with the universe," will we need mutual help from
> others, or would our etherial condition be far beyond needing others for
> reciprocal support?
> Wm.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Dator [mailto:dator@hawaii.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 8:44
> To: Kramer, William R CTR NAVFAC PAC
> Cc: tbhawaiiowan@AOL.COM; hrcfs-l@hawaii.edu
> Subject: RE: Dawkins: Evol future of altruism and "mutational" genetic
> engineering?
>
> Or will we become more ant-like in our behavior as the internet morphs
> into Chardin's "Noosphere", our carbon bodies melt away, and we truly
> become one with the universe?
>
>
> On Thu, 22 Feb 2007, Kramer, William R CTR NAVFAC PAC wrote:
>
> > Altruism is exhibited by many species other than humans (e.g., social
> > insects, like ants), so its genetic basis is not disputed. Especially
> > in humans, there are environmental factors at play, and most cultural
> > traditions encourage altruism. In that altruism in humans very
> > directly contributes to our survival, I would think it's here to
> > stay......at least until our mutual assistance is no longer required
> for survival.
> > Altruism contributes to the survival of an infant or family member,
> > but what about in a future condition where mutual human help is
> irrelevant?
> > Will altruism fade away with the appendix and wisdom teeth?
> >
> > Wm.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-hrcfs-l@HAWAII.EDU [mailto:owner-hrcfs-l@HAWAII.EDU] On
> > Behalf Of tbhawaiiowan@aol.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 15:00
> > To: hrcfs-l@HAWAII.EDU
> > Subject: Dawkins: Evol future of altruism and "mutational" genetic
> > engineering?
> >
> > These thought belatedly occurred to me after first email below. I
> > believe Dawkins did say in response to an aud question that if
> > altruistic behavior is partly genetic that he thinks ag, indus, and
> > post-indus societies all still too new relative to humanity's much
> > longer history as hunter-gatherers to have been bred out of us by
> > evolution--yet.
> >
> > He also said--in a way I hadn't heard before--that he believes we are
> > just at the beginning of human ability to manipulate "mutational"
> > changes via genetic engineering. I think he meant to contrast this
> > all past and most present selective breeding/genetic engineering,
> > which he must regard as "non-mutational" in nature.
> >
> > If anyone understands this distinction better than I do, please
> > explain if u have time and interest.
> >
> > aloha,
> >
> > TB
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: tbhawaiiowan@aol.com
> > To: irohter@HAWAII.RR.COM; william.r.kramer.ctr@NAVY.MIL;
> > hrcfs-l@HAWAII.EDU
> > Cc: HOONANEA@aol.com; Aabaer@...; louiserteschik@hotmail.com
> > Sent: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 12:49 PM
> > Subject: Re: Richard Dawkins: what is most novel? controversial? about
>
> > his thinking on evolution?
> >
> >
> > I attended his Tues nite Feb 20 speech. I also readily admit I have
> > only read things written about him, not by him. But with all due
> > respect, I did not hear anything I found truly novel or controversial
> > (other than his making jokes about those who doubt evolution).
> >
> > I wanted to ask him questions such as these:
> >
> > -r u first to postulate that altruistic behavior may be genetically
> > determined at least in part?
> > - do u think invention of agriculture worst mistake in human history?
> > -to what extent do u think humans chose to domesticate plants and
> > animals vs being forced to do so due to pop growth resulting from
> > their very success at H+G (which, on a planet the size of Earth, made
> > it impossible to cont H+G instead of "inventingt" agri in the absence
> > of future birth control
> > - do u think most humans would still be hunter-gatherers if Earth as
> > big as, say, Jupiter?
> > - his thoughts on possible evolutionary explanations for human desire
> > and ability to invent gods and religions and ability to
> > contemplate/question where we came from and why we exist
> >
> > He did seem to agree (with most futurists?) that humans (and "life" in
> > general) could evolve from carbon-based to partly or fully silicon
> > based in future, and that human brain may still be capable of evolving
>
> > beyond our current "middle earth" perception of reality (to include
> > better understanding/perception of both subatomic and astronomic
> phenomena?).
> > I think this possibility supported by recent brain research on
> > "neuroplasticity" suggesting brain is not as hard-wired as previously
> > thought--at least in minds of most scientists.
> >
> > Finally, also wanted to ask him if he thinks humans could evolve who
> > could photosynthesize their own food simply by natural selection
> > without aid of selective breeding/genetic engineering.
> >
> > Also interested in thoughts of others re what is most
> > novel/provocative about Dawkins' thinking.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > TB
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > Check out the new AOL
> > <http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/1615326657x4311227241x4298082137/aol?re
> > di r=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eaol%2Ecom%2Fnewaol> . Most comprehensive set
> > of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of
> > high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.
> >
>
__________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

Back to top

Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

12.

quantum v photonic v latest Intel+IBM chips

Posted by: "tbhawaiiowan@..." tbhawaiiowan@...   tbhawaiiowan

Sun Apr 1, 2007 4:46 am (PST)

-----Original Message-----
From: tbhawaiiowan@aol.com
To: jones@NEOFUTURES.COM; HRCFS-L@HAWAII.EDU
Sent: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 10:47 PM
Subject: quantum v photonic v latest Intel+IBM chips

Thanks Chris. To all:

Interestingly (to me), story in today's Advertiser reported that Intel has designed chip--but still in research stage--that promises to perform calculations (a trillion per second) as quickly as an entire data center, while consuming as much electricity as a light bulb. Both Intel and IBM reported last month they had separately devised ways to overcome overheating and? leaking too much current as chips get smaller per Moore's Law.

TEn yrs ago, same performance took supercomputer requiring 2000 sq ft, 10,000 Pentium processors, and 500 kw. This compares? to 64,000 calculations simultaneously (in parallel "universes") in PCWorld article about Quantum computing Chris sent.

Intel or reporter? speculates first uses for new Intel chips would likely be in corporate data centers, supercomputers, comm infra, and heavy-duty fin and sci research, as well as eventually AI, realistic 3D modeling, and real-time speech recognition. But Intel also suggested one possible consumer use: "intelligent" monitoring of TV sports that IDs and compiles highlights based on spectator pref.

Finally, does anyone understand diff between quantum and photonic/optic computing and where development of latter is relative to quantum?

Aloha,

TB


-----Original Message-----
From: jones@NEOFUTURES.COM
To: HRCFS-L@HAWAII.EDU
Sent: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 1:53 PM
Subject: the 1st quantum computer

... was supposed to be revealed to the public today:

http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/index.php/id;234791681

=

Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.
__________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

Back to top

Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

13.

2dJZAM0MDIEc2VjA2Rtc2cEc2xrA3Ztc2cEc3RpbWUDMTE3NTQ2NDczNg--" target=_blank name=13>tbhawaiiowan@..." tbhawaiiowan@...   tbhawaiiowan

Sun Apr 1, 2007 4:50 am (PST)

-----Original Message-----
From: tbhawaiiowan@yahoo.com
To: hrcfs-l@hawaii.edu
Cc: tbhawaiiowan@aol.com
Sent: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 8:18 PM
Subject: Faster than light travel/computing?

While watching Star Trek Tech on History Channel, I learned this tidbit that--while still far from being possible--at least partially addresses question I was trying to ask about speed of photonic v quantum computing. While it currently seems to be the case that nothing can travel faster than light thru space-time, some quantum and astrophysicists think space-time itself may be able to travel faster than speed of light. (Still trying to wrap my mind around that one!) According to History Ch, this would be necessary to make Star Trek "warp" speed possible. Nevertheless, this still may be irrelevant to computing at any point in future. But perhaps due to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle (HUP), maybe not?

FYI, some scientists think HUP means Star Trek "teleportation" will always be impossible, but a few think maybe not. However, "real" teleportation might not be based on actual transmission of matter itself and/or literally converting matter to energy (which some think would require heating matter to something like 100 billion degrees), but more on lasers transporting digitized instructions to reassemble atoms and molecules already randomly and/or ubiquitously available at destination to--in a sense--"clone" the transportee (although transportee still would not literally and simultaneously exist in two places). So it actually might be something more like nanotech rather than cloning/biotech combined with IT and lasers that makes teleportation possible? :)

Tom Brandt

PS - after closer review of previous emails, I realized "fentometer" scale is level of atomic nuclei--i.e. smaller than nano-scale.

-----Original Message-----
From: tbhawaiiowan@aol.com
To: tsutsumie001@HAWAII.RR.COM; redlectron42@GMAIL.COM
Cc: hrcfs-l@HAWAII.EDU
Sent: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 7:34 PM
Subject: Re: quantum v photonic v latest Intel+IBM chips

My question about speed of light on quantum level--at least with respect to computing--may be irrelevant, but I asked anyway out of (naive?) curiosity, and in hope someone on list may know more. So, for now, will close with this question to Oren: can u provide simple lay definition of fentometer? Or is reading de Garis essential to understanding?

Thanks again,

TB

-----Original Message-----
From: tsutsumie001@HAWAII.RR.COM
To: redlectron42@GMAIL.COM
Cc: hrcfs-l@HAWAII.EDU
Sent: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 6:42 PM
Subject: Re: quantum v photonic v latest Intel+IBM chips

Hi Aaron,

Of course you're right. Just taking a stab at it. At the time I had thought this would be the way the thing works. This is what makes

it move bits like it does. I was reminded of other quantum stuff and aspects later on. Among all this info on quantum computing I was

looking at ( mind you that is mostly why I answered the e-mail ) at the time, a few presentations by Hugo de Garis as well as his

website. I concentrated on the future configuration of the thing. He was talking about future (speculative) quantum computers. I took

from his lecture that in a world where quantum computers are the norm, we might still feel the pressures to make things even faster.

Since it would be hard to jump to the next scale of the fentometer ( with all that would accompany that ), we would try to manipulate as

many (quantum bits) atoms with their electrons as close as we could near to one another. This would result in them being closer and

closer together, thusly faster, with of course (the way you mentioned ) the further quantum mechanics of it coming into play. The

numbers of them on the chip with the coupling of smaller and smaller tech may make their actual sizes more, and even more

important because they maybe soo close. The space between them would be in the size of less than an atom. I hope it clears up a

little of what I was trying to say.

Thanks a lot, talk to you later,
Oren Tsutsumi
> Gentlemen,
>
> I could be very wrong about this, but i believe that there are a
> couple of differences between quantum computers and our current
> technology.
>
> I had been under the impression that the major benefit to quantum
> computing was the ability of the logic circuits to exist in more than
> two states of being.
> by this i mean that in our current digital formats, swtiches are
> either on or off.
> Quantum computers work theorhetically on switches that can now be on,
> off, or nul.
> this third state allows for a leap fromt he powers of 2 to the > powers of 3.
> (2 squared is four,
> 3 squared nine.)
>
> So really, the benefit of quantum computers does not really have to do
> with the size of quanta, and though nanotechnology can take us very
> far, very fast, because of the new grades of controlling the silicon
> defficiencies, they are essentially seperate developing technologies.
>
> As i say this has been my understanding as to date,
> but maybe this is what you were talking about already,
> just in different terms.
>
>
> Aaron Rosa
>
>
> also,
> Chris Jones,
> also a HRCFS member,
> posted yesterday on the product release of the first
> quantum processor...
> on tuesday a group called D-wave
> openly demonstrated its quantumm processor...
> a scan of google news sci/tech category can provide many articles
> relating to this release, and
> the differnt criticisms it has received...
> apparently there are further approaches to Quantum computing.
>
>
>
>
> On 2/14/07, Oren Tsutsumi <tsutsumie001@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>> Hello again,
>>
>> Perhaps interestingly my source is mostly Hugo de Garis. >> Some of it
>> is an extrapolation upon his theories, an extrapolation,
>>
>> (probably other things would occur first) like lasers being used >> between
>> components on a nucleus scale (fentometer scale) .
>>
>> Oddly enough I was reminded of the threat from an e-mail >> from you
>> to Dr. Dator including of course Hrcfs-1@hawaii.edu.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks again,
>>
>>
>> Oren Tsutsumi
>> On Feb 14, 2007, at 11:23 AM, tbhawaiiowan@AOL.COM wrote:
>>
>> Mr. Tsutsumie:
>>
>> Thanks again. Would also like to know the source/s of your >> thinking on this
>> if any other than Hugo de Garis.
>>
>> Aloha,
>>
>> TB
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: tsutsumie001@hawaii.rr.com
>> To: tbhawaiiowan@aol.com
>> Cc: hrcfs-l@HAWAII.EDU
>> Sent: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 10:38 AM
>> Subject: Re: quantum v photonic v latest Intel+IBM chips
>>
>> HI,
>> I assume it could be faster than photonic computing if >> the
>> components are vastly smaller than those of photonic. This goes
>>
>> all out the door if we go to the fentometer scale and use lasers to
>> communicate between components( perhaps ). If the other
>>
>> variables are considered "solved", some of the results of this may >> lead to
>> greater raw computing speed. One of the
>>
>> variables would be heat.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>
>> Oren Tsutsumi
>>
>> On Feb 14, 2007, at 9:40 AM, tbhawaiiowan@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for input and new info. And yes, it is my understanding that
>> photonic computing--as name implies--is based on light instead of
>> electricity. so that leaves me wondering if quantum computing >> could ever be
>> as fast or faster than photonic based on speed of light alone. >> But I admit
>> that perception may be too simplistic, and that raw computing >> speed may be
>> determined more by other variables. Finally, I agree that >> "quantum" leaps
>> in computing power could have impacts as radical--for better and >> worse--than
>> say for examp, nanotech--and maybe sooner than nanotech. So I >> also agree
>> that we should tread "lightly." :)
>>
>> TB
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: tsutsumie001@hawaii.rr.com
>> To: tbhawaiiowan@AOL.COM
>> Sent: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 3:04 AM
>> Subject: Re: quantum v photonic v latest Intel+ IBM chips
>>
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I guess quantum is based on the atom using the nano >> scales. That is
>> to say the spaces between components are measured
>>
>> at the nano scale level. A classical computer processor calculates >> one thing
>> at a time. One of the state of the art computer
>>
>> processors calculates at 2 to the 8th power (bit flips per second) >> things at
>> a time. Quantum computer processors could calculate at
>>
>> 2 to the nth power. They might be able to compute at 2 to the >> 100th power if
>> certain theories hold true. Some speculate you could
>>
>> build one of these out of what I take they mean to be solid >> material (
>> the solid state approach, posed by Cane). If this is the case
>>
>> then much of the tech of silicon valley could be used and it maybe >> not too
>> far along untill one of these calculates at 2 to the 1000th
>>
>> power or 2 to the 10,000th power.
>>
>>
>> I'm not sure what a photonic computer is. Maybe it's one >> which
>> uses lasers which can communicate between components on
>>
>> an even smaller scale. Perhaps you should contact Hugo de Garis or >> look at
>> his work athttp://www.iss.whu.edu.cn/degaris/.
>> He is the author of the "Artilect War" one book of which I'm >> sure you're
>> familiar. I heard him on an
>>
>> audio clip from a DC future salon. I tend to agree with some (a >> small bit)
>> of what he asserts in his work and a a couple of his
>>
>> lectures.
>>
>> We should ere on the side of caution. Also we must try >> to do more
>> productive things or do not a thing at all, instead of
>>
>> developing a tech which can get out of hand soo easily. Lets hope >> we don't
>> go willie nilly into the Fentometer scale which would
>>
>> be capable of 10 to the 40th power bit flips per second. One of >> the clips
>> is at
>>
>> http://www.archive.org/details/DC_Future_Salon_de_Garis_052406
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>
>> Oren Tsutsumi
>> On Feb 13, 2007, at 10:47 PM, tbhawaiiowan@AOL.COM wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Chris. To all:
>>
>> Interestingly (to me), story in today's Advertiser reported that >> Intel has
>> designed chip--but still in research stage--that promises to perform
>> calculations (a trillion per second) as quickly as an entire data >> center,
>> while consuming as much electricity as a light bulb. Both Intel >> and IBM
>> reported last month they had separately devised ways to overcome >> overheating
>> and? leaking too much current as chips get smaller per Moore's Law.
>>
>> TEn yrs ago, same performance took supercomputer requiring 2000 sq >> ft,
>> 10,000 Pentium processors, and 500 kw. This compares? to 64,000
>> calculations simultaneously (in parallel "universes") in PCWorld >> article
>> about Quantum computing Chris sent.
>>
>> Intel or reporter? speculates first uses for new Intel chips would >> likely be
>> in corporate data centers, supercomputers, comm infra, and heavy->> duty fin
>> and sci research, as well as eventually AI, realistic 3D modeling, >> and
>> real-time speech recognition. But Intel also suggested one possible
>> consumer use: "intelligent" monitoring of TV sports that IDs and >> compiles
>> highlights based on spectator pref.
>>
>> Finally, does anyone understand diff between quantum and photonic/>> optic
>> computing and where development of latter is relative to quantum?
>>
>> Aloha,
>>
>> TB
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: jones@NEOFUTURES.COM
>> To: HRCFS-L@HAWAII.EDU
>> Sent: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 1:53 PM
>> Subject: the 1st quantum computer
>> ... was supposed to be revealed to the public today:
>>
>> d;234791681"idg.com.au/index.php/id;234791681
__________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

Back to top

Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

14.

Did anyone predict world might want Chinese to INCREASE pop growth i

Posted by: "tbhawaiiowan@..." tbhawaiiowan@...   tbhawaiiowan

Sun Apr 1, 2007 4:52 am (PST)

-----Original Message-----
From: tbhawaiiowan@aol.com
To: pollard@hawaii.edu; UhScanning-l@hawaii.edu
Cc: hrcfs-l@hawaii.edu
Sent: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 12:25 AM
Subject: Did anyone predict world might want Chinese to INCREASE pop growth in 21C?

Who wuduv thunk rest of world might soon be rooting for Chinese to increase their pop growth!? :) More seriously, does anyone know of any "futurists" that have been predicting this?

-----Original Message-----
From: pollard@hawaii.edu
To: UhScanning-l@hawaii.edu
Sent: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 11:23 PM
Subject: "Can China Afford to Continue Its One-Child Policy"

For a 12-page verbal, quantitative and graphic summary, critique
and proposal concerning family size and family-size policies during
1970-2040, download the following readable source:

Feng WANG [Department of Sociology, University of California-Irvine], "Can
China Afford to Continue Its One-Child Policy?" _Asia_Pacific Issues_
[East-West Center], no. 77 (March 2005), URL:
http://www.eastwestcenter.org/res-rp-publicationdetails.asp?pub_ID=1588&SearchString=wang+feng+china+child+2005

And here is the abstact of Professor Wang's report:

Twenty-five years after it was launched, China's "One Child" population
control policy is credited with cutting population growth to an all time
low and contributing to two decades of spectacular economic development.
But the costs associated with the policy are also apparent and are rising:
a growing proportion of elderly with inadequate government or family
support, a disproportionately high number of male births attributable to
sex selective abortion, increased female infant and child mortality rates,
and the collapse of a credible government birth reporting system. Today,
as China contemplates the future of the policy, many argue that a change
that allows couples to have two children will not lead to uncontrollable
population growth. Instead, it could help meet the fertility desires of
most Chinese couples; avoid a worsening of the demographic and social
consequences already evident; and relieve the Chinese government of the
immense financial and political costs of enforcing an unpopular policy.
But changes will need to come soon if China is to avert even greater
negative consequences of the policy.

Vincent K Pollard
University of Hawai'i at Manoa
http://www2.hawaii.edu/~pollard
U n i v e r s i t y o f H a w a i ' i S y s t e m
/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
\_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_/\_
_________________________________________________________

AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.
__________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

Back to top

Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

15.

Update: likely alt/renewable energy sources?

Posted by: "tbhawaiiowan@..." tbhawaiiowan@...   tbhawaiiowan

Sun Apr 1, 2007 4:52 am (PST)

-----Original Message-----
From: tbhawaiiowan@aol.com
To: hrcfs-l@hawaii.edu; Aabaer@...; dameb001@hawaii.rr.com; HOONANEA@aol.com
Sent: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 6:20 AM
Subject: Update: likely alt/renewable energy sources?

To all:

After sendng first draft of this email last night, I realized adding another excerpt from my HECO article mgiht make it this email more comprehensive.

TB


However, I think the 2006 legislation is still based primarily on the "hope" that consumers will somehow be able to compel HECO to import significantly less oil (which we use not only to fuel our vehicles, but--as stated above--also to produce most of our electricity) via improved oversight of HECO by the PUC, better public oversight of the PUC, and better consumer and/or producer tax incentives for using local renewable energy. Many think and hope the latter will include some combination of:

- wind energy (new and improved over previous failed local experiments),
- solar energy (both to reduce electricity use--like existing roof-top solar water heaters--and to generate photovoltaic electricity more cost-effectively),
- wave energy,
- geothermal energy (if past local political conflicts can be avoided)
- ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC)--also new and improved over past local attempts,
- biomass energy (including possibly more daily residential garbage and agricultural waste, fuel "crops" such as sugarcane, other grass (eg switchgrass or eucalyptus) oilseed crops (eg palm oil), and/or perhaps "algae" farms--which may be much more land and fuel efficient than sugarcane), and
- hydrogen energy (probably produced from some combination of renewable and fossil fuels, at least initially).

Some proponents also think this type of import substitution would keep more energy profits in Hawaii while creating more jobs than it would eliminate, and would also reduce our vulnerability to supply disruptions even if world oil supplies remain plentiful.

Others think trying to forcibly reduce Hawaii’s oil addiction will simply drive local energy prices higher, and swap oil-related environmental problems for others associated with at least some forms of local renewable energy. For example, some fear that expanding local sugarcane production again--this time as a substitute fuel for imported oil--may require more energy than it creates, and might place unsustainable demands on future land and water supplies which, in turn, could offset any reduction in local electricity costs by increasing the cost of living in other ways (primarily housing). Some also think it would still be much easier (politically) and effective to simply further improve incentives and/or mandates to maximize efficient local use of electricity (as has already been proposed by the 2007 Hawaii legislature).

In any case, the fact remains that our electricity rates are already about double the national average, and many think--like global warming--that "peak" oil (i.e. the point at which global oil demand exceeds global oil supply) is already or will soon be a reality. The war in Iraq has also once again increased awareness that oil really may not be cheaper than local alternatives if all of the indirect political, military, economic, and environmental costs and risks of petroleum dependence--which we bear collectively--are not ignored. However, as long as HECO remains a for-profit monopoly, I think the clout consumers have will always be limited--even if they collectively become more willing to substantially reduce their electricity usage via more efficient use and/or pay more for local alternatives if necessary.


-----Original Message-----
From: tbhawaiiowan@aol.com
To: hrcfs-l@hawaii.edu; Aabaer@...; dameb001@hawaii.rr.com
Sent: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 7:51 PM
Subject: Most likely alt/renewable energy sources?

In light of recent discussion on this list about cold fusion and microbial energy, I thought this excerpt from my most recent HECO customer buyout piece might also be of interest. All comments, questions, and criticisms are welcome.

Thanks,

Tom Brandt

Why advances in "distributed generation" a.k.a. "co-generation" may undermine the future viability of HECO as a for-profit business

Today’s centralized electricity generation and distribution system was designed by Edison in the 19th century, and could become antiquated--or at least necessary primarily for sharing more decentralized electricity production--in the 21st century due to some combination of technologies such as:

- Decentralized small-scale hydrogen fuel cells;
- micro-turbines;
- Combined heat and power (CHP) systems;
- light-emitting diodes (LEDs);
- residential-and/or neighborhood scale wind mills (which are now commercially available);
- urban roof-top gardens (that not only reduce energy use by reflecting heat, but which also can increase urban green space, absorb greenhouse gases, and increase local decentralized food production)
- new "smart" window and building materials with embedded computers capable of not only optimizing energy efficiency but also possibly generating electricity,
- photovoltaic "tape" or "strips" (which would be cheaper, more flexible, and more portable than existing photovoltaic panels), and even
- solar “paint�--which can already reduce electricity use for air conditioning by increasing rooftop heat reflectivity, and may soon be able to generate electricity photovoltaically using "nanotechnology" (i.e. molecular and atomic-scale engineered electrical generation).

Collectively known as “distributed generation� and/or “co-generation“, these are just some of the technologies which may make this possible, along with existing and new "passive" substitutes for electricity (e.g. roof-top solar hot water heating and state-of-the-art solar ovens) combined with increased use of existing and new more energy efficient technologies such as compact fluorescent lighting, "Energy Star" appliances, more efficient computers, and more widespread use of state-of-the-art "green" construction techniques.

For example, local firm Navatek recently filed for a patent on a wave energy device that can extract electric power over a wider range of wave sizes and frequencies than other wave power devices currently being tested or in operaton here and elsewhere around the world. Honolulu Seawater Air Conditioning--another relatively new firm--thinks it can dramatically reduce air conditioning costs, as well as imported oil dependency, in certain parts of Hawaii using OTEC technology. Both of these might also eventually be cost-effective on a more decentralized basis.

But other future innovations may dwarf these examples. Caterpillar and Fuel Cell Energy are developing ultra-low emission electric generating products for industrial and commercial use. Toshiba is developing a fuel cell to power laptop computers, and two major automobile manufacturers are developing residential-scale “home� fuel cell refueling systems to produce electricity for both transportation and home use. Hawaii-based firm Hoku Scientific is also developing and manufacturing fuel cell membranes and assemblies to generate electricity for stationary and automotive use.

Two National Science Foundation awardees also recently announced development of a small-scale fuel cell prototype that would eliminate the need for an extensive hydrogen distribution system. The hydrogen could be supplied in returnable tanks such as the propane tanks used for gas grills, and potentially connected and scaled up to compete with fuel cells now being tested in the auto industry. In an article published locally last year, a Michigan professor quoted a 2004 Technology Research News article which stated "an ethanol-to-hydrogen converter designed for home use would not be much bigger than a coffee mug."

Others are working on "microbial" fuel cells, which could be the future "holy grail" of "distributed" electricity generation. According to genomics pioneer Craig Venter--who was in Honolulu recently to discuss the latest developments in human, animal, and plant DNA sequencing--various types of microbes constitute somewhere between 60% and 90% of all the biomass (i.e. "life") on Earth, with the remaining minority being the plants and animals we can "see" with the naked eye. Venter also estimates at least half of these microbial lifeforms may be in the world's oceans. So I currently cannot imagine a more abundant, cheap, and decentralized source of energy if microbial fuel cells become reality.

But Venter also thinks it may be possible to:

- use photosynthesis in certain bacteria to directly make hydrogen,
- to make synthetic microbes that can capture carbon dioxide gas--a "global warming" by-product of fossil fuel use--and sequester it in sugars, proteins, or methane for possible recycling into non-polluting transportation fuel, and
- that making diesel fuel from algae may eventually be far more efficient than any other current or possible source of "bio-fuels."

Finally, even without all of these advances, Venter agrees with those who think Hawaii could be the first state in the nation to be completely independent from imported energy.

I think it is likely that commercial and industrial users--and hopefully Hawaii state and local governments (like the U.S military and the State of California)--will lead the way to widespread use of these technologies. Predicting penetration of the residential market may be more difficult because this may depend less on technological advances than the extent to which our politicians are willing and able to incentivize consumer independence from HECO, as well as the willingness of mortgage lenders to include the cost of these alternatives--if necessary--in new or refinanced home loans to spread the cost over the life of the mortgage. Perhaps HECO's parent company Hawaiian Electric Industries' (HEI) other major subsidiary--American Savings Bank--could lead the way on this.

Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.
__________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

Back to top

Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

16a.

Most likely worst case climate change scenario?? (3)

Posted by: "tbhawaiiowan@..." tbhawaiiowan@...   tbhawaiiowan

Sun Apr 1, 2007 4:56 am (PST)

Sent: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 1:57 PM
Subject: Most likely worst case climate change scenario?? (3)

Ira and Jim,

Thanks for your comments, but my initial reaction is to do what most other "normal" people are doing today--that being to at least temporarily anesthetize myself by watching Super Bowl! I may have more to say later but, for now, I will simply use football metaphors in response.

If worst-case climate scenario comes to pass (bad pun intended), I think at least some humans will still try some sort of "Hail Mary" pass play and/or the old "hook and ladder/lateral" and "Statue of Liberty" plays (most recently made famous again in 2006 Boise St v Oklahoma), and/or now legendary Stanford-Cal "multi-lateral" (in this context, a football--rather than political--term) "run over the marching band" kick-off return in last ditch attempt to snatch "survival" from the jaws of "extinction" against their highly favored opponent.

I think these could range from attempts to use Earth's abundant microbial life to reverse or slow climate change, and/or clean up pollution, and/or for pollution-free energy as well as more conventional alternative and renewable energy sources to more exotic "hard-tech" fixes eg the recently publicized proposal to put an array of mirrors in geosynch orbit around Earth to slow global warming by reflecting some solar energy. Whether any of these would succeed in beating the odds of worst-case scenario I will leave to others to ponder for now.

However, I think some such human reaction to climate catastrophy is a near certainty--unless the example of frogs' different reactions to being put in pan of boiling water before vs after water brought to a boil would apply. My current bet for most likely scenario is climate change that is serious enough and fast enough to cause significant pain, stress, and perhaps even distruction of large portions of humanity over next century, but not sufficient to overwhelm our species completely.

In long run (in this context, more than a century), I think "humanity" will survive in some form--perhaps a synthesis? of Jim and Ira's preferred futures, e.g. humans who can photosynthesize their own food as suggested in one of the HRCSF scenarios for Hawaii 2050 Sustainability conference last yr--or other cybernetic combo/s of chemically, genetically, digitally, and/or robotically/prosthetically enhanced form/s, combined with "unenhanced" traditional homo sapiens who successfully adapt to what remains of free market economies and/or are able to maintain/re-establish successful subsistence economies (and/or somewhere other than Earth as many futurists have proposed/predicted). I also admit none of these are original thoughts, and may even possibly reflect something close to currently "mainstream" consensus thought--at least among most self-designated "futurists".

I think it is possible this scenario could also eventually result in better quality of life for most of humanity, but currently think this is still far from a certainty. As economist J.M. Keynes (I think) said, "In the long run, we're all dead."

Aloha,

Tom Brandt


-----Original Message-----
From: dator@hawaii.edu
To: irohter@HAWAII.RR.COM
Cc: tbhawaiiowan@AOL.COM; hrcfs-l@hawaii.edu; HOONANEA@AOL.COM; louiserteschik@HOTMAIL.COM; Aabaer@...; dameb001@HAWAII.RR.COM; cozlen1@YAHOO.COM; gs7larson@MSN.COM; randoo49er@HOTMAIL.COM; schmoejoe_risin@HOTMAIL.COM; h_jahanmir@YAHOO.COM
Sent: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 12:29 PM
Subject: Re: How much time--and how--to avoid worst case climate change? (2)

Sorry, Ira. You are far too optimistic for me.

Humanity should have begun addressing the present and emerging futures
forty years ago when many of us first raised the issue as urgently as we
could. I, then optimistically, thought humanity would be sensible enough
to do what was necessary (either bring appropriate technologies online
quickly--my preferred solution--or transition towards a lower-tech, more
"sustainable" lifestyle--which I believe was your preferred future).

It is certainly far too late for my high-tech future now and I don't see
any much willingness on the part of the US or any newly "developed" or
rapidly "developing" nations to adopt yours.

On the point of the Evangelicals, I would like to point out that some of
what they are doing now comes from Tom Sine who was once a dean at Maui
Community College. Upon hearing the discussion at the first Earth Day
celebration in Maui, he quit his academic job, went to seminary, became an
ordained Evangelical and began the "Mustard Seed" ministry within that
persuasion that has led to the current Evangelical position--unique among
all religious denominations.

Extremely laudible, and certainly more successful than either of us, but
still too little and late.

Jim Dator

Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.
__________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

Back to top

Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (2)

16b.

Most likely worst case climate change scenario?? (3)

Posted by: "tbhawaiiowan@..." tbhawaiiowan@...   tbhawaiiowan

Sun Apr 1, 2007 5:01 am (PST)

Subject: Most likely worst case climate change scenario?? (3)

Ira and Jim,

Thanks for your comments, but my initial reaction is to do what most other "normal" people are doing today--that being to at least temporarily anesthetize myself by watching Super Bowl! I may have more to say later but, for now, I will simply use football metaphors in response.

If worst-case climate scenario comes to pass (bad pun intended), I think at least some humans will still try some sort of "Hail Mary" pass play and/or the old "hook and ladder/lateral" and "Statue of Liberty" plays (most recently made famous again in 2006 Boise St v Oklahoma), and/or now legendary Stanford-Cal "multi-lateral" (in this context, a football--rather than political--term) "run over the marching band" kick-off return in last ditch attempt to snatch "survival" from the jaws of "extinction" against their highly favored opponent.

I think these could range from attempts to use Earth's abundant microbial life to reverse or slow climate change, and/or clean up pollution, and/or for pollution-free energy as well as more conventional alternative and renewable energy sources to more exotic "hard-tech" fixes eg the recently publicized proposal to put an array of mirrors in geosynch orbit around Earth to slow global warming by reflecting some solar energy. Whether any of these would succeed in beating the odds of worst-case scenario I will leave to others to ponder for now.

However, I think some such human reaction to climate catastrophy is a near certainty--unless the example of frogs' different reactions to being put in pan of boiling water before vs after water brought to a boil would apply. My current bet for most likely scenario is climate change that is serious enough and fast enough to cause significant pain, stress, and perhaps even distruction of large portions of humanity over next century, but not sufficient to overwhelm our species completely.

In long run (in this context, more than a century), I think "humanity" will survive in some form--perhaps a synthesis? of Jim and Ira's preferred futures, e.g. humans who can photosynthesize their own food as suggested in one of the HRCSF scenarios for Hawaii 2050 Sustainability conference last yr--or other cybernetic combo/s of chemically, genetically, digitally, and/or robotically/prosthetically enhanced form/s, combined with "unenhanced" traditional homo sapiens who successfully adapt to what remains of free market economies and/or are able to maintain/re-establish successful subsistence economies (and/or somewhere other than Earth as many futurists have proposed/predicted). I also admit none of these are original thoughts, and may even possibly reflect something close to currently "mainstream" consensus thought--at least among most self-designated "futurists".

I think it is possible this scenario could also eventually result in better quality of life for most of humanity, but currently think this is still far from a certainty. As economist J.M. Keynes (I think) said, "In the long run, we're all dead."

Aloha,

Tom Brandt


-----Original Message-----
From: dator@hawaii.edu
To: RR.COM">tbhawaiiowan@AOL.COM; hrcfs-l@hawaii.edu; HOONANEA@AOL.COM; louiserteschik@HOTMAIL.COM; Aabaer@...; dameb001@HAWAII.RR.COM; cozlen1@YAHOO.COM; gs7larson@MSN.COM; randoo49er@HOTMAIL.COM; schmoejoe_risin@HOTMAIL.COM; h_jahanmir@YAHOO.COM
Sent: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 12:29 PM
Subject: Re: How much time--and how--to avoid worst case climate change? (2)

Sorry, Ira. You are far too optimistic for me.

Humanity should have begun addressing the present and emerging futures
forty years ago when many of us first raised the issue as urgently as we
could. I, then optimistically, thought humanity would be sensible enough
to do what was necessary (either bring appropriate technologies online
quickly--my preferred solution--or transition towards a lower-tech, more
"sustainable" lifestyle--which I believe was your preferred future).

It is certainly far too late for my high-tech future now and I don't see
any much willingness on the part of the US or any newly "developed" or
rapidly "developing" nations to adopt yours.

On the point of the Evangelicals, I would like to point out that some of
what they are doing now comes from Tom Sine who was once a dean at Maui
Community College. Upon hearing the discussion at the first Earth Day
celebration in Maui, he quit his academic job, went to seminary, became an
ordained Evangelical and began the "Mustard Seed" ministry within that
persuasion that has led to the current Evangelical position--unique among
all religious denominations.

Extremely laudible, and certainly more successful than either of us, but
still too little and late.

Jim Dator

Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.
__________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

Back to top

Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (2)

17.

Fwd: small scale fuel cells

Posted by: "tbhawaiiowan@..." tbhawaiiowan@...   tbhawaiiowan

Sun Apr 1, 2007 5:14 am (PST)

From: tbhawaiiowan@aol.com
To: Tbhawaiiowan@aol.com
Sent: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 6:52 PM
Subject: small scale fuel cells

"The system is ideal for small internal combustion engines that lack emissions controls and are highly polluting," said Benziger. "There is also no need for an extensive hydrogen distribution system for these small motors; the hydrogen could be supplied in returnable tanks such as the propane tanks used for gas grills."
Benziger's next goal is to connect several of the new fuel cells together to increase power, a system that could potentially compete with cells now being tested in the automotive industry.

Press Release 07-004
Hydrogen-Powered Lawnmowers?

New design could open door to small-scale fuel cells


Princeton student Claire Woo at work in the laboratory of Jay Benziger.
Credit and Larger Version

January 22, 2007

In a breakthrough that could make fuel cells practical for such small machines as lawnmowers and chainsaws, researchers have developed a new mechanism to efficiently control hydrogen fuel cell power.
Many standard fuel cell designs use electronics to control power output, but such designs require complex systems to manage humidity and fuel recovery and recycling systems to achieve acceptable efficiency.
The new process controls the hydrogen feed to match the required power output, just as one controls the feed of gasoline into an internal combustion engine. The system functions as a closed system that uses the waste water to regulate the size of the reaction chamber, the site where the gasses combine to form water, heat and electricity.
National Science Foundation (NSF) awardee Jay Benziger of Princeton University developed the new technique with his student Claire Woo, a recipient of an NSF Research Experiences for Undergraduates award and now a doctoral candidate at the University of California, Berkeley. Woo and Benziger published their findings in the February 2007 Chemical Engineering Science, now available online.
The researchers believe the first applications for their technology will be in smaller engines. Fuel cells are currently inefficient on such scales due to the need for fuel recycling and excess hydrogen in standard designs. The researchers' new design is closed, so 100 percent of the fuel is used and there is no need for a costly fuel recycling system.
"The system is ideal for small internal combustion engines that lack emissions controls and are highly polluting," said Benziger. "There is also no need for an extensive hydrogen distribution system for these small motors; the hydrogen could be supplied in returnable tanks such as the propane tanks used for gas grills."
Benziger's next goal is to connect several of the new fuel cells together to increase power, a system that could potentially compete with cells now being tested in the automotive industry.
-NSF-
Feb. 2007 Chemical Engineering Science article abstract: We demonstrate that the power output from a PEM fuel cell can be directly regulated by limiting the hydrogen feed to the fuel cell. Regulation is accomplished by varying the internal resistance of the membrane–electrode assembly in a self-draining fuel cell with the effluents connected to water reservoirs. The fuel cell functionally operates as a dead-end design where no gas flows out of the cell and water is permitted to flow in and out of the gas flow channel. The variable water level in the flow channel regulates the internal resistance of the fuel cell. The hydrogen and oxygen (or air) feeds are set directly to stoichiometrically match the current, which then control the water level internal to the fuel cell. Standard PID feedback control of the reactant feeds has been incorporated to speed up the system response to changes in load. With dry feeds of hydrogen and oxygen, 100% hydrogen utilization is achieved with 130% stoichiometric feed on the oxygen. When air was substituted for oxygen, 100% hydrogen utilization was achieved with stoichiometric air feed. Current regulation is limited by the size of the fuel cell (which sets a minimum internal impedance), and the dynamic range of the mass flow controllers. This type of regulation could be beneficial for small fuel cell systems where recycling unreacted hydrogen may be impractical.

Media Contacts
Joshua A. Chamot, NSF (703) 292-7730 jchamot@nsf.gov
Hilary Parker, Princeton University (609) 258-4597 haparker@Princeton.edu

Program Contacts
Maria K Burka, NSF (703) 292-7030 mburka@...
Maija M. Kukla, NSF (703) 292-4940 mkukla@...

Principal Investigators
Jay Benziger, Princeton University (609) 258-5416 benziger@princeton.edu

Related Websites
Princeton University press release:: http://engineering.princeton.edu/news/fuel_cell

Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.
__________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

Back to top

Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

18.

Silver (not elderly) Rights Movement: next phase of civil rights?

Posted by: "tbhawaiiowan@..." tbhawaiiowan@...   tbhawaiiowan

Sun Apr 1, 2007 5:20 am (PST)

Sent: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 4:28 PM
Subject: Silver Rights Movement: next phase of civil rights?

I think this is another manifestation of what some call the "asset building" movement (rather than a senior citizen movement)--aka increasing and broadening ownership of capital, i.e financial assets as well as real estate, in addition to, or instead of, simply improving the distribution of income.

Also see newamerica.net and cfed.org for other examples of "asset building" theory and practice. Some consider this compatible with--or a better alternative to--Pres. Bush "Ownership Society" initiatives.


SILVER RIGHTS-a concept that documents and validates the next phase of civil rights: the empowerment movement not only of American minorities, but of majorities as well. That is, we transition beyond giving a fish, beyond teaching to fish, to owning the pond itself. In the time of a vanishing middle class, John Bryant and Operation Hope, his brainchild, would develop stakeholders, that group between the working class and the middle class, not making more money, but making better decisions with they money they have.

Subject: Operation Hope

Home

Silver Rights Movement Digest
About Us
About the Chairman
About our Global Spokesman
Programs and Services
HOPE Initiatives
HOPE Results
Partners & Supporters
HOPE Events
Media Center
Contact Us

NCUA Vice Chairman Rodney Hood Heads up Roundtable at Operation HOPE Headquarters
Operation HOPE Delivers Silver Rights to South Africa
ING Invests One Million Dollars in Operation HOPE to Support Silver Rights Movement for Financial Literacy
Citi and Operation HOPE Celebrate Texas Saves Week

Make a contribution
Home | Silver Rights Movement Digest | About Us | About the Chairman | About our Global Spokesman | Programs and Services | HOPE Initiatives | HOPE Results | Partners & Supporters | HOPE Events | Media Center | Contact Us
© MMVIII Operation Hope, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
website managed by sol media

AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.
__________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

Back to top

Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

19.

Improving capitalism?

Posted by: "tbhawaiiowan@..." tbhawaiiowan@...   com/tbhawaiiowan" target=_blank>tbhawaiiowan@aol.com
To: gs7larson@msn.com
Cc: Tbhawaiiowan@aol.com
Sent: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 2:34 PM
Subject: Re: Improving capitalism #3

G,

My intro to Part 2 of Hawn Electric customer buyout article below is good summ of whole article. I also suspect your friends might be interested in more generic "new" ways to broaden capital ownership in order to address poverty and growing gap between rich and poor in hopefully more effective and bi-partisan ways than

- simply or only trying to tax the rich more to give to the poor; or
- simply or only insisting that everyone will eventually be less poor at some unspecified point in the future as long as we let the rich get richer.

Probably the "newest" almost "maintream" idea at present--other than customer-owned utilities (approx 1,000 nationwide, like Osage, IA), customer-owned "mutual" insurance companies, and customer-owned banks (aka credit unions), employee stock ownership plans (mainstream but not widespread), worker-owned cooperatives (same as ESOPs), Limted Equity Housing (more affordable home ownership also protected from speculation) and Alaska Permanent Fund, etc--all NOT new ideas--are these:

1. Individual Development Accts (IDAs) - these are saving incentive programs (kind of like IRAs for mid and up classes) for low-income people that are "matched" to varying degrees by local, state, and/or fed govt--and/or private/non-profit sources. State and fed IDA pilot programs have been ongoing for probably 10-15 yrs now. They are increasingly being combined with efforts to address other problems that impair--other than poverty itself--the ability of the poor to even think about saving, eg better financial edu and money mgmt skills, stronger regulation of "payday" loans and other predatory lending practices, the reluctance of some banks to serve low-income areas etc, improving and helping more people claim existing fed and state Earned Income Tax Credits (EITC)--what some call a "negative income tax--which attempts to target the needy better than simply increasing minimum wage and/or across the board welfare support levels.

2. Children's Savings Accts aka Baby Bonds - these would be "universal" (ie every newborn citizen would get one) savings accts with seed money of a few hundred to a few thousand dollars provided by govt and/or private/non profit sources--perhaps with IDA type incentives (match funds) for additional contribs by parents, relatives, communities, philanthropists, etc as child grows up. In theory, by adulthood, this would create what some call a "grubstake" acct, funds from which would be restricted by law to certain uses, eg higher ed, home ownership, starting a biz, and/or retirement. Everyone would also be expected to repay grubstake at death if possible (based on assumption baby bond would help more "succeed" in life well enuf to do so) and to keep program self-funding as much as possible in perpetuity.

(Believe it or not, two Yale law profs published a book on this idea in 1999 or so in which they made the argument that it would be financially feasible for US govt to grant a total of $80K--not just a few hundred or thousand bucks--to every US citizen in four increments between their 18th and 22nd birthdays and still make this system eventually pay for itself! But the New America Foundation has proposed a much more modest similar plan, and former US Senator Bill Bradley endorses this idea in his new book "The New Anerican Story." )

3. an idea called the "Skytrust" proposal, which would basically begin charging for-profit users (i.e. broadcasters) of the electromagnetic spectrum (i.e. the "public airwaves") current fair market value for cont use--which is currently NOT the case--and then share the annual revenue with all citizens based on citizenship rather than need (like the Alaska Permanent Fund, rather a welfare program), although some argue dist of this revenue should be means-tested.

The first two ideas have received bipartisan support in Congress, and Great Britain and Singapore already have operational baby bond programs. So far, supporters in US have had more success invoking examples like Civil War era Homestead Act ("free" land for "freed" slaves--taken from Native Americans of course--even though it didnt work as promised or hoped), and the GI Bill after WW2 (subsidized education and housing for vets) rather than New Deal or Great Society--an obvious sign of recent US political climate i think. The third one is still being talked about mainly in think tanks i think.

Folks at New American Foundation are also talking about possible growing future need for new types of private (but publicly facilitated) insurance--not only truly universal health care (perhaps like Calif and Mass state experiments?) and long-term nursing care, but also longevity and livelihood insurance--to better protect more people from poverty as life spans increase, and against increasing number of not just jobs--but careers--lost to globalization and automation--in contrast to conservative assumptions there will always be plenty of as good or better jobs available for those willing and able to retrain as often as necessary, and liberal attempts to protect all jobs at the expense of consumers.

Others are also still thinking about creating various types of top-down or bottom up "universal" stock ownership plans (including myself at times) to supplement Social Security. For example, I have tried to stimulate interest in a possible new role for labor unions in 21st century that would entail creating mutual funds that pool employee-owned stock from a wide variety of unionized businesses in order to spread risk and reduce the negative impact on employees whose firms fail to survive economically.

It is also--currently, at least--a "fact" that most smallish privately-owned "family" businesses do not survive beyond 2nd or 3rd gen even if still profitable. There are already quite attractive tax incentives for owners of such firms to sell to their employees-if employees are willing and able to take over (money for purchase can be borrowed and paid back out of future profits). But in many cases, owners dont consider selling to employees simply because they are not aware of these incentives.

Finally, from the realm of "Socially Responsible Investing" (which can range from people who dont want to invest in alcohol, tobacco, or weapons to--now more common--those who dont want to invest in firms that pollute or treat workers poorly), this is most novel idea i am currently aware of:

Some former Wall St whiz kids had a change of heart about their chosen careers and decided to use their edu differently. Coca Cola's labor practices outside of US have been criticized by some, with relatively little effect i believe. So they decided to use inet to do 2 things: attract as much global nvestment as possible into a "put option" hedge fund to buy Coke stock--in which investors would make money if price of Coke stock went down instead of up--and then combine this with attempt to organize a global consumer boycott of Coke products to drive down Coke sales and, in turn, price of Coke stock, thereby making profit for put option investors.

I confess i do not know at present if and how well this succeeded. But it is another good example of the kind of new "beyond left and right" thinking I hope we see more of. In the past, others have proposed ideas such as global tax on all or some intl biz transactions and/or a global min wage (which would vary locally or at least nationally or regionally if possible based on differences in living costs). But these have not gained traction due insufficient intl cooperation (yet), and because "workers of the world have not been willing to unite" due to factors such as most people have more loyalty to/affinity with their local employers, communties and nations than with other workers they do not know on other side of world. But who knows, maybe inet and globalization will eventually change this as well.

I think I would also be remiss if I didnt mention this: I think aniother reason the workers of the world have not "united" is because workers in most developing countries would still have to be willing to literally risk their lives to try to form labor unions at this point in time, as was the case for workers in most of the world's already "developed" nations--incl, and maybe esp in US--when they were "developing" nations.

Somewhat more polit feasible (but still very difficult i think, at least at present) might be global or at least regional intl agreement/s to create incentives for "foreign" investors to share ownership and/or profits with "local" workers in whatever countries they invest. Even if intl agreement could not be reached on this, I think it still might be helpful even if individual countries decided to do this unilaterally to try to make them more attractive for investment (in a more socially responsible way than simply offering the cheapest possible labor, working conditions, and eviro protections)--at least compared with other nations with similar comparative advantages. I also think this is not as implausible as it might sound to some at first because what are called BOOT (Build, Own, Operate, and Transfer) development projects--mainly infrastructure--are already being done. (For example, Hawn Electrid invested in a project something like this in China.)

A BOOT typically involves a foreign investor and/or developer who is hired and allowed by govt/biz leaders in a developing nation to come in a build, initially own, and operate--if necessary--an investment project (such as a power plant) and then--after foreign investors realize return on their investment necessary to make the project financially worthwhile--they simply transfer ownership, for free, to (usually) host country biz partners and/or govt. There is no reason--at least in theory--why such deals could not be structured so ownership would transfer to employees and/or customers and/or citizens of the host community.






SHOULD HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC BE CUSTOMER-OWNED? or
HAWAII’S PETROLEUM DEPENDENCE: COULD CUSTOMER OWNERSHIP OF HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC REDUCE THE COST—AS WELL AS THE AMOUNT—OF OIL WE USE?

Part 2 of 2

In the first part of this essay, I attempted to explain how technological advances may make it increasingly cost-effective for more individual households, businesses, and/or apartment buildings and neighborhoods to produce at least a substantial part of their own electricity in the not-too-distant future.

Also known as “distributed generation� and “co-generation“, I think this and future technological increases in energy efficiency may pose the biggest long-term threats to the pocketbooks of customers of Hawaiian Electric (HECO) and its neighbor island affiliates Maui Electric Co. (MECO) and Hawaii Electric Light Co. (HELCO), as well as to their profit margins--IF they remain for-profit monopolies.

If more consumers use less electricity gnerated by HECO and its affiliates due to increased efficiency and/or by cost-effectively generating more of their own, I think the fiduciary responsibility of Hawaiian Electric Industries (HEI)--the parent company of HECO, MECO, and HELCO--will compel them to continually request approval from the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to increase the cost of electricity for its remaining customers to offset these losses and/or to risk more customer money on other investments in attempts to increase returns on investment for HEI shareholders. HECO and its affiliates currently control the electricity markets in all Hawaii counties except Kauai.

As a result, I also attempted to explain conceptually why customer ownership of HECO and its affiliates may do more than any other form of ownership to maximize both energy self-reliance and energy efficiency in Hawaii while also minimizing energy costs as much as possible.

I argued that after a non-profit customer buyout of HECO and its neighbor-island affiliates was complete, what might have been HECO’s:

- future “profits“,
- for-profit tax payments,
- ongoing public relations expenditure of customers’ money to tell us how energy “independent� HECO wants to make us, and
- foreign and other investments (in attempts to boost future returns on investment to offset possibly less local electricity demand per capita, but most of which have failed in the past or are losing money)

could instead be used to help pay for:

- the possibly higher cost--at least initially--of local, renewable energy sources without increasing consumers’ electricity bills, and/or
- to bury power lines, and/or
- to simply lower what we pay for oil-based electricity.

Since much HEI stock (the parent company of HECO) is currently owned by institutional investors--many outside of Hawaii--these HECO profits also currently do not benefit HECO customers.

In today's conclusion, I attempt to examine in more detail the financial feasibility of a customer buyout of HECO and its neighbor island affiliates.


-----Original Message-----
From: gs7larson@msn.com
To: tbhawaiiowan@aol.com
Sent: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 12:58 PM
Subject: Re: Improving capitalism #1

Hi Tom,
Thanks for refreshing my mind on newamerica.net, <<radicalmiddle.com>> and Capital Onwership Group cog@... adding a couple of new ones. My mind needs more refreshing now than it used to.
I'm sending your article to school to print off, read, and show a couple of friends who like political stuff. Can you give me the jist of the article to help me navigate? Economic issues are a bit like a foreign language to me.
Take care,
Gene

Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.
__________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

(BTW, I think and hope this will not be completely true--esp his future concept of "security"--due to increased and broadened ownership of income-producing assets combined with completely new and reinvented techs that can cost-effectively increase self-reliance in increasingly decentralized ways.)