primroot

I tend to think that human emotion was not rational by definition (and by not rational I mean uncorrelated not negatively correlated). Of course "not rational" is not synonymous of bad or superfluous.

Try roasted okra seeds then.

Coffee has been traditionally grown within a forest containing both native flora as well as other productive species (cacao, banana, vanilla, etc.) that grow well under taller trees. So in a sense coffee _requires_ vertical farming, except that the vertical space is only occupied by coffee plants at one place. John Vandermeer of U. of Michigan has been studying coffee cultivation as a primary example of food forest, and has been pointing out the negative effects of full sun (and yes, full rain) intensive coffee cultivation on the resilience of the production system. I am surprised that the article does not mention these aspects of coffee.

"Hitherto [1848] it is questionable if all the mechanical inventions yet made have lightened the day's toil of any human being. ... Only when, in addition to just institutions, the increase of mankind shall be under the deliberate guidance of judicious foresight, can the conquests made from the powers of nature by the intellect and energy of scientific discoverers become the common property of the species, and the means of improving and elevating the universal lot." Wrote J.S. Mill. I do not see us getting anywhere near this state of society, certainly not as long we "need" jobs.

Wouldn't you agree something similar applies to workplace discrimination? For example, I would never be willing to work with someone who discriminates against gays. However it is only due to my own economic circumstances that I'm able to act based on that preference. One could as well conclude that the root of the problem is people having to tolerate unfavorable conditions just to get by, and that addressing the issue of discrimination is just a temporary solution. I live in Panama not in the U.S.

If losing primarily means losing one's job, then it is social organization and culture that should be blamed not technological advancement. IMHO.

> We should also have public subsidies for nuclear and solar to ensure rapid deployment."

Can you elaborate on the relation between the nuclear energy industry and insurance companies? Even as someone who sympathizes with the goal of "smashing global capitalism," I would find it interesting to know what the free market has to say in this respect.

> and the uncertainty of future technological developments ought to inform our current decision of how much to spend addressing climate change.

Well, that does not necessarily sound like something the author of the grandparent comment would disagree with, especially when you consider that the technological developments may not universally be regarded as solutions (e.g. geoengineering).

I found another review of the book that mentions geoengineering.

"There will still be ocean acidification, smog, ozone depletion and so on and once we set on geoengineering our planet, we’ll likely get hooked and never turn back. In many ways, geoengineering is even more uncertain in its consequences than climate change itself. Definitely far from being a solution, and even the foremost experts on geoengineering agree that it shouldn’t be done – only in extreme conditions, like when there isn’t any other choice." http://www.zmescience.com/other/reviews/book-review-climate-...

I would replace "are causing" for "are going to cause." One of may examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

Implicit in this remark is the idea that all humans share roughly the same interests and concerns. As difficult conditions exacerbate conflicts the weight of interests is measured first in capital and then in violent prowess. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/bc2016e2-d320-11e4-9b0a-00144feab7...

It would be the beauty of science if people referred to the weight of the evidence in more accurate language, and if policy makers didn't every now and then find excuses in weakly established conclusions.

> So I'd argue that the bigger problem is people reading oversimplified reports of scientific information.

And what about the AHA[1] and other policy makers and shapers? What leads them to make recommendations based on weakly established conclusions?

I think the pressure to deliver, and the lack of generalist knowledge are somehow involved here. In the case of food and drugs, I would also blame elitism.

[1] http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/NutritionCenter...

just sell the test kits for all the supposed markers of longevity.

Doesn't the UPOV contribute legally to the "vendor lock-in"?

I'd really be interested in knowing those that have been modified to be more nutritious, especially since a lot of nutritious food gets to stay out of the market due to its incapacity to stay fresh. I only know of Golden Rice, and I'm not even sure how fresh it stays.

I look forward to the day when the scientists bless humanity with a photosynthesis gene, so that our autotrophy-powered intellectual capacities can help the Free Market lead us to the next Pareto optimal unencumbered by animal impatience.

This remembers me of that last paragraph of the chapter about the "Stationary State" of J.S. Mill's Political Economy. The tragedy becomes ever more imaginative and, of course, innovative.

Just imagine what would happen if the US became a permanent item on the agenda. Fairness and strategy don't always get along.

Here in Panama we have the traditional catholic funeral rituals (which are rarely practiced by the urban population). Part of this are the "nine nights" where the family of the deceased hosts long hours (mostly during the day) of prayer repetitions (velorio) for nine days. Friends and extended family come to visit, and they may choose to participate in the prayers. The guests are received with coffee, fresh cheese and a especial kind of bread. After the ninth night, some mourners choose to continue dressing with neutral colors for months.

As you mentioned, this is mostly about community support.

"We" is too many people.

but... who needs science when you can have free markets?

There is a linguist (Daniel Everett) who thinks language can make you less prompt to accept a religion https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNajfMZGnuo

I saw two elephants. I'm afraid I may be a misanthropist. :(

As intellectuals "know" people with noble intentions commit strategical blunders, and irresponsible acts but no such things as atrocities. These psychiatrists were perhaps trying to find a method to objectively identify the defining characteristic of an atrocious act, that is, being carried out by ignoble people. Unfortunately they did not succeed, so when identifying the real international criminals we still have to deal with such distractions as hospital propaganda [1], naive young persons [2], and journalists with shady agendas [3]. Back to psychiatry, Dalí exposed the underlying philosophical matter very succinctly: "The only difference between me and a madman is that I'm not mad."

[1] "The offensive also shut down what officers said was a propaganda weapon for the militants: Falluja General Hospital, with its stream of reports of civilian casualties." http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/15/politics/15military.html?p...

[2] http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/nov...

[3] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/23/yemen-journalis...

And let's also not forget more recent developments.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/26/exclusive-cia-files-prov...

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/nov/15/usa.iraq

http://www.wola.org/commentary/time_to_abandon_coca_fumigati...

Speaking of genetic engineering, I can foresee the moment when human genetic engineering turns into a profitable activity, and hence another desperately needed innovation for dealing with global warming, malnutrition, poverty, etc. that only Luddites and liberal anti-science anti-third-world-peasant elitists dare object to.

UPDATE: I should say capital-intensive profitable activity.

How about http://gohugo.io/ ?