Two Things That Will Change the World

**Warning:  The following blog contains prognostication that exceeds the credentialed informational acumen possessed by the author (i.e., he's blowin' smoke)**

In my last blog we looked at simple inventions with large impacts.  This blog will get more complex and more serious.  Get a cup of coffee, you may need it.

One of the phenomena I investigated during my working days as a social psychologist was how the internet and the World Wide Web are changing society.  I still follow this topic -- old social psychologists never die, they just  stop going to departmental meetings -- and it has been fascinating to watch  as this technology has become more and more central to our lives and altered our interactions.  One of the developments that I correctly predicted ten years ago was the move toward wireless connectivity.  I also correctly noted at that time that the cell phone, though not discussed nearly as much as the internet, was also changing society in dramatic ways.  What I missed, though, was that the two would be merged to have an even greater impact, a development we are seeing very clearly today.

Unquestionably the internet/cell phone combination has rapidly altered society in fundamental ways and stimulated a lot of debate about whether the changes are good or bad.  I predict, though, that there are two scientific fields that will change the world at least as much, and perhaps pose even greater challenges and dilemmas to society over the next 15-20 years:  Nanotechnology and Genetic Engineering.

I assume that nearly everyone has heard of these fields from depictions in current entertainment media and in recent splashy news accounts.  For example, male Star Trek fans will recall the rather visually intriguing connection of nanotechnology to the character Seven-of-Nine.  Michael Crichton readers will recall Prey, which combined nanotechnology with emergent artificial intelligence, and of course Jurassic Park, which explored the deathly downside of genetic engineering.  Readers of Neil Stephenson (who wrote Snow Crash, from which I took the title of this blog)  will remember his dystopian extrapolation of nanotechnology in Diamond Age.  Genetic engineering has been in the news frequently, mainly related to controversies surrounding genetically modified food, stem-cell research,  cloning, and the development of "synthetic life."

Nanotechnology involves the creation of very, very small devices, such as carbon tubes 1000 times smaller than a red blood cell.   Nano-structures can have some very interesting properties that scientists are only beginning to explore.  For instance, carbon nanotubes assembled together into large structures are hundreds of times stronger yet six times lighter than steel.  Other nano applications have the capacity to do physical "work," as illustrated by a range of devices called nanopumps, which can pass specific liquids back and forth through a membrane .  Coatings composed of certain nanoparticles can alter the characteristics of objects, for example by keeping them cooler or by making them scratch resistant, self-cleaning,  or sun resistant.  Nanotubes implanted in human tissue can act as energy producing transistors, fueled by the body's biochemistry and thus providing power for nano devices, such as tiny computers, that might be implanted under the skin.


Genetic Engineering refers to the direct manipulation of an organism's characteristics by altering its genetic structure.  This also takes place at a very, very small scale and like nanotechnology the consequences are enormous.  The key word here is "direct" -- humans have been altering organisms indirectly through intentional selection processes throughout our history.  In GE the alteration is carried out at the molecular level and the effects can be quite specific and unlikely to occur naturally.  Recent applications include modifying organisms to produce insulin, changing certain food crops to be disease resistant, and altering viruses so that they deliver chemotherapy drugs to cancer cells.  Gene therapy, in which genetic abnormalities are corrected by repairing, replacing, or turning off defective genes, is a major development in medical treatment of a number of diseases.  


There is also the very real possibility that nanotechnology and genetic engineering may be combined in certain ways.  For example,  UK researchers have conducted gene therapy in which genes were inserted into cancer cells that caused them to self-destruct.  The insertion was carried out by nano particles:  The genes were wrapped up in microscopic nano-particles which were taken up by cancer cells, but not their healthy neighbours. Once inside, the genes stimulated production of a protein which destroyed the cancer.

There are both utopian and dystopian views of  genetic engineering and nanotechnology, just as there are of  the internet.  On the utopian side are suggestions that these fields will solve the energy crisis, clean the planet, reverse global warming, solve world hunger, and eliminate disease.  On the dystopian side are arguments that we might unknowingly unleash dangerous substances into the environment,  poison our food supply, and create a race of genetically vulnerable humans.  Judging from history, predictions based on these extremes are unlikely to be correct  -- there are always unforeseen consequences of any technology, both positive and negative.  But it is clear that the potential applications of these two technologies are so varied and so far-reaching in their possible impacts that they will  indeed change the world.  Regardless of the specifics, our understanding of what a machine is, what the properties of familiar things are, what it means to be human, and what "life" is and how much it can be and should be controlled and by whom -- these and other fundamental views are about to change profoundly.

Duct Tape, Velcro and Cable Ties

I was at a party recently that included really good finger food and some interesting conversation.  This was a get-together where people knew each other at a casual level, so the discussions tended to be light and far ranging.  It was also a party where the couples were (a) "mature" and (b) had been married a long time, so that after a few minutes the discussion groups tended to be separated by gender.

At one point the group of men I was talking with drifted onto the topic of the wonders of  duct tape (now marketed as Duck Tape). We all readily agreed on its usefulness, and several of the men related stories of how they had used it creatively to solve problems.  It was pointed out that duct Tape was an example of an invention that was simple yet could be adapted to many uses beyond its original intent (in the case of duct tape, this was to seal ammunition boxes in WWII).  Now, of course,  its uses range from fashion to car repairs .

The conversation then turned to other inventions that  had similar properties, though weren't quite as legendary as duct tape.  One was the cable tie, those strips of plastic that have little teeth on one side and a buckle at one end.  Pulling the tie through to buckle in a loop locks the strip in place because the buckle has a wedge that engages with the teeth and prevents the strip from moving backward.  The simplicity of the design makes these little suckers incredibly cheap and easy to produce. As the name suggests, one of the most popular uses of these is to bundle wires or cables together and/or to secure them to something else.  However, just like duct tape, the cable tie has been adapted for many, many other uses, from handcuffing criminals to closing someone's chest after heart surgery.

So here's the challenge:  What do you think should be added to a list of the most useful inventions of the last couple of hundred years?  I'll start off with Velcro, which -- like duct tape -- has only been around since the '40's.  Preference will be given to simple items like these.  Maybe in a later blog we can take on nominations for inventions that have most changed society, like the microwave oven.  (Also, in my next blog I'll discuss a couple of things that will change everything.....)

Here's the list so far.  To make an addition submit a comment (anonymously if you prefer) and I'll add it to the list:

1. duct tape
2. cable ties
3. velcro

Added:

     4.  springs
     5.  rubber bands
     6.  tooth picks
     7.  paint
     8.  paper clips

Does Size (Of Government) Really Matter?

**Warning:  The Following Blog May Pose a Choking Hazard to Readers Who Are Fond of Tea**

If you've been reading this blog for awhile, you won't be surprised when I say that I am old enough to remember vividly the Vietnam War era.  It was a time of tremendous social and political upheaval in the U.S.  Many people of my age deeply distrusted government when it became clear that politicians were lying about the justification for entering the war, and misleading us regarding its course.   The conduct of the war included atrocities and tactics that were contradictory to America's claim to being the world's "good guys."  Youth culture upset established values and ethics.  We were torn by the assassinations of the John and Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King.  The arguments about the issues of the day became more and more polarized, with a lot of pressure to identify with extreme positions even if you didn't agree with them -- slogans of the day were things like "You're either with us or against us"  "America, love it or leave it"  "If you're not part of the solution then you're part of the problem"  "If you're not my ally then you're my enemy."  It really seemed like the country was coming apart at the seams.

I'm not sure that things are as bad now as they were then, but I think we're getting close.  And of course added to today's malaise is the economic melt down and a growing feeling that our financial system can no longer be the source of pride it was once.  Just as assumptions about the sanctity of American's fundamental institutions were questioned during the Vietnam era, today we are also questioning the legitimacy of how we generate and distribute wealth.  And we are again in an era of extremism, in which our debates on these questions are framed in terms of exclusionary choices that for many of us are unpalatable in both directions -- "X" versus "Y" with no middle ground, where neither "X" nor "Y"  truly reflect many people's personal values and beliefs.

The current wave of anti-government sentiment, exemplified by the rise of the "Tea Party" and by the positions of the most vocal conservatives,  is frequently cast as a question of how large we want government to be and what level of control we want it to have in our lives.  Liberals, progressives, and socialists want big, powerful government that regulates all aspects of our lives.  Clear thinking patriots and conservatives want minimal government with little regulatory power.

I think this distinction is overly simplistic in two ways.  First, it can be argued that the question is as much about values as it is about size and power.  Many conservatives have no qualms endorsing a large and costly military establishment, or spending billions building a fence across our southern border, or allowing governmental intrusion into our private lives in an effort to protect us from terrorists or illegal aliens.  Big, powerful, expensive government can be very, very good, as long as it is seen as a manifestation of the "correct" values and priorities.

Second, the distinction is misleading because it characterizes all those who currently have anti-government feelings as having the same conservative philosophical position.  As the liberal Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne, Jr. wrote recently:

The more important and dynamic force behind the current disillusionment with government comes instead from those who actually believe it can and should be effective. They do not think that the market is automatically rational or that the government has to be dumb. They are fed up with government not because their ideology or philosophy tells them to be but because they don't think government has been doing a proper job of promoting prosperity, equity and fair-dealing.

 I readily identify with the group Dionne is referring to, and it is very irritating to be grouped with people like Tim Bridgewater, Sara Palin, and the Tea Partiers because the solutions they offer are fundamentally unpalatable to me.  My beliefs about the proper role of government are nicely captured by another quote from Dionne's recent column:

The central tasks of democratic government, after all, typically involve standing up for the many against the few, the less powerful against the more powerful. Government is supposed to make sure that corporations are properly supervised when they turn public resources (the environment in the Gulf of Mexico, say) into private gain. It is charged with protecting those with weaker bargaining positions (coal miners, for example) against the harm that those in stronger bargaining positions might inflict.

Its duty is to keep the private economy running smoothly by preventing fraud, shady dealing and self-interested behavior that threaten the entire system. And yes, it's supposed to keep us safe from physical harm, as it did in New York [the recent attempted terrorist attack in Times Square].

I'd add that I want government to approach these tasks efficiently and economically, with minimal intrusion into my private life and with due regard for the civil rights of all Americans.  I accept that there are a variety of ways these tasks can be accomplished,  and that no one party or individual has all the answers.  Solutions to our problems require cooperation, compromise, and coordination among our lawmakers.  That is why I am so dismayed to see government in its current dysfunctional state.

 Coffee, anyone?

Does Your Pokemon Have Rectitude??

A regular weekly feature in the Washington Post for many years has been Style Invitational, in which readers are challenged to submit clever or humorous entries in several different word-play contests. For example, a recent challenge was to "'Spoonerize' a single word or a name by transposing different parts of the word (more than two adjacent letters), and define the resultant new term." Examples of solutions given in the column as illustrations:

• Bootlicker > Lootbicker: To argue in Congress over who gets the earmarks.
• Whappersnipper: Someone who assaults a mohel.
• Lugachug: To carry a cooler full of beer.
  

Now if you didn't find those at least mildly amusing, there's no reason to read any further, because it gets much worse.

An email widely circulating in cyberspace for over 10 years mistakenly reports the results of two of the Post's challenges as being from yearly events sponsored by Mensa, the high IQ society, and though this has been clearly denied by the author of the Post's column, the error still persists. In fact, my wife and I received a forwarded email just the other day claiming to list the winning entries of this year's contests. Even though the source is incorrectly identified, the results are legitimate and very amusing, depending on your taste in humor. The first challenge was to supply alternate meanings for common words. Here are the wacky winning entries:

1. Coffee, n. The person upon whom one coughs.


2. Flabbergasted, adj. Appalled by discovering how much weight one has gained.


3. Abdicate, v. To give up all hope of ever having a flat stomach.


4. Esplanade, v. To attempt an explanation while drunk.


5. Willy-nilly, adj. Impotent.


6. Negligent, adj.. Absentmindedly answering the door when wearing only a nightgown.


7. Lymph, v. To walk with a lisp.


8. Gargoyle, n. Olive-flavored mouthwash.


9. Flatulence, n.. Emergency vehicle that picks up someone who has been run over by a steamroller.


10. Balderdash, n. A rapidly receding hairline.


11. Testicle n. A humorous question on an exam.


12. Rectitude, n. The formal, dignified bearing adopted by proctologists.


13. Pokemon, n. A Rastafarian proctologist.


14. Oyster, n. A person who sprinkles his conversation with yiddishisms.

15. Circumvent, n. An opening in the front of boxer shorts worn by Jewish men.

Ok, that was the warm-up. The second contest asked readers to take any word from the dictionary, alter it by adding, subtracting, or changing one letter, and supply a new definition.

1. Cashtration (n.): The act of buying a house, which renders the subject financially impotent for an indefinite period of time.

2. Ignoranus: A person who is both stupid and an asshole.

3. Intaxication: Euphoria at getting a tax refund, which lasts until you realize it was your money to start with.

4. Reintarnation: Coming back to life as a hillbilly.

5. Bozone (n.): The substance surrounding stupid people that stops bright ideas from penetrating. The bozone layer unfortunately, shows little sign of breaking down in the near future.

6. Foreploy: Any misrepresentation about yourself for the purpose of getting laid.

7. Giraffiti: Vandalism spray-painted very, very high

8. Sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.

9. Inoculatte: To take coffee intravenously when you are running late.

10. Osteopornosis: A degenerate disease. (This one got extra credit.)

11. Karmageddon: It's like, when everybody is sending off all these really bad vibes, right? And then, like, the Earth explodes and it's like, a serious bummer.

12. Decafalon (n.): The grueling event of getting through the day consuming only things that are good for you.

13. Glibido: All talk and no action.

14. Dopeler Effect: The tendency of stupid ideas to seem smarter when they come at you rapidly.

15. Arachnoleptic Fit (n.): The frantic dance performed just after you've accidental ly walked through a spider web.

16. Beelzebug (n.): Satan in the form of a mosquito, that gets into your bedroom at three in the morning and cannot be cast out.

17. Caterpallor (n.): The color you turn after finding half a worm in the fruit you're eating.

I've written before about my sense of humor, and so I realize many of you may not share my enthusiasm for these nuggets. But if you do and you want more, go to the Washington Post and sign up for a free subscription. I did.

The Reluctant Carnivore Diet

** Warning: The Following Blog Contains Hypocrisy, Contradictory Logic, and Downright Flaky Conclusions **


Motivated by our love of animals and by some documentaries depicting the conditions under which many animals are raised for food, my wife and I tried to be vegetarian a number of years ago. We lasted about a week and then had a big, juicy steak.

Intellectually I support the idea of vegetarianism. It seems to me that eating another sentient being for food when we can choose to not to do so (and still survive) just isn't the right thing to do. Other carnivores don't have a choice because they don't have the mental capacity to derive an alternative diet that still supplies the necessary nutritional requirements for survival. We humans do have that capacity and many of us live in circumstances where the abundance of other food would cause no hardship if we were to say, "I know I'm a carnivore, but I choose to exercise my uniquely human intellect not to behave like one."

But tell that to my stomach. I was raised during a time when having meat at every meal, and plenty of it, was considered a healthy diet. My father worked in the meat department of a supermarket, and felt proud of his ability to supply his family with steaks, roasts, and chops (maybe slightly out of date, of course). And in those days beef was prized for its "marbling," or network of fat in the meat, which gave it added flavor and lots of cholesterol. I grew up thinking a meal without meat was just not a proper meal.

And so, despite the intellectual abhorrence of eating meat, I still honestly really, really like it. I find that it's possible to just not think about those pesky little moral or ethical issues as I sink my teeth into that medium rare hunk of cow. Still, it is fair to say that I'm a reluctant carnivore.

Some time ago my wife and I came up with a way to reconcile our inner carnivore with our inner animal lover. We call it the reluctant carnivore diet . Here's how it came about.

We had been snorkeling one day when we came upon a group of 20-30 small squid, all lined up facing us with their tentacles gathered together in a neat point. Something about this formation and the way they behaved was quite endearing. As we swam toward them the formation broke like a chorus line and swung open to allow us to pass through, then slowly closed and all the squid pivoted in place to face us again. We repeated this several times, and it was almost as if we were dancing a ballet with them.

At this point we had never eaten squid, but later that day we saw squid listed on the restaurant menu where we ate dinner. We looked at each other and simultaneously said, "No way!" We had just met these creatures in the wild and we simply couldn't eat them now. I'm sure squid is delicious and we may be missing a wonderful culinary treat, but we have decided that we don't need to eat squid and we can choose not to do so.

The reluctant carnivore diet grew out of this experience, and we have followed it pretty well for quite some time. The principle is simple -- all meat and fish we have eaten in the past is still ok, but if we "meet" a new creature we haven't eaten we choose not to start. We also try to avoid eating new animals we haven't encountered in person, but we have sometimes waffled on this. Besides squid, some other examples on our do-not-eat list include most African game animals, guinea pig, octopus, and some real easy ones -- dogs, cats, squirrels, etc.

We readily admit the philosophical wimpiness of this "personal encounter" principle -- it really doesn't have the moral imperative or logical consistency that underpins true vegetarianism. And we still have to wrestle with the fact that we continue to eat critters that are just as cute and endearing as the ones we now refuse.

But it makes us feel better.

Another Ray of Sunshine!!

Given the way our government and economy seem to be imploding, good news is hard to come by these days. But there are some shining moments out there if you can just ignore the ranting and raving for a bit and be open instead to news of good people doing good things.

I wrote not long ago about Greg Mortenson's projects in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and earlier about my friends who do volunteer work in Africa. Here's another uplifting example.

His name is Dr. Sanduk Ruit. He is a Nepalese ophthalmologist who has restored the sight for thousands of rural poor in Nepal. A skilled surgeon, he could have left Nepal and had a very lucrative career in Europe or the U.S. Instead, he chose to remain in Nepal and devote his life to alleviating the burden of blindness of those who could never afford a surgical procedure of the sort practiced in the developed world.

Ruit has pioneered a simple and inexpensive technique of cataract surgery that he has taught to surgeons around the world, resulting in the restoration of sight for an estimated 3-4 million people. He estimates that he personally has performed 100,000 cataract surgeries in his 30-year career. Restoring the sight of people in developing countries is particularly beneficial, given the difficult quality of life for someone with a disability, and the extra burden such a person places on family and community.

I first became aware of Ruit's work through an MSNBC story that focuses on the heartwarming case of Raj Kaliya Dhanuk, and elderly Nepalese woman who traveled for days to reach one of Ruit's mobile surgical camps.

"For nearly a year, cataracts have clouded out all sight from the 70-year-old grandmother's world. With no money, she assumed she'd die alone in darkness. But now she waits quietly outside the operating room for her turn to meet Nepal's God of Sight [Ruit]

'I am desperate. If only I could see my family again,' she whispers in her native tongue. 'I feel so bad when I hear the baby cry because I can't help him. I want to pick him up.'

...Dhanuk, who's the size of a 10-year-old child, is carried in and laid on the table. She cannot see Ruit or the visiting Thai surgeon who's practicing the technique on patients across the room.

"I'm afraid," she says, worried it won't be successful. Her long silver-streaked hair is pulled into the scrub cap, and thin golden bangles glow against her dark, cracked arms.

But she lies still and silent. All she really wants is to be able to feed herself again, go to the toilet alone and get back to her chores. She doesn't want to be lonely and frightened in one of the world's poorest countries, where life is as harsh and rugged as the Himalayas that shape it...

The next morning at the eye camp in Hetauda, Ruit stands in front of the hospital in the warm sun looking at five rows of about 200 patients from the day before. All of them, bundled in worn shawls and knit caps, have eye patches waiting to be removed.

Dhanuk is third in line on the front row. As soon as the bandages are removed, her face fills with life. She leaps to her feet smiling and pulling her hands to her chest in a prayer position, a traditional Nepalese way of giving thanks.

After nearly a year of total blindness, Dhanuk drinks in the blue sky, the green grass and all the other patients around her. She easily counts fingers, and then Ruit asks her to squeeze his nose if she can see it. It only takes a second for her jump up and grab it with both hands. Applause erupts in this moment Ruit calls the power of vision."

As I said, a Ray of Sunshine!

Lessons from Living in Hawai'i

Here are some of the things I've learned from living in Hawai'i for the last nine years:

• Palm trees. There are a gazillion different kinds. They cost a lot of money to be pruned. They have to be pruned every 6-9 months.
• Trade winds are better than tornadoes.
• Banana tree sap is the world's most permanent dye.
• Bananas. A gazillion kinds. The smaller the tastier.
• It takes two years to grow a pineapple in your yard.
• Aloha means more than "hello" and "goodbye."
• In the Hawai'ian language the same words mean "sweet person" and "fat person."
• There were glaciers in Hawai'i.
• Human impact. Before humans came to Hawai'i there were NO mosquitoes, cockroaches, ants, rats, mice, or any other mammal except for bats and seals.
• You can fall in love with the breeze.
• Air can smell really good.
• If the supply connection t0 the mainland is threatened, the first things to go from supermarket shelves are toilet paper and rice.
• Lava deserves a close look.
• Many American visitors refer to going home as "going back to the States." We usually don't correct them because (a) we don't want to embarrass them and (b) the mainland feels like a different world to us, too.