Mail 581 July 27 - August 2, 2009 (original) (raw)
Friday, July 31, 2009
Speed of modifying DNA
Dear Dr Pournelle,
I would like to comment on the option of speeding up human evolution by learning to modify our DNA. It is certainly true that we can get enormous speedup over what random mutation followed by selection will do. However, it does not seem to me that it will be feasible to modify DNA 'in-place' to make an existing human smarter: Brain development happens mainly during childhood, and modifying the genes after maturity will have no effect. Similar things are true for other tissues. There are sharp limits, then, on what can be done to improve an existing human; and that means it will take twenty years to see the effect of your changes - you have to raise the prototype! (Not to mention that there are some ethical concerns here. Just how many failed experiments do we want to do, when each experiment is a living human - perhaps one smarter than the experimenter, even?)
Such a procedure could still lead to enormous change over a century; but it does not follow that this is comparable to the evolutionary timescale of a computer which can modify its code at electronic speeds! Let us suppose we have an AI which thinks as slowly as a human programmer; it might take it a week to optimise any particular subroutine, trying out this and that modification in a simulator. Then it blits the changes into memory in a few microseconds, and begins to think 5% faster for its *next* optimisation. And a week is rather a generous estimate, here; electrochemical synapses are fantastically slow compared to transistors.
There is a very significant difference between "faster than evolution" and "as fast as a computer". The two should not be confused.
As an aside - I realise the request is unusual - could you please tone down the interestingness of your site for the next week or two? I'm in the throes of finishing up my dissertation, and could do without the distraction. :)
Regards,
Rolf Andreassen.
There are also ethical concerns, of course. Engineering the human genome gives great power and great responsibility. For some of the concerns, see C. S. Lewis The Abolition of Man. Who decides what is an improvement? Once again, hard cases make bad law -- or bad ethics. Yet surely there are genes that we do not want in the pool. Deciding on which are desirable and which ought to be eliminated will not be easy.
Robert Heinlein looked at the edges of this in Beyond This Horizon more than 60 years ago, but in this case the genetic engineering was fairly primitive, and the effects not so profound as we now believe possible. His society was one of "better" humans -- smarter with faster reaction times, free of bad teeth and various other heredity-related diseases; a libertarian society that kept "normals" (humans without genetic improvements) on welfare as they were not competitive.
The real consequences of genetic engineering will be a lot more profound than that.
As to your request, I hope I can't manage that.
==========
Ancient Rome panorama. July 2009.
<http://www.flickr.com/photos/
demonbaby/3769847051/sizes/o/>
Michael Zawistowski
Wow.
=============
Organlegging.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/30/
nyregion/30organs.html?&pagewanted=all >
--- Roland Dobbins
==========
Subject: Thorium
Jerry,
Everything that Talin said about Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTR) is quite true. There are technical reasons to prefer an LFTR over an Integral Fast Reactor (IFR), but both are so superior over anything we use now that it seems like nitpicking. Both produce about a GigaWatt-year of electricity per ton of fuel, so producing all the electricity that the United States needs would only take a few hundred tons per year or only a few grams per person. An IFR can burn spent fuel from a light water reactor or depleted Uranium. We have 728,000 tons of depleted Uranium stockpiled. That is enough to supply the whole world with electricity for a hundred years.
The story is similar for Thorium. For reasons I don't know, the United States mined huge amounts of Thorium and refined it and never used it and buried it again and it is still waiting for us to use. We have power for centuries without reopening a single mine. We have reserves to last us for tens of thousands of years. The Thorium cycle is simpler and cheaper and doesn't produce materials suitable for bombs, so we can humor the people that think a commercial power reactor can be used to produce weapons.
To paraphrase a man you turned me on to many year ago in Byte Magazine,Dr. Petr Beckmann. It is time to stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
Joel Upchurch
PS: In the category, things that make you go hmm. Kirk Sorensen is the 4th person to do a presentation on Thorium at Google since November. Maybe they are thinking about building their own power plants
==============
On Health Care
Competitive Advantage and other Thoughts
One thing forgotten about in your commentary, is that one of the most commonly cited reasons why Ford, GM and Chrysler moved much of their plants to Ontario, was because Ontario had �free� healthcare and the US did not. It was cheaper to employ people in Canada, because the huge costs of giving those workers equivalent care in the US was so exorbitant.
One must not forget that the massive consolidation efforts by the health care industry in the 90�s and 00�s, led to millions of people being stricken of their health benefits in order to save costs. The same people who owned and run many of the medical corporations are the same people who own the banks in the US and operate with the same care.
A common complaint I hear, is that people don�t want a faceless government bureaucracy running healthcare. But right now a lot of healthcare in the US is run by a faceless corporate bureaucracy, answerable to hedgefund managers and sovereign wealth funds.
I don�t know if in the Canadian system you would have survived or not. I think you would have and be surprised. When it comes to life threatening stuff its pretty quick, the system often fails at the lower end, like a hip replacement and non-essential services, where care is rationed.
But imagine you had a HMO or other substandard health care plan. Do you think you would have lived under those conditions? Your opinion is reflected that you have a premium health insurance, which is good for you, but the fact that 10�s of millions of Americans have no way of ever getting that level of care, or even the equivalent level of care I get must be of some concern.
Im just broadening the discussion, Im of the opinion that the US is not ready for the system we have, and Im certain there are better out there. I don�t know if you can afford it, but I don�t think saying, �It aint broke so don�t fix it�, is the answer either.
DM
David March
==
Mr. Pournelle:
When supply is low, prices rise...in a free market. Healthcare is largely a third party payor system where prices do not always reflect the realities on the ground. Primary care physicians frequently do not have the freedom to raise their prices. These prices are set by government entities like Medicare and by large insurance companies like Blue Cross Blue Shield.
Consider price controls on gasoline when oil is in short supply. The price does not reflect the real scarcity of the commodity. Since price is not allowed to rise and communicate to the consumer the reality of the situation, something else must ration the commodity: Soon, the fuel stations are out of gas and motorists have little choice but to cut back on commuting. And because the price is controlled, there is no incentive for oil companies to engage in exploration.
Primary care is in an analagous situation. Patients often have to search for some time to find a primary physician who will accept them and they may have to wait a long time for an appointment. And medical students will not go into primary care if they can make much more money and repay their school loans sooner as specialists. You get what you pay for.
Opting out of the third party payor system is an option, but the tax system incentivizes third party payor insurance and the physician who is brave enough to try to start a cash-only practice is likely to discover that patients will not pay the full price for an office visit when the option to pay merely a copay exists - http://www.modernmedicine.com/modernmedicine/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=494109
Admittedly, the third party payor system is perhaps the root of the high cost of healthcare, but the reality is American healthcare is not likely to adopt a libertarian, market-oriented model, at least not in the immediate future. Even the most ardent supporters of such a model admit it is more dream than reality: http://www.reason.com/news/show/135081.html
While I would prefer to see MiltonFriedmanCare rather than ObamaCare, I still contend that more primary care is needed for any reform to be effective.
Cordially,
Bob Newbell, M.D.
==
Controlling Health Care Costs -- First Things First
Jerry,
There appears to be a great National interest in controlling health care costs. In order to do this effectively it might be worthwhile to understand how and where spending on health care takes place and how costs might be reduced without reducing the quality of the health care provided.
There has been a lot of talk about how malpractice suits increase the cost of health care without increasing the quality of care. This is undoubtedly true, but exactly how are these suits increasing costs?
Malpractice Insurance premiums are one cost. I would postulate that an even larger cost is the ordering of unneeded tests and procedures in order for the attending physician to avoid the perfect hindsight of a Tort Lawyer.
Step one in controlling health care costs should be a change in Tort Law to the British System where the prevailing parties legal costs are borne by the losing party. This should go a long way to eliminating "frivolous" or nuisance law suits that are filed because it is less expensive for the Insurance Company to settle rather than defend against the suit.
Step two is to provide some realistic cap on Malpractice awards.
Step three is to offer incentives to Primary Care Physicians who take the steps necessary to maintain the good health of their patients. (There is also the necessity of providing Primary Care Physicians with reimbursement rates that are high enough to encourage newly graduated MDs to enter the field of Primary Care. This is currently NOT the case.)
Step four is to build on the concept of informed purchase that has taken its first struggling steps with Health Savings accounts and high deductible catastrophic Health Insurance. (When the patient is paying for it directly, the appropriate questions will usually be asked regarding cost and benefit. This is particularly true when fairly expensive tests such as MRI and CAT scans are involved. Given the choice of taking Ibuprofen to reduce the swelling of a sprained knee and seeing if it will heal over time or paying for a scan and arthroscopic surgery would be a no brainer for me.)
Will any of this happen? I give it a snowball's chance in a very hot place. The American Electorate needs to wake up to the fact that the critters that they are sending to Congress don't really give a rat's behind about the voters. Most of them are brought and paid for by one or another special interest. As I thought when Sotomayor was nominated to join the Supremes, "Don't look at what she has said. Read her decisions. Then make up your mind." The same applies to a Congress Critter.
Bob Holmes
Lester Thorow (MIT economist) gave a good lecture on health care over a decade ago at a Boston annual meeting of AAAS; part of his discussion included malpractice insurance costs.) Given the relationship between the Democratic Party and the Trial Lawyers Association, there was little chance of reform then, and less now.
As you observe, it's hard to keep costs down when the recipient and the payer are not the same. The demand for a free good is infinite, which means spending control through rationing, not through rational economic decisions. Once we determine that someone else is obligated to pay for your health care -- i.e. that you have a right to it -- everything changes.
Regarding Sotomayor, I find few of her decisions questionable and her bias toward local control actually favorable. It hardly matters: her confirmation was assured. My proclivity is that the President gets to choose whom he wants within reason. She's certainly within reason.
=============
An Exchange from another conference
According to the news last night, the Japanese government called in all the major trading houses and �suggested� that they develop an investment strategy for renting agricultural land in Central Asia, Central and South America, and Africa. The stimulus for this was the disturbing fact that a Korean shipping company had signed a 99-year lease for land in Madagascar. Companies were told to factor in water resources and the impact on the local economy.
I�m sure the Obama Administration noticed the Korean move and immediately developed an analysis of the disparate impact it would have....
It was short piece and I don't have details, but I would guess that government analysts are projecting that as Chinese and Indians get richer they will want to eat more and that will cause agricultural prices to rise and there will be a bidding war. Rather than making money, I suspect the Japanese are thinking primarily about ensuring a stable food supply.
Already, the Chinese are buying luxury foods and outbidding the Japanese on certain delicacies.
About 10% of Japanese farmland is idle, so they recently changed the law to allow corporate farming (provided, of course, the local people agree to it--Japanese, ever sensitive to people's feelings, wouldn't want to upset rural voters).
Steve
==
The recent spike in agricultural commodity prices has moved a number of nations, most especially China and Saudi Arabia, to buy up vast tracts of land in the Third World, most especially sub-Saharan Africa (e.g., the Sudan). It was not just the prices, but the export controls grain-producing nations slapped on to insulate their domestic consumers against world prices.
Somehow I feel that African "Big Men" will be much more reticent to nationalize Chinese holdings than Western holdings, in spite of the criticism that it's mostly Chinese farmers who are working them.
Jim
==
Here's a comment from a friend living in Japan:
<<If they need land elsewhere, it probably has more to do with farmers than land. When I go cycling, the only farmers I see in the fields are people over 60 . . . usually older. Farming must be one of the least popular jobs in modern Japan. Many fields are dormant or have reverted to forest.
This is a lush group of islands and could grow plenty more food. It's just that no one is willing to do it!
P...
PS: Of course they could import workers but . . . this is Japan! >>
Yes. The average farmer in Japan is old and his kids don�t want to farm. Women don�t want to marry farmers either.
Also, it is illegal to buy farm land if you are not a farmer (you cannot fake this). You cannot convert farm land to other purposes unless you have deep political connections.
But this being Japan, they have taken some actions.
1. The leasing of land to corporations.
2. about ten years around here (and I assume around the country) rice paddies were consolidated. Traditionally, rice paddies were small because they were cultivated (virtually) by hand. Based on demographic projections, the Dept of Agriculture decided that given the reduced farming population, paddies would have to be expanded to make mechanized farming more convenient. Thus EVERY group of small paddies was (where feasible) was consolidated into a big paddy. This is not an easy job. Paddies must be perfectly level in order to hold water and they must be distributed so that water flows properly downhill to the next paddy. This is a hell of a job and, as far as I can see, it went off perfectly. I can�t imagine what it cost.
Steve
All of which may provide some insight into what's going on in Japan. They have land, a decreasing population, and no inclination to allow immigration. Those who look for "stable" societies ("stasis" is sometimes a better word) ought to look into Japan's sustainability.
==========
Surprise, surprise.
<http://www.bizjournals.com/
phoenix/stories/2009/07/27/daily89.html>
-- Roland Dobbins
============
Dumb and Dumber
Dear Dr. Pournelle:
Re Gates and Crowley: the professor over-reacted, and the policeman over-reacted. The smart thing for Gates to do, once he had proved who he was, was to keep his cool, memorize the cop's badge number, politely escort him out, and keep his racial indignation - however justified by history - to himself. And the smart thing for Crowley to do, once Gates had proved who he was, was to keep his cool, apologize politely for the inconvenience, ignore the old man's rants, leave the area, and keep his class resentments - however justified by economics - to himself. As is, Gates stupidly dissed a cop - no street smarts there! - and Crowley stupidly arrested him, for the non-crime of rudeness. It was not Cambridge's finest hour.
Aside from racial profiling, and ivory-tower cluelessness, this is about a constitutional issue. Who is the boss? The boss gets to be bad-tempered, demanding, rude and unreasonable. The servant must be polite, cool-headed, yielding and reasonable. Is the policeman, in a citizen's house due to a misunderstanding, the boss, or is the homeowner the boss?
- Nathaniel Hellerstein
Until the homeowner identified himself, the cop was "boss", responding to a suspicion of burglary. The instant that it was established that this is the homeowner, the owner is "boss". As I understand it, the policeman attempted to withdraw and went outside as soon as homeownership was established. The homeowner then followed him outside and continued to berate him. Apparently this is the view of the other police and neighbors who observed the incident. But surely it's all taken care of now through the teachable moment of the beer summit. What was taught is not clear to me.
================w
f
g
