"The future is the worst thing about the present."
Gustave Flaubert (1821-1880), French novelist
Wednesday February 1, 2012
In Sound Bites We Trust
Through all of the 2012 U.S. presidential campaigning hoopla, there's been little substantive discussion
of important issues like energy, education, boomer retirement, immigration, conservation, environment,
health care, outsourcing, lingering security threats — as well as the fragile global economy.
Instead, we are bombarded daily with cursory,
carefully crafted sound bites, incessant accusations, tough talk, innuendo, decades-old misdeeds,
and of course poll results. Both political parties have employed character-manipulating handlers,
and SWAT teams to verbally
attack and counterattack each other with clever pyrotechnics that can instantly shoot
around the world for anyone still interested.
How did it come to this?
Technology! As in sophisticated systems for marketing and polling. As in TV, satellites,
cable, the Internet/web, PCs and hand-held devices. The unfortunate result is a desperate attempt
The Founding Fathers would shudder at how their idealistic vision
blurred with the worst that technology has to offer.
by both political camps to capture the attention of the harried and
hurried, 24/7 connected lifestyles that afford little time
to consume more substantive data even if it was presented.
America's Founding Fathers would shudder at how their idealistic vision has blurred with
the worst that technology has to offer.
Perhaps the most powerful influence is TV, although the Internet/web is closing in. Even before the fateful debate
between Kennedy and Nixon, Eisenhower employed the marketing powerhouse Rosser Reeves (known
for M&Ms' "Melts in your mouth, not in your hand" as well as other famous commercial tag lines) to
subtly portray him in the TV ads as authoritative yet likable.
It was the first use of a political "ad campaign" with short 30 second "spots" to manipulate the viewer's
perception of the candidate. Its success set the stage (so to speak) to employ ever more
sophisticated principles and techniques for legal brainwashing en masse.
At about the same time, the science of polling "Galluped" ahead and provided the so-called pulse of the
nation — which can itself influence opinions exponentially.
Finally, the ubiquitous electronic medium facilitates the infamous "debates," which have become anything
but. The intense negotiations that precede them strive to minimize spontaneity and maximize
the probability that there'll be no major gaffes that would be aired ad infinitum
— leading to the destruction of the unfortunate perpetrator. Former news anchor Jim Lehrer explains,
"It is the only opportunity to evaluate candidates side by side. For the candidates, it's their last
chance to close the deal with voters." The candidates echo Lehrer:
"You're on guard; you don't want to make a mistake; you don't want to say anything that's going to offend." - George H.W. Bush
"It was intense and confrontational from beginning to end." - John Edwards
"The stakes are very, very high." - John Kerry
"Now, was I glad that the damn thing [1992 debate] was over? Yeah, maybe that's why I was looking at [my watch]. Only
ten more minutes of this crap." - George H.W. Bush
*****
So when will this end?
Short term: After the 2012 U.S. election and there's a collective sigh of relief among its
citizens — that it will be at least a year (hopefully!) before the 2016 election is mentioned.
Long term: When the institutionalization of Phrenicea occurs. "Phrenicea ensures that no voter is uninformed.
Every eligible voter has complete access to the entire unbiased history of each candidate — objective
factual and biographical information resident within the Phrenicea braincomb — to
decide which candidate is the best choice. Any vote even partly based
partly on subjective criteria is summarily rejected.
Here we are again, lamenting yet another year's passing while suffering post-celebratory
writer's block. Rather than trying to cobble together a half-hearted essay, we'll sheepishly
follow the last five years' cop-outs to lethargically review the "Twelve Blogs of 2011"
— with premature nostalgia and perhaps feigned interest as to whether they're still relevant.
• In December we pondered the ephemeralness
of our personal memories:
It seems impossible now, but there will come a day when the mechanism for
memory assembly and storage within the human brain is elucidated. A next logical step
would be to try to save or replicate these memories, perhaps for recollection by
others... (Read more)
• In November we were preoccupied with losing our
Inno"Since":
Keep an ear out and an eye open for the next time you hear or see an advertisement touting
"In business since....," "founded in...," or "established..." Contrary to its intent
or implication, the practical value of the boast is questionable. Perhaps this newfound
awareness can be termed The End of Inno"Since"... (Read more)
• In October we wrung our hands over being
"all thumbs":
Looking at the impact of our silicon-infused, technological society it is obvious that very little
is done "by hand" nowadays — by young and old alike... (Read more)
• The September blog attempts to explain
why epigenetics is downright frightening:
Epigenetics is a new sub-field of biology that studies how chemicals in our environmental can play havoc
"on top of" genes — acting like switches to turn them on or off abnormally. (The "epi" prefix means "on top
of," as in epidermis — the outer layer of skin "on top of" the dermis.) So even though the gene
appears normal and has not changed (or mutated), it does not function properly...
(Read more)
• In August we suffered the recurring affliction
of "water on the brain":
Maybe we should instill among ourselves a new idiom-cum-mantra to "spend water like it's money."
We all tend to waste water and take its current abundance for granted.
Wouldn't it be prudent to pay more today to change our wasteful habits, while adopting a mindset
focused on conservation to build "aqua equity" for future generations?
(Read more)
• In July one smart cookie crumbled:
I can't wait to order Chinese takeout again. Will I crack open another smart cookie to find an
abstruse, recondite maxim with a scientific theme? Or will I have the misfortune of reading
just another silly platitude? I'm really hoping for the former.
Forever puerile, I'll imagine my next postprandial surprise to be the work of some underemployed
subatomic particle physicist, shedding an optimistic photon beam on my two left feet so I can finally
show off some dance floor prowess...(Read more)
• In June we compiled "Then and Now" images to
acknowledge the passage of time and visibly observe how things have changed through the years:
Time is fascinating when you take the time to think about it. We tend to consider
time a man-made commodity as if we created it — when if fact all we really do it measure it.
Fooling ourselves in the process, we parse time into nanoseconds, microseconds, seconds,
minutes, days, weeks, months, years, decades, centuries, millenniums, periods,
ages, eras, eons, epochs... (Read more)
• The May blog pitted brainy scientists
against nerdy computer wiz's:
A while back I emailed Dr. Terrence Deacon, professor of Biological Anthropology and
Neuroscience at University of California-Berkeley. He's an honest-to-goodness, genuine brain scientist
— as opposed to certain computer scientists who are brain-expert wannabees, typically proselytizing
in the media their tenuous computer-brain analogies and artificial intelligence predictions...
(Read more)
• In April we worried about recycling
dangerous technology:
There's little doubt that rising fuel prices and global temperatures are pressing
issues requiring action. We owe it to ourselves and to posterity to become sufficiently
educated to intelligently evaluate potential options. It's popular now to pander to those
outraged over $60 fill-ups and brand global warming "bad" because that's been the predominant
message... (Read more)
• In March we suffered the first wave of the "Baby"
Boomer generation turning 60 years of age. (Ugh!):
Now turning 60, this famously spoiled (sans "baby"?) boomer demographic anomaly will be a force
to be reckoned with. We'll be retired, but not retiring gray-haired activists with plenty of time
on our hands to leverage our generational clout to lobby for our interests.
By sheer demographic heft we'll again effect change as in years past. We'll read cover stories
at the 70- and 80-year milestones chronicling our deterioration and the burden our cohort will
be inflicting upon younger generations... (Read more)
• In February we intended to address unintended consequences resulting from continued advancement of
scientific knowledge:
Nevertheless, as our quest for scientific knowledge marches on (making our lives ever more complex) — particularly
related to biology — we are going to have to face the fact that we are not all
created equal.
Just as our disruption of the macro-environment has led to pollution, species
extinction and global warming — analogous unintended consequences await our
intrusion into the ancient inner workings of cells... (Read more)
• January's entry was tinged with nostalgia
and torpor — and guilt for not writing a new essay:
Here we are again, lamenting yet another year's passing while suffering post-celebratory
writer's block. Rather than trying to cobble together a half-hearted essay, we'll sheepishly
follow the last four years' cop-outs to lethargically review the "Twelve Blogs of 2009"
— with premature nostalgia and perhaps feigned interest as to whether they're still
relevant... (Read more).
You may or may not agree, but after reviewing the "Twelve Blogs of 2011" it appears most are still relevant as
we roll into the New Year. And somehow after recalling the energy that instigated the blogs to begin
with, we don't feel quite as lethargic.
Maybe that's the real benefit of looking backward, reminiscing and singing "Auld Lang Syne" — not
for nostalgia per se, but to recharge our batteries and begin another year with renewed energy and
enthusiasm.
Time will tell...
Happy New Year!
posted by John Herman 12:01 AM
Thursday December 1, 2011
Memories: Firsthand & First Person
Our memories, and the memories of us, are precious. Are they not? Well, at least to some authors
they appear to be.
Cliff Pickover, prolific
writer
and research staff member at
IBM's
T. J. Watson Research Center, admits that much of his motivation to publish comes from his desire
to exit this world with something to leave behind for future generations. He laments:
After you die, will the world remember anything you did? Most of us rarely leave marks,
except on our immediate family or a few friends. We'll never have our lives illuminated
in a New York Times obituary or uttered by a TV news anchorperson. Even your immediate
family will know nothing of you within four generations. Your great-grandchildren may
carry some vestigial memory of you, but that will fade like a burning ember when they
die — and you will be extinguished and forgotten.
That's pretty depressing. As we try to live each day to the fullest — being productive, learning,
and ultimately creating memories for ourselves and others — we rarely ponder the ephemeralness of it all.
(Although the often-heard dispassionate phrase, "Who will care a hundred years from now?" stems from the sad reality
of our short time here on earth.)
But does it have to be this way?
The Phrenicea scenario envisions a time when all our memories and experiences will be stored forever, within our own
brain as well as within others' — firsthand memories that are deemed rich enough to be bought and sold at auction —
like memorabilia traded today on eBay.
Imagine sharing the actual memory of one accepting a Nobel Prize or an Academy Award, winning a marathon, falling head-over-heels for
your favorite actor , starving in the third world,
learning of a terminal disease; even of dying!
Most are tempted to say, "Yeah right! No way."
Memories bought and sold at auction —
like memorabilia on eBay.
It seems impossible now, but there will come a day when the mechanism for memory assembly and storage within the human brain
is elucidated. A next logical step would be to try to save or replicate these memories, perhaps for recollection by others.
When it does come to fruition, imagine the regret for the many first-person memories already — or soon to be —
lost forever:
- the excitement of witnessing man's first flight
- the despair of the 1929 Stock Market Crash
- the horror of the Holocaust and Hiroshima
- the excitement of purchasing a new color TV in the 1950s
- the anticipation of finding out "Who Shot JR?"
- the relief of learning of a cure for polio
- the nostalgia of catching the last feature at the local drive-in movie theatre just before its closing forever
- the shock of President John F. Kennedy's death
- the thrill of setting foot on the moon
- the marvel at the first "horseless carriage," telephone, "talkie" talking movie, ballpoint pen, transistor radio, Polaroid camera, VCR
Of course you could read or see videos about these events. But nothing can approach an actual memory —
just ask Neil Armstrong.
Gee, when you think about it, memories really are precious.
Recently I spotted an ad for "Heating and Air Conditioning Service, in business since 1954."
It occurred to me to ask, "What does that really signify?" All I came up with is that all
those who made the business successful back then are gone. It had to be an okay service to
survive initially when the original principals ran things. But the fact
that they're still in business does not necessarily translate into anything superior today.
They could be in a downturn. We see it all around us today:
• General Motors was founded in 1908. Honda did not begin producing automobiles until the
1960s. Which builds better cars?
• The U.S. Congress has been around since 1787. Enough said about that.
Nevertheless, advertising a business' birth is still very popular. Googling "in business since"
returns 1.5 billion results. Similarly, googling "founded in" yielded 551 million
results. Several are very well known:
• Heinz (best known for ketchup) was established in 1869 and this is proudly declared on their
label. Its longevity probably has no bearing on sales today — its
products
happen to be very good. Remarkably, they've managed to retain smart management with the common sense to not mess up the original recipes
with new processing technologies.
• Ditto for Gulden's Mustard established 1862, first made by Charles Gulden, now manufactured
by the agricultural giant ConAgra, in keeping with the original secret recipe.
• Coke almost blew it with New Coke in 1985, 99 years after the original was introduced. Its management back-stepped only three months later with old-new Coke Classic and eventually
dropped the Coke that failed. A close call averted by facing failure boldly and quickly.
• Perhaps the most ridiculous business type to claim value in longevity is a restaurant.
It could be on the downslide with the original owners replaced
by their spoiled or less-driven progeny, or not-as-committed outsiders. Even with consistent
ownership, chefs tend to migrate from one establishment to another like bees collecting
pollen, and wait staff can be as ephemeral as cumulus clouds. Maybe if they could brag,
"Serving our clientele with the same owner, same chef and same support staff since...." Now that would
be meaningful.
Then there are those that can advertise longevity but choose — perhaps wisely — not to:
• Microsoft was founded in 1975. In this case boasting "in business since" probably would be a
negative, as newer technology companies like Google are perceived to be more nimble and
innovative. Microsoft is smart not to advertise their relative longevity since for them
even not-so-old is too old.
• KODAK has been in business since 1892, which means nothing given the technology of
photography is primarily electronic today — and not chemical processing as it was for almost
a century. The company that once touted film (remember Kodachrome?) and paper quality
survives tenuously because its management has struggled to maintain its brand "image" while photo technology marched digitally forward.
• Ford Motor Company does not advertise that it's been in business since 1903. Perhaps because
the company has had its back to the wall so many times throughout its history. Fortunately its products
mechanically have become excellent and almost rival the
best of the Japanese and Europeans. But they blew it yet again — shooting themselves in the foot
by letting the geeks run amok replacing simple dashboard buttons with complicated
MyFord Touch technology — technology for technology's sake. Until the company can have more than a
decade of consistent quality, it's probably better for them to stress the present rather than the past.
• The famous (infamous?) Yankee baseball team was established in the early 1920s. So what?
What distinguishes one team from the other nowadays? With player turnover, team rosters can
completely change within several years. Diehard fans brandish their enthusiasm with logoed
shirts and caps. But what are they really fans of — the pinstripe uniform? The phrase "old
is new again" is apropos.
(Ditto for your favorite team?)
*****
So keep an ear out and an eye open for the next time you hear or see an advertisement touting
"In business since....," "founded in...," or "established..." Contrary to its intent
or implication, the practical value of the boast is questionable.
Perhaps this newfound awareness can be termed The End of Inno"Since."
Given that most websites are maintained using powerfully sophisticated software, I usually elicit
shock (well, perhaps astonishment) when explaining that I update the Phrenicea site "by hand,"
utilizing MS Notepad and basic HTML coding. (Being somewhat fastidious, at least I'm content knowing
that every HTML character and tag has been hand-keyed, sans extraneous source code that's
automatically generated.)
Beyond the tedious development of Phrenicea however, the terms "by hand" and "handmade" seem to be
on the wane — and it stems from our growing disconnect from the physical world that unfortunately
begins today early in childhood.
A case in point, this is from the December 1960
issue of Popular Mechanics:
Model making has replaced stamp collecting as the nation's number one hobby. A week after the
U.S. Air Force announced its Starfighter jet set a new altitude record, miniature construction
kits of the plane were sold out in stores from
coast to coast.
It's hard to fathom today with YouTube, Facebook, cell phones and iPods that
model making back then was the favored pastime of America's youth — and that stamp collecting
ever was!
It is a wonder if kids today so detached and desensitized by all things computer would even
get excited about a manned Mars landing, but that's another topic for the future.
Looking at the impact of our silicon-infused, technological society it is obvious that very little
is done "by hand" nowadays — by young and old alike. For example:
What happened to the popularity of Erector Sets with their nuts, bolts, screws and mechanical
parts? What about paint-by-number kits, Lincoln Logs and chemistry sets? These required tactile
finesse while nourishing portions of the brain that no computer could possibly stimulate.
What happened to mending and darning of clothes? Most likely the blemished garment is just
tossed out or given away.
What about home-cooked meals? This activity is diminishing with prepackaged and fast-food
becoming evermore popular — expanding waistlines the world over.
Who maintains their own cars? Who would even have a clue how?
Who attempts to fix... anything? A throwaway mentality prescribes to buy new, as "good
with their hands" skills eventually become extinct.
Those that are savvy have taken advantage of our evolution towards being "all thumbs."
Given their rarity in today's mechanized world, the terms "made by hand" and "handcrafted" are
implied synonyms for quality and usually an excuse to command excessively high prices. Other adjectives
often associated with pricey handmades are "fine" and "exclusive." Watch out for them.
The comparatively few who have bucked the highbrow trend to attend college, pursuing instead
one of the hands-on trades, are now enjoying very successful and lucrative
The savvy have taken advantage of our evolution towards being "all thumbs."
careers — especially if their work is top quality. They are in the minority vis-à-vis
today's dime-a-dozen, white-collar, so-called professionals stuck in cubicles with little practical physical skills.
The blue-collars today conceivably are living better than they ever dreamed and doubtless have more
work than they can possibly handle.
Since 1999, the Phrenicea scenario of the future has predicted a priority bestowed upon hands-on
work. In fact, what are termed "blue collar" jobs today are projected to be the highest paid professions
in the future. We may be seeing signs of that already today.
*****
A lot was done "by hand" in the old days. Will it be done as well — or at all — in the future?
The study of biology is difficult. The study of physics is difficult. The study of chemistry
is difficult. Once learned, we tend to view these and other scientific disciplines as our
inventions — often flaunting erudition with advanced-degree titles — when
essentially all they are is our explanation of the complexities of nature — or worse — imagined competencies
that can beget arrogance to disturb natural equilibriums.
In February 1953 James Watson and Francis Crick, after several years of leveraging their (and others')
understanding of nature's complexity, announced to the world the chemical structure of DNA. Over the years
much has been learned about the molecule that is common to all life on earth — but only recently has it
become a colloquial term related primarily to forensics to identify perpetrators of crime. For most of
the lay public, that is about as much as they know about the acronym.
'Imagined competencies can beget arrogance to disturb natural equilibriums.'
DeoxyriboseNucleicAcid is a long-chained chemical molecule that functions as life's blueprint, and can be
visualized simplistically as a ladder twisted like a spiral staircase — with each step (for illustration
purposes) being one of four colors: black, white, red, or green.
Long stretches of DNA with many steps become genes. Many genes strung together become chromosomes. Every human
has in each of their trillion cells 23 different chromosomes
each containing thousands of genes. There are actually two sets of 23 chromosomes, one set from each parent.
And each of the 23 has specific functions assigned — like growing fingernails or hair, or shaping the nose, etc.
The order or sequence of the steps' colors is important and unique to each person — and can reveal identity
conclusively just like fingerprints. In other words, a person's uniqueness is determined by the sequence of
the steps as one would imagine when climbing their DNA ladder. (For example: red, green, green, green, black, red,
red, white,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, red = Jane Doe.)
The study of DNA, genes and chromosomes and how they function is called genetics. Like biology, physics and
chemistry — genetics is difficult too.
And what about epigenetics?
Epigenetics is a new sub-field of biology that studies how chemicals in our environmental can play havoc
"on top of" genes — acting like switches to turn them on or off abnormally. (The "epi" prefix means "on top
of," as in epidermis — the outer layer of skin "on top of" the dermis.) So even though the gene
appears normal and has not changed (or mutated), it does not function properly. Imagine those colored
steps mentioned above blocked at various points to prevent them from being useful, even though they are still
there undamaged.
Why is Epigenetics Significant?
Epigenetics is becoming important because it appears that many of the 80,000 man-made chemicals and pollutants in our
environment can inadvertently create these epi-switches — and incredibly these can be passed on to future
generations. The scary part then is that what your parents or grandparents were exposed to, before you were born,
might be more detrimental cumulatively than anything you are exposed to directly in your lifetime; and the new switches
you accumulate with exposure to today's many new toxins can too be passed on to your children and grandchildren.
So what does this mean?
It means that with each generation the impact is potentially cumulative — and many scientists in the field are convinced that
Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, cancer, autism, obesity, diabetes, asthma and perhaps many more maladies
may be caused by the effects of epigenetics.
Biology, physics, chemistry and genetics may be difficult — but epigenetics is downright frightening!
For the optimists reading this, we can alternatively view epigenetics from a positive viewpoint:
• Way back in 1999, the short story The Engagement of Phrenicea prophesied, "artificial genes producing hormonal
parameters and switches — in simplistic terms — could be set or reset by Phrenicea to control
or monitor behavior “officially” defined as antisocial, criminal, etc. [No crime!]
• And in 2004 we teased, "What if you could achieve and maintain the
health that physical exercise promised, without any effort? If you could stay in so-called perfect
physical condition without exercise, would you still workout? By mid-century this fantasy becomes reality.
It was discovered that embedded within our DNA are gene expression-controlling switches tailored to
'sculpt' your preferred body shape. This epigenetic information can help to regulate the quantity and
quality of the various chemical and structural components that make up our bodies. Ironically, it is
the so-called 'junk' DNA, ignored for 50 years, that harbors these growth-controlling switches." [No exercise!]
Now that the lazy, hazy, crazy days of summer are upon us, it's a good time to use the
sultry weather as an opportunity to revisit yet again our feverish condition of "water on the brain." Way back
in 2001 our "H2Ouch!" page began recommending the following:
"Pretend you were to pay $1/gallon the next time you take a shower or bath, brush your teeth,
flush a toilet, wash the dishes, or God forbid — water the lawn! Begin to use less water than
the average person. Set an example. Prevent H2Ouch!"
We still believe this is good advice, but perhaps the "hyperhydro" proposal was and still is naïve. The problem is that
there is little incentive to conserve fresh water from the tap — given its ridiculously low
price. For example, I recently received my "Annual Water Supply Report" from my local water
company and was dismayed at how little fresh water costs. Here's the breakdown:
Quarterly Water Rates — Residential
Consumption (gallons)
Charges
Up to 8,000
8,001 - 58,000
58,001 - 100,000
Over 100,000
$10.00 minimum
$0.90 / thousand gallons
$1.15 / thousand gallons
$1.40 / thousand gallons
A dollar for 1000 gallons of clean, fresh tap water? That's insane! By comparison, bottled water
by the gallon costs about $1.99. Not bad, but that's $1990 for 1000 gallons. Why is there such a
cost disparity with tap water? How can anyone be motivated to conserve water at these low rates,
Wouldn't it be prudent build "aqua equity" for future generations?
other than via a guilty conscious? And let's face it; there aren't many turning on their taps
ladened with guilt. (If the water companies got savvy they'd upmarket their image with exotic
brand names, pricing and refillable bottles with fancy labels
adding cachet to their product. Imagine having
bragging rights to elite-sounding potable water! It's not that silly a suggestion, since that is essentially
what Coca-Cola did with Dasani and PepsiCo with Aquafina. They're both filtered municipal tap water.)
Actually what we really need is a "watershed moment"; a trickle-down epiphany to appreciate how finite
and precious our water supply is. The first step should be to make users conscious of their water
consumption — and that can be accomplished handily by raising the price per gallon and using a more
dramatic cost gradient for excessive use. It sounds crazy, but those concerned about conservation
should lobby for pricing increases.
Another way to raise awareness might be to move our water meters out from their usual obscure
locations into full view in kitchens and bathrooms — fitted with big, red digital read-outs
displaying gallons used in real time. Education on where our water comes from and how it's treated,
We should instill among ourselves an idiom-cum-mantra to "spend water like it's money."
stored, delivered and renewed would also serve to engender an appreciation of what
is the major constituent of all living things.
There's an old saying attributed to spendthrifts that says they "spend money like it's water." Maybe
we should instill among ourselves a new idiom-cum-mantra to "spend water like it's money."
Since we all tend to waste water and take its abundance for granted — it even
unintentionally spills over into the comics:
Wouldn't it be prudent to pay more today to change our wasteful habits, while adopting a mindset
focused on conservation to build "aqua equity" for future generations?
FORTUNE COOKIE WRITER:
PhD in biology required. Sociology BA helpful. Brevity and a belief in the supernatural a plus.
Only smart cookies will become fortune(ate) candidates.
The above want ad sounds ridiculous of course. But that is what I envisioned recently after opening a Chinese
cookie to find the following fortune:
"Even as the cell is the unit of the organic body, so the family is the unit of society."
A socio-bio-based aphorism in a fortune cookie? Could this have been created by an underemployed
graduate of biology or sociology?
Perhaps this is early evidence bolstering the Phrenicea scenario of the future that envisions not enough
jobs to employ most of the world's population. As higher education becomes the norm globally, college
graduates will have to assume lower scale jobs formerly taken by those with high school diplomas or less.
Already, more and more sales associates, telemarketers, customer service reps, bank tellers, bookkeepers,
etc. are bringing to the job the benefit of a four-year degree.
But who would have thought about a "fortune cookie writer"?
With the popularity of Chinese food on the rise, there may be a strong demand for offbeat fortune
writers! Fortune cookies are a lot like horoscopes. Our intellectual side tells us it's all
As higher education spreads globally, graduates will have to assume lower scale jobs.
not to be believed. Yet, just as many feel compelled to read what the day may bring for their
zodiac sign, opening a fortune cookie for its bit of wisdom or prediction can be irresistible.
And if the theme just happens to coincide with a life situation, that's provides reinforcement to look
forward to a next time.
Ever the skeptic, I saved a few choice fortunes through the years that had some relevance to see
if their message would ever be realized. So here goes:
"Good fortune is just around the corner."
Unfortunately, I haven't turned this corner yet.
"You will soon gain something you have always wanted."
This might have come true;
but it was probably so trivial I didn't realize it.
"Financial hardship in your life is coming to an end. Enjoy!"
All I know is that I'm still waiting for this end to come.
"Two small jumps are sometimes better than one big leap."
I have no idea why I kept this one, although I'm wondering now if Neil Armstrong took that fortune
cookie job.
(What does one do after landing on the moon?)
Even though it's evident I've not had much luck with fortune cookies, I still can't wait to order
Chinese again. Will I crack open another smart cookie to find an abstruse, recondite maxim with
a scientific theme? Or will I have the misfortune of reading just another silly
platitude? I'm really hoping for the former.
Forever puerile, I'll imagine my next postprandial surprise to be the work of some underemployed
subatomic particle physicist, shedding an optimistic photon beam on my two left feet so I can finally
show off some dance floor prowess:
"You will learn to be like a meson — a strongly interacting boson — a hadron with
integral spin!"
I'll certainly save this one. "Dancing with the Stars" look out!
*****
Imagine — physics graduates crafting cookie fortunes. An inane exaggeration? Perhaps, but let us
hope that's not how the cookie crumbles for many other fields of study the world over.
Time is fascinating when you take the time to think about it. We tend to consider
time a man-made commodity as if we created it — when if fact all we really do it measure it.
Fooling ourselves in the process, we parse time into nanoseconds, microseconds, seconds,
minutes, days, weeks, months, years, decades, centuries, millenniums, periods,
ages, eras, eons, epochs.
As we're measuring we can have a great time; a sad time; a boring time; a wonderful time;
even an exceptional time. We can also waste time, spend time, give up time,
give back time, and squander time.
Our perception of time can vary. It can go fast; go slow; even stand still — like
watching a DVD with a remote. And at times it may seem to repeat itself as Yogi Berra
famously observed, "This is like déjà vu all over again." Unfortunately time cannot be rewound or made to go backwards.
(Why is that?)
The musically gifted write songs about time:
Turn Back the Hands of Time; Time Is On My Side; Time Passages;
Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is?; Till the End of Time; and
As Time Goes By are just a few.
We also have colloquial phrases like "It's about time," "Time is precious," and "Time for change."
Some are heard more often than others. (The rhetorical promises of the last U.S. presidential campaign comes to mind.)
We can use time to describe ourselves and others. We can be Big-time.
They are only Small-time.
We can even use time to punish: "You're in time-out!" and "25 years to life!"
We can live our lives according to time, as in "Early to bed and early to rise."
Most strive to live for the moment. Many yearn to go back the old days.
Others impatiently anticipate the future.
Time can be ahead of us or behind us, which becomes more important for each
of us as time goes by.
The age of time is very old. Physicists tell us it's been around since
the birth of the universe about 15 billion years ago. (This used to sound like a big
number before all of the recent financial bailouts.) During our relatively brief time
here on earth we learn that some things disappear, new things arise,
and some things stay relatively the same.
An interesting activity is compiling "Then and Now" images to visibly
see how things have changed — noticeably and in some cases so much so as to almost revert back
to the way they were.
Here are some examples:
Click images to magnify
The more things change...
TV in a Console (1964)
TV on a Console (2009)
...the more they stay the same.
The more things change...
Johnny in 1973
Johnni today
...the more they DON'T stay the same.
Gripping advertising...
Hawking tires (1965)
Hawking tires (2009)
...never loses traction.
Some things thankfully never change...
Then and then (1968)
Now
...at least on the inside.
In-flight departures from bias and stereotyping...
"How come our girls are so capable?"
(1951)
"Best cabin crew in the Middle East."
...thankfully arrived.
More great hits and stars! By snail mail!
Wow! A record club! (1968)
Wow! No record club!
Even more great hits and stars! Instantly!
Envisioning push buttons in 1959...
Then, then and 1959's future
Now
...remembering push buttons today.
Recycling sheet metal...
1968 Toyota 2000GT
2009 Pontiac GXP
... in the figurative sense.
When you take the time to think about it time really is fascinating.
After seeing Johnny with his TDK tape cassettes, the stewardesses enduring
insipid questions, and push-button phones once defining our future — would
anyone want time to go backwards in time?
The premise of the Phrenicea scenario of the future is that we give up trying to copy the human
brain utilizing computer technology and artificial intelligence, and instead appreciate its
amazing complexity by immuring our brains upon death and keeping them alive within a "braincomb"
to function and assist those still living their ambulatory lives.
A while back I emailed
Dr. Terrence Deacon,
professor of Biological Anthropology and
Neuroscience at University of California-Berkeley. He's an honest-to-goodness, genuine brain scientist
— as opposed to certain computer scientists who are brain-expert wannabees, typically proselytizing
in the media their tenuous computer-brain analogies and artificial intelligence predictions.
(We at Phrenicea like to call them "chipheads.")
I asked Prof. Deacon for his views on computer technology and artificial intelligence, and even the
feasibility of keeping brains alive a la the Phrenicea scenario. I also asked, "Given that 'brains
are not designed the way we would design any machine' [a direct quote by Dr. Deacon],
do you agree or disagree with my major assumption that we will not (within the next 100 years) be
able to mimic the brain's function utilizing non-biological technology?"
Given Dr. Deacon's lofty stature and busy schedule, I was pleasantly surprised and appreciative to receive
his prompt and cogent reply as follows:
1. Brains are quite unlike computers. The closest thing to computation in the brain is
probably the performance of highly over-learned rapid ballistic movements and systems that
regulate visceral systems. And even these are in effect the production of "virtual computations" —
not true computations but simulations of very simple computation by stochastic approximation. Most of
cognition is much more analogous to chaotic attractor dynamics and evolutionary processes.
[My interpretation: Brains are not like computers. (Yes!) Learning physical movements to the point
of where they become "automatic" (becoming proficient in a sport, musical instrument
or even driving a car) might cause the brain to act as if it were computing from our perspective —
and not an exact form of computing at that, more like a controlled anarchy of processes.]
2. Despite the incredible network size of brains and the additional fact that even the subcellular level of
intraneuronal information processing rivals current "neural net" simulations, neither complexity
nor unattainable dynamical organization offer an unsurpassable threshold.
[My interpretation: We'll eventually unravel the mysteries of how the brain works.]
3. Once we get past our fascination with the brain-as-computer dead-end metaphor it should not be impossible to begin
to build (or more likely grow) devices that utilize this kind of information-generation logic
(notice I didn't say "information processing") and at least some of the adaptive and agentive
features of brains will be possible to achieve (and I don't mean simulate) this way.
[My interpretation: The brain is not analogous to, and does not work like a computer. However, we may
be able to one day grow biological structures that mimic the brain in some limited ways.]
4. Neurons don't live forever and are subject to spontaneous functional degradation even in perfect metabolic
support conditions.
[My interpretation: The envisioned Phrenicea "braincomb" will need more research and development to
sustain human brains forever. Back to work guys and gals!]
5. Also, contra sci-fi stories, the idiosyncrasy of representational
encoding in different brains and the incompatibility of cognition and computation processes will
make transfer of a person's memories, thoughts, personality traits, and experiences to different
"media" (e.g. brain to machine) impossible.
[My interpretation: Our knowledge, memories, etc. will never be transferred to silicon
or any other inorganic computer-memory substrate.]
Terry
*****
Prof. Deacon in a very short space provided authoritative views on computer technology and artificial
intelligence vis-à-vis the human brain. He is pessimistic about our ever mimicking the brain's
function utilizing non-biological technology. He even addressed the feasibility of keeping
brains alive a la the Phrenicea scenario.
You may or may not agree with all of his assessments (or my interpretations!). Regardless, this perhaps is
the most exciting field of study today — and probably will be for most of the 21st century.
I feel sadly vindicated. The nuclear-power memories that were fading way back in 2005 are suddenly all over the news again.
Unfortunately it had to take a disaster and not logical concern to wake us up. We humans are really pathetic....
Saturday August 20, 2005
Nuclear Redux — or Déjà vu?
Our current
QuikPoll so far indicates surprisingly that there is more concern with fossil
fueled global warming than with long-lived and deadly radioactive waste (and weapons
grade fuel) produced by nuclear power plants. This is astonishing, especially with the
threat of terrorism and the third-world's desire for nukes.
It's amazing how attitudes can change over the course of time — about 60 years in this
case. At the dawn of the Atomic Age, there was optimism that not only
would "going nuclear" fuel power plants to generate electricity — it would also power
our planes, cars and rockets — and cook our food! (Even Walt Disney was convinced,
producing the movie and
book,
"Our Friend the Atom.")
Initial optimism was eventually
supplanted with concern about bomb proliferation; paranoia associated with the loss of
U.S. technological supremacy (on this date in 1953 the Soviet Union acknowledged it had
tested a hydrogen bomb); and uncertainty as to the long term effects of the radiation
from weapons testing. The many science fiction movies from the era depicting awakening
dinosaurs, giant insects, and incredible shrinking men attest to the uneasiness associated
with radiation. Chernobyl and Three Mile Island seemingly were the final straws
that broke nuclear's back. But, memories fade.
Politicians and the nuclear industry are capitalizing on today's radioactive blaséness
with talk of new reactors helping to solve the global warming predicament. Cameco, the
Recycling dangerous technology may not be
the answer to global warming.
"world's largest uranium producer" crows the slogan, "NUCLEAR. The Clean Air Energy."
Embedded in Fortune magazine's August 8 issue is a nuclear-industry funded feature posing
as objective content proclaiming a "Nuclear Redux." The piece, cleverly written by
freelancer Robert
McGarvey
(who might have sold his professional soul here), subtly
conveys an environmentally friendly green theme with an innocuous
graphic,
a green pull-quote highlighting nuclear's return to center stage, and a green text box incredibly proclaiming
that "Radiation is good for you."! How subtle. How frightening!
There's little doubt that global warming is a pressing issue requiring action. However,
the answer may not be to recycle dangerous technology. We owe it to ourselves and to
posterity to become sufficiently educated to intelligently evaluate potential options.
It's popular now to brand Global Warming "bad" because that's been the predominant
message; and nuclear energy as comparatively "good" because: (1) it's been out of the
tabloid news for twenty years; and (2) that's what some politicians
and the industry would now have us believe.
Don't listen passively to either view. The world and its inhabitants are at stake and the clock is ticking.
Time will tell...
posted by John Herman August 20, 2005 7:22 AM
Feedback: Your Two-Cents!
Ships sink, planes crash, cars still kill thousands and thousands of people a year, oil platforms
explode. Technology is never perfect. Sometimes we fail. Do we stop trying to make these safer and ban them forever?
We learn and move on making them safer. Right now nuclear power is part of our energy production.
Someday it will be replaced but until then it has a role to play in producing our energy.
The world will learn from Japan's misfortune and make power plants safer.
-Steve H.
Steve you are 100% right. There are no guarantees in life. Crossing the street is a challenge. The people in
Pennsylvania are exposed to more radiation because of radon in the rock formation in that state,
all homes have monitors in their basement because of the dangers of radon.
I am going to play golf today. Hopefully some crazy golfer won’t hit me with his drive or club.
-John S.
I'll respectfully disagree with you both. I'll take Pennsylvania over Japan. And yes, nuclear plants should be banned.
Time will tell...
Only two things are infinite, the universe
and human stupidity, and I'm not sure of the former.
- Albert Einstein
Tick...tick...tick. The "baby boomer" population bulge is approaching 65. I'm a leading-edge boomer and
frankly am having trouble accepting that fact. I seem to have a lot of company too — most
of my friends, coworkers, and fellow (grand?) parents are boomers and many of them feel
similarly distressed. Why are we having so much trouble accepting this aging thing?
Through the years I've developed a belief that it's because baby boomers were
raised to think of themselves as privileged, special and young, as the moniker implies.
We are the product of an unprecedented birthrate and as youngsters were bathed in
attention — regardless of whether it was for our potential in those promising and optimistic
postwar years or for profit by opportunistic marketeers. We were the center of attention
and the target market virtually from birth. Consider the following:
Pediatrician Dr. Benjamin Spock wrote a baby and child care book just for us — to ensure that our parents would provide
a nurturing environment to help us grow to our full potential, both mentally and physically.
It was a best seller for years.
Our parents, who experienced deprivation during the Great Depression and World War II, were
determined to give us what they did not have: a comfortable home, plenty of food, new clothes and
a good education which included a college degree. Everyone would be "white collar." Yes, we
were really special.
Whole neighborhoods were built just for us, a phenomenon that became known as "suburban sprawl."
Virtually everything was new. We had new houses, roads, stores, schools, buses, playgrounds and
pools. We were handed new books and new tests which were designed to measure us if we simply
darkened the proper circle with #2 pencils. Eventually we would even have "new math."
The Golden Age of TV catered to us with Captains Video, Midnight and Kangaroo; Space Cadet and Space Patrol;
Kukla, Fran & Ollie; Davy Crockett, Superman, Howdy Doody, Mickey Mouse Club, Roy Rogers, Lassie,
Mr. Wizard et al. We watched and matured with wholesome situation comedies depicting the
idealized kid-centered family like Ozzie & Harriet, Father Knows Best, Donna Reed and
Leave it to Beaver. TV would later contribute to and reflect our loss of naïveté with such
ground-breaking shows as Smothers Brothers, Laugh-In, All in the Family and Saturday Night Live. Television's
impact cannot be overstated — we were the first to grow up with it and it helped to reinforce our
preoccupation with youth and Self.
A plethora of toys and gadgets were invented just for us: Slinky, Mr. Potato Head, Barbie,
Etch A Sketch, Silly Putty, Hula-Hoop, Frisbee, a watch with a Mickey Mouse face and the world's
biggest toy — Disneyland. Naïvely optimistic slogans professed things like "Progress is Our Most Important Product."
Planned obsolescence brought us the "new and improved" designed for quick and easy disposal. We
had transistor radios and record changers playing 45s. Stereo LPs, 8-track and cassettes would
soon follow. So would calculators, computer games, and digital watches. Yes, we were spoiled
and literally growing up like no generation before us.
We were comforted to know that we would always have all the food we would ever need —
with farm mechanization and the liberal use of pesticides. The threat of serious disease was virtually eradicated for us
with "miracle drugs" such antibiotics and vaccines. Advanced surgical techniques would enable
us to change our features, our gender and even replace internal organs when they wore out. We
learned that we could take drugs to cure infertility or The Pill to ensure it. What power was
brought forth for us!
We were dazzled with jets, rockets and space flight spurred by Sputnik. One day we would all
travel through space. Impatient families would ride in automobiles sporting bullet-nosed
bumpers and huge tail fins. I can remember being lectured at school that we should feel privileged
growing up in the Modern Age; and that our eyes would eventually see what no others saw before us.
But we didn't have to wait. We saw tremendous progress during those prosperous 1950s and '60s
and were often reminded that we would be the prime beneficiaries because "our whole lives were
ahead of us." Y-O-U-N-G was etched into our psyche. We felt catered to and it made us feel
very important — and that the world should revolve around us.
This attitude combined with our critical mass gave us leverage to have an impact on society
beginning in our late teens and twenties. We began to question everything and inadvertently turned
into a political force when our implanted optimism was replaced with disillusionment. We
became demonstrators, hippies, college drop-ins and establishment drop-outs — and we didn't trust
anyone over 30. We affected the style of dress, hair, and music; and hedonistically espoused "free love."
We marched to end the arms race, the Vietnam War, and to give Peace a chance. The unintended effects of the so-called miracle
drugs were beginning to show up with cancer and birth defects, and we read Rachel Carson's
Silent Spring. We became concerned about the impact "progress" was having on the environment.
And many tried but failed to escape this reality explosion with mind-altering drugs.
Then we turned 30. To remain trustworthy we selfishly redefined Young vs. Old. Our idealism
was replaced with good old-fashioned materialism. These would be the years of the Me
Generation. "Free love" was replaced with free spending. We sold our ideals for the good
life that selfishly included expensive vacations, cars and houses. While immersed in our
indulgence, we reached "the big 4-O." We were now a massive group of "yuppies" and although
we read cover stories about how we were losing our hair and gaining weight, we still were
unconvinced that we were getting old.
Then in the blink of an eye we hit 50 — that (gasp) half-century milestone. Although chronologically
defined as hard-core middle-agers, we still refused to succumb to the stereotype
of age that we held for our parents. We continued to rock'n'roll, workout to stay fit and tried
to eat healthy — or at least followed the fads from oat bran to pasta to tofu. It
was a good thing too; we needed all the energy and stamina we could muster to survive
the waves of downsizing, rightsizing, outsourcing and reengineering. Although many succumbed to
early retirement, that did not stop us from learning new tricks; from embracing the Internet
to becoming entrepreneurs. We'll survive, we told ourselves — we're resilient and Y-O-U-N-G.
Now we'll begin turning 65 and this famously spoiled (sans "baby"?) boomer demographic anomaly will be a force
to be reckoned with. We'll be retired but not retiring; a horde of 79 million gray-haired activists
that will leverage our generational clout to lobby for our interests.
By sheer demographic heft weighing in at 25% of the population, we'll again effect change as in years past. We'll read cover stories
at the 70- and 80-year milestones chronicling
our deterioration and the burden our cohort will be inflicting upon younger generations. And
the marketeers will be there pushing the latest pharma miracles, adult diapers, adjustable mattresses, hearing aids and life
insurance. They'll capitalize on our penchant for nostalgia that will inevitably precipitate an
onslaught of hyped retro-fads. We'll call ourselves rockers even when we're sitting in them
nodding off with Modern Maturity. And still we won't believe we're O-L-D.
The famous statement "...all men [and women!] are created equal..." appears in the opening of
the American Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson in 1776.
Depending on your beliefs, you may view your "Creator" as a higher being, or perhaps the
forces of Evolution and Natural Selection.
Regardless, as our quest for scientific knowledge marches on (making our lives ever more complex) — particularly
related to biology — we are going to have to accept that we are not all
created equal.
As gene mapping continues to identify what gene is responsible for what trait or function,
An entire industry will be born for splicing favorable genes to replace those
deemed undesirable.
we'll come face-to-face with our "good" and "bad" genes, and inevitably realize the reality
that every aspect of our lives is in some way affected by them.
With comparative genomics, DNA sequencing is in progress with humans, chimpanzees, gorillas,
orangutans, ancient hominids like Neanderthals, and even more primitive organisms down to
lowly yeast. When completed, we'll be able to identify genes that we have in common
with our hereditary ancestors going back millions of years.
As Dr. Terrence Deacon, professor of Biological Anthropology and Linguistics at University
of California-Berkeley states:
"Certainly studying human evolution makes you think about the future. It makes you realize
how much baggage we carry forward with us at all times."
Many experts acknowledge that we still harbor instinctive traits from our primitive past. And we have
to confront the stark reality that we'll soon have the capability to pinpoint who has what gene and its associated characteristic.
Perhaps it will explain much in terms of our oftentimes uncivilized, barbaric behavior.
Today DNA tests are used as "fingerprints" to prove culpability in crime. In the near
future potential perpetrators will be tagged virtually at birth when "crime" genes
are identified.
It is our take however that just about everything we do — every facet of
"humanness" — is controlled by our genes. Of course the nurture aspect plays a part too,
but even our reaction to our unique environment is determined
by our genes.
As genes are mapped to specific traits, it will become evident at conception who has an
advantage/disadvantage innately in terms of:
Musical talent
Athletic ability
"Photographic" memory
Reasoning ability
Phobias
Mathematical ability
Verbal ability and propensity to learn languages
Hand-eye coordination
Aggressiveness/passivity
Bravery/cowardice
You name it...
Of course along with this newfound knowledge will come genetic profiling — and an entire industry
Potential perpetrators will be tagged at birth when "crime" genes
are identified.
geared towards the splicing of perceived favorable genes in place of those deemed undesirable, for those
with the inclination and wherewithal. And this is where the real danger lies.
Just as our disruption of the macro-environment has led to pollution, species
extinction and global climate change — analogous unintended consequences await our
intrusion into the ancient inner workings of cells — due to our ignorance of
yet-to-be-discovered functions of non-coding (junk) DNA and convoluted
interrelationships between epigenetic switches and seemingly unrelated genes.
Worrisome? You decide.
*****
Finally, here's a suggestion: The next time you attend an event with people of similar
interest — a concert, lecture, museum, ball game, etc. — ponder how you found
yourself in the company of strangers with the same tastes, enthusiasm, excitement or passion —
as you. Was it free will? Or could it be you all have the same genes that led you there?
Here we are again, lamenting yet another year's passing while suffering post-celebratory
writer's block. Rather than trying to cobble together a half-hearted essay, we'll sheepishly
follow the last four years' cop-outs to lethargically review the "Twelve Blogs of 2010"
— with premature nostalgia and perhaps feigned interest as to whether they're still relevant.
• December's blog questioned whether knowledge
is beneficial or baneful:
Looking ahead to the future, too much knowledge might even be mentally debilitating.
Imagine an over-the-top scenario where we had to know from birth an important aspect
of our future — the date and time of our demise... (Read more)
• In November we did the math to
sum up whether we've experienced exponential progress since entering this century:
A lot happened in the 20th century making its end appear quite different from its
beginning. So, let's evaluate the most significant achievements/events that occurred in
those incredible ten decades vs. the 21st century to date... (Read more)
• October's blog contemplated why many
of today's richest, most influential and creative individuals broke from the
mold and charted their own paths to success:
The solution to increased competition from an ever-growing global workforce will
be attaining two important qualities sooner rather than later: maturity and
passion. Unfortunately many of today's youth are lacking in both, and that quest
seems to elongate with each succeeding generation... (Read more)
• In September we pondered whether too much time is being
squandered on skill-less gratification:
While watching an old Star Trek episode I realized that I and fellow Trekkies have been
watching Kirk and crew beaming up via the transporter for over forty years. I wonder now after
watching the series for so long, whether I'd be thrilled if the old-fashioned transporter (as well
as warp drive, phasers, and photon torpedoes) finally became reality...
(Read more)
• In August we suffered the recurring affliction
of "water on the brain":
Maybe we should instill among ourselves a new idiom-cum-mantra to "spend water like it's money."
We all tend to waste water and take its current abundance for granted.
Wouldn't it be prudent to pay more today to change our wasteful habits, while adopting a mindset
focused on conservation to build "aqua equity" for future generations?
(Read more)
• July's blog exposed the
significance of treating angina with Viagra:
The unexpected rise out of Viagra illuminates an important point: Drug synthesis and
discovery is not really by design, although most chemists in the industry will not
readily admit such. The chemical compounds are created with as much art as science by
unnatural means... (Read more)
• In June we lamented the metaphorical
switching of gears:
Shanthi Gears is not located in California, Ohio, Maryland, Massachusetts, Indiana, Connecticut or
New York. It's manufacturing those gears in Tamilnadu, India. And while it is turning the wheels of
industries worldwide, the U.S. has shifted into high gear towards a service economy. The once ubiquitous
"Made in U.S.A." is rarely seen today... (Read more)
• May's entry presents proof that having an interest
in predicting the future is by no means qualification to do so:
Who would have predicted that magazines would fade away into obscurity after
decades of influence and significance?
Certainly not me...
(Read more)
• In April we subscribed to the idea that the
periodicals industry is pursuing a self-fulfilling prophecy by warning of its own demise:
The obvious weakening of substantive content engenders a self-imposed fait accompli discouraging sales,
which in turn brings in less advertiser revenue, thus forcing staff cutbacks which lead to further decreases
in content, and a spiraling sales decline...
(Read more)
• The March blog attempts to explain
why epigenetics is downright frightening:
Epigenetics is a new sub-field of biology that studies how chemicals in our environmental can play havoc
"on top of" genes — acting like switches to turn them on or off abnormally. (The "epi" prefix means "on top
of," as in epidermis — the outer layer of skin "on top of" the dermis.) So even though the gene
appears normal and has not changed (or mutated), it does not function properly...
(Read more)
• In February big thoughts about small-minded
behavior prevailed:
And after thousands of years we're still at it. We can make just about anything into a symbol
of status. But one person's object of distinction might be another's folly. So we have to
be among like-minded people to make an impression. And you can't even take it with you!
(Read more)
• January's entry was tinged with nostalgia
and torpor — and guilt for not writing a new essay:
Here we are again, lamenting yet another year's passing while suffering post-celebratory
writer's block. Rather than trying to cobble together a half-hearted essay, we'll sheepishly
follow the last three years' cop-outs to lethargically review the "Twelve Blogs of 2009"
— with premature nostalgia and perhaps feigned interest as to whether they're still
relevant... (Read more).
You may or may not agree, but after reviewing the "Twelve Blogs of 2010" it appears most are still relevant as
we roll into the New Year. And somehow after recalling the energy that instigated the blogs to begin
with, we don't feel quite as lethargic.
Maybe that's the real benefit of looking backward, reminiscing and singing "Auld Lang Syne" — not
for nostalgia per se, but to recharge our batteries and begin another year with renewed energy and
enthusiasm.
Time will tell...
Happy New Year!
posted by John Herman 12:05 AM
Wednesday December 1, 2010
Is Knowledge Power — Or is it Burden?
"Knowledge is Power" is a well-known quotation, first uttered by Sir Francis Bacon in 1597.
Unfortunately in today's world knowledge is also a burden; a cause of worry.
Example: Global Warming.
Much worry is attributed to our knowledge of carbon dioxide emissions
and the theoretical impact of high concentrations in the atmosphere. Endless cerebral energy
is spent debating whether weather is made heavier and more erratic, and if/when coastal
cities will submerge. Yet it still may be proven to be a false theory. [We don't think
so.] But might we be better off being dumb and happy?
Example: The mapping of the human genome.
As knowledge of genetics becomes more sophisticated, susceptibility to ever more
diseases will be determined by markers (gene sequences) within a person's genome. Imagine the agony
knowing that a terminal or debilitating disease is inevitable, well before any symptoms and
before an effective cure becomes available. Many will find themselves cheated out of a joyful
life knowing that someday they are likely to succumb to an inherited genetic disorder.
Example: The anticipation of a deadly pandemic.
Many around the world are involved envisioning horror scenarios should a virus
mutate into a form that can be transmitted among humans.
Just enough is known about viruses and past pandemics to ponder the consequences.
Several years ago it was feared the H5N1 bird-borne flu bug would evolve
yielding humans as the primary viral host.
Much energy is expended discussing "What if?", brewing worldwide fear.
It may never happen. But then again, it might.
Example: Events calculated to be "overdue" based on mathematical laws of probability.
Anxiety can be engendered in a locale or region susceptible to devastating hurricanes
or earthquakes if, based on historical data, it is deemed at risk "any year now."
It makes for great TV news on a slow day, and is a cause of (needless?) apprehension.
Could our sophisticated state of knowledge be burden enough to instigate proactive worry —
and contribute to the reasons why a great many people smoke, drink and participate
in other activities that assist them to take leave of their senses?
*****
Looking ahead to the future, too much knowledge might even be mentally debilitating.
Imagine an over-the-top scenario [again?!] where we had to know from birth an important aspect
of our future — the date and time of our demise. Once cognizant, would we not
count each day in anticipation of "The End," effectively zapping our lust for life?
Who knows, conditions related to population or some other critical parameter may eventually warrant
a predetermined appointment with death... To donate a brain perhaps? ;-)
It's been a while since we took Ray Kurzweil to task, the self-proclaimed "visionary futurist," whom we fondly
call Chiphead, our respectfully disrespectful appellation for the champion of
chip-based intelligence. He predicts "We won't experience 100 years of progress in the 21st century — it
will be more like 20,000 years of progress (at today's rate)."
We relish lambasting Kurzweil because of his unabashed arrogance. A lot happened in the 20th century making its end
appear quite different from its beginning. So, let's evaluate the most significant achievements/events that
occurred in those incredible ten decades vs. the 21st century to date, which is already approaching one-tenth
of its 100 years. You can then adjudge the veracity of Kurzweil since we should have already progressed ten percent
of 20,000 years. (Do the math, that's 2000 years of progress since entering this new century.)
Significant achievements/events in the 20th Century:
broadcast radio — cultural homogenization
airplane — shrinking of the globe
telephony — connecting the world
tungsten light bulb — consumption of electricity, 24 X 7
DNA double helix — life built from lifeless molecules
rock 'n' roll — generational segregation 1.0
credit cards — living beyond our means
Sputnik — Space Race, spin-off technology
The Pill — equality of the sexes
cable TV — cultural splintering
microprocessor — PCs and computerized everything
Internet/Web — digital revolution, outsourcing and offshoring
Wow! It could be debated though whether the list is the most significant. Perhaps there should be more, maybe
less. And which is the most influential? Depending upon your perspective, it might be the automobile, The Pill, TV or
the microprocessor. Then again, the influence of an event then might not be perceived as significant in this new century
— like the Space Race perhaps.
An objective approach is to use some measuring criteria. In keeping with the offbeat spirit of this website,
we hereby propose the "B-movie* plot test," using the fodder of drive-in theaters from days gone by. (From Wikipedia:
The term B-movie originally referred to a motion picture made on a modest budget and intended for distribution as the
less-publicized, bottom half of a double feature. U.S. production of movies intended as second features largely ceased
by the end of the 1950s.)
Based of the following plethora of radiation-based B-movie plots, we submit that the atomic bomb had the biggest overall
impact during the 20th century. Just feast on the beasts below:
The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms — an atomic test in the arctic thaws a dinosaur so it can migrate back to New York to cause havoc.
Godzilla — American hydrogen bomb tests awaken and mutate the monster Godzilla. You know the rest.
Them! — the first U.S. nuclear test causes ants to mutate into giants.
The Beast of Yucca Flats — a defecting Russian scientist is chased by the KGB and winds up amidst a nuclear mushroom cloud. The radiation turns him into a killing beast.
The Amazing Colossal Man — a U.S. soldier suffers serious burns following exposure to plutonium from a bomb blast. He survives but the radiation causes him to grow into a giant.
The Crawling Eye — a radioactive cloud sitting atop a mountain has its climbers winding up decapitated without explanation.
Hideous Sun Demon — decades before sunblock and SPF, a scientist exposed to a radioactive isotope devolves into a scaly reptilian when caught in the rays of the sun.
The Giant Behemoth — at a science conference it is noted that atomic tests have contaminated plankton, fish, and birds in a "biological chain reaction" of radiation culminating with a monster that burns flesh with radioactive waves.
The Incredible Shrinking Man — a man is subjected to a radioactive mist that causes him to shrink beyond detection.
You could dismiss all this as Phrenicea-phoolery. But the 1950s were indeed scary and the atomic bomb is right up there
in terms of centurial impact.
Now for a comparison let's list the significant aspects of the 21st Century to date:
human genome mapping — Too Much Information, personal revelations that we'll not want to cope with
Facebook — virtual socialization (seeds of Phrenicea?)
Internet dependence — on par with electricity and fresh water
Financial Meltdown — bank losses, credit contraction, loss of jobs, eroding
property values, mortgage defaults.
What will be the most significant? 9/11? The iPod? Facebook? Dependence on the Internet? It's hard to infer from the narrow
perspective of the present day (and sans the B-movie test!). But one thing's certain — we'll not have 2000
years of progress in this decade.
*****
In sensible and realistic terms, the sweeping change of the 20th century is going to be a tough act to follow.
The world has changed. Jobs are being lost to technology, outsourcing and the "flattening" of organizations. As intellectual skills rise globally, many of the jobs left are lower paying, heeding the old law of supply and demand.
This new reality shatters the half-century old model for graduating high school, attending college, and then getting a good "white collar" job.
You may have heard stories like these:
A fine arts graduate working as a "sales associate" at electronics chain
A perpetual full-time student serialing changing majors pursuing a bachelor degree
well beyond the expected four years
A mathematics graduate stocking shelves at a health food store
Add one or more of your own here
Typically these are students who aren't sure of their purpose in life, and thus are funneled into a college course of study for the wrong reasons: pleasing parents; it's what's expected; anticipation of good money after graduation; a prestigious title; or perhaps the lure of landing a job with summers off and generous benefits.
The solution to increased competition from an ever-growing global workforce will be attaining two important qualities sooner rather than later: maturity and passion. Unfortunately many of today's youth are lacking in both,
The flood of intellectual talent morphs the corporate ladder into a horizontal plank.
and that quest seems to elongate with each succeeding generation. Today's extended reliance on parents precludes the development of independence and can encourage a preoccupation with proving adulthood through self-destructive means like binge drinking and worse. If young adults truly had adult responsibilities, such conspicuous indulgences would be pointless.
This is not folly. U.S. Newsreported
on a film, "Two Million Minutes: A Global Examination" comparing American teenagers' attitudes to those in India and China. The conclusion: U.S. students are preoccupied with "having fun," and are less focused and motivated.
It's not necessarily the kids' fault. They're pushed, prodded and subjected to structured programs in academics and sports that rob them of extemporaneous life experiences and a sense of personal accountability. With little time to experiment and make self-inflicted mistakes, absent is the benefit from the consequent lessons that would result. (Ironically, many times it's the accumulated wisdom from mistakes that is most beneficial years hence.)
Here's an excerpt from one student's college essay:
The competition is fierce. I've heard the infamous question, "What do you want to be when you grow up?" ever since I first started school. The expectation of teachers, guidance counselors and even family members contributes to the constant pressure for young adults to distinguish their future. When I was younger, I promised myself that I would end up doing something I truly loved. Feeling overwhelmed makes it harder for students to discover who they really are as people. Before all the stress, I used to have a long list of potential professions in mind, but now it all seems faint.
Not to paint an overly bleak picture, in reality many are ready to attend college right after high school;
Alternate pursuits not congruent with expectations should not be deemed inferior.
they're the fortunate ones. Too many are not however. For them, this is not a recommendation to not attend college, but to suggest that alternate pursuits not be deemed inferior if not congruent with entrenched expectations. Entering college prematurely, before some self-initiated responsibility and maturity have been garnered, is an invitation to disappointment.
It's not obvious today that the expectation of attending college is a relatively new phenomenon, first fueled by the post WWII GI Bill and mature, serious-minded veterans determined to climb the corporate ladder. But given the flood of intellectual talent nowadays, that ladder oftentimes morphs into a horizontal plank.
Perhaps its time to go back to the model that existed prior to WWII. Very few went to college; most found jobs right from high school. The benefit however was that the responsibilities of adulthood came very fast.
Just imagine a parent encouraging their college-aged son or daughter to:
Go out and experience life. Get a job. McDonalds', Home Depot, Starbucks and a zillion retail stores are starving for
competent help. Then strive to earn some responsibility. Become a supervisor or assistant manager. Learn to effectively deal with customers, and employees both more senior and junior than you. These jobs are hard work. They are at times monotonous and can even be degrading. Become aware of what it's like to begin work without a specific skill set. Still, there are invaluable lessons to be learned. Wisdom to be acquired. The attainment of compassion and empathy. The opportunity to earn respect from others as well as for yourself.
Then after this experience perhaps you'll be better prepared for college. And you won't need your parents' hounding to earn good grades. You'll want them all by yourself.
Heresy? Of course this goes against the grain of today's expectations. But you may have heard of several well-known and successful individuals who followed unorthodox career paths, including Bill Gates (co-founder of Microsoft), Richard Branson (entrepreneur, Virgin Records & Airways), Arnold Schwarzenegger (bodybuilder/actor/governor), Steve Jobs (co-founder of Apple), Michael Dell (founder of Dell Computer), Craig Venter (iconoclastic genomic pioneer, first to decipher human genome), Billy Joel (pop musician), Ian Anderson (self-taught musician, salmon farm entrepreneur).
Is it a coincidence that many of today's richest, most influential and creative individuals broke from the mold and charted their own paths to success?
With the ever-increasing worldwide competition for jobs, the key to success may be discovering very soon after high school innate talents and a passion for something; anything. (As Google's super-successful executive
chef
Josef Desimone imparts, "I never wanted to be an astronaut... I only wanted to cook.")
What accompanies passion is an inexhaustible reservoir of energy for accomplishment. To quote an old proverb: "Do work you love and you'll never work a day in your life."
Maturity and Passion — a fortuitous combination — perhaps the 21st-century passport to success. Luckiest are the ones that have it at an early age. Fortunate are the ones that acquire it eventually. Sorry will be the ones unable to achieve it in time, or at all.
While watching an old Star Trek episode entitled "Return to Tomorrow," I realized that I
and fellow Trekkies have been watching Kirk
and crew beaming up via the
transporter
for over forty years. I wonder now after watching the series for so long, whether I'd be thrilled
if the old-fashioned transporter (as well as warp drive, phasers, and photon torpedoes)
finally became reality. With the ever-increasing sophistication of special effects that
can sometimes seem more real than for real: Are we becoming desensitized not only
to the present — but also to the yet-to-be?
Looking back, the goal of audiovisual technologies in the early days was to make the artificial
seem real. Phonographic recording media began as scratchy cylinders and clay platters and
progressed to crystal clear
Reality show popularity reflects an ironic yearning to experience reality, via TV!
multi-channel discs that can sound better than live. Films evolved to do the same, from the
primitive "silents" to the first "talkies" to Technicolor and widescreen leading to today's
mind-blowing digital IMAXs. With all this amazing technology, the real — when it is
remarkable in some fashion — now evokes the artificial.
For example, living through a tornado might remind one of the movie Twister. Seeing
a dangerous car chase could elicit Gone in 60 Seconds. If and when we're invaded by
aliens, it'll probably recall Alien, ET,
Close Encounters or War of the Worlds — depending on their demeanor.
If the experts warning of global warming are correct, one day reality will summon The Day
After Tomorrow. If biologists succeed in cloning extinct species, we'll all be able to visit
Jurassic Park. Maybe life imitating art will be the norm and not the exception.
Perhaps; But how can we continue to consume escapist entertainment when the unreal and real
become so blurred inside our heads? It used to be that we were only living the movie while
watching it. Today they are etched in our minds for life, just waiting to be educed by circumstance.
And as the special effects continue to dazzle beyond physical reality, we'll have trouble
living in the relatively staid present without suffering mental spasms of withdrawal.
The Phrenicea scenario envisions future inhabitants swapping their
present with the past to escape their boring existence — reconstituting moments lived by
others by bidding on bits of memories stored within Phrenicea's braincomb. Will they just be
experiencing old TV and movie clips?
Today, many young adults watch Sex and the City, Friends and Seinfeld
et al until they can recite every line from every episode, fantasizing their real-life relationships
will be as interesting as idealized fiction. Looking at it from a different perspective; Would
they watch a Friends episode portraying the characters watching a Friends
Maybe life imitating art will be the norm and not the exception.
episode? Sounds awfully boring. And that's the point — Are they wasting their corporeal
lives watching TV, DVDs and other vicariousnesses like YouTube? Ironically, the popularity of
reality shows might reflect a yearning to experience reality, albeit via TV! Has real living
become that tedious?
More worrisome, the fake is overtaking "for real" in other aspects of life as well. The music
video game Guitar Hero simulates the playing of guitar using just five colored fret buttons. More than
20 million have been sold. Tournaments and competitions are the rage — all to electronically
mimic the real thing without learning music terminology, theory, notes, or chords. Mastery of
hand-eye coordination is the only requisite. Is too much time being squandered on skill-less
gratification rather than on authentic knowledge acquisition and appreciation? Are there too many
imitation lives imitating art?
Now that the lazy, hazy, crazy days of summer are upon us, it's a good time to use the
sultry weather as an opportunity to revisit yet again our feverish condition of "water on the brain." Way back
in 2001 our "H2Ouch!" page began recommending the following:
"Pretend you were to pay $1/gallon the next time you take a shower or bath, brush your teeth,
flush a toilet, wash the dishes, or God forbid — water the lawn! Begin to use less water than
the average person. Set an example. Prevent H2Ouch!"
We still believe this is good advice, but perhaps the "hyperhydro" proposal was and still is naïve. The problem is that
there is little incentive to conserve fresh water from the tap — given its ridiculously low
price. For example, I recently received my "Annual Water Supply Report" from my local water
company and was dismayed at how little fresh water costs. Here's the breakdown:
Quarterly Water Rates — Residential
Consumption (gallons)
Charges
Up to 8,000
8,001 - 58,000
58,001 - 100,000
Over 100,000
$10.00 minimum
$0.90 / thousand gallons
$1.15 / thousand gallons
$1.40 / thousand gallons
A dollar for 1000 gallons of clean, fresh tap water? That's insane! By comparison, bottled water
by the gallon costs about $1.99. Not bad, but that's $1990 for 1000 gallons. Why is there such a
cost disparity with tap water? How can anyone be motivated to conserve water at these low rates,
Wouldn't it be prudent build "aqua equity" for future generations?
other than via a guilty conscious? And let's face it; there aren't many turning on their taps
ladened with guilt. (If the water companies got savvy they'd upmarket their image with exotic
brand names, pricing and refillable bottles with fancy labels
adding cachet to their product. Imagine having
bragging rights to elite-sounding potable water! It's not that silly a suggestion, since that is essentially
what Coca-Cola did with Dasani and PepsiCo with Aquafina. They're both filtered municipal tap water.)
Actually what we really need is a "watershed moment"; a trickle-down epiphany to appreciate how finite
and precious our water supply is. The first step should be to make users conscious of their water
consumption — and that can be accomplished handily by raising the price per gallon and using a more
dramatic cost gradient for excessive use. It sounds crazy, but those concerned about conservation
should lobby for pricing increases.
Another way to raise awareness might be to move our water meters out from their usual obscure
locations into full view in kitchens and bathrooms — fitted with big, red digital read-outs
displaying gallons used in real time. Education on where our water comes from and how it's treated,
We should instill among ourselves an idiom-cum-mantra to "spend water like it's money."
stored, delivered and renewed would also serve to engender an appreciation of what
is the major constituent of all living things.
There's an old saying attributed to spendthrifts that says they "spend money like it's water." Maybe
we should instill among ourselves a new idiom-cum-mantra to "spend water like it's money."
Since we all tend to waste water and take its abundance for granted — it even
unintentionally spills over into the comics:
Wouldn't it be prudent to pay more today to change our wasteful habits, while adopting a mindset
focused on conservation to build "aqua equity" for future generations?
Workin' the Pharm:
"Ask your doctor about Vesi • lev • esta • vix • rum • vix • ami • cele • max • gel • ser • iza • vet • avo • cal • zet • via • ara • nex • xol • quel • xyz • luc • lis • tis • tor • itra • ast • tia • ica • gra • iva...!"
We're bombarded nowadays with drug ads in print and on TV called "direct to consumer advertising." Their proliferation is a result of a 1997 FDA change allowing pharmaceutical companies to promote drugs without having to elaborate the negative side-effects. A great business sales model immediately emerged to recruit consumers into believers, who then cajole their doctors into prescribing drugs.
Here's a "short" hawking list compiled from TV and a few magazines:
Celebrex
Amitiza
Viagra
Vytorin
Nexium
Crestor
Plavix
Actonel
Lunesta
Evista
Nasonex
Asmanex
Boniva
Symbicort
Vesicare
Roserum
Flowmax
Caduet
Lipitor
Avodart
Singulair
Lunesta
Januvia
Zetia
Reclast
Levitra
Xyzal
Lucentis
Cialis
Seroquel
Xolegel
Marketing firms are paid big money to create these arbitrary (meaningless) names that are then registered as unique trademarks. The guidelines appear to be short names, five to eight letters, constructed from a common set of syllables — perhaps explaining why they all have a "drug-sounding" resonance.
Reading the list above for the first time you'd probably guess that they were drugs. The challenge then for creating new names is to find new syllable combinations not yet coined. Choosing six syllables from the heading above — born here are Nexquel, Estavix and Vexizet. They sure sound like drugs and per Google they're not in use. (The futuristic entity Phrenicea was coined analogously eleven years ago by combining phrenic and panacea !)
The intent of pharmaceutical companies is to make their names familiar with unrelenting advertising using memorable jingles like Viva Viagra!, cryptic hints on par with "When the moment is right, you can be ready" and citing identifiable conditions such as acid reflux (Nexium), osteoporosis (Boniva), allergies (Singulair), heart risks (Lipitor), diabetes (Januvia), bladder urges (Vesicare or Flowmax), enlarged prostate (Avodart), high cholesterol (Crestor or Zetia), or high blood pressure (Caduet). And of course everyone knows what Viagra purports to cure.
To see how well the drug companies have been able to brand their names into your brain, scan the list above and click a check inside the boxes for those that are familiar.
How many did you check? Perhaps more than you would have guessed. That's the power of advertising.
Very few new drugs make it to a list like this however. Only one out of ten earns FDA approval after three phases of exacting clinical trials. Most new drugs either have no effect or are harmful.
The unexpected rise out of Viagra makes clear that drug discovery is not by design.
Another outcome is the unexpected. Many are not aware that Viagra was originally tested to treat angina and by serendipity became famous with a surprising side effect. After the (probable) chuckles during trial testing subsided, the once meaningless v-i-a-g-r-a would become an official entry in Webster's dictionary. Perhaps one day it will even become a genericized trademark like zipper, kleenex, velcro, scotch tape, band-aid, coke and Q-tip.
The unexpected rise out of Viagra illuminates an important point: Drug synthesis and discovery is not really by design, although most chemists in the industry will not readily admit such. The chemical compounds are created with as much art as science by unnatural means, with elaborate apparatus to control physical conditions of temperature, pressure, etc. They're then evaluated via empirics with animals and humans, which is a fancy way of saying they watch for indications (good effects) and reactions (bad effects) and contraindications (bad combinations) with other drugs, chemicals, and nutrients. The entire process can take years or decades.
Because so many of the intricacies of human body chemistry are a yet to be learned or explained, oftentimes how a drug works (pharmacodynamics) is a mystery. The pamphlet insert (which hardly anyone bothers to read) for Aldera cream states, "The mechanism of action is unknown." In layman's terms it would read, "We have no idea how this stuff works."
That explains too why so little is known about the long-term impact of these synthetic concoctions, and why in some cases they have to be pulled from the market due to unforeseen negative complications (Vioxx).
Not ironically, the benign sounding drug names drummed into us belie all this complexity. The trade name Plavix has the clunky generic name of clopidogrel, which pales next to its chemical name:
Imagine putting music and images to clopidogrel, or worse — methyl dihydrothiano pyridin acetate. Would you be as easily swayed to "ask your doctor" as the Plavix advertisements implore?
If you've taken a course in organic chemistry you might comprehend more of this. But then you would better appreciate the complexity of the human body, and the precarious chances taken when ingesting these novel
Plow a furrow of skepticism in your brow as harvests past yielded unexpected results.
chemicals never before seen in nature; created in laboratories with equipment that defies evolutionary rules and the eons of time to be in harmony with biological systems.
Nevertheless, the next time you find yourself "workin' the pharm" by asking your doctor about a drug you saw on TV or in a magazine, don't be afraid to get your hands dirty beforehand by digging up your own proverbial dirt via the Web or elsewhere to learn "what's in a name" — and then muster the vigor to plow a furrow of skepticism in your brow as harvests past have tended to yield unexpected crops.
While trying to peer into the future I also find enjoyment looking backwards in time.
A particular fascination is juxtaposing the past to the present and future by flipping
through old magazines from decades past. Revealing are the ads that reflect the mood
of the time as well as general economic conditions. (Unfortunately this ability may
well be lost going forward if much of today's print media falls victim to purely online
content.)
On a recent treasure hunt, I found in the stacks at a nearby university library a musty bound
collection of Scientific American magazines from 1954. Most of the ads were by
manufacturers touting their engineering and technical might to attract clients as well as
recruit talent. The ads reflect unabashedly the post-WWII booming optimism and fixation on
progress — that era's buzzword. (It would be at least a decade before "progress" would
become almost a pejorative term in hindsight of the unintended consequences of unbridled technical
advancement of that time.)
Here's just a sample of the testosterone-infused ads from those vintage magazines:
Click images to magnify
Click images to magnify
Ohio's Cleveland Tool Company "discovered how to shrink motors by floating a screw on a
stream of balls," eliminating the need for excess power to overcome friction.
California's Hewlett-Packard Co., then a "World leader in electronic measuring instruments,"
brags that "advanced electronic test instruments are invaluable in rocketry, nuclear physics
and research into interstellar phenomena."
Air Research Manufacturing Co. in Los Angeles answered the U.S. Air Force's call to build a
The U.S. was an energized hotbed of industrial activity.
jet engine starter four times as powerful as anything before and only slightly larger than the
original.
Haynes Alloys Co. from Kokomo, Indiana produced "alloys for every wear condition shaped to your
specifications." All you had to do was send them a blueprint of a part that was prematurely
wearing out and they'd solve your problem.
Lycoming Co. in Stratford, Connecticut crows about "Peak performance by any product requires big performance
from small parts. Lycoming's skill at producing such custom parts explains why so many leading
manufacturers look to Lycoming with its 2 million feet of floor space, and 6,000-plus machine tools
ready to serve you."
Ford Instrument Co. in Long Island City, New York boasts that "Taming the monster power of a nuclear
reactor requires precision control of all the elements. Ford Instrument is designing controls that
seek and hold the optimum power level of the pile and keep the rods so exactly set that the reactor's
energy is harnessed safely, securely."
As I continued to flip the pages, Doelcam Corporation from Boston touted micro-precision synchros.
Maryland's Bendix Aviation Corp. bragged that Ni-Span diaphragms were heat treated in a vacuum
furnace and tukon[!] tested for hardness. California's Kollsman Instrument Corp. instructs that
"The old Roman god Janus lives today in servo mechanisms, instruments and controls which take
past information and use it to guide the future." Bersworth Chemical Co. in Framingham,
Massachusetts for more than a quarter century devoted all their time, talent and energies to
the study of chelate chemistry.
And this goes on and on — page after page, ad after ad. What becomes obvious is the U.S.
was an energized hotbed of industrial activity.
You just don't see ads like this anymore and I thought for sure I'd never see them in today's
"Made in U.S.A." is rarely seen today.
magazines. That's why I almost fell off my chair when reading a relatively current Business
Week, turning to a full-page ad filled with a swagger and bravado and masculine images of meshing gears and heavy-duty
gearboxes. The advertiser was Shanthi Gears, "turning the wheels of industries worldwide" with "no compromise, total trust and quality
at its best manifestation."
Wow! This page would fit quite comfortably inside those old Scientific American magazines.
Then I noticed the one major difference from the old days:
Shanthi Gears is not located in California, Ohio, Maryland, Massachusetts, Indiana, Connecticut or
New York. It's manufacturing those gears in Tamilnadu, India. And while it is turning the wheels of
industries worldwide, the U.S. has shifted into high gear towards a service economy. The once ubiquitous
"Made in U.S.A." is rarely seen today.
Dennis the Menace. Reprinted with Special Permission of North American Syndicate.
Looking backwards in time adds perspective when trying to peer into the future. Questions to ponder
include whether shifting to a service economy is wise in the long term, and whether India (and
of course China) will one day switch gears to follow that same path.
Last month's "A Subscription Rx" generated some thoughtful feedback. The
two most popular themes; magazines are expensive and not
good for the environment, nor are they conducive to deep intellectual
enlightenment. Here are two submissions that are representative:
Considering the amount [of money] that you spent on your magazine subscriptions, you could probably
afford an iPad (or at minimum, a Kindle).
Not only can you get your magazine news articles, but you'll be considered "Green," as
you will not be contributing to the mass destruction of our forests for the
perpetuation of a business that is dying.
Submitted by Howie L.
I have never understood the fascination with magazines especially auto magazines — it’s like reading
the owner's manual for your automobile; full of facts and boring, and that accounts for almost half of
your reading.
Then there’s the information magazines like Time and NewsWeek, that’s similar to reading
the OPED pages in your Local Newspaper. I have found that people who read these fading pieces of
paper stapled together rarely are into reading hard covered books, which have a way
of taking you into the past, the present and sometimes the future.
I had the opportunity to take
a tour of Trinity College in Dublin built in 1592 with one of the oldest libraries in the world;
books going back to year 800 and not a magazine to be found.
Magazines started around 1900 in
this country and your auto magazines around 1940 so they really have not been around that long
and have been getting smaller and now gradually disappearing.
I think you made a wise decision [canceling your subscriptions] and
can’t imagine the money that went down the drain and the amount of garbage you created, you should
be ashamed of yourself.
Now if you want a form of escapism get yourself a good novel. It will take
you on a fantasy and adventure at times; it can lead you into a world that is more interesting
and exciting than your own.
Plus you can go to your local library to borrow a great book; it doesn’t cost you a dime unless you're
late returning it — not to mention you pay taxes for the facility so use it.
Good reading!!!
Submitted by John S.
In addition to feedback, several timely indicators were encountered reaffirming
the contention that magazines are on their way out.
First was an email from Newsweek almost begging for subscription renewal, followed
by paging to an advertisement funded by the magazine industry disputing their ominous future, and
then receiving notification that BusinessWeek would be ending its 80-year
run — a consequence of McGraw-Hill's unloading it to Bloomberg News, who will leverage
its news organization in an attempt to keep the publication afloat. (It won't be
surprising when it eventually sheds the BusinessWeek name altogether.)
Found too was an essay (ironically published in April 19 Time magazine) written by
Alan Brinkley, Professor of History at Columbia University, entitled "What
Would Henry Do?", contemplating how Time co-founder Henry Luce
would deal with the challenges of today's digital age and whether he'd be as
successful in revolutionizing the spread of knowledge. Brinkley is not optimistic,
"I fear the fallout from the decline of traditional media will endanger our ability
to understand our world. But I hope for the best."
Finally, an extemporaneous trip to the library revealed a downsized periodicals section with many empty
slots.
Newsweek gets desperate...
Come Back! 90% Off!
The Magazine Industry gets delusional:
Swimming in magazines?
Time magazine's past and future:
"The Luce magazines have not fared well."
Goodbye BusinessWeek
Another publishing institution bites the dust...
Library shelves emptying:
Swimming in magazines?
*****
Who would have predicted that magazines would fade away into obscurity after
decades of influence and significance?
Certainly not me — which is proof that having an interest in predicting the future
is by no means qualification to do so.
However, Phrenicea did predict way back in 1999
that there would be "no news" in the short story The Engagement of Phrenicea.
Time will tell...
posted by John Herman 11:49 PM
Thursday April 1, 2010
A Subscription Rx
I've decided to cancel most of my magazine subscriptions — a self-imposed prescribed proscription.
Here I thought I would one day impress my offspring with published letters
alongside the likes of Microsoft's Bill Gates (read)
and Lee Iacocca of Chrysler fame (read).
Many others found their way into print through the years, including rants excoriating
the hubris of a technical genius
(read &
read) and even a clever quote
in Time (read).
Less impressive but still gratifying was Fortune magazine's inclination to print my submissions
including prescient views on boomer retirement (read),
career advancement (read),
career vs. family (read),
rude GenXers (read),
and even a sentimental encomium to their magazine's elegant beginnings
(read).
More fun was seeing my first letter published in Motor Trend bragging of my power of persuasion
(read),
a nostalgic tribute to General Motors' Craftsman Guild
(read), and mini-essays
describing my three-decade-old battle with Mother Nature
(read)
my innate interest in cars and model building
(read)
and a tongue-in-cheek lament about the dangers of playing with DNA
(read).
But who would have predicted that magazines would fade away into obscurity after
decades of influence, significance, and power in terms of advertising might?
Certainly not me — which is proof that having an interest in predicting the future
is by no means qualification to do so.
Nevertheless, I expect to save a lot of time and money, here is my current subscription list:
- Time
- Newsweek
- BusinessWeek
- Fortune
- Motor Trend
- Car and Driver
- Automobile
- Road and Track
- Collectible Automobile
- Consumer Reports
- Scientific American Mind
- AutoRestorer
- Science News
- World Future Society
- BBC Knowledge
- US News & World Report
The periodicals industry has been predicting its own demise yielding it a self-fulfilling
prophecy. There's a dramatic contrast in content from the past, both
literally and figuratively. For example, Time magazine is shrinking in pages
and physical dimensions (look).
'Who would have predicted that magazines would fade away into obscurity?'
Back in 1969 each issue's cover held about 80 pages and
measured 8.5" X 11, for fifty cents. This week's issue comes out at 7.75" X 10.5"
with just 56 pages, too many photos and too little content. The flimsy weekly
hardly appears worth its $4.95 cover price.
Not to pick on Time, Newsweek morphed from a competing clone into what now resembles
a compilation of editorials of questionable worth.
US News & World Report, soon after my latest renewal and without warning, went
monthly in print and weekly on the web,
as if I have time to read it with any degree of concentration on my computer.
And then car enthusiast's Autoweek followed suit.
It's such a shame, publications like Time, Newsweek and US
News were the bastions of respected world and
national reporting. High school students were encouraged by their teachers to
subscribe to complement their textbooks and provide source material for term papers
(look).
And even recalcitrant youngsters learned grammar and syntax while (surreptitiously)
consuming automotive magazines like Motor Trend
and Hot Rod.
The obvious weakening of substantive content engenders a self-imposed fait accompli discouraging
sales, which in turn brings in less advertiser revenue, thus forcing staff cutbacks which lead to
further decreases in content, and a spiraling sales decline.
Then the desperation becomes obvious: Fast Company recently offered a year's
subscription for $5. Fortune's solicitation was $10 for a year. I discarded both,
with the expectation that they'd go the online route like US News, or fold altogether.
Times change. Technology infiltrates. Life magazine was huge in the 1950s in terms of readership and
famous for its photography; It was supplanted by television. Will the Internet now kill its
once-sister Time magazine and its ilk?
Perhaps this is just an enexorable future unfolding — as Phrenicea predicted way back in 1999
that there would be "no news" in the short story The Engagement of Phrenicea.
Time will tell...
posted by John Herman 4:12 AM
Monday March 1, 2010
Epigenetics and You...
The study of biology is difficult. The study of physics is difficult. The study of chemistry
is difficult. Once learned, we tend to view these and other scientific disciplines as our
inventions — often flaunting erudition with advanced-degree titles — when
essentially all they are is our explanation of the complexities of nature — or worse — imagined competencies
that can beget arrogance to disturb natural equilibriums.
In February 1953 James Watson and Francis Crick, after several years of leveraging their (and others')
understanding of nature's complexity, announced to the world the chemical structure of DNA. Over the years
much has been learned about the molecule that is common to all life on earth — but only recently has it
become a colloquial term related primarily to forensics to identify perpetrators of crime. For most of
the lay public, that is about as much as they know about the acronym.
'Imagined competencies can beget arrogance to disturb natural equilibriums.'
DeoxyriboseNucleicAcid is a long-chained chemical molecule that functions as life's blueprint, and can be
visualized simplistically as a ladder twisted like a spiral staircase — with each step (for illustration
purposes) being one of four colors: black, white, red, or green.
Long stretches of DNA with many steps become genes. Many genes strung together become chromosomes. Every human
has in each of their trillion cells 23 different chromosomes
each containing thousands of genes. There are actually two sets of 23 chromosomes, one set from each parent.
And each of the 23 has specific functions assigned — like growing fingernails or hair, or shaping the nose, etc.
The order or sequence of the steps' colors is important and unique to each person — and can reveal identity
conclusively just like fingerprints. In other words, a person's uniqueness is determined by the sequence of
the steps as one would imagine when climbing their DNA ladder. (For example: red, green, green, green, black, red,
red, white,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, red = Jane Doe.)
The study of DNA, genes and chromosomes and how they function is called genetics. Like biology, physics and
chemistry — genetics is difficult too.
And what about epigenetics?
Epigenetics is a new sub-field of biology that studies how chemicals in our environmental can play havoc
"on top of" genes — acting like switches to turn them on or off abnormally. (The "epi" prefix means "on top
of," as in epidermis — the outer layer of skin "on top of" the dermis.) So even though the gene
appears normal and has not changed (or mutated), it does not function properly. Imagine those colored
steps mentioned above blocked at various points to prevent them from being useful, even though they are still
there undamaged.
Why is Epigenetics Significant?
Epigenetics is becoming important because it appears that many of the 80,000 man-made chemicals and pollutants in our
environment can inadvertently create these epi-switches — and incredibly these can be passed on to future
generations. The scary part then is that what your parents or grandparents were exposed to, before you were born,
might be more detrimental cumulatively than anything you are exposed to directly in your lifetime; and the new switches
you accumulate with exposure to today's many new toxins can too be passed on to your children and grandchildren.
So what does this mean?
It means that with each generation the impact is potentially cumulative — and many scientists in the field are convinced that
Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, cancer, autism, obesity, diabetes, asthma and perhaps many more maladies
may be caused by the effects of epigenetics.
Biology, physics, chemistry and genetics may be difficult — but epigenetics is downright frightening!
For the optimists reading this, we can alternatively view epigenetics from a positive viewpoint:
• Way back in 1999, the short story The Engagement of Phrenicea prophesied, "artificial genes producing hormonal
parameters and switches — in simplistic terms — could be set or reset by Phrenicea to control
or monitor behavior “officially” defined as antisocial, criminal, etc. [No crime!]
• And in 2004 we teased, "What if you could achieve and maintain the
health that physical exercise promised, without any effort? If you could stay in so-called perfect
physical condition without exercise, would you still workout? By mid-century this fantasy becomes reality.
It was discovered that embedded within our DNA are gene expression-controlling switches tailored to
'sculpt' your preferred body shape. This epigenetic information can help to regulate the quantity and
quality of the various chemical and structural components that make up our bodies. Ironically, it is
the so-called 'junk' DNA, ignored for 50 years, that harbors these growth-controlling switches." [No exercise!]
Time will tell...
posted by John Herman 6:53 AM
Monday February 1, 2010
The Evolution of Status
After many years of blood and sweat, I was fortunate
enough to have the opportunity to purchase a house constructed from the ground up. It was an
exciting experience watching barren land evolve into livable structures; the genesis of yet another
suburban development supplanting what was once a dairy farm.
As the homes were completed and occupied in almost perfect sequential order, the display of
owner status in various degrees became evident and resembled a stadium crowd performing
"the wave" at a sporting event.
After the wave subsided, what followed was a hushed assessment of each owner's financial
means and personal taste. Judgment was based on observations such as: Who had splurged on the
fanciest window coverings? Who installed the most and most expensive exterior lighting fixtures
to replace the builder cheapos? Who laid the lushest sod lawn? Who erected the largest or most original
custom-made curbside mailbox? Who was able to watch broadcast TV without a fuzzy picture,
as witnessed via an antenna on the roof? Who were among the first to install automatic irrigation
systems? Who had resplendent landscape designs immediately realized into manicured mini-arboretums?
Who had their monotone wheat-colored walls professionally refinished with faux, murals and other
elaborate wall coverings?
And on and on...
About eight months later cable TV finally arrived, followed by an incredible aerial flip-flop.
Those who'd brandished clear reception via rooftop antennas quickly removed their one-time
status symbols, since it was now embarrassing to be perceived as one not paying the premium.
As the years passed it became more difficult to recognize changes that might be discerned
as enhanced cachet, but not for long. Without warning, a new wave swept through swelling heads
ever higher — leaving in its wake huge curbside dumpsters signaling interior renovations
or extensions. Paving stone became the rage too, and out went
plebeian concrete walks and blacktop driveways. And not long after, expensive foreign and
sports cars graced the spiffy new driveways.
And on and on...
Finally, after two decades and with all visible forms of home status exhausted, the ultimate bragging
right today is to erect a "For Sale" sign, host a garage sale and move out to a carefree leisure
village where it's warm and sunny all year 'round.
*****
So you have to wonder — where does this pettiness and vainglory stem from? It's apparently
embedded in our designer genes, going back thousands of years. Anthropologists actually
consider this to be advanced behavior — when compared to our more ape-like ancestors that is.
New York University's Randall White explains:
"One of the things that we know from studying modern humans is that personal adornment and the
symbolic communication of a social identity is involved in maintaining differences within a
society. By studying artifacts we imagine that what was going on 40,000 years ago was the first
time in human evolution that we have the internal subdivision of human societies into different
categories of social persons."
And after thousands of years we're still at it. We can make just about anything into a symbol
of status. But one person's object of distinction might be another's folly. So we have to
be among like-minded people to make an impression. And you can't even take it with you!
You have to ask then, after all these millennia, isn't it about time we evolved beyond this
small-minded behavior? [Nah!]
I believe what you are calling Evolution is what we understood as trying to keep up with the
Joneses — or the grass always looks greener on the other side of the fence. This is a relatively
a new phenomenon, I know as a kid in the 50's I did not see this with any of my relatives.
I also spent close to 4 years in Great Britain in the early 60's and they were basically under
a socialist government at the time (Labor Party) and there was no such thing as competition
or keeping up with the Joneses.
Now my children who are close to 40 years old spend a lot of
time up upgrading their abodes to keep up with their friends. Needless to say they have some debt
that they are now concerned about. So the moral of this reply is yes, we have the option to behave
like this (such as my children and you), but countries that have socialism everybody is dragged down
to the same common denominator — and they really don't have this option to much of any extent.
The way this country (USA) is moving you may get your wish — we will all be forced away from this
small-minded behavor, but it's definitely not Evolution — it's a choice!!!
Regards,
John S
Friday January 1, 2010
The Twelve Blogs of '09
Here we are again, lamenting yet another year's passing while suffering post-celebratory
writer's block. Rather than trying to cobble together a half-hearted essay, we'll sheepishly
follow the last three years' cop-outs to lethargically review the "Twelve Blogs of 2009"
— with premature nostalgia and perhaps feigned interest as to whether they're still relevant.
• December's blog celebrated one student's epiphany:
Many of today's high school and college students often wonder (vociferously!) why they need to
memorize boring equations, formulae and other seemingly trivial or useless information.
What many times is not emphasized by their teachers is the origin and significance of man-made
expressions of what is essentially describing the workings of nature. They're not taught that many of these
discoveries required lifetimes of effort — often by iconoclasts, eccentrics, heretics and
recluses...(Read more)
• November's entry contemplated whether the
part of the brain that facilitates music appreciation is influenced en masse:
Arguably today's popular music is not as rich lyrically or musically vis-à-vis
past genres. And why is that? Today's technological sophistication should encourage greater complexity.
Why don't kids today approach the intricate styles of the Beatles' later work, Jethro Tull, Pink Floyd or Yes?
Or, why don't they embrace big band jazz? Why not disco? (Read more)
• October's blog reassessed whether the world is
catching up with the Phrenicea scenario of the future:
If the current rate and course of technological change continues, which indeed it will, our cubicle
scenario of the future will be minimally a metaphorical interpretation of the social isolation that
will ultimately result...(Read more)
• September's blog lamented a disturbing trend among
chiropractors tempted with franchising to boost profits:
Chiropractors traditionally have spent lifetimes developing successful practices of respectable
size, which reflect their character and values. They're now tempted with visions of big profits
by wooing masses of clients less sophisticated and discerning — and more receptive to being
dazzled with faux technologies and procedures. Secondary is keeping existing patients that may
be sharp enough to see through the hype and perceptive enough to sense the tawdry goal of
profit...(Read more)
• In August we were down-to-earth about a flighty
plan to revive a manned space program to the moon:
Little has changed since Apollo's cancellation to warrant reviving a space program on the
same scale. Much of the technology would have to be relearned and today we have the Iraq war,
bankrupt corporations and an economic slowdown. A more worthwhile pursuit in this very different twenty-first century would be a crash program
to develop solar energy for practical use — to finally escape dependence on fossil fuel...
(Read more)
• In July we were preoccupied with losing our
Inno"Since":
Keep an ear out and an eye open for the next time you hear or see an advertisement touting
"In business since....," "founded in...," or "established..." Contrary to its intent
or implication, the practical value of the boast is questionable. Perhaps this newfound
awareness can be termed The End of Inno"Since"... (Read more)
• In June we suffered the recurring affliction
of "water on the brain":
Maybe we should instill among ourselves a new idiom-cum-mantra to "spend water like it's money."
We all tend to waste water and take its current abundance for granted.
Wouldn't it be prudent to pay more today to change our wasteful habits, while adopting a mindset
focused on conservation to build "aqua equity" for future generations?
(Read more)
• May's entry was up-front about rear-end vanity:
Have we come that far in auto technology that it's laughable now to think that Ford would deem the
now mundane TC [Traction Control] worthy of rear-end vanity? But Ford is not alone in silly trunk bunk. Through the
years I've studied many a car's derrière and have seen banality forged in
chrome... (Read more)
• In April we compiled "Then and Now" images to
acknowledge the passage of time and visibly observe how things have changed through the years:
Time is fascinating when you take the time to think about it. We tend to consider
time a man-made commodity as if we created it — when if fact all we really do it measure it.
Fooling ourselves in the process, we parse time into nanoseconds, microseconds, seconds,
minutes, days, weeks, months, years, decades, centuries, millenniums, periods,
ages, eras, eons, epochs... (Read more)
• The March blog loathed hero pilot Sullenberger as he succumbed
to the self-serving advances of the media and opportunistic politicos:
Chesley B. (Sully) Sullenberger is a hero to the people that he saved with
his miraculous jetliner landing in New York's Hudson River after Canada Geese incapacitated both engines.
I don't consider Sullenberger my hero however — and I'm tired of the media trying
to convince me that he is... (Read more)
• In February we pondered whether too much time is being
squandered on skill-less gratification:
While watching an old Star Trek episode I realized that I and fellow Trekkies have been
watching Kirk and crew beaming up via the transporter for over forty years. I wonder now after
watching the series for so long, whether I'd be thrilled if the old-fashioned transporter (as well
as warp drive, phasers, and photon torpedoes) finally became reality.... (Read more)
• January's entry was tinged with nostalgia
and torpor — and guilt for not writing a new essay:
Here we are again, lamenting yet another year's passing while suffering post-celebratory
writer's block. Rather than trying to cobble together a half-hearted essay, we'll sheepishly
follow the last two years' cop-outs to lethargically review the "Twelve Blogs of 2008"
— with premature nostalgia and perhaps feigned interest as to whether they're still
relevant... (Read more).
You may or may not agree, but after reviewing the "Twelve Blogs of 2009" it appears most are still relevant as
we roll into the New Year. And somehow after recalling the energy that instigated the blogs to begin
with, we don't feel quite as lethargic.
Maybe that's the real benefit of looking backward, reminiscing and singing "Auld Lang Syne" — not
for nostalgia per se, but to recharge our batteries and begin another year with renewed energy and
enthusiasm.
Time will tell...
Happy New Year!
posted by John Herman 1:12 AM
Tuesday December 1, 2009
One Student's Epiphany
Many of today's high school and college students often wonder (vociferously!) why they need to
memorize boring equations, formulae and other seemingly trivial or useless information.
What many times is not emphasized by their teachers is the origin and significance of man-made
expressions of what is essentially describing the workings of nature. They're not taught that
many of these discoveries required lifetimes of effort — often by iconoclasts, eccentrics,
heretics and recluses willing to shed lots of sweat and probably tears in order to solve
nature's mysteries.
Still, many students past and present have stumbled upon these truths on their own, often with
epiphanic delight.
Below is one finally-getting-serious college student's "Epiphany" written way back in 1971, stripped
bare with numerous misspellings illustrating a misspent youth, yet with genuine astonishment that this
seemingly simple realization took so long to gel. It was hand written
pen to paper
and found in a musty old box after 35 years. (Today's student might blog such a personal thought —
with little chance of rediscovery years hence.)
A message to those who are in the same plight as I:
If you question the ways of the sciences — concepts — rediculous [sic] equations —
symbols etc and become completely fatalistic toward them — think back a moment to your forefathers
who devised these methods.
These are just building blocks to understanding. Just as you need tools to produce a manual task —
tools are essential in building knowledge.
Nature does what is does without any influences (until recently however). Man has not and will never
harness nature by merely understanding its processies [sic]. This form of study makes use of abstract
concepts to make understanding less tedius [sic] and to standardize the methods of expressing our
understanding of them possible and eliminate a caotic [sic] consequence.
This must be remembered if excelence [sic] in any science is achieved.
Written by J. Herman some time in 1971
Perhaps some day education will go beyond mere memorization and copying teachers by rote
to include a real appreciation of our current state of knowledge — knowledge that allows us to not only understand the
workings of nature, but to leverage and alter them for our benefit, as well as our peril.
Hip-hop is mainstream these days, ringing up substantial sales in the music industry. The demographic
is young, with ages between thirteen and 30 years old.
This begs the question, using yesteryear's "cool" vernacular: Why do today's youth "dig" hip-hop?
Empirical observation tends to reveal that musical taste follows a generational track. It seems
people bracketed by parameters defining a "generation" assent to a particular musical genre making it popular or "in,"
to a degree where it's translated into measured sales on pop music charts and download sites.
Why is this? Is it additives in the food? Pollution in the air? Society's morals and values
at the time? Is it the effect of that other medium — television?
Somehow the part of the brain that facilitates music appreciation is influenced similarly en masse.
Consequently, the popular music of the latter 20th century can be categorized as follows (with some
overlap notwithstanding):
• the 1940s was the decade of big band swing;
• the 1950s was the decade bebop, doo-wop and simple rock'n'roll;
• the 1960s was the decade of experimental, progressive rock;
• the 1970s was the decade of disco and punk rock;
• the 1980s was the decade of new wave;
• the 1990s was the decade of grunge, super-slick r'n'b, and lip-synched girl and boy bands.
So now it's hip-hop. Arguably today's popular music is not as rich lyrically or musically vis-à-vis
past genres. And why is that? Today's technological sophistication should encourage greater complexity.
The part of the brain that facilitates music appreciation
is influenced en masse.
Why don't kids today approach the intricate styles of the Beatles' later work, Yes, Jethro Tull, or Pink Floyd?
Or, why don't they embrace big band jazz? Why not disco?
And why do the adolescents from decades past, the boomers in particular, abhor hip-hop?
Like their parents, they continue to cling to their generation's music. Could it be the effects of atomic
testing? Howdy Doody? Silly Putty?
Public television has discovered this phenomenon and to its
delight is breaking all kinds of pledging records by producing more and more nostalgic concert programs.
Featured are wrinkled, grayed and frayed performers — some that can barely move or hold a tune. Yet they
evoke delight for themselves and their audiences, as the music floods their clouding minds with memories
of youth and the "good old days" gone by.
The once super popular groups and solo performers seem incredulous that they're up there again on stage.
And surely the so-called "one hit wonders" never dreamed they'd be performing their one song
ad infinitum five decades later!
Incredible too is the irony that what was once thought to be throwaway tunes — trash by previous standards
and deemed junk by parents — are instead being performed so many years later by these original performers in front of
their original fans. That's a miracle of technology — not musical but medical!
All this begs another question: Fifty years from now — in the Age of Phrenicea —
will today's youth still be listening to what might by then be considered a new form
of classical music... Hip-Hop? ;-)
Hip-Hop started almost 40 years ago, my granddaughter is now into it but just the other day she had it blaring on my car radio and I said, "Do me a favor and listen to this one song on a CD I had." The song was "That's Life" sung by Michael Buble. She said "Woo great voice and song," but of course it's not what the radio is playing on most stations.
Now there are singers out there like Michael Buble, Harry Connic Jr, Jamie Cullum, Robbie Williams, Melanie Gardot, Kurt Elling and even some old rock artists like Rod Stewart, who restarted his career with sold out CDs and concerts singing all the old Cole Porter, Irving Berlin type songs. Look at American Idol — these young kids are singing the standards. I like to think music is cyclical but 400 years from now you will still be listening to these young singers and of course Sinatra. Rap, Disco, and Punk rock will be something not even heard. My son who is 39, daughter 37 they are gradually coming around to listening to the old standards because of the great lyrics. Of course the greatest interpreter of these songs is Sinatra. The Beatles are also in a class of their own; they had great lyrics and a sound. Paul McCartney sold out the new Citi Field twice last year. They wrote songs that people like Sinatra, Matt Monro, Shirley Bassey sang and the New York Philharmonic played. They will also be around 400 years from now. I love the song that George Harrison wrote, "Something," what great lyrics. Now the TV and radio can fool some of the people some of the time, but not all the people all of the time — and most people gradually come around to great works of art. (I hope.)
John Sertic
PS I saw Sinatra seven times at Carnegie Hall. It was always a mixed audience of young and old, and most times he finished the concert by saying, "I wish you all good health and I hope 400 years from now the first thing you hear is my voice."
Thursday October 1, 2009
Cubicle Dwelling? Not Yet...
Now is as good a time as any to assess whether the world is catching up with decade-old Phrenicea scenario.
So, is it?
Well, not really. We're not yet donating our brains to the Phrenicea braincomb.
Money, pets, and newspapers are still around. Cars have not been banned, although they're
getting very expensive to operate. Human cloning
hasn't replaced procreation, but at this point we probably wouldn't be too surprised to
hear of a successful attempt. And no, we're not living in cubicles — yet.
Nevertheless, it probably could be said that the Phrenicea scenario today is perceived as a bit
less bizarre than when it was unveiled way back in May, 1999. Of course this conclusion
is based on objective data — that being the volume visitor ranting via email.
The hysterical ones have been on a steady decline, although the predominance of critical
feedback we get still centers around the "ridiculousness" of the Phrenicea scenario as presented
on the website.
A very (un)popular idea continues to be that of people living in cubicles.
Granted, compared with today's mobile population, it does seem unbelievable.
But we are becoming increasingly isolated from fellow human beings in
an imperceptibly incremental fashion.
Right under our noses, there's been a gradual reduction of human interaction fostered by technology.
It began way back in the 1950s with TV and the sprouting of the first "couch potatoes."
After TV's novelty wore off, many found it preferable to just stay indoors than to socialize or pursue
physical activity.
As technology marched on, the need to interface with real people
declined even further. Some examples:
• the elimination of personalized attention at self-service gas stations,
supermarkets, home centers, etc.
• answering machines and voicemail replacing conversation; business conducted
via telephone tag
• live customer service reps replaced by impersonal automated systems with
annoying nested menus and digitized voice
• DJ radio personalities supplanted with computer programmed "Jack" and similar
formats; essentially mechanized music shuffling
• impersonal email, instant messaging and phone-based texting replacing the
spoken word
• iPod zombies existing in their own little worlds.
Imagine that strangers a century ago would actually greet each other with a "Hello!" and then strike up a conversation.
Today that "strike," with near total detachment from fellow humans being the norm, is ever more likely to
be violent perpetrations.
If the rate and course of technological change continues, which indeed it will, our cubicle scenario of the future
will be minimally a metaphorical interpretation of the social isolation that will ultimately result.
The Phrenicea scenario of the future depicts chiropractic supplanting what is today considered
traditional medicine — a profit-driven medical/insurance industry treating various states of
disease with drugs and/or surgery. Unfortunately, this idealistic vision appears to be in
jeopardy with the emergence of a new and ominous trend among chiropractors.
To compete with today's established "big business" of medicine, many chiropractors have been
participating in a trend to further legitimize their profession and increase revenue by
expanding their application of physical manipulation of the spine and other body structures
to include the pursuit of "wellness." This may include the addition of other alternative,
non-traditional modalities such as acupuncture, naturopathy, message therapy, yoga and more.
The wellness approach attempts to proactively prevent disease holistically with proper lifestyle, rather
than treating symptoms of disease already in progress.
The proliferation of wellness centers is a trend that is expected to continue, since
chiropractors have found receptive, health conscious, well-heeled clients willing to pay out of
their own pockets for treatments that appear to be effective, as well as for expensive natural
supplements.
A more recent trend, and an ominous one in my opinion, is the growth of franchised centers of
wellness with the chiropractor as the hub. The franchise concept is not new to the service
industry — certainly not with fast-food like burgers. Over the years it has expanded to include
niche restaurants, haircutting, package shipping, travel, eyeglass fitting, chimney cleaning,
home inspections, lawn maintenance, maid service and more. It is quite new to the business of
chiropractic however.
It's apparent that the goal of franchising in this profession is to "McDonald's-ize" the
chiropractic experience in terms of creating recognizable brands to a broader population,
while bringing in extra cash for programs of questionable benefit — for the patient at
least.
Chiropractors traditionally have spent lifetimes developing successful practices of respectable
size, which reflect their character and values. They're now tempted with visions of big profits
by wooing masses of clients less sophisticated and discerning — and more receptive to being
dazzled with faux technologies and procedures. Secondary is keeping existing patients that may
be sharp enough to see through the hype and perceptive enough to sense the tawdry goal of
profit; the same patients that are at risk of being alienated with slick, sterile, and generic
branding, flashy placards and gee-whiz computer-facilitated tests of dubious value.
It's not clear, at least to me, whether the cookie-cutter success associated with the formulaic,
sanitized operation of a franchise is transferable to the practice of chiropractic. And even if
it is, should it be? (A moot question if more profit is the primary motive.)
The inevitable result of franchising in general is the lowering of service quality to merely
acceptable or tolerable, vis-à-vis stand-alone businesses. (How many four-star restaurants are
members of a franchise? How many top-notch hair cutters?) This settling consequence might be
acceptable for a meal or a haircut — but for healthcare?
If this scenario of greed plays out as it did with traditional medicine, there may have
to be a new alternative to today's alternative healthcare.
Regarding your blog on the Chiropractic industry — having been going to Chiropractors for years, I know that they (as a whole) have been petitioning the AMA and the insurance agencies (for years) to get acceptance.
Which, they recently received. Most medical insurance companies now pay (at least a portion of) the charges for chiropractic care, and some medical doctors will refer you to a chiropractor for care.
This, in my opinion, was a double-edged sword. Chiropractors now get more clientele, through referrals and walk-ins. So, with volume up, they need to run their business like the "big business" that they never were before.
Now that my chiropractic care is covered by my medical insurance, I have more forms to fill out, and more approvals to get. There are longer waits at the office, and he spends less "quality time" with me.
The price we pay is more than the actual price.
Signed
Howard Levine — bad back sufferer
Saturday August 1, 2009
That's One Small Step for [a] Man,
One Not-so-giant Leap for Mankind
Now that the 40-year-anniversary hoopla for the Apollo 11 moon
landing has subsided, we can look towards the 50th when we'll again assess the legacy
of that incredible* accomplishment — and quote repeatedly Neil Armstrong's misquote.
Although he got all the "right stuff" right, like successfully landing the lunar module
by the seat of his pants after its computer crashed — with just ten seconds of fuel to
spare — he flubbed what was to become its legacy in words. He had planned to say "a man"
meaning himself. But as he states, "On flight tapes, I leave a lot of syllables out.
I think reasonable people will realize the 'a' was intended." So the famous quote
is redundant since "for man" and "for mankind" are synonymous.
Worse than quoting misquotes, the landing's Golden Anniversary will yet again ignore
poor Michael Collins. He went through all the rigorous training just to remain in the
command module; Jethro Tull's
lyrics by Ian
Anderson:
I'm with you L.E.M.
though it's a shame that it had to be you.
The mother ship is just a blip
from your trip made for two.
I'm with you boys, so please employ just a little extra care.
It's on my mind I'm left behind
when I should have been there.
Walking with you.
The moon landing just for two was supposed to be a stepping stone to exploring our solar
system. Then President Nixon gushed upon the astronauts' return to earth, "The heavens
have become part of man's world." Not quite. In school we were told we were fortunate
to be growing up in the Age of Space. We would see men (and women) traveling to Mars and
even beyond. So many of us were convinced that there would be incredible
advances and benefits derived from the effort.
One optimistic student was convinced that
the moon's lack of atmosphere and slight gravity attraction would benefit industry and
certain areas of study:
• Telescopes could be constructed on the moon for clearer view
• Radio telescopes could escape the atmosphere and interference on earth by moving on the lunar surface
• Minerals contained in the unlimited amounts of meteors could be a great source for valuable resources
• Manufacturing of electronic components can be made more cheaply on the lunar surface
• Welding of metals could be done more easily and efficiently
• Research scientists could work on the moon for experiments requiring a vacuum
• Spaceships could be launched using less fuel
• Heart patients can be brought to the moon to recover
As we know, none of this came to fruition, except perhaps that today's heart patient bills
are sky high. It should be realized however that the twentieth century's Space Race was
more than a technological challenge; it was first and foremost a political maneuver.
President John F. Kennedy seized the anxiety associated with the Soviet threat and the
perception spawned by Sputnik that the U.S. had fallen behind in science and technology.
It was brilliant plan to galvanize a nation into action which would ultimately prove our
political system superior.
An ancillary benefit besides the political power play was the technology that was spawned
from the research and development. Although the space-centric predictions above never
became reality there were realized benefits, but not what could have been envisioned back
then:
• Freeze-dried foods (developed to prevent food spoilage in space)
• Solid state technology leading to today's consumer electronics
• Sunscreens (formulas based on digital image analysis)
• Wireless headphones (based on headsets used on moon)
• Cool suits for race car drivers and firefighters (based on moon suits)
• Bicycle helmets (foam used to make astronauts comfortable)
• Cordless vacuums (capturing moon samples)
Despite the promise of further progress, the Apollo program was terminated with three missions
aborted, reasons being the loss of political will (the U.S. regained technological superiority
over the Soviets) and the perceived misdirection of funds given the Vietnam war and changing
attitudes toward space exploration. The thrill was gone once the effort seemed to become
commonplace. Typical shortsighted thinking dismantled the project's infrastructure and
mothballed documentation and records.
*In hindsight the feat was incredible given the relatively primitive technologies of the time.
The onboard computer upon which three lives depended was equivalent to today's hand-held
calculator, which was in part later derived from the space program's research and development.
Slide rules and adding machines — artifacts from the Stone Age of Space — amazingly got us
there and back. Incredible too is that just twelve years prior the U.S was trumped by the
Soviet Union in launching a tiny satellite that would orbit the earth. (Imagine anything of magnitude
getting done today in twelve years!)
There is talk nevertheless of resurrecting a vibrant space program. Landing on the moon again
— or a planet like Mars for that matter — will never evoke the awe and wonder of 1969's
landing, which became a worldwide event. To generations raised on special effects and
computer games, reality is boring in comparison.
Little has changed since Apollo's cancellation to warrant reviving a space program on the
same scale. Much of the technology would have to be relearned and today we have the Iraq war,
bankrupt corporations and an economic slowdown. Russell "Rusty" Schweickart, pilot of the
first lunar module agrees, "It doesn't sound like the right thing to do." And retired Grumman
president Joe Gavin is hesitant, "I don't think bringing back a sack of rocks is a good
reason."
A more worthwhile pursuit in this very different twenty-first century would be a crash program
to develop solar energy for practical use — to finally escape dependence on fossil fuel.
Time will tell...
posted by John Herman 7:06 AM
Feedback: Your Two-Cents!
Date: August 9, 2009 7:50:48 PM EDT
Why can't we do both [solar energy and] lets hope we beat the Chinese to the moon, they are talking about a manned launched next few years. Instead of this space station and shuttle operation, we should have built a station on the moon. It would have given us some knowledge of how to live and work on another planet and from there launch to Mars you name it. I can see some budget restraints on NASA now with our government running automobile companies, banks, insurance companies, railroads, post offices, health system, major investments in some of our big cities and the used car business. Excuse while I vomit!
Cheers
JS
Wednesday July 1, 2009
The End of Inno"Since"
Recently I spotted an ad for "Heating and Air Conditioning Service, in business since 1954."
It occurred to me to ask, "What does that really signify?" All I came up with is that all
those who made the business successful back then are gone. It had to be an okay service to
survive initially when the original principals ran things. But the fact
that they're still in business does not necessarily translate into anything superior today.
They could be in a downturn. We see it all around us today:
• Chrysler was founded in 1925. Honda did not begin producing automobiles until the
1960s. Which builds a better car?
• Bank of America was founded 1874 and Chase in 1877. There's been a
lot of turnover since! Commerce Bank (recently swallowed up by TD Bank) is a relative
newcomer founded in 1973. It blew them all away in customer satisfaction garnering top
J.D. Power accolades.
• The U.S. Congress has been around since 1787. Enough said about that.
Nevertheless, advertising business birth is still very popular. Googling "in business since"
returns almost two million results. Similarly, googling "founded in" yielded 51 million
results. Several are very well known:
• Heinz (best known for ketchup) was established in 1869 and this is proudly declared on their
label. Its longevity probably has no bearing on sales today — its
products
happen to be very good. Remarkably, they've managed to retain smart management with the common sense to not mess up the original recipes
with new processing technologies.
• Ditto for Gulden's Mustard established 1862, first made by Charles Gulden, now manufactured
by the agricultural giant ConAgra, in keeping with the original secret recipe.
• Coke almost blew it with New Coke in 1985, 99 years after the original was introduced. Its management back-stepped only three months later with old-new Coke Classic and eventually
dropped the Coke that failed. A close call averted by facing failure boldly and quickly.
• Perhaps the most ridiculous business type to claim value in longevity is a restaurant.
It could be on the downslide with the original owners replaced
by their spoiled or less-driven progeny, or not-as-committed outsiders. Even with consistent
ownership, chefs tend to migrate from one establishment to another like bees collecting
pollen, and wait staff can be as ephemeral as cumulus clouds. Maybe if they could brag,
"Serving our clientele with the same owner, same chef and same support staff since...." Now that would
be meaningful.
Then there are those that can advertise longevity but choose — perhaps wisely — not to:
• Microsoft was founded in 1975. In this case boasting "in business since" probably would be a
negative, as newer technology companies like Google are perceived to be more nimble and
innovative. Microsoft is smart not to advertise their relative longevity since for them
even not-so-old is too old.
• KODAK has been in business since 1892, which means nothing given the technology of
photography is primarily electronic today — and not chemical processing as it was for almost
a century. The company that once touted film (remember Kodachrome?) and paper quality
survives only because its management maintained its brand "image" while photo technology marched digitally forward.
• Ford Motor Company does not advertise that it's been in business since 1903. Perhaps because
the company has had its back to the wall in recent years and extreme ups and downs
throughout the 20th century. Fortunately its products have become excellent and rival the
best of the Japanese and Europeans. But until the public's perception catches up with
reality, it's probably better for them to stress the present rather than the past.
• The famous (infamous?) Yankee baseball team was established in the early 1920s. So what?
What distinguishes one team from the other nowadays? With player turnover, team rosters can
completely change within several years. Diehard fans brandish their enthusiasm with logoed
shirts and caps. But what are they really fans of — the pinstripe uniform? The phrase "old
is new again" is apropos.
(Ditto for your favorite team?)
And finally, there's a company that has found a way to advertise longevity and approach it
in a clever, iconoclastic manner — for a product that is about as boring as straw. Post
Foods has come up with a cereal-killer campaign
to advertise their old-fashioned Shredded
Wheat, with a theme deriding "Progress." The
ad copy harks back to the groovy, Luddite,
anti-establishment 1960s: "Honestly, what thanks do we owe progress? We're up to our necks
in landfill, down to the wire on resources, and climate change is out to get us — or at
best leave us with nasty sunburn." It continues, "Henry Perky created the Original Shredded
Wheat in 1892. One man. One ingredient. One machine. We didn't give it any add-ons or
plug-ins.... All we did was make it Spoon Size in 1961. Did we go too far?"
Shredded Wheat — brilliantly made hip with tongue-in-cheek after 117 years.
*****
So keep an ear out and an eye open for the next time you hear or see an advertisement touting
"In business since....," "founded in...," or "established..." Contrary to its intent
or implication, the practical value of the boast is questionable. Perhaps this newfound
awareness can be termed The End of Inno"Since."
Time will tell...
posted by John Herman 4:54 AM
Monday June 1, 2009
Water On the Brain
Now that the lazy, hazy, crazy days of summer are practically upon us, it's a good time to use the
sultry weather as an opportunity to revisit our feverish condition of "water on the brain." Way back
in 2001 our "H2Ouch!" page began recommending the following:
"Pretend you were to pay $1/gallon the next time you take a shower or bath, brush your teeth,
flush a toilet, wash the dishes, or God forbid — water the lawn! Begin to use less water than
the average person. Set an example. Prevent H2Ouch!"
We still believe this is good advice, but perhaps the "hyperhydro" proposal was and still is naïve. The problem is that
there is little incentive to conserve fresh water from the tap — given its ridiculously low
price. For example, I recently received my "Annual Water Supply Report" from my local water
company and was dismayed at how little fresh water costs. Here's the breakdown:
Quarterly Water Rates — Residential
Consumption (gallons)
Charges
Up to 8,000
8,001 - 58,000
58,001 - 100,000
Over 100,000
$10.00 minimum
$0.90 / thousand gallons
$1.15 / thousand gallons
$1.40 / thousand gallons
A dollar for 1000 gallons of clean, fresh tap water? That's insane! By comparison, bottled water
by the gallon costs about $1.99. Not bad, but that's $1990 for 1000 gallons. Why is there such a
cost disparity with tap water? How can anyone be motivated to conserve water at these low rates,
Wouldn't it be prudent build "aqua equity" for future generations?
other than via a guilty conscious? And let's face it; there aren't many turning on their taps
ladened with guilt. (If the water companies got savvy they'd upmarket their image with exotic
brand names, pricing and refillable bottles with fancy labels
adding cachet to their product. Imagine having
bragging rights to elite-sounding potable water! It's not that silly a suggestion, since that is essentially
what Coca-Cola did with Dasani and PepsiCo with Aquafina. They're both filtered municipal tap water.)
Actually what we really need is a "watershed moment"; a trickle-down epiphany to appreciate how finite
and precious our water supply is. The first step should be to make users conscious of their water
consumption — and that can be accomplished handily by raising the price per gallon and using a more
dramatic cost gradient for excessive use. It sounds crazy, but those concerned about conservation
should lobby for pricing increases.
Another way to raise awareness might be to move our water meters out from their usual obscure
locations into full view in kitchens and bathrooms — fitted with big, red digital read-outs
displaying gallons used in real time. Education on where our water comes from and how it's treated,
We should instill among ourselves an idiom-cum-mantra to "spend water like it's money."
stored, delivered and renewed would also serve to engender an appreciation of what
is the major constituent of all living things.
There's an old saying attributed to spendthrifts that says they "spend money like it's water." Maybe
we should instill among ourselves a new idiom-cum-mantra to "spend water like it's money."
Since we all tend to waste water and take its abundance for granted — it even
unintentionally spills over into the comics:
Wouldn't it be prudent to pay more today to change our wasteful habits, while adopting a mindset
focused on conservation to build "aqua equity" for future generations?
While stopped at a traffic light behind an old Ford Windstar minivan,
I snickered at the chrome appliqué announcing in bold letters that it
was equipped with "Traction Control." Wow, imagine that!
Have we come that far in auto technology
that it's laughable now to think that Ford would deem the now mundane TC worthy of rear-end vanity?
But Ford is not alone in silly trunk bunk. Through the years I've studied many a car's derrière
and have seen banality forged in chrome about:
Then there are meaningless tags like GT, Touring, Limited, Unlimited and the dated Deluxe, Super and Custom.
In the good ol' days, most vehicles were simply named and branded eponymously (Chrysler, Ford, Toyota (Toyoda), Studebaker,
Olds(mobile), Cord, Ghia, Dodge, Chevrolet, Buick, Mercedes-Benz, Hudson, Duesenberg, Tucker, Kaiser-Fraser, etc.).
Specific models were typically distinguished with letters or numbers (Model T, Model 55, Series D, etc.).
Eventually, with the proliferation of models within brands, cars were named after:
As brands and models continued to proliferate — and necessity being the mother of invention — newly coined
words would, with clever marketing define the vehicle's image (Corvette, Galaxie,
Electra, Chevelle, Polara, Camaro, Futura, Altima, Celica, Toronado, Jetta, Camry, Forenza, Corvair, Invicta, Sportage, Mystere, Impreza, Sentra, Boxster, Acura, Lexus, etc.).
Mercedes-Benz resisted this appellation temptation and continued with letters and numbers to distinguish their models.
In the mid-1950s, its SL two-seater sports car debuted designating "sport light." A few years later came the SEL denoting an S-Class car with fuel injection (Einspritz) and a
long wheelbase. (And just to add to the confusion, the "S" in SEL was not the same as the "S" in SL.)
Acceptable letter combinations are going fast. Soon only PU and BO will be left!
American cars toyed with the idea in the 1960s with the Ford XL and LTD, Chevy SS, Javelin SST and AMX, Dodge GTS,
Plymouth GTX, Barracuda S, Cougar XR7 and Pontiac GTO.
As Mercedes' status and prestige spread worldwide, other manufacturers dove into the alphabet soup. (In 1996 Acura incredibly renamed
its flagship Legend to RL, discarding a decade's worth of valuable brand equity.)
Now it's all the rage to name vehicles with meaningless (guess the
brands) letter combinations like DTS, CTS, STS, XLR, SRX, ESV, EXT, TL, TSX, RSX, MDX, FCX, FX, QX, LS, ES, RX, IS,
GS, SC, LX, LT, MX, RX, CX, CLK, CLS, CRX, SLR, SLK, SVT, GL, HHR, NSX, XC, XJ, XK, TT, C, A, E, G, Q, M, G, H, R, S... Zzzzzzzzzzzz. In an attempt to stay awake and in the game, Lincoln joined the chaos in 2007 by rebadging its year-old Zephyr to MKZ, followed by the introduction of MKX and MKS models. And the MKT is expected to debut in 2010. Got all that?
[With acceptable letter combinations going so fast, soon only PU and BO will be left!]
Even more prestigious today is to be able to brandish on a car's hindquarters "Hybrid" or a chrome "H"
indicating "this car is electric, gets great mileage and averts global warming."
But we'll just have to wait a decade or so to find out — when stopped at some traffic light in the future staring at these no-longer-shiny chrome
badges of status — whether today's state-of-the-art green technology will have become ubiquitous and familiar enough to elicit a
snicker.
Time is fascinating when you take the time to think about it. We tend to consider
time a man-made commodity as if we created it — when if fact all we really do it measure it.
Fooling ourselves in the process, we parse time into nanoseconds, microseconds, seconds,
minutes, days, weeks, months, years, decades, centuries, millenniums, periods,
ages, eras, eons, epochs.
As we're measuring we can have a great time; a sad time; a boring time; a wonderful time;
even an exceptional time. We can also waste time, spend time, give up time,
give back time, and squander time.
Our perception of time can vary. It can go fast; go slow; even stand still — like
watching a DVD with a remote. And at times it may seem to repeat itself as Yogi Berra
famously observed, "This is like déjà vu all over again." Unfortunately time cannot be rewound or made to go backwards.
(Why is that?)
The musically gifted write songs about time:
Turn Back the Hands of Time; Time Is On My Side; Time Passages;
Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is?; Till the End of Time; and
As Time Goes By are just a few.
We also have colloquial phrases like "It's about time," "Time for change," and "Time is precious."
Some are heard more often than others. (The recent U.S. presidential campaign comes to mind.)
We can use time to describe ourselves and others. We can be Big-time.
They are only Small-time.
We can even use time to punish: "You're in time-out!" and "25 years to life!"
We can live our lives according to time, as in "Early to bed and early to rise."
Most strive to live for the moment. Many yearn to go back the old days.
Others impatiently anticipate the future.
Time can be ahead of us or behind us, which becomes more important for each
of us as time goes by.
The age of time is very old. Physicists tell us it's been around since
the birth of the universe about 15 billion years ago. (This used to sound like a big
number before all of the recent financial bailouts.) During our relatively brief time
here on earth we learn that some things disappear, new things arise,
and some things stay relatively the same.
An interesting activity is compiling "Then and Now" images to visibly
see how things have changed — noticeably and in some cases so much so as to almost revert back
to the way they were.
Here are some examples:
Click images to magnify
The more things change...
TV in a Console (1964)
TV on a Console (2009)
...the more they stay the same.
The more things change...
Johnny in 1973
Johnni today
...the more they DON'T stay the same.
Gripping advertising...
Hawking tires (1965)
Hawking tires (2009)
...never loses traction.
Some things thankfully never change...
Then and then (1968)
Now
...at least on the inside.
In-flight departures from bias and stereotyping...
"How come our girls are so capable?"
(1951)
"Best cabin crew in the Middle East."
...thankfully arrived.
More great hits and stars! By snail mail!
Wow! A record club! (1968)
Wow! No record club!
Even more great hits and stars! Instantly!
Envisioning push buttons in 1959...
Then, then and 1959's future
Now
...remembering push buttons today.
Recycling sheet metal...
1968 Toyota 2000GT
2009 Pontiac GXP
... in the figurative sense.
When you take the time to think about it time really is fascinating.
After seeing Johnny with his TDK tape cassettes, the stewardesses enduring
insipid questions, and push-button phones once defining our future — would
anyone want time to go backwards in time?
Time will tell...
posted by John Herman 4:48 AM
P.S.
Perhaps in time we'll enhance this site with additional "Then and Now" examples.
Sunday March 1, 2009
Desperate for a Hero
Chesley B. (Sully) Sullenberger is a hero. If there's anyone who has not heard
this they must be living in a cave. He is a hero for sure — to the people that he saved with his miraculous jetliner landing in New York's Hudson River after Canada Geese incapacitated both engines.
I don't consider Sullenberger my hero however — and I'm tired of the media trying to convince me that he is.
I have my own modern day heroes, thank you. Generally, most of us do and they reflect ideals based on our
values and experiences. And we tend to keep them private. But not any more!
Arnold Schwarzenegger is a big hero of mine. I admire his incredible story taking him from penniless
bodybuilder, to seven-time Mr. Olympia, to Hollywood superstar, to
governor of perhaps the most complex U.S. state to oversee. If you've ever lifted weights
you can appreciate the mental and physical self-discipline involved to become a
bodybuilding champion. The rest was a cakewalk. Well, perhaps not.
Musician Ian Andersen is another. Self-taught, he managed to turn the once-delicate flute
into a "heavy metal" instrument worthy of integration with blaring electric guitars
and booming drums — naming the unlikely amalgam Jethro Tull. Andersen crafted scores
of timeless tunes that classically trained flautists never did, could or would — garnering
worldwide notoriety while inspiring countless young flutist wannabees.
Being involved with banking for almost three decades, another personal hero is
the late Walter Wriston, CEO of Citibank from 1967 to 1984. His legacy is leveraging
computer technology to transform the company which was a big player in a relatively sleepy industry
Sullenberger succumbed to the self-serving advances of the media and opportunistic politicos.
into "The Citi Never Sleeps" 24/7 powerhouse. It then led with innovation for two decades with ATMs,
credit cards, new money vehicles and online banking. His protégé John Reed, who technically implemented
Wriston's vision, foolishly succumbed to the street-smart charm of Sandy Weill to
create the financial giant Citigroup. Time magazine
recently cited Weill as one of the prime culprits in melting down our financial system. Lesson learned
here is that heroes do not necessarily beget heroes.
Bodybuilder, rock musician and corporate CEO; I prefer a diverse hero portfolio. Their selection
was personal — I chose them without external prodding. I object to having heroes pushed upon
me by anyone, particularly the media who are starving for hero types for self-serving reasons.
It used to be politicians were our heroes. Presidents Roosevelt and Kennedy were looked up to by many. Then
Nixon tarnished the office. There was hope with Reagan, but then Clinton and Bush quashed that.
Used to be professional athletes were our heroes. Mickey Mantle, Hank Aaron, Jackie Robinson, Joe Namath,
Mohamed Ali come to mind. Today's diminished sports figures include Pete Rose, Roger Clemens,
Alex Rodriguez, OJ Simpson and most recently Olympian Michael Phelps caught taking a marijuana hit.
Is it a dearth of character in modern times, or is it just the increased media scrutiny that has raised the bar?
Perhaps both. Nevertheless, when someone with hero potential surfaces out of obscurity, the media latch
onto to them with almost pathological zeal.
The CBS Early Show aired "Miracle on the Hudson," dragging out Sully and crew snippets through the entire
two-hour show. Here are some of hosts Harry Smith and Maggie Rodriguez's insipid questions after incredibly
stating "Instead of mourning a tragedy like we should be doing, we're celebrating the miraculous landing."
• "Is all this surreal for you?"
• "What made you so confident?"
• "Have you had a release, a moment where you just either cried, or
screamed, or let it out somehow?"
• "What's the difference between landing on water and landing on a runway
as far as how it feels?"
• "Do you all think about this every day?"
Then it became apparent that spontaneous answers to the same questions over and over morphed into contrived
analogies. Sullenberger summed up his lifelong preparation for the event: "For 42 years I had made small,
regular deposits of education, training and experience — and the experience balance was
sufficient that on January 15 I could make a sudden, large withdrawal." Ugh.
Finally, in what might be politely described as being in very poor taste, one of the survivors Emma Sophina, an aspiring singer-songwriter from Australia, tried to jump-start her career by capitalizing on the attention by writing and performing the monotonous ditty "Send Another Prayer to Heaven." Yuck.
The most distasteful and bizarre treatment of the mishap however was making light of the whole incident on David Letterman. He joked that Sullenberger was on so many shows he would next be seen on
Rachael Ray's show cooking up a recipe for Sullenburgers. It would be funny if it wasn't almost believable.
Letterman began the interview with a blow-by-blow chronology of the take-off:
• 3:25:48pm, flight 549 from LaGuardia leaves for Charlotte
• 3:27:01pm, birds strike at 3200 feet
Then wisecracked:
• 3:28pm, snacks and beverages were served.
Tasteless quips followed, and incredibly not only by Letterman:
• Letterman joked that it was good there was plenty of space for standing passengers
and, "In what other aspects of your life have you heard brace for impact?"
• Letterman asked if it would have been worse in the ocean. Sully replied "Yeah, but
the Hudson stinks."
• Letterman mentioned that they cleared the George Washington Bridge by 1000 feet. Copilot Jeffrey Skiles joked, "Better than zero feet."
Other banter included chuckling about failing to get the engines restarted, joking that sometimes "it's hard to get good help," and mocked receiving unsolicited letters and drawings for jet engine screens to
thwart future engine failures from birds.
Worse, the commercial breaks were segued with tunes like "Take Me to the River."
In between all of this Sully sensibly revealed that he's "More than tired of telling this story," and Skiles
indicated he just wanted his old life back. Letterman should have reminded them that action speaks louder than words.
After being so limelighted on TV — 60 Minutes, The Early Show, Good Morning America,
Letterman, Larry King, Obama's Inaugural, the Super Bowl — Sullenberger showed up yet again in
Spontaneous answers to the same questions over and over morphed into contrived
analogies.
an essay featured in Newsweek lamenting that he hasn't spent many nights at home; that he and his
family are trying hard to remain true to themselves and not change, "but
there's a steep learning curve."
What learning curve? Just be true to yourselves
and go home already! Chalk it up to your (drawn-out) fifteen minutes of fame. Unless of course
there'll be book and movie deals. It will be very interesting to see if any of the
crew goes back to their old lives. Can they possibly, given the lure of the media and the intoxicating effects
of fame?
With that question yet-to-be answered, Will Sully ever become one of my heroes?
I lost respect for the regular guy "just doing his job" when
he succumbed ad nauseam to the self-serving advances of the media and opportunistic politicos. If he does go back
to piloting and there's nary a sign of a book, movie or TV hosting job — then perhaps.
Time will tell...
posted by John Herman 2:28 PM
As expected, Sullenberger took the bait — even sooner than anticipated however. Crain's New York
Business reported on March 11 that he "landed [pun intended?] a book deal with the
William Morrow publishing company and got an advance worth as much as $3 million for two books."
So much for the "just-doing-his-job" regular guy. Oh, the burden of becoming a hero.
Gee, imagine all the overworked and underpaid pilots knowing that millions await
them if they just crash-land their planes.
Now that's a scary thought.
Postscript by John Herman March 13, 2009
Sunday February 1, 2009
Ersatz Lives Imitating Art?
While watching an old Star Trek episode entitled "Return to Tomorrow," I realized that I
and fellow Trekkies have been watching Kirk
and crew beaming up via the
transporter
for over forty years. I wonder now after watching the series for so long, whether I'd be thrilled
if the old-fashioned transporter (as well as warp drive, phasers, and photon torpedoes)
finally became reality. With the ever-increasing sophistication of special effects that
can sometimes seem more real than for real: Are we becoming desensitized not only
to the present — but also to the yet-to-be?
Looking back, the goal of audiovisual technologies in the early days was to make the artificial
seem real. Phonographic recording media began as scratchy cylinders and clay platters and
progressed to crystal clear
Reality show popularity reflects an ironic yearning to experience reality, via TV!
multi-channel discs that can sound better than live. Films evolved to do the same, from the
primitive "silents" to the first "talkies" to Technicolor and widescreen leading to today's
mind-blowing digital IMAXs. With all this amazing technology, the real — when it is
remarkable in some fashion — now evokes the artificial.
For example, living through a tornado might remind one of the movie Twister. Seeing
a dangerous car chase could elicit Gone in 60 Seconds. If and when we're invaded by
aliens, it'll probably recall Alien, ET,
Close Encounters or War of the Worlds — depending on their demeanor.
If the experts warning of global warming are correct, one day reality will summon The Day
After Tomorrow. If biologists succeed in cloning extinct species, we'll all be able to visit
Jurassic Park. Maybe life imitating art will be the norm and not the exception.
Perhaps; But how can we continue to consume escapist entertainment when the unreal and real
become so blurred inside our heads? It used to be that we were only living the movie while
watching it. Today they are etched in our minds for life, just waiting to be educed by circumstance.
And as the special effects continue to dazzle beyond physical reality, we'll have trouble
living in the relatively staid present without suffering mental spasms of withdrawal.
The Phrenicea scenario envisions future inhabitants swapping their
present with the past to escape their boring existence — reconstituting moments lived by
others by bidding on bits of memories stored within Phrenicea's braincomb. Will they just be
experiencing old TV and movie clips?
Today, many young adults watch Sex and the City, Friends and Seinfeld
et al until they can recite every line from every episode, fantasizing their real-life relationships
will be as interesting as idealized fiction. Looking at it from a different perspective; Would
they watch a Friends episode portraying the characters watching a Friends
Are we wasting our lives watching TV and other vicariousnesses like YouTube?
episode? Sounds awfully boring. And that's the point — Are they wasting their corporeal
lives watching TV, DVDs and other vicariousnesses like YouTube? Ironically, the popularity of
reality shows might reflect a yearning to experience reality, albeit via TV! Has real living
become that tedious?
More worrisome, the fake is overtaking "for real" in other aspects of life as well. The music
video game Guitar Hero simulates the playing of guitar using just five colored fret buttons. More than
20 million have been sold. Tournaments and competitions are the rage — all to electronically
mimic the real thing without learning music terminology, theory, notes, or chords. Mastery of
hand-eye coordination is the only requisite. Is too much time being squandered on skill-less
gratification rather than on authentic knowledge acquisition and appreciation? Are there too many
ersatz lives imitating art?
Star Trek's "to boldly go..." this isn't.
Time will tell...
posted by John Herman 8:32 AM
Thursday January 1, 2009
The Twelve Blogs of '08
Here we are again, lamenting yet another year's passing while suffering post-celebratory
writer's block. Rather than trying to cobble together a half-hearted essay, we'll sheepishly
follow the last two years' cop-outs to lethargically review the "Twelve Blogs of 2008"
— with premature nostalgia and perhaps feigned interest as to whether they're still relevant.
• December's blog warns of the ominous "Attack
of the RFIDs!"
The bad scenarios are Big Brother scary. Governments could become Tinkerbells sprinkling RFID
dust on unsuspecting individuals for tracking purposes. Inhaled and trapped in the lungs,
you'd become an ambulatory transmitter for life... (Read more)
• November's entry declared,
"What we really need now is Common Sense 2.0!"
This is more than silly. To ascribe version numbers to the earth with the overblown illusion
that it is now our creation because of our innate arrogance and egocentricity is laughable...
(Read more)
• October's blog laments how America's
Founding Fathers would shudder at how their idealistic vision has blurred:
How did it come to this? Technology! As in sophisticated systems for marketing and polling. As in TV and satellites;
(ab)used by both political camps to capture the attention of the harried and hurried, 24/7 connected
lifestyles that afford little time to consume more substantive data even if it was
presented... (Read more)
Late to the Ugly Bug Ball is Acura. Traditionally conservative, parent Honda is
throwing caution to the wind to have their upscale brand noticed in 2009 — for better
or for worse. The latest designs that arguably out-ugly the competition found inspiration unfortunately
from an oddball concept... (Read more)
• In August we were weighed down with
heavy thoughts about lighter-than-air hydrogen:
We envision solar-based energy to be the way of the future. Mother Nature found a mechanism to
capture the enormous energy of the sun with chlorophyll and photosynthesis, and we've been
consuming the lowest hanging fruit of that miracle in the form of petroleum...
(Read more)
• In July we worried about recycling
dangerous technology:
There's little doubt that rising fuel prices and global temperatures are pressing
issues requiring action. We owe it to ourselves and to posterity to become sufficiently
educated to intelligently evaluate potential options. It's popular now to pander to those
outraged over $60 fill-ups and brand global warming "bad" because that's been the predominant
message... (Read more)
• In June we pondered the ephemeralness
of our personal memories:
It seems impossible now, but there will come a day when the mechanism for
memory assembly and storage within the human brain is elucidated. A next logical step
would be to try to save or replicate these memories, perhaps for recollection by
others... (Read more)
• May's blog exposed the
significance of treating angina with Viagra:
The unexpected rise out of Viagra illuminates an important point: Drug synthesis and
discovery is not really by design, although most chemists in the industry will not
readily admit such. The chemical compounds are created with as much art as science by
unnatural means... (Read more)
• In April we did the math to
sum up whether we've experienced exponential progress since entering this century:
A lot happened in the 20th century making its end appear quite different from its
beginning. So, let's evaluate the most significant achievements/events that occurred in
those incredible ten decades vs. the 21st century to date... (Read more)
• The March blog contemplated why many
of today's richest, most influential and creative individuals broke from the
mold and charted their own paths to success:
The solution to increased competition from an ever-growing global workforce will
be attaining two important qualities sooner rather than later: maturity and
passion. Unfortunately many of today's youth are lacking in both, and that quest
seems to elongate with each succeeding generation... (Read more)
• In February we became more
observant of our dependence on the baggage in what appears to be a burgeoning
Bag Age:
Does convenience beget stupidity? Does stupidity beget convenience? Or do they complement each
other synergistically? I contemplate this now as I find myself inundated with plastic bags carried home from
virtually every type of retail store. And the problem seems to be getting worse day-by-day as behavior
accommodates their omnipresence and so-called convenience... (Read more)
• January's entry was tinged with nostalgia
and torpor — and guilt for not writing a new essay:
Here we are again, lamenting yet another year's passing while suffering post-celebratory
writer's block. Rather than trying to cobble together a half-hearted essay, we'll sheepishly
follow last year's precedent-setting cop-out to lethargically review the "Twelve Blogs of 2007"
— with premature nostalgia and perhaps feigned interest as to whether they're still
relevant... (Read more).
You may or may not agree, but after reviewing the "Twelve Blogs of 2008" it appears most are still relevant as
we roll into the New Year. And somehow after recalling the energy that instigated the blogs to begin
with, we don't feel quite as lethargic.
Maybe that's the real benefit of looking backward, reminiscing and singing "Auld Lang Syne" — not
for nostalgia per se, but to recharge our batteries and begin another year with renewed energy and
enthusiasm.
Time will tell...
Happy New Year!
posted by John Herman 1:27 AM
Monday December 1, 2008
Attack of the RFIDs!
As you shop 'til you drop this holiday season be on the alert for RFIDs! Pronounced almost like
Triffid
or aphid, they're neither fictitious sci-fi creatures nor common insects. Yet, you may soon be endangered by or
infested with them. Perhaps you have
one
on your person already, or in your car for electronic toll collection.
RFID is an acronym for Radio Frequency Identification. RFID tags are tiny microchips that have antennae to transmit to
receivers data such as account numbers, physical location, product information, price, color, size, purchase date, etc.
The scary part is you will become a mobile device beaming
all sorts of data to who knows who.
(To be technically correct, an RFID tag actually transmits a link into a database on a computer somewhere that
stores the information it is reporting on such as account number, etc.)
Some of the larger RFIDs have batteries while the tiniest don't — they get their power from the
radio transmitters asking for their information.
In addition to being on a key chain or stuck on a windshield, radio tags are to be attached or embedded in credit cards, clothing,
grocery items, drug bottles, books, magazines, cell phones, computers, currency, tires, passports and even you — beneath your
skin for access to buildings and for storing your ID and medical records.
The scary part is that you will become a mobile device beaming all sorts of data to
who knows who — through barriers and from as far away as 700 feet. Imagine if your charge cards, clothing
and shoes all were transmitting data — even the age and color of your underwear! Inquiring types could identify or profile you and track you everywhere.
You could even get hassled when your stuff's expected lifespan is reached to buy replacements.
And because RFIDs last about ten years, they can potentially transmit information for purposes well
beyond their original intention.
RFID infiltration is already underway. Besides Mobil with its SpeedPass, banks are issuing key chains and credit cards with
MasterCard's PayPass
that can be used at subway stations,
7-Eleven, McDonald's and movie theaters. Their marketing literature hypes the benefits:
• No need for cash!
• Amazingly quick and easy way to pay!
• Feels like magic!
• Now you can fly through the checkout!
• Be the first to get what's next! [Be the first on your block!]
This sounds great, but because these tags are linked to one of your accounts, they will have the means
to eavesdrop
and monitor your life — recording where you go and what you buy. There is a concern too that thieves
will be able to hack
your radio tags to make unauthorized purchases.
Not to pick on banks per se, retailers want RFIDs to replace traditional barcodes to better track their
inventory. They'll also be able to scan you coming and going
and perhaps direct you to aisles based on their perception of your needs. [Your underwear is how old?]
Governments could become Tinkerbells sprinkling RFID dust on unsuspecting individuals.
And as is typical when technology is involved, things will get even more complicated.
Hitachi
has developed RFIDs that are so tiny they could fit between ridges of a fingerprint. They're
small enough to be referred to as "powder RFIDs."
These powder tags have the potential to identify "trillions and trillions" of items. They'll be incorporated in just about anything you may purchase as they can be embedded in the packaging. A positive scenario to envision is bagging your groceries as you navigate the isles at your supermarket. When finished a scanner will compute the total of your entire cart as you approach the cashier station.
The bad scenarios are Big Brother scary. Governments could become Tinkerbells sprinkling RFID dust on unsuspecting individuals for tracking purposes. Inhaled and trapped in the lungs, you'd become an ambulatory transmitter for life — a life which might become shortened by this high-tech asbestos.
The Phrenicea scenario of the future envisions the total loss of privacy. Perhaps this is the
way it will begin.
The term "Web 2.0" is a popular expression referring to the second generation of the World Wide
Web. The media has created a "2.0" craze by slapping the trendy suffix (implying next or new)
onto just about anything. We addressed this originally way back in May 2007 — and it seems there is
no end in sight.
Version numbers like 2.0 are adopted from the software industry, from what's commonly referred
to as the "development life cycle." The confounding terminology is being unabashedly usurped by
advertisers making it part of our vernacular. Although their target market may not truly grasp the
pretentious and technical jargon being exploited, what is undoubtedly implied is "new and improved."
To imagine where we would be today if this silly jargon began early in the 20th century,
let's for fun try to retroactively apply (loosely) "something-point-something"
version numbers to several ground-breaking advances from the past — innovations unleashed
upon the masses at a time before software and its perpetual upgrades began controlling
yet-to-be-developed computer hardware.
For example, "Radio 1.0" would enable millions of regular folks to acquire console-sized,
beautifully crafted, wood-encased receivers to experience entertainment programming geared
towards a wide audience. Breaking news would propagate across the land almost instantaneously.
A new sense of mass identity and community was established using technology. For many,
the radio became a focal point in the home — a place to gather each night.
So what innovation could we ascribe to Radio 2.0? The car radio perhaps. Radio 3.0? That might be
the tiny, tinny, plastic and portable transistor radio. The pocket marvel that enabled millions of baby boomer teens
to revel in their music — rock and roll — defining a generation while driving parents crazy.
For many, the transistor radio became a focal point of the self — a personal gadget to hideaway with.
Taking radio's progression further:
Radio 4.0 - FM
Radio 4.5 - FM stereo
Radio 5.0 - XM/Sirius satellite
Radio 6.0 - ?
Now let's try to apply version numbers to pre-recorded music:
Music 1.0 - phonograph - 78rpm
Music 1.2 - phonograph - 45rpm
Music 1.5 - phonograph - 33 1/3rpm "Long Playing"
Music 2.0 - hi-fi and stereo
Music 3.0 - 8-track tape
Music 3.5 - cassette tape
Music 4.0 - CDs
Music 5.0 - iPod
Music 6.0 - ?
If applying version numbers retroactively seems silly — it probably is.
So, maybe we should view applying them willy-nilly nowadays as just as silly.
It's apparently not too silly though for Scientific American magazine. Perhaps they
took a cue from our original Phrenicea tongue-in-cheek analogies to seriously
name a new magazine — Earth3.0 — based on the pretentious premise that humankind
in a scant century or so has already outpaced 4.5 billion years of natural entropy.
Here's their justification (edited for brevity):
This planet is no longer simply the home of our species: it is also our
creation.[sic] And as with any product, sometimes it is prudent to upgrade its
quality.[sic]
Earth 1.0 was the world that persisted and evolved for billions of years,
up until very recently. Even after we humans developed agriculture, which considerably enlarged our
footprint on the environment, our overall influence was fairly small and localized.
That changed two centuries ago with the arrival of Earth 2.0, when the industrial
revolution gave the human race the leverage to achieve unprecedented health and
prosperity but at the price of wanton consumption of natural resources.
Today we have unwittingly become the major drivers of potentially disastrous climate
change. We have extinguished species at a rate not seen since the end of the
dinosaurs. We have depleted ocean fisheries so severely they could collapse by
midcentury.
Earth 3.0 is thus the new way forward that we need to establish, one with all the
prosperity of 2.0 but also the sustainability of 1.0. And it is in that spirit that
we present Earth3.0.
This is more than silly. To ascribe version numbers to the earth with the overblown illusion that
it is now our creation because of our innate arrogance and egocentricity is
laughable. Planet Earth will inevitably do just fine without us — whenever that ends up to be.
Nevertheless, maybe the idea for this new magazine was a good one, capitalizing on Scientific American's good name
and our present day concerns, albeit with an unabashed goal to generate additional revenue.
Ascribing version numbers to the earth with the illusion that
it's our creation is laughable.
Scientific American has been in existence for over a century. It's a blue-chip publishing brand built very
slowly since 1845 that has garnered a reputation of quality. In contrast, How long will faddish Earth3.0 last? Unfortunately, everyone seems to think short term today — and that is why we are in a world of crisis
on more than one front.
Like General Motors et al from the past, the publisher is leveraging the time-honored and respected
name Scientific American for a quick profit.
You'd think by now that lessons would have been learned given the state of companies like GM, who
cheapened their once powerhouse names and reputations to virtually valueless trash.
What we really need now is Common Sense 2.0.
Time will tell...
Click here for more sightings of Point Uh-Oh terminology in the media.
Through all of the 2008 U.S. presidential campaigning hoopla, there's been little substantive discussion
of important issues like energy, education, boomer retirement, immigration, conservation, environment,
health care, evolution/intelligent design, bioethics and stem-cells, lingering
security threats — as well as the fragile global economy.
Instead, we are bombarded daily with cursory,
carefully crafted sound bites, incessant accusations, tough talk, innuendo, decades-old misdeeds,
and of course poll results. Both political parties have employed character-manipulating handlers,
and SWAT teams to verbally
attack and counterattack each other with clever pyrotechnics that can instantly shoot
around the world for anyone still interested.
How did it come to this?
Technology! As in sophisticated systems for marketing and polling. As in TV, satellites,
cable, the Internet/web, PCs and hand-held devices. The unfortunate result is a desperate attempt
The Founding Fathers would shudder at how their idealistic vision
blurred with the worst that technology has to offer.
by both political camps to capture the attention of the harried and
hurried, 24/7 connected lifestyles that afford little time
to consume more substantive data even if it was presented.
America's Founding Fathers would shudder at how their idealistic vision has blurred with
the worst that technology has to offer.
Perhaps the most powerful influence is TV, although the Internet/web is closing in. Even before the fateful debate
between Kennedy and Nixon, Eisenhower employed the marketing powerhouse Rosser Reeves (known
for M&Ms' "Melts in your mouth, not in your hand" as well as other famous commercial tag lines) to
subtly portray him in the TV ads as authoritative yet likable.
It was the first use of a political "ad campaign" with short 30 second "spots" to manipulate the viewer's
perception of the candidate. Its success set the stage (so to speak) to employ ever more
sophisticated principles and techniques for legal brainwashing en masse.
At about the same time, the science of polling "Galluped" ahead and provided the so-called pulse of the
nation — which can itself influence opinions exponentially.
Finally, the ubiquitous electronic medium facilitates the infamous "debates," which have become anything
but. The intense negotiations that precede them strive to minimize spontaneity and maximize
the probability that there'll be no major gaffes that would be aired ad infinitum
— leading to the destruction of the unfortunate perpetrator. News anchor Jim Lehrer explains,
"It is the only opportunity to evaluate candidates side by side. For the candidates, it's their last
chance to close the deal with voters." The candidates echo Lehrer:
"You're on guard; you don't want to make a mistake; you don't want to say anything that's going to offend." - George H.W. Bush
"It was intense and confrontational from beginning to end." - John Edwards
"The stakes are very, very high." - John Kerry
"Now, was I glad that the damn thing [1992 debate] was over? Yeah, maybe that's why I was looking at [my watch]. Only
ten more minutes of this crap." - George H.W. Bush
*****
So when will this end?
Short term: After the 2008 U.S. election and there's a collective sigh of relief among its
citizens — that it will be at least a year (hopefully!) before the 2012 election is mentioned.
Long term: When the institutionalization of Phrenicea occurs. "Phrenicea ensures that no voter is uninformed.
Every eligible voter has complete access to the entire unbiased history of each candidate — objective
factual and biographical information resident within the Phrenicea braincomb — to
decide which candidate is the best choice. Any vote even partly based
partly on subjective criteria is summarily rejected.
Late summer/early fall is typically the time of year when the buzz begins for new car introductions,
touting engineering innovations and "all new" styling.
Unlike objective evaluations of technical advancement, a car's appearance is purely
subjective, although most often a consensus eventually emerges translating into
sales success or failure. Controversial designs that come to mind are Ford's Edsel
and Pontiac's Aztek, both disastrous sales duds.
Yet, germinal "ugly duckling" styling on a prestigious brand apparently
can breed a litter of copycats as BMW's
Bangle
bungle has with complex curves, humps, bumps and creases.
Late to the Ugly Bug Ball is Acura. Traditionally
conservative, parent Honda is throwing
caution to the wind to have their upscale brand noticed in 2009 — for better or for worse.
Germinal "ugly duckling" styling can breed a litter of copycats.
The latest designs that arguably out-ugly the competition found inspiration unfortunately
from an oddball looking concept car from 2006.
Acura's initial press release for its 2009s is typical corporate braggadocio, touting "the all-new, completely redesigned TL employs
dramatic new styling...with a dynamic, new look." The new RL is "Ahead of the Curve."
The TSX "is expected to appeal to image seekers who will appreciate its innovative
styling..." And in a world of mundane and meaningless taglines, Acura follows through
with just one word, "Advance."
The auto press seems not to agree however. Autoblog.com states "Acura's love-it-or-hate-it new shield-grille face is
affixed to the front end..." Nextautos.com is more blunt, "The rather ostentatious front end treatment,
most notably the chevron shaped front grill, could prove a deal-breaker for some
potential buyers." Car and Driver is none too kind: "It's Official: It's Ugly, But Should be Fast."
Autoweek is blunter still; "[Acura's] response to make it more
distinctive may result in the baby being thrown out with the bath water." Ouch!
These are subjective comments based on myriad influences. We all have biases derived
The latest Acura designs arguably out-ugly the competition.
from our personal experiences. Case in point; being fan of sci-fi B-movies,
I cannot help but associate Acura's new corporate face with 1954's robot
Tobor the Great.
Could this likeness to a robotic visage be just a coincidence? Or did Acura designers decide look backwards
(Tobor is r-o-b-o-t spelled backwards) in their quest to be forward looking?
Of course this off-the-wall association is a subjective one. Nevertheless, perhaps the professed
resemblance can be amusingly presented herewith:
The excitement begins!
"Robot" spelled backwards
"Acura" spelled backwards?
A double feature!
TOBOR 1954!
2009 RL!
Scene I
TOBOR say "cheese"!
Say cheesy TL!
Scene II
TOBOR beaming
High-beamed TSX
Scene III
E2EG TOBOR
E2EG TL
Scene IV
The End.
The End...of Acura?
Dénouement
Tobor the Great, a timeless 1950s classic movie with the then common plot elements centered on
technology's omnipotence, the Space Race and Cold War paranoia. Who would have predicted that 55 years later
its main character would resemble a 21st century automobile? Unfortunately, what's cute
on an old robot doesn't necessarily translate well onto a new car.
Acura's plot in 2009 is yet to be written. Its unfolding depends upon how potential buyers react to what many auto experts are calling cheesy styling.
Will the new comedic front-ends be the beginning of Acura's end? Will its future be turned upside down foreshadowing a downturning frown?
After more than two decades of fine cars, that would be a tragedy:
Greek Comedy / Tragedy
Acura's Comedy or Tragedy?
How will Acura's play end?
Upon further reflection, a Greek tragedy might be a better metaphor than a '50s B-movie given Acura's
potentially suicidal makeover. Perhaps to protect its hard-earned brand equity, Acura should mask its identity and
rebadge these grinning models "Aruca." (That's A-c-u-r-a spelled backwards.)
Time will tell.
posted by John Herman 8:34 AM
Friday August 1, 2008
Ubiquitous, and Ridiculous
The Phrenicea scenario envisions the eventual adoption of solar power for dwellings and transportation. So why did we not choose ubiquitous hydrogen, now being pandered to hopefuls — mostly by politicians and a General Motors teetering on bankruptcy — as the fuel of the future?
With the U.S. presidential election fast approaching and oil prices figuratively in the stratosphere, there's hopefully going to be some debate about our (in reality the world's) dependence on oil and the vulnerabilities that that engenders, not to mention the deleterious impact on the environment. So-called green alternative fuels that sound too good to be true, such as hydrogen, will be broached superficially — and a gullible public will once again be lulled into a false state of optimism. "Ok, next topic folks..."
Likely not discussed: the U.S.'s eventual loss of its monopoly on living standards supported by the high consumption of the earth's resources — as the so-called "have not" nations aggressively embrace capitalistic-like models, perhaps crudely at first. This will more than offset any progress that might be
Significant energy is required to split hydrogen
from the bonds of a strong molecular grip.
garnered with expensive high-tech conservation efforts by the "already haves." The consequence is that things are going to get much worse before they get any better.
Not to digress further, Why not hydrogen, a potentially clean fuel?
It's true that hydrogen is literally everywhere, but not in a state at our (sea) level where it can be readily consumed. Hydrogen is found in nature usually tightly bound to other elements, the most abundant being in combination with oxygen to form water. If it is bound to itself (H2), it is literally in the stratosphere in trace amounts, being about 14 times lighter than air.
Significant energy is required to split hydrogen from the bonds of a strong molecular grip. Where would this energy come from? It can be "dirty," from fossil fuel — but that would be ludicrous. Or it can be clean from wind, waves or other (fanciful) sources — but that is frankly wishful thinking.
In addition, transporting and storing hydrogen is cumbersome and dangerous — requiring either cryogenic temperatures or 5,000-10,000 pounds of pressure
We've been consuming Mother Nature's lowest hanging fruit in the form of petroleum.
per square inch. Imagine living beside — or worse — driving around with storage tanks under such stress. And just imagine the cost to build a transport infrastructure as intricate as what has evolved for fossil fuels over the past century. The mind boggles.
Consequently, we envision solar-based energy to be the way of the future. Mother Nature found a mechanism to capture the enormous energy of the sun with chlorophyll and photosynthesis, and we've been consuming the lowest hanging fruit of that miracle in the form of petroleum. With enough research dollars, we're optimistic we'll one day match her adroitness. The price paid will be significant in terms of monetary funding — and perhaps initially with a diminished freedom to travel about and more modest abodes (cubicles?).
Our QuikPoll#17 revealed surprisingly that there is more concern with fossil
fueled global warming today than with long-lived and deadly radioactive waste (and weapons
grade fuel) produced by nuclear power plants. This is astonishing, especially with the
threat of terrorism and the third-world's desire for nukes.
It's amazing how attitudes can vacillate over the course of time — about 60 years in this
case. At the dawn of the Atomic Age, there was optimism that not only
would "going nuclear" fuel power plants to generate electricity — it would also power
our planes, cars and rockets — and cook our food! (Even Walt Disney was convinced,
producing the movie and
book,
"Our Friend the Atom.")
That initial optimism was eventually supplanted with concern about bomb proliferation;
paranoia associated with a perceived loss of U.S. technological supremacy to the Soviet Union; and uncertainty
as to the long term effects of the radiation
from weapons testing. The many science fiction movies from the era depicting awakening
dinosaurs, giant insects, and incredible shrinking men attest to the period's uneasiness associated
with radiation. Eventually Chernobyl and Three Mile Island would be the final straws
that broke nuclear's back. But, memories fade.
Fast forward to today. Politicians and the nuclear industry are capitalizing on a recycled
nuclear blaséness with talk of new reactors helping to counter skyrocketing fuel prices and ameliorate
global warming. Cameco, the
Recycling dangerous technology may not be
the answer to rising fuel prices and global warming.
"world's largest uranium producer" crows the slogan, "NUCLEAR. The Clean Air Energy."
Entergy, self-described as the second-largest nuclear generator in the United States,
obfuscates with the tagline "The Power of People," whatever that means.
Embedded in a past issue of Fortune magazine is a nuclear-industry funded feature posing
as objective content proclaiming a "Nuclear Redux." The piece, cleverly written by
freelancer Robert
McGarvey
(who might have sold his professional soul here), subtly
conveys an environmentally friendly green theme with an innocuous
graphic,
a green pull-quote highlighting nuclear's return to center stage, and a green text box incredibly proclaiming
that "Radiation is good for you."! How subtle. How frightening!
A more recent Fortune (June 9) is host to an
essay titled "The Case for Nukes," where writer/blogger Elizabeth
Spiers argues that "as oil climbs to where no one can afford it," we'll
not be able to afford being afraid of nuclear energy, and that accidents like Chernobyl
"would never happen again." [Oh yeah?]
And McGarvey, by now soulless, has been paid yet again to aid and abet the radioactive propaganda machine in
an ad section published in Fortune's July 7 issue, gushing about today's "The Nuclear Renaissance" and
its metaphoric journey from pariah to prom queen spurred by soaring energy costs.
*****
There's little doubt that rising fuel prices and global temperatures are pressing issues requiring action. However,
the answer may not be to recycle
dangerous
technology. We owe it to ourselves and to posterity to become sufficiently educated to intelligently evaluate potential options.
It's popular now to pander to those outraged over $60 fill-ups and brand global warming
"bad" because that's been the predominant
message; and nuclear energy as comparatively "good" because it's been out of the
tabloid news for over twenty years.
Don't listen passively. The world and its inhabitants are at stake — and the clock is ticking.
John
Please see http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/ or Google Channel4 Global warming Swindle. Those who are interested in this great fraud perpetrated by Al Gore do some research on the Mini Ice Age, you will discover that we have had numerous centuries where the temperature has gone up and gone down. (Greenland was lush with greenery and the Vikings settled there around 1300, but then came the ice age and they all perished.) In-fact in 1975 scientists were predicting a global cooling, see Time magazine 1975 and Newsweek 1974. They have also determined by numerous soil samples that between 25-50 million years ago there was much more CO2 in the atmosphere than there is now, due to lots of volcanic activity. It is amazing how the public has been swindled, and taking this hook, line and sinker - it goes to show what happens when we are dominated by
the liberal press like Newsday, hard to find balanced news.
Oh, by the way the polar bear has been on this earth for at least 100 thousand years and has survived the warming and cooling trends, I think it will make it through this warming cycle.
John Sertic
Sunday June 1, 2008
Memories: Firsthand & First Person
Our memories, and the memories of us, are precious. Are they not? Well, at least to some authors
they appear to be.
Cliff Pickover, prolific
writer
and research staff member at
IBM's
T. J. Watson Research Center, admits that much of his motivation to publish comes from his desire
to exit this world with something to leave behind for future generations. He laments:
After you die, will the world remember anything you did? Most of us rarely leave marks,
except on our immediate family or a few friends. We'll never have our lives illuminated
in a New York Times obituary or uttered by a TV news anchorperson. Even your immediate
family will know nothing of you within four generations. Your great-grandchildren may
carry some vestigial memory of you, but that will fade like a burning ember when they
die — and you will be extinguished and forgotten.
That's pretty depressing. As we try to live each day to the fullest — being productive, learning,
and ultimately creating memories for ourselves and others — we rarely ponder the ephemeralness of it all.
(Although the often-heard dispassionate phrase, "Who will care a hundred years from now?" stems from the sad reality
of our short time here on earth.)
But does it have to be this way?
The Phrenicea scenario envisions a time when all our memories and experiences will be stored forever, within our own
brain as well as within others' — firsthand memories that are deemed rich enough to be bought and sold at auction —
like memorabilia traded today on eBay.
Imagine sharing the actual memory of one accepting a Nobel Prize or an Academy Award, winning a marathon, falling head-over-heels for
your favorite actor , starving in the third world,
learning of a terminal disease; even of dying!
Most are tempted to say, "Yeah right! No way."
Memories bought and sold at auction —
like memorabilia on eBay.
It seems impossible now, but there will come a day when the mechanism for memory assembly and storage within the human brain
is elucidated. A next logical step would be to try to save or replicate these memories, perhaps for recollection by others.
When it does come to fruition, imagine the regret for the many first-person memories already — or soon to be —
lost forever:
- the excitement of witnessing man's first flight
- the despair of the 1929 Stock Market Crash
- the horror of the Holocaust and Hiroshima
- the excitement of purchasing a new color TV in the 1950s
- the anticipation of finding out "Who Shot JR?"
- the relief of learning of a cure for polio
- the nostalgia of catching the last feature at the local drive-in movie theatre just before its closing forever
- the shock of President John F. Kennedy's death
- the thrill of setting foot on the moon
- the marvel at the first "horseless carriage," telephone, "talkie" talking movie, ballpoint pen, transistor radio, Polaroid camera, VCR
Of course you could read or see videos about these events. But nothing can approach an actual memory —
just ask Neil Armstrong.
Gee, when you think about it, memories really are precious.
Workin' the Pharm:
"Ask your doctor about Vesi • lev • esta • vix • rum • vix • ami • cele • max • gel • ser • iza • vet • avo • cal • zet • via • ara • nex • xol • quel • xyz • luc • lis • tis • tor • itra • ast • tia • ica • gra • iva...!"
We're bombarded nowadays with drug ads in print and on TV called "direct to consumer advertising." Their proliferation is a result of a 1997 FDA change allowing pharmaceutical companies to promote drugs without having to elaborate the negative side-effects. A great business sales model immediately emerged to recruit consumers into believers, who then cajole their doctors into prescribing drugs.
Here's a "short" hawking list compiled from TV and a few magazines:
Celebrex
Amitiza
Viagra
Vytorin
Nexium
Crestor
Plavix
Actonel
Lunesta
Evista
Nasonex
Asmanex
Boniva
Symbicort
Vesicare
Roserum
Flowmax
Caduet
Lipitor
Avodart
Singulair
Lunesta
Januvia
Zetia
Reclast
Levitra
Xyzal
Lucentis
Cialis
Seroquel
Xolegel
Marketing firms are paid big money to create these arbitrary (meaningless) names that are then registered as unique trademarks. The guidelines appear to be short names, five to eight letters, constructed from a common set of syllables — perhaps explaining why they all have a "drug-sounding" resonance.
Reading the list above for the first time you'd probably guess that they were drugs. The challenge then for creating new names is to find new syllable combinations not yet coined. Choosing six syllables from the heading above — born here are Nexquel, Estavix and Vexizet. They sure sound like drugs and per Google they're not in use. (The futuristic entity Phrenicea was coined analogously nine years ago by combining phrenic and panacea !)
The intent of pharmaceutical companies is to make their names familiar with unrelenting advertising using memorable jingles like Viva Viagra!, cryptic hints on par with "When the moment is right, you can be ready" and citing identifiable conditions such as acid reflux (Nexium), osteoporosis (Boniva), allergies (Singulair), heart risks (Lipitor), diabetes (Januvia), bladder urges (Vesicare or Flowmax), enlarged prostate (Avodart), high cholesterol (Crestor or Zetia), or high blood pressure (Caduet). And of course everyone knows what Viagra purports to cure.
To see how well the drug companies have been able to brand their names into your brain, scan the list above and click a check inside the boxes for those that are familiar.
How many did you check? Perhaps more than you would have guessed. That's the power of advertising.
Very few new drugs make it to a list like this however. Only one out of ten earns FDA approval after three phases of exacting clinical trials. Most new drugs either have no effect or are harmful.
The unexpected rise out of Viagra makes clear that drug discovery is not by design.
Another outcome is the unexpected. Many are not aware that Viagra was originally tested to treat angina and by serendipity became famous with a surprising side effect. After the (probable) chuckles during trial testing subsided, the once meaningless v-i-a-g-r-a would become an official entry in Webster's dictionary. Perhaps one day it will even become a genericized trademark like zipper, kleenex, velcro, scotch tape, band-aid, coke and Q-tip.
The unexpected rise out of Viagra illuminates an important point: Drug synthesis and discovery is not really by design, although most chemists in the industry will not readily admit such. The chemical compounds are created with as much art as science by unnatural means, with elaborate apparatus to control physical conditions of temperature, pressure, etc. They're then evaluated via empirics with animals and humans, which is a fancy way of saying they watch for indications (good effects) and reactions (bad effects) and contraindications (bad combinations) with other drugs, chemicals, and nutrients. The entire process can take years or decades.
Because so many of the intricacies of human body chemistry are a yet to be learned or explained, oftentimes how a drug works (pharmacodynamics) is a mystery. The pamphlet insert (which hardly anyone bothers to read) for Aldera cream states, "The mechanism of action is unknown." In layman's terms it would read, "We have no idea how this stuff works."
That explains too why so little is known about the long-term impact of these synthetic concoctions, and why in some cases they have to be pulled from the market due to unforeseen negative complications (Vioxx).
Not ironically, the benign sounding drug names drummed into us belie all this complexity. The trade name Plavix has the clunky generic name of clopidogrel, which pales next to its chemical name:
Imagine putting music and images to clopidogrel, or worse — methyl dihydrothiano pyridin acetate. Would you be as easily swayed to "ask your doctor" as the Plavix advertisements implore?
If you've taken a course in organic chemistry you might comprehend more of this. But then you would better appreciate the complexity of the human body, and the precarious chances taken when ingesting these novel
Plow a furrow of skepticism in your brow as harvests past yielded unexpected results.
chemicals never before seen in nature; created in laboratories with equipment that defies evolutionary rules and the eons of time to be in harmony with biological systems.
Nevertheless, the next time you find yourself "workin' the pharm" by asking your doctor about a drug you saw on TV or in a magazine, don't be afraid to get your hands dirty beforehand by digging up your own proverbial dirt via the Web or elsewhere to learn "what's in a name" — and then muster the vigor to plow a furrow of skepticism in your brow as harvests past have tended to yield unexpected crops.
Time will tell...
posted by John Herman 1:28 AM
Tuesday April 1, 2008
A Tough Act to Follow
It's been a while since we took Ray Kurzweil to task, the self-proclaimed "visionary futurist," whom we fondly call Chiphead, our respectfully disrespectful appellation for the champion of chip-based intelligence. He predicts "We won't experience 100 years of progress in the 21st century — it will be more like 20,000 years of progress (at today's rate)."
We love skewering Kurzweil because of his unabashed arrogance. A lot happened in the 20th century making its end appear quite different from its beginning. So, let's evaluate the most significant achievements/events that occurred in those incredible ten decades vs. the 21st century to date, which is already approaching one-tenth of its 100 years. You can then adjudge the veracity of Kurzweil since we should have already progressed 10 percent of 20,000 years. (Do the math, that's 2000 years of progress since entering this new century.)
Significant achievements/events in the 20th Century:
synthetic chemistry; Nylon, Dacron, PVC, Big Pharma and more — the end of "all natural"
Pearl Harbor; U.S world predominance
drive-in theater; sci-fi B-movies*
atomic bomb; fear of non-fungal mushrooms, MAD
transistor; gadgets galore
antibiotics; (perceived) microbial domination
DNA double helix; life built from lifeless molecules
rock 'n' roll; generational segregation 1.0
credit cards; easy debt
Sputnik; space race, spin-off technology
The Pill; equality of the sexes
Cable TV; cultural splintering
microprocessor; PCs and computerized everything
MTV; generational segregation 2.0
Internet/Web; digital revolution, offshoring
Wow! It could be debated though whether the list is the most significant. Perhaps there should be more, maybe less. And which is the most influential? Depending upon your perspective, it might be the automobile; The Pill; or the microprocessor. Then again, the influence of an event then might not be as significant in this new century.
An objective approach is to use some measuring criteria. In keeping with this month's spirit of April Foolery*, we hereby propose the "B-movie plot test," using the fodder of drive-in theaters from days gone by. (From Wikipedia: The term B-movie originally referred to a motion picture made on a modest budget and intended for distribution as the less-publicized, bottom half of a double feature. U.S. production of movies intended as second features largely ceased by the end of the 1950s.)
Based of the following plethora of radiation-based B-movie plots, we submit that the atomic bomb had the biggest overall impact during the 20th century. Just feast on the beasts below:
The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms: an atomic test in the arctic thaws a dinosaur so it can migrate back to New York to cause havoc.
Godzilla: American hydrogen bomb tests awaken and mutate the monster Godzilla. You know the rest.
Them!: the first U.S. nuclear test causes ants to mutate into giants.
The Beast of Yucca Flats: a defecting Russian scientist is chased by the KGB and winds up amidst a nuclear mushroom cloud. The radiation turns him into a killing beast.
The Amazing Colossal Man: a U.S. soldier suffers serious burns following exposure to plutonium from a bomb blast. He survives but the radiation causes him to grow into a giant.
The Crawling Eye: a radioactive cloud sitting atop a mountain has its climbers winding up decapitated without explanation.
Hideous Sun Demon: decades before sunblock and SPF, a scientist exposed to a radioactive isotope devolves into a scaly reptilian when caught in the rays of the sun.
The Giant Behemoth: at a science conference it is noted that atomic tests have contaminated plankton, fish, and birds in a "biological chain reaction" of radiation culminating with a monster that burns flesh with radioactive waves.
The Incredible Shrinking Man: a man is subjected to a radioactive mist that causes him to shrink beyond detection.
You could dismiss all this as April Fools' folly. But the 1950s were indeed scary and the atomic bomb is right up there in terms of centurial impact.
Now for a comparison let's list the significant aspects of the 21st Century to date:
Bush wins presidency; Al Gore popularizes (invents?) Global Warming
human genome mapping; TMI — revelations that we'll not want to cope with
Web 2.0; virtual socialization (seeds of Phrenicea?)
Internet dependence; on par with electricity and fresh water
What will be the most significant? Bush? 9/11? The iPod? Dependence on the Internet? It's hard to infer from the narrow perspective of the present day (and sans the B-movie test!). But one thing's certain — we'll not have 2000 years of progress in this decade, despite what Kurzweil predicts and proselytizes.
*****
In sensible and realistic terms, the sweeping change of the 20th century is going to be a tough act to follow.
Time will tell...
posted by John Herman 5:37 AM
Saturday March 1, 2008
A Model Shattered?
The world has changed. Jobs are being lost to technology, outsourcing and the "flattening" of organizations. As intellectual skills rise globally, many of the jobs left are lower paying, heeding the old law of supply and demand.
This new reality shatters the half-century old model for graduating high school, attending college, and then getting a good "white collar" job.
You may have heard stories like these:
A fine arts graduate working as a "sales associate" at electronics chain
A serial changer of undergraduate majors that becomes a perpetual full-time student pursuing one or more
bachelor degrees well beyond the expected four years
A mathematics graduate stocking shelves at a health food store
Add one or more of your own here
Typically these are students who aren't sure of their purpose in life, and thus are funneled into a college course of study for the wrong reasons: pleasing parents; it's what's expected; anticipation of good money after graduation; a prestigious title; or perhaps the lure of landing a job with summers off and generous benefits.
The solution to increased competition from an ever-growing global workforce will be attaining two important qualities sooner rather than later: maturity and passion. Unfortunately many of today's youth are lacking in both,
The flood of intellectual talent morphs the corporate ladder into a horizontal plank.
and that quest seems to elongate with each succeeding generation. Today's extended reliance on parents precludes the development of independence and can encourage a preoccupation with proving adulthood through self-destructive means like binge drinking and worse. If young adults truly had adult responsibilities, such conspicuous indulgences would be pointless.
This is not folly. The February 25 issue of U.S. Newsreports
on a new film, "Two Million Minutes: A Global Examination" comparing American teenagers' attitudes to those in India and China. The conclusion: U.S. students are preoccupied with "having fun," and are less focused and motivated.
It's not necessarily the kids' fault. They're pushed, prodded and subjected to structured programs in academics and sports that rob them of extemporaneous life experiences and a sense of personal accountability. With little time to experiment and make self-inflicted mistakes, absent is the benefit from the consequent lessons that would result. (Ironically, many times it's the accumulated wisdom from mistakes that is most beneficial years hence.)
Here's an excerpt from one student's college essay:
The competition is fierce. I've heard the infamous question, "What do you want to be when you grow up?" ever since I first started school. The expectation of teachers, guidance counselors and even family members contributes to the constant pressure for young adults to distinguish their future. When I was younger, I promised myself that I would end up doing something I truly loved. Feeling overwhelmed makes it harder for students to discover who they really are as people. Before all the stress, I used to have a long list of potential professions in mind, but now it all seems faint.
Not to paint an overly bleak picture, in reality many are ready to attend college right after high school;
Alternate pursuits not congruent with expectations should not be deemed inferior.
they're the fortunate ones. Too many are not however. For them, this is not a recommendation to not attend college, but to suggest that alternate pursuits not be deemed inferior if not congruent with entrenched expectations. Entering college prematurely, before some self-initiated responsibility and maturity have been garnered, is an invitation to disappointment.
It's not obvious today that the expectation of attending college is a relatively new phenomenon, first fueled by the post WWII GI Bill and mature, serious-minded veterans determined to climb the corporate ladder. But given the flood of intellectual talent nowadays, that ladder oftentimes morphs into a horizontal plank.
Perhaps its time to go back to the model that existed prior to WWII. Very few went to college; most found jobs right from high school. The benefit however was that the responsibilities of adulthood came very fast.
Just imagine a parent encouraging their college-aged son or daughter to:
Go out and experience life. Get a job. McDonalds', Home Depot, Starbucks and a zillion retail stores are starving for
competent help. Then strive to earn some responsibility. Become a supervisor or assistant manager. Learn to effectively deal with customers, and employees both more senior and junior than you. These jobs are hard work. They are at times monotonous and can even be degrading. Become aware of what it's like to begin work without a specific skill set. Still, there are invaluable lessons to be learned. Wisdom to be acquired. The attainment of compassion and empathy. The opportunity to earn respect from others as well as for yourself.
Then after this experience perhaps you'll be better prepared for college. And you won't need your parents hounding you to earn good grades. You'll want them all by yourself.
Heresy? Of course this goes against the grain of today's expectations. But you may have heard of several well-known and successful individuals who followed unorthodox career paths, including Bill Gates (co-founder of Microsoft), Richard Branson (entrepreneur, Virgin Records & Airways), Arnold Schwarzenegger (bodybuilder/actor/governor), Steve Jobs (co-founder of Apple), Michael Dell (founder of Dell Computer), Craig Venter (iconoclastic genomic pioneer, first to decipher human genome), Billy Joel (pop musician), Ian Anderson (self-taught musician, salmon farm entrepreneur).
Is it a coincidence that many of today's richest, most influential and creative individuals broke from the mold and charted their own paths to success?
With the ever-increasing worldwide competition for jobs, the key to success may be discovering very soon after high school innate talents and a passion for something; anything. (As Google's super-successful executive
chef
Josef Desimone imparts, "I never wanted to be an astronaut... I only wanted to cook.")
What accompanies passion is an inexhaustible reservoir of energy for accomplishment. To quote an old proverb: "Do work you love and you'll never work a day in your life."
Maturity and Passion — a fortuitous combination — perhaps the 21st-century passport to success. Luckiest are the ones that have it at an early age. Fortunate are the ones that acquire it eventually. Sorry will be the ones unable to achieve it in time, or at all.
Time will tell...
posted by John Herman 4:28 AM
Friday February 1, 2008
Bag Age Baggage
con•ve•ience
Freedom from difficulty, discomfort, or trouble.
(Merriam-Webster)
stu•pid•i•ty
The quality or state of being stupid; given to unintelligent decisions or acts.
(Merriam-Webster)
*****
Does convenience beget stupidity? Does stupidity beget convenience? Or do they complement each
other synergistically?
I contemplate this now as I find myself inundated with plastic bags carried home from
virtually every type of retail store. And the problem seems to be getting worse day-by-day as behavior
accommodates their omnipresence and so-called convenience.
The phenomenon has made me more observant of our dependence on the baggage in what appears to be
a burgeoning Bag Age:
When buying six replacement glass chimney light shades at a local big-box home center,
the clerk first wrapped each individually with unopened plastic bags before placing
them in bags for carrying, two per bag. That's nine bags! (In times past they would have
been wrapped in newspaper and placed in an old cardboard box.)
While fumbling for cash to pay for a watch battery, the clerk placed the tiny two-inch
square cardboard package and a three-foot-long receipt inside a large two-foot
square bag. Unsuccessful in giving it back, I self-consciously carried the nearly empty
bag out and almost lost it to a gust of wind. (What happened to small paper
bags? This is convenience?)
A local beer outlet insisted that I not walk the five feet to the exit carrying a six-pack
naked of a plastic bag. "It's the law," chided the proprietor. (Government mandated stupidity or
a manufactured "convenience"?)
Suddenly this year, curbside Christmas trees that filled homes with holiday cheer were
discarded in huge white plastic bags — large enough to cocoon a small car.
(I cannot fathom any convenience here.)
Taking advantage of the annual supermarket "can can" sale, the clerk did me a "favor" by packing
only two cans per plastic bag. No amount of coaxing would convince otherwise. (Convenience
or stupidity?)
As I was entering a supermarket checkout line, the elderly shopper before me
said to the cashier, "You can put more items in those bags." The cashier replied, "I don't want
you to have work too work hard loading them into your car!" I tried to count the mountain of
bags in her cart but was unsuccessful. (I left the store in a state of dismay.)
Upon exiting a supermarket checkout, the cashier asked the shopper behind me,
"Plastic or paper, sir?" He chose plastic. (Which definition above applies here?)
Waiting for a train I watched as a garbage bin maintenance worker mindlessly emptied bin after bin replacing the mostly empty
plastic liners with not one, but two new bags. That's waste times two. (I could only
shake my head at the moronic stupidity of a management that most likely mandated this policy.)
Pathetically, these scenarios play out, day in and day out. Unfortunately, it's now become business
as usual.
I've tempered some of my own guilt by reusing used bags as garbage liners. A decade ago
I purchased a half dozen "eBaskets." They're
simply but ingeniously designed to accept standard issue bags enabling them to complete
It's been a decade since purchasing bags that are Glad just to carry trash.
their usable life cycle more responsibly. It's been that long since I purchased bags that
are Glad just to carry trash. Particularly annoying then are odd-shaped bags that are
too tall and narrow or too short and wide — and good for absolutely nothing afterwards.
Still, having so many more standard-sized bags than trash needing a liner, I end up annually
with bags stuffed full of themselves from supermarkets, department stores, stationery stores, etc.
Fortunately my municipality recycles them. Even so, how many just thoughtlessly toss them out?
Evidently too many — since the company that produced the eBaskets,
Green
Earth Products, went out of business in 2007. All the politically correct rhetoric nowadays about going
"green" apparently is just that. Many talk the talk. But when it comes to walking the walk, the difficult
part that's just too much trouble, that's when we fall short.
Now I have to ask:
What happened to good old biodegradable paper bags? (Plastic is now cheaper.)
How did it come to this? (Wasting ubiquitous resources easily becomes habit forming.)
Are reusable cloth bags a viable solution? (Probably not without an outright ban on
plastic. Beyond the perception of being a hassle, with repeated use they could become unsanitary;
since it's doubtful many would bother laundering them.)
What will this (now worldwide) plastic waste eventually do to the environment, given that the bags are
non-degradable polyethylene that will last at least 1000 years? (Time will eventually tell.)
So, in final analysis:
Does convenience beget stupidity?
Does stupidity beget convenience?
I deem yes on both counts here — unless we one day have the wherewithal to sack today's Bag Age
baggage.
Time will tell...
posted by John Herman 8:27 AM
Click here for what might be construed as a calculated publicity ad by Target Stores.
Postscript by John Herman — April 13, 2008
Tuesday January 1, 2008
The Twelve Blogs of '07
Here we are again, lamenting yet another year's passing while suffering post-celebratory
writer's block. Rather than trying to cobble together a half-hearted essay, we'll sheepishly
follow last year's precedent-setting cop-out to lethargically review the "Twelve Blogs of 2007"
— with premature nostalgia and perhaps feigned interest as to whether they're still relevant.
• December's blog bemoans an unintended
social experiment whose impact appears generationally exponential:
Even casual observation of random family interactions reveals that selfishness has eclipsed selflessness.
Today it's often difficult to discern who is in charge — the parent or child. Recalcitrant
behavior is the norm in schools, where teachers field disciplinary problems with too little authority
to reprimand. And it's evident in society at large, where common politeness and respect for
others has gone by the wayside...(Read more)
• In November we wrung our hands over being
"all thumbs":
Looking at the impact of our silicon-infused, technological society it is obvious that very little
is done "by hand" nowadays — by young and old alike... (Read more)
• October's blog turned to humble introspection:
Why do we think we're so smart? It seems no matter what the year or age, our perception is that we're
always on the cutting edge of information and technology — even (or especially) if it contradicts previous
wisdom...(Read more)
• September's entry lamented the metaphorical
switching of gears:
Shanthi Gears is not located in California, Ohio, Maryland, Massachusetts, Indiana, Connecticut or
New York. It's manufacturing those gears in Tamilnadu, India. And while it is turning the wheels of
industries worldwide, the U.S. has shifted into high gear towards a service economy. The once ubiquitous
"Made in U.S.A." is rarely seen today...(Read more)
• In August one smart cookie crumbled:
I can't wait to order Chinese takeout again. Will I crack open another smart cookie to find an
abstruse, recondite maxim with a scientific theme? Or will I have the misfortune of reading
just another silly platitude? I'm really hoping for the former.
Forever puerile, I'll imagine my next postprandial surprise to be the work of some underemployed
subatomic particle physicist, shedding an optimistic photon beam on my two left feet so I can finally
show off some dance floor prowess...(Read more)
• In July we suffered the recurring affliction
of "water on the brain":
Maybe we should instill among ourselves a new idiom-cum-mantra to "spend water like it's money."
We all tend to waste water and take its current abundance for granted.
Wouldn't it be prudent to pay more today to change our wasteful habits, while adopting a mindset
focused on conservation to build "aqua equity" for future generations?
(Read more)
• In June big thoughts about small-minded
behavior prevailed:
And after thousands of years we're still at it. We can make just about anything into a symbol
of status. But one person's object of distinction might be another's folly. So we have to
be among like-minded people to make an impression. And you can't even take it with you!
(Read more)
• May's entry exposed the "Two Point Uh-oh"
media disorder of applying the trendy 2.0 suffix onto almost everything:
Version numbers like "2.0" are adopted from the software industry, from what's commonly referred
to as the "development life cycle." The confounding terminology is being unabashedly usurped by
advertisers making it part of our vernacular. Although their target market may not truly grasp the
pretentious and technical jargon being exploited, what is undoubtedly implied is "new and improved"
...(Read more)
• In April we maintained a cool head
on global warming:
If every energy spendthrift of modern society performed a one-eighty lifestyle change by adopting a conservation
mindset, the synergy of "the power of one" and "strength in numbers" would likely reduce consumption
and demand for energy sufficiently to render the global warming argument moot...(Read more)
• The March blog pitted brainy scientists
against nerdy computer wiz's:
A while back I emailed Dr. Terrence Deacon, professor of Biological Anthropology and
Neuroscience at University of California-Berkeley. He's an honest-to-goodness, genuine brain scientist
— as opposed to certain computer scientists who are brain-expert wannabees, typically proselytizing
in the media their tenuous computer-brain analogies and artificial intelligence predictions...
(Read more)
• In February we escaped the harsh reality of winter
through the wonders of armchair TIME-travel:
Entranced into an armchair TIME-traveler steeped in a '60s mindset, I randomly opened to
page 52, featuring "Welcome to Wi-Fi-Ville." Imagine how puzzled
I would be reading about: free wireless Internet, wireless-fidelity (wi-fi) network, the Web, sunbathers Web surfing,
municipal wi-fi, broadband prices, high-speed access to rural areas stuck with dial-up, VOIP
(voice-over-Internet protocol), telcos, EarthLink, DirecTV, DSL, Yahoo, Google, surfing porn and
downloading... (Read more)
• January's entry was tinged with nostalgia
and torpor — and guilt for not writing a new essay:
Along with the passing of 2006 comes inevitable reflection on what was and wasn't accomplished — as
well as looking ahead to 2007 with hopeful optimism. Another consequence is a bit of laziness
from too much of too much... (Read more).
You may or may not agree, but after reviewing the "Twelve Blogs of 2007" it appears most are still relevant as
we roll into the New Year. And somehow after recalling the energy that instigated the blogs to begin
with, we don't feel quite as lethargic.
Maybe that's the real benefit of looking backward, reminiscing and singing "Auld Lang Syne" — not
for nostalgia per se, but to recharge our batteries and begin another year with renewed energy and
enthusiasm.
Time will tell...
Happy New Year!
posted by John Herman 7:52 AM
Saturday December 1, 2007
Spock's Children's Children's Children
All the fuss over Tom Brokaw's latest book,
Boom! Voices of the Sixties, is partly and deservedly due to its excellent predecessor,
The Greatest Generation. With Boom! he tackles the "spoiled-est generation" during their
heyday (hair day?) in the 1960s — the decade of hormone- and drug-infused baby boomer
post-pubescence; arguably the 20th century's most significant decade in terms of cultural change.
(The book no doubt will be a sales success given boomers' infatuation with themselves.)
As expected, the electronic media and major newsweekly magazines gushed over the book's release.
Newsweek scooped an exclusive excerpt, while Time and U.S. News featured
Brokaw interviews.
When asked by Time whom he considered "the most influential person[s] in the last 40 years,"
Brokaw answered Mikhail Gorbachev, Ronald Reagan, and Osama bin Laden. I found his choices
quite underwhelming. (Perhaps not anticipating the question Brokaw's answer was extemporaneous.)
Given that the theme of Time's questioning was about his new book and the 1960s, I would
have expected more boomers to make his list. Bill Clinton or George Bush perhaps. Definitely Bill Gates
or Steve Jobs.
Despite surprise at his picks, my top choice too would not be a boomer. Without hesitation,
I would nominate whom I consider the "Father of the Boomers," the late Dr. Benjamin Spock,
born way back in 1903.
"What?" you might exclaim,
"Who
is Dr. Spock?" (No, he's not Star Trek's Mr. Spock with a
medical degree.) In 1946, Pediatrician Spock published a paperback titled The Common
Sense Book of Baby and Child Care, a handbook of iconoclastic child rearing views.
The book immediately struck a chord with other "progressive" doctors and was an unexpected best seller
in America, and eventually internationally. The book would be translated into 39 languages
and sell more than 50 million copies (second in sales only to the Bible).
Spock spawned a worldwide social experiment whose impact is generationally exponential.
Spock's advice to parents was laced with permissiveness;
likening children to be more like equal partners in their development. This was in sharp contrast
to other childcare books of the time that were preaching traditional authoritarianism.
Although boomers proudly proclaim that they defined their generation, it was Dr. Spock who
unintentionally took on the role of surrogate parent and defined their values. Postwar parents
who lived through the depression and WWII wanted nothing but the best for their children. Better
educated and with economic conditions improving, they were receptive to a book purportedly
written by an expert promulgating juvenile well-being through a more liberal disciplinary path.
So how did Dr. Spock come to write the most influential parenting book ever written? It was
not by design. Its popularity was a surprise even to him. And it's not that he was especially
qualified to profess such authority to effectively raise an entire generation. While specializing
in pediatrics he studied psychoanalysis for six years, making him the only practicing
pediatrician of his time with this combination of training. Without controlled clinical study
however, widespread adherence to his methods turned out to be a worldwide social experiment whose impact
seems to be generationally exponential.
Even casual observation of random family interactions reveals that selfishness has eclipsed selflessness.
Today it's often difficult to discern who is in charge, the parent or child. Recalcitrant
behavior is the norm in schools, where teachers field disciplinary problems with too little authority
to reprimand. And it's evident in society at large, where common politeness and respect for
others has gone by the wayside.
Dr. Spock's legacy is far reaching, affecting by now "his" children's children's children.
Nevertheless, Brokaw's book incredibly cites just one reference to Spock, when he joined the
rebellious cohort he helped create to speak out against the war in Vietnam.
Missing the opportunity with Boom!, perhaps Brokaw's next book should assay the (rude) behavior
spawned by Spock as evidenced in the present day,
and entitle it The Ungrateful Generations.
Time will tell...
posted by John Herman 7:07 AM
Thursday November 1, 2007
Look, No Hands!
Given that most websites are maintained using powerfully sophisticated software, I usually elicit
shock (well, perhaps astonishment) when explaining that I update the Phrenicea site "by hand,"
utilizing MS Notepad and basic HTML coding. (Being somewhat fastidious, at least I'm content knowing
that every HTML character and tag has been hand-keyed, sans extraneous source code that's
automatically generated.)
Beyond the tedious development of Phrenicea however, the terms "by hand" and "handmade" seem to be
on the wane — and it stems from our growing disconnect from the physical world that unfortunately
begins today early in childhood.
A case in point, this is from the December 1960
issue of Popular Mechanics:
Model making has replaced stamp collecting as the nation's number one hobby. A week after the
U.S. Air Force announced its Starfighter jet set a new altitude record, miniature construction
kits of the plane were sold out in stores from
coast to coast.
It's hard to fathom today with YouTube, Facebook, MySpace, cell phones and iPods that
model making back then was the favored pastime of America's youth — and that stamp collecting
ever was! (I wonder if kids today desensitized by computerized fiction would even
get excited about a manned Mars landing.)
Looking at the impact of our silicon-infused, technological society it is obvious that very little
is done "by hand" nowadays — by young and old alike. For example:
What happened to the popularity of Erector Sets with their nuts, bolts, screws and mechanical
parts? What about paint-by-number kits, Lincoln Logs and chemistry sets? These required tactile
finesse while nourishing portions of the brain that no computer could possibly stimulate.
What happened to mending and darning of clothes? Most likely the blemished garment is just
tossed out or given away.
What about home-cooked meals? This activity is diminishing with prepackaged and fast-food
becoming evermore popular — expanding waistlines the world over.
Who maintains their own cars? Who would even have a clue how?
Who attempts to fix... anything? A throwaway mentality prescribes to buy new, as "good
with their hands" skills eventually become extinct.
Those that are savvy have taken advantage of our evolution towards being "all thumbs."
Given their rarity in today's mechanized world, the terms "made by hand" and "handcrafted" are
implied synonyms for quality and usually an excuse to command excessively high prices. Other adjectives
often associated with pricey handmades are "fine" and "exclusive." Watch out for them.
The comparatively few who have bucked the highbrow trend to attend college, pursuing instead
one of the hands-on trades, are now enjoying very successful and lucrative
The savvy have taken advantage of our evolution towards being "all thumbs."
careers — especially if their work is top quality. They are in the minority vis-à-vis
today's dime-a-dozen, white-collar, so-called professionals stuck in cubicles with little practical physical skills.
The blue-collars today conceivably are living better than they ever dreamed and doubtless have more
work than they can possibly handle.
Since 1999, the Phrenicea scenario of the future has predicted a priority bestowed upon hands-on
work. In fact, what are termed "blue collar" jobs today are projected to be the highest paid professions
in the future. We may be seeing signs of that already today.
*****
A lot was done "by hand" in the old days. Will it be done as well — or at all — in the future?
Time will tell...
posted by John Herman 5:37 AM
Postscript with irony by John Herman November 3, 2007 (from New York's NEWSDAY November 2, 2007)
Monday October 1, 2007
We Sure Are Smart!
-and-
What's Good is Bad (and vice versa)
Why do we think we're so smart? It seems no matter what the year or age, our perception is that we're
always on the cutting edge of information and technology — even (or especially) if it contradicts previous
wisdom.
Take coffee for example. Recent studies indicate that drinking coffee could lower your risk of diabetes,
Parkinson's disease, and colon cancer. It might even reduce the consequences of smoking and heavy
consumption of alcohol. But it wasn't long ago that coffee was suspected of causing bladder, pancreas
and even colon cancer. So those brave (addicted?) people who went on drinking coffee regardless of that
warning helped to provide the statistical data that now says it can be good for you!
*****
Doting parents self-assessed as intellectually sophisticated, armed with a little knowledge and determined
to give their newborns an advantage, spent millions on infant-targeted DVDs to stimulate their nascent
senses with music and colorful images. The latest studies suggest however, that tiny babies watching TV
could have retarded development and are better off being stimulated by mommy and daddy — as nature
intended.
*****
Warning! Although the following is a gross simplification, it may be too esoteric for many. If you
find that is the case, just skip to the smiley face and continue reading this month's weblog.
In 1953 Watson and Crick discovered "The Secret of Life," which of course is the structure of DNA,
a double helical chain of billions of four types of molecules prefixed with the letters A, T, G, and C.
Soon after, researchers found that these letters combine in different sequences of threes to code
for specific amino acids, which in turn combine in various combinations to form our proteins.
This became known as the "central dogma" of genetics.
The four letters A, T, G, C can make up to 64 three-letter combinations (codons). But because there are only
20 types of amino acids, it was surmised and proven true that more than one codon can code for the
same amino acid. For example, GCC and GCU might match up to the same amino acid. Your heredity could
determine which of the two codons your cells prefer.
So for years, it was thought that some of us could have the same proteins even though our genes might
be a little different. But of course nature is not that simple. It turns out that in our example, GCC might
hook up with its amino acid faster than GCU, and that the difference in speed actually makes the resulting
protein a different shape, which is important to our cells (one shape might promote cancer). So, like the
word right (as opposed to left) and right (as in correct), what might appear the same
can be quite different.
:-)
Will we ever learn to be humble?
*****
In 1957 the town of Tulsa, Oklahoma decided to celebrate its centennial by burying a time capsule to be unearthed
50 years later. The ambitious plan was to entomb a brand new Plymouth Belvedere car along with various other artifacts
of the day. Every precaution was taken to ensure the giant coffin would be impermeable and protected from
Mother Nature's penchant for making things deteriorate. A special concrete "tub" was built onsite with
state-of-the-art technology. The car was slathered with preservative and cocooned in a special plastic cloth.
A thick concrete slab topped it off before it was covered over.
On June 15, 2007 there was a huge town gathering for the exhumation, anticipating that the car would appear sparkling new
and be an instant collector's item. Here are the before and after photos that speak for themselves:
We sure are smart!
*****
In the early 1970s an environmental project endorsed by the US Army Corps of Engineers was launched to deposit about
two million used tires, bound into large bundles with steel bands, off the shore of Fort Lauderdale, Fla.
The project was touted as a win-win: discarding the tires responsibly while creating an artificial reef
to lure more game fish to the area.
Unfortunately Mother Nature's tendency to corrode steel eventually unleashed the tires to wicked waves
and wind, stripping off whatever life clung to them. Even worse, they became mobile weapons destroying
the fragile natural coral reefs nearby. A massive tire clean-up is now underway.
*****
Of course we all know that vitamins are good for us, right? Vitamin C prevents scurvy. Vitamin D
prevents rickets. And the B-complex vitamins,
thiamine (B1)
riboflavin (B2)
niacin (B3)
pantothenic acid (B5)
pyridoxine (B6)
cyanocobalamin (B12)
folic acid
biotin
do all sorts of good things like help to build protein, form blood cells and produce DNA. We're
advised to take a multivitamin pill daily and we see vitamins fortifying many of the foods we buy
We're gullible suckers blowing with the intellectual winds of change.
including cereal, bread and more. Then studies in the 1990s indicated that a certain amount of folic
acid taken before and during pregnancy was also found to help prevent birth defects,
including spinal bifida. So before the decade was out it was added to rice, flours and pastas.
Now a recent study indicates that folic acid added to too many foods may cause colon cancer. Yet again,
unforeseen negative consequences may result from something seemingly benign.
**********
Woody Allen's 1973 movie "Sleeper" makes fun of this flip-flopping tendency when his character Miles
Monroe wakes up after 200 years of being cryogenically frozen to find out that all that was bad for
you is deemed beneficial two centuries later — including smoking, deep fried fatty foods and marbled
beef. We can laugh but it's at ourselves. We're incessantly gullible suckers blowing with the intellectual
winds of change.
So, what are you doing today that is supposed to be good for you? Eating oily fish high in omega-3
fatty acids perhaps? Going organic? Exercising five times a week? Consuming smaller portions? Restricting
saturated fats? Limiting processed foods? Ingesting antioxidants? Avoiding the sun? Trusting in herbal
therapies?
Drinking lots of coffee?
Just wait for the next study.
Time will tell...
posted by John Herman 6:47 AM
Saturday September 1, 2007
Switching Gears...
While trying to peer into the future I also find enjoyment looking backwards in time.
A particular fascination is juxtaposing the past to the present and future by flipping
through old magazines from decades past. Revealing are the ads that reflect the mood
of the time as well as general economic conditions. (Unfortunately this ability may
well be lost going forward if much of today's print media falls victim to purely online
content.)
On a recent treasure hunt, I found in the stacks at a nearby university library a musty bound
collection of Scientific American magazines from 1954. Most of the ads were by
manufacturers touting their engineering and technical might to attract clients as well as
recruit talent. The ads reflect unabashedly the post-WWII booming optimism and fixation on
progress — that era's buzzword. (It would be at least a decade before "progress" would
become almost a pejorative term in hindsight of the unintended consequences of unbridled technical
advancement of that time.)
Here's just a sample of the testosterone-infused ads from those vintage magazines:
Click images to magnify
Ohio's Cleveland Tool Company "discovered how to shrink motors by floating a screw on a
stream of balls," eliminating the need for excess power to overcome friction.
California's Hewlett-Packard Co., then a "World leader in electronic measuring instruments,"
brags that "advanced electronic test instruments are invaluable in rocketry, nuclear physics
and research into interstellar phenomena."
Air Research Manufacturing Co. in Los Angeles answered the U.S. Air Force's call to build a
The U.S. was an energized hotbed of industrial activity.
jet engine starter four times as powerful as anything before and only slightly larger than the
original.
Haynes Alloys Co. from Kokomo, Indiana produced "alloys for every wear condition shaped to your
specifications." All you had to do was send them a blueprint of a part that was prematurely
wearing out and they'd solve your problem.
Lycoming Co. in Stratford, Connecticut crows about "Peak performance by any product requires big performance
from small parts. Lycoming's skill at producing such custom parts explains why so many leading
manufacturers look to Lycoming with its 2 million feet of floor space, and 6,000-plus machine tools
ready to serve you."
Ford Instrument Co. in Long Island City, New York boasts that "Taming the monster power of a nuclear
reactor requires precision control of all the elements. Ford Instrument is designing controls that
seek and hold the optimum power level of the pile and keep the rods so exactly set that the reactor's
energy is harnessed safely, securely."
As I continued to flip the pages, Doelcam Corporation from Boston touted micro-precision synchros.
Maryland's Bendix Aviation Corp. bragged that Ni-Span diaphragms were heat treated in a vacuum
furnace and tukon[!] tested for hardness. California's Kollsman Instrument Corp. instructs that
"The old Roman god Janus lives today in servo mechanisms, instruments and controls which take
past information and use it to guide the future." Bersworth Chemical Co. in Framingham,
Massachusetts for more than a quarter century devoted all their time, talent and energies to
the study of chelate chemistry.
And this goes on and on — page after page, ad after ad. What becomes obvious is the U.S.
was an energized hotbed of industrial activity.
You just don't see ads like this anymore and I thought for sure I'd never see them in today's
"Made in U.S.A." is rarely seen today.
magazines. That's why I almost fell off my chair when reading the August 11 issue of Business
Week, turning to a full-page ad filled with a swagger and bravado and masculine images of meshing gears and heavy-duty
gearboxes. The advertiser was Shanthi Gears, "turning the wheels of industries worldwide" with "no compromise, total trust and quality
at its best manifestation."
Wow! This page would fit quite comfortably inside those old Scientific American magazines.
Then I noticed the one major difference from the old days:
Shanthi Gears is not located in California, Ohio, Maryland, Massachusetts, Indiana, Connecticut or
New York. It's manufacturing those gears in Tamilnadu, India. And while it is turning the wheels of
industries worldwide, the U.S. has shifted into high gear towards a service economy. The once ubiquitous
"Made in U.S.A." is rarely seen today.
Looking backwards in time adds perspective when trying to peer into the future. Questions to ponder
include whether shifting to a service economy is wise in the long term, and whether India (and
of course China) will one day switch gears to follow that same path.
Time will tell...
posted by John Herman 7:48 AM
Postscript by John Herman June 16, 2008 (from BusinessWeek June 23, 2008)
Wednesday August 1, 2007
One Smart Cookie...
Help Wanted
FORTUNE COOKIE WRITER:
PhD in biology required. Sociology BA helpful. Brevity and a belief in the supernatural a plus.
Only smart cookies will become fortune(ate) candidates.
The above want ad sounds ridiculous of course. But that is what I envisioned recently after opening a Chinese
cookie to find the following fortune:
"Even as the cell is the unit of the organic body, so the family is the unit of society."
A socio-bio-based aphorism in a fortune cookie? Could this have been created by an underemployed
graduate of biology or sociology?
Perhaps this is early evidence bolstering the Phrenicea scenario of the future that envisions not enough
jobs to employ most of the world's population. As higher education becomes the norm globally, college
graduates will have to assume lower scale jobs formerly taken by those with high school diplomas or less.
Already, more and more sales associates, telemarketers, customer service reps, bank tellers, bookkeepers,
etc. are bringing to the job the benefit of a four-year degree.
But who would have thought about a "fortune cookie writer"?
With the popularity of Chinese food on the rise, there may be a strong demand for offbeat fortune
writers! Fortune cookies are a lot like horoscopes. Our intellectual side tells us it's all
As higher education spreads globally, graduates will have to assume lower scale jobs.
not to be believed. Yet, just as many feel compelled to read what the day may bring for their
zodiac sign, opening a fortune cookie for its bit of wisdom or prediction can be irresistible.
And if the theme just happens to coincide with a life situation, that's provides reinforcement to look
forward to a next time.
Ever the skeptic, I saved a few choice fortunes through the years that had some relevance to see
if their message would ever be realized. So here goes:
"Good fortune is just around the corner."
Unfortunately, I haven't turned this corner yet.
"You will soon gain something you have always wanted."
This might have come true;
but it was probably so trivial I didn't realize it.
"Financial hardship in your life is coming to an end. Enjoy!"
All I know is that I'm still waiting for this end to come.
"Two small jumps are sometimes better than one big leap."
I have no idea why I kept this one, although I'm wondering now if Neil Armstrong took that fortune
cookie job.
(What does one do after landing on the moon?)
Even though it's evident I've not had much luck with fortune cookies, I still can't wait to order
Chinese again. Will I crack open another smart cookie to find an abstruse, recondite maxim with
a scientific theme? Or will I have the misfortune of reading just another silly
platitude? I'm really hoping for the former.
Forever puerile, I'll imagine my next postprandial surprise to be the work of some underemployed
subatomic particle physicist, shedding an optimistic photon beam on my two left feet so I can finally
show off some dance floor prowess:
"You will learn to be like a meson — a strongly interacting boson — a hadron with
integral spin!"
I'll certainly save this one. "Dancing with the Stars" look out!
*****
Imagine — physics graduates crafting cookie fortunes. An inane exaggeration? Perhaps, but let us
hope that's not how the cookie crumbles for many other fields of study the world over.
Time will tell...
posted by John Herman 7:34 AM
Sunday July 1, 2007
Water on the Brain
Now that the lazy, hazy, crazy days of summer are here again, it's a good time to use the
sultry weather as an opportunity to revisit our feverish condition of "water on the brain." Way back
in 2001 our "H2Ouch!" page began recommending the following:
"Pretend you were to pay $1/gallon the next time you take a shower or bath, brush your teeth,
flush a toilet, wash the dishes, or God forbid — water the lawn! Begin to use less water than
the average person. Set an example. Prevent H2Ouch!"
We still believe this is good advice, but perhaps the proposal was and still is naïve. The problem is that
there is little incentive to conserve fresh water from the tap — given its ridiculously low
price. For example, I recently received my "Annual Water Supply Report" from my local water
company and was dismayed at how little fresh water costs. Here's the breakdown:
Quarterly Water Rates — Residential
Consumption (gallons)
Charges
Up to 8,000
8,001 - 58,000
58,001 - 100,000
Over 100,000
$10.00 minimum
$0.90 / thousand gallons
$1.15 / thousand gallons
$1.40 / thousand gallons
A dollar for 1000 gallons of clean, fresh tap water? That's insane! By comparison, bottled water
by the gallon costs about $1.99. Not bad, but that's $1990 for 1000 gallons. Why is there such a
cost disparity with tap water? How can anyone be motivated to conserve water at these low rates,
Wouldn't it be prudent build "aqua equity" for future generations?
other than via a guilty conscious? And let's face it; there aren't many turning on their taps
ladened with guilt. (If the water companies got savvy they'd upmarket their image with exotic
brand names, pricing and refillable bottles with fancy labels
adding cachet to their product. Imagine having
bragging rights to elite-sounding potable water! It's not that silly a suggestion, since that is essentially
what Coca-Cola did with Dasani and PepsiCo with Aquafina. They're both filtered municipal tap water.)
Actually what we really need is a "watershed moment"; a trickle-down epiphany to appreciate how finite
and precious our water supply is. The first step should be to make users conscious of their water
consumption — and that can be accomplished handily by raising the price per gallon and using a more
dramatic cost gradient for excessive use. It sounds crazy, but those concerned about conservation
should lobby for pricing increases.
Another way to raise awareness might be to move our water meters out from their usual obscure
locations into full view in kitchens and bathrooms — fitted with big, red digital read-outs
displaying gallons used in real time. Education on where our water comes from and how it's treated,
We should instill among ourselves an idiom-cum-mantra to "spend water like it's money."
stored, delivered and renewed would also serve to engender an appreciation of what
is the major constituent of all living things.
There's an old saying attributed to spendthrifts that says they "spend money like it's water." Maybe
we should instill among ourselves a new idiom-cum-mantra to "spend water like it's money."
We all tend to waste water and take its current abundance for granted.
Wouldn't it be prudent to pay more today to change our wasteful habits, while adopting a mindset
focused on conservation to build "aqua equity" for future generations?
Time will tell...
posted by John Herman 7:56 AM
Friday June 1, 2007
The Evolution of Status
After many years of blood and sweat, I was fortunate
enough to have the opportunity to purchase a house constructed from the ground up. It was an
exciting experience watching barren land evolve into livable structures; the genesis of yet another
suburban development supplanting what was once a dairy farm.
As the homes were completed and occupied in almost perfect sequential order, the display of
owner status in various degrees became evident and resembled a stadium crowd performing
"the wave" at a sporting event.
After the wave subsided, what followed was a hushed assessment of each owner's financial
means and personal taste. Judgment was based on observations such as: Who had splurged on the
fanciest window coverings? Who installed the most and most expensive exterior lighting fixtures
to replace the builder cheapos? Who laid the lushest sod lawn? Who erected the largest or most original
custom-made curbside mailbox? Who was able to watch broadcast TV without a fuzzy picture,
as witnessed via an antenna on the roof? Who were among the first to install automatic irrigation
systems? Who had resplendent landscape designs immediately realized into manicured mini-arboretums?
Who had their monotone wheat-colored walls professionally refinished with faux, murals and other
elaborate wall coverings?
And on and on...
About eight months later cable TV finally arrived, followed by an incredible aerial flip-flop.
Those who'd brandished clear reception via rooftop antennas quickly removed their one-time
status symbols, since it was now embarrassing to be perceived as one not paying the premium.
As the years passed it became more difficult to recognize changes that might be discerned
as enhanced cachet, but not for long. Without warning, a new wave swept through swelling heads
ever higher — leaving in its wake huge curbside dumpsters signaling interior renovations
or extensions. Paving stone became the rage too, and out went
plebeian concrete walks and blacktop driveways. And not long after, expensive foreign and
sports cars graced the spiffy new driveways.
And on and on...
Finally, after two decades and with all visible forms of home status exhausted, the ultimate bragging
right today is to erect a "For Sale" sign, host a garage sale and move out to a carefree leisure
village where it's warm and sunny all year 'round.
*****
So you have to wonder — where does this pettiness and vainglory stem from? It's apparently
embedded in our designer genes, going back thousands of years. Anthropologists actually
consider this to be advanced behavior — when compared to our more ape-like ancestors that is.
New York University's Randall White explains:
"One of the things that we know from studying modern humans is that personal adornment and the
symbolic communication of a social identity is involved in maintaining differences within a
society. By studying artifacts we imagine that what was going on 40,000 years ago was the first
time in human evolution that we have the internal subdivision of human societies into different
categories of social persons."
And after thousands of years we're still at it. We can make just about anything into a symbol
of status. But one person's object of distinction might be another's folly. So we have to
be among like-minded people to make an impression. And you can't even take it with you!
You have to ask then, after all these millennia, isn't it about time we evolved beyond this
small-minded behavior? [Nah!]
Time will tell...
posted by John Herman 7:17 AM
Tuesday May 1, 2007
Web 2.0 — New & Improved?
Suddenly the term "Web 2.0" seems to be everywhere in popular media. From a layman's perspective, it's defined
as a more interactive web beyond passive browsing that enables social networking, and content
creation and collaboration. Applications commonly associated with Web 2.0 include Wikipedia, MySpace,
Second Life, Facebook, Gold Rush, Digg, Twitter, Yahoo! Answers and YouTube.
Version numbers like "2.0" are adopted from the software industry, from what's commonly referred
to as the "development life cycle." The confounding terminology is being unabashedly usurped by
advertisers making it part of our vernacular. Although their target market may not truly grasp the
pretentious and technical jargon being exploited, what is undoubtedly implied is "new and improved."
But is it really?
To attempt to answer that question, lets for fun try to retroactively apply (loosely) "something-point-something"
version numbers to several ground-breaking advances from the past — innovations unleashed
upon the masses at a time before software and its perpetual upgrades began controlling
yet-to-be-developed computer hardware.
For example, "Radio 1.0" enabled millions of regular folks to acquire console-sized, beautifully crafted, wood-encased
receivers to experience entertainment programming geared towards a wide audience.
Breaking news would propagate across the land almost instantaneously. A new sense of mass
identity and community was established using technology. For many, the radio became a focal point
in the home — a place to gather each night.
So what innovation could we ascribe to Radio 2.0? The car radio perhaps. Radio 3.0? That might be
the tiny, tinny, plastic and portable transistor radio. The pocket marvel that enabled millions of baby boomer teens
to revel in their music — rock and roll — defining a generation while driving parents crazy.
For many, the transistor radio became a focal point of the self — a personal gadget to hideaway with.
Taking radio's progression further:
Radio 4.0 - FM
Radio 4.5 - FM stereo
Radio 5.0 - XM/Sirius satellite
Radio 6.0 - ?
Now let's try to apply version numbers to pre-recorded music:
1.0 - phonograph - 78rpm
1.2 - phonograph - 45rpm
1.5 - phonograph - 33 1/3rpm "Long Playing"
2.0 - hi-fi and stereo
3.0 - 8-track tape
3.5 - cassette tape
4.0 - CDs
5.0 - iPod
6.0 - ?
They say rarely is a sequel as good as or better than the original. Nevertheless, in each case above
the successive "upgrades" were indeed improvements. I don't think any of us would want to go
back to Locomotion Version 3.0 — the covered wagon. Or Version 1.0 for point-to-point
communication. Or even Version 1.2 for pre-recorded music.
However, there are downsides to progress, as would be expected. The evolution of point-to-point
communication has now diminished the distinction between work and leisure. Progress in locomotion has
brought us pollution, (potential) global warming, wide swathes of concrete, airport and traffic jams — and
too many fatalities. And now the iPod has the potential to disconnect us from reality as we go about our
business with earbuds stuck in our ears.
Today the Internet's web is a treasure trove of easily accessed information and knowledge. It would be
a shame for it to parallel TV's evolution towards mediocrity and blatant commercial profit. Indeed, considering
the impact of the web so far, and that we're only approaching version "2.0," it's hard to imagine
what a Web 5.0 might bring.
Which leads us to the inevitable question, Will we one day wish for the good ol' days of Web 1.0?
Time will tell...
posted by John Herman 12:23 AM
Click here for unusual sightings of "2.0" terminology in the media.
Postscripts by John Herman — May 16, May 29, & and July 18, 2007
Sunday April 1, 2007
Wanted: Cooler Heads!
Thanks to Al Gore, Global Warming is again a "hot topic." Given the renewed popular
debate, we thought it appropriate to bring attention to an email posted on our Q&A page exactly
four years ago to highlight how little attitudes have changed.
Hopefully the situation doesn't get "too hot to handle" as we squander precious time arguing back and forth.
John S. H. wrote:
One of Phrenicea's Q&A responses made the declarative statement, "that global warming will
become a worldwide concern beyond just talk." How is Phrenicea going to respond to those
thousands of celebrated and famous scientists that disagree with the global warming theory?
And also to me!
Mother Nature since the beginning of time has been creating havoc with the earth's environment
with volcanic eruptions, which spread dust and a multitude of gasses into our atmosphere, jungle
rot, forest fires, as do our treasured wet lands that emit all sorts of gasses and strange odors.
Mother Nature however, eventually cleans up all that mess with a magic formula that neutralizes
all of the above natural phenomena; otherwise our civilization would not exist.
Incidentally, where are all the proponents of global warming whenever there is a never-ending
deep freeze as it is occurring this winter season? But as soon as there is a 3-day heat wave during
the summer, our liberal press come out and spew their unproven agenda all summer long. Phrenicea
is controversial, but on the subject of global warming it is definitely leaning towards the
liberal camp.
Phrenicea, I believe, did not give this subject sufficient thought because global warming is
still an unproven theory and too soon to become a scientific fact. Phrenicea has a lot to learn,
revise, and change as we all do as time goes on.
Phrenicea replied:
First we want to make it clear that we are responding to your email, and not to the "thousands of
celebrated and famous scientists" wherever they are.
Next we want to define "global warming." It is a fact, at least since we're able to measure,
that the average worldwide temperature is increasing. That is "worldwide" — not your easy
chair, your state or even your hemisphere. It is a fact that the last several years have been the
warmest on record. The debatable issue is whether this warming is ultimately deleterious to
our environment and our way of life.
History is replete with scientific controversy. Very few believed Copernicus when he proposed
the sun and not the earth was the center of the universe [solar system]. Again, very few
believed Galileo when he offered proof with his telescope. Few believed the earth was round
until the return of Columbus from his trans-Atlantic voyage. Few believed Darwin's theory of
evolution — that such complex life forms could evolve. Eventually, with further study and
tests, the majority of learned persons were convinced of these radical propositions.
This may or may not turn out to be the case with the global warming controversy. But
given our relative ignorance now, wouldn't it be wise — for our children's sake — to err on the side
of caution?
You mention Mother Nature's "magic formula." That magic formula is nothing more than time,
large chunks of it. Nature's tendency is to establish a state of equilibrium after what could
be described by us as catastrophe or a "wild card" event. But the quantity of time required
is enormous — thousands and millions of years. To put our time here on earth in perspective:
picture a tall skyscraper to represent the age of the earth. We humans have been around for
what would only be a thin coat of paint on the roof. And it's only the last couple of
centuries that we increased the rate of change on this earth beyond what was natural before.
Our egocentric thinking often masks the reality that nature does not care about us, and is
not there to protect or ensure our survival. She could care less if we live or die. She is not
liberal, conservative or cognizant of our vainglory and pettiness. The stark realization
then is that our survival as a species is now up to us — and that our penchant to
change the earth is outstripping nature's capability to repair damage we inflict. Worrisome
too is that the "we" will soon expand to include the developing nations as they strive to
catch up with the U.S., Japan, Russia, Canada, Australia and Europe.
*****
That was our reply four years ago.
Today we propose to cool down our hot (sorry!) heads and approach this potential problem
from the bottom up (green grassroots?), instead of waiting for or depending on government edicts.
It's time to act more responsibly as individual consumers. Regardless of what side of the
debate you're aligned with, there's no excuse for being so wasteful with our precious
natural resources.
Grab a copy of Al Gore's DVD — if for no other reason than to read the inside
jacket suggesting "ten things to do" to mitigate
your own consumption. Even if the theory of catastrophe is one day proved incorrect, there'll be no harm done if
everyone was less profligate and more frugal going forward.
In conclusion...
If every energy spendthrift of modern society performed a one-eighty lifestyle change by adopting a conservation
mindset, the synergy of "the power of one" and "strength in numbers" would likely reduce consumption
and demand for energy sufficiently to render the global warming argument moot.
Our children and grandchildren would be grateful.
Time will tell...
posted by John Herman 12:27 AM
Postscript by John Herman April 18, 2007 (from TIME Magazine April 23, 2007)
Thursday March 1, 2007
Brains and neurons and computers! Oh, my!
The premise of the Phrenicea scenario of the future is that we give up trying to copy the human
brain utilizing computer technology and artificial intelligence, and instead appreciate its
amazing complexity by immuring our brains upon death and keeping them alive within a "braincomb"
to function and assist those still living their ambulatory lives.
A while back I emailed
Dr. Terrence Deacon,
professor of Biological Anthropology and
Neuroscience at University of California-Berkeley. He's an honest-to-goodness, genuine brain scientist
— as opposed to certain computer scientists who are brain-expert wannabees, typically proselytizing
in the media their tenuous computer-brain analogies and artificial intelligence predictions.
(We at Phrenicea like to call them "chipheads.")
I asked Prof. Deacon for his views on computer technology and artificial intelligence, and even the
feasibility of keeping brains alive a la the Phrenicea scenario. I also asked, "Given that 'brains
are not designed the way we would design any machine' [a direct quote by Dr. Deacon],
do you agree or disagree with my major assumption that we will not (within the next 100 years) be
able to mimic the brain's function utilizing non-biological technology?"
Given Dr. Deacon's lofty stature and busy schedule, I was pleasantly surprised and appreciative to receive
his prompt and cogent reply as follows:
1. Brains are quite unlike computers. The closest thing to computation in the brain is
probably the performance of highly over-learned rapid ballistic movements and systems that
regulate visceral systems. And even these are in effect the production of "virtual computations" —
not true computations but simulations of very simple computation by stochastic approximation. Most of
cognition is much more analogous to chaotic attractor dynamics and evolutionary processes.
[My interpretation: Brains are not like computers. (Yes!) Learning physical movements to the point
of where they become "automatic" (becoming proficient in a sport, musical instrument
or even driving a car) might cause the brain to act as if it were computing from our perspective —
and not an exact form of computing at that, more like a controlled anarchy of processes.]
2. Despite the incredible network size of brains and the additional fact that even the subcellular level of
intraneuronal information processing rivals current "neural net" simulations, neither complexity
nor unattainable dynamical organization offer an unsurpassable threshold.
[My interpretation: We'll eventually unravel the mysteries of how the brain works.]
3. Once we get past our fascination with the brain-as-computer dead-end metaphor it should not be impossible to begin
to build (or more likely grow) devices that utilize this kind of information-generation logic
(notice I didn't say "information processing") and at least some of the adaptive and agentive
features of brains will be possible to achieve (and I don't mean simulate) this way.
[My interpretation: The brain is not analogous to, and does not work like a computer. However, we may
be able to one day grow biological structures that mimic the brain in some limited ways.]
4. Neurons don't live forever and are subject to spontaneous functional degradation even in perfect metabolic
support conditions.
[My interpretation: The envisioned Phrenicea "braincomb" will need more research and development to
sustain human brains forever. Back to work guys and gals!]
5. Also, contra sci-fi stories, the idiosyncrasy of representational
encoding in different brains and the incompatibility of cognition and computation processes will
make transfer of a person's memories, thoughts, personality traits, and experiences to different
"media" (e.g. brain to machine) impossible.
[My interpretation: Our knowledge, memories, etc. will never be transferred to silicon
or any other inorganic computer-memory substrate.]
Terry
*****
Prof. Deacon in a very short space provided authoritative views on computer technology and artificial
intelligence vis-à-vis the human brain. He is pessimistic about our ever mimicking the brain's
function utilizing non-biological technology. He even addressed the feasibility of keeping
brains alive a la the Phrenicea scenario.
You may or may not agree with all of his assessments (or my interpretations!). Regardless, this perhaps is
the most exciting field of study today — and probably will be for most of the 21st century.
Time will tell...
posted by John Herman 4:54 AM
Thursday February 1, 2007
Armchair TIME-traveler...
For years I've subscribed to TIME, long ago touted as "The Weekly Newsmagazine." It, along with the other mainstays of the
genre, Newsweek and US News & World Report, usually arrives by mail on Monday or Tuesday to competently
report and analyze in almost "Monday morning quarterback fashion" the prior week's events.
Then suddenly the January 15
issue of TIME arrived on Friday the 5th. Was this a case
of TIME-travel or had TIME's publishers found a way to supercharge snail mail?
Believing neither, and curious as to how TIME beat the others, I began flipping its pages for some clue.
Sure enough, on
page six was my answer. The managing editor explained,
"In fact, it's the first copy of TIME magazine to go on sale on Friday in more than 50 years. We've moved our
publication schedule because the news environment has shifted..." He then boasted,
"The traditional newsmagazine was retrospective, looking back at what happened the previous week.
But today's TIME is much more forward-looking..."
Conversely, on TIME.com
it's easy to travel backwards in TIME by viewing past issues. It's really a neat feature. The covers
reflect the most important events and concerns of the day and are well executed with
illustration or photography. And it turns out those old-TIMEer editors were pretty "forward-looking" too,
though unintentionally. While moseying about I found
covers from the 1960s asking "WHAT IF WE JUST PULL
OUT?" [of a then-unpopular war] and "WHAT'S WRONG WITH U.S. MEDICINE?". Others featured: "WATER: Worldwide Use and Misuse,"
"THE DEMOCRATS REGROUP," "TODAY'S TEENAGERS" and "THE COMPUTER IN SOCIETY."
All could just as well be cover stories from today!
Ironically, while losing myself in TIME.com I stumbled upon the April 12, 1968 issue proclaiming,
"We try to channel the flow of events into a coherent pattern of stories, to emphasize the important
details and, whenever possible, to provide perspective." I guess that's the "traditional" retrospective
approach that's being abandoned. Gee, how TIMEs change!
Extemporaneously, I then pictured my newly arrived January 15 issue miraculously intermixed amongst those from the '60s
— and wondered what it would've been like to read it way back then. Would anything be relevant?
Intelligible? Would any of the advertisements be familiar?
Entranced into an armchair TIME-traveler steeped in a '60s mindset, I randomly opened to
page 52, featuring "Welcome to Wi-Fi-Ville." Imagine how puzzled
I would be reading about: free wireless Internet, wireless-fidelity (wi-fi) network, the Web, sunbathers Web surfing,
municipal wi-fi, broadband prices, high-speed access to rural areas stuck with dial-up, VOIP
(voice-over-Internet protocol), telcos, EarthLink, DirecTV, DSL, Yahoo, Google, surfing porn and
downloading!
Now, if only eBay existed for me to sell a magazine from the future!
*****
Oh well, back to reality. I guess there can be a lot of changes over the course of 40 years — including new
strategies on how to publish a weekly newsmagazine. But if TIME really wants to be "forward-looking," they
could deliver (implant?) by Friday an issue from 2045. I'm curious now as to whether it would be totally incomprehensible
— plus I'd get to sell it on eBay.
TIME will tell...
P.S.
A TIME Trivia Question:
What issue was the last to proclaim on its cover, "The Weekly Newsmagazine"?
Click here for the answer.
posted by John Herman 5:29 AM
Monday January 1, 2007
Y2K + Seven ? Yikes !
It's hard to believe that the infamous Y2K scare was seven years ago already. Time flies as
"they" say — and the past twelve months surely did.
Along with the passing of 2006 comes inevitable reflection on what was and wasn't accomplished — as
well as looking ahead to 2007 with hopeful optimism. Another consequence is a bit of laziness
from too much of too much.
So it is with this lethargic spirit that we revisit the "Twelve Blogs of 2006" with premature nostalgia
— and perhaps feigned interest as to whether they're still relevant.
• December's blog questioned many questions without answers:
Does our preoccupation with spiritual perpetuity stem from our species' ignorance of what death was centuries ago,
when the living became lifeless? Was it our forebear's utter confusion of death that led to speculation
on where the animation went — like into the heavens?
What is it about humans that makes most of us think we're superior to all other life on earth?
Is it an evolutionary trait that helped us survive in the wild — empowering us to conquer not only natural
prey but predators as well (and eventually wrecking the balance of nature in the process)? And since this perception is almost
universal, is it genetically endeared and not cultural? (Read more)
• In November we intended to address unintended consequences resulting from continued advancement of
scientific knowledge:
Nevertheless, as our quest for scientific knowledge marches on (making our lives ever more complex) — particularly
related to biology — we are going to have to face the fact that we are not all
created equal.
Just as our disruption of the macro-environment has led to pollution, species
extinction and global warming — analogous unintended consequences await our
intrusion into the ancient inner workings of cells... (Read more)
• October's blog questioned Dow Chemical's weird advertising campaign:
These days it seems the importance of marketing is elevated beyond the product. In this
example it has taken on a life of its own, surpassing any practical objective. It seems
to function mainly to mold subjective feelings.
Is it because we're beyond being impressed with lubricants, epoxies, and analgesics? How
else should a chemical company advertise in an age where the behind-the-scenes, nuts-and-bolts
of society are deemed boring — or worse, beyond general comprehension? (Read more)
• September's entry was up-front about rear-end vanity:
Have we come that far in auto technology that it's laughable now to think that Ford would deem the
now mundane TC [Traction Control] worthy of rear-end vanity? But Ford is not alone in silly trunk bunk. Through the
years I've studied many a car's derrière and have seen banality forged in
chrome... (Read more)
• In August we ran from the "Attack of the RFIDs!":
The scary part is that you will end up being a mobile device beaming all sorts of data to
who knows who — through barriers and from as far away as 700 feet. Imagine if your charge cards, clothing
and shoes all were transmitting data (even the age and color of your underwear)! Inquiring types could
identify or profile you and track you everywhere... (Read more)
• In July it was too hot to be serious so we played some games:
When the Phrenicea scenario of the future was first presented on this website six years ago,
its pages stated that all the world's knowledge was immediately available
via engagement with Phrenicea, and that boredom had ensued without the challenge to learn the traditional
(aka hard) way with study. Could we already be approaching this point with access to the amazing
capabilities of today's search engines?
(Read more)
• June's blog braved the waves of offshoring crashing upon these shores:
Will there be new faddish, jargon-laced management-speak still to come whose consequence will reduce jobs
and salaries even more — and further level the highest standards of living with the poorest
on earth? How many more employees with years of dedicated service, along with new job
seekers with expensive academic degrees, will yet find that their career path is ultimately a horizontal plank?
(Read more)
• In May we tackled the vices of phone answering devices:
Nowadays, many households have both parents working — and with several jobs, so it's time to stop apologizing for not being
where others might think we belong for their convenience. Recorded messages to convey an apology or to ameliorate
a caller with humor or niceties is vestigial behavior from the days when much more time was spent at home, and
leisure was truly that — not catching up on errands, attending classes, pursuing entrepreneurial endeavors, or
sifting through email...(Read more)
• April's blog celebrated one student's epiphany:
Many of today's high school and college students often wonder (vociferously!) why they need to
memorize boring equations, formulae and other seemingly trivial or useless information.
What many times is not emphasized by their teachers is the origin and significance of man-made
expressions of what is essentially describing the workings of nature. They're not taught that many of these
discoveries required lifetimes of effort — often by iconoclasts, eccentrics, heretics and
recluses...(Read more)
• March's entry bemoaned a disgraced General, as in Motors:
GM is struggling with another type of baggage — the consequences of short-term strategies and practices
that wrecked its spectrum of brands (Chevrolet to Pontiac to Oldsmobile to Buick to Cadillac), and
the dismal reputation it earned so well in the '60s, '70s and '80s for producing cars that frankly
were just plain inferior... (Read more)
• In February we suffered the first wave of the "Baby"
Boomer generation turning 60 years of age. (Ugh!):
Now turning 60, this famously spoiled (sans "baby"?) boomer demographic anomaly will be a force
to be reckoned with. We'll be retired, but not retiring gray-haired activists with plenty of time
on our hands to leverage our generational clout to lobby for our interests.
By sheer demographic heft we'll again effect change as in years past. We'll read cover stories
at the 70- and 80-year milestones chronicling our deterioration and the burden our cohort will
be inflicting upon younger generations... (Read more)
• January's blog lamented a disturbing trend among chiropractors tempted with franchising to boost profits:
Chiropractors traditionally have spent lifetimes developing successful practices of respectable
size, which reflect their character and values. They're now tempted with visions of big profits
by wooing masses of clients less sophisticated and discerning — and more receptive to being
dazzled with faux technologies and procedures. Secondary is keeping existing patients that may
be sharp enough to see through the hype and perceptive enough to sense the tawdry goal of
profit...(Read more)
You may or may not agree, but after reviewing the year's blogs it appears most are still relevant as
we roll into the New Year. And somehow after recalling the energy that instigated the blogs to begin
with, we don't feel quite as lethargic.
Maybe that's the real benefit of looking backward, reminiscing and singing "Auld Lang Syne" — not
for nostalgia per se, but to recharge our batteries and begin another year with renewed energy and
enthusiasm.
Time will tell...
Happy New Year!
posted by John Herman 9:58 AM
Friday December 1, 2006
Questions, ad infinitum...
Time. Newsweek. Wired. U.S. News & World Report. The Humanist. (Did I miss any?)
All of these publications recently ran stories dealing
with various themes associated with consciousness, the soul, life after death and the belief
in God.
The debate of these topics in the media can be vociferous and has gone on for decades. I can vividly recall
Time magazine's then-shocking April 1966 cover
asking "Is God Dead?" and the ensuing controversy.
The least this media dialog is good for is to get us to think beyond our day-to-day realities and to ask
ourselves important questions such as:
Does God exist? Were we divinely created? Or are we merely just another evolved life form on earth that happens to be conscious of our own existence and able to contemplate the past, present and future?
As U.S. News & World Report recently pondered, "If consciousness exists only to respond more effectively
to information in service of life, then [perhaps] we are nothing more than Darwinian survival machines."
Yet so many do believe in a God or creator. Given that we have no observable proof, why is that?
What is it like after death? Is there an afterlife? Or is death like sleep but without dreaming —
totally unaware? It's depressing, and perhaps that's why the widespread belief in an afterlife came about — to
act as a crutch to overcome a depressing reality of impermanence for those who cannot bear to face
the possibility of being totally extinguished upon death. Unfortunately the living will probably
never experience death and come back to tell about it. And even if they eventually could — would it
be like waking someone up from a deep sleep who's unable to describe it?
Does our preoccupation with spiritual perpetuity stem from our species' ignorance of what death was centuries ago,
when the living became lifeless? Was it our forebear's utter confusion of death that led to speculation
on where the animation went — like into the heavens? (And this preoccupation with eternal existence can
make humans do astonishing things. Do you think the Japanese kamikaze pilots would have committed aerial suicide
if they believed this life was all there is?)
And still more questions abound...
What is it about humans that makes most of us think we're superior to all other life on earth?
Is it an evolutionary trait that helped us survive in the wild — empowering us to conquer not only natural
prey but predators as well (and eventually wrecking the balance of nature in the process)? And since this perception is almost
universal, is it genetically endeared and not cultural?
Many might argue that because we are conscious of ourselves that that makes us superior.
But as science unravels the mechanisms within the brain, it might just corroborate philosopher
Daniel Dennett's position that "consciousness is about fame in the brain." So, are we all just
legends in our own minds?
Does technology perpetuate our attitudes of superiority? Just as hydraulics and electronics can empower
a relatively tiny person to operate machines many times their size — an airliner for example — technology
can at the same time inflate our perception of ourselves. But is this genuine prowess? In the grand scheme of things,
are we still minuscule entities with just an overgrown sense of importance?
Finally, here's a really important question. Are state-sponsored lotteries fair?
What?!
A local newspaper featured a story about a lottery winner with a spate of bad luck who attributed
his win to his recently deceased wife "looking down upon him." Imagine if this were fact. Wouldn't
that be unfair to all the other lottery players? Imagine if every lottery winner was the recipient of
some dead relative's influence. Should those with deceased family members against gambling
in life bother to enter?
This thinking is more common than not. How many times have you heard someone say that the weather miraculously
worked out for their special occasion — as if to say that because of their occasion, the weather was
made to accommodate them by some entity or someone watching over them? This begs the question: Why are
humans so egocentric?
*****
There are so many unanswered questions — too many in fact to even debate the unknowns. But we can still
continue to ask them while acknowledging our ignorance, and perhaps in the process become more tolerant of
those with incongruent views.
Time will tell...
posted by John Herman 5:43 AM
Sunday October 1, 2006
How Now DOW?
Isn't marketing amazing? It can come at you subtly or be right in your face. It can turn you
off or lure you into its lair.
Or if you're like me, it can trigger a small effort investigating a company's marketing
history.
What motivated this month's Two-Cents weblog is an unusual advertising campaign by
Dow Chemical.
For what seemed like the entire summer, I kept opening the front covers of Newsweek, Business
Week, Scientific American and several others to find
a prominent ad spanning two pages. Impossible to miss on the left-hand page was an in-your-face facial
portrait
overlaid with the large letters "HU," followed by the word "HUMAN" and an unusual
equation "7E+09."
For weeks I would glance at the face, the letters, the equation — and while not really
focusing on the right-hand page, subliminally recognize the company Dow by the red diamond logo.
Then I would just turn the page.
After perhaps the tenth iteration of this scenario I finally read the accompanying
copy.
What hit me was that this
was an advertisement for a chemical company, yet there was no mention of a product or service. Instead
there was flowery prose like "Bonds are formed between aspirations and commitments..." and "...energy
released from reactions fuels a boundless spirit..." What? This is a company that manufacturers
chemicals!
Curious now how this advertising approach differed from years' past, I searched through some
musty boxes of old Scientific American magazines. (Crazy, yes?) Sure enough I was
able to find a few Dow advertisements.
In the booming post-war 1950s and 1960s, the function of marketing was simple and direct — to sell.
In
1954
Dow bragged about their permanent silicone lubricant.
Imagine that it gave "consistent performance over a wide temperature span" and
"lasted 30 times longer" and was "semi-organic and inherently stable." (Today that
might make great copy for a prophylactic!)
In
1959
Dow boasted, "Today, the imposing list of high quality pharmaceutical chemicals
supplied by Dow in abundance includes bromine, medicinal salicylates, epsom salt,
chloroform, analgesic drugs and elemental iodine..." (Great, especially if you
got a bad cut!)
And in
1962
Dow broached the sticky subject of resins, "Consider first, an extremely
pure epoxy resin with a viscosity of 4,000 - 6,400 cps, and color 1 max. This is
essentially the pure diglyceride ether of bisphenol..." (Yes, now that's a real macho chemical
company ad!)
These days it seems the importance of marketing is elevated beyond the product. In this
example it has taken on a life of its own, surpassing any practical objective. It seems
to function mainly to mold subjective feelings.
Why is that?
Is it because we're beyond being impressed with lubricants, epoxies, and analgesics? How
else should a chemical company advertise in an age where the behind-the-scenes, nuts-and-bolts
of society are deemed boring — or worse, beyond general comprehension?
Is it the negative connotations associated with the word "chemical," given past incidents of
pollution? Is it the unexpected consequences and deleterious effects that have been associated with man-made
concoctions? Or is it that we are so detached nowadays from the "brick and mortar" of what
keeps the complex infrastructure running.
*****
So what does "HU" and "7E+09" mean in the Dow ad? For that I had to visit the Dow
website and read the "Around Dow" company
newsletter.
Sure enough, my observations were confirmed regarding the
absence of product in order to concentrate on building Dow's reputation.
I can just imagine the Dow executives drinking up their marketing firm's mumbo-jumbo
proposal to adopt chemistry's periodic table as the basis for the "Human Element."
And that the contrived atomic weight of the human population 7E+09 would be symbolic of
Dow's commitment to humanity's well-being.
But is it smart advertising when it's incomprehensible to the casual observer? Or even to those intrigued
enough to try to figure it all out? Should one have to search a company's website in order
to garner the intent of their ad campaign?
Worse still, will there come a time when most advertising supplants the mundane
indignity of pushing product with haughty subliminal messages, propagated by a self-indulgent
marketing profession bent on impressing peers while attempting to make us feel good about them?
Time will tell...
posted by John Herman 8:53 AM
Friday September 1, 2006
Stoplight HindSight
While stopped at a traffic light behind what must have been an old Ford Windstar minivan (even the
current models look old), I snickered at the chrome appliqué announcing in bold letters that it
was equipped with "Traction Control." Wow, imagine that!
Have we come that far in auto technology
that it's laughable now to think that Ford would deem the now mundane TC worthy of rear-end vanity?
But Ford is not alone in silly trunk bunk. Through the years I've studied many a car's derrière
and have seen banality forged in chrome about:
Then there are meaningless tags like GT, Touring, Limited, Unlimited and the dated Deluxe, Super and Custom.
In the good ol' days, most vehicles were simply named and branded eponymously (Chrysler, Ford, Toyota (Toyoda), Studebaker,
Olds(mobile), Cord, Ghia, Dodge, Chevrolet, Buick, Mercedes-Benz, Hudson, Duesenberg, Tucker, Kaiser-Fraser, etc.).
Specific models were typically distinguished with letters or numbers (Model T, Model 55, Series D, etc.).
Eventually, with the proliferation of models within brands, cars were named after:
As brands and models continued to proliferate — and necessity being the mother of invention — newly coined
words would, with clever marketing, define the vehicle's image for which they were named (Corvette, Galaxie,
Electra, Chevelle, Polara, Camaro, Futura, Altima, Celica, Toronado, Jetta, Camry, Forenza, Corvair, Invicta, Sportage, Mystere, Impreza, Boxster, Acura, Lexus, etc.).
Mercedes-Benz resisted this appellation temptation and continued with letters and numbers to distinguish their models.
In the mid-1950s, its SL two-seater sports car debuted designating "sport light." A few years later came the SEL denoting an S-Class car with fuel injection (Einspritz) and a
long wheelbase. (And just to add to the confusion, the "S" in SEL was not the same as the "S" in SL.)
American cars toyed with the idea in the 1960s with the Ford XL and LTD, Chevy SS, Javelin SST and AMX, Dodge GTS,
Plymouth GTX, Barracuda S, Cougar XR7 and Pontiac GTO.
As Mercedes' status and prestige spread worldwide, other manufacturers dove into the alphabet soup. (In 1996 Acura incredibly renamed
its flagship Legend to RL, discarding a decade's worth of valuable brand equity.)
Now it's all the rage to name vehicles with meaningless (guess the
brands) letter combinations like DTS, CTS, STS, XLR, SRX, ESV, EXT, TL, TSX, RSX, MDX, FCX, FX, QX, LS, ES, RX, IS,
GS, SC, LX, LT, MX, RX, CX, CLK, CLS, CRX, SLR, SLK, SVT, GL, HHR, NSX, XC, XJ, XK, TT, C, A, E, G, Q, M, G, H, R, S... Zzzzzzzzzzzz.
(Here's the latest: For 2007, Lincoln's year-old Zephyr model will be known instead as MKZ.)
[And a note to manufacturers: Acceptable letter combinations are going fast. Soon only PU and BO will be left!]
Yet, even more prestigious today is to be able to brandish on a car's hindquarters "Hybrid" or a chrome "H"
indicating "this car is electric, gets great mileage and averts global warming."
But we'll just have to wait a decade or so to find out — when stopped at some traffic light in the future staring at these no-longer-shiny chrome
badges of status — whether today's state-of-the-art green technology will have become ubiquitous and familiar enough to elicit a
snicker.
Time will tell...
posted by John Herman 7:56 AM
Tuesday August 1, 2006
Attack of the RFIDs!
Watch out for RFIDs! Although pronounced almost like triffid or aphid, they're neither sci-fi creatures nor common insects. Yet, you may soon be
infested with them. Perhaps you have one on your person already, like a Mobil Speedpass, or in your
car for electronic toll collection.
RFID is an acronym for Radio Frequency Identification. RFID tags are tiny microchips that have antennae to transmit to
receivers data such as account numbers, physical location, product information, price, color, size, purchase date, etc.
(To be technically correct, an RFID tag actually transmits a link into a database on a computer somewhere that
stores the information it is reporting on such as account number, etc.)
Some of the larger RFIDs have batteries while the tiniest don't — they get their power from the
radio transmitters asking for their information. Amazing isn't it?
In addition to being on a key chain or stuck on a windshield, radio tags will soon be attached or embedded in credit cards, clothing,
grocery items, drug bottles, books, magazines, cell phones, computers, tires, passports and even you — beneath your
skin for access to buildings and for storing your ID and medical records.
The scary part is that you will end up being a mobile device beaming all sorts of data to
who knows who — through barriers and from as far away as 700 feet. Imagine if your charge cards, clothing
and shoes all were transmitting data (even the age and color of your underwear)! Inquiring types could identify or profile you and track you everywhere.
You could even get hassled when your stuff's expected lifespan is reached to buy replacements.
And because RFIDs last about ten years, they can potentially transmit information for purposes well
beyond their original intention.
RFID infiltration is already underway. Besides Mobil with its SpeedPass, banks have begun issuing key chains with
MasterCard's PayPass that can be used at subway stations,
7-Eleven, McDonald's and movie theaters. Their marketing literature hypes the benefits:
• No need for cash
• Amazingly quick and easy way to pay
• Feels like magic
• Now you can fly through the checkout
• Be the first to get what's next [Be the first on your block!]
This sounds great, but because these tags are linked to one of your accounts, they will have the means
to eavesdrop and monitor your life — recording where you go and what you buy. There is a concern too that thieves
will be able to hack your radio tags to make unauthorized purchases.
Not to pick only on banks, retailers want RFIDs to replace traditional barcodes to better track their
inventory. They'll also be able to scan you coming in
and perhaps direct you to aisles based on their perception of your needs. [Your underwear is how old?]
The Phrenicea scenario of the future envisions the total loss of privacy. Perhaps this is the
way it will begin.
Time will tell...
posted by John Herman 6:05 AM
Click here to learn how banks are planning to play you
for a fool by positioning RFID cards as "upscale."
Postscript by John Herman — June 12, 2007
Saturday July 1, 2006
Summertime Fun
Now that the lazy, hazy, crazy days of summer are here, it's time to chill out for a change. For those
yearning to read more serious matter, just scroll down to previous blogs. Unfortunately most of them are still
relevant.
So how about a "connecting the dots" puzzle!
In your mind's eye, or on paper if you draw the dots as shown, starting from any point, draw four continuous
lines (without lifting your pen or pencil) so that each of the nine dots has at least one line running through it.
Although the solution will be alluded to below, it will not be posted here so feel free to enjoy this blog to the end without your fun being
ruined.
. . .
. . .
. . .
When you've finished (or have given up!) with the Nine Dots Puzzle or want to multitask, here's another one. Try to determine the next sequence
of numbers based on the following pattern:
1
11
21
1211
111221
312211
13112221
1113213211
What's the next sequence?
Did you get it? Did you give up?
When these puzzles were posed to me (at a
Six Sigma
seminar break no less), I like you was in front of a PC. Rather than
racking my brain for an answer like many of my colleagues, I cleverly googled on Yahoo! (I crave contrarianism) "9 dots puzzle" and immediately had pages and pages of links to the
correct answer. Try it!
For the second puzzle I used a search engine again using the last sequence number in quotes as in "1113213211" and boom,
I again had pages and pages of links to the answer and its simple derivation. I don't think I would have ever
figured out the logic for this one on my own. Give it a try!
Later on at a more serious point in the seminar it hit me that for both of these puzzles I did not even
have to think — and I'm not sure this is a good thing. (I did not experience any sense of accomplishment either,
although I was first to arrive at the answers to the puzzles.)
When the Phrenicea scenario of the future was first presented on this website six years ago, the engage and
somnam pages stated that all the world's knowledge was immediately available
via engagement with Phrenicea, and that boredom had ensued without the challenge to learn the traditional
(aka hard) way with study.
Could we already be approaching this point with access to the amazing capabilities of today's search engines?
Time will tell...
posted by John Herman 7:57 AM
Thursday June 1, 2006
Offshore = On the Beach?
A recent Business Week magazine addressed morale problems the "Big Three" auto manufacturers
(GM, Ford, and Chrysler) are facing related to recent and expected layoffs:
"And because the companies are erasing layers of management, the opportunities for advancement are dwindling.
Many industry professionals believe the tough medicine will help their companies, but the
turmoil is enough to wear down even the most determined optimist."
The following week's issue then sensationalized IBM's epiphany to reorganize its global workforce
in the mold of the start-up tech companies sprouting in India; the first step being the elimination of 15,000 veteran IBMers.
One software specialist divulged:
"They came and said our job is being outsourced and you'll train your replacement. If you
don't, you won't get the severance package."
These articles recall an editorial letter I submitted to Fortune magazine that was published
almost 12 years ago (October 17, 1994) with a pull-quote that now appears timeless:
The trends back then that instigated my letter included downsizing, reengineering and outsourcing.
Today we have the latest buzzword "offshoring" and its deceivingly benign-sounding synonym "globalization"
added to the mix.
The pursuit of these strategies industry by industry is almost inevitable given the perception
of a competitive disadvantage otherwise.
Downsizing eliminates jobs usually with the known consequence of harsher working conditions for
the survivors and often with a concomitant reduction in the quality of product or service —
a reality which unfortunately we've grown accustomed to. Reengineering eliminates jobs primarily
How many more employees and job seekers will find their career path is a horizontal plank?
with the use of (or more efficient use of) technology. (The frustration of menu-driven automated
voice answering systems immediately comes to mind.) Outsourcing is the process of transferring
job functions to external entities more specialized and usually
more efficient, again reducing jobs. Now offshoring is the newest darling of corporate management.
It is similar to outsourcing, only the jobs being replaced end up outside national
borders in order to pay well below market — yielding huge cost savings for ever more companies.
Regardless of the latest buzzword that's in vogue however, the overall impact is the permanent loss of jobs.
A question that should be asked now after more than a decade of job cuts is, Where will this all end?
Will there be new faddish, jargon-laced management-speak still to come whose consequence will reduce jobs
and salaries even more — and further level the highest standards of living with the poorest
on earth? How many more employees with years of dedicated service, along with new job
seekers with expensive academic degrees, will yet find that their career path is ultimately a horizontal plank?
The Phrenicea vision of the future predicts that there will not be enough work to go around for a worldwide
population that is essentially overqualified. Perhaps this grim scenario is not too farfetched after all.
Time will tell...
Do you believe the corporate ladder has already taken the form of a
horizontal plank?
posted by John Herman 5:40 AM
Monday May 1, 2006
Before the Beep
It seems many people don't care to conserve time when recording their automated phone greetings. And why
should they? It's the callers that are paying to give ear to them! And with almost universal usage, I'm
beginning to wonder how much extra revenue the phone companies are passively procuring as a result.
And contrary to conventional wisdom, we don't always get what we pay for.
On hectic days, I occasionally get annoyed trying to reach someone not available and the obvious is stated: "...I'm not here right now,
blah blah blah" or "I can't come to the phone right now..." Or when I suspect they should — but obviously will
not record: "I'm standing right here next to the phone but don't want to pick up and speak with you right
now!"
Some, in the process of recording prolonged salutations, unintentionally project their personalities
into their greetings. I have endured a variety of types — from maudlin: "I am so sincerely sorry for not being
at the phone for you and would truly rather be talking to you than be where I am now, boohoo..." — to inanely
cheerful: "... and even though I'm not here right now, I want to wish you a happy, wonderful, bright, sunny
and especially nice day!" Give me a break, please!
Those with a so-called sense of humor can choose from a host of pre-recorded messages. I've been greeted by
ersatz British butlers and maids with French accents. The more creative add special background effects to add
yet another dimension. I've been soothed to the roll of ocean waves, serenaded with classical music and
hip-hopped with rap. These are innocuous but can be frustrating if you have more productive pursuits pending.
It also seems that those who test your patience with long-winded greetings give you the least amount of time to
respond. After what is perceived to be only seconds, an ominous beep interrupts implying "you just got cut
off, ha-ha." I then have to re-dial to finish, but must first sustain the same protracted electronic monologue. I'm tempted to
conclude that the disparity between greeting and message time is a subconscious power thing.
An unintended benefit of using this technology is that you can covertly gauge when a household's kids have reached adolescence.
A sure sign is when the staid, long and humdrum greeting of a friend or colleague is suddenly supplanted by
background chaos and a squeaky kid's voice rising above the din — whose tone proclaims, "My parents have lost
control over me!" And the consequence of this and other valueless data that may be garnered before the beep?
At month's end your earful will have been translated into an eyeful of phone charges!
I've noticed too that electrical outages can cause havoc with some of the solid-state units. Those affected reset
themselves to the default simulated voice greeting: "Pleeeease leeeave aaah mess-saage aaff-terr thaaa beeeep."
At least it's short! And then I can have some harmless fun by complimenting the owner on their new high-tech greeting,
knowing they were unknowing that their interminable, carefully crafted silicon-chipped annoyance got vaporized.
Voicemail, an evolutionary step up from answering machines, has provided even more opportunity for us to prolong
a call and jack up the phone bill. Replacing prolix dialogue are cold menu choices, now becoming popular even on
personal lines: "Touch one for this, two for that, and three or four or five..." I usually forget what the
It's time to stop apologizing for not being where others think we belong.
earlier options were and inevitably have to hang up and then get charged for another call. And you know ever
more businesses love this technology to avoid personal contact — especially when we're paying the toll. Once
after a violent storm I called a landscaper to remove a fallen tree. After getting knee deep in options, and
finally choosing the appropriate one, the message nicely indicated the mailbox was full. "Call again later,
we appreciate your business," it said. "Thanks a lot," was my vain retort, while yearning for simpler times when
I could at least leave a message!
There is hope however — even if only on the home front, but it will take a mind-set change. Nowadays, many
households have both parents working — and with several jobs, so it's time to stop apologizing for not being
where others might think we belong for their convenience. Recorded messages to convey an apology or to ameliorate
a caller with humor or niceties is vestigial behavior from the days when much more time was spent at home, and
leisure was truly that — not catching up on errands, attending classes, pursuing entrepreneurial endeavors, or
sifting through email. If used properly, phone-answering technology can make our lives easier with shorter and
fewer calls — saving precious time which in this case IS also money.
So, until we can engage each other without the need for phones and answering technology,
why not just say "hi, please leave a message" before the beep and leave it at that?
Time will tell...
posted by John Herman 6:27 AM
Saturday April 1, 2006
An Epiphany
Many of today's high school and college students often wonder (vociferously!) why they need to
memorize boring equations, formulae and other seemingly trivial or useless information.
What many times is not emphasized by their teachers is the origin and significance of man-made
expressions of what is essentially describing the workings of nature. They're not taught that
many of these discoveries required lifetimes of effort — often by iconoclasts, eccentrics,
heretics and recluses willing to shed lots of sweat and probably tears in order to solve
nature's mysteries.
Still, many students past and present have stumbled upon these truths on their own, often with
epiphanic delight.
Below is one finally-getting-serious college student's "Epiphany" written way back in 1971, stripped
bare with numerous misspellings illustrating a misspent youth, yet with genuine astonishment that this
seemingly simple realization took so long to gel. It was hand written
pen to paper
and found in a musty old box after 35 years. (Today's student might blog such a personal thought —
with little chance of rediscovery years hence.)
A message to those who are in the same plight as I:
If you question the ways of the sciences — concepts — rediculous [sic] equations —
symbols etc and become completely fatalistic toward them — think back a moment to your forefathers
who devised these methods.
These are just building blocks to understanding. Just as you need tools to produce a manual task —
tools are essential in building knowledge.
Nature does what is does without any influences (until recently however). Man has not and will never
harness nature by merely understanding its processies [sic]. This form of study makes use of abstract
concepts to make understanding less tedius [sic] and to standardize the methods of expressing our
understanding of them possible and eliminate a caotic [sic] consequence.
This must be remembered if excelence [sic] in any science is achieved.
Written by J. Herman some time in 1971
Perhaps some day education will go beyond mere memorization and copying teachers by rote
to include a real appreciation of our current state of knowledge — knowledge that allows us to not only understand the
workings of nature, but to leverage and alter them for our benefit, as well as our peril.
Time will tell...
posted by John Herman 6:46 AM
Wednesday March 1, 2006
A Disgraced General
Get ready to hear a lot about Toyota vs. General Motors, as Toyota is poised to overtake GM later this year as the
largest auto manufacturer in the world.
Toyota was once a gnat and General Motors was once the largest corporation ever in the United States;
and one of the largest employers in the world. In 1953 GM president Charles E. Wilson was tapped by
President Eisenhower to be Secretary of Defense. It was during the senate hearings that he uttered
the famous phrase, "...what was good for the country was good for General Motors and vice versa."
That perhaps was true then, and some would like it to still be true now, given GM's looming plunge
into bankruptcy. More than losing its Number One global position, GM incredibly is on the brink.
Executive egotism, greed, arrogance and misjudgment are to blame, although the current stewards
are doing their best to rewrite corporate history. Their scheme is to pin the behemoth predicament on the backs of the
GM leveraged its brand equity to excess — yielding five tarnished, almost
fungible nameplates.
retired rank and file — those that mass produced product that ultimately funded senior management's
exorbitant salaries, perks and golden parachutes.
It's a valid point that some corporations have retiree costs that make them less competitive. But to
blame those costs for General Motors' financial woes and impending market position loss to Toyota is bogus.
GM is struggling with another type of baggage — the consequences of short-term strategies and practices
that wrecked its spectrum of brands (Chevrolet to Pontiac to Oldsmobile to Buick to Cadillac), and
the dismal reputation it earned so well in the '60s, '70s and '80s for producing cars that frankly
were just plain inferior.
And after leveraging its once powerful brand equity to excess — yielding five tarnished, almost
fungible nameplates, what did top management do next? They created yet another brand — Saturn, wasting billions
in the process. Imagine if all that capital was instead applied to advanced technology, like
gas-electric hybrids!
Admittedly, these days GM's products are better built. But the damage is done. It would take as many
years to repair the company's reputation as it took to destroy it — several decades perhaps. Today,
those cognizant of quality would rather play it safe with a Toyota (or a Honda or Nissan; and soon
maybe a Hyundai) regardless of price. GM and the other US manufacturers underestimated Toyota — but
more significantly — they underestimated the consumer.
It appears now that as a result of years of US corporate mismanagement, no matter the industry, what
today is good for the country is good for a foreign company — a reality euphemistically
touted as globalization.
Time will tell...
posted by John Herman 5:58 AM
Wednesday February 1, 2006
"Baby" Boomers Turn 60 — Ugh!
Tick...tick...tick. The "baby boomer" population bulge is approaching 60. I'm a leading-edge boomer and
frankly am having trouble accepting that fact. I seem to have a lot of company too — most
of my friends, coworkers, and fellow (grand?) parents are boomers and many of them feel
similarly distressed. Why are we having so much trouble accepting this aging thing?
Through the years I've developed a belief that it's because baby boomers were
raised to think of themselves as privileged, special and young, as the moniker implies.
We are the product of an unprecedented birthrate and as youngsters were bathed in
attention — regardless of whether it was for our potential in those promising and optimistic
postwar years or for profit by opportunistic marketeers. We were the center of attention
and the target market virtually from birth. Consider the following:
Pediatrician Dr. Benjamin Spock wrote a baby and child care book just for us — to ensure that our parents would provide
a nurturing environment to help us grow to our full potential, both mentally and physically.
It was a best seller for years.
Our parents, who experienced deprivation during the Great Depression and World War II, were
determined to give us what they did not have: a comfortable home, plenty of food, new clothes and
a good education which included a college degree. Everyone would be "white collar." Yes, we
were really special.
Whole neighborhoods were built just for us, a phenomenon that became known as "suburban sprawl."
Virtually everything was new. We had new houses, roads, stores, schools, buses, playgrounds and
pools. We were handed new books and new tests which were designed to measure us if we simply
darkened the proper circle with #2 pencils. Eventually we would even have "new math."
The Golden Age of TV catered to us with Captains Video, Midnight and Kangaroo; Space Cadet and Space Patrol;
Kukla, Fran & Ollie; Davy Crockett, Superman, Howdy Doody, Mickey Mouse Club, Roy Rogers, Lassie,
Mr. Wizard et al. We watched and matured with wholesome situation comedies depicting the
idealized kid-centered family like Ozzie & Harriet, Father Knows Best, Donna Reed and
Leave it to Beaver. TV would later contribute to and reflect our loss of naïveté with such
ground-breaking shows as Laugh-In, All in the Family and Saturday Night Live. Television's
impact cannot be overstated — we were the first to grow up with it and it helped to reinforce our
preoccupation with youth and Self.
A plethora of toys and gadgets were invented just for us: Slinky, Mr. Potato Head, Barbie,
Etch A Sketch, Silly Putty, Hula-Hoop, Frisbee, a watch with a Mickey Mouse face and the world's
biggest toy — Disneyland. Naïvely optimistic slogans professed things like "Progress is Our Most Important Product."
Planned obsolescence brought us the "new and improved" designed for quick and easy disposal. We
had transistor radios and record changers playing 45s. Stereo LPs, 8-track and cassettes would
soon follow. So would calculators, computer games, and digital watches. Yes, we were spoiled
and literally growing up like no generation before us.
We were comforted to know that we would always have all the food we would ever need —
with farm mechanization and the liberal use of pesticides. The threat of serious disease was virtually eradicated for us
with "miracle drugs" such antibiotics and vaccines. Advanced surgical techniques would enable
us to change our features, our gender and even replace internal organs when they wore out. We
learned that we could take drugs to cure infertility or The Pill to ensure it. What power was
brought forth for us!
We were dazzled with jets, rockets and space flight spurred by Sputnik. One day we would all
travel through space. Impatient families would ride in automobiles sporting bullet-nosed
bumpers and huge tail fins. I can remember being lectured at school that we should feel privileged
growing up in the Modern Age; and that our eyes would eventually see what no others saw before us.
But we didn't have to wait. We saw tremendous progress during those prosperous 1950s and '60s
and were often reminded that we would be the prime beneficiaries because "our whole lives were
ahead of us." Y-O-U-N-G was etched into our psyche. We felt catered to and it made us feel
very important — and that the world should revolve around us.
This attitude combined with our critical mass gave us leverage to have an impact on society
beginning in our late teens and twenties. We began to question everything and inadvertently turned
into a political force when our implanted optimism was replaced with disillusionment. We
became demonstrators, hippies, college drop-ins and establishment drop-outs — and we didn't trust
anyone over 30. We affected the style of dress, hair, and music; and hedonistically espoused "free love."
We marched to end the arms race, the Vietnam War, and to give Peace a chance. The unintended effects of the so-called miracle
drugs were beginning to show up with cancer and birth defects, and we read Rachel Carson's
Silent Spring. We became concerned about the impact "progress" was having on the environment.
And many tried but failed to escape this reality explosion with mind-altering drugs.
Then we turned 30. To remain trustworthy we selfishly redefined Young vs. Old. Our idealism
was replaced with good old-fashioned materialism. These would be the years of the Me
Generation. "Free love" was replaced with free spending. We sold our ideals for the good
life that selfishly included expensive vacations, cars and houses. While immersed in our
indulgence, we reached "the big 4-O." We were now a massive group of "yuppies" and although
we read cover stories about how we were losing our hair and gaining weight, we still were
unconvinced that we were getting old.
Then in the blink of an eye we hit 50 — that (gasp) half-century milestone. Although chronologically
defined as hard-core middle-agers, we still refused to succumb to the stereotype
of age that we held for our parents. We continued to rock'n'roll, workout to stay fit and tried
to eat healthy — or at least followed the fads from oat bran to pasta to tofu. It
was a good thing too; we needed all the energy and stamina we could muster to survive
the waves of downsizing, rightsizing, outsourcing and reengineering. Although many succumbed to
early retirement, that did not stop us from learning new tricks; from embracing the Internet
to becoming entrepreneurs. We'll survive, we told ourselves — we're resilient and Y-O-U-N-G.
So, what does all this have to do with the future? Plenty...
Now that we're turning 60, this famously spoiled (sans "baby"?) boomer demographic anomaly will be a force
to be reckoned with. We'll be retired, but not retiring gray-haired activists with plenty of time
on our hands to leverage our generational clout to lobby for our interests.
By sheer demographic heft we'll again effect change as in years past. We'll read cover stories
at the 70- and 80-year milestones chronicling
our deterioration and the burden our cohort will be inflicting upon younger generations. And
the marketeers will be there pushing the latest pharma miracles, adult diapers, adjustable mattresses, hearing aids and life
insurance. They'll capitalize on our penchant for nostalgia that will inevitably precipitate an
onslaught of hyped retro-fads. We'll call ourselves rockers even when we're sitting in them
nodding off with Modern Maturity. And still we won't believe we're O-L-D.
Time will tell...
posted by John Herman 5:58 AM
Sunday January 1, 2006
Chiropractic Tactic?
The Phrenicea scenario of the future depicts chiropractic supplanting what is today considered
traditional medicine — a profit-driven medical/insurance industry treating various states of
disease with drugs and/or surgery. Unfortunately, this idealistic vision appears to be in
jeopardy with the emergence of a new and ominous trend among chiropractors.
To compete with today's established "big business" of medicine, many chiropractors have been
participating in a trend to further legitimize their profession and increase revenue by
expanding their application of physical manipulation of the spine and other body structures
to include the pursuit of "wellness." This may include the addition of other alternative,
non-traditional modalities such as acupuncture, naturopathy, message therapy, yoga and more.
The wellness approach attempts to proactively prevent disease holistically with proper lifestyle, rather
than treating symptoms of disease already in progress.
The proliferation of wellness centers is a trend that is expected to continue, since
chiropractors have found receptive, health conscious, well-heeled clients willing to pay out of
their own pockets for treatments that appear to be effective, as well as for expensive natural
supplements.
A more recent trend, and an ominous one in my opinion, is the growth of franchised centers of
wellness with the chiropractor as the hub. The franchise concept is not new to the service
industry — certainly not with fast-food like burgers. Over the years it has expanded to include
niche restaurants, haircutting, package shipping, travel, eyeglass fitting, chimney cleaning,
home inspections, lawn maintenance, maid service and more. It is quite new to the business of
chiropractic however.
It's apparent that the goal of franchising in this profession is to "McDonald's-ize" the
chiropractic experience in terms of creating recognizable brands to a broader population,
while bringing in extra cash for programs of questionable benefit — for the patient at
least.
Chiropractors traditionally have spent lifetimes developing successful practices of respectable
size, which reflect their character and values. They're now tempted with visions of big profits
by wooing masses of clients less sophisticated and discerning — and more receptive to being
dazzled with faux technologies and procedures. Secondary is keeping existing patients that may
be sharp enough to see through the hype and perceptive enough to sense the tawdry goal of
profit; the same patients that are at risk of being alienated with slick, sterile, and generic
branding, flashy placards and gee-whiz computer-facilitated tests of dubious value.
It's not clear, at least to me, whether the cookie-cutter success associated with the formulaic,
sanitized operation of a franchise is transferable to the practice of chiropractic. And even if
it is, should it be? (A moot question if more profit is the primary motive.)
The inevitable result of franchising in general is the lowering of service quality to merely
acceptable or tolerable, vis-à-vis stand-alone businesses. (How many four-star restaurants are
members of a franchise? How many top-notch hair cutters?) This settling consequence might be
acceptable for a meal or a haircut — but for healthcare?
If this scenario of greed plays out as it did with traditional medicine, there may have
to be a new alternative to today's alternative healthcare.
While sitting in my car at a neighborhood mega mall parking lot, situated beside a busy
intersection leading to a circuitous exit path towards Suburbia Major, it occurred to me
that every passing car was a survivor — literally — of millions of split-second decisions
over the course of its operating life.
I could see this firsthand in real-time as drivers approached, stopped, waited (some
confident, some sheepish, some blowing-horn impatient), and finally darted into the fray
of streaming vehicles filled with occupants impatient to get to their next destination.
Newer autos had the benefit of being free of the cosmetic consequences of human
decisions, with shiny and dent free flanks and bumpers. Older models reflected their years
with amazing precision — analogous to the wrinkled skin of an elderly human. Their hard
lives of stop and go, left and right, high and low, and forward and reverse were divulged
with their dents, chips, dings, touch-ups and dull paint.
Was it luck or the good judgment of each car's driver that it was still on the road after
several years or perhaps a decade or two? (Probably both.) And for a select few it appeared
to be that, plus good old-fashioned elbow grease. These pristine, eat-off-the-paint beauties
would rumble proudly through the queue — recipients of lovingly applied plastic surgery and
makeup — turning heads all the way in their battle against entropy.
And to think, all of this orderly chaos is the result of minuscule electrochemical
signals traveling within our brains — that amazing gray, convoluted organ sans any visible
moving parts. But then looking around at the mall itself — the big box stores, gaudy signage,
sculptured pavilion artwork, and the occasional plane flying overhead — all of it was
designed, constructed and maintained as a result of countless neurochemical operations. It
is truly incredible when you take time to ponder it.
Miraculous too is to be able to wonder where these almost infinite brain
processes will take us next. With the many problems and issues facing us today — worldwide
trends pointing in directions both good and ominous — it's really up to us all to focus
and channel our thoughts and energies responsibly.
But, will we?
Time will tell...
posted by John Herman 7:19 AM
Thursday October 27, 2005
Knowledge is Power — and a Burden
"Knowledge is Power" is a well-known quotation, first uttered by Sir Francis Bacon in 1597.
Unfortunately in today's world knowledge is also a burden; a cause of worry.
Example: The anticipation of a new bird flu pandemic.
Many around the world are involved envisioning horror scenarios should the H5N1 bird-borne virus
mutate into a form that can be transmitted among humans — eliminating birds as the primary host.
Just enough is known about viruses and past pandemics to ponder the consequences.
Much energy is expended discussing "What if?", brewing worldwide fear.
It may never happen. But then again, it might.
Example: Global Warming.
Much worry is attributed to our knowledge of carbon dioxide emissions
and the theoretical impact of high concentrations in the atmosphere. Endless cerebral energy
is spent debating whether weather is made heavier and more erratic, and if/when coastal
cities will submerge. Yet it still may be proven to be a false theory. [We don't think
so.] But might we be better off being dumb and happy?
Example: Events calculated to be "overdue" based on mathematical laws of probability.
Anxiety can be engendered in a locale or region susceptible to devastating hurricanes
or earthquakes if, based on historical data, it is deemed at risk "any year now."
It makes for great TV news on a slow day, and is a cause of (needless?) apprehension.
Example: The mapping of the human genome.
As knowledge of genetics becomes more sophisticated, susceptibility to ever more
diseases will be determined by markers (gene sequences) within a person's genome. Imagine the agony
knowing that a terminal or debilitating disease is inevitable, well before any symptoms and
before an effective cure becomes available. Many will find themselves cheated out of a joyful
life knowing that someday they are likely to succumb to an inherited genetic disorder.
Could our sophisticated state of knowledge be burden enough to instigate proactive worry —
and contribute to the reasons why a great many people smoke, drink and participate
in other activities that assist them to take leave of their senses?
*****
Looking ahead to the future, too much knowledge might even be mentally debilitating.
Imagine an over-the-top scenario [again?!] where we had to know from birth an important aspect
of our future — the date and time of our demise. Once cognizant, would we not
count each day in anticipation of "The End," effectively zapping our lust for life?
Who knows, conditions related to population or some other critical parameter may eventually warrant
a predetermined appointment with death... To donate a brain perhaps? ;-)
So, is knowledge beneficial or baneful?
Time will tell...
posted by John Herman 10:59 AM
Postscript by John Herman October 28, 2007
Saturday August 20, 2005
Nuclear Redux — or Déjà vu?
Our current
QuikPoll so far indicates surprisingly that there is more concern with fossil
fueled global warming than with long-lived and deadly radioactive waste (and weapons
grade fuel) produced by nuclear power plants. This is astonishing, especially with the
threat of terrorism and the third-world's desire for nukes.
It's amazing how attitudes can change over the course of time — about 60 years in this
case. At the dawn of the Atomic Age, there was optimism that not only
would "going nuclear" fuel power plants to generate electricity — it would also power
our planes, cars and rockets — and cook our food! (Even Walt Disney was convinced,
producing the movie and
book,
"Our Friend the Atom.")
Initial optimism was eventually
supplanted with concern about bomb proliferation; paranoia associated with the loss of
U.S. technological supremacy (on this date in 1953 the Soviet Union acknowledged it had
tested a hydrogen bomb); and uncertainty as to the long term effects of the radiation
from weapons testing. The many science fiction movies from the era depicting awakening
dinosaurs, giant insects, and incredible shrinking men attest to the uneasiness associated
with radiation. Chernobyl and Three Mile Island seemingly were the final straws
that broke nuclear's back. But, memories fade.
Politicians and the nuclear industry are capitalizing on today's radioactive blaséness
with talk of new reactors helping to solve the global warming predicament. Cameco, the
Recycling dangerous technology may not be
the answer to global warming.
"world's largest uranium producer" crows the slogan, "NUCLEAR. The Clean Air Energy."
Embedded in Fortune magazine's August 8 issue is a nuclear-industry funded feature posing
as objective content proclaiming a "Nuclear Redux." The piece, cleverly written by
freelancer Robert
McGarvey
(who might have sold his professional soul here), subtly
conveys an environmentally friendly green theme with an innocuous
graphic,
a green pull-quote highlighting nuclear's return to center stage, and a green text box incredibly proclaiming
that "Radiation is good for you."! How subtle. How frightening!
There's little doubt that global warming is a pressing issue requiring action. However,
the answer may not be to recycle dangerous technology. We owe it to ourselves and to
posterity to become sufficiently educated to intelligently evaluate potential options.
It's popular now to brand Global Warming "bad" because that's been the predominant
message; and nuclear energy as comparatively "good" because: (1) it's been out of the
tabloid news for twenty years; and (2) that's what some politicians
and the industry would now have us believe.
Don't listen passively to either view. The world and its inhabitants are at stake and the clock is ticking.
Time will tell...
posted by John Herman 7:22 AM
Monday August 1, 2005
Cubicle Dwelling? Not Yet...
Now is as good a time as any — during these lazy, hazy days of summer —
to assess whether the world is catching up with the Phrenicea
scenario.
So, is it? Well, not really. We're not yet donating our brains to the Phrenicea braincomb.
Money, pets, and newspapers are still around. Cars have not been banned, although they're
getting awfully expensive to operate. Human cloning
hasn't replaced procreation, but at this point we probably wouldn't be too surprised to
hear of a successful attempt. And no, we're not living in cubicles — yet.
Nevertheless, it probably could be said that the Phrenicea scenario today is perceived as a bit
less bizarre than when it was unveiled way back in May, 1999. Of course(!) this conclusion
is based on objective data — that being visitor ranting via email.
The hysterical ones have been on a steady decline, although the predominance of critical
feedback we get still centers around the "ridiculousness" of the Phrenicea scenario as p
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}