"The future is the worst thing about the present."
Gustave Flaubert (1821-1880), French novelist
Thursday May 1, 2008
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 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 old adage? 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
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
old adage? 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 sole, 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
Wednesday November 1, 2006
Created equal?
Nature vs. Nurture?
Free Will?
Are we fooling ourselves?
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, the "Creator" might be defined as a higher being, or perhaps the
force of evolution.
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.
As gene mapping continues to identify what gene is responsible for what trait or function,
we'll come face-to-face with our "good" and "bad" genes, and come to realize 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, particularly the great apes.
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. Well
get ready! Soon we'll have the capability to pinpoint who has what gene and its associated characteristic.
Perhaps it may 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 and as they are mapped to specific traits, it will
become evident early on who has an advantage 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 or passivity
Bravery or cowardice
You name it...
Nurture does play a part, but even our reaction to our unique environment is determined
by our genes. So indirectly, genes play a part in the nurture aspect as well.
Of course along with this newfound knowledge will come genetic profiling — and an entire industry
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 warming — 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 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, restaurant, museum, ball game, etc. — ponder how you found
yourself in the company of strangers with the same tastes, enthusiasm, excitement, passion, or
whatever — as you. Could it be you all have the same genes that led you there?
Time will tell...
posted by John Herman 5:31 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,
