This blog page is for discussion of issues about our society (ies), technologies, sciences. Time frames of interest span the spectrum from historical, through present, into future possibilities.
Civilizations rise, and thrive. Civilizations fall for various reasons. Others civilizations rise afterward. Knowledges previously known may be found again.
Note, also, that in a number of instances, science fiction literature, in the form of speculation and entertainment, may showcase some of the associated widely differing options. Some are warnings of about negative present or past experience. Others are about hopeful futures worth striving to obtain.
There are certainly a number of interactions to be observed. Some such as microbiology, medical tech, agricultural tech green revolution are positive.
Warfare (both hot and cold) and military tech. apps can, paradoxically, be both positive and negative. Hardly anything positive can be said for germ warfare development, nor for creating victims, by what ever means, during fighting. Military and aerospace tech., though, were the origins for the revolutionary improvements in consumer electronic goods / services such as personal computing, mobile telephony, internet.
In regards to energy sources and systems, we are in the midst of the Oil Age. It was not always so. It may change, one way or the other.
Outer Space is there around us, It can be accessible provided any groups decides the value on many fronts is, to them and neighbors, worth overcoming the difficulties. It need not remain just the realm for a very small handful of specialists & establishment insiders.
Perhaps you have something old, from your personal archives, or something newly written on related topics. Share it here. Quoted material, with citations crediting original sources / authors, is also welcomed.
-pg. created Dec.2009-
Space Nuclear Power, a Political Controversy
Frank Bynum; [*] Wed. 14 Oct.’92
In a person and an organization they nominated– John Pikes and Federation of American Scientists (FAS)– staff writers with the general’s High Frontier perceptively identify opponents speaking for completely opposite policies. [HFltr] The confrontation pertains to about 2 areas I watch. These are technology advancement programs, or policies constraining them, relevant to civil space activities, and/or relevant to abilities to destroy (after their flight has begun) attacking moderate to long range missiles or bomber airplanes.
During 1988 and continuing to date, news reports indicate FAS (Federation of American Scientists) to be among the entities taking a lead role for advocacy favoring formation of US policies, and international conventions between nations having the relevant technological capacity, to place very strenuous restrictions against space related usage of nuclear energy techniques for power sources or propulsion. This is quite a separate matter from nuclear or other mass destruction weapons. The latter were banned from being in space for extended periods by the 1967 outer space treaty, and good riddance. (ICBM’s, and even fractional orbit bombardment system tests, as have occurred without attempted diplomatic challenge, involve technical designs intended for nuclear explosive warheads to be aloft only strictly less than 90 min.)
What degree of restrictions? Partly that may depend on the technical grasp, or its lack, by the person forwarding the political suggestion. On the most simplistic end may be un-wise and un-informed calls, that starting with those systems not on land or under sea, there be total bans on nuclear energy. (I’ve taken a bit of liberty in lumping holders of the uniform ‘No Nukes’ views in with a more detailed view point attributable to ‘military applications technology development’ foes. But the overlap may be fitting, in a ‘logical rational of argument’ sense.)
A bit more technically sophisticated specification of proposed restrictions may be occasionally heard. The terms seem to be that fission reactors be prohibited from outer space related system, if these were at locations no further from earth than in orbits around earth. (Launcher propulsion nuclear engines would also be in area frowned upon.) A grudging exemption seemed to be extended to nuclear reactors in deep space missions, and/or to (non-reactor) radioisotope decay driven thermal generators (RTG’s). Lunar surface or near other planetary systems are a part of ‘deep space’ category. Occasionally scheduling of restriction proposal stipulates a “moratorium period”. Its duration is variously set as a half to one decade in length, while ‘political alternatives are deliberated’.
One can reflect on the past few years lineage of various calls for restrictions against nuclear energy in space. A few such calls were heard back around 1979. Issues of public safety in space use of nuclear materials was one reason. Other reasons stemmed from positions pressed by arms control analysts.
Arms control community members had especially high, but evidently un-met hopes spurred by formulation of the SALT I era agreements. Afterward, as the 1970’s progressed, they came to conclude that military technology advancement programs overall, with only a few exceptions, were especially responsible for thwarting their visions of means to seek a safer world.
As a potential safety hazard during 1979, Cosmos 954 had strewn rubble from a fission reactor core onto Canadian arctic land. The designed procedure to dispose of it in 1000 km. altitude orbit failed. Application was to a power source on a USSR satellite used to tracking ocean shipping by radar. These were referred to, by Western specialists if not others, as the ROAR-sat spacecraft series. In 1988 there seemed to be a risk of a repeat performance by another satellite in the same series. Eventually, after the anxiety producing unplanned delay during which the orbit decayed, a back up system lead to its orbit being rased to the adequately long lived disposal altitude. In between, specifically April 1986, a reactor at Chernobyl broke open, spreading to the surroundings among the worst yet radioactive fall out clouds.
A song arose out of the 1986 event. Its lyrics and music were written by Mitchell Clapp. He is a musician, career USAF flight test pilot, and also a would-be astronaut.
If the wind had been from the west /
than in the West, you would have never heard the news /
about those ‘glow in the dark’ Chernobyl Blues.
A lesson may be gained from these events. It’s rather more confined in scope than claims heard issued by a number of others. In the 1980’s, on back to the 1950’s, the Soviet regime had historically a systematic difficulty in providing adequate public safety for their nuclear and other significant projects. An additional consequence of those spectacular failures was to unjustifiably cast public doubt against the safety risk management abilities in nuclear technologists’ projects (present or future) happening within Western nations.
In Jan. 1986 the tragic failure of the Challenger shuttle flight, fatal to its crew, occurred. (It surprised most of the public though knowledgeable observers knew loses were certain to happen occasionally.)
Months to a few years afterward, a totally unwarranted campaign to generate public fright grew out of “noticing” planned launchings, later than Jan.’86, by US/NASA shuttle flights, of Galileo and Ulysses space science probes. There would be RTG’s containing a plutonium isotope heat source on board each.
For missions which do not get very far from Earth’s surface, nor stay away for much time (over a week), space missions can rely on stored chemical reactants to provide energy reserves and motive propulsion. For missions when durations become long, and/or distances from our world large, other means become essential substitutes for stored chemical reactants. At the moment, sunshine, radioisotope heat sources, or fission reactors, are the practical alternatives. Sunshine decreases in availability as inverse square of distance to the sun, due to being in the shade of a near by world, or due to a world’s surface weather conditions. When it is not unavailable, sunshine can be an energy resource to be relied upon. Otherwise, nuclear technologies in space can be a mainstay.
Finally, after the about 20 years near absence of US serious interest in ambitious astronautics missions, facilitated by nuclear propulsion or power, related R&D activity has resurfaced. Extension of human presence into the solar system beyond low earth orbits was presidentially endorsed in 1989. Despite rather unenthusiastic congressional reception, it has spurred a certain level of technologies development effort. Reactors to directly drive thermal rocket engines, power electrically driven thrusters, or as power supplies at bases on surface of other worlds, can be quite helpful to mission feasibility.
The FAS and allied groups’ calls to politically severely restrict space nuclear power and propulsion technology could only be logically consistent with an assumed assessment that coincidental curtailment of civil space activities is unimportant, a negligeable loss in potential value. Those who, like this writer, profoundly disagree, must be ready to “get active”. There are various audiences– concerned lay-persons and public policy makers, to be made aware the situation and persuaded of preferable alternatives.
– – – – – – – – – –
Notes
[*] Article Developed Wed. 14 Oct.’92; Dec.2009, submitted to Jaluo.com Sci/ Tech/ Soc. page;
[HFltr] letter from the High Frontier organization, a pro-SDI activist group, Sept’92 to this writer ; SDI was the Strategic Defense Initiative (for tech. to counter nuclear armed icbm-s.)
Real Time Thought – to – Speech Synthesizer Developments Reported
Persons may end up with illness conditions (stroke), or nerves / brain injuries which disable their ability for speech. A team of researchers has now published results of their developmental studies aimed toward solutions in this problem area.
A fellow received an electrodes array neural implant about 5 years ago, and has been a volunteer research subject in this program. The researchers assembled software which implements a mathematical model for the process which starts with intentional mental patterns and leads, in the usual case, to commands of the nerves and muscles involved in output of speech. The model takes as input the real time data from the implantee’s neural electrodes implant, then provides as output the commands to run a speech synthesizer.
Data and power connectivity to the implant is by FM band radio frequency induction. Wires do not need to penetrate a person’s skin. The required software runs on a regular personal computer.
The article which this message summarized can be found at url,
http://www.physorg.com/news180620740.html
– – –
From: pwbmspac
Date:12/24/2009
here kaka anyalo lony
From: amenya gibson
Testing Innovations and Discoveries is crucial before mass launches
I have been wondering who developed AK 47? putting in mind that it can
wipe an entire village within a short period
Also who developed Atomic bomb and other innovations that have caused
a lot of calamities in our lives
Currently financial innovations have brought more harm look at how
markets are behaving when you slow you get behind .
The financial innovations supported but computer technologies created
Derivatives which as Warren Buffet remarked are weapons of mass
destruction and this was clearly seen in most investment firms who
collapsed like cards.
Telephony innovations also have caused social upheavals we use SMSes to send obscene, threatening message,many people have been tracked using such technologies to meet their deaths.
We have seen inclusion of chemicals in our food which have killed or
harmed people
Innovations in making local brew saw some people die as was the case
recently in Shauri Moyo.
Airt Transport innovations saw in Poland plane crash killing people.
—
Thanks
Gibson Amenya
Enigma Consultants Kenya Limited
NHC Building,3rd Flr
P.O Box 10017-00200,Nairobi
Email: gibson.amenya@enigma.or.ke
Email:info@enigma.or.ke
For Audit,Taxation and Business Advisory Services
From: JTM
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 1:59 PM
Subject: Re: First (and last) man on the Moon vs. Obama’s space policies
And the official White House response: “Who ARE these guys, anyway?”
Joe
On Wed, April 14, 2010 16:53, Taras wrote:
“Although some of these proposals have merit, the accompanying decision to cancel the Constellation program, its Ares 1 and Ares V rockets, and the Orion spacecraft, is devastating.
“America’s only path to low Earth orbit and the International Space Station will now be subject to an agreement with Russia to purchase space on their Soyuz … The availability of a commercial transport to orbit as visioned in the Presidentâ?Ts proposal cannot be predicted with any certainty, but is likely to take substantially longer and be more expensive than we would hope.
“It appears that we will have wasted our current ten plus billion dollar investment in Constellation and, equally importantly, we will have lost the many years required to recreate the equivalent of what we will have discarded. …
Neil Armstrong
Commander, Apollo 11
James Lovell
Commander, Apollo 13
Eugene Cernan
Commander, Apollo 17” —
http://www.politico.com/click/stories/1004/armstong_obama_hurting_space.html
from: PowerBeamSpacer
subject: Moon mining concepts are a subject for a recent sf video feature
This is a concept review, not a video review.
The back cover description indicates this vid is the story of a fellow who is nearing the conclusion of his 3 year commercial contract. His assignment is operation of mining / production facilities on Lunar surface as source of material to run Earth’s major energy supply.
So far, so good. Lunar soils are a good place to mine the atomic weight 3 isotope of Helium. This, reacted with the heavy hydrogen isotope Deuterium, could be a good choice for generating abundant power by thermonuclear reaction. This is the type of commodity which can currently be predicted as ALREADY, at current high prices, still worth mining for export to Earth surface from the Moon.
He is employed under contract. That likewise is consistent with the idea of Commercial operations in space aimed to provide resource supplies efficiently and profitably.
The description, though, voices a mistake common in modern speech. His job site is described as being on the “dark side of the moon”. I would hope that usage of the term would just be a slip up on the part of the provider of labeling for the package.
Actually, there is not such a literal place. Rather, it is far more correct to call such a location “on the lunar far-side”. Specifically, like other locations, it would receive 1/2 earth month of sunlight, 1/2 earth month of night time. At such locations, the Earth never is above his local Lunar horizon. His site would be not visible from Earth surface, because of being in the hemisphere permanently pointed away from the earth, through out the Moon’s rotation and orbit.
Lunar far side has been nominated as being attractive as a site for radio astronomy science. (The body of the Moon would provide shielding from sources of radio frequency interference coming from activities on Earth surface and low Earth orbits. So observation data would be much improved in quality.)
Lunar resources mining for Helium-3, though, draw no special advantage via farside location. Siting those on Lunar Nearside, would serve just as well. Perhaps the writer(s) may have been postulating that a commercial project encountered an opportunity to take over facilities started to support a astronomy science effort, then no longer needed (no longer publicly funded) for that initial purpose.
The description on video box continues with mention of other setting elements featured in the story’s drama. It places much emphasis on “the personal ordeal of extended isolation”. His contact with the outside is described as limited to messages, thru satellite links, to wife and daughter back on Earth.
Firstly, there would be No Need to be miserly on communications. It would be far more reasonable to consider that persons in work locations, such as indicated in the video, could in principle have practically unlimited data / telecommunications / media network feeds – – incoming AND outgoing. Propagation / processing delay times would be near / above 1 sec. per direction, given those distances. This would simply suggest moves toward habits more centered on that of Compose & Send a message, receive and read / listen to / view message, rather than real time conversation between widely separated people. I find it hard to conceive of a meaningful motivation to restrict telecom content to family messages only. Rather, unlimited content (regarding selections for subject matter or participating persons / organizations / publishers ) seems more plausible, and desirable. For my own part, for terms in such a career position, I would demand no less.
Secondly, it is most plausible that vocational gigs, in environments such as discussed here. not be solo affairs. Likely, some number of fellow workers, would also be present. Safety, (buddy system), sharing the workload, and more personnel means widened skills sets, are among the considerations arguing for multiple persons to be present at commercial / industrial operations sites.
Reference:
Sam Rockwell’s _Moon_
a video, science fiction, available on dvd from Sony Pictures Classics; 97 min.;
– – pbs – –
Sun.16May2010
Jodalawa,
Sani makoro wayudo new constitution, dwarore ni mondo wachak neno kaka de wadong luo nyanza. wach mar counties ni nyalo gerowa maber ahinya ka watiyo matek. ak chunya nitiere eyore mag tekmoloyoji (technology) mag thieth/let (healthcare systems — public health informatics). gima nyalo dongo kuonde thieth ema moro chunya. jo nyanza dwaro kuonde thieth motegno!
Rocks in space – – Valuable Mines? Threats? Both?
From: pwbmspac @ . . .
Space rocks will not always stay there, away from us. See, for instance, . . .
http://www.unknowncountry.com/news/?id=8560
Space Travel, 09-Sep-2010
Scientists in the astronomy field who study asteroids have made suggestions for systems which would provide critical information upon the population of near earth objects / NEO-s. One proposed variety involves setting up a significant number of small to moderate sized ground based telescopes. By design their operations would be fully automated, and the sensors would be set for detection of light in infrared as well as visible part of spectrum. A goal would be to count the population of NIO-s, and determine their orbital paths.
That info is needed for 2 reasons:
a., future plans to prospect for economically beneficial minerals ;
b., future plans to avoid disastrous collisions.
LANGUAGE ISSUE IN KENYA’S JUST PROMULGATED CONSTITUTION.
An attempt to borrow from everywhere, but the drafters shied away from making all languages official. Mere recognition and effort to promote the indigenous languages is a sure way of kissing the a gradual death. The best the drafters have done is to put Kiswahili and English on collision course as the former has both National and official status!
Subject: Report: A Solar Transition is Possible
An energy infrastructure that depends largely on renewables appears inevitable as easily mined fossil fuels will be exhausted. Given the potential for catastrophic climate change and the inherently negative environmental externalities of non-renewable forms of energy production, we must find ways to transition to renewables as soon as possible. Studies of this potential transition have pointed to the possibility of a swift shift from fossil fuels to renewables, using existing technologies, while providing sufficient long-term energy needs for all humanity.
Arguably no challenge is more serious for the world’s future than bringing about a rapid decarbonation of the energy infrastructure with the possibility of preventing the onset of catastrophic climate change. With a mathematical model we demonstrate that this transition is technically plausible using modest inputs of existing fossil fuel reserves in the creation of a global solar power infrastructure even with existing solar technologies such as wind turbines. In addition, this global power capacity can likewise provide energy consumption per person levels for all of humanity consistent with high human development requirements.
Read or d/l document;
http://iprd.org.uk/wp-content/plugins/downloads-manager/upload/A%20Solar%20Transition%20is%20Possible.pdf
Subject: [wanabidii] Cities and Climate Change: Global Report on Human Settlements 2011
Cities and Climate Change reviews the linkages between urbanization and climate change, two of the greatest challenges currently facing humanity in the 21st Century, and whose effects are converging in dangerous ways. It illustrates the significant contribution of urban areas to climate change while at the same time highlighting the potentially devastating effects of climate change on urban populations. It reviews policy responses, strategies and practices that are emerging in urban areas to mitigate and adapt to climate change, as well as their potential achievements and constraints. In conclusion, the report argues that urban areas have a pivotal role in both climate change mitigation and adaptation and identifies strategies and approaches for strengthening this role.
http://www.unhabitat.org/content.asp?typeid=19&catid=555&cid=9272
subject Freedom of connection, freedom of expression: legal and regulatory ecology shaping the Internet
This report provides a new perspective on the social and political dynamics behind the threats to expression. It develops a conceptual framework on the ‘ecology of freedom of expression’ for discussing the broad context of policy and practice that should be taken into consideration in discussions of this issue.
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0019/001915/191594e.pdf
—
Kwa Nafasi za Kazi kila siku http://www.kazibongo.blogspot.com
http://worldngojobs.blogspot.com/ Nafasi za Kazi Kimataifa
Kenyans finally have a HIV/AIDS tribunal
Ambrose Rachier, tribunal chairman and judge together with other six members have been sworn in and the tribunal operationalized.
The tribunal,formed in order to enforce the HIV/AIDS Act of 2006 which has remained largely unimplemented. The tribunal is now recognised as an official court that deals only with cases related to HIV/AIDS. The tribunal will have among others the power to order payment of damages related to direct financial loss or emotional suffering as a result of human rights violation.
Other members of the tribunal include lawyers Joy Asiema, Mohammed Noor, medical scholars Julius Kyambi and Dr. Ephantus Chomba and activists Joe Muriuki and Angeline Siparo.Tribunal members are scheduled to serve for three years
24Jun/2011
subject; world: Unnatural Selection …Edit this post
from Taras
… or, How science is producing a generation of lonely fanboys …
“In nature, 105 boys are born for every 100 girls. This ratio is biologically ironclad. Between 104 and 106 is the normal range, and that’s as far as the natural window goes. Any other number is the result of unnatural events.
“Yet today in India there are 112 boys born for every 100 girls. In China, the number is 121 — though plenty of Chinese towns are over the 150 mark. China’s and India’s populations are mammoth enough that their outlying sex ratios have skewed the global average to a biologically impossible 107. But the imbalance is not only in Asia. Azerbaijan stands at 115, Georgia at 118 and Armenia at 120.”
– – – – – – – – – – –
The War Against Girls
Since the late 1970s, 163 million female babies have been aborted by parents seeking sons
By JONATHAN V. LAST
Mara Hvistendahl is worried about girls. Not in any political, moral or cultural sense but as an existential matter. She is right to be. In China, India and numerous other countries (both developing and developed), there are many more men than women, the result of systematic campaigns against baby girls. In “Unnatural Selection,” Ms. Hvistendahl reports on this gender imbalance: what it is, how it came to be and what it means for the future.
In nature, 105 boys are born for every 100 girls. This ratio is biologically ironclad. Between 104 and 106 is the normal range, and that’s as far as the natural window goes. Any other number is the result of unnatural events.
. . .
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303657404576361691165631366.html
Filed under: Family, Health, Love, Marriage, World News
subject Green growth: debates and resources
Green growth is one of the most-discussed topics in climate change and development. There are still questions on how exactly to define green growth, and what it means for the economic and climate change challenges facing developing countries. From an ongoing online debate sparked by Simon Maxwell’s ‘Ten observations on climate change and growth’ to an exploration of the current innovative work being down on this issue around the world, this page presents a run-down of green growth and its implications.
http://cdkn.org/2011/07/green-growth-debates-and-resources/
—
Kwa Nafasi za Kazi kila siku http://www.kazibongo.blogspot.com
http://worldngojobs.blogspot.com/ Nafasi za Kazi Kimataifa
Kujiondoa Tuma Email kwenda
wanabidii+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com Utapata Email ya kudhibitisha ukishatuma
Subject: World: Moon Day; Biotech and Planet of Apes;
Moon Day 2011
Here we are at moon-day 2011; anniversary of Apollo-11 July 1969 lunar landing & safe return by astronauts. Still we see no open-literature published follow up? A major worthy one such can be commercial ET resources extraction for commercial industrial use.
It’s well past time for some other organization to step up and do this. Hence my multi-decades gripe continued yet another year.
By the way, “July 8, 2011 – Atlantis In Space – NASA Shuttle’s Last Mission.
American manned spaceflight comes to a halt.” This is one of the news items showing in late July2011 on http://www.earthfiles.com/ . Charlie Bolden, NASA Administrator cited tough economic times as reason to leave the field of building / operating launch services to carry humans.
At least some indications suggest private commercial businesses might fill that gap. One such company, which has been the news, is Space-X, which did flight demo of Falcon rocket L/V, and Dragon S/C.
Comments on article where scientists warn of Biotech & Planet of Apes prospects
In other news, today I web-browsed across the article cited below with url & several paragraphs extract.
A few people may recall the _Planet of the Apes_ science fiction stories. It started as novel by Piere Bouell, became a collection of 6 or so films, a several seasons TV series in USA, then another film.
In it, peoples of a few species are present, in the scenarios of those (more than one) futures of our planet. Noted by the series titles, the great apes are in a leading roles among the species of peoples living on land. Standard earthly humans are present as well. As a legacy of the savage interim period between the old civilization and the newly emerging one, the relations between these species is rocky at best. Humans frequently came out on the short end of ethnic strife, various periods of genocide & / or slavery.
The origination the additional species of peoples on this world was thru means of bio-medical & genetic scientific research during a prior cycle of civilization – – ours – – before its falling down into savagery via catastrophic global war.
I see a need to object to a major point of the opinion expressed by the cited article. Point 1 is likely valid (eventually). Point 2 provides reason for me to disagree strongly.
In the article, some scientists are quoted to declare that:
1, technologically, it may become possible;
2, relative to their view of ethics, they recommend regulatory policies aimed to avoid doing the types of research which might lead to the creation of additional species of persons.
My own vision is in favor of futures in which there arise thousands of species of sentient biological entities (peoples), whose ancestry derives from living forms born of this world, Terra, third planet of the star called Sol. To make this possible may be one of our solemn responsibilities, as thinking, tool-developing, hi-tech, beings ourselves. Let us recognize this as among the tasks set forth for us by The Most High, who created the rules by which physical processes occur, and who inspires people to work toward ethical and useful ends.
There is a term, giving a simple name for my premise above – – species uplift to intelligence, or more simply still, ‘uplift’. The term was used very effectively by the SF author, David Brin, and is worth adopting for such situations.
Among the SF novels by David Brin related to the topic addressed here, consider _Sundiver_, and _Star Tide Rising_. They can be considered as stories within the umbrella setting he calls “The Uplift Wars”.
There-in, terrestrial humans, as our own not too distant future hi-tech society progresses, begin the practice of ‘uplift’, starting with chimpanzees. And dolphins are adapted to use prosthetic / robotic arms & hands, plus are provided with facilities to converse in human languages. This the humans initiate on their own. Eventually, in the context of our becoming practiced at interstellar range spacefaring, the terrestrial peoples learn that this appears common among the members of the surround and long existing galactic culture.
There is a down side from the Terrestrials’ perspective. Various factions among the galactics’ culture start to inquire as to who among themselves had in the remote past done ‘uplift’ which resulted in the emergence of the terrestrial humans.
Under that outer civilization’s standards, upon reaching such finding would follow declaration as to which among their factions would, according to ‘customary and accepted practice’ be the ones designated to have imperial ‘ownership rights’, ‘rights to receive tribute’ (production for export to serve interstellar markets), from the Terrestrial humans. So, of course, the humans make it a point to seek out key inter stellar alliances of convenience, and are resolved to be prepared to use even armed force as a tool in rejection of demands they behave as proper colonial subjects, bowing to whoever may have done species uplift to us in some past historic age. Thus is explained a central idea for D. Brin’s “Uplift Wars” series.
Sincerely,
Power Beam Spacer
USA, Midwest;
– – – – – – – – – – –
Scientists warn of ‘Planet of the Apes’ scenario
Action is needed now to prevent nightmarish “Planet Of The Apes” science ever turning from fiction to fact, according to a group of eminent experts.
6:00AM BST 22 Jul 2011
Their report calls for a new rules to supervise sensitive research that involves humanising animals.
One area of concern is “Category Three” experiments which may raise “very strong ethical concerns” and should be banned.
An example given is the creation of primates with distinctly human characteristics, such as speech.
Exactly the same scenario is portrayed in the new movie Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes, in which scientists searching for an Alzheimer’s cure create a new breed of ape with human-like intelligence.
[ . . . ]
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/8653962/Scientists-warn-of-Planet-of-the-Apes-scenario.html
subject Planning for Climate Change: Guide for City Planners
The United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT) developed this guide for city planners and other allied professionals to better understand, assess, and take action on climate change at the local level. While climate change is a global issue, this guide is specifically intended for urban communities in low and middle income countries where the challenges are unique and the human stakes of planning for climate change are particularly high.
http://www.unhabitat.org/pmss/listItemDetails.aspx?publicationID=3164
—
Kwa Nafasi za Kazi kila siku http://www.kazibongo.blogspot.com
http://worldngojobs.blogspot.com/ Nafasi za Kazi Kimataifa
Subject; A book review of _The Key_
The book is titled, _The Key_. Its author, Whitley Streiber, provides a written account recalling an approximately two hour amazing conversation with an extraordinary individual.
On a night in 1998, W.S. had been resting in his hotel room, near the conclusion of an author’s tour to promote his then most recent book. The visitor to his room that night was a guy evidencing great depths of knowledge and abilities to clearly communicate in a number of fields. Those fields ranged over a number of topics in spirituality, religion, science, metaphysics, history.
[ . . . ]
Read the full article;
http://blog.jaluo.com/?p=23395
subject Global Connectivity Program
The Global Connectivity Program considers current trends driving our interest, such as: a world wired to its natural and built environments, a global digital economy and a virtual global village of ideas and influence. With these trends in mind, the Global Connectivity Program is focusing on key areas of concern, which include the transition to Internet Protocol version6 (IPv6), universal affordable access to broadband networks and services and confidence and trust in the online environment. The Global Connectivity Program is committed to keeping economic, social and environmental objectives front of mind when considering these objectives in governance of the Internet and its related technologies.
http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2011/brochure_global_connectivity.pdf
—
Kwa Nafasi za Kazi kila siku http://www.kazibongo.blogspot.com
http://worldngojobs.blogspot.com/ Nafasi za Kazi Kimataifa
from: octimotor, with commentary; Please see article in this forum,
http://blog.jaluo.com/?p=23862
USA: Neal Stephenson – – “Innovation Starvation” .
from Taras W.
subject Neal Stephenson: “Innovation Starvation”
“I worry that our inability to match the achievements of the 1960s space program might be symptomatic of a general failure of our society to get big things done.
— Neal Stephenson —
http://www.worldpolicy.org/journal/fall2011/innovation-starvation
. . . for full article by N.S.
Subject: Worlds: 2012: A Space Odyssey
from pwbmspac
date Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 3:54 PM
Hi:
Let us supose that the USA national government would give monetary support to exploratory space voyages with human crews present, and establishment / maintanance of bases in such locations. And that furthermore, it would expect to be the customer that would buy, from private providers, the launch to earth orbit, earth orbit to moon or mars or asteroids, phases of space transportation, habitation modules, etc., from private national and international origin private commercial providers.
I would consider that to be a step up improvement over what had been the institutional conditions seen during the past 16 or more years.
Is any one seeing that kind of institutional programmatic stylistic prescription on the part of any of the plausible players in the field of human space flight policies and activities involving USA? How about involving any parties other than the USA as sponsor?
– pwbmspac –
– – – – – – – – – – –
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 2:20 AM, Lloyd Daub wrote:
All the comments I read started ripping Gingrich for wanting to cut Federal spending, yet spend on this. Did he actually say the taxpayer would pay for this, or was it part of a speech about private space companies? Because I see nothing wrong with the government encouraging that….
—–Original Message—–
From: Taras W.
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 4:48 PM
Subject: 2012: A Space Odyssey
“Newt Gingrich took the opportunity of being on Florida’s space coast to revisit one of his favorite topics: space exploration.
“‘By the end of my second term, we will have the first permanent base on the moon and it will be American,’ Gingrich said to applause. …
“Gingrich also said he would push to develop propulsion technology that would get man to Mars.”
http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/01/newt-pledges-moon-base-by-second-term-112319.html
(Maybe Gingrich plans to write an alternate history in which he is elected President!. –TW)
If economics is the original dismal science, then climate change could be its understudy. As the meteorological picture comes into focus, campaigners have begun to argue that climate change holds potentially serious implications for international security. The basic argument is that climate change—by redrawing the maps of water availability, food security, disease prevalence and coastal boundaries—will reduce the available food and water, increase migration, raise tensions and trigger new conflicts.
This article addresses the threats of climate change for peace and stability in Africa. It was written for the Heinrich Böll Foundation’s book Climate change, resources, migration: Securing Africa in an uncertain climate.
http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2010/climate_resources_migration_africa.pdf
—
Karibu Jukwaa la http://www.mwanabidii.com
Pata nafasi mpya za Kazi http://www.kazibongo.blogspot.com
Date: Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 3:06 AM
from: Yona Maro
date: Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 4:45 AM
subject: Is a World Without Nuclear Weapons Really Possible?
from: Yona Maro
Can mankind uninvent the nuclear bomb, and rid the world of the greatest military threat to the human species and the survival of the planet ever created?
Logic might seem to say of course not. But the president of the United States and a number of key foreign-policy dignitaries are now on record saying yes. They acknowledge that a nuclear-weapons-free world remains a vision, not immediately attainable and perhaps not achievable within the lifetimes of most contemporary policy makers. But they believe that the vision needs to be shared, in a vibrant, powerful way.
http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2010/0504_global_zero_ohanlon.aspx
—
Karibu Jukwaa lawww.mwanabidii.com
Pata nafasi mpya za Kaziwww.kazibongo.blogspot.com
– – – – – – – – – – –
Ireneus Kakuru Mushongi
2012 Mar 26 wrote:
to wanabidii, Yona
Yona,
A world without nuclear weapons in impractical!! Simply because this is a world where we are not reading the same page. There are those who want to dominate the world and who have crowned themselves a “world police” above other nations. This is USA and allies in NATO block.
They feel they got right above others to own nuclear weapons. They’ve passed various treaties/pacts under the umbrella of UNSC to abolish and discourage the inventions of such weapons. They come to the point of offering development aids in conditions of destruction of nuclear weapons for the growing young powers. They are trying to avoid the power challenges from small states while knowing that their supremacy is a result of such weapons. Now they have eyed Iran, North Korea, India, Iraq is no longer in list though..
Who knows exactly how many nuclear war heads is US possessing? Who quesition this? What are they for? Then if they can’t clean their own house and be role model, who will then?
Whoever is suspected to develop nukes, is doing so in efforts to arm himself against US/Nato or US backed movements on the opposite side. Had it not been the US provocative behaviour, the world could be possible without nukes. But as is right now, I don’t see this world existing and there is no room for this in the near future!
Nukes dates back to the great two world wars where US gained its position above others. But now, the balance of power is changing from west to Eastern Asia, this goes han in hand with industrial developments, so US and Europe are trying everythin possible to control the situation but this hegemony shift is not controllable, is a product of time and development.
Even these efforts are being strengthened because US interests are at stake. Israel is no 1 priority to US Middle East policies, but also those are areas where US is busy investing. Any threat to these areas, jeopardises the American interests; and they can’t keep assies down and watch. Iran has its influence on Islamic world and yet US depends a lot in terms of resouces in these states; after a big failure of the US backed groups in last election, they are trying every means possible to demise Tehran. Now using the world resources for a summit which is actually in their interests to maintain their supremacy.
Any US intervention in either Iraq or Pyangyoung (NKorea) may trigger a 3rd world war, bcause US has investments all over the world and any retaliation against them anywhere may cost a world at large. Having nukes forms part of realism priciples where you need to be strong than the other in order to survive (basing on Darwinianism theory on survival of the fittest). Obama efforts is to ensure US remains stronger above other states, in everything, power, economy even in politics and to maintain all these you have call a worlwide movement of abandoning the weapons of mass destruction but OUTSIDE America..
Then it will never happen a world without nukes! Terrorists and other anti-US groups are more dangerous than nuclear weapons, but how far have they gone in confronting them (Inside US and externally)? They exist.
There is no conference in history that called for inventions of mass destruction weapons including nuclear, this came as a result of industrial development in war fields, but also nukes came as the need of the time to suit the situation especially from the uncerrtain relationship of West and East Europe. However, with the disintergration of USSR, nukes technology has been sold to other states who thought to be the victims of US policies as what we are experiencing now. That is why any intervention from US being by force or resolutions will never be welcomed by Russia or China, because being the leading powers, also they have their interests in nuclear related projects in those countries; which goes beyond political and economical interests.
Leila Abdul wrote,
2012 Mar 26 ,
to Wanabidii
Many politicians — not just overt leftists, but also self-professed “right-wingers” and “centrists” like Robert Gates and John McCain — say they want a “world without nuclear weapons.” This is a childish fantasy, and it’s time for the U.S. to stop pursuing it.
During the Cold War, when the U.S. and the Soviet Union both assembled large nuclear arsenals and the related delivery systems, presidents of both parties (including Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy), and practically the entire left, began to dream about a world without nuclear weapons. This unrealistic goal later became a credo for presidents and most foreign policy officials of both parties. In 1961, President Kennedy even created an Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA), whose objective is to disarm the U.S. and the rest of the world completely, and signed the misguided “Freedom from the Scourge of War Act,” which created that agency.
This was lunacy already during the Cold War because neither the Soviet Union nor Communist China (which acquired nuclear weapons in 1964) was ever willing to give up its nuclear weapons. Nonetheless, blind American presidents continued to strive for a world without these weapons and even signed treaties compelling the U.S. to dramatically reduce its nuclear arsenal and its fleet of delivery systems.
The world without nuclear weapons became no more realistic after the Cold War, because new nuclear-armed states emerged during and after this struggle: India (1974), Pakistan (1998), and North Korea (2006).
These countries, like Russia and China, will never renounce nuclear weapons under any circumstances. For Moscow, Beijing, and Pyongyang, nuclear weapons are very useful for threatening the West, blackmailing it, obtaining capitulations and concessions, and winning wars if need be. The same incentives have convinced Iran to try to develop nuclear weapons, with which it will be able to blackmail its Persian Gulf neighbors and Israel (and ultimately the U.S. as well).
Nuclear disarmament will never work. Furthermore, unilateral nuclear disarmament — which Obama is already pursuing by not developing new nuclear weapons, allowing existing weapons to decay, and cutting the size of the American arsenal — will not convince any other nuclear state to give up nuclear weapons, nor will it convince any aspirant to the nuclear weapon club to cease the development of such weapons. In fact, unilateral disarmament will only expose America to grave danger.
Bilateral disarmament with Russia would also be utterly insane, as it would not only strip the U.S. military of its only real strategic deterrent, but also fail to address the nuclear arsenals of China and North Korea, both of which are aimed against the U.S.
Multilateral disarmament, even if joined by all nuclear weapon states, would also be ridiculous and wrong, because, as has been stated earlier, America’s nuclear arsenal is this country’s best and most effective strategic deterrent. Missile defense can never replace it; in the best case, it can only serve as a complement. (And it would cost huge sums of money to build the huge missile defense network that would be required to replace nuclear weapons.)
Nuclear weapons are needed to defend the civilized world. Dictators such as Putin, Kim Jong-il, Ali Khamenei, and China’s Communist leaders, understand only one thing: brute force. It is the only thing that can deter them. Dictators are respectful only to those who are stronger than them; they are scornful and merciless towards those who are weaker.
These dictators can never be America’s partners, let alone friends, whatever President Obama and Robert Gates might claim. No amount of conventional weapons can ever deter a dictator. Armed with nuclear weapons, the rulers of Russia, China, and North Korea, probably to be joined by Iran within the next few years, can be deterred only with nuclear weapons and a firm promise to use them in the case of any aggression.
Nor have the New START and America’s unilateral gestures (like refusing to develop new nuclear weapons or warhead variants) convinced anyone to back any serious sanctions against Iran or North Korea.
“Credibility on nuclear disarmament” and moral superiority are totally irrelevant.
When all else fails, disarmament proponents point to President Reagan and his numerous calls to eliminate all nuclear weapons in the world.
What is overlooked is that firstly, Reagan made these calls on the sincere (but mistaken) belief that missile defense could, one day, completely replace nuclear weapons, a belief he shared with the public in his SDI speech in March 1983. And secondly, while talking about nuclear disarmament and negotiating the first START, Reagan also ordered the largest defense buildup since at least the 1960s, purchasing (inter alia) dozens of bombers, ballistic missile submarines, ICBMs, and cruise missiles, and also expanding America’snuclear arsenal and developing new nuclear weapons.
Not everything President Reagan said was right. And not everything he said was consistent with what he did.
It’s time to change America’s defense policy. It’s time to repeal all nuclear disarmament treaties, to dramatically increase America’s nuclear arsenal and the arsenal of delivery systems (the former can be done at little cost to U.S. taxpayers, by refining plutonium from nuclear waste into weapons-grade plutonium and using it to produce warheads), and to say firmly to the world that the U.S. will never, ever give up nuclear weapons. Period.
The SALT treaties, START-2, the New START, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the Treshold Test Ban Treaty, the “Freedom from the Scourge of War Act,” and the ACDA belong in the dustbin of history, as do President Obama, Secretary Clinton, and Secretary Gates.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/06/the_world_without_nuclear_weapons_fiction.html#ixzz1qDtqjeGW
—
*Omukunirwa Ireneus Kakuru Mushongi
*
+255 754/789/658 845433
Business: imusho…@africanbarrickgold.com
Personal: ireneuskakurumusho…@gmail.com
ireneusmusho…@yahoo.com
Sept.2012;
World: Pictures & Public Concerns
Video features proliferating on cell phones could offer growing potential to spread valid news. But other tech to inhibit this has been publicized.
See article, http://blog.jaluo.com/?p=30091
from; pwbmspac
date; 1452 hr edt Tue 23 July 2013
sbj; Lunar Development and 2012 USA Presidential Politics
During the USA 2012 presidential election campaigns, Newt Gendrich made a brief flurry of space related political conversations in one of his press conferences. He suggested, as one of his election campaign planks, there be a new USA Lunar initiative.
Accordingly, a national effort would begin. over 4 to 6 years a lunar colony would be established, populated by American husbands and wives who would volunteer to go. Once they had been there one or more years, he porpoised that they and the USA make the moon, or at least the part occupied by people from USA, be this nation’s 51st State.
As expected, his proposal did not draw much support from either members of either political party. It would represent boldness and potential for a economic growth stimulus fundamentally different from recent practice, as was the space race of decades past.
Critics usually attacked it on basis of either opposition to government programs growth, or of spending initiative priorities disagreements during times of national financial troubles.
My own reactions are divided as well. Firstly, it is interesting to see any occasions for attention and conversations among members of the public concerning space development and settlement, plus the associated prospects for stimulating improvements in spreading economic prosperity.
Secondly, though, I need to point out my differing recommendations over legal and institutional contexts implied.
There is a notable principle, codified an an international convention, within the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, via the UN. It states that no [earthly] country shall seek to declare, establish, or extend its national sovereignty to other celestial bodies or regions of space.
That proposal by N. Gendrich contradicts this idea.
I, on other hand, recommend continuing to maintain that principle, with an additional provision. Yes, earth surface nations remain barred from asserting territorial claims in space. However, persons who homestead locations not on planet earth, must be allowed to claim, as property owned by themselves, those places where they occupy, reside and work. Organizations — corporate or otherwise, could be recognized to have such abilities too, while this remains not allowed for earthly nations acting as nations. So also, if some persons settling in locations in space wanted to declare they were countries of their own, this may be reasonable, not being the actions of any pre-existing earthly governments.
Eventual future discussions would be hammering out mutually acceptable understandings of size / scope limitations upon future real estate ownership or sovereignty claims. Obviously, no one entity gets to claim title to things like certain orbits or bodies in their entirety – – examples including all of 24 hr earth synchronous equatorial orbit, all of the Moon, all of another planet, the entirety of any of the earth – moon – sun Trojan points, etc. Certain of the smaller asteroidal or cometary bodies, might be “small enough” to justify having the status of exclusive ownership by a single person or institutional entity who goes there, works / settles there. Likely, bodies of Common Law, even Statutory Law, will emerge relating to these matters as persons and organizations visit and start using off world locations for economic and residential reasons.
-pbs-
date wed.9oct.2013;
From: pwbmspac
In the linked article, readers can see good indications that some people from here are eager to become migrants to spaceward destinations. This particular location is Mars surface, beginning in 2023. By May 2013, 78,000 applications of volunteers to be settlers there had been received.
-pbs-
– – – – – – – – – – –
One-Way Mars Trip: Aspiring Martian Colonists Land In Washingtonby Tanya Lewis, Staff Writer | August 04, 2013 12:29pm ET
WASHINGTON — A group of volunteers hoping to become the first human Martians congregated in one spot for the first time Saturday (Aug. 3) to discuss their hopes to join the Mars One mission, a project to send colonists on a one-way trip to the Red Planet.
Mars One CEO and co-founder Bas Lansdorp addressed a crowd of about 50 Mars One applicants, almost all male, in an auditorium here at George Washington University. The mood at the event, which was webcast live, was something akin to a gamer’s LAN party — excited discussions blended with nerdy banter. But the purpose was serious.
[ . . . ]
Read full article at – –
http://www.space.com/22238-mars-one-private-colony-volunteers-meeting.html