ideonexus.com

WALL-E’s Curiosity Gives it Purpose Credit: Pixar Studios

Great Science Fiction films come out so rarely that I am overjoyed when a movie like Pixar’s WALL-E hits the screens. This is one of those rare SF stories that ventures into the distant future, a place so alien most SF writers don’t want to touch it.

WALL-E leaps more that 700 years into the future to a dystopian time where the human race has evacuated the Earth after burying it in trash. Waste Allocation Load Lifters Earth-Class (WALL-E) robots are left with the task of cleaning up the planet so humans may one day return. Only one such robot remains, WALL-E, with a cockroach as a companion, where all the other bots have long-since broken down.

WALL-E is Solar Powered Credit: Pixar Studios

WALL-E has survived these 700 years because it has learned to recycle from the skyscraper-tall mountains of garbage it has assembled. WALL-E is inquisitive, experimenting with the world around it, playing with all the toys left behind from our shopaholic binge on Earth. Its curiosity has obviously also had a crucial role in its survival all these centuries.

WALL-E meets EVE (Extra-terrestrial Vegetation Evaluator), a vastly more advanced robot sent from the humans in space, in a “boy meets girl” storyline that makes WALL-E a stowaway back to the human ship, where we find a society of humans all turned into obese blobs floating on mobile beds which perpetually feed them commercialized media and “meals in cup.” Such a dystopian future is not difficult to imagine in our present society, where we are encouraged to buy things we do not need and consume nutritionless calories far in excess of what our bodies can burn.

WALL-E and EVE Credit: Pixar Studios

Can WALL-E and EVE save the human race? See for yourself. I left the theater to find myself confronted with a world of brandnames, and a fascinating new perspective on them and what they are doing to our human evolution. Impacting our worldview is what good science fiction is all about.

I also had lots of fun playing with Disney’s WALL-E Website

Most of my photos from this large, science playground of a room came out as just blurs of motion, so dynamic are the displays. Giant molecules, genetically engineered potato plants, microbes, microscopes, and sculptures of the atomic fill the area, begging to be played with.

Thermal Ryan

View the complete flickr set here.

“Father,” Demetrius’ voice trembled, his youthful blue eyes were swollen and watery, “I cannot absolve myself of these doubts.”

Lord Balthasar placed two firm and reassuring hands on Demetrius’ shoulders, welcoming this distraction from the unrelenting hunger pains that plagued them all, “It is uncommon for one to question their faith in such desperate times, when we need it most.”

Demetrius avoided the Lord’s eyes, replying, “I fear my faith is what has brought me into this crisis.”

Lord Balthasar squeezed the lad’s shoulders and gently shook him so that Demetrius looked up into his eyes, coming into the here and now, “It is not our faith that has imperiled us, but that of the heretics who persecute us.”

“But who’s to say whose faith is true?” Demetrius searched the old man’s eyes, pleading, but looked to the far dirt wall as the muffled sounds of explosions found their way into the bunker.

“Ours is the one true word. Theirs is an heretical text,” Lord Balthasar assured him. “Our texts are ancient, written by the hand of God himself. They cannot make the same claim.”

“But don’t they?” Demtrius snapped back at the Lord, his trembling increasing in intensity. The boy was practically in shock with his fear. “I have no proof these words were not written by man! If God wanted to adhere to the scripture, why didn’t he write it on the Moon, mountainsides, and tree leaves?”

Another explosion, closer now, shook the room so that streams of dust poured through the ceiling. The rest of Lord Balthasar’s flock whimpered and cried in fear. Demetrius’ doubting could not come at a worse time.

Lord Balthasar pushed the youth down onto his knees, “You must have faith that there are more things in heaven and earth, than are dreamt of in philosophy!”

The boy instantly stopped trembling, and merely gazed up at the Lord in stunned silence.

Then the heretical battle chant roared just outside, sending chills through everyone in the room, “Cry havoc and let loose the dogs of war!!!”

There were only moments of life left to them now. Lord Balthasar dropped to one knee and the congregation followed suit, “Let us pray!”

Together, they recited from the holy passages:

“What a piece of work is a man,
how noble in reason,
how infinite in faculties,
in form and moving how express and admirable,
in action how like an angel,
in apprehension how like a god!
the beauty of the world,
the paragon of animals—and yet,
what is this quintessence of dust?”

This is a short short SF story, less than 600 words, in the spirit of 365Tomorrows.

I found the following quote from the former Vice President of Mensa International and president of the American Humanist Association and author of like a bazillion brilliant books very thought-provoking:

Isaac Asimov

I prefer rationalism to atheism. The question of God and other objects-of-faith are outside reason and play no part in rationalism, thus you don’t have to waste your time in either attacking or defending.

Asimov was an avowed atheist in the context of his personal feelings, but the point he makes here does illustrate the flaw in rationalists even bothering with atheism, because it has no place in Empirical thought. While continual rejection of theist attempts to impose their irrationality on society remains imperative, taking a position of promoting atheism is equally irrational. The theism/atheism debate has no place in rationality whatsoever.

In other words, a Scientist who has the time to be an atheist isn’t doing enough science.

The Journal Nature has published an article calling for a Hippocratic Oath for life scientists. Medical doctors have a Hippocratic Oath, which guides their ethics and prohibits them from doing harm, and so do Veterinarians. I am 100% for this, and it appears many others are all ready well ahead on the idea.

GrrlScientist has one version of the Scientist’s Hippocratic Oath:

I promise never to allow financial gain, competitiveness or ambition cloud my judgment in the conduct of ethical research and scholarship. I will pursue knowledge and create knowledge for the greater good, but never to the detriment of colleagues, supervisors, research subjects or the international community of scholars of which I am now a member.

Dr. Gene Weltfish, who teaches anthropology at Columbia, has another version:

I pledge that I will use my knowledge for the good of humanity and against the destructive forces of the world and the ruthless intent of men; and that I will work together with my fellow scientists of whatever nation, creed or color, for these, our common ends.

The Institute for Social Invention has yet another version:

I vow to practice my profession with conscience and dignity; I will strive to apply my skills only with the utmost respect for the well-being of humanity, the earth, and all its species; I will not permit considerations of nationality, politics, prejudice, or material advancement to intervene between my work and this duty to present and future generations. I make this Oath solemnly, freely, and upon my honor.

The Oath of the Scientist from Lucy and Stephen Hawking’s George’s Secret Key to the Universe is my favorite so far:

I swear to use my scientific knowledge for the good of Humanity. I promise never to harm any person in search of enlightenment. I shall be courageous and careful in my quest for greater knowledge about the mysteries that surround us. I shall not use scientific knowledge for my own personal gain or give it to those who seek to destroy the wonderful planet on which we live. If I break my oath, may the beauty and wonder of the Universe forever remain hidden from me.

Not an oath, but the UK government’s chief scientific advisor, Sir David King, hopes the world will adopt the seven principles in the ‘universal code of ethics for scientists’:

Act with skill and care in all scientific work. Maintain up to date skills and assist their development in others.

Take steps to prevent corrupt practices and professional misconduct. Declare conflicts of interest.

Be alert to the ways in which research derives from and affects the work of other people, and respect the rights and reputations of others.

Ensure that your work is lawful and justified.

Minimise and justify any adverse effect your work may have on people, animals and the natural environment.

Seek to discuss the issues that science raises for society. Listen to the aspirations and concerns of others.

Do not knowingly mislead, or allow others to be misled, about scientific matters. Present and review scientific evidence, theory or interpretation honestly and accurately.

Now the AAAS needs to legitimize on of these, or we need to adopt one through populism. : )

James Dobson, host of the Focus on the Family radio show, is attacking Barack Obama for distorting the Biblical Scripture in his ‘Call to Renewal’ Keynote Address given June 28, 2006, and where Obama argues, “Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values.”

In this speech on religious tolerance, Obama makes the following statement concerning Religious differences:

And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson’s, or Al Sharpton’s? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount - a passage that is so radical that it’s doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let’s read our bibles. Folks haven’t been reading their bibles.

Dobson takes issue with Obama making this reference to him, saying that Obama is “diminishing” him and has put him “under fire.” While Obama’s remarks seemed pretty innocuous to me, somehow Dobson reads this single statement as both equating him with Al Sharpton and as accusing Dobson of wanting to strip non-Christians of their human rights and expel them from America. Dobson is not only taking Obama’s remarks out of context to an absurdly dishonest extreme, he is also distorting Obama’s remarks, which are meant to unify everyone despite their religious differences, into something meant to split Americans apart on theological grounds.

Dobson and his host then turn to attacking Obama’s biblical references, criticizing him for saying the bible dictates “stoning your child if he strays from the faith.” The host clarifies that the bible dictates stoning a “beligerant drunkard son” in Deuteronomy 21, and then Dobson criticizes Obama for claiming the passage promotes stoning the son for leaving the faith, and argues “that’s not what the scripture says.”

But the scripture does say we should kill those who preach other faiths in Deuteronomy 13 and those who practice other faiths in Deuteronomy 17. Dobson is either being willfully deceptive or has not read his bible

“I think he’s deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview,” Dobson argues, citing the following portion of Obama’s speech:

This brings me to my second point. Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

This sounds pretty straightforward. Obama is arguing that, because people have different religious backgrounds, we must make rational arguments based on an empirical understanding of reality that appeal to our common experience in that reality. Dobson is offended by this truism, and asks his audience to “stick with me” while he twists Obama’s words into something completely alien to what he actually said:

What the senator is saying there, in essence, is that I can’t seek to pass legislation, for example, that bans partial-birth abortion because there are people in the culture who don’t see that as a moral issue, and if I can’t get everyone to agree with me it is undemocratic to try to pass legislation that, uh, I find offensive to the scripture. Now that is a fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution.

It’s also a fruitcake interpretation of Obama’s remarks.

Dobson, of course, sidesteps the core message in Obama’s speech, that there are many ways of interpreting the scriptures, and the religiously devout must find arguments universal to all people to promote their positions. There are many challenging questions for people of all faiths to consider in Obama’s words, but James Dobson chooses to hide from confronting the issues of religious unity in a world of cultural diversity, pretending not to hear those challenges.

Dobson’s dishonesty, misrepresenting Obama’s remarks and lying about the Biblical Scriptures, betray his political aims despite his attempts to obfuscate them behind a veil of Christianity. A world of people who can set aside their religious differences in favor of reasoning based on empirical understanding has no need for people like Dobson, who have made a career out of promoting an “us and them” xenophobic mentality in their followers.

Just as Dobson tells his followers that the Bible doesn’t say what’s written on its pages, but what he tells them is written, so he argues that Obama’s words don’t mean what they say, but what Dobson’s own political survival depends on his followers believing they mean.

I wish I went on quicker. That is–I wish a human head, or my head at all event, could take in a great deal more & a great deal more rapidly than is the case;–and if I had made up my own head, I would have portioned its wishes & ambition a little more to its capacity… In time, I will do all, I dare say. And if not, why, it don’t signify, & I shall have amused myself at least.
- Ada Lovelace, September 1840

Ada Lovelace Enchantress of Numbers

Ada Lovelace, formerly Ada Byron, Lord Byron’s daughter, wrote the world’s first computer program in 1843 for Charels Babbage’s Analytical Engine which was never finished. Babbage was so impressed with her intellect that he called her the “Enchantress of Numbers.”

Rear Admiral Grace “Amazing Grace” Hopper is considered by some to be the world’s second computer programmer for her work on Harvard’s Mark I computer, which dimmed the lights of Pennsylvania when she turned it on. The COBOL programming language, was based on her philosophy that programs could be written in a language closer to English rather than machine code. She may have also coined the term computer bug in 1947, when a moth got into the Mark II’s circuitry and shorted it out.

In 1946, the ENIAC, first all all-electronic digital computer, was introduced to the world. All six of the ENIAC’s programmers were women, referred to as “Computers” at the time.

In 2006, Frances E. Allen became the first woman to receive the Turing Award for contributions to the field of Artificial Intelligence. Mary Lou Jepsen was the Founder and Chief Technology Officer of the One Laptop Per Child. Where I work, in the Coast Guard’s Information Services Division, half of the programmers and database developers are women.

With so many pioneers and present-day leaders in the field of computer science, it’s a shame that the number of women seeking degrees in CS is plummeting because girls associate computer scientists with, “geeks, pocket protectors, isolated cubicles and a lifetime of staring into a screen writing computer code.”

Computer Science Bachelor’s Degrees by Gender

There is still a huge demand for Computer Scientists, and the “Median annual earnings of computer and information scientists employed in computer systems design and related services in May 2006 were $95,340.” Computer Science is one field where women came out with strong representation from the very beginning and continue making strong contributions to the field, but those gains will vanish if girls avoid a rewarding, well-paying career in Computer Science simply because they think it’s too geeky.

See Also:

Famous Women in computing

The Eniac Women Programers

If evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve. - Jello Biafra

ideonexus’ DNA Via: baekdal

California has joined New York in taking stand against home DNA testing, issuing 13 cease and desist letters to companies offering home genetic tests. In addition to the companies being required to meet safety and testing standards (which nobody has an issue with), now consumers must provide a prescription from a doctor before a company can process a home DNA kit.

The only argument I’ve heard for why California and New York would want to restrict this service is that DNA is medical data. Only medical doctors know how to interpret DNA, and there are health hazards to people self-diagnosing based on such a complex wealth of information.

Newsweek has several comments supporting regulations such as these from Medical experts and Academics, which immediately sets off alarm bells in my mind. The experts and academics are arguing that they should be the only ones interpreting this data, and the rest of us need to pay them gobs and gobs of money for the service.

Gee, there’s nothing suspicious about that. Right?

Except that, according to the National Human Genome Research Institute’s
Promoting Safe and Effective Genetic Testing in the United States report, these “experts” are pretty clueless themselves:

Despite remarkable progress much remains unknown about the risks and benefits of genetic testing:

• No effective interventions are yet available to improve the outcome of most inherited diseases.
• Negative (normal) test results might not rule out future occurrence of disease.
• Positive test results might not mean the disease will inevitably develop.

It is primarily in the context of their unknown potential risks and benefits that the Task Force considers genetic testing.

So only an expert is allowed to interpret the results of our personal genome tests, but the experts don’t really know too much about them either. Of course they won’t know too much about them because the human genome is massively complex and new research emerges about its contents on a weekly basis.

Your doctor isn’t keeping up on that research, and your doctor is just one human being. Companies like 23andMe are keeping their customers up to date on the latest developments in their personal genome. California wants people to rely error-prone humans rather than allow them to do the research themselves.

Don’t mistake this for academic elitism, this is protectionism, pure and simple. Just like Pharmaceutical companies don’t want you to know that honey works better than cough syrup, doctors don’t want you understanding your own health. Informed patients might question their authority after all.

Wired’s Thomas Goetz objects to California’s unreasonable stance on the grounds that his DNA data is his data, no matter how complex, and that is an important issue in this debate. We require electricians, truck drivers, and teachers to meet certain certification standards because they have the power to harm others, but knowing my genome can only affect me.

California and New York are criminalizing information. We are talking about people being prevented from even knowing what’s in their genes without having that information filtered through a medical doctor. Imagine a world where only auto mechanics are allowed to look under the hood of your car, and owner’s manuals are prohibited to the public. That’s the world California and New York are working towards.

See also:

Top 10 Reasons that Regulators Should not Hinder Genetic Testing