Convergence

The title and topic of this Al Fin post somehow gelled with this Connie du Toit post, in particular this brief closing passage:

And I want that bread, and all that it entails. I want a life with every bite being worthy, and I come close to crying myself to sleep every night that I can’t wake up to that luxurious and seductive smell of fresh baked croissants in the oven, prepared with love and care, not made cheaply and quickly and efficiently. Two weeks a year is not enough! I want Americans to feel and taste that experience, so they demand that everything in their life be as perfect as that bite of bread.

It begins with the bread and ends with joie de vivre!

Together, they sparked my better understanding of this earlier Al Fin post, noting the Gates Foundation-funded development of a genetically altered cassava root - a dietary staple in much of sub-Saharan Africa.

Had I researched a little deeper into the subject, I would have noted that the cyanide problem I made so much of in comments wasn't a by-product of the Gates-funded genetic enhancement, but was a specific object for amelioration via genetic manipulation.

I stand by my characterisation of the outcome as "frankenfood", however silly I may think the fear-mongering effort it derives from to be. That said ... to fellow Al Fin commenter IConrad I offer my apology. Heaping scorn upon a silly idea is never a pleasant experience, as I can now personally testify. Again.

I do wonder though if perhaps these particular researchers haven't attempted a "bridge too far" in their efforts. It seems reasonable to suppose that creating two (or more) strains of enhanced cassava that achieve different aspects of the desired ends might be a more manageable prospect. The foregoing assumes the possibility for outright removal of the cyanide collection characteristic from the plant, of course. If one strain delivered the protein - and did so without need for the extensive processing effort necessary to remove the cyanide from the existing strain - while a different strain delivered the vitamins, this would allow the "rural village farmers" to mix and match their personal dietary resources with their financial needs when trading any excess produce.

I can't help but wonder if such a scheme wouldn't also prove useful in developing a genetic enhancement capability to combat the crop productivity problem noted in the source article via means of a crop rotation regimen:

The roots can be banked in the ground for up to three years, providing food security, but the plant must undergo time-consuming processing immediately after harvest to remove compounds that generate cyanide. Unprocessed roots also deteriorate within 48 hours after harvest, limiting the food's shelf life. And a plant disease caused by the geminivirus reduces yields by 30 percent to 50 percent in many areas in sub-Saharan Africa, a major blow to farm productivity.

My personal experience of rural life doesn't extend to Africa, but despite the evidence to the contrary above, I do read and have some experience of N. American conditions. Sufficient experience at least to be aware that dietary supplement is a sporadic but routine event in rural life. We in the West call it "sport", but hunting and fishing is an important contribution to the diets of rural populations. As these activities are at best variably successful, the ability to manipulate the level of protein in the diet via a particular strain of cassava would offer the dual possibility of increased adaptability to variable circumstance to the grower along with a lessening of complexity (I think) for the genetic manipulators.

Keeping in mind my "tastes like almonds" wisecrack, along with the experience of US AID officials distributing "enhanced" rice during the '60's (the strain indeed produced more grain/acre, but the Vietnamese declared it to be, errr ... unpalatable, to be charitable), all the best intentions and technical "success" in the world won't matter if no-one will eat the result. The researchers seem to be taking care to ensure that local talent exists to nurture the further development of the cassava enhancement project. I hope that similar care is taken to facilitate the incorporation of this enhanced product by the only really important judges on the planet - the eaters thereof.

The experience of other genetically enhanced foods into the African market also offers an important lesson, I suggest. Not to be overly blunt, but a good thing is always "better" the more local interests there are that benefit from it's widespread adoption. Perhaps Bill and Mel might consider hiring numerous African agents when the time is right to encourage introduction of the enhanced cassava they've already spent so much to develop. It would be a shame if so much possibility were to be denied simply to ensure continuation of the established practices this project seeks to alleviate.

As the lady said, "It begins with the bread ..." indeed.

Them's Just The Rules, Aren't They?

I first became acquainted with Jason Van Steenwyk's blog when he was deployed to Iraq as a member of the Florida National Guard's contribution to Operation Iraqi Freedom. For the record, I have consistently found his writing on matters military-related to be fair-minded and informative, if occasionally (more than a little deliberately, I suspect) somewhat provocative.

It's the man's personal blog, you expected anything else?

He has two posts up today commenting on Megan McCardle's recent coverage of a presentation by Stephen Carter, see
here and here.

I suspect that the disagreement detailed in the foregoing is the result of two disparate - and I think inherently structurally divergent - contextual objectives. Professor Carter wants an elegant theory. Captain (now Major?) Van Steenwyk wants victorious (and still alive to celebrate) American soldiers. While the two are not necessarily exclusive concepts, the later does impose restrictions upon the applicability of the former. As one who also once upon a time wore an American military uniform I stipulate my visceral inclination to strongly associate myself with the Van Steenwyk position.

That said, I should also point out that I was an enlisted man in the Navy a lot longer ago than is comfortable to consider now. In other words, I'm no one's example of an authority on Just War Theory or the Law's of Land Warfare, although I can and do read so am at least somewhat familiar with the generalities addressed by the two.

I believe the inherent dichotomy between both men's position is well illustrated with this quote from Jason's first post:

If any "theorist" doesn't understand the importance of focusing my combat power against WEAKNESS, not strength, and the importance of attacking my enemy's command and control nodes and lines of logistics and communication, rather than on his fighters, this is a theorist who needs to find a new line of work.

Since the theorist in question is advancing that most catholic of Papal arguments, that warfare itself is evil and undesirable (except as decreed by said Papal authority, of course), I think it unlikely the two gentlemen will ever come to a fundamental agreement as to how such an activity should be prosecuted. In any sense of that word.

My own opinion is that the US finds itself in need of additional legal framework within which to formalise it's own doctrine regarding non-state military actors. The historical practice of treating such as violators of legal codes (whether criminal or civil) hasn't proven very successful - or rather, the few examples of "success" seem greatly out-weighed by the failures to me.

As well, since the United States is the only nation to presently possess the non-nuclear means to inflict overwhelming military force upon any other nation on the planet (with the arguable exception of the PRC, the Russian Federation and - possibly - India, largely as a result of the extensive land area entailed by those countries), a unilateral American action would legitimately provide both the previously stated framework for US forces present needs and a basis for treaty negotiations between the US and other states in future.

My sneaking suspicion is that US policy makers shy away from doing such a thing, at least in part, because they don't want to risk being drawn by treaty obligation further into that other - and much more complex - theater of the present war: Israel.

As long as this "grey area" exists in US military/diplomatic doctrine, the enemies of the US will continue to take advantage of the opportunity it presents them to engage us in ways we are less-well prepared to combat them. And, US armed forces will continue to be held accountable to the differing standards of acceptability variably promoted by the competing political forces within the nation.

I am curious though, how ought such a unilateral doctrine address the actions of members of al Qaeda, Hamas or Hizb 'Allah, to name only three examples? Do we consider the "cooks" and "clerks" they operate amongst in similar fashion to those performing the same function while wearing a national uniform? Where is the doctrinal line drawn between shooting out of hand anyone that appears to offer threat in a room clearing operation and executing those caught operating (in some military context) "out of uniform"? As regards uniforms, should the burqa or hijab (or some other example of national or ideological style of apparel) be considered tantamount to a "uniform" in the current war context? What are the differences in determining adherence to the accepted behavior between infantry and aviation forces, never mind the strategic environmental demands separating Army and Naval forces?

I do have some idea of the complexity of the issues involved and have some little sympathy for the good professor, however self-inflicted his "wounds" might be (he did volunteer to attempt a consistent whole from a profoundly flawed collection of precepts, one supposes). I also find the concerns advanced on Jason's page to be compelling, though I also question the ease of his direct prescription (we shot those German soldiers as spies, their conduct being the exception; we can't very well convene a court every time we catch anyone with a gun or gas can in hand anywhere in a military theater of operations and I seriously doubt Jason is suggesting summary executions).

I will make this prediction; if we don't take some compelling action in the near future (I will suggest one year from now), then we seem almost certain to surrender whatever gains we've made at such pain and expense to all involved, willingly or otherwise. The enemy has his own set of rules and laws governing warfare; if we don't succeed in imposing ours on him, he absolutely will continue to impose his on us. At it's most basic, strategy is about positional advancement. The Islamist enemy's position is fundamentally untenable (he can't just stand pat and let us come to his prepared positions), he advances relative to us in some fashion or dies.

Further On That

Jeez Kevin, you're going to have to go out and buy a bigger hat now.

:)

A Strategy Of Errors

Richard Fernandez describes the latest Islamist "strategy" in his most recent Pajamas Media article, Plan C. In the end, he correctly observes:

Somehow I don’t think so. Personally, I think al Qaeda should resort to enumerating their plans along the real number line, so that they will never run out designations for their successive and hare brained bloodthirsty schemes. Plan C will fail, along with all the rest because it is fundamentally the same plan as the first two. Terror, fanaticism and stupidity can be combined in exactly 3! ways, though the fact may escape them. Sooner or later, after all the combinations of mayhem have been endlessly repeated, either an exasperated world of infidels or sane members of the Muslim community will ask the obvious question: what can you do to us that we can’t do to you?

There really are a very limited number of options to select from once a specific means to an objective has been determined upon. Organisations like al Qaeda, Hamas, Hizb 'Allah and their numerous local off-shoots have peremptorily insisted upon pursuit of a combative engagement with their ideological competition. That being the case, they limit their options as Wretchard observes.

There is one additional component to the formula, which Robert Avrech examines at his blog Seraphic Secret:

For the first time in my life I can foresee the end of the Jewish state, not through war, but through incremental steps toward voluntary slavery.

In a notable departure from past al Qaeda strategy, Naji recommends "countless small operations" that render daily life unbearable, rather than a few spectacular attacks such as 9/11: The "infidel," leaving his home every morning, should be unsure whether he'll return in the evening.

Naji recommends kidnappings, the holding of hostages, the use of women and children as human shields, exhibition killings to terrorize the enemy, suicide bombings and countless gestures that make normal life impossible for the "infidel" and Muslim collaborators.

Once parallel societies are established throughout the world, they would exert pressure on non-Muslims to submit. Naji believes that, subjected to constant intimidation and fear of death, most non-Muslims (especially in the West) would submit: "The West has no stomach for a long fight."

For the complete article, please click here.

What Robert refers to of course is often summed up as "political will", the intellectual/emotional strength to continue to carry out an action that others, not operating under the same circumstances, provocatively condemn as "extreme" or "harsh". In practice, the phrase "political will" serves to restrict the acceptable options to those permissible to a political entity, a nation state or a corporation for example, and is thus a strategic limitation on possible response to provocation.

The Islamist terrorism strategy seeks to engage in the options available to an individual or small group (limited mainly by means and opportunity) while manipulating the constrained circumstances (in classic strategic terms, the climate) imposed upon nation states and other comparable societal entities by their pre-existing agreements and commitments that regulate their relations amongst themselves. This has been likened to the (possibly apocryphal) Chinese torture, "the death of a thousand cuts". I think such a characterisation lends more organisation and structure to the Islamist's efforts than history would support, but it does provide vivid illustration of the manner of altercation the Islamists claim they now seek to engage in. As opposed to being limited to (by the same resources and opportunity) as has been the case up to now.

Needless to say, this is not any form of "new strategy" being discussed, only a repackaging of previous faults as opportunities. Good marketing, I suppose, and as such deserving of an effective counter-propaganda campaign. Maybe the official effort will at least appear relevant this time.

The challenge of combating terrorism, as in criminal behavior generally, is that the best opportunity for counter action almost always lies in the hands of the individuals who happen to be present in the moments immediately prior to initiation of action. On the other hand, premptively authorising individuals to that extreme of behavior runs counter to every presumption and precept of government, whether elective or corporate. The Long War is both title and commentary, I'm afraid.

The greatest danger imposed by this state of affairs is that, eventually, some country will believe it's continued existence to be sufficiently threatened it will feel compelled to answer Wretchard's question. The survivors of that are always profoundly changed by the experience.

Obamacide

I propose the following definition:

Obamacide: the destruction of a person or concept through it's deliberate overuse.

I've been using the phrase "go under the bus" in varied formulations for some years now to describe avoidance of a permanently negative outcome. Thanks to the junior Senator from Illinois I'm going to have to devise some other illustrative turn of phrase that uses misdirection to achieve it's end. This isn't as easy to accomplish as many English english speakers can make it appear.

What an irritating little man he is proving to be.

Oh! As long as I'm on the subject, I certainly Hope! we can all get along on our loose Change! in the future since BarryO seems intent on taking all the rest of our money to his own purposes.

For The Children, no doubt.

Hope! Change! my bad guzz.

Bigger Isn't Automatically Better

Richard Fernandez - aka Wretchard - writes about the relative strengths of China and the US at his new Pajamas Media Belmont Club blog page.

Which raises the interesting question, is one week old still equal to "new" in internet years?

Pending resolution of that minor distraction, I have to question Mr. Fernandez's referents used to frame his proposition. While it seems self evident that China is steadily building up it's capacity to pre-WW II levels of US industrial capacity in both shipbuilding and aviation construction, I have to wonder how closely this correlates to the experience of the famed buggy whip industry in US history?

While US construction of still useful but arguably outdated technology also seems to be in actual as well as relative decline, I believe that this apparent loss of capability seems of heightened importance because it's replacement technologies are only just beginning to take hold.

As the ability to manufacture/assemble complex items becomes more widespread, the need to ship such things from a central point will be more swiftly replaced then most observers seem currently willing to acknowledge. People will quite rapidly adjust to using a relatively insubstantial item for a limited time and then recycling its components for their own re-use as needed rather than buy a "quality tool" with the intent of owning it, and toting it around with them, for a lifetime, I believe. "Plastic" will become a value-positive term again much sooner than most seem to realise.

Likewise, the ability to quickly deliver items in an aircraft intended to be scavenged upon arrival (one possibility I have seen raised for logistics delivery drones) will radically alter aviation, as will the implementation of airframe construction materials that many people don't seem to have recognised or accounted for in their aeronautical projections.

I will admit that, should China choose to launch an emergency crash construction program (at horrendous expense and a total loss of secrecy), they could overhaul the equivalent US construction capacity. For a little while. Within a very few years though (I suspect closer to 3 then 5) China's impressive construction efforts will be in outmoded technology and will all have to be very expensively replaced if that - or any other - country wishes to remain relevant as 21ist century technology continues to mature.

So, I have to ask; should we rebuild our antiquated construction facilities to reclaim our dominance in outdated technology, or should we forgo our pursuit of that claim in furtherance of a newer one?

The Energy Question: A Solution

I'm wondering if something like this made by these nice people here might not be "the answer" to the worlds future energy needs when coupled with a scaled down version (on the order of a 10 kwh capability, say) of one of these to augment the solar component?

The Hyperion unit could be incorporated into a single structure (buried or not as seems best) along with the other external-to-the-living-structure components of a modern dwelling, air circulation and conditioning, water filtration and heating and cooling, sewage treatment, etc. There's no inherent requirement that any of these technologies necessarily be a stand-alone entity, despite that being the result stemming from the historical development of each process.

If we were to include this technology (to electrolize and store fuel for an emergency generator as well as a vehicle) as part of the combined energy development system as well, then individual energy semi-independence would seem a realistic and near-term objective. I qualify that statement because I foresee an ongoing need for periodic servicing of all this technology that an individual home owner isn't likely to want/be able to do for him/herself in any sort of economical fashion.

Please take note, this particular proposal would not adequately address the continuing need for commercial demand for electrical power; we would still need the electrical distribution grid to power commercial enterprise for the foreseeable future. What this would do is to relieve existing residential demand and projected increased future non-commercial demand to energise the ever expanding selection of electrically powered equipment available to individual electrical energy consumers. The effect of which would be tantamount to an expansion of our grid and centralised power generation capabilities, allowing a more gradual expansion process or for further technological development to meet increased future needs.

How do we pay for it all? Basically, the same way we pay for any other growth of a market, we let the rich go first! :)

In fact, we do everything we reasonably can to encourage them to do so. Who else can better afford to finance a newish industry to the point of development that sufficient economies of scale and product refinement are achieved to permit greater depth and width of market penetration? Such that decidedly blue-collar me can afford to adopt them too.

Lack of a piece of paper that says I'm smart doesn't automatically equate to my being stupid, you know.

That bold claim having been asserted, I can't help thinking I'm missing something obvious about all this though. At least one obvious thing is the current lack of a unifying force.

Basic rule of strategy (one of several, actually); individual advancement always takes precedence over group advancement absent some unifying force to keep group advancement more profitable to the individual then s/he could expect to achieve working at odds to all others.

If such an inclination were a natural condition of business, it seems reasonable that these demonstrably intelligent people would already be making efforts to do something very like meeting this widely recognised, and demonstrably unmet, market demand. Since that doesn't appear to be the case, I speculate that someone with sufficient bucks to command attention will be needed to convince the component companies that a portion of a virtually unlimited market (see here or here for some existing limitations) is a better alternative to seeking a profit from none of an unmet one.

Any thoughts? What else am I missing?

With Friends Like These ...

I believe this is known as "damning with faint praise":

IT APPEARS that there have been some accusations made against our rugby union players currently touring New Zealand. A lady apparently alleges that some of them behaved inappropriately towards her.

To be honest, after watching them last Saturday morning, I find it hard to believe that they could actually catch someone, never mind hold them down. Although I’m not sure that counts as evidence.

The not-so-Hot Fuzz come in for their fair share of attention too.

Gandhi, Stage 4 (almost)

This article at Wired.com offers an even-handed report on the current general state of gerontological research, in particular as regards Aubrey de Grey's SENS theory(s).

What I find particularly instructive are the comments.

I frankly don't know if Dr. de Grey is correct in his speculations or not. I am quite certain (having read his book) that his theories are deliberately structured in a fashion to facilitate their being tested by the scientific community without need of his direct participation. And, equally frankly, I find his willingness to speculate about the potential ramifications of his series of experiments to be both stimulating and cautionary.

What I don't understand is why any of this should cause such extreme fearfulness in people. What part of living a disease free and healthy life until eventually something kills you is so disturbing to some people? It's not like it's going to change our ultimate outcome or anything, we're still going to go "splat" when we finally do wind up going under the bus. Other than our not having to suffer the aches and pains, physical inabilities and generally being a burden to others that we are forced to endure as the aging process now, of course. Is getting older somehow less scary if it hurts too?

I just don't get it.

Update: Brian Wang at Next Big Future got there first. As usual ... :)

Ankleing* our way into the future

An intriguing article in the New York Times Health Guide on the current state of medical technology, specifically the human ankle joint.

I found certain aspects of the interview to be of particular interest:

In orthopedics, the problem with cartilage, the translucent rubbery material that covers and protects the ends of bone, is that it doesn’t want to regenerate. We can get bone to regenerate, but not cartilage in the same way. When cartilage is damaged, the body often attempts to repair it with weaker fibrocartilage, but this is not as durable as the original cartilage. However, we are now actively at work in the laboratory looking to use adult stem cells to repair damaged cartilage, restore surface geometry and function, eliminate pain and delay or prevent further joint destruction.

Did someone say something about a lack of stem cell research in the USA? Sorry, had to get the snark out of my system before it created a blockage or something. I feel better now.

That aside, this paragraph offers hope for more than just ankle joint ailments and injuries. Cartilage exists in every skeletal joint in the human body; being able to repair/regrow it would be an essential capability to achieving the stated goals of SENS I would think.

Research is also being carried out using small molecules that can be used as drugs to stimulate cellular signaling pathways to trigger local cartilage cells to turn on and create more cartilage. We are in the early stages with this exciting research, but as we gain a better understanding of the fundamental biology and the mechanics of the foot and ankle, I expect that we will be very advanced in the next 10 years.

I keep seeing that time period being suggested. Just for the sake of discussion, let's round it up to the year 2020. Without being too specific, that's the year when I will qualify for full benefits status as a recipient of social security and medicare.

What I find particularly compelling about the good doctor's prognostication is that by the time I'm old enough to apply for retirement benefits (I'm deliberately foregoing editorialising via scare quotes), it appears a reasonable expectation that I might well be physically healthy and capable enough not to want to do any such opportunity-limiting thing at all.

Many years ago now, then-Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich popularised the phrase "Opportunity Society". One of the tenets that concept stipulated was that we each would need to make ourselves better informed about the (medical in this example) alternatives available to us resulting from technological advances as our personal condition demanded. Our personal experts (the professionals who's services we individually retained) couldn't be expected to keep that degree of specific knowledge immediately on-hand at all times. We were going to have to assume some portion of proactive responsibility in guiding our personal regimen, whether that be health related, financial, whatever the topic of interest might be. We will still need the specialised expertise to fully implement whatever course of action is ultimately settled upon, but we each would take a more involved approach to initiating and guiding that determination process.

So, in the present example, it falls to each of us to make ourselves sufficiently informed enough of medical advances to offer reasonably specific suggestions to our personal physician regarding our particular medical condition. Should each of us be successful in doing so, it would appear that we might have a reasonable expectation of living to see some aspect of singularity transpire after all (whatever form that might eventually take).

All a part of staying out from under the bus as I see it.

NYT article via Instapundit.

* English english slang for walking.