Yule Heibel's Library tagged bioneering → View Popular, Search in Google

Aug

2010

TED Blog | Living, breathing architecture: Today’s TEDTalks playlist

Fascinating:
QUOTE
Today’s playlist is about way-new architecture — using organic forms and living, growing materials to bring fresh life into the buildings, homes and infrastructure we occupy. Magnus Larsson, for instance, has a bold plan to build in the Sahara desert sands using living bacteria:
UNQUOTE

blog.ted.com/...cture-todays-tedtalks-playlist

- Preview

ted_conference video architecture magnus_larsson bioneering

Oct

2008

Plant Tweak Could Let Toxic Soil Feed Millions | Wired Science from Wired.com

UC Riverside scientists have a breakthrough that would allow genetic engineering to enable plants to become tolerant of aluminum toxicity. Apparently, much of the world's potentially arable land has that aluminum toxicity, and therefore can't be used for food production. Ths would circumvent that problem, and possibly signal a breakthrough into the second wave of a Green Revolution. (The first one has kind of reached its limits.)

blog.wired.com/...plant-tweak-cou.html

- Preview

wired_magazine agriculture bioneering genetic_engineering food crops paul_larsen

"Aluminum toxicity is a very limiting factor, especially in developing countries, in South America and Africa and Indonesia," said biochemist Paul Larsen. "It's not like these areas are devoid of plant life, but they're not crop plants. Among agriculturally important plants, there aren't mechanisms for aluminum tolerance."
There's no more room for farms in the developed world; demand for cropland is fueling deforestation in the rain forests of Latin America and Africa; and the limits of the Green Revolution, which increased global food production through the use of pesticides and industrial farming techniques, have been reached. Another revolution, say agronomists, is needed.
2 more annotation(s)...
- There's no guarantee that the tweak will prove successful and safe -- but if it does, it could provide food for millions.
- "I don't expect to make any money off it," he said. "I'd like it to trickle down to the people who need it.
  
  He does worry that the technique could be used as an excuse to clear rain forests from currently aluminum-toxic soil. Instead of this, said Larsen, already-cut land could be made more productive.
  
  "If we can make use of the land that's available now, maybe we can make it so we don't have to cut forests down in the future," he said.

May

2008

Transmaterial 2: To Redefine Our Physical Environment - PingMag - The Tokyo-based magazine about “Design and Making Things”

PingMag interview with Blaine Brownell, architect and sustainable materials researcher, whose focus is on green building.

"From repurposed materials that act as surrogates, to recombinant ones that fuse several materials into a hybrid, making them stronger and more effective — Blaine points us to products that might shape our physical environment in the future."

Materials discussed include self-healing polymers inspired by biological systems, which can automatically heal cracks in buildings, for example.

The article includes many other photographs / examples with descriptions of weird and wonderful bioneered and sustainable building materials.

pingmag.jp/...sform-our-physical-environment

- Preview

pingmag transmaterial bioneering biomimicry architecture technology blaine_brownell sustainable_materials

I studied architecture and practised in the field for over a decade, and I believe this experience has been essential because of my exposure to the exploding number of innovative building materials. During my early years of practice, I had a chance to research materials for a prominent project and was impressed by the challenges as well as opportunities associated with this task. I immediately saw a need to share this — which typically gets archived when a project is completed — with a larger audience of architects, designers, contractors, etc. I began an electronic journal and database, which quickly became popular with a growing audience of material enthusiasts who have given generous feedback. Over time, I have been able to appreciate the critical trajectories of material development as a result.
Although Europe and Japan are largely ahead of the curve, the United States has struggled with the development of sustainable building practices since the softening of the 1970s oil crisis that initiated much of the initial interest in green architecture in this country. I think the primary challenge to sustainable design is the fact that it has been viewed primarily as a long-term intellectual proposition without immediate economic benefit, and the relatively cheap cost of petroleum has made it nearly impossible to convince industries to consider other alternatives.
6 more annotation(s)...
- Very true! Alex Steffen speaks in his Worldchanging — A User’s Guide to the 21st Century of the world’s natural resources as our ecological capital, saying that the ultimate bankruptcy will not land us in a state-run old people’s home ― it’ll land us in a world of deserts, hunger and freaky weather. Can the employment of sustainable materials and energy conservation methods save us from such a harsh reality?
  
  I believe Alex’s prediction is correct at certain scales.
  - Yule Heibel on 2008-05-23
    - useful qualification: "at certain scales."
  Add Sticky Note
- we have to face the discouraging truth about accelerating environmental degradation and act quickly to prevent it. Since buildings comprise roughly half of the problem in terms of energy use and emissions, vastly improved materials, construction methods and energy use should help significantly.
- The title is a conflation of the words transformational materiality, and the book is the second volume of materials that have significant potential in shaping the physical environment through design innovation.
- Ultraperforming materials attempt to push conventional performance boundaries; multidimensional materials enhance structural depth in order to maximise resources; repurposed materials are surrogates for more precious, conventional resources; recombinant materials are hybrids in which the sum exhibits superior characteristics to individual components; intelligent materials employ creative structural and formal ideas for enhanced environments; transformational materials undergo change based on environmental stimuli; and interfacial materials explore digital processes and fabrication.
- The term often used is disruptive technologies — a title that suggests radical departures as opposed to incremental developments. One focus is materials whose behaviour conflicts with our traditional understanding — such as bendable concrete, transparent ceramics, or exfoliated graphite nanoplatelets. Another focus considers materials imbued with biomimetic qualities, like self-healing polymers, strong enviroboard, and active protection system. Another focus considers environmentally remediating materials such as Italcementi, Superabsorber, and Reben. Yet another focus relates to digital fabrication innovations, such as the Ombrae system, intaglio composites, and Erwin Hauer Continua.
- You speak of materials and products that have unique phenomenological effects. Explain, please!
  
  What I mean here concerns materials that generate unconventional responses when interacted with — such as the light-bending properties of Sensitile or the colour and pattern-changing qualities of Living Surfaces.

May

2008

The Stupidity of Dignity, by Steven Pinker

This is a great essay by Steven Pinker, which skewers the conservatives' "latest, most dangerous ploy," namely their "defense" of "dignity." Pinker proceeds from bioethicist Ruth Macklin's 2003 challenge to the conservatives, her essay, "Dignity Is a Useless Concept."
QUOTE (from Pinker's essay):
The problem is that "dignity" is a squishy, subjective notion, hardly up to the heavyweight moral demands assigned to it. The bioethicist Ruth Macklin, who had been fed up with loose talk about dignity intended to squelch research and therapy, threw down the gauntlet in a 2003 editorial, "Dignity Is a Useless Concept." Macklin argued that bioethics has done just fine with the principle of personal autonomy--the idea that, because all humans have the same minimum capacity to suffer, prosper, reason, and choose, no human has the right to impinge on the life, body, or freedom of another. This is why informed consent serves as the bedrock of ethical research and practice, and it clearly rules out the kinds of abuses that led to the birth of bioethics in the first place, such as Mengele's sadistic pseudoexperiments in Nazi Germany and the withholding of treatment to indigent black patients in the infamous Tuskegee syphilis study. Once you recognize the principle of autonomy, Macklin argued, "dignity" adds nothing.
UNQUOTE
Exactly. Autonomy should be the key driver -- not some "wooly" concept of dignity, which, as Pinker points out, is usually used as a weapon to keep "uppity" people in place (women, for example, or gays wanting to marry, and so on). From "dignity of..." to "sanctity of..." is just a small shift, after all. And once they've cowed people with the godawful sanctity stuff, the authoritarians have won.

www.tnr.com/story_print.html

- Preview

bioneering bioethics ethics dignity steven_pinker autonomy

The bioethicist Ruth Macklin, who had been fed up with loose talk about dignity intended to squelch research and therapy, threw down the gauntlet in a 2003 editorial, "Dignity Is a Useless Concept." Macklin argued that bioethics has done just fine with the principle of personal autonomy--the idea that, because all humans have the same minimum capacity to suffer, prosper, reason, and choose, no human has the right to impinge on the life, body, or freedom of another. This is why informed consent serves as the bedrock of ethical research and practice, and it clearly rules out the kinds of abuses that led to the birth of bioethics in the first place, such as Mengele's sadistic pseudoexperiments in Nazi Germany and the withholding of treatment to indigent black patients in the infamous Tuskegee syphilis study. Once you recognize the principle of autonomy, Macklin argued, "dignity" adds nothing.
The report does not, the editors admit, settle the question of what dignity is or how it should guide our policies. It does, however, reveal a great deal about the approach to bioethics represented by the Council. And what it reveals should alarm anyone concerned with American biomedicine and its promise to improve human welfare. For this government-sponsored bioethics does not want medical practice to maximize health and flourishing; it considers that quest to be a bad thing, not a good thing.
28 more annotation(s)...
- To understand the source of this topsy-turvy value system, one has to look more deeply at the currents that underlie the Council. Although the Dignity report presents itself as a scholarly deliberation of universal moral concerns, it springs from a movement to impose a radical political agenda, fed by fervent religious impulses, onto American biomedicine.
- Conspicuous by their absence are several fields of expertise that one might have thought would have something to offer any discussion of dignity and biomedicine. None of the contributors is a life scientist--or a psychologist, an anthropologist, a sociologist, or a historian. According to one of the introductory chapters, the Council takes a "critical view of contemporary academic bioethics and of the way bioethical questions are debated in the public square"--so critical, it seems, that Macklin (the villain of almost every piece) was not invited to expand on her argument, nor were mainstream bioethicists (who tend to be sympathetic to Macklin's viewpoint) given an opportunity to defend it.
- Despite these exclusions, the volume finds room for seven essays that align their arguments with Judeo-Christian doctrine. We read passages that assume the divine authorship of the Bible, that accept the literal truth of the miracles narrated in Genesis (such as the notion that the biblical patriarchs lived up to 900 years), that claim that divine revelation is a source of truth, that argue for the existence of an immaterial soul separate from the physiology of the brain, and that assert that the Old Testament is the only grounds for morality (for example, the article by Kass claims that respect for human life is rooted in Genesis 9:6, in which God instructs the survivors of his Flood in the code of vendetta: "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God was man made").
  The Judeo-Christian--in some cases, explicitly biblical--arguments found in essay after essay in this volume are quite extraordinary. Yet, aside from two paragraphs in a commentary by Daniel Dennett, the volume contains no critical examination of any of its religious claims.
  - Yule Heibel on 2008-05-18
    OM(non-existant)G...
  Add Sticky Note
- How did the United States, the world's scientific powerhouse, reach a point at which it grapples with the ethical challenges of twenty-first-century biomedicine using Bible stories, Catholic doctrine, and woolly rabbinical allegory?
- Kass has a problem not just with longevity and health but with the modern conception of freedom. There is a "mortal danger," he writes, in the notion "that a person has a right over his body, a right that allows him to do whatever he wants to do with it." He is troubled by cosmetic surgery, by gender reassignment, and by women who postpone motherhood or choose to remain single in their twenties.
- And, in 2001, this man, whose pro-death, anti-freedom views put him well outside the American mainstream, became the President's adviser on bioethics--a position from which he convinced the president to outlaw federally funded research that used new stem-cell lines.
- After several members opposed Kass on embryonic stem-cell research, on therapeutic cloning (which Kass was in favor of criminalizing), and on the distortions of science that kept finding their way into Council reports, Kass fired two of them (biologist Elizabeth Blackburn and philosopher William May) and replaced them with Christian-affiliated scholars.
  - Yule Heibel on 2008-05-18
    Yikes...
  Add Sticky Note
- For two decades, a group of intellectual activists, many of whom had jumped from the radical left to the radical right, has urged that we rethink the Enlightenment roots of the American social order. The recognition of a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and the mandate of government to secure these rights are too tepid, they argue, for a morally worthy society. This impoverished vision has only led to anomie, hedonism, and rampant immoral behavior such as illegitimacy, pornography, and abortion. Society should aim higher than this bare-bones individualism and promote conformity to more rigorous moral standards, ones that could be applied to our behavior by an authority larger than ourselves.
- Most of today's denominations are not up to the task: Evangelical Protestantism is too anti-intellectual, and mainstream Protestantism and Judaism too humanistic. The Catholic Church, with its long tradition of scholarship and its rock-solid moral precepts, became the natural home for this movement, and the journal First Things, under the leadership of Father Richard John Neuhaus, its mouthpiece. Catholicism now provides the intellectual muscle behind a movement that embraces socially conservative Jewish and Protestant intellectuals as well.
- The concept of dignity is natural ground on which to build an obstructionist bioethics. An alleged breach of dignity provides a way for third parties to pass judgment on actions that are knowingly and willingly chosen by the affected individuals. It thus offers a moralistic justification for expanded government regulation of science, medicine, and private life.
- spawns outright contradictions at every turn. We read that slavery and degradation are morally wrong because they take someone's dignity away. But we also read that nothing you can do to a person, including enslaving or degrading him, can take his dignity away. We read that dignity reflects excellence, striving, and conscience, so that only some people achieve it by dint of effort and character. We also read that everyone, no matter how lazy, evil, or mentally impaired, has dignity in full measure.
- But one hardly needs the notion of "dignity" to say why it's wrong to gas six million Jews or to send Russian dissidents to the gulag.
  - Yule Heibel on 2008-05-18
    No bloody kidding.
  Add Sticky Note
- the concept of dignity remains a mess
- First, dignity is relative.
- Second, dignity is fungible.
- every one of us voluntarily and repeatedly relinquishes dignity for other goods in life
- Third, dignity can be harmful.
- "Has anything good ever come from denying or constricting human dignity?" The answer is an emphatic "yes."
- A free society disempowers the state from enforcing a conception of dignity on its citizens.
  - Yule Heibel on 2008-05-18
    Yes!
  Add Sticky Note
- my country 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty.
- So is dignity a useless concept? Almost. The word does have an identifiable sense, which gives it a claim, though a limited one, on our moral consideration.
  Dignity is a phenomenon of human perception.
- certain features in another human being trigger ascriptions of worth. These features include signs of composure, cleanliness, maturity, attractiveness, and control of the body. The perception of dignity in turn elicits a response in the perceiver. Just as the smell of baking bread triggers a desire to eat it, and the sight of a baby's face triggers a desire to protect it, the appearance of dignity triggers a desire to esteem and respect the dignified person.
  This explains why dignity is morally significant: We should not ignore a phenomenon that causes one person to respect the rights and interests of another. But it also explains why dignity is relative, fungible, and often harmful. Dignity is skin-deep: it's the sizzle, not the steak; the cover, not the book. What ultimately matters is respect for the person, not the perceptual signals that typically trigger it. Indeed, the gap between perception and reality makes us vulnerable to dignity illusions. We may be impressed by signs of dignity without underlying merit, as in the tin-pot dictator, and fail to recognize merit in a person who has been stripped of the signs of dignity, such as a pauper or refugee.
- When the concept of dignity is precisely specified, it becomes a mundane matter of thoughtfulness pushing against callousness and bureaucratic inertia, not a contentious moral conundrum. And, because it amounts to treating people in the way that they wish to be treated, ultimately it's just another application of the principle of autonomy.
- Reductions in dignity may harden the perceiver's heart and loosen his inhibitions against mistreating the person. When people are degraded and humiliated, such as Jews in Nazi Germany being forced to wear yellow armbands or dissidents in the Cultural Revolution being forced to wear grotesque haircuts and costumes, onlookers find it easier to despise them.
- these cases involve coercion, so once again they are ruled out by autonomy and respect for persons. So, even when breaches of dignity lead to an identifiable harm, it's ultimately autonomy and respect for persons that gives us the grounds for condemning it.
- for such hypotheses to justify restrictive laws, they need empirical support. In one's imagination, anything can lead to anything else: Allowing people to skip church can lead to indolence; letting women drive can lead to sexual licentiousness. In a free society, one cannot empower the government to outlaw any behavior that offends someone just because the offendee can pull a hypothetical future injury out of the air. No doubt Mao, Savonarola, and Cotton Mather could provide plenty of reasons why letting people do what they wanted would lead to the breakdown of society.
- The sickness in theocon bioethics goes beyond imposing a Catholic agenda on a secular democracy and using "dignity" to condemn anything that gives someone the creeps. Ever since the cloning of Dolly the sheep a decade ago, the panic sown by conservative bioethicists, amplified by a sensationalist press, has turned the public discussion of bioethics into a miasma of scientific illiteracy. Brave New World, a work of fiction, is treated as inerrant prophesy. Cloning is confused with resurrecting the dead or mass-producing babies. Longevity becomes "immortality," improvement becomes "perfection," the screening for disease genes becomes "designer babies" or even "reshaping the species." The reality is that biomedical research is a Sisyphean struggle to eke small increments in health from a staggeringly complex, entropy-beset human body. It is not, and probably never will be, a runaway train.
  - Yule Heibel on 2008-05-18
    What a great paragraph -- and the last 2 sentences are literature. Just wonderful!
  Add Sticky Note
- A major sin of theocon bioethics is exactly the one that it sees in biomedical research: overweening hubris. In every age, prophets foresee dystopias that never materialize, while failing to anticipate the real revolutions. Had there been a President's Council on Cyberethics in the 1960s, no doubt it would have decried the threat of the Internet, since it would inexorably lead to 1984, or to computers "taking over" like HAL in 2001. Conservative bioethicists presume to soothsay the outcome of the quintessentially unpredictable endeavor called scientific research. And they would stage-manage the kinds of social change that, in a free society, only emerge as hundreds of millions of people weigh the costs and benefits of new developments for themselves, adjusting their mores and dealing with specific harms as they arise, as they did with in vitro fertilization and the Internet.
  Worst of all, theocon bioethics flaunts a callousness toward the billions of non-geriatric people, born and unborn, whose lives or health could be saved by biomedical advances. Even if progress were delayed a mere decade by moratoria, red tape, and funding taboos (to say nothing of the threat of criminal prosecution), millions of people with degenerative diseases and failing organs would needlessly suffer and die. And that would be the biggest affront to human dignity of all.