Human engineering

Read this awful article on a magazine called NewPhilosopher, where the author, Clive Hamilton, scoffed at the idea of human engineering. His article was a rebuttal of sorts to a paper by three bio-ethicists who published a paper titled, "Human engineering and climate change", where they discuss possibilities such as genetic engineering. One of the methods they discuss is genetic modification to obtain night vision (like cats) which would absolve the need for street lights. (I personally think that is an inspired idea)

I can't believe that the NewPhilosopher outright scoffed at the idea going so far as to calling it bizzare and laughable.  They write "Why not genetically modify people to make them white in order to cool the Earth by increasing its reflectivity?" - It's like they haven't even heard of reductio ad absurdum

He writes, "...the question of why anyone who is unwilling to buy a smaller car or switch to green power would be willing to genetically engineer their children".

Why is human engineering so absurd? Because it wouldn't work. So are a lot of plans of reducing emissions, but you wouldn't laugh at a guy who proposes smaller cars.

Of course some bio ethicists are going to write a paper saying what if the choice is between total annihilation and reinventing ourselves as a species . We know that in the past when threatened with extinction, various species have adapted by growing big, growing small, getting a hard shell, etc. One of evolutions tricks is that the size of humans will decrease over several generations if there is a resource drought.The problem is that humans may not have the luxury of waiting for hundreds of thousands of years to develop gills or something to adapt to new earth. So, perhaps human engineering and gene manipulation will not be optional. We will come to a time when changing a lightbulb is not going to be enough to save the human species and drastic changes, including some forms of human engineering will be necessary. You don't wait until after it becomes a reality to talk about the ethics of it. What can we do, what should we not. These discussions should happen now. And in magazines that call themselves NewPhilosopher. (What kind of a magazine are they, really?)

If Clive Hamilton can do nothing to contribute to this conversation but point fingers and sneer, maybe he should be sent to the naughty corner. No cat eyes for you.

I have a dream

The internet is an amazing place. This is what someone called Ian McLean wrote on a Youtube post by Hank Vlogbrother Green.

Dream interpretation isn't really a thing, scientifically speaking. There are some theories, but all we're really sure of is that your dreams often (though by no means always) reflect stuff you've been thinking about in the last couple of days. I prefer to think that when you're asleep, you brain basically plays video games using your memories as source material. So, sometimes, it's playing Road Simulator. And then you dream about being a road. Probably not that often, though. Road Simulator isn't a very good game.

Holiday fatigue - Politics edition

As anyone who has spent a month-long holiday with their parents knows, they sure do drive you nuts. It is not just their waking up at god-awful hours and pottering about (which they do) but every thing. EVERY THING. Take for instance, my father's views on Modi, the rockstar prime minister of India:

1. He is the first guy to really talk 'Change' and he is/will be a transformational figure.
2. People should not criticise him because you have to give the guy a chance.
3. And really, even if he doesn't manage to change anything, it is not his fault because a. he is just one man and he has to deal with a party of old-timers and b. the system is broken.

This "true believer" logic is unbreakable. He will change everything. But even if he doesn't, it is not him but others. And shut up.

What annoys me the most about this fanboy-ness (which everyone is entitled to - refer: John Green / I am giddy as a school girl) is the sort of I-am-above-this-ness that comes with it. Instead of admitting that yes, I fell for Modi hook line and sinker and think that he is the second coming of our Lord and Saviour, one poses as someone who doesn't have any skin in the game. I am just an objective observer and ye shall bow before my pronouncements.

The response and I have to admit that I hardly had the patience to be so clear is:

1. There have always been and will always be politicians campaigning on hope and change. Refer Kevin Rudd, Barack Obama for two of the most recent examples. This is because people want change and they want hope that things will change. And it is not cynical to suggest that politicians want to sell them exactly that. If people want puppy sized elephants, you can bet your ass that the politician will campaign on how he always supported puppy sized elephants and free puppy sized elephants for all.

2. Just as it is valid that people do not criticise Modi before he has had a chance to do anything, it is perfectly acceptable, why, even necessary, that he be not praised for something that he has not achieved. To be fair to the guy, the higher the pedestal, the further he falls.

And we don't need people shushing the naysayers. Firstly there are too few of them compared to the vocal and loud supporters. Secondly, some of the naysayers are not actually naysayers but just wait-a-minuters, who are merely asking a question about some tall claim or talking about actual policy positions. We need more people to criticise and question the government to have any sort of balance with the unbirdled euphoria of the yesmen.

3. I have some sympathy for the politician who promises the sky and can't deliver. Obama peddled hope and change and he turned out to be a big nothing. His meagre achievements are only partially due to the corrupt system or intransigent opposition. There is a lot of inertia built into the political process such that no one person can either do great harm or great good. But there is no fun in campaigning that I will be better than average president. But it is important that one has the ability to call out the emperor when he has no clothes. The "true believer" is a problem because he sees everything through the prism of his hero-worship; my leader is pure and unimpeachable but it is the others. We also saw the Democrats switch their positions from "Bush is an evil war-criminal to wiretap on citizens" to "Sometimes it is necessary to kill our own citizens because Obama says so".

Well! at the end of the day, Meh!

Also this