Gerhard Adam

Periodically it seems that the subject comes up regarding human colonization of space and then all manner of problems and difficulties are discussed with various people taking their respective sides on the physics that's possible and what isn't.However, I would offer a different perspective on this and argue that it isn't a physics problem.  This isn't about speed, about time, or about energy, although these are problems.  The problem is about biology.More specifically, the problem is about the passengers we have to take.  Not humans, not embryos, or not some cryogenically preserved individuals.  The problem is bacteria.

I recently read two pieces in RealScience entitled "Cyberwar is already upon us" by John Arquilla and "Think again, Cyberwar" by Thomas Rid.  While there are obviously differing views about what each perspective entails, I couldn't help but be struck by a few comments made by Rid in his piece.

There have been several articles talking about opposition to GMO foods as being "anti-science" and raising the issue of the precautionary principle, but in fairness, we have to consider what the role of the precautionary principle is, before we just blow it off as an alarmist parlor trick.Let's be clear.  ALL questions have scientific legitimacy and some may be well-thought out, while others may be totally off the mark.  This doesn't make them unscientific, it just makes them uninformed.  If a particular view persists after the proper information has been provided, then the individual could be accused of being unscientific, or at least obstinate.

After reading Sascha's excellent article [Robopocalypse Now] regarding the effect and direction of robotic/AI development and its coevolutionary influences, it occurred to me that perhaps a shift in how we view such developments could promote a more intuitive understanding of what is occurring.

A recent article suggests that our fear of snakes is largely genetic because of its apparently uniform nature across all strata of people and that it was likely caused due to predation of our ancestors.As evidence of this, the author interviewed 120 of the Agta Negrito people, a hunter-gatherer group in the Phillipines, and noted that 16 of the individuals had been attacked by giant pythons, while two had been attacked twice.  In addition, individuals reported six cases of fatal snake attacks over a 39 year period (1934 - 1973).  While it's not clear from the article, the snakes may not necessarily have fared much better, since they were also predated upon by humans. 

Well over a year ago, someone asked for a response to the following quote from Ayn Rand.  I suspect this was largely due to the idea that such a view of individualism would be difficult to refute and consequently establish its legitimacy.  So, here's the quote:

A recent article titled "Our Brains Can't Evolve Any Further" drew my attention which ultimately lead me to the paper "Why Aren’t We Smarter Already: Evolutionary Trade-Offs and Cognitive Enhancements" (Thomas Hills and Ralph Hertwig; University of Basel).Fortunately, this offered some interesting insights into the assumptions and conditions surrounding human intellect and its evolutionary implications.  

Infinity is a useful concept but it is often used inappropriately by being assigned as a trait to some object or another.  Briefly, nothing can be infinite, since in order for something to "be", it must be defined and measurable.  If it isn't, then the object would exist in a perpetual state of creation and couldn't be said to "be" anything at all ... yet.

"Fool Me Twice" is the title of a new book on science and politics by Shawn Lawrence Otto. Subtitled "Fighting the Assault on Science in America", it addresses a topic which is often presented as a kind of problem to be solved to gain scientific credibility but is rarely considered as closely as it needs to be.  Otto begins by discussing some common incidences in politics and initially appears that perhaps an element of political bias is present in these arguments.However, after a brief discussion of politics he introduces a different view of the political landscape that extends beyond simply progressive and conservative labels, by connecting them to the more fundamental philosophical views of authoritarian and antiauthoritarian perspectives.

Recent articles and discussions around superluminal tachyons have raised various questions regarding their existence and the meaning that it might pose to physics.  Oh, the hell with it.  Why wait for science?  I've discovered the mother lode!Welcome to the world of tachyonic energy, health, and well-being. Tachyon theory states that the Tachyon universe continually creates, sustains and energizes the physical universe. Every created thing owes its existence to the expansion of the Tachyon Field. In this sense, it sounds like a religious description of the Creator, or the Creative Force. http://www.macrobiotic.org/health11.html

Belief systems are the stories we tell ourselves to define our personal sense of "reality".  Every human being has a belief system that they utilize, and it is through this mechanism that we individually, "make sense" of the world around us.There are two forms such belief systems can take;  evidence-based or faith-based.  

With several articles recently appearing that were based on various aspects of evolutionary psychology, I thought it would be worth taking a closer look.One of the ironies in examining evolutionary psychology is how many stories we can make up for ourselves without a shred of conclusive evidence, beyond simply sounding plausible.  This doesn't mean that they may not be true, but they certainly can't be considered scientific.  I thought it would be interesting to examine several points regarding evolutionary psychology before going further:It is not an area of study, like vision, reasoning, or social behavior. It is a way of thinking about psychology that can be applied to any topic within it. (1)