Ray Kurzweil on Human Body Version 2.0 (link via GeekPress): the use of nanobots to augment and ultimately replace our organs, ultimately merging nonbiological intelligence with our biological brains. And people are worried about cloning. They ain't seen nuthin yet! Although I think this stuff is further off than he suggests.

Peter Whoriskey on how

The war on sprawl around Washington has made a profound impact on the metropolitan landscape.

...many of these anti-sprawl measures have accelerated the consumption of woods and fields and pushed developers outward in their search for home sites. The side effects -- rarely noted in crusades for more "open space" but widely recognized by regional planners -- are twofold. First, limiting construction to one house per three acres, or five or even 25, doesn't necessarily stop development. It just spreads it out, creating enclaves of estates in "rural" preserves...

Second, even when restrictions are severe enough to halt residential development in one place, Washington's burgeoning population continues to demand new houses, so builders simply go elsewhere, usually farther out...

Despite the emergence of growth restrictions, however, key indicators of sprawl -- auto travel per capita and land consumption rates -- show few signs of abating, according to transportation and land planning experts....

It's supposed to work like

Portland, Ore., which maintains an urban growth boundary, outside of which building is sharply limited. Unlike Portland, however, the Washington area has little regional land planning. More than a dozen counties independently draw growth boundaries, and the result is a regulatory patchwork.

So some will argue the answer is more regulation. But one planner argues

What those restrictions really do is encourage development in a land-hungry manner.

And another points out that while people seem to like the idea of farmland, there aren't enough farmers.

"These are pastoral landscapes that have more of an emotional than a practical meaning," said Marya Morris, a senior researcher at the American Planning Association. "But if you can't make money farming them, people have a right to ask 'What's the point?' "

As a matter of fact, the love of farmland is a kind of conservatism--"keep things the way they are". But farmland itself is after all unnatural. Another problem: despite all this planning, there's still a housing shortage. (surprise, surprise)

The home-building limits have contributed to the shortage and are driving up housing costs, economists say. "If you restrict supply in the face of growing demand, and if the supply is less than demand, you are going to have higher housing prices," said Chris Nelson, a planning professor at Virginia Tech and co-author of a study on the subject.

Alan Sipress: At a party hosted by another gang leader at a concrete discotheque shaped like a flying saucer in Ho Chi Minh City, mafia queen Dung Ha arranged to suspend a large container from the ceiling, promising it would release balloons and other party favors. But when the container was flung open, it showered the guests with rats covered in excrement. Her rival, had her shot.

Scott Hillis on China's wealth disparity; "it is now among those countries with the most unequal distribution in the world." I know a big gap makes for social instability, but in absolute terms, the poorest are doing better. In a recent report, the Bank of America said "per capita income in China's 600 poorest counties rose nearly 13 percent a year over the past seven years," and "The living standards of most people, including the poorest section of the population, have improved. A wide variety of poverty indexes have declined across the board and almost all income groups have enjoyed rising living standards."

Charles Siebert writes on full-face transplants. Some advocates for the disfigured balk at the idea, saying that the prospect of face transplants could hinder people's ability ''to face their disfigurement with confidence.'' Psss. On the other hand, a survey of docs who say they would accept someone else's face if they required one, but none said they would donate their own. That's silly. Assuming I'm dead and not murdered to get it, you can have any body part of mine you like. Although I'd prefer my heirs get paid. You may not like that, but then as far as I'm concerned with it, you can do anything with my body you like--pickle it, put it on display, play weird games with it...

John Pomfret on

high-ranking Chinese leaders whose positions are linked to potential conflicts of interest because of the business dealings of their families and friends. The question...is whether the government will continue to protect vested business interests as a new generation of leaders comes to power. Government officials say the health and resilience of the Chinese political and economic system are at stake.

One of the examples he gives is a highway bypass in Fushun built by China Huaneng Group, linked to Li Peng's son. Pomfret identifies the elder Li "as one of the prime architects of the crackdown on student-led protests around Tiananmen Square in 1989", and further notes that the demonstrations "revolved around the finances of the family members of high-ranking party officials." But as a matter of fact, even though China is awfully corrupt, some people are in favor of tolls as a way to build roads. I hope this experience doesn't sour everyone on the experience.

An item on marketplace about offsets cites someone from the Economic Policy Institute; according to its google description, "EPI is a nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank that seeks to broaden the public debate about strategies to achieve a prosperous and fair economy." "Fair", eh? We know what that means. Anti-trade. That's the trouble with a lot of marketplace stuff, even if they occasionally have some things I like, like the Wal-Mart report. This item from the NYT on the offsets was more balanced.

Spotting voodoo science is a skill that every citizen should develop

Robert L. Park reminds us that although there is

no scientific claim so preposterous that a scientist cannot be found to vouch for it...Before 1993, court cases that hinged on the validity of scientific claims were usually decided simply by which expert witness the jury found more credible.

But then the Supreme Court instructed federal judges to serve as "gatekeepers," screening juries from testimony based on scientific nonsense. So there is such a thing as progress! Park then offers seven indicators that a scientific claim lies well outside the bounds of rational scientific discourse, things that everyone should keep in mind:


1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media.

2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work.

3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of detection.

4. Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal.

5. The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries.

6. The discoverer has worked in isolation.

7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation.

(via Arts & Letters Daily)

I got nuthin'! Hang on--look at this: Leon R. Kass writes:

To aim to be the mother of oneself is the height of hubris and despotism. It is the crime of incest - the begetting of one�s own upon one�s own - scientifically perfected. The cloning of human beings would be the triumph of the Machiavellian project to conquer fortune and bring everything within the power of human choice and calculation.

(via Arts & Letters Daily) This hysteria doesn't do it for me. As far as I'm concerned, humans should try to conquer fortune and bring everything within the power of human choice and calculation. When you think about it, even old-fashioned sex is outrageous from the point of view of asexual reproduction. As far as Kass' callling it incest, it reminded me of the Heinleinian self-seduction in All You Zombies. Now that's "the begetting of one�s own upon one�s own"!

Leaky Old Bra links to the Anagram Site.

Will Wilkinson has an article on What the War Means...for Libertarians. Good stuff.

Will Wilkinson links to Malcolm Gladwell's The problem with intelligence reform, which cites a researcher who describes the phenomenon of

�creeping determinism��the sense that grows on us, in retrospect, that what has happened was actually inevitable�and the chief effect of creeping determinism, he points out, is that it turns unexpected events into expected events.

Gladwell's got his own site, which posts many earlier writings. He's fascinated by unintended consequences.

Heh. Someone googled for therapy doesn't work introverts and found me. Sounds right to me--although I've never undergone psychotherapy.

And someone else agrees with me that Mr. Rogers was a little weird. Over the weekend, I heard Susan Stamberg report on how he used Daniel Striped Tiger to talk to her over the phone. Seems really weird to me, but she went for it. Once again, I'm the weirdo.

The NYT buried DANIEL AKST's article that work makes people fat in the business section. He cites research by Shin-Yi Chou, Henry Saffer, and Michael Grossman to the effect that more working women = less home-cooked meals = more fast food. They conclude by urging that further study be done to determine the feasibility of promoting public policies that might offset these undesirable consequences.Akst points out that more fast food = more obesity = reduced quality of life + increased health care expenditures. Obesity might well be a hidden tax on work falling disproportionately on lower-income workers, but that ultimately means the government has to pay. He also cites Darius Lakdawalla and Tomas Philipson to the effect

that by reducing traditional workplace hazards and making all work less strenuous, Americans have increased the risk from obesity, which is related to a sedentary life.

Judith Shulbevitz has some silly things to say about the American lack of Sabbath observations. Because she feels better after observing a religious day of rest, and because Americans used to do so, therefore we should all do so.

She's opposed to what she labels the "erosion of social time", and declares "Customs exist because they answer a need". Oh, yeah? I declare that some customs are observed simply because that's the way we've always done it.

Then she claims that "Most people mistakenly believe that all you have to do to stop working is not work." Why is that a mistake? Because it used to be "much more complicated". Her other authority, tradition aside? The Cat in the Hat!

Also, according to her, the Sabbath is worthy because it's the ultimate source of labor legislation. I see. Because she associates it with something good, in itself it's good.

Then on religion:

Religious rituals do not exist simply to promote togetherness. They're theater. They are designed to convey to us a certain story about who we are without our even quite noticing that they are doing so.

Maybe for you. But some of us know who we are, and we don't need religious mumbo-jumbo to tell us. So in secular terms, she recommends the Sabbath to "anyone who wishes to lift himself out of the banality of mercantile culture". (Well thanks for that "himself", anyway.) I don't see why people can't do that every day of their lives: I do. And she's not a total fool about religion:

I confess, though, that I have a hard time imagining a Sabbath divorced from religion: who would make the effort to honor the godly part of himself if he didn't believe in a deity, no matter how ecumenical?

Still, even though she concedes it's difficult to see the Sabbath prospering with society's speeding-up, and she realizes we can't call for legally mandated Sabbaths, she still has the gall to declare:

Do I think everyone else should observe a Sabbath? I believe it would be good for them, and even better for me, since the more widespread the ritual, the more likely I am to observe it.

Even before post-modernism, this is the typical kind of half-baked thinking that passed for rational thinking in the colleges of liberal arts.

Beijing Picks Its Delegates for Taiwan

Show many Taiwanese the official list, and they'll squint their eyes and look perplexed. Some shrug their shoulders or scratch their heads as they search in vain for a single familiar name. The citizens of self-ruled, democratic Taiwan didn't help pick 13 delegates who will purportedly represent them when China's national legislature meets next week. Beijing did it for them, and none of the delegates lives on Taiwan. Most have never even visited.

Well, if it's any consolation, mainland citizens didn't help pick the delegates who will purportedly represent them: JOSEPH KAHN reports:

China's election law reads like an invitation. Any citizen desiring to run for a local legislature need only find 10 supporters to sign a petition. The right "to elect and be elected," the law stipulates, "is guaranteed to everyone over 18 years of age, regardless of ethnicity, race, sex, profession, family background, religious belief, education level or financial status."

Just try it. The members of China's legislature are "handpicked", and in any case,

will, as usual, approve laws that senior leaders have already decided to pass. They will vote for a slate of candidates for top government positions that senior leaders have already decided to elect.

update
John Pomfret on "the threat of creeping democracy"--delegates are refusing to rubber-stamp the Communist Party's chosen candidates. Meanwhile, ELAINE KURTENBACH says Communist leaders "ignore public opinion at their own risk" and cites those who say it looks as if the new leaders are going to speed up the restructuring process.

Jacob Sullum has good stuff on government regulation of kosher food, and organic food:

The preference for organic food, like the preference for kosher food, is essentially religious, based on faith rather than science. There is no good evidence, for example, that the pesticide residues organic produce buyers are so keen to avoid pose a significant health risk....The national standards require access to outdoor recreation, although the connection to organicalness is hazy. Likewise, it's not obvious why genetically modified ingredients or irradiation to kill parasites should render food nonorganic.

More of my craziness

I always found Mr. Fred Rogers to be really creepy--what I'd imagine a child molester to be like. When I was a kid, I didn't have a TV, but I suspect even then I would've preferred cartoons.

Daniel W. Drezner links to Simon Sebag Montefiore's op-ed, which points to Stalin as the role model for Saddam and Il-jong.

[W]hat most unites this trinity of rulers is their will to lead a nuclear Great Power. Saddam and Kim see Stalin as the personification of success against overwhelming odds - and much more sophisticated countries - through the ruthless use of state power and by his own will.

Julian Sanchez has an interesting discussion about conspiracy theories; the comments are pretty good, too.