“It is art that makes life, makes interest, makes important, for our consideration and application of these things, and I know of no substitute whatever for the force and beauty of its process.”
–Henry James, letter to H.G. Wells
• At the Near Future Summit, one of the most astonishing presentations was by Osman Kibar, the founder and CEO of Samumed, a biotech firm, valued at $12 Billion, which proposes to reverse aging, restore eyesight, fix Alzheimer’s…the list goes on. It boggled the mind. My kneejerk reaction is that if it sounds too good to be true, it usually is. But what if it were true, that we could make our cells re-regenerate? If we do eventually die, and Samumed releases all their magic, we’ll feel great up until death and look beautiful in our coffins.
• Fantastic talks here at #nfs2017. I think we’ve found the new TED, and learned so many things. I knew that during Lincoln’s day the average person read as much in their lifetimes as is contained in the Sunday Edition of the New York Times, but I hadn’t known that in Medieval times people met only 150 people in their entire lives. We encounter that many people after an hour spent on the internet. Dunbar Fatigue.
• I was astonished by this image that David Gallo showed during his talk, which shows how much water there is on Earth–it’s really just a thin film on the surface. The much tinier dot is the amount of fresh water there is on Earth–not much, my friend, not much.
• Our friends took us for a lunch at Gjelina in Venice, where we ordered a round of vegetables (broccolini, Brussels sprouts, carrots), then the Duck Confit, which was divine, and then the butterscotch cream something for dessert. Recommended!
• Some lovely pastel-colored motion graphics with some facts about the internet, by Sander van Dijk
Tyranny does not begin with violence; it begins with the first gesture of collaboration. Its most enduring crime is drawing decent men and women into its siege of truth.
–Evan Osnos, When Tyranny Takes Hold
- To call the unknown by its right name, “mystery”, is to suggest that we had better respect the possibility of a larger, unseen pattern that can be damaged or destroyed and, with it, the smaller patterns.This respecting of mystery obviously has something or other to do with religion, and we moderns have defended ourselves against it by turning it over to religion specialists, who take advantage of out indifference by claiming to know a lot about it.
What impresses me about it, however, is the insistent practicality implicit in it. If we are up against mystery, then we dare act only on the most modest assumptions. The modern scientific program has held that we must act on the basis of knowledge, which, because its effects are so manifestly large, we have assumed to be ample. But if we are up against mystery, then knowledge is relatively small, and the ancient program is the right one: Act on the basis of ignorance. Acting on the basis of ignorance, paradoxically, requires one to know things, remember things — for instance, that failure is possible, that error is possible, that second chances are desirable (so don’t risk everything on the first chance), and so on. (p. 4-5)
- Both the Greeks and the Hebrews told us to watch out for humans who assume that they make all the patterns. (p. 5)
- Ignorance of where to stop is a modern epidemic; it is the basis of “industrial progress” and “economic growth”. The most obvious practical result of this ignorance is a critical disproportion of scale between the scale of human enterprises and their sources in nature. (p. 15-16)
- The proper scale confers freedom and simplicity…and doubtless leads to long life and health. I think that it also confers joy. (p. 16)
- No good thing is destroyed by goodness; good things are destroyed by wickedness. We may identify that insight as Biblical, but it is taken for granted by both the Greek and the Biblical lineages of our culture, from Homer to Moses to William Blake. Since the start of the industrial revolution, there have been voices urging that this inheritance [nature] may be safely replaced by intelligence, information, energy and money. No idea, I believe, could be more dangerous. (p. 20)
- Everywhere, every day, local life is being discomforted, disrupted, endangered, or destroyed by powerful people who live, or who are privileged to think that they live, beyond the bad effects of their bad work. (p. 50)
The intention of the electoral college is to protect us from interference in our elections by foreign powers and from unqualified candidates who rise up quickly based on “little arts in popularity”; to stop “foreign powers… gain[ing] an improper ascendant in our councils… by raising a creature of their own to the [Presidency].” its purpose is to “afford a moral certainty that [POTUS] … will never fall to any man not in eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications as a majority of votes might not … happen [go to] one man, and as it might be unsafe to permit less than a majority to be conclusive…it provides that, in such a contingency, the House of Representatives shall select the man who … may be best qualified”
And he concludes:
If there were ever a case for individual electors to exercise judgment independent of their state populations, this is it. And doing so would be consistent with both the constitution and the intention of the system as expressed by the framers.
21 States do not restrict their Electors. There is already unrest: Texas elector has said he couldn’t support Trump.
I have been reading Virginia Woolf’s Diary Vol. 2. It has been good, and I recommend it.
I haven’t read it in years, and had forgotten how much she lived for other people’s compliments, how insecure she was, how she flowered under another’s approval, and how she withered beneath another’s dismissal. I also noticed how much she speaks of, and thinks of, her household, particularly her servants. It’s remarkable how much help she had, really. And Leonard, always in the background, a tremendous support to her. And I had the thought that, for someone with such an active social life, how could she have fallen into her dark periods, as friends and family are a balm for the trials of life.
Here’s a useful guide to non-controversial types of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment, as recently re-articulated by the Supreme Court. Note that “hate speech” is not among them:
From 1791 to the present the First Amendment has permitted restrictions upon the content of speech in a few limited areas and has never included a freedom to disregard these traditional limitations.
These historic and traditional categories are long familiar to the bar, including obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement, and speech integral to criminal conduct–are well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem.
The associated cases:
- Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of N. Y. State Crime Victims Bd., 502 U. S. 105, 127 (1991)
- Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476, 483 (1957)
- Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U. S. 250, 254-255 (1952)
- Virginia Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U. S. 748, 771 (1976)
- Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U. S. 444, 447-449 (1969)
- Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co., 336 U. S. 490, 498 (1949)
- Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568, 571-572 (1942).
How To Spot And Critique Censorship Tropes In The Media’s Coverage Of Free Speech Controversies A superbly useful guide to help you understand who is right and who is wrong when they invoke the First Amendment in the media.