Owl: Infanticide & Gendercide . . . Discuss . . .

07 Health, 09 Justice, 11 Society, Ethics
Who? Who?

When you have ethicists offering an argument that transforms infanticide – murder – to abortion, which is supposedly not murder, then the next step is to argue for murder of kids and finally, murder of adults. The challenge for the elite’s philosophers will be to find or create terms to hide the fact it is murder. But if infanticide can be made innocuous, they will have achieved a huge step towards efforts at legitimating murder of other age groups, their ultimate goal. The typical anti-abortionists (usually right-of-center Catholics and conservatives) indeed are right about abortion expressing a culture of death, but their error is to blame the establishment of such a culture on abortion alone, as if merely prohibiting abortion will end the culture of death.  Such an assumption is enormously naïve and false. There are many more components to that culture they seem to willfully ignore, such as the war machine, environmental exploitation and degradation, unbridled finance capitalism, and so much more. Limiting it to abortion gives too much credit to one facet of the whole, which has many other facets. Evil is one, but  evil does not have one tentacle, it has multiple tentacles, to more efficiently grab its victims.

Abortion article author receives death threats

Dr Francesca Minerva, a former Oxford University ethicist, who co-wrote a controversial article that argued killing newborn babies should be as permissible as abortion, has said she has received death threats over the paper.

Stephen Adams, Medical Correspondent

The Telegraph, 2 March 2012

The article, which argued newborns and foetuses were only “potential persons” and not “actual persons”, has provoked a storm of protest.

Dr Minerva, a research associate at Oxford while being based at the University of Melbourne, said the recent days had been “the worst in my life” after the article attracted widespread attention.

“This is not a proposal for law,” she told an Australian news website. “This is pure academic discussion.

“I wish I could explain to people it is not a policy and I'm not suggesting that and I'm not encouraging that.”

The authors, whose piece was published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, suggested that “what we call after-birth abortion (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled”.

Read full article.

See Also:

Owl: Medical Ethics Extend Abortion Okay to Adults

Owl: Greece Explodes on 20 March – Massive Credit Insurance Whirlpool Speeds Up — and Forced Population Reduction…

Owl: Medical Ethics Extend Abortion Okay to Adults

Ethics
Who? Who?

Given all the murder we do via war, economic embargoes, subsidized drug trafficking, etcetera, there is a certain logic to this satirical piece.

When do we get to euthanize the medical ethicists who say murdering newborn babies is good for society?

Mike Adams

NaturalNews, 2 March 2012

EXTRACT:

“Lest you think this genocidal streak among the so-called scientific community is limited to just a couple of medical whackos who wrote a paper in a science journal, recall the fact that famed physicist Stephen Hawking openly and adamantly insists human beings are nothing more than “biological robots” who have no souls, no consciousness, no free will and therefore no value as anything other than a collection of cells. Snuffing out the lights on something that isn't really alive can't exactly be called murder, can it? So the bizarre view that human beings are not conscious beings with minds or souls is, of course, the prerequisite argument to justifying their mass murder. “It is hard to imagine how free will can operate if our behavior is determined by  physical law, so it seems that we are no more than biological machines and that free will is just an illusion.” – Stephen Hawking, the Grand Design. If free will is nothing more than an illusion, then that means you aren't responsible for your own actions anyway, so committing mass murder against others is morally neutral for you. Killing babies is of no consequence. Heck, you might as well just pick up a full-auto M4, march into a local high school, and start blasting away all the students, teachers and principal, then claim it must have been your biology that caused you to do it because according to Stephen Hawking, you have no mind or consciousness to begin with. That's the kind of madness the quack philosophies of people like Hawking end up promoting. But it isn't just Hawking who believes humans have no value as conscious, living beings — DNA discovered Francis Crick also pushed the same stilted beliefs: “You, your joys and sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules,”, Crick claimed in his book The Astonishing Hypothesis.” This view by Crick, just like the view of Hawking, is that human beings are merely biological machines that only appear to house conscious beings inside. A newborn is just a really advanced fetus, and a fetus is just a couple of cells, they might argue. So a teenage boy playing baseball at the local park is just an advanced version of a newborn, and we can murder him too, if we like. In fact, nobody is off limits from these genocidal maniacs because at no point in human development do psychotic scientific whackos like Hawking or Crick admit that consciousness enters the body, thereby achieving some degree of merit or value as a living, breathing, free-thinking being. These same views are mirrored across the so-called “scientific” community, which has increasingly revealed itself to be a collection of death merchants, corporate sellouts, clinical quacks and hyper-arrogant God complex worshippers whose deepest dreams always seem to involve destroying humanity…Because after all, if the argument is that we can openly kill people as long as such murders benefit society, then there's a really, really long list of people who need to be taken out, starting with many of the top death-merchant scientists who push all this madness. (But we don't do that kind of thing, because we're decent people, see?) If we kill them at age 55, it's not really murder, remember. It's just a really drawn-out post-partum abortion, they say. In fact, according to these science psychos, you can kill anybody right up to the day they die and still call it an abortion. It's all just a matter of time, and time is an illusion, the physicists claim.”

Complete article with links below the line.

Continue reading “Owl: Medical Ethics Extend Abortion Okay to Adults”

Mini-Me: If You Can Find It, Can You Handle the Truth?

Civil Society, Commerce, Commercial Intelligence, Corruption, Ethics, Government
Who? Mini-Me?

Americans Will Need “Black Markets” To Survive

Brandon Smith

SHTFplan.com, 2 March 2012

EXTRACT

If the events in EU nations such as Greece, Spain, and Italy are any indication, the U.S., with its massive debt to GDP ratio (real debt includes entitlement programs), is looking at one of two possible scenarios:  default, austerity measures, and high taxes, or, hyperinflation, and then default, austerity measures, and high taxes.

. . . . . .

Black markets give the citizenry a means to protest the taxation of a government that no longer represents them.  In a country stricken with austerity, these networks allow the public to thrive without having to pay for the mistakes or misdeeds of political officials and corporate swindlers.

Read full article.

See Also:

If This Is Such a Strong Economy, Why Does This Chart Look Recessionary?

Venessa Miemis: Reinventing Finance – Digital Reformation

Advanced Cyber/IO, Civil Society, Commerce, Commercial Intelligence, Ethics
Venessa Miemis

Re-Inventing Finance: An Emerging (Digital) Reformation

Several months ago, I was invited by Sean Park to be a Venture Partner with Anthemis Group, a new financial services group with an aim to totally reinvent finance from the ground up.

(Sean was a generous backer for the Future of Money Project I co-created for a SIBOS conference, and we’ve met up several times in the past few years for animated conversations about the changing nature of money, value and wealth.)

I was delighted to accept the offer, and be a part of this exciting initiative by bringing attention to financial startups that just might help change the world for the better. If this is you, let me know! 

Check out the video above to hear more about the goals of Anthemis and an overview of our emerging global financial landscape – presented last week at the Lift12 conference. Below is a brief post Sean wrote up about his presentation, and a great prezi as well!

Last Thursday I had the great privilege of having been invited by the remarkable Laurent Haug to present a snapshot of our vision of the new emerging universe of “digitally native finance” at the wonderful Lift12 conference in Geneva. Twenty minutes is not a long time (and thank goodness Laurent indulged me with a couple minutes more) to convey both the context and the substance of what we believe to be a fundamental shift in the paradigm of the financial services industry, but I hope I was able to give at least a good high-level overview. Most importantly, I hope I was able to convey the excitement we feel at the vastness of the opportunity and the win/win/win (for the customers/companies/economies) available to those who embrace the opportunity for technology-enabled disruption in financial services by introducing them – however superficially I’ll admit – to just a handful of companies who are at the vanguard of this wave of change.

For those that are interested, my presentation is below:

Read original post with inserted videos and briefing.

Chuck Spinney: Climate Models – Got Real Data?

Academia, Advanced Cyber/IO, Earth Intelligence, Ethics, Government
Chuck Spinney

The acid test of any scientific theory is whether or not its predictions reasonably match up to reality. The attached paper by Dr. David Evans is important because it compares predictions of climate models predicting global warming to our most advanced temperature measurement technologies. This is a good example of the kind of information that should be shaping the global warming debate.

The task facing scientists who disagree with this analysis is simple, because this author is up front with his information. His data is sourced and logical descriptions of the models he is testing are clear. The prediction/reality mismatch information shown in this paper is can be replicated and tested for falsification. All one has to do is show why the data is wrong, misleading, or improperly interpreted, or why his logic is wrong — no name calling is needed in what is clearly grist for an honest scientific exchange.

Chuck Spinney

Who Are You Going To Believe – The Government Climate Scientists or The Data?

By Dr David M.W. Evans (republished here with permission, PDF link below)

We check the main predictions of the climate models against the best and latest data. Fortunately the climate models got all their major predictions wrong. Why? Every serious skeptical scientist has been consistently saying essentially the same thing for over 20 years, yet most people have never heard the message – here it is, put simply enough for any lay reader willing to pay attention.

What the Government Climate Scientists Say

Click on Image to Enlarge

Figure 1: The climate models. If the CO2 level doubles (as it is on course to do by about 2070 to 2100), the climate models estimate the temperature increase due to that extra CO2 will be about 1.1°C × 3 = 3.3°C.i

The direct effect of CO2 is well-established physics, based on laboratory results, and known for over a century.ii

Feedbacks are due to the ways the Earth reacts to the direct warming effect of the CO2. The threefold amplification by feedbacks is based on the assumption, or guess, made around 1980, that more warming due to CO2 will cause more evaporation from the oceans and that this extra water vapor will in turn lead to even more heat trapping because water vapor is the main greenhouse gas. And extra heat will cause even more evaporation, and so on. This amplification is built into all the climate models.iii The amount of amplification is estimated by assuming that nearly all the industrial-age warming is due to our CO2.

The government climate scientists and the media often tell us about the direct effect of the CO2, but rarely admit that two thirds of their projected temperature increases are due to amplification by feedbacks.

What the Skeptics Say 

Click on Image to Enlarge

Figure 2: The skeptic’s view. If the CO2 level doubles, skeptics estimates that the temperature increase due to that extra CO2 will be about 1.1°C × 0.5 ≈ 0.6°C.iv

The serious skeptical scientists have always agreed with the government climate scientists about the direct effect of CO2. The argument is entirely about the feedbacks.

The feedbacks dampen or reduce the direct effect of the extra CO2, cutting it roughly in half.v The main feedbacks involve evaporation, water vapor, and clouds. In particular, water vapor condenses into clouds, so extra water vapor due to the direct warming effect of extra CO2 will cause extra clouds, which reflect sunlight back out to space and cool the earth, thereby reducing the overall warming.

There are literally thousands of feedbacks, each of which either reinforces or opposes the direct warming effect of the extra CO2. Almost every long-lived system is governed by net feedback that dampens its response to a perturbation. If a system instead reacts to a perturbation by amplifying it, the system is likely to reach a tipping point and become unstable (like the electronic squeal that erupts when a microphone gets too close to its speakers). The earth’s climate is long-lived and stable— it has never gone into runaway greenhouse, unlike Venus — which strongly suggests that the feedbacks dampen temperature perturbations such as that from extra CO2.

What the Data Says

The climate models have been essentially the same for 30 years now, maintaining roughly the same sensitivity to extra CO2even while they got more detailed with more computer power.

  • How well have the climate models predicted the temperature?
  • Does the data better support the climate models or the skeptic’s view?

Air Temperatures

One of the earliest and most important predictions was presented to the US Congress in 1988 by Dr James Hansen, the “father of global warming”:

Click on Image to Enlarge

Figure 3: Hansen’s predictionsvi to the US Congress in 1988, compared to the subsequent temperatures as measured by NASA satellitesvii.

Article Home Page

Download PDF

Phi Beta Iota:  The New Craft of Intelligence restores integrity to the process of intelligence.  There are no governments, corporations, or universities today actually committed to the whole truth and nothing but the truth.  Everyone is isolated in little stove-pipes that allow good people to be doing good things, when in the aggregate they are simply perpetuating huge lies against the public interest.  This is the challenge of our times.

See Also:

Is the Western Climate Establishment Corrupt?

Journal: Reflections on Integrity UPDATED + Integrity RECAP

Koko: Boston Charles River Swimmable – 46 Year Goal, Last 20 Years a Blend of Citizen – Corporate – Government Intelligence with Integrity

07 Health, 12 Water, Earth Intelligence, Ethics
Koko

Clean and Clear

Derrick Z. Jackson

Boston Globe, 11 October 2011

IT WAS unthinkable 20 years ago that the Charles River would ever be clean enough to win the world’s leading environmental prize for river restoration. Back then, human feces lapped at the Museum of Science. It was a river with “belly-up fish and algal blooms making dogs sick,’’ recalled Arleen O’Donnell, former state department of environmental protection acting commissioner.

For recreational kayaker Roger Frymire, a paddle between the Museum of Science and the BU bridge 14 years ago was disgusting. “I passed under the Longfellow bridge and I started smelling something awful. I kept following the smell upriver until I went under the Mass. Ave. bridge. I traced the smell to a spot near the MIT crew house. There was a grate underwater that was bobbing up and down with turds.

Click on Image to Enlarge

Today, the Charles is one of the nation’s cleanest urban rivers, and recently claimed the International River Foundation’s top award for river management, beating out more than 20 other countries. The award went to the Charles River Watershed Association, which was formed in 1965 to protect the river.

“The Charles in many ways is a wild river again,’’ said Bob Zimmerman, executive director of the CRWA. “If you had asked me in 1991 if that was possible, I would have said you were crazy.’’

Read full story.

Jon Lebkowsky: Six Big Science Stories Going Forward

03 Economy, 04 Education, Academia, Advanced Cyber/IO, Blog Wisdom, Civil Society, Collective Intelligence, Ethics, Hacking
Jon Lebkowsky

“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” (AC Clarke)

My pal David Pescovitz at the Institute for the Future blogged recently about the IFTF “Multiverse of Exploration Map,” an overview of the six big stories of science that will play out over the next decade:

Decrypting the Brain,
Hacking Space,
Massively Multiplayer Data,
Sea the Future
Strange Matter, and
Engineered Evolution.

“Those stories are emerging from a new ecology of science shifting toward openness, collaboration, reuse, and increased citizen engagement in scientific research.” A followup post includes a video of Luigi Anzivino from The Exploratorium talking about the relationship of magic and neuroscience.

See Also:

THE OPEN SOURCE EVERYTHING MANIFESTO: Transparency, Truth & Trust

Paul Fernhout: Open Letter to the Intelligence Advanced Programs Research Agency (IARPA)