I love Tim Harford

I am a HUGE fan of Tim Harford.  Who is Tim Harford??? You should be ashamed of yourself... but I forgive you.  He is a an award winning economist (2006 Bastiat Prize for economic journalism) that writes for the FT and regularly contributes to BBC.  Read this and tell me you didn't get a chuckle out of it (like with the Dilbert, I had been putting off reading his website (the address to his website will be posted at the bottom of this blog entry and will be included somewhere else on my blog) until I had more time, so please excuse the delay between his post and my repost):

Is the credit crunch suitable for children?

Published on the 13th of December, 2008

Dear Economist,
My young son came home from school and asked me: “Mummy, what’s a credit crunch?” How can I explain this to a five-year-old?
Ms LG, London

Dear Ms LG,

Once upon a time, there was a blameless girl called Consumerella, who didn’t have enough money to buy all the lovely things she wanted. She went to her Fairy Godmother, who called a man called Rumpelstiltskin who lived on Wall Street and claimed to be able to spin straw into gold. Rumpelstiltskin sent the Fairy Godmother the recipe for this magic spell. It was written in tiny, tiny writing, so she did not read it but hoped the Sorcerers’ Exchange Commission had checked it.

The Fairy Godmother carried away armfuls of glistening straw-derivative at a bargain price. Emboldened by the deal, she lent Consumerella – who had a big party to go to – 125 per cent of the money she needed. Consumerella bought a bling-bedizened gown, a palace and a Mercedes – and spent the rest on champagne. The first payment was due at midnight.

At midnight, Consumerella missed the first payment on her loan. (The result of overindulgence, although some blamed the pronouncements of the Toastmaster, a man called Peston.) Consumerella’s credit rating turned into a pumpkin and Rumpelstiltskin’s spell was broken. He and the Fairy Godmother discovered that their vaults were not full of gold, but ordinary straw.

All seemed lost until Santa Claus and his helpers, men with implausible fairy-tale names such as Darling and Bernanke, began handing out presents. It was only in January that Consumerella’s credit card statement arrived and she discovered that Santa Claus had paid for the gifts by taking out a loan in her name. They all lived miserably ever after. The End.

Also published at ft.com.

(Tim Harford's website)

A couple more quotes

So, I am proud to say that I am a BlackBerry owner and I am addicted to it.  One of the reasons is because of a program I have on it called viigo.  It allows you to subscribe to RSS feeds (like my blog or Google Reader or any news site etcetera) and it will show you the headlines in a pretty easy to read format.  If you want more information, you can view the full article right there on your phone (most of the time).  Two of the feeds I subscribe to are The Quotations Page quotes of the day and the Buddhist thought of the day.  Below are a couple of quotes that I particularly like...

In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock. - Thomas Jefferson

I think Jefferson's quote can be generalized a bit and have it still retain its meaning (and yes, I realize this is obvious, but i still feel a need to say it).  I think we can take this quote to say that in things that are rather trivial, do what you want.  If that is to conform to the status quo, go for it.  But in matters that are actually meaningful, figure out where you stand and stick with your convictions.

One cannot always be a hero, but one can always be a human. - Goethe

I think this quote is very similar to Edmund Burke's "Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could only do a little."  To me, they are both saying that while we may have lofty goals of being impossibly generous and helping, we need to realize that even actions that do not meet these unattainable standards are worth doing.

Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

Okay, this one is also very obvious, but very insightful.  If we hold onto our anger, we let it distract us from more important things (such as happiness).  It is important to realize when people are doing things expressly to make us angry and when people do things that unintentionally make us angry.  I think this issue can be solved by yet another quote (that I think I posted before... just like the Burke quote).  This one is Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.  There is no sense in allowing yourself to be wrapped up in anger when somebody says or does something which makes you angry when they had no intention of making you angry in the first place.  I would suggest that if you are angry about something, figure out why you are angry and whether the source of the anger meant to anger you or not.  And in either case, calmly explain why it is that you're angry and just let it go...

The nature of communication

I have always been fascinated by the very nature of communication.  I personally think that language was invented as means to pass knowledge from one person to another with the need for personal experience.  Take for instance a pair of early Homo sapiens eating, we will call them Jack and John for simplicity's sake.  Jack eats some berries (goodberries) and finds them to be sweet and refreshing.  John eats some different berries (badberries) and finds them to be bitter and caustic and, ultimately, ends up with an upset stomach.  

Now, let's say the next day Jack and John go to the same area to get some berries for a snack (I know that studies and evidence suggests that in primitive societies, men hunt while women and children gather, but let's not worry about that in this post...).  Jack reaches for some badberries.  If John could tell Jack about his experience with the badberries, Jack would be very grateful and would gain a lot of utility from this knowledge.  Similarly, John would be appreciative of Jack telling him about the goodberries.  So at some point, early Homo sapiens must have realized that sharing knowledge could be of very high utility and they, consequently, invented language.  (On that note, here is a very interesting article about human evolution and language)

By gaining this ability to share information without the need for personal experience, humans have been able to learn very quickly... I would argue that we've been able to learn quicker than other animals have been.  Think about it.  If other animals didn't learn at all, then wouldn't many more birds and squirrels die by running in front of/flying into cars?  Clearly they have learned that cars are lethal to them.  Am I suggesting something like what is suggested in "Bee Movie"?  Yes, but not to that extent (obviously).  The best argument I could come up with other than learning is that animals view human inventions, such as cars, as predators.  The inherent problem with that argument, though, is that birds fly at cars and then turn skyward at the last moment to avoid being killed.  If they viewed cars as predators, why in the world would they fly toward cars instead of away from them?  I think the only logical explanation (and I am open to other arguments, so if you disagree, please leave a comment with your argument) is that other animals also learn.  How?  Language.  

Just like with humans, birds and squirrels have figured out a way to tell their young something specific (that cars can kill them) without requiring them to experience that thing.  So here is the problem... what caused humans to learn quicker than other animals through language?  I think (but am not sure) that current theory suggests it is due to Homo sapiens's brain size and utilization.  

So assuming (which might be a big assumption) that this is a somewhat accurate description of why language was developed, what does this mean going forward?  Well, if you consider that the math children currently learn in grade school (even in the US which ranks terribly in terms of mathematical ability of school children) is the same kind of math that their grandparents or maybe even their parents didn't learn until college, it doesn't seem to be too great a leap of logic to say that humans will continue to become increasingly intelligent.  Other than that, I have no clue about how evolution and increased passage of knowledge will affect humans...  I am interested in what you have to say though, so please let me know and maybe we can help advance our species.

(I realize that I have not even mentioned the arbitrary nature of words, but that will be discussed in another post)

Better late than never?

Sorry that I am late posting this... but I've been kind of busy of late and I still think this is relevant enough to warrant being posted. Enjoy!!



http://www.dilbert.com/2008-12-13/

Utility of people

As the holiday season approaches, families re-congregate the world over. Sons and daughters away at college often return home to be with their families. Children that have their own families may or may not return home to be with their parents, but they are with their families nonetheless. Often, there are people we want to be with, but are unable to be with. This person may be a good friend, a parent, a grandparent, a son, a daughter, a brother, a sister, an uncle, an aunt, a great-grandparent, etcetera. Clearly, this means that spending time with this person gives you some amount of utility greater than the amount of utility you gain by not being with them. Of course there are ways to to gain some of this utility without physically spending time with them (phone calls, video conferences for the more web-savvy, or maybe even just a letter), so the question then becomes, how does one optimize his or her's utility during the holiday season. The answer, obviously, is to analyze how much utility you gain from each person that you can spend time with.

This, however, presents some problems because trade-offs aren't always as straightforward as they may seem... take for instance the quandary of spending time with friends or family. I think most people would agree that family precedes friends in terms of utility, but what if you can spend the holidays with a group of friends that is large enough so that the total utility derived by being with the group outweighs that of being with your family? If your friends and your family live in a close proximity, it may be possible for you to spend the day with your family and the night with your friends. Win-win. But what if your friends live all over the world? Well, in this case you probably won't be able to spend the holidays with a group of any real size... so family would probably outweigh. Let's say, though, that a group of friends are trying to decide whether they should go home for the holidays or spend them together. In addition to the people themselves, you have to take into consideration traditions, customs, meals, drinks, etcetera.

The choice is hard. My suggestion is to be with your family (as many members as possible from as many generations as possible), and be sure to call your friends and other relatives because they miss you just as much as you miss them.

Happy holidays to you all, and I hope that you will choose to maximize your utility... I know I will.

Airport Security...

Young male.  Early to mid 20s.  Not clean shaven, but not really sporting a beard... just a day's worth of stubble.  Light gray microcheck suit with center vent.  Black button up.  Flying from the US to Europe.

Do you pull this person out of line for extra security screening?  Air France's answer was yes.  Not really sure why... but yes.  But wait, let back up first.  So it is the Sunday after Thanksgiving and I am flying... not the best move, but I had no choice.  So typically if you are flying internationally, I think the rule is get there 2 hours early, right?  I figured, Sunday after Thanksgiving, so I should show up earlier still.  Okay, my flight was scheduled to leave at 4:35, so I show up at about 11:30 (Presidents Club... enough said).  Air France has a sign posted that says they will not open their ticket counter (to check in) until 12:45.  They also list a number to call from the information phone to get more information.  So I call and the lady I speak to says they won't open until 1...  So I get in line and I am 5th.  We wait... and wait... and wait.  Once the ticket agents show up, we start checking in.  When I go to check in, The ticket agent passes my passport off to her supervisor.  He walks away with it, does something, then walks back and hands her my passport.  She types a little and then prints out my boarding ticket.  It is conspicuously blank for the most part.  The ticket agent writes "SSS" on my boarding pass and hands it to me.  When I proceed to enter the security screening line, the person at the first check point, where they check your passport/ID and your boarding pass, tells me that I have been selected for extra screening by the airline as she walks me over to a 'holding cell' of sorts.  Okay, holding cell is a bit melodramatic, it was just a box made with the rope things they use to create queues.  So she opens it up for me and asks me to wait there.  Shortly thereafter, a TSA agent walks over and allows me to leave the box to proceed to two or three steps to the normal security line.  He tells me that I need to remove my shoes and jacket, take my laptop out of my bag (if I have one, which I do), and to empty my pockets.  Now, he has my passport... If he had bothered to look in it before this schpeel , he would know that I am a rather seasoned traveler for early to mid 20s and should know the drill.  So I go through the screening and am asked to wait in a little box, yet again, as my bags go through.  After they are cleared, I am patted down before being asked to walk over to a table where the TSA agent proceeds to look through my bag and rub a coffee-filter-like piece of paper over most of my goods to test for residue... I will let you figure out what kinds of residue I speak of.  After checking my laptop, which is kind of an obvious choice for a number of reasons, he checks my shoes, another obvious choice, and my phone, a non-obvious and very crafty choice I think.  Okay, so there are a number of things that one may handle illegally that would leave a residue.  Laptop is an obvious choice because it is essentially a business instrument and the handling and illegal goods that would leave some type of residue essentially necessitates you being a businessman.  So laptop is obvious.  Similarly shoes.  Everyone wears shoes, pretty much every day.  Most people don't wash their hands very regularly, so residue may very well end up on shoes.  Also, if something you are handling leaves a residue, it is probably a powdered substance of some sort.  Powder gets up into the air, settles on the floor.  Shoes are between you and the floor.  Shoes are an obvious choice that most people don't think of.  Phone, on the other hand, is a bit of crafty I think.  As I contend, most people don't wash their hands regularly enough.  So someone handles something, gets a phone call, and voila, residue transferred to phone.  Also, since a phone, like a laptop, is a high-tech piece of consumer technology, most people are very hesitant to clean it in any effectual way.  

Okay, so he check my shoes, my phone, my laptop and tells me that he is going to move them to another table so that I can start putting my shoes on etcetera while he goes though my bad.  Okay, I understand their right to search my bag, but I believe it is also a liability issue that requires me to stand there and watch them go through it (my bags have been search before and I was essentially told, although in a completely non-legal sense, that it is a liability issue that requires me to watch them).  So he suggests that I start getting my things together while he finishes up with my bag.  As I put my shoes back on, I consider raising this issue with him (liability), but by the time I have my shoes on, he is done.  Obviously he didn't do a very thorough job because I have 5 zippered compartments, 2 of which are pretty full of small things and one of which has numbers electronics.  So he should have taken at least a couple minutes to go through, not just one minute.  Anyway, I ask him what the reasoning is behind my selection for additional security.  He gives me the company line ("I'm not sure sir, we just pulled you out of line because your boarding pass was marked "SSS" which means the airline tagged you for extra screening.").  So I say,"I understand that you are just doing your job and that the airline tagged me, but do you have any idea why???"  His answer was that it might have been because of the way I paid or the time I booked my flight.  Well, I flew on points and I booked at least a month ago.  Neither of which should be a problem, right?  I mean, flying on points means that I am 1) a frequent patron of a single airline (or of an airline and their partners) and 2) I am utilizing the reward system.  Right, so that shouldn't be a problem.  So, the time I booked.  I booked at least a month ago (I think), which should be ample time.  As far as I'm concerned, neither of these excuses are legitimate.  

Air France's explanation (yes, I emailed them asking for justification) was that I was "randomly" selected (I have emailed asking about the procedure for these 'random selections' and will update then when/if I get a response...).  I don't know that I buy that.  (***Update-  So either the PR people at Air France are idiots or for some reason they will not tell me that they won't tell me.  Their response to my initial email was that it was a random selection... as I had mentioned to them it was.  So I emailed them back asking if they could describe to me how their random system works... They said, essentially, that due to increased security on flights crossing the Atlantic, some passengers are randomly selected for extra screening and I was one of those passengers... I have decided to just drop it.  The effort outweighs the utility at this point.)

So, you are probably wondering, why in the world am I posting about this?  Is this just a pure rant or is there some actual reason?  Well, I understand the need for increased security in today's world, so it is not a rant that extra screening is unfair or that I was discriminated against... But, I write to highlight the consumer problems with this process.  So let us begin.

Okay, so like I said, I got to the airport extra early and planned to just get through security and relax in the President's Club for a couple of hours (and read/be productive in general since I would have a decent internet connection).  So the fact that I had to wait to check in (sans internet access mind you) took away from the time I could spend being productive.  If my time is valued at a very modest value of $8/hr, I lost the equivalent of $12 just waiting to check in.  Throw into that the inconvenience of time wasted with the extra security screening and we are up to about $16.  Okay, not a huge amount, but this is valuing my productivity at $8/hr (which is hopefully extremely low) and it is not taking into consideration anything other than time.  So let's keep these parameters in mind: approximately 90 minutes waiting and approximately 30 minutes spent on these extra security measures.

Let's imagine then that I am travelling at a busier time.  The first parameter, time spent waiting, would still exist, just in a slightly different form.  Instead of me waiting for the ticketing counter to open, I would be waiting behind fellow passengers that are checking in (of course I could just not check a bag, but that wasn't an option on this trip).  So then the question becomes would I have had a lesser wait if I waited to show up?  And if so, how long should I have waiting (or when should I have shown up)?  As I write this blog, a friend of mine suggests that the best time would be to show up right before check in closes.  Okay, she has a point, but keep in mind that I wanted to be productive in the President's Club before the flight.  So of course you could argue that the optimal time to check in is dependent on how long I plan to spend in there... For the sake of my argument, lets say that I want to check in as early as possible so as to maximize my time spent in the President's Club.

Okay, so now that we have considered how to reduce the time spent waiting to check in while simultaneously maximizing the amount of time we have between check in and flight boarding, let's consider the other part of my dilemma: the extra security.  Many people complain that it is not needed.  I disagree.  I think there should be lots of security at airports, but the problem there is to balance public inconvenience with safety.  This may sound absurd to some, but consider this: expected utility theory states that a person will do something (buy a good or service or perform some action) as long as they gain more utility or value from that thing than it will cost them to do that thing.  So if we apply that logic to this situation, we come to the conclusion that people travel by air because they have a higher value for speedy travel to their destination (or perhaps more accurately, the difference in travel time by air as opposed to other methods) than the monetary cost of the travel.  So if we increase security to such a point that a significant enough amount of people no longer have a higher utility from air travel as compared to other methods of travel, we will decrease air travel and thus profitability for airlines (which are having a hard enough time as it is).  Below is a clip from the Colbert Report about airport security...  I think he (Jeffery Goldberg) raises all the right questions and issues.  So essentially the answer to this issue of lost productivity as a result of increased security is that as long as the security actually makes travel safer, I think it is utility neutral, but the public must see how it directly makes travel safer and not simply more inconvenient.

The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

Jeffrey Goldberg

Colbert at Christmas

Colbert Christmas DVD

Green Screen

Bill O'Reilly Interview

Canada... Oh Canada..... (insert sad head slowly shaking emoticon here)

Okay, not sure how long this link will work, so be sure to check it out ASAP:

http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSTRE4AJ8G020081120

So... why post this?  Well, it is worth exploring as both an economist and as a businessman.  Let's go economics first.

There is a theory in economics that we all act rationally all the time.  This theory is called homo economicus.  The validity of this theory is debatable, but what is not debatable is that we all act rationally some, or even most, of the time when we stop to think about how we should act.  So let's apply this concept here.  If I am fat enough that I require two airline seats (which considering how small those seats are isn't pushing things too far for many Americans), and I know that Canadian airlines cannot legally charge me for two seats, how does this affect me?  Well, at the very least it means that I would now get ample room... I wouldn't have to squeeze in between people because, with my luck, I would end up with the center seat.  

Okay, but what if I am overweight, but not to the point where I require two seats?  Well, assuming I measure the utility of my seat on an airplane in terms of my personal space, the only rational reaction to this, if I fly in Canada frequently, is to gain enough weight so that I require two seats, but not gain any more.  In fact, assuming I measure utility in terms of personal space, this is a very simple choice for everyone and it is based on a simple math equation: if excess space in my seat (as measured by the distance from my waist to the arm rest on either side of me) is greater than the excess space I would have if I were fat enough to require two seats (but no fatter), I should gain weight.  It is really that simple assuming that we fly enough in Canada for this law to make any real impact on us.  

So... what are the business implications of this law?  First and foremost, it can only serve to lower profits in an industry that really doesn't need that.  Despite the fact that we are 7 full years removed from 9/11 and the fact that terrible event involved only 4 planes out of the millions of flights that have been flown in the history of human aviation, air travel is still down from pre-9/11 levels... and quite a bit still.  (I'm not naive enough to think that 9/11 is the only reason air travel is down... just wait) And it surely doesn't help that the price of oil (until the global economy began collapsing due to CDOs....) was high enough to cause (some) Texans to start driving 'flexfuel' pickup trucks...  High oil prices mean high gasoline prices mean high jet fuel (really high octane gasoline) prices.  They need to pass those costs along to someone and guess who is next in line... the customer.  Decreased service, decreased quality of food (if that's possible), and increased fares.  

So in this market where airlines are struggling to stay in the black (which in business terminology means making a profit), why on God's (see a previous post about G instead of g) green earth would a court make a ruling that means, on the most superficial level possible, that airlines will sell fewer tickets?  The only feasible answer is that politicans are not economists and are certainly not businessmen... Don't get me wrong, they do business, they may run or have run a business, but that does not make you a businessman anymore than working at a bank makes you able to make good financial decisions.

Okay, so I said that at the most superficial level, this means fewer tickets.  That is obvious.  What else does it mean though?  Well, think about this: ever been on a flight that was 'over sold'?  The truth is, airlines are devious.  Every flight is 'over sold'.  They count on some people not showing up for their flight.  How many people do they assume will miss?  I don't know.  They have extensive data (all those flights) and can see how many people, on average, miss any given flight.  So given this number, they sell that many extra seats.  That is why you rarely get a decent flight time if you are flying standby.  

So what exactly does this Supreme Court ruling have to do with this?  Well, most plane tickets are bought online these days.  So the obvious question is: how will they know if I require a second seat or not?  If they just ask me that, I as homo economicus would say "Yes, I need an extra seat" because everyone likes having space, me included.  So there must be some sort of qualification for getting a second seat for free when you book your ticket otherwise they will over-over sell the flight.  What's wrong with that?  Well, when enough people show up so that the flight is full and someone that had a ticket can't get on the plane, they have to give them some sort of compensation.  Too many people needing to be compensated and it isn't worth them over selling the flight any more.  So the airlines need to set some minimum criteria to qualify for a second seat.  

Additionally, the important part of the airfare for airlines is the price of the ticket.  I know this sounds really obvious, but if they legally cannot charge me for a second seat, they lose an entire fare because of me.  This means that the profitability of each flight will be lower on average.  This means that they need to recoup that lost fare somehow, but consumers are not willing to help them out.  Similarly, they cannot really save money by restructuring how much they pay the flight staff... they have unions and as Detriot will tell you, the union runs things.  The pilots all belong to a union, so if the airlines try to cut their pay, the pilots go on strike, all the planes are grounded, the airlines lose lots of money every hour.  Similarly, they can't cut out the flight attendants... even discount or budget airlines have them.  So how will they recover these lost fares?

This Supreme Court ruling is great for people that are fat enough to require two seats and for consumers in general, but it is terrible for airlines.  If airlines cannot recoup these lost fares, they may start slipping into the red (the opposite of being in the black).  Canada can't afford to not have any airlines operating in the nation, so they will end up needing to subsidize the airlines somehow... and all because they passed a law that sounds good, until you actually look at it.

Knock knock...

Who's there? Communisto Mani-pesto!

Okay, so that's not my joke, its Colbert's.... Still funny.

The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

Obama the Socialist

Ron Paul Interview
Bob Barr Interview

Green Screen
Bill O'Reilly Interview

Okay, I bring this up because I was reminded of a joke... I don't remember where I read the joke, so I cannot give credit unfortunately:

Which of the following is Occam(or Occom or Ockham)'s Razor:
A) The simplest answer is usually the correct one
B) The answer with the fewest assumptions is usually the correct one
C) The answer that most fully explains the situation at hand while making the fewest unfounded assumptions possible is usually the correct one

Morality - Science

At the encouragement of a friend, I have decided to forgo sleep for a little while longer to write this... I hope it is coherent.

Okay, let me clearly state for all the world to know, I am FOR UNFETTERED SCIENTIFIC ADVANCEMENT. Yes, I think science should be funded and researched for nearly every cause. This is the first in what will be many posts about morality and morality and science.

Webster's defines morality as follows:
Main Entry:
mo·ral·i·ty
Pronunciation:
\mə-ˈra-lə-tē, mȯ-\
Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural mo·ral·i·ties
Date:14th century

1 a: a moral discourse, statement, or lesson b: a literary or other imaginative work teaching a moral lesson
2 a: a doctrine or system of moral conduct bplural : particular moral principles or rules of conduct
3: conformity to ideals of right human conduct
4: moral conduct : virtue

As the idea pertains to this posting, lets take the third definition: conformity to ideals of right human conduct.

On this front, I have essentially two things to argue for when combining science and morality: embryonic stem cell research and cloning. Lets give each of them adequate exploration.

Cloning
Okay, so I am starting with cloning first even though I listed it second... my previous English teachers might be a bit miffed, but que sera sera. As far as I understand it, the basic argument against cloning is that 1) we would be playing God (sorry to those of you that have multiple gods which would necessitate a lowercased 'g' in god thereby implicating multiple gods, but I figure that most readers of this blog are monotheistic and would greaterly prefer a capital 'G' in God... by the by, do you know why it is called 'lower-case and upper-case'? Supposedly, back in the day of typewriters, capital letters were gernerally kept in a case above the non-capital letters... hence upper case and lower case) by cloning humans or 2) the wealthy would pay for clones so they could harvest their organs a la The Island. Okay, lets address these topics individually.

The first arguement might be that by cloning humans, we would be playing God. The problem with this argument is that we are already doing that essentially. We have drastically reduced the infant mortality rate since the time we were all living in caves and had just discovered fire. Sure this is a bit absurd. Of course we have lowered the infant mortality rate since then, but how have we done so? Through science. Okay, so even if you don't accept that argument, think about this: a baby that is born prematurely now has a much greater chance of living than a child born similarly prematurely a decade ago. How is that not playing God? Unfortunately my analysis will end there because I don't have much information about infant mortality rates across history or what specific scientific advances have allowed our children to live longer no matter how many weeks they gestated.

The second topic here is creating clones so that we can harvest their orgrans etc to prolong our life or replace a severed limb.  Okay... well this could be problem.  I will admit that it would be possible for this to happen.  This would lead to a whole host of other moral and ideological issues.  The thing about that though is that it would be extremely capital intensive... So there are a limited number of places a place that did this could exist in our world today.  Additionally, the technological expertise required would essentially prevent this technology's ability to be spread or sold.  So what we would be left with is a finite group of people possessing the know-how and a finite number of places these activities could be carried out.  My solution, although far from perfect, is that once we are able to clone humans, we make sure those scientists aren't ever in a position to be bought.  (As in we actually take care of them with sufficient pay and access to research and information etc)  Like I said, it isn't a perfect solution, but it is minimally acceptable.  Do you have a better idea?

Embryonic Stem Cell Research
Okay, now to my forte... if I had one between these subjects. Embryonic stem cell research, which I will just refer to as stem cell research because I am too lazy to keep typing 'embryonic', is typically argued against on religious grounds. The big problem with that is the religious scholars don't actually agree on anything really.... Go here for a pretty good, but outdated (as if that should matter... religions keep status quo for a very long time... so opinions from 1999 shouldn't be discounted) view of embryonic stem cell research from a purely religious point of view. Okay, let me put aside the religious arguments for just a moment... I will come back.

Okay, if your argument is that by harvesting embryonic stem cells, scientists need to kill a (potential) human by destroying a blastocyst (the stage at which embryos should be frozen to yield embryonic stem cells from IVF clinics), that is arguable. The legal definition of death, as defined by the Uniform Determination of Death Act, is when brain function ceases and/or cardiovascular and respiratory circulation ceases. This, by default, implies a definition of life: when brain function and/or cardiovascular and respiratory circulation begins. According to Assistant Clinical Professor in Pediatrics at Tufts University School of Medicine Leo Leonidas, human brain cells begin forming at ten weeks of gestation. At eighteen gestational days, a baby’s heart begins to beat according to the Time-Life book entitled Growth. In Life Magazine’s article “Life Before Birth,” babies start to breathe at eleven to twelve weeks of gestation. Based on this, obtaining embryonic stem cells from a blastocyst which is four to five gestational days old, there is no legal death (or murder) involved.

Let me briefly return to the religious argument, and I mean briefly. If you read the Ethical Issues in Human Stem Cell Research Volume III: Religious Perspectives that I linked to, you will see that, generally, the major monotheistic religions agree that harvesting embryonic stem cells from blastocysts is not murder, particularly if the blastocysts are from IVF clinics, and that we have an obligation to do anything in our power to increase our life expectancy.  So essentially, they are for embryonic stem cell research.  Brief enough?

Okay, so let's assume for a minute that we all agree on this point (that there is no death involved in harvesting embryonic stem cells from blastocysts). So let's then go back to what I said about IVF clinics. At IVF clinics, 1) embroys are typically frozen at a later stage than blastocyst although this isn't really necessary, and 2) approximately 20 (pre- in some cases) embryos are discarded once the woman successfully becomes pregnant. These embryos could be frozen at the blastocyst stage instead of later on (as they usually are) and could, thus, potentially yield embryonic stem cells.

Okay, let's assume, for my sake, that you agree with my analysis. So what is it that I am saying really? What I mean is directly analagous to this Scott Adams quote on gun control: "I believe everyody in the world should have guns. Citizens should have bazookas and rocket launchers too. I believe that all citizens should have their weapons of choice. However, I also believe that only I should have the ammunition. Because frankly, I wouldn't trust the rest of the goobers with anything more dangerous than string." Again, what am I saying? I am saying that I think the government (the US governement and every other government that can afford to do so), fund human embryonic stem cell research for the sake of scientific advancement. Based on all the existing research and theories, embryonic stem cell research is a panaceia. The problem all governments face is how to regulate the industry.

Regulation
As you will come to see in my later posts, I am also part economist and as such, am typically against regulation. Even though us "free marketers" are taking a lot of grief right now, I still stand by the free market and, therefore, against regulation. But I will agree, somewhat illogically, that government needs to regulate the use of stem cells. I think that they should only be used to treat life threatening issues, not just quality of life improving issues. This may seem kind of harsh, but I am opposed to unfettered use of the results of our stem cell research. I think we should be able to test an embyro's DNA to see what potential genetically defined problems it will face, but I do not think we should actually do it.

In a sense, my argument boils down to a question of should we be able to play God and, if so, should we actually play God. My answer is that we should research any and all technologies until we can play God, but we should not regularly play God.

Information Asymmetry

http://www.dilbert.com/2008-11-16/

I love this strip. It perfectly illustrates the way people view information asymmetry.

From Facebook

Below are a couple of notes that I wrote on Facebook... I enjoy having everything in multiple places.  That way, if I misplace something, I can find a copy of it elsewhere lol:

"Musings from Nice"

I figure that since I will be here for a year, I could periodically write a little something about my experiences...

So I am thinking of coining a new term - "Euroism." There are so many gestures/sound effects/facial expression that Europeans (at least mainlanders) seem to just innately know. It isn't that I cannot figure out what they mean, but these Euroisms wouldn't be my first choice to convey the same message.

In class one day one of my profs mentioned something about donating money to the school... not him doing it, but people doing it (like corporate sponsors). He said, "We aren't prostitutes, but we're for sale anyway." I think it says something that in today's day and age, even universities are essentially 'for sale.' I know that colleges or departments have been named after alumni or donors since at least the 1660s, but it seems like corporate sponsorship has infiltrated the collegiate ranks now. (Yes, I know that there are plenty of examples of corporate sponsors for universities, but my theory is that if it exists in the US and in Europe, it is, for all intents and purposes, all over the developed world).

Yesterday I want to my first European football match. What an experience... As I was walking up to the gate, a scuffle broke out that involved a thrown beer/wine bottle, some punching, and very fast fleeing before the cops dressed in full riot gear came out of no where with HUGE guns (not traditional guns... stun guns or beanbag guns or something like that... huge stacked double barrel). Then, when the match was ending and the ref called a handball on Bordeaux in the box in stoppage time, I thought the crowd was going to riot (the exuberant kind of rioting... the match ended up 2-2 because of this call).

I also realized how much of a nerd I am lately... Ever wonder how much your school pays for plastic cups for water coolers in a given week (assuming your school had water coolers)? I have. Ever find yourself loving VBA or programming in general because you love working through the logic of getting the computer to do what you want it to do? I do... Don't get me wrong, I hate VBA because the things we are doing in there are pointless, but the actual programming part of it is kind of fun. (I put this here hoping most people will have given up on this by now...)

After the match, the group of people I was with and I went to a bar. There were 6 of us. The 5 of them ordered beer and I got a whiskey and Coke (they didn't have Jack, so I ended up with something else...). The girl sitting next to me ordered a beer, as I mentioned, but was given a whiskey and Coke. She politely told the manager (1. who was serving us and 2.who was the spitting image of Pacino in Scarface, which is to say he was a spitting image of the image on his shirt) that she wanted a beer, not a whiskey and Coke. A minute later, a 10 or 12 year old boy comes over with her beer... only in France (maybe Europe, but I don't think that would fly in the UK... could be wrong though). While we were enjoying our beverages, we were brought some semi-stale chips and some chickpeas in some sort of cumin sauce (think chili but instead of beef and beans etc it was chickpeas).

That's all for now...

"Self Identification"

So, in the course of doing some research, I ran across this really good article about postmodernism. Here is a little bit from that article dealing with defining who you are:

Gergen notes that postmodernists divide history into three epochs, each of which corresponds to a particular conception of personal identity or selfhood. These periods are labeled as the pre-modern (romantic period), the modern era, and the postmodern. From the pre-modern or romantic tradition, we derive our belief in a stable center of identity. In Gergen's words, "powerful forces" in the "deep interior of one's being" are held to be the source of "inspiration, creativity, genius, and moral courage, even madness". Modernism redefined the self, shifting the emphasis from deep, mysterious processes to human consciousness in the here and now, always in keeping with such values as efficiency, stable functioning, and progress. The self in its latest form-what Gergen calls the postmodern or relational self-is no longer viewed as a separate entity, but is increasingly understood as a relational construction, defined by and spread across the people and life experiences each individual encounters throughout her or his existence. In short, as McNamee and Gergen argue, "there are no independent selves; we are each constituted by others (who are themselves similarly constituted). We are always already related by virtue of shared constitutions of the self".

Linked to this notion is the idea that a conscious understanding of ourselves as beings occurs through language, which is itself a fundamentally relational concept, and that our identity grows and develops in relationship to the endless dialogues that we have with others, with culture, and with ourselves. In this sense, our interactions with the media become deeply significant. Moreover, this new consciousness of the relational meaning of the self comes at exactly the moment when the relationships we enter into and which contribute to our definition of self are multiplying at an exponential rate and are being increasingly spread over a greater and greater span of time and space.

It is one thing to contemplate the meaning of the relational self when we think of, say, two friends engaged in a mutually sustaining and defining dialogue. In this setting, the idea of the relational self is promising, perhaps even reassuring. However, extending the idea of relationship to include every symbolic encounter in which we willingly or unwilling participate-from intentional relationships to unintentional and forced relationship with 3,000 commercial messages per day-presents new challenges. A critical postmodern perspective calls attention to this crisis of identity, a crisis in which the media of communication and their commercial foundations are deeply implicated.

Of course, thinking of the self as a relational construct not only gives insights into the crisis of the self, but it also offers a way of thinking about how to address that crisis. In this more hopeful and positive sense, the relational self offers a glimpse of those selected aspects of human experience and identity that may be used as a moral foundation in the face of the deconstructive maelstrom of commercial postmodern culture. The relational self suggests a moral compass that is based less on the absolute truths of religion or science than in the process by which we create ourselves and our humanity through ceaseless and inevitable physical, linguistic, and psychological dependence upon one another. Drawing on the work of Martin Buber, Mikhail Bakhtin, Jurgen Habermas, Richard Rorty, and Jerome Bruner, McNamee and Gergen lay out a clear and thoughtful introduction to what a moral ethic organized around the relational self would look like. They have called it "relational responsibility," defining relationally responsible actions as those that "sustain and enhance forms of interchange out of which meaningful action itself is made possible." Isolation, they argue, "represents the negation of humanity". The standard of relational responsibility is in stark contrast to the deconstructive tendencies of postmodernism. As such, it can serve as a critical bridge linking the interpretive power of a critical postmodernism to the modernist values associated with progressive democracy.

At the same time, it is clear that the deconstructive tendencies of postmodernism (as a set of contemporary conditions) have substantial implications for personal identity construction. Giddens, for example, warns of the "looming threat of personal meaninglessness." It is this threat that directs us back to a consideration of one of the central tropes of postmodern discourse: irony.

In case you were wondering where I got this, it is from "Homer Simpson explains our postmodern identity crisis, whether we like it or not: Media literacy after "The Simpsons.""., By: Bybee, Carl, Overbeck, Ashley, Simile, 14966603, Feb2001, Vol. 1, Issue 1

And so it begins...

For a while now, some people (few of them) have been telling me I should blog... Well, I've finally caved in.  I thought about how to start this out, and my best idea was to say a little something about me.  Here are some of my favorite quotes.  I think that they, as a whole, do a fairly good job of explaining who I am.

I also just want to say that not everything I write about on here will actually be my stance on an issue, just a stance on an issue that I am arguing for for the sake of arguing it... 

And so it begins:

Don't be afraid to go out on a limb, because that's where the fruit is.- Texas Dolly

Nobody makes a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could only do a little.- Edmund Burke

Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.- Albert Einstein

Never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.- Hanlon's Razor

Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.- Thomas Jefferson

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.- Galileo Galilei

Gentleness is the greatest strength.- Iroquois Proverb

Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen. - Sir Winston Churchill

Now you know! That’s what it was to be alive. To move about in a cloud of ignorance; to go up and down trampling on the feelings of those…of those about you. To spend and waste time as though you had a million years….Now you know—that’s the happy existence you wanted to go back to. Ignorance and blindness.- Simon Stimson (Our Town by Thornton Wilder)

A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives.- Jackie Robinson

Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned.-Buddha

Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books.
Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations.
But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.-Buddha

Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless, and knowledge without integrity is dangerous and dreadful.-Samuel Johnson

In three words I can sum up everthing I have learned about life: it goes on.-Robert Frost

Listen or thy tongue will keep thee deaf.- Native American Proverb