De-Extinction: AMNH 2017 Asimov Debate – NdGT Moderator

April 1, 2017

Watch the 2017 Asimov Debate from the American Museum of Natural History. It was a great one. I did not expect the answer to the question of whether we can do this. No spoiler from me. Settle down for a couple of hours with a good drink for this one.

This debate discusses a wide variety of issues, including genetically modified organisms, agriculture, environmentalism, extinction, quality of DNA from preserved extinct animals, morality, animal welfare, legal issues, etc.

For a sample, just consider the question, if we brought back a mammoth (or mammophant) from extinction, is it automatically an endangered species? What is its “natural range”? What are its natural habitat and food? Is it moral to bring back a species adapted to the arctic in an age of climate change?

P.S. Neil is a bit out of his element on this first Asimov Debate that is NOT related to cosmology, astronomy, or astrophysics in any way. But, as he points out Isaac Asimov wrote about a variety of sciences, some of which did not even really exist at the time he wrote about them, such as robotics. So, de-extinction is perfectly within lines to honor the late Isaac Asimov who spent many hours at the American Museum of Natural History in New York.

Enjoy.


Electing the Unelectable

September 15, 2007

How can we as a people elect the unelectable candidates?

In this election, one thing is clear to me. The candidates with the best views on many issues and that are bought by the fewest corporations are getting little or no air time from the corporate media. This is severely negatively impacting their chances for election.

The candidate I happen to favor is Kucinich. Interestingly, even after he won the MSNBC debate handily according to the poll of the viewers, MSNBC simply decided not to report who won. This appears to me to be highly unprecedented.

Being corporations, it is as if these media giants have simply declared that they will not let us hear the names of the really good candidates enough to get it through the thick skulls of the American people, many of whom vote largely on name recognition.

So, how can we get the word out that candidates like Kucinich and Paul even exist so that people can make their informed decisions about such candidates? Personally, I don’t like Paul for his anti-choice stance and his affiliation with a party that has become wholly evil, despite its original well-meaning ideals.

However, it seems clear to me that if we want something better than a government of the corporation by the corporation and for the corporation, we must do something. And, we most likely must do it without diebold voting machines in place.

Does anyone have any ideas on how to make this happen?