The Second Amendment: What Are the Limits on the Right to …

The meaning and scope of the Second Amendment has long been one of the most hotly contested constitutional issues in the United States. In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the amendment protects the rights of individuals to have and use guns for legal purposes. At the same time, however, the Court clearly said that the Second Amendment right isnt unlimited. Since that decision, other courts in the country have upheld mostbut not allfederal, state, and local gun control laws.

The long-running argument over the Second Amendment largely stems from its language, especially at the beginning: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. For decades, many scholars and courts interpreted the amendment as preserving states authority to keep militias, which would mean that the right to have firearms was linked to militia service. But in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court opted for a broader interpretation, finding that the Second Amendment gave individuals a right to have gunsunconnected to any militia serviceand to use them for traditionally legal purposes like self-defense.

The Supreme Court said that the law involved in Heller was unconstitutional because it essentially banned all handgunsthe most popular type of gun Americans choose for the core lawful purpose of self-defense. It also kept people from using their guns to defend their families and property by requiring them to keep all firearms trigger-locked or dissembled, even in the home.

Like most constitutional rights, the Second Amendment rights is not unlimited.

What about other kinds of guns and other reasons for having them? Like most constitutional rights, the Heller Court explained, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. In the years since that decision, theres been a flood of legal challenges to federal and state gun control laws. According to one study, in 94 percent of those cases, courts have found that reasonable gun regulations didnt violate the Second Amendment. Theyve mostly relied on the Heller Courts explanation that its ruling shouldnt cast doubt on several longstanding gun restrictions, including bans on gun ownership by certain individuals (like felons), prohibitions on some types of dangerous and unusual weapons, limits on carrying firearms in certain public places, and requirements for gun sales. Although federal law covers some of these restrictions, most gun control is a patchwork of state and local laws and regulations. That means it can be wildly different from place to place.

Federal law outlaws the possession of firearms or ammunition by several categories of people, including:

(18 U.S.C. 922(g).)

Many states prohibit or restrict gun possession by other groups of people, such as stalkers and people subject to other kinds of restraining orders, minors, juvenile offenders, and those convicted of alcohol- and/or drug-related crimes.

Several states also allow courts to order some people to give up their guns temporarily if they pose an immediate risk to themselves or others (under so-called "red flag laws").

Under federal law, its illegal for civilians to have fully automatic weapons (referred to as machine guns in 18 U.S.C. 922(l)). In a rule that became effective in March 2019, the federal government outlawed "bump stock" devices (which attach to semiautomatic weapons to produce automatic firing with one pull of the trigger) by defining them as machine guns for purposes of federal law (27 C.F.R. 447.11).

Another federal law that banned assault weapons (semiautomatic firearms with certain features) expired in 2004, and attempts to renew it have failed so far.

Still, a handful of states and local governmentsincluding California, New Jersey, and New Yorkhave their own prohibitions or restrictions on assault weapons that have withstood court challenges. And although the Heller Court ruled out blanket bans on handguns, many states regulate handguns by requiring permits to buy them.

As the Supreme Court recognized in Heller, guns have traditionally been prohibited or restricted in certain public places under federal, state, and local laws. These sensitive places include schools, government buildings and courtrooms, public transit facilities, airports, and polling stations.

A U.S. appellate court has held that the Second Amendment doesnt protect carrying a concealed weapon in public (Peterson v. Martinez, 707 F.3d 1197 (10th Cir. 2013)). Most states require a concealed-carry permit, but the conditions vary a lot from state to state. The strictest laws allow authorities to deny a permit when the applicant doesnt have a good moral character or a good reason for carrying a gun in public. The most lenient require authorities to issue the permit to anyone who applies, with little or no discretion. Nearly all states restrict concealed weapons in some places, such as bars, hospitals, and public sporting events. But several states allow concealed weapons on public college campuses, under legislation or state court rulings that overturned longtime bans.

Finally, some states have open carry laws that ban or set conditions on openly carrying certain types of guns in public or in private cars.

Licensed gun dealers have to meet several requirements under federal law, including performing background checks, keeping records of sales, and reporting multiple sales of handguns to the same person (18 U.S.C. 923). But those requirements dont apply to private sellers, including those at gun shows. Some states have stronger laws, and a few require licensing for the sale of all guns.

If you believe that a local law or regulation infringes on your Second Amendment rights as a gun owner, you might want to speak with a civil rights attorney about your options for challenging the restriction. And if youve been charged with a crime related to owning, carrying, or using a gun, you should strongly consider consulting with a criminal defense lawyer. The circumstances in each case are unique, and the laws vary in different states and localities. An attorney whos experienced in this area can explain how the relevant laws apply in your situation and what defenses you might have.

Visit link:

The Second Amendment: What Are the Limits on the Right to ...

Second Amendment Caucus – Wikipedia

Political party in United States

The Second Amendment Caucus, also known as the House Second Amendment Caucus, is a congressional caucus consisting of conservative and libertarian Republican members of the United States House of Representatives who support Second Amendment rights.[1] It was formed in 2016 to "promote a pro-gun agenda" according to founding chairman Thomas Massie.[2]

The Second Amendment Caucus was originally established in 2004 by Representative Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO) and existed under that name until 2008. Representative Paul Broun (R-GA) recreated it in 2009 and titled it the Second Amendment Task Force. Thomas Massie reestablished it in December 2016 in light of the 2016 election results with 13 other congressmen.

.navbox-abovebelow,.mw-parser-output tr+tr>.navbox-group,.mw-parser-output tr+tr>.navbox-image,.mw-parser-output tr+tr>.navbox-list{border-top:2px solid #fdfdfd}.mw-parser-output .navbox-title{background-color:#ccf}.mw-parser-output .navbox-abovebelow,.mw-parser-output .navbox-group,.mw-parser-output .navbox-subgroup .navbox-title{background-color:#ddf}.mw-parser-output .navbox-subgroup .navbox-group,.mw-parser-output .navbox-subgroup .navbox-abovebelow{background-color:#e6e6ff}.mw-parser-output .navbox-even{background-color:#f7f7f7}.mw-parser-output .navbox-odd{background-color:transparent}.mw-parser-output .navbox .hlist td dl,.mw-parser-output .navbox .hlist td ol,.mw-parser-output .navbox .hlist td ul,.mw-parser-output .navbox td.hlist dl,.mw-parser-output .navbox td.hlist ol,.mw-parser-output .navbox td.hlist ul{padding:0.125em 0}.mw-parser-output .navbox .navbar{display:block;font-size:100%}.mw-parser-output .navbox-title .navbar{float:left;text-align:left;margin-right:0.5em}]]>

Ideological caucuses in the United States Congress

Caucuses with no known membership as of the 117th Congress do not have memberships listed.

View original post here:

Second Amendment Caucus - Wikipedia

Today’s letters: Readers comment on news coverage of The Villages and the Second Amendment – Daily Commercial

Covering The Villages

Throughout Donald Trumps presidency and during most of the 2020 election, it seemed like The Villages made headlines every week. A picture was painted of lines being drawn in the sand, neighbor turning against neighbor, and even some threats of violence. But these events are very rare, especially when you consider the size of the community as a whole with more than 130,000 residents today and growing.

The claims by the media of The Villages being only a Trump-loving community are often blatantly false, some are outdated and others only have a grain of truth to them. The reputation may be related to the developer being a large contributor to Republican politicians; however, The Villages does not support a single political party but is home to residents with varying opinions. According to the Florida Division of Elections, as of Nov. 31, 2021, the number of registered voters in Sumter County (where most Villages residents reside) was 111,753, of which 56.4% were registered as Republicans, 22.4% were registered as Democrats, 1% were registered as as members of a minor party, and 20.2% had no party affiliation.

The media must cover this diversity and call out real sources of fraud. Three voters in Florida all living in The Villages were recently arrested for voting more than once in the 2020 election. They all voted for Trump two registered Republicans and one with no party affiliation. What these arrests actually show is that when would-be criminals try to cheat, the existing system can be strong enough to catch them and hold them legally accountable. And the public deserves accurate coverage, regardless of party affiliation. Where is that coverage?

Susan Koffman, The Villages

In early November 2021, the Supreme Court heard another case on your right to keep and bear arms. Not long ago the court ruled you had that right, but it never discourages liberals from wanting to limit your Second Amendment rights.

Liberals know they can continue to deny individuals their constitutional rights because no law enforcement officer is going to show up at their door with an arrest warrant because the Supreme Court has no power to compel politicians to follow laws they dont like.

The latest case involves two New Yorkers who claim, since the court has ruled, they have a right to own firearms and should not have to show cause as to why any more than any citizen has to show cause as to why they can exercise their right to free speech or practice their religion.

Judges discuss the historical context of our laws as to how they came about. Liberal politicians are going back to early English times and arguing that even though English citizens originally had a right to firearms, those rights were limited and, since our laws are based on early English laws, our rights should be limited also. Its called originalism.

If religious theologians can change some of the Ten Commandments, why cant progressives change the meaning of the Second Amendment? Today, the sixth commandment states, "Thou shall not kill. Originally it was, Thou shall not commit murder. Big difference.

Today, the 10th states, Thou shall not covet thy neighbors wife. Originally it was, Thou shall not covet thy neighbors goods. In biblical times, a mans wife was part of his goods.

Normally progressives want to move away from originalism, encouraging liberal judges to draft new meanings to laws they dont like. Today, progressives are arguing the reverse. Will they succeed?

Sonny Heninger, Leesburg

Follow this link:

Today's letters: Readers comment on news coverage of The Villages and the Second Amendment - Daily Commercial

Letters: Right to bear arms has limits. Teachers should be allowed to teach. – The Columbus Dispatch

Letters to the editor| The Columbus Dispatch

In response toRandy J.Lindowers Jan. 4 letter, "DeWine urged to uphold Second Amendment, sign concealed carry bill,"he infersthat in our world of rules, licenses are simply sources of revenue and should not be applied to the Second Amendment.

More: Letters: Freedom isn't free when it comes to vaccination. DeWine should sign concealed carry bill.

This is where, in my opinion, he misses the point of safety. For example, we issue licenses to drivers after they complete instruction not to simply accrue funds, but to provide proof of the knowledge needed to drive safely. This does not violate their right to drive. Imagine giving a set of car keys to a 16-year-old without instruction.

More: Our view: Hellbent lawmakers are doing 'something' about gun violence making it worse

I agree bad actors will access guns illegally, but how many more law-abiding citizens know how to properly use a weapon and when?

I support the Second Amendment and am of the opinion that a requirement for proper training (i.e., not from Uncle Bob on the farm) is simply common sense and can help prevent needless accidental deaths.

I also do not see the need to inform police officers of the possession of a weapon as being unduly burdensome to anyone who is law-abiding. Consequently, I think it only prudent to reconsider this bill.

More: Jack D'Aurora: Gun fetish making America more dangerous than war zones

Regarding constitutionality of this issue the U.S. Supreme Court, in a landmark 2008 opinion from Justice Antonin Scalia expanding the personal right to bear arms, noted the Second Amendment is not unlimited and doesnt grant the right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for any purpose.

David Guza, Powell

More: How to submit a letter to the editor for The Columbus Dispatch

Congressman Brett Hillyer's proposal to require teachers to report their curriculum online makes no sense.The time needed to report curriculum could be better spent teaching their students.

More: 'Teacher transparency bill': Republican lawmakers want Ohio school syllabi shared online

As a former special education teacher/tutor, I was more than happy to share with parents any and all information they requested regarding their child's education.I also had two children in the school system and teachers were also willing to answer my questions and share information.

So let's let the teachers do what they are trained to do teach and not make them catalog their curriculum.

Jean W. Hoitsma, Columbus

It is astounding to me that supposedly well-educated people are so opposed to being vaccinated. Their selfish attitude is largely responsible for spreading and prolonging the COVIDpandemic.

More: Ray Marcano: I wear a mask to protect those trying to do right thing to ward off COVID

Does it take a member of their family becoming infected or even dying before they accept the advice and expertise of the medical community?Is it too late to bring this pandemic under control?

Bernice J.Cooper, Worthington

The campaign ads currentlyrunning on TV for Mike Gibbons and Bernie Moreno illustrate just how far the Republican party has fallen.

More: Thomas Suddes: Will Dolan, Gibbons, Mandel, Moreno, Timken or Vance be Ohio Republicans' pick?

Both men's ads consist of racist dog whistles, slanderous claims about immigrants, calls for voter suppression, and, of course, Trump's Big Lie. Obviously, these are the falsehoods that fascinate the Republican core these days, and no Republican running for election dares to correct them.

More: Letters: Out with the Grand Old Party and in with a real Conservative Party

But wouldn't it be great if some senior Republican who is not seeking re-election had the guts to call BS on this nonsense? Oh, I don't know, maybe Rob Portman?

Thomas J. Kelly, Worthington

Follow this link:

Letters: Right to bear arms has limits. Teachers should be allowed to teach. - The Columbus Dispatch

Letters to the editor Jan. 9 – Daily Inter Lake

Second Amendment

Dont let the anti-Second Amendment crowd distract you from the actual problem we face with violence here in the USA.

We dont just have a gun violence problem here in the United States of America we have a people violence problem. Whenever people are using guns, knives, baseball bats, hammers, sticks, stones, vehicles, explosives, or poison to kill each other, it is never the fault of the method, or inanimate object used. It is always due to the common denominator; criminal minded humans.

Humans are very ingenious when it comes to harming their fellow humans. Humans are also very ingenious at skirting the law when they are so inclined. It is extremely foolish to try and control human behavior by controlling the inanimate objects used to commit crimes. Humans have been harming each other since we first appeared on Earth and will continue to do so long after guns, etc. have been replaced with more potent weapons. At this point all object control laws will be obsolete, but behavior control laws will not.

A criminal mind set is a character flaw and that is what needs to be controlled. The motive for any criminal act is a perceived reward. Remove that reward and replace it with an unwanted consequence and the criminal will be discourage from doing it.

The severity of the unwanted consequence is not what stops criminal acts. It is the surety of that consequence that does it.

Lets put our thinking caps on and make sure each criminal act results in an appropriate unwanted consequence for the criminal and only the criminal.

Catch-and-release is not working and repeatedly writing ineffective laws against inanimate objects while expecting a different result is insane.

Gerald W Hurst, Marion

The Dec. 8 edition of the Inter Lake included a story entitled No Permit, No Problem, about Montana joining the growing number of states allowing constitutional carry of guns. Some proponents of the permitless carry bill argue that people needing protection quickly do not have time to take an eight-hour class or wait through the permitting process. I believe that by eliminating the requirement for gun owners to take classes and undergo background checks to carry a firearm, the likelihood increases that unhinged people with easy access to concealed firearms will put law enforcement and citizens at greater risk of harm.

For example, a Helena court recently sentenced a Montana man charged with felony assault with a weapon and two concealed weapons charges. Police alleged that he got into an altercation with employees at a Helena restaurant when he was asked to wear a mask. He reportedly threatened the restaurant manager and employees, at one point patting his handgun and saying, Im going to get you.

Montanas attorney general Austin Knudsen told the Lewis and Clark County prosecutor to dismiss the concealed carry charges. Although the district judge strongly disagreed with Knudsens decision, he reduced the sentence to disorderly conduct, a $100 misdemeanor charge.

As another example, a year-old Inter Lake article entitled Flathead Man with Long Criminal Record Gets Prison Time, a local man stole an unlocked truck containing a handgun. During three reported confrontations, he used the handgun to intimidate and threaten individuals. He was eventually spotted by Montana Highway Patrol and a high-speed chase ensued, some of it the wrong way down U.S. 93. HIs criminal record dates back 20 years. He is precisely the wrong person you want having easy access to firearms.

I believe that those who threaten violence when asked by restaurant staff to follow public safety rules or flee at high speeds armed with stolen guns pose a danger to all of us. Making guns accessible to all without background checks invites lawlessness and chaos. There is an old adage: when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns. We have arrived at a place, the Wild West, where all of us have guns including the outlaws.

Joseph Biby, Kalispell

Just like the frog in slow boiling water who didnt notice the danger, we seem to be in a similar situation where things are consistently changing at every moment. But because the change is small, most of us fail to notice it.

The Epoch Times newspaper put out a series of articles on How the Specter of Communism Is Ruling Our World.

The series explains: The specter of communism has been working for centuries to corrupt and destroy humanity. It began by crippling man spiritually, divorcing him from his divine origins. From here, the specter has led the peoples of the world to cast out their millennia-old cultural traditions that the divine had meticulously arranged as the proper standards for human existence.

The series explains how the Chinese Communist Party has infiltrated our family values, schools, universities, government, media, real estate every aspect of American life, bringing the U.S. into a chaotic state, and how it is causing the destruction of our beliefs. This series helps us to understand how we are being slowly manipulated into accepting communism. Also, this global pandemic could have been avoided if the CCP hadnt been deceitful and lied.

Katherine Combes, Kalispell

View original post here:

Letters to the editor Jan. 9 - Daily Inter Lake

Marathon Gold Announces Filing of Amendment to the EIS for the Valentine Gold Project in Newfoundland and Labrador – Yahoo Finance

TORONTO, Jan. 07, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Marathon Gold Corporation (Marathon or the Company; TSX: MOZ) is pleased to report that it has filed an amendment to the Environmental Impact Statement (the EIS and, as amended, the amended-EIS) for the Valentine Gold Project (the Project) located in the central region of Newfoundland and Labrador (NL).

The amended-EIS has been filed with the Environmental Assessment Division of the NL Department of Environment and Climate Change (DECC) pursuant to the Projects ongoing Environmental Assessment (EA), and is the second such amendment filed. The amended-EIS addresses all requests for additional information on the Project received by Marathon from the NL Minister of Environment and Climate Change (the Minister) on October 29, 2021, including in the areas of Caribou Protection and Effects Monitoring, Victoria Lake Reservoir and Victoria Dam Effects and Mitigations, and Effects on Human Health, amongst others.

Matt Manson, President and CEO, commented: Since the commencement of the EA process for the Valentine Gold Project in April 2019, Marathon has worked diligently to measure and describe the full range of potential social and environmental impacts from the development and operation of the Project, and their mitigations. This large body of work, that includes several years of detailed environmental and social baseline data, is contained within the Projects EIS. The filing of this second amendment to the EIS is in response to the provincial review comments that we received at the time of the October 29, 2021 letter issued to us by the NL Minister of Environment and Climate Change. Since that time our team has worked diligently to address the issues raised in the Ministers letter. This includes the completion of a Caribou Protection and Environmental Effects Monitoring Plan (the Caribou Plan) that fully operationalizes our proposed monitoring programs for potential impacts on caribou behaviour arising from the Project, and their mitigations. The Caribou Plan has been developed in close consultation with the Wildlife Division of the NL Department of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture, and has benefitted from engagement with impacted NL stakeholders and Indigenous groups. Todays filing triggers a new 70-day round of technical and public review of the amended-EIS, as prescribed within the provincial EA process. At the end of this period, the Minister will have a further opportunity to make a determination on the acceptability of the Project. Successful completion of the provincial EA process this spring, and the completion of the parallel federal EA process, will allow us to commence the Projects activity-specific permitting process ahead of anticipated ground-breaking in the third quarter of this year.

Story continues

The Valentine Gold Project is subject to regulation under the environmental protection regimes of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 and the NL Environmental Protection Act. Marathon filed a Project Description with both the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) and the NL DECC on April 5, 2019, which was accepted into the formal EA process on April 16, 2019. An Environmental Assessment Committee for the Project was established on July 3, 2019, and the Projects EIS was filed on September 29, 2020. The EIS was accepted as conforming with guidelines on November 3, 2020 and has been undergoing formal review since this time.

Both the federal and provincial EA processes provide for the technical review of the EIS by multiple government agencies and the opportunity for public comment. Following initial regulatory and public review, federal Information Requirements (IRs) and provincial review comments were issued to Marathon in February 2021. The IRs and review comments are a routine part of the EA process, reflecting requested clarifications or information on various aspects of the EIS received from regulators, Indigenous groups, the public, and other stakeholders.

Marathon completed the submission of responses to 76 first-round federal IRs on May 3, 2021. Responses to 362 first-round provincial review comments were submitted on August 3, 2021. In the provincial process, responses to review comments take the form of an amendment to the EIS. IAAC subsequently issued a second round of 23 federal IRs, to which Marathon submitted responses on October 18, 2021. On October 29, 2021, Marathon was informed by the NL Minister of Environment and Climate Change that it would be required to respond to a second round of 33 provincial review comments, with responses to take the form of a second amendment to the EIS. Since this time, an additional 3 IRs have been received from the federal regulator and responded to.

Marathons filing of the amended-EIS with the provincial regulator starts an additional 70-day period of technical review and opportunity for public comment. At the end of this period, the Minister has up to 10 days to issue a decision as to whether the amended-EIS is acceptable or if further work is required. If the amended-EIS is deemed to be acceptable, the Minister has up to a further 30 days to make a recommendation to the provincial cabinet as to whether the Project should be released from its EA. Should the Minister decide that additional information is needed, a further round of review comments will result, triggering another round of response preparation, EIS amendment, and technical and public review. The federal EA process under the authority of IAAC remains ongoing in parallel with the provincial EA process. Release from both EA processes in a timely fashion, and the completion of sufficient activity-specific permitting, is a pre-requisite for the commencement of Project construction.

Qualified Persons

Disclosure of a scientific or technical nature in this news release has been approved by Mr. Tim Williams, FAusIMM, Chief Operating Officer of Marathon and Mr. James Powell, P.Eng. (NL), Vice President, Regulatory and Government Affairs for Marathon. Mr. Williams and Mr. Powell are qualified persons under National Instrument (NI) 43-101.

About Marathon

Marathon (TSX:MOZ) is a Toronto based gold company advancing its 100%-owned Valentine Gold Project located in the central region of Newfoundland and Labrador, one of the top mining jurisdictions in the world. The Project comprises a series of five mineralized deposits along a 20-kilometre system. An April 2021 Feasibility Study outlined an open pit mining and conventional milling operation over a thirteen-year mine life with a 31.5% after-tax rate of return. The Project has estimated Proven Mineral Reserves of 1.40 Moz (29.68 Mt at 1.46 g/t) and Probable Mineral Reserves of 0.65 Moz (17.38 Mt at 1.17 g/t). Total Measured Mineral Resources (inclusive of the Mineral Reserves) comprise 1.92 Moz (32.59 Mt at 1.83 g/t) with Indicated Mineral Resources (inclusive of the Mineral Reserves) of 1.22 Moz (24.07 Mt at 1.57 g/t). Additional Inferred Mineral Resources are 1.64 Moz (29.59 Mt at 1.72 g/t Au). Please see Marathons Amended and Restated Annual Information Form for the year ended December 31, 2020 and other filings made with Canadian securities regulatory authorities and available at http://www.sedar.com for further details and assumptions relating to the Valentine Gold Project.

For more information, please contact:

Matt Manson

President & CEO

Tel: 416 987-0711

mmanson@marathon-gold.com

Hannes Portmann

CFO & Business Development

Tel: 416 855-8200

hportmann@marathon-gold.com

Amanda Mallough

Senior Associate, Investor Relations

Tel: 416 855-8202

amallough@marathon-gold.com

To find out more information on Marathon Gold Corporation and the Valentine Gold Project, please visit http://www.marathon-gold.com.

Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Information

Certain information contained in this news release, constitutes forward-looking information within the meaning of Canadian securities laws (forward-looking statements). All statements in this news release, other than statements of historical fact, which address events, results, outcomes or developments that Marathon expects to occur are forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements include statements that are predictive in nature, depend upon or refer to future events or conditions, or include words such as expects, anticipates, plans, believes, estimates, considers, intends, targets, or negative versions thereof and other similar expressions, or future or conditional verbs such as may, will, should, would and could. We provide forward-looking statements for the purpose of conveying information about our current expectations and plans relating to the future, and readers are cautioned that such statements may not be appropriate for other purposes. More particularly and without restriction, this news release contains forward-looking information, including statements as to management's expectations with respect to, among other things, the matters and activities contemplated in this news release.

Forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and assumptions and accordingly, actual results and future events could differ materially from those expressed or implied in such statements. You are hence cautioned not to place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. In respect of the forward-looking statements concerning the interpretation of exploration results and the impact on the Projects mineral resource estimate, the Company has provided such statements in reliance on certain assumptions it believes are reasonable at this time, including assumptions as to the continuity of mineralization between drill holes. A mineral resource that is classified as inferred or indicated has a great amount of uncertainty as to its existence and economic and legal feasibility. It cannot be assumed that any or part of an indicated mineral resource or inferred mineral resource will ever be upgraded to a higher category of mineral resource. Investors are cautioned not to assume that all or any part of mineral deposits in these categories will ever be converted into proven and probable mineral reserves.

By its nature, this information is subject to inherent risks and uncertainties that may be general or specific and which give rise to the possibility that expectations, forecasts, predictions, projections or conclusions will not prove to be accurate, that assumptions may not be correct and that objectives, strategic goals and priorities will not be achieved. Factors that could cause future results or events to differ materially from current expectations expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements include risks and uncertainties relating to the interpretation of drill results, the geology, grade and continuity of mineral deposits and conclusions of economic evaluations; uncertainty as to estimation of mineral resources; inaccurate geological and metallurgical assumptions (including with respect to the size, grade and recoverability of mineral resources); the potential for delays or changes in plans in exploration or development projects or capital expenditures, or the completion of feasibility studies due to changes in logistical, technical or other factors; the possibility that future exploration, development, construction or mining results will not be consistent with the Companys expectations; risks related to the ability of the current exploration program to identify and expand mineral resources; risks relating to possible variations in grade, planned mining dilution and ore loss, or recovery rates and changes in project parameters as plans continue to be refined; operational mining and development risks, including risks related to accidents, equipment breakdowns, labour disputes (including work stoppages and strikes) or other unanticipated difficulties with or interruptions in exploration and development; risks related to the inherent uncertainty of production and cost estimates and the potential for unexpected costs and expenses; risks related to commodity and power prices, foreign exchange rate fluctuations and changes in interest rates; the uncertainty of profitability based upon the cyclical nature of the mining industry; risks related to failure to obtain adequate financing on a timely basis and on acceptable terms or delays in obtaining governmental or other stakeholder approvals or in the completion of development or construction activities; risks related to environmental regulation and liability, government regulation and permitting; risks relating to the Companys ability to attract and retain skilled staff; risks relating to the timing of the receipt of regulatory and governmental approvals for continued operations and future development projects; political and regulatory risks associated with mining and exploration; risks relating to the potential impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the Company and the mining industry; changes in general economic conditions or conditions in the financial markets; and other risks described in Marathons documents filed with Canadian securities regulatory authorities, including the Amended and Restated Annual Information Form for the year ended December 31, 2020.

You can find further information with respect to these and other risks in Marathons Amended and Restated Annual Information Form for the year ended December 31, 2020 and other filings made with Canadian securities regulatory authorities available at http://www.sedar.com. Other than as specifically required by law, Marathon undertakes no obligation to update any forward-looking statement to reflect events or circumstances after the date on which such statement is made, or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events, whether as a result of new information, future events or results otherwise.

Read more:

Marathon Gold Announces Filing of Amendment to the EIS for the Valentine Gold Project in Newfoundland and Labrador - Yahoo Finance

Six things to watch for this legislative session – Yellowhammer News

Alabamas 2022 legislative session begins Tuesday at the Alabama State House in Montgomery.

While it is not as contentious as Congress in Washington, D.C., it will have its moments, especially as the 2022 election cycle is now underway.

Here are some of the things we at Yellowhammer News are watching:

1) The COVID Question: Damned if you do, damned if you dont

For the third year in a row, COVID-19 protocols will play a factor in the regular legislative session. But the protocols are not uniform throughout the Alabama State House.

The upper chamber, occupied by the Alabama State Senate, will institute a mask-preferred policy. However, the lower chamber, occupied by the Alabama State House, is requiring masks in common areas.

Though the public in Alabama seems desensitized to the threat of the Omicron variant of COVID-19, those in Montgomery are taking precautions. But there are political sensitivities at play.

Some Republican incumbents behind the scenes are concerned about the possibility of another closed session similar to 2020, and how it might be perceived.

There is fear that a closed session might be used by Republican primary challengers as an attack, alleging the good ol boy network that resides in the Montgomery swamp is wheeling and dealing out of the specter of the public in smoke-filled backrooms.

The Alabama Department of Public Health and State Health Officer Dr. Scott Harris have thus far been reluctant to weigh in on the Omicron variant of COVID threat as it pertains to the legislative session.

If they did, it could give cover to the legislature to limit access to the Alabama State House once again. However, such drastic action may be opposed by Gov. Kay Ivey.

2) ARPA funds and a special session within a session: Gov. Iveys trick play

In 2019, Gov. Kay Ivey and Republicans in leadership in the Alabama Legislature insisted the one thing that we could not live without was the Rebuild Alabama Act.

Its time to make our crumbling infrastructure system a problem of the past, Ivey declared in her 2019 State of the State speech. This is a challenge that is felt by every Alabamian, clearly making it a bipartisan issue. As governor, I say enough is enough. Now is the time to Rebuild Alabama.

The problem for lawmakers was they were being asked to increase Alabamas fuel tax, making that the first vote of this quadrennium, and the first vote for some newly elected lawmakers.

Rather than go through the usual process, which at the time would have required the adoption of a budget isolation resolution through a three-fifths vote of the legislature, Ivey called a special session within moments of completing her State of the State speech.

The goal was to avoid the parliamentary protocol and not allow it to be tied up by lawmakers using their powers to slow down or thwart the process.

Although Ivey and leadership fell short of the goal of unanimity on passage of the Rebuild Alabama Act, it worked, and the law was signed by the Governor seven days after her State of the State address.

Now with a traunch of $580 million in so-called ARPA (American Rescue Plan Act) federal relief funds on the table, Ivey is believed to be eyeing a special session within the session, and it has the support of some in the legislature.

Some lawmakers tell Yellowhammer News that they are skeptical of the special session approach.

Watch for late January, perhaps beyond the Alabama Republican Party primary qualifying deadline for Ivey to make the call.

The early word is such money will be applied to the ongoing rural broadband internet initiative. State Rep. Steve Clouse (R-Ozark), the House General Fund committee chairman, also said to expect a portion of the money to be applied to rural sewer and water infrastructure.

Oh yeah, there is more federal money where that came from, as well.

The government spending money may sound like a seamless task, but dont underestimate the potential for controversy when politicians and money are involved.

3) Constitutional/permitless carry: When will the sheriffs make a stand?

This is supposed to be the year Alabama finally gets a so-called constitutional (or permitless, depending on your side of the issue) carry bill through the legislature.

In the past, State Sen. Gerald Allen (R-Tuscaloosa) has made it a perennial effort, where it would either die in a Senate committee or pass but die in the House.

However, this is believed to be the breakthrough year in the House because one-time opponents of permitless carry have evolved on the issue given the state is implementing a so-called prohibited firearm-holders database, which in theory would alleviate some safety concerns of abolishing the permit requirement.

One of the constitutional carry bills, HB44, filed by the outgoing State Rep. Andrew Sorrell (R-Muscle Shoals), has 38 co-sponsors, including House Speaker Mac McCutcheon (R-Monrovia), who was formerly a hostage negotiator for the Huntsville Police Department.

That is reason to believe there is a reasonable likelihood of consideration by the House in 2022.

The long-standing opponent of permitless carry has been the powerful Alabama Sheriffs Association, which has been successful in fending off any push within the legislature.

Very few sheriffs have spoken out against the bill publicly. One exception has been Mobile County Sheriff Sam Cochran, who fired State Rep. Shane Stringer (R-Citronelle) from his department last year for supporting constitutional carry.

With potentially millions of dollars in permit revenue at stake, expect the sheriffs to make one more stand. But dont expect it until after the January 28 Republican Party qualifying deadline.

Once incumbent Republican sheriffs, some with considerable political influence in their county, have a better sense of who or if they could face in a GOP primary, they could be more available to speak out against a permitless carry bill without fear of it being used against them in a primary contest.

Despite the support in the House, passage isnt a given.

This isnt going to be a pushover like people think it is, one lawmaker told Yellowhammer News.

4) Alabama Legislature vs. The Biden administration: Jabs and guns

Some Republican lawmakers tell Yellowhammer News that one of the main efforts the party will undertake this session will be to continue to combat what they see as federal overreach.

Republicans will take another crack at strengthening state law to combat the Biden administrations COVID-19 vaccine mandates as a means of bolstering Attorney General Steve Marshalls ability to take on legal challenges against the Biden administrations edicts.

Expect the Second Amendment also to play into the discussion of ways to counter actions from the Biden administration.

Last week, the House GOP Caucus released its policy agenda, which called for passing legislation to shield Alabama law enforcement from having to enforce what the state would deem to be an unconstitutional gun control executive order issued by President Joe Biden.

It is an election year, after all.

5) Gambling isnt going away: Expect an obligatory gesture

Did you hear? The lottery is popular with voters. Why cant they just do a simple lottery this year?

That is such a simplistic question for a complicated issue.

We, the voting public, may want it, but apparently, there are not enough of us.

Every year, we have this tired discussion, and every year the clock runs out before the legislature can take it up.

For the gambling prohibition to be removed from the Alabama Constitution of 1901, you need a constitutional amendment on the ballot, which would be put up for a vote of the people.

A three-fifths supermajority is required to get through the legislature and onto the ballot. However, while Republicans have the numbers, they do not all agree on gambling, as it is not a traditional issue that conservatives support.

Thus, it will require buy-in from Democrats in the legislature.

Democrats have been receptive to gambling bills, but for fear of ceding a competitive advantage to the Poarch Band of Creek Indians, who operate three casinos in Alabama, allowed under federal law, they have sought protections for two casinos in Democrat-controlled areas of the state Victoryland and Greenetrack.

All this for a lottery, right?

State Sen. Greg Albritton (R-Atmore) says a gambling bill will be introduced, and others in the Senate have said it could resemble the 2021 effort passed by the Senate but was deemed unworkable by the House.

6) Education bills: Yes, Alabama is still last in K-12 rankings

A reoccurring refrain about Alabama education is how poorly the state ranks head-to-head against the other 49 states, the District of Columbia and military schools.

One of the unfulfilled promises of the Republican majorities in Montgomery was to improve the states standing nationally.

Key GOP lawmakers have signaled their support for a pause on a Literacy Act provision that requires third-graders to read at a third-grade level before being promoted to the fourth grade.

It seems simple enough until educators and administrators have expressed concerns about how woefully unprepared they would be if there were an unusually high amount of third-graders being retained this year.

Some for fear of this unpreparedness and some for fear the law will expose potential gross deficiencies in Alabamas public education system are seeking a pause in that requirement.

The stated reason is difficulties with the COVID-19 pandemic and the challenges of at-home learning.

A similar pause was passed by both chambers of the legislature but vetoed by Ivey in 2021. Ivey has since expressed a willingness to consider signing into law a delay in the future.

That may very well happen, but dont expect it to happen without some resistance.

@Jeff_Pooris a graduate of Auburn University and the University of South Alabama, the editor ofBreitbart TV, a columnist for MobilesLagniappe Weekly, and host of Mobiles The Jeff Poor Show from 9 a.m.-12 p.m.on FM Talk 106.5.

Dylan Smith is a staff writer for Yellowhammer News. You can follow him on Twitter@DylanSmithAL

Follow this link:

Six things to watch for this legislative session - Yellowhammer News

Confusing Artificial Selection with Darwinism – Discovery Institute

Image credit:Darwin LaganzonviaPixabay.

Its tiring to keep correcting evolutionists misuse of terms. Artificial selection is the opposite of natural selection. One must not conflate the two. The difference should be self-evident, but somehow it isnt.

Consider a paper from four chemists and physicists at New York University, Mutations in artificial self-replicating tiles: A step toward Darwinian evolution (Zhou, Shaet al.,PNAS).

In nature, mutation is the first step of evolution, where itprovides the genetic variation for the natural selection to act.Here we takea system of artificial self-replicating tiles, DNA origami, that exhibit templated reproduction.We can generate a small fraction of mutationsby introducing a mismatch in hybridization between parent and daughter.We can modifythe origamifunctionalitytoaffect the growth rate of the mutated species, giving it less or more evolutionary advantage, and to become dominant in several generations.The introduction of mutationsinto an artificial self-replicating system provides new directions for research into self-assembly processes. [Emphasis added.]

This is not a step toward Darwinian evolution. Its a step in the opposite direction. If they really wanted to take a step toward Darwinian evolution, they would walk out of the lab and let come what may. What will happen is an increase in entropy.

InThe Mystery of Lifes Origin(see theexpanded edition, published in 2020), Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen emphasize the error of investigator interference in origin-of-life experiments. When Zhouet al. say, Herewe introducemutationand growth advantagesto study the possibility of Darwinian-like evolution, they betray a fundamental misunderstanding of Darwinism. Calling their work Darwinian-like evolution when they are pulling the strings is a contradiction in terms.

In an attempt to be charitable, lets see if they understand the self-contradictory nature of their claim anywhere in the paper. The concluding paragraph sums up their research:

We have developed an artificial systemof DNA origami tiles of two species in whichwe can controlthe growth rates separately.Adding the abilityof one species to mutate into the other, we have studied the evolution of the system where onlyone species is seeded.When growth rates are equal the systemevolvesto a steady state of equal populations.When one has the competitive advantageof faster growth it quickly becomes the dominant species, even when it only results from a mutation from the originallyseededand exponentially growing species.This is the expected result and a most elementary example of Darwinian evolution but here in an artificial self-replication system.

Alas, the contradiction remains.

This is not to say that experiments with artificial selection have no educational value. Such experiments, like the computer simulation Avida (discussedhereandhere), have served a purpose by showing the limits of randomness. Instances of investigator interference can be pointed out, to falsify brash claims that an ill-conceived simulation represents Darwinian-like evolution. Indeed, some design advocates have createdcomputer simulations of their ownto illustrate the limitations of the mutation/selection mechanism when more realistic parameters are specified.

Evolutionary algorithms can also lead to scientific results with practical value. Zhouet al.speculate on what further research with their evolving DNA tiles might bring forth:

It opens the door to the use ofhuman-made systems, devices, and materials that evolve to have desired properties. In a given environment mutations allow the creation of a set of species and evolution picks the species which grows fastest in that environment, mimicking nature but with artificial constructs.

If something useful comes out of such experiments, well and good but it will not be because of Darwinism. Who makes the systems, devices, and materials that evolve? Who decides what are desired properties? Who sets the artificial constructs that yield potentially useful products? Clearly human designers are doing all of it. They set the mutation rate, and monitor outcomes to pick winners and losers. Evolution does not pick the species that grows fastest; designers do that by deciding with foresight what the desired properties will be, and tuning the settings to get the highest yield.

Employing chance as a tool does not defeat ID. In most card games, the deck is shuffled first. The players dont know what cards will turn up in their hands, but they know the rules of the game and they learn strategies to win. In an artificial selection process that makes use of chance variations, Darwinism stops when an intelligent mind interferes and does the selecting.

Here, we report the study of the mutation and evolution of anartificialself-replicationsystemof DNA origami dimer rafts. This represents a first step toward using such mutations towarddirectedevolution of anartificialsystem and illustrates some of the basic principles ofnatural selection. Wedesignedtwo self-replicating species AB and CD which share the same replicationprocedure, but with acontrollablegrowth rate.

When the authors have started and ended with flawed premises, any conclusions will be dubious. Look how theydesigned the self-replicating species. Look how theydirectedthe evolution. Look how they call it anartificialsystem. They set theprocedures. Theycontrolledthe parameters. On what basis can they say that their work illustrates some of the basic principles of natural selection? Theres nothing natural about it. They were the selectors from start to finish. Indeed, they admit that pure randomness would lead to error catastrophe without their continual investigator interference.

Mutation and population domination bythe fittest specieswould amount tonatural selection in this artificial system.[???] With an eye toward usingthis process for directed evolutionand the fact thata high mutation rate leads to an Eigen catastrophe, or a species does not persist long enough to take advantage of its evolutionary advantage,we have kept the mutation rate low,although not yet as low as in living systems.In the present casea low mutation rate is particularly importantin that the forward and reverse mutations are equally limiting the final ratio of the species with high and low growth advantage.

One has to chuckle at phrases like natural selection in this artificial system and interventions like setting a low mutation rate so as to keep the system from Eigen catastrophe.

If you are controlling the mutations and selecting the outcomes, you are not doing Darwinism. Criticisms like this have been leveled against Darwin disciples for over a century, but they fall on deaf ears. Why is the message not getting through?

See the rest here:

Confusing Artificial Selection with Darwinism - Discovery Institute

Woke Comes Back to Bite the Darwinists and They Deserve It – Walter Bradley Center for Natural and Artificial Intelligence

Darwinist Jerry Coyne has been at the forefront of efforts over the past couple of decades to censor advocates of intelligent design and anyone who questions the Darwinian paradigm. Coyne, who was the Discovery Institute Censor of the Year in 2014, has been an enthusiastic practitioner of Cancel Culture when it comes to Christians and anyone who questions the atheist Darwinian paradigm. For example, Coyne tried to silence and damage the career of a young physicist at Ball State University, Eric Hedin, who had the audacity to teach an honors course entitled The Boundaries of Science which included optional readings on intelligent design. Coyne, along with his colleagues at the anti-religious hate group Freedom From Religion Foundation, made the bizarre claim that Hedin, teaching at a state university, violated the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by offering his students an opportunity to read about intelligent design. That is, Coyne and his fellow atheist thugs accused Hedin of violating the First Amendment which guarantees the right to freedom of speech merely because he was offering his students an opportunity to learn about design perspectives on the origin of the universe. Fortunately, Hedin survived the atheist onslaught on his career and kept his job and ultimately published a superb book titled Canceled Science (highly recommended!).

The US First Amendment states Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Coyne, who is blind to irony, is now upset at the same cancel culture that he fervently unleashed on Christians and on scientists who question his atheist materialism. The woke thugs are going after Darwinists and paleontologists!

Oh my. Scientific American did an asinine hit job on E.O. Wilson, calling him a racist.

Scientific American has hit rock bottom with this new op-ed that is nothing more than a hit piece on Ed Wilson, basically calling him a racist.

It is written by someone who apparently has no training in evolutionary biology, though she says she intimately familiarized [herself] with Wilsons work and his dangerous ideas on what factors influence human behavior. I usually dont question someone because of their credentials, but this piece is so stupid, so arrantly ignorant of Wilsons work, that I can attribute its content only to a combination of ignorance (perhaps deliberate) or a woke desire to take down someone as a racist who wasnt a racist. Or both.

In fact, the piece below could have been written by any social-justice ideologue, for its real aim is more than smearing Wilson; its also to change the nature of science. Read on.

Once again, the magazine evinces a ridiculous wokeness; how could its editor, Laura Helmuth, allow this to be published?

Coyne is stupefied: how could the editor of a scientific publication viciously attack a fellow scientist for advocating politically incorrect scientific theories and stepping outside of the boundaries set by sciences self-appointed censors? Actually, all the editor had to do was read Coynes blog for the past decade and she could learn all she needed to know about censorship and ideologically motivated professional destruction from Coyne himself.

The woke thugs are coming for Darwin. And of course, Darwin deserves every bit of it the social impact of Darwinism and the eugenics that follows naturally from it on our society has been catastrophic. I dont like cancellation and I despise the woke thugs, but if anybody deserves to be in their crosshairs its the Darwinists. And now theyre crying like little girls.

At Karl Marxs funeral, Frederick Engels paid homage to Marxs intellectual godfather, Charles Darwin:Just as Darwin discovered the law of development of organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of development of human history

Philosopher Hannah Arendt pointed out that totalitarianism is Darwinism applied to politics and society. The modern iteration of totalitarian Marxism Critical Theory (the academic name for Wokeism) is an amalgam of Marxist revolution and Freudian materialist psychology. Critical theory is Darwinian sociology societal dynamics as a perpetual struggle for power. For the woke, society is a battlefield in which there are only the victors and vanquished in the twilight struggle for domination and survival.

#Wokeism in our society and in modern science is a toxic totalitarian ideology complete with Maoist struggle sessions and it represents an existential threat to the scientific profession and to Western culture. But these new woke thugs who infest our institutions and who are laying waste to the scientific profession didnt arise by spontaneous generation they evolved, and theyre coming back to feed on the Darwinists who nourished them.

Go here to see the original:

Woke Comes Back to Bite the Darwinists and They Deserve It - Walter Bradley Center for Natural and Artificial Intelligence

New Zealands successful Covid policies hid inequality the government cant ignore it this year – The Guardian

March 2020 seems like an age ago. And also like it was yesterday. The month begun more or less like any other March in New Zealand. The weather was typically warm and dry, most people were back in the office or on site, and parliament was sitting after its generous summer recess. In most respects you could mistake March 2020 for March 2019. Except, on 4 March, the country recorded its second coronavirus case after a woman returning from northern Italy, where this strange virus had taken hold, presented with the infection at the border. The number of infections increased again and again as the month unfolded with 647 come 1 April.

In the early days of March, government advisers and prime minister Jacinda Ardern were aiming, like the rest of the world, for either herd immunity or flattening the curve. But when the governments chief science adviser presented advice on precisely what this meant for the health system a quick collapse, essentially Ardern went for the approach her advisers at the universities of Otago and Auckland were advocating: elimination. On 25 March the prime minister made her way to parliaments debating chamber and in a historic speech announced a national state of emergency and a move to an alert level 4 lockdown. The speech helped generate unprecedented national solidarity.

More importantly, the lockdown announced didnt just flatten the curve. It absolutely smashed it.

But in 2022, as Omicron threatens to wreak as much, if not more, damage than any previous Covid-19 variant ever could have, the lockdown course of action is probably off the table. That seems counterintuitive. But 2022 is (obviously) a different year. Shortsighted business owners in Auckland are unlikely to tolerate another round of restricted trading or slightly slower supply chains. Pathetic anti-vaxxer activists are more organised than ever before, corralling the tiny rump of unvaccinated New Zealanders in a way that makes them appear more significant than their numbers justify. And some segments of the media continue to platform anti-science, anti-lockdown views.

With the lockdown option probably off the table, New Zealand is likely to catch up with the rest of the world. When the Omicron outbreak happens, the health system will begin buckling under the pressure of Covid-19 admissions and politics will become increasingly polarised after two years of near consensus. When the first lockdown happened, activists and political commentators were arguing that things couldnt go back to how they were. The prime minister had implemented a successful wage subsidy, helping keep thousands of people in work, a freeze on rent increases was implemented, and the government brought forward millions in infrastructure investment. This was a social democratic programme that many people wanted to stay.

Why? Because it worked. New Zealand enjoyed exceptional GDP growth, historically low unemployment levels, and a year like any other. Schools and businesses were open, concerts and mass gatherings were happening, and people were generally happy with their lot. But underneath this apparent success story were the same inequalities as before. House prices were still through the roof, defying policies aimed at slowing their growth. The house market is now worth far more than the countrys annual GDP with that wealth accumulating overwhelmingly in the hands of baby boomers. Uncharacteristically high inflation is also eating away at the purchasing power (and the already minimal savings) of the working and middle classes.

This brings us to perhaps the good news for 2022. The government can no longer ignore the inequality crisis. The prime minister, who in one of her historic mistakes, ruled out a capital gains tax in 2019, must now implement other policies to arrest house price rises. The central bank must grab inflation by the neck. And historically low unemployment must translate to wage growth, perhaps with the assistance of the governments Fair Pay Agreement (FPA) legislation. Under FPAs, an industry-wide floor will be set for wages and conditions meaning, for example, that supermarket or security workers must be paid at a minimum level.

When this legislation passes in late 2022 it will have wide reaching effects, including making housing more affordable for previously underpaid workers and helping offset some of the worst impacts of relatively high inflation. And so in a social and political sense, 2022 has much to commend it. But in a health sense it is, of course, scary. Its difficult to predict what an Omicron outbreak might bring. But we can take some comfort in that the government and New Zealanders have eliminated outbreaks before. Were tantalisingly close to eliminating the recent Delta outbreak. And because of this, were more cognisant of the inequalities each outbreak exposes. Now, we must tackle those inequalities before Omicron makes them any worse.

See more here:

New Zealands successful Covid policies hid inequality the government cant ignore it this year - The Guardian

Government needs to work with businesses – Otago Daily Times

When we look back at 2022, it should be remembered as the year that business took the reins of the Covid-19 response.

In March, it is the virus second birthday and this year marks the third year of the response in New Zealand.

The first year, 2020, was the emergency response.

Working out how to deal with the immediate impacts on the health system, and then once it was eliminated, keep it at bay.

Last year was the year of learning to live with it, getting vaccinated and trying to reduce the spread of Delta in the community.

This year, 2022, should be the year the Government sits at the table with the business sector to hear what it has to offer.

There is a real opportunity for businesses, especially Otagos technology and science companies, to take advantage of the next step in the fight against Covid-19.

Testing options and dropping the managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) system for self-isolation are big holes in the Governments response. That is where business steps in.

But for that to happen it will have to be a two-way street.

Businesses will have to want to step up to the mark and the Government will have to want to sit down and genuinely listen to the solutions and technology on offer.

Dunedins Sir Ian Taylor was a big advocate for that last year.

He flew to the United States and undertook his own self-isolation trial in Auckland using New Zealand-designed tools.

He wrote many open letters to Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern before, during and after his trip highlighting valid issues with the broken MIQ system and how New Zealands business sector could help fix that.

But at the time he wrote those, the Government was dealing with New Zealands largest Covid-19 outbreak, peaking around 200.

Ms Ardern had a pretty good excuse for not getting back to him.

Now that Aucklands borders have reopened and New Zealands average daily cases are in the double digits, meaning the outbreak is largely under control, its time for her and members of the Cabinet to listen.

And it needs to happen before there is an outbreak of Omicron.

Admittedly, Sir Ian did get a meeting with Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Grant Robertson just before Christmas, but that was only one.

Those need to continue.

A Dunedin academic has already designed a simple-to-use and fast saliva Covid-19 test.

The system, called Spitfire6830, has been designed by a University of Otago professor and United States-headquartered MicroGEM, at its Princes St lab.

Those are the types of tools the Government needs to pick up and utilise to its advantage.

Because if it does not, what message and incentive does it give those sorts of companies looking to set up in New Zealand, and even Dunedin?

Nothing.

While it is up to the Government to listen, some responsibility does fall on the business sector to encourage the Government to the table.

The sector will have to send a positive signal to Ms Ardern and the Cabinet that it knows how to go about responding to the economic impacts of Covid-19.

Business NZ, and its associated regional members like Business South, will have to start highlighting the MicroGEMs in their patches to show the public how they could be of real benefit to not only the Covid response, but also the wider economy.

The sector did not do that last year, but much like the Government, it was busy dealing with a Delta outbreak.

Its priority this year should be highlighting businesses throughout the country that can take New Zealand into a post-Covid environment.

All of this comes down to trust.

The Government and the Ministry of Health, have to step back and trust that the business sector knows what it is talking about and is going to get the job done.

And businesses need to trust that the Government is going to listen to them and take it all on board.

But if they are not going to trust each other, there seems little point in trying.

Originally posted here:

Government needs to work with businesses - Otago Daily Times

It’s Dangerous to Allow Politicians and Officials to Decide What Constitutes ‘Truth’ – Reason

It's no secret that governments worldwide are increasingly hostile to scrutiny of their conduct. But, at a moment when too many media outlets see their role as working with the state to reinforce official narratives, one advocate of press freedom reminds us that the struggle isn't over the "disinformation" and "misinformation" called out by opportunistic politicians, it's over control of information. Will people be free in the future to decide for themselves what's truth and what's BS? Or will we be spoon-fed whatever the powers-that-be endorse?

"Governments realize that they are in an existential battle over who controls information, who controls the narrative, and they are waging a frontal assault against independent journalism around the world," Joel Simon, the exiting head of the Committee to Protects Journalists (CPJ), told CNN's Brian Stelter.

"This is the information age, and we are in a kind of millennial battle over who controls information," he added. "Who controls it? That's the power struggle. And so, governments recognizerepressive governments, but even democratic governmentsthat this is an essential tool that they need to maintain power and journalists are their adversaries."

Simon spoke after the release of a CPJ report warning of escalating attacks on journalists, demonstrating that the stakes for those who offend government officials are very high. The report found 293 reporters jailed for their work around the world, and at least 24 killed because of their efforts.

CPJ isn't the only organization recognizing that independent sources of information are under attack. Last October, the Norwegian Nobel Committee awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to Maria Ressa and Dmitry Muratov for their coverage of government conduct in the Philippines and Russia "in a world in which democracy and freedom of the press face increasingly adverse conditions."

"Free, independent and fact-based journalism serves to protect against abuse of power, lies and war propaganda," the committee added.

Unfortunately, the award illustrated the extent to which journalists can be co-opted as gatekeepers. Ressa sniffed in 2019 that "the wholesale dumping of Wikileaks actually isn't journalism," distinguishing her efforts from those of the organization's founder, Julian Assange, who languishes in prison, awaiting his fate after exposing abuse of power, lies, and war propaganda by the U.S. government. Too many journalists are open to cultivation by politicians as a separate class from purveyors of alleged "misinformation," disinformation," or "extremism" depending on what's convenient at the moment.

Before the pandemic, New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern joined with French President Emmanuel Macron to develop the Christchurch Call targeting "extremist content" online. Since then, New Zealand in particular has moved to emphasize "freedom from misinformation" especially with regard to efforts against COVID-19.

Similarly, the British government commissioned a 2021 report from RAND Europe promoting practices by "civil society, government, media and social-media-company actors in terms of reducing the spread of false information and building societal resilience" with regard to "hateful extremism within society during COVID-19." The report highlights Germany's notorious NetzDG Act as an example that "levying large fines on tech companies that do not remove false information and hateful extremist content in a timely way can increase companies' responsiveness in removing this content from their platforms."

Despite robust First Amendment protections for free speech rights, the U.S. is not immune to powerful people's desire to control information.

"We're going to have to figure out how we rein in our media environment so that you can't just spew disinformation and misinformation," Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) insisted last year.

In July, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki called on social media companies to act as government proxies by removing what the administration flags as "narratives dangerous to public health."

Interestingly, CPJ's Joel Simon predicted the pandemic would empower efforts to control information.

"[W]e must be mindful that when we get to the other side of the pandemic, we may be left with a narrative, being written by China, that government control over information was essential to combating the crisis," he warned in March 2020. "That would be a devastating blow to the global information system, one that could endure even as the memories of the terrible pandemic we are currently facing slowly fade."

Since then, he's been proven painfully prescient as politicians' concerns have morphed from fighting "extremism" to suppressing "disinformation" to a weird amalgam of the two, unified by the alleged need to control what the public says, reads, and shares.

That's not to say, by the way, that material tagged as extremism isn't extreme, or that posts called out as disinformation aren't false. To open a web browser is to encounter a wide world of bigotry, bogus concerns about vaccine safety, nonsensical charges about election integrity, and fact-free arguments over whether or not COVID-19 even exists. But bullshit isn't a recent invention.

Free societies recognize that it's a lot more dangerous to let government officials designate what constitutes capital-T Truth than it is to respect people's rights to decide for themselves. When officialdom makes the call, legitimate news outlets get called "fake," as former President Trump often smeared his critics, extremists get conflated with opponents of school policies, as the Justice Department did last fall, and claims that COVID-19 originated in a lab leak in China are suppressed as conspiracy theories before later earning respectful treatment.

Truthful information doesn't require a government seal of approval because government officials are as flawed and biased as anybody else. They're prone to declaring debates over for convenient reasons of their own even as new evidence emerges and disagreements remain unresolved not necessarily because of rejection of facts, but often over fundamental differences in values and preferences. Powerful figures are in no position to save us from bad information because they're a major source of the stuff themselves and, if allowed, can use force to impose their versions of reality on dissenters.

We really are in an existential battle over who controls information, just as Joel Simon warned. It's not a battle over what constitutes truth, which remains as hard as ever to determine. Instead, this battle over control of information is a struggle over our freedom to decide for ourselves without having other people's decisions crammed down our throats.

More:

It's Dangerous to Allow Politicians and Officials to Decide What Constitutes 'Truth' - Reason

Terraforming Mars Ares Expedition Review – Just Push Start

Terraforming Mars Ares Expedition is the brand new engine building card game from publishers FryxGames and Stronghold Games. Designed by Sydney Engelstein, Jacob Fryxelius and Nick Little, the game sees 1 4 players once again go to Mars, with the objective of terraforming the planet. Described solely as a card game, gamers may be confused how the original TM title wasnt a card game also. With streamlined elements, oceans, temperature and oxygen are still the objectives. So, is this just more of the same? Lets find out!

To set up the huge deck of project cards is shuffled, with 8 cards dealt out to each player. Each player also receives 2 corporation cards. These give each player unique starting resources, as well as an ability to use during play. For example, the Ecoline corp starts with only 27 megacredits (MC) but 1 plant production and forest tokens are cheaper for them. Another, the Credicor corp, starts with 48 MC and gains a discount on projects costing more than 20 MC.

At this stage players can freely discard any number of project cards to redraw the same number, with no costs for keeping cards. A small central board is filled with facedown ocean tiles added and tokens are placed onto the bottom of the three terraforming parameter tracks. With each player choosing a colour, they take the cubes of that colour placing one on the 5th space of the terraforming tracker. Lastly, they take a player board and a set of 5 phase cards.

At the start of a round all players simultaneously look at their phase cards and choose one keeping it face down. Choosing a phase guarantees itll be performing in that round and also gives the player a small bonus/cost reduction. Once all players have chosen, the cards are revealed and which phases the round will include is determined. Players can choose to use the included phase tokens to indicate what is included by flipping them to the active/inactive sides. Importantly, a phase will not occur if it was not selected by a player.

The activated phases are always played in a specific order. All players can perform the activated phase simultaneously regardless of whether it was chosen by themselves or others. First is the development phase, which lets players play a green project card from their hand, paying its cost and minding any requirements. Those that chose the phase can do this with a 3 megacredit discount. Next, is the construction phase, where players can play a blue or red production card. Those that choose the phase can then either play a second blue/red card or draw a card from the deck.

The action phase is then triggered if active in the round. This enables the player to activate each of their blue action cards once, and perform standard actions as many times as they can afford. Those that selected Action can then perform one of their blue card actions a second time. Production is the fourth phase, with each player then collecting resources based upon their constructed green project cards, corporation card and for megacredits also their position on the terraforming rating tracker. Those that selected production get a bonus 4 megacredits for choosing the phase. The final possible phase is the research phase, which sees all players draw two cards and keep one. Those that chose the phase instead draw five cards and keep two.

Whenever a player raises the temperature, increases the oxygen (via a card effect or building greenery) or flips an ocean they gain a terraforming rating, and points are the aim of the game. As the phases are performed simultaneously there are single rounds when the terraforming parameters reach their limit. For these rounds only a player can effectively push the parameter higher than the top, still gaining the Terraforming Rating increase. In rounds after a parameter hits the limit then this cannot be done, though greenery can still be built.

At the end of each phase players check to see if the parameters have all reached their limits: all 9 ocean tiles flipped, temperature at +8 degrees and 14% oxygen. If this is the case the game ends at the end of the current phase, not the current round. Checking takes seconds, so it doesnt become disruptive. Plus, players will want to stay up-to-date on the parameters anyway; not only to see when the end of the game will occur but some cards cannot be played until certain parameters have been reached.

If the limits havent been reached at the end of a round then another round occurs, with no fixed amount of rounds. Importantly, players cannot pick the same phase two rounds in a row, which only makes the decision of when to pick something harder. When the game ends players calculate their points, based on their terraforming rating, forest tokens for greenery and any points on constructed cards. Whomever has the highest points wins, with ties split but combined heat, plant and megacredit resources.

The aim might be the same as the original game and even what cards may offer production wise is similar. However, the core is very different. Gone is the board control element, so thats a huge chunk not needing to be closely followed by players. The managing of resources is still there for paying for cards and working towards the terraforming actions, though this is somewhat streamlined so there is again less to keep track of. The way that not everything can be done in a round and the process behind determining what phases are in a round is what changes things.

The logics learnt of generations in the original to Terraforming Mars Ares Expedition is interesting to get past. What might be an incredible action in Terraforming Mars where it could be used once a generation suddenly isnt as good in this game where that specific phase of the round might not occur. This choice of phases can be as important as what cards someone has played, as its pointless having blue action cards played if theres never the Action phase to activate them.

As more players play Terraforming Mars Ares Expedition the more phases occur each round, so rounds go on longer but feel more fulfilling. Its not a certainty though, and theres always a bit of a laugh when everyone takes a while choosing which phase to select, only for everyone around the table to have picked the same one. At 2 players the rounds can be zoomed through with only a couple of phases activated. The game doesnt seem to massively speed up or down with more phases as the amount of terraforming doesnt change and with income not based on rounds it isnt like a 2 player game sees resources be any more plentiful.

Analysis Paralysis prone players, where it takes you a long time to make any choice, beware. There are countless choices to make every single round. Not just which cards you want to play but what phases you want to occur, combined with determining what phase an opponent might play. There are a lot of avenues of possibility resulting from the choices made and if you sit and calculate them all then the game can go on for as long as a normal Terraforming Mars game, despite this having the streamlined potential to be an hour long experience.

One issue many had with the original was the visual presentation and production. The fact that the likes of Etsy are full of dual layered player boards was a testament of that. Terraforming Mars Ares Expedition steps up the game, coming with those dual layer player boards from the offing. With over 200 cards included in the game the interface of the cards has been updated, which allows a consistent look across the deck. On top of this the full deck uses one art style, giving the game a stunning look.

Included in the box is a very black and write, almost prototype, looking extra rulebook. This quickstart guide hasnt received the luxury rulebook treatment but is phenomenal for those whom have played Terraforming Mars before. Bullet pointed are all the tweaks and changes, as well as the similarities, to the original game, with quick setup reminders and a brief outline of the phases and rules. This isnt just useful for those that played the original though, it can be used by those returning to Ares Expedition to skim the rules and get playing quicker.

The big question for many is if they didnt like the original, or loved it, would they enjoy Terraforming Mars Ares Expedition. There has been a big change in the flow of the experience, with players actively choosing the phases of each round that will be performed. This is a distinct change from the original that allows the game to feel like its own experience whilst still drawing on a lot of Terraforming Mars for the rest.

Its perhaps the streamlining that many will find more exciting, as the original was never a short game. With less to track and faster, simultaneous, turns this could convince many who were put off by the length of the original. Despite the changes, it isnt too distant. With the logics of playing cards, restrictions, costs and benefits being similar, fans of the series will pick the experience up quickly, and unless their favourite part was the slowly controlled and terraformed board in the middle, they should at the very least enjoy Terraforming Mars Ares Expedition.

(Editors Note: Terraforming Mars Ares Expedition was provided to us by Asmodee for the review. The game is currently available from local board game stores! Find your local store here.)

Link:

Terraforming Mars Ares Expedition Review - Just Push Start

Was Voltaire the First Sci-Fi Author? – WIRED

Ada Palmer is a professor of European history at the University of Chicago. Her four-volume science fiction series, Terra Ignota, was inspired by 18th-century philosophers such as Voltaire and Diderot.

I wanted to write a story that Voltaire might have written if Voltaire had been able to read the last 70 years worth of science fiction and have all of those tools at his disposal, Palmer says in Episode 495 of the Geeks Guide to the Galaxy podcast.

Palmer says that Voltaire could actually be considered the first science fiction writer, thanks to a piece he wrote in 1752. Voltaire has a short story called Micromgas, in which an alien from Saturn and an alien from a star near Sirius come to Earth, and they are enormous, and they explore the Earth and have trouble finding life-forms because to them a whale is the size of a flea, she says. They eventually realize that that tiny little speck of wood on the ground is a ship, and its full of living things, and they make contact. So its a first-contact story.

Mary Shelleys 1818 novel Frankenstein is often considered the first science fiction novel. Voltaire was writing much earlier than Shelley, so does he deserve the title instead? It depends on your definition of science fiction.

[Micromgas] doesnt involve technology, Palmer says, so if you define science fiction as depending upon technologyand being about, in the Frankenstein sense, Is mans knowledge giving us access to powers beyond what weve had before? What does that mean?it isnt asking that. But aliens and first contact is a very core science fictional element.

So theres no clear-cut answer to the question of who should be considered the first science fiction writer. Given a sufficiently loose definition of the term, even a 2nd-century writer like Lucian of Samosata could be a candidate. Ultimately, Palmer says its more important to ask the question than to arrive at any particular answer.

I dont want to argue, Yes definitely, everybodys histories of science fiction should start with Voltaire,' she says. But I do want to argue that everybodys histories of science fiction will be richer by discussing whether Voltaire is the beginning of science fiction, or whether its earlier or whether its later. Because that gets at the question of what science fiction is.

Listen to the complete interview with Ada Palmer in Episode 495 of Geeks Guide to the Galaxy (above). And check out some highlights from the discussion below.

Ada Palmer on science fiction conventions:

The wonderful thing about science fiction and fantasy fandom, unlike so many other literary genres, is that when you go to a conference, the author isnt off in the green room and only occasionally appearing for an event and then vanishing; the authors are hanging out in the halls, and you can chat with people, and you get to know people through the internet. So I got to know lots of authors from meeting them at conventions, and from being a panelist before I was an authorbecause I would be talking about music, or I would be talking about history, or I would be talking about anime and manga and cosplay, which were all arenas that I worked in. So I got to know people, and be known by people, through that wonderful and often so supportive world.

Ada Palmer on the Terra Ignota series:

Theres this global network of flying cars so fast they can get you from anywhere on Earth to anywhere else on Earth in about two hours. So suddenly everywhere on Earth is commuting distance. You can live in the Bahamas and have a lunch meeting in Tokyo and eat at a restaurant in Paris, and your spousewho also lives in the Bahamascan have a lunch meeting in Toronto and another one in Antarctica, and this is a perfectly reasonable travel day, especially with self-driving vehicles that let you do work while youre in the car. So once thats been true for a couple of generations, people dont live in a place because they have political ties with it, they live in a place because theres a great house there that their parents really liked at the time their parents were buying a house, and it no longer makes sense for geography to be the determiner of political identity.

Ada Palmer on the Terraforming Mars board game:

The players are each a corporation, and the UN is giving you funding to incentivize this, but you also make profits on your own, and youre competing with the other corporations to terraform Mars best Ive noticed from playing Terraforming Mars that if you play it competitively, and then separately you play it collaboratively, where you say, OK, were going to ignore competing with each other for points, and were going to work together to try to make sure that all the resources end up in the hands of the company that will use them the most efficiently, you terraform Mars way better, way faster. So the board game is intended to be a celebration of this capitalist model of doing space but actually also shows that just teaming up and everyone helping everyone get ahead makes everyone score more and achieve more terraforming of Mars.

Ada Palmer on Diderot:

[Jacques the Fatalist] is Diderots strange 18th-century philosophical novel about the meanderings of a man whos a valet in the company of his master. It has this exquisitely warm prose style, in which Diderot directly addresses the reader with great intimacy and vulnerability Reading that book feels like reading a time capsule, where youre meeting Diderot and being his friend, in a way thats very different from any other book that Ive ever read. You come out of the end of it feeling like Diderot has shared his raw, incomplete, uncertain, deeply, deeply human thoughts and feelings with you, and asked for your thoughts and your opinions in return, in a way thats just exquisite.

View post:

Was Voltaire the First Sci-Fi Author? - WIRED

The stench of eugenics at the White House – WSWS

In remarks reminiscent of the darkest days of the eugenics movement, Rochelle Walensky, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), said Friday that the fact that COVID-19 predominantly kills people who are unwell to begin with is encouraging news.

As the number of people hospitalized with COVID-19 reached a record high, the CDC director was asked in an interview on ABCs Good Morning America about those encouraging headlines that were talking about this morning.

Walensky replied:

The overwhelming number of deaths, over 75 percent, occurred in people who had at least four comorbidities, so really these are people who are unwell to begin with, and yes, really encouraging news in the context of Omicron.

Loading Tweet ...

As a factual matter, the claim that COVID-19 in general, and the Omicron variant in particular, is only affecting the elderly and ill is false. The spread of the new variant has driven a record surge in hospitalizations of young people, and in particular children and infants. The long-term consequences for those who survive and suffer the consequences of Long COVID is still little understood.

However, the suggestion that the overwhelming number of deaths occur among the elderly and those with preexisting conditions (comorbidities) is encouraging news is shocking in its implications.

Walenskys comments were broadly condemned by doctors, scientists and advocates for the disabled as an embrace of eugenics by the Biden administration.

This is eugenicist, lawyer and disability activist Matthew Cortland, who is chronically ill, wrote on Twitter. The problem is that the people running @CDCgov, including @CDCDirector, **fundamentally believe** its encouraging if disabled and chronically ill people die. And all of their decisions are informed by, and enact, that belief.

None of this is hyperbole. Walenskys comments express the turn on the part of the White House and dominant sections of the US political establishment toward an open embrace of the view that the lives of the chronically ill, the disabled, and the elderly are fundamentally valueless.

The leading advocate of this policy is Ezekiel Emanuel, the former Obama administration official and current Biden COVID task force adviser, who is now being promoted in a full court press in the US print and broadcast media.

On Wednesday, the Journal of the American Medical Association published a set of articles by Emanuel and other former Biden health advisors arguing for making COVID-19 the new normal and calling on states to retire the reporting of COVID-19 deaths. These articles were treated as gospel in the US media, with fawning front-page write-ups in the New York Times and Washington Post.

But this campaign went into overdrive on Sunday, with Emanuel serving as the unstated surrogate for the White House on NBCs Meet the Press. Emanuels call for a new normal was simultaneously hailed by the lead editorial in the Washington Post, which called it a sensible strategy for living with covid, presented by experts.

In reality, the call by Emanuel and his co-authors is nothing more than a recapitulation of the pseudo-scientific Great Barrington Declaration, stripped of the myth that herd immunity would lead to the end of the pandemic. It is a plan for COVID-19 in perpetuity, with wave after wave, variant after variant, taking countless lives each year.

Neither Meet the Press nor the Washington Post editorial mentioned that Emanuel is a leading advocate of reducing life expectancy and slashing the provision of medical care for the elderly and chronically ill.

Emanuel, in the words of University of South Carolina philosophy professor Jennifer A. Frey, thinks of disabled and elderly people as useless and ineffectual; when we run the cost/benefit analysis they cost more than they are worth. Emanuel believes that life after 75 [is] not worth living and old people a drain on our resources, she concluded.

Emanuel has expressed his eugenicist ideas time and time again, noted journalist and disability researcher Laura Dorwart.

Emanuels basic precept is that the fundamental determinant of medical care must not be the individuals rights to decency and dignity, but rather a cost-benefit analysis driven by the costs to society of extending the lives of the ill and the elderly.

Emanuel claimsrightlythat the medical profession is averse to such cost-benefit analysis. But this is because the application of such an analysis to medicine and public health is informed by the legacy of eugenics and the German Nazi Partys murder of tens of thousands of people with chronic illnesses whom the Nazis branded unfit to live.

In the bioethics textbook From Chance to Choice: Genetics and Justice, professors Allen Buchman, Dan Brock, Norman Daniels and Daniel Wikler note the legacy of cost-benefit analysis in the American eugenics movement.

They cite the Eugenics Catechism of the American Eugenics Society of 1926, which argues, It has been estimated that the State of New York, up to 1916, spent over $2,000,000 on the descendants of one familythe Jukesclaimed to be genetically deficient. How much would it have cost to sterilize the original Jukes pair? asked the society: Less than $150.

The book continues, Similar examples abounded in the arithmetic books of German schoolchildren in the 1930s, extending to the cost of keeping institutionalized, handicapped people alive; not long afterward, tens of thousands lost their lives.

In the autumn of 1939, Adolf Hitler secretly authorized a medically administered program of mercy death code-named Operation T4, writes the US Holocaust Museum. The killings secretly continued until the wars end, resulting in the murder of an estimated 275,000 people with disabilities.

Today, hundreds of thousands of elderly and chronically ill people are dying, not in gas chambers, but gasping for air in Americas hospitals. Seventy-five percent of those who have died from COVID-19 have been above the retirement age of 65, and 93 percent have been over the age of 50. In 2020, a year in which 373,000 Americans died from COVID-19, US life expectancy at birth fell by 1.8 years, from 78.8 years to 77.0, according to federal mortality data released last month.

But this reality is not, as Walensky says, encouraging, but a horrifying source of guilt and shame, a condemnation of an utterly inhuman society driven by the needs of enriching the few at the expense of the many.

Scientists and doctors have responded to Walenskys remarks with the demand that she resign. Their anger is justified. But the fact is that Walensky was speaking not only for herself, not only for the Biden administration, but for the entire capitalist class.

For years, American think tanks and military strategists have systematically advocated reducing the life expectancy of American workers. The pandemic has created the means by which this policy could be implemented through seeming inaction and incompetence.

It is, in fact, a deliberate policy, driven by the diseased reliance of all aspects of American capitalism on the perpetual rise in the markets, fueled by the ever-greater immiseration and impoverishment of the working class. Having bled much of the working class dry, the capitalist oligarchy looks to the elderly and the disabled as a source of untapped value.

If they have their way, the cutting of outlays on Social Security and Medicare is to be accomplished not by politicians touching the third rail of American politics, but by allowing the pandemic to continue in perpetuity.

This filthy policy is accompanied by an equally filthy lie: That COVID-19 cannot be stopped. China has successfully executed a Zero COVID policy, with just 5,000 deaths in a country of 1.4 billion. If a similar policy had been carried out in the United States at the start of the pandemic, over 850,000 people would still be alive.

This homicidal new normal demanded by the capitalist oligarchy is being challenged by a growing movement of the working class to resist mass infection and mass death. Teachers in Chicago voted last week to oppose the resumption of in-person instruction, and teachers in Chicago, New York and San Francisco have launched sickouts. They will be joined this week with a wave of walkouts by students in opposition to the Biden administrations homicidal drive to keep schools open no matter the costs in human lives.

The open turn to eugenics by the ruling class expresses a fundamental reality that is dawning on millions of people: Capitalism is incompatible with the social rights of the great mass of humanity. Securing those rights requires the struggle to end this social order and replace it with socialism.

Sign up for the WSWS email newsletter

Read more:

The stench of eugenics at the White House - WSWS

Gal Gadot officially regrets the cursed Imagine video – i-D

When the coronavirus pandemic and its subsequent lockdowns first took over the world nearly two years ago it birthed a multitude of oddities, from awkward enforced weekly Zoom quizzes to gifting health workers non-refundable clapping from our front doorsteps. But while the majority of us became sourdough bread specialists, the most deranged reactions came from celebrities, who took to social media to accidentally advocate for eugenics (Vanessa Hudgens) or cry about a delay to their album release (Dua Lipa). But the prize for the most cringe post of the early pandemic era belongs to, of course, the Gal Gadot-led Imagine video.

Spearheaded by the Wonder Woman actress and Bridesmaids Kristen Wiig and featuring a smorgasbord of stars Jamie Dornan, Natalie Portman, Ashley Benson, Kaia Gerber, Cara Delevingne, Zo Kravitz those benevolent millionaires each hoped to cheer the world with an awkwardly-sung line of the John Lennon song from the comfort of their Selling Sunset-style homes. Naturally, the video was slammed across social media; now, almost 2 years later, Gal has finally admitted that the video might have been a mistake.

Speaking to InStyle, after recently parodying the video during her acceptance speech at the Elle Women in Hollywood Awards, Gal said: I was calling Kristen [Wiig] and I was like, "Listen, I want to do this thing." The pandemic was in Europe and Israel before it came [to the US] in the same way. I was seeing where everything was headed. But [the video] was premature. It wasn't the right timing, and it wasn't the right thing. It was in poor taste. All pure intentions, but sometimes you don't hit the bull's-eye, right?

In truth, looking back since Gal posted it on Instagram in March 2020, the cursed video has only aged worse to the extent that, in a way, its almost swung back round to camp. In a little intro Gal sighs as if she hasnt seen another human soul in months, when in fact shes in day six of quarantine. She then says the past less-than-a-week-of-isolation has got her feeling philosophical. The deep mind-blowing philosophical realisation? The virus affects everyone. Between Sia over-singing the hell out of her two lines to Mark Ruffalos struggle to figure out his selfie camera angles, the video is essentially the equivalent of those 1 like = 1 prayer posts your aunt still shares on Facebook.

Though the intention behind the video may have been sincere, watching the ridiculously rich act like the pandemic had put us all in the exact same situation and that the only things they had to contribute were vibes and positive energy felt in pretty poor taste. Especially when other celebs, like our queen Britney, were offering struggling fans money. As i-D editor Risn Lanigan wrote at the time: Rather than rushing to push content into the world which doesnt actually help anyone, it might first be best to take some time and consider how your platform, and your millions of dollars of income, could be put to better use.

Follow i-D onInstagramandTikTokfor more news.

Follow this link:

Gal Gadot officially regrets the cursed Imagine video - i-D

Raymond J. de Souza: The tragedy of eugenics and the babies not born – National Post

Breadcrumb Trail Links

A New York Times investigation found some non-invasive prenatal tests to be wrong up to 85 per cent of the time

Author of the article:

Publishing date:

The New Years baby story is a news standard, an endearing report about the couple who planned a quiet New Years Eve at home but instead delivered a baby at 12:05 a.m. on January 1st. In smaller cities and towns, local merchants often provide gifts to the New Years baby.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

So it was a bit jarring to see The New York Times Jan. 1 feature about non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT). It was about babies who had never been born. An NYT investigation found the non-invasive tests to be wildly inaccurate wrong up to 85 per cent of the time which often leads to abortions. Its a tale of two doleful phenomena: the widespread return of eugenics and the financial corruption of medicine.

Eugenics was a respectable, even fashionable, cause in progressive circles in the 1920s and 1930s. When I studied economics at Cambridge, I came to learn that the giants of the departments history John Maynard Keynes most prominent among them advocated for eugenics.

Closer to home, Tommy Douglas voted the greatest Canadian of all time in 2004 wrote his masters thesis on The Problems of the Subnormal Family in 1933. He advocated medical licences prior to marriage to prevent those with intellectual disabilities from being permitted to breed.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Eugenics was a respectable cause in the 1920s and 1930s

The Nazi medical horrors put eugenics in a bad odour for a few generations. As premier of Saskatchewan from 1944 to 1961, Douglas declined to implement the policies that he had advocated years earlier.

In recent decades, eugenics has made a comeback in polite society due to two changes, one legal and one technological. Easy access to abortion and pre-natal testing for genetic abnormalities have made it possible for eugenics to be applied in utero .

Children with Down syndrome were the primary target, as the chromosomal anomaly is relatively easy to detect. Screening for Down syndrome has been very successful. In 2017, Iceland declared itself to be free of Down syndrome children, as nearly 100 per cent of them are now aborted after testing.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

In many countries, a majority of Down syndrome pregnancies are aborted. In the United States the abortion rate for Down syndrome is 67 per cent (1995-2011); in France its 77 per cent (2015); and Denmark, 98 per cent (2015).

In Canada , public health does not keep figures, but reports that despite the trend in delayed childbearing and advanced maternal age at delivery in the last several decades, rates of Down syndrome in Canada have not increased proportionately. This is due to increased use of prenatal diagnostic procedures followed by terminations of Down syndrome pregnancies.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

The NYT story looked at non-invasive prenatal testing for five other abnormalities and found startlingly high false positive rates, with 81 to 93 per cent of the tests giving wrong results.

Why would doctors prescribe tests for very rare conditions with sky-high false positive rates, when the likely consequence is catastrophic?

There is a financial incentive.

Its a little like running mammograms on kids, Mary Norton, an obstetrician and geneticist at the University of California, San Francisco, told the NYT. The chance of breast cancer is so low, so why are you doing it? I think its purely a marketing thing.

Successful marketing at that.

Why would doctors prescribe these tests?

The NYT reported that one large test maker, Natera, performed more than 400,000 screenings for just one abnormality in 2020 the equivalent of testing roughly 10 per cent of pregnant women in America.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Americas medical-industrial complex provides built-in incentives for excessive use of unreliable tests. In other countries financial incentives might be lesser, but the phenomenon remains. Where the medical system does not encourage NIPT, individual parents can seek the tests on their own. The eugenic purpose remains the same even if pursued and paid for differently.

The simplest prenatal test is for gender. Being male or female is not a disorder, but even that can be put to eugenic purposes. Its been more than 30 years since Amartya Sens landmark article on the 100 million missing women, missing largely due to sex-selected abortion and infanticide. Testing technology has only grown more widespread since.

Abortion for gender reasons is widely denounced, but is rarely done by mistake. Eugenic abortion for disabilities is not denounced. But when done by mistake the horror is all the more grave.

National Post

The big issues are far from settled. Sign up for the NP Comment newsletter,NP Platformed.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Sign up to receive the daily top stories from the National Post, a division of Postmedia Network Inc.

A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.

The next issue of NP Posted will soon be in your inbox.

We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again

Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion and encourage all readers to share their views on our articles. Comments may take up to an hour for moderation before appearing on the site. We ask you to keep your comments relevant and respectful. We have enabled email notificationsyou will now receive an email if you receive a reply to your comment, there is an update to a comment thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information and details on how to adjust your email settings.

Read the original:

Raymond J. de Souza: The tragedy of eugenics and the babies not born - National Post

Toppling the Monument to Silence: Racism and the Founding Fathers of Environmental Organizations – Non Profit News – Nonprofit Quarterly

The environmental field is no less steeped in white supremacy than any other field currently being held up for inspectionindeed, the very foundation of environmentalism is rooted in white supremacy, and the rampant racism and discrimination in the writing and actions of early environmental leaders are well documented.1 Yet, acknowledgment of the troubled racial history of environmental organizations is slow coming. Most environmental organizations prefer to ignore inconvenient aspects of their history, disregard disturbing revelations, and respond with deafening silence.

But the summer of 2020 was a watershed moment. It changed how some major environmental nonprofits deal with racism and their past. Amid the Black Lives Matter protests over the killing of George Floyd and other Black men and women, the presidents and chief executive officers of some prominent environmental organizations sheepishly acknowledged the troubling racist past of their institutions.2

Over summer and early fall of 2020, there was a sudden flurry of apologies from environmental organizations forced by internal battlesenergized by the overall societal eruptionto step up and acknowledge their full history, and exercise transparency vis--vis their current practices.

On June 19 (Juneteenth), 2020, the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) and the Bronx Zoo apologized for and acknowledged their bigoted actions and attitudes in the early 1900s toward non-whitesespecially African Americans, Native Americans and immigrants, including such reprehensible treatment as displaying a young Central African man, Mbye Otabenga, in a Bronx Zoo exhibit in 1904.3 WCS also apologized for their ties to eugenicists Madison Grant and Henry Fairfield Osborn, both of whom espoused eugenics-based, pseudoscientific racism.4 Cristin Samper, president and CEO of the Society, wrote in a letter to staff, We deeply regret that many people and generations have been hurt by these actions.5

The Sierra Club followed suit, posting Pulling Down Our Monuments on its website on July 22.6 In the article, Michael Brunethe organizations executive directorwrote, As defenders of Black life pull down Confederate monuments across the country, we must also take this moment to reexamine our past and our substantial role in perpetuating white supremacy. Its time to take down some of our own monuments, starting with some truth-telling about the Sierra Clubs early history.7

Brune acknowledged that The most monumental figure in the Sierra Clubs past is John Muir. And Muir was not immune to the racism peddled by many in the early conservation movement. He made derogatory comments about Black people and Indigenous peoples that drew on deeply harmful racist stereotypes.8 He noted that Muirs words and actions carry an especially heavy weight. They continue to hurt and alienate Indigenous people and people of color who come into contact with the Sierra Club.9 Brune also named other early members and leaders of the Sierra ClubJoseph LeConte and David Starr Jordan, for example, who were vocal advocates for white supremacy and its pseudo-scientific arm, eugenics.10 He discussed exclusionary practices that protected and maintained whiteness in the club: Membership could only be granted through sponsorship from existing members, some of whom screened out any applicants of color.11 And he admitted that, currently, some of the clubs members want the organization to stay in our lane and stop talking about issues of race, equity, and privilege.12

Later, A. Tianna Scozzaro, director of the Sierra Clubs Gender Equity and Environment Program, also wrote an article. In it, she argued that the history of eugenics has a deeply troubling relationship with the environmental movement. Race, population eugenics, and natural order were highly problematic features and values of the movementsand the Sierra Clubsbeginning.13

On July 31, Audubon Magazine published The Myth of John James Audubon, as part of an effort to chart a course toward racial equity.14 The author, Gregory Nobles, identified Audubon, from whom the National Audubon Society took its name, as a slaveholder.15 He noted that many people are unaware of this fact but that those who are aware tend to ignore and excuse the icon.16 Apologists claim that Audubon was a man of his timebut, as Nobles points out, not everyone owned slaves or favored slavery during Audubons lifetime; some opposed slavery vigorously.17 In a letter penned to his wife in 1834, a dismayed and frustrated Audubon complained that Britain had acted imprudently and precipitously in granting emancipation to West Indian slaves.18

On September 15, Save the Redwoods League (SRL), an organization with well-known eugenicists among its founders, also acknowledged its racist origins,19 with Sam Hodder, the organizations president and chief outdoors enthusiast, publishing Reckoning with the League Founders Eugenics Past.20 Hodder noted, As we elevate diversity, equity, and inclusion at the League, we must acknowledge our full history.21 He also stated, Our founders were leaders in the discriminatory and oppressive pseudoscience of eugenics in the early 20th centuryaround the very same time they dedicated themselves to protecting the redwood forest.22 Hodder also discussed the white supremacist and eugenicist ideas of Madison Grant, one of the Leagues cofounders.23

(Other SRL founders, Charles Goethe, for one, were also prominent eugenicists. Goethe wrote prolifically about Blacks, Mexican-Americans, Japanese-Americans, and Jews in degrading terms.)24

Some organizations remain mum on the eugenics, white supremacy, racism, and discrimination in their history. The Boone and Crockett Club remains firmly tethered to its past, featuring, without acknowledgment or commentary, Theodore Roosevelt, Madison Grant, and Gifford Pinchotinfluential political figures, white supremacists, and eugenicistson its website.25(Other well-known eugenicists, such as Henry Fairfield Osborn, were also members of the Boone and Crockett Club.)26 And the American Bison Society, which numbered eugenicists and white supremacists like Madison Grant and Theodore Roosevelt among its founders and members, has also remained silent.27

The ethos of these founding clubs, leagues, and societies spilled over into early nineteenth century outdoor recreation and environmental organizations. As a result of the fields root culture, environmental advocates founded and organized institutions on exclusionary principles that resulted in cloistered, gendered, and racially homogenous organizations for the better part of two centuries.

Early on, only wealthy white males could join or participate in these institutions. At the end of the nineteenth century, rich white women pried open the doors to join the membership and leadership of environmental nonprofits. However, the participation of elite white women in environmental nonprofits did little or nothing to stem the flow of sexist, classist, racist, and eugenicist ideas that shaped the founding of some of the early environmental organizations.28

The white working class, who often worked as servants, guides, and porters, were barred from membership. By the early twentieth century, working-class whites objected to their lack of input into environmental affairs and the inequitable policies . . . [and] created their own outdoor organizations.29 These outdoor enthusiasts and environmentalists owned slaves and hired free people of color . . . [as] servants, guides, porters, cooks, and launderers.30 Though men and women of color began joining segregated outdoor clubs in the early 1900s, they were not allowed to participate fully in many environmental organizations until the latter part of the twentieth century.31

In 1981, historian Stephen Fox noted, Few questioned the lack of racial and ethnic diversity in the environmental sector until the 1960s, when academics and activists pointed to the overwhelming whiteness of the environmental movement and its workforce.32 In the face of this criticism, environmental leaders argued that increasing the racial diversity of their staff, boards, and/or membership was incompatible with their environmental mission.

Subscribe to the NPQ newsletter to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

By signing up, you agree to our privacy policy and terms of use, and to receive messages from NPQ and our partners.

The idea of enhancing racial diversity also caused conflict within some organizations. For example, although David Brower, the Sierra Clubs first executive director, declared in 1959 that membership was open to people of the four recognized colors, the matter was far from settled for some time after.33 Some Sierra Club members viewed Black members with skepticism, describing them as trying to push themselves into the club and not having any interest in the conservation goals of the club, and even that Blacks were trying to infiltrate.34 The question of their participation in the organization resulted in many complaints, screaming matches, reports of intimidation, and a proposal for a loyalty oath to the American Way of Life.35

The result? Japanese American George Shinno and his son Jon were admitted to the Angeles Chapter of the Sierra Club in the 1950s.36 And, although members who feared Blacks strategized to keep them out of the chapter in 1958, a Black schoolteacher, Elizabeth Porter, was admitted to the Angeles Chapter in 1959; the Angeles Chapter later admitted two other Black members, Mr. and Mrs. Kelsey, in 1959 or 1960.37

The debate over Black participation in the Sierra Club lasted into the 1970s.38 An attorney and former director of the club, Bestor Robinson, summed up the struggle by saying this is not an integration club; this is a conservation club.39Many club members shared Robinsons perspective that conservation was separate from social justice issues, that racial inclusion was a social justice or civil rights issue, and that it did not belong in the Sierra Club. Because club members did not see any connections between social justice and the environment, they did not believe that increasing racial diversity in the organization was an initiative the institution should undertake. Club members voted against resolutions to admit people of color into the organizations membership.40 In 1971, as it struggled to make connections between race and environment, the Sierra Club polled its members and asked if the club should concern itself with the conservation problems of such special groups as the urban poor and ethnic minorities. Forty percent of the members were opposed to the organization getting involved in such issues; only 15 percent were supportive of engaging in matters concerning people of color and economically disadvantaged people.41

Instead of building racially diverse organizations, environmental leaders, thinkers, and social critics searched for explanations to help justify the lack of diversity in environmental nonprofits. For example, Fox wrote in 1981 that Blacks scorned conservation as an elitist diversion from the more pressing tasks at hand.42 The idea that Blacks are averse to conservation and the environment is a popular and enduring misconception as well as a convenient excuse that is used to justify exclusion.

Given the above, it should come as no surprise that environmental nonprofits have had difficulty embracing and instituting diversity, equity, and inclusion in their mission and practices in the twenty-first century.

Retention of people of color in senior and executive positions is proving to be a challenge in a number of environmental organizations. Attention to the racist roots and practices of environmentalism over the past few years, however, is finally shining a spotlight on organizational leadership.

In June 2019, women employed at The Nature Conservancy (TNC) alleged that sexual harassment and wage discrimination were commonplace at the nonprofit, prompting the resignation of TNCs CEO Mark Tercek.43

Other diversity, equity, and inclusion issues were also a factor.44 (Employees of Conservation International had filed similar complaints back in 2018, as had a staff member of the National Wildlife Federation [NWF], who sued her former supervisor and NWF in 2010.)45

In May 2019, women birders, members, and staff at the National Audubon Society had also reported sexual harassment while birding or on the job.46 And, in November 2020, National Audubon Society staff claimed that organization leaders discriminated against employees and tried to intimidate them.47

In fall 2020, David Yarnold, then-CEO of the National Audubon Society, had published Revealing the Past to Create the Future in Audubon Magazine, in which he wrote, Over the last few months, weve committed

to making Audubon an antiracist institution.48 Yarnold noted, Audubons founding stories center on the groups of women who came together to end the slaughter of birds for their feathers (mostly for fancy hats), but we have glossed over the actions of the American icon whose name we bear, as well as the racist aspects of our organizations history.49

Yarnolds statement was written shortly after the departure of a top diversity and inclusion staff member, six months after the departure of the organizations diversity and inclusion vice president, due to a toxic environment of intimidation and coercion.50

Yarnold resigned, suddenly, in April 2021, amid widespread staff dissatisfaction regarding the organizations efforts to address diversity-related complaints.51Both Tercek and Yarnold had praised and vowed to support the Green 2.0 diversity and transparency campaign.52

***

These are clarion bells sounding the demise of white supremacy in environmentalism. We have entered a new era that goes beyond diversity, equity, and inclusion to justice and transformation. It is time to act to institute meaningful, deep-rooted change. Reckoning of the past and transparency moving forward is how we will identify and root out the systemic problems causing and perpetuating injustice.

Funding for this research was obtained from The JPB Foundation, the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, and The Nathan Cummings Foundation.

Excerpt from:

Toppling the Monument to Silence: Racism and the Founding Fathers of Environmental Organizations - Non Profit News - Nonprofit Quarterly

Latest spy shots of what is expected to be the 2023 KTM 990 Duke – MCNews

2023 KTM 990 Duke

Images S. Baldauf/SB-Medien

990 is a bit of a magic number for KTM as it was the 990 cc LC8 V-Twin that really launced their foray into mainstream road motorcycles 15 years ago.

I owned a KTM 990 SMT, and a 990 Adventure R, had no problems with either and to this day wish I never sold them in a fit of economic rationalism.

The 990 has long been missing from the KTM line-up as the LC8 grew to 1090, 1190 and 1290.

While the void for a smaller capacity twin was filled by the new 790 and 890 LC8c parallel twins.

For 2023 it looks as though a 990 will be back in the line-up but this time around it will be in parallel twin format rather than the 75-degree vee of the original.

Some shots have already been seen of a new 990 Duke undergoing testing in Europe but today we can bring you some less disguised views of the new machine which reveal some new body work, lights, exhaust and chassis.

We hope that this will also spawn another SMT model that combines the hooligan and practical natures of the original 990 SMT.

Here is the original post:

Latest spy shots of what is expected to be the 2023 KTM 990 Duke - MCNews

A Sci-Fi Visionary Thinks Greed Might Be the Thing That Saves Us – The New York Times

Its easy, especially now, to imagine a bleak and withered future, and thats largely what our storytellers are doing. Whether its in novels, TV shows, films or video games, speculative imaginings of the world were heading toward tilt strongly to fatalistic despair. And while I cant say with much conviction that I have hope for where our current path may lead, I have wondered why more artists arent pushing back and composing visions of the future in more than just minor keys. (Lord knows we could use it.) One artist who has done that over the course of his career is the best-selling sci-fi novelist Neal Stephenson. His books, the best known of which are probably the cyberpunk thriller Snow Crash and Cryptonomicon, an opus about money and code-breaking, have long dealt in apocalyptic events and malevolent uses of new technology. But and this is particularly true of his latest novel, the climate-change-focused Termination Shock their renderings of the future also include potential solutions (morally and technically complicated though they may be) to the problems of living in a radically changed world. That is to say, their imagination extends beyond the edge of the cliff. To portray a more utopian future, says Stephenson, who is 62 and, to be clear, far from starry-eyed, is to lay oneself open to a certain level of mockery from critics and skeptical audience members. Whereas there doesnt seem to be any level of grim dystopian imagery that will make the fans and the critics say enough already.

Were facing a potentially apocalyptic event in climate change, so it makes sense that post-apocalyptic dystopia is where peoples heads are at as far as sci-fi and speculative fiction. But were also surrounded by incredible technologies that make our lives better, and were going to need new technologies to help combat climate change. So why dont we see much creative output that points toward the future in more hopeful or aspirational ways? I think a lot of it and this is going to sound like a funny argument is a pretty simple economic calculation on the part of people who produce screen entertainment. Im looking over your shoulder on this Zoom and seeing an office building. It would be easy to blow that building up in a science-fictional setting. We could knock holes in it and break the windows and dirty it up, and it would look dystopian and wouldnt require a lot of detailed imagining. If we were going to replace that building with a futuristic building from a more utopian vision of New York City, it would be necessary to design a new building from scratch and make it look convincing structurally and do it in a way that was consonant with an art directors scheme for the production design. The latter approach is simply harder and more expensive, and its easy to strike the wrong note and come up with something that doesnt work whereas everyone would recognize the Empire State Building after having been hit by a nuclear strike. Weve also got in the habit of thinking that by showing that kind of future, the artists are sending a message about how hard they are: Im not some rose-colored-glasses sap. Im a badass thinking dark, mean thoughts about our dark, mean future.

Neal Stephenson at home in Seattle in 1998. Robert Sorbo for The New York Times

What about the story were telling as a society beyond art about climate change? Is there a way we could be talking about it thats more likely to motivate the kind of mobilization we had, say, during the Second World War? The difficulty is that its hard to get lots of people to change their minds. The United States did mobilize in a massive way during World War II, but we didnt start getting serious about it until 1942. There had been a huge war raging since 1939, and the Brits were tearing their hair out waiting for the United States to get more involved, and it wasnt until Pearl Harbor that there was a tipping point in public opinion that made it possible for Americas political leadership to declare war and to enter into it in a serious way. So the question asks itself: What might be a climate equivalent of Pearl Harbor? Were already having little regional Pearl Harbors all over the place. We had our heat dome in Seattle over the summer, we had the mega tornado supercell that passed from Arkansas to Kentucky. These little pinprick Pearl Harbor events happen here and there, but its difficult to imagine one that would impact an entire country the size of the United States if it did, it would be a really bad thing. We dont want to put ourselves in the position of wishing that something terrible would happen. Its also natural to assume that the CO2 problem is similar to other air-pollution problems weve had before. In the 50s, there was a disaster in London because of too much coal smoke in the air, and they cleaned up the air by burning less coal. In the 70s, a lot of the smog problem in L.A. was cleaned up by putting catalytic converters on cars and cutting down on hydrocarbon emissions. Theres a similar story around the ozone hole. Were accustomed to thinking that all we have to do is stop emitting the pollutant, and then nature will clean up the air. But its not true in the case of CO2 in the atmosphere. People confuse CO2 emission reduction or elimination with solving the problem. But even if we could stop emitting all CO2, wed be stuck for hundreds of thousands of years with extremely elevated CO2 levels that nature has no quick way of removing from the air. Thats the key thing that has to be widely understood before we can actually begin envisioning ways to attack the problem.

In Termination Shock, you have a billionaire character who tries to attack that problem through geoengineering. Youve talked elsewhere about writing about geoengineering as a way of ensuring that people are more prepared for it when it starts to happen. Is that something you see as a primary function of fiction: introducing concepts or ideas to the public? Job 1 is to be sufficiently entertaining that a fair number of people will actually read the book all the way to the end. If you havent done that, then youve got nothing. If youve gotten over that hurdle, then it becomes possible to start thinking about other things. Im leery of taking too much of an instrumentalist view of art because I think that if youve got that mind-set of Im going to change peoples minds or push a particular point of view the audience recognizes that almost on a preverbal level and they lose their suspension of disbelief. Im sure you can think of examples where books somehow changed peoples minds about certain topics or ended up having some functional purpose, but I think if you set out from the beginning with a functional mentality, youre probably going to end up with a failed project.

Is being sufficiently entertaining Job 1 for you or for all novelists? The novel is a pop-culture medium just like comic books or movies. So when youre practicing an art form, you generally follow the formal rules of that art form. If youre going to write a sonnet, its going to be 14 lines long. You can choose to write hard-to-read books, like Finnegans Wake, lets say, if thats what you want to do, and its a perfectly defensible choice, but in general telling a readable and enjoyable story is a basic constraint of the form.

Stephenson speaking at M.I.T. in 2008. Daniel Leithinger

All right, heres another question about how we conceive of the world: One of the things that made the Baroque period so fruitful as a setting for you was the tensions that resulted from superstitious, medieval modes of thinking coexisting alongside the beginnings of the rational Enlightenment. What similar tensions between old and new ways of thinking are alive in our modes of understanding the world? What were seeing in the Baroque Cycle is the beginning of scientific rationalism and the idea that we can find ways to agree on what is true, which was a new development. You know, Barbara Shapiro has a book called A Culture of Fact that tells the origin story of the idea of facts, which is not an idea we always had. Another thing Ive been reading recently is The Fixation of Belief by an American philosopher named Charles Sanders Peirce. He was writing in the 1870s, and he goes through a list of four methods that people use to decide what theyre going to believe. The first one is called the method of tenacity, which means you decide what youre going to believe and you stick to it regardless of logic or evidence.

Sounds familiar. Yeah, this all sounds depressingly familiar. The next method is called the method of authority, where you agree with other people that youre all going to believe what some authority figure tells you to believe. Thats probably most common throughout history. The third method is called the a priori method, and the idea is, lets be reasonable and try to come up with ways to believe things that sound reasonable to us. Which sounds great, but if its not grounded in any fact-checking methodology, then you end up just agreeing to believe things by consensus which may be totally wrong. The fourth method is the scientific method. It basically consists of accepting the fact that you might be wrong, and since you might be wrong, you need some way for judging the truth of statements and changing your mind when youve got solid evidence to the contrary. What youre seeing in the Baroque Cycle is the transition from Method No. 3 to No. 4. Youve got all these people having what seem like reasoned, logical arguments, but a lot of them are just tripping. So a few come in, like Hooke and Newton, and begin using actual experiments and get us going down the road toward the rational world of the Enlightenment. But what weve got now is almost everybody using Method 1, 2 or 3. Weve got a lot of authoritarians who cant be swayed by logic or evidence, but weve also got a lot of a priori people who want to be reasonable and think of themselves as smarter and more rational than the authoritarians but are going on the basis of their feelings what they wish were true and both of them hate the scientific rationalists, who are very few in number. Thats kind of my Peircian analysis of where things stand right now.

Do you see a way out of that? When people find that they can obtain lots of money and power by believing certain things and following certain ways of thinking, then you can bet that theyll enthusiastically start doing that. The reason that Enlightenment thinking became popular was that people figured out that it was in their financial best interest to avail themselves of its powers. The spread of very financially successful enterprises like, lets say, steam engines for long-range ocean navigation was a direct outgrowth of the practical application of the scientific method. To that you could also add a lot of financial apparatus that came into existence around then with the Bank of England and various ways of managing financial affairs. In other words, people dont necessarily follow scientific rationalism because theyre noble and pure seekers of the truth, although some of them definitely do it for that reason. More people do it out of self-interest.

It may be the unfortunate case that theres more obvious financial self-interest to be gained by promoting irrational and counterfactual thinking. If you dont have any perceptible downside or negative consequences, then why not sign up with or co-sign the latest conspiracy theory? I do think negative consequences definitely exist, but maybe the cause-and-effect relationship isnt immediately obvious.

What are those negative consequences? What do people stand to lose? Well, the negative consequence is our entire civilization.

This interview has been edited and condensed from two conversations.

David Marchese is a staff writer for the magazine and the columnist for Talk. Recently he interviewed Brian Cox about the filthy rich, Dr. Becky about the ultimate goal of parenting and Tiffany Haddish about Gods sense of humor.

See the article here:

A Sci-Fi Visionary Thinks Greed Might Be the Thing That Saves Us - The New York Times