Daily Archives: January 10, 2023

Cary mom admitted to leaving girls in hot car while gambling; autopsy reveals death by hyperthermia with decaying present – CBS17.com

Posted: January 10, 2023 at 7:19 pm

Cary mom admitted to leaving girls in hot car while gambling; autopsy reveals death by hyperthermia with decaying present CBS17.com

Course work on campus | The Culinary Olympics return to UConn – FOX61 Hartford

Posted: at 7:09 pm

Course work on campus | The Culinary Olympics return to UConn FOX61 Hartford

See the original post here:

Course work on campus | The Culinary Olympics return to UConn - FOX61 Hartford

Posted in Olympics | Comments Off

GOLDEN RULE OF INTERPRETATION AND CASES – Social Laws Today

Posted: at 7:04 pm

Golden Rule of interpretation: Written By: Tshewang Dema

The essence of law lies in the spirit, not its letter, for the letter is significant only as being the external manifestation of the intention that underlies it Salmond

Statutory interpretation is the process of interpreting and applying legislation to decide cases. Interpretation is necessary when the case involves subtle or ambiguous aspects of a statute. Generally, the words of a statute have a plain and straightforward meaning. But in some cases, there may be ambiguity or vagueness in the words of the statute that must be resolved by the judge. The reason for ambiguity or vagueness of legislation is the fundamental nature of language. It is not always possible to precisely transform the intention of the legislature into written words.

A judge is then forced to resort to the documentation of legislative intent, which may also be unhelpful, and then finally to his or her own judgment of what outcome is ultimately fair and logical under the totality of the circumstances. To find the meanings of statutes, judges use various tools and methods of statutory interpretation, including traditional canons of statutory interpretation, legislative history, and purpose. In common law jurisdictions, the judiciary may apply rules of statutory interpretation to legislation enacted by the legislature or to delegated legislation such as administrative agency regulations.[1]

Very often occasions will arise where the courts will be called upon to interpret the words, phrases and expressions used in the statute. There are numerous rules of statutory interpretation. Over time, various methods of statutory construction have fallen in and out of favour. Some of the better-known rules of construction methods are The Golden rule, The Literal rule, The Mischief rule and The Purposive approach.[2]

Whenever literal interpretation leads to an irrational result that is unlikely to be the legislatures intention, the court can depart from that meaning. It is such a rule which disposes of ambiguity, inconsistency, unclarity, hardship, inconvenience, injustice, etc. arose from the language of Statute while interpreting it. Hence the golden rule is an exception and has an important place in the Interpretation of Statutes to the literal rule and will be used where the literal rule produces the result where Parliaments intention would be circumvented rather than applied. Golden rule is a principle of statutory construction that the grammatical and ordinary sense of words may be modified so as to avoid an absurdity or inconsistency, but no farther.

Interpretation is of two kinds grammatical and logical. Grammatical interpretation is arrived at by reference to the laws of speech to the words used in the statute; in other words, it regards only the verbal expression of the legislature. Logical interpretation gives effect to the intention of the legislature by taking into account other circumstances permissible according to the rules settled in this behalf. Proper construction is not satisfied by taking the words as if they were self-contained phrases. So considered, the words do not yield the meaning of a statute.[3]

A statute is the will of the legislature and the fundamental rule of interpretation, to which all others are subordinate, and that a statute is to be expounded, according to the intent of them that made it. The object of interpretation is to find out the intention of the legislature.

The primary and foremost task of a court in interpreting a statute is to ascertain the intention of the legislature, actual or imputed. The words of the statute are to be construed so as to ascertain the mind of the legislature from the natural and grammatical meaning of the words which it has used. The essence of the Law, according to Salmond:[4]

Lies in its spirit, nor in its letter, for the letter is significant only as being the external manifestation of the intention that underlies it. Nevertheless, in all ordinary cases, the courts must be content to accept the litera legis as the exclusive and conclusive evidence of the sententia legis. They must, in general, take it absolutely for granted that the legislature has said what it meant, and meant what it has said.

The rule was defined by Lord Wensleydale in the Grey v Pearson case (1857)[5] as: The grammatical and ordinary sense of the words is to be adhered to unless that would lead to some absurdity or some repugnance or inconsistency with the rest of the instrument in which case the grammatical and ordinary sense of the words may be modified so as to avoid the absurdity and inconsistency, but no farther.

Therefore, it is the modification of the literal rule of interpretation. The literal rule emphasises on the literal meaning of legal words or words used in the legal context which may often lead to ambiguity and absurdity. The golden rule tries to avoid anomalous and absurd consequences from arising from literal interpretation. In view of the same, the grammatical meaning of such words is usually modified.

The court is usually interested in delivering justice and in order to foresee the consequences of their decisions the golden rule is usually applied. This rule of interpretation aims at giving effect to the spirit of the law as the mere mechanical and grammatical meaning may not be sufficient.

According to Maxwell, The golden rule is that words of Institute must prima facie be given their ordinary meaning.

According to Gray, the process by which a judge (or indeed any person, lawyer or layman, who has occasion to search for the meaning of a statute) constructs from words of a statute book, a meaning which he either believes to be that of the legislature, or which he proposes to attribute to it, is called interpretation.

The words of a statute must be prima facie according to Golden Rule to be given their ordinary meaning because when meaning of the word is plain, it is not the duty of the courts to busy themselves with supposed intention. But when grammatical interpretation leads to absurdity it is permissible to depart from and to interpret the provision of statues in such a manner so that absurdity is removed.[6]

The court when faced with more than one possible interpretation of an enactment is entitled to take into consideration the result of each interpretation in a bid to arrive at the true intention of the legislature. The golden rule provides no clear means to test the existence or extent of an absurdity. It seems to depend on the result of each individual case. Whilst the golden rule has the advantage of avoiding absurdities, it therefore has the disadvantage that no test exists to determine what is an absurdity.

In short, it is an interpretation which will give effect to the purpose of legislature, when the words itself becomes ambiguous, by modification of the language used. On the face of it, this rule solves all problems and is therefore known as Golden Rule. Further since the literal meaning is modified to some extent, this approach is also called the modifying method of interpretation. This rule, therefore, suggests that the consequences or effect of an interpretation deserve a lot more importance because there are clues too the true meaning of a legislation.

In the year 1857, for the first time, Lord Wensleydale propounded the golden rule of interpretation, in Grey Vs. Pearson.[7] Thereafter this rule has become famous by the name of Wensleydales Golden rule.

The Golden Rule was used in the R v Allen case (1872).[8] In this the defendant was charged with bigamy (S.57 of offences against the person act 1861) which, under statutes states: whosoever being married shall marry any other person during the lifetime of the former husband or wife is guilty of an offence.

It is a very useful rule in the construction of a statute to adhere to the ordinary meaning of the words used, and to the grammatical construction, unless that is at variance with the intention of the legislature to be collected from the statute itself, or leads to any manifest absurdity or repugnance, in which case the language may be varied or modified so as to avoid such inconvenience, but no further.

The golden rule can be applied in two ways:

Narrow Approach This approach is applied when the word or phrases capable of more than one literal meaning. This allows the judge to apply the meaning which avoids the absurdity.

Broad Approach This approach is applied when there is only one literal meaning. But applying that one literal meaning would cause an absurdity. Under this approach the court will modify the meaning to avoid the absurdity. The modification shall be keeping in mind the intention of the Parliament making the law in question.

The golden rule of statutory interpretation allows a shift from the ordinary sense of a word(s) if the overall content of the document demands it. It states that if the literal rule produces an absurdity, then the court should look for another meaning of the words to avoid that absurd result. The grammatical and ordinary sense of the words is to be adhered to unless that would lead to some absurdity or some repugnance or inconsistency with the rest of the instrument in which case the grammatical and ordinary sense of the words may be modified so as to avoid the absurdity and inconsistency, but no farther.[9]

The significance of the golden rule in the interpretation is explained followed:

The golden rule can be put forward as a compromise between the literal rule and the mischief rule. It follows the path of literal interpretation by giving the status its ordinary meaning. At the same time, when the literal interpretation leads to an irrational result unlikely to the ends of the act, the court can deviate from the literal sense. Also, while using, abides by the public policy.[11]

An illustration of the use of the rule in its wider as well as its narrower sense is given below:

If there is a sign that say, Do not use the elevators in case of fire, the literal interpretation would mean never to use the elevator while there is a fire. However, this interpretation is absurd and what the sign truly tries to convey is to prevent using the elevators when a fire is nearby.

While using the wider approach, the golden rule avoids a result that would go against the public policy. For example, A son murders his mother and commits suicide. According to the law, the heirs of the mothers property would be either the mothers family or the sons descendants. Since there is a question of profiting from the crime, the court is likely to favour the mothers family in the interest of public policy.

The Golden Rule enables the court to look at the literal meaning of an Act. This rule allows a Judge to depart from a statutes normal meaning to avoid an absurd result. This rule of statutory interpretation may be applied when an application of the Literal Rule would lead to an absurdity. The Golden Rule gives the words of a statute their basic, ordinary meaning. However, when this may lead to an illogical result that is unlikely to be the legislatures intention, the golden rule allows a Judge to depart from this meaning.[12]

If the choice is between two interpretations, said Viscount Simon, L.C. in Nokes v. Doncaster Amalgamated Collieries Ltd.[13] We should avoid a construction which would reduce the legislation to futility or the narrower one which would fail to achieve the manifest purpose of the legislation. We should rather accept the bolder construction based on the view that Parliament would legislate only for the purpose of bringing about an effective result. Thus, if the language is capable of more than one interpretation, one ought to discard the literal or natural meaning if it leads to an unreasonable result, and adopt that interpretation which leads to reasonably practical results.

In this case[14] Section 154 of the Companies Act, 1929, was in question. This provision provided machinery for the transfer of the undertaking (an old company) to a new company. Under the section, transfer includes all property, rights, liabilities and duties of the former company vest with the latter. An issue therefore was whether a contract of service previously existing between an individual and transferor company automatically becomes a contract between the individual and the latter company.

Hence, an action was taken against him; however, no notice was given to him about the proposed amalgamation either by the transferor or the transferee company. It was contended that the contract of service could fall under the term property. Rejecting the contention, the House of Lords held that the benefits of a contract entered into between the former company and the employee cannot be transferred (by X company to Y company) without the consent of the employee.

It is said that the application of Golden Rule of Construction, and its limits, can be seen in the area devoted to construction with reference to the consequences, and construction to avoid inconvenience and injustice, and to prevent evasion He illustrated the application of the rule in various cases relating to criminal, civil, labour, revenue taxation and administration branches of law.

In India there are several good examples where the Supreme Court or High Courts have applied the Golden Construction of Statutes. Certain confusion one may face when it appears that even for literal rule, this rule is named. As golden rule initially starts with the search of literal meaning of the provision, and if there is unequivocal meaning, plain and natural and no repugnancy, uncertainty of absurdity appears, apply the meaning. But when there is possibility of more than one meaning, we have to go further to avoid the inconvenience by even modifying the language by addition, rejection or substitution of words so as to make meaning accurate expounding of intention of the legislature.[15]

In Uttar Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna Samiti v. Brij Kishore,[16] the Supreme Court held that the expression landless person used in section 14 of U.P. Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1953 which made provision for grant of land to landless persons, was limited to landless laborers. A landless labour is he who is engaged in agriculture but having no agricultural land. The Court further said that any landless person did not include a landless businessman residing in a city. The object of the Act was to implement the Bhoodan movement, which aimed at distribution of land to landless labourers who were verged in agriculture. A businessman, though landless cannot claim the benefit of the Act.

In Lee v. Knapp,[17] section 77(1) of the Road Traffic Act, 1960 provided that a driver causing accident shall stop after the accident, the interpretation of the word stop was in question. In this case, the driver of the motor vehicle stopped for a moment after causing an accident and then ran away. Applying the golden rule the court held that the driver had not fulfilled the requirement of the section, as he had not stopped for a reasonable period so as to enable interested persons to make necessary inquires from him about the accident at the spot of accident.

In Ramji Missar v. State of Bihar[18] in construing section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, the Supreme Court laid down that the crucial date on which the age of the offender had to be determined is not the date of offence, but the date on which the sentence is pronounced by the trial court An accused who on the date of offence was below 21 years of age but on the date on which the judgment pronounced, if he was above 21 years, he is not entitled to the benefit of the statute. This conclusion reached having regard to the object of the Act. The object of the Statute is to prevent the turning of the youthful offenders into criminals by their association with the hardened criminals of mature age within the walls of the prison. An accused below 21 years is entitled to the benefit of the Act by sending him under the supervision of the probation officer instead of jail.

In state of Punjab v. Qaiser Jehan Begum,[19] the respondent made an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for reference to the civil court within six months from he her knowledge of the award regarding compensation whereas the section says that such reference would be made within six months from the date of the award. Holding that the application was within time, Supreme Court held that unless an award of compensation comes to the knowledge, either actually or constructively, how can a reference, if any, be made against the award. Therefore, justice and fair play required that the counting of the limitation period must begin from the date of knowledge of the award.

In Narendra Kiadivalapa v. Manikrao Patil,[20] section 23 of the Representation 33 of People Act, 1951, which permitted inclusion of the name in the electoral roll till the last date for nomination for an election in the concerned constituency, has been construed. Section 33(1) of the R.P. Act, 1951 specifies that the nomination papers shall be presented between the hours of 110 clock in the fore noon and 30 clock in the after noon. Reading these provisions together in the light of the object behind them, the Supreme Court construed the words last date in section 23 as last hour of the last date of nomination under section 33(1) of the Act.

In Tirath Singh v. Bachitter Singh[21] the appellant argued that it was obligatory under Section 99 (1) (a) of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951 for the tribunal to record names of all persons who had been guilty of corrupt practices including parties and non parties to the petition and that under the proviso, notice should be given to all persons named under Section 99(1)(a)(ii) He being a party to the petition was, therefore, entitled to a fresh notice. Supreme Court said that such an interpretation will lead to an absurdity and held that the proviso along with clause (b) thereto and the setting of the section pointed out that notice is contemplated only against non- parties to the petition.

In Annapurna Biscuit Manufacturing Co. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax,[22] U P., Sales 34 Tax was fixed at two per cent, of the turnover in the case of cooked food under section 3A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948. The appellant firm engaged in the business of biscuit manufacture and sale. Whether biscuits though intended for human consumption, can be construed as cooked food and liable to be taxed as per the notification issued under the said provision. Held that if an expression is capable of a wider meaning, the question whether the wider or narrower meaning should be accepted depends on the context of the statute. Here biscuit was not covered within the words cooked food. However, where the precise words used are plain and unambiguous the court is bound to construe them in their ordinary sense and not to limit plain words in an Act of Parliament by consideration of policy which has to decided not by court but by Parliament itself.[23]

Lord Moulten in Vacher & Sons v. London Society of Compositor,[25] had explained the reasons for adopting caution before application of the golden rule of construction in these words: There is a danger that it may generate into a mere judicial criticism of the propriety of the Acts of legislature. We have to interpret statutes according to the language used therein, and though occasionally the respective consequences of two rival interpretations may guide us in our choice in between them, it can only be where, taking the Act as a whole and viewing it in connection with the existing state of law at the time of the passing of the Act, we can satisfy ourselves that the words cannot have been used in the sense the argument points. It may sometimes happen that laws made for the benefit of public at large may come in conflict of some individual interest or take away his legal right and cause injustice to him. Like public policy, absurdity, uncertainty or repugnance, are very unruly horses.

In State Bank of India v. Shri N. Sundara Money,[26] the Supreme Court said that it is the duty of all courts of justice, to take care for the general good of the community, that hard cases do not make bad law. Referring earlier cases the court observed that absurdity should be understood in the same sense as repugnance that is to say something which would be as absurd with reference to the other words of the statute as to amount to repugnance

In the case of Grundi v. Great Boulder Proprietary Cold Mines Ltd.,[27] Lord Greene M.R. said, Although 38 absurdity or non-absurdity of one conclusion as capered with another may be and very often is, of assistance to the court in choosing between two possible meanings of ambiguous words. The Golden Rule of Construction is a doctrine, which must be applied with great care, remembering that judges may be fallible in this question of absurdity and in any event it must not be applied so as to result in twisting language into a meaning, which it cannot bear. It is a doctrine which must not be used to re-write the language in a way different from that in which it was originally framed.

The Golden Rule is probably the most well-known ethical code of all time. It was used by the Romans, the Chinese, the Greeks and adopted by every major religion imaginable. And at first glance it does seem like a good ethical code to hold by as a society. However, the golden rule is not only flawed and selfish, but it can also justify immoral acts. The main reason for the golden rule is flawed is because the moral standard and criteria is not based on others desires and preferences and its not even solely focused on what our preferences and desires are. The Golden Rule implies the basic assumption that other people would like to be treated the way that you would like to be treated. And with that we are inevitably led to moral relativism, whatever your moral standard and desires are, is what is morally good for others.[31]

Now such moral thinking can be counter-productive and used to justify immoral acts. Consider a suicide bomber, a suicide bomber has no regard for his own life, he is literally killing himself. According to the golden rule treating someone should be based on how you want to be treated and since the suicide bomber is treating himself with death is it therefor justified that he could kill others?

The word absurdity is a vague concept and arises only in a few cases where it necessary for the court to apply the golden rule of interpretation. Golden rule suffers from the same problems which were faced by the Literal approach i.e. lack of wider contextual understanding of meanings. The majority of the cases contain tough scenarios where touch choices have to be made between many credible arguments, not scenarios in places where wordings of the legislation take you to obvious ambiguity.[32]

The golden rule gives a court opportunities to create exceptions given public that are not based on the social subject matter under the legislation, not even on the consequences of the wordings made use by the law-making body, but entirely on the social and political perceptions of the judges who deal with such difficult cases.

They are not rules in any ordinary sense of the word since they all point to different solutions to the same problem. Nor is there any indication, either in the so-called rules or elsewhere, as to which to apply in any given situation. Each of them may be applied but need not be. Following are criticized that is made by Zander about the golden rule for being silent as to how the court should proceed if it does find an unacceptable absurdity[33]:

The result is that in ultimate analysis the golden rule does allow a court to make quite openly exceptions which are based not on the social policy behind the Act, not even on the total effect of the words used by the legislature, but purely on the social and political views of the men who happen to be sitting on the case.

Every nation has its own judicial system, the purpose of which to grant justice to all. The court aims to interpret the law in such a manner that every citizen is ensured justice to all. To ensure justice to all the concept of canons of interpretation was expounded. These are the rules which are evolved for determining the real intention of the legislature.

It is not necessary that the words used in a statute are always clear, explicit and unambiguous and thus, in such cases it is very essential for courts to determine a clear and explicit meaning of the words or phrases used by the legislature and at the same time remove all the doubts if any.

Hence, the Golden Rule of Interpretation could be concluded as[34]

[1] Indian Institute of legal studies, Golden Rule of Interpretation, available at: https://www.iilsindia.com/blogs/golden-rule-of-interpretation/ (visited on September 22, 2021).

[2] Prof. T. Bhattacharyya, The interpretation of Statutes (Central Law Agency, Allahabad, 10th edn, 2017).

[3] Prof. T. Bhattacharyya, The interpretation of Statutes (Central Law Agency, Allahabad, 10th edn, 2017).

[4] Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Golden Rule, available at: https://iep.utm.edu/goldrule/ (visited on September 23, 2021).

[5] 1857) 6 HL 61, p 106,26 LJ Ch 473,p 481

[6] Brief regarding rules of interpretation of statutes, available at: https://taxguru.in/corporate-law/rules-interpretation-statutes.html (visited on September 23, 2021).

[7] Ibid

[8] 2 ALL ER 641

[9] Becke v Smith,1836 150 E.R. 724 .

[10] Prof. T. Bhattacharyya, The interpretation of Statutes (Central Law Agency, Allahabad, 10th edn, 2017).

[11] Radhika Saxena The Golden Rule of Interpretation 22 IJN 17 (2020).

[12] Sidharth Sabu Golden Rule of Interpretation 20 LLNN 12 (2020).

[13] 1940) AC 1014.

[14] Viscount Simon, L.C. in Nokes v. Doncaster Amalgamated Collieries Ltd. 1940) AC 1014.

[15] Shraddha Agrawal The Golden rule of Interpretation, available at: https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/golden-rule-interpretation/#_edn52 (visited on September 23, 2021).

[16] 1988 RD 363 (SC)

[17] (1967) 2 QB 442.

[18] AIR 2003 P.& H. 135.

[19] AIR 1963 SC 1604

[20] AIR 1977 SC 2171

[21] AIR 1955 SC 850

[22] AIR 1981 SC 1656

[23] Prof. T. Bhattacharyya, The interpretation of Statutes (Central Law Agency, Allahabad, 10th edn, 2017).

[24] Shraddha Agrawal The Golden rule of Interpretation, available at: https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/golden-rule-interpretation/#_edn52 (visited on September 24, 2021).

[25] [1912] UKHL 3; (1913) AC 107

[26] [1976] 3 S.C.R. 160

[27] 1948 a ALL ER 21

[28] Golden Rule of Interpretation And Evolutionary Principals, available at: https://www.academia.edu/34857472/GOLDEN_RULE_OF_INTERPRETATION_AND_EVOLUTIONARY_PRINCIPALS (visited on September 23, 2021).

[29] Ibid

[30] [1946] AC 278

[31] Langan P St. J, Maxwell, The Interpretation of Statutes, Lexi Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa, 12th edn., (2010).

[32] Rosedar S R A, Interpretation of Statutes, (Thomson Reuters, Haryana, 3rd edn., 2020).

[33] The Law Making Process (4th edition, 1994), 130.

[34] Prof. T. Bhattacharyya, The interpretation of Statutes (Central Law Agency, Allahabad, 10th edn, 2017).

5,010total views, 14views today

Read the original post:

GOLDEN RULE OF INTERPRETATION AND CASES - Social Laws Today

Posted in Golden Rule | Comments Off

NBA Best Bets: NBA Picks and Betting Trends on DraftKings Sportsbook for January 10 – DraftKings Nation

Posted: at 7:03 pm

NBA Best Bets: NBA Picks and Betting Trends on DraftKings Sportsbook for January 10 DraftKings Nation

See more here:

NBA Best Bets: NBA Picks and Betting Trends on DraftKings Sportsbook for January 10 - DraftKings Nation

Posted in Sportsbook | Comments Off

How to bet the Donovan Mitchell Super Boost Tuesday on DraftKings Sportsbook – DraftKings Nation

Posted: at 7:03 pm

How to bet the Donovan Mitchell Super Boost Tuesday on DraftKings Sportsbook DraftKings Nation

Go here to see the original:

How to bet the Donovan Mitchell Super Boost Tuesday on DraftKings Sportsbook - DraftKings Nation

Posted in Sportsbook | Comments Off

A school librarian on technology, book censorship and the power of … – Northern Public Radio (WNIJ)

Posted: at 7:00 pm

A school librarian on technology, book censorship and the power of ... Northern Public Radio (WNIJ)

More here:
A school librarian on technology, book censorship and the power of ... - Northern Public Radio (WNIJ)

Posted in Censorship | Comments Off

Crypto Price Today Live: Bitcoin above $17,200; XRP, Shiba Inu and Cardano drop up to 4% – Economic Times

Posted: at 6:57 pm

Crypto Price Today Live: Bitcoin above $17,200; XRP, Shiba Inu and Cardano drop up to 4% Economic Times

Posted in Bitcoin | Comments Off

Noted Transhumanist Now Targeting Our Children: Whats inside Yuval …

Posted: at 6:55 pm

Guest post by Leo Hohmann

Deborah DeGroff is an author and expert on childrens books, which she analyzes from a biblical perspective. In herlatest article, she peels back the layers of deception in a new book by noted globalist, futurist and transhumanist Yuval Noah Harari.

Some have described Harari, a gifted storyteller, as one of the worlds mostdangerous men. He serves as one of Klaus Schwabs top advisers at the World Economic Forum, has written many books and is a sought-after speaker not only at the WEF but on college campuses worldwide. He has stated that he believes humans are hackable animals devoid of a free will or a soul and that because we accepted mass surveillance during the Covid lockdowns, its just a matter of time before we accept the next step in a coming global technocracy placing that surveillance under the skin.

TRENDING: Speaker McCarthy Moves to Remove Eric Swalwell, Adam Schiff and Ilhan Omar from Congressional Committees

But with a brand-new book hitting the bookstores, this marks Hararis first attempt to get at our children. The book, targeting 10 to 14-year-olds, is being heavily marketed and will be the first in a four-part series, so the chances your child or grandchild will come in contact with it at some point are pretty high.

Here is DeGroffs penetrating look at one of the worlds most dangerous men and how hes working to get access to the minds of our most vulnerable and impressionable our children.

By Deborah DeGroff

Who is Yuval Noah Harari and why has he become so influential? What is his message? Does his heavily-marketed new book for children echo the same sentiments he so adamantly feeds his adult audiences?

Professor Yuval Noah Harari is a historian, philosopher, and the bestselling author ofSapiens: A Brief History of Humankind,Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow,21 Lessons for the 21st Century,andSapiens: A Graphic History. His books have sold over 40 million copies in 65 languages, and he is considered one of the worlds most influential public intellectuals today. [Clickhereto read the complete bio on Hararis website.]

Harari was a keynote speaker at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, in both 2018 and 2020. His speeches and interviews on various media platforms are watched by millions.

Harari is not shy about stating his beliefs. In a nutshell, in Hararis gospel there is no God, no soul, and no freewill. Once these pillars are accepted as truth by his followersmany of whom are in positions of powerthe next step will be deciding the fate of billions of people who are no longer necessary in a future world that consists of artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and transhumanism.

Hararis book,Sapiens,wasendorsed by Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, and Barak Obama.

Christopher Carbone wrote the article,Humans Will Eventually Merge With Machines, Professor Says,for Fox News in July 2019, stating:

Its increasingly hard to tell where I end and where the computer begins,Harari, a professor of history at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, told the audience at the Fast Company European Innovation Festival. In the future, it is likely that the smartphone will not be separated from you at all. It may be embedded in your body or brain, constantly scanning your biometric data and your emotions.

Harari continued: If we told our ancestors in the Stone Age about our lives today, they would think we are already Gods. But the truth is that even though we have developed more sophisticated tools, we are the same animals. We have the same emotions, the same minds. The coming revolution will change that. It will change not just our tools, it will change the human being itself.

In his speech at the 2020 World Economic Forum in Davos, Harari informed his audience that automation will soon eliminate millions upon millions of jobs (creating a large class of useless people). Harari stated:

Old jobs will disappear, new jobs will emerge, but then the new jobs will rapidly change and vanish. Whereas in the past humans had to struggle against exploitation, in the 21st century the really big struggle will be against irrelevance.

And it is much worse to be irrelevant than exploited.

Those who fail in the struggle against irrelevance would constitute a new useless class people who are useless not from the viewpoint of their friends and family, but useless from the viewpoint of the economic and political system.

. . . And what will happen to politics in your country in twenty years, when somebody in San Francisco or Beijing knows the entire medical and personal history of every politician, every judge and every journalist in your country, including all their sexual escapades, all their mental weaknesses and all their corrupt dealings? Will it still be an independent country or will it become a data-colony?

When you have enough data you dont need to send soldiers, in order to control a country.

. . . If you know enough biology and have enough computing power and data, you can hack my body and my brain and my life, and you can understand me better than I understand myself. . . . You know more about me than I know about myself. And you can do that not just to me, but to everyone.

A system that understands us better than we understand ourselves can predict our feelings and decisions, can manipulate our feelings and decisions, and can ultimately make decisions for us.

. . . But soon at least some corporations and governments will be able to systematically hack all the people. We humans should get used to the idea that we are no longer mysterious souls we are now hackable animals. Thats what we are.

. . . In the coming decades, AI and biotechnology will give us godlike abilities to reengineer life, and even to create completely new life-forms. After four billion years of organic life shaped by natural selection, we are about to enter a new era of inorganic life shaped by intelligent design.

Our intelligent design is going to be the new driving force of the evolution of life. . .[Clickhereto read the speech]

Chris Anderson, head of TED media, interviewed Harari in August 2022. Anderson commented that Harari strongly recommends meditation. Harari responded that he meditates for two hours each day and that he does the Vipassana meditation, which he learned from S.N. Goenka.

And . . . my yearly vacation is to go on a long retreat of between say 30 days and 60 days. I just came back last month from a 60-day meditation retreat, Harari says. [Clickhereto listen, starting at 45:20.]

During this interview, Harari tells Anderson he isnt against technology as it can bring enormous benefits to humanity as a whole. He continues that he met [his] husband online in one of the first dating sites for LGBT people in Israel in the early 2000s. [Clickhereto listen. This begins at 40:29.]

Yuval Noah Harari holds great influence with many people in positions of power. Up until recently, this audience has consisted of adults.

Now, Harari is introducing his message to children.

Autumn 2022 saw Harari venturing into the world of childrens books, with the pre-teen seriesUnstoppable Us.Here, he tells the unbelievable true story of humans our all-conquering and insatiable species in a way that is accessible to kids. The series will be published in four volumes, featuring full-color illustrations, starting withUnstoppable Us,Volume 1: How Humans Took Over the World.

Harari includes a Timeline of History at the beginning ofUnstoppable Us.

PART 1, HISTORY OF HUMANITY

He begins with 6 million years ago with a picture of an upright creature that is a cross between a human and an ape. The caption reads that this was the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees.

He follows with a jump to the 2.5 million years ago mark in which he states that Humans evolve in Africa. The Gospel of Harari moves forward another half-million years with the [e]volution of different kinds of humans.

By 400,000 years ago, Neanderthals evolve in Europe and the Middle East and 300,000 years ago, Sapiens evolve in Africa. 70,000 years ago, the Sapiens leave Africa in large numbers. 35,000 years ago the Neanderthals are extinct and Sapiens are the last surviving kind of human.

Planet Earth was once ruled by many different animals . . . But now we humans rule everything: the land, the sea, and the sky. . . . The only reason lions, dolphins, and eagles still exist is because we allow them to.

He concludes this introduction with, AND its a true story.

Chapter 1 teaches the children that millions of years ago, we were just ordinary animals who ate worms and climbed trees to pick fruit. Until humans learned to make tools, the other animals werent afraid of them.

Harari explains that when kids wake up in the night frightened that there are monsters under their beds that this is simply a memory from millions of years ago . . . [when] monsters . . . sneaked up on children in the night. His example is of a lion coming to eat the child. This idea is repeated in the closing of his book.

Next, the humans invented fire.

A single weak human with a fire stick could burn down an entire forest in a matter of hours, destroying thousands of trees and killing thousands of animals.

Now, the humans could cook their food. As a result, humans started to change: they had smaller teeth, smaller stomachs . . . and much more free time.

Harari expands on this by stating that some scientists suggest it was cooking that made it possible for the human brain to start growing.

Once they started cooking . . . humans could spend far less energy chewing and digesting and had more energy to feed big brains. Their stomachs shrank, their brains grew, and people got smarter.

In the next chapter, the children learn that our planet was actually home to many different kinds of humans.

Harari introduces the Floresians and follows with the bigger-brained Neanderthals, and the Denisovans. However, according to him, the Sapiens eventually killed off all of these ancestors.

. . . when the new super-Sapiens reached Europe, they picked allthe pears, ate all the berries, and hunted all the deer. This meant that the local Neanderthals had nothing left to eat, so they died of hunger. And if any Neanderthals tried to stop the Sapiens from taking all the food, the Sapiens probably killed them.

Then our ancestors went to Siberia and took all the food from the Denisovans. And then they went to Flores, and . . . soon there wasnt a single small human or small elephant to be found. And when all the other humans were gone, our ancestors still werent satisfied. Although they were now incredibly powerful, they wanted even more power and more food, so they sometimes fought one another.

The next chapter begins with, You see, we Sapiens are not very nice animals. Often, he concludes, this is due to different skin colors, languages, or religions.

But a few years ago, scientists discovered that at least some of our Sapiens ancestors didnt kill or starve all the other humans they met.

Harari explains that because of our knowledge of DNA, scientists have determined that some Neanderthals had children with Sapiens.I guess Harariintends for these middle-grade students to conclude that some people today are not 100% evil since they have some Neanderthal DNA . . .

Harari then speculates as to what the world would be like today if our ancestors had been nicer and had allowed the Neanderthals and the Floresians to go on living and developing.

PART 2: GOD IS JUST A FAIRY TALE

In Part 2 of the book, Hararis explains why and how Sapiens ended up ruling the world. He says cooperation is what makes us so powerful.

Harari then poses the question:

How did our ancestors learn to cooperate in large numbers in the first place, and how come we can constantly change our behavior?

[Its] our ability to dream up stuff that isnt really there and to tell all kinds of imaginary stories.

If thousands of people believe in the same story, then theyll all follow the same rules, which means they can cooperate effectively.

Lets say a Sapiens tells everyone this story: Theres a Great Lion Spirit that lives above the clouds. If you obey the Great Lion Spirit, then when you die, youll go the land of the spirits, and youll have all the bananas you can eat. But if you disobey the Great Lion Spirit, a big lion will come and eat you!

Of course, this story isnt true at all. But if a thousand people believe it, theyll all start doing whatever the story tells them to do.

He expands on thisjust in case itwent over any of the kids heads. If you say, The Great Lion Spirit wants everyone to give a banana to the priest in the temple, and in return, when they die, theyll receive lots and lots of bananas in the land of the spirits, then a thousand people will bring bananas to the priest.

You could never persuade a chimpanzee to give you a banana by promising him that when he dies, hell go to chimpanzee heaven and have all the bananas he can eat . . . only Sapiens believe stories like that. And thats why we rule the world, whereas poor chimps are locked up in zoos.

Some go fight people on the other side of the world because they believe that a god told them to. Others give lots of money to construct a big building because they believe that a god wants it.

Harari next informs the kids about one of the most interesting games grown-ups play . . . called corporation. He uses McDonalds Corporation as an illustration and informs the children that although you can go to the restaurants or talk to the employees, what they see is not McDonalds as it exists only in our imagination.

. . . If you want to open a restaurant but you dont want to risk losing your socks or going to jail, you create a corporation. And then the corporation does everything and takes all the risks.

The corporation borrows money from the bank, and if it cant repay the money, nobody can blame you for it, and nobody can take your house or your socks. After all, the bank gave the money to the corporation, not to you. And if somebody eats a burger and gets a really nasty stomachache, nobody can hold you responsible. You didnt make that burgerthe corporation did.

Well, money is also just another imaginary story that grown-ups believe. [Bankers and politicians] tell stories like This small piece of paper is worth ten bananas, and the grown-ups believe them.

. . . humans can quickly change the way we behave by simply changing the stories we believe.

Harari then uses France to illustrate the next point he wants to make:

People believed that a great god above the clouds said that France must be ruled by a king and that all French people must do whatever the king commanded. . . . But as long as French people believed this story, they obeyed their king.

He follows with a story about a kings daughter that wanted to rule France.You cant rule France, they said, because the great god above the clouds doesnt like girls very much. The great god above the clouds is a boy, so he made boys much smarter and braver than girls. So a girl cant rule the kingdom of France. Only boys can.And because people believed the story, they wouldnt let girls become rulers. In fact, they wouldnt let them do all sorts of things: . . .

But there are two important things to remember: people need stories in order to cooperate, and they can change the way they cooperate by changing the stories they believe.

On page 72, Harari suggests that someone might have told them stories such as:

The Great Lion Spirit wants us to get rid of the Neanderthals . . . [they] are very strong, but dont worry. Even if a Neanderthal kills you, thats actually a good thing because youll go to the land of the spirits above the clouds, where the Great Lion Spirit will welcome you and give you lots of blueberries and giraffe steaks to eat.

And people believed the story, so they cooperated to get rid of the Neanderthals.

. . . This belief in stories gave our ancestors so much power that they spread all over the world, conquering every land on the planet.

HARARIS CORRUPTED VIEW OF THE FAMILY

Read the rest here

LeoHohmann.com is 100 percent reader supported, bringing you news and analysis you wont find elsewhere. If you would like to help support my work, please consider making a donation, which can be sent c/o Leo Hohmann, PO Box 291, Newnan, GA 30264, or via credit card through GiveSendGo.

Continue reading here:
Noted Transhumanist Now Targeting Our Children: Whats inside Yuval ...

Posted in Transhumanist | Comments Off

Humans Will Never Colonize Mars – Gizmodo

Posted: at 6:55 pm

The suggestion that humans will soon set up bustling, long-lasting colonies on Mars is something many of us take for granted. What this lofty vision fails to appreciate, however, are the monumentalif not intractablechallenges awaiting colonists who want to permanently live on Mars. Unless we radically adapt our brains and bodies to the harsh Martian environment, the Red Planet will forever remain off limits to humans.

Mars is the closest thing we have to Earth in the entire solar system, and thats not saying much.

The Red Planet is a cold, dead place, with an atmosphere about 100 times thinner than Earths. The paltry amount of air that does exist on Mars is primarily composed of noxious carbon dioxide, which does little to protect the surface from the Suns harmful rays. Air pressure on Mars is very low; at 600 Pascals, its only about 0.6 percent that of Earth. You might as well be exposed to the vacuum of space, resulting in a severe form of the bendsincluding ruptured lungs, dangerously swollen skin and body tissue, and ultimately death. The thin atmosphere also means that heat cannot be retained at the surface. The average temperature on Mars is -81 degrees Fahrenheit (-63 degrees Celsius), with temperatures dropping as low as -195 degrees F (-126 degrees C). By contrast, the coldest temperature ever recorded on Earth was at Vostok Station in Antarctica, at -128 degrees F (-89 degrees C) on June 23, 1982. Once temperatures get below the -40 degrees F/C mark, people who arent properly dressed for the occasion can expect hypothermia to set in within about five to seven minutes.

Mars also has less mass than is typically appreciated. Gravity on the Red Planet is 0.375 that of Earths, which means a 180-pound person on Earth would weigh a scant 68 pounds on Mars. While that might sound appealing, this low-gravity environment would likely wreak havoc to human health in the long term, and possibly have negative impacts on human fertility.

Yet despite these and a plethora of other issues, theres this popular idea floating around that well soon be able to set up colonies on Mars with ease. SpaceX CEO Elon Musk is projecting colonies on Mars as early as the 2050s, while astrobiologist Lewis Darnell, a professor at the University of Westminster, has offered a more modest estimate, saying itll be about 50 to 100 years before substantial numbers of people have moved to Mars to live in self-sustaining towns. The United Arab Emirates is aiming to build a Martian city of 600,000 occupants by 2117, in one of the more ambitious visions of the future.

Illustration: Soviet artist Andrei Sokolov (mid-1960s)

Sadly, this is literally science fiction. While theres no doubt in my mind that humans will eventually visit Mars and even build a base or two, the notion that well soon set up colonies inhabited by hundreds or thousands of people is pure nonsense, and an unmitigated denial of the tremendous challenges posed by such a prospect.

Pioneering astronautics engineer Louis Friedman, co-founder of the Planetary Society and author of Human Spaceflight: From Mars to the Stars, likens this unfounded enthusiasm to the unfulfilled visions proposed during the 1940s and 1950s.

Back then, cover stories of magazines like Popular Mechanics and Popular Science showed colonies under the oceans and in the Antarctic, Friedman told Gizmodo. The feeling was that humans would find a way to occupy every nook and cranny of the planet, no matter how challenging or inhospitable, he said. But this just hasnt happened. We make occasional visits to Antarctica and we even have some bases there, but thats about it. Under the oceans its even worse, with some limited human operations, but in reality its really very, very little. As for human colonies in either of these environments, not so much. In fact, not at all, despite the relative ease at which we could achieve this.

After the Moon landings, Friedman said he and his colleagues were hugely optimistic about the future, believing we would do more and more things, such as place colonies on Mars and the Moon, but the fact is, no human spaceflight program, whether Apollo, the Space Shuttle Program, or the International Space Station, has established the necessary groundwork for setting up colonies on Mars, such as building the required infrastructure, finding safe and viable ways of sourcing food and water, mitigating the deleterious effects of radiation and low gravity, among other issues. Unlike other fields, development into human spaceflight, he said, has become static. Friedman agreed that well likely build bases on Mars, but the evidence of history suggests colonization is unlikely for the foreseeable future.

Neuroscientist Rachael Seidler from the University of Florida says many people today fail to appreciate how difficult itll be to sustain colonies on the Red Planet.

People like to be optimistic about the idea of colonizing Mars, Seidler, a specialist in motor learning and the effects of microgravity on astronauts, told Gizmodo. But it also sounds a bit pie-in-the-sky, she said. A lot of people approach it as thinking we shouldnt limit ourselves based on practicalities, but I agree, there are a lot of potential negative physiological consequences.

Seidler said NASA and other space agencies are currently working very hard to create and test countermeasures for the various negative impacts of living on Mars. For example, astronauts on the ISS, who are subject to tremendous muscle and bone loss, try to counteract the effects by doing strength and aerobic training while up in space. As for treating the resulting negative health impacts, whether caused by long-duration stays on the ISS or from long-term living in the low-gravity environment of Mars, were not there yet, said Seidler.

In his latest book, On the Future: Prospects for Humanity, cosmologist and astrophysicist Martin Rees addressed the issue of colonizing Mars rather succinctly:

By 2100 thrill seekers... may have established bases independent from the Earthon Mars, or maybe on asteroids. Elon Musk (born in 1971) of SpaceX says he wants to die on Marsbut not on impact. But dont ever expect mass emigration from Earth. And here I disagree strongly with Musk and with my late Cambridge colleague Stephen Hawking, who enthuse about rapid build-up of large-scale Martian communities. Its a dangerous delusion to think that space offers an escape from Earths problems. Weve got to solve these problems here. Coping with climate change may seem daunting, but its a doddle compared to terraforming Mars. No place in our solar system offers an environment even as clement as the Antarctic or the top of Everest. Theres no Planet B for ordinary risk-averse people.

Indeed, theres the whole terraforming issue to consider. By terraforming, scientists are referring to the hypothetical prospect of geoengineering a planet to make it habitable for humans and other life. For Mars, that would mean the injection of oxygen and other gases into the atmosphere to raise surface temperature and air pressure, among other interventions. A common argument in favor of colonizing Mars is that itll allow us to begin the process of transforming the planet to a habitable state. This scenario has been tackled by a number of science fiction authors, including Kim Stanley Robinson in his acclaimed Mars Trilogy. But as Friedman told Gizmodo, thats thousands of years in the making at least.

Briony Horgan, assistant professor of planetary science at Purdue University, said Martian terraforming is a pipedream, a prospect thats way beyond any kind of technology were going to have any time soon, she told Gizmodo.

Screenshot: Still from Total Recall (1990)

When it comes to terraforming Mars, theres also the logistics to consider, and the materials available to the geoengineers who would dare to embark upon such a multi-generational project. In their 2018 Nature paper, Bruce Jakosky and Christopher Edwards from the University of Colorado, Boulder sought to understand how much carbon dioxide would be needed to increase the air pressure on Mars to the point where humans could work on the surface without having to wear pressure suits, and to increase temperature such that liquid water could exist and persist on the surface. Jakosky and Edwards concluded that theres not nearly enough CO2 on Mars required for terraforming, and that future geoengineers would have to somehow import the required gases to do so.

To be clear, terraforming is not necessarily an impossibility, but the timeframes and technologies required preclude the possibility of sustaining large, vibrant colonies on Mars for the foreseeable future.

Until such time, an un-terraformed Mars will present a hostile setting for venturing pioneers. First and foremost theres the intense radiation to deal with, which will confront the colonists with a constant health burden.

Horgan said there are many big challenges to colonizing Mars, with radiation exposure being one of them. This is an issue that a lot of folks, including those at SpaceX, arent thinking about too clearly, she told Gizmodo. Living underground or in shielded bases may be an option, she said, but we have to expect that cancer rates will still be an order of magnitude greater given the added exposure over time.

You can only do so much with radiation protection, Horgan said. We could quantify the risks for about a year, but not over the super long term. The problem is that you cant stay in there [i.e. underground or in bases] forever. As soon as you go outside to do anything, youre in trouble, she said.

Horgan pointed to a recent Nature study showing that radiation on Mars is far worse than we thought, adding that we dont have the long-term solutions yet, unless you want to risk radiation illnesses. Depending on the degree of exposure, excessive radiation can result in skin burns, radiation sickness, cancer, and cardiovascular disease.

Friedman agrees that, in principle, we could create artificial environments on Mars, whether by building domes or underground dwellings. The radiation problem may be solvable, he said, but the problems are still huge, and in a sense anti-human.

Life in a Martian colony would be miserable, with people forced to live in artificially lit underground bases, or in thickly protected surface stations with severely minimized access to the outdoors. Life in this closed environment, with limited access to the surface, could result in other health issues related to exclusive indoor living, such as depression, boredom from lack of stimulus, an inability to concentrate, poor eyesight, and high blood pressurenot to mention a complete disconnect from nature. And like the International Space Station, Martian habitats will likely be a microbial desert, hosting only a tiny sample of the bacteria needed to maintain a healthy human microbiome.

Another issue has to do with motivation. As Friedman pointed out earlier, we dont see colonists living in Antarctica or under the sea, so why should we expect troves of people to want to live in a place thats considerably more unpleasant? It seems a poor alternative to living on Earth, and certainly a major step down in terms of quality of life. A strong case could even be made that, for prospective families hoping to spawn future generations of Martian colonists, its borderline cruelty.

And thats assuming humans could even reproduce on Mars, which is an open question. Casting aside the deleterious effects of radiation on the developing fetus, theres the issue of conception to consider in the context of living in a minimal gravity environment. We dont know how sperm and egg will act on Mars, or how the first critical stages of conception will occur. And most of all, we dont know how low gravity will affect the mother and fetus.

Seidler, an expert in human physiology and kinesiology, said the issue of human gestation on Mars is a troublesome unknown. The developing fetus, she said, is likely to sit higher up in the womb owing to the lower gravity, which will press upon the mothers diaphragm, making it hard for the mother to breathe. The low gravity may also confuse the gestational process, delaying or interfering with critical phases of the fetus development, such as the fetus dropping by week 39. On Earth, bones, muscles, the circulatory system, and other aspects of human physiology develop by working against gravity. Its possible that the human body might adapt to the low-gravity situation on Mars, but we simply dont know. An artificial womb might be a possible solution, but again, thats not something well have access to anytime soon, nor does it solve the low-gravity issue as it pertains to fetal development (unless the artificial womb is placed in a centrifuge to simulate gravity).

A strong case can be made that any attempt to procreate on Mars should be forbidden until more is known. Enforcing such a policy on a planet thats 34 million miles away at its closest is another question entirely, though one would hope that Martian societies wont regress to lawlessness and a complete disregard of public safety and established ethical standards.

For other colonists, the minimal gravity on Mars could result in serious health problems over the long term. Studies of astronauts who have participated in long-duration missions lasting about a year exhibit troubling symptoms, including bone and muscle loss, cardiovascular problems, immune and metabolic disorders, visual disorders, balance and sensorimotor problems, among many other health issues. These problems may not be as acute as those experienced on Mars, but again, we simply dont know. Perhaps after five or 10 or 20 years of constant exposure to low gravity, similar gravity-related disorders will set in.

Seidlers research into the effects of microgravity suggests its a distinct possibility.

Yes, there would be physiological and neural changes that would occur on Mars due to its partial-gravity environment, she told Gizmodo. Its not clear whether these changes would plateau at some point. My work has shown an upward shift of the brain within the skull in microgravity, some regions of gray matter increases and others that decrease, structural changes within the brains white matter, and fluid shifts towards the top of the head.

Seidler said some of these changes scale with the duration of microgravity exposure, from two weeks up to six months, but she hasnt looked beyond that.

Illustration: Cover of Martian Time Slip by Philip K. Dick. (1964, Ballantine Books)

Some of these effects would have to eventually plateauthere is a structural limit on the fluid volume that the skull can contain, for example, she said. And, the nervous system is very adaptable. It can learn how to control movements in microgravity despite the altered sensory inputs. But again, its unclear what the upper limits are.

The effects of living in partial gravity compared to microgravity may not be as severe, she said, but in either case, different sensory inputs are going into the brain, as theyre not loaded by weight in the way theyre used to. This can result in a poor sense of balance and compromised motor functions, but research suggests astronauts in microgravity eventually adapt.

There are a lot of questions still unanswered about how microgravity and partial gravity will affect human physiology, Seidler told Gizmodo. We dont yet understand the safety or health implications. More needs to be done.

Astronauts who return from long-duration missions have a rough go for the first few days back on Earth, experiencing nausea, dizziness, and weakness. Some astronauts, like NASAs Scott Kelly, never feel like their old selves again, including declines in cognitive test scores and altered gene function. Work by NASAs Scott Wood has shown that recovery time for astronauts is proportionate to the length of the missionthe longer the mission, the longer the recovery. Disturbingly, we have no data for microgravity exposure beyond a year or so, and its an open question as to the effects of low gravity on the human body after years, or even decades, of exposure.

With this in mind, its an open question as to how Martian colonists might fare upon a return visit to Earth. It might actually be a brutal experience, especially after having experienced years in a partial gravity environment. Children born on Mars (if thats even a possibility) might never be able to visit the planet where their species originated.

And these are the health issues we think might be a problem. A host of other problems are likely to exist, giving rise to Martian-specific diseases affecting our brains, bodies, and emotional well-being. The human lifespan on Mars is likely to be significantly less than it is on Earth, though again, we simply dont know.

Finally, theres the day-to-day survival to consider. Limited access to fundamental resources, like food and water, could place further constraints on a colonys ability to grow and thrive.

Establishing stable resources to live off for a long period of time is possible, but itll be tough, said Horgan. Well want to be close to water and water ice, but for that well have to go pretty far north. But the further north you go, the rougher the conditions get on the surface. The winters are cold, and theres less sunlight.

Colonists will also need stable food sources, and figure out a way to keep plants away from radiation. The regolith, or soil, on Mars is toxic, containing dangerous perchlorate chemicals, so that also needs to be avoided. To grow crops, colonists will likely build subterranean hydroponic greenhouses. This will require specialized lighting, genetically modified plants designed specifically for Mars, and plenty of water, the latter of which will be difficult to source on Mars.

People dont realize how complicated this is, said Horgan. Trying to think about establishing colonies to point of what we would consider safe will be a big challenge.

Technological solutions to these problems may exist, as are medical interventions to treat Martian-specific diseases. But again, nothing that we could possibly develop soon. And even if we do develop therapies to treat humans living on Mars, these interventions are likely to be limited in scope, with patients requiring constant care and attention.

As Martin Rees pointed out, Mars and other space environments are inherently hostile for humans, but as he wrote in his book,

[We] (and our progeny here on Earth) should cheer on the brave space adventurers, because they will have a pivotal role in spearheading the post-human future and determining what happens in the twenty-second century and beyond.

By post-human future, Rees is referring to a hypothetical future era in which humans have undergone extensive biological and cybernetic modifications such that they can no longer be classified as human. So while Mars will remain inaccessible to ordinary, run-of-the-mill Homo sapiens, the Red Planet could become available to those who dare to modify themselves and their progeny.

A possible solution is to radically modify human biology to make Martian colonists specially adapted to live, work, and procreate on the Red Planet. As Rees wrote in On the Future:

So, because they will be ill-adapted to their new habitat, the pioneer explorers will have a more compelling incentive than those of us on Earth to redesign themselves. Theyll harness the super-powerful genetic and cyborg technologies that will be developed in coming decades. These techniques will be, one hopes, heavily regulated on Earth, on prudential and ethical grounds, but settlers on Mars will be far beyond the clutches of the regulators. We should wish them good luck in modifying their progeny to adapt to alien environments. This might be the first step towards divergence into a new species. Genetic modification would be supplemented by cyborg technologyindeed there may be a transition to fully inorganic intelligences. So, its these space-faring adventurers, not those of us comfortably adapted to life on Earth, who will spearhead the posthuman era.

Indeed, modifying humans to make them adaptable to living on Mars will require dramatic changes.

Our DNA would have to be tailored specifically to enable a long, healthy life on Mars, including genetic tweaks for good muscle, bone, and brain health. These traits could be made heritable, such that Martian colonists could pass down the characteristics to their offspring. In cases where biology is not up for the task, scientists could use cybernetic enhancements, including artificial neurons or synthetic skin capable of fending off dangerous UV rays. Nanotechnology in the form of molecular machines could deliver medicines, perform repair work, and eliminate the need for breathing and eating. Collectively, these changes would result in an entirely new species of humanone built specifically for Mars.

Synthetic biologist and geneticist Craig Venter believes this is a distinct possibilityand a tantalizing prospect. While delivering a keynote address at a NASA event in 2010, Venter said, Not too many things excite my imagination as trying to design organismseven peoplefor long-term space flight, and perhaps colonization of other worlds.

Like some of the other solutions proposed, this wont happen any time soon, nor will it be easy. And it may not even happen. Which brings a rather discouraging prospect to mind: We may be stuck on Earth.

As Friedman pointed out, this carries some rather heavy existential and philosophical implications. If humans cant make it to Mars, it means were destined to be a single-planet species, he said. Whats more, it suggests extraterrestrial civilizations might be in the same boat, and that the potential for intelligent life to spread throughout the universe is very, very gloomy, he told Gizmodo.

If we cant make it to a nearby planet with an atmosphere, water, and a stable surfacewhich in principle suggests we could do itthen certainly were not going to make it much beyond that, said Friedman. But if were doomed to be a single-planet species, then we need to recognize both psychologically and technologically that were going to have live within the limits of Earth.

Which is a good point. That we may eventually become an interplanetary or interstellar species remains an open question. We must work to make this futuristic prospect a reality, but until then, we have to make sure that Earththe only habitable planet we know ofremains that way.

See the original post:
Humans Will Never Colonize Mars - Gizmodo

Posted in Transhumanist | Comments Off

Did Fake News On Facebook Help Elect Trump? Here’s What We Know – NPR.org

Posted: at 6:53 pm

Facebook co-founder, Chairman and CEO Mark Zuckerberg testifies before a combined Senate Judiciary and Commerce committee hearing in the Hart Senate Office Building on Tuesday. Pool/Getty Images hide caption

Facebook co-founder, Chairman and CEO Mark Zuckerberg testifies before a combined Senate Judiciary and Commerce committee hearing in the Hart Senate Office Building on Tuesday.

When Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg testified before a joint Senate Committee on Wednesday, he led off with a mea culpa. Just a few paragraphs into his opening statement, he took personal responsibility for the disinformation:

"[I]t's clear now that we didn't do enough to prevent these tools from being used for harm as well. That goes for fake news, foreign interference in elections, and hate speech, as well as developers and data privacy. We didn't take a broad enough view of our responsibility, and that was a big mistake. It was my mistake, and I'm sorry. I started Facebook, I run it, and I'm responsible for what happens here."

After the 2016 election, many feared that fake news articles spread on Facebook swayed the results of the election. It's a broad but reasonable leap to make: many purveyors of fake news aimed to help Trump win, and lo and behold, Trump won.

But among people who study fake news, it's not at all clear how much if at all those articles swayed the election.

With that in mind, here's a look at several facts we do know about the role fake news played in the 2016 election. It's by no means an exhaustive review of all the studies done on fake news since the election, but it is a start at digging into the complicated factors at play here.

1. Social media heavily drove fake news

Social media plays a bigger role in bringing people to fake news sites than it plays in bringing them to real news sites. More than 40 percent of visits to 65 fake news sites come from social media, compared to around 10 percent of visits to 690 top US news sites, according to a 2017 study by researchers from NYU and Stanford.

And another study suggests Facebook was a major conduit for this news. The more people used Facebook, the more fake news they consumed, as Princeton's Andrew Guess, Dartmouth University's Brendan Nyhan, and the University of Exeter's Jason Reifler found.

That study also found that Facebook was "among the three previous sites visited by respondents in the prior 30 seconds for 22.1 percent of the articles from fake news websites we observe in our web data." But it was only in the prior sites visited for around 6 percent of real news articles.

2. Fake news had a wide reach

More than one-quarter of voting-age adults visited a fake news website supporting either Clinton or Trump in the final weeks of the 2016 campaign, according to estimates from Guess and his co-authors. That information was gleaned from a sample of more than 2,500 Americans' web traffic data collected (with consent) from October and November of 2016.

Some posts, in particular spread, especially far: In the months leading up to the election, the top 20 fake news stories had more shares, reactions, and comments on Facebook (8.7 million engagements) than the 20 top hard news stories (7.3 million engagements), according to a Buzzfeed analysis.

Importantly, this doesn't mean that fake news itself had a broader reach than hard news. Indeed, in either category, 20 stories are just a tiny slice of a gigantic universe of news stories.

"There is a long tail of stories on Facebook," a Facebook spokesman told BuzzFeed. "It may seem like the top stories get a lot of traction, but they represent a tiny fraction of the total."

It does, however, show on a basic level that millions of people interacted with these kinds of stories.

3. ... but it appears a small share of people read a large share of the fake news

Only an estimated 10 percent of Americans account for nearly 60 percent of visits to fake news sites, according to that study from Princeton's Guess and his co-authors. Not only that, but that 10 percent is the 10 percent of people with the "most conservative information diets."

That suggests that, at least as far as reading fake news articles goes, fake news may have served largely to influence already-decided voters. One could reasonably assume that those one-in-ten uber-conservative people who read the most fake news stories were unlikely to ever vote for Clinton.

Perhaps relatedly, Guess and his co-authors also found that fake news articles were heavily pro-Trump: People saw an average of 5.45 fake news articles during the month-and-a-half-long study...and that 5.00 of those articles were pro-Trump. (But once again, extremes make averages; a small share of heavy fake-news readers drove that average up.)

4. People are bad at remembering fake news (or, more precisely, they're good at misremembering it)

Sure, maybe one-quarter of Americans saw a fake news story...but did it stick? One early-2017 study cast doubt on this. In it, researchers from NYU and Stanford presented people with a series of fake news headlines, as well as a series of fake-fake news headlines (that is, headlines the researchers made up).

Fifteen percent of respondents said they recalled seeing the "real" fake news headlines, and eight percent said they believed the headlines. But then, 14 percent said they remembered the fake fake news headlines, and eight percent likewise said they believed those headlines.

That result could mean that a sizable chunk of Americans are so set in their beliefs that they are easily convinced of falsehoods, as the New York Times's Neil Irwin wrote:

"That's a strong indication about what is going on with consumers of fake news. It may be less that false information from dubious news sources is shaping their view of the world. Rather, some people (about 8 percent of the adult population, if we take the survey data at face value) are willing to believe anything that sounds plausible and fits their preconceptions about the heroes and villains in politics."

Indeed, the authors found that "Democrats and Republicans, respectively, are 17.2 and 14.7 percentage points more likely to believe ideologically aligned articles than they are to believe nonaligned articles."

That doesn't mean fake news swung the election; the authors are careful to say that their study doesn't show that. But it is further evidence of how susceptible people are to believing ideas they already want to believe.

5. Fake news studies have important caveats

OK, pretty much every study has an important caveat and fake news studies are no different. Any time there's a headline saying that a study shows that fake news did or did not sway the election, there's probably some sort of mitigating information to consider.

For example: That study from Gross and his co-authors was taken by many to have meant that fake news had "little impact." But it's more complicated than that.

The study found that a small number of people clicked on a lot of fake news stories, and that fake news stories are also a small fraction of most people's information diets.

But people encounter fake news in other ways. As Slate's Morten Bay pointed out, "The study had an important limitation: It looked only at Facebook users who actually clicked on one of the fake news links littering their news feeds during the election."

In other words, headlines whizzing past you on Facebook not just the articles you end up clicking on may well be affecting how you think about politics.

(And while some news coverage may have overstated the findings of the study, the authors themselves told Slate that they "did not measure how much fake news affected an individual's opinions about the election or whether fake news affected the outcome of the election.")

Likewise, in a recent study from Ohio State University, the authors say that their data "strongly suggest...that exposure to fake news did have a significant impact on voting decisions."

That study looked at the survey responses from 585 people who claimed to be Obama 2012 voters. This survey was conducted in December 2016 and January 2017.

Among other survey questions, the authors included three fake news statements that had been widely circulated during campaign 2016 two negative statements about Clinton and one positive statement about Trump.

They found that "belief in these fake news stories is very strongly linked to defection from the Democratic ticket by 2012 Obama voters."

The authors control for as many variables as possible (ideology, education, attitudes toward Trump and Clinton, social media usage), but importantly, they do not have direct evidence that respondents were exposed to these fake news stories before they voted.

And other researchers are skeptical as well. Dartmouth University Political Science Professor Brendan Nyhan (also one of Guess' co-authors) noted, asking people about their beliefs after the election presents its own problems: "[C]orrelations with post-hoc self-reported beliefs [do not equal] evidence of causal effects for vote choice or turnout," he tweeted.

The study suggests that self-reported Obama-to-Trump voters could have been more susceptible to believing fake news stories. However, as the authors themselves write, there's no way, using this data, to prove that fake news caused some voters to swing from Obama to Trump.

6. There are many potential impacts of fake news that go well beyond determining the results of the 2016 election.

Even if (if) it's true that fake news didn't swing the 2016 election, that doesn't mean fake news isn't still worrisome.

"It can confuse people, it can turn people off from politics it can have a lot of negative effects that we're only beginning to understand," Guess said in an interview.

For example, it's still troubling if fake news convinces people at the extreme liberal or conservative end of the spectrum of things that aren't true even if it doesn't change their votes.

And there is evidence that fake news is effective at changing beliefs. One 2017 study from researchers at Yale University found that the more people were exposed to a given fake news statement, they more they believed it.

That's good news for fake news writers and the creators of Russian bots and hypothetical 400-lb. hackers in New Jersey. If it's true that showing people the same headline multiple times makes them believe it, all fake news purveyors need to do is be persistent and hope that they continue to have platforms like Facebook for posting the things they make up.

Excerpt from:

Did Fake News On Facebook Help Elect Trump? Here's What We Know - NPR.org

Posted in Fake News | Comments Off

Daily Archives: January 10, 2023

Cary mom admitted to leaving girls in hot car while gambling; autopsy reveals death by hyperthermia with decaying present – CBS17.com

Course work on campus | The Culinary Olympics return to UConn – FOX61 Hartford

GOLDEN RULE OF INTERPRETATION AND CASES – Social Laws Today

NBA Best Bets: NBA Picks and Betting Trends on DraftKings Sportsbook for January 10 – DraftKings Nation

How to bet the Donovan Mitchell Super Boost Tuesday on DraftKings Sportsbook – DraftKings Nation

A school librarian on technology, book censorship and the power of … – Northern Public Radio (WNIJ)

Crypto Price Today Live: Bitcoin above $17,200; XRP, Shiba Inu and Cardano drop up to 4% – Economic Times

Noted Transhumanist Now Targeting Our Children: Whats inside Yuval …

Humans Will Never Colonize Mars – Gizmodo

Did Fake News On Facebook Help Elect Trump? Here’s What We Know – NPR.org

The Prometheus League

Breaking News and Updates

Prometheism

Forbidden Fruit

The Evolutionary Perspective

Transtopia Menu

Library Updates

Library Books

Future Euvolution

Lucid Dreams from Childhood

Genetic Revolution

Speciation + Self-Directed Evolution