I always find it very hard to blog. Even when I have the time to write something, not necessarily sitting in front of a laptop, mind you (I'm rather known for writing stuff that needs some word processor access and sending it in straight from my handset). It's only that I always feel that whatever I'm writing or trying to write at the moment just doesn't feel exciting or important enough. Which is why I keep multiple blogs around the net, each serving as a rant template for the other. Something would begin as a rant template on place A only to be edited into another form for place B, to place C, so on and so forth before the same yet radically altered post ends up as a follow up at the place of origin.
I know I should be writing about some other things as well, like how the diybio nyc might be amazingly close to getting a real lab space, or how I'm prepping to stop by for this year's iGEM jamboree. Oh or the pictures from this year's major diybio nyc event, where we set up a stall on the green market and extracted dnas from the natural produces with common household material (with the city people of course). Each of those things would probably make for some lengthy and interesting reading, and the list goes on (my life's actually kind of exciting right now). Yet whenever I find the time to write something down, nada. Nothing. My mind just shuts down and nothing I can commit to paper or the keyboard seems good enough.
Tonight though, aided by my weird bout with insomnia, I'll just write something down I've been meaning to say for a long time. I'm not even spellcheck this thing (god save my soul).
I've been looking into the history of computing and computer languages recently. I've always had some level of interest in computers, not just the spiffy brand-new muscle machines but in what most people would refer to as 'retrocomputing' (I once ended up practicing some AIDA because of that. Ugh), which is a story for another time. It's not that I think old ways of computing were better than others. It's just that it's much easier to trace the evolution of the concept of computing when you see beyond the immediate commercial products.
Synthetic biology is effectively a pursuit of engineering biological organisms. Biological organisms are based upon very singular information storage and processing system that has quite a bit of parallels to computerized systems. I've been wondering whether it would be possible to predict the future development of synthetic biology by looking at how computer programming languages evolved (because they deal with information processing systems applied to physical counting medium). Maybe it might even be able to predict some of the pitfalls that are inherent in developing any kind of complex programmable information processing system that will apply to the synthetic biology in the future. Maybe it would be possible to bring a conceptual framework to the synthetic biology that would have taken decades if left to mature naturally within mere years.
While I was rummaging through the texts in both real life and the web (with many of the promising links on the web leading to dead-ends and 404s) I ran into a programming paradigm and environment I was only superficially familiar with before. Smalltalk and Squeak, respectively, both the brainchild of the computing pioneer Alan Kay.
Here's an excerpt from Alan Kay's biography I found on the net (I can't find the website right now. I swear I'll edit it in later, when my brain's actually working!)
“Alan Kay postulated that the ideal computer would function like a living organism; each “cell” would behave in accord with others to accomplish an end goal but would also be able to function autonomously. Cells could also regroup themselves in order to attack another problem or handle another function.”
This is the basic philosophy behind smalltalk/squeak and object oriented computer programming paradigm. It is no coincidence that Alan Kay’s vision of the ideal computer language and computing environment would take to a biological allegory, since he came from molecular biology background.
While I’m reading through the history of different computing paradigms for the purpose of figuring out how it might be applied to understanding and usage of synthetic biology, there’s something else I found awesome and perhaps a little heartwarming. Alan Kay throughout his life as a computing pioneer held onto the belief that the ideal computing platform isn’t a platform capable of crunching the numbers the fastest, but a platform that can be integrated into the educational function of the user through ease of manipulation and control. Ideal computing platform should be hackable because it makes logical sense to do so.
Can we say the same of synthetic biology? Perhaps not. The direct comparison of a complex biological system to computerized circuits and cathode ray tube projections can only take us so far. Yet I can’t shake the nagging feeling that synthetic biology might be looking at some very unique opportunities for change precisely because it is different from regular electronic systems, with documents of the early days of computer and programming already here for our perusal.
A good, elegant system that allows programmable extension must be at the same time easy, or at least logical to learn. And there are systems that both run and learn better compared to other systems. This might become something of an issue of how synthetic biology parts/devices/systems are put together in the future as the capacity of the synthetic biologists to handle complex systems increase.
I think it might be able to pursue this idea further. As it stands this is nothing more than an interesting parallel in concept without substantial scientific reasoning.
Which is why I should get myself to learn smalltalk/squeak sometime in the future. Maybe I should knock on the hackerspaces in the city, see if anyone's willing to mentor me.
Now, it's about time for me to get some sleep.
Showing posts with label history. Show all posts
Showing posts with label history. Show all posts
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Friday, August 14, 2009
Whole Foods CEO on UHC
UHC, of course, refers to the universal health care, which seem to be the hot topic these days. There are lots of arguments flying around on both sides of the health care reform and universal healthcare in America, some of them more reasonable than the other.
Well, I just though I'd share an interesting article I read on Whole Foods CEO John Mackey's editorial on the Wall Street Journal. Apparently, the CEO argues that the constitution does not make guarantees on the life and health of the individual citizens, so it's not the business of the government to get involved in health care. He alternatively suggests that people buy and eat from Whole Foods market for preventive health care.
Now mind you, this is a blog post by a college student (with our infamous liberal leanings) with a bitter memory of childhood torn by his father's kidney transplant surgery. So yes, I'm all for universal health care. It wasn't' easy watching my mother trying to pay $4700 per month hospitalization fee during my father's dialysis period, and it wasn't easy selling practically everything we owned to pay for his surgery.
There's something really odd when I hear people talking against universal health care. What's exactly bad about it? Most other developed countries in the world have it like Sweden, Japan, and Germany, and they seem to like it. I experienced it first-hand when I lived in South Korea, and I liked it too. With the billions (if not more) the U.S. government's already spending on health care insurance companies, it should be possible to run some form of universal health care in this country as well... And yes, you're reading this correctly. The U.S. government already spends quite a sizable amount of money on health insurance companies. In fact, U.S. government spends the most amount of money on health care out of all the developed nations in the world, and has the least number of people covered with least life expectancy out of all the OECD nations. Something a lot of those people at the 'town hall meetings' seem to conveniently ignore.
But that's not all. If it's a simple matter of getting the data out most people out there should be proponents of universal health care system by now. If they were actually interested in providing good health care, whether private or government mandated, they should be combing through the proposed health care reform bill pointing out excesses (I'm sure there are some) in the list and pointing out improvements. But it's not happening. The most extensive combing-through of the health care bill done by its opponents so far concentrated on the clause on hospice care counseling, labeling it as 'death panel.' Well from what I'm seeing the same hospice care counseling is included as a part of standard employee coverage package from many private insurance companies (in this episode of the Colbert Report, the UHC proponent Jonathan Cohn points out that employees of the Colbert Report show are all covered by contracts with the so-called 'death panel' clause).
The opponents of the health care reform seem to be against the 'idea' of any kind of change made by the Obama administration regardless the real benefits or disadvantages resulting from the change... However, do they truly believe that low confidence in certain regime and certain political characters is enough reason to reject a bill that might end up saving thousands if not millions of lives in this country? Are human lives so fickle and worthless that they can be thrown out for the sake of political rhetoric?
Then there are people like John Mackey. The kind of people who believe that government has no business ensuring the well-being of its citizens. Such arguments usually go hand-in-hand with the kind of low-brow, thinly veiled suggestion that people who cannot afford conventional health care, notably the ones in lower income bracket, are probably not worth helping. While such notion might work with running a corporation, it would be a mistake to think such attitude scales to the level of national governance. Maybe Mr. John Mackey leaves mess around his house. Maybe Mr. John Mackey like to target practice in his personal property. Such behaviors are perfectly legal in his own personal microcosm. However, if Mr. John Mackey applies that same behavior to public properties by leaving garbage around the City Hall offices and performing target practice in the crowded Times Square... The results would be disturbing.
If there's one thing I've learned during the history courses through my high school years, it's that nations come and go. Contrary to some popular belief there is no natural law that states the United States of America will exist regardless of how its members treat each other. This nation only exists because there is a united will and cycle of trust and responsibility. If a national government that collects taxes and enforces its codes of law cannot take care of the very basic well-being of its citizens, why should they be loyal to the country? Never mind the capacity. If the government does not even have the will to safeguard its citizenry why should they be loyal to that government? Why should they go out to wars and die to protect that country? It's a very simple matter of loyalty. If the government itself insists on not providing for its citizens certain level of amenities required for the very basic act of survival (we're not talking about luxury condos or spa vacation here, folks. Just staying alive), the said government cannot possibly expect the same citizenry to follow its rules of law, perhaps except through application of force. Sensible people usually call that oppression. Sensible people don't kill people and rob stores because they are scared of getting hurt in the process. They don't do it because it's morally objectionable, and because they have faith in continuation of the society in which they are members.
I am profoundly disturbed by some people coming out of the woodwork for the universal health care debate, by their blatant lack of respect for human dignity and lack of concern for the well being of their fellow human beings... And in the case of Mr.John Mackey, the horrible financial sense in suggesting that buying overpriced groceries is a replacement for genuine health care system.
Well, I just though I'd share an interesting article I read on Whole Foods CEO John Mackey's editorial on the Wall Street Journal. Apparently, the CEO argues that the constitution does not make guarantees on the life and health of the individual citizens, so it's not the business of the government to get involved in health care. He alternatively suggests that people buy and eat from Whole Foods market for preventive health care.
Now mind you, this is a blog post by a college student (with our infamous liberal leanings) with a bitter memory of childhood torn by his father's kidney transplant surgery. So yes, I'm all for universal health care. It wasn't' easy watching my mother trying to pay $4700 per month hospitalization fee during my father's dialysis period, and it wasn't easy selling practically everything we owned to pay for his surgery.
There's something really odd when I hear people talking against universal health care. What's exactly bad about it? Most other developed countries in the world have it like Sweden, Japan, and Germany, and they seem to like it. I experienced it first-hand when I lived in South Korea, and I liked it too. With the billions (if not more) the U.S. government's already spending on health care insurance companies, it should be possible to run some form of universal health care in this country as well... And yes, you're reading this correctly. The U.S. government already spends quite a sizable amount of money on health insurance companies. In fact, U.S. government spends the most amount of money on health care out of all the developed nations in the world, and has the least number of people covered with least life expectancy out of all the OECD nations. Something a lot of those people at the 'town hall meetings' seem to conveniently ignore.
But that's not all. If it's a simple matter of getting the data out most people out there should be proponents of universal health care system by now. If they were actually interested in providing good health care, whether private or government mandated, they should be combing through the proposed health care reform bill pointing out excesses (I'm sure there are some) in the list and pointing out improvements. But it's not happening. The most extensive combing-through of the health care bill done by its opponents so far concentrated on the clause on hospice care counseling, labeling it as 'death panel.' Well from what I'm seeing the same hospice care counseling is included as a part of standard employee coverage package from many private insurance companies (in this episode of the Colbert Report, the UHC proponent Jonathan Cohn points out that employees of the Colbert Report show are all covered by contracts with the so-called 'death panel' clause).
The opponents of the health care reform seem to be against the 'idea' of any kind of change made by the Obama administration regardless the real benefits or disadvantages resulting from the change... However, do they truly believe that low confidence in certain regime and certain political characters is enough reason to reject a bill that might end up saving thousands if not millions of lives in this country? Are human lives so fickle and worthless that they can be thrown out for the sake of political rhetoric?
Then there are people like John Mackey. The kind of people who believe that government has no business ensuring the well-being of its citizens. Such arguments usually go hand-in-hand with the kind of low-brow, thinly veiled suggestion that people who cannot afford conventional health care, notably the ones in lower income bracket, are probably not worth helping. While such notion might work with running a corporation, it would be a mistake to think such attitude scales to the level of national governance. Maybe Mr. John Mackey leaves mess around his house. Maybe Mr. John Mackey like to target practice in his personal property. Such behaviors are perfectly legal in his own personal microcosm. However, if Mr. John Mackey applies that same behavior to public properties by leaving garbage around the City Hall offices and performing target practice in the crowded Times Square... The results would be disturbing.
If there's one thing I've learned during the history courses through my high school years, it's that nations come and go. Contrary to some popular belief there is no natural law that states the United States of America will exist regardless of how its members treat each other. This nation only exists because there is a united will and cycle of trust and responsibility. If a national government that collects taxes and enforces its codes of law cannot take care of the very basic well-being of its citizens, why should they be loyal to the country? Never mind the capacity. If the government does not even have the will to safeguard its citizenry why should they be loyal to that government? Why should they go out to wars and die to protect that country? It's a very simple matter of loyalty. If the government itself insists on not providing for its citizens certain level of amenities required for the very basic act of survival (we're not talking about luxury condos or spa vacation here, folks. Just staying alive), the said government cannot possibly expect the same citizenry to follow its rules of law, perhaps except through application of force. Sensible people usually call that oppression. Sensible people don't kill people and rob stores because they are scared of getting hurt in the process. They don't do it because it's morally objectionable, and because they have faith in continuation of the society in which they are members.
I am profoundly disturbed by some people coming out of the woodwork for the universal health care debate, by their blatant lack of respect for human dignity and lack of concern for the well being of their fellow human beings... And in the case of Mr.John Mackey, the horrible financial sense in suggesting that buying overpriced groceries is a replacement for genuine health care system.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
NASA proposal to move the planet.
Scientists at NASA are discussing an interesting theoretical exercise in cooling off the Earth, by moving it further away from the Sun. According to their calculation it is possible to move the Earth to another orbit through controlled impact with a few meteors, which will end up prolonging the useful lifespan of the planet by about six billion years, effectively doubling it's life.
Sure, the bit with meteoric impact has me wondering if anything will be alive in that cooler planet, but still, this means that it is possible to work out the numbers for artificially engineering an existing planet's condition. It's all theoretically possible, and not at all far fetched.
Me, I'm interested in seeing this idea applied to other large masses floating around the solar system. Maybe sometime in the distant future we'll capture an asteroid the size of a planet, like the one as large as the Earth that recently impacted against Jupiter. Maybe we'll slam other large masses at the asteroid through careful application of rockets and mass drivers, putting it into a synchronous orbit around the Earth. We'll mine the asteroid for its rich minerals and other natural resources, gradually turning it into a habitable planet with its own wonders and mysteries.
Fast forward another thousand years, and such planetary system building exercise had become so trivial that you can take a course in universities (assuming they're still around in some form) for planetary systems engineering. Maybe people will even begin to see it's utility beyond resource and land grabbing. People will begin to construct large stars held together by the bonds of gravitation, slowly turning the universe into a large architecture, with myriads of different cultures and ideologies dwelling within its arches and bases.
What will happen to nationalities and histories in such a world?
Sure, the bit with meteoric impact has me wondering if anything will be alive in that cooler planet, but still, this means that it is possible to work out the numbers for artificially engineering an existing planet's condition. It's all theoretically possible, and not at all far fetched.
Me, I'm interested in seeing this idea applied to other large masses floating around the solar system. Maybe sometime in the distant future we'll capture an asteroid the size of a planet, like the one as large as the Earth that recently impacted against Jupiter. Maybe we'll slam other large masses at the asteroid through careful application of rockets and mass drivers, putting it into a synchronous orbit around the Earth. We'll mine the asteroid for its rich minerals and other natural resources, gradually turning it into a habitable planet with its own wonders and mysteries.
Fast forward another thousand years, and such planetary system building exercise had become so trivial that you can take a course in universities (assuming they're still around in some form) for planetary systems engineering. Maybe people will even begin to see it's utility beyond resource and land grabbing. People will begin to construct large stars held together by the bonds of gravitation, slowly turning the universe into a large architecture, with myriads of different cultures and ideologies dwelling within its arches and bases.
What will happen to nationalities and histories in such a world?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
