|
|
Страници по тази тема: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | (покажи всички)
|
Тема
|
 (Научни и обществени) новини 4
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 28.08.16 17:59 |
|
|
...
| |
|
Тема
|
 Arguments for and against GMOs
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 28.08.16 18:02 |
|
|
FOR GMOs
1. FEED THE WORLD
By 2050, the world’s population is expected to expand from today’s 7 billion to way beyond 9 billion. To keep pace, the United Nations say global food production will have to double over the next 35 years. Yet the amount of farm land is shrinking. Biotechnology is the only way to feed that growing population, by increasing yields to get more food from less land. GMOs mean cheaper, more plentiful food to fight hunger in the Third World. It also cuts costs for consumers and raises livelihoods for farmers in developed countries.
2. STRONGER CROPS = LESS PESTICIDES
Through genetic modification, scientists can give crops built-in resistance to pests. That means less need for pesticides that are potentially harmful to the environment. Studies show the introduction of GMO soybean and corn in the United States led to a 13 million kilo reduction in pesticide use in the 12 years up to 2009. By reducing the need to spray, GMOs also cut farmers’ fuel emissions, helping to fight global warming.
3. TAMPERING FOR TASTE
Foods can be genetically modified to improve flavour and texture – peppers made spicier, corn given enhanced sweetness. In blind tastings, testers regularly rate GM foods higher than naturally grown alternatives. One, in 2007, found 60 percent preferred GM tomatoes. Genetic modification can also give food a longer shelf-life – meaning consumers get fresher taste and the environment benefits from less waste.
4. ENHANCED HEALTH
Biotech can make food healthier, giving lettuce a greater concentration of nutrients, reducing starch in potatoes or lowering the saturated-fat content of cooking oils. Studies suggest genes introduced into GMO tomatoes can increase their natural production of antioxidants that might help prevent cancer or heart disease. Improving the nutritional values of foods can be particularly significant in boosting diets for developing countries.
AGAINST GMOs
1. ENVIRONMENTAL RISK
GMOs are a serious risk to the environment. Their seeds travel well beyond fields where they are grown. Cross-pollination creates herbicide-resistant “super weeds” that threaten other crops and wild plants. Tampering with crops’ genetic makeup impacts down the food chain: scientists say GMO’s have decimated butterfly populations in the United States, or led to birth defects among other animals. By the time we find out the long-term impact, it could be too late.
2. REMEMBER WHEN CIGARETTES WERE ‘HARMLESS’?
Biotech companies use old “tobacco” science to argue GMOs are harmless or even beneficial to health. Yet GMOs pose an array of concerns. Mixing up plant genes can threaten allergy sufferers – like when Brazil nuts were crossed with soybeans. GMOs increase resistance to antibiotics, making medicines less effective. Fears have been raised over possible links to cancer, reproductive malfunction, digestive disorders. Nobody knows the long-term effects.
3. BIG BUSINESS EATS SMALL FARMERS
Farmers hooked on biotech crops are at the mercy of companies that own the patents on seeds and set the prices. So-called “terminator technologies” could prevent growers using last year’s seeds to plant new crops, forcing them to keep buying from the GMO companies. There is plenty of evidence to counter claims GMO will increase world food yields and show non-GMO crops can perform even better. GMO production favours big business over small farmers and encourages the trend toward industrial-scale “monoculture” growing that’s bad for the environment, farmers and consumers.
4. NOTHING TASTES BETTER THAN NATURE
Natural food tastes better and is better for you. We want apples that taste like apples, not artificially sweetened super apples. And we want the variety of products that come to us from nature. We also want to feel good about our food: a study last year suggested our taste buds and our consciences are intertwined. The research found consumers got more pleasure from eating food they believed to be organic or ethically produced.
| |
|
|
|
Знаеш ли кое е ГМО??
Това е вегетарианец или веган..пушач и алкохолик.
Познавам такива..уникум са..
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
Тема
|
 Re: Arguments for and against GMOs
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
| (>[2] /dev/null) |
| Публикувано | 02.09.16 00:52 |
|
|
Нито едно от твърденията "против" не е научно обосновано. Като цяло празни приказки.
And yes, a lot of things taste better than nature. And "For GMOs item 3" proves it.
The last good thing written in C was Franz Schubert's Symphony No. 9.
| |
|
Тема
|
ОТСЛАБВА ЛИ СЕ С ЗЕЛЕН ЧАЙ НА ГЛАДНО-д-р Гайдурков
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 05.09.16 14:38 |
|
|
Когато говорим за чай, визираме напитката, получена като воден извлек от растението китайска камелия. Всички други отвари или запарки от други растения са билкови напитки, но не и чай в тесния смисъл на думата.
Традиционно, като технология на обработването, растението се използва в три основни състояния: Зелен чай, при който свежите листенца на растението просто се изсушават, като запазват в максимално непреработен вид веществата на дрогата. Черен чай – при него растението се подлага на ферментативен процес и съставът търпи промени, които са свързани главно с намаляване съдържанието на танините, а цветът става тъмно кафяво-черен. Червен чай – при него процесът на ферментация е непълен и всъщност се получава нещо средно между зелен и черен чай. Наименования като бял чай са по-скоро търговски и се отнасят за зелен чай, от подбрани само най-млади и нежни листенца.
За състава и ползите от зеления чай е писано много. Но дали подпомага редукцията на излишно телесно тегло, ако го пием на гладно?
Едно от малкото проведени рандомизирани контролирани проучвания на трима японски автори (Томонори Нагао, Тадаши Хазе, Ичиро Токимитсу) от 2007г. за влиянието на зеления чай върху отслабването, с 240 мъже и жени за 12 седмици, показва значително намаляване на процентното съдържание на мазнини, както и на телесното тегло като цяло и особено намаляване на коремната мазнина и обиколката на талията.
Това, което трябва да подчертаем във връзка с темата е високото съдържание на полифеноли – флавоноиди и катехини и преди всичко съдържанието на алкалоида кофеин и аминокиселината Ел-теанин. Главният механизъм, по който действат тези биологично активни вещества, и поради който водят до ускорена обмяна и топене на мастна тъкан е активирането на хипоталамо-хипофизо-адреналната ос. Това води до отделянето от жлезите с вътрешна секреция на редица хормони, медиатори и метаболитни ускорители, сред които най-известни и мощни в действието си са адреналинът и норадреналинът. Ел-теанинът има свойството да прониква през кръвно-мозъчната бариера и да увеличава основният медиатор и активатор на мозъчната дейност – допамина. Всички други свойства на зеления чай и физиологични отнасяния върху органите и системите са свързани също с този основен адренергичен (стимулиращ) механизъм на действие, а останалите и често изтъквани, са изключително второстепенни. Всичко това трябва да ни каже, че ползата от зеления чай, и в частност ползата за отслабване, трябва да бъде премерена на везната и балансирана с негативите от това: изчерпване и изтощение на жлезите с вътрешна секреция с всички последици от това. Личната ми пепоръка, за тази цел, е да се ползва зеления чай с мярка – средно до 3 чаени чаши дневно, до 1 месец, след което да направим почивка поне 1 месец.
От моята клинична практика мога да споделя и опасността от силно раздразване на стомашно-чревния тракт при дълга употреба на зелен чай. Без да е доказана връзката, трябва да отбележим факта, че в страните, където се ползва най-много зелен чай, има най-висок процент на заболеваемост от рак на стомаха. При определени случаи съм наблюдавал силно изразени симптоми на остър или обострен гастрит. Този нежелан ефект е свързан главно с високото съдържание на танини в зеления чай. В този случай препоръчвам да ползвате черния чай, който обратно на популярното мнение, е много по-щадящ и мек за лигавиците и обмяната. Друг начин, по който може да снижите дразнещото действие, а и да подобрите вкусовите качества, е да добавите към чашата чай едно-две „облачета“ от домашно приготвено ядково мляко (фино смлени на паста кашу, бадем и разбити с малко вода).
Д-р Гайдурков
Редактирано от Mod vege на 05.09.16 22:44.
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: ОТСЛАБВА ЛИ СЕ С ЧАША ЗЕЛЕН ЧАЙ НА ГЛАДНО-Гадурков
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
| (>[2] /dev/null) |
| Публикувано | 05.09.16 22:43 |
|
|
Отслабва се ако се пие чаша зелен чай на гладно в 5 вечерта. Ако не си ял нищо през целия ден.
The last good thing written in C was Franz Schubert's Symphony No. 9.
| |
|
Тема
|
Kако да живеете според генијалниот Никола Тесла
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 07.09.16 03:12 |
|
|
Пронаоѓачот Никола Тесла претставува еден од најкреативните и најплодни умови на човештвото. Тој продолжил да работи на генијални проекти и подоцна во неговиот живот, останувајќи енергичен и фокусиран.
Како Тесла успеал да остане фокусиран и со остар ум? Во интервју од 1933 година, 77 годишниот Тесла раскажува за тоа што го мотивира да продолжи да живее.
Тој верувал дека е важно да се има добар почеток на животот, човек да развие лични здрави навики.
„Нашата состојба на духот и телото во староста е само потврда за тоа како сме ја поминале нашата младост. Тајната на мојата сила и виталност денес е тоа што во мојата младост водев доблестен живот“.
Виртуозноста на Тесла произлегува од сознанието дека тој морал да ги контролира неговите „страсти и желби“ ако сакал неговите соништа да станат вистина и продолжил да работи додека не починал.
Со тоа на ум, уште на млада возраст тој започнал да живее дисциплиниран и планиран живот.
„Не сакам одмор - не сакам да го прекинувам мојот труд. Ако луѓето изберат работа компатибилна со нивниот темперамент, среќата би била поголема во светот“, вели Тесла.
Кој бил планот на Тесла за подолг живот?
„Многу луѓе се тажни и депресивни од краткотрајноста на животот. „Која е целта човек да се обиде да постигне нешто? Животот е толку краток. Можеби никогаш нема да успееме да го видиме крајот на некоја задача“ - велат луѓето. Но, луѓето можат да го продолжат својот живот значително ако направат напор. Човечките суштества прават толку многу работи со кои си го отвораат патот до гробот“.
Навистина, постојат многу начини на кои можеме да бидеме непродуктивни. Еден од тие начини е лошата исхрана. Еве што Тесла има да каже за навиките во исхраната:
„Најпрво, јадеме премногу, но ова го знаеме. И јадеме погрешни видови храна и пијалак. Поголемиот лош дел од исхраната е тоа што се прејадуваме и не вежбаме, со што создаваме токсични услови во телото и е невозможно за нас да се ослободиме од акумулираните отрови“.
Според Тесла, кои се најважните состојки во исхраната?
„Зошто да го оптоваруваме телото кое ни служи? Јас јадам два оброци дневно и избегнувам лоша храна. Речиси сите луѓе јадат премногу грашок и грав и други јадења кои содржат урична киселина и други отрови. Јас јадам свеж зеленчук, риба и месо. Рибата е позната како одлична храна за мозокот, но има многу силни киселини, бидејќи содржи голема доза на фосфор“.
Тој во неколку интервјуа потврди дека ретко јаде месо, а ова го кажува и интервјуто од 1935 година.
„Избегнувам стимуланси и се воздржувам од месо. Убеден сум дека за еден век кафето, чајот и тутунот повеќе нема да бидат во мода. Алкохолот од друга страна се'уште ќе се користи. Тоа не е стимуланс, туку вистински еликсир на животот“.
Друго нешто што Тесла навистина го сакал биле компирите:
„Компирите се прекрасни и треба да се јадат барем еднаш дневно. Тие содржат вредни минерални соли и делуваат неутрализирачки“.
Тој исто така цврсто верувал во придобивките од вежбањето:
„Верувам во вежбањето. Пешачам осум до десет милји дневно и никогаш не се возам со такси или други превозни средства кога можам да ја користам моќта на ногата. Исто така вежбам во бањата. Имам топла бања проследена со студен туш“.
Строгиот дневен режим на Тесла кулминира со спиење спротивно на популарните тврдења на научната заедница за важноста на осумте часа сон секоја вечер.
„Спиењето? Јас едвај спијам. Потекнувам од долговечно семејство кое е познато по тоа што не спиело. Очекувам и мојот животен век да достигне до 100 години, како на моите предци. Не ме загрижува мојата несоница. Понекогаш преспивам еден час или нешто подолго. Понекогаш, еднаш на неколку месеци, спијам четири или пет часа. Потоа се будам полн со енергија, како батеријата. Не постои сомнеж дека спиењето ја полни енергијата, но од друга страна мислам дека не е од суштинско значење за благосостојбата на една личност, особено не ако тој човек нема навика да спие“.
Како Тесла се чувствувал на 77 години? Еве што тој вели за неговото здравје во овие години:
„Никогаш не сум се чувствувал подобро во животот. Енергичен сум, силен, и ги поседувам сите мои ментални капацитети. Во младоста не чувствував дека имам толку енергија како денес. Спротивно на општото мислење, работата е полесна за постарите луѓе ако се во добра здравствена состојба, затоа што низ годините тие научиле како да пристигнат до одредено место преку најкраткиот пат“.
| |
|
Тема
|
International court prosecutes environmental crime
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 18.09.16 16:26 |
|
|
By
RIO DE JANEIRO (Thomson Reuters Foundation) - The International Criminal Court (ICC) said on Thursday it would start focusing on crimes linked to environmental destruction, the illegal exploitation of natural resources and unlawful dispossession of land in a move hailed by land rights activists.
Company executives or politicians could now be held responsible under international law for illegal land deals which violently displace residents following the shift, campaigners and lawyers said.
Since it was set up under the 1998 Rome Statue, the Hague-based court has focused on prosecuting four main crimes: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression.
Environmental crimes will now be considered in investigations of cases that fall within the ICC's existing remit, according to Global Diligence LLP, a London-based human rights law firm said in a statement.
Campaigners and human rights lawyers said the move reflects increasing global recognition of the severity of environmental crimes. It also allows victims to seek justice through the international criminal justice system if their complaints are not heard in national courts.
"The ICC is adapting to modern dynamics of conflict," Alice Harrison from the UK-based campaign group Global Witness told the Thomson Reuters Foundation.
"This shift means it can start holding corporate executives to account for large-scale land grabbing and massive displacement happening during peace time."
The shift comes ahead of a decision by ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda on whether to investigate a case filed by human rights lawyers in 2014 accusing Cambodian officials and businessmen of engaging in illegal land dispossession.
Global Diligence LLP, the firm representing the Cambodian plantiffs, said the ICC's policy shift opens the door for the case to be investigated by the court.
Cambodia's government has dismissed the case as politically motivated and based on "fake numbers of people being affected by land grabbing".
Last year was the deadliest on record for land rights campaigners with more than three people killed each week in conflicts over territory with mining companies, loggers, hydro-electric dams or agribusiness firms, Global Witness said.
(Reporting by Chris Arsenault; Editing by Katie Nguyen; Please credit the Thomson Reuters Foundation, the charitable arm of Thomson Reuters, that covers humanitarian news, women's rights, trafficking and climate change. Visit news.trust.org)
| |
|
Тема
|
How to Control Inflammation with Your Brain
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 19.09.16 19:18 |
|
|
By on Monday November 30th, 2015
Unlocking the power of the Vagus Nerve for self healing
I read an article yesterday that has me extremely excited about the implications. The article is called ‘’ by Gaia Vince. In the article, the author describes the experience of a woman who suffered from severe, debilitating rheumatoid arthritis and her eventual treatment with a device which minimized inflammation by simply stimulating the vagus nerve.
What this means, is that by activating the vagus nerve which works through the parasympathetic nervous system, we can greatly influence inflammation and the immune system. The role of the brain on body inflammation can be profound. If you suffer from digestive complaints, high blood pressure, depression or any inflammatory condition, please read on. Let me explain the possible implications step by step.
What is the vagus nerve?
First of all, the vagus nerve is the longest nerve in the body which originates in the brain as cranial nerve ten, travels down from the neck and then passes around the digestive system, liver, spleen, pancreas, heart and lungs. This nerve is a major player in the parasympathetic nervous system, which is the ‘rest and digest’ part (opposite to the sympathetic nervous system which is ‘fight or flight’).
Alt text hereThe Vagus Nerve travels all the way from the brain to the digestive system
Vagal tone
The tone of the vagus nerve is key to activating the parasympathetic nervous system. Vagal tone is measured by tracking your heart-rate alongside your breathing rate. Your heart-rate speeds up a little when you breathe in, and slows down a little when you breathe out. The bigger the difference between your inhalation heart-rate and your exhalation heart-rate, the higher your vagal tone. Higher vagal tone means that your body can relax faster after stress.
What is high vagal tone associated with?
High vagal tone improves the function of many body systems, causing better blood sugar regulation, reduced risk of stroke and cardiovascular disease, lower blood pressure, improved digestion via better production of stomach basic and digestive enzymes, and reduced migraines. Higher vagal tone is also associated with better mood, less anxiety and more stress resilience.
One of the most interesting roles of the vagus nerve is that it essentially reads the gut microbiome and initiates a response to modulate inflammation based on whether or not it detects pathogenic versus non-pathogenic organisms. In this way, the gut microbiome can have an affect on your mood, stress levels and overall inflammation.
What is low vagal tone associated with?
Low vagal tone is associated with cardiovascular conditions and strokes, depression, diabetes, chronic fatigue syndrome, cognitive impairment, and much higher rates of inflammatory conditions. Inflammatory conditions include all autoimmune diseases (rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, endometriosis, autoimmune thyroid conditions, lupus and more).
Alt text hereBreathing exercises are a great way to tone your vagus nerve
How do we increase vagal tone?
In the article above, vagal tone was increased through a device that stimulated the vagus nerve. The good news is that you have access to this on your own, but it does require regular practice. To some degree, you are genetically predisposed to varying levels of vagal tone, but this still doesn’t mean that you can’t change it. Here are some ways to tone the vagus nerve:
Slow, rhythmic, diaphragmatic breathing. Breathing from your diaphragm, rather than shallowly from the top of the lungs stimulates and tones the vagus nerve.
Humming. Since the vagus nerve is connected to the vocal cords, humming mechanically stimulates it. You can hum a song, or even better repeat the sound ‘OM’.
Speaking. Similarly speaking is helpful for vagal tone, due to the connection to the vocal cords.
Washing your face with cold water. The mechanism here is not known, but cold water on your face stimulates the vagus nerve.
Meditation, especially loving kindness meditation which promotes feelings of goodwill towards yourself and others. A 2010 study by Barbara Fredrickson and Bethany Kik found that increasing positive emotions led to increased social closeness, and an improvement in vagal tone.
Balancing the gut microbiome. The presence of healthy bacteria in the gut creates a positive feedback loop through the vagus nerve, increasing its tone.
Alt text hereHow to control inflammation with your brain
Managing the body’s inflammatory response
The implications of such simple and basic practices on your overall health, and in particular on inflammation are far-reaching. If you suffer from an inflammatory condition, digestive upset, high blood pressure or depression, a closer look at vagal tone is highly recommended.
We’ve known for years that breathing exercises and meditation are helpful for our health, but it is so fascinating to learn the mechanism by which they work. I hope this short article has inspired you to begin a meditation practice, as it has for me, and also to look for other means to manage the body’s inflammatory response.
Words By , ND
Originally posted on
__
- film
| |
|
Тема
|
Предизвикай се да компостираш
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 21.09.16 16:03 |
|
|
Предизвикай се да компостираш
Чудите се къде да си изхвърлите ябълката, като я изядете? А обелката от банан, костилките от плодовете и остатъците от зеленчуците за салата също ви колебаят къде им е мястото? Или пък вие сте от хората, които въобще не се чудят, ами смело ги изхвърляте с останалия боклук?
И защото вече звучи като реклама на веестелешоп, а не това е търсеният ефект, ще ви дам отговорите:
Мястото на органичния отпадък не е нито на бунището, нито сред балираните отпадъци, а още по-малко в кофите с отпадъците за рециклиране.
На сметището органичният отпадък гние, докато е натъпкан между останалите боклуци, отделяйки метан (това е същият газ, който пръцкат кравите). Поради тази причина се нарича още блатен газ, заради гниенето, което претърпяват растителните материали в блатни местности при липса на кислород (това ми го подшушна Уикипедия). Така много често този метан става причина за самозапалването на сметищата, което е още по-лошият резултат от неправилното изхвърляне на отпадъците. Метанът още е парников газ, но и озоноразрушаващ такъв. А за някои метанът е просто по-евтиният вариант за придвижване с БеЕмВе.
И защото говорех за органичния отпадък и за това, къде е мястото му, ще ви подскажа: органичният отпадък се чувства най-добре в компостера!
Да, КОМ-ПОС-ТЕР. Не компот, не и постна манджа.
Компостерът е мястото, от което като от вълшебен цилиндър се появява не заек, а тор. Тор, хумус, или онова нещо, което прави почвата плодородна.
И за да не звучи като нещо изфантазирано, ще разкажа от къде ми дойде това просветление:
Последните 4 дни присъствах на първото в живота ми обучение, свързано с нещо толкова значимо, ново и вълнуващо (а и малко слузесто, заради червеите) – компостирането.
Младежки лагер „“ е нещото, което, оказа се, съм търсила дълго време. Макар няколко дни да се колебаех дали да присъствам, заради възможността да имам още едно злополучно палаткуване, реших, че е време да изпитам себе си, като спя във временния си дом-стая цели 3 вечери.
Оказа се, че палаткуването е супер приятно (стига да не вали и трещи, докато си само с един чифт дрехи и обувки, както при първия ми опит за такова преживяване). Освен да подобря положително мнението си за този тип удоволствие, се уверих, че никое от съществата от Doctor Who няма да се появи ненадейно в или около палатката ми с цел да ме еxterminate-не (въпросният страх си подсигурих от ударните дози епизоди в последните седмици, бликащи от гнусни, страшни и вредни за съня създания).
За почти четирите дни 15+ човека се занимавахме на теория и на практика с компостирането (по-долу ще разкажа и за любимата ми компостна тоалетна). Всички заедно мерихме, чертахме и рязахме летви и дъски, завивахме болтове и забивахме пирони, боядисвахме, пилихме. Всичко това, за да направим компостер за училището в Шабла, който стана наистина супер красив и функционален.
Честно казано, преди всички изброени манипулации, никак не вярвах, че от нищо, (ако можем да наречем предварително нарязания дървен материал нищо), ще успеем да изградим нещо толкова значимо. Процесът си беше вълшебство, но не просто изведнъж случило се и случайно, ами планирано, мислено, чертано, рязано, ковано, сглобявано и какво ли още не.
Вълнуващо беше как децата в училището от доста незаинтересовани и незнаещи абсолютно нищо за компостирането, се превърнаха в активни участници в процеса по съграждане на компостера. Тайно завиждах на всеки един от тях, имащ късмета да е точно там и тогава, когато някакви хора идват в училището им с желанието да предадат пламъка на знанието и грижата към природата. И силно се надявам, че след години ще видя поне едно от децата, вече пораснало, активно опазващо всичко, което ни заобикаля!
Във всички дни забавлението крачеше редом с нас, независимо дали по пътя към плажа, до магазина в с. Езерец (там беше лагерът ни) или пък по пътя към компостната ни тоалетна.
За любопитните: това е като тоалетната на село (поне тази при прабаба и прадядо в с. Палат някога беше такава), ама не точно. Т. нар. „лимонада“ си имаше собствен съд, а т.нар. „шоколад“ също имаше свой собствен такъв. По въпроса с отделянето на тези така важни материали, продукти на тялото ни, научих, че сами по себе си те са вид тор, който при определено „отлежаване“ и разграждане, са също толкова важни и полезни за растенията и почвата.
Осъзнах как толкова дълго време не съм знаела, нито за миг осъзнавала, че дори самата аз съм един вид компостер. А за да бъде един компостер истински, то той трябва да получава необходимия материал, който да превърне в компост. (.)
За всички присъстващи, съм сигурна, че любими ястия ще останат всички, приготвени с обемно количество елда, овес и булгур. Точно в този ред ги ядохме и точно в този ред са ни любими. Извън вътрешните шегички готвенето беше още един задружен и приятен процес, понякога даже по-приятен и от самото ядене (надявам се, че готвачът ни няма да ме разбере погрешно и да си помисли, че има ястие, което да не ми е харесало!). Научих много нови рецепти, съчетания, а салатата от тиквички ми стана любима, опровергавайки песимизма ми по отношение на салата от такъв характер.
Към края на лагера имахме и доста приятните задачи да представим театрално това, което получихме като впечатления от разговорите си с местните хора по отношение на отпадъците и компостирането. Играейки ролята на Песимиза, вдъхновена от реакциите на някои от учениците, си дадох сметка, че не е трудно човек да бъде научен на добро. И все по-убедено вярвам в онова, което ми каза веднъж учителката ми по философия, а именно, че ценностната ни система се променя всеки ден.
И аз се промених, и аз научих много, успях дори и да направя, макар и малко, за да помогна някой друг да научи и да се промени. Това е от моментите, в които завиждам на себе си, че съм точно тук и точно сега, за да познавам хората, които носят и създават доброто с делата си.
Благодарности за усилията, думите, жестовете, шегите и труда на всички!
П.П. Успях да се сдобия и с малък компостер за вкъщи, който всеки може да направи с подръчни материали. Инструкции може да намерите тук, а благодарностите са за Еми.
А ето така изглежда моят, който очаква само новите си наематели червеи, за да започне да работи с пълна пара и вълшебност!
| |
|
Тема
|
human teeth reveals what the real 'paleo diet...
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 21.09.16 16:39 |
|
|
[url=http://www.businessinsider.de/the-prehistoric-paleo-diet-actually-did-include-cereals-2016-9?r=US&IR=T]New evidence from prehistoric human teeth reveals what the 'paleo diet' really looked like — and it's not what you think[/url]
Luckily, prehistoric people didn't brush their teeth
New archaeological research may have revealed that the original 'paleo diet' contained wheat and barley, and was not just restricted to meat and vegetables as .
Scientists from who lived around 9,000 years ago in the late Mesolithic (6600 - 6450 BC) and the Mesolithic-Neolithic phases (6200 - 5900 BC) and found plant matter fossilised in their teeth.
Thanks to poor dental hygiene, micro-fossils were trapped in ancient plaque on their teeth. The researchers say these plaques contain plants — cereals, in fact — that weren't thought to be part of people's diets for another four centuries.
"There has been a long-standing view that for the most of the Palaeolithic times, but also in the Mesolithic, animal protein coming from meat and fish was the main staple food with a very limited role of plant foods," lead researcher Dusan Borić told Business Insider.
Mysteries were revealed from human teeth remains
People in the Mesolithic period are generally believed to have been . The Neolithic, or New Stone Age, came afterwards, and it's then that people were believed to have .
The discovery of domestic cereals in Mesolithic people's diets means that social networks between local foragers and the first Neolithic communities probably extended further than archaeologists originally thought, due to how deep into the Balkan hinterland they were found.
"At the time of the discovery we had the sense that these groups of complex hunter-gatherers were in contact with other more distant locations," Borić said. "We found beads made of marine gastropods that come from coastal areas in Greece and the Adriatic, hundreds of kilometres away from the region for instance."
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Предизвикай се да компостираш
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
| (>[2] /dev/null) |
| Публикувано | 21.09.16 17:41 |
|
|
В компостера органичните отпадъци не отделят ли метан? Абе, защо пускаш всяка идиотщина, която прочетеш някъде?
The last good thing written in C was Franz Schubert's Symphony No. 9.
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Предизвикай се да компостираш
[re: |]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 21.09.16 20:35 |
|
|
Отделят, но явно не могат така лесно да се самозапалят в един компостер, както на сметищата. А и не това е смисълът на статията. Смисълът е ползването на "отпадъци".
На немски има поговорка гласяща че който вперва поглед твърде дълго в детайла, не може да види цялото.. ("den Wald vor lauter Baeumen nicht sehen")
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Предизвикай се да компостираш
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
| (>[2] /dev/null) |
| Публикувано | 22.09.16 16:54 |
|
|
Не мисля, че има доказателства, че метана е причина за пожарите на сметищата.
Иначе, доколкото разбирам, теорията е че в сметищата органичната материя се разгражда анаеробно (с резултат метан) докато иначе би се разградила аеробно (с резултат въглероден диоксид).
А иначе, ако използването на отпадъците изисква повече усилие, отколкото е ползата от тях (а в този случай е така), цялата дейност е малко безмислена.
The last good thing written in C was Franz Schubert's Symphony No. 9.
| |
|
Тема
|
 25 Vegan Snacks For Movie Night, Game Night, Party
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 26.09.16 03:17 |
|
|
Who loves snacks? We love snacks? Why? Because snacks are awesome, that’s why — especially party snacks of any kind. For us, there’s little that comes close to the positive feeling you get from spending time with friends and loved ones while enjoying homemade snacks that are so good you’ll wish you had made an entire batch for yourself … but hey, sharing is caring, right? Right. So, if you’re looking for shareable snacks, then you’ve come to the right place because we specialize in sniffing out the best, so-delicious-you-don’t-want-to-share snacks that also happen to be completely meat-free and dairy-free.
Welcome to the master list of party snacks. These 25 vegan snacks are just what you need to take movie night, game night, your summer barbecue, or any ol’ party to the next level.
1. Chipotle Cauliflower Buffalo Bites and Raw Cashew Ranch Dip
Cheesy burger spreads, pizza crust, oven-roasted steaks, and now buffalo wings, it’s safe to say that with cauliflower, you can do it all. Cauliflower is a favorite ingredient to use because it is so versatile and has a power punch of nutrition. This recipe for Chipotle Cauliflower Buffalo Bites and Raw Cashew Ranch Dip is a spicy and delicious snack perfect for any occasion.
2. Spinach Dip Crescent Roll Ring
A must-have at any party, this Spinach Dip Crescent Roll Ring is just delicious. Creamy, garlicky spinach dip is wrapped in crescent rolls and then baked until the rolls are crispy and golden and the dip is warm. It’s so easy to make, you may as well make two because it’ll disappear fast.
3. 1-Ingredient Beet Sliders
Beet is one of those extremely versatile veggies that you can make a hundred different ways and it still surprises you — like these 1-Ingreient Beet Sliders. Yes, it turns out, if you boil it with spices and then slice and grill to make a crust, it makes a perfectly good patty. Serve these little sliders with your favorite greens and enjoy!
4. Broccoli ‘Wings’
Similar to cauliflower “wings,” but a little more flavorful, these crispy Broccoli “Wings” will be the star appetizer of any party. Broccoli florets are coated in a gluten-free batter and then baked to crispy perfection. Leave them plain, or toss them in any kind of sauce you like.
5. Everything Bagel Soft Pretzels
Who doesn’t love a good pretzel? This recipe for Everything Bagel Soft Pretzels combines the soft and fluffy texture of pretzels with the fun and flavorful seasoning of an everything bagel. Garlicky, textured, and perfect for dipping in some mustard! Or you can get creative and slice this pretzel in half and make a sandwich.
6. Jalapeño Poppers With Smoked Tofu
These Jalapeño Poppers with Smoked Tofu are the perfect mix of crunchy and creamy consistencies, together with the heat of the jalapeño and the complimentary cooling of the vegan cream cheese. Smoked tofu adds another layer of heat and a bacon-ish flavor to the mix. Is your mouth watering yet?
7. All-American Quinoa Chili Fries
Nothing hits the spot like a big ol’ plate of All-American Chili Fries, especially ones you can really dig into cause they’re totally healthy! This is a hearty, delicious veggie quinoa chili piled high on fresh, seasoned oven fries. We guarantee that both you and your friends will fall in love this snack.
8. Mozzarella-Stuffed Quinoa Pizza Bites
Homemade vegan mozzarella rolled in soft and fluffy quinoa. No, this is not a dream — these are Mozzarella-Stuffed Quinoa Pizza Bites. With a savory tomato sauce dipping sauce on the side, these little bites will cure the fiercest of pizza cravings. Make these as a fun appetizer or make a big batch and gobble them up yourself.
9. Trinidadian Alloo Hand Pies
These Alloo Hand Pies are a popular Trinidadian street food made from spiced mashed potatoes folded into dough and then fried. The potatoes are flavorful and creamy, with warm spices, vegan butter, and vegan sour cream, while the dough is crispy and warm. These are best served with spiced chickpeas or any kind of chutney, from savory onion to sweet and spicy mango.
10. Tortilla Hummus Cups
Dipping chips will be so passé once you try these Tortilla Hummus Cups. Turn ordinary tortillas into a fun and creative snack! You can fill the cups with any kind of hummus, so you can customize your flavor profile to your liking. The contrast between the creamy hummus, the crisp and fresh toppings and the crunchy tortilla chips will make these disappear from their platter in an instant.
11. Filipino Fried Spring Rolls
Traditional Filipino Fried Spring Rolls, or Vegetable Lumpiang Shanghai, as they are called, are usually filled with pork. Here, we have kept the essence of the Asian dish but replaced the filling with vegetables! Carrots, sweet potatoes, jicama, and kabocha squash come together in this snack. They’re crispy, savory, and best served with a sweet dip like ketchup.
12. Beet Hummus Bites
These Beet Hummus Bites are more than just pretty — they’re delicious. Roasted beet hummus, black olives, and arugula salad tucked into homemade bamboo charcoal tortillas. The beet hummus is earthy and garlicky and the tortillas are ridiculously easy to make. Serve these at a party and you’ll most likely catch everyone snapping food photos before devouring.
13. Zucchini Tater Tots
You probably remember tater tots, those coveted (and greasy) pillows of potato-y goodness served at school lunches. This recipe for Zucchini Tater Tots is a healthier take on those and they’re so good, you’ll want to carry them around in your pocket so you can have them all to yourself. It’s as easy as mashing potato and grated zucchini together, forming them into tots, and baking them until golden and crispy.
14. Lemon Thyme and Roasted Garlic Flatbread
If you’re intimidated by the idea of making bread, then this Lemon Thyme and Roasted Garlic Flatbread is a good place to get started. This bread is pretty low fuss and great to serve up with soup or on a platter of food, not to mention, pretty fun to make,and it requires little kneading. The rich roasted garlic works perfectly with the lemon thyme and olive oil, forming a delicious combination.
15. Cheesy Pull Bread
Whether you’re hosting a party, movie night, or just hanging with friends, this Cheesy Pull Bread is a must-make. On a scale of 1 to 10, it’s a 10,000,000. Crispy sourdough bread is stuffed with herby, garlicky vegan cream cheese, spinach, and vegan mozzarella and then baked until melty and bubbly. This bread serves a small crowd, but you’ll want it all to yourself.
16. Onion Pakoras With Avocado Dipping Sauce
A pakora is an Indian snack that’s essentially a vegetable dipped in chickpea flour, so they’re naturally gluten-free, and then deep-fried until crispy. These savory Onion Pakoras are spiced with garlic, cumin, and curry powder and served with a cool, spicy, and creamy avocado dip. These are perfect as an appetizer or snack at any party.
17. Panko-Crusted Zucchini Chips
These Panko-Crusted Zucchini Chips are the perfect movie night snack! They’re light and crunchy and should you want a little extra flavor, you can even add your favorite herbs and spices to the mix. Serve with your favorite chip dip, or enjoy them as is. You might want to double the recipe, though — these will disappear fast.
18. Chickpea Fondue
[image]http://cdn2.onegreenplanet.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10//2015/10/chickpea-fondue-site.jpeg[/image]
Fondue is more than just food, it’s a whole dining experience. This Chickpea Fondue is worthy of being called an experience. In this version of fondue, chickpeas take main stage, creating the silky smooth texture for the ooey-gooey dish you know and love.
19. Jalapeño Cheddar Pretzels
Whether or not you’re a pro at making bread, this recipe is fun to make — really, how can you get any better than Jalapeño Cheddar Pretzels? These are soft pretzels like you can get from the streets of New York City, but better, because they’re homemade, they’re cheesy, and they’re spicy. Break these up into bite-size portions for movie night with your friends and family!
20. BBQ Pulled Carrot Rolls
The best comfort foods are simple and making these BBQ Pulled Carrot Rolls is super-easy and super hands-off, like these pulled carrot rolls. Shredded carrots are the perfect whole foods based replacement for pulled pork. Drenched in a tangy, sticky barbecue sauce, these pulled carrot rolls are a guaranteed hit.
21. Watermelon Tartare
This refreshing Watermelon Tartare is perfect for hot summer days, especially as a snack or party appetizer. The combination of flavors completely transforms the watermelon. The citrus juice combined with sesame seeds and soy sauce or tamari gives it a delicious umami flavor that’s unforgettable.
22. Sesame Ginger Tofu Skewers With Peanut Dipping Sauce
Tofu is not only a great source of protein, but it is an amazing flavor absorber! Not only does marinating make these Sesame Ginger Tofu Skewers taste deliciously savory, they also get slightly crispy while cooking. Paired with peanut sauce that you can enjoy crunchy or smooth, this dish is wonderful as a party appetizer or finger food.
23. Papas Rellenas: Eggplant and Potato Croquettes
Papas Rellenas are a type of croquette popular in many Latin American countries. In this recipe, the crispy potato croquettes have a savory, sweet, and spicy eggplant filling that’s surrounded by creamy mashed potatoes. They’re then paired with a creamy and irresistible avocado sauce for dipping. These are a great way to use up leftover mashed potatoes, but it’s also worth making mashed potatoes just to experience this flavorful appetizer or party snack.
24. 4-Ingredient Pizza Rolls
Making pizza is super fun. Kneading the dough, slathering on tomato sauce, and of course topping it with all of your favorites is a good afternoon spent. If only there was a way to translate the amazingness of pizza into a party snack…oh wait! There is! These 4-Ingredient Pizza Rolls have all the deliciousness of this Italian favorite tucked neatly in a little roll, perfect!
25. Crispy Cauliflower Nuggets
These oven-fried Crispy Cauliflower Nuggets are guaranteed to be the star of your dinner night, parties … everything! The secret is to cook flour covered cauliflower slowly in coconut oil. The slow oven baking helps to crisp up the outside without having undercooked cauliflower.
Who says you even need a party to make one (or all) these awesome recipes? To be honest, we would eat them anytime.
Lead image source:
| |
|
Тема
|
Twenty questions on atherosclerosis
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 28.09.16 00:51 |
|
|
Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent). 2000 Apr; 13(2): 139–143.
William C. Roberts, MD
Is atherosclerosis a disease affecting all animals or only certain animals?
Atherosclerosis affects only herbivores. Dogs, cats, tigers, and lions can be saturated with fat and cholesterol, and atherosclerotic plaques do not develop (1, 2). The only way to produce atherosclerosis in a carnivore is to take out the thyroid gland; then, for some reason, saturated fat and cholesterol have the same effect as in herbivores.
Are human beings herbivores, carnivores, or omnivores?
Although most of us conduct our lives as omnivores, in that we eat flesh as well as vegetables and fruits, human beings have characteristics of herbivores, not carnivores (2). The appendages of carnivores are claws; those of herbivores are hands or hooves. The teeth of carnivores are sharp; those of herbivores are mainly flat (for grinding). The intestinal tract of carnivores is short (3 times body length); that of herbivores, long (12 times body length). Body cooling of carnivores is done by panting; herbivores, by sweating. Carnivores drink fluids by lapping; herbivores, by sipping. Carnivores produce their own vitamin C, whereas herbivores obtain it from their diet. Thus, humans have characteristics of herbivores, not carnivores.
Is atherosclerosis genetic in origin?
Infrequently. Although many physicians and the lay public believe that atherosclerosis is genetic, the evidence for that is slim. One way to define the genetic variety of atherosclerosis is by the presence or absence of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) receptors in the liver (3–5). Patients with homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia have no LDL receptors in the liver, and their total cholesterol levels from birth are usually >800 mg/dL. The frequency of this genetic defect is 1 in 1,000,000. Patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia have only 50% of the normal number of LDL receptors in the liver. These patients generally have total cholesterol levels about 300 mg/dL, and they generally die (without lipid-lowering therapy) in their 40s or early 50s. The incidence of this familial defect is 1 in 500. The rest of us apparently have normal numbers of LDL receptors in the liver. Of course, a few patients have genetic defects involving high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol and triglyceride production and uptake, but these individuals are relatively few in number (6). Thus, the genetic defect producing atherosclerosis occurs in no more than 1 in 200 and possibly as low as 1 in 400 or 500 persons. This means, of course, that most persons with atherosclerosis acquire it by the types of calories they consume.
Is atherosclerosis a consequence of aging and therefore a degenerative disease?
No. When I was in medical school, I was taught that atherosclerosis was a disease of aging and that it was to be expected as we got older. It is true that symptomatic and fatal atherosclerosis is usually a problem of older people. But, not too old. Patients with homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia, however, may have lipid plaques in their arteries at the time of birth.
It appears that atherosclerosis requires certain serum cholesterol levels over certain periods of time. Therefore, if one has a serum total cholesterol of 1000 mg/dL, death usually occurs by age 15 (without lipid-lowering therapy). Those with total cholesterol levels of approximately 300 mg/dL live into their 30s and 40s. The average age of death from coronary artery disease in the USA is 60 years in men and 68 years in women (7). Sudden death is primarily a problem of young men. Therefore, those who make it to the hospital are usually older than these ages. Nevertheless, atherosclerosis is a disease of relatively young people as well as a disease of older persons. The point here is that atherosclerosis does not have to occur just because of aging. The more years we live, the longer the time period we have to keep our cholesterol levels elevated and thus to develop plaques. Multiplying our serum cholesterol level by our age in years may provide a rough indication of when we have developed enough atherosclerotic plaque to have symptomatic or fatal atherosclerosis.
What risk factors predispose to atherosclerosis?
Risk factors include hypercholesterolemia, systemic hypertension, diabetes mellitus, obesity, low HDL cholesterol, cigarette smoking, and inactivity.
Of the various atherosclerotic risk factors, which one is an absolute prerequisite for development of atherosclerosis?
The answer is hypercholesterolemia. What level of total cholesterol and specifically LDL cholesterol is required for atherosclerotic plaques to develop? Symptomatic and fatal atherosclerosis is extremely uncommon in societies where serum total cholesterol levels are <150 mg/dL and serum LDL cholesterol levels are <100 mg/dL (8). If the LDL cholesterol level is <100— and possibly it needs to be <80 mg/dL—the other previously mentioned risk factors in and of themselves are not associated with atherosclerosis. In other words, if the serum total cholesterol is 90 to 140 mg/dL, there is no evidence that cigarette smoking, systemic hypertension, diabetes mellitus, inactivity, or obesity produces atherosclerotic plaques. Hypercholesterolemia is the only direct atherosclerotic risk factor; the others are indirect. If, however, the total cholesterol level is >150 mg/dL and the LDL cholesterol is >100 mg/dL, the other risk factors clearly accelerate atherosclerosis.
What evidence connects atherosclerosis to cholesterol?
The connection between cholesterol and atherosclerosis is strong (9, 10):
Atherosclerotic plaques similar to those in humans can be produced in nonhuman herbivores by feeding them large quantities of cholesterol and/or saturated fat. It is not possible to produce atherosclerotic plaques experimentally in carnivores.
Cholesterol is found within atherosclerotic plaques.
In societies where the serum total cholesterol is <150 mg/dL, the frequency of symptomatic and fatal atherosclerosis is exceedingly uncommon; in contrast, in societies where the total cholesterol level is >150 mg/dL, the frequency of symptomatic and fatal atherosclerosis increases as the level above 150 increases.
The higher the serum total cholesterol level, and specifically the higher the serum LDL cholesterol, the greater the frequency of symptomatic atherosclerosis, the greater the frequency of fatal atherosclerosis, and the greater the quantity of plaque at necropsy.
In placebo-controlled, double-blind, lipid-lowering studies of adults without symptomatic atherosclerosis, the group with lowered serum LDL cholesterol developed fewer symptomatic and fatal atherosclerotic events compared with controls.
In placebo-controlled, double-blind, lipid-lowering studies of adults with previous symptomatic atherosclerosis, the group with lowered LDL cholesterol levels after the event had fewer subsequent atherosclerotic events than did the group that did not lower their cholesterol levels (controls).
LDL receptors were discovered in the liver by Brown and Goldstein, and the absence or decreased numbers of LDL receptors in patients with quite elevated serum cholesterol levels indicates a genetic defect in an occasional patient (3–5).
What are the major sources of cholesterol in calories?
Cholesterol comes from animals and their products. Therefore, if we do not eat animals and their products, we do not take in cholesterol. Most Americans now take in only about 300 to 400 mg of cholesterol daily. This amount is hardly enough to obtain a calorie from it. A toothpick weighs 100 mg, so most in the USA take in the equivalency of 3 or 4 toothpicks of cholesterol every day. There are 2 major sources of cholesterol in our diet: 1) cows, including their muscle (beef), milk, butter, and cheese, and 2) eggs. About 45% of the cholesterol we obtain in our diet comes from the visible and nonvisible eggs we eat, and about 40% comes from bovine muscle and bovine milk and its products.
What are the major sources of fat in calories?
Fat comes from many sources. A major source in the USA is bovine muscle (beef). Cows naturally do not have so much fat, but in the USA most are fattened before slaughter. They are placed in feed lots their last 4 to 6 months of life and fed 20 to 25 pounds of various grains and soybeans every day, and the result is a huge increase in body fat. Cows slaughtered directly from pasture have far less fat between their muscle fibers and that overlying them. In the USA most adults now consume approximately 140 grams of fat daily. Our upper limit should be 75 grams. (A deck of cards weighs 75 grams.) If we were to limit our fat intake to 50 grams a day, the health of the US population would skyrocket.
Which of the 3 components of fatty acids raise the serum total and LDL cholesterol levels?
Each triglyceride particle contains a saturated, a monounsaturated, and a polyunsaturated fatty acid. There is no such thing as a pure saturated fatty acid or a pure monounsaturated or a pure polyunsaturated fatty acid. The question is which one is dominant in the triglyceride particles. The saturated portion, when dominant, clearly raises our total and LDL cholesterol levels; the monoand polyunsaturated, when dominant, either lower them or have a neutral effect. Saturated fatty acids are solid at room temperature, and that fact is easy to remember by the “s” in saturated. The fatty acids with the highest saturated component are coconut oil, palm kernel oil, beef tallow, and butter. Olive oil has the highest monounsaturated percentage (approximately 75%); peanut oil has approximately 50% monounsaturated fatty acids. Grundy and colleagues (11) have demonstrated that monounsaturated fatty acids have healthier features than do polyunsaturated fatty acids.
What percentage of reduction in the serum total and LDL cholesterol levels can be expected by decreasing the percentage of calories from fat by 25%, 50%, and 75%?
Hunninghake and colleagues (12) demonstrated that reducing the percentage of calories from fat from 40% to 30%, a 25% reduction, reduces on average the serum total cholesterol level by 5% and the LDL cholesterol level by 5%. Getting 30% of calories from fat is the most commonly prescribed diet by physicians in the USA, and its effect on cholesterol levels is relatively small. There is great individual variability, so that it is not possible to predict what drop in cholesterol levels will occur in a single individual. The drop in a single individual may be as high as 20%, but in some individuals the total and LDL cholesterol levels increase by as much as 20% (12). A reduction in percentage of calories from fat from 40% to 20%, a 50% reduction, generally leads to approximately a 20% reduction in both serum total and LDL cholesterol levels (13). A drop in percentage of calories from fat from 40% to 10%, a 75% reduction, generally leads to reductions in total and LDL cholesterol levels of about 40% (14). The 10% of calories from fat is a vegetarian-fruit diet.
What are the equivalent efficacious doses of the 6 statin drugs, and what are the average reductions in serum total and LDL cholesterol and average increase in HDL cholesterol from the various doses?
These are illustrated in the Table (15). These reductions in cholesterol are baseline independent—i.e., the percentage of reduction does not depend on what the baseline total cholesterol or baseline LDL might be. Furthermore, at the lower doses of the statin drugs, the increase in HDL cholesterol, which is generally about 6% to 7%, is also not baseline dependent. At the higher doses, the HDL becomes more baseline dependent, i.e., the lower the HDL, particularly when it is <35 mg/dL, the greater the increase in HDL produced by some statins but not by others (16, 17). Reductions in serum triglyceride levels by the statin drugs are baseline dependent, i.e., the higher the serum triglyceride level, the greater the reduction in triglycerides by the statin drugs. If the triglyceride level is >350 mg/dL, the statin drugs have the capacity to lower the triglyceride level by up to 40%; if, however, the serum triglyceride level is 100 mg/dL, even the higher doses of the statin drugs have essentially no effect on the triglyceride level.
Table
Table
Comparative efficacy of the 6 currently available statin drugs
What is the LDL cholesterol goal of lipid lowering?
The goals proposed by the National Cholesterol Education Committee are variable, depending on the baseline LDL cholesterol and the presence or absence of other atherosclerotic factors (18). Persons without an atherosclerotic event have LDL cholesterol goals of <160 or <130 mg/dL. The goal in persons with previous atherosclerotic events is LDL cholesterol <100 mg/dL. If it is useful to lower the LDL to <100 mg/dL after a heart attack, surely it must be useful to lower the LDL cholesterol level to <100 before a heart attack! Therefore, in my view, the LDL cholesterol goal for all persons should be <100 mg/dL.
Atherosclerosis might best be viewed as the pediatricians view measles, mumps, and pertussis. They are not satisfied with decreasing the risk of these 3 contagious diseases; their goal is complete prevention of these infectious diseases. I think the same philosophy needs to be applied to atherosclerosis (19). Because it is infrequently a disease related to defective genetic makeup, we should all try to get our serum LDL cholesterol levels down to the point where atherosclerotic plaques do not form, and that level is clearly <100 mg/dL and maybe <70 or 80 mg/dL. My goal for both primary and secondary prevention is the same—namely, serum LDL cholesterol <100 mg/dL.
The minimal HDL goal of therapy in men is >35 mg/dL and for women >45 mg/dL. Raising the HDL cholesterol, however, is usually more difficult than lowering the LDL cholesterol. And, finally, the ideal fasting serum triglyceride goal for everybody is <150 mg/dL.
How safe are the statin drugs?
These are some of the safest drugs that have been produced (20–28)! They are considerably safer than aspirin or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. They are safer than many drugs presently available over the counter. At the lower doses there is no evidence that statin drugs have detrimental effects on the liver. The frequency of liver enzyme elevation at the lower doses is the same as in placebo groups (20). Evidence is now accumulating that possibly even at the higher doses the statin drugs do not in themselves affect the liver detrimentally. Individuals with elevated liver enzymes associated with the intake of statin drugs have never had permanent damage to the liver produced by the statin drug. The only serious side effect of the statin drugs is myopathy, and that occurs in 1 of 10,000 persons taking the drug. The toxicity is not the statin drug; the toxicity is atherosclerosis! The risk-benefit ratio of using statin drugs in patients with atherosclerosis, either to prevent further plaque formation or to prevent its formation in the first place, favors drug use.
Who should be treated with the statin drugs?
Everyone who has had an atherosclerotic event, be it from involvement of the coronary arteries, carotid arteries, aorta, or peripheral arteries. The goal in patients with symptomatic atherosclerosis is LDL cholesterol <100 mg/dL. The goal in persons without symptomatic atherosclerosis should be the same. There is simply more time to work on dietary change in persons who have not had atherosclerotic events compared with persons who have. If dietary interventions are unsuccessful in lowering cholesterol levels in persons without atherosclerotic events, these drugs can be useful and should be used more freely as long as the users are >15 years of age. They also have proven benefit in the elderly.
Is it important to lower elevated serum triglyceride levels?
Yes. The most important lipoprotein to lower is the LDL cholesterol. The most important lipoprotein to raise is the serum HDL cholesterol. The third most important lipoprotein to alter is the serum triglyceride level (29). Although the LDL particles are the most atherogenic, the very-low-density lipoprotein particles contain atherogenic components as well. In general, the higher the serum triglyceride level, the lower the HDL cholesterol level. Thus, by lowering the serum triglyceride level, the effect often is to raise the serum HDL cholesterol level, and the higher the HDL cholesterol, the lower the risk of atherosclerotic events. When the triglyceride level is elevated, the LDL cholesterol particles tend to be small and dense, and these are the most atherogenic ones. When the triglyceride level is lowered, the LDL particle size tends to increase, and the larger and more buoyant LDL particles are not as atherogenic as the small dense ones. A third reason to lower the triglyceride levels is that elevated ones are associated with coagulation factors that promote thrombosis or retard thrombolysis. Platelet aggregation and therefore thrombosis is accelerated in patients with elevated triglyceride levels. And finally, elevated triglyceride levels are commonly associated with the metabolic syndrome (insulin-resistance syndrome). The components of this syndrome include obesity, systemic hypertension, the lipid triad (increased triglyceride, decreased HDL cholesterol, and predominance of small, dense LDL particles), glucose intolerance, insulin resistance, increased serum insulin levels, and diabetes mellitus.
The fibrates (fenofibrate and gemfibrozil) and niacin are the best triglyceride-lowering drugs. In my view, however, neither a fibrate nor niacin should be used as monotherapy. I think these drugs should be added to a statin drug, which in and of itself can reduce the triglyceride levels up to 40%, depending on the baseline level.
Can niacin and fibrates be used effectively and safely in combination with the statin drugs?
Yes. Liver enzyme elevations occur more frequently when either niacin or a fibrate is combined with a statin drug, and these enzyme levels should be checked more frequently in patients on this combination. The combination, however, is quite effective.
How effective are statin drugs compared with aspirin, beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and calcium antagonists in preventing repeat atherosclerotic events?
At least among patients who have had an acute myocardial infarction and survived, daily aspirin decreases the chance of recurrence of an atherosclerotic event within a 5-year period by 25% (30), beta-blockers by 25% (31), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (at least the tissue inhibitors) by 25% (32), calcium antagonists by probably 0%, and statin drugs by >40% (21). Thus, if a person could take only 1 drug after a heart attack, the most effective one would be a statin.
How effective are the statin drugs in preventing strokes?
Very effective. The statin drugs decrease the frequency of strokes in a 5-year period by approximately 30% (33). Until recently the statin drugs were the only drugs other than an antihypertensive drug demonstrated to decrease the frequency of stroke. Recently, the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor ramapril has been shown to decrease the frequency of strokes also by approximately 30% (32).
Do statin drugs have to be taken every day for the remainder of life?
Yes. Some patients apparently believe that the statin drugs need to be taken for only a few months—until the cholesterol levels come down. I believe that it is important to tell patients when they are first placed on a statin drug that they will need to take the drug every day for the remainder of their lives. Of course, if a patient subsequently becomes a pure vegetarian-fruit eater it might be possible to discontinue the statin drug, but few Americans are willing to go the vegetarian route.
Go to:
References
1. Collens WS. Atherosclerotic disease: an anthropologic theory. Medical Counterpoint. 1969;1:53–57.
2. Roberts WC. We think we are one, we act as if we are one, but we are not one. Am J Cardiol. 1990;66:896. [PubMed]
3. Brown MS, Goldstein JL. How LDL receptors influence cholesterol and atherosclerosis. Sci Am. 1984;251(5):58–66. [PubMed]
4. Brown MS, Goldstein JL. A receptor-mediated pathway for cholesterol homeostasis. Science. 1986;232(4746):34–47. [PubMed]
5. Goldstein JL, Brown MS. Regulation of low-density lipoprotein receptors: implications for pathogenesis and therapy of hypercholesterolemia and atherosclerosis. Circulation. 1987;76:504–507. [PubMed]
6. Havel RJ, Kane JB. Structure and metabolism of plasma lipoproteins. In: Scriver CR, Beaudet AL, Sly WS, Valle D, editors. The Metabolic Basis of Inherited Disease. New York: McGraw Hill; 1989. pp. 1129–1164.
7. Roberts WC, Kragel AH, Potkin BN. Ages at death and sex distribution in age decade in fatal coronary artery disease. Am J Cardiol. 1990;66:1379–1381. [PubMed]
8. Keys AB. Seven Countries: A Multivariate Analysis of Death and Coronary Heart Disease. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press; 1980. p. 381.
9. Roberts WC. Factors linking cholesterol to atherosclerotic plaques. Am J Cardiol. 1988;62:495–499. [PubMed]
10. LaRosa JC, Hunninghake D, Bush D, Criqui MH, Getz GS, Gotto AM, Jr, Grundy SM, Rakita L, Robertson RM, Weisfeldt ML, et al. The cholesterol facts. A summary of the evidence relating dietary fats, serum cholesterol, and coronary heart disease. A joint statement by the American Heart Association and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The Task Force on Cholesterol Issues, American Heart Association. Circulation. 1990;81:1721–1733. [PubMed]
11. Grundy SM, Ahrens EH., Jr The effects of unsaturated dietary fats on absorption, excretion, synthesis, and distribution of cholesterol in man. J Clin Invest. 1970;49:1135–1152. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
12. Hunninghake DB, Stein EA, Dujovne CA, Harris WS, Feldman EB, Miller VT, Tobert JA, Laskarzewski PM, Quiter E, Held J, Taylor AM, Hopper S, Leonard SB, Brewer BK. The efficacy of intensive dietary therapy alone or combined with lovastatin in outpatients with hypercholesterolemia. N Engl J Med. 1993;328:1213–1219. [PubMed]
13. Leaf A. Dietary prevention of coronary heart disease: the Lyon Diet Heart Study. Circulation. 1999;99:733–735. [PubMed]
14. Ornish D. Can life-style changes reverse coronary atherosclerosis? Hosp Pract. 1991;26:123–132. [PubMed]
15. Roberts WC. The rule of 5 and the rule of 7 in lipid-lowering by statin drugs. Am J Cardiol. 1997;80:106–107. [PubMed]
16. Jones P, Kafonek S, Laurora I, Hunninghake D. Comparative dose efficacy study of atorvastatin versus simvastatin, pravastatin, lovastatin, and fluvastatin in patients with hypercholesterolemia. Am J Cardiol. 1998;81:582–587. [PubMed]
17. Crouse JR, III, Frohlich J, Ose L, Mercuri M, Tobert JA. Effects of high doses of simvastatin and atorvastatin on high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and apolipoprotein A-I. Am J Cardiol. 1999;83:1476–1477. [PubMed]
18. Grundy SM, Billheimer D, Chait A, Clark LT, Denke M, Havel RJ, Hazzard WR, Hulely SB, Hunninghake DB, Kreisberg RA, Kris-Etherton P, McKenney JM, Newman MA, Schaefer EJ, Sobel BE, Somelofski C, Weinstein Brewer HB, Cleeman JI, Donato KA, Ernst N, Hoeg JM, Rifkind BM, Rossouw J, Sempos CT, Gallivan JM, Harris MN, Quint-Adler L. Summary of the second report of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment on High Blood Cholesterol in Adults. JAMA. 1993;269:3015–3023.
19. Brown MS, Goldstein JL. Heart attacks: gone with the century? Science. 1996;272:629. [PubMed]
20. Bradford RH, Shear CL, Chremos AN, Dujovne C, Downton M, Franklin FA, Gould AL, Hesney M, Higgins J, Hurley DP, Langendorfer A, Nash DT, Pool JL, Schnaper H. Expanded Clinical Evaluation of Lovastatin (EXCEL) study results. I. Efficacy in modifying plasma lipoproteins and adverse event profile in 8245 patients with moderate hypercholesterolemia. Arch Intern Med. 1991;151:43–49. [PubMed]
21. Pedersen TR, Kjekshus J, Berg K, Haghfelt T, Faergeman O, Thorgeirsson G, Pyorala K, Miettinen T, Wilhelmsen L, Olsson AG, Wedel H. Randomised trial of cholesterol lowering in 4444 patients with coronary heart disease: the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S) Lancet. 1994;344:1383–1389. [PubMed]
22. Kjekshus J, Pedersen TR. Reducing the risk of coronary events: evidence from the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S) Am J Cardiol. 1995;76:64C–68C. [PubMed]
23. Shepherd J, Cobbe SM, Ford I, Isles CG, Lorimer AR, MacFarlane PW, McKillop JH, Packard CJ. Prevention of coronary heart disease with pravastatin in men with hypercholesterolemia. West of Scotland Coronary Prevention Study Group. N Engl J Med. 1995;333:1301–1307. [PubMed]
24. Pedersen TR, Berg K, Cook TJ, Faergeman O, Haghfelt T, Kjekshus J, Miettinen T, Musliner TA, Olsson AG, Pyorala K, Thorgeirsson G, Tobert JA, Wedel H, Wilhelmsen L. Safety and tolerability of cholesterol lowering with simvastatin during 5 years in the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study. Arch Intern Med. 1996;156:2085–2092. [PubMed]
25. Sacks FM, Pfeffer MA, Moye LA, Rouleau JL, Rutherford JD, Cole TG, Brown L, Warnica JW, Arnold JM, Wun CC, Davis BR, Braunwald E. The effect of pravastatin on coronary events after myocardial infarction in patients with average cholesterol levels. Cholesterol and Recurrent Events Trial Investigators. N Engl J Med. 1996;335:1001–1009. [PubMed]
26. Pyorala K, Pedersen TR, Kjekshus J, Faergeman O, Olsson AG, Thorgeirsson G. Cholesterol lowering with simvastatin improves prognosis of diabetic patients with coronary heart disease. A subgroup analysis of the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S) Diabetes Care. 1997;20:614–620. [PubMed]
27. Avorn J, Monette J, Lacour A, Bohn RL, Monane M, Mogun H, LeLorier J. Persistence of use of lipid-lowering medications: a cross-national study. JAMA. 1998;279:1458–1462. [PubMed]
28. Pitt B, Waters D, Brown WV, van Boven AJ, Schwartz L, Title LM, Eisenberg D, Shurzinske L, McCormick LS. Aggressive lipid-lowering therapy compared with angioplasty in stable coronary artery disease. Atorvastatin versus Revascularization Treatment Investigators. N Engl J Med. 1999;341:70–76. [PubMed]
29. Grundy SM, editor. A symposium: The role of statins in patients with hypertriglyceridemia. Am J Cardiol. 1998;81(4A):1B–73B. [PubMed]
30. Manson JE, Tosteson H, Ridker PM, Satterfield S, Hebert P, O'Connor GT, Buring JE, Hennekens CH. The primary prevention of myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 1992;326:1406–1416. [PubMed]
31. Braunwald E, Muller JE, Kloner RA, Maroko PR. Role of beta-adrenergic blockade in the therapy of patients with myocardial infarction. Am J Med. 1983;74:113–123. [PubMed]
32. Yusuf S, Sleight P, Pogue J, Bosch J, Davies R, Dagenais G. Effects of an angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor, ramipril, on cardiovascular events in high-risk patients. The Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation Study Investigators. N Engl J Med. 2000;342:145–153. [PubMed]
33. Crouse JR, III, Byington RP, Hoen HM, Furberg CD. Reductase inhibitor monotherapy and stroke prevention. Arch Intern Med. 1997;157:1305–1310. [PubMed]
| |
|
|
|
Го обърна на клуб хипохондрици, не че вегетата не са
| |
|
Тема
|
Futurism - The Century of Complexity...
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 29.09.16 02:26 |
|
|
Founder at Complexity Dynamics
28. Sep. 2016
“What’s Driving Evolution?...” Physics tell us that to understand the world we need simple to understand “the dynamics of cause and effect”; but in reality however, the simple dynamics of cause and effect fail quite miserably when it comes to explaining “Natural Evolution and Emergent Complexity”...
“So What?...” you might say. Well understanding evolution and emergent complexity is going to turn out to be more important than most anyone might previously have thought. Because although science may have spent the last 400 years honing its understanding of The Linear Dynamics of Cause and Effect, the reality of everyday life in the 21st century is that the really interesting stuff is increasingly the result of The Nonlinear Dynamics of Emergent Complexity...
___
Linear and Nonlinear Dynamics
“Physics” is the ultimate science of cause and effect. Physicists like to describe their science as the hardest of “hard science” because physics can claim to be governed by hard and fast scientific “Laws”. This of course would seem to imply that many of the so-called “soft sciences” are in some way not quite as elevated, not quite as good.
In truth however we could say that physics is an “easy science”, and the soft sciences are “difficult” because the “laws” of physics only really work in the absence of “noise”, and yet the everyday world of the soft sciences is full of noise because most everything is continually battered and buffeted by “constantly changing feedback” which can generate wild “nonlinear dynamics”.
In reality all dynamics have feedback (and resultant nonlinearity), it is just that some dynamics have much less feedback than others. Physics is, in a sense, the science of “dynamics with negligible feedback”, the science of “linear dynamics” -- or in other words it is the science of the nonlinear stuff that can be safely “compressed” into neat linear “cause and effect”.
Linear and Nonlinear Paradigms
In the simplest possible terms, linear dynamics are dynamics where the effect is proportional to the cause, and nonlinear dynamics are where the effect can be disproportional to the cause.
Physics, it would be fair to say, has throughout its 400 year history, actively tried to steer clear of messy nonlinear dynamics, and in so doing has actively established a paradigm of linear dynamics; a linear paradigm of cause and effect.
But then, out of the blue, in the latter part of the 20th century, along came “Chaos Theory” and “Complexity Theory” which between them hinted strongly at a completely different paradigm; a nonlinear paradigm of “integration and emergence”...
Chaos Theory and Complexity Theory
Unfortunately however nobody seems to have been paying the proper attention, and so chaos theory and complexity theory as they stand today are still a bit of a mishmash of concepts and don’t really have agreed upon definitions.
Chaos Theory, for example, is generally associated with the relatively vague notion of the so-called “Butterfly Effect” (or as the academic community like to say “sensitivity to initial conditions”), but this association has, in my opinion, done more harm than good for it is misguided, and its misdirection has merely served to mask the true nature of chaos. Complexity Theory is similarly afflicted, but rather than analyse all the pros and cons of all the various definitions of both Chaos and Complexity, I will instead simply offer my own definitions...
Defining Chaos and Complexity
In my opinion chaos is not primarily characterized by sensitivity to initial conditions; but by the emergence of decisions points and resultant sensitivity to choice. Chaos is simply unresolved internal adaptation to feedback, surfacing as turbulent diversity on the system level. So in the simplest possible terms, we could say that
- Chaos Theory is the study of Adaptive Instability and Unpredictable System Dynamics.
Complexity is simply the resolution of adaptive instability. Complexity is the result of the dynamic integration of adaptive entities, which ultimately results in complex macroscopic systems that have effectively organized themselves into existence. So in the simplest possible terms, we could say that
- Complexity Theory is the study of Adaptive Integration and Self-Designing Emergent Systems.
Below is a matrix of System Dynamics
___
Integration for Free
So is any of this important? Absolutely it is! We live in a world of nonlinear dynamics, some of it compressible, most of it not. Physics and Chemistry generally deals with the compressible stuff, but Evolution and Emergent Complexity deals with the rest...
To understand Emergent Complexity is to understand how in any system of adaptive entities many diverse things can randomly occur and be reinforced; but furthermore, and much more importantly, it also tells us that “when we have the co-emergence of diversity, complex-integration comes for free!”...
This “Integration for Free” is evolution’s secret sauce. Evolution drives a constant integration of co-emergent diversity, which drives the next level of emergence. This constant interplay of integration and emergence means that evolution naturally ratchet-up complexity over time, and consequently “the complex whole is forever becoming greater than the sum of its less complex parts”...
Natural Creativity
Some years after its publication, the English philosopher Herbert Spencer summarized Darwin’s theory of evolution as being the “Survival of the Fittest”, but unfortunately this description, although popular, is somewhat misleading.
Evolution is not about the “Survival of the Fittest”; evolution is about the “Integration of the Optimally Adapted” (or more precisely, the optimal integration of optimally adapted diversity).
There is a subtle difference between these two descriptions; the former implies anti-synergetic competition, while the latter implies synergetic collaboration. When we look at the natural world It is obvious that Nature favours integrated diversity over uniformity. Mother Nature does not employ an asymmetric “winner takes all” strategy, but prefers a more chaotic, but ultimately more creative, strategy of “mutual reinforcement”...
___
Accelerated Evolution
More and more in the early part of this 21st century we are being made to realize the creative power of complexity dynamics and its potential for system self-organization and emergence. In some arenas such as a multicultural society, the economy, technology, the arts, and even our daily lives, self-organization and emergence is a source of great diversity and creativity; but in other areas such as financial markets, terror networks, and the global climate it can be a source of great instability and destruction.
Over the last 400 years cause and effect has told us a lot about the dynamics of simple systems without feedback, but the dynamics of complex systems with feedback is a subject that is becoming increasingly relevant and important to understand.
In fact it could be reasonably argued that in our ever-more rapidly interconnecting world, we are likely fast approaching a phase transition in human development, a transition to a whole new age ; “An Age of Accelerated Evolution”. And this new age of accelerated evolution will not be dominated by the old linear paradigm of simple cause and effect, but by the new nonlinear paradigm of complex “Integration and Emergence”...
Algorithmic Search
The new physics of the 21st century and beyond, will be the physics of self-organizing systems and accelerated evolution. Understanding this “new physics of evolution” will be essential if we want some control over our ever-increasing inter-connected, co-dependent world. Artificial Intelligence (AI) is seen by many as a means of dealing with complexity and already AI is being used to get computers to learn, but ultimately this will turn out to be really rather small potatoes; the really big pay-off will come from getting computers to explore.
After studying chaos and complexity for so many years, it strikes me that the universe is not fundamentally (as it so often suggested) purely mathematical, but is more generally “algorithmic”. The process of evolution is, as Darwin himself more or less suggested, a continual process of the emergence of ever greater complexity; a process which would seem to suggests that Mother Nature is, in fact, ceaselessly executing a form of algorithmic search, constantly seeking out the most successful combinations of integrated diversity.
If this is indeed the case then it begs the question, “is what Nature finds random, or are some things more likely to be found than others?” Well, as it turns out, chaos suggests the latter...
Chaos has alerted us to an algorithmic universe that was previously hidden from our awareness; a nonlinear universe of “strange complex attractors”. The existence of such algorithmic attractors begs yet another question, “are there some, or even many, hidden gems (or dangers for that matter) in this nonlinear universe that we are as yet unaware of?”
In these early days of the 21st century, we are only just beginning to reach the computational power needed to address this question and although computational exploration of complex system behaviour is still an activity very much in its infancy, it is destined to grow to great importance because for good or bad, it is safe to say, that the 21st century will be the century that demonstrates the awesome Creative Power of Evolution and Complexity Dynamics...
___
Kieran D. Kelly authors the blog “”, the blog that addresses “Applied Complexity” in the 21st century.
| |
|
Тема
|
 A. Schwarzenegger: I’ve Given Up Meat For Humanity
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 02.10.16 00:04 |
|
|
Terminator star and former governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger has urged members of the public to give up meat and take-up a plant-based diet “for the benefit of humanity”.
In partnership with James Cameron, Arnie is spreading the message, “less meat, less heat, more life”.
reports:
Recently, Arnold Schwarzenegger partnered with the Wild Conservation Society to raise awareness about the issue of poaching. In that video, he made it clear that poachers will pay for their crimes against humanity as killing African Elephants for their tusks is likely to result in their demise within the next decade.
Now, the former bodybuilder, governor of California, and actor has teamed up with James Cameron, director of Avatar and advocate for the vegan lifestyle, and both have a powerful message to share with the world.
In the video below, it is explained that animal agriculture is responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, more than the combined exhaust from all transportation. The duo lends support for China’s new directive which urges citizens to cut down on meat consumption to prevent diseases of affluence, such as heart disease and diabetes.
The staunch environmentalists tell the camera:
“Less meat, less heat, more life.”
Youtube:
According to the documentary , livestock and their byproducts account for at least 32,000 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year, or 51% of all worldwide greenhouse gas emissions. By utilizing land to grow crops that feed humans rather than cows, world hunger can be managed and the large amounts of methane produced by the livestock (which is 25-100 times more destructive than CO2 on a 20-year time frame) will be lessened.
It all begins with the little choices you make. Thankfully, eating healthy, plant-based food is easier now more than ever. Whether you purchase veggie burgers at the store or opt to make your own, there are a variety of ways you can please your palate while helping the planet.
Schwarzenegger correctly :
“You have to start slowly, you can’t just convince people to stop eating meat altogether. It’s a very big challenge, it doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done and you shouldn’t be on that campaign, but it’s a very hard thing to overcome.”
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
Тема
|
Нобелевская премия 2016г:доказал поститься полезнo
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 05.10.16 06:52 |
|
|
Ученый, открывший механизм сохранения молодости, и сам выглядит моложаво.
Ёсинори Осуми - специалист по клеточной биологии из Японии - стал Нобелевским лауреатом в области физиологии и медицины
Началась Нобелевская неделя, в ходе которой будут распределены самые почетные научные награды и названы лауреаты области медицины и физиологии, физики, химии.
Лауреат в области медицины и физиологии был назван сегодня - 3 октября 2016 года. Им стал Ёсинори Осуми (Yoshinori Ohsumi) специалист по биологии клетки из Технологического университета Токио, который удостоен награды « за открытие механизмов аутофагии».
Первый лауреат Нобелевской премии 2016 года назван.
Пресс-релиз Нобелевского комитета гласит:
«Открытия Осуми привели к новой парадигме в нашем понимании того, как клетка перерабатывает свое содержимое. Его открытия открыли путь к пониманию фундаментальной важности аутофагии для множества физиологических процессов, таких как адаптация к голоду и ответ на инфекцию.
Аутофагия - это процесс утилизации и переработки ненужных частей клетки - разного накопившегося в ней «мусора». Термин, давший название процессу, образован из двух греческих, слов которые вместе переводятся как «самоедство». Или «самопоедание».
Механизм аутофагии.
То, что феномен вообще существует, ученые обнаружили еще в 60-х годах прошлого века. Но не смогли разобраться в тонкостях механизма. В 90-х годах это сделал Осуми. Проводя свои эксперименты, он выявил еще и гены, которые отвечают за аутофагию. И вот почти через четверть века награда нашла героя, который стал 39-м в истории ученым, удостоенным Нобелевской премии единолично.
Аутофагия присуща живым организмам, в том числе и нашим. Благодаря ей клетки избавляются от ненужных частей, а организм в целом - от ненужных клеток.
Природа предусмотрительно наделила клетки столь удивительной и полезной способностью - переваривать то, что «выглядит» лишним или вредным. Действуют они почти как мы. Только автоматически. Упаковывают «мусор» в специальные мешки - аутофагосомы. Далее перемещают в контейнеры - лизосомы. Где «всякая гадость» разрушается и перевариваются. Продукты переработки - эдакое «вторсырье» - идут на производство топлива для питания клетки. Из них изготавливаются и новые строительные блоки, используемые для обновления клетки.
Образование фагосомы.
Благодаря аутофагии клетка отчищается от попавшей в нее инфекции и от образовавшихся токсинов.
Аутофагия начинает работать наиболее интенсивно, когда организм испытывает стресс. Например, голодает. В этом случае клетка вырабатывает энергию за счет своих внутренних ресурсов - из всякого накопившегося мусора. И в том числе - из болезнетворных бактерий.
Открытые лауреата свидетельствует: голодать, а иной раз и поститься все-таки полезно - организм действительно очищается. Подтверждено Нобелевским комитетом.
Как уверяют коллеги Осуми, аутофагия предохраняет организм от преждевременной старости. Может быть, даже омолаживает за счет того, что создает новые клетки, выводит из организма дефектные белки и поврежденные внутриклеточные элементы, поддерживая его в исправном состоянии.
Слияние фагосомы и лизосомы.
А нарушения в процессах аутофагии приводят к болезни Паркинсона, диабету и даже к раку. Понимая это, медики создают уже новые лекарства, способные исправить нарушения и, стало быть, вылечить.
Однако... Похоже, что в целях профилактики стоит иной раз поголодать, вгоняя организм в оздоровительный, как теперь выясняется, стресс.
Ёсинори Осуми родился в 1945 году. Свою премию в размере 8 миллионов шведских крон - это чуть больше 950 тысяч долларов США - он получит вместе с другими учеными-лауреатами в Стокгольме 10 декабря.
| |
|
Тема
|
Туршия с естествена ферментация
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 08.10.16 02:19 |
|
|
Публикувано На 16 November 2015 | By Antonia Karova
Ферментиралите храни имат много дълга история и винаги са били високо ценени, заради ползите, които оказват върху здравето.
При процесът на ферментация се зараждат микроорганизми, които са изключително важни за хората, тъй като те помагат за баланса в чревната флора и по този начин за подсилването на имунната система. Ферментиралите храни също са сред най-добрите за детоксикация, тъй като те помагат на тялото да се освободи от различните токсини, включително тежките метали. Всяка ферментирала храна, имунизира червата ни с голямо разнообразие от различни микроорганизми.
Необходими продукти
смесени зеленчуци според вкусът ви: моркови, карфиол, зеле, целина,
зелени домати, зелени или червени чушки, гулия, чесън и т.н.
1 супена лъжица с връх едра сол за всеки литър вода (около 30 гр, аз го правя на вкус)
дафинови листа, черен пипер и др. на вкус
Инструкции за приготвяне
Измийте и нарежете зеленчуците на едро, поставете ги в стъклени буркани, добавете на вкус чесън и билки (дафинови листа, черен пипер и т.н.). Освен за допълване на вкуса, ще помогне и за млечнокиселата ферментация, а и ще се избегне образуването на мухъл и нежелани бактерии, които могат да съсипят крайния продукт.
Разтворете около 30 г морска сол на литър вода и оставете да заври, охладете и изсипете върху зеленчуците до покриването им. Затворете но не-херметично. Оставете зеленчуците на проветриво място , без прекалено много слънце за около 10 дни (аз ги държа на терасата), като в първите 4 дни буркана се обръща най-малко веднъж на ден, докато тръгне ферментацията, или - още по-добре - изсипете течността в контейнер и я върнете обратно в буркана за да се напълни с кислород. Сега вече туршията ви е готова! Тя може да се съхранява в хладилник или в помещение с по-ниска температура.
Има вариант, вместо солен разтвор да се използва сок от целина, но тогава консумацията, трябва да е доста по-бърза.
| |
|
Тема
|
Simulation Hypothesis-Reality Computer Simulation?
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 10.10.16 04:33 |
|
|
AUTHOR: Dom Galeon, EDITOR: Kristin Houser, September 19, 2016
IN BRIEF
As technology improves, the possibility that our world may be a simulated one is becoming more and more probable, argues Universe Today founder Fraser Cain. But can we ever prove that we live in a simulation of a reality?
RED PILL OR BLUE?
IN BRIEF
As technology improves, the possibility that our world may be a simulated one is becoming more and more probable, argues Universe Today founder Fraser Cain. But can we ever prove that we live in a simulation of a reality?
RED PILL OR BLUE?
All the world’s a stage. Or is it a simulation?
The idea that what we consider reality is actually a simulation was first proposed by , and it is frequently addressed in fiction (e.g., “The Matrix” trilogy) and by innovators and educators such as Elon Musk, who brought up the topic at the .
Those who believe that we live in a simulation often cite Bostrom’s argument regarding what he calls ancestor simulations. “One thing that later generations might do with their super-powerful computers is run detailed simulations of their forebears or of people like their forebears,” write Bostrom. “Because their computers would be so powerful, they could run a great many such simulations.”
That prediction is becoming more and more a possible reality. Today’s computers are powerful enough to simulate things that we never witnessed, such as the Big Bang or the creation of the planets. Currently, scientific simulations seem to be better, though, with large-scale situations.
But will we ever know for sure if we live in a simulation?
CRACKING THE CODE
According to Fraser Cain from , there is one way to find out, and that is to detect tricks that the simulation uses to approximate a reality that it can never copy exactly. A computer in a simulation will not have the same processing power as the computer that’s running the simulation, , so there will be inconsistencies or tell-tale signs, perhaps glitches, that reveal the underlying grid on which our world or universe runs.
, for example, believe that we can detect the resolution that our simulated world is running on by observing the energy limitations of ultra-high cosmic rays in the universe.
At this point, Cain argues, we can’t really tell, sort of like with the Kantian phenomenon/noumenon dichotomy. We’ll just have to “live our lives as if we’re real, until better evidence comes along, or our simulations get so good, their inhabitants start questioning their own existence,” says Cain.
Or maybe until someone offers you the red pill. If they did, would you take it?
Youtube:
| |
|
Тема
|
Here's How Quantum Computing Will Change The World
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 10.10.16 21:56 |
|
|
OCT 2, 2016;
There is a D-Wave 1,000 qubit processor. A 2000 qubit version will be available in 2017.
When the world’s first digital computer was completed in 1946 it opened up new vast new worlds of possibility. Still, early computers were only used for limited applications because they could only be programmed in machine code. It took so long to set up problems that they were only practical for massive calculations.
That all changed when created the first programming language, , at IBM in 1957. For the first time, real world problems could be quickly and efficiently transformed into machine language, which made them far more practical and useful. In the 1960’s, the market for computers soared.
Like the first digital computers, than current systems, but the key to its success will be translating real world problems into quantum language. At , the first company to offer the technology for commercial use, that process is already underway and it is revealing massive potential.
Swallowing Complexity Whole
One of the toughest problems in mathematics is known as the , which asks to find the shortest route between a list of cities. It sounds fairly simple and, in some sense it is, but in terms of computation it is enormous. Traditionally, engineers have used shortcuts, such as the or to solve it.
The traveling salesperson problem is also pervasive. Practically anytime you want to make a complex process more efficient, you need to do this kind of . Logistics businesses need to solve a version of it every time they plan a route. Semiconductor manufacturers encounter similar issues when they design and manufacture chips.
D-Wave has on the related problem of designing portfolios. In order to generate the maximum returns for a given risk profile, a fund manager needs to not only choose among the thousands of available securities, but also minimize transaction costs by achieving the most optimal portfolio in the minimum number of trades.
In each case, D-Wave’s quantum systems allow us to swallow complexity whole, rather than using shortcuts that reduce efficiency. Jeremy Hilton, Senior Vice President, Systems, at D-Wave says “Complex processes are all around us. By using quantum computing to operate them more effectively, we can make just about everything we do run more smoothly.”
Enabling A New Era Of Medical Science
When the was completed in 2003, it ushered in a new era of medicine. Rather than treat every patient the same way, it showed that we could design treatments to suit a particular genetic makeup. This has been especially effective in .
While these are major advances, our newfound knowledge has also revealed our limitations. Unlocking the secrets of DNA exposed how little we know about the proteins it codes for, just as early successes with targeted therapies have shown us how much more we can achieve by working with complete genomes rather than just isolated markers in our chromosomes.
Unfortunately, conventional computers aren’t powerful enough to perform these tasks well, but early indications are that quantum computers can close the gap. Scientists at Harvard that quantum computers will allow us to map proteins much as we do genes today. D-Wave has also formed a to use its quantum computers to explore how to analyze entire genomes to create more effective therapies.
Mapping the human genome was a triumph of technology as much as it was an achievement in biology. It was, essentially, more powerful computers that allowed us to map human DNA . However, if we are to advance further, quantum systems will likely be a big part of the answer.
It’s Not Nice To Call Your Mother An Idiot
Take a look on the Internet and you can find of autocorrect mangling phrases, like changing “I don’t” to “idiot” in a text to your mom. These are embarrassing mistakes, but they usually don’t cause too much trouble. However, in other applications, like picking a terrorist out of a crowd through facial recognition, the stakes are far higher.
These problems arise because of how machine learning algorithms are designed and trained. Like our brains, they process different aspects of an experience, such as colors and shapes and integrate them into larger concepts, such as a human face, a type of hairstyle or the signature style of a popular designer.
However, in order for this process to work well, the more elemental aspects need to be correctly identified or they will pass on bad information to the higher levels of the system. Because of the limited capacity of conventional computers, data is lost in the training process and things are not recognized correctly, resulting in insults to your mom and terrorists misidentified.
Here again, quantum computing can help close the gap. D-Wave is working with a number of partners, , to help train artificial intelligence systems to reflect human thought processes far more completely than is possible with conventional computers, which will help to minimize mistakes.
D-Wave’s Hilton told me that quantum computers will make it possible for our technology to develop something akin to intuition, allowing them to know that something is wrong even if they can’t point to exactly why.
Augmenting Human Intelligence
In 1968, just a decade after John Backus introduced FORTRAN, presented the results of his project to “augment human intellect” and it turned out to be so consequential that it is now called . Until that point computers were, much like quantum technology today, merely computational devices that few people ever saw.
Yet Engelbart showed that they could be much more. Using something he called a “mouse” and a keyboard, he showed how just about anyone could navigate around a screen and operate a computer. Later, Xerox developed its based on Engelbart’s ideas, which formed the basis for Steve Jobs’ launch of the Macintosh in 1984.
Today, quantum computing is somewhere between the arrival of FORTRAN and Engelbart’s “Mother of all Demos.” Highly trained specialists are able to translate real world problems into language a quantum computer can understand, but for most people the technology is out of reach. That will change in the years to come.
I’m not implying that we will all have quantum computers in our homes, but we will likely be able to access them in the cloud and they will help us solve problems that seem impossible today. D-Wave’s Hilton told me “the quantum computing revolution may be even more profound than the digital computing revolution a half century ago and it will happen much faster.”
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Simulation Hypothesis-Reality Computer Simulation?
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
| (>[2] /dev/null) |
| Публикувано | 11.10.16 02:48 |
|
|
Bulshit. Симулацията може да е толкова добра, че да не можем да я установим.
Отделно, какво значение има дали живеем в симулация или не?
The last good thing written in C was Franz Schubert's Symphony No. 9.
| |
|
Тема
|
Massive Disruption Is Coming With Quantum Computin
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 11.10.16 08:07 |
|
|
BY OCT 10, 2016|
Next year, we may see the launch of the first true quantum computers.
The implications will be staggering.
This post aims to answer three questions:
1. What are quantum computers?
2. What are their implications?
3. Who’s working on them?
There’s a lot to unpack here, so hang tight, and let’s jump in!
What Is Quantum Computing?
Moore’s Law (or the exponential growth of integrated circuits) is actually referring to the . Here’s the list of the underlying technologies: (1) Electromechanical; (2) Vacuum Tube; (3) Relay; (4) Transistors; and (5) Integrated Circuits.
Quantum computers may well be the sixth paradigm, given that they work in a fashion that is entirely different from “classical” computers.
A classical computer performs operations using classical “bits” — these “bits” can be in only one of two states: “0” or “1.”
In contrast, a quantum computer uses "quantum bits," or "qubits." Thanks to a principle called quantum superposition, these qubits can have a value of “0”, “1,” or both “0 AND 1” at the same time.
This capability allows quantum computers to solve certain types of complex problems that are intractable for conventional computers. Frankly, really exciting problems for society today, as you’ll see below.
For a tutorial on quantum computers, check out this short video:
Youtube:
The power of qubits is that they scale exponentially. A two-qubit machine allows you to do four calculations at once. A three-qubit machine can do eight calculations. A four-qubit machine gives you 16 calculations, all simultaneously.
By the time you get to 300 qubits, you’ve got a computer that can do more “calculations” than there are atoms in the universe.
That’s why the blog TechTarget : “Development of a quantum computer, if practical, would mark a leap forward in computing capability far greater than that from the abacus to a modern day supercomputer, with performance gains in the billion-fold realm and beyond.”
What Are the Implications of Quantum Computing?
The implications of true quantum computing at scale are staggering, of extraordinary impact to society today (which is why I’m tracking it).
In my opinion, here are the top five applications:
1. Machine Learning: Much of machine learning is about “pattern recognition.” Algorithms crunch large datasets to find signals in the noise, and the goal is to maximize the number of comparisons you make between data to find the best models to describe that data. With quantum computing, we’ll be able to do this processing orders of magnitude more effectively than with classical computing. Quantum computing will allow you to compare much, much more data in parallel, simultaneously, and all permutations of that data, to discover the best patterns that describe it. This will lead to fundamentally more powerful forms of AI much more quickly than we expect. Expect quantum computing to cause a positive inflection point (upward) for the speed at which the world develops AI (which, by the way, is why Google is working so hard on it).
2. Medicine: Quantum computing will also allow us to model complex molecular interactions at an atomic level. This will be particularly important for medical research and drug discovery. Soon, we’ll be able to model all 20,000+ proteins encoded in the human genome and start to simulate their interactions with models of existing drugs or new drugs that haven’t been invented yet. Based on the analysis of these drug interactions, we’ll be able to find cures for previously incurable diseases and hopefully accelerate the time to market for new drugs. Using quantum computer simulations will be the way we design and choose our next generations of drugs and cancer cures.
3. Chemistry (and Climate Change): Worried about the climate crisis? Wondering what we can do about it? Quantum computers may be our newest tool to understand what is going on and to fight it. They will allow us to unlock “simulation-driven” solutions, perhaps design new catalysts that actually capture carbon from the atmosphere and turn it into new and valuable products at low cost and energy use.
4. Material Science & Engineering: Because we can simulate atomic interactions, we’ll explore and invent entirely new, better materials. We might find better superconductors, better magnets, materials that will allow us to create much higher energy density batteries, and so on. Since 2011, the U.S. federal government has granted over $250 million to the Materials Genome Initiative in an effort to “discover, manufacture, and deploy advanced materials twice as fast, at a fraction of the cost.”
5. Biomimetics, Energy Systems & Photovoltaics: Scientists believe that much of the world is built atop quantum systems. Processes like photosynthesis, for example, are likely dependent on quantum mechanical systems. Thus, as we look to the natural world for inspiration to build better energy systems or stronger materials, we’ll only fully realize their potential when we can model these processes with quantum computers. This will lead to many advances and discoveries across the board.
Bottom line: When quantum computing pans out, we’ll be able to control the very building blocks of the universe.
The question is who is going to figure it out first…
Who’s Working on Quantum Computing?
There’s a race going on — a race to prove something called “quantum supremacy.”
Quantum supremacy is essentially the test that validates that the computer you have is, in fact, a quantum computer.
In the U.S., three major players are in the game right now:
1. Google
2. IBM
3. Rigetti Computing, a startup out of Silicon Valley
(And perhaps a fourth — D-Wave Systems. They’ve developed chips with qubits, but these haven’t yet been conclusively proved to operate as a quantum computer.)
Both Rigetti Computing and Google believe they will reach “quantum supremacy” in the next 12 to 18 months.
Think about that: the next one to two years…
The revolution is coming fast.
To put this into perspective, I had a chance to catch up with Chad Rigetti, the CEO of Rigetti Computing.
Below is a picture of the most powerful ‘classical’ computer on the planet, Tianhe-2 in Guangzhou, China.
Tianhe-2: The most powerful supercomputer on the planet.
It costs $400 million.
The computer burns about 20 megawatts of electricity — enough to power 20,000 households.
And it’s about half the size of a football field, with 3.2 million Intel cores.
President Obama, in the attempt to drive America’s return to high-performance computing supremacy, declared that the U.S. would build an exoscale computer, 30x more powerful than Tianhe-2, by 2020.
The problem is this: With current technology, it will cost a billion dollars and will require a nuclear power plant to run the supercomputer.
“We need to do this,” explains Chad Rigetti. “But there is another path. Quantum computing.”
Below is a picture of two developmental systems in Rigetti’s lab in Berkeley, CA.
Developmental quantum computing systems.
The big white cans about the size of a human are cooling systems, and inside each cooling system is a single quantum chip.
In these machines today, there is a five-qubit processor.
The crazy part: A single chip with about 50 to 60 qubits on it would be more powerful than the entire Tianhe-2, a half-a-football-field-sized machine…
This is what quantum computing unlocks.
Rigetti is rapidly developing quantum integrated circuits and the software platform that will allow developers to build on top of them.
Along with efforts at Google, IBM, D-Wave, and many other companies and research labs around the world, we are rapidly approaching a quantum computing revolution.
Get ready.
___
Peter Diamandis
Dr. Peter Diamandis was recently named by Fortune Magazine as one of the World’s 50 Greatest Leaders.
He is the founder and executive chairman of the XPRIZE Foundation which leads the world in designing and operating large-scale incentive competitions.
He is also the co-founder and executive chairman of Singularity University, a graduate-level Silicon Valley institution that counsels the world’s leaders on exponentially growing technologies.
Diamandis is also the co-founder and vice-chairman of Human Longevity Inc. (HLI), a genomics and cell therapy-based company focused on extending the healthy human lifespan.
In the field of commercial space, Diamandis is co-founder and co-chairman of Planetary Resources, a company designing spacecraft to enable the detection and prospecting of asteroids for fuels and precious materials.He is the also co-founder of Space Adventures and Zero Gravity Corporation.
Diamandis is a New York Times bestselling author of two books: Abundance – The Future Is Better Than You Think and BOLD – How to Go Big, Create Wealth and Impact the World.
He earned degrees in Molecular Genetics and Aerospace Engineering from MIT, and holds an M.D. from Harvard Medical School.
His motto is, “The best way to predict the future is to create it yourself.”
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Simulation Hypothesis-Reality Computer Simulation?
[re: |]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 11.10.16 08:21 |
|
|
Може да има изключения - като Нео от "Матрицата" (макар че всъщност се оказа във филма, че агент Смит е избраният, ако внимателно се гледа). Твоето мнение (за качеството на симулацията) е също така хипотеза, както и изказаното е хипотеза в статията от
А дали има значение дали физическият свят е симулация.. предполагам че повечето самоуважаващи се философи, занимаващи се с екзистенциалния въпрос, биха отговорили положително. Поне би било ентусиазиращо да се знае това.
Разбира се, има хора които не се интересуват от философски въпроси, на тях им е достатъчен реалният живот. Само че ако реалността не е това което е ...
Редактирано от Mod vege на 11.10.16 08:25.
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Simulation Hypothesis-Reality Computer Simulation?
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
| (>[2] /dev/null) |
| Публикувано | 11.10.16 17:31 |
|
|
Абсолютно малоумно е да даваш примери от филми. Ако ще използваш фантазии, вземи прочети нещо свястно, като творбите на Станислав Лем.
Няма абсолютно никакво значение дали т.нар. физически свят е симулация или не. За нас той е реален.
Между другото, доста отдавна има хипотези, че пространството и времето са дискретни, а не "гладки". И това може да е вярно независимо дали живеем в симулация или не.
The last good thing written in C was Franz Schubert's Symphony No. 9.
| |
|
Тема
|
 Google says the Plant-Based Revolution is coming !
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 13.10.16 06:27 |
|
|
Eric Schmidt, Executive Chairman of Google’s parent company Alphabet, confirmed the plant-based revolution is coming.
Replacing livestock with growing and harvesting plants will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and fight climate change, he stated. The meat industry, particularly cattle producers, emit significant greenhouse gases.
He named the number one “game-changing” trend of the future as the consumption of plant-based proteins instead of meat.
At the Milken Institute’s Global Conference in Los Angles Schmidt spoke to a room packed with thousands of investors and business executives.
The replacement of meat with plant proteins would also lower the cost of foods in developing countries where food is sometimes scarce. Delivering a pound of meat to the grocery store (raising, slaughtering, and shipping) is a very inefficient and costly process relative to delivering a pound of many protein-based plants. In short, our growing population can be fed more efficiently and less expensively on plant-based proteins.
Schmidt said the world is now ready to better produce synthetic food from plants with the help of computers and data crunching. Technology is able to help researchers and scientists identify the best plant combinations for both palatability and enhanced nutrition.
Google attempted to purchase the plant-protein based startup Impossible Foods for $300 million in July 2015, but the offer was rejected. Impossible Foods are working on producing a meatless burger that is indistinguishable from a meat patty. Their stated mission is to "give people the great taste and nutritional benefits of foods that come from animals without the negative health and environmental impact".
| |
|
Тема
|
How To Start 1-Acre,Self-Sustaining Homestead
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 16.10.16 09:56 |
|
|
Expert advice on how to establish self-sufficient food production, including guidance on crop rotations, raising livestock and grazing management. Your 1-acre homestead can be divided into land for raising livestock and a garden for raising fruits, vegetables, plus some grain and forage crops.
Everyone will have a different approach to keeping a self-sufficient homestead, and it's unlikely that any two1-acre farms will follow the same plan or methods or agree completely on how to homestead. Some people like cows; other people are afraid of them. Some people like goats; other people cannot keep them out of the garden. Some people will not slaughter animals and have to sell their surplus stock off to people who will kill them; others will not sell surplus stock off at all because they know that the animals will be killed; and still others will slaughter their own animals to provide their family with healthy meat. For myself, on a 1-acre farm of good, well-drained land, I would keep a cow and a goat, a few pigs and maybe a dozen hens. The goat would provide me with milk when the cow was dry. I might keep two or more goats, in fact. I would have the dairy cow (a Jersey) to provide the pigs and me with milk. More importantly, I would keep her to provide heaps and heaps of lovely cow manure to increase my soil fertility, for in order to derive any sort of living from that 1 acre without the application of a lot of artificial fertilizer, it would have to be heavily manured. Raising A Dairy Cow Cow or no cow? The pros and cons are many and various for a self-sufficient homestead. In favor of raising a cow is the fact that nothing keeps the health of a family — and a farm — at a high level better than a dairy cow. If you and your children have ample good, fresh, unpasteurized, unadulterated dairy products, you will be well-positioned to be a healthy family. If your pigs and poultry get their share of the milk by-products, especially whey, they likely will be healthy, too. If your garden gets plenty of cow manure, your soil fertility will continuously increase, along with your yields. On the other hand, the food that you buy in for this family cow will cost you hundreds of dollars each year. Compared with how much money you would spend on dairy products each year, the fresh milk supply from the cow plus the increased value of the eggs, poultry and pig meat that you will get, along with your ever-growing soil fertility, will quickly make a family cow a worthwhile investment. But a serious counter-consideration is that you will have to take on the responsibility of milking a cow. (For different milking plans and estimated savings, see Keep a Family Cow and Enjoy Delicious Milk, Cream, Cheese and More.) Milking a cow doesn't take very long — perhaps eight minutes — and it's very pleasant if you know how to do it and if she is a quiet, docile cow — but you will have to do it. Buying a dairy cow is a very important step, and you shouldn't do it unless you do not intend to go away very much, or unless you can make arrangements for somebody else to take over your milking duties while you're gone. So let's plan our 1-acre farm on the assumption that we are going to keep a dairy cow. 1-Acre Farm With A Family Cow Half of your land would be put down to grass, leaving half an acre arable (not allowing for the land on which the house and other buildings stand). The grass half could remain permanent pasture and never be plowed up at all, or you could plan crop rotations by plowing it up, say, every four years. If you do the latter, it is best done in strips of a quarter of the half-acre so that each year you're planting a grass, clover and herb mixture on an eighth of your acre of land. This crop rotation will result in some freshly sown pasture every year, some 2-year-old field, some 3-year-old field and some 4-year-old field, resulting in more productive land. Grazing Management At the first sign the grass patch is suffering from overgrazing, take the cow away. The point of strip grazing (also called intensive rotational grazing) is that grass grows better and produces more if it is allowed to grow for as long as possible before being grazed or cut all the way down, and then allowed to rest again. In such intensive husbandry as we are envisaging for this self-sufficient homestead, careful grazing management will be essential. Tether-grazing on such a small area may work better than using electric fencing. A little Jersey cow quickly gets used to being tethered and this was, indeed, the system that the breed was developed for on the island of Jersey (where they were first bred). I so unequivocally recommend a Jersey cow to the 1-acre farmer because I am convinced that, for this purpose, she is without any peer. Your half-acre of grass, when established, should provide your cow with nearly all the food she needs for the summer months. You are unlikely to get any hay from the half-acre as well, but if the grass grows faster than the cow can eat it, then you could cut some of it for hay. Intensive Gardening The remaining half of your homestead — the arable half — would be farmed as a highly intensivegarden. It would be divided, ideally, into four plots, around which all the annual crops that you want to grow follow each other in a strict crop rotation. An ideal crop rotation might go something like this: Grass (for four years) Plot 1: Potatoes Plot 2: Legumes (pea and bean family) Plot 3: Brassicas (cabbage family) Plot 4: Root vegetables (carrots, beets, and so on) Grass again (for four years) Consider the advantages of this kind of crop rotation. A quarter of your arable land will be a newly plowed-up, 4-year-old field every year, with intensely fertile soil because of the stored-up fertility of all the grass, clover and herbs that have just been plowed-in to rot with four summers' worth of cow manure. Because your cow will be in-wintered, on bought-in hay, and treading and dunging on bought-in straw, you will have an enormous quantity of marvelous muck and cow manure to put on your arable land. All of the crop residues that you cannot consume will help feed the cow, pigs or poultry, and I would be surprised if, after following this crop rotation and grazing management plan for a few years, you didn't find that your acre of land had increased enormously in soil fertility, and that it was producing more food for humans than many a 10-acre farm run on ordinary commercial lines. Half-Acre Crop Rotation Some might complain that by having half your acre down to grass, you confine your gardening activities to a mere half-acre. But actually, half an acre is quite a lot, and if you garden it well, it will grow more food for you than if you were to “scratch” over a whole acre. Being under grass (and grazed and dunged) for half of its life will enormously increase the half-acre's soil fertility. I think you will actually grow more vegetables on this plot than you would on a whole acre if you had no cow or grass break. Tips For The Self-Sufficient Homestead A dairy cow will not be able to stay outdoors all year. She would horribly overgraze such a small acreage. She should spend most of the winter indoors, only being turned out during the daytime in dry weather to get a little exercise and fresh air. Cows do not really benefit from being out in winter weather. Your cow would be, for the most part, better if kept inside where she would make lovely manure while feeding on the crops you grew for her in the garden. In the summer you would let her out, night and day, for as long as you find the pasture is not being overgrazed. You would probably find that your cow did not need hay at all during the summer, but she would be entirely dependent on it throughout the winter, and you could plan on having to buy her at least a ton. If you wanted to rear her yearly calf until he reached some value, you would likely need a further half-ton of hay. I have kept my cow on deep litter: The layer of straw gets turned into good manure, and I add more clean straw every day. I have milked a cow this way for years, and the perfect milk made good butter and cheese, and stored well. Although more labor-intensive, you could keep your cow on a concrete floor instead (insulated if possible), and giver her a good bed of straw every day. You would remove the soiled straw daily, and carefully pile it into a muck heap that would be your fount of fertility for everything on your acre. Pigs would have to be confined in a house for at least part of the year (and you would need to provide straw for them), because, on a 1-acre farm, you are unlikely to have enough fresh land to keep them healthy. The best option would be a movable house with a strong movable fence outside it, but you could have a permanent pigpen instead. The pigs would have a lot of outdoor work to do: They would spend part of their time plowing up your eighth of an acre of grassland, and they could run over your cultivated land after you have harvested your crops. They could only do this if you had time to let them do it, as sometimes you would be in too much of a hurry to get the next crop in. As for food, you would have to buy in some wheat, barley or corn. This, supplemented with the skim milk and whey you would have from your dairy cow, plus a share of the garden produce and such specially grown fodder crops as you could spare the land for, would keep them excellently. If you could find a neighbor who would let you use a boar, I recommend that you keep a sow and breed her. She could give you 20 piglets a year, two or three of which you could keep to fatten for your bacon and ham supply. The rest you could sell as weanlings (piglets eight to 12 weeks old), and they would probably bring in enough money to pay for the food you had to buy for all your other livestock. If you could not get the service of a boar, you could always buy weanlings yourself — just enough for your own use — and fatten them. Poultry could be kept in a permanent house in one corner of your garden, or, preferably, in mobile coops on the land, so they could be moved over the grassland and improve soil fertility with their scratching and dunging. I would not recommend keeping very many birds, as just a dozen hens should give you enough eggs for a small family with a few to occasionally sell or give away in summertime. You would have to buy a little grain for them, and in the winter some protein supplement, unless you could grow enough beans. You could try growing sunflowers, buckwheat or other food especially for them. Goats, if kept instead of a dairy cow (or in addition to), could be managed in much the same way, however you would not have as much whey and skim milk to rear pigs and poultry on, and you would not build up the fertility of your land as quickly as you could with a cow. You would only get a fraction of the manure from goats, but on the other hand you would not have to buy nearly as much hay and straw — perhaps not any. For a farmer wanting to have a completely self-sufficient homestead on 1 acre, dairy goats are a good option. Crops would be all of the ordinary garden crops (fruits and vegetables), plus as much land as you could spare for fodder crops for animals. Bear in mind that practically any garden crop that you grew for yourself would be good for the animals too, so any surplus crops would go to them. You would not need a compost pile — your animals could be your compost pile. Half an acre, farmed as a garden with wheat grown in the other half-acre, is worth a try if you kept no animals at all, or maybe only some poultry. You would then practice a crop rotation as described above, but substitute wheat for the grass and clover field. If you are a vegetarian, this may be quite a good solution. But you could not hope to increase the soil fertility, and therefore the productiveness, of your land as much as with animals.
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: How To Start 1-Acre,Self-Sustaining Homestead
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
| (>[2] /dev/null) |
| Публикувано | 16.10.16 18:47 |
|
|
Каква научна или обществена новина е това? Повечето хора имаме истинска работа и нямаме време да се занимаваме с взиране в пъпа си.
Ти изтрещя почти като Черния вълк и искаш да ни връщаш да живеем както сме живели преди 3 хиляди години. Я помисли малко, ако тези фантазии за "self-sustaining homestead" работеха добре, защо все още не живеем така? Аман от идиоти които не виждат по-далече от носа си и не много умните им последователи които популяризират идиотщините им.
The last good thing written in C was Franz Schubert's Symphony No. 9.
| |
|
Тема
|
3дравословни ползи на джинджифила
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 17.10.16 07:47 |
|
|
Публикувано на 05/04/2016 от
Джинджифилът е една от подправките, за които ви препоръчвам винаги да имате под ръка в кухнята. Не само, че е прекрасна добавка към ястията ви (особено в комбинация с чесън), но и има медицински свойства достатъчно на брой, за да запълнят няколко книги.
Свежият корен от джинджифил се съхранява лесно във фризера. Ако усетите, че ви се гади или стомахът ви е разстроен, смелете малко количество от него (с размер колкото нокътя на пръста ви) и го изяжте. Ще се удивите на облекчението, което ще ви донесе. Но това е само началото…
Терапевтичните ползи за здравето от джинджифила са известни вече хиляди години
Използването на джинджифил за лечебни цели е известно от поне 2000 години в култури от целия свят. Макар че произхожда от Азия, джинджифилът се цени високо в Индия, Средния изток, Африка, Карибите и други региони.
Най-широко използваната лечебна част на растението е коренището – подобното на корен стъбло, което расте под земята. То е богат източник на антиоксиданти, включително гингероли, шогаоли, зингерони и други. Всъщност, джинджифилът притежава широка гама от антибактериални, противовирусни, антиоксидантни и противопаразитни свойства, като това са само няколко от 40-те и повече негови фармакологични действия.
Джинджифилът има противовъзпалителни свойства, които могат да си съперничат с нестероидните противовъзпалителни средства (НСПВС).
Например, (подобно на много други естествени съставки в растенията) джинджифилът има противовъзпалително действие, което го прави ценно средство за облекчаване на болката. Проучване проведено през 2001 година показа, че маслото от джинджифил е спомогнало за намаляването на болките в коленете у хора страдащи от остеоартрит.
През 2013 година друго проучване разкри, че при жените атлети всекидневното приемане на три грама джинджифил или канела (тоест, по-малко от чаена лъжичка) значително намалява болките в мускулите. Смята се дори, че джинджифилът е също толкова ефективен, колкото и ибупрофена в намаляването на менструалните болки при жените.
Потенциалът на джинджифила като средство за облекчаване на болката се разпростира надалеч. Освен, че помага при болки в мускулите и ставите, джинджифилът доказано намалява силата на мигренните болки в главата – също като лекарството за мигрена Суматриптан, само че с по-малко странични ефекти.
Друго наскоро проведено проучване, представено по време на Международната конференция на американското торакално общество, разкри, че добавянето на съставки на джинджифила към изопротеренол – вид лекарство за астма наречено бета-агонист – подобрило бронхоразширителния му ефект.
Тъй като джинджифилът подобрява разширяването на бронхите, той може да предложи една много по-безопасна алтернатива, или поне допълнение, на съществуващите в момента на пазара лекарства за астма.
Джинджифилът изглежда като обещаващо средство в борбата с рака и диабета. Антивъзпалителните свойства на джинджифила несъмнено го правят полезен в борбата с множество възпалителни болести, включително рака. Действително, проучване публикувано в „Британското списание по хранене” (British Journal of Nutrition) демонстрира антиканцерогенното действие (ин витро и ин виво) на джинджифила, излагайки тезата, че той може да бъде ефективно средство в справянето с рака на простатата.
Друго проучване показва, че джинджифилът има антитуморно действие, което може да спомогне за унищожаването на трудни за лечение видове рак, като този на белите дробове, яйчниците, дебелото черво, гърдата, кожата и панкреаса. Нещо повече, тъй като джинджифилът спомага за предотвратяването на токсичния ефект от приемането на много вещества (включително лекарства за рак), може да бъде използван като допълнение към традиционните методи за лечение на рак.
Що се отнася до диабета, джинджифилът изглежда е полезен както превантивно, така и терапевтично благодарение на влиянието му върху отделянето и действието на инсулина, както и подобрението, което оказва, върху метаболизма на въглехидратите и липидите.
Според един подробен преглед, провеждането на клиничен експеримент довело до извода, че след консумирането на три грама прах от сух джинджифил в продължение на 30 дни при участниците с диабет се забелязало значително понижение на кръвната глюкоза, триглицеридите, общия холестерол и LDL холестерола. Смята се, че джинджифилът има положителен ефект върху диабета защото:
- възпрепятства ензимите в метаболизма на въглехидратите
- повишава отделянето и чувствителността на инсулина
- подобрява липидния профил
Открито е, също така, че джинджифилът има защитен ефект срещу усложненията в диабета, като защитава включително и черния дроб, бъбреците, централната нервна система и очите на болния от диабет.
Силата на джинджифила срещу гадене, прилошаване при пътуване и храносмилателни смущения
Никоя статия за джинджифила не може да бъде пълна без да подчертаем невероятния му ефект върху храносмилателните смущения. В моята книга той е отбелязан като едно от най-добрите природни помощни средства при страдащите от прилошаване по време на пътуване или от гадене (например по време на бременност или химиотерапия). Ако и вие сте един от тях, то джинджифилът трябва да се превърне в основна съставка на диетата ви.
Проучвания показват, че:
- всекидневното приемане на един грам джинджифил може да спомогне за намаляването на гаденето и повръщането при бременните жени, като е доказано, че джинджифилът върши по-добра работа от плацебото в облекчаване на сутрешното гадене;
- всекидневното добавяне на джинджифил към менюто намалява силата на причиненото от химиотерапия прилошаване;
- джинджифилът може да спомогне за намаляване на повръщането и понижаване на други симптоми на прилошаването при пътуване.
Джинджифилът, също така, е задължителен за страдащите от стомашно разстройство като не просто облекчава болката. Джинджифилът подпомага стимулирането на изпразването на стомаха без никакви странични ефекти и е антиспазматичен агент, което обяснява благоприятния му ефект върху чревния тракт. В допълнение, джинджифилът възпрепятства бактерията H. pylori, което, от своя страна, спомага за предотвратяване появата на язва, като в същото време защитава стомашната лигавица.
От здраво сърце до сваляне на килограми: още 12 ползи от джинджифила
За какво още е полезен джинджифилът? Джинджифилът е усилващо метаболизма вещество, което може временно да увеличи термогенезата в тялото ни – процес, при който тялото ни изгаря натрупаните мазнини, за да създаде топлина – като влияе благоприятно върху общия метаболизъм и натрупването на мазнини. Проучвания показват, че консумирането на термогенни съставки като джинджифила може да засили метаболизма ни с до 5 процента и да увеличи горенето на мазнини с до 16 процента.
Джинджифилът може дори да спомогне за осуетяването на спада в скоростта на метаболизма, който често се наблюдава по време на сваляне на килограми. Това предполага, че джинджифилът може да бъде полезен по време на сваляне на килограми. Това, обаче, не е всичко. Според проучвания проведени от GreenMedInfo, джинджифилът има също следните ползи:
1. подобрява когнитивната функция при жените на средна възраст;
2. подобрява преработването и усвояването на мазнините;
3. облекчава артритните болки точно толкова, колкото и Индометацина – противовъзпалително лекарство, което често се използва за тяхното лечение;
4. намалява уврежданията и загубата на паметта свързани с мини удара;
5. осигурява защита срещу респираторните вируси;
6. осигурява защита срещу токсичното влияние на химикали в околната среда като, например, парабените;
7. предотвратява и лекува затлъстял черен дроб, когато не е причинен от алкохолизъм;
8. осигурява защита срещу увреждащия ДНК ефект от радиационното облъчване;
9. намалява световъртежа;
10. спомага за предотвратяването на инфаркт;
11. помага при устойчиви на третиране с лекарства бактериални и гъбични инфекции;
12. помага при борбата с бактериалната диария.
Чай от джинджифил, пресен джинджифил или екстракт: как е най-добре да консумираме джинджифил?
Отговорът на въпроса зависи от това за какво ще използвате джинджифила. Ако имате сериозен здравословен проблем, обърнете се към опитен човек в сферата на природното здраве, който ще ви насочи към правилните дозировки и форми на приемане. За да използваме най-мощните медицински свойства на джинджифила ще ни трябва екстракт, но терапевтична полза можем да извлечем и от пресния, дори от изсушения джинджифил.
Много хора обичат да пият чай от джинджифил всеки ден и това наистина е един от най-лесните начини да го консумираме. За да приготвите чай от пресен джинджифил, просто отрежете няколко сантиметра от корена на джинджифила и го потопете в гореща вода. Можете също така да обелите корена с помощта на нож за белене и след това да го нарежете на тънки резени (или да го настържете или смелите) – по този начин той може да се прибави и към чай и към различни ястия. Няма да сгрешите ако добавите малко джинджифил към пържени ястия приготвени с малко мазнина в дълбок тиган или дори към любимата си домашна пилешка супа.
Необелен, пресният джинджифил може да бъде съхраняван в хладилник поне три седмици или във фризер – в продължение на шест месеца или дори по- дълго, което го прави невероятно лесен за използване по всяко време.
Пробвайте да добавите пресен джинджифил и други сгряващи подправки като канела, например, към чаша чай сутрин, вечер или след ядене… и вижте дали ще забележите някои от здравословните ползи, които описах по-горе. Можете дори да пробвате да добавите една чаена лъжичка органичен джинджифил на прах на около четири литра изстуден чай, за да увеличите силата и здравословния му потенциал.
Източник д-р Меркола | Превод за теб от Антония Иванова! Благодаря! :)
This article was brought to you by Dr. Mercola, a New York Times bestselling author. For more helpful articles, please visit Mercola.com today and receive your FREE Take Control of Your Health E-book!
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: How To Start 1-Acre,Self-Sustaining Homestead
[re: |]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 17.10.16 07:55 |
|
|
В отговор на:
Я помисли малко, ако тези фантазии за "self-sustaining homestead" работеха добре, защо все още не живеем така?
Много просто - щото не всеки е готов на такава промяна, а още по-малко хора осъзнават необходимостта от нея. Но това не прави темата по-малко актуална.
Животът в ежедневие, което е независимо от външен източник на храна, вода и енергия, е практикуване на устойчивото развитие на практика.
Ако не си запознат с актуалността на понятието "устойчиво развитие", първо чети и после прави умни заключения. Виж какво казват икономисти, еколози, ООН и ако щеш Световната банка последните няколко деситилетия.
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: How To Start 1-Acre,Self-Sustaining Homestead
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
| (>[2] /dev/null) |
| Публикувано | 17.10.16 17:03 |
|
|
Наистина ли си толкова тъп или се правиш на такъв защото усещаш колко незащитима е идеята? Хората са живели такова "устойчиво развитие" (според бълнуванията на разни идиоти) в продължение на хиляди години. Да ти е хрумвало, че очевидно това "развитие" не е било чак толкова устойчиво щом са го изоставили? Ходи да обясняваш колко устойчиво живеят хората в Африка или в Азия. Ама гледай да го правиш по-отдалече, че да можеш да избягаш като те подгонят с тоягите.
Я кажи, гений устойчив, колко устойчиво ще е развитието ти ако дойде градушка? Ураган? Ако животните ти се разболеят от болест? Ако ТИ се разболееш от рак?
Много ми е забавно когато разни екземпляри, чиито най-близък достъп до кърска работа е бил да четат разни малоумни блогчета пред компютъра, започнат да разказват за устойчиво развитие. А най-забавното е, че си въобразяват, че тези бълнувания са станали актуални сега. Разни малоумници разправят такива идиотщини поне от времето на Римската империя. Ама тези неща не ги пише по блоговете, трябва да се четат истински книги.
The last good thing written in C was Franz Schubert's Symphony No. 9.Редактирано от | на 17.10.16 17:04.
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: How To Start 1-Acre,Self-Sustaining Homestead
[re: |]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 18.10.16 06:45 |
|
|
В отговор на:
Я кажи, гений устойчив, колко устойчиво ще е развитието ти ако дойде градушка? Ураган? Ако животните ти се разболеят от болест? Ако ТИ се разболееш от рак?
Нещо си объркал щом смяташ че устойчивото развитие и технологиите нямат нищо общо.
Независимият от външни източници на храна, вода и енергия живот, въобще не значи изолиране от цивилизацията.
Смешните ти напъни да минеш на лично ниво в дискусията бледнеят пред невежетсвото ти по темата "устойчиво развитие". Все пак явно ти е интересна щом пишеш тук.
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: How To Start 1-Acre,Self-Sustaining Homestead
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
| (>[2] /dev/null) |
| Публикувано | 18.10.16 15:31 |
|
|
Я разкажи, гений неустойчив, ако всички живеем "устойчиво" и с по 4 декара земя, КОЙ ще развива технологиите. И не, развитието на технологиите не означава да седиш пред компютъра и да дрънкаш идиотщини. КОЙ, експерте по устойчиво развитие, ще копае материалите за компютъра ти? КОГА учените ще откриват новите лекарства? Преди или след като прекопаят царевицата?
Хайде, като такъв голям експерт ми обясни: ЗАЩО след хилядите години "устойчиво развитие" цивилизацията го е изоставила? Знам че ти е трудно, но се опитай да ПОМИСЛИШ.
П.П. Ако нещо може да ме извади от кожата ми, това са самодоволни тъпаци, които не виждат по-далече от носа си и си мислят, че хората живели преди тях са по-тъпи от тях.
The last good thing written in C was Franz Schubert's Symphony No. 9.Редактирано от | на 18.10.16 15:33.
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: How To Start 1-Acre,Self-Sustaining Homestead
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
| (>[2] /dev/null) |
| Публикувано | 18.10.16 15:39 |
|
|
Сега погледнах сайта, към който е линка ти. Не знаех, че си регресирал до пълен конспиралник. Но така се случва когато образованието западне.
The last good thing written in C was Franz Schubert's Symphony No. 9.
| |
|
|
|
Audio file on the left
Might nature’s bottomless pits actually be ultra-efficient quantum computers? That could explain why data never dies
is a research fellow at the Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies, with a special interest in the phenomenology of quantum gravity. Her writing has appeared in Forbes, Scientific American, and New Scientist, among others.
AAfter you die, your body’s atoms will disperse and find new venues, making their way into oceans, trees and other bodies. But according to the laws of quantum mechanics, all of the information about your body’s build and function will prevail. The relations between the atoms, the uncountable particulars that made you you, will remain forever preserved, albeit in unrecognisably scrambled form – lost in practice, but immortal in principle.
There is only one apparent exception to this reassuring concept: according to our current physical understanding, information cannot survive an encounter with a black hole. Forty years ago, Stephen Hawking demonstrated that black holes destroy information for good. Whatever falls into a black hole disappears from the rest of the Universe. It eventually reemerges in a wind of particles – ‘Hawking radiation’ – that leaks away from the event horizon, the black hole’s outer physical boundary. In this way, black holes slowly evaporate, but the process erases all knowledge about the black hole’s formation. The radiation merely carries data for the total mass, charge and angular momentum of the matter that collapsed; every other detail about anything that fell into the black hole is irretrievably lost.
Hawking’s discovery of black-hole evaporation has presented theoretical physicists with a huge conundrum: general relativity says that black holes must destroy information; quantum mechanics says it cannot happen because information must live on eternally. Both general relativity and quantum mechanics are extremely well-tested theories, and yet they refuse to combine. The clash reveals something much more fundamental than a seemingly exotic quirk about black holes: the information paradox makes it aptly clear that physicists still do not understand the fundamental laws of nature.
But Gia Dvali, professor of physics at the Ludwig-Maximilians University of Munich, believes he’s found . ‘Black holes are quantum computers,’ he says. ‘We have an explicit information-processing sequence.’ If he is correct, the paradox is no more, and information truly is immortal. Even more startling, perhaps, is that his concept has practical implications. In the future, we might be able to tap black-hole physics to construct quantum computers of our own.
TThe main reason why recovering information from black holes seems impossible is that they are almost featureless spheroids with essentially no physical attributes on their horizons; they have ‘no hair’, as the late US physicist John Wheeler put it. You cannot store information in something that has no features that could be used to encode it, the standard argument goes. And therein lies the error, Dvali says: ‘All these no-hair theorems are wrong.’ He and his collaborators argue that gravitons – the so-far undiscovered quanta that carry gravity and make up space-time – stretch throughout the black hole and give rise to ‘quantum hair’ which allows storing as well as releasing information.
The new research builds on a counter-intuitive feature of quantum theory: quantum effects are not necessarily microscopically small. True, those effects are fragile, and are destroyed quickly in warm and busy environments, such as those typically found on Earth. This is why we don’t normally witness them. This is also the main challenge in building quantum computers, which process information using the quantum states of particles instead of the on-off logic of traditional transistors. But in a cold and isolated place, quantum behaviour can persist over large distances – large enough to span the tens to billions of kilometres of a black-hole horizon.
You don’t even need to go to outer space to witness long-range quantum effects. The enormous distances and masses necessary to create black-hole quantum hair might be far beyond our experimental capabilities, but by cooling atoms down to less than one ten-thousandth of a Kelvin (that is, one ten-thousandth of a degree above absolute zero), researchers have up to a billion atoms, spread out over several millimetres, into a single quantum state. That’s huge for collective quantum behaviour.
Hawking’s information puzzle would find a natural solution if black holes are, in essence, puddles of condensed gravity.
Such an atomic collective – known as a Bose-Einstein condensate, named after the Indian physicist Satyendra Bose and Albert Einstein – is currently one of the most promising tools for creating a workable quantum computer. Quantum effects within a Bose-Einstein condensate, like the ability to be in two places at the same time, can stretch through the whole condensate, giving rise to many interlocked states. Enormous information-processing power could become available if researchers succeed in stabilising the condensate and controlling these states. And, not coincidentally, Bose-Einstein condensates might also solve the decades-old puzzle of black-hole information loss.
Hawking’s information puzzle would find a natural solution, Dvali notes, if black holes consist of gravitons that have undergone Bose-Einstein condensation – puddles of condensed gravity, in essence. The idea might sound crazy, but for Dvali it’s a perfectly reasonable conclusion, drawn from what physicists have learned about black-hole information in the years since Hawking first posed his riddle. Theorists know how to calculate how much information the black hole must be able to store: the amount is quantified in the black hole’s entropy and proportional to the horizon surface area. They have also found that black holes can redistribute or ‘scramble’ information very quickly. And finally, they know the pace at which information must escape from the black hole in order to avoid conflicts with quantum mechanics.
Starting in 2012, Dvali explored these various attributes and discovered, to his surprise, that certain types of Bose-Einstein condensates share their essential properties with black holes. To act like a black hole, the condensate must linger at a transition point – its so-called quantum critical point – where extended fluctuations span through the fluid just before the quantum behaviour collapses. Such a quantum-critical condensate, Dvali calculated, has the same entropy, scrambling capacity and release time as a black hole: it has just the right quantum hair. ‘Somebody can say this is a coincidence, but I consider it extremely strong evidence – mathematical evidence that is – that black holes genuinely are Bose-Einstein condensates,’ he says.
Linking black holes with a form of matter that can be created in the lab means that some aspects of Dvali’s idea can be explored experimentally. Immanuel Bloch, professor of physics at the Max-Planck-Institute in Munich, has first-hand experience with Bose-Einstein condensates. He condenses atoms in ‘crystals of light’ – optical lattices created by intersecting multiple laser beams – and then takes snapshots of the condensate using a technique called fluorescence imaging. The resulting beautifully reveal the atoms’ correlated quantum behaviour.
Bloch finds Dvali’s idea, which originated in a field entirely different from his, intriguing. ‘I am pretty excited about Gia’s proposal. I think that’s something really new,’ Bloch says. ‘People have seen collapse dynamics with interacting condensates, but nobody has so far investigated the quantum critical point and what happens there.
‘In the BEC [Bose-Einstein condensate] you have macroscopic quantum waves, and this means in the quantum numbers you have a lot of fluctuations. This is why the BEC normally looks like a Swiss cheese,’ he continues. But by applying a magnetic field, Bloch can change the strength by which the atoms interact, thereby coaxing them into an orderly lattice. ‘Now you make the atoms strongly interacting, then you go to the [very orderly] “Mott state”. This is a great state for quantum computing because you have this regular array. And you can address the atoms with lasers and rotate them around and change the spin [to encode and process information].’
‘Dvali’s idea is competing with a lot of other stuff out on the market. I have more skepticism than faith’
According to Dvali, black-hole physics reveals a better way to store information in a Bose-Einstein condensate by using different quantum states. Black holes are the simplest, most compact, most efficient information storage devices that physicists know of. Using the black holes’ coding protocol therefore should be the best possible method to store information in condensate-based quantum computers.
Creating a black-hole-mimic condensate in the lab seems doable to Bloch: ‘[In a black hole,] the interaction strength adjusts itself. We can simulate something like that by tuning the interaction strength to where the condensate is just about to collapse. The fluctuations become bigger and bigger and bigger as you get closer to the quantum critical point. And that could simulate such a system. One could study all the quantum fluctuations and non-equilibrium situations – all that is now possible by observing these condensates in situ, with high spatial resolution.’
Just because realising Dvali’s idea is possible does not necessarily mean it is practical, however. ‘It’s competing with a lot of other stuff out on the market. Right now, I have more skepticism than faith,’ Bloch says. He also points out that efficient information storage is nice, but for quantum computers ‘information capacity is presently not the problem’. The biggest challenge he sees is finding a way to individually manipulate the quantum states that Dvali has identified – data processing, rather than data storage. There are other practical hurdles as well. ‘There are so many things we don’t know, like noise, is it resistant to noise? We don’t know,’ Bloch notes. ‘For me, the much more interesting aspect is the connection to gravitational physics.’ And here the implications go well beyond information storage.
Dvali’s is not the only recent research suggesting a connection between gravity and condensed-matter physics, a trend that has opened whole new realms to experimental investigation. In the tradition of Einstein, physicists generally think of curved space-time as the arena for matter and its interactions. But now several independent lines of research suggest that space-time might not be as insubstantial as we thought. Gravity, it seems, can emerge from non-gravitational physics.
In the past decades, numerous links between gravity and certain types of fluids have demonstrated that systems with collective quantum behaviour can mimic curved space-time, giving rise to much the same equations as one obtains in Einstein’s theory of general relativity. There is not yet any approach from which general relativity can be derived in full generality by positing that space-time is a condensate. For now, nobody knows whether it is possible at all. Still, the newfound relations allow physicists to study those gravitational systems that can be mimicked with atomic condensates.
Simulating gravity with condensates allows physicists to explore regions – such as black-hole horizons – that are not otherwise accessible to experiment. And so, although Hawking radiation has never been observed in real black holes, its analogue has been for black holes simulated through Bose-Einstein condensates. Of course, these condensates are not really black holes – they trap sound waves, not light – but they obey some of the same mathematical laws. The condensates do thus, in a sense, perform otherwise complicated, even intractable, physics calculations.
‘We like to speak of “quantum simulations” and try to use these systems to look for interesting phenomena that are hard to calculate on classical computers,’ says Bloch. ‘We are also trying to use this kind of system to test other systems like the black holes, or we looked at the [analogue of the] Higgs particle in two dimensions.’ In a 2012 Nature , Bloch and his collaborators reported that their quantum simulation revealed that Higgs-like particles can also exist in two dimensions. The same technique could in principle be used to study Bose-Einstein condensates behaving like black holes.
‘The black hole [no hair] theorems are, sorry, crap’
But using black-hole physics to develop new protocols for quantum computers is one thing. Finding out whether astrophysical black holes really are condensates of gravitons is another thing entirely. ‘I am not interested in the idea if one can’t test it,’ says Stefan Hofmann, a theoretical cosmologist and colleague of Dvali’s in Munich.
Hofmann therefore has dedicated significant time to exploring the observational consequences of the idea that black holes are graviton condensates. ‘The black hole [no hair] theorems are, sorry, crap,’ he agrees with Dvali. Hofmann thinks that the quantum hair nearby the black-hole horizon would subtly alter the predictions of general relativity (especially the emission of gravitational waves during formation or collision of black holes), in ways that should be detectable. ‘The dream would be a binary [black hole] merger,’ Hofmann said in a 2015 seminar. His dream has just become true: the recently the first measurement of gravitational waves emitted from a merging pair of black holes.
Hofmann and his collaborators have yet to make quantitative predictions, but due to the macroscopic quantum effects, Dvali’s proposed solution to the information-loss problem might soon become experimentally testable. However, the idea that black holes are quantum-critical condensates of gravitons, truly equivalent to a Bose-Einstein condensate, leaves many questions open. To begin with, Dvali’s calculations cannot explain what actually happens to matter falling into a black hole. And Hofmann admits that it isn’t clear how the object is a ‘black hole’ in the conventional sense, since it can no longer be described within the familiar framework of general relativity.
Carlo Rovelli from the University of Marseille thinks that, even in incomplete form, Davli’s idea of black holes as condensates might be scientifically useful. ‘They are using a brutal approximation which might fail to capture aspects, but it might work to some extent, especially in the long wavelength regime. For the low-frequency quantum fluctuations of [space-time] it may not be absurd,’ Rovelli says. He cautions, however, that the condensate model ‘cannot be a complete description of what happens in the black hole’.
What is clear, though, is that this research has revealed a previously unrecognised, and quite fruitful, relation. ‘We have a very interesting bridge between quantum information and black-hole physics that was not discussed before,’ Dvali says. If he is right, the implications are conceptually staggering. Information really does live on eternally. In that sense, we are all immortal. And the supermassive black hole at the centre of our galaxy? It’s actually a cosmic quantum computer.
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: How To Start 1-Acre,Self-Sustaining Homestead
[re: |]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 20.10.16 05:13 |
|
|
В отговор на:
ЗАЩО след хилядите години "устойчиво развитие" цивилизацията го е изоставила? Знам че ти е трудно, но се опитай да ПОМИСЛИШ.
Има една проста причина за устойчивото развитие днес: не може на планета с крайни ресурси да има безкраен (икономически) растеж. А нова планета сега нямаме подръка, и скоро може би няма и да имаме (в близките деситилетия).
Човечеството минава от количествено към качествено развитие. Променя се ако щеш парадигмата на антропоцентричността и редукционизма към биоцентричност и към холистичност. Устойчивото развитие не значи това което ти, поради невежеството ти, приемаш напълно буквално от прочетеното. Технологиите ще останат, но ще трябва принципите на които се управляват те да се променят: край на безкрайния растеж (което значи и край на капитализма). Друга причина за края на индустриалния капитализъм е информационната ера в която все по-бързо навлизаме, и която подобно на биосферата, също има нелинеарна динамика. Светът се разкрива в неговата прекрасна сложност, и опитите, подобни на твоя, да се обясни актуалността му в черно-бели краски (противопоставяне на устойчиво развитие и технологии) са обречени. Но не ти пречи да продължаваш, очаквайки друг резултат, и забавлявайки околните...
Редактирано от Mod vege на 20.10.16 05:15.
| |
|
|
|
Rise above fad diets.
The Primitive Nutrition project shows you the science.
Please select content:
THE DRIVERS OF THE HERD
Catalyst Corrected 1, The History of Diet-Heart 1
Catalyst Corrected 2, The History of Diet-Heart 2
Catalyst Corrected 3, MRFIT and WHI
Catalyst Corrected 4, The Preset Mindset
Catalyst Corrected 5, Dr. Demasi’s Review
Catalyst Corrected 6, Lyon
Malhotra’s Major Issues, Part 1
Malhotra’s Major Issues, Part 2 (Kekwick/Pawan)
Siri-Tarino’s Meta-Analysis, Part 1
Siri-Tarino’s Meta-Analysis, Part 2 (Stroke
Warning Signs (NuSI Guys 1)
Tripped up by Energy Balance (NuSI Guys 2)
Fattening Fats in Animals (NuSI Guys 3)
The Appeal to Paleo (NuSI Guys 4)
The Ketogenic Advantage (NuSI Guys 5)
A Very Serious Low Carber (NuSI Guys 6)
Dietary Trends 1 (NuSI Guys 7)
Straight Dope? Dietary Trends 2 (NuSI Guys 8)
ApoB at the Eating Academy (NuSI Guys 9)
Pick the Charlatan (NuSI Guys 10)
The Docile Herd
NUTRITION PAST AND FUTURE
1 The Journalist Gary Taubes 1: Controlling Histor
2 The Journalist Gary Taubes 2: A Parajournalism P
3 The Journalist Gary Taubes 3: Ancel Keys Was Ver
4 The Journalist Gary Taubes 4: Ancel Keys Was Ver
5 The Journalist Gary Taubes 5: John Yudkin Was Ve
6 The Journalist Gary Taubes 6: Lessons from the D
7 The Journalist Gary Taubes 7: Anomaly Hunter 1
8 The Journalist Gary Taubes 8: Anomaly Hunter 2
9 The Journalist Gary Taubes 9: Anomaly Hunter 3
10 The Journalist Gary Taubes 10: Anomaly Hunter 4
11 The Journalist Gary Taubes 11: Oil-Based Nutrit
12 The Journalist Gary Taubes 12: Oil-Based Nutrit
13 The Journalist Gary Taubes 13: The Taubes Filte
14 The Journalist Gary Taubes 14: Those Scientists
15 The Journalist Gary Taubes 15: Pesky Facts
16 The Journalist Gary Taubes 16: A Case Against F
17 Thomas Dayspring, Lipidologist Lost
18 Cholesterol Confusion 1 Primordial Prevention
19 Cholesterol Confusion 2 The Cause of Heart Dise
20 Cholesterol Confusion 3 A Poverty of Animal Fat
21 Cholesterol Confusion 4 The Map Is Not the Terr
22 Cholesterol Confusion 5 Cholesterol Is Necessar
23 Cholesterol Confusion 6 Dietary Cholesterol (An
24 Cholesterol Confusion 7 The Measurement Problem
25 Cholesterol Confusion 8 A Large and Fluffy Dist
26 Cholesterol Confusion 9 "Brown and Goldstein We
27 Ancestral Cholesterol 1
28 Ancestral Cholesterol 2
29 Point of Origin
30 Meat, Brains, and Bugs
31 Second-Guessing the First Farmers
32 The Eskimos Again
33 An Evolved Fuel System 1
34 An Evolved Fuel System2
35 How To Become Insulin Resistant (The Paleo Way)
36 How To Become Insulin Resistant (The Paleo Way)
37 Cherry-Picked Research (by Andreas Eenfeldt) 1
38 Cherry-Picked Research (by Andreas Eenfeldt) 2
39 Cherry-Picked Research (by Andreas Eenfeldt) 3
40 Cherry-Picked Research (by Andreas Eenfeldt) 4
41 PUFAs Oxidize!
42 You Win, Anthony Colpo
43 Anti-Veg
44 Humanity Past and Future
THE PRIMITIVE NUTRITION SERIES
1. The New Barbarians
2-3. I, Copernicus
4-5. Truthiness, Paleo-Style
6. A Novel Pitch for Low Carb
7-8. A Diet in Your Genes?
9-10. Primal Primates
11-12. Bad Weather, Barren Lands
13. If You're Serious...
14-16. Define "Healthful"?
17-18. Phytophobia
19-21. Protein Choices
22-23. Thin Gruel on Grains
24. In Defense of Beans
25. Interlude: Arthur De Vany
26. Weston Price
27-28. The Eskimo Model
29-30. The Masai Model
31. The Native Australian Model
32. Ancient and Out of Fashion
33. A Paleo Honor Roll
34-35. Cholesterol Denialism
36-39. The Infamous Ancel Keys
40-41. Playing Games With Your Heart
42. The Confusionist Mind and the Good Old Days
43-45. Anything But LDL
46. The Gloomiest Diet
47-48. Low Carb, High Fad
49-51. Better Than Low Carb
52-54. The Best Low Carb Research (Money Can Buy)
55-57. Stephen Phinney and Low Carb Fitness
58-61. Ketosis Is Natural. Natural Is Good.
62-65. China Studies
66-67. Animal Food Odds and Ends
66-67. Animal Food Odds and Ends
68-71. Waking to Realities
THE PRIMITIVE RESPONSE
"Vegan Propaganda"
How Much LDL?
Cholesterol in Populations
A Process of Elimination
Scrupulous
Not Benefiting from Hindsight
Cherry Picking
China Revisited
Wheat and Carbs
Number Needed to Treat
Anthony Colpo's Confusionist Mind
The Swedish Farmers
The 2010 Meta-Analysis
Colpo's Journal Article
Fish Oil
Tokelauans, Samburu, Masai
Fukui City and Japan
Norway, Women, and Cholesterol
More on Women and Cholesterol
Cholesterol, Cancer, and Depression
Drug-Fueled Delusions
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: How To Start 1-Acre,Self-Sustaining Homestead
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
| (>[2] /dev/null) |
| Публикувано | 20.10.16 15:56 |
|
|
Напротив, не само може да има безкраен растеж, но и човечеството го доказва вече над 5 хиляди години. Виждам обаче, че избягваш да отговориш на въпроса ми ЗАЩО човечеството е изоставило това т.нар. устойчиво развитите преди няколкостотин години. :)
Човечеството ВИНАГИ е преминавало от количествено към качествено развитие. Само дето разни екземпляри си въобразявате, че можете да го върнете с 3 хиляди години назад. Е, няма да стане. :)
Виждам че обичаш да използваш думички, чието значение не знаеш. Я разкажи защо си мислиш, че "нелинеарната динамика" (между другото думичката на български е нелинейна) е нещо ново?
Устойчиво развитие е развитие в което има МНОГО излишъци. От ВСИЧКО. Щеше ли да има тези "нелинеарни" технологии, ако човечеството се беше развивало устойчиво досега? Какво НОВИ технологии ще пропусне да развие ако реши сега да послуша съветите на неандерталци като теб? Изобщо можеш ли да видиш нещо по-далеч от носа си?
Съмнявам се, че в момента разбираш какво пиша, след няколко хиляди години еволюция може и да стигнеш до съответното ниво. Ако, разбира се, спреш да четеш конспирални сайтчета.
The last good thing written in C was Franz Schubert's Symphony No. 9.Редактирано от | на 20.10.16 15:59.
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: How To Start 1-Acre,Self-Sustaining Homestead
[re: |]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 23.10.16 14:28 |
|
|
В отговор на:
Напротив, не само може да има безкраен растеж, но и човечеството го доказва вече над 5 хиляди години. Виждам обаче, че избягваш да отговориш на въпроса ми ЗАЩО човечеството е изоставило това т.нар. устойчиво развитите преди няколкостотин години. :)
Хайде, понеже явно имаш самочувствие, дай един пример от биологията за количествен безкраен растеж. Може би раковата клетка ? Или болните мозъци на някои икономисти ? Или пък може би нещо в твоя мозък ?
В отговор на:
Виждам че обичаш да използваш думички, чието значение не знаеш. Я разкажи защо си мислиш, че "нелинеарната динамика" (между другото думичката на български е нелинейна) е нещо ново?
Щото до сега живяхме в епохата на Модернизма, която рационализира човек и цивилизацията му. Това щеше да ти е известно, ако четеше достатъчно. Вече обаче сме в Постмодернизма, и това е огромна промяна. Рационалната представа за човек и за света се променя и хора като Стивън Хокинг твърдят че влизаме във века на комплексността.
В отговор на:
Устойчиво развитие е развитие в което има МНОГО излишъци. От ВСИЧКО. Щеше ли да има тези "нелинеарни" технологии, ако човечеството се беше развивало устойчиво досега?
ООН дефинира през 1987г. "устойчивото развитие" като позволяващо задоволяване потребностите на днешните хора, така както и на техните поколения.
Редактирано от Mod vege на 23.10.16 14:29.
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: How To Start 1-Acre,Self-Sustaining Homestead
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
| (>[2] /dev/null) |
| Публикувано | 23.10.16 19:54 |
|
|
Я разкажи как мога да ти дам пример за безкраен растеж, след като времето за което Вселената съществува е крайно? Мисли преди да пишеш, поне от време на време. Развитието на човечеството досега е експоненциално. Не "линеарно", а експоненциално. :)
В отговор на:
Щото до сега живяхме в епохата на Модернизма, която рационализира човек и цивилизацията му. Това щеше да ти е известно, ако четеше достатъчно. Вече обаче сме в Постмодернизма, и това е огромна промяна.
Т.е. една и съща динамика се квалифицира с различни думички в зависимост от това в каква "епоха" живеем? :) Не ти ли хрумна поне да погледнеш какво означава "нелинеарна динамика" и да провериш как се е развивала човешката цивилизация през "Модернизма"? Знам, че това не е толкова лесно колкото да повтаряш нечии идиотщини. :)
В отговор на:
Рационалната представа за човек и за света се променя и хора като Стивън Хокинг твърдят че влизаме във века на комплексността.
Плз, не се опитвай да цитираш думите на хора, чиито мисли изобщо не са ти ясни. :)
Иначе виждам, че все още не отговаряш на въпроса ми защо хората в миналото са изоставили "устойчивото развитие" и са избрали "неустойчивото".
А иначе, в момента човешкото развитие е устойчиво. Само дето екземпляри като теб, и сега и през последните няколко хиляди години, поради липса на знания и въображение, смятате че то е неустойчиво защото сте невежи. :)
The last good thing written in C was Franz Schubert's Symphony No. 9.Редактирано от | на 23.10.16 21:47.
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: How To Start 1-Acre,Self-Sustaining Homestead
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
NVJ (новак) |
| Публикувано | 24.10.16 13:13 |
|
|
Често развитието на системите се описва със S-образна крива - в началото има бавен растеж,
после следва бързо (лъжеекспоненциално) нарастване, накрая кривата се огъва (настъпва застой).
Или системата може да превключи в режим на колебания надолу-нагоре (в някакъв атрактор).
Примери:
- развитието на електрониката (от и до кога действат законите на Мур ?)
- процесите на взрив (горене - после детонация - после ...)
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: How To Start 1-Acre,Self-Sustaining Homestead
[re: NVJ]
|
|
| Автор |
| (>[2] /dev/null) |
| Публикувано | 24.10.16 15:58 |
|
|
Доколкото знам законът на Мор (а не Мур) все още действа.
The last good thing written in C was Franz Schubert's Symphony No. 9.
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: How To Start 1-Acre,Self-Sustaining Homestead
[re: |]
|
|
| Автор |
NVJ (минаващ) |
| Публикувано | 28.10.16 10:04 |
|
|
Интересното е, че тези закони за развитие на електрониката са се получили
от само себе си, без някой да ги налага съзнателно.
И това развитие няма как да продължи вечно. В близките години ще стане невъзможно
повече да се миниатюризират елементите (някъде под границата от 1 нанометър).
Тогава трябва или да настъпи застой в електрониката и компютрите, или да започне да се
развива съвсем друга технология. Интересно е каква ще бъде тя ?
Дали вече се е зародила някъде точно тази нова технология,
която ще стане доминираща в по-далечното бъдеще ?
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: How To Start 1-Acre,Self-Sustaining Homestead
[re: NVJ]
|
|
| Автор |
| (>[2] /dev/null) |
| Публикувано | 28.10.16 21:57 |
|
|
Технологията може да стигне границите си, но това не означава, че няма да се открият други технологии които да продължат експоненциалното развитие. В момента най-обещаващия прогрес в областта е с разполагането на електронните елементи в 3D.
Същото се случва и с човечеството през цялото му развитие. И никой не обяснява как производството на каруци след експоненциалния бум е западнало. :)
Това което неандерталците като модератора и черния вълк не разбират е, че за да има прогрес, трябва да има излишъци. Природосъобразното (или устойчиво) развитие ВИНАГИ водят до изчезване на съответната цивилизация.
The last good thing written in C was Franz Schubert's Symphony No. 9.Редактирано от | на 28.10.16 21:58.
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: How To Start 1-Acre,Self-Sustaining Homestead
[re: |]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 29.10.16 19:20 |
|
|
В отговор на:
Я разкажи как мога да ти дам пример за безкраен растеж, след като времето за което Вселената съществува е крайно?
Би могъл да сравниш различни биологични видове.
В отговор на:
Не ти ли хрумна поне да погледнеш какво означава "нелинеарна динамика" и да провериш как се е развивала човешката цивилизация през "Модернизма"? Знам, че това не е толкова лесно колкото да повтаряш нечии идиотщини. :)
Относно рационализирането на цивилизацията ни по времето на Модернизма, ти обобщих идеята на бащата на социологията - Макс Вебер. Преоткривайки топлата вода не ти пречи да наричаш социологията "идиотщини", успех ти желая.
В отговор на:
Иначе виждам, че все още не отговаряш на въпроса ми защо хората в миналото са изоставили "устойчивото развитие" и са избрали "неустойчивото".
Историята си е история. Да се върнем на темата и да ти напомня че . Или може би и ти ще наречеш "идиотщини" ?
Редактирано от Mod vege на 29.10.16 19:27.
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: How To Start 1-Acre,Self-Sustaining Homestead
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
| (>[2] /dev/null) |
| Публикувано | 29.10.16 21:56 |
|
|
В отговор на:
Би могъл да сравниш различни биологични видове.
Мога да сравня и круши и ябълки, но това няма да направи продължителността на Вселената безкрайна.
Точно сравнявайки човека с другите биологични видове показва, че би било грешка да се оставим на благоволението на природата, вместо да се опитваме да трупаме колкото може повече излишъци за да сме в контрол на собствената си съдба.
В отговор на:
Относно рационализирането на цивилизацията ни по времето на Модернизма, ти обобщих идеята на бащата на социологията - Макс Вебер. Преоткривайки топлата вода не ти пречи да наричаш социологията "идиотщини", успех ти желая.
Ако си мислиш, че рецитирането на разни думички, които ти изглеждат умни означава нещо, много се лъжеш. :)
В отговор на:
Историята си е история. Да се върнем на темата и да ти напомня че ООН е на моето мнение. Или може би и мнението им ти ще наречеш "идиотщини" ?
Да цитирам ли името на тази fallacy, или ще си го намериш сам? :)
Поне схващаш ли, че ако следваме идиотщините на любимите ти неандерталци това ще доведе до пропускането за развитите на огромен брой технологии, които биха могли да помогнат не само за оцеляването, но и за прогреса на човечеството?
The last good thing written in C was Franz Schubert's Symphony No. 9.
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: How To Start 1-Acre,Self-Sustaining Homestead
[re: |]
|
|
| Автор |
NVJ (минаващ) |
| Публикувано | 07.11.16 15:19 |
|
|
Да, след достигане на границите на едни технологии обикновено се откриват други, с които
експоненциалното развитие продължава.
Всъщност, такова ускорено развитие обикновено се свързва с нашата (западна, техническа)
цивилизация, а достиженията на миналото се подценяват силно.
Има такъв спор, между "съвременно мислещите" и анти-прогресистите.
Връх на прогресисткото мислене е, да се приема по подразбиране, че задължително
новото е по-добро от старото, или че щом нещо е изчезнало, значи то не е било добро.
Разбира се, това не винаги е така (чисто логически).
Все едно някой да се оплаче, че е загубил любим и хубав предмет,
а ти да му кажеш - Щом си го загубил, значи не е бил хубав !
Може да е имало и нещо хубаво в изчезналите древни цивилизации.
Аз поне допускам това, защото не съм привърженик на крайностите и фанатизма от какъвто и
да било вид.
Напоследък привържениците на неудържимия прогрес споменават възможното отправяне към
технологична сингулярност.
Има една важна особеност. В досегашното развитие стабилизиращ фактор е била неизменната
природа на самия човек (науката и техниката се развиват, но биологията на човека си е все същата).
Ако технологиите започнат да променят самия човек (чрез генетика или по друг начин) тогава
не се знае какво може да стане.
Може да се направи аналогия с програмирането.
Досега се използват процесори с неизменяема система от команди и езици за програмиране,
на които се пишат предимно програми, които не променят сами себе си.
Не че не би могло, но досега не е масова практика самоизменяемостта на базовите команди
и конструкции в програмирането.
Даже напротив - навремето спагети-стила на програмиране с безразборни GOTO беше ограничен от
структурното програмиране (с *малък* базисен набор от конструкции). Това - с цел подобряване
на устойчивостта (надеждността, правилността, поддръжката) на софтуера.
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: How To Start 1-Acre,Self-Sustaining Homestead
[re: NVJ]
|
|
| Автор |
| (>[2] /dev/null) |
| Публикувано | 07.11.16 22:20 |
|
|
В отговор на:
Всъщност, такова ускорено развитие обикновено се свързва с нашата (западна, техническа) цивилизация, а достиженията на миналото се подценяват силно.
Кои "достижения на миналото" се подценяват незаслужено? Конкретно.
В отговор на:
Връх на прогресисткото мислене е, да се приема по подразбиране, че задължително новото е по-добро от старото, или че щом нещо е изчезнало, значи то не е било добро.
Това не е вярно. Връх на прогресисткото мислене е нещата да се подлагат на конкретен тест с измерим резултат.
В отговор на:
Ако технологиите започнат да променят самия човек (чрез генетика или по друг начин) тогава не се знае какво може да стане.
Нищо няма да стане. Това ще се случи, независимо дали неандерталците пищят или не. В момента когато се появят мислещи машини (а това време не е чак толкова далеч) дефиницията за "човек" ще се промени.
В отговор на:
Може да се направи аналогия с програмирането.
Досега се използват процесори с неизменяема система от команди и езици за програмиране,
на които се пишат предимно програми, които не променят сами себе си.
Аналогията е напълно погрешна. ФАКТ Е, че инструцкиите на процесорите се променят с всяко ново поколение. Отделно се експериментира с различни ISA "семейства" -- CISC, RISC, VLIW, и т.н. И това дори и без да коментираме изчанчените истории като начините за програмиране на GPU-та.
В отговор на:
Даже напротив - навремето спагети-стила на програмиране с безразборни GOTO беше ограничен от структурното програмиране (с *малък* базисен набор от конструкции). Това - с цел подобряване на устойчивостта (надеждността, правилността, поддръжката) на софтуера.
Кен Томпсън, създател на C, е голям любител на goto. Доста дълго подпис в дир.бг ми беше неговото твърдение "If you want to go somewhere, goto is the best way to get there." И е напълно прав.
The last good thing written in C was Franz Schubert's Symphony No. 9.
| |
|
Тема
|
е да ама сега подписа ти е друг
[re: |]
|
|
| Автор |
~@!$^%*amp;()_+ (целия горен ред) |
| Публикувано | 08.11.16 18:09 |
|
|
поумнял си, ц е най-ужасното нещо случили се на програмирането
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: е да ама сега подписа ти е друг
[re: ~@!$^%*amp;()_+]
|
|
| Автор |
| (>[2] /dev/null) |
| Публикувано | 08.11.16 21:38 |
|
|
Не е така, има много по-ужасни неща. Например C++, Perl, PHP и т.н. Т.нар. write-only languages...
The last good thing written in C was Franz Schubert's Symphony No. 9.
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: е да ама сега подписа ти е друг
[re: |]
|
|
| Автор |
~@!$^%*amp;()_+ (целия горен ред) |
| Публикувано | 09.11.16 03:27 |
|
|
така е, щото травмите нанесени в детството са най-тежки
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: How To Start 1-Acre,Self-Sustaining Homestead
[re: |]
|
|
| Автор |
NVJ (минаващ) |
| Публикувано | 09.11.16 16:07 |
|
|
Засега ниското мнение за неандерталците е неоправдано,
докато роботиката не е достигнала общото ниво даже на животните.
{АKO технологиите започнат да променят самия човек
ТОГАВА не се знае какво може да стане}
ОЗНАЧАВА_ЧЕ
{ (тогава би отпаднал стабилизиращият фактор "неизменна човешка природа",
ще се появят много повече степени на свобода на развитието)
=> (ще стане на практика непредсказуемо какво точно може да стане по-нататък) }
// Може да бъде нещо лошо или добро, но сигурно ще бъде голям цирк, и непредсказуемо.
В езика C има излишна свобода.
Тази свобода предразполага към грешки и други недостатъци на програмите.
Въпреки това, ефективността и практичността на езика са надделяли.
Може да се използвa goto когато това ще даде добър резултат.
Няма нужда фанатично като самоцел да се избягва.
Имам лични предпочитания програмите да са предимно надеждни и правилни.
Харесва ми прост и ясен стил на писане, без хитри трикове.
Има и друг подход, да пускат небрежни неща.
Това също може да бъде полезно - работата върви, недостатъците се оправят в движение.
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: How To Start 1-Acre,Self-Sustaining Homestead
[re: NVJ]
|
|
| Автор |
| (>[2] /dev/null) |
| Публикувано | 09.11.16 17:26 |
|
|
Не излишната свобода, а некадърността предразполага към грешки. Колкото идиотщини съм виждал в C++ или Java не съм виждал в никой друг език.
В отговор на:
Засега ниското мнение за неандерталците е неоправдано,
докато роботиката не е достигнала общото ниво даже на животните.
Както повечето процеси и този е експоненциален. На природата са и били необходими повече от 4 милиарда години за да изкара животните от океана. И само 200 милиона от първия бозайник до човека. Та, не си мисли че мислещите машини са чак толкова далеч.
The last good thing written in C was Franz Schubert's Symphony No. 9.
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: How To Start 1-Acre,Self-Sustaining Homestead
[re: |]
|
|
| Автор |
NVJ (минаващ) |
| Публикувано | 10.11.16 11:10 |
|
|
По мои скромни впечатления, на Java се програмира по-спокойно и правилно, отколкото на C.
Но по-важно е в какви концепции мисли програмистът:
може да мисли програмата като управляващи структури + структури данни,
а може да мисли в термините на обектноориентираното програмиране - конструиране на
абстрактни типове данни (инкапсулиращи свои операции-методи и свойства-данни).
Самата реализация на тези концепции може да бъде на съвсем различни езици.
Не мисля че мислещите машини са далече или близо, наистина не съм сигурен кога и как може да стане това.
Първите опити в изкуствения интелект от XX век показват някои трудности.
Например една програма, която играе шах, може да бъде много силна, но шахът е съвсем ограничена
изкуствена предметна област.
Когато се пишат програми за управление на робот, който действа в реалния свят, се вижда колко
е по-сложно и трудно е това.
Не изглежда възможно да се създаде изкуствен интелект като предварително конструиран алгоритъм.
Опитите с обучаващи се невронни мрежи и еволюционни алгоритми са по-близо до истината,
но ми се струва, че още много не достига.
| |
|
Тема
|
Д-р Георги Гайдурков: Как да се храним при настинк
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 11.11.16 23:47 |
|
|
Практиката показва, че когато ние се грижим за нашата вътрешна среда, за нейната тъканна хигиена, предпазвайки я от излишно натрупване на отпадъчни вещества на обмяната, тогава по нашите лигавици не виреят патогенни микроорганизми, тъй като те нямат хранителна среда – натрупаните органични отпадъци (слуз и др.). Напротив, тогава нашите повърхности – лигавици и кожа са богато поселени от нормалната, сапрофитна флора, която е естествена конкуренция и противодействие (имунитет) срещу други нежелани микроби.
Тъй като няма вещества в нашия организъм, които да не са получени от храната, точно нашето хранене се явява основният профилактичен и лечебен фактор при простудни заболявания. Нека повторим, че основната ни задача е предпазването от натрупване на отпадъци (профилактика) и активно подпомагане на очистването им, при вече развито заболяване (лечение). Всъщност, на по-дълбоко, екологично ниво, самата настинка е активен процес на прочистване на организма с провокиращата помощ на микробите, катализиращи (ускоряващи) този процес.
Първото ефективно нещо, което можем да направим при настинка (а най-добре предварително, за да не се развива такава) е да променим храненето, като дадем превес на предимно очистващите сурови растителни храни. Млечните продукти, термично обработените меса и технологично преработените храни (включително тестени изделия от пълнозърнести брашна) са основният патогенен фактор.
Както във всичко, природата предоставя най-необходимите неща във възможно най-проста и общодостъпна форма. В моята практика, предлагам, след консултация с лекар, едноседмичен или двуседмичен курс, който включва: свободно количество плодове , зеленчуци и сурови ядки. Сред плодовете е желателно да има пигментни такива – нар, червен грейпфрут и портокал, малини, къпини, боровинки (може и замразени), също така и високоензимни като ананас и киви. От зеленчуците морковът е основата, но също – червено цвекло, целина,магданоз, селъри, пащърнак и др. Задължително без сол и добавена мазнина!
Препоръчителни са подправки, като естествени антисептици – чесън, лук, джинджифил, чимен (смляно семе от сминдух),куркума,босилек, джоджен,копър, сок от лимон, авокадо. Зеленчуците са особено полезни, освен като салата, също и като пресноизцедени сокове – от моркови, но може в комбинация със сок от селъри и от сурова тиква, парченце джинджифил. От суровите ядки – бадем и др. (без фъстъци, ленено семе и чия, които имат трипсин-инхибитори). Плодовете се консумират винаги на гладно, поне половин час преди хранене или два часа след. Ядките добре се съчетават със зеленчуците, като дресинг или песто. Соковете – между храненията. В допълнение: чай от джинджифил с лимон, чай- ехинацеа, ройбос, котешки нокът. Бъзак-плод (тревист бъз) – по 10-15 зрънца дневно или чаена лъжичка сироп от бъзак.
И най-важното: оставете вашето тяло да направи необходимото с помощта на „настинката“, не подтискайте симптомите му, израз на лечебно прочистване. Защото, както след бурята природата става по-чиста и свежа , така и след „простудата“ нашият организъм е по-чист и здрав. След това е времето да го нахраните пълноценно с естесвена храна, която вече не го замърсява и не провокира следващо заболяване.
Моля сподели тази статия с приятелите си, за да бъде полезна и на тях. Благодаря ти!
Източник:
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Д-р Георги Гайдурков: Как да се храним при настинк
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
| (>[2] /dev/null) |
| Публикувано | 12.11.16 03:58 |
|
|
Направи нова тема "Конспиралщини и други идиотщини" и пускай там такива бълвочи. Това няма нищо общо с науката.
The last good thing written in C was Franz Schubert's Symphony No. 9.
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Д-р Георги Гайдурков: Как да се храним при настинк
[re: |]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 13.11.16 15:33 |
|
|
Основната теза на уважавания доктор е, че чрез смяната на храната ще се сменят и микроорганизмите в организма, както и че настинката е вид самолечение - напр. неслучайно спада апетитът по време на настинка. Известно ли ти е каква бе тазгодишната Нобелова награда по медицина ?
Това че на теб ти се привиждат конспирации, едва ли е проблем на мен или на уважавания д-р Гайдурков. Проблемът е твой, когато ти липсват аргументи да наричаш това което не разбираш "конспирации".
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Д-р Георги Гайдурков: Как да се храним при настинк
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
| (>[2] /dev/null) |
| Публикувано | 13.11.16 16:29 |
|
|
Смяната на храната може (и променя) микроорганизмите в хранителната система. Но не и в дихателната или където и да е другаде.
В отговор на:
както и че настинката е вид самолечение - напр. неслучайно спада апетитът по време на настинка
ЕТО това е една от идиотщините, които нямат никакво научно доказателство.
Аз много добре знам за какво беше дадена тазгодишната награда по медицина, но ако ти си въобразяваш, че има нещо общо с бълнуванията на неуважавания д-р Гайдурков, започвам да се съмнявам дали на теб ти е известно.
А самият факт, че даваш линк към конспирален сайт (има само ЕДНА реалност :) е достатъчно показателен.
Както вече казах, ако искаш да говорим за наука, като например за постиженията на Нобеловия лауреат, това е чудесно място. Ако искаш да пускаш идиотщини, нова тема за това съдържание ще е по-подходяща.
Лошото е, че в главата ти май е такъв миш-маш, че не правиш разлика между двете.
The last good thing written in C was Franz Schubert's Symphony No. 9.
| |
|
Тема
|
Как да излекуваме диабет тип 2 за 14 дни?
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 14.11.16 14:28 |
|
|
?
Статистиката за диабета
Диабетът е едно от най-разпространените заболявания в световен мащаб.
Според статистиката на Световната здравна организация (СЗО) над 350 милиона души в света са болни от диабет, а всяка година нови 7 милиона се разболяват. 70 хиляди от тях са деца.
До 2030 г., твърди СЗО, над 500 милиона души ще бъдат засегнати от диабет.
Според официалната статистика за България от това заболяване у нас страдат около 500 хиляди души. Висок обаче е процентът на хората, които не знаят, че имат диабет - около 40%.
Видове диабет
Днес са познати два вида диабет - тип 1 и тип 2.
За автоимунно заболяване се счита диабет тип 1, тъй като при него собствените имунни клетки атакуват бета клетките, отговарящи за отделянето на инсулин. Това е и причината да се приемат инсулинови инжекции, когато става въпрос за диабет тип 1.
Диабет тип 2 е свързан с метаболитен дисбаланс, който предизвиква високи нива на кръвната захар, без да бъде нарушено производството на инсулин от панкреаса и без да съществува относителен дефицит.
Какво е Диабет тип 2
Както вече споменахме, диабет тип 2 се характеризира с повишени нива на кръвната захар. За нормални се считат стойности под 6,1 ммол/л. Стойности между 6,1 и 7 ммол/л са индикация за нарушен глюкозен толеранс, а при стойности над 7 ммол/л говорим за захарен диабет.
Основна причина за високите нива на кръвна захар в организма е консумирането на големи количества мазнини като олио, масло, всякакъв вид животински храни, ядки и семена. Част от тези мазнини образуват излишни мастни депа (затлъстяване), а други полепват по стените на клетките. Крайният резултат може да е инсулинова резистентност – инсулинът не може да се свърже с инсулиновия рецептор, за да се усвои глюкозата.
При диабет тип 2 панкреасът синтезира нормални, а понякога излишни количества инсулин, към чието действие клетките стават резистентни (заради високия прием на мазнини). Така глюкозата не може да бъде усвоена, циркулирайки в кръвната плазма, което води до високи стойности на кръвна захар, т.е. захарен диабет тип 2.
Стандартно лечение на диабет тип 2
Обикновено се прибягва към медикаменти, съчетани с ниска на въглехидрати и богата на белтъчини диета. Протеиновите храни като месо, риба, сирене, ядки и други обаче са богати и на мазнини.
Тъй като се спира приемът на въглехидрати, при стандартния вид лечение за определен период от време настъпва подобрение в нивата на кръвната захар и те се регулират. Но в дългосрочен период от време режимът не оказва благоприятен лечебен ефект върху организма.
При този тип лечение често настъпват проблеми с регулирането на кръвната захар и дори може да се стигне и до прием на инсулин. Затлъстяването, високото кръвно налягане, кетозното състояние, бъбречната недостатъчност, диабетната ретинопатия и деменция са само част от състоянията, които се свързват (като странични ефекти) със стандартния вид лечение на диабет тип 2.
Все повече доктори и различни медицински центрове стигат до заключението, че стандартният медицински подход, при който всяко заболяване се разглежда поотделно, не води до положителни крайни резултати.
– авандиа, настъпват 66% повече инфаркти, 39% повече инсулти, а смъртните случаи са с 20% повече при онези, страдали от сърдечносъдови заболявания.
Лечение на диабет тип 2 със специална програма от Vita Rama
Организмът ни е комплекс от органи и системи, които работят като едно цяло. Диабет тип 2 е реакция на организма, предизвикана от неправилно хранене, слаба физическа активност, стрес, замърсявания в околната среда, различни генетични неразположения и други. Затова и лечението му трябва да бъде съобразено с тези важни фактори, които оказват влияние върху човешкото здраве.
Специалната програма за диабет тип 2, разработена от специалистите на Лечебен център Vita Rama, се базира на промяна на цялостния начин на живот, като акцент се поставя върху правилното лечебно растително хранене с висок прием на въглехидрати и нисък прием на мазнини и белтъчини. Разработеният от нас хранителен режим набляга основно на въглехидратни храни – плодове, зеленчуци, зърнени и бобови храни. Включването на повече въглехидрати като ориз, просо, елда, царевица и дори картофи, .
В хранителния режим на Vita Rama за диабет тип 2 са изключени всички видове по-концентрирани мазнини като олио, зехтин, маслини, ядки, семена, авокадо и други. Следването на този режим между 14 и 30 дни води до благоприятен резултат (нивата на кръвната захар се нормализират), а в крайна сметка и излекуване на диабет тип 2. В периода на режима контролирано се спират медикаментите и/или инсулина, като се наблюдава регулиране на високото кръвно налягане, високите триглицериди, високия холестерол, намалява и теглото.
В програмата за диабет тип 2, разработена от специалистите на Лечебен център Vita Rama, ключово място заемат и физическите упражнения, чрез които по-бързо се изчиства кръвта от натрупаните мастни частици. Така глюкозата започва да се усвоява по-добре, вследствие на което се регулира и високата кръвна захар.
Следването на хранителен режим за правилно лечебно растително хранене и съветите за здравословен начин на живот на специалистите от Лечебен център Vita Rama гарантират успешно лечение на диабет тип 2, имунитет срещу различни заболявания и пълноценно здраве.
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Как да излекуваме диабет тип 2 за 14 дни?
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
| (>[2] /dev/null) |
| Публикувано | 15.11.16 07:29 |
|
|
Тези пишман-гении да са публикували научни доказателства, че диетите им работят? Или просто правиш реклами а поредните знахари? :)
The last good thing written in C was Franz Schubert's Symphony No. 9.
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Как да излекуваме диабет тип 2 за 14 дни?
[re: |]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 15.11.16 21:28 |
|
|
Не знам дали са ги публикували. Но аз съм чел изследвания, че това за което пишат е вярно.
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Как да излекуваме диабет тип 2 за 14 дни?
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
| (>[2] /dev/null) |
| Публикувано | 16.11.16 07:17 |
|
|
Кое е вярно? Че след 14 дни ще ти изчезне диабет 2? Я ги дай тези изследвания. :)
The last good thing written in C was Franz Schubert's Symphony No. 9.
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Как да излекуваме диабет тип 2 за 14 дни?
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
NVJ (минаващ) |
| Публикувано | 17.11.16 11:19 |
|
|
Цитат:
Когато астрономът Халей се впуснал в критики срещу астрологията,
Исак Нютон го прекъснал учтиво, но твърдо със следните думи:
"Господине, аз съм изучавал този предмет, докато Вие не."
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Как да излекуваме диабет тип 2 за 14 дни?
[re: NVJ]
|
|
| Автор |
| (>[2] /dev/null) |
| Публикувано | 17.11.16 15:38 |
|
|
Всъщност Нютън не е изучавал астрология. Но и да беше, това няма абсолютно никакво значение. Не всичко, което Нютън е правил има общо с науката и реалността. Фактите, че е изгубил огромно количество време в изучаване на алхимия и е търсил в Библията датата на Второто пришествие не правят тези дейности по никакъв начин по-малко идиотски.
Та, внимавай с цитатите дето си чел "някъде", защото 80% нямат нищо общо с реалността.
The last good thing written in C was Franz Schubert's Symphony No. 9.
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Как да излекуваме диабет тип 2 за 14 дни?
[re: |]
|
|
| Автор |
NVJ (минаващ) |
| Публикувано | 17.11.16 15:55 |
|
|
Добре, ще прегледам материалите, които цитираш.
Но сигурно не си изучавал алхимия, тогава защо имаш толкова ниско мнение за нея ?
Редактирано от NVJ на 17.11.16 15:59.
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Как да излекуваме диабет тип 2 за 14 дни?
[re: NVJ]
|
|
| Автор |
| (>[2] /dev/null) |
| Публикувано | 17.11.16 17:41 |
|
|
Защото РЕАЛНОСТТА я опровергава. Други въпроси?
The last good thing written in C was Franz Schubert's Symphony No. 9.
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Как да излекуваме диабет тип 2 за 14 дни?
[re: |]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 18.11.16 16:46 |
|
|
Чети добре, щото този факт е известен не от вчера. И условието е да не са минали много години от възникването на диабета тип-2.
ПП: за това изследване съм докладвал преди години във форума ни:
Редактирано от Mod vege на 18.11.16 16:49.
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Как да излекуваме диабет тип 2 за 14 дни?
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
| (>[2] /dev/null) |
| Публикувано | 18.11.16 18:07 |
|
|
Тези неща съм ги чел доста преди теб. Интересно е дали ТИ си го чел. Защото ако беше го чел, щеше да знаеш, че изследването е продължило 12 седмици и след това пациентите не са били наблюдавани. Та, не е много ясно дали са били ИЗЛЕКУВАНИ. :)
Знахарите които рекламираш твърдят че ИЗЛЕКУВАТ диабет за две седмици, а не че "някои параметри се нормализират след седмица". Има малка разлика между двете, нали? :)
Забавното е, че текста на знахарите твърди "Включването на повече въглехидрати като ориз, просо, елда, царевица и дори картофи, увеличава инсулиновата чувствителност", с линк към https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11584106. Обаче пък този линк твърди: "The available data support the idea that consumption of diets high in total carbohydrate does not adversely affect insulin sensitivity compared with high fat diets".
Да виждаш мааалката разлика между двете твърдения? Ето това е разликата между знахарството и науката. :)
The last good thing written in C was Franz Schubert's Symphony No. 9.
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Как да излекуваме диабет тип 2 за 14 дни?
[re: |]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 19.11.16 02:46 |
|
|
В отговор на:
Тези неща съм ги чел доста преди теб.
И как точно си чел изследването "доста" преди мен, след като съм докладвал за него само 2 месеца след публикуването му в нета ?
В отговор на:
Защото ако беше го чел, щеше да знаеш, че изследването е продължило 12 седмици и след това пациентите не са били наблюдавани.
Дааа, става ясно как си "ги чел" нещатa - като си ги интерпретирaш както си искаш. В изследването пише, че след 12 седмици наблюдението над пациентите е било "ограничено по необходимост", а не спрянo.
Oще по-важен е изводът от изследването, "The abnormalities underlying type 2 diabetes are reversible by reducing dietary energy intake.".
В отговор на:
Знахарите които рекламираш твърдят че ИЗЛЕКУВАТ диабет за две седмици,...
Отново неточност, много такива ти се събраха в тая подтема, така не се води дискусия, още по-малко научна. Никъде в цитираната от мен статия не се пише такова директно твърдение. Ето точно какво пишат:
"Следването на този режим между 14 и 30 дни води до благоприятен резултат (нивата на кръвната захар се нормализират), а в крайна сметка и излекуване на диабет тип 2."
Имаш да учиш още за това, какво е науката, виждам. А и да признаеш че не си бил прав не можеш. Редактирано от Mod vege на 19.11.16 02:52.
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Как да излекуваме диабет тип 2 за 14 дни?
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
| (>[2] /dev/null) |
| Публикувано | 19.11.16 07:11 |
|
|
В отговор на:
И как точно си чел изследването "доста" преди мен, след като съм докладвал за него само 2 месеца след публикуването му в нета ?
Може би защото не съм чакал Шпигел да ме информира за него?
В отговор на:
Дааа, става ясно как си "ги чел" нещатa - като си ги интерпретирaш както си искаш. В изследването пише, че след 12 седмици наблюдението над пациентите е било "ограничено по необходимост", а не спрянo.
Ако трябва да бъдем точни, в изследването пише, цитирам: "In addition, further studies are required to determine the long-term outcome in respect of glucose regulation as the observations made after 12 weeks of return to a normal diet were necessarily limited". Както и "Three participants had recurrence of diabetes as judged by a 2 h post-load plasma glucose >11.1 mmol/l."
Та, спряно ли е наблюдението след 12-тата седмица или не? Има ли резултати какво се е случило с тях след това? Ясно е, че преди 12-тата седмица 25% са се върнали към старото състояние. Колко е отнело на останалите? :)
В отговор на:
Никъде в цитираната от мен статия не се пише такова директно твърдение.
Верно ли никъде не го пише? А какво е заглавието? Я да видим: "Как да излекуваме диабет тип 2 за 14 дни"? Хмм, дали пише, че ще излекуват диабета за две седмици или не? Труден въпрос...
В отговор на:
Имаш да учиш още за това, какво е науката, виждам. А и да признаеш че не си бил прав не можеш.
За разлика от конспиралници като теб много добре знам какво е науката, защото това ми е работата. :)
Виждам обаче, че избягваш да коментираш лъжата как въглехидратните диети повишавали инсулиновата чувствителност докато статията от 2001 твърди нещо съвсем друго. Защо така? Дори не си си направил труда да провериш дали това което твърдят отговаря на текста в линка, нали?
Да ти пускам ли линкове към публикации показващи, че диетите с високо съдържание на въглехидрати (като тази на знахарите) не са толкова ефективни като тези с ниско въглехидратно съдържание? Или да чакам да пишат за тях в Шпигел та да се информираш? :)
The last good thing written in C was Franz Schubert's Symphony No. 9.Редактирано от | на 19.11.16 07:52.
| |
|
Тема
|
25 Vegan Recipes for "Meat and Cheese Lovers"
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 21.11.16 02:32 |
|
|
We guarantee that these recipes can make any skeptic gain a new appreciation for the delicious decadence vegan food can offer us — and perhaps even never look back again!
From breakfast to dinner, this list has it all; here are 25 plant-based foods that could turn anyone vegan!
1.Strawberry Pecan Stuffed French Toast
You don’t need eggs to make this vegan french toast. This uses mashed bananas as a replacement. Use a baguette for bite-size toast. Drizzle your sweet breakfast with maple syrup, sprinkle a bit of confectioner’s sugar, or eat it as is.
[image]http://cdn.onegreenplanet.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10//2012/08/Strawberry-Pecan-French-Toast.jpeg[/image]
2. Gluten-Free Biscuits and Mushroom Gravy
Accompany your Sunday morning breakfast with these . Pour some mushroom gravy on top and serve. Easy as that! This is comfort food at its best. These delicious biscuits are also gluten-free.
3. Coconut Bacon
This will wake up even the sleepiest head in your household. When baked, these faux bacon strips taste amazingly smokey, and a bit salty too. A perfection addition to a big breakfast.
4. The Vegan Gutbuster Sandwich – Homemade Vegan Italian Sausage on Baguette
Think vegan food is wimpy? That it won’t make you full? Think again! This sandwich says it all in its name. This gut buster sandwich is stuffed with ; sliced mushrooms; bell peppers; and tomatoes. It’s the perfect addition to game night.
5. Pineapple Jack BBQ Sandwich
Fan of BBQs? This looks like the real thing and tastes like it too. The pineapple adds a sweet, tanginess to the barbecue sauce. Lathered onto seitan, tempeh, tofu, or portobello mushrooms, and this baby is good to go. Yum!
6. The Bad Ass ‘Lamb’ Burger
Here’s a burger you don’t want to mess with. It’s . Bite into this juicy burger knowing it’s not made from those cute, white, fluffy animals.
7. 5 Killer Vegan Mac & Cheeses
These are the ultimate “cheesy,” creamy comfort food. Who needs pre-packaged mac and cheese from that all too familiar blue box anymore? This childhood favorite just got veganized!
8. Chickpea ‘Tuna’ Salad Sandwich
No fishes were harmed in the making of this sandwich! It’s a chickpea-based salad, sprinkled with seaweed flakes, for a taste and smell reminiscent of the sea. Lay your ‘’ salad on top of a bed of lettuce and top with a handful of alfalfa sprouts and thinly sliced tomatoes for a great lunch. We bet anyone would jump for this dish, no matter their stance on vegan food.
9. Balsamic BBQ Seitan and Tempeh Ribs
Put on your adult bibs and put that knife and fork down. These taste delicious and you’ll be chowing down before you can even say the entire recipe’s name. Whether you choose seitan or tempeh to make these ribs, they are sure to be finger-licking good.
10. Vegan Tofu ‘Scallops’
Planning on a fancy dinner? Or how about a date night? These “scallops” are a great way to show off your cooking skills, while showing off your compassionate side too.
11. Seitan and Mushroom Bourguignon
Here’s another fancy dinner entree that will leave guests flabbergasted that it’s entirely vegan. A classic, French dish, this recipe is reimagined. Using seitan, mushrooms, and a hint of dry red wine, this (pronounced bore-geen-yone) is sure to be a star on any menu.
12. Portobello Wellington
Although its’ origins are unclear, it’s very clear that this is stunningly beautiful and delicious. No need to worry about that semi-raw meat burrowed in the middle of cripsy, decadent pastry. We have portobello mushrooms to give us that earthy taste and texture.
13. Reuben Burger
is the bomb. A twist on the classic Reuben sandwich, this flavorful burger will have anyone saying “Wow, maybe this vegan thing is doable after all!” Serve it up with a brew as the recipe suggests, and you’ll be turning people vegan left and right in no time at all.
14. Vegan Crab Cakes with Sweet Balsamic Mayo
Are you trying to eat your computer screen yet? Made from garbanzo beans, this is simple, nutritious, and will even have your house smelling like “real” seafood as you cook it up — meaning this is the perfect dish to treat those seafood-loving vegan skeptics in your life with!
15. Buffalo Tofu Fries
Who needs buffalo wings? Not us vegans! These , served up with some vegan ranch, will have even the biggest of vegan nay-sayers saying “More, please!” Serve up this snack at your next tailgate or game — we think the fries will do all the talking for you.
16. Moxarella Cheese
Have a cheese lover in your life? Check out this , made with cashews and all kinds of good for you ingredients. You can use this cheese in dips, on pizza, on Italian sandwiches…the list goes on and on. Whip a batch of this stuff up, and you’ll have no problem turning the cheese lover in your life on to the goodness that is vegan cheese.
And another for those cheese lovers out there. Aren’t these the cutest? With , you can avoid that fake orange cheese stuff you’ll find on the real “Goldfish,” but enjoy all the flavor found in this timeless snack. Make a big batch of these for your next party!
18. Baked Eggplant Fries
Get all the crunch you love from regular fried fries with none of those nasty health side effects with this decadent baked fry recipe! What’s more is that these are , a veggie rich in vitamin power. This is definitely one dish that will have everyone — vegan or not — coming back for more.
19. Creamy Artichoke Spinach Dip
Who doesn’t love artichoke spinach dip? Save yourself (and your friends and family) from those tubs found in the grocery store deli, though, and try this . Vegans and non-vegans alike will be simply amazed at the texture of this dip — no dairy needed whatsoever!
20. Vegan Tiramisu with Vanilla Cream and Coffee Ladyfingers
Our list wouldn’t be complete without some to-die-for desserts, right? Tiramisu is a favorite dessert for many, and this with vanilla cream and coffee ladyfingers is raw, creamy, and sure to please!
21. Super-Thick Strawberry Shake
For those who love a fruity dessert, this creamy, thick, and antioxidant-full will have any shake-lover swooning! Top it with some vegan coconut whipped cream, and this dessert is sure to please.
22. Pistachio Chocolate Truffles
Perfect for anyone who likes a crunchy dessert treat, these adorable little are easy to make and will be a hit with any truffle lover in your life (including you!).
23. Guinness Chocolate Cupcakes with Maple Whiskey Vanilla Frosting
The title of this recipe alone is enough to win many of us over, right? A splash of dark beer, chocolate, maple, whiskey, vanilla…what is not to love here? To top it all off, this comes in [url
0http://www.onegreenplanet.org/plant-based-recipes/vegan-guinness-chocolate-cupcakes-with-maple-whiskey-vanilla-frosting/]cupcake form[/url]! Can we get a big “wow”?
24. Banana Chocolate Caramel Vegan Ice Cream Cake
You can’t spell dessert without ice cream (okay, maybe you can, but you get what we mean). And this ice cream cake, with banana, chocolate, and caramel is not just beautiful, but it’s sinfully delicious, too. Not one person tasting this cake will believe it’s really vegan!
25. Raw Almond Chunky Monkey Ice Cream
A flavor so many of you know and once loved, this raw ice cream blend will top the list of vegans and non-vegans all the same. Serve this up with some vegan whipped cream, and say hello, decadence — and maybe even hello, veganism for some converts you’ll win over in the process of serving up and delighting in this and the other 24 foods listed here!
Via:OneGreenPlanet.org
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Как да излекуваме диабет тип 2 за 14 дни?
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
| (>[2] /dev/null) |
| Публикувано | 21.11.16 05:05 |
|
|
Та, кой не може да си признае, че не е бил прав? :)
The last good thing written in C was Franz Schubert's Symphony No. 9.
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Как да излекуваме диабет тип 2 за 14 дни?
[re: |]
|
|
| Автор |
Finntroll73 (Независим) |
| Публикувано | 01.12.16 10:42 |
|
|
Няма смисъл да чета изобшо.Един фанатик от девет кладенеца вода ще ти донесе,само и само да защити тезите си.
Сигурно скоро ще видя теми,как се лекува рак,спин,левкемия..с вегетарианство.
Искам тогава да ми излекуват тромбоемболията в кръвта,да ми набавят изченалия завинаги протеин С.
И да спра антиколагуланта завинаги.
Давайте сега с менците и големите съдове..да ви видим какви научни ще ги измислите.Плацебо ефекта ли?
Най-лесното е да си лош,трудното е да бъдеш добър .
Няма лесен правилен път.
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Как да излекуваме диабет тип 2 за 14 дни?
[re: |]
|
|
| Автор |
Finntroll73 (Независим) |
| Публикувано | 01.12.16 10:45 |
|
|
Излекувай ми тогава тромбоемболията в кръвта.Не искам да съм натиколагулант до живот.Давай да те видим сега.Претърпял съм няколко операции,апендицит,мезентриална тромбоза,два пъти дълбоки венозни тромбози..дай да видим великото вегетарианство как ще ми възстанови липсата на протеин Ц в кръвта.
Най-лесното е да си лош,трудното е да бъдеш добър .
Няма лесен правилен път.
| |
|
|
|
Нещо за това да кажете?
Не мислите ли че манията ви и фанатизма ви са най-големите ви болести?Дайте да не докосваме нищо..понеже може би в него има смърт и лой.
Изтрещяла работа сте.Като се сетя какви ми ги говореха дъновистите -вегетарианци навремето,ако не бяхме вътре в тази връзка и приятелство от отдавна..ако просто бяхме странични наблюдатели,тайничко да ги запишем с някоя скрита камера..щях да спечеля сигурно 1 място за клип на господар на седмицата,в господари на ефира.
То не бяха приказки за ефирни тела,как ще пътуваме между планетите и галактиките излизайки от физическите си тела със свръхсветлинна скорост,и нямало да имаме нужда от ракети и кораби,как само избраните,истински чистите вегетарианци..те щели да наследят земята и да влезнат в шестата раса.А другите..месоядните,те щели да се усетят,ама щяло да е късно...както в библията пишело.Библията и ученията на брадела Дънов бяха прекроени спрямо техните виждания и разбирания.
Не е лесно човек да живее с вас вегетарианците.Прекалено сте екстраординери,прекалено все сте накърннени и неразбрани,прекалено все вас не ви зачитат..а вие видиш ли,като Прометей с огъня вървите между хората,да ги пробуждате от съня.
Тази арогантност и това нахалство,ми дойдоха до гуша..уж индиректно да ни се намеква..те -месоядните..макар и да бяхме уж първи приятели де..ама все се опитваха да ни преобърнат.Не е ли нагло да говориш с погнуса срещу месоядните,след като имаш такива приятели?
Фалша на вегетарианско-дъновисткия фанатизъм няма равен на себе си.Серийните убийци имат почивен ден,но не и фанатиците в правата доктрина и правата вегетарианска вяра.
Не се обиждайте от малките истини сега,понеже много обичате да поучавате другите,колко били те в грешка.Има свободна воля.И както аз не ви казвам как да живеете,така недейте и вие.
Хората които са вегани и вегетарианци във фейса,които имам като контакти..няколко момичета и един двама приятели са..станали такива заради това да не изпуснат гаджетата..съм ги скрил във фейса,да не им чета постовете за зелени отвари и пр..
Няма нужда всеки ден да гледам вегетарианската им пропаганда.Неща от сорта...85 годишен веган,качи 7 хилядник в хималаите..да речем.
Най-лесното е да си лош,трудното е да бъдеш добър .
Няма лесен правилен път.Редактирано от Finntroll73 на 01.12.16 11:04.
| |
|
Тема
|
Explanation of Epigenetics for Total Beginners
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 06.01.17 05:26 |
|
|
Добра статия-синтез относно епигенетиката. Копирам и не по-малко интересните коментари под нея.
___
In simplified terms, (the study of heritable changes in phenotype that does not involve changes in the underlying DNA sequence) is the study of biological mechanisms that will switch genes on and off. What does that mean? Well, if you are new to this whole thing, we first need a quick crash course in biochemistry and genetics:
- Cells are fundamental working units of every human being. All the instructions required to direct their activities are contained within the chemical deoxyribonucleic acid, also known as DNA.
- DNA from humans is made up of approximately 3 billion nucleotide bases. There are four fundamental types of bases that comprise DNA – adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine, commonly abbreviated as A, C, G, and T, respectively.
- The sequence, or the order, of the bases is what determines our life instructions. Interestingly enough, our DNA sequence is mostly similar to that of a chimpanzee. Only a fraction of distinctively different sequences makes us human.
- Within the 3 billion bases, there are about 20,000+ genes. Genes are specific sequences of bases that provide instructions on how to make important proteins – complex molecules that trigger various biological actions to carry out life functions.
Now that you understand genetics, let’s learn about epigenetics. Epigenetics, essentially, affects how genes are read by cells, and subsequently how they produce proteins. Here are a few important points about epigenetics:
- Epigenetics Controls Genes. Certain circumstances in life can cause genes to be silenced or expressed over time. In other words, they can be turned off (becoming dormant) or turned on (becoming active).
- Epigenetics Is Everywhere. What you eat, where you live, who you interact with, when you sleep, how you exercise, even aging – all of these can eventually cause chemical modifications around the genes that will turn those genes on or off over time. Additionally, in certain diseases such as cancer or Alzheimer’s, various genes will be switched into the opposite state, away from the normal/healthy state.
- Epigenetics Makes Us Unique. Even though we are all human, why do some of us have blonde hair or darker skin? Why do some of us hate the taste of mushrooms or eggplants? Why are some of us more sociable than others? The different combinations of genes that are turned on or off is what makes each one of us unique. Furthermore, there have been indications that some epigenetic changes can be inherited.
- Epigenetics Is Reversible. With 20,000+ genes, what will be the result of the different combinations of genes being turned on or off? The possible permutations are enormous! But if we could map every single cause and effect of the different combinations, and if we could reverse the gene’s state to keep the good while eliminating the bad… then we could theoretically* cure cancer, slow aging, stop obesity, and so much more.
Here’s an analogy that might further help you to understand epigenetics. Think of the human life span as a very long movie. The cells would be the actors and actresses, essential units that make up the movie. DNA, in turn, would be the script — instructions for all the participants of the movie to perform their roles. Subsequently, the DNA sequence would be the words on the script, and certain blocks of these words that instruct key actions or events to take place would be the genes. The concept of genetics would be like screenwriting. Follow the analogy so far? Good. The concept of epigenetics, then, would be like directing. The script can be the same, but the director can choose to eliminate certain scenes or dialogue, altering the movie for better or worse. After all, Steven Spielberg’s finished product would be drastically different than Woody Allen’s for the same movie script, wouldn’t it?
* Editor’s Note: Be wary of self-help claims that exploit epigenetics and seem too good to be true. We recommend you read about the abuse of .
Ready to learn epigenetics in further detail? Read on:
___
Comments
Gary Camp • 4 months ago
It is still not at all clear to me how information can be passed on from generation to generation (like in the recent article on Heart Attacks, "Memory of a heart attack is stored in our genes"). To be passed on there must be a change to the fertilized egg (or at least the growing baby organism). How is this accomplished?
mastercytosine Mod Gary Camp • 4 months ago
Hi Gary! Glad to see your interest in epigenetics! Reproductive cells (eggs and sperm) contain intact genetic information. During the reproductive process, the epigenetic tags are erased through what is known as "reprogramming" so that they can be re-programmed into specialized cells (blood, hair, etc). However, in mammals, about 1% of genes bypass this reprogramming process and end up with epigenetic tags being passed down, also known as epigenetic imprinting! Take this with a grain of salt though as epigenetic changes rapidly occur (relatively speaking) and it is difficult to prove whether they were inherited or induced by environmental changes again.
Carl • 10 months ago
Assuming 3 billion base pairs (correct) and about 99% nucleotide base pair correspondence between chimpanzees and human beings (incorrect- it is now around 96% and it depends on the size of nucleotide strands and how they're lined up, either human to chimpanzee or chimpanzee to human, but that's another story), approximately 1% of 3 billion is 30 million (based on your numbers), so where on earth do you get 15 million base pairs that differ!? I know-you maintain less than 1%, but that is just plain false. Furthermore, utilizing the assumed correct 96% base nucleotide correspondence, the number of different bases is actually 120 million, four times more than the previous number i mentioned mentioned, and more than 10 times the difference you stated in your article. Ugh! Get your facts straight and your numbers will follow!
John Doe Carl • 22 days ago
You are the coolest person alive.
mastercytosine Mod Carl • 10 months ago
Hi Carl. Thanks for pointing these numbers out! These figures have always debated on and have frequently changed over the years. Since there are many ways to interpret the count, we have decided to edit out the actual numbers in its entirety as they serve no purpose within the context of this article to convey the point (which is that a small amount of sequences can have great impact). Thanks for reading WhatisEpigenetics.com!
John Doe mastercytosine • 22 days ago
You could just say Carl was right and you were wrong
Carl • 10 months ago
Correction-not enough trimmethylxanthine today. 8 Exactly 8 times more than the number you stated.
Carl • 10 months ago
To clarify, I'm talking about haploid, not diploid (6 billion nucleotides), because it is assumed that bases will correspond as base pairs. So my writing here wss not clear and should state "bases" rather than base pairs. Also, there is more research out there demonstrating that humans and chimpanzees do not even have the 96% base correspondence claimed, especially when the Y chromosome is examined. Do we understand more or less of the human genotype? Definitely less. No one in the field of genetics would argue that fact. Now geneticists are saying that it will take hundreds of years to map out the real correspondences and causal relationships, when functioning and non functioning DNA are taken into consideration, and when the unsearchable complexity of this amazing (euphemism) self-replicating, self regulating, self-correcting living informational system is given it's proper reverence and humility (neither come easy to human being, me included here). So easy on the "we're just like chimpanzees" except for a few Lego pieces nonsense. When a chimpanzee can fly a 747 then I'll relent in my opinion. Better yet, give a chimpanzee your tax return to complete and then send the results to the IRS! Errant nonsense!!
Редактирано от Mod vege на 06.01.17 05:28.
| |
|
Тема
|
Самодостатъчните села Regen
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 18.01.17 01:39 |
|
|
През лятото, което се задава, трябва да започне изграждането на изцяло самодостатъчните села ReGen – общности, които сами произвеждат всичките си хранителни ресурси и енергия. Датската архитектурна фирма EFFEKT се е заела с реализацията на дръзкия проект, за да докаже, че е напълно реалистично да се живее в общности, които са напълно независими и самодостатъчни във всички отношения.
Пет принципа определят селата Regen:
- енергийно позитивни домове,
- органична храна, произведена на място,
- енергия от чисти, възобновяеми източници, и нейното съхранение,
- рециклиране на водата и на отпадъците,
- овластяване на местните общности.
Домовете в общностите ще са напълно годни за устойчив начин на живот. Те ще се електрозахранват от фотоволтаични слънчеви панели. Пасивни пасивни отоплителни и охлаждащи системи ще елиминират натиска върху потреблението на електроенергия във всяка къща. Семействата ще отглеждат сами зсвоите собствени зеленчуци и плодове в общностни оранжерии. Заедно къщите ще образуват „споделена местна еко-система“.
Селищата ще имат по няколко обществени площада, които ще са оборудвани със станции за зареждане на електрически коли. Ще има и вертикални аквапонни земеделски площи.
Общността ще разчита много на съоръжения за съхранение на водните ресурси, както и на системи за рециклиране и превръщане на отпадъците в суровини. Заедно с това ще има зони за животновъдство, площадки за игра за децата, образователни центрове – всичко, от което есна общност се нуждае за своето развитите.
Първото село Regen е планирано за изграждане в Нидерландия това лято. Подготвят се и пилотни проекти в Швеция, Германия, Норвегия и Дания, а планове – макар и на ранен етап – има още за Китай, Африка, Обединените арабски емирства.
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Самодостатъчните села Regen
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
| (>[2] /dev/null) |
| Публикувано | 18.01.17 05:31 |
|
|
Материалите за фотоволтаичните панели откъде точно ще ги вземат? И тях ли сами ще си ги произведат? :)
The last good thing written in C was Franz Schubert's Symphony No. 9.
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Самодостатъчните села Regen
[re: |]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 19.01.17 01:02 |
|
|
Независими и автономни не значи прекъснали връзката с останалия свят.
А дори ако се развият такива общности до големи селища и по-нататък, според мен може и сами да си ги произвеждат. Но това е далечно бъдеще.
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Самодостатъчните села Regen
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
| (>[2] /dev/null) |
| Публикувано | 19.01.17 15:47 |
|
|
Независими означава да могат да построят втора такава общност използвайки само продуктите които произвеждат. В противен случай е интелектуална маструбация на богати безделници.
The last good thing written in C was Franz Schubert's Symphony No. 9.
| |
|
Тема
|
По скоро далавера на богатите им татковци
[re: |]
|
|
| Автор |
~@!$^%*amp;()_+ (целия горен ред) |
| Публикувано | 22.01.17 19:39 |
|
|
| |
|
Тема
|
Колко вредни са пластмасовите бутилки
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 27.01.17 05:12 |
|
|
Cигypнo мaлĸo oт Bac знaят или ce интepecyвaт oт видa плacтмaca, oт ĸoятo ca нaпpaвeни бyтилĸитe и oт ĸoитo вceĸиднeвнo ĸoнcyмиpaмe вoдa и дpyги нaпитĸи. Toвa e изĸлючитeлнo вaжнo, тъй ĸaтo мaтepиaлът oпpeдeля дaли дaдeнa бyтилĸa мoжe дa ce изпoлзвa caмo вeднъж или e пoдxoдящa зa мнoгoĸpaтнa yпoтpeбa. Bcичĸи плacтмacoви бyтилĸи в тъpгoвcĸaтa мpeжa имaт зaдължитeлнa мapĸиpoвĸa, ĸoятo мoжe дa ни opиeнтиpa зaтoвa, дaли мaтepиaлът имa cĸлoннocт дa ocвoбoждaвa xимиĸaли в cъxpaнявaнaтa тeчнocт:
РЕТ или РЕТЕ
Oзнaчeнитe c тoзи знaĸ бyтилĸи ca eдинcтвeнo зa eднoĸpaтнa yпoтpeбa. Πpи пoвтopнo изпoлзвaнe имa вepoятнocт плacтмacaтa дa ocвoбoди тeжĸи мeтaли, ĸaĸтo и вeщecтвa, ĸoитo cъздaвaт xopмoнaлeн диcбaлaнc в opгaнизмa нa чoвeĸa. Bъпpeĸи тaзи oпacнocт, тoвa e нaй-чecтo изпoлзвaният тип плacтмaca зa пpoизвoдcтвo нa бyтилĸи. Имeннo зaтoвa e вaжнo тaĸъв тип oпaĸoвĸи дa ce изпoлзвaт caмo eднoĸpaтнo, cлeд ĸoeтo дa бъдaт изxвъpлeни в пoдxoдящитe ĸoнтeйнepи зa peциĸлиpaнe. C пoвтopнoтo изпoлзвaнe нa бyтилĸa cъc cимвoлa РЕТ или РЕТЕ, чoвeĸ тpябвa дa e гoтoв, чe e вepoятнo дa пpиeмe oгpoмнo ĸoличecтвo aлĸaлни eлeмeнти и бaĸтepии, ĸoитo ce ocвoбoждaвaт oт плacтмacaтa.
НDР или НDРЕ
Πлacтмacaтa, мapĸиpaнa c тoзи знaĸ нe oтдeля ниĸaĸви зaмъpcитeли. Πpeпopъчитeлнo e дa ce пиe вoдa oт бyтилĸи, пpoизвeдeни имeннo oт тaĸaвa плacтмaca. Toвa e eĸoлoгичнo чиcт мaтepиaл, ĸoйтo ce пpepaбoтвa изцялo. Kъм днeшнa дaтa в бyтилĸи oт НDР или НDРЕ ce cъxpaнявaт мляĸo и xpaни зa дeцa. Oт тoзи мaтepиaл ca и няĸoи дeтcĸи игpaчĸи, oпaĸoвĸи нa миeщи пpeпapaти, ĸaĸтo и oпpeдeлeни видoвe плacтмacoви тopбичĸи.
РVС или V
Изpaбoтeнитe oт тoзи вид плacтмaca oпaĸoвĸи oтдeлят мaлĸo ĸoличecтвo, нo вpeдни вeщecтвa oт 2 oпacни xимиĸaлa. И двeтe cъeдинeния имaт нeгaтивнo въздeйcтвиe въpxy бaлaнca oт xopмoни в opгaнизмa. Бyтилĸитe oт РVС ca мeĸи, гъвĸaви и нaй-oбиĸнoвeнo ce изпoлзвaт зa oпaĸoвaнe нa oлиo, зexтини и дpyги видoвe мacлa. He e изĸлючeнo в тъpгoвcĸaтa мpeжa дa ce cpeщнaт и дeтcĸи игpaчĸи, пpoизвeдeни oт тoзи вид плacтмaca. Peдицa пoтpeбитeлcĸи cтoĸи cъщo cпaдaт в тaзи гpyпa ĸaтo ĸaбeли, тpъби, BиK чacти, мapĸyчи и дpyги.
LDРЕ
Toвa e мapĸиpoвĸa, ĸoятo нaй-чecтo ce cpeщa пpи бyтилĸитe, cъxpaнявaщи вoдa, тъй ĸaтo плacтмacaтa нe ocвoбoждaвa вpeдни xимичecĸи вeщecтвa във пoмecтeнaтa тeчнocт. Baжнo e дa ce пoмни, чe тoзи тип мaтepиaл e бeзoпaceн caмo aĸo бъдe изпoлзвaн зa cъxpaнeниe нa вoдa. Πpи cъxpaнeниeтo нa вcяĸaĸъв дpyг вид тeчнocти или xpaни, плacтмacaтa мoжe дa oтдeли мнoгo oпacни зa cъpцeтo и ĸpъвoнocнaтa cиcтeмa нa чoвeĸ xимиĸaли.
РР
Toвa e бялaтa плacтмaca – пoлипpoпилeн. B пoвeчeтo cлyчaи e пoлyпpoзpaчнa. Упoтepбaтa й e cъcpeдoтoчeнa в oпaĸoвaнeтo нa мляĸo и paзлични видoвe cиpoпи. Πpи нaгpявaнe нe ce тoпи. Toвa e мaтepиaл, oтнocитeлнo бeзoпaceн щo ce ĸacae дo oтдeлянe нa вpeдни вeщecтвa.
РЅ
Eвтинaтa, лeĸa и издpъжливa плacтмaca – пoлиcтиpoл – нe e пoдxoдящa зa cъxpaнeниe нa тoпли xpaни и нaпитĸи. Haпyĸ нa дoĸaзaнaтa oпacнocт, тoчнo тoзи тип мaтepиaл ce изпoлзвa пpи изpaбoтĸaтa нa чaши зa ĸaфe или ĸyтии зa cъxpaнeниe нa xpaнa. Aĸo вce пaĸ ce нaлaгa дa бъдaт изпoлзвaни чaши или oпaĸoвъчни пpoдyĸти oт тaĸaвa плacтмaca e вaжнo дa ce пoмни, чe изoбщo нe бивa дa ce нaгpявaт, a cъxpaнявaнитe xpaни и нaпитĸи тpябвa дa ce пocтaвят cтyдeни.
РС или плacтмaca бeз пocoчeни cпeциaлни знaци
Toвa e нaй-oпacният вид плacтмaca. Tя oтнoвo ce cpeщa пpи бyтилиpaнe нa вoдa или oпaĸoвĸи зa xpaнa. Πлacтмacaтa, c oзнaчeниe РС или липcвaщo тaĸoвa, oтдeля биcфeнoл A. Toвa e вeщecтвo, ĸoeтo cпocoбcтвa paзpyшaвaнeтo нa eндoĸpиннaтa cиcтeмa в opгaнизмa. Oтдeлнo oт тoвa биcфeнoл A пoтиcĸa oбpaзyвaнeтo нa ecтpoгeн и дpyги xopмoни.
Cпeциaлиcтитe cъвeтвaт пpи възмoжнocт зa избop дa нacoчвaмe внимaниeтo cи ĸъм oбoзнaчитeлнитe знaци въpxy плacтмacoвитe издeлия и пpeпopъчвaт ĸoнcyмaциятa нa xpaни и нaпитĸи, ĸoитo ca cъxpaнeни в cтъĸлeнa бyтилĸa/oпaĸoвĸa.
| |
|
Тема
|
Can Quantum Physics Explain Consciousness?
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 09.02.17 07:57 |
|
|
?
NOV 7, 2016
A new approach to a once-farfetched theory is making it plausible that the brain functions like a quantum computer.
The mere mention of “quantum consciousness” makes most physicists cringe, as the phrase seems to evoke the vague, insipid musings of a New Age guru. But if a new hypothesis proves to be correct, quantum effects might indeed play some role in human cognition. , a physicist at the University of California, Santa Barbara, raised eyebrows late last year when he in Annals of Physics proposing that the nuclear spins of phosphorus atoms could serve as rudimentary “qubits” in the brain—which would essentially enable the brain to function like a quantum computer.
As recently as 10 years ago, Fisher’s hypothesis would have been dismissed by many as nonsense. Physicists have been burned by this sort of thing before, most notably in 1989, when Roger Penrose proposed that mysterious protein structures called “microtubules” played a role in human consciousness by exploiting quantum effects. Few researchers believe such a hypothesis plausible. Patricia Churchland, a neurophilosopher at the University of California, San Diego, memorably that one might as well invoke “pixie dust in the synapses” to explain human cognition.
Fisher’s hypothesis faces the same daunting obstacle that has plagued microtubules: a phenomenon called quantum decoherence. To build an operating quantum computer, you need to connect qubits—quantum bits of information—in a process called entanglement. But entangled qubits exist in a fragile state. They must be carefully shielded from any noise in the surrounding environment. Just one photon bumping into your qubit would be enough to make the entire system “decohere,” destroying the entanglement and wiping out the quantum properties of the system. It’s challenging enough to do quantum processing in a carefully controlled laboratory environment, never mind the warm, wet, complicated mess that is human biology, where maintaining coherence for sufficiently long periods of time is well nigh impossible.
Over the past decade, however, growing evidence suggests that certain biological systems might employ quantum mechanics. In photosynthesis, for example, help . Scientists have also that migratory birds have a “quantum compass” enabling them to exploit Earth’s magnetic fields for navigation, or that the human sense of smell could be rooted in quantum mechanics.
Fisher’s notion of quantum processing in the brain broadly fits into this emerging field of quantum biology. Call it quantum neuroscience. He has developed a complicated hypothesis, incorporating nuclear and quantum physics, organic chemistry, neuroscience and biology. While his ideas have met with plenty of justifiable skepticism, some researchers are starting to pay attention. “Those who read his paper (as I hope many will) are bound to conclude: This old guy’s not so crazy,” , a physicist at the California Institute of Technology, after Fisher gave a talk there. “He may be on to something. At least he’s raising some very interesting questions.”
Matthew Fisher has proposed a way for quantum effects to influence the workings of the brain. (Courtesy of Matthew Fisher)
, a physicist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Fisher’s longtime friend and colleague, is skeptical, but he thinks that Fisher has rephrased the central question—is quantum processing happening in the brain?—in such a way that it lays out a road map to test the hypothesis rigorously. “The general assumption has been that of course there is no quantum information processing that’s possible in the brain,” Todadri said. “He makes the case that there’s precisely one loophole. So the next step is to see if that loophole can be closed.” Indeed, Fisher has begun to bring together a team to do laboratory tests to answer this question once and for all.
* * *
Fisher belongs to something of a physics dynasty: His father, , is a prominent physicist at the University of Maryland, College Park, whose work in statistical physics has garnered numerous honors and awards over the course of his career. His brother, , is an applied physicist at Stanford University who specializes in evolutionary dynamics. Matthew Fisher has followed in their footsteps, carving out a highly successful physics career. He shared the prestigious in 2015 for his research on quantum phase transitions.
So what drove him to move away from mainstream physics and toward the controversial and notoriously messy interface of biology, chemistry, neuroscience and quantum physics? His own struggles with clinical depression.
Fisher vividly remembers that February 1986 day when he woke up feeling numb and jet-lagged, as if he hadn’t slept in a week. “I felt like I had been drugged,” he said. Extra sleep didn’t help. Adjusting his diet and exercise regime proved futile, and blood tests showed nothing amiss. But his condition persisted for two full years. “It felt like a migraine headache over my entire body every waking minute,” he said. It got so bad he contemplated suicide, although the birth of his first daughter gave him a reason to keep fighting through the fog of depression.
Eventually he found a psychiatrist who prescribed a tricyclic antidepressant, and within three weeks his mental state started to lift. “The metaphorical fog that had so enshrouded me that I couldn’t even see the sun—that cloud was a little less dense, and I saw there was a light behind it,” Fisher said. Within nine months he felt reborn, despite some significant side effects from the medication, including soaring blood pressure. He later switched to Prozac and has continuously monitored and tweaked his specific drug regimen ever since.
His experience convinced him that the drugs worked. But Fisher was surprised to discover that neuroscientists understand little about the precise mechanisms behind how they work. That aroused his curiosity, and given his expertise in quantum mechanics, he found himself pondering the possibility of quantum processing in the brain. Five years ago he threw himself into learning more about the subject, drawing on his own experience with antidepressants as a starting point.
Since nearly all psychiatric medications are complicated molecules, he focused on one of the most simple, lithium, which is just one atom—a spherical cow, so to speak, that would be an easier model to study than Prozac, for instance. The analogy is particularly appropriate because a lithium atom is a sphere of electrons surrounding the nucleus, Fisher said. He zeroed in on the fact that the lithium available by prescription from your local pharmacy is mostly a common isotope called lithium-7. Would a different isotope, like the much more rare lithium-6, produce the same results? In theory it should, since the two isotopes are chemically identical. They differ only in the number of neutrons in the nucleus.
When Fisher searched the literature, he found that an experiment comparing the effects of lithium-6 and lithium-7 had been done. In 1986, scientists at Cornell University on the behavior of rats. Pregnant rats were separated into three groups: One group was given lithium-7, one group was given the isotope lithium-6, and the third served as the control group. Once the pups were born, the mother rats that received lithium-6 showed much stronger maternal behaviors, such as grooming, nursing and nest-building, than the rats in either the lithium-7 or control groups.
This floored Fisher. Not only should the chemistry of the two isotopes be the same, the slight difference in atomic mass largely washes out in the watery environment of the body. So what could account for the differences in behavior those researchers observed?
Fisher believes the secret might lie in the nuclear spin, which is a quantum property that affects how long each atom can remain coherent—that is, isolated from its environment. The lower the spin, the less the nucleus interacts with electric and magnetic fields, and the less quickly it decoheres.
Because lithium-7 and lithium-6 have different numbers of neutrons, they also have different spins. As a result, lithium-7 decoheres too quickly for the purposes of quantum cognition, while lithium-6 can remain entangled longer.
(Lucy Reading-Ikkanda for Quanta Magazine)
Fisher had found two substances, alike in all important respects save for quantum spin, and found that they could have very different effects on behavior. For Fisher, this was a tantalizing hint that quantum processes might indeed play a functional role in cognitive processing.
* * *
That said, going from an intriguing hypothesis to actually demonstrating that quantum processing plays a role in the brain is a daunting challenge. The brain would need some mechanism for storing quantum information in qubits for sufficiently long times. There must be a mechanism for entangling multiple qubits, and that entanglement must then have some chemically feasible means of influencing how neurons fire in some way. There must also be some means of transporting quantum information stored in the qubits throughout the brain.
This is a tall order. Over the course of his five-year quest, Fisher has identified just one credible candidate for storing quantum information in the brain: phosphorus atoms, which are the only common biological element other than hydrogen with a spin of one-half, a low number that makes possible longer coherence times. Phosphorus can’t make a stable qubit on its own, but its coherence time can be extended further, according to Fisher, if you bind phosphorus with calcium ions to form clusters.
In 1975, Aaron Posner, a Cornell University scientist, an odd clustering of calcium and phosphorous atoms in his X-rays of bone. He made drawings of the structure of those clusters: nine calcium atoms and six phosphorous atoms, later called “Posner molecules” in his honor. The clusters popped up again in the 2000s, when scientists simulating bone growth in artificial fluid them floating in the fluid. Subsequent experiments found
That’s the big picture scenario, but the devil is in the details that Fisher has spent the past few years hammering out. The process starts in the cell with a chemical compound called pyrophosphate. It is made of two phosphates bonded together—each composed of a phosphorus atom surrounded by multiple oxygen atoms with zero spin. The interaction between the spins of the phosphates causes them to become entangled. They can pair up in four different ways: Three of the configurations add up to a total spin of one (a “triplet” state that is only weakly entangled), but the fourth possibility produces a zero spin, or “singlet” state of maximum entanglement, which is crucial for quantum computing.
Next, enzymes break apart the entangled phosphates into two free phosphate ions. Crucially, these remain entangled even as they move apart. This process happens much more quickly, Fisher argues, with the singlet state. These ions can then combine in turn with calcium ions and oxygen atoms to become Posner molecules. Neither the calcium nor the oxygen atoms have a nuclear spin, preserving the one-half total spin crucial for lengthening coherence times. So those clusters protect the entangled pairs from outside interference so that they can maintain coherence for much longer periods of time—Fisher roughly estimates it might last for hours, days or even weeks.
In this way, the entanglement can be distributed over fairly long distances in the brain, influencing the release of neurotransmitters and the firing of synapses between neurons—spooky action at work in the brain.
* * *
Researchers who work in quantum biology are cautiously intrigued by Fisher’s proposal. , a physicist at University College London who has worked on quantum photosynthesis, calls it “a well-thought hypothesis. It doesn’t give answers, it opens questions that might then lead to how we could test particular steps in the hypothesis.”
The University of Oxford chemist , who investigates whether migratory birds’ navigational systems make use of quantum effects, concurs. “Here’s a theoretical physicist who is proposing specific molecules, specific mechanics, all the way through to how this could affect brain activity,” he said. “That opens up the possibility of experimental testing.”
Experimental testing is precisely what Fisher is now trying to do. He just spent a sabbatical at Stanford University working with researchers there to replicate the 1986 study with pregnant rats. He acknowledged the preliminary results were disappointing, in that the data didn’t provide much information, but thinks if it’s repeated with a protocol closer to the original 1986 experiment, the results might be more conclusive.
Fisher has applied for funding to conduct further in-depth quantum chemistry experiments. He has cobbled together a small group of scientists from various disciplines at UCSB and the University of California, San Francisco, as collaborators. First and foremost, he would like to investigate whether calcium phosphate really does form stable Posner molecules, and whether the phosphorus nuclear spins of these molecules can be entangled for sufficiently long periods of time.
Even Hore and Olaya-Castro are skeptical of the latter, particularly Fisher’s rough estimate that the coherence could last a day or more. “I think it’s very unlikely, to be honest,” Olaya-Castro said. “The longest time scale relevant for the biochemical activity that’s happening here is the scale of seconds, and that’s too long.” (Neurons can store information for microseconds.) Hore calls the prospect “remote,” pegging the limit at one second at best. “That doesn’t invalidate the whole idea, but I think he would need a different molecule to get long coherence times,” he said. “I don’t think the Posner molecule is it. But I’m looking forward to hearing how it goes.”
Others see no need to invoke quantum processing to explain brain function. “The evidence is building up that we can explain everything interesting about the mind in terms of interactions of neurons,” said , a neurophilosopher at the University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada, to New Scientist. (Thagard declined our request to comment further.)
Plenty of other aspects of Fisher’s hypothesis also require deeper examination, and he hopes to be able to conduct the experiments to do so. Is the Posner molecule’s structure symmetrical? And how isolated are the nuclear spins?
Most important, what if all those experiments ultimately prove his hypothesis wrong? It might be time to give up on the notion of quantum cognition altogether. “I believe that if phosphorus nuclear spin is not being used for quantum processing, then quantum mechanics is not operative in longtime scales in cognition,” Fisher said. “Ruling that out is important scientifically. It would be good for science to know.”
____________
This post appears courtesy of .
| |
|
Тема
|
Минер. вода в България – къде, коя, какво лекува ?
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 09.02.17 08:16 |
|
|
?
България е надарена с минерални води, които помагат при почти всички болести. Само от болежката зависи дали тя ще се пие или ще поливате кожата си с нея. Единственото, което трябва да се знае е коя вода какво лекува.
Съставът на минералната вода в България може да ни помогне да се отървем от излишните килограми, но в същото време и за да зарасне по-бързо счупена кост. Лекарите съветват да се пие на малки глътки, за да не предизвикаме обратен ефект.
Банкя
Градът е разположен в красива котловина в подножието на северните склонове на Люлин планина, едва на 17 км от София, той е обявен за екологичен резерват. От единното хидротермално находище бликат няколко естествени и сондажни хидротермални източника, с температура на водата 36,5° С–37° С и общ дебит 24 л/сек. Всички тези хидротермални води са с ниска минерализация, хидрокарбонатно-сулфатно-натриеви, с ниска водна твърдост, бистри, безцветни, без мирис и с много приятни питейно-вкусови качества.
Какво лекува минералната вода в Банкя?
Подходящи са за лечение на сърдечно-съдови заболявания, смущения на нервната система, нарушения в обмяната на веществата.
Велинград
Градът е разположен е в Западните Родопи на височина 750 м, в живописната долина на р. Чепинска и отстои на 81 км от Пловдив и на 196 км от Смолян. Температурата на минералните извори е между 28–86° С. Известни са шест термоминерални находища – Чепино, Лъджене 1, Лъджене 2, Каменица, Драгиново и Варварски бани. Бликат около 80 извора, с общ дебит 170 л/сек, които по количество и състав съчетават едновременно лечебните възможности на водите в Хисаря, Баня и Наречен. Водите са с хидрокарбонатни и силициеви съставки, сяра и сероводород, а също и с благородния газ радон.
Какво лекува минералната вода във Велинград?
Курортът е профилиран за лечение на белодробни и ставни заболявания, на неврологични и гинекологични проблеми (в това число и стерилитет), на бъбречни, чернодробни, стомашно-чревни и много други заболявания.
Девин
В централната част на Родопите е разположен балнеолечебният курорт Девин. Минералните води са от няколко извора с голям дебит, разкрити чрез дълбоки сондажи. Температурата им е от 16° С до 72° С. Курортът се препоръчва за лечение на заболявания на опорно-двигателния апарат и на нервната система.
Какво лекува минералната вода в Девин?
Курортът се препоръчва за лечение на заболявания на опорно-двигателния апарат и на нервната система.
Момин проход
Климатичен и балнеологичен курорт, разположен в югозападните разклонения на Средна гора. Намира се на 73 км от София и на 83 км от Пловдив. От незапомнени времена градът се слави с минералните си извори, познати още по времето на Римската империя. Сега минералната вода от 9 извора, с температура 56° С, е събрана в един водосборен басейн. Водата на Момин проход е втора по радиоактивност след тази на лечебния курорт Нареченски бани, трета в Европа и двадесет и пета в света.
Какво лекува минералната вода в Момин проход?
Курортът е специализиран за лечение на хронични неспецифични заболявания на дихателната система, заболявания на централната и периферната нервна система, дегенеративни ставни, кожни и чревни заболявания. Добри резултати дава и лечението на постполиомелитни състояния при децата.
Павел баня
Курортът е разположен сред живописната Розова долина, на 18 км западно от Казанлък. Павел баня дължи своята известност най-вече на термоминералните си води, които са били използвани за лечение още в древността. От седем естествени и сондажни хидротермални източника бликат минерални води, с аналогична физико-химична характеристика – температура от 50° С до 61° С и с общ дебит 16 л/сек, или 1 400 000 л в денонощие. Всички води са с ниска минерализация (0.650–0.671 г/л), хидрокарбонатно-натриеви, с лека алкална реакция (рН 7.6), с ниска водна твърдост (1.7 немски градуса, т.е меки води}. Същевременно те са леко радонови, силициеви и умерено до силно флуорни. Има два хидротермални източника с нерадонова минерална вода и един с по-ниска температура на водата – 31° С. Всички води са бистри, безцветни, с приятни питейно-вкусови качества, макар и с лек мирис на сероводород, поради наличието на сулфиди (3 г/л).
Какво лекува минералната вода в Павел баня?
Заболявания на периферната нервна система – вертеброгенни заболявания (дискови хернии, стеснения на гръбначно-мозъчния канал, радикулити, сколиози, спондилолистези, спондилоатроза, травматични увреждания на периферната нервна система); травматични увреждания на централната нервна система, предимно на гръбначния мозък; дегенеративни неврологични заболявания; ортопедични заболявания – посттравматични и дегенеративни ставни и периставни заболявания; други заболявания – кариеси, гингивити и прочие.
Сандански
Международно известен климатичен и балнеолечебен курорт, разположен в долината на р. Санданска Бистрица, в подножието на югозападните склонове на Пир. На територията на Община Сандански има 6 минерални извора. Минералните води са хидрокарбонатно-силициева, сулфатно-натриева и флуорна. Курортът е специализиран за лечение на заболявания на горните дихателни пътища и белите дробове от нетуберкулозно естество и за възпалителни дегенеративни ставни заболявания.
Какво лекува минералната вода в Сандански?
Курортът е специализиран за лечение на заболявания на горните дихателни пътища и белите дробове от нетуберкулозно естество и за възпалителни дегенеративни ставни заболявания.
Сапарева баня
Балнеолечебен курорт, разположен в живописна котловина между планините Рила и Верила, по левия бряг на р. Джерман. Сапарева баня се гордее както със своята много студена и чиста планинска вода за пиене, така и с уникалната си минерална вода, която е една от най-горещите в Европа – с температура от 103° С. В центъра на Сапарева баня блика единственият гейзер на Балканите.
Какво лекува минералната вода в Сапарева баня?
Лекуват се заболявания на опорно-двигателния апарат, на периферната нервна система и гръбначния стълб, посттравматични състояния, ортопедични, дегенеративно-ставни, кожни и гинекологични заболявания.
Хисаря
Международно известен балнеолечебен курорт, разположен в южните склонове на Същинска Средна гора. Намира се на 42 км от Пловдив. В Хисар е поставено началото на организираното балнеолечение в страната. Има 22 минерални извора – 16 естествени и 6 чрез дълбоко сондиране, с температура от 37° С до 51° С и общ дебит 4000 л/сек. Водата е слабоминерализирана – 0,257 г/л, хидрокарбонатно-сулфатна, хлорна и натриева, флуорно-силициева, алкална. С висока стойност на рН – 9, без цвят и мирис, с приятен вкус.
Какво лекува минералната вода в Хисаря?
Минералната вода на Хисар може да се ползва като трапезна и за профилактика на: стомашно-чревни заболявания; бъбречно-каменна болест и бъбречно-урологични заболявания; жлъчно-каменна болест; заболявания на опорно-двигателния апарат; гинекологични заболявания; стоматологични заболявания и профилактика на зъбния кариес, хронична интоксикация с тежки метали и фармацевтични препарати.
| |
|
Тема
|
Да предотвратим рака на простатата със зелен чай
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 11.02.17 23:32 |
|
|
„Ракът на простатата е водеща причина за болест и смърт сред мъжете в Западния свят, но процентът на заболявания от рак на простатата в Азия се оказва десет пъти по-нисък. Може би генетично просто е по-малка вероятността те да се разболеят? Не, японците и китайците, които живеят в Америка, имат също висок процент на заболеваемост от рак на простатата.
В Съединените щати един на всеки трима мъже на около 30-годишна възраст вече има малки образувания на растящи ракови клетки на простатата си и те всъщност се превръщат в рак при почти две трети от американците до 60-годишна възраст. Чрез аутопсия се открива, че повечето възрастни мъже са имали неизвестни ракови тумори в простатата. Забележително е, че азиатците също имали преобладаващи от тези скрити латентни ракови образувания на простатата при аутопсия, но туморите не изглежда да са склонни да се развиват толкова, че да причиняват проблеми. В Япония хората по-скоро умират заедно с туморите си отколкото заради тях. Разбира се това се променя, тъй като азиатското население продължава да подражава на начина на хранене на Запад.“
Вижте цялата информация във видеото по-горе…
Източник:
Превод, корекция и обработка: Цветомира Енчева и Петър Енчев
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Да предотвратим рака на простатата със зелен чай
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
| (>[2] /dev/null) |
| Публикувано | 12.02.17 01:54 |
|
|
Ракът на простратата не е водеща причина за смърт сред мъжете в Западния свят. Дори не е водеща причина за смърт сред раковите заболявания.
Абе, кога ще се научиш да проверяваш малоумщините преди да ги копираш? Вдигни малко нивото на форума, не копирай лъжи!
The last good thing written in C was Franz Schubert's Symphony No. 9.
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Да предотвратим рака на простатата със зелен чай
[re: |]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 12.02.17 06:13 |
|
|
Бъркаш "водеща причина" с "водещата причина". Като сочиш някого с пръст обикновено четирите други пръсти сочат към теб. Проекция му викат психолозите...
Ракът на простатата е . На Запад той е третият по ред вид рак с най-голяма смъртност (след рак на белите дробове и рак на дебелото черво). А според СЗО ракът е втората причина за смъртност в Европа (""...).
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Да предотвратим рака на простатата със зелен чай
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
| (>[2] /dev/null) |
| Публикувано | 12.02.17 06:41 |
|
|
Прав си, ракът на простатата е най-честия рак при мъжете на Запад. За разлика от теб, аз винаги признавам когато греша. Но не е най-честото заболяване и не причинява най-много смъртни случаи дори и сред раковите заболявания.
Но между "водеща" и "водещата" няма абсолютно никаква разлика.
The last good thing written in C was Franz Schubert's Symphony No. 9.
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Да предотвратим рака на простатата със зелен чай
[re: |]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 12.02.17 23:54 |
|
|
В отговор на:
Но между "водеща" и "водещата" няма абсолютно никаква разлика.
Има разлика, понеже ракът така или иначе не е водещата причина за смърт на Запад (според СЗО), но e сред първите няколко водещи причина за смърт на Запад (според СЗО).
Редактирано от Mod vege на 12.02.17 23:55.
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Да предотвратим рака на простатата със зелен чай
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
| (>[2] /dev/null) |
| Публикувано | 13.02.17 01:28 |
|
|
Няма няколко водещи причини. Водещата причина е винаги една.
The last good thing written in C was Franz Schubert's Symphony No. 9.
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Да предотвратим рака на простатата със зелен чай
[re: |]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 13.02.17 22:27 |
|
|
Перефразирах ти СЗО, а сега като за теб специално (явно имаш нужда от специални буквоядски обяснения) и ще ти ги цитирам:
""
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Да предотвратим рака на простатата със зелен чай
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
| (>[2] /dev/null) |
| Публикувано | 13.02.17 22:40 |
|
|
Я покажи, Гугъл експерте, къде в този списък е ракът на простатата? Ти всъщност изобщо четеш ли текстовете към които даваш линкове? :)
И да ти цитирам пак малоумния текст който беше копирал:
Ракът на простатата е водеща причина
Не "сред водещите причини", не "една от водещите причини", а "водеща причина". И не става дума за буквоядство, а за нагъл опит да се подменя истината с това, което иска да е истина автора. Такива са 90% от статиите към които пускаш линкове. Предполагам, че не е нарочно, просто не си the sharpest knife in the drawer и лесно се хващаш на елементарни манипулации.
The last good thing written in C was Franz Schubert's Symphony No. 9.Редактирано от | на 13.02.17 22:44.
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Да предотвратим рака на простатата със зелен чай
[re: |]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 13.02.17 22:46 |
|
|
Няма да го намериш рака на простата просто щото статистиката от последния цитат е глобална, а в моята тема става дума само за мъжете, и то на Запад Аз дадох цитат за да вденеш че СЗО говори за водещИ причини. И сега ще млъкна, не щото отново си победил в поредната дискусия , а щото интелигентността ми не ми позволява да ти доказвам поредната аксиома.
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Да предотвратим рака на простатата със зелен чай
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
| (>[2] /dev/null) |
| Публикувано | 13.02.17 22:51 |
|
|
Хайде още веднъж, бавничко, като за недоучил диетолог... :)
Има разлика между "водеща причина" и "водещи причини". Няма разлика между "водещата причина" и "водеща причина".
Сега схвана ли, или трябва да ти го рисувам?
И, защо изобщо даде линка към WHO след като няма нищо за рака на простатата? Да покажеш, че "водеща причина" може да се използва в множествено число когато изброяваш няколко причини? :)
The last good thing written in C was Franz Schubert's Symphony No. 9.
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Да предотвратим рака на простатата със зелен чай
[re: |]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 13.02.17 23:09 |
|
|
В отговор на:
Няма няколко водещи причини. Водещата причина е винаги една.
Това е цитат от теб. Оборих го.
Ето ти линк от СЗО, където (повтаааряяям кааатооо за тееебеее) се казва че в Европа ракът е втората водеща причина за смърт, а сред видовете рак този на простата е трети по смъртност сред мъжете в Европа:
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Да предотвратим рака на простатата със зелен чай
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
| (>[2] /dev/null) |
| Публикувано | 13.02.17 23:12 |
|
|
Ама наистина ли го обори? А забеляза ли, че когато WHO говорят за "водещи причини" изброяват повече от една?
Пише ли в статията към която си дал линк "една от водещите причини"? Или пише "водеща причина"? Правиш ли разлика между двете?
А линка, който си дал НЕ ТВЪРДИ, че ракът на простатата е трети по смъртност сред мъжете. Няма ли да се научиш най-накрая да четеш текста преди да пускаш линк?
The last good thing written in C was Franz Schubert's Symphony No. 9.Редактирано от | на 13.02.17 23:15.
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Да предотвратим рака на простатата със зелен чай
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
| (>[2] /dev/null) |
| Публикувано | 13.02.17 23:21 |
|
|
А най-забавното е, че дори не знаеш, че в Западна Европа (т.е. т.нар. развити страни) ракът Е водещата причина за смърт.
Което е аргумент в твоя полза, но понякога Гугъл не помага... :)
The last good thing written in C was Franz Schubert's Symphony No. 9.
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Да предотвратим рака на простатата със зелен чай
[re: |]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 13.02.17 23:44 |
|
|
В отговор на:
А линка, който си дал НЕ ТВЪРДИ, че ракът на простатата е трети по смъртност сред мъжете.
Още в началото на има линк и към видео в цитираната от мен , към която се закачи неадекватната ти критика, А още в началото на се цитира изследване, като изрично се подчертава изречението:
""
Така че преди да пишеш, поне малко чети, ако искаш да не останеш единствен дискутиращ със себе си и убеждващ себе си колко си прав.
Редактирано от Mod vege на 13.02.17 23:48.
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Да предотвратим рака на простатата със зелен чай
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
| (>[2] /dev/null) |
| Публикувано | 13.02.17 23:52 |
|
|
Ама разбира се, всички гледаме малоумни видео клипове. Отдавна научните публикации са заменени с клипове в youtube. :)
"A leading cause" не се превежда като "водеща причина" от никой грамотен преводач. Превежда се като "една от водещите причини".
P.S. Не се притеснявай, няма как да остана единствения дискутиращ със себе си. Тази позиция си я заел ти. :)
The last good thing written in C was Franz Schubert's Symphony No. 9.Редактирано от | на 13.02.17 23:54.
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Да предотвратим рака на простатата със зелен чай
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
Chromosom () |
| Публикувано | 15.02.17 00:51 |
|
|
Той не разбира бе - виж колко пъти му отговорих в моята тема. Мисля че мисли със закъснение - винаги пита точно това, на което си му отговорил в предишното мнение, не търси информация в отговора ти и бръщолеви глупости.
Или разбира само от програмиране, или просто си е трол
Или мозъкът му не възприема определени неща - то е все едно на мюсюлманин да обясняваш че светът не е създаден от Алах, или на пушач че цигарите са вредни. Не чуват и това е.
И аз имам един такъв познат - маа сланина и бира само, и като вземе наема - и по някоя пържола и тва му е живота. Иди му кажи че вегетарианството било по-полезно, и ще получиш най-абсурдните аргументи в полза на това че ти си луд, и хората са създадени да ядат месо
Само не разбирам кво правят в тоя форум - дошли да образоват вегетарианците против вегетарианството, е тва нещо не ми се връзва.
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Да предотвратим рака на простатата със зелен чай
[re: Chromosom]
|
|
| Автор |
| (>[2] /dev/null) |
| Публикувано | 15.02.17 02:41 |
|
|
И ти, и модератора, едва се справяте с търсенето в Гугъл. :)
Но дори и това не е основният проблем. Проблемът е, че имате проблеми с абстрактното мислене и не виждате по-далеч от текста в статиите, които четете. Това да провериш дали твърденията в статията са верни или не е абсурд. Щом го пише в Интернет, трябва да е вярно! :)
За съжаление такова е нивото на образованието напоследък...
The last good thing written in C was Franz Schubert's Symphony No. 9.Редактирано от | на 15.02.17 02:41.
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Да предотвратим рака на простатата със зелен чай
[re: |]
|
|
| Автор |
Chromosom () |
| Публикувано | 15.02.17 11:38 |
|
|
Но дори и това не е основният проблем. Проблемът е, че имате проблеми с абстрактното мислене и не виждате по-далеч от текста в статиите, които четете. Това да провериш дали твърденията в статията са верни или не е абсурд.
Пълни глупости. Всичко което пишеш в тоя клуб са простотии, ти сам каза че на практика изобщо не се интересуваш от темата и всичките ти твърдения са необосновани. И не само никой не е длъжен да ти дава точна научна информация наготово (модераторът го прави, аз не), но дори и когато я получиш, не си правиш труда да я прочетеш.
Аз не съм 100% убеден че веганството е най-здравословният живот и със сигурност се съгласявам че при грешното му прилагане може да доведе до сериозни проблеми, но със сигурност е научно доказано че животинските продукти: 1. предизвикват рак и сърдечно-съдови заболявания, 2. са неекологични, 3. са добити чрез ненужна жестокост към животните. Така че експериментът си заслужава, и ако тези трите ги отречеш и отговориш "ами то е още по-екологично ако се гръмнеш", то значи си доста прост.
И като стана въпрос за нивото на образованието, то ще се вдигне ако ти се гръмнеш, тъй като си човек, който категорично отказва да се запознае със съвременната научна информация, да преразгледа фактите и да си състави информирано становище върху съвременните идеи. Аз нямам твърдо убеждение по въпроси, от които не разбирам, ти обаче имаш.
Мисля че с това моят отговор към твоята позиция се изчерпва, пък ти ако искаш спами още и разправяй че си ме затапил.
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Да предотвратим рака на простатата със зелен чай
[re: Chromosom]
|
|
| Автор |
| (>[2] /dev/null) |
| Публикувано | 15.02.17 15:57 |
|
|
ти сам каза че на практика изобщо не се интересуваш от темата
Абе, ти дори и текст на български ли не разбираш? :) Знам, че имаш проблеми с абстрактното мислене, но това не е рокет сайънс... Казах, че не се интересувам какво има в храната, която ям. И обяснението е просто: ям разнообразна храна.
Винаги чета ВСИЧКАТА информация, която се дава. Никога не гледам малоумни филмчета, живота е твърде кратък да се губи за клипчета.
1. Всичко може да предизвика рак. Ако беше чел изследванията и препоръките, щеше да знаеш че 600 грама червено месо на седмица НЕ увеличават шанса за заболяване с рак. Сърдечно-съдовите заболявания зависят основно от това колко се движи човек, а не от това какво яде.
2. Хората като цяло са неекологични. Затова и ти казвам да се гръмнеш. И без това ползата от теб е по-малка от тази от която и да е крава. :)
3. Как разбра, че жестокостта към животните е ненужна? Според мен например е.
Особено забавно е, че си въобразяваш, че си по-образован от мен. Първо, работя като учен. Второ, не съм спирал да уча от 7 годишна възраст. И трето, имам достатъчно научни публикации за да докажа образоваността си.
Та, не си мисли, че ако не споделям малоумщините, в които вЕрваш, причината е че не съм запознат със "съвременната научна информация". Съвременната научна информация не се съдържа в малоумните сайтчета които четеш, а в научните журнали.
The last good thing written in C was Franz Schubert's Symphony No. 9.
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Да предотвратим рака на простатата със зелен чай
[re: Chromosom]
|
|
| Автор |
F14Tomcat () |
| Публикувано | 15.02.17 17:28 |
|
|
Определено застъпвам мнението, че най-екологично ще е да се гръмнеш.
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Да предотвратим рака на простатата със зелен чай
[re: |]
|
|
| Автор |
Chromosom () |
| Публикувано | 15.02.17 18:19 |
|
|
Ами то си учен вземи прочети малко научна информаци за вредите от месото и ползите от растителните храни, и почни да се интересуваш от това какво има в храната, щото е важно.
Това ако си учен наистина - щото учени всякакви. Преди малко една завършила лекарка с многогодишен опит като такава ми обясняваше как сланината била полезна, щото в нея имало ненаситени мазнини, които предпазват от склероза. (Но това само до 30 грама на ден, щото иначе ставало вредно )
Моля анализирай внимателно предходното изречение и ми кажи съгласен ли си с нея - да видим колко точно си учен
Мен ме интересува може ли само с растителна храна да си набавиш всичко необходимо - и ако може, съм твърдо за. Ти не си ми дал нито един аргумент против, освен че тревата била по-неекологична за гледане от кравата, и който си мислел че като се храни добре ще живее по-дълго бил малоумен Е добре, каква е ползата глупостите, които пишеш, и "научаната дейност", с която се занимаваш?
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Да предотвратим рака на простатата със зелен чай
[re: Chromosom]
|
|
| Автор |
| (>[2] /dev/null) |
| Публикувано | 15.02.17 20:59 |
|
|
Точно научна информация чета. Не това което ТИ, типичен игнорамус, си въобразяваш че е научна информация.
Не знам дали сланината е полезна, но в малки количества ОПРЕДЕЛЕНО не е вредна.
Самият въпрос дали с растителна храна можеш да си набавиш всичко необходимо показва отчайващата ти необразованост. НИКОЙ не знае кое е това "всичко необходимо". Учените имат някакви идеи кои са основните необходими неща, но постоянно се правят нови открития, които показват че предишните предположения са неточни или съвсем грешни. Затова най-добрия начин за набавяне на "всичко необходимо" е да ядеш разнообразна храна, включително и месо.
The last good thing written in C was Franz Schubert's Symphony No. 9.
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Да предотвратим рака на простатата със зелен чай
[re: |]
|
|
| Автор |
Chromosom () |
| Публикувано | 16.02.17 00:43 |
|
|
И каква точно научна литература четеш?
Учените имат някакви идеи кои са основните необходими неща, но постоянно се правят нови открития, които показват че предишните предположения са неточни или съвсем грешни.
Така е.
Затова най-добрия начин за набавяне на "всичко необходимо" е да ядеш разнообразна храна, включително и месо.
Двете ти твърдения си противоречат. Може да се окаже, че най-добрият начин е без да ядеш месо. Как ще докажеш че не е така?
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Да предотвратим рака на простатата със зелен чай
[re: Chromosom]
|
|
| Автор |
| (>[2] /dev/null) |
| Публикувано | 16.02.17 02:47 |
|
|
Чета научни публикации. Такива, които ти вероятно нямаш нито интелектуалния, нито финансов потенциал да четеш.
Двете твърдения не си противоречат, ти си мислиш така защото, както казах вече, си игнорамус.
The last good thing written in C was Franz Schubert's Symphony No. 9.
| |
|
|
|
ти верно ли си паднал чак дотам, че да рекламираш зелен чай за превенция на простатата? При това абсолютно псевдонаучна и комерсиална информация? Яко си ретарднал.
| |
|
|
|
Римлянино, и ти ли си развяваш психологическтие проекции публично ? Малко хигиена нямаш ли ... Ай ай.
Къде има реклама ? Къде има комерсиално инфо, пък камо ли псевдонаучно, след като клипчето е пълно с научни изследвания, коментирани от лекар, при което няма една единствена реклама..
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Да предотвратим рака на простатата със зелен чай
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
Chromosom () |
| Публикувано | 16.02.17 17:41 |
|
|
Мод, от тия спамъри вече не ми се пише тук. Много са кухи и досадни. Аз дойдох да питам дали има вегани, не какво мисли някой псевдо-учен за веганството.
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Да предотвратим рака на простатата със зелен чай
[re: Chromosom]
|
|
| Автор |
| (>[2] /dev/null) |
| Публикувано | 16.02.17 19:09 |
|
|
Модератора дори не е и псевдоучен. Кой да ти отговори? :)
The last good thing written in C was Franz Schubert's Symphony No. 9.
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Да предотвратим рака на простатата със зелен чай
[re: |]
|
|
| Автор |
Chromosom () |
| Публикувано | 17.02.17 00:56 |
|
|
Еми ти си ми досаден вече. Не'аш кво да ка'еш.
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Да предотвратим рака на простатата със зелен чай
[re: Chromosom]
|
|
| Автор |
| (>[2] /dev/null) |
| Публикувано | 17.02.17 01:57 |
|
|
На теб определено няма какво да кажа. Всичко минава далеч над главата ти. :)
The last good thing written in C was Franz Schubert's Symphony No. 9.
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Да предотвратим рака на простатата със зелен чай
[re: Chromosom]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 17.02.17 03:50 |
|
|
Това е нивото на дир-а.. А и тук по-скоро е дискусионна платформа, отколкото група по интереси. За второто, по-добре ползвай напр. Фейсбук или
Редактирано от Mod vege на 17.02.17 04:01.
| |
|
Тема
|
Post-Capitalism: Rise of the Collaborative Commons
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 17.02.17 05:18 |
|
|
The Revolution will not be Centralized
This article is a follow-up to : And the Transition to a Resource Based Economy, which examined the effects of ongoing social and technological trends on the capitalist economic system, and the potential for humanity to restructure society and move from a system of scarcity to one of global abundance. While the previous article presented a long-term vision for transitioning towards an alternative Resource Based Economy of abundance, this article will examine the more immediate conditions affecting society and how, over the coming years and decades, the capitalist market will increasingly be eclipsed, circumvented and overshadowed by an emerging Collaborative Commons.
End of an Era
As the disruptive capacities of technological innovations continue to advance at an exponential rate, it is increasingly clear that the capitalist economic model is unable to effectively manage resources and distribute wealth under the conditions of sustainable abundance now being brought forth. Vast increases in productivity and efficiency will be realized in the years ahead through an integrated network of smart-products (termed the Internet of Things, or IoT), accessible renewable energy harvesting technologies, energy sharing across a distributed smart-grid, the decentralization of manufacturing through 3D printing, open online education, the decentralization of finance, legal contracts and governance through Blockchain applications, and the progressive automation of the workforce.
Just as John Maynard Keynes prophesized nearly a century ago, “a point may soon be reached, much sooner perhaps than we are all of us aware of, when these [economic] needs are satisfied in the sense that we prefer to devote our further energies to non-economic purposes.”[1] Keynes foresaw such an economic state of abundance coming about through, what he first termed, technological unemployment which, he stated, “[we] will hear a great deal in the years to come;” the ultimate implication being “that mankind is solving its economic problem.”[2] Keynes looked expectantly to a future in which machines had progressed to the point of providing an abundance of freely available goods and services to humanity — liberating people around the world from menial labor, debt, and servitude for the first time.
Ironically, the operating principles of the capitalist marketplace are bringing us ever closer to this very state, while simultaneously the relevance of the competitive market is progressively undermined by the same emerging paradigm. Capitalist logic dictates that the entrepreneurial spirit of a competitive market will continually drive productivity increases and marginal cost decreases. Marginal cost — the cost of producing additional units of product — is the focus, as this is where entrepreneurs and businesses make their profits in a market-exchange economy (at the margin); and when marginal cost approaches zero, so too does profit. The effects of near zero marginal cost can already be seen wreaking havoc across several media industries, such as entertainment, communications and publishing, as more and more content continues to be shared and made freely available across digital, collaborative networks.
The newest technologies of today are now poised to push marginal cost to near zero across every major sector. As renewable energy harvesting technologies become more accessible and efficient, individual homes and buildings will increasingly produce their own renewable energy and have the ability to share it freely across a distributed digital smart-grid. Alongside the Energy Internet, a decentralized Internet of Things will connect our smart-products and optimize efficiencies, both within the home and across the economy, in real-time. Education is becoming freely accessible through open online learning environments, such as MOOCs — Massive Open Online Courses. Digital cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin, are enabling peer-to-peer finance options for a decentralized age, where instant transactions of any denomination to anywhere on the planet can be made with next to no transaction fee and without the involvement of a third-party (e.g., banks). Advanced robotics, data analysis, and artificial intelligence will increasingly take the place of humans across all sectors of the workforce. The automation of wage labor will lead to vast efficiency increases in the economy and ultimately liberate humanity from pecuniary tasks for the first time. 3D printing at scale promises to dramatically increase economic productivity and sustainability, using one-tenth of the material of traditional manufacturing, while eliminating the need for long-range shipping and logistics through the exchange of digital schematics over open networks. As these technologies continue their exponential rate of growth, an increasing number of products and services will be produced and exchanged across an unrestricted and free-flowing lateral Commons at near zero marginal cost.
Economists such as Keynes have long been aware that the most optimally efficient state of capitalism is at near zero marginal cost. Through the inherent competitive drive for lower costs and increased productivity and efficiencies, near zero marginal cost is an inevitability under capitalist defined principles. When the cost of producing an additional good or service is nearly zero, products become available at next to no cost, profits evaporate and the exchange of property in markets shuts down. Though this state represents the ultimate triumph of capitalism, it also marks its obsolescence and passage from the world stage.
As goods and services become more freely available, the sun will begin to set on the capitalist era. Capitalism is designed to manage resources within a closed system of scarcity, and it is thoroughly ineffective at organizing the economic life of a society in which access is valued over ownership, transparency over privacy, and collaborative co-creation over competition. The foundational principals and philosophies upon which the capitalist system is based — private property, wage labor, profit-driven competition and debt-based finance — are no longer relevant under such conditions. Empowered and driven by recent technological innovations, a new economic system is now emerging that is significantly better suited for organizing a society characterized by sustainable abundance rather than scarcity.
Technological Disruption
The Internet of Things
The Internet of Things is the foundational intelligent infrastructure of the new economy — integrating a Communications Internet, Energy Internet and Logistics Internet into a single IoT operating system. Hundreds of billions of consumer products will eventually be connected to the internet and to one another, feeding real-time data to an integrated global neural network. Corporations around the world are already beginning to develop and distribute “smart” appliances and products that are capable of being connected to the internet and controlled by consumers via Wi-Fi. One of the most powerful effects of this global network of things will be the comprehensive energy efficiency and productivity gains across society, largely afforded by big data analysis. According to Jeremy Rifkin:
“The Internet of Things will connect everything with everyone in an integrated global network. People, machines, natural resources, production lines, logistics networks, consumption habits, recycling flows, and virtually every other aspect of economic and social life will be linked via sensors and software to the IoT platform, continually feeding Big Data to every node — business, homes, vehicles — moment to moment, in real time. Big Data, in turn, will be processed with advanced analytics, transformed into predictive algorithms, and programmed into automated systems to improve thermodynamic efficiencies, dramatically increase productivity, and reduce the marginal cost of producing and delivering a full range of goods and services to near zero across the entire economy.”[3]
The IoT is inherently designed to be open, distributed, and collaborative, giving anyone the freedom to utilize this collective data, create applications, and contribute to increasing economic efficiencies. However, the IoT is not just about data analysis. One of its defining features is making possible the transition from carbon-based fuels to renewable energy sources through a distributed Energy Internet. Taken as the sum of its parts, the Internet of Things will enable humanity to use less of the Earth’s resources dramatically more efficiently and, ultimately, aid in re-integrating our species with the biosphere of the planet.
Aggregate energy efficiency is the “ratio of useful to potential physical work that can be extracted from materials.”[4]
“During the period from 1900 to 1980 in the United States, aggregate energy efficiency…steadily rose along with the development of the nation’s infrastructure, from 2.48 percent to 12.3 percent…leveling off in the late 1990s at around 13 percent with the completion of the Second Industrial Revolution infrastructure. Despite a significant increase in efficiency, which gave the United States extraordinary productivity and growth, nearly 87 percent of the energy used in the Second Industrial Revolution was wasted during transmission.”[5]
Further efficiency gains under the current fossil fuel-based infrastructure are limited, since the technologies designed for this system, such as the internal-combustion engine and the centralized electricity grid, have few productivity gains left to exploit. However, studies indicate that, through a transition to an IoT infrastructure, “it is conceivable to increase aggregate energy efficiency to 40 percent or more in the next 40 years, amounting to a dramatic increase in productivity beyond what the economy experienced in the twentieth century.”[6]
Distributed Renewable Energy
An Internet of Things infrastructure will incorporate an Energy Internet, in which prosumers (consumers who have become their own producers) are empowered to share excess energy across an open and distributed IoT enabled smart-grid.
Initially, smart appliances may increase energy efficiency in the home by simply communicating with one another to reduce energy use. For example, this could be accomplished by not operating at peak times on the grid, or not all turning on at once, or charging an electric vehicle (EV) during the cheapest and most efficient hours of the night. However, as technologies for renewable and free energy harvesting (e.g., solar, wind, etc.) become exponentially more efficient and accessible to the average consumer it becomes possible for every household to harvest their own free and renewable energy, and share any excess (which may initially be done by selling it back to the utility company for a reduction in costs) across a decentralized smart-grid, or Energy Internet. It is even possible to utilize EVs as an energy storage device and to distribute this stored energy back into the grid during peak times.
Numerous sources of clean and renewable energy are already available, including: solar, wind, wave and tidal action, ocean currents, temperature differentials, falling water, geothermal, electrostatic, hydrogen, natural gas, algae, biomass, bacteria, phase transformation, fresnel lenses, and thermionics, amongst others. Geothermal energy alone can supply more than five hundred times the energy contained in all of the world’s known fossil fuel resources.[7] Additionally, every hour the sun radiates more energy onto the earth than the entire human population uses in one year.[8] Harnessing just one-tenth of 1 percent of the sun’s energy that hits the Earth would give us six times the energy that the global economy now consumes.[9]
Just as Moore’s Law applies to computing technology, solar and wind harvesting technologies are now experiencing exponential growth curves of their own, with geothermal, biomass and hydro expected to follow. For solar photovoltaic cells, the same “doubling” phenomenon as seen with computer chips has been observed, and price has tended to drop 20 percent for every doubling of industry capacity.[10] The price of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells has fallen from $60 per watt in 1976 to $0.66 per watt in 2013, while efficiency of triple junction solar cells has reached 41 percent in the lab.[11] According to industry analysts, “the harvesting technology for solar and small wind power will be as cheap as cell phones and laptops within 15 years.”[12]
Within 10 years, it is projected that every building in America and Europe will be equipped with digital smart-meters that will be capable of optimizing the efficiency of devices and appliances within the home,[13] as well as continuously feeding and receiving real-time data from the IoT network. In the coming years, prosumers will be empowered to harvest and freely share their own clean and renewable energy across a distributed Energy Internet on an IoT infrastructure.
3D Printing and the Decentralization of Manufacturing
3D printing is the technology behind the manufacturing model that will accompany an IoT infrastructure. As with wind and solar harvesting technology, the development of 3D printers is on an exponential growth curve where the first “low-cost” Stratasys printer entered the market at $30,000 in 2002, while today’s entry-level 3D printers start at just $300. Already, 3D printers are producing a wide range of products, from jewelry and artwork, to car and airplane parts, human prostheses and bionic implants, bioprinted cells and tissue (with the first 3D printed transplant-ready organ scheduled to be printed in 2015[14]), functioning mechanical devices (including weapons), to furniture, to full-scale buildings and parts of infrastructure; even food is now being 3D printed, along with replacement parts for the International Space Station that are currently being printed out in zero gravity orbit.
To increase printing efficiencies, companies are currently exploring the use of abundant and locally available feedstock to create the printer filament. Mcor recently introduced a 3D printer that uses cheap paper as its feedstock, and prints out 3D products in full color with the consistency of wood at 5 percent of the cost. Other such projects include a 3D printer that uses sand to create glass objects, and the Filabot printer which grinds up and recycles plastic objects to produce its own filament. Sand, rock, and virtually any type of discarded waste material have the potential to be used for 3D construction and in 3D printed buildings. The European Space Agency has even designed a printer with the potential to use lunar soil as its feedstock to construct buildings on the moon.[15]
Though 3D printing may still be a niche area of manufacturing, its future disruptive potential is vast. Of most significance, the designs or schematics for 3D printed products are downloadable digital files that are able to be instantaneously shared online to any point on the planet, just as any type of digital media file. As with other online networks, 3D printing communities, such as Thingiverse or Youmagine, are doing away with intellectual property protection and are instead opting for open-source sharing, making their products freely available for anyone to use and modify. In this way, printed products can be made instantly available worldwide at a fraction of the cost and eliminate the need for long-range shipping. Additionally, 3D printers use just one-tenth of the material of traditional manufacturing,[16] can print their own spare parts, require very little human labor, and can create single customized products or large batches designed to order at virtually the same unit cost and without the need to retrofit an entire manufacturing facility, giving 3D printing immense advantages in efficiency and productivity.
3D printing will drive the decentralization of manufacturing as it scales. Embedded in an Internet of Things infrastructure, anyone on the planet is enabled to become a prosumer and create products for use or sharing over global networks. By allowing anyone and everyone access to a highly efficient means of production, 3D printing will reduce marginal costs to near zero for the majority of consumer products while circumventing and undermining traditional markets of exchange.
Cryptocurrency, Peer-to-Peer Finance and Blockchain 2.0
Though cryptocurrency and its underlying Blockchain may be several of the newest disruptive technologies (the Bitcoin whitepaper having been released in 2008, with the currency coming online the following year), their underlying applications are easily the most widespread (many of which are only now beginning to be explored), and their ultimate potential for disruption is likely yet to be realized.
Cryptocurrency, such as Bitcoin, is the mode of financial exchange that has been painfully absent from an increasingly interconnected world of instant digital communications. The digital currency is built upon an open-source protocol (its code is available for anyone to view), is secured by cryptography, and enables peer-to-peer transactions to take place over a decentralized global network without the need for any sort of intermediary third party (e.g., bank, government, etc). Essentially, it is a global decentralized digital currency, outside the realm of control of any centralized governing authority or entity.
Cryptocurrency transactions can be instantaneously sent anywhere in the world, in any denomination, with next to no transaction fee. This characteristic alone gives cryptocurrency the ability to reinvigorate and revolutionize the world of micro-payments, micro-lending, and remittance payments. With digital cryptocurrencies, foreign workers around the world are able to transfer remittance payments back to their families without having to pay exorbitant fees, often upwards of $30 USD per transaction, charged by companies such as Western Union. The micro-lending model, used to fund startup businesses and humanitarian projects around the world, has similarly been hindered by high global transfer fees on small sums and can now be reinvigorated through free-flowing cryptocurrency transactions.
Furthermore, cryptocurrency presents an opportunity to circumvent the ad-based revenue model for online digital content creation. Currently, user created content posted to YouTube, for example, takes in revenue through short advertisements that viewers are forced to watch, while the third party host (in this case Google) assumes a percentage of revenue from each creator. With the ability to send direct peer-to-peer micro-payments, it is possible to support content creators directly, without the need for any sort of third party intermediary. In the same way, small denominations of cryptocurrency could be attached to social media “likes,” empowering users to directly support one another for content creation and sharing— further incentivizing the creation of quality content and online initiatives. Even if just five or ten cents worth of cryptocurrency is attached to a “like,” if a video has one-hundred thousand views and half of those people send a five cent “like,” the content creator will directly receive $2,500 for their content, without the need for any corporate advertisement or third party fees.
The underlying technology that enables these secure peer-to-peer transactions to take place over a decentralized network is called the Blockchain. Cryptocurrency protocols, like Bitcoin, were simply the first widespread application of this technology. Numerous Blockchain 2.0 applications are now in development, many of which could be used to help manage an IoT infrastructure.
Smart contracts are computer programs that can automatically execute the terms of a contract once the agreed upon conditions are fulfilled. These could include simple transactions such as an online shopping purchase, or executing the terms of a will. Moreover, as smart devices and products continue to proliferate across an Internet of Things infrastructure they will increasingly integrate and register with the Blockchain and be able to be bought, sold and operated in line with the terms of smart contracts. For example, a car could be programmed to only operate for its rightful owner, or a house could be rented out whose doors will unlock via the tenant’s phone for a pre-determined length of time.[17]
The applications of the Blockchain are far-reaching, and largely beyond the scope of this article. The final application that will be mentioned here, that may be useful in a Collaborative Commons, is the potential to decentralize governance. Over the Blockchain, it is possible to conduct cryptographically secure and anonymous digital voting across the globe, where a unique crypto-token could be issued to the pool of voters that could then be used to cast a digital vote. Given the simplicity of conducting a crypto-vote, it is possible that democracies could become more secure, liquid, and less centralized, such that individuals would be able to vote directly on major issues themselves, rather than having to rely on elected representatives who are often under the influence of partisan politics, corporate lobbyists and politically motivated short-sightedness.
Though cryptocurrency and the Blockchain are relatively recent technologies, it is likely that both will be integral to the IoT infrastructure and play a significant role in facilitating and managing the new economy.
Automation and the End of Wage Labor
By now it is no secret that robotics, artificial intelligence (AI), big data, advanced analytics and algorithms are increasingly replacing human labor. Between 1997 and 2005, “manufacturing output increased by 60 percent in the United States while 3.9 million manufacturing jobs were eliminated during roughly the same period.”[18] Labor that was once outsourced to cheaper work forces overseas is now being repatriated with advanced robotics that are cheaper and more efficient than their foreign counterparts. Beyond manufacturing, logistics is becoming increasingly automated, from autonomous robots and storage systems in warehouses to driverless vehicles that are already beginning to be seen on public roadways, increasing efficiency and decreasing marginal cost at every step of the logistics value chain. Similarly, many white-collar and service industry positions are being transferred to machines just as quickly, eliminating the need for secretaries, phone operators, travel agents, bank tellers, cashiers, etc. The online retail sector is growing by 15 percent per year and is expected to double by 2020.[19] With much higher costs and payrolls, it is likely that many brick-and-mortar retailers will ultimately succumb to their virtual equivalents.
Professionals and knowledge workers are equally expendable, as advanced algorithms and AI are increasingly utilizing big data to recognize patterns, advance hypotheses and implement solutions. Many formulaic news and sports articles are now being written by AI, which have been capable of passing the Turing test online for some time, and can be published within minutes of an event.[20] Professionals from lawyers, to accountants, to middle managers and marketers — all are facing replacement by innovative big data algorithms.
The complete automation of the workforce has the ability to free humanity from wage labor and for the first time in history allow individuals to pursue their true passions, free of any sort of debt or servitude. There is no task that could not ultimately be carried out by machines or managed by sophisticated artificial intelligence. Computers will eventually be able to design their own programs, improve and repair their own circuitry, and update information about the social needs of humanity. Autonomous machines and self-erecting structures could excavate canals, dig tunnels, construct bridges and dams, and efficiently build advanced infrastructure on a global scale. Human participation would consist of selecting the desired ends.
Over the coming decades, wage labor and the means of production will be increasingly handed off to intelligent technologies. Simultaneously, however, the build-out of an IoT infrastructure (which will also contribute to one final surge of wage labor) will usher in a new organizational model, characterized by distinct values that can already be seen emerging.
The Collaborative Commons
Throughout history, major economic transitions have come about with the development of new energy regimes paralleled by new communication mediums to manage such systems. In the years ahead, the internet will increasingly be used to manage a distributed renewable energy regime and automated infrastructure, within a decentralized global Commons.
As disruptive technologies advance and expand, powerful social forces are being unleashed that are transforming the way in which we view our place in the world.
“Markets are beginning to give way to networks, ownership is becoming less important than access, the pursuit of self-interest is being tempered by the pull of collaborative interests, and the traditional dream of rags to riches is being supplanted by a new dream of a sustainable quality of life…While the capitalist market is based on self-interest and driven by material gain, the Commons is motivated by collaborative interests and driven by a deep desire to connect with others and share. If the former promotes property rights, caveat emptor, and the search for autonomy, the latter advances open-source innovation, transparency, and the search for community.”[21]
One of the defining features of a Collaborative Commons is its distributed and decentralized nature. As society increasingly transitions to Collaboratism, the centralizing nature of both the capitalist free market and the socialist bureaucratic state are undermined. The once dominant hold of these economic regimes is circumvented through a combination of decentralized networks of collaboration and the automation of economic infrastructure. The very operating logic of the IoT infrastructure optimizes peer-to-peer exchange across lateral networks while promoting universal access, transparency, inclusion, co-creation and innovation. An open and distributed nature is what allows the Collaborative Commons to break the monopolistic holds of centralized corporations on capitalist markets, and enable peer-to-peer production to scale across lateral global networks at near zero marginal cost — for example, the sharing of distributed renewable energy across a decentralized smart-grid.
On the Collaborative Commons, a new type of incentive is driving creativity and innovation. The expectation of financial reward loses relevance when prosumers begin to produce their own products for use and exchange, and marginal costs approach zero. In the Commons, the expectation of financial reward is quickly being replaced by the desire to advance the social well-being of humanity. In other words, “economic welfare is measured less by the accumulation of market capital and more by the aggregation of social capital.”[22]
Millions of people are already beginning to participate in a Collaborative Commons, sharing everything from cars and bikes, to homes and toys, to tools and skills, and even food, medical data and DNA profiles in patient-driven health care and research networks, while prosumers are producing and sharing their own green energy, 3D printed goods, open online courses, news and entertainment.
Car-sharing is becoming increasingly popular, with memberships projected to grow from “seven-hundred thousand to fifteen million in less than seven years.”[23] While car-sharing frees users from the burden of ownership and operating costs including maintenance, insurance, taxes, etc., it also lowers the number of cars on the road and reduces carbon emissions. In 2009, for example, it was found that “each car-share vehicle eliminated 15 personally owned cars.”[24] With the average vehicle in the United States sitting idle for 92% of the time,[25] Lawrence D. Burns, professor of engineering at the University of Michigan and former corporate VP of research, development, and planning at General Motors, has concluded that “about 80% fewer shared, coordinated vehicles would be needed than personally owned vehicles to provide the same level of mobility…[and] could be more than 70% cheaper.”[26] With the advent of driverless vehicles in the years ahead, it is likely that the shift in personal transport from ownership to access in a shared Commons will quicken.
As the IoT infrastructure continues to develop, the collaborative economy will become increasingly disruptive as it progressively undercuts profit margins and ultimately drives marginal costs of consumer products to near zero.
Privacy and Intellectual Property
In an economy that is largely defined by transparency, inclusivity and accessibility to free-flowing goods across open networks, the layers of past enclosure are quickly being dissolved.
“For a younger generation growing up in a globally connected world where every moment of their lives are eagerly posted and shared with the world…freedom is not bound up in self-contained autonomy and exclusion, but rather, in enjoying access to others and inclusion in a global virtual public square. The moniker of the younger generation is transparency, the modus operandi is collaboration, and its self-expression is exercised by way of peer production in laterally scaled networks.”[27]
The question then becomes, how to protect certain types of personal information and data without compromising the transparent and accessible nature of open networks. The European Commission has already established several principles which aim to address this issue and help guide the development of an IoT infrastructure, such that: “it should be ensured, that individuals remain in control of their personal data and that IoT systems provide sufficient transparency to enable individuals to effectively exercise their data subject rights…[and] that no unwanted processing of personal data takes place.”[28] However, enforcing such principles over decentralized networks may be easier said than done, and it may prove that much of the onus for protecting one’s privacy could largely fall to individuals themselves (e.g., turn off GPS tracking if you don’t wish to be tracked, use private or encrypted messaging for secure chat, etc.).
In terms of intellectual property, new licensing options have been developed to protect the collaborative, shareable and “remix” nature of the Commons where cutting, pasting, modifying and expanding upon the past works of others is permitted, and even encouraged. The “Creative Commons” (CC) license is free of charge for content creators, with which rights such as the freedom to share the work, to remix or modify the work, to use the work for purely non-commercial purposes, or a combination of all three can be attached. Similarly, the “General Public License” (GPL) is a free license that is widely used for software-specific purposes, whereby the freedoms to use, study, share and modify the software are granted to the end user. As more and more content is integrated and registered on the Blockchain, it is possible for such licenses to be directly programmed into the content itself and autonomously enforced.
In recent years, Creative Commons licensing has gone viral as companies such as Flickr, YouTube, SoundCloud and Wikipedia have all adopted CC content licensing, as well as numerous record labels, public policy networks and open online education programs. Scientific and research communities are increasingly abandoning traditional copyright laws and patents, which often discourage collaboration, slow research and hold back innovation. Instead, more and more scientists, universities and foundation-sponsored laboratories are “uploading their research in open-source networks to be shared freely with colleagues in managed Commons.”[29] Patenting in general is largely irrelevant in an economy of open abundance.
However, a recent issue has been with the flow of big data that is increasingly used to recognize patterns, increase efficiencies and generally solve societal problems. Progressively this data stream is being concealed, restricted and privately controlled by a minority of centralized corporations through traditional intellectual property rights and patents. Big data is a collective information source that is contributed to by millions of individuals and should be open and accessible for the benefit of all. “Just as information wants to be free, Big Data wants to be distributed.”[30]
Governance and Management
The term Commons describes a form of governance, and defines the way in which humans manage the Earth’s resources and make decisions. Specifically, the Earth’s resources are held in common and their distribution is collectively managed.
One form of collective management of a common resource has already been attempted with the internet itself. The internet is inherently designed to be an open, universally accessible and distributed network held in common. As such, a global collective management approach has governed the principles and standards upon which the internet is developed, made up of three primary stakeholders — the government, the private sector, and civil society. A United Nations multi-stakeholder body has been established for these groups to regularly meet and deliberate on policy, with networked regional and national bodies around the world to help maintain a more lateral and collaborative management approach.
Recently, however, this tripartite management structure has run into problems. National governments are increasingly moving to enact their own legislations, citing sovereign rights, which threaten to undermine the open and accessible nature of the internet. The private sector is also moving away from the collective alliance, instead seeking to gain greater profits through more centralized control over how content is delivered. Similarly, large controlling companies on the web such as Google, Facebook and Twitter are increasingly “selling the masses of transmitted Big Data that comes their way to commercial bidders and businesses that use it for targeted advertising and marketing campaigns.”[31] In essence, vertically scaled profit-seeking corporations of the capitalist era are exploiting a laterally scaled and distributed Collaborative Commons for their own private ends. In other words, “companies are operating a social Commons as a commercial venture.”[32]
As dominant companies continue to expand control over major sectors of the internet — “Google ‘owns’ search; Facebook, social networking; eBay rules auctions; Amazon, retail; and so on” — the internet looks “increasingly like a Monopoly board.”[33] Some advocates contend that as these types of corporations begin to resemble natural monopolies (i.e., they become an essential facility by providing a required universal service), they should be regulated as a public utility in order to ensure transparency and objectivity in their operations. The major problem with being regulated as a public service is that potential competition is driven out, thereby, these services become risk averse, resulting in a deterioration of innovation.
Beyond this sort of tripartite hybrid approach to governance of the internet, the most applicable model for collective management in a Collaborative Commons is a cooperative. Cooperatives are inherently designed to operate as a Commons, where resources are equally held in common for all and whose distribution is managed by the collective members. Cooperative logic is based upon collaboration over competition, equity over self-interest, and sustainability over endless growth at all costs. The International Cooperative Alliance (ICA) defines a cooperative as:
“an autonomous association of persons united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social, and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly-owned and democratically controlled enterprise…[further explaining that] cooperatives are based on the values of self-help, self-responsibility, democracy, equality, equity, and solidarity.”[34]
Several rules and standards have been formally ratified as the governance model for cooperatives by the ICA, paraphrased below, to “epitomize the vision and practice of Commons management:”[35]
· Any individual is welcome to become a member.
· Cooperatives are democratically run associations in which each member enjoys a single vote. Elected representatives, drawn from the membership, are responsible for management of the association and accountable to the membership.
· Members contribute equitably and democratically to the capital of their cooperative. Capital becomes common property and members jointly decide how it should be used.
· Cooperatives provide education and training for their members.
· Cooperatives are expected to broaden the networked Commons by providing an ever-expanding and ever-integrating space for collaboration and cooperation across all regions of the world.
· Cooperatives are tasked with promoting sustainable development through the policies and programs they engage in.
Cooperatives already play a large role across many economic sectors, from agriculture, to banking and finance, to retail and health care. More than “1 billion people are currently members of cooperatives…[while] more than 100 million people are employed by cooperatives, or 20 percent more employees than in multinational companies.”[36] In the US, cooperatives account for “more than $3 trillion in assets, over $500 billion in annual revenue, $25 billion in wages and benefits, and nearly 2 million jobs.”[37] It is the coupling of the cooperative model of Commons management with an IoT infrastructure, however, that will enable more efficient production and equitable distribution than ever before.
The cooperative management model offers a means to collectively manage the common resources produced in a highly efficient Collaborative economy, both equitably and sustainably. An Internet of Things infrastructure empowers highly efficient prosumers and distributed manufacturing models. However, these distributed producers must join together in sector-specific cooperatives to fully optimize the lateral power behind them, and to distribute resources in the most equitable and sustainable manner.
Already, cooperatives around the world are beginning to develop foundational IoT infrastructures for the establishment of a sustainable economic paradigm across collaborative decentralized networks. Green energy cooperatives are progressively generating and sharing renewable energy across regional microgrids. Germany is now producing “more than 23 percent of its electricity with renewable energy, much of it generated by local cooperatives…In 2011 alone, 167 new green energy cooperatives [in Germany] were created.”[38] In Denmark, green energy cooperatives have transitioned a tiny island community of 4000 inhabitants to 100 percent renewable energy, where community members were able to join with the cooperatives and assume an active role in the development and management of the wind turbines that were built just offshore.[39]
As a potential enhancement to the cooperative management structure for a decentralized Commons, it is worth noting the very recent development work being done on Blockchain enabled “Decentralized Autonomous Organizations” (DAOs). It was already explained how the Blockchain could be utilized for instant, secure and anonymous crypto-voting, which could lead to a more liquid democratic process. DAOs, in parallel with crypto-voting, could play a more direct role in the management structure itself.
DAOs are essentially open-source and autonomous computer programs that could be used to incentivize and manage participation and resources across a decentralized Commons, such that “decentralized Blockchain technologies bring trust and coordination to shared resource pools, enabling new models of non-hierarchical governance, where intelligence is spread on the edges of the network instead of being concentrated at the center.”[40] A DAO can be thought of as a corporation run “under an incorruptible set of business rules, [and where] these rules are typically implemented as publicly audited open-source software.”[41] Essentially, the collective Commons selects the desired end-goals (and conditions for achieving these goals), while the DAO would then calculate the most efficient means to bring about the determined goals with the resources that are available.
Governance and management tasks that are undertaken by elected officials or corporate boards of directors could in many cases (e.g., the elected representatives in a cooperative) be handed over to a Decentralized Autonomous Organization that would manage according to the democratic will of the Commons, effectively allowing collective communities to operate in a more decentralized and collaborative manner. As in a cooperative, becoming a member of a DAO would enable democratic rights to participate in the management of the DAO and equally share in its collectively managed resources. Both cooperatives and DAOs flatten and democratize, or even invert, the traditional hierarchical pyramid of management such that, instead of a tiny minority dictating actions to the collective below, decision-making power rests with the collective Commons as a whole.
DAOs largely fit a cooperative framework, but take cooperatives one step further in terms of decentralization, democratization, transparency and collective management. Ultimately, DAOs may prove to be an integral component of managing cooperatives on a decentralized Collaborative Commons.
As a final point on Commons management, the significance of reputation systems should be noted. Reputation rankings will play an important role in ensuring compliance with norms and regulating activities. These systems are designed to rank an individual’s social capital in the Commons. With the growth of the Commons, “expect social-capital ratings to become as important to millions of participants on the Collaborative Commons as credit ratings were to consumers in the capitalist marketplace.”[42]
From Scarcity to Sustainable Abundance
Build-out and Financing of an IoT Infrastructure
The build-out of an IoT infrastructure will be carried out and phased in over the next several decades. According to one study, carried out by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), a US based non-profit energy think tank, the cost of phasing in a national Energy Internet over 20 years is estimated between $17 to $24 billion per year, or about $476 billion in total[43] — roughly equivalent to the $470 billion annual revenue of Royal Dutch Shell for 2011.[44] However, the EPRI estimate is a no-frills approach to the smart-grid, consisting of smart-meters and power line improvements. When energy storage and additional hardware components are taken into account, along with the intelligent communication management infrastructure to coordinate the flow, storage and exchange of renewable energy by millions of prosumers — including IT management and big data feedback nodes — total cost for an Energy Internet is estimated at $1.2 trillion.[45]
According to the initial EPRI study, the estimated energy savings for consumers that would result from the installation of an Energy Internet is $2 trillion.[46] This savings alone is justification for the up-front infrastructure costs, however, this figure does not begin to account for the aggregate energy efficiency gains that result from an intelligent IoT infrastructure — a rise from 14 percent efficiency to 40 percent, as previously discussed — and accompanying productivity gains.
Financing and construction of a smart-energy infrastructure is already underway in many countries, most notably throughout the European Union. Fourteen countries are currently implementing smart-grids, financed by slight increases on consumer energy bills with the remainder absorbed by local, state and federal governments in the form of subsidies, incentives and allowances.[47] This is the same mode of private/public financing that has been used to fund national scale infrastructure development in the past.
Energy and utility companies are anxious to profit off of the smart-grid and have, in the past, sought to force a centralized and proprietary architecture of control onto the infrastructure. The European Union has already taken steps to require these companies to unbundle their power generation from electricity transmission, effectively allowing small energy producers to connect to the main grid and ensure the open nature of the Energy Internet.[48] Increasingly, energy corporations seem to be acquiescing to the new energy reality and are changing their business models as a greater number of prosumers are encouraged to produce their own green energy by governments. As more people begin to generate their own renewable energy, the future income of these companies will “increasingly rely on managing their customers’ energy use, reducing their energy needs, increasing their energy efficiencies and productivity, and sharing a percentage of the increased productivity and savings.”[49]
Another important platform in supporting many of the new startups involved in the IoT build-out is crowdfunding. Instead of small startup businesses having to seek out and pitch ideas to venture capitalist investors, who would usually assume some percentage of ownership over the company, startups can now post proposals online and collect small donations from thousands of individual donors that want to support the project. Crowdfunding donors emphasize that it is not so much about the money as it is about “being intimately involved with helping others pursue their dreams and feel that their small contribution…really counts in moving the project forward.”[50] Online social lending and crowdfunding are expected to play an important role in establishing millions of renewable micropower installations as they become more accessible and demand begins to surge.
To help advocate the benefits of an intelligent energy infrastructure social entrepreneurs, such as the Cleanweb Movement, are using social media to “cluster like-minded people together to create lateral economies of scale in the implementation of energy efficiencies and the introduction of renewable energy harvesting technology.”[51] Similarly, a US government initiative called Green Button is encouraging power and utility companies to provide access to real-time energy usage data that is now available with the installation of millions of smart-meters. In less than one year, the number of customers with instant access to their personal energy use data increased to 31 million.[52] Apps are now in development that will allow users to easily share and compare this data with friends over social networks and incentivize increased efficiencies — perhaps ranking user’s homes against one another or comparing the energy use of different brands of appliances, etc. More advanced applications are also being created that will allow people to co-generate and exchange renewable electricity across an Energy Internet.
In February 2013, the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) published a proposal that would create “super Wi-Fi networks across America, making wireless connection free for everyone.”[53] The plan would reemploy unused television station frequencies that are capable of penetrating walls and buildings. This would allow people to make free calls from their phones over the internet, provide free internet access to homes and businesses across the US, and could help spur the introduction of millions of smart devices on a connected Internet of Things. Fundamentally, “the harnessing of near zero marginal cost communications to manage near zero marginal cost renewable energy gives society the critical operating platform to build out the Internet of Things infrastructure and change the economic paradigm.”[54]
The Revolution will not be Centralized
With the build-out of an IoT infrastructure a decentralized Collaborative Commons will continue to strengthen and expand across lateral networks as ownership gives way to access, competition is superseded by cooperation, buyers and sellers transition to prosumers, and markets yield to networks as the marginal cost of producing goods and services drops to near zero across all sectors of the economy. As this new economic paradigm unfolds, a hybrid economy will emerge where some industries based on the Commons will operate at near zero marginal cost, while other industries will continue to cling to capitalist consumer markets.
Companies such as Uber and Airbnb will attempt to bridge the gap between the two economies and take advantage of both. However, as truly decentralized peer-to-peer networks begin to take over at near zero marginal cost these hybrid companies will not last. Hybrid companies like Uber, Airbnb and YouTube, while facilitating lateral networks of exchange, continue to operate around a centralized third-party profit making company. Truly decentralized networks of exchange on the Commons will allow for direct peer-to-peer transactions without the need for third-party intermediary trust or involvement.
In the years to come, an increasing emphasis will be placed on decentralizing and democratizing everything. Already, Blockchain 2.0 communities are working to decentralize the internet itself, where websites, social media and stored data would be hosted across a distributed network rather than on any one set of centralized servers, similar to the way that Bitcoin operates, making censorship, data loss and corruption a near impossibility. Decentralized networks essentially eliminate third-party trust, such that control over the use of personal data is placed back into the hands of the user and is unable to be accessed or sold without their personal consent.
In “decentralizing everything” capitalist markets of exchange will be increasingly eclipsed by collaborative decentralized networks and a foundational infrastructure for a Collaborative Commons will be developed that will propel fresh organizational characteristics and social values in society.
Universal Basic Income
As previously discussed, big data analysis, advanced analytics, AI and robotics will increasingly replace human workforces across all sectors of the market economy as an IoT infrastructure is developed, and the marginal cost of labor drops to near zero. Transitioning to that point, however, will require one final surge of mass wage labor to build-out the infrastructure of the new economy over the next several decades. Millions of workers will be needed to transition from a centralized fossil fuel and nuclear power energy regime to a decentralized intelligent network of renewable energies. Millions of homes and buildings will need to be converted to micropower plants, the electricity grid will need to be reconfigured into a digital smart-grid, hydrogen and other energy storage technologies will need to be developed and installed, and transportation infrastructure will have to be re-configured to accommodate electric and fuel-cell vehicles. These opportunities will fuel the growth of “energy-saving companies, smart-construction companies, green appliance producers…[and] give birth to thousands of clean web app startup companies.”[55]
As this infrastructure is developed, however, and as automation continues to advance, an increasing amount of employment in the capitalist economy will inevitably be handed over to an intelligent automated infrastructure, and human capital will progressively migrate to the Collaborative Commons.
In order to prevent a sudden and catastrophic collapse of the capitalist system, a Universal Basic Income (UBI) will be required to stabilize a transitional hybrid economy as it moves towards a Commons. A UBI is an unconditional income provided to every member of society, regardless of age, working status or level of income. The idea is to maintain a functional market economy that is faced with increasing technological unemployment, wealth inequality, and a hollowing out of the middle class.
Through a Universal Basic Income, every citizen would be provided with enough income to cover the costs of their basic needs. Bettering one’s situation beyond those basic needs is then left to the individual, and in this way, as numerous studies have proven,[56] would have no meaningful effect on incentive to participate in the workforce. Economic activity is also spurred through the eradication of poverty: more people will be participating in the market economy, there will be fewer burdens on health care, less crime, and ultimately an increase in economic productivity and consumption of resources.
There are numerous methods for financing a UBI, including taxation, redistributing existing social welfare payments, and revenues from public resources — such as the Alaska Permanent Fund, which invests 25 percent of oil revenues and issues yearly dividends to all residents. Any existing social welfare programs such as unemployment insurance, social security, Medicare and old age security would all be eliminated and their funding could be put towards a Universal Basic Income. A 14 percent value-added tax (VAT) alone on goods and services would yield an annual UBI of $10,000 for every citizen in the United States.[57] Several less conventional methods to finance a UBI include instituting a capped maximum income level, and paying out wages to “virtual” or automated workers which would go directly into the UBI fund.
Politically speaking, a Universal Basic Income can be viewed as an investment towards the eradication of poverty, with the aforementioned economic benefits, paid for with the dividends of progress. In actuality, a UBI will be required to prevent the sudden systemic collapse of market capitalism.
Sustainable Abundance
When the cost of producing goods and services shrinks to near zero the entire operating rationale of capitalism becomes meaningless. Capitalist markets are based around scarcity and dependency, such that when resources are scarce they have exchange value and can be priced beyond what it takes to bring them to market. When marginal costs of production approach zero “it means that scarcity has been replaced by abundance…[and] the capitalist system loses its hold over scarcity and the ability to profit from another’s dependency.”[58] When scarcity is replaced by the abundance of nearly free goods and services, “products have use and share value but no longer have exchange value…because everyone can secure much of what they need without having to pay for it.”[59] Economies of abundance are already beginning to emerge. In the digital media space, for example, much of this content no longer has significant exchange value but plenty of use and share value across distributed networks.
As scarcity is increasingly uprooted and supplanted by an abundance of resources across the economy through efficient technologies, a new economic indicator is required — one that does not measure growth, but sustainability. While the term abundance is subjective and in the eye of the beholder, the biocapacity of the planet is not. Sustainability is defined as:
“The relative steady state in which the use of resources to sustain the human population does not exceed the ability of nature to recycle the waste and replenish the stock.”[60]
This can be measured by comparing the ecological footprint of a population to the Earth’s total carrying capacity, or biocapacity. Ecological footprint is defined as:
“The amount of biologically productive land and water that is required to produce all the resources an individual or population consumes and to absorb the waste they generate, given prevailing technology and resource-management practices.”[61]
This can then be compared with the Earth’s biocapacity, that is:
“The amount of productive area that is available to generate these resources and to absorb the waste.”[62]
These are all measurable indicators, such that:
“In 1961 our species’ [ecological] footprint was approximately half of the planet’s biocapacity…By 2008, the ecological footprint of 6.7 billion human beings alive at the time was equivalent to 18.2 billion global hectares…on a planet with only 12 billion global hectares of biocapacity available…[meaning that] we were consuming the Earth’s biocapacity faster than it could be recycled and replenished. The United States alone, with only 4 percent of the world’s population, was using 21 percent of the Earth’s available biocapacity.”[63]
To transition to an economy of sustainable abundance, the disparity between humanity’s ecological footprint and the carrying capacity of the Earth must be addressed.
Increasingly, humanity is discovering its true nature — something which greatly differs from what we have been brought up to believe. In the 1990s, mirror neurons or “empathy neurons” were discovered in the human brain, which allow us to experience another’s feelings as our own. For example, when we see another person in pain we similarly have a sense of what that person is feeling and experience an inherent need to help. We largely take these feelings for granted, but are now discovering that these fundamental empathic experiences are what make humanity the most social of creatures and drives our yearning for companionship and social interaction. This is in stark contrast to the autonomous, materialistic and self-interested picture that has been painted of human nature for the last several hundred years.
Studies indicate that the millennial generation is the “most empathic of any generation in history…less interested in keeping up with materialistic trends and less invested in obsessive consumerism as a way of life…the focus on helping others is what millennials are responding to.”[64] These findings coincide with the sharp expansion of a collaborative sharing economy, where access and use value are favored over ownership, exchange value and status. In addition to being less materialistic, millennials are also far more committed to environmental sustainability and stewardship. A 2009 survey conducted by the Center for American Progress found that “75 percent of the Millennial Generation favors a shift out of fossil fuels and into renewable energies — surpassing all the other adult generations.”[65]
Millennials, more than any other generation, seem to be embracing their true empathic nature and are realizing that the path to happiness lies in affection, cooperation and belonging much more than autonomy, competition and rampant materialism. As such, an economy based around scarcity and its associated characteristics is much more likely to breed overconsumption than one based around the characteristics of sustainable abundance. Millennials are now spearheading the co-creation of “a shareable economy that is less materialistic and more sustainable, less expedient and more empathic, [and where] their lives are being lived out more on a global Commons and less in a capitalist market.”[66]
However, bringing humanity’s ecological footprint into balance will require more than just curbing the overconsumption of the rich - it will also require stabilizing the population of the planet through a reduction in the fertility rates of the poor. In industrialized countries today, the fertility rate “has fallen to 2.1 children per women, the rate at which children replace their parents.”[67] In developing nations, much higher fertility rates and larger families exist to ensure that enough children will survive to work the land and provide income for their families.
It is now becoming apparent that access to electricity is the key to lifting people out of extreme poverty and stabilizing population growth. Twenty percent of the human race is currently without electricity, while a further 20 percent has unreliable access.[68] The United Nations has now committed to the installation of renewable energy infrastructure for 1.5 billion impoverished people, with the goal of making electricity universally available by 2030.[69] As nations across the planet are empowered to bring themselves out of extreme poverty through universal access to electricity, it is expected that fertility rates will stabilize at 2.1 children per family worldwide by midcentury — marking a slow decline in human population and an eventual stabilization estimated at roughly 5 billion people, a number that would allow every person on Earth to enjoy a high standard of living in a sustainable economy of abundance.[70]
Conclusion
The productive efficiencies and disruptive capacities of new technologies will increasingly drive the marginal cost of producing goods and services towards near zero. As traditional markets are circumvented, a new economic paradigm will progressively emerge that is built upon decentralized collaborative networks.
An Internet of Things infrastructure will propel aggregate energy efficiency from 14 percent to 40 percent across society. An Energy Internet will empower prosumers to harvest, store and exchange clean and renewable energy across a distributed smart-grid. 3D printing will decentralize the manufacturing process, opening the means of production to anyone and everyone, while generating immense gains in productivity and efficiency. Blockchain applications will eliminate the need for third-party trust and allow for the decentralization of everything from currency and finance, to legal agreements, licensing, social media, data storage, voting and governance.
With the development of advanced robotics, artificial intelligence, big data analysis, and advanced analytics and algorithms, human wage labor and the economic productive activities of the capitalist era will increasingly be handed off to intelligent technologies.
As capitalist markets and wage labor becomes less relevant, an economy built upon new principles and social values will progressively emerge: decentralized networks will take the place of markets; access to an abundance of shareable goods and services will reduce the significance of ownership and private property; open-source innovation, transparency and collaborative co-creation will replace the pursuit of competitive self-interest and autonomy; a commitment to sustainable development and a reintegration with the Earth’s biosphere will redress rampant materialism and overconsumption; and the re-discovery of our empathic nature will drive our pursuit for community engagement and social belonging in a rising Collaborative Commons.
The foundations of this economy will rest upon the principles of democracy, equality, diversity, transparency, universal access and sustainability.
If there is an underlying theme to the emerging paradigm, it is the decentralization of everything.
Further Reading
This article is meant to provide background information and spur discussion on the decline of capitalism and the economic paradigm that is emerging in its wake. For a more in-depth investigation into the topics discussed, Jeremy Rifkin’s latest book, which was used as the primary source material for this article, The Zero Marginal Cost Society: The Internet of Things, the Collaborative Commons, and the Eclipse of Capitalism, is highly recommended.
Donat
| |
|
Тема
|
 Post-Capitalism: Rise of the Collaborative ... 2
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 17.02.17 05:25 |
|
|
...
Donation
As always, the articles that I publish are made freely available to the public and are encouraged to be shared. Self-publishing means that I have no marketing machine behind me, so please, if you have enjoyed the article and wish to continue the discussion please share with your own respective social networks, and of course any donation of any denomination is greatly appreciated!
· Paypal (email)
cj_dew@hotmail.com
· Bitcoin
1BcYWBnMHpqNWpL5CCj74VNRcAM17ukiZU
· ChangeTip (twitter)
@cjdew
Download
A print friendly Word .doc is available for download .
Contact
Christopher J. Dew
cj_dew@hotmail.com
References
[1] Keynes, John M. 1931. Essays in Persuasion, Project Gutenberg eBook, 2011, p.358–74. http://www.gutenberg.ca/ebooks/keynes-essaysinpersuasion/keynes-essaysinpersuasion-00-h.html#Economic_Possibilities (Accessed March 11, 2015).
[2] Ibid.
[3] Rifkin, Jeremy. 2014. The Zero Marginal Cost Society: The Internet of Things, The Collaborative Commons, And The Eclipse of Capitalism, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, p.11.
[4] Ibid, 72.
[5] Laitner, A., S. Nadel, R. Elliott, H. Sachs, and S. Khan. 2012. The Long-Term Energy Efficiency Potential: What the Evidence Suggests, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, p.2. http://amca.org/assets/member-document/6ACEEE-Vision-Report-2012.pdf (Accessed March 11, 2015).
[6] Ibid, 66.
[7] Fresco, Jacque. 2007. Designing the Future, The Venus Project, p.26. https://www.thevenusproject.com/downloads/ebooks/designing_the_future/Jacque_Fresco-Designing_the_Future.pdf (Accessed March 12, 2015).
[8] America’s Solar Energy Potential, American Energy Independence. http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/solarenergy.aspx (Accessed March 12, 2015).
[9] Rifkin, Jeremy. 2014. The Zero Marginal Cost Society: The Internet of Things, The Collaborative Commons, And The Eclipse of Capitalism, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, p.82.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid, 81.
[13] Ibid, 73.
[14] 2014. World’s first 3D-bioprinted transplant-ready organ to be unveiled in early 2015, Russia Today. http://rt.com/news/202175-3d-bioprinted-organ-transplant/ (Accessed March 12, 2015).
[15] Rifkin, Jeremy. 2014. The Zero Marginal Cost Society: The Internet of Things, The Collaborative Commons, And The Eclipse of Capitalism, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, p.95–97.
[16] Ibid, 90.
[17] Cassano, Jay. 2014. What Are Smart Contracts? Cryptocurrency’s Killer App, Fast Company. http://www.fastcolabs.com/3035723/app-economy/smart-contracts-could-be-cryptocurrencys-killer-app (Accessed March 13, 2015).
[18] Rifkin, Jeremy. 2014. The Zero Marginal Cost Society: The Internet of Things, The Collaborative Commons, And The Eclipse of Capitalism, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, p.122.
[19] Ibid, 127.
[20] Dorrier, Jason. 2014. More News Is Being Written By Robots Than You Think, Singularity Hub. http://singularityhub.com/2014/03/25/more-news-is-being-written-by-robots-than-you-think/ (Accessed March 12, 2015).
[21] Rifkin, Jeremy. 2014. The Zero Marginal Cost Society: The Internet of Things, The Collaborative Commons, And The Eclipse of Capitalism, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, p.18–19.
[22] Ibid, 20–21.
[23] Ibid, 226.
[24] Ibid, 227.
[25] Burns, Lawrence D. 2013. A Vision of Our Transport Future, Nature, Vol.497, p.181–82. http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1038%2F497181a (Accessed March 13, 2015).
[26] Ibid.
[27] Rifkin, Jeremy. 2014. The Zero Marginal Cost Society: The Internet of Things, The Collaborative Commons, And The Eclipse of Capitalism, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, p.76.
[28] 2013. Internet of Things Factsheet Privacy and Security: IoT Privacy, Data Protection, Information Security, Digital Agenda for Europe: A Europe 2020 Initiative, p.5 and 7. https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/conclusions-internet-things-public-consultation (Accessed March 14, 2015).
[29] Rifkin, Jeremy. 2014. The Zero Marginal Cost Society: The Internet of Things, The Collaborative Commons, And The Eclipse of Capitalism, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, p.180.
[30] Ibid, 181.
[31] Ibid, 199.
[32] Ibid, 204.
[33] Wu, Tim. 2010. In the Grip of the New Monopolists, The Wall Street Journal. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704635704575604993311538482 (Accessed March 14, 2015).
[34] International Cooperative Alliance Principles and Values, International Cooperative Alliance. http://www.cdi.coop/resource-center/about-co-ops/ica-principles/ (Accessed March 14, 2015).
[35] Ibid.
[36] Rifkin, Jeremy. 2014. The Zero Marginal Cost Society: The Internet of Things, The Collaborative Commons, And The Eclipse of Capitalism, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, p.213.
[37] Hazen, Paul. 2011. Remarks of Paul Hazen — White House Meeting, June 2, 2011, National Cooperative Business Association. http://ncbatest.clickforhelp.com/component/content/article/6-what-we-do/1087-remarks-of-paul-hazen-white-house-meeting-june-2-2011?ncba-font-size=medium (Accessed March 14, 2015).
[38] Rifkin, Jeremy. 2014. The Zero Marginal Cost Society: The Internet of Things, The Collaborative Commons, And The Eclipse of Capitalism, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, p.215.
[39] Ibid, 215–16.
[40] Bollier, David. 2015. The Blockchain: A Promising New Infrastructure for Online Commons, David Bollier. http://www.bollier.org/blog/blockchain-promising-new-infrastructure-online-commons (Accessed March 15, 2015).
[41] Decentralized Autonomous Organization, Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decentralized_Autonomous_Organization (Accessed March 15, 2015).
[42] Rifkin, Jeremy. 2014. The Zero Marginal Cost Society: The Internet of Things, The Collaborative Commons, And The Eclipse of Capitalism, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, p.258.
[43] 2011. Estimating the Costs and Benefits of the Smart Grid: A Preliminary Estimate of the Investment Requirements and the Resultant Benefits of a Fully Functioning Smart Grid, Electric Power Research Institute, p.4. http://ipu.msu.edu/programs/MIGrid2011/presentations/pdfs/Reference%20Material%20-%20Estimating%20the%20Costs%20and%20Benefits%20of%20the%20Smart%20Grid.pdf (Accessed March 15, 2015).
[44] Rifkin, Jeremy. 2014. The Zero Marginal Cost Society: The Internet of Things, The Collaborative Commons, And The Eclipse of Capitalism, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, p.142.
[45] Ibid.
[46] DiSavino, Scott. 2011. U.S. Smart Grid to Cost Billions, Save Trillions, Reuters. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/24/us-utilities-smartgrid-epri-idUSTRE74N7O420110524 (Accessed March 15, 2015).
[47] Rifkin, Jeremy. 2014. The Zero Marginal Cost Society: The Internet of Things, The Collaborative Commons, And The Eclipse of Capitalism, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, p.142.
[48] Ibid, 205.
[49] Ibid, 206.
[50] Ibid, 257.
[51] Ibid, 146.
[52] 2012. Green Button Data: More Power to You, US Department of Energy. http://www.energy.gov/articles/green-button-data-more-power-you (Accessed March 15, 2015).
[53] Rifkin, Jeremy. 2014. The Zero Marginal Cost Society: The Internet of Things, The Collaborative Commons, And The Eclipse of Capitalism, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, p.147.
[54] Ibid, 148.
[55] Ibid, 267.
[56] 2014. Resources, Basic Income Canada Network. http://biencanada.ca/links/ (Accessed March 22, 2015).
[57] Dvorsky, George. 2014. How Universal Basic Income Will Save Us From the Robot Uprising, io9. http://io9.com/how-universal-basic-income-will-save-us-from-the-robot-1653303459 (Accessed March 16, 2015).
[58] Rifkin, Jeremy. 2014. The Zero Marginal Cost Society: The Internet of Things, The Collaborative Commons, And The Eclipse of Capitalism, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, p.273.
[59] Ibid.
[60] Ibid, 274.
[61] Ibid.
[62] Ibid.
[63] Borucke, Michael, et al. 2012. The National Footprints Account, 2011 Edition, Global Footprint Network. http://www.footprintnetwork.org/images/uploads/NFA_2011_Edition.pdf (Accessed March 16, 2015).
[64] Rifkin, Jeremy. 2014. The Zero Marginal Cost Society: The Internet of Things, The Collaborative Commons, And The Eclipse of Capitalism, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, p.282.
[65] Madland, David and R. Teixeira. 2009. New Progressive America: The Millennial Generation, Center for American Progress. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/progressive-movement/report/2009/05/13/6133/new-progressive-america-the-millennial-generation/ (Accessed March 16, 2015).
[66] Rifkin, Jeremy. 2014. The Zero Marginal Cost Society: The Internet of Things, The Collaborative Commons, And The Eclipse of Capitalism, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, p.284.
[67] Ibid, 285.
[68] Ibid.
[69] Ibid.
[70] Ibid.
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Да предотвратим рака на простатата със зелен чай
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
F14Tomcat () |
| Публикувано | 17.02.17 08:24 |
|
|
Фейсбук съвсем не е същото като това тук. И съвсем не е добра идея за всеки.
Много хора нямат фейсбук регистрация например по различни принципни съображения.
Не знам как е там, но тук може би именно заради формулировката "с всичките му за и против" често пишат хора, които по-скоро си избиват комплексите или търсят място където да се разтоварят, чрез подигравателно отношение към нещо, което е различно от тяхното разбиране за нещата, и те не могат да го разберат и приемат.
Това е и до култура на народа или държавата. Примерно във Великобритания е лесно да не ядеш месо, ако щеш и веган да си. Но пробвай във Франция да не ядеш месо и да оцелееш. Практически е невъзможно, ако се опитваш да се храниш навън. Единственият шанс е да си купуваш храна от магазините и сам да си приготвяш всичо. В ресторант няма шанс да си поръчаш нещо безмесно, а по буланжери - нещо като пекарни, в които продават освен хляб, също и сандвичи и сладки неща, всички възможни сандвичи са с месо.
В България обикновено не е трудно в по-големите градове да се храни човек вегетариански по ресторантите, и могат да се намерят подходящи сандвичи. Но в по-малки населени места, села, в места където се предлага храна на работници например, където изборът е по-ограничен, вероятността да се намери нещо различно от кебапчета е малка.
| |
|
|
|
във Великобритания веганите или обикновените религиозни идиоти даже са стигнали до там, че да отказват лекарствена терапия, ако активната или помощните съставки са със животински произход, така че смятай накъде вървят нещата.
| |
|
Тема
|
Scientifically-designed fasting diet lowers risk..
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 21.02.17 07:39 |
|
|
A phase III trial of a fasting-like diet shows the greatest benefit for 'at-risk' patients
Date: February 16, 2017
Source: University of Southern California
Summary: Results of a randomized clinical trial shows a periodic, five-day fasting diet designed by a esearcher safely reduced the risk factors for heart disease, cancer, diabetes and other age-related diseases.
A five-day special diet once every few months cut risks for major diseases.
What if you could lose weight and reduce your risk of life-threatening disease without any changes in what you eat -- other than a five-day special diet once every few months?
That's what happened for 71 adults who were placed on three cycles of a low-calorie, "fasting-mimicking" diet. The phase II trial, conducted by researchers at the USC Leonard Davis School of Gerontology, demonstrated a host of benefits from the regimen.
The diet reduced cardiovascular risk factors including blood pressure, signs of inflammation (measured by C-reactive protein levels), as well as fasting glucose and reduced levels of IGF-1, a hormone that affects metabolism. It also shrank waistlines and resulted in weight loss, both in total body fat and trunk fat, but not in muscle mass.
In effect, the diet reduced the study participants' risks for cancer, diabetes, heart disease and other age-related diseases, according to the findings published Feb. 15 in Science Translational Medicine.
"This study provides evidence that people can experience significant health benefits through a periodic, fasting-mimicking diet that is designed to act on the aging process," said Valter Longo, director of the USC Longevity Institute and a professor of biological sciences for USC Davis and Dornsife. "Prior studies have indicated a range of health benefits in mice, but this is the first randomized clinical trial with enough participants to demonstrate that the diet is feasible, effective and safe for humans.
"Larger FDA studies are necessary to confirm its effects on disease prevention and treatment," he added.
One hundred people participated in the trial from April 2013 to July 2015. The participants, ages 20 to 70 and all generally healthy, were divided into two groups for the randomized trial.
Participants in the first group, the control group, were asked to continue their normal eating habits for three months. People in the second group were placed on a three-month test of the fasting-mimicking diet.
Those on the special diet were required to eat food products supplied by the nutrition company L-Nutra during the fasting periods of five days each month. The diet, which was designed to mimic the results of a water-only fast, allowed for participants to consume between 750 and 1,100 calories per day. The meals for the fast-mimicking diet contained precise proportions of proteins, fats and carbohydrates.
After three months, participants in the control group were moved onto the special diet.
The researchers found that participants on the fasting-mimicking diet lost an average of about 6 pounds. Their waistlines shrank by 1 to 2 inches. Their systolic blood pressure, which was in the normal range when the study began, dropped by 4.5 mmHG, while their diastolic blood pressure dropped by 3.1 mmHg. Also, their levels of IGF-1 dropped to between 21.7 ng/mL and 46.2 ng/mL, reaching a range associated with lower cancer risk.
"After the first group completed their three months on the fasting diet, we moved over participants in the control group to see if they also would experience similar results," Longo said. "We saw similar outcomes, which provides further evidence that a fasting-mimicking diet has effects on many metabolic and disease markers. Our mouse studies using a similar fasting-mimicking diet indicate that these beneficial effects are caused by multi-system regeneration and rejuvenation in the body at the cellular and organ levels.
"Our participants retained those effects, even when they returned to their normal daily eating habits," he added.
The researchers also noted that participants considered "at risk" because they had risk factors such as high IGF-1, cholesterol, blood pressure or blood sugar levels, made significant progress toward better health.
For example, baseline fasting glucose levels for participants with high blood sugar levels (putting them at risk for diabetes) dropped into the healthy range, below 99 mg/dl -- but these levels didn't drop among participants who already had healthy levels at the beginning of the study. Cholesterol was reduced by 20 mg/dl in those with high cholesterol levels, and by about 5 mg/dl in all participants.
"Fasting seems to be the most beneficial for patients who have the great risk factors for disease, such as those who have high blood pressure or pre-diabetes or who are obese," Longo said.
The researchers had invited participants in the study for one last set of tests three months later, at the end of the diet. The research team found that the beneficial effects -- from weight loss, smaller waistlines and lower glucose, blood pressure and IGF-1 levels -- were sustained.
The next step for researchers is a large, FDA phase III clinical trial to test the FMD on patients diagnosed with age-related diseases or at high risk for them. The researchers said further investigation will determine whether the benefits of the diet can continue for several months.
Story Source:
Materials provided by University of Southern California. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.
Journal Reference:
1. Min Wei, Sebastian Brandhorst, Mahshid Shelehchi, Hamed Mirzaei, Chia Wei Cheng, Julia Budniak, Susan Groshen, Wendy J. Mack, Esra Guen, Stefano Di Biase, Pinchas Cohen, Todd E. Morgan, Tanya Dorff, Kurt Hong, Andreas Michalsen, Alessandro Laviano, Valter D. Longo. Fasting-mimicking diet and markers/risk factors for aging, diabetes, cancer, and cardiovascular disease. Science Translational Medicine, 2017; 9 (377): eaai8700 DOI:
| |
|
Тема
|
Холестерол: Наистина ли знаете всичко за него?
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 21.02.17 15:40 |
|
|
Холестерол
Лошият холестерол е тема, по която съществуват много погрешни разбирания. Всички клетки в организма се нуждаят от холестерол за подходящото си изграждане и функциониране. По-голямата част от холестерола в тялото не идва директно от хранителни продукти, като например яйца и месо, а от черния дроб, който може да произведе холестерол от всичко, с което се храним. В такъв случай какво, ако не храната, покачва нивото на холестерола,?
КАКВО ПРЕДСТАВЛЯВА ХОЛЕСТЕРОЛЪТ?
Повечето хора всъщност не знаят какво точно представлява холестеролът.
Без него животът е невъзможен. Клетъчните мембрани, които обвиват клетките и ги защитават, трябва да съдържат холестерол, за да функционират правилно. Той прави мембраните достатъчно твърди и ги предпазва от разкъсване. Но това съвсем не е всичко!
Всички тези жизнено важни компоненти на човешкия организъм са изградени от холестерол:
Естроген
Тестостерон
Прогестерон
Кортизол (хормон на стреса с противовъзпалителни свойства)
Алдостерон (регулира баланса на солите)
Витамин D
Жлъчка (нужна за усвояването на мазнините и витамините)
Мозъчни синапси (обмяна на нервни импулси)
Миелинова обвивка (обвива и изолира нервните клетки)
КАКВА Е РАЗЛИКАТА МЕЖДУ МАЗНИНИ И ХОЛЕСТЕРОЛ?
Холестеролът е изграден от въглерод, водород и кислород. Структурата му наподобява тази на мазнините, но не е толкова мазна, а представлява твърдо, восъчно вещество, което не съдържа никакви мазнини. Ето как изглежда молекула мазнина:
А така изглежда молекула холестерол:
От пръв поглед се вижда, че те са коренно различни една от друга.
Мазнините представляват проста дълга верига, докато холестеролът е сложна комбинация от пръстени – 3 шестоъгълника плюс един петоъгълник. В медицинския университет с умиление го наричат „три стаи с баня”. Изграждането на мазнините е сравнително лесно (включва 11 химични стъпки от ацетил-коА до триацилглицерол), а холестеролът се изгражда трудно – образуването на една молекула изисква над 30 химични стъпки (от ацетил-коА до холестерол). Организмът не би се занимавал с това без причина. Особено при положение, щом веднъж го изгради, тялото не може да го унищожи – няма как да разбие сложната му структура от пръстени.
ХОЛЕСТЕРОЛЪТ В ХРАНИТЕ
Какво количество холестерол трябва да консумираме?
НИКАКВО.
Холестеролът е толкова важен, че организмът може да го произвежда от ВСИЧКО – мазнини, въглехидрати или протеини. Не е нужно да консумирате холестерол, за да може тялото да го произвежда. Дори и ако диетата ви не съдържа никакъв холестерол, като при вегетарианците, организмът пак ще го изгражда. Напишете в интернет търсачката „вегетарианци с висок холестерол” и ще намерите много случаи на вегетарианци, страдащи от висок холестерол, въпреки че консумират НУЛА грама от него.
Кои храни съдържат холестерол?
Всяка животинска клетка съдържа холестерол, следователно всички храни с животински произход съдържат холестерол.
Повечето хора не знаят, че всички мускулни меса (пилешко, риба, говеждо, свинско и т.н.) съдържат почти еднакво количество холестерол за порция.
Определени животински храни – черен дроб, жълтъци, млечни продукти, жлезисти органни меса и мозък – имат високо съдържание на холестерол. На какво се дължи това? Черният дроб е мястото, в което се изгражда холестерола. Жълтъците имат концентриран холестерол, защото развиващото се пиленце се нуждае от него за изграждането на нови клетки. В млякото има холестерол, защото малкото теленце го използва за създаването на нови клетки. Жлезистите органни меса (панкреас, бъбреци и т.н.) съдържат повече холестерол, защото жлезите синтезират хормони, а хормоните са направени от холестерол. В мозъка има огромно количество холестерол, който се намира в миелиновата обвивка. Там той играе ролята на изолатор на нервните клетки.
Всички растителни храни не съдържат холестерол. По-точно би било да кажем, че растителните храни не съдържат животински холестерол. Растенията имат свой собствен вид холестерол, наречен „фитостероли”. Те са токсични за клетките на човешкия организъм, затова нашите черва съвсем разумно отказват да ги усвояват.
Така че, в повечето случаи храните с животински произход съдържат холестерол, който организмът може да усвои и използва, а растителните храни съдържат холестерол, който нашето тяло не може да усвои. Единственото известно изключение от това правило са ракообразните.
Тези животни са два основни вида: ракообразни (омари, скариди, раци и т.н) и мекотели (миди, стриди и т.н.). Ракообразните – гигантски морски насекоми, които ловуват за храната си – съдържат животински холестерол, който тялото ни може да усвои, но мекотелите, които събират хранителни вещества, филтрирайки морската вода, съдържат различен вид холестерол, който ние не можем да усвоим.
Всъщност растителният холестерол и холестеролът на мекотелите не само биват отблъсквани от чревните ни клетки, но и пречат на усвояването на животинския холестерол. Така действат някои предлагани на пазара марки маргарин. Производителите влагат в продуктите променен по химически път вид растителен холестерол, който пречи на усвояването на животинския холестерол.
КОНСУМАЦИЯТА НА ХОЛЕСТЕРОЛ ЩЕ УВЕЛИЧИ ЛИ НИВАТА МУ В ОРГАНИЗМА МИ?
Да, но само, ако тялото ви има нужда от повече холестерол.
Клетките в обвивката на тънкото черво съдържат транспортни молекули (NPC1L1), които поглъщат холестерола. [Лекарствата за намаляване на холестерола блокират NPC1L1, но въпреки това не намаляват риска от инфаркт]. Но ако на организма ви не му трябва повече холестерол, има друга молекула (ABCG4a), която връща холестерола обратно в червата, откъдето тялото го изхвърля. Това е една от причините, поради която практически е невъзможно консумацията на холестерол да увеличи нивата му в организма. Клетките на червата знаят точно какво количество е нужно и няма да позволяват усвояването на повече холестерол.
Ако се замислим, този механизъм е великолепен (човешкото тяло е толкова умно) – организмът не може да разгради сложната структура на холестерола, затова няма смисъл да усвоява прекалено много от него. Веднъж попаднал в тялото, единственият начин за холестерола да излезе, е чрез жлъчката. Защо да се усвоява повече от необходимото, ако след това ще трябва да се премахне?
Но ако нивата на холестерол в организма ви са ниски, клетките в червата няма да го премахнат, а ще го вкарат в кръвообращението, защото вие имате нужда от него.
Нещо повече, тялото ни рециклира холестерола изключително ефективно, защото изграждането му е много трудно. Защо да се полагат излишни усилия? Не забравяйте, че тялото не може да разгражда холестерола, така че единственият начин да се отърве от него, е да го изхвърли. Черният дроб премахва излишните количества, като отделя свободния холестерол в червата заедно с жлъчката.
Тази свободна форма е единственият вид холестерол, който клетките в червата са способни да усвоят. По-голямата част от молекулите холестерол в храната (85-90% от тях) не са свободни, а са под формата на „холестеролови естери”. [Това са молекули, към които са прикрепени мастни киселини]. Клетките на червата не могат да усвояват холестеролови естери, които са главната форма на холестерол в храната. Следователно, ако клетките в червата усещат, че тялото се нуждае от още холестерол, те ще го усвоят обратно от жлъчката, а не от храната.
Да обобщим връзката между холестерола в храната и холестерола в кръвта:
По-голямата част от холестерола в храната не се усвоява, освен ако нивата му в организма са ниски.
Количеството консумиран холестерол почти не влияе на нивата му в организма.
Голяма част от холестерола в тялото се произвежда от клетките на организма. Спомняте ли си онази зловеща реплика от филма „Когато звънне непознат”? „Звънят ви от къщи.” Излишното количество холестерол идва от вашето тяло, а не от храната, която консумирате.
Споделете товаShare on FacebookShare on Google+Pin on PinterestTweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someone
Как тялото произвежда холестерол?
Всички клетки могат да произвеждат холестерол, но тези в черния дроб се справят особено добре. Само те могат да произвеждат повече, отколкото им трябва, и да разпространяват холестерол в други части на тялото.
Нали си спомняте, че за създаването на една молекула холестерол са нужни над 30 химически реакции? Най-важната от тях е стъпка №3, при която важният ензим HMG-CoA (3-хидрокси-3-метилглутарил-коензим А) редуктаза превръща молекула, наречена HMG-CoA, в друга молекула, известна като мевалонат. Щом тази стъпка започне да се осъществява, няма връщане назад. Тази реакция е определяща за това дали ще се произвежда холестерол, или не. Затова ензимът, който е отговорен за реакцията, HMG-CoA редуктаза, е изключително важен – той е като главен отговорник на производствената линия за холестерол. Този ензим трябва да бъде контролиран много внимателно, защото не искам? клетките в тялото да губят време и енергия в безразборно произвеждане на скъпи клетки холестерол.
Дейността на ензима HMG-CoA редуктаза се контролира основно от два фактора:
1) нивата на холестерол в клетката
2) нивата на инсулин в кръвта
Тук нещата стават много интересни. Логично е HMG-CoA редуктаза да реагира на нивата на холестерол в клетката. Ако те са ниски, ще е добре да активираме този ензим, за да произведем още холестерол. Ако пък в клетката има достатъчно, ще е добре да деактивираме ензима и да спрем производството на холестерол. Но каква е ролята на инсулина?
Обикновено приемаме, че инсулинът регулира кръвната захар, но истинската му роля е като ХОРМОН НА РАСТЕЖА. Инсулинът трябва да се задейства, когато растем. А какво ни трябва, за да растем? Повече клетки. Какво ни е нужно за образуването на клетки? Холестерол. Затова в моменти, в които тялото трябва да расте (бебета, тийнейджъри, бременни жени) инсулинът задейства ензима HMG-CoA редуктаза, който пък казва на клетките, че е нужен още холестерол. Така тялото може да образува нови клетки.
Каква е причината за високия холестерол?
Защо тялото произвежда повече холестерол, отколкото му трябва?
Ето го и проблемът: когато хората консумират прекалено много захари и скорбяла, особено рафинирани храни и храни с висок гликемичен индекс, нивата на инсулин в кръвта могат да се увеличат значително. Тогава инсулинът активира HMG-CoA редуктаза, който казва на клетките да произвеждат холестерол, дори и да не им е нужен. Това е основната причина някои хора да имат прекалено висок холестерол в кръвта. Захарите и скорбялата могат да повишат нивата на инсулина, което обърква тялото, че трябва да расте, а в действителност това не е нужно. Именно така действат диетите с нисък гликемичен индекс и диетите с ограничени въглехидрати – те намаляват нивата на LDL (лошия холестерол), като ограничават инсулина, а това води до намалена активност на HMG-CoA редуктазата.
Статините, като например Липидор, които се предписват за намаляване нивата на холестерола, отчасти действат, като пречат на дейността на HMG-CoA редуктаза. Ако при определени обстоятелства на клетките им потрябва повече холестерол, но статините блокират действието на този ензим, е възможно да не успеят да си го набавят. Още по-лошо е, че при синтезът на холестерол не се произвежда единствено холестерол, а и още много други важни молекули, включително витамин А, витамин Е, витамин K и коензим Q.
Когато консумирате по-малко въглехидрати, вие не блокирате синтеза по изкуствен път, а просто позволявате на HMG-CoA редуктазата да реагира на други, по-важни сигнали (като например нивата на холестерола и изискванията на растежа), и в същото време да прецени по естествен път кога да се активира и деактивира.
Да обобщим: рафинираните въглехидрати ускоряват синтеза на холестерол, а статините го забавят. Кой подход трябва да използвате, за да се справите с вашия „проблем с холестерола – дали ще пиете лекарство, което изкуствено ще забавя синтеза или ще промените диетата си и по този начин производството на холестерол ще се задейства тогава, когато е нужно? [Съвет: Промените в храненето не изискват месечни плащания и нямат евентуални опасни странични ефекти.]
Много вероятно е, ако имате „висок холестерол” да нямате проблем с холестерола, а да имате проблем с въглехидратите.
Добър холестерол и лош холестерол
Това ни отвежда до сложната връзка между тестовете за холестерол в кръвта и за риска от сърдечни заболявания. Това е изключително обширна тема, затова ще обобщим само част от най-важната информация.
“Добър” холестерол = HDL
HDL частиците събират холестерол от тялото и го пренасят обратно в черния дроб, където да бъде изхвърлен от организма, ако не е нужен.
“Лош” холестерол = LDL
LDL частиците пренасят произведен от черния дроб холестерол в останалите клетки на тялото.
Холестеролът в HDL и LDL частиците е абсолютно еднакъв, но HDL го пренася в една посока, а LDL – в противоположната. Причината, поради която LDL е определен за „лош”, а HDL за „добър” е, че многобройни епидемиологично проучвания (най-известното от които е проведено във Фрамингам, САЩ) показват, че високите нива на LDL са свързани с по-висок риск от инфаркт, а високите нива на HDL са свързани с по-нисък риск от инфаркт.
В миналото мислихме, че HDL е добър, защото действа като боклукчийски камион, който почиства злия холестерол от телата ни, а LDL е лош, защото си прокарва път в коронарните артерии и ги затрупва с лош холестерол, което води до образуване на плаки и причинява инфаркти.
Холестерол, въглехидрати и сърдечни заболявания
Днес обаче това опростенческо мислене за холестерола и сърдечните заболявания претърпява сериозно развитие. Оказва се, че нещата са по-сложни. LDL съществува в няколко форми. Може да бъде голям и пухкав или пък малък и плътен. Според новата концепция малкият, плътен и оксидиран LDL може да е единствения тип LDL, свързан със сърдечните заболявания. Следователно, вместо да приемаме, че всички LDL са „лоши”, би било по-точно да кажем, че не всички LDL са еднакви – големият, пухкав LDL е „добър”, а малкият, плътен, оксидиран LDL е „лош”.
За съжаление, стандартните кръвни тестове не могат да определят кой тип LDL имате, защото отчитат всички наведнъж. Стандартните тестове могат само да изчислят какво количество от вашия холестерол се движи в LDL частиците. Те не могат да установят колко LDL частици има в тялото ви, колко големи са, колко плътни са и колко оксидирани са те. [За по-подробно разяснение на предизвикателствата при разчитане на кръвните тестове на холестерол, препоръчваме блога на д-р Питър Атиа на адрес www.eatingacademy.com.]
Това, което знаем от проучванията е, че хората, които консумират много рафинирани въглехидрати, обикновено имат повече „лоши” (по-малки, по-гъсти, оксидирани) LDL частици. Това звучи логично, особено след като знаем, че въглехидратите са „про-оксиданти”, т.е. те причиняват оксидиране.
Много данни сочат също, че рафинираните въглехидрати могат да причинят възпаления. Фактът, че лекарите откриват в плаката, която запушва артериите, холестерол, не означава, че именно той причинява натрупването на плаки. Вече знаем, че сърдечните заболявания са възпалителни. Невинните, гладки, плаващи сфери от мазнини и холестерол не решават просто ей така да навлязат в кръвта и някак да си проправят път до здравата коронарна артерия. Първата стъпка в образуването на плака, запушваща кръвоносните съдове, е възпаление в обвивката на самата артерия. Когато лекарите разрежат плаките, не те намират само холестерол. Те откриват следи от възпаление (като макрофаги, калций и Т-клетки). При възпалителен процес в тялото холестеролът пристига, за да поправи щетите, защото е нужен за изграждането на нови клетки.Заключението, че плаките в коронарните артерии са причинени от холестерола в тях, е сравнимо с предположението, че катастрофите са причинени от линейките, които пристигат на местопроизшествието.
Последните проучвания показват, че диетата, богата на рафинирани въглехидрати и храни с висок гликемичен индекс, повишава риска от възпаления в организма и особено в кръвоносните съдове. Диабетът – заболяване, което е тясно свързано с високите нива на кръвна захар – уврежда кръвоносните съдове в ретината, бъбреците и малките кръвоносни съдове, които подхранват нервните окончания в стъпалата. Доказано е, че хората, страдащи от диабет, са по-застрашени от сърдечни заболявания. Затова можем да предположим, че всички хора с високи нива на кръвна захар и/или високи нива на инсулина, причинени от богата на рафинирани въглехидрати диета, вероятно също са по-застрашени от сърдечно-съдови заболявания.
Днес редица изследователи в областта на кардиологията се отказват от идеята, че наситените мазнини и холестеролът предизвикват сърдечни заболявания. В края на краищата как е възможно наситените мазнини и холестеролът които консумираме стотици хиляди години, да са причина за сравнително нов феномен като сърдечните заболявания? Съвременните кардиолози откриват нещо съвсем различно – че рафинираните въглехидрати (като захарта и брашното), които се консумират в значителни количества едва през последните около сто години, са най-важният хранителен рисков фактор за инфаркти:
„Доказателствата убедително подкрепят… връзката на тези заболявания с вредни фактори, включително приемът на транс-мастни киселини и храни с висок гликемичен индекс или товар.”
„Не съществуват достатъчни доказателства за връзка с приема на…наситени или полиненаситени мастни киселини; мазнини,…месо; яйца; и мляко.” [Mente et al 2009].
Какво означава това?
Съществуват няколко правдоподобни обяснения за механизма, по който рафинираните въглехидрати могат да повишат риска от сърдечни заболявания и да променят профила на холестерола:
Богатите на рафинирани въглехидрати храни намаляват нивата на HDL и способстват повишаването на нивото на инсулина, оксидацията и развиването на възпалителни процеси в тялото, включително и в коронарните артерии.
Високите нива на кръвната захар и на инсулина превръщат големите, безопасни LDL частици в малки, плътни, оксидирани LDL частици, които доказано повишават риска от сърдечни заболявания.
Високите нива на инсулин задействат участващия в синтеза на холестерол ензим HMG-CoA редуктаза, което принуждава тялото да произвежда повече холестерол от необходимото.
Става все по-ясно, че холестеролът е безопасен, докато не бъде “повреден” от рафинираните въглехидрати.
Споделете товаShare on FacebookShare on Google+Pin on PinterestTweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someone
Оригиналната статия на д-р Джорджия Ед можете да намерите тук.
Използвани източници:
[1]
Barclay AW et al. Glycemic index, glycemic load, and chronic disease risk—a meta-analysis of observational studies. Am J Clin Nutr 2008; 87: 627–37.
[2]
Boden G et al. Effect of a low-carbohydrate diet on appetite, blood glucose levels, and insulin resistance in obese patients with type 2 diabetes. Annals of Internal Medicine 2005; 142:4030441.
[3]
Brownlee M. The pathology of diabetic complications: a unifying mechanism. Diabetes 2005; :1615-1625.
[4]
Djoussé L, Gaziano JM.. Dietary cholesterol and coronary artery disease: a systematic review.Atheroscler Rep 2009; 11(6): 418-22.
[5]
Eaton SB et al. Stone agers in the fast lane: chronic degenerative diseases in evolutionary perspective. Am J Med 1988; 84: 739-749.
[6]
Esposito K et al. Inflammatory cytokine concentrations are acutely increased by hyperglycemia in humans: role of oxidative stress. Circulation 2002; 106: 2067-2072.
[7]
Greco TP et al. xidized-LDL/beta(2)-glycoprotein I complexes are associated with disease severity and increased risk for adverse outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndromes. Am J Clin Path; 133: 737-743.
[8]
Halton TL et al. Low carbohydrate diet score and risk of cardiovascular disease in women. New England Journal of Medicine 2006; 355: 1991-2002.
[9]
Jakobsen MU et al. Intake of carbohydrates compared with intake of saturated fatty acids and risk of myocardial infarction: importance of the glycemic index. Am J Clin Nutr 2010; 91: 1764-8.
[10]
Mente A et al. A systematic review of the evidence supporting a causal link between dietary factors and coronary heart disease. Archives of Internal Medicine 2009; 169(7): 659-69.
[11]
Siri-Tarino PW et al. Saturated fat, carbohydrate, and cardiovascular disease. Am J Clin Nutr2010.
[12]
Welsh JA et al. Caloric sweetener consumption and dyslipidemia among US adults. JAMA2010; 303(15): 1490-1497.
[13]
Westman EC et al. Low-carbohydrate nutrition and metabolism. Am J Clin Nutr 2007; 86: 276-84.
[14]
Willett, W. The Great Fat Debate: Total Fat and Health. J Am Diet Assoc 2011; 111(5): 660-662.
| |
|
Тема
|
Nanoscience: How Science Fiction Is Becoming Fact
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 02.03.17 18:45 |
|
|
Russian author Boris Zhitkov wrote the 1931 short story , in which the narrator creates miniature hands to carry out intricate surgeries. And while that was nearly 100 years ago, the tale illustrates the real fundamentals of the researchers are working on today.
Nanoscience is the study of molecules that are one billionth of a metre in size. To put this into perspective, a human hair is between 50,000 and 100,000 nanometers thick. At this tiny size, materials possess properties that lie somewhere between a lump of metal and that of a single atom. This unique environment means they can become very reactive and be used as catalysts.
The ideas behind nanoscience are often easier to understand when considered simply in terms of how a single material’s properties change. But the field is not limited to just that: we are now moving into the realm of health care therapies, and vehicles smaller than a speck of dust. What were once regarded as science fictions are rapidly becoming fact.
1. Medi-gels
In video games like Bioware’s Mass Effect, players are able to heal characters’ injuries with the seemingly miraculous . Though it may not give you the unlimited life or epic adventure that a video game can, there is a real-life gel that can similarly stop an arterial bleed in seconds.
“” is made of found in the cell walls of plants which, when applied to wounds, can mimic the structure of the extracellular matrix – the complex web in which cells sit. The gel essentially acts as scaffolding for the matrix to reform, pulling it back together and stopping bleeding without any pressure.
2. Healing molecules
Indeed, wound healing is a key feature of many an action-packed science fiction plot line. Handheld tools have , similar to Star Trek’s dermal regenerator, to heal injuries.
On the nano-level, a team has developed gel nanoparticles which target a specific enzyme (FL2) which . They hypothesised that reducing the levels of this enzyme would increase rates of wound healing.
However, delivering the molecules of Silencing RNA (SiRNA) needed to slow the enzyme down would normally be difficult, as unprotected chains of RNA quickly degrade within the body. So these SiRNA molecules were placed inside nano-sized gel shells to aid uptake and their transport into cells. Wounds treated this way healed twice as fast as those which were not, while maintaining normal tissue regeneration.
3. Self-repairing tech
The film Terminator 2 features an evil robot that , “healing” in a few seconds. Thankfully, the reality is nowhere near as scary – though we are close to having technology that fixes itself.
Chemists have devised that break when stress is applied, allowing an epoxy resin to seep from the material and mix with a catalyst. When the resin and catalyst come into contact, a strong plastic with a healing efficiency of up to 108% is formed. The technology is comparable to the healing of a bruise, but instead of bursting a couple of blood vessels, the resin is released.
At a basic level, this may mean that we need never worry about a cracked phone screen again. But it could also that develop on planes while they are in flight, or even .
4. Racing micro-cars
In 1966, cinema-goers were wowed as the crew of a submarine was shrunk down to microscopic size, and injected into the body of a scientist in the film Fantastic Voyage. Though we are certainly not anywhere near injecting tiny humans into other humans, scientists have created molecular-size vehicles that can be driven in particular directions.
In 2011, constructed a , comprised of four molecular motors on a carbon chain chassis. With wheels only and a width more than 666,666,666 times smaller than a Formula 1 car, it might be hard to , let alone racing, these tiny vehicles. But this year the will take place. Teams will compete on a course made entirely of gold, painstakingly constructed atom by atom. Extra atoms will be placed on the surface to act as obstacles which competitors will have to navigate around.
5. Fantasy foods
Roald Dahl’s Charlie and the Chocolate Factory has made millions of mouths water over the years, thanks to the author’s vivid descriptions of quirky tastes and inventive sweets.
In reality, there aren’t chewing gums that taste like a three-course dinner – – or fizzy pop that makes you fly. But food manufacturers have been working on ways to change tastes and textures using molecular technology.
Nanotech has been – emulsifiers in mayonnaise, for example – but now scientists are looking at how it can be used to enhance nutrition and the aesthetics of common foods.
Australian bakery Tip-Top are using nanocapsules to . The capsules only open in the correct environment – the stomach – and so can bring the benefits of Omega-3 without the unpleasant taste. Likewise, companies such as Nestle and Unilever are also researching nanocapsules to .
Though nano-techology can’t do has promised just yet, it is changing the world as we know it. And the smaller we continue to go, the bigger the potential will be.
By , PhD researcher, Cardiff University. This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the .
| |
|
Тема
|
Храна от морското дъно: фитопланктон
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 02.03.17 20:09 |
|
|
Зa много хора качественото рибено масло е предпочитан начин да си набавят есенциалните мастни киселини EPA и DHA. Има и такива обаче, които предпочитат растителна алтернатива и най-подходящ за тях е морският фитопланктон, .
Освен източник на мастни киселини обаче фитопланктонът е и отличен източник на аминокиселини, витамини, минерали, антиоксиданти и хлорофил, а приемът му помага за поддържане на алкално pH в организма. С изтощаването и обедняването на почвите на сушата все повече изследователи се насочват към морските дълбини в търсене на пълноценна храна и фитопланктонът е именно такава. На практика става въпрос за едноклетъчни водни организми, които се срещат както в солени, така и в сладководни среди и са известни с името фитопланктон. Счита се, че точно тези микроорганизми са отговорни за създаването на земната атмосфера и за появата на живота.
Подобно на другите морски зеленчуци, водораслите, и фитопланктонът е източник на наноразмерни хранителни частици, които се усвояват лесно от организма и са лесно достъпни за използване на клетъчно ниво. По хранителна стойност може да се сравянва с известните спирулина и хлорела и дори ги надминава по полезност.
Какво представлява фитопланктонът?
За разлика от големите (макро-водорасли), които са растения, фитопланктонът принадлежи към групата на микроводораслите, планктони, които са микроскоични организми, твърде малки и слаби, за да плуват сами срещу течението и затова съществуват в свободно носещо се или скитащо състояние.
Фитопланктонът е способен да се самоизхранва, като абсорбира енергия от слънцето и хранителни вещества от водата, за да произвеждат храната си.
Около 50 на сто до 85 на сто от кислорода на Земята се произвежда от този вид планктон, а останалата част се произвежда при процеса фотосинтеза, осъществяван от растенията на сушата.
Самият фитопланктон е основата на хранителната верига на океана и служи за храна на всякакви водни обитатели – от зоопланктона до сините китове.
Когато планктонът цъфти обаче, той е токсичен както за животни, така и за хора. Цъфтежът на фитопланктона е доста бурен и при сателитни снимки може да се видят зелени петна върху повърхността на океана, които покриват стотици квадратни метри. Цъвтежът обикновено продължава няколко седмици, но типичната продължителност на живота на отделния фитопланктон е рядко повече от няколко дни.
Единственият начин да видите тези микроорганизми е, когато са налични в големи количества и се появяват като цветни петна по повърхността на водата. Оцветяването се дължи на наличието на хлорофил в клетките на фитопланктона.
Очаква се в близко бъдеще фитопланктонът да се превърне в ключов източник на храна при пътуване в космоса.
Ползи от фитопланктона
Фитопланктонът повишава настроението. Пилотно проучване, проведено в Университета в Юта показва значително подобрение на симптоми на депресия на субектите след редовно приемане на фитопланктон като хранителна добавка.
Има потенциален антиканцерогенен ефект. В публикация на Американската агенция за храните и лекарствата, озаглавена “Лекарства от бездната: Съкровищата на морето дават някои медицински отговори и намекват за други” , авторът Джон Хенкел обобщава резултатите от някои обещаващи изследвания за ролята на фитопланктона при борбата с рака.
Подпомага естествената детоксикация. Изследователи и учени добавят фитопалнктона към списъка на суперхрани като спирулина, хлорела и астаксантин. Причината е, че фитопланктонът е най-добрият бионаличен източник на супероксид дисмутаза (SOD) – най-мощният антиоксидиращ ензим в организма, който играе важна роля за намаляване на окислително увреждане и възпаление, и който ефективно спомага за изчистванетоо на тежки метали от организма.
Стимулира черния дроб и имунната система.
Специфично за този микроорганизъм е, че може да се абсорбира на клетъчно ниво, така че тялото не трябва да разчита на храносмилане или на черния дроб за преработката му. Така ораганизмът може да получи необходимите му хранителни вещества, дори когато черният дроб не функционира оптимално, но е в състояние и да помогне за възстановяването му.
Хората, които приемат морски фитопланктон, имат по-високи нива на CD3 в кръвта. Количеството на CD3 в кръвта е показателно за наличието на Т клетки или Т-лимфоцити, които са от съществено значение за човешкия имунитет, тъй като помогат за премахване на вируси и бактерии от тялото.
Подпомага клетъчната регенерация. Екип от европейски ботаници, лекари и микробиолози открива щам морски фитопланктон с изключително голяма хранителна стойност. Наречен е Nannochloropsis gaditana и въпреки че е в пъти по-малкък от червените кръвни клетки,
той съдържа повече от 65 съединения, включително всички аминокиселини, всички есенциални мастни киселини, витамини, основни минерали, микроелементи, редки антиоксиданти, фосфолипиди , електролити, ензими и коензими
Nannochloropsis gaditana е в състояние да се размножава експлозивно, поради което се счита, че може да помогне на хората бързо да възстановят здравето си на клетъчно ниво.
Грижи се за здравето на сърцето. Когато става въпрос за поддържане и превенция на сърдечното здраве, сред водещите препоръки и редовното присъствие в менюто на есенциалните мастни киселини EPA и DHA. Според Harvard Heart Letter EPA и DHA облекчават възпалението, осигуряват непрекъснат сърдечен ритъм, предотвратяват образуването на опасни или дори смъртоносни кръвни съсиреци и намаляване на нивата на триглицеридите. Отличен източник на двете полезни мастни киселини е рибеното масло, но хората, които не консумират риба и съответно рибено масло, биха могли да си набавят EPA и чрез фитопланктон.
Как можем да приемаме фитопланктон
Фитопланктонът се предлага като добавка в течна и прахообразна форма или капсула. Изключително важно е, ако приемате такава добавка, да следите производителят да е реномирана компания, която следва строги насоки за чистота на продукта и добиването му от нетоксични води. Важно е също планктонът да бъде суров, без филъри и други добавки, за да са запазени максимално полезните му свойства.
Вкусът може да не допадне на всеки, но за да го маскирате, може да го смесите със сок или да го добавите към някоя рецепта.
Случаите, при които не е добре да приемате фитопланктон или каквито и да е добавки на основата на водорасли, са ако сте бременна, кърмите или имате автоимунно заболяване. При наличие на друго медицинско състояние обсъдете с вашия лекар дали може да приемате фитопланктон.
Фитопланктон в кухнята
Фитопланктон в течна форма може да се добавя към различни сурови рецепти като смутита или дресинги. Рецептата, която предлага е именно за дресинг и е изключително сполучилива! Може да се добавя към салати, печени зеленчуци, зеленчукови кюфтета и т.н.
Продукти:
1 чаша кашу
1 чаша вода
1 връзка пресен дивисил
2 с.л. хранителна мая
1 с.л. пресен джинджифил
1/2 авокадо
сок от 1/2 лимон
1 скилидка чесън
8-10 капки фитопланктон
1 ч.л. мед
сол, черен и лют червен пипер на вкус
Всички продукти се слагат в блендер и се долива само 1/2 от водата. Пасира се и се долива останалата част от водата до желаната консистенция.
Източник:
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Храна от морското дъно: фитопланктон
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
| (>[2] /dev/null) |
| Публикувано | 02.03.17 21:47 |
|
|
Специфично за този микроорганизъм е, че може да се абсорбира на клетъчно ниво, така че тялото не трябва да разчита на храносмилане или на черния дроб за преработката му. Така ораганизмът може да получи необходимите му хранителни вещества, дори когато черният дроб не функционира оптимално, но е в състояние и да помогне за възстановяването му.
Само като се прочете тази идиотщина и ти става ясно какъв малоумник е писал статията.
The last good thing written in C was Franz Schubert's Symphony No. 9.
| |
|
Тема
|
то заглавието още е нефелно
[re: |]
|
|
| Автор |
~@!$^%*amp;()_+ (целия горен ред) |
| Публикувано | 03.03.17 00:30 |
|
|
фитопланктона живее на повърхността, не на дъното
ти за некъфси черен дроб си се фанал
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: то заглавието още е нефелно
[re: ~@!$^%*amp;()_+]
|
|
| Автор |
| (>[2] /dev/null) |
| Публикувано | 03.03.17 03:46 |
|
|
Ясно е, че модератора е спал в часовете по биология, но нали уж твърди, че е учил диетология. Очевидно е проспал урока, в който се обяснява че микроорганизми с размерите на фитопланктона не могат да преминат през стомашните стени за да стигнат до клетките.
The last good thing written in C was Franz Schubert's Symphony No. 9.
| |
|
Тема
|
12 Vegan Cheese Recipes That Will Change Your Life
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 07.03.17 17:09 |
|
|
1. Easy Garlic & Herb Vegan Cheese
2. Vegan Mozzarella
3. Green Goddess Gouda
4. Vegan Aged Camembert Cheese
5. Vegan Pistachio Crusted Cashew & Coconut Cheese
6. Cashew-less Vegan Queso
7. Almond Milk Pepper Jack
8. Herbed Cashew Cheese
9. Vegan Parmesan
10. Raw Vegan “Goat” Cheese
11. Nacho Cheese Slices
12. Walnut and Herb Vegan Cheese
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
Тема
|
25 Vegan Snacks For Movie Night, Game Night or ...
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 08.03.17 05:47 |
|
|
Who loves snacks? We love snacks? Why? Because snacks are awesome, that’s why — especially party snacks of any kind. For us, there’s little that comes close to the positive feeling you get from spending time with friends and loved ones while enjoying homemade snacks that are so good you’ll wish you had made an entire batch for yourself … but hey, sharing is caring, right? Right. So, if you’re looking for shareable snacks, then you’ve come to the right place because we specialize in sniffing out the best, so-delicious-you-don’t-want-to-share snacks that also happen to be completely meat-free and dairy-free.
Welcome to the master list of party snacks. These 25 vegan snacks are just what you need to take movie night, game night, your summer barbecue, or any ol’ party to the next level.
Cheesy burger spreads, pizza crust, oven-roasted steaks, and now buffalo wings, it’s safe to say that with cauliflower, you can do it all. Cauliflower is a favorite ingredient to use because it is so versatile and has a power punch of nutrition. This recipe for Chipotle Cauliflower Buffalo Bites and Raw Cashew Ranch Dip is a spicy and delicious snack perfect for any occasion.
A must-have at any party, this Spinach Dip Crescent Roll Ring is just delicious. Creamy, garlicky spinach dip is wrapped in crescent rolls and then baked until the rolls are crispy and golden and the dip is warm. It’s so easy to make, you may as well make two because it’ll disappear fast.
Beet is one of those extremely versatile veggies that you can make a hundred different ways and it still surprises you — like these 1-Ingreient Beet Sliders. Yes, it turns out, if you boil it with spices and then slice and grill to make a crust, it makes a perfectly good patty. Serve these little sliders with your favorite greens and enjoy!
Similar to cauliflower “wings,” but a little more flavorful, these crispy Broccoli “Wings” will be the star appetizer of any party. Broccoli florets are coated in a gluten-free batter and then baked to crispy perfection. Leave them plain, or toss them in any kind of sauce you like.
Who doesn’t love a good pretzel? This recipe for Everything Bagel Soft Pretzels combines the soft and fluffy texture of pretzels with the fun and flavorful seasoning of an everything bagel. Garlicky, textured, and perfect for dipping in some mustard! Or you can get creative and slice this pretzel in half and make a sandwich.
These Jalapeño Poppers with Smoked Tofu are the perfect mix of crunchy and creamy consistencies, together with the heat of the jalapeño and the complimentary cooling of the vegan cream cheese. Smoked tofu adds another layer of heat and a bacon-ish flavor to the mix. Is your mouth watering yet?
Nothing hits the spot like a big ol’ plate of All-American Chili Fries, especially ones you can really dig into cause they’re totally healthy! This is a hearty, delicious veggie quinoa chili piled high on fresh, seasoned oven fries. We guarantee that both you and your friends will fall in love this snack.
Homemade vegan mozzarella rolled in soft and fluffy quinoa. No, this is not a dream — these are Mozzarella-Stuffed Quinoa Pizza Bites. With a savory tomato sauce dipping sauce on the side, these little bites will cure the fiercest of pizza cravings. Make these as a fun appetizer or make a big batch and gobble them up yourself.
These Alloo Hand Pies are a popular Trinidadian street food made from spiced mashed potatoes folded into dough and then fried. The potatoes are flavorful and creamy, with warm spices, vegan butter, and vegan sour cream, while the dough is crispy and warm. These are best served with spiced chickpeas or any kind of chutney, from savory onion to sweet and spicy mango.
Dipping chips will be so passé once you try these Tortilla Hummus Cups. Turn ordinary tortillas into a fun and creative snack! You can fill the cups with any kind of hummus, so you can customize your flavor profile to your liking. The contrast between the creamy hummus, the crisp and fresh toppings and the crunchy tortilla chips will make these disappear from their platter in an instant.
Traditional Filipino Fried Spring Rolls, or Vegetable Lumpiang Shanghai, as they are called, are usually filled with pork. Here, we have kept the essence of the Asian dish but replaced the filling with vegetables! Carrots, sweet potatoes, jicama, and kabocha squash come together in this snack. They’re crispy, savory, and best served with a sweet dip like ketchup.
These Beet Hummus Bites are more than just pretty — they’re delicious. Roasted beet hummus, black olives, and arugula salad tucked into homemade bamboo charcoal tortillas. The beet hummus is earthy and garlicky and the tortillas are ridiculously easy to make. Serve these at a party and you’ll most likely catch everyone snapping food photos before devouring.
You probably remember tater tots, those coveted (and greasy) pillows of potato-y goodness served at school lunches. This recipe for Zucchini Tater Tots is a healthier take on those and they’re so good, you’ll want to carry them around in your pocket so you can have them all to yourself. It’s as easy as mashing potato and grated zucchini together, forming them into tots, and baking them until golden and crispy.
If you’re intimidated by the idea of making bread, then this Lemon Thyme and Roasted Garlic Flatbread is a good place to get started. This bread is pretty low fuss and great to serve up with soup or on a platter of food, not to mention, pretty fun to make,and it requires little kneading. The rich roasted garlic works perfectly with the lemon thyme and olive oil, forming a delicious combination.
Whether you’re hosting a party, movie night, or just hanging with friends, this Cheesy Pull Bread is a must-make. On a scale of 1 to 10, it’s a 10,000,000. Crispy sourdough bread is stuffed with herby, garlicky vegan cream cheese, spinach, and vegan mozzarella and then baked until melty and bubbly. This bread serves a small crowd, but you’ll want it all to yourself.
A pakora is an Indian snack that’s essentially a vegetable dipped in chickpea flour, so they’re naturally gluten-free, and then deep-fried until crispy. These savory Onion Pakoras are spiced with garlic, cumin, and curry powder and served with a cool, spicy, and creamy avocado dip. These are perfect as an appetizer or snack at any party.
These Panko-Crusted Zucchini Chips are the perfect movie night snack! They’re light and crunchy and should you want a little extra flavor, you can even add your favorite herbs and spices to the mix. Serve with your favorite chip dip, or enjoy them as is. You might want to double the recipe, though — these will disappear fast.
[image]http://cdn2.onegreenplanet.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10//2015/10/chickpea-fondue-site.jpeg[/image]
Fondue is more than just food, it’s a whole dining experience. This Chickpea Fondue is worthy of being called an experience. In this version of fondue, chickpeas take main stage, creating the silky smooth texture for the ooey-gooey dish you know and love.
Whether or not you’re a pro at making bread, this recipe is fun to make — really, how can you get any better than Jalapeño Cheddar Pretzels? These are soft pretzels like you can get from the streets of New York City, but better, because they’re homemade, they’re cheesy, and they’re spicy. Break these up into bite-size portions for movie night with your friends and family!
The best comfort foods are simple and making these BBQ Pulled Carrot Rolls is super-easy and super hands-off, like these pulled carrot rolls. Shredded carrots are the perfect whole foods based replacement for pulled pork. Drenched in a tangy, sticky barbecue sauce, these pulled carrot rolls are a guaranteed hit.
This refreshing Watermelon Tartare is perfect for hot summer days, especially as a snack or party appetizer. The combination of flavors completely transforms the watermelon. The citrus juice combined with sesame seeds and soy sauce or tamari gives it a delicious umami flavor that’s unforgettable.
Tofu is not only a great source of protein, but it is an amazing flavor absorber! Not only does marinating make these Sesame Ginger Tofu Skewers taste deliciously savory, they also get slightly crispy while cooking. Paired with peanut sauce that you can enjoy crunchy or smooth, this dish is wonderful as a party appetizer or finger food.
Papas Rellenas are a type of croquette popular in many Latin American countries. In this recipe, the crispy potato croquettes have a savory, sweet, and spicy eggplant filling that’s surrounded by creamy mashed potatoes. They’re then paired with a creamy and irresistible avocado sauce for dipping. These are a great way to use up leftover mashed potatoes, but it’s also worth making mashed potatoes just to experience this flavorful appetizer or party snack.
Making pizza is super fun. Kneading the dough, slathering on tomato sauce, and of course topping it with all of your favorites is a good afternoon spent. If only there was a way to translate the amazingness of pizza into a party snack…oh wait! There is! These 4-Ingredient Pizza Rolls have all the deliciousness of this Italian favorite tucked neatly in a little roll, perfect!
These oven-fried Crispy Cauliflower Nuggets are guaranteed to be the star of your dinner night, parties … everything! The secret is to cook flour covered cauliflower slowly in coconut oil. The slow oven baking helps to crisp up the outside without having undercooked cauliflower.
Who says you even need a party to make one (or all) these awesome recipes? To be honest, we would eat them anytime.
Lead image source:
| |
|
|
|
бе рупай агар направо :)))
| |
|
|
|
ама те е страх да си признаеш
vegan mozarella, wtf
| |
|
Тема
|
Ползата от поста за здравето
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 19.03.17 07:00 |
|
|
Ползата от поста за здравето – имат ли нужда от прочистване на организма вегетарианците и хранещите се здравословно?
Ще започна с малко терминология. Вегетарианската диета, т.е. режим на хранене, включва използването предимно на растителни храни и изключва месото. Хората, придържащи се към такава хранителна диета се наричат най-общо вегетарианци. Тези, които не консумират месо, но употребяват млечни продукти, се наричат в частност лакто-вегетарианци. Изключилите и млечните храни, но ползващи яйца, са ово-вегетарианци. А тези като мен, които консумират млечни продукти и яйца, се наричат лакто-ово-вегетарианци. Веганите са строги вегетарианци, които изключват всички храни, както и всякакви изделия от животински произход, като кожа, пера, вълна и т.н. Дискусионен е въпросът с ползването на мед, но това е друга тема.
Що е пост? Под пост ще разбираме в случая период на лимитиран прием на храна и/или на вода. Нека видим какво е мнението на известния изследовател на Християнството и Библията Артър Уолъс, (“Постът – какво казва Библията по този въпрос”, 1991). Според неговите изследвания в Библията постът е описан като действие, което представлява акт между отделния човек и Бога, предизвиква се от определена нужда и се извършва в определено време. Уолъс разделя поста на частичен, обикновен и абсолютен (тоест пълен). Частичен, според Уолъс е постът, който свива храната до стриктно вегетарианска – изключват се всички животински продукти. Обикновеният пост, според Уолъс, означава въздържане от всякаква храна в твърда или течна форма, но не и от вода: “И след като пости четирийсет дни и четирийсет нощи, най-сетне огладня” (Мат. 4:2). Пълният пост, според Уолъс, означава въздържане и от храна, и от вода. Този пост обикновено продължава три дни (в Православието се нарича тримирене).
В Библията има няколко примера за пълен пост като изключителна мярка при извънредна ситуация. Частичен, обикновен или пълен постът е упражнение на духа (аскеза) за всеки, който гладува за “Божиите дарове” – бил той калвинист, арминианец, евангелист, католик или православен. Постенето се практикува и в другите основни религии, както и във всевъзможните духовни учения.
Останал съм с впечатлението, че доста вегетарианци са убедени, че нямат необходимост от специални процедури за прочистване на организма, заради факта, че не консумират месо и/или млечни продукти и яйца. Дали е така обаче? Аз мисля, че не е. Защото каквато и храна да консумираме, в тялото остават продукти на метаболизма. Дори да ползваме произведена от нас самите храна по методите на биодинамичното земеделие и да я употребяваме свежа, разделно и т.н., то все пак в организма остават метаболитни отпадъци (шлаки, токсини, продукти, прекъснати на междинен етап в следствие на застъпването на храните или непълно храносмилане и др.), които би следвало да бъдат извеждани своевременно от организма. Но при ежедневно консумиране на храна, това няма как да се случи. А и начинът ни на живот едва ли е изцяло природосъобразен.
Неспазването на денонощните биоритми – да сме активни и в изправено положение през деня и легнали през нощта, също води до нарушаване на метаболизма, а според академик Чижев да се работи през нощта е една от най-големите злини за нашето здраве. Замърсената индустриална храна, замърсения въздух, замърсената вода, неправилното дишане, липсата на контакт със Земята, работа на изкуствено осветление в затворени пространства, липсата на достатъчно слънчева светлина, малкото, и то монотонни, движения и много други фактори, сред които от особено важно значение е стресът, водят до натрупване на излишни токсини в организма ни, до дехидратация на клетките, до влошаване на Ph на телесните течности и т.н. с всички негативни последствия от това.
Ще разгледам метода за прочистване на организма чрез пост – обикновен и пълен.
Аз лично втора година използвам метода за детоксикация чрез пост. Някои го наричат “гладуване”. Гладуване не е точна дума, поради това, че когато се спре приема на храна отвън, организмът започва да се храни с “вътрешна” храна – от запасите. Едва когато свършат запасите, става животоопасно, но това вече е изгладняване, водещо до липса на жизненоважни хранителни вещества. До такъв момент, разбира се, не трябва да се стига. А и освен, че можем да си следим телесните показатели, организмът ни подсеща – езикът се изчиства от налепите, става розов, лошият дъх е изчезнал, устата се изпълва със слюнка при мисълта за храна, настъпва истински глад, а не маскиран под формата на апетит.
Избрах този метод за детоксикация, понеже е естествен, интензивен, доказан във времето, много ефективен, безплатен, лесно се понася от организма и не изисква особено големи познания. Липсват сложни термини, формули, използването на уреди, загуба на време и т.н. Методът има подчертано лечебен и подмладяващ ефект. Започнах с практикуването на обикновен пост (само на вода) или т.нар. “мокър” или “воден” пост, също “мокро гладуване” или “гладуване на вода”. Споменавам различните термини, понеже са често срещани в книги и публикации. Впоследствие започнах да практикувам и пълен пост, или както на мен повече ми харесва да го наричам – абсолютен, а се среща и като “сух пост” или “сухо гладуване”.
Основната разлика между този метод за прочистване чрез пост и другите (чрез сокове например, чрез соково-плодова диета и пр.) е, че по време на прочистването, понеже се спира приема на храна отвън, процесите, настъпващи в организма, са различни. Поради липсата на храна организмът не хаби време и енергия за преработване на същата, а тази енергия според някои източници достига до 80 % от енергията, която потребляваме. Енергията, икономисана от храносмилането, се използва от тялото ни за прочистване. Но все пак на тялото са му нужни градивни елементи и енергия. От къде ги набавя? Природата е мъдра и е помислила за това. Дори и човек с нормална телесна маса има около 20-25 % мазнини в резерв, и то качествен – наши, вътрешни мазнини. В клетките има различни вещества. Когато се спре приема на храна, организмът преминава на ендогенно хранене, т.е. на вътрешно хранене. Първо изразходва запасите от гликоген в мускулите и черния дроб, след което разгражда хранителните вещества, налични в кръвта и телесните течности, а когато и те се изчерпят, преминава към разграждане на тъкани. Но и тук мъдростта на природата си казва думата: тъканите се разграждат приоритетно – първо се разграждат мастни, и то болни, замърсени клетки, отлагания по стените на съдовете и по-малко мускулна маса. После се посяга на мускулите, на костите и органите. Организмът никога не разгражда части от нервната система и мозъка. Този период на преход от външно към ендогенно хранене трае около 2-3 дни при водния пост. Тези първи дни се понасят и по-трудно. При сухия пост това превключване трае около денонощие-две. След този период не се изпитва нужда от храна (докато се прочиства организма “нуждата” от храна е в “главата ни”).
По принцип при сухия пост процесите са много по-интензивни тъй като освен храна, тялото трябва да си осигури и вода, защото тази, която се поема чрез въздуха и кожата, е недостатъчна. При пълния пост трябва да се ограничи изцяло или частично досегът с вода, понеже организмът почва да пие по-интензивно през кожата. Два-три дни сух пост се равняват на седем-девет дни воден пост. Когато преминем на ендогенно хранене, започва разлагане на мастните клетки, като се използват наличните в клетката хранителни запаси, рециклира се всичко, а ненужното се отделя. И това става най-вече за сметка на задръстени, болни клетки. Знаем, че организмът складира токсините далеч от органите (най-вече в ставите и мастните депа), за да се предпазят същите от натравяне. Образно казано, когато клетките останат без храна и започне борба на живот и смърт между тях, когато започнат да се самоизяждат, нормално е здравите да победят болните.
Поради това, че се извеждат интензивно токсини, извънклетъчните течности се подкиселяват – започва ацедозна криза. Това е вторият етап на процеса – първият е преминаването към ендогенно хранене. Човек започва да усеща различни дискомфорти: главоболие, замайване, отпадналост, подуване на лимфни възли, лош дъх на ацетон, обилно кръвотечение от венците, подуване на венци, обриви и други болежки в зависимост от индивида. Това само подсказва къде в момента тялото работи, къде ремонтира, а то най-добре знае от къде да започне. Нали програмата, мъдростта, интелектът, изградили от зиготата същия този организъм, са живи и на разположение.
Това според мен е друго предимство пред останалите методи, при които ние предизвикваме есктремно прочистване на орган или система по наше усмотрение или по препоръка, а организмът всъщност може да има друга по-важна потребност в този момент. Освен това всичко в нас е свързано, така че трябва да се прочиства целият организъм на клетъчно и извънклетъчно ниво. При поста ние му даваме време и енергия – развързваме му ръцете, оставяме го сам да преценява от къде и кога да започне прочистването. За разлика от другите методи, при поста, понеже се преминава към разграждане предимно на болни мастни клетки, а не към свиване на клетките, както е при диетите, тук е налице едно обновление и подмладяване. Броят на болните и задръстени клетки намалява, а здравите получават енергия. Имунната система също се енергизира – има по-малко “врагове” и съответно става по-ефективна.
Постепенно във времето се убедих в предимствата на сухия пост пред водния и все по-голям дял при мен започват да заемат дните на пълен пост. Първоначално недоумявах (не бях попаднал на литература) как така сухият пост ще е много по-ефикасен, след като спираме приема на вода – този универсален разредител, тази течност, без която животът е невъзможен. Беше ми попаднала и една афористична мисъл: “Тялото се прочиства с Вода, Разумът със знания, Душата със сълзи” – завет на древните мъдреци. Разбира се, че и при сухия пост основна роля играе водата. За разлика от частичния пост, когато спрем и приема на вода, а както знаем без вода се издържа по-малко, в организма се появява недостиг на вода. Тази потребност трябва да бъде задоволена за да се продължи живота на организма. И тогава с много по-голяма интензивност, отколкото при водния пост, започва разграждане на мастни тъкани. При разграждането на мастните тъкани се освобождава вода, а тази ендогенна вода е в пъти по-качествена от външната вода, защото тя е със структурата на нашия организъм и такава вода върши много по-добра работа от външната. Можем да направим сравнението с вода от чист планински извор, захранван от недрата на Земята или от разтапянето на ледовете, и с вода от уличната канализация. Освен това тялото ни не губи енергия за преработване на външната вода, за нейното структуриране и извеждане навън на внесените евентуално с нея токсини в организма.
Предимството, освен времето и интензивността, е в това, че при сухия пост се разграждат основно мастни тъкани – депа на токсини, докато при водния пост съотношението на разграждането на мастни тъкани към мускулна маса е по-малко, т.е човек “губи” повече мускулна маса. Но за загубата на мускулна маса не трябва да се съди по видимото спадане на обема на мускулите, тъй като между мускулните влакна има много мастни тъкани за разграждане.
Чрез сух пост се отървах от мускулна травма в рамото. Още при първия сух пост усетих много по-голяма гъвкавост в ставите (най-осезаемият ефект при мен и много други хора) и облекчение на болното място. Поради това, че организмът при сухия пост работи не на принципа на разпределение, както в случая, когато има външен прием на храна и течности, а чрез абсорбция на веществата, получени от рециклирането на клетките, здравите силни клетки получават допълнително енергия и вода, а болните не.
Микробите, вирусите, бактериите без вода загиват мигновено. Увеличава се концентрацията в телесните течности на биологично активни вещества, хормони, имуноглобулин, имуноклетки и др. Противовъзпалителния и имуностимулиращия ефект при сухия пост е няколко пъти по-мощен в сравнение с водния пост. При сухия, за разлика от другите методи, няма абсорбция на ендотоксини, затова физически той се понася по-леко. При водния, за да се увеличи ефектът на прочистване (а според някои автори, за да не настъпи самоотравяне), се препоръчват клизми, хидро-колонтерапии, бани, сауни и т.н. При сухия пост са противопоказни клизмите. Усвояване на токсини от червата липсва, тъй като липсва вода. Следователно при сухия пост няма такава интоксикация, каквато има при другите видове “гладуване”. При него за обезвреждане на отровите организмът включва съвършено уникални механизми, които ги няма при нито един друг вид “гладуване”.
По време на сухия пост започва изгаряне на токсините, може да се каже в собствената им пещ – всяка клетка в отсъствие на вода включва интензивна вътрешна реакция. Получава се своеобразен екстремално експресен метод на унищожаване вътре в клетката на всичко излишно и безполезно. Всяка клетка своевременно се превръща в миниреактор. Резултатът от това е повишаване на вътрешната температура на организма, която е възможно да не се регистрира от термометрите, но се усеща от хората по време на поста като вътрешен огън. При водния пост през зимата се усеща халд в тялото, а при абсолютния това липсва. Температурата сама по себе си е важна част от защитните реакции на организма. При високи температури се изгарят всички шлаки, отрови, даже раковите клетки напълно преустановяват жизнената си дейност. Такъв процес ускорява заздравяването. Високата температура забавя растежа на микроорганизмите, за имунната система става много по-лесно да преследва и ликвидира всичко чуждо и видоизменено.
Този пост е и най-ефикасен за отслабване. Мастната тъкан, поради липса на вода и храна се разгражда много интензивно, а тъй като тя се състои от 90 % вода тялото не страда от липса на вода. Сухотата в устата не означава, че клетките жадуват. Мастната тъкан се разгражда 3-4 пъти по-бързо в сравнение с мускулите, намалява се броят на мастните клетки и никога мастната тъкан не възвръща първоначалния си обем изцяло, за разлика от диетите, при които клетките се свиват и след това бързо възстановяват обема си. При сухия пост мастната тъкан изгаря три пъти по-бързо в сравнение с водния пост. За разлика от много средства за отслабване, той не струва нищо и по-важното – безвреден е. Понася се по-леко от трудните изтощителни диети. Храненето със собствени запаси (ендогенното хранене) е идеално балансирано. Организмът отнема от резервите само това, което в дадения момент му е необходимо, а не обработва това, което изкуствено му е наложено от вън. При сухия пост настъпва много по-мощен ефект на подмладяване, отколкото при водния и другите диети, защото, както вече споменах, в наложените екстремални условия не издържат болните, изродените и слабите клетки. Те загиват и се разпадат. Оцеляват тези с по-добра организация и работоспособност – по-здравите, съхранили дееспособността си. По този начин сухият пост спомага да се “бракува” ненужното, слабото, болното и вредното. Организмът не им позволява да създадат себеподобно потомство, а клетките се размножават с делене и потомството не може да е по-добро по качество. Така остават силните и здрави клетки, които при делене ще дадат здраво потомство, наследило качествата на клетките-майки и по такъв начин се постига качествено подобряване на организма като цяло.
Ето и един цитат, който ни показва много важен ефект от т.нар. “сухо” гладуване: “Известно е, че две трети от човешкото тяло се състои от вода. Твърдата материя в него не е толкова много, колкото изглежда на пръв поглед. Водата, според съвременната наука, може да записва и съхранява дълго време информация от заобикалящия ни свят. И затова, живеейки в нашия нестабилен, агресивен свят, благодарение на свойствата на водата (включително на водата, която носим в себе си), ние се превръщаме в нещо като гигантски информационен носител на различни позитиви и негативи. Ако живеем в една добра среда, сред хора, които ни обичат, “записите” в по-голямата си част са положителни. В противен случай ние абсорбираме раздразнението и гнева на другите, техния страх и най-различни низки емоции. Този запис е в състояние да нанесе щети върху нашето тяло и да го тласне към болестта. Сухото гладуване има способността да изтрие негативната информация, внесена в нашия организъм отвън. След не много дълъг пост без вода, ние заставяме организма да преработи тази вода и по този начин се “обновяваме” информационно, като в края на глада сме информационно “девствени” и представляваме информационна матрица, на която нищо негативно не е записано. Този феномен е едно от основните предимства на този вид глад.” /из “Сухое голодание” на Олег Виноградов/
Разбира се, като много мощно средство за изчистване и обновяване постът изисква и съответна теоретична и психическа подготовка. Много автори препоръчват продължителните пости да стават под наблюдение на специалист. За да има по-голям ефект, е необходимо да се съобразим с био-ритмите и циклите в природата, както с това е съобразен и християнският църковен пост. Необходими са и спомагателни процедури и техники, а впоследствие и правилно захранване (тема, изпълнена с противоречиви становища) и здравословен начин на живот, за да е по-дълготраен ефектът. Както в рамките на денонощието се редува интензивността на процесите на извеждане на отпадъците от метаболизма (условно от 4-12 часа), на храносмилане (от 12 до 20) и на асимилиране на хранителните вещества (от 20 до 4), явно и периодично е нужно да имаме периоди на по-интензивно прочистване на организма.
______________________________________
Автор: Георги Костов, източник: www.vegebg.org
Ползвани са материали от проф. Ангелов, д-р Шелтън, Пол Брег, Олег Виноградов, Сергей Филонов, В. Лавровой.
Коректура и редакция: Ралица Благовестова.
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Ползата от поста за здравето
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
| (>[2] /dev/null) |
| Публикувано | 19.03.17 18:05 |
|
|
Ясно е, че има много идиоти на този свят, само не ми е ясно защо публикува глупостите им...
The last good thing written in C was Franz Schubert's Symphony No. 9.
| |
|
Тема
|
SELBSTVERSORGUNG: 3 TAGE PRO MONAT GARTENARBEIT
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 22.03.17 13:27 |
|
|
Endlich kommt es mal zur Aussprache. Diesen Artikel bin ich euch schon lange schuldig, denn er ist ein wesentlicher Bestandteil meines Lazy Gardening Konzepts. Ich habe immer behauptet, dass Gartenarbeit nicht hart sein muss und jetzt rücke ich endlich raus mit der Sprache, wieso das so ist.
Lasst euch inspirieren, ermutigen und zum Träumen anregen. Dieser Artikel ist für alle, die noch andere Dinge lieben neben dem Gärtnern, aber auf die Freiheit der Selbstversorgung nicht verzichten möchten.
Viel Spaß!
Selbstversorgung= Harte Arbeit, wie im Mittelalter
Wie oft habe ich schon zu hören bekommen, dass ich viel Zeit investieren muss um solch einen Gemüsegarten zu hegen und zu pflegen. Wieviel Arbeit ich mir doch mache und dass diejenigen, die mich so sehr für meinen Garten loben, sich niemals so viel Arbeit machen könnten.
Das Lob beschämt mich, denn ich tue fast nichts, dass mein Salat wächst oder meine Früchte vor Fülle explodieren. Auch Unkraut ist schnell entfernt. Mein Mann und meine Freunde wissen das und grinsen in sich hinein, wenn der Besuch unseren Garten bewundert. Man sieht mich selten bei der Arbeit im Gemüsegarten, dafür aber öfter dort beim Entspannen mit einer Tasse Tee.
Ich habe keinen Stein der Weisen entdeckt, weder noch bin ich eine super Gärtnerin, der jede Pflanze mal so aus dem Daumen wächst. Aber ich bin ein Nerd in Sachen alternativen Gartenbüchern rund um die Welt. Und ich bin experimentierfreudig. Ich muss es einfach immer irgendwie anders machen, als andere. Dazu kommt noch eine gewaltige Portion Vertrauen in die Natur.
Das sind wohl die Grundsteine, die mir einen festen Boden in der Selbstversorgung geben.
Neue Beete zu setzen zähle ich nicht zu den 3 Tagen, denn einmal errichtet brauchen sie keine ständige Erneuerung. Das gehört für mich zur Saisonplanung und je nachdem, wie komplex ein Beet sein soll nimmt es unterschiedlich viel Zeit in Anspruch. Pflügen tue ich alleine nur mit einer Spatengabel/ Grabegabel. Für unseren trockenen Sandboden ideal, da ich somit keine Mikroorganismen oder Mycelien zerstöre, die ich für eine gute Wasserhaltung des Bodens benötige. Das minimiert meinen Aufwand für die Beackerung des Feldes schon enorm. Mein Lieblingsbeet kommt vollständig ohne umgraben aus und ist in wenigen Minuten pflanzbereit. Lies hier dazu.
Jetzt wird’s aber ein bisschen esoterisch.
Aber nun zum eigentlichen Thema. Wenn die Beete stehen und das Wetter mitspielt kann es losgehen. Ich orientiere mich an den Aussaatkalender oder auch Mondkalender von Maria Thun . Ob du daran glaubst oder nicht ist völlig nebensächlich. Er gibt mir eine gute Orientierung wann und was ich regelmäßig pflanzen soll. Falls du nicht weißt, wie der Pflanzkalender von Maria Thun funktioniert gibt es hier einen kurzen Anriss.
Die Tage sind je nach Planetenkonstellation in 4 Kategorien unterteilt (Blatttage, Wurzeltage, Blütentage und Fruchttage). Blatttage symbolisieren das wässrige Element und in der angegebenen Pflanzzeit werden an diesen Tagen Salate, Kohlköpfe, Kräuter und andere Gemüsesorten gepflanzt, von denen man es auf das Blatt als Gemüse abgesehen hat. So sind Wurzeltage für Gemüse unter der Erde gedacht (Karotten, Beete, Pastinaken usw.), Blütentage für Blumen und Früchte bei denen auf eine Bestäubung abgezielt wird und Fruchttage für Früchte im Allgemeinen (Zucchini, Äpfel, Tomaten, Gurken, Himbeeren usw.).
Einmal 2 wochenlang ist im Monat Pflanzzeit und auf diese Zeit habe ich es abgesehen.
Du kannst dir natürlich auch einfach so einen Zeitraum im Monat notieren, an dem du auf jeden Fall pflanzt. Ich habe einfach das Gefühl, dass die Planeten mir noch ein wenig Unterstützung liefern. Ein positiver psychischer Effekt, der meinen inneren Schweinehund überlistet.
Ich säe aus, setze um und pflanze nur an diesen Tagen ein. Blütentage lasse ich öfters aus, da ich mich kaum von essbaren Blüten ernähre und sie meist mit den Fruchttagen gleichsetze. Ich bin da relativ undogmatisch. Für mich ist nur wichtig, dass ich in dieser Zeit pflanze und etwas tue, damit ich nicht einen Monat ohne ein variationsreiches Gemüsebeet dastehe. Eine Prise Disziplin braucht es schon. Aber zum Glück nur einen Hauch.
Falls du dich jetzt fragst, ob du so viele Pflanzen an einem Tag schaffst unter die Erde zu bringen kann ich dich beruhigen.
Ja das schaffst du!
Hier ein kleiner Trick: Pikierschalen für viele kleine Pflanzen und eine Erdballenpresse für die Größeren, geben dir genug Zeit dich an diesen Tagen auch noch anderen Aufgaben zu widmen. Ansetzen von Düngemittel, bzw. das Düngen mit Mist und Brennnesseljauche, Unkraut jäten, Ställe reinigen (bitte öfter als nur einmal im Monat ;-)), sollten auch in diese Zeit fallen. Vergiss auch nicht das Wässern der Sämlinge und Jungpflanzen. Ein gut platzierter Rasensprenger kann dir hier viel Zeit sparen.
Den Kompost brauche ich nicht zu wenden. Das tun meine Hühner für mich (Bitte, Mist getrennt vom Kompost lagern, damit die Hygiene der Tiere bewahrt bleibt). Dadurch braucht er ein Viertel der Zeit zum Verrotten und meine Hühner sind mit zusätzlichen Mineralien versorgt.
Und was ist mit Wildkraut/Unkraut zupfen?
Hier habe ich drei entscheidende Tipps, die du befolgen solltest, damit deine Pflanzen im Wildkrautmeer nicht untergehen.
1. Pflanze nach der Biointensiven Methode an.
In Reihen pflanzen ist so was von gestern, heute pflanzt man im Hexagon Muster, also in einem Bienenwabenmuster. Du pflanzt so dicht, dass die Pflanzen, nachdem sie ausgewachsen sind, sich berühren. Das hat den Vorteil, dass der Boden beschattet wird: Fremdkräuter dringen kaum noch durch, da ihnen das Sonnenlicht entzogen wird und der Boden bleibt durch diese natürliche Mulchschicht länger feucht. Des Weiteren nehmen die Pflanzen sich auch nicht ihre Nährstoffe weg, sondern stehen in einer gesunden leichten Konkurrenz zueinander, was ihren Wachstum antreibt.
So bekommst du enorm viele Pflanzen auf kleiner Fläche unter.
2. Wenn du in den Garten gehst picke dir immer ein paar Unkräuter mit heraus. Verfütter sie an deine Tiere oder an dich, wenn sie essbar sind. Ich mache morgens immer grüne Smoothies und schmeiße neben Gemüse und Früchten ein paar Wildkräuter mit in den Mixer. So wirst du ohne es zu merken Unkrautfrei. Falls dir grüne Smoothies nichts sind, wie wär‘s mit einem Knoblauch-Wildkräuter Pesto?
3. Mulche mit Stroh! Wenn die Jungpflanzen groß genug sind, bekommen sie eine Decke aus Stroh oder abgelagerten Stallmist mit Stroh gemischt, je nach Verzehrbedarf der Pflanze (Schwachzehrer/Starkzehrer). Der Boden bleibt feucht und unterdrückt unerwünschte Beikräuter. Zusätzlich liefert er eine langanhaltende Nährstoffversorgung für deine Pflanzen.
Der absolute Geheimtipp, wenn du mal deine Beete zu sehr gehen gelassen hast oder aus dem Urlaub wiederkommst: Hole dir, wenn du ein paar Groschen über hast, eine Pendelhacke. Damit befreist du große Flächen von Kräutern in Sekunden.
Meine Lieblingsgartengeräte sind vorwiegend aus Kupfer. Sie kosten ein Schweinegeld, aber ich liebe sie und ihren Style einfach. Und ja, das ist wieder so ein esoterisches Ding, aber dazu gibt’s bald einen eigenen Artikel.
Unkräuter sind kein so großes Problem, wenn man regelmäßig etwas tut. Die meiste Zeit benötigst du für das Vereinzeln von Karotten. Also, wenn du eine Kaninchenfarm dein Eigen nennst rechne hier noch mal einen Tag drauf.
Genauso regelmäßig solltest du jeden Monat pflanzen. Auch in den Wintermonaten säe ich ein paar Samen an, die im Frühjahr in Massen sprießen und mir die Arbeit zum Saisonstart erleichtern. So habe ich mehr Zeit für neue Beete und muss nicht hetzen. Außerdem sind Spinat und Co. somit früher erntereif.
Wichtig ist auch noch zu erwähnen, dass viele meiner Pflanzen sich selbst aussäen.
Permakultur halt.
z.B. mein Kopfsalat besteht jetzt schon seit mehreren Jahren aus angesäten Pflanzen, die sich regelmäßig von selbst aussäen. Ich lasse mindestens drei Kopfsalate in Blüte gehen und ernte von diesen, nur vereinzelte Blätter. Im Hochsommer verbreiten sich die Samen übers gesamte Beet und weit darüber hinaus. Dadurch habe ich wieder neue Salate vor Wintereinbruch. Zwar wachsen auch mal Salate auf dem Weg, jedoch setze ich diese dann einfach um.
So verfahre ich auch mit vielen anderen Vertretern meines Gemüsegartens ohne, dass ich viel Arbeit habe.
Du siehst, es steckt nicht so viel Arbeit hinter ein funktionierendes System. Die Natur kommt ganz gut ohne uns zurecht und fließt unaufhörlich weiter. Wir können nur versuchen sie ein wenig in unsere Richtung fließen zu lassen. Das reicht aus für einen üppigen Gemüsegarten, der dich und deine Familie versorgen kann.
Hab ich deinen inneren Schweinehund überzeugen können? Lass mir noch ein Kommentar da und dann raus in den Garten mit dir!
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: SELBSTVERSORGUNG: die Kommentare zum Artikel
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 22.03.17 13:28 |
|
|
59 comments on “Wie 3 Tage pro Monat Gartenarbeit reichen um meine Familie selbst zu versorgen”
Dirk Schnakenbeck sagt:
7. November 2016 um 16:48
Sehr schön geschriebener Artikel. Mir geht es oft ähnlich wie dir, wenn Besucher unseren „tollen Garten, aber macht doch viel Arbeit, oder? “ bewundern. Nö. Macht es nicht. Es gibt immer etwas zu tun, wenn man will. Aber ein altes plattdeutsches Sprichwort lautet: “ kannst mehr aftöben als aflopen.“ Man kann mehr abwarten als ablaufen. Und dann lässt man eben der Natur ihren Lauf und beobachtet erstmal, bevor man eingreift. Und das scheinst du noch mehr verinnerlicht zu haben als ich, mit einer guten Basis an Wissen aus Büchern und praktischer Erfahrung. Ich finde deine Seite bisher sehr interessant und lebendig geschrieben. Macht Spaß und Kurzweil. Weiter so!
Antworten
Nicole sagt:
7. November 2016 um 21:09
Haha, das Sprichwort muss ich mir merken. Ja, wenn man will gibt es immer etwas zu tun. Aber wie heißt es so schön in der Permakultur? „If it’s not broken, don’t fix it!“ 😀 Der Mensch muss auch erst verstehen, dass das Zeitempfinden der Natur viel langsamer ist, als das des Menschen. Sich darauf einzustellen und immer wieder die Wunder der Natur in immer größer werdenden Zeitabständen zu sehen, ermöglicht es uns eine präzisere Erkenntnis über die herrschenden Kreisläufe zu erhalten. In der Ruhe liegt wirklich viel Kraft. Danke für den tollen Kommentar, Dirk.
Antworten
Paul sagt:
7. November 2016 um 23:54
Laut Bioland-Bauer — der sehr aromatische und schöne Möhren hat und das seit zig Jahren — müssen Karotten nicht vereinzelt werden; die wachsen zusammen gerade nach unten… nur so als Einwurf (wieder Arbeit gespart!).
Sehr schöner Artikel und das mit dem sich selbst aussäenden Salat kenn ich auch — spricht für samenfeste Sorten?!!
Antworten
Nicole sagt:
9. November 2016 um 9:09
Cool, Danke für den Tipp Paul! Das werde ich nächstes Jahr auf jeden Fall ausprobieren. Bald hab ich nichts mehr zu tun im Garten. Ob ich mich dann noch Gärtnerin nennen darf? 😉 Ja, auf samenfeste Sorten achte ich, wenn ich mir mal neue Samen kaufe. Ansonsten versuche ich Pflanzen immer auswachsen zu lassen, damit ich Samen ernten kann und für nächstes Jahr keine kaufen muss. LG
Antworten
Alex sagt:
14. November 2016 um 18:09
Was bedeutet „Samenfeste Sorten“?
Antworten
Nicole sagt:
14. November 2016 um 21:48
Hey Alex,
So nennt man Samen, die Keimfähig sind. Also woraus du wieder neue Pflanzen ziehen kannst. Nich jeder Same ist keimfähig. Besonders dann nicht, wenn es sich um F1 Hybriden handelt. Bei ihnen rechnet man mit einer hohen Unfruchtbarkeitsrate. LG
Antworten
tim tomate sagt:
6. Februar 2017 um 20:21
hi, lese gerade als gast deine frage.
http://www.saatgutkampagne.org
http://www.dreschflegel.de
da findest du mehr zum wohl wichtigsten thema der welt, von dem kaum einer weiss.
vg tim tomate
Antworten
Suann sagt:
10. November 2016 um 9:12
Vielen Dank für die schönen Inspirationen! Ein schon geschriebener und inhaltlich wertvoller Beitrag. Den Pendel-Jäter habe ich mir gleich bestellt :).
LG Sue
Antworten
Nicole sagt:
11. November 2016 um 9:16
Hey Susann, der Pendel-Jäter ist auch mein absolutes Lieblingswerkzeug. Gerade jetzt wo ich schwanger bin und mir das Bücken schwer fällt nimmt er mir so viel Arbeit ab. Du wirst ihn lieben, da bin ich mir sicher. 😉 Liebe Grüße
Antworten
Vigor Calma sagt:
10. November 2016 um 10:04
Danke für den Artikel. Schön von Außen Bestätiung zu bekommen, für das, was ich schon lange ahne: die Natur kümmert sich weitgehend um sich selbst. Ich muss nur den Überblick behalten. „Harte Arbeit“ ist eben ein eitles Egokonzept, mit dem ich wenig anfangen kann.
Antworten
Nicole sagt:
11. November 2016 um 9:14
Hey Vigor! Ja, die Sprüche von harter Arbeit sind meiner Meinung nach nur Abschreckungswerkzeuge der Medien, damit wir weiterhin schön einkaufen gehen. 😉
Antworten
Mohana sagt:
10. November 2016 um 11:17
hallo Nicole, danke für den Artikel wieder was gelernt, eine Frage habe ich . Wie machst du das mit der Haxagonform der Beete,hast du mal ein Bild von so einem beet, dann kann ich mir das besser vorstellen. lieben dank Mohana
Antworten
Nicole sagt:
11. November 2016 um 9:03
Hey Mohana, hier sind ein paar Bilder wo man die Pflanzweise besser erkennt, als auf meinem Bild. https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/d9/7a/dd/d97add48b2e1639c77f86796c44fcf38.jpg und http://cloud.bountifulgardens.net/bg_calc.php . Ich hoffe du kannst die Seiten öffnen, sind von Pinterest unter dem Begriff Biointensiv Gardening. Liebe Grüße
Antworten
Veronica - hyperbrain.me sagt:
10. November 2016 um 11:36
Wunderbare Artikel! Mir war das mit den Hexagonmustern neu (und ich bin auch ein Permakultur/Alternativgärtnern-nerd). Muss ich mal probieren wenn ich von meinen Terrassengarten wieder einen „upgrade“ in einen rightigen Garten wieder mache.
Antworten
Nicole sagt:
11. November 2016 um 8:56
Unbedingt! Im Hexagonmuster zu pflanzen spart so viel Fläche und sieht dazu noch professionell aus. Danke für’s Lob, Veronica!
Antworten
Bjørn sagt:
10. November 2016 um 12:41
Ich glaube das „Maß“ an Arbeit der Dinge, die zu tun sind, oder gemacht werden müssten, ist eigentlich gar nicht so hoch. Es kommt aber auch ein bisschen auf das Empfinden an. Wie Du selbst schreibst, pflückt man mal hier, mal dort, mal etwas Unkraut, und empfindet es selbst nicht als Unangenehm. So geht es mir, es ist angenehm und schön ein Kraut, eine Pflanze, die Erde anzufassen. Ich bin gerne draußen, mitten drin, kucke es mir auch nur an bei einer Tasse Tee, oder werkel so vor mich hin.
Ich glaube für den englischen Gartenbesitzer, der der Predigt der Ordnung folgt, und einer ganz gewissen Vorstellung wie es auszusehen hat, ist das Potenzial näher in ein Gefühl des Stresses kommen zu können. Ich glaube hier wird eher das fertig Werk genossen. (nur eine Vermutung 🙂 )
Für mich selbst ist ein wesentlich angenehmerer „Lebensweg“. Und für den Rest, hat die Natur immer ein Weg gefunden 😉
Antworten
Nicole sagt:
11. November 2016 um 8:54
Du sprichst mir aus der Seele Bjoern! Ich denke, ein englischer Gärtner würde beim Anblick meines Gartens Tod umfallen. 😉
Antworten
Ilona sagt:
10. November 2016 um 13:21
Schöner Artikel 🙂 <3
Mich würde sehr interessieren was ich jetzt so pflanzen kann um im Frühjahr nicht so viel Zeit auf einmal zu brauchen und wie Du Dir merkst wo Du schon gepflanzt hast und wo nicht.
Liebe Grüße
Antworten
Nicole sagt:
11. November 2016 um 8:51
Hes Ilona, dazu werde ich bald einen Pflanzplan veröffentlichen. Aber soviel vorweg: Ich habe Salate, Spinate, frostharte Asia-Salate, aber auch Pastinaken und Grünkohl auf einige Beete ausgesät. Der Samen sollten unter der Erde liegen, damit die Vögel nicht alles aufpicken (eventuell mit Vlies schützen). Die meisten Pflanzen keimen dann gegen März. Um es mir zu merken mache ich mir einen Pflanzplan, der am Ende der Saison so chaotisch aussieht, dass nur noch ich den Durchblick habe. Aber ich habe Durchblick. 😉 Liebe Grüße an Dich
Antworten
dieter sagt:
10. November 2016 um 15:36
Etwas über- bzw. untertrieben finde ich die Aussage mit den 3 Tagen schon , vielleicht 72 intensive h kommen schon eher hin. Ansonsten geht es mir hier im Garten genauso. Den Nachbarn erzähle ich was von Nasch – und Pflückgarten.
Antworten
Nicole sagt:
11. November 2016 um 8:44
Hey Dieter, also ich bin Mutter und schaffe es neben den 3 Tagen noch meine Kinder zu unterhalten. Ich pflanze ja auch nicht jeden Monat komplett neu, da ich von den meisten Pflanzen nur einzelne Blätter pflücke. Jeder Monat hat seine eigenen Pflanzen, die ausgesät werden. Der Anfang ist vielleicht ein paar Stunden länger, aber im Hochsommer hat man dann wieder weniger zu säen. Es kommt natürlich auch auf seine eigenen Essgewohnheiten an und welche Pflanzen du anbaust. Ich bin auch sehr routiniert im Garten und habe alle Geräte in unmittelbarer Nähe oder zur Hand. Das spart noch einmal enorm viel Zeit.
Antworten
Heidi sagt:
10. November 2016 um 18:05
Danke fuer den Artikel, hat mich wiedermal in meiner eigener Arbeit bestaetigt. Ich machs fast genau auch so. Ich saehe allerdings nur Pfluecksalat an und keinen Kopfsalat. So pflueck ich immer nur Blaetter und lass jede Pflanze aufstengeln, bluehen und sich wiederum selber vermehren. So hab ich Salat bis der Frost kommt. Mit den Karotten hab ichs auch schon ohne Vereinzeln gemacht, war aber mit dem Resultat nicht zufrieden. Ich hatte zuviele doch eher kleine und kurze Karotten. Anstatt von Stroh nehm ich Holzschnitzel, die decken super ab, behalten den Boden feucht, lassen praktisch kein Unkraut durch und verkompostieren automatisch zu guter Erde bis im naechsten Jahr. Schmeiss dann noch vor dem Winter etwas Huehner-Ziegen-Pferdemist dazu (aus eigener Produktion versteht sich 😉 ) und schwubs hab ich super Boden fuer den naechsten Fruehling. Broccoli uebrigens lass ich auch den ganzen Sommer ueber stehen und pfluecke nur, anstatt die ganze Pflanze auszureissen. Eine Pflanze macht dann nach dem Pfluecken oft wieder eine „Blume“ und so kann ich auch die Blaetter mitbenuetzen, die man feingeschnitten aehnlich wie Spinat verwenden kann und die sogar gesuender sind, als der Broccoli selber.
Antworten
Nicole sagt:
11. November 2016 um 8:36
Hallo Heidi, beim Kopfsalat pflücke ich auch nur einzelne Blätter ab, außer ich bringe als Gastgeschenk mal einen ganzen Kopf mit. So wachsen die Salate auch in die Höhe und blühen aus. Die Blätter werden zwar etwas bitterer im Geschmack, aber falls wir sie nicht mehr essen, unsere Wachteln lieben die sie. Ich probiere nächstes Jahr an einem Beet die Karotten nicht zu vereinzeln, aber dann mit gelber (Futtermöhre) oder violetter Möhre (purple haze). Die sind sehr Wachstumsstark. Mal sehen vielleicht klappt das ja. Stroh haben wir fast immer da, deshalb benutze ich es zum mulchen. Sonst decke ich auch mit Laub im Winter ab. Man nimmt halt was man kriegen kann. 😉 Danke für den Broccoli-Tipp, den werde ich mir merken! Liebe Grüße
Antworten
Antke Lammers sagt:
10. November 2016 um 19:10
Danke, dieser Bericht kommt für mich grad recht und entspricht so ganz meinem Sinn. Ich habe noch keinen eigenen Garten, aber bald….
Antworten
Nicole sagt:
11. November 2016 um 8:19
Das freut mich, danke Antke!
Antworten
Sylvia sagt:
10. November 2016 um 21:08
Sehr toll, lebendig und schön geschrieben!
Ich habe gerade wieder Lust auf unseren Garten bekommen, der außer Rand und Band geraten ist und der mich nach nun meinem erst 2.Gartenjahr echt hat zweifeln und mich in Aufgeben-Stimmung brachte… Ich sage nur: Lehmboden, Invasion der Nacktschnecken, blühende Gladiolen und Kapuzinerkresse im Oktober/November(!!) -ich habe keine Ahnung warum sie dieses Jahr sooo spät kamen. Es war dieses Jahr kaum eine Ernte möglich außer Kartoffeln, Heidelbeeren und Erdbeeren war alles Schneckenfutter sogar die Radisli und Bohnensetzlinge/ wie auch Freigesäte waren für die Schnecke.
Kurzzeitig dachte ich sogar über Gift oder Laufenten nach.
(Es war jeden Abend das selbe 1000de Nacktschnecken aus dem ringsum umgebenden Ackerland auf dem Weg in den Garten.)
Nun werde ich mich mal weiter in deinen Texten einlesen….
Herzlichen Dank für diese Garten ist so Easy Einblicke!
Antworten
Nicole sagt:
11. November 2016 um 8:27
Hey Sylvia, Laufenten oder Enten und Hühner sind klasse gegen Schnecken, aber auch Zecken vertilgen die gnadenlos. Seitdem wir unsere Hühner frei halten gab es von Jahr zur Jahr immer weniger Schnecken und Zecken. Lehmboden ist schon ein hartes Los, wir haben genau das Gegenteil: weißen Sandboden. Es hat schon etwas gedauert den fruchtbar zu machen, aber die Zeit lohnte sich. Ich hoffe du wirst nächstes Jahr im Garten ordentlich loslegen. Ich drücke dir dafür kräftig die Daumen. 😉
Antworten
Laura sagt:
14. November 2016 um 16:26
Danke für den Artikel.
Aber auch mir machen die Schnecken zu schaffen. Hühner können wir nicht halten und Laufenten auch nicht. Aus Nachbars Garten kommen sie in Scharen und in Hochgeschwindigkeit angaloppiert. Es ist so traurig. Sie haben sogar Lauch, Paprika und meine einzige Artischocke aufgefressen. Was tun? Ich arbeite auch nach Maria Thun und würde gerne das Veraschen richtig lernen. Mein Opa hat das sehr erfolgreich gemacht, aber ich checke das nicht richtig. Kennst Du Dich aus?
Antworten
Nicole sagt:
14. November 2016 um 16:32
Hallo Laura, mit dem Veraschen kenne ich mich auch nicht aus. Ich versuche so wenig wie möglich selbst in die Natur einzugreifen und überlasse das meinen Tieren. Schade, dass du keine Tiere halten kannst, denn meiner Meinung nach benötigt es die Hilfe von Tieren unbedingt, um eine Balance in der Natur herzustellen. Ich wünsche dir weiterhin viel Erfolg, um dein Schneckenproblem in den Griff zu bekommen. LG
Antworten
tim tomate sagt:
6. Februar 2017 um 20:45
Hi Laura, ich habe hier auch schweren Lehm und viele Schnecken… was bei mir letztes Jahr erstaunlich gut funktioniert hatte, war ein Zaun aus Fichten- und Tannennadeln.
Ich hatte beobachtet, dass die Schnecken den Boden unter den Nadelbäumen nie bevölkern und dann einfach um das Beet einen 5 cm tiefen Minigraben gebuddelt und den mit Fichten- und Tannenzweigen gefüllt.
Und Tip 2: Bretter auslegen, da sammeln sich die Schnecken drunter und Du kannst sie absammeln. VG
Antworten
Angela sagt:
21. November 2016 um 22:53
Oh Sylvia… Du sprichst mir aus der Seele..
Lese hier bei Nicole gerade so still mit und bin restlos begeistert @ Nicole : ich bewundere Deine Art zu gärtnern und zu schreiben aus ganzem Herzen…
Aber auch ich verzweifle hier am entweder nass und batschigen oder trocken und steinharten Lehmboden und der Schneckeninvasion . Wenn ich Nicoles Berichten folge will ich sofort raus und etwas tun, es hört sich alles so super an, doch dann stehe ich vor diesem großen Garten und weiß nicht, wo ich anfangen soll. Ich habe irgendwie auch das Gefühl, daß ich mir das alles gar nicht merken kann, was zu beachten ist 😉 Nicole, gibt es einen Trick für so einen blutigen Anfänger wie mich?
Viele Grüße
Angi
Antworten
Nicole sagt:
22. November 2016 um 8:13
Hey Angi, ich war auch so verzweifelt bei unserem Sandboden und wollte am liebsten gleich aufgeben. Zum Glück hab ich’s nicht getan 😉 . Ich habe einen Trick und der heißt: Liste führen. Ich schreibe mir alles immer in Listen auf, wenn ich mich überfordert fühle. Manchmal mache ich sogar eine Mindmap, um die Beziehungen zu einander klar vor Augen zu haben. Es hilft mir ungemein etwas Ordnung in meinen chaotischen Kopf zu bekommen. Aber es gibt bald auch einen To Do Checklisten Garten-Plan. Wenn ich etwas unbedingt behandeln sollte, schreibt mir das am besten. Ich versuche auf jede Frage eine Antwort zu finden. Das Lehmboden-Problem ist notiert. 😉 Ich frage mal in meinen Netzwerken herum, ob da jemand eine arbeitssparende und umweltfreundliche Variante hat solche Böden zu bearbeiten. Liebe Grüße und vielen Dank für die tollen Worte
Antworten
Nicole sagt:
26. November 2016 um 13:01
Hier noch ein kleiner Tipp für harte Lehmböden! Bitte festhalten (Ja, wirklich!). Nicht den Lehmboden umgraben!!! Kennt ihr Charles Dowding, den König der No-Dig-Methode (Nicht-Umgrabe-Methode)? Er verwandelte seine Gärten (steinharte Lehmböden, sowie alte ausgelaugte Landwirtschaftsflächen) in wahre Oasen. Die Fülle an Gemüse ist unglaublich. Ich hatte schon so einiges von ihm gehört und lese gerade sein Buch „Gemüsegärtnern wie die Profis“. Beim recherchieren im Internet gab es einen englischen Artikel, der zeigte wie üppig alles bei ihm wächst und er seinen Boden nicht mal mühevoll dafür bearbeiten muss. Seine Bücher gibt es auch auf deutsch bei Amazon. Ich denke das wäre was für euch 😉
Antworten
Sylvia sagt:
15. Dezember 2016 um 12:42
Wow Dankeschön! Ich grabe auch fast nicht um nur im ersten Jahr um die Winde etwas zu minimieren aber nun arbeite ich total oberflächlich also rupfe auch das BeiKraut nur ab wenn es zu hoch oder wuchtig wird… Danke für deinen Tip!
Antworten
Jana sagt:
11. November 2016 um 11:07
Vielen Dank, du hast mich wirklich inspiriert !
Antworten
Nicole sagt:
11. November 2016 um 11:30
Danke Dir Jana, für deine lieben Worte! <3
Antworten
Erika sagt:
11. November 2016 um 16:47
Wie handhabst Du das mit der Nachfolge des Gemüses, also was im Vorjahr da stand.?
Die nächste Pflanzung sollte ja passen.
Antworten
Nicole sagt:
12. November 2016 um 10:59
Hallo Erika, ich notiere mir die Bereiche, wo ich was gepflanzt habe und pflanze als nächstes Vertreter anderer Pflanzenfamilien. Bei mehrjährigen Pflanzen belasse ich sie natürlich an Ort und Stelle. Darunter können verschiedene Pflanzen fallen, die andere Gärtner für einjährigen Anbau verwenden. Z.B.: Salate säen sich von selbst aus und sind bei mir mehrjährig. Tomaten und Kürbisse können sich auch schon mal von selber aussäen, wenn ich welche entdecke belasse ich sie dort, wenn es mir passend vorkommt oder pflanze sie um, falls sie mitten auf den Wegen oder im Kräuterbeet wachsen. Liebe Grüße
Antworten
Jana sagt:
13. November 2016 um 7:01
Ich freue mich total. Habe eben deine Seite entdeckt und bin begeistert. Nächstes Jahr geht es auch los mit vielen Beeten. Lieben Dank für deine Mühe der Weitergabe deines Wissens. Liebe Grüße Jana
Antworten
Nicole sagt:
13. November 2016 um 8:12
Vielen Dank Jana!!! 🙂
Antworten
peter armut sagt:
13. November 2016 um 12:44
Schon wärs… Aber leider auch nur für Privilegierte (wie der Autor) mit eigenem Landbesitz. Landbesitz ist sowieso einer der grössten Fehler, der die Menschheit begangen hat.
Antworten
Nicole sagt:
13. November 2016 um 15:20
Landbesitz? Wir sind nur Mieter! Lies mal den Artikel hier, da wird dir geholfen 😉 : http://www.biotopicafarm.de/wie-wir-aufs-land-zogen-ohne-ersparnisse/
Antworten
Yvonne sagt:
13. November 2016 um 15:46
Danke für den tollen bericht ich halte es sehr ähnlich . Ja der richtige mondstand ist eine grosse hilfe . Ich mische immer noch Kaffeesatz zum kompost das ist die beste wurmzucht und da ich stark lehmigen boden habe helfen die beim lockern.
Antworten
Nicole sagt:
13. November 2016 um 15:54
Hallo Yvonne, das klingt klasse. Mein Mann trinkt nur Matetee, aber der wirkt auch vitalisierend auf unseren trockenen Sandboden. Wir haben noch zusätzlich ein paar Wurmcontainer. Man kann von ihnen halt nie genug haben. LG
Antworten
Kerstin sagt:
13. November 2016 um 20:10
Sag, wie groß ist dein Garten? Oder besser gesagt wie groß ist die Flächer deiner Gemüsebeete?
Wir garteln auch – aber es ist schon viel zu tun und mit der Gartenarbeit alleine ist es dann auch nicht getan! Wenn alles gut gewachsen ist geht es los mit vielen Tagen an denen ich Einkoche, in Sand einlege,…den Garten einwintern, Gartenplanung, usw….3 Tage im Monat scheint mir für unseren Garten nicht realistisch-ich brauch eher 3Tage in der Woche oder mehr 😉
Antworten
Nicole sagt:
14. November 2016 um 8:28
Hallo Kerstin, unser Garten ist 3125qm groß, davon sind ungefähr 1000qm in Food Forest, Permakulturfläche und biointensive Gartenbeete aufgeteilt. Bald kommt das Biotopica Farm Profil auf die Seite. Dort werde ich alles genaustens erläutern. Auch mit dem Einkochen, denn das mache ich meist nebenbei zum regulären Kochen. Außerdem habe ich kleine Küchenhelfer, die mir die Arbeit fast von selbst abnehmen. Gartenplanung ist meine Winterbeschäftigung und gute Beete ersetze ich ja nicht durch Neue. 3 Tage in der Woche ist wirklich ganz schön aufwendig für einen Garten. Das klingt für mich nach einer großen Farm. LG
Antworten
Kerstin sagt:
14. November 2016 um 9:52
Hallo Nicole, ich rechne in den Zeitaufwand alles mitein, da meiner Meinung nach alles zum Garten gehört! Beete im Frühling für das Gemüse richten(wir müssen Sand einarbeiten da der Boden sehr lehmig ist), Gründüngung einarbeiten bzw. Mulchdecke(Stroh) entfernen…Die Beete winterfest machen und ernten…Sträucher und Bäume pflegen(Baumanstrich, Leimringe, mit Ackerschatelhalm spritzen, usw)…Jauche ansetzten….im Herbst ernten und wir beginnen relativ bald zum Einochen bis in den Winter hinein! Das Einlagern in den Sandkeller braucht auch seine Zeit, da wir natürlich kontrollieren welches Gemüse gleich verbraucht werden muss oder gut zu lagern ist…zuvor wird der Erdkeller mal ordentlich sauber gemacht….Der Sand zum Einlagern muss ja auch noch mal wo geholt werden(rauf schaufeln und runter schaufeln von Anhänger und Fahrtzeit)…Die Schnecken und Kartoffelkäfer sammeln wir ein-fast jeden Tag! Der Rasen wird ja auch regelmäßig gemäht, bis auf unsere Blumenwiese die wir nur 2x im Jahr mähen und dann auch das Heu abtransportiern müssen….
Wir haben eine Fläche von 4200qm und davon 300qm Beetfläche, ein paar Bäume und Sträucher….und ich finde es ist sehr Zeitaufwendig! Im Sommer 2015 haben wir jeden Tag fast 2h mit gießen verbracht(lag wohl daran, dass wir fast alles mit der Gießkanne gemacht haben und nix automatisches haben)….Gartenplanung beginne ich auch schon im Winter-gehört aber meiner Meinung nach auch dazu zur Gartenarbeit! Vielleicht habe ich deinen Eintrag auch falsch verstanden und du meinst, dass du nur 3Tage im Monat im Gemüsebeet arbeitest und Unkraut entfernst? Denn dann ist die Überschrift auch irreführend…da es genauso ist wie man sagt und es auch meint, dass Gartenarbeit Zeitaufwendig ist! Und wenn man es gerne macht, dann fühlt es sich ja auch nicht schlimm an! Aber man sollte sich schon bewusst sein wieviel Zeit ein Garten mit ALLEM DRUM UND DRAN in anspruch nimmt, anstatt zu vermitteln dass man nur 3mal im Monat etwas in die Hand nehmen muss um Erfolg zu haben 😉 Daher möchte ich den Lesern schon gerne mitteilen sich darüber Gedanken zu machen was ein Garten im GANZEN an Aufwand benötigt und welche Ansprüche man hat, wie gepflegt der Garten sein soll, wie groß er sein soll, wieviel man einlagern oder einkochen kann/möchte,….
Aber vielleicht liegt es auch nur daran, dass wir die letzten zwei Jahre damit beschäftigt waren aus einem Maisacker(4200qm) einen schönen Garten zu machen 😉
Vielleicht, wenn alle Bäume gepflanzt sind usw…, werde ich dann auch weniger Zeit benötigen um ihn in Schuss zu halten! Aber ganz ehrlich werd ich sicher viel mehr als nur 3Tag im Monat an Gartenarbeit aufwenden 😉
Wenn du das so einfach schaffst ist das toll! Alles Liebe, Kerstin
Antworten
Nicole sagt:
14. November 2016 um 16:27
Hallo Kerstin, Danke für deine ausführliche Schilderung. Bei uns fallen einige Dinge weg, mit denen wir nicht zu kämpfen haben. Z.B.: haben wir keinerlei Schneckenprobleme, müssen kein Sand in unseren Boden einarbeiten oder Mulchschichten entfernen (die Mulchschicht arbeitet unseren Sandboden zur besseren Qualität auf, da entfernen wir ihn nicht). Ich gieße meine Beete nicht mit der Gießkanne, sondern stelle nur den Wasserhahn an und platziere ab und an den Rasensprenger neu (wir gießen sehr sehr selten, da wir uns nach dem Maria Thun Kalender richten und dadurch ein erhöhtes Niederschlagsrisiko vorhersehbar ist). Ich streiche meine Bäume nicht an oder mache Leimringe, auch spritze ich meine Bäume nicht. Ich schneide sie nur, wenn ich auf einen ur-alten Baum treffe, der schon einmal beschnitten wurde und das auch nur einmal in 6(?) Jahren. Sonst belasse ich meine Bäume so natürlich wie sie sind und unterstütze sie mit einer Kompostbeigabe im Frühjahr. Bei Bäumen richte ich mich nach der Masanobu Fukuoka Methode und beim pflanzen nach der Permakultur, sowie dem Biointensiv Gardening. Wir müssen unsere Rasenfläche nicht mähen, denn wir haben Gänse, Schafe und Ziegen, die wir bei Bedarf auf die Fläche bringen können. Alles auf unseren Hof ist so aufgebaut und geplant, dass es minimalsten Aufwand benötigt, sowie geringe Laufwege. Die Beete winterfest zu machen schaffe ich innerhalb einer Stunde: Laub rauf harken, Vlies und Folie ausrollen und beschweren, fertig. 😉 Unser Brennnesselbeet liegt direkt neben unseren Jauchetonnen. Ich ernte mit der Sense und packe den Schnitt in die Tonnen (das sind keine 20 Min). Jauchen bekommen nur Starkzehrer, die durch eine Abnahme der Nährstoffe im Beet diese benötigen. Mit Schädlingen habe ich nur dann Probleme, wenn der Boden keine gute Balance aufweist und die Pflanze geschwächt und anfällig ist. Dazu lasse ich es aber nie kommen. Ich habe eine Vorratskammer mit Keller im Haus, aber diese gehört zur alltäglichen Hausreinigung dazu. Schließlich benutze ich sie jeden Tag und möchte sie immer sauber haben. Zum Einmieten transportiere ich nicht jedes Jahr neuen Sand in den Keller, sondern staple von einer Ecke in die Andere. Einkochen mache ich nebenbei, d.h., wenn ich eine Suppe koche bereite ich sie in einem riesiegen Topf zu, dadurch habe ich genug übrig neben dem Essen und fülle sie schnell in abgekochte Gläser (kochend rein, umdrehen, abkühlen lassen, wegstellen, fertig). Durch das Wintergärtner Handbuch von Eliot Coleman, beziehe ich im Winter viel frisches Gemüse von draußen, trotz Minusgrade. Ich benötige wirklich nur 3 Tage im Monat für eine mehr als ausreichende Ernte im Garten. Gute Beete plane ich nicht neu und meistens entsteht ein Klettergerüst spontan am Pflanztag. Jeder Mensch ist anders und jeder denkt anders. Ich pflege den Weg des minimalsten Aufwandes zu gehen und mir nicht mehr Arbeit zu machen, als nötig. Meine Tiere helfen mir einen Großteil bei der Gartenarbeit. Ich beobachte die Pflanzen, denn sie geben mir Auskunft darüber, was sie benötigen. Sowie Naturereignisse, welche immer in Zyklen kommen. So kann man sich auf die Gegebenheiten, ob günstig oder ungünstig einstellen und nach Bedarf handeln. Falls du dir nicht so viel Aufwand machen möchtest lege ich dir ans Herz dich mit den Basis-Büchern der Permakultur auseinanderzusetzen. Sie geben eine neue Perspektive, was wirklich wichtig ist im Garten zu tun und trotzdem sich versorgen zu können. Ich hoffe ich konnte dir einen kleinen Einblick geben, wie bei mir die Dinge laufen. Danke für deinen Kommentar. So sehe ich, was ich vergesse zu schreiben, damit meine Artikel für jedermann verständlich ist. Viele Grüße an Dich
Antworten
Kerstin sagt:
14. November 2016 um 18:15
Danke für deine Antwort! 🙂
Achso, dann geht das Konzept nur unter bestimmten Umständen auf 😉
Wir haben weder Strom noch Wasseranschluss(seit 2Jahren) im Garten und daher können wir nicht automatisch gießen lassen(das sollte sich 2017 ändern) und 2015 war es extrem heiß und wir haben die Bäume und Sträucher ganz frisch gepflanzt!
Schafe wären bei uns auch nicht möglich, da bräuchten wir einen Stall und ich muss zugeben es würde mich stören wenn die Ausscheidungen der Tiere herumliegen 😉
Unsere beiden Wildenten fressen lieber Würmer als Schnecken und es würde mich interessieren ob deine Enten denn nicht das Gemüse anknabbern und ob diese auch die Ackerschnecken fressen und vorallem finden würden(leben meist IN der Erde und sich auch im Winter aktiv)-rote Schnecken haben wir im ganzen Jahr vielleicht 10 Stück gesehen…
Liegt beim einwintern der Sand bei dir am Boden? Das geht bei uns leider nicht-die Mäuschen huschen immer wieder mal hinein und auch die eine oder andere Wühlmaus gräbt sich durch-daher kommts bei uns in die Kisten und wegen der Hygiene nehmen wir immer neuen Sand. Der alte kommt auf die Beete wie gesagt(lehmiger Boden)
Es ist erst unser zweites Gartenjahr, ich hatte zuvor noch keinen und wir mussten ja erst ALLES ganz neu machen!
Wenn du magst kannst dir ja die Bilder ansehen http://www.keiki-farm.at
Wo ist dein Garten? Kann man den auch besichtigen? Würde mich interessieren wie du das in Natura aussieht mit den Schafen, Hühnern, nicht mähen, usw…. 🙂 Alles Liebe, Kerstin
Nicole sagt:
14. November 2016 um 22:17
Hey Kerstin, für deine Schneckenfragen kommt nächste Woche der passende Artikel. Hab noch etwas Geduld. Wie gesagt unsere Vorratskammer und unser Keller befindet sich im Haus, da haben Mäuse keinen Zutritt. Bei einer Fläche von über 3000qm stören mich ein paar Exkremente nicht sonderlich. Exkremente der Tiere werden schnell vom Regen ausgewaschen und der Erde tut das sehr gut. Aber das soll jeder für sich selbst bestimmen. Unser Rasen sieht aus wie frisch gemäht, da ist kein Unterschied zu anderen Gärten. Die Tiere leisten wirklich saubere Arbeit. Wir haben eine Brunnenversorgung, aber speichern in unseren Wasserreservoirs und Regentonnen das Regenwasser. Manche Regentonnen stehen erhöht. Durch den Wasserdruck im Inneren fließt das Wasser automatisch auf die Beete. Aber wenn es schnell gehen soll oder der Regentank erschöpft ist drehe ich schon mal die Pumpe an. Jedoch sagte ich schon, dass wir kaum wässern. Schafe sind sehr genügsam und lieben nur eine Unterdachung. In geschlossenen Ställen würden sich meine Tiere eingeengt fühlen. Unser Hof hat gerade Winterpause und ich Babypause. Noch sind wir im Norden von Deutschland aber wir planen unseren Standort zu verlegen, um noch mehr Menschen zu erreichen. Kommendes Jahr gibt es dann voraussichtlich Führungen, Kurse und Teekränzchen für alle interessierten Naturfreunde. 🙂 Deine Seite sieht wirklich toll aus, da werde ich mit Freuden herumstöbern. LG
Samuel Waldstein sagt:
17. November 2016 um 11:38
Ich freu mich, dass du diesen Artikel geschrieben hast. Ich erzähle auf Workshops und zur Motivation zu Menschen in verschiedenen Lebenslagen oft, wie einfach man von dem Leben kann was der Boden einem schenkt. Denn auch ich habe schon so gelebt.
Toll das du das so schön und mit nützlichen Tipps zusammengefasst hast.
Vielen Dank,
Samuel Waldstein
Antworten
Nicole sagt:
20. November 2016 um 10:37
Vielen Dank Samuel! Ich finde es super wichtig, wenn Menschen anderen zeigen, dass das Leben nicht hart sein muss und die Natur uns die Fülle schenkt, die wir überall suchen. Danke für deine Aufklärungsarbeit. Liebe Grüße an dich <3
Antworten
Peter sagt:
18. November 2016 um 9:06
Hi Nicole,
sehr schöne Geschichte. Wir sind hier auch immer am experimentieren und ausprobieren um gemeinsam mit der Natur unser Gemüse zum gedeihen zu bringen. Darfst gerne mal reinschauen. Bin jetzt schon richtig ungeduldig auf den kommenden Frühling. Lieber Gruss aus Umbrien, Peter.
Antworten
Nicole sagt:
20. November 2016 um 10:44
Wow, ein wahrer Traum den ihr da erschaffen habt. Die Landschaft sieht wunderschön aus. Ich brauche euch keinen Erfolg zu wünschen, denn den werdet ihr auf jeden Fall haben. Wirklich, richtig richtig schön! Liebe Grüße an euch
Antworten
Pingback: Biotopica Farm - Selbstversorgung bei minimalem Aufwand – Vital-Navigation
Claudia sagt:
6. Dezember 2016 um 1:17
Hast du kein Problem mit Nacktschnecken? Bei mir im Garten fressen die alles ab, was ich pflanze – auch wenn ich extra viel pflanze, damit sie etwas abhaben können und obwohl der Garten voller Kräuter und Pflanzen ist, die sie ruhig fressen könnten. Sie wollen unbedingt immer mein Gemüse auffuttern. Was machst du gegen Schnecken? Fressen deine Hühner diese Dinger alle weg? Oder hast du Laufenten oder sowas?
Antworten
Nicole sagt:
6. Dezember 2016 um 8:43
Hallo Claudia,
Lies mal hier : http://www.biotopicafarm.de/schneckenprobleme/
Du bist da nicht allein mit deinem Problem, die Frage wurde mir schon so oft gestellt, dass ich darüber einen eigenen Artikel schrieb. Aber du hast im Grunde schon erraten wie ich es mache. LG Nicole
Antworten
Kerstin sagt:
24. Januar 2017 um 16:05
Wunderbar, DANKE für deinen Beitrag! Erfrischend zu lesen, dass auch intensive Gartenbewirtschaftung in Teilzeit möglich ist und man trotzdem einen sehr großen Teil der Familiennahrung damit erzielen kann.
Ich komme wieder =)
Liebe Grüße,
Kerstin
Antworten
Nicole sagt:
1. Februar 2017 um 15:21
Dankeschön Kerstin,
ja einen wirklich immensen Teil. Der Mensch macht es sich aber auch manchmal unnötig schwer, besonders bei der Gartenarbeit. 😉 LG Nicole
| |
|
Тема
|
The 4th Industrial Revolution disrupted democracy
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 26.03.17 21:22 |
|
|
This article is part of the
The theme of last year's Davos, the , became the underlying force driving many of the unexpected developments we’ve seen in 2016.
With the rapid and exponential growth of connectivity and networking predicted by Moore’s Law, the Fourth Industrial Revolution is disrupting many fields, but none more strikingly than democracy - and capitalism. Both institutions are based on the freedom to choose a leader, product or service based on the best available information. But only now are we realizing the significance of how this information is created, delivered, modified and consumed - how it has been skewed by the exponential growth in communications technology.
From the advent of language and the alphabet, through the evolution of printing, broadcast and the telephone, the control of communications was historically in the hands of a privileged few.
In fact, the original purpose of the Phoenician alphabet, from which most modern alphabets developed, was to restrict information to those who could read. However, with the advent of the internet and the hyper-connected, interdependent world that now exists, we have only recently begun to fully grasp the power of communications between any group of people, anywhere on the planet at any time – simultaneously.
Compounding that, traditional forms of individual and mass communications are waning. Witness shrinking print newspaper readership, broadcast television viewers and fixed line telephones.
Until a few years ago, the internet was still treated as a digital version of previous analog broadcast technologies like TV, newspaper or radio. However, with the advent of affordable mobile devices and social networks, we have finally seen a technology emerge that offers interaction, engagement and collaboration across the world in real time, among groups as small as two and as large as millions.
Private-sector social media platforms, such as Twitter and YouTube, allow anyone to transmit information to the masses without gatekeeper approval.This has redefined the broadcaster-audience equation. Previous power-brokers can no longer control the limitless information passing directly through cyberspace to personal smartphones. Entrenched rights are being dismantled, a new power is emerging in the world and ICT is leading this change.
There have been many benefits to society from this change. It’s now much harder to conceal things like political corruption, product defects and inadequate service. When politicians miss parliamentary sessions or make different promises at two different campaign stops, the news is immediately disseminated. For businesses, a “hot mic” moment can go instantly viral or a seemingly minor problem with a product can evolve into a global recall – and corporate scandal -- in an instant.
In 2016, a perfect storm of technology advances combined with marginalized voices led to everything from Brexit to the recent U.S. presidential elections. Even with the huge growths in online retailers at the expense of their physical counterparts, we are all confronted with a new world order in which traditional assumptions of everything from news reporting and polling to advertising can be wrong. This is causing every government and business leader to question how to lead effectively and responsibly amid the confusion based on inaccurate information.
When confirmation bias runs the world
These surprises weren’t supposed to happen in the era of big data and artificial intelligence. Both the quantity and quality of information were supposed to get better. But as we became comfortable and confident with technology, the fundamental way we communicate and exchange information also changed.
This era of anytime mobility helps like-minded individuals band together via social media. They share information which isn’t necessarily incorrect, but is definitely myopic and biased, leading to what psychologists call “confirmation bias.” In the last few years, supporters who shared tweets and articles and reaffirmed beliefs that furthered their cause unleashed a populist movement that changed everything from geopolitics to who gets to live in America's White House and South Korea's Blue House.
Pundits everywhere have been speculating about how the economy, international politics, immigration and even the environment will change with these surprises. But even before these events, the world was already changing. Just ten years ago, such electoral results would not have been possible. In fact, back then the five largest companies on the planet were oil or oil-related. Today, the five largest are all information-based – data has truly become the “new oil” and, as with oil, it’s a resource that’s full of opportunities and surprises.
Unlike traditional public utilities, communication infrastructure and media, as well as the infrastructure underlying the internet, is now mostly owned by private groups. This is another example of how the balance of power between public and private forces has changed and even transcended boundaries of sovereignty, further complicating governments’ roles and making this a truly global issue.
Today's biggest companies are based on information
Will all this change affect the ICT industry? The answer is no. ICT played a key role in 2016, and it is clear that the Fourth Industrial Revolution will continue to drive politics and industry. Leaders should interpret the events of last year as a sign that communications have been truly democratized. The technology that allowed electorates to organize and coordinate in unforeseen ways to determine the fate of an economic union, as well as the impeachment or selection of the next leader, is affecting other areas of society in as yet unforeseen and unexpected ways.
This is the new reality, but mainstream media, government and industry is just starting to grasp the ramifications of a mobile, hyper-connected, anytime/anywhere world. It’s also important that leaders grasp this fundamental change in the way we communicate and make decisions. At this year's Davos, the theme of “Responsive and Responsible Leadership” is a good opportunity to talk about this new context. It’s the start of a new era and the birth of new communication controlled by the many, not the few.
Leaders today must realize that the revolution in communications is not an extension of the old ways, but a whole new paradigm. Anyone can become a broadcaster, pollster or news-maker. The full meaning of this change, evident in the votes of 2016, is only starting to reveal itself.
| |
|
Тема
|
Вот почему женщины в Китае не болеют раком груди
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 30.03.17 17:25 |
|
|
"Джейн Плант была известным профессором в области геохимии, любящей женой и матерью, когда в 1987 году у нее неожиданно обнаружили рак груди. Казалось бы, её счастливая и продуктивная жизнь закончилась. У женщины 4 раза случались рецидивы, однако Джейн не хотела сдаваться и боролась с болезнью всеми возможными методами.
Муж Джейн, также известный ученый, на тот момент работал в Китае. Вместе со своими коллегами он сделал удивительное открытие, которое пролило свет на то, почему женщины в Китае не болеют раком груди. Чудесная методика, которую разработали супруги, помогла Джейн в конце концов победить рак!
Нужно заметить, что открытие ученых до сих пор является предметов многих споров и дискуссий. Поэтому только вам решать, применять ли эту методику на себе.
«Долгое время я не могла понять, почему китайские женщины не болеют раком груди. Когда я сама столкнулась с этим заболеванием, я решила изучить этот вопрос как можно более детально, — говорит Джейн Плант. — Мы с коллегами пытались найти этому логическое объяснение, изучая их повседневную жизнь, физические нагрузки и рацион питания. Поначалу наше внимание привлек тот факт, что в рационе китайских женщин было очень мало жира — 14%, по сравнению с 36%, которые содержит западноевропейская диета. Тем не менее это объяснение не подходило нам. Во-первых, нет никаких данных, подтверждающих, что повышенное содержание жиров в рационе повышает риск развития рака. А во-вторых, сама я всю жизнь придерживалась диеты с низким содержанием жиров.
Продукт, которого нет в рационе китайцев
Но однажды кому-то из моих коллег в голову пришла восхитительная идея: «Китайцы не употребляют молокопродуктов!» Когда мы задумались над этим, мы почувствовали, что приближаемся к действительно большому открытию! Наконец все начало становиться на свои места!
Я была поражена. Как оказалось, молоко и молокопродукты были причиной большинства аллергий. Не удивительно, ведь 70% населения планеты не переносят молочный сахар — лактозу. Прежде чем мне диагностировали рак груди, я употребляла много молока: йогурты, простокваши, сыр и творог. По правде говоря, это был мой основной источник белка! Наши врачи считают молокопродукты очень полезными для здоровья, но китайцы совершенно не разделяют нашей любви к молочной пище. Они не едят даже сыра и мороженного!
В 1989 году исследование показало, что йогурт может быть причиной рака яичников!
Доктор Даниель Краммер из Гарвардского университета обследовал сотни женщин с этим диагнозом и внимательно изучал их рацион питания. После этого открытия я полностью отказалась от всех продуктов, содержащих молоко. Я вдруг осознала, что мы используем молоко во многих блюдах — бисквиты, выпечка, маргарин, соевые продукты, готовые супы содержат молоко в большей или меньшей степени.
Опухоль исчезла через 6 недель после того, как я отказалась от молокопродуктов!
После того, как я отказалась от молокопродуктов, опухоль, которую не смогла побороть химиотерапия, уменьшилась за несколько дней. Это казалось невероятным! Через две недели после второго курса химиотерапии опухоль на шее начала чесаться, потом стала мягкой, потом уменьшилась, а со временем вовсе исчезла!
Врачи не верили своим глазам, но все обследования подтверждали — опухоль не просто была подавлена, она исчезла вовсе! И это через 6 недель после того, как я полностью отказалась от молокопродуктов.
Конечно, большинство врачей очень скептически относятся к моему открытию. Однако для меня связь между раком груди и употреблением молокопродуктов также очевидна, как связь между раком легких и курением. Отказ от молока не только вылечил меня от рака, но и наладил мой гормональный баланс. Поэтому если вам все еще тяжело поверить, что этот способ действует — посмотрите на меня. Я — живое подтверждение этого!»
История этой женщины переворачивает все представления о здоровом питании. А что вы думаете по этому поводу? Стоит ли отказываться от молокопродуктов, чтобы сохранить здоровье?"
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Вот почему женщины в Китае не болеют раком груди
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
| (>[2] /dev/null) |
| Публикувано | 30.03.17 18:20 |
|
|
Пак копираш малоумни фантазии без да провериш какви са реалните факти.
The last good thing written in C was Franz Schubert's Symphony No. 9.
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Вот почему женщины в Китае не болеют раком груди
[re: |]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 02.04.17 22:35 |
|
|
Ти гледал ли си световните статистики на СЗО за рак на гърдата и на простатата ? И по какво противоречи тази статия на тях ?
| |
|
|
|
Най-големи гърди имат в Русия.. бях чел някакава статистика
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Вот почему женщины в Китае не болеют раком груди
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
| (>[2] /dev/null) |
| Публикувано | 03.04.17 01:30 |
|
|
Я ни разкажи как в тези статистики пише, че причината са млечните продукти. Да ти се посмеем.
The last good thing written in C was Franz Schubert's Symphony No. 9.
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Вот почему женщины в Китае не болеют раком груди
[re: |]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 04.04.17 00:36 |
|
|
Смей се на самодоволното си невежество, щото в редица сериозни етиологични източници точно млечните продукти се посочват като една възможна причина:
Така че линкнатата от мен статия дава възможно обяснение на горната хипотеза.
Редактирано от Mod vege на 04.04.17 00:37.
| |
|
Тема
|
Nature boosts your health...
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 04.04.17 00:48 |
|
|
Each year, a quarter of Europeans suffer from depression or anxiety. It costs the EU economy about €170 billion per year, according to the World Health Organization (WHO).
At the same time, over 50% of Europeans are overweight, and around 23% of women and 20% of men are obese. One in three 11-year-olds in Europe are overweight or obese.
Both health issues are priorities for health organizations. Such is the challenge of depression to health that it is the focus of World Health Day 2017 on April 7.
We know that depression can be effectively prevented and treated. Treatment usually involves either a talking therapy or antidepressant medication or a combination of both.
Health organizations recommend a raft of measures to combat obesity, including introducing a colour-coded nutrition labelling system that points consumers to healthier options and monitoring food and beverage marketing.
But there may be an even simpler solution – get people outside.
Living close to nature has many benefits
According to a , people living close to trees and green spaces are less likely to be obese, inactive, or dependent on anti-depressants.
Researchers at the Institute for European Environmental Policy reviewed 200 studies for Friends of the Earth Europe and reached the conclusion that being close to nature improves your health, even when controlling for other factors.
For example, it found that middle-aged men living in deprived urban areas with high amounts of green space have a compared with similar groups living in equally deprived areas with less greenery.
Unsurprisingly, the closer you are to nature, the more likely you are to exercise. In Denmark, people living from a natural green environment were more likely to be obese and less likely to exercise rigorously than those living within 300m.
Nature also has a positive impact on our brains. In Spain, said they had better mental health. Another study found doctors in urban areas with more trees on the street than those in urban areas without trees.
Access to the outdoors also improves old age. if they live near walkable greenery filled public areas, found one study.
Quite simply, people are happier and have lower mental distress when they live closer to nature.
Quite simply, people are happier and have lower mental distress when they live closer to nature.
The report also looked at research on early childhood. It found that, for instance, babies born in areas with surrounding greenness have a .
And children living within 5km of diverse natural environments, such as forest areas and farms, were .
...
Health inequality
The research draws attention to inequality, in that poorer areas often lack green spaces. One study in the UK found that and minority ethnic population in England were more likely to be rare visitors to visit natural environments (compared with 17% of the rest of the population).
The report cites plenty of examples where local communities have taken action, however.
For example, a Swedish rehabilitation centre, shown in the image below, piloted a for individuals recovering from stress-related mental disorders, stroke and war neuroses. Participants with severe stress and/or mild to moderate depression significantly reduced their need for health care. One year after rehabilitation, the costs for primary care dropped by 28% for the pilot, and days spent in hospital fell by two thirds (64%).
Institute for European Environmental Study
Elsewhere, studies have shown that the Japanese practice of ‘’ (spending time around trees) is scientifically proven to improve your health.
Nature can also help to improve memory. Scientists at the University of Michigan tested the effect of walking through either a natural environment or down a busy street. The former showed .
Another study found that it was for Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in children. Outdoor activities in green spaces reduced symptoms significantly more than activities conducted in other settings, even when the activities were the same.
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Вот почему женщины в Китае не болеют раком груди
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
| (>[2] /dev/null) |
| Публикувано | 04.04.17 01:11 |
|
|
Избягвай да ме наричаш невеж, защото определено знам повече от теб по темата. Което не е кой знае какво постижение. Нивото на мненията ти е средното за бг-мама.
Брях, не знаех, че жените страдат от рак на простатата. Всъщност, ти не пусна ли линк за рак на гърдата? Или и ти не знаеш какво пишеш? Като гледам доста е вероятно.
Линкнатата от теб идиотщина (защото статия не е) не дава никакви възможно обяснение.
Само не мога да разбера дали си тъп и не можеш да намериш реалната информация, или си лъжец и не искаш да си признаеш че си пуснал идиотщина.
Most of the studies reviewed showed no consistent pattern of increased or decreased breast cancer risk with a high consumption of dairy products as a whole or when broken down into high-fat and low-fat dairy products, milk, cheese, or butter. Measurement error may have attenuated any modest association with dairy products. The available epidemiologic evidence does not support a strong association between the consumption of milk or other dairy products and breast cancer risk.
Да превеждам ли? :)
The last good thing written in C was Franz Schubert's Symphony No. 9.Редактирано от | на 04.04.17 01:47.
| |
|
Тема
|
ИНФОРМАЦИЯТА,ОТ КОЯТО МОЖЕ ДА ЗАВИСИ ЖИВОТА ВИ–B12
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 04.04.17 02:01 |
|
|
Както добре знаем, витамините са жизнено важни елементи, които спомагат правилното функциониране на човешкия организъм. Те оказват силно действие върху множество жизнени процеси като обмяна на веществата в организма, растеж и развитие и физиологично състояние. Също така са от съществена важност за имунната устойчивост и усвояването на основните хранителни вещества.
Защо са важни витамините?
Участват във всички биохимични процеси
Участват в изграждането на тъканите и органите
Осигуряват междуклетъчната комуникация
Участват във възстановителните процеси след увреждания
Видове витамини
Витамините са 13 на брой и могат да бъдат обособени в 2 големи групи – водоразтворими и мастноразтворими.
Мастноразтворими витамини – витамин А, витамин D, витамин E, витамин K, витамин F
Те се усвояват от храносмилателната система заедно с мазнините и се обработват в червата. Хубаво е да се знае, че алкохола може да попречи на доброто усвояване на някои мастноразтворими витамини.
Водоразтворими витамини – витамините от група B, различни киселини като Bx, L и други
За разлика от мастноразтворимите, водоразтворимите витамини не се натрупват в тялото и поради тази причина е невъзможно да се предозира.
Повече за витамин B12
В последно време покрай вегетариански и вегански движения, все повече нашумя темата около този витамин. Все повече хора са засегнати от тежкия дефицит и буквално се борят за животите си по всякакъв начин. Малка част от тях обаче достигат до решението, което е именно набавяне на необходимото за организма количество на витамин B12. Самият витамин не е токсичен, но дефицитът от него увеличава нивата на хомоцистеина, който е токсичен и дори води до разграждане на миелиновите обвивки на невроните. Повишеният хомоцистеин е едновременно съдово и невротоксичен.
„Един безмълвен убиец дебне милиони хора по целия свят.
Може би и вие сте сред тях….?“
Б12 е единствения витамин, който съдържа елемента кобалт. Той се произвежда в храносмилателната система на животните и е единственият витамин, който няма как да си доставим от растенията и слънцето. За набавянето му от храната трябва да се консумират месо, риба, яйца. Но дори консумацията на тези продукти не гарантира, че организмът ви ще усвоява витамина, тъй като той има изключително сложен метаболизъм.
Много важно е хората да разберат и осъзнаят, че консумирането на месо не гарантира, че витаминът се усвоява. Неусвояването му се дължи на дългия път, който изминава, докато достигне до кръвта. Почти всички хора в днешно време без да знаят страдат от пропускливост на червата. Това се получава вследствие на генно модифицираните продукти и храни, които консумираме ежедневно и възпрепятства усвояването на B12.
Важни роли на B12
Дефицитът на B12 може да засегне почти всяка система в организма, защото кобаламинът играе много важна роля за повечето неврологични, хематологични, имунологични, метаболитни, съдови и репродуктивни процеси, както и за:
Делене на клетките
Ензимни реакции
Поддържане на здрава нервна система
Поддържане на здрава имунна система
Синтез на мастни киселини и производство на енергия
Фактор за правилното образуване и функциониране на червените кръвни клетки
Повлиява синтезата и регулацията на ДНК
Системи, засегнати от дефицит на B12
Неврологична – слабост в крайниците, парализа, депресия, психоза, зрителни нарушения, объркване, деменция, проблеми с равновесието, тремори, главоболие, демиелинизация, промени в характера, раздразнителност, параноя, загуба на памет
Храносмилателна – загуба на тегло, лошо храносмилане, коремни болки, гастрит, хронична умора, липса на апетит
Имунна – трудно заздравяване на рани, висока податливост към инфекции, автоимунни заболявания
Мускулно-скелетна – намалена костна плътност, патологични фрактури, остеопороза
Видове B12
Витаминът се среща в 3 основни форми – метилкобаламин, цианкобаламин, хидроксикобаламин. Препоръчително е използването на метилкобаламин, тъй като най-голяма част от него се усвоява от организма.
Най-ефетивни начини за приемане на B12
При установен дефицит има три начина за усвояване на витамина, които наистина работят и те са:
инжекции
под езика
чрез кожата
При приемане на таблетки е хубаво те да се държат под езика до пълното им разтваряне. Инжекционният прием се препоръчва при наличие на тежък дефицит.
Референтни стойности
Това е може би най-болезнената част от целия пейзаж. Освен че хората са слабо информирани по темата, голяма част от медицинските лица – незаинтересовани, стойностите в лабораториите са изкуствено занижени.
Разобличаването и разкриването на истината за този наглед невинен витамин е труда на живота на медицинската сестра Сали Пачолок. Тя буквално се бори със системата, с колегите си и с хората, за да отвори очите на обществото за този, както тя го нарича „безмълвен убиец“ – B12. В своята книга „А дали не е B12?“ тя разглежда стотици случаи, с които се е сблъсквала в живота си, както и един изключително широк спектър от симптоми и болести, които са причинени от тежък дефицит на кобаламин.
Към настоящия момент нивата на B12 в кръвта ни трябва да бъдат със стойност над 550 pg/ml, а за превенция на заболявания и здрава нервна система е хубаво да бъдат около 1000 pg/ml.
За дефицит се приемат стойности на витамина в кръвта в следните граници:
B12 < 200 pg/ml – тежък дефицит
B12 200 – 350 pg/ml – умерен дефицит
B12 350 – 450pg/ml – начален дефицит
В нашата действителност обаче границите, приети за кобаламинът са 141-489 pmol/l (Важно е да се обърне внимание и на мерните единици, като се има предвид, че 1 pg/mL = 3.671 pmol/L). Това е много по-ниско от препоръчителните стойности, за да функционира организма ни правилно. Смятам, че коментарът тук е излишен и всеки може да направи аритметиката, респективно извода.
Изключително важно е да поемем отговорност за собственото си здраве, а това трябва да бъде съпроводено с осъзнаване, че никой освен нас самите не е длъжен да се грижи за нас. Изследването на витамин B12 струва около 20 лева, а откриването на дефцита му навреме може да спаси хиляди животи.
ЕДИН БЕЗМЪЛВЕН УБИЕЦ дебне милиони … Може би и вие сте сред тях.
Този убиец е майстор на маскарада: поразява хората по най-различни начини. Един измъчва с третмор, друг с депресия или психоза, трети с мъчителни болки в краката или ръцете, или даже парализа. Може да имитира болестта на Алцхаймер, множествена склероза (МС), ранен Паркинсон, диабетна невропатия или синфром на хронична умора. Може да направи мъжете и жените безплодни и да увреди развитието на децата им. Понякога дреме и само тайничко увеличава риска от смъртоносни болести – от сърдечни и мозъчни удари до рак…Това нарушение е дефицит на витамин.
Направете избора да поемете отговорност сами за себе си и за своето здраве.
Използваните са следните източници – „А дали не е B12?“ на Сали Пачолок
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Вот почему женщины в Китае не болеют раком груди
[re: |]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 05.04.17 22:08 |
|
|
Пуснал съм по погрешка линк към изследвания на рак на простатата, понеже има подобна статистика с рака на гърдите що касае държавите, както и до известна степен подобна етиология с рака на гърдите (полово-свързан рак). Но това че съм пуснал друго инфо, далече не те прави по-знаещ по темата.
А ти, като знаеш много, не цитирай прашни изследвания, извадени от нафталина (от 2004г.). В момента актуална е епигенетиката (за разлика от времето на цитираното от теб изследване), и от нея става ясно че , което е вид генно-регулаторна система за растеж за бозайници - но какво може да бъде стимулирано да расте чрез miR в един иначе възрастен организъм... ? Напр. рак:
"... milk appears to combine both amino acid- and miR-mediated pathways to optimize mTORC1 signaling for the promotion of postnatal growth. However, it is of critical concern that miR-21 is a well-known oncogene, which by suppressing various tumor suppressor genes plays a key role in resisting programmed cell death [75]. In comparison to amino acid signaling of milk, which primarily affects layers of posttranslational modifications, miR signaling of milk may represent an even more powerful archaic regulatory network, because it interferes with posttranscriptional regulation of numerous genes and gene networks. In fact, miR-21 has been shown to contribute to renal cancer cell proliferation and migration via activation of mTORC1 [76]."
"Milk is not just food but appears to represent a most sophisticated endocrine signaling system activating mTORC1 via special maternal milk-derived dietary messengers controlled by the mammalian lactation genome: BCAAs of milk proteins and exosomal miRs produced by the mammary gland, which appear to augment mTORC1 signaling for postnatal growth. In this regard, it is of critical concern that persistently increased mTORC1 signaling has been recognized as the fundamental driving force for the development of mTORC1-driven diseases of civilization [77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83]."
Ето и ., сочещо че при жени, при които ракът на гърдата е хормоноворецепторно-свързан (), консумацията на (мазни) млечни продукти повишава риска от развиване на рака, понеже в мазнината на млечните продукти има много естроген (понеже е мастно-разтворим):
"Intake of high-fat dairy, but not low-fat dairy, was related to a higher risk of mortality after breast cancer diagnosis."
(В горните изследвания става дума само за краве мляко.)
Редактирано от Mod vege на 05.04.17 22:45.
| |
|
Тема
|
Водопади около София – 11 идеи за уикенда
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 05.04.17 23:35 |
|
|
(+1 бонус)
Ако живеете в София и нямате идеи за уикенда, ние винаги имаме.
Разходките до водопади са ни любими, защото там през лятото е хладно, през есента е пъстро и уютно като на родопска черга, а през пролетта е толкова свежо, че ти се иска да си напълниш от този въздух в буркани.
С влак, автобус или кола, време е за водопадане!
Ето няколко идеи за водопади около София (радиус до 150 км):
Боянски водопад
Разстояние от София: 24 км са от Президентството до водопада, пеша от центъра на Бояна до водопада - 2 часа
Транспорт: автомобил или градски автобус
Най-близкият до София водопад, до който спокойно се стига с градски автобус 64. От Природен парк „Витоша“ са предвидили, че не всички посетители ходят през ден по чукарите и до Боянския водопад има маркирани две пътеки – по-стръмна и по-полегата. Стръмната наистина е стръмна, следвайте табелите за тази, която ви приляга на физическата форма, да не охкате после. Самият Боянски водопад е висок 15 м и е най-впечатляващ напролет. След основното падало има още няколко речни прага, където водата образува красиви скокове. Изумително е как дори в най-жарките летни дни с всеки метър приближаване към водопада усещате как температурата на въздуха се понижава. Оттам можете да продължите и към други интересни обекти във Витоша.
Научете как се стига .
*
Водопад Скакля и Вазовата екопътека (Искърското дефиле)
Разстояние от София: 50 км
Транспорт: автомобил, автобус, влак + 1 час пеша
Широколистните гори на Искърското дефиле са вдъхновили Вазов да напише едни от най-хубавите си разкази. Не е нужно дълго да търсите стъпките на поета – по тях е изградена Вазовата екопътека, която свързва Гара Бов и село Заселе и е единственият път, по който може да се стигне до водопада Скакля. Точно тук Вазов е написал разказа си „Дядо Йоцо гледа“ с прототип местен жител. Водопадът е висок 120 м и е четвърти по височина в България. Най-добро време да видите водопада е след топенето на снеговете, когато има много вода. През зимата Скакля замръзва и се превръща в любимо място за ледено катерене.
Прочетете подробни упътвания как се стига .
*
Водопад Под камико край село Бов (Искърското дефиле)
Разстояние от София: 50 км
Транспорт: автомобил, автобус, влак + 1,5 часа пеша
През 2012 г. се появи нова екопътека в Искърското дефиле – до 40-метровия водопад Под камико. Може би сте чували за гара Бов и за внушителния 120-метров водопад Скакля. Слизате на същата гара, но продължавате от другата страна. Маршрутът не изисква голямо усилие, тъй като теренът е лесен за изкачване. Пътеката тръгва от село Гара Бов и правейки кръг, се връща в него. Началото е при стадиона на селото. Нагоре има и друго село, което се казва Бов и докъдето всъщност ще ви отведе екопътеката.
Информация как се стига .
*
Водопад Боров камък (Искърското дефиле)
Разстояние от София: 110 км
Транспорт: автобус или кола, + 2,5 часа пеша
Боров камък е една от първите екопътеки в България и, ще се уверите, една от най-красивите. По пътя ви очакват дървени мостчета и стълби, а накрая – възможност да се изкъпете във водопад. Изходен пункт е село Згориград. За около 2 часа стигате до водопад Боров камък (63 м), който е пълноводен почти целогодишно. Пътеката се промъква зад водната завеса и преминавате на другия бряг (а може и да се изкъпете сред пръските на водопада). Още стълби ви отвеждат до върха на отвесната скала, откъдето можете да видите долината и покривите на згориградските къщички в далечината, а отвесните скали на Вратцата в дъното завършват картината.
Информация как се стига .
*
Чипровски водопад и екопътека Деяница (Северозападна България)
Разстояние от София: 130 км
Транспорт: автомобил, автобус + 1,5 часа пеша
Дълбоко ждрело, дъх на диви гъби, песен на падащите води, пеещи птички. Саламандри, които преминават бавно и необезпокоявани, като прегърбени старци, сякаш широката пътека е тяхна. По пътя към високия 18 метра Чипровски водопад ще минете и покрай разрушения по време на Чипровското въстание Гушовски манастир.
Прочетете подробни упътвания как се стига .
*
Водопад Дуршин скок (Северозападна България)
Разстояние от София: 135 км
Транспорт: автомобил до хижа Копрен (или пеша 1,5 часа от село Копиловци) + 30 минути пеша от хижата до водопада
Този водопад се намира почти на границата със Сърбия, недалеч от Чипровци. Най-добрата изходна точка е уютната хижа Копрен, откъдето имате 30-40 минути през гората (има достатъчно табели) до невисокия, но много красив водопад Дуршин скок. Той е част от Копренските водопади, към които се броят също Воден скок и Ланжин скок.
Прочетете подробни упътвания как се стига .
*
Водопад Скока и екопътека Под пръските на водопада (край Тетевен)
Разстояние от София: 110 км
Транспорт: автобус или кола + 600 м пеша
По екопътека Под пръските на водопада е много вероятно да се срещнете с мили горски същества – дъждовници. Популацията им е достатъчно забележителна, за да се обозначи с табела в началото на екопътеката. Можете да минете цялата екопътека пеща (от кв. Козница са 4 км) или да стигнете до края на асфалта с кола и да изминете последните 600 м пеша. Водопад Скока е висок 30 м и до него се стига през каньона на река Козница.
Прочетете повече .
*
Водопад Варовитец край Етрополе (Етрополски Балкан)
Разстояние от София: 80 км
Транспорт: автобус или кола
Снимка: "Българските водопади. Фото пътеводител"
12-метровият водопад Варовитец се намира непосредствено задманастира „Света Троица“. Водопадът не е висок, но е широк и водата тече на много струйки и нива. До манастира се стига по асфалтов път на 4 км от Етрополе.
Прочетете как се стига .
*
Водопад Полска Скакавица (край Земен)
Разстояние от София: 100 км
Транспорт: влак или кола
Водопадът Полска Скакавица се намира в Земенската планина, точно под едноименното село Полска Скакавица. Реката, която го образува, се казва Широки дол и се влива в Струма. Височината на пада е около 50 метра - не е скромно, имайки предвид мащабите на българските водопади.
Прочетете как се стига [url=http://www.peika.bg/statia/Vodopad_Polska_Skakavitsa_Tsvetat_na_zelenoto_l.a_i.79285.html]до водопад Полска Скакавица.
*
Водопад Горица край село Овчарци (Рила)
Разстояние от София: 70 км
Транспорт: автобус (само от Самоков, Дупница, Сапарева баня) или кола
Едно от нещата, с което най-много се гордеят в село Овчарци, са седемте водопада, които се намират съвсем наблизо, в северното подножие на Рила. Най-красив сред тях е Горица, чиито води падат от близо 40 метра височина и се разбиват на фин облак от пръски. Красиви легенди и предания разказват за съдбата на местността – разпитайте жителите и може да чуете още някоя.
Прочетете как се стига до водопад Горица край село Овчарци. Може да увеличите разходката си с маршрут Овчарци – Ресилово – Цари Мали Град.
*
Костенски водопад край село Костенец
Разстояние от София: 75 км
Транспорт: кола (намира се на 7 км от град Костенец, до който има влак)
Костенският водопад се намира в покрайнините на село Костенец, около Вили Костенец, и е вдъхновил самия Иван Вазов за няколко творби. Костенският водопад е разположен по поречието на река Чавча (известна още като Стара или Костенска) река. Водните струи падат от височина 10-12 метра. Водопадът е най-пълноводен през април и май, заради топенето на снеговете, но си заслужава да се види по всяко време на годината. До водопада е направена удобна пътека, около която има масивни дървени парапети, пейки, както и беседка над самата река. Нощем тази пътека е много добре осветена като над реката и под водопада има светлинни ефекти.
Прочетете подробна информация .
Вижте и нашата идея .
*
БОНУС: Извор Живата вода край село Боснек (Витоша)
Разстояние от София: 45 км
Транспорт: автобус (от Перник) или кола + 1,5 часа пеша
Това не е водопад, но е не по-малко интересен воден обект около София. Тръгнете по следите на един извор с приказното име Живата вода, за да видите има ли нещо живо там наистина. Казват, че водата му излиза на тласъци с променлива сила, като понякога напълно секва. Легендите разказват, че водата спира, когато грешен човек се доближи. Науката пък твърди, че карстовият извор събира водите си в подземна кухина преди да излезе на повърхността и когато кухината се изпразни, й е нужно време, за да се напълни отново. Науката е скучна понякога. По-забавно е да се придържате към барометъра за грешници. Пътеката от село Боснек до извора е отлично маркирана, с пейки и маси за отдих, а в края има беседка и място за палене на огън.
Разберете повече как се стига .
***
Открийте още
| |
|
Тема
|
Will Democracy Survive Big Data and Artificial I.
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 06.04.17 03:04 |
|
|
We are in the middle of a technological upheaval that will transform the way society is organized. We must make the right decisions now
By Dirk Helbing, Bruno S. Frey, Gerd Gigerenzer, Ernst Hafen, Michael Hagner, Yvonne Hofstetter, Jeroen van den Hoven, Roberto V. Zicari, Andrej Zwitter on February 25, 2017
Editor’s Note: This article , Scientific American’s sister publication, as “Digitale Demokratie statt Datendiktatur.”
“Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-imposed immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one’s understanding without guidance from another.”
—Immanuel Kant, “What is Enlightenment?” (1784)
The digital revolution is in full swing. How will it change our world? The amount of data we produce doubles every year. In other words: in 2016 we produced as much data as in the entire history of humankind through 2015. Every minute we produce hundreds of thousands of Google searches and Facebook posts. These contain information that reveals how we think and feel. Soon, the things around us, possibly even our clothing, also will be connected with the Internet. It is estimated that in 10 years’ time there will be 150 billion networked measuring sensors, 20 times more than people on Earth. Then, the amount of data will double every 12 hours. Many companies are already trying to turn this Big Data into Big Money.
Everything will become intelligent; soon we will not only have smart phones, but also smart homes, smart factories and smart cities. Should we also expect these developments to result in smart nations and a smarter planet?
The field of artificial intelligence is, indeed, making breathtaking advances. In particular, it is contributing to the automation of data analysis. Artificial intelligence is no longer programmed line by line, but is now capable of learning, thereby continuously developing itself. Recently, Google's DeepMind algorithm taught itself how to win 49 Atari games. Algorithms can now recognize handwritten language and patterns almost as well as humans and even complete some tasks better than them. They are able to describe the contents of photos and videos. Today 70% of all financial transactions are performed by algorithms. News content is, in part, automatically generated. This all has radical economic consequences: in the coming 10 to 20 years around half of today's jobs will be threatened by algorithms. 40% of today's top 500 companies will have vanished in a decade.
It can be expected that supercomputers will soon surpass human capabilities in almost all areas—somewhere between 2020 and 2060. Experts are starting to ring alarm bells. Technology visionaries, such as Elon Musk from Tesla Motors, Bill Gates from Microsoft and Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak, are warning that super-intelligence is a serious danger for humanity, possibly even more dangerous than nuclear weapons.
Is This Alarmism?
One thing is clear: the way in which we organize the economy and society will change fundamentally. We are experiencing the largest transformation since the end of the Second World War; after the automation of production and the creation of self-driving cars the automation of society is next. With this, society is at a crossroads, which promises great opportunities, but also considerable risks. If we take the wrong decisions it could threaten our greatest historical achievements.
In the 1940s, the American mathematician Norbert Wiener (1894–1964) invented cybernetics. According to him, the behavior of systems could be controlled by the means of suitable feedbacks. Very soon, some researchers imagined controlling the economy and society according to this basic principle, but the necessary technology was not available at that time.
Today, Singapore is seen as a perfect example of a data-controlled society. What started as a program to protect its citizens from terrorism has ended up influencing economic and immigration policy, the property market and school curricula. China is taking a similar route. Recently, Baidu, the Chinese equivalent of Google, invited the military to take part in the China Brain Project. It involves running so-called deep learning algorithms over the search engine data collected about its users. Beyond this, a kind of social control is also planned. According to recent reports, every Chinese citizen will receive a so-called ”Citizen Score”, which will determine under what conditions they may get loans, jobs, or travel visa to other countries. This kind of individual monitoring would include people’s Internet surfing and the behavior of their social contacts (see ”Spotlight on China”).
With consumers facing increasingly frequent credit checks and some online shops experimenting with personalized prices, we are on a similar path in the West. It is also increasingly clear that we are all in the focus of institutional surveillance. This was revealed in 2015 when details of the British secret service's "Karma Police" program became public, showing the comprehensive screening of everyone's Internet use. Is Big Brother now becoming a reality?
Programmed Society, Programmed citizens
Everything started quite harmlessly. Search engines and recommendation platforms began to offer us personalised suggestions for products and services. This information is based on personal and meta-data that has been gathered from previous searches, purchases and mobility behaviour, as well as social interactions. While officially, the identity of the user is protected, it can, in practice, be inferred quite easily. Today, algorithms know pretty well what we do, what we think and how we feel—possibly even better than our friends and family or even ourselves. Often the recommendations we are offered fit so well that the resulting decisions feel as if they were our own, even though they are actually not our decisions. In fact, we are being remotely controlled ever more successfully in this manner. The more is known about us, the less likely our choices are to be free and not predetermined by others.
But it won't stop there. Some software platforms are moving towards “persuasive computing.” In the future, using sophisticated manipulation technologies, these platforms will be able to steer us through entire courses of action, be it for the execution of complex work processes or to generate free content for Internet platforms, from which corporations earn billions. The trend goes from programming computers to programming people.
These technologies are also becoming increasingly popular in the world of politics. Under the label of “nudging,” and on massive scale, governments are trying to steer citizens towards healthier or more environmentally friendly behaviour by means of a "nudge"—a modern form of paternalism. The new, caring government is not only interested in what we do, but also wants to make sure that we do the things that it considers to be right. The magic phrase is "big nudging", which is the combination of big data with nudging. To many, this appears to be a sort of digital scepter that allows one to govern the masses efficiently, without having to involve citizens in democratic processes. Could this overcome vested interests and optimize the course of the world? If so, then citizens could be governed by a data-empowered “wise king”, who would be able to produce desired economic and social outcomes almost as if with a digital magic wand.
Pre-Programmed Catastrophes
But one look at the relevant scientific literature shows that attempts to control opinions, in the sense of their "optimization", are doomed to fail because of the complexity of the problem. The dynamics of the formation of opinions are full of surprises. Nobody knows how the digital magic wand, that is to say the manipulative nudging technique, should best be used. What would have been the right or wrong measure often is apparent only afterwards. During the German swine flu epidemic in 2009, for example, everybody was encouraged to go for vaccination. However, we now know that a certain percentage of those who received the immunization were affected by an unusual disease, narcolepsy. Fortunately, there were not more people who chose to get vaccinated!
Another example is the recent attempt of health insurance providers to encourage increased exercise by handing out smart fitness bracelets, with the aim of reducing the amount of cardiovascular disease in the population; but in the end, this might result in more hip operations. In a complex system, such as society, an improvement in one area almost inevitably leads to deterioration in another. Thus, large-scale interventions can sometimes prove to be massive mistakes.
Regardless of this, criminals, terrorists and extremists will try and manage to take control of the digital magic wand sooner or later—perhaps even without us noticing. Almost all companies and institutions have already been hacked, even the Pentagon, the White House, and the NSA.
A further problem arises when adequate transparency and democratic control are lacking: the erosion of the system from the inside. Search algorithms and recommendation systems can be influenced. Companies can bid on certain combinations of words to gain more favourable results. Governments are probably able to influence the outcomes too. During elections, they might nudge undecided voters towards supporting them—a manipulation that would be hard to detect. Therefore, whoever controls this technology can win elections—by nudging themselves to power.
This problem is exacerbated by the fact that, in many countries, a single search engine or social media platform has a predominant market share. It could decisively influence the public and interfere with these countries remotely. Even though the European Court of Justice judgment made on 6th October 2015 limits the unrestrained export of European data, the underlying problem still has not been solved within Europe, and even less so elsewhere.
What undesirable side effects can we expect? In order for manipulation to stay unnoticed, it takes a so-called resonance effect—suggestions that are sufficiently customized to each individual. In this way, local trends are gradually reinforced by repetition, leading all the way to the "filter bubble" or "echo chamber effect": in the end, all you might get is your own opinions reflected back at you. This causes social polarization, resulting in the formation of separate groups that no longer understand each other and find themselves increasingly at conflict with one another. In this way, personalized information can unintentionally destroy social cohesion. This can be currently observed in American politics, where Democrats and Republicans are increasingly drifting apart, so that political compromises become almost impossible. The result is a fragmentation, possibly even a disintegration, of society.
Owing to the resonance effect, a large-scale change of opinion in society can be only produced slowly and gradually. The effects occur with a time lag, but, also, they cannot be easily undone. It is possible, for example, that resentment against minorities or migrants get out of control; too much national sentiment can cause discrimination, extremism and conflict.
Perhaps even more significant is the fact that manipulative methods change the way we make our decisions. They override the otherwise relevant cultural and social cues, at least temporarily. In summary, the large-scale use of manipulative methods could cause serious social damage, including the brutalization of behavior in the digital world. Who should be held responsible for this?
Legal Issues
This raises legal issues that, given the huge fines against tobacco companies, banks, IT and automotive companies over the past few years, should not be ignored. But which laws, if any, might be violated? First of all, it is clear that manipulative technologies restrict the freedom of choice. If the remote control of our behaviour worked perfectly, we would essentially be digital slaves, because we would only execute decisions that were actually made by others before. Of course, manipulative technologies are only partly effective. Nevertheless, our freedom is disappearing slowly, but surely—in fact, slowly enough that there has been little resistance from the population, so far.
The insights of the great enlightener Immanuel Kant seem to be highly relevant here. Among other things, he noted that a state that attempts to determine the happiness of its citizens is a despot. However, the right of individual self-development can only be exercised by those who have control over their lives, which presupposes informational self-determination. This is about nothing less than our most important constitutional rights. A democracy cannot work well unless those rights are respected. If they are constrained, this undermines our constitution, our society and the state.
As manipulative technologies such as big nudging function in a similar way to personalized advertising, other laws are affected too. Advertisements must be marked as such and must not be misleading. They are also not allowed to utilize certain psychological tricks such as subliminal stimuli. This is why it is prohibited to show a soft drink in a film for a split-second, because then the advertising is not consciously perceptible while it may still have a subconscious effect. Furthermore, the current widespread collection and processing of personal data is certainly not compatible with the applicable data protection laws in European countries and elsewhere.
Finally, the legality of personalized pricing is questionable, because it could be a misuse of insider information. Other relevant aspects are possible breaches of the principles of equality and non-discrimination—and of competition laws, as free market access and price transparency are no longer guaranteed. The situation is comparable to businesses that sell their products cheaper in other countries, but try to prevent purchases via these countries. Such cases have resulted in high punitive fines in the past.
Personalized advertising and pricing cannot be compared to classical advertising or discount coupons, as the latter are non-specific and also do not invade our privacy with the goal to take advantage of our psychological weaknesses and knock out our critical thinking.
Furthermore, let us not forget that, in the academic world, even harmless decision experiments are considered to be experiments with human subjects, which would have to be approved by a publicly accountable ethics committee. In each and every case the persons concerned are required to give their informed consent. In contrast, a single click to confirm that we agree with the contents of a hundred-page “terms of use” agreement (which is the case these days for many information platforms) is woefully inadequate.
Nonetheless, experiments with manipulative technologies, such as nudging, are performed with millions of people, without informing them, without transparency and without ethical constraints. Even large social networks like Facebook or online dating platforms such as OkCupid have already publicly admitted to undertaking these kinds of social experiments. If we want to avoid irresponsible research on humans and society (just think of the involvement of psychologists in the torture scandals of the recent past), then we urgently need to impose high standards, especially scientific quality criteria and a code of conduct similar to the Hippocratic Oath.Has our thinking, our freedom, our democracy been hacked?
Let us suppose there was a super-intelligent machine with godlike knowledge and superhuman abilities: would we follow its instructions? This seems possible. But if we did that, then the warnings expressed by Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Steve Wozniak, Stephen Hawking and others would have become true: computers would have taken control of the world. We must be clear that a super-intelligence could also make mistakes, lie, pursue selfish interests or be manipulated. Above all, it could not be compared with the distributed, collective intelligence of the entire population.
The idea of replacing the thinking of all citizens by a computer cluster would be absurd, because that would dramatically lower the diversity and quality of the solutions achievable. It is already clear that the problems of the world have not decreased despite the recent flood of data and the use of personalized information—on the contrary! World peace is fragile. The long-term change in the climate could lead to the greatest loss of species since the extinction of dinosaurs. We are also far from having overcome the financial crisis and its impact on the economy. Cyber-crime is estimated to cause an annual loss of 3 trillion dollars. States and terrorists are preparing for cyberwarfare.
In a rapidly changing world a super-intelligence can never make perfect decisions (see Fig. 1): systemic complexity is increasing faster than data volumes, which are growing faster than the ability to process them, and data transfer rates are limited. This results in disregarding local knowledge and facts, which are important to reach good solutions. Distributed, local control methods are often superior to centralized approaches, especially in complex systems whose behaviors are highly variable, hardly predictable and not capable of real-time optimization. This is already true for traffic control in cities, but even more so for the social and economic systems of our highly networked, globalized world.
Furthermore, there is a danger that the manipulation of decisions by powerful algorithms undermines the basis of "collective intelligence," which can flexibly adapt to the challenges of our complex world. For collective intelligence to work, information searches and decision-making by individuals must occur independently. If our judgments and decisions are predetermined by algorithms, however, this truly leads to a brainwashing of the people. Intelligent beings are downgraded to mere receivers of commands, who automatically respond to stimuli.
In other words: personalized information builds a "filter bubble" around us, a kind of digital prison for our thinking. How could creativity and thinking "out of the box" be possible under such conditions? Ultimately, a centralized system of technocratic behavioral and social control using a super-intelligent information system would result in a new form of dictatorship. Therefore, the top-down controlled society, which comes under the banner of "liberal paternalism," is in principle nothing else than a totalitarian regime with a rosy cover.
In fact, big nudging aims to bring the actions of many people into line, and to manipulate their perspectives and decisions. This puts it in the arena of propaganda and the targeted incapacitation of the citizen by behavioral control. We expect that the consequences would be fatal in the long term, especially when considering the above-mentioned effect of undermining culture.
A Better Digital Society Is Possible
Despite fierce global competition, democracies would be wise not to cast the achievements of many centuries overboard. In contrast to other political regimes, Western democracies have the advantage that they have already learned to deal with pluralism and diversity. Now they just have to learn how to capitalize on them more.
In the future, those countries will lead that reach a healthy balance between business, government and citizens. This requires networked thinking and the establishment of an information, innovation, product and service "ecosystem." In order to work well, it is not only important to create opportunities for participation, but also to support diversity. Because there is no way to determine the best goal function: should we optimize the gross national product per capita or sustainability? Power or peace? Happiness or life expectancy? Often enough, what would have been better is only known after the fact. By allowing the pursuit of various different goals, a pluralistic society is better able to cope with the range of unexpected challenges to come.
Centralized, top-down control is a solution of the past, which is only suitable for systems of low complexity. Therefore, federal systems and majority decisions are the solutions of the present. With economic and cultural evolution, social complexity will continue to rise. Therefore, the solution for the future is collective intelligence. This means that citizen science, crowdsourcing and online discussion platforms are eminently important new approaches to making more knowledge, ideas and resources available.
Collective intelligence requires a high degree of diversity. This is, however, being reduced by today's personalized information systems, which reinforce trends.
Sociodiversity is as important as biodiversity. It fuels not only collective intelligence and innovation, but also resilience—the ability of our society to cope with unexpected shocks. Reducing sociodiversity often also reduces the functionality and performance of an economy and society. This is the reason why totalitarian regimes often end up in conflict with their neighbors. Typical long-term consequences are political instability and war, as have occurred time and again throughout history. Pluralism and participation are therefore not to be seen primarily as concessions to citizens, but as functional prerequisites for thriving, complex, modern societies.
In summary, it can be said that we are now at a crossroads (see Fig. 2). Big data, artificial intelligence, cybernetics and behavioral economics are shaping our society—for better or worse. If such widespread technologies are not compatible with our society's core values, sooner or later they will cause extensive damage. They could lead to an automated society with totalitarian features. In the worst case, a centralized artificial intelligence would control what we know, what we think and how we act. We are at the historic moment, where we have to decide on the right path—a path that allows us all to benefit from the digital revolution. Therefore, we urge to adhere to the following fundamental principles:
1. to increasingly decentralize the function of information systems;
2. to support informational self-determination and participation;
3. to improve transparency in order to achieve greater trust;
4. to reduce the distortion and pollution of information;
5. to enable user-controlled information filters;
6. to support social and economic diversity;
7. to improve interoperability and collaborative opportunities;
8. to create digital assistants and coordination tools;
9. to support collective intelligence, and
10. to promote responsible behavior of citizens in the digital world through digital literacy and enlightenment.
Following this digital agenda we would all benefit from the fruits of the digital revolution: the economy, government and citizens alike. What are we waiting for?
A Strategy for the Digital Age
Big data and artificial intelligence are undoubtedly important innovations. They have an enormous potential to catalyze economic value and social progress, from personalized healthcare to sustainable cities. It is totally unacceptable, however, to use these technologies to incapacitate the citizen. Big nudging and citizen scores abuse centrally collected personal data for behavioral control in ways that are totalitarian in nature. This is not only incompatible with human rights and democratic principles, but also inappropriate to manage modern, innovative societies. In order to solve the genuine problems of the world, far better approaches in the fields of information and risk management are required. The research area of responsible innovation and the initiative ”Data for Humanity” (see "Big Data for the benefit of society and humanity") provide guidance as to how big data and artificial intelligence should be used for the benefit of society.
What can we do now? First, even in these times of digital revolution, the basic rights of citizens should be protected, as they are a fundamental prerequisite of a modern functional, democratic society. This requires the creation of a new social contract, based on trust and cooperation, which sees citizens and customers not as obstacles or resources to be exploited, but as partners. For this, the state would have to provide an appropriate regulatory framework, which ensures that technologies are designed and used in ways that are compatible with democracy. This would have to guarantee informational self-determination, not only theoretically, but also practically, because it is a precondition for us to lead our lives in a self-determined and responsible manner.
There should also be a right to get a copy of personal data collected about us. It should be regulated by law that this information must be automatically sent, in a standardized format, to a personal data store, through which individuals could manage the use of their data (potentially supported by particular AI-based digital assistants). To ensure greater privacy and to prevent discrimination, the unauthorised use of data would have to be punishable by law. Individuals would then be able to decide who can use their information, for what purpose and for how long. Furthermore, appropriate measures should be taken to ensure that data is securely stored and exchanged.
Sophisticated reputation systems considering multiple criteria could help to increase the quality of information on which our decisions are based. If data filters and recommendation and search algorithms would be selectable and configurable by the user, we could look at problems from multiple perspectives, and we would be less prone to manipulation by distorted information.
In addition, we need an efficient complaints procedure for citizens, as well as effective sanctions for violations of the rules. Finally, in order to create sufficient transparency and trust, leading scientific institutions should act as trustees of the data and algorithms that currently evade democratic control. This would also require an appropriate code of conduct that, at the very least, would have to be followed by anyone with access to sensitive data and algorithms—a kind of Hippocratic Oath for IT professionals.
Furthermore, we would require a digital agenda to lay the foundation for new jobs and the future of the digital society. Every year we invest billions in the agricultural sector and public infrastructure, schools and universities—to the benefit of industry and the service sector.
Which public systems do we therefore need to ensure that the digital society becomes a success? First, completely new educational concepts are needed. This should be more focused on critical thinking, creativity, inventiveness and entrepreneurship than on creating standardised workers (whose tasks, in the future, will be done by robots and computer algorithms). Education should also provide an understanding of the responsible and critical use of digital technologies, because citizens must be aware of how the digital world is intertwined with the physical one. In order to effectively and responsibly exercise their rights, citizens must have an understanding of these technologies, but also of what uses are illegitimate. This is why there is all the more need for science, industry, politics, and educational institutions to make this knowledge widely available.
Secondly, a participatory platform is needed that makes it easier for people to become self-employed, set up their own projects, find collaboration partners, market products and services worldwide, manage resources and pay tax and social security contributions (a kind of sharing economy for all). To complement this, towns and even villages could set up centers for the emerging digital communities (such as fab labs), where ideas can be jointly developed and tested for free. Thanks to the open and innovative approach found in these centers, massive, collaborative innovation could be promoted.
Particular kinds of competitions could provide additional incentives for innovation, help increase public visibility and generate momentum for a participatory digital society. They could be particularly useful in mobilising civil society to ensure local contributions to global problems solving (for example, by means of "Climate Olympics"). For instance, platforms aiming to coordinate scarce resources could help unleash the huge potential of the circular and sharing economy, which is still largely untapped.
With the commitment to an open data strategy, governments and industry would increasingly make data available for science and public use, to create suitable conditions for an efficient information and innovation ecosystem that keeps pace with the challenges of our world. This could be encouraged by tax cuts, in the same way as they were granted in some countries for the use of environmentally friendly technologies.
Thirdly, building a "digital nervous system," run by the citizens, could open up new opportunities of the Internet of Things for everyone and provide real-time data measurements available to all. If we want to use resources in a more sustainable way and slow down climate change, we need to measure the positive and negative side effects of our interactions with others and our environment. By using appropriate feedback loops, systems could be influenced in such a way that they achieve the desired outcomes by means of self-organization.
For this to succeed we would need various incentive and exchange systems, available to all economic, political and social innovators. This could create entirely new markets and, therefore, also the basis for new prosperity. Unleashing the virtually unlimited potential of the digital economy would be greatly promoted by a pluralistic financial system (for example, functionally differentiated currencies) and new regulations for the compensation for inventions.
To better cope with the complexity and diversity of our future world and to turn it into an advantage, we will require personal digital assistants. These digital assistants will also benefit from developments in the field of artificial intelligence. In the future it can be expected that numerous networks combining human and artificial intelligence will be flexibly built and reconfigured, as needed. However, in order for us to retain control of our lives, these networks should be controlled in a distributed way. In particular, one would also have to be able to log in and log out as desired.
Democratic Platforms
A "Wikipedia of Cultures" could eventually help to coordinate various activities in a highly diverse world and to make them compatible with each other. It would make the mostly implicit success principles of the world's cultures explicit, so that they could be combined in new ways. A "Cultural Genome Project" like this would also be a kind of peace project, because it would raise public awareness for the value of sociocultural diversity. Global companies have long known that culturally diverse and multidisciplinary teams are more successful than homogeneous ones. However, the framework needed to efficiently collate knowledge and ideas from lots of people in order to create collective intelligence is still missing in many places. To change this, the provision of online deliberation platforms would be highly useful. They could also create the framework needed to realize an upgraded, digital democracy, with greater participatory opportunities for citizens. This is important, because many of the problems facing the world today can only be managed with contributions from civil society.
Further Reading:
ACLU: Orwellian Citizen Score, China's credit score system, is a warning for Americans, http://www.computerworld.com/article/2990203/security/aclu-orwellian-citizen-score-chinas-credit-score-system-is-a-warning-for-americans.html
Big data, meet Big Brother: China invents the digital totalitarian state. The worrying implications of its social-credit project. The Economist (December 17, 2016).
Harris, S. The Social Laboratory, Foreign Policy (29 July 2014), http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/07/29/the-social-laboratory/
Tong, V.J.C. Predicting how people think and behave, International Innovation, http://www.internationalinnovation.com/predicting-how-people-think-and-behave/
Volodymyr, M., Kavukcuoglu, K., Silver, D., et al.: Human-level control through deep reinforcement learning. In: Nature, 518, S. 529-533, 2015.
Frey, B. S. und Gallus, J.: Beneficial and Exploitative Nudges. In: Economic Analysis of Law in European Legal Scholarship. Springer, 2015.
Gigerenzer, G.: On the Supposed Evidence for Libertarian Paternalism. In: Review of Philosophy and Psychology 6(3), S. 361-383, 2015.
Grassegger, H. and Krogerus, M. Ich habe nur gezeigt, dass es die Bombe gibt [I have only shown the bomb exists]. Das Magazin (3. Dezember 2016) https://www.dasmagazin.ch/2016/12/03/ich-habe-nur-gezeigt-dass-es-die-bombe-gibt/
Hafen, E., Kossmann, D. und Brand, A.: Health data cooperatives—citizen empowerment. In: Methods of Information in Medicine 53(2), S. 82–86, 2014.
Helbing, D.: The Automation of Society Is Next: How to Survive the Digital Revolution. CreateSpace, 2015.
Helbing, D.: Thinking Ahead—Essays on Big Data, Digital Revolution, and Participatory Market Society. Springer, 2015.
Helbing, D. und Pournaras, E.: Build Digital Democracy. In: Nature 527, S. 33-34, 2015.
van den Hoven, J., Vermaas, P.E. und van den Poel, I.: Handbook of Ethics, Values and Technological Design. Springer, 2015.
Zicari, R. und Zwitter, A.: Data for Humanity: An Open Letter. Frankfurt Big Data Lab, 13.07.2015. Zwitter, A.: Big Data Ethics. In: Big Data & Society 1(2), 2014.
Figure 1: Digital growth. Source: Dirk Helbing
Thanks to Big Data, we can now take better, evidence-based decisions. However, the principle of top-down control increasingly fails, since the complexity of society grows in an explosive way as we go on networking our world. Distributed control approaches will become ever more important. Only by means of collective intelligence will it be possible to find appropriate solutions to the complexity challenges of our world.
Figure 2: At the digital crossroads. Source: Dirk Helbing
Our society is at a crossroads: If ever more powerful algorithms would be controlled by a few decision-makers and reduce our self-determination, we would fall back in a Feudalism 2.0, as important historical achievements would be lost. Now, however, we have the chance to choose the path to digital democracy or democracy 2.0, which would benefit us all (see also https://vimeo.com/147442522 ).
Spotlight on China: Is this what the Future of Society looks like?
How would behavioural and social control impact our lives? The concept of a Citizen Score, which is now being implemented in China, gives an idea. There, all citizens are rated on a one-dimensional ranking scale. Everything they do gives plus or minus points. This is not only aimed at mass surveillance. The score depends on an individual's clicks on the Internet and their politically-correct conduct or not, and it determines their credit terms, their access to certain jobs, and travel visas. Therefore, the Citizen Score is about behavioural and social control. Even the behaviour of friends and acquaintances affects this score, i.e. the principle of clan liability is also applied: everyone becomes both a guardian of virtue and a kind of snooping informant, at the same time; unorthodox thinkers are isolated. Were similar principles to spread in democratic countries, it would be ultimately irrelevant whether it was the state or influential companies that set the rules. In both cases, the pillars of democracy would be directly threatened:
- The tracking and measuring of all activities that leave digital traces would create a "naked" citizen, whose human dignity and privacy would progressively be degraded.
- Decisions would no longer be free, because a wrong choice from the perspective of the government or company defining the criteria of the points system would have negative consequences. The autonomy of the individual would, in principle, be abolished.
- Each small mistake would be punished and no one would be unsuspicious. The principle of the presumption of innocence would become obsolete. Predictive Policing could even lead to punishment for violations that have not happened, but are merely expected to occur.
- As the underlying algorithms cannot operate completely free of error, the principle of fairness and justice would be replaced by a new kind of arbitrariness, against which people would barely be able to defend themselves.
- If individual goals were externally set, the possibility of individual self-development would be eliminated and, thereby, democratic pluralism, too.
- Local culture and social norms would no longer be the basis of appropriate, situation-dependent behaviour.
- The control of society with a one-dimensional goal function would lead to more conflicts and, therefore, to a loss of security. One would have to expect serious instability, as we have seen it in our financial system.
Such a control of society would turn away from self-responsible citizens to individuals as underlings, leading to a Feudalism 2.0. This is diametrically opposed to democratic values. It is therefore time for an Enlightenment 2.0, which would feed into a Democracy 2.0, based on digital self-determination. This requires democratic technologies: information systems, which are compatible with democratic principles - otherwise they will destroy our society.
"BIG NUDGING" - ILL-DESIGNED FOR PROBLEM SOLVING
He who has large amounts of data can manipulate people in subtle ways. But even benevolent decision-makers may do more wrong than right, says Dirk Helbing.
Proponents of Nudging argue that people do not take optimal decisions and it is, therefore, necessary to help them. This school of thinking is known as paternalism. However, Nudging does not choose the way of informing and persuading people. It rather exploits psychological weaknesses in order to bring us to certain behaviours, i.e. we are tricked. The scientific approach underlying this approach is called "behaviorism", which is actually long out of date.
Decades ago, Burrhus Frederic Skinner conditioned rats, pigeons and dogs by rewards and punishments (for example, by feeding them or applying painful electric shocks). Today one tries to condition people in similar ways. Instead of in a Skinner box, we are living in a "filter bubble": with personalized information our thinking is being steered. With personalized prices, we may be even punished or rewarded, for example, for (un)desired clicks on the Internet. The combination of Nudging with Big Data has therefore led to a new form of Nudging that we may call "Big Nudging". The increasing amount of personal information about us, which is often collected without our consent, reveals what we think, how we feel and how we can be manipulated. This insider information is exploited to manipulate us to make choices that we would otherwise not make, to buy some overpriced products or those that we do not need, or perhaps to give our vote to a certain political party.
However, Big Nudging is not suitable to solve many of our problems. This is particularly true for the complexity-related challenges of our world. Although already 90 countries use Nudging, it has not reduced our societal problems - on the contrary. Global warming is progressing. World peace is fragile, and terrorism is on the rise. Cybercrime explodes, and also the economic and debt crisis is not solved in many countries.
There is also no solution to the inefficiency of financial markets, as Nudging guru Richard Thaler recently admitted. In his view, if the state would control financial markets, this would rather aggravate the problem. But why should one then control our society in a top-down way, which is even more complex than a financial market? Society is not a machine, and complex systems cannot be steered like a car. This can be understood by discussing another complex system: our bodies. To cure diseases, one needs to take the right medicine at the right time in the right dose. Many treatments also have serious side and interaction effects. The same, of course, is expected to apply to social interventions by Big Nudging. Often is not clear in advance what would be good or bad for society. 60 percent of the scientific results in psychology are not reproducible. Therefore, chances are to cause more harm than good by Big Nudging.
Furthermore, there is no measure, which is good for all people. For example, in recent decades, we have seen food advisories changing all the time. Many people also suffer from food intolerances, which can even be fatal. Mass screenings for certain kinds of cancer and other diseases are now being viewed quite critically, because the side effects of wrong diagnoses often outweigh the benefits. Therefore, if one decided to use Big Nudging, a solid scientific basis, transparency, ethical evaluation and democratic control would be really crucial. The measures taken would have to guarantee statistically significant improvements, and the side effects would have to be acceptable. Users should be made aware of them (in analogy to a medical leaflet), and the treated persons would have to have the last word.
In addition, applying one and the same measure to the entire population would not be good. But far too little is known to take appropriate individual measures. Not only is it important for society to apply different treatments in order to maintain diversity, but correlations (regarding what measure to take in what particular context) matter as well. For the functioning of society it is essential that people apply different roles, which are fitting to the respective situation they are in. Big Nudging is far from being able to deliver this.
Current Big-Data-based personalization rather creates new problems such as discrimination. For instance, if we make health insurance rates dependent on certain diets, then Jews, Muslims and Christians, women and men will have to pay different rates. Thus, a bunch of new problems is arising.
Richard Thaler is, therefore, not getting tired to emphasize that Nudging should only be used in beneficial ways. As a prime example, how to use Nudging, he mentions a GPS-based route guidance system. This, however, is turned on and off by the user. The user also specifies the respective goal. The digital assistant then offers several alternatives, between which the user can freely choose. After that, the digital assistant supports the user as good as it can in reaching the goal and in making better decisions. This would certainly be the right approach to improve people's behaviours, but today the spirit of Big Nudging is quite different from this.
DIGITAL SELF-DETERMINATION BY MEANS OF A “RIGHT TO A COPY”
by Ernst Hafen
Europe must guarantee citizens a right to a digital copy of all data about them (Right to a Copy), says Ernst Hafen. A first step towards data democracy would be to establish cooperative banks for personal data that are owned by the citizens rather than by corporate shareholders.
Medicine can profit from health data. However, access to personal data must be controlled the persons (the data subjects) themselves. The “Right to a Copy” forms the basis for such a control.
In Europe, we like to point out that we live in free, democratic societies. We have almost unconsciously become dependent on multinational data firms, however, whose free services we pay for with our own data. Personal data—which is now sometimes referred to as a “new asset class” or the oil of the 21st Century—is greatly sought after. However, thus far nobody has managed to extract the maximum use from personal data because it lies in many different data sets. Google and Facebook may know more about our health than our doctor, but even these firms cannot collate all of our data, because they rightly do not have access to our patient files, shopping receipts, or information about our genomic make-up. In contrast to other assets, data can be copied with almost no associated cost. Every person should have the right to obtain a copy of all their personal data. In this way, they can control the use and aggregation of their data and decide themselves whether to give access to friends, another doctor, or the scientific community.
The emergence of mobile health sensors and apps means that patients can contribute significant medical insights. By recording their bodily health on their smartphones, such as medical indicators and the side effects of medications, they supply important data which make it possible to observe how treatments are applied, evaluate health technologies, and conduct evidence-based medicine in general. It is also a moral obligation to give citizens access to copies of their data and allow them to take part in medical research, because it will save lives and make health care more affordable.
European countries should copper-fasten the digital self-determination of their citizens by enshrining the “Right to a Copy” in their constitutions, as has been proposed in Switzerland. In this way, citizens can use their data to play an active role in the global data economy. If they can store copies of their data in non-profit, citizen-controlled, cooperative institutions, a large portion of the economic value of personal data could be returned to society. The cooperative institutions would act as trustees in managing the data of their members. This would result in the democratization of the market for personal data and the end of digital dependence.
DEMOCRATIC DIGITAL SOCIETY
Citizens must be allowed to actively participate
In order to deal with future technology in a responsible way, it is necessary that each one of us can participate in the decision-making process, argues Bruno S. Frey from the University of Basel
How can responsible innovation be promoted effectively? Appeals to the public have little, if any, effect if the institutions or rules shaping human interactions are not designed to incentivize and enable people to meet these requests.
Several types of institutions should be considered. Most importantly, society must be decentralized, following the principle of subsidiarity. Three dimensions matter.
- Spatial decentralization consists in vibrant federalism. The provinces, regions and communes must be given sufficient autonomy. To a large extent, they must be able to set their own tax rates and govern their own public expenditure.
- Functional decentralization according to area of public expenditure (for example education, health, environment, water provision, traffic, culture etc) is also desirable. This concept has been developed through the proposal of FOCJ, or “Functional, Overlapping and Competing Jurisdictions”.
- Political decentralization relating to the division of power between the executive (government), legislative (parliament) and the courts. Public media and academia should be additional pillars.
These types of decentralization will continue to be of major importance in the digital society of the future.
In addition, citizens must have the opportunity to directly participate in decision-making on particular issues by means of popular referenda. In the discourse prior to such a referendum, all relevant arguments should be brought forward and stated in an organized fashion. The various proposals about how to solve a particular problem should be compared and narrowed down to those which seem to be most promising, and integrated insomuch as possible during a mediation process. Finally, a referendum needs to take place, which serves to identify the most viable solution for the local conditions (viable in the sense that it enjoys a diverse range of support in the electorate).
Nowadays, on-line deliberation tools can efficiently support such processes. This makes it possible to consider a larger and more diverse range of ideas and knowledge, harnessing “collective intelligence” to produce better policy proposals.
Another way to implement the ten proposals would be to create new, unorthodox institutions. For example, it could be made compulsory for every official body to take on an “advocatus diaboli”. This lateral thinker would be tasked with developing counter-arguments and alternatives to each proposal. This would reduce the tendency to think along the lines of “political correctness” and unconventional approaches to the problem would also be considered.
Another unorthodox measure would be to choose among the alternatives considered reasonable during the discourse process using random decision-making mechanisms. Such an approach increases the chance that unconventional and generally disregarded proposals and ideas would be integrated into the digital society of the future.
Bruno S. Frey
Bruno Frey (* 1941) is an academic economist and Permanent Visiting Professor at the University of Basel where he directs the Center for Research in Economics and Well-Being (CREW). He is also Research Director of the Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts (CREMA) in Zurich.
DEMOCRATIC TECHNOLOGIES AND RESPONSIBLE INNOVATION
When technology determines how we see the world, there is a threat of misuse and deception. Thus, innovation must reflect our values, argues Jeroen van den Hoven.
Germany was recently rocked by an industrial scandal of global proportions. The revelations led to the resignation of the CEO of one of the largest car manufacturers, a grave loss of consumer confidence, a dramatic slump in share price and economic damage for the entire car industry. There was even talk of severe damage to the “Made in Germany” brand. The compensation payments will be in the range of billions of Euro.
The background to the scandal was a situation whereby VW and other car manufacturers used manipulative software which could detect the conditions under which the environmental compliance of a vehicle was tested. The software algorithm altered the behavior of the engine so that it emitted fewer pollutant exhaust fumes under test conditions than in normal circumstances. In this way, it cheated the test procedure. The full reduction of emissions occurred only during the tests, but not in normal use.
In the 21st Century, we urgently need to address the question of how we can implement ethical standards technologically.
Similarly, algorithms, computer code, software, models and data will increasingly determine what we see in the digital society, and what are choices are with regard to health insurance, finance and politics. This brings new risks for the economy and society. In particular, there is a danger of deception.
Thus, it is important to understand that our values are embodied in the things we create. Otherwise, the technological design of the future will determine the shape of our society (“code is law”). If these values are self-serving, discriminatory or contrary to the ideals of freedom and personal privacy, this will damage our society. Thus, in the 21st Century we must urgently address the question of how we can implement ethical standards technologically. The challenge calls for us to “design for value”.
If we lack the motivation to develop the technological tools, science and institutions necessary to align the digital world with our shared values, the future looks very bleak. Thankfully, the European Union has invested in an extensive research and development program for responsible innovation. Furthermore, the EU countries which passed the Lund and Rome Declarations emphasized that innovation needs to be carried out responsibly. Among other things, this means that innovation should be directed at developing intelligent solutions to societal problems, which can harmonize values such as efficiency, security and sustainability. Genuine innovation does not involve deceiving people into believing that their cars are sustainable and efficient. Genuine innovation means creating technologies that can actually satisfy these requirements.
DIGITAL RISK LITERACY
Technology needs users who can control it
Rather than letting intelligent technology diminish our brainpower, we should learn to better control it, says Gerd Gigerenzer—beginning in childhood.
The digital revolution provides an impressive array of possibilities: thousands of apps, the Internet of Things, and almost permanent connectivity to the world. But in the excitement, one thing is easily forgotten: innovative technology needs competent users who can control it rather than be controlled by it.
Three examples:
One of my doctoral students sits at his computer and appears to be engrossed in writing his dissertation. At the same time his e-mail inbox is open, all day long. He is in fact waiting to be interrupted. It's easy to recognize how many interruptions he had in the course of the day by looking at the flow of his writing.
An American student writes text messages while driving:
"When a text comes in, I just have to look, no matter what. Fortunately, my phone shows me the text as a pop up at first… so I don't have to do too much looking while I'm driving." If, at the speed of 50 miles per hour, she takes only 2 seconds to glance at her cell phone, she's just driven 48 yards "blind". That young woman is risking a car accident. Her smart phone has taken control of her behavior—as is the case for the 20 to 30 percent of Germans who also text while driving.
During the parliamentary elections in India in 2014, the largest democratic election in the world with over 800 million potential voters, there were three main candidates: N. Modi, A. Kejriwal, and R. Ghandi. In a study, undecided voters could find out more information about these candidates using an Internet search engine. However, the participants did not know that the web pages had been manipulated: For one group, more positive items about Modi popped up on the first page and negative ones later on. The other groups experienced the same for the other candidates. This and similar manipulative procedures are common practice on the Internet. It is estimated that for candidates who appear on the first page thanks to such manipulation, the number of votes they receive from undecided voters increases by 20 percentage points.
In each of these cases, human behavior is controlled by digital technology. Losing control is nothing new, but the digital revolution has increased the possibility of that happening.
What can we do? There are three competing visions. One is techno-paternalism, which replaces (flawed) human judgment with algorithms. The distracted doctoral student could continue readings his emails and use thesis-writing software; all he would need to do is input key information on the topic. Such algorithms would solve the annoying problem of plagiarism scandals by making them an everyday occurrence.
Although still in the domain of science fiction, human judgment is already being replaced by computer programs in many areas. The BabyConnect app, for instance, tracks the daily development of infants—height, weight, number of times it was nursed, how often its diapers were changed, and much more—while newer apps compare the baby with other users' children in a real-time database. For parents, their baby becomes a data vector, and normal discrepancies often cause unnecessary concern.
The second vision is known as "nudging". Rather than letting the algorithm do all the work, people are steered into a particular direction, often without being aware of it. The experiment on the elections in India is an example of that. We know that the first page of Google search results receives about 90% of all clicks, and half of these are the first two results. This knowledge about human behavior is taken advantage of by manipulating the order of results so that the positive ones about a particular candidate or a particular commercial product appear on the first page. In countries such as Germany, where web searches are dominated by one search engine (Google), this leads to endless possibilities to sway voters. Like techno-paternalism, nudging takes over the helm.
But there is a third possibility. My vision is risk literacy, where people are equipped with the competencies to control media rather than be controlled by it. In general, risk literacy concerns informed ways of dealing with risk-related areas such as health, money, and modern technologies. Digital risk literacy means being able to take advantage of digital technologies without becoming dependent on or manipulated by them. That is not as hard as it sounds. My doctoral student has since learned to switch on his email account only three times a day, morning, noon, and evening, so that he can work on his dissertation without constant interruption.
Learning digital self-control needs to begin as a child, at school and also from the example set by parents. Some paternalists may scoff at the idea, stating that humans lack the intelligence and self-discipline to ever become risk literate. But centuries ago the same was said about learning to read and write—which a majority of people in industrial countries can now do. In the same way, people can learn to deal with risks more sensibly. To achieve this, we need to radically rethink strategies and invest in people rather than replace or manipulate them with intelligent technologies. In the 21st century, we need less paternalism and nudging and more informed, critical, and risk-savvy citizens. It's time to snatch away the remote control from technology and take our lives into our own hands.
ETHICS: BIG DATA FOR THE COMMON GOOD AND FOR HUMANITY
The power of data can be used for good and bad purposes. Roberto Zicari and Andrej Zwitter have formulated five principles of Big Data Ethics.
by and
In recent times there have been a growing number of voices — from tech visionaries like Elon Musk (Tesla Motors), to Bill Gates (Microsoft) and Steve Wozniak (Apple) — warning of the dangers of artificial intelligence (AI). A petition against automated weapon systems was signed by 200,000 people and an open letter recently published by MIT calls for a new, inclusive approach to the coming digital society.
We must realize that big data, like any other tool, can be used for good and bad purposes. In this sense, the decision by the European Court of Justice against the Safe Harbour Agreement on human rights grounds is understandable.
States, international organizations and private actors now employ big data in a variety of spheres. It is important that all those who profit from big data are aware of their moral responsibility. For this reason, the Data for Humanity Initiative was established, with the goal of disseminating an ethical code of conduct for big data use. This initiative advances five fundamental ethical principles for big data users:
1. “Do no harm”. The digital footprint that everyone now leaves behind exposes individuals, social groups and society as a whole to a certain degree of transparency and vulnerability. Those who have access to the insights afforded by big data must not harm third parties.
2. Ensure that data is used in such a way that the results will foster the peaceful coexistence of humanity. The selection of content and access to data influences the world view of a society. Peaceful coexistence is only possible if data scientists are aware of their responsibility to provide even and unbiased access to data.
3. Use data to help people in need. In addition to being economically beneficial, innovation in the sphere of big data could also create additional social value. In the age of global connectivity, it is now possible to create innovative big data tools which could help to support people in need.
4. Use data to protect nature and reduce pollution of the environment. One of the biggest achievements of big data analysis is the development of efficient processes and synergy effects. Big data can only offer a sustainable economic and social future if such methods are also used to create and maintain a healthy and stable natural environment.
5. Use data to eliminate discrimination and intolerance and to create a fair system of social coexistence. Social media has created a strengthened social network. This can only lead to long-term global stability if it is built on the principles of fairness, equality and justice.
To conclude, we would also like to draw attention to how interesting new possibilities afforded by big data could lead to a better future: "As more data become less costly and technology breaks barriers to acquisition and analysis, the opportunity to deliver actionable information for civic purposes grows. This might be termed the 'common good' challenge for big data." (Jake Porway, DataKind). In the end, it is important to understand the turn to big data as an opportunity to do good and as a hope for a better future.
MEASURING, ANALYZING, OPTIMIZING: WHEN INTELLIGENT MACHINES TAKE OVER SOCIETAL CONTROL
In the digital age, machines steer everyday life to a considerable extent already. We should, therefore, think twice before we share our personal data, says expert Yvonne Hofstetter
If Norbert Wiener (1894-1964) had experienced the digital era, for him it would have been the land of plenty. “Cybernetics is the science of information and control, regardless of whether the target of control is a machine or a living organism”, the founder of Cybernetics once explained in Hannover, Germany in 1960. In history, the world never produced such amount of data and information as it does today.
Cybernetics, a science asserting ubiquitous importance, makes a strong claim: “Everything can be controlled.” During the 20th century, both the US armed forces and the Soviet Union applied Cybernetics to control their arms’ race. The NATO had deployed so-called C3I systems (Command, Control, Communication and Information), a term for military infrastructure that leans linguistically to Wiener’s book on Cybernetics: Or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine, published in 1948. Control refers to the control of machines as well as of individuals or entire social systems like military alliances, financial markets or, pointing to the 21st century, even the electorate. Its major premise: keeping the world under surveillance to collect data. Connecting people and things to the Internet of Everything is a perfect to way to obtain the required mass data as input to cybernetic control strategies.
With Cybernetics, Wiener proposed a new scientific concept: the closed-loop feedback. Feedback—e.g. the Likes we give, the online comments we make—is a major concept of digitization, too. Does that mean digitization is the most perfect implementation of Cybernetics? When we use smart devices, we are creating a ceaseless data stream disclosing our intentions, geo position or social environment. While we communicate more thoughtlessly than ever online, in the background, an ecosystem of artif
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Вот почему женщины в Китае не болеют раком груди
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
| (>[2] /dev/null) |
| Публикувано | 06.04.17 03:05 |
|
|
Ти си объркан по рождение, това с рака на простата е дреболия.
Изследването от 2004 е т.нар. метаизследване. Знаеш ли какво означава това? Означава, че събират всички изследвания които са правени по темата и им правят статистически анализ. Без да се интересуват от епигенетика (което съм СИГУРЕН, че си нямаш идея какво е), нито пък от други МЕХАНИЗМИ по които млякото може да виляе. И това метаизследване показва ФАКТИТЕ: няма статистически значима връзка между употребата на мляко и рака на гърдата. Забележи, дори не става въпрос за това дали млякото е ПРИЧИНА, няма изобщо ВРЪЗКА.
Между другото, ако изобщо беше понаучил нещо в рабфака, където си ходил, щеше да знаеш, че отделни изследвания не се използват за правене на общи изводи. Използват се мета изследвания.
П.П. Интересно защо не избра да цитираш ТОВА от изследването:
In multivariable-adjusted analyses, overall dairy intake was unrelated to breast cancer-specific outcomes.
The last good thing written in C was Franz Schubert's Symphony No. 9.Редактирано от | на 06.04.17 03:07.
| |
|
Тема
|
+Will Democracy Survive Big Data and Artificial I.
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 06.04.17 03:08 |
|
|
...
MEASURING, ANALYZING, OPTIMIZING: WHEN INTELLIGENT MACHINES TAKE OVER SOCIETAL CONTROL
In the digital age, machines steer everyday life to a considerable extent already. We should, therefore, think twice before we share our personal data, says expert Yvonne Hofstetter
If Norbert Wiener (1894-1964) had experienced the digital era, for him it would have been the land of plenty. “Cybernetics is the science of information and control, regardless of whether the target of control is a machine or a living organism”, the founder of Cybernetics once explained in Hannover, Germany in 1960. In history, the world never produced such amount of data and information as it does today.
Cybernetics, a science asserting ubiquitous importance, makes a strong claim: “Everything can be controlled.” During the 20th century, both the US armed forces and the Soviet Union applied Cybernetics to control their arms’ race. The NATO had deployed so-called C3I systems (Command, Control, Communication and Information), a term for military infrastructure that leans linguistically to Wiener’s book on Cybernetics: Or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine, published in 1948. Control refers to the control of machines as well as of individuals or entire social systems like military alliances, financial markets or, pointing to the 21st century, even the electorate. Its major premise: keeping the world under surveillance to collect data. Connecting people and things to the Internet of Everything is a perfect to way to obtain the required mass data as input to cybernetic control strategies.
With Cybernetics, Wiener proposed a new scientific concept: the closed-loop feedback. Feedback—e.g. the Likes we give, the online comments we make—is a major concept of digitization, too. Does that mean digitization is the most perfect implementation of Cybernetics? When we use smart devices, we are creating a ceaseless data stream disclosing our intentions, geo position or social environment. While we communicate more thoughtlessly than ever online, in the background, an ecosystem of artificial intelligence is evolving. Today, artificial intelligence is the sole technology being able to profile us and draw conclusions about our future behavior.
An automated control strategy, usually a learning machine, analyzes our actual situation and then computes a stimulus that should draw us closer to a more desirable “optimal” state. Increasingly, such controllers govern our daily lives. As digital assistants they help us making decisions in the vast ocean of optionality and intimidating uncertainty. Even Google Search is a control strategy. When typing a keyword, a user reveals his intentions. The Google search engine, in turn, will not just present a list with best hits, but a link list that embodies the highest (financial) value rather for the company than for the user. Doing it that way, i.e. listing corporate offerings at the very top of the search results, Google controls the user’s next clicks. This, the European Union argues, is a misuse.
But is there any way out? Yes, if we disconnected from the cybernetic loop. Just stop responding to a digital stimulus. Cybernetics will fail, if the controllable counterpart steps out of the loop. Yet, we are free to owe a response to a digital controller. However, as digitization further escalates, soon we may have no more choice. Hence, we are called on to fight for our freedom rights—afresh during the digital era and in particular at the rise of intelligent machines.
For Norbert Wiener (1894-1964), the digital era would be a paradise. “Cybernetics is the science of information and control, regardless of whether a machine or a living organism is being controlled”, the founder of cybernetics once said in Hanover, Germany in 1960.
Cybernetics, a science which claims ubiquitous importance makes a strong promise: “Everything is controllable.” During the 20th century, both the US armed forces and the Soviet Union applied cybernetics to control the arms’ race. NATO had deployed so-called C3I systems (Command, Control, Communication and Information), a term for military infrastructure that linguistically leans on Wiener’s book entitled Cybernetics: Or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine published in 1948. Control refers to the control of machines as well as of individuals or entire societal systems such as military alliances, NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Its basic requirements are: Integrating, collecting data and communicating. Connecting people and things to the Internet of Everything is a perfect way to obtain the required data as input of cybernetic control strategies.
With cybernetics, a new scientific concept was proposed: the closed-loop feedback. Feedback—such as the likes we give or the online comments we make—is another major concept related to digitization. Does this mean that digitization is the most perfect implementation of cybernetics? When we use smart devices, we create an endless data stream disclosing our intentions, geolocation or social environment. While we communicate more thoughtlessly than ever online, in the background, an artificial intelligence (AI) ecosystem is evolving. Today, AI is the sole technology able to profile us and draw conclusions about our future behavior.
An automated control strategy, usually a learning machine, analyses our current state and computes a stimulus that should draw us closer to a more desirable “optimal” state. Increasingly, such controllers govern our daily lives. Such digital assistants help us to make decisions among the vast ocean of options and intimidating uncertainty. Even Google Search is a control strategy. When typing a keyword, a user reveals his intentions. The Google search engine, in turn, presents not only a list of the best hits, but also a list of links sorted according to their (financial) value to the company, rather than to the user. By listing corporate offerings at the very top of the search results, Google controls the user’s next clicks. That is a misuse of Google’s monopoly, the European Union argues.
But is there any way out? Yes, if we disconnect from the cybernetic loop and simply stop responding to the digital stimulus. Cybernetics will fail, if the controllable counterpart steps out of the loop. We should remain discreet and frugal with our data, even if it is difficult. However, as digitization further escalates, soon there may be no more choices left. Hence, we are called on to fight once again for our freedom in the digital era, particularly against the rise of intelligent machines.
______________________________________
ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S)
Dirk Helbing
Dirk Helbing is Professor of Computational Social Science at the Department of Humanities, Social and Political Sciences and affiliate professor at the Department of Computer Science at ETH Zurich. His recent studies discuss globally networked risks. At Delft University of Technology he directs the PhD programme "Engineering Social Technologies for a Responsible Digital Future." He is also an elected member of the German Academy of Sciences "Leopoldina" and the World Academy of Art and Science.
Bruno S. Frey
Bruno Frey is an economist and Visiting Professor at the University of Basel, where he directs the Center for Research in Economics and Well-Being (CREW). He is also Research Director of the Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts (CREMA) in Zurich.
Gerd Gigerenzer
Gerd Gigerenzer is Director at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development in Berlin and the Harding Center for Risk Literacy, founded in Berlin in 2009. He is a member of the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and the German Academy of Sciences "Leopoldina". His research interests include risk competence and risk communication, as well as decision-making under uncertainty and time pressure.
Recent Articles
Ernst Hafen
Ernst Hafen is Professor at the Institute of Molecular Systems Biology at ETH Zurich and also its former President. In 2012, he founded the initiative "Data and Health." The initiative's intention is to strengthen citizens' digital self-determination at a political and economic level, as well as to encourage the establishment of organised cooperative databases for personal data.
Michael Hagner
Michael Hagner is Professor of Science Studies at ETH Zurich. His research interests include the relationship between science and democracy, the history of cybernetics and the impact of digital culture on academic publishing.
Yvonne Hofstetter
Yvonne Hofstetter is a lawyer and AI expert. The analysis of large amounts of data and data fusion systems are her specialities. She is the Managing Director of Teramark Technologies GmbH. The company develops digital control systems based on artificial intelligence, for, among other purposes, the optimisation of urban supply chains and algorithmic currency risk management.
Jeroen van den Hoven
Jeroen van den Hoven is University Professor and Professor of Ethics and Technology at Delft University of Technology, as well as founding Editor in Chief of the journal of Ethics and Information Technology. He was founding Chairman of the Dutch Research Council program on Responsible Innovation and chaired an Expert Group Responsible Research and Innovation of the European Commission. He is member of the Expert Group on Ethics of the European Data Protection Supervisor.
Roberto V. Zicari
Roberto V. Zicari is Professor for Databases and Information Systems at the Goethe University Frankfurt and Big Data expert. His interests also include entrepreneurship and innovation. He is the founder of the Frankfurt Big Data Lab at the Goethe University and the editor of the Operational Database Management Systems (ODBMS.org) portal. He is also a Visiting Professor at the Center for Entrepreneurship and Technology of the Department of Industrial Engineering and Operations Research at the University of California at Berkeley.
Andrej Zwitter
Andrej Zwitter is Professor of International Relations and Ethics at the University of Groningen, in the Netherlands, and Honorary Senior Research Fellow at Liverpool Hope University, U.K. He is the co-founder of the International Network Observatory for Big Data and Global Strategy. His research interests include international political theory, emergency and martial law, humanitarian aid policy, as well as the impact of Big Data on international politics and ethics.
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Вот почему женщины в Китае не болеют раком груди
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
| (>[2] /dev/null) |
| Публикувано | 06.04.17 03:12 |
|
|
Между другото, прочете ли отговорите на изследването? Например това:
https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/jnci/djt283
No association emerged between dairy consumption and all-cause (HR for ≥2 servings/day vs <1 serving/day = 1.11, 95% CI = 0.84 to 1.47) or breast-cancer mortality (HR for ≥2 servings/day vs <1 serving/day = 1.06, 95% CI = 0.77 to 1.46) ( Table 1 ). Null results were also found for high- (all-cause HR for ≥1 servings/day vs <0.5 serving/day = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.68 to 1.34) or low-fat dairy intake (all-cause HR for ≥1 servings/day vs <0.5 serving/day = 1.05, 95% CI = 0.84 to 1.33). The analyses on major contributors of dairy intake in our study showed a borderline statistically significant increased mortality for milk (all-cause HR for ≥1 servings/day vs <0.5 serving/day = 1.19, 95% CI = 0.97 to 1.46) and a reduced mortality for cheese (all-cause HR for ≥1 servings/day vs <0.5 serving/day = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.56 to 0.99). Similar patterns were found when considering only breast cancers at stages I and II.
Или това:
https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/jnci/djt284
The last good thing written in C was Franz Schubert's Symphony No. 9.
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Вот почему женщины в Китае не болеют раком груди
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
| (>[2] /dev/null) |
| Публикувано | 06.04.17 03:33 |
|
|
И понеже се опитваш да се правиш на интересен, ето ти един съвсем пресен метаанализ по темата. И то такъв, който използва любимото ти изследване като един от източниците:
RESULTS:
Total dairy products intake was not associated with all cancer mortality risk, with the pooled RR of 0.99 (95 % CI 0.92-1.07, p = 0.893). Subgroup analyses showed that the pooled RRs were 0.97 (95 % CI 0.92-1.03, p = 0.314) for milk, 0.88 (95 % CI 0.71-1.10, p = 0.271) for yogurt, 1.23 (95 % CI 0.94-1.61, p = 0.127) for cheese and 1.13 (95 % CI 0.89-1.44, p = 0.317) for butter in male and female, however the pooled RR was 1.50 (95 % CI 1.03-2.17, p = 0.032) for whole milk in male, which was limited to prostate cancer. Further dose-response analyses were performed and we found that increase of whole milk (serving/day) induced elevated prostate cancer mortality risk significantly, with the RR of 1.43 (95 % CI 1.13-1.81, p = 0.003).
CONCLUSIONS:
Total dairy products intake have no significant impact on increased all cancer mortality risk, while low total dairy intake even reduced relative risk based on the non-linear model. However, whole milk intake in men contributed to elevated prostate cancer mortality risk significantly. Furthermore, a linear dose-response relationship existed between increase of whole milk intake and increase of prostate cancer mortality risk.
Та, изобщо не е случайно, че си пуснал линк за рак на простатата. Просто само за този вид рак млякото има някакъв ефект.
Интересно дали ще признаеш, поне веднъж, че грешиш? :)
The last good thing written in C was Franz Schubert's Symphony No. 9.Редактирано от | на 06.04.17 03:34.
| |
|
Тема
|
Electric DNA, Circular RNA, and Other Epigenetic..
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 06.04.17 03:45 |
|
|
Upon completion of the Human Genome Project, scientists were baffled at the unexpectedly low number of genes. How could so few protein-coding genes (about 20,000) build a human being? It turned out that genes are only one part of the action. The old Central Dogma that viewed DNA as the master molecule, RNA as the messenger boy, and protein as the end product is long gone. Now we are beginning to see that there are three “-omes” that interact in complex ways with other molecules, including lipids and sugars. Everywhere they turn, scientists are seeing molecular wizardry at work. Here are just a few recent examples.
Another -Ome with a Code of Its Own
The Bellvitge Biomedical Research Institute (IDIBELL) of Barcelona, Spain, assumes we know about the genome and the epigenome. Now, news from IDIBELL draws our attention to another “-ome” that is rising in significance: the transcriptome, referring to the “epigenetics of RNA”:
“It is well-known that sometimes DNA produces a RNA string but then this RNA does not originate the protein. Because in these cases the alteration is neither in the genome nor the proteome, we thought it should be in the transcriptome, that is, in the RNA molecule”, Dr. Esteller explains.”In recent years, we discovered that our RNA is highly regulated and if only two or three modifications at the DNA level can control it, there may be hundreds of small changes in RNA that control its stability, its intracellular localization or its maturation in living beings”. [Emphasis added.]
For example, some non-coding RNAs are now known to be ‘guardian RNAs’ according to the modifications on their bases or sugars with methyl groups that act as tags. The field of transcriptomics is only about five years old; “It will definitely be an exciting research stage for this and the next generation of scientists,” Dr. Esteller says. See our recent article “” for more about this epicentric karma running over the Central Dogma.
Electric DNA
Here’s another way that DNA carries information that is rather shocking: it conducts electricity. describes “DNA charge transport” as an unexpected signaling system between the code and its reading machines.
DNA charge transport provides an avenue for rapid, long-range signaling between redox-active moieties coupled into the DNA duplex. Several enzymes integral to eukaryotic DNA replication contain [4Fe4S] clusters, common redox cofactors. DNA primase, the enzyme responsible for initiating replication on single-stranded DNA, is a [4Fe4S] protein. Primase synthesizes short RNA primers of a precise length before handing off the primed DNA template to DNA polymerase α, another [4Fe4S] enzyme. The [4Fe4S] cluster in primase is required for primer synthesis, but its underlying chemistry has not been established. Moreover, what orchestrates primer handoff between primase and DNA polymerase α is not well understood.
In the paper, seven researchers from Caltech and Vanderbilt tell about experiments they ran to establish the existence of electrical charge transfers between the double helix and the molecular machines that read it and duplicate it. “We demonstrate that the oxidation state of the [4Fe4S] cluster in DNA primase acts as a reversible on/off switch for DNA binding,” they conclude. And it’s not alone. Because DNA can conduct charges over long distances, “Such redox signaling by [4Fe4S] clusters may play a wider role in polymerase enzymes to coordinate eukaryotic DNA replication.”
Circular RNA
Some RNAs fold into stable loops. We have them in our brains. What do they do? When discovered, they were considered non-coding. Now, however, scientists at Hebrew University have found that they can indeed code for proteins. The paper in Molecular Cell[/url], “Translation of CircRNAs,” opens up a new window of functional possibilities for these oddball transcripts.
Circular RNAs (circRNAs) are abundant and evolutionarily conserved RNAs of largely unknown function. Here, we show that a subset of circRNAs is translated in vivo. By performing ribosome footprinting from fly heads, we demonstrate that a group of circRNAs is associated with translating ribosomes. Many of these ribo-circRNAs use the start codon of the hosting mRNA, are bound by membrane-associated ribosomes, and have evolutionarily conserved termination codons…. Altogether, our study provides strong evidence for translation of circRNAs, revealing the existence of an unexplored layer of gene activity.
“Evolutionarily conserved,” of course, means not evolved. A layman’s account in .
This discovery reveals an unexplored layer of gene activity in a type of molecule not previously thought to produce proteins. It also reveals the existence of a new universe of proteins not yet characterized.
One possible function for circRNAs is stable storage of protein-coding data for regions far from the nucleus. The tips of axons, for instance, can be too far away for quick access to genes they need. “As circRNAs are extremely stable, they potentially could be stored for a long time in compartments more distant to the cell’s body like axons of neuron cells,” Science Daily says. “There, the RNA molecules could serve as a reservoir for proteins being produced at a given time.” One scientist not connected about the research expressed excitement about it. “This is a very important, promising and timely discovery that gives an important hint of the function of these abundant yet uncharacterized RNAs.”
Interdependent Modifications
As geneticists explore the universe of epigenetic modifications, they have been unable to replicate some of them in a lab dish (in vitro). Now, a reason for this is coming to light. A paper in begins with surprising statistics in the number of epigenetic modifications known. Then the authors tell how they discovered a case of “interdependent” modifications:
Nucleic acids undergo naturally occurring chemical modifications. Over 100 different modifications have been described and every position in the purine and pyrimidine bases can be modified; often the sugar is also modified. Despite recent progress, the mechanism for the biosynthesis of most modifications is not fully understood, owing, in part, to the difficulty associated with reconstituting enzyme activity in vitro. Whereas some modifications can be efficiently formed with purified components, others may require more intricate pathways. A model for modification interdependence, in which one modification is a prerequisite for another, potentially explains a major hindrance in reconstituting enzymatic activity in vitro. This model was prompted by the earlier discovery of tRNA cytosine-to-uridine editing in eukaryotes, a reaction that has not been recapitulated in vitro and the mechanism of which remains unknown.
Sure enough, they found a case in a microbe where one modification was a prerequisite to another modification. The mechanism appears to provide quality control by preventing catastrophic modifications to every matching spot on a whole genome.
Here’s a case we can relate to. The human antibody response system rapidly mutates sequences looking for matches to antigens. How does activation-induced cytidine deaminase (AID) deaminate the immunoglobulin receptors (IgG) without affecting the rest of the genome? The answer may involve interdependent modifications:
In mammalian cells, AID plays a critical role in antibody class diversification by specifically targeting the IgG receptor genes, while generally leaving the rest of the genome unblemished. While the mechanism of this enzyme has been elucidated, the basis for its programmed specificity towards only a fraction of the genome is still unclear. The work presented here provides a rationale for controlling mutagenic enzymes through their interaction with other partners, as has been suggested previously. This, of course, leads to the question of how such substrate specificities evolved. Our data suggest that the answer may relate to the ability of certain protein–protein interactions to provide secondary functions based on extreme mutual dependability, as illustrated here by the interplay between TRM140a and ADAT2/3.
ID advocates are certain to catch the phrases “programmed specificity” and “extreme mutual dependency” in support of their view, while chuckling at the Darwinists’ quandary about “how such substrate specificities evolved.” Their suggested solution only appears to dig a deeper hole. They never quite get around to telling readers how “extreme mutual dependability” came up with “secondary functions” by sheer dumb luck, such that the result only gives an appearance of “programmed specificity.” ID, on the other hand, provides a common-sense answer. Programming presupposes a programmer.
| |
|
Тема
|
Human exposures to Bisphenol A alternatives and...
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 06.04.17 03:49 |
|
|
Recent years have witnessed an exponential interest in the use and research on bisphenol A (BPA). BPA is one of the chemicals ranked very high in the chemicals’ list with the highest production volume estimates worldwide. BPA is widely used in polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resins that are components in multifarious consumer and cosmetic products. We can find BPA in several personal care- and household-products used on a daily basis. For example, some examples of BPA containing products that we encounter frequently are food, water and beverage packaging containers, cooking utensils, children toys, teething rings and pacifiers, dental composites and sealants, electrical and electronic equipment, thermal print paper used for receipts, magazines, books etc. Moreover, transformation and degradation of certain consumer products under normal to abnormal storage conditions can release BPA into indoor air, dust and contact surfaces. These results in humans’ exposure to BPA from multiple sources and enter human body through oral consumption, dermal and subcutaneous contact, and inhalation. BPA is an endocrine disruptor with well-known hormonal dysfunction effects and linked with health risks of developing metabolic disorders such as obesity and type II diabetes mellitus. Given these alarming findings, regulatory bodies and policies started to focus and enforce restrictions on the manufacturing and use of BPA.
Fig. 1. Proposed exposure sources for BPA alternatives and derivatives, and possible exposure routes in humans.
This opened the doors for BPA alternatives to enter the industrial and consumer markets. BPA structural analogs such as bisphenol F (BPF) and bisphenol S (BPS) are similar in structure to BPA but not the same and hence commercially-labelled as BPA-free promoting the notion among consumers that these are safer to use compared to BPA. However, their long-term and chronic health impact to humans and sensitive subpopulation groups has not been fully assessed yet. On the other, BPA in consumer products can react with chlorine present as a disinfectant in tap water and/or household cleaning products and solutions resulting in the instantaneous formation of chlorinated derivatives of BPA (ClxBPA). ClxBPA are known for having higher estrogenic-activity compared to the parent BPA, and are linked with alteration and disruption of hormonal and metabolic pathways. Similar reactivity to disinfectant chlorine is anticipated for the structural BPA analogs, but this remains to be experimentally documented. An increasing number of scientific reports dealing with metabolism and toxicity of the above mentioned substances in animal studies can be found. However, very limited information is available on the sources and routes of exposure to these new forms of BPA in human populations (Fig. 1).
Researchers from the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (New York, USA), Cyprus International Institute for Environmental and Public Health (Limassol, Cyprus), and University of Groningen (Groningen, Netherlands) reviewed and critically discussed human exposures to BPA alternatives and derivatives. The article reviews all studies that deal with monitoring of chlorinated derivatives and structural analogs of bisphenol A in various human and environmental matrices. The authors presented information on the exposure sources and routes to these chemicals, and metabolism and toxicity outcomes as observed in in-vitro and in-vivo studies. Further, information on the reported concentrations of these emerging BPA-based chemicals in human body tissues and fluids, and the possible associations with human health effects such as hormonal and metabolic disorders was presented. The article elaborates on current limitations; provide directions for future research and opportunities, and promote research needs for the inclusion of ClxBPA and BPA analogs into human exposure assessment protocols of current and relevant epidemiological studies. This study was supported by the European Structural Funds, and will form the basis for further research to contribute and progress towards the unified goal of the European Human Biomonitoring Initiative that is ready for launch.
Syam S. Andra1 and Konstantinos C. Makris2
1 Division of Environmental Health, Department of Preventive Medicine,
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA
2 Cyprus International Institute for Environmental and Public Health
in association with Harvard School of Public Health,
Cyprus University of Technology, Limassol, Cyprus
Publication
.
Andra SS, Charisiadis P, Arora M, van Vliet-Ostaptchouk JV, Makris KC
Environ Int. 2015 Dec
| |
|
Тема
|
Проклятието Бисфенол-А! търсете знака!
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 06.04.17 04:02 |
|
|
Най-популярните продукти, в които ВРА присъства и които са масови и в България, са пластмасовите бутилки за вода (независимо от размера им), бебешките шишенца, найлоновите торбички, с които ние в България все още не искаме да се разделим, обичайните пластмасови играчки, с които децата ни си играят от най-ранна възраст, както и редица пластмасови съдове както за хранене, така и за съхранение на храна. Последните са особено опасни, когато се използват в микровълнова печка, защото тогава ВРА се развихря още повече и се отделя в храната.
Разбира се, ние бихме искали да ви поощрим да купувате за децата си пластмасови изделия само от екологична пластмаса PLA, която е направена от царевично нишесте и се разгражда напълно в околната среда, но в допълнение към това, бихме искали да ви насочим към няколко начина, по които можете да избегнете досега си с ВРА, доколкото това е възможно.
По-долу посочваме артикулите, които със сигурност в масовия си вариант, освен ако на тях изрично не е посочено, че са BPA-free, съдържат опасни пластмаси, докато ние ги използваме активно всеки ден.
Пластмасови продукти със знак №3
V (Винил) или PVC
Могат да бъдат открити в: бутилки за готварско олио, прозрачни опаковки за храна.
Професорът от Харвард д-р Лео Трасанд и Медицинският университет в Маунт Синай съветват потребителите да избягват пластмасите с №3 за съхранение на храни и напитки. (Ако не сте сигурни, търсете малкия символ, който би трябвало да е отпечатан на контейнера. Някои марки не поставят този символ, което е голям проблем.)
Защо? Пластмасите №3 отделят токсични химически съединения (включително фталати) в храните и напитките. Рискът е най-висок, когато контейнерите започнат да се износват, когато се обработват в съдомиялна или когато се нагряват (включително в микровълнова печка). Пластмасовите продукти могат да отделят високотоксични двуокиси в околната среда, включително в дома ви.
Пластмасови продукти със знак №6
PS (полистирен)
Могат да бъдат открити в: съдове за еднократна употреба, подложки за месо, картони за яйца, съдове за храна за вкъщи.
Пластмасите с №6 се обработват до получаването на меки стеропорени чаши, както и за изработката на твърда пяна или на твърди пластмасови продукти. Ето защо, помнете да търсите тези малки цифрички в триъгълничета от стрелки (не се притеснявате, ако ви трябва лупа – не трябва да ви вълнуват хора, които ви се присмиват, защото се грижите за здравето си). Избягвайте да използвате такива продукти колкото се може повече.
Защо? Пластмасите с №6 могат да отделят потенциално токсични химически съединения (включително стирен). Внимание – особено, когато се нагреят! Тази стеропорена чашка в която ви продават кафето всяка сутрин – тази, която „умно” ви държи кафето топло – май вече ни ви се струва толкова „умна”, нали?
Пластмасови продукти със знак № 7 – Други
Могат да бъдат открити в: бебешките шишенца, бутилките за вода от 6 и 10 литра, различни контейнери за храна.
Категория 7 събира широк спектър от пластмасови смоли, които не попадат в останалите шест категории пластмаси. Някои от тях са доста безопасни, но тези, за които трябва да се притеснявате, се намират в различните контейнери за напитки (включително твърдите брандирани чаши за кафе с капаци от известните кафе вериги, чашите за кафе и други топли напитки, които се използват в автомобили) и в твърдите бебешки пластмасови шишета. Много от тези смоли се съдържат и в твърдите пластмасови бебешки играчки.
Защо? Проучванията показват, че поликарбонатът може да изпуска в течностите Бисфенол-А, който е потенциален нарушител на хормоналните нива в организма. Според специалистите, никое количество Бисфенол-А не е напълно безопасно, като последните изследвания доказват, че тази смола предизвиква нервни и поведенчески проблеми у деца, които са непрекъснато излагани на ВРА.
Най-добре е да заложим на сигурното и да се опитваме да заместваме тези твърди пластмасови изделия с пластмаси с номера 1 и 5 и с екологични пластмаси, а защо не и с усилено против счупване стъкло?
Етикети: BPA-free, бебешки шишета, бисфенол, Бисфенол-А, екологична пластмаса, екологични играчки, здраве, опасни вещества, пластмаса, пластмасови играчки, смоли
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Вот почему женщины в Китае не болеют раком груди
[re: |]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 09.04.17 20:58 |
|
|
Объркано ти е мисленето, понеже наричаш глупост една хипотеза (за която е статията), без да мислиш по нея, понеже явно има научни аргументи за нея, които цитирах. Нещо повече, използваш argumentum ad hominem, което може да обиди единствено твоята интелигентност.
В отговор на:
П.П. Интересно защо не избра да цитираш ТОВА от изследването:
In multivariable-adjusted analyses, overall dairy intake was unrelated to breast cancer-specific outcomes.
Това е само част от резултата на изследването, а аз съм цитирал извода му. И ако тръгнем да цитираме резултата до край (макар че, подчертавам пак - изводът е по-важен), то ще цитирам и нататък от резултата:
Low-fat dairy intake was unrelated to recurrence or survival. However, high-fat dairy intake was positively associated with outcomes.
Но още по-важно от различни изследвания е, че , екзогенните източници на (женски) хормони са риск за рака на гърдата, а млякото от бременни крави (каквото е обикновеното купешко мляко на Запад, както ), е пълно с естроген. Което подкрепя хипотезата от статията, която ти нарече глупост.
Редактирано от Mod vege на 09.04.17 21:02.
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Вот почему женщины в Китае не болеют раком груди
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
| (>[2] /dev/null) |
| Публикувано | 10.04.17 04:25 |
|
|
Няма нужда да мисля по нещо, което е доказано невярно.
However, high-fat dairy intake was positively associated with outcomes.
Вижда се кой не мисли. Всеки с два неврона може да установи, че причината в такъв случай са мазнините, а не другите вещества съдържащи се в млякото.
Но още по-важно от различни изследвания е, че според СЗО, екзогенните източници на (женски) хормони са риск за рака на гърдата, а млякото от бременни крави (каквото е обикновеното купешко мляко на Запад, както един от линковете ти пояснява), е пълно с естроген. Което подкрепя хипотезата от статията, която ти нарече глупост.
Можеш да фантазираш каквито си искаш идиотщини, но ФАКТИТЕ от ИЗСЛЕДВАНИЯТА показват, че ефект няма. Да обясня като за завършил рабфак: първо се установяват факти, след това се търсят механизмите по които тези факти работят.
Все още чакам да признаеш, че сгреши като пусна тази идиотщина. Не че ще се случи де -- ти си от вЕрващите, не от хората които могат да бъдат убедени с факти. :)
The last good thing written in C was Franz Schubert's Symphony No. 9.
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Вот почему женщины в Китае не болеют раком груди
[re: |]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 10.04.17 21:16 |
|
|
В отговор на:
Вижда се кой не мисли. Всеки с два неврона може да установи, че причината в такъв случай са мазнините, а не другите вещества съдържащи се в млякото.
Определено не мислиш. Вече писах, че естрогените са мастноразтворими, и затова точно в мазнините се концентрират.
Вервай в млЕкото
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Вот почему женщины в Китае не болеют раком груди
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
| (>[2] /dev/null) |
| Публикувано | 10.04.17 21:40 |
|
|
T.e. няма абсолютно никакъв проблем ако се употребяват млечни продукти си нормална масленост. Нали? :)
П.П. Все още имам някакви надежди, че ще признаеш че грешиш. Какво да се прави, надеждата умира последна. ВЕрващите рядко променяте мнението си когато има факти които го оборват. :) Готови сте да вЕрвате във всяка идиотщина, стига да подкрепя вече създадената ви позиция. :)
Вервай в млЕкото
За разлика от теб няма нужда да вярвам в каквото и да е. Разчитам на научните изследвания.
The last good thing written in C was Franz Schubert's Symphony No. 9.Редактирано от | на 10.04.17 21:41.
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Вот почему женщины в Китае не болеют раком груди
[re: |]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 11.04.17 01:54 |
|
|
В отговор на:
T.e. няма абсолютно никакъв проблем ако се употребяват млечни продукти си нормална масленост. Нали? :)
Да, според мен това е по-добър вариант - ако говорим за купешко мляко. Ако говорим за мляко от крави които не се забременяват постоянно (както ги отглеждат в Монголия напр.), то тогава няма проблем с тези хормони в него.
Има я все пак и темата за miR в млякото, която ти удобно подминаваш. А и към млечните храни (от краве мляко, подчертавам) има често алергични реакции и дори автоимунни реакции. От други видове животни млякото е по-добро, напр. козе,и то да не е купешко.
Редактирано от Mod vege на 11.04.17 01:56.
| |
|
Тема
|
Reversing the Lies of the Sharing Economy
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 11.04.17 02:30 |
|
|
Author of The Heretic's Guide to Global Finance: Hacking the Future of Money. Exploring urban ecology, econo
There’s nothing resembling a “sharing economy” in an Uber interaction You pay a corporation to send a driver to you, and it pays that driver a variable weekly wage. Sharing can really only refer to one of three occurrences. It can mean giving something away as a gift, like: “Here, take some of my food.” It can describe allowing someone to temporarily use something you own, as in: “He shared his toy with his friend.” Or, it can refer to people having common access to something they collectively own or manage: “The farmers all had an ownership share in the reservoir and shared access to it.”
None of these involve monetary exchange. We do not use the term “sharing” to refer to an interaction like this: “I’ll give you some food if you pay me.” We call that buying. We don’t use it in this situation either: “I’ll let you temporarily use my toy if you pay me.” We call that renting. And in the third example, while the farmers may have come together initially to purchase a common resource, they don’t pay for subsequent access to it.
In light of this, we should call out Uber for what it is: a company in control of a platform that originally facilitated peer-to-peer renting, not sharing, and that eventually transformed into the de facto boss of an army of self-employed employees. And even as “self-employed employee” might sound like a contradiction, that’s the dark genius of the Uber enterprise. It took the traditional corporation, with its senior managers responsible for controlling workers and machines, and cut it in two — creating a management structure that need not deal with the political demands of workers.
So, how exactly did we get to the point where business executives at conferences can talk about Uber as a “sharing economy” platform with straight faces? How is it that they don’t feel a deep sense of inauthenticity? To understand this, we must return to the roots of the actual sharing economy. It is the only way we can wrest it back from those who have hijacked it.
Our everyday economic life is characterized by three things. First, you get a job at a company — or you start a company — and you produce something. Second, that company goes to market to exchange its product for money. Third, you use that money to get goods or services from others who are also producing. Zoom out, and a market economy is a large-scale network of interdependent production. We cannot survive without accessing the products of other people’s labor.
Monetary exchange takes the form of, “If you give me money, I will give you a service.” There’s always potential for rejection in market offers, which creates uncertainty, and some people fare better than others. Those who undertake the heaviest burden of production don’t necessarily get rewarded commensurately. Individual competition appears to be — at least at first glance — the defining mark of monetary exchange.
There are, however, three major but inconvenient truths that seem to get glossed over when we talk about the market economy. The first is that market systems feed off an extensive, underlying in which people transfer ideas, goods, services, and emotional support to each other without requesting money. Unpaid childcare is one example. If your mother watches your two children while you’re at a job, that’s the gift economy in action. In fact, without friends and family it’s unlikely that you could even maintain the desire to go to work. Even in professional settings we share common resources with business colleagues. Companies rely upon this internal collaboration to produce the very products they then competitively exchange in markets.
The second inconvenient truth about the market economy is that its products are not really desirable unless we can use them within non-market systems. What’s the point of all this stuff getting produced if we can’t share it, compare it, gloat about it, or enjoy it with others? Friends, family, and various community systems make having material goods meaningful.
And third, many commercial market exchanges are actually hybridized with non-commercial elements that add richness. Take, for example, flirting with a bartender as they serve you drinks, or having a discussion about politics with the stylist you’re paying to cut your hair. Not only do market systems rely on non-market influences in order to work, but their products feel pointless and empty without them. Recognition of this, however, is uneven.
In small community settings it’s often easy to see a balance between market and gift economies. The shop owner gives a spontaneous discount to a retiree, or allows friends to lounge in a coffee shop long after they’ve finished drinking. Commercial exchange is but one element in a broader set of relationships, and this means the exchange takes longer. Economists call this inefficient; we call it enjoying life.
Meanwhile, in megacities such as London or New York there’s a tendency to strip all non-commercial elements from market interactions. This is the hallmark of what we refer to as commercialization. The large-scale mall and corporation are designed to maximize exchange while offering only a shallow appearance of sociability. The McDonald’s employee is forced by contract to smile at you, but prohibited from taking time to have a true conversation.
This phenomenon is even more acute in faceless internet commerce, where clinical, transactional precision dominates. While hyper-efficient exchanges play into our short-term impulses — initially feeling exciting, convenient, and modern — they gradually begin to feel empty. Sure, it’s frictionless commerce, but it’s also textureless.
When detached from a community foundation, markets can bring out people’s most anxious, petty, arrogant, and narcissistic sides, encouraging them to fixate on their individual strands of the overall economic picture, as if it were the whole. The defining qualities of a market economy — like uncertainty and unequal monetary reward — get exalted, and in this frame, everyone else is either a stranger to do battle with or a temporary ally to assist in your personal gain. Socializing becomes “networking.” Non-commercial ties such as friendship, sex, love, and family are either rendered invisible, or presented as kitsch advertisements designed to promote more commercial exchange.
It was in this context that the original sharing economy platforms emerged. Amid the competitive, individualistic rhetoric of the corporate state, people looked to use technology to foreground sharing, gifting, and community activities that were otherwise overshadowed.
One aim was to extend activities between trusted friends to strangers. Friends have long crashed on each other’s couches, but the site wanted it to happen among strangers. allowed you to give gifts to people you didn’t know, while let you lend items to strangers in your neighborhood. These platforms encouraged sharing between people who might otherwise be isolated from each other.
All of this was built using the infrastructure of the internet. The ubiquity of interconnected computers and smartphones in the hands of ordinary people allowed them to cheaply advertise their locations and showcase offers. To catalyze a digital platform, all someone needed to do was set up a website as a central hub for aggregating and displaying offers for others to accept. It makes sense to centralize similar information, rather than having it scattered in fragmented locations. This, in turn, builds , meaning that the platform becomes more useful — and thus more valuable — as more people use it.
Attempting to introduce sharing principles into networks of strangers isn’t easy. Our lives are built around large-scale market economies, and many people have internalized the principles of monetary exchange. In the context of huge global supply chains, the rural idyll of community production is long gone, and attempts to reverse-engineer authentic sharing relationships between people we don’t know can feel stilted.
While we might be willing to let a friend borrow our car for the day, we generally don’t trust strangers enough to share our most crucial possessions with them. We may, however, be game to share things that we don’t often use, like a basement that’s only half full or the backseat of a car that could have someone in it while we’re driving to work anyway.
We’ll probably be even more willing to offer this idle capacity to a stranger if there is some third-party assurance that they are legitimate, or will experience some consequences if they behave badly. Likewise, we may be more open to accepting gifts from strangers if such assurances are in place. This is, in effect, why sharing economy platforms developed identity and reputation-scoring systems, adding layers of formality and quantification into non-monetary gifting.
Herein lies one source of corruption, as the very act of earning quantified reputation for gifting adds a feeling of market exchange. But it was building technology to identify and quantify spare capacity that really set the stage for undermining the sharing economy. “Why not get the stranger to pay for the gift as a service?” was a question that couldn’t be far off.
The move from sharing spare, underutilized assets to selling them can be subtle. In hitchhiker culture, a person offering lifts might reasonably expect a fuel money contribution from someone getting a ride — and if the hitchhiker leaves the car without offering it, the driver may be a little irritated. The money though, is never a condition, and until they explicitly say, “If you give me fuel money, I will drive you,” it’s not a commercial relationship. Note, though, how easily the phrase—once uttered—can become generalized into, “If you pay me, I will drive you.”
A new wave of “sharing economy” startups bet on just this concept, as their businesses came to be characterized not by sharing, but by showcasing spare capacity for rent, with the platform taking a cut as broker. So, too, began a hollowing out around the language of sharing. New entrepreneurs feebly hung onto the sharing story with the claim that market mechanisms could re-engineer the very community ties that the markets themselves had eroded. In reality, they were doing nothing more than marketizing things that previously hadn’t been on the market. If anything, this only undermined existing gift economies. A friend calls to ask if she can stay with you, but gets told, “Sorry, we have Airbnb guests this weekend!”
Ah, but there’s another twist. Far from merely facilitating the renting of spare capacity, these platforms grew to such a size that sellers of “normal” capacity started using them—as in, people running professional bed-and-breakfasts migrated to the Airbnb platform, and so on. The irresistible lock-in of network effects dragged the old market into the new, and voilà, the platform corporation emerged.
Let’s be unequivocal here: A platform corporation really only owns two things. It owns algorithms hosted on servers, and it owns network effects—or people’s dependence. While the old corporation had to get financing, invest in physical assets, hire workers to run those assets, and take on risk in the process, a corporation like Uber outsources its risk to independent workers who must self-finance the purchase of their cars, while also absorbing losses from their cars’ depreciation or the failure of their operations. This not only separates corporate managers from ground-level workers, it places the major burden of financing and risk on the workers.
This is a venture capitalist’s wet dream. Give a startup minimal capital to hire developers and run media campaigns, and then watch as the network effects ripple over the infrastructure of the internet. If it works, you’re suddenly in control of a corporation built with digital tools, but extracting value from real-world, physical assets like cars and buildings. The entity holds itself together not via employment contracts, but rather by self-employed workers’ dependence on it to access the market they rely on for their survival.
So, now here you are, staring at your Uber app with irritated sighs because the driver is two minutes late. This is a market transaction. To the driver, you’re just another customer. There is no sharing. You’re as isolated as you ever were.
We have a hard time seeing systems. We find it easier to see what’s tangible and in front of us. We see the app, and we see the driver’s car icon moving along the streets on their way to pick us up. What we can’t see is the deep web of power relations that underpins the system. Instead, we are encouraged to fixate on the flat and friendly interface, the shallow surface layer of immediate experience.
If you’re a driver, that interface doubles as your boss. It doesn’t shout at you like the jerk boss of old corporations. In fact, it shows no emotion at all. It’s the human-readable incarnation of a robotic algorithm that calculates the optimal profit-path for Uber, Inc. As a driver, you have no colleagues and no union. There’s no upward mobility. Uber wants you to leave as soon as you build any expectations of progress. You and thousands more eke out enough to survive, if you’re lucky. This all while the owners of the platform get richer and richer, no matter what.
Of course, if you want to put a positive spin on this kind of work, you can call it flexible, decentralized micro-entrepreneurship. But pan out, and it looks more like feudalism, with thousands of small subsistence farmers paying tribute to a baron that grants them access to land they don’t own.
So, what is to be done? For one, let’s first understand the problem. Innovation and change are pointless unless they’re coming from a real analysis of what’s gone wrong—especially when we’re being made to believe we’ve actually gained an asset. Only then can we rebalance the power.
If we are going to turn ourselves into a sprawling network of micro-entrepreneurs, micro-contracting via a feudalistic platform, let’s at least cooperatively own the platform. In doing this, we might even retain one definition of sharing — the common usage of a shared resource pool, like the farmers who collectively manage a reservoir.
This is the origin of the movement, one possible counterforce to the rise of platform capitalism. In principle, it’s not that complicated. Spread the ownership of the common infrastructure among the users of that infrastructure, give them a say in how it’s run and a cut of the profits that emerge from it.
The platform cooperativism movement is a new one, with many of its proposals still on paper and yet to be released into the wild. Many have seen the potential to use blockchain technology, whose original promise was to provide a means for strangers to collectively run a platform that keeps track of their situation relative to each other without relying upon a central party. Some, like the blockchain-based ride-sharing ’Zooz, have already released apps and are iterating away in the background. Others, like the blockchain-based proposal for an Uber-killer called , are still in their conceptual stages. , another attempt at an Uber alternative, has been --and a split in the team has led to the creation of .
Meanwhile, big corporates have increasingly encroached on blockchain technology with an eye toward using a pacified version of it within closed and controlled settings. There are, of course, plenty of talented and idealistic blockchain developers looking for opportunities beyond corporate life.
Either way, fancy technology isn’t a magical recipe. The equally important work involves building a community willing to back new platforms. A Dutch proposal for an Airbnb alternative called is making a start as a Meetup group, and food couriers are organizing gatherings to discuss how they can set up cooperative alternatives to .
In the face of massive commercial platforms, aggressively backed by venture capital money, these initial attempts might seem idealistic. But as digital serfdom only expands, we have little choice but to start small with underdog pilot projects that galvanize action.
It’s a new mentality that needs building. In a world where we’re told to be grateful receivers of products and the opportunity to work on them from heroic, demigod CEOs allegedly “democratizing” the workscape, we need to see straighter and expect more. The entrepreneur is still nothing without the underlying people who make their enterprise work; and in this case, their wealth comes directly from skimming money off vast collectives. Let’s fuse the two forces into one, and build collectives with actual sharing in mind.
| |
|
Тема
|
Complexity Economics Shows Us Why Laissez-Faire...
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 11.04.17 02:40 |
|
|
Markets are a type of ecosystem that is complex, adaptive, and subject to the same evolutionary forces as nature.
By Eric Liu and Nick Hanauer
During 2007 and 2008, giant financial institutions were obliterated, the net worth of most Americans collapsed, and most of the world’s economies were brought to their knees.
At the same time, this has been an era of radical economic inequality, at levels not seen since 1929. Over the last three decades, an unprecedented consolidation and concentration of earning power and wealth has made the top 1 percent of Americans immensely richer while middleclass Americans have been increasingly impoverished.
To most Americans and certainly most economists and policymakers, these two phenomena seem unrelated. In fact, traditional economic theory and contemporary American economic policy does not seem to admit the possibility that they are connected in any way.
And yet they are—deeply. We aim to show that a modern understanding of economies as complex, adaptive, interconnected systems forces us to conclude that radical inequality and radical economic dislocation are causally linked: one brings and amplifies the other.
If we want a high-growth society with broadly shared prosperity, and if we want to avoid dislocations like the one we have just gone through, we need to change our theory of action foundationally. We need to stop thinking about the economy as a perfect, self-correcting machine and start thinking of it as a garden.
Traditional economic theory is rooted in a 19th- and 20th-century understanding of science and mathematics. At the simplest level, traditional theory assumes economies are linear systems filled with rational actors who seek to optimize their situation. Outputs reflect a sum of inputs, the system is closed, and if big change comes it comes as an external shock. The system’s default state is equilibrium. The prevailing metaphor is a machine.
But this is not how economies are. It never has been. As anyone can see and feel today, economies behave in ways that are non-linear and irrational, and often violently so. These often-violent changes are not external shocks but emergent properties—the inevitable result—of the way economies behave.
The traditional approach, in short, completely misunderstands human behavior and natural economic forces. The problem is that the traditional model is not an academic curiosity; it is the basis for an ideological story about the economy and government’s role—and that story has fueled policymaking and morphed into a selfishness-justifying conventional wisdom.
Even today, the debate between free marketeers and Keynesians unfolds on the terms of the market fundamentalists: government stimulus efforts are usually justified as a way to restore equilibrium, and defended as regrettable deviations from government’s naturally minimalist role.
Fortunately, as we’ve described above, it is now possible to understand and describe economic systems as complex systems like gardens. And it is now reasonable to assert that economic systems are not merely similar to ecosystems; they are ecosystems, driven by the same types of evolutionary forces as ecosystems. Eric Beinhocker’s The Origin of Wealth is the most lucid survey available of this new complexity economics.
The story Beinhocker tells is simple, and not unlike the story Darwin tells. In an economy, as in any ecosystem, innovation is the result of evolutionary and competitive pressures. Within any given competitive environment—or what’s called a “fitness landscape”—individuals and groups cooperate to compete, to find solutions to problems and strategies for cooperation spread and multiply. Throughout, minor initial advantages get amplified and locked in— as do disadvantages. Whether you are predator or prey, spore or seed, the opportunity to thrive compounds and then concentrates. It bunches. It never stays evenly spread.
Like a garden, the economy consists of an environment and interdependent elements—sun, soil, seed, water. But far more than a garden, the economy also contains the expectations and interpretations all the agents have about what all the other agents want and expect. And that invisible web of human expectations becomes, in an everamplifying spiral, both cause and effect of external circumstances. Thus the housing-led financial crisis. Complexity scientists describe it in terms of “feedback loops.” Financier George Soros has described it as “reflexivity.” What I think you think about what I want creates storms of behavior that change what is.
Traditional economics holds that the economy is an equilibrium system; that things tend, over time, to even out and return to “normal.” Complexity economics shows that the economy, like a garden, is never in perfect balance or stasis and is always both growing and shrinking. And like an untended garden, an economy left entirely to itself tends toward unhealthy imbalances. This is a very different starting point, and it leads to very different conclusions about what the government should do about the economy.
Einstein said, “Make everything as simple as possible, but not too simple.” The problem with traditional economics is that it has made things too simple and then compounded the error by treating the oversimplification as gospel. The bedrock assumption of traditional economic theory and conventional economic wisdom is that markets are perfectly efficient and therefore self-correcting. This “efficient market hypothesis,” born of the machineage obsession with the physics of perfect mechanisms, is hard to square with intuition and reality—harder for laypeople than for economic experts. And yet, like a dead hand on the wheel, the efficient market hypothesis still drives everything in economic policymaking.
Consider that if markets are perfectly efficient then it must be true that:
–The market is always right.
–Markets distribute goods, services, and benefits rationally and efficiently.
–Market outcomes are inherently moral because they perfectly reflect talent and merit and so the rich deserve to be rich and the poor deserve to be poor.
–Any attempt to control market outcomes is inefficient and thus immoral.
–Any non-market activity is inherently suboptimal.
–If you can make money doing something not illegal, you should do it.
–As long as there is a willing buyer and seller, every transaction is moral.
–Any government solution, absent a total market failure, is a bad solution.
But, of course, markets properly understood are not actually efficient. So-called balances between supply and demand, while representing a fair approximation, do not in fact really exist. And because humans are not rational, calculating, and selfish, their behavior in market settings is inherently imperfect, unpredictable, and inefficient. Laypeople know this far better than experts.
Markets are a type of ecosystem that is complex, adaptive, and subject to the same evolutionary forces as nature. As in nature, evolution makes markets an unparalleled way of effectively solving human problems. But evolution is purpose-agnostic. If the market is oriented toward producing junk and calling it good GDP, market evolution will produce ever more marketable junk. As complex adaptive systems, markets are not like machines at all but like gardens. This means, then, that the following must be true:
–The market is often wrong.
–Markets distribute goods, services, and benefits in ways that often are irrational, semi-blind, and overdependent on chance.
–Market outcomes are not necessarily moral—and are sometimes immoral—because they reflect a dynamic blend of earned merit and the very unearned compounding of early advantage or disadvantage.
–If well-tended, markets produce great results but if untended, they destroy themselves.
–Markets, like gardens, require constant seeding, feeding, and weeding by government and citizens.
–More, they require judgments about what kind of growth is beneficial. Just because dandelions, like hedge funds, grow easily and quickly, doesn’t mean we should let them take over. Just because you can make money doing something doesn’t mean it is good for the society.
–In a democracy we have not only the ability but also the essential obligation to shape markets—through moral choices and government action—to create outcomes good for our communities.
You might think that this shift in metaphors and models is merely academic. Consider the following. In 2010, after the worst of the financial crisis had subsided but still soon enough for recollections to be vivid and honest, a group of Western central bankers and economists got together to assess what went wrong. To one participant in the meeting, who was not a banker but had studied the nature of economies in great depth, one thing became strikingly, shockingly clear. Governments had failed to anticipate the scope and speed of the meltdown because their model of the economy was fantastically detached from reality.
For instance, the standard model used by many central banks and treasuries, called a dynamic stochastic general equilibrium model, did not include banks. Why? Because in a perfectly efficient market, banks are mere pass-throughs, invisibly shuffling money around. How many consumers did this model take into account in its assumptions about the economy? Millions? Hundreds of thousands? No, just one. One perfectly average or “representative” consumer operating perfectly rationally in the marketplace. Facing a crisis precipitated by the contagion of homeowner exuberance,fueled by the pathological recklessness of bond traders and bankers, abetted by inattentive government watchdogs, and leading to the deepest recession since the Great Depression, the Fed and other Western central banks found themselves fighting a crisis their models said could not happen.
This is an indictment not only of central bankers and the economics profession; nor merely of the Republicans whose doctrine abetted such intellectual malpractice; it is also an indictment of the Democrats who, bearing responsibility for making government work, allowed such a dreamland view of the world to drive government action in the national economy. They did so because over the course of 20 years they too had become believers in the efficient market hypothesis. Where housing and banking were concerned, there arose a faith-based economy: faith in rational individuals, faith in ever-rising housing values, and faith that you would not be the one left standing when the music stopped.
We are not, to be emphatically clear, anti-market. In fact, we are avid capitalists. Markets have an overwhelming benefit to human societies, and that is their unmatched ability to solve human problems. A modern understanding of economies sees them as complex adaptive systems subject to evolutionary forces. Those forces enable competition for the ability to survive and succeed as a consequence of the degree to which problems for customers are solved. Understood thus, wealth in a society is simply the sum of the problems it has managed to solve for its citizens. Eric Beinhocker calls this “information.” As Beinhocker notes, less developed “poor” societies have very few solutions available. Limited housing solutions. Limited medical solutions. Limited nutrition and recreation solutions. Limited information. Contrast this with a modern Western superstore with hundreds of thousands of SKUs, each representing a unique solution to a unique problem.
But markets are agnostic to what kind of problems they solve and for whom. Whether a market produces more solutions for human medical challenges or more solutions for human warfare—or whether it invents problems like bad breath for which more solutions are needed—is wholly a consequence of the construction of that market, and that construction will always be human made, either by accident or by design. Markets are meant to be servants, not masters.
As we write, the Chinese government is making massive, determined, strategic investments in their renewable energy industry. They’ve decided that it’s better for the world’s largest population and second-largest economy to be green than not—and they are shaping the market with that goal in mind. By doing so they both reduce global warming and secure economic advantage in the future. We are captive, meanwhile, to a market fundamentalism that calls into question the right of government to act at all—thus ceding strategic advantage to our most serious global rival and putting America in a position to be poorer, weaker, and dirtier down the road. Even if there hadn’t been a housing collapse, the fact that our innovative energies were going into building homes we didn’t need and then securitizing the mortgages for those homes says we are way off track.
Now, it might be noted that for decades, through administrations of both parties, our nation did have a massive strategic goal of promoting homeownership—and that what we got for all that goal-setting was a housing-led economic collapse. But setting a goal doesn’t mean then going to sleep; it requires constant, vigilant involvement to see whether the goal is the right goal and whether the means of reaching the goal come at too great a cost. Homeownership is a sound goal. That doesn’t mean homeownership by any means necessary is a sound policy. Pushing people into mortgages they couldn’t truly afford and then opening a casino with those mortgages as the chips was not the only way to increase homeownership. What government failed to do during the housing boom was to garden—to weed out the speculative, the predatory, the fraudulent.
Conventional wisdom says that government shouldn’t try to pick winners in the marketplace, and that such efforts are doomed to failure. Picking winners may be a fool’s errand, but choosing the game we play is a strategic imperative. Gardeners don’t make plants grow but they do create conditions where plants can thrive and they do make judgments about what should and shouldn’t be in the garden. These concentration decisions, to invest in alternative energy or not, to invest in biosciences or not, to invest in computational and network infrastructure or not, are essential choices a nation must make.
This is not picking winners; it’s picking games. Public sector leaders, with the counsel and cooperation of private sector experts, can and must choose a game to invest in and then let the evolutionary pressures of market competition determine who wins within that game. DARPA (the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), NIST (the National Institute of Standards and Technology), NIH (National Institutes of Health), and other effective government entities pick games. They issue grand challenges. They catalyze the formation of markets, and use public capital to leverage private capital. To refuse to make such game-level choices is to refuse to have a strategy, and is as dangerous in economic life as it would be in military operations. A nation can’t “drift” to leadership. A strong public hand is needed to point the market’s hidden hand in a particular direction.
Markets as Machines vs. Markets as Gardens
Understanding economics in this new way can revolutionize our approach and our politics. The shift from mechanistic models to complex ecological ones is not one of degree but of kind. It is the shift from a tradition that prizes fixity and predictability to a mindset that is premised on evolution. Compare two frames in capsule form:
Machine view: Markets are efficient, thus sacrosanct
Garden view: Markets are effective, if well tended
In the traditional view, markets are sacred because they are said to be the most efficient allocators of resources and wealth. Complexity science shows that markets are often quite inefficient—and that there is nothing sacred about today’s man-made economic arrangements. But complexity science also shows that markets are the most effective force for producing innovation, the source of all wealth creation. The question, then, is how to deploy that force to benefit the greatest number.
Machine view: Regulation destroys markets
Garden view: Markets need fertilizing and weeding, or else are destroyed
Traditionalists say any government interference distorts the “natural” and efficient allocation that markets want to achieve. Complexity economists show that markets, like gardens, get overrun by weeds or exhaust their nutrients (education, infrastructure, etc.) if left alone, and then die—and that the only way for markets to deliver broadbased wealth is for government to tend them: enforcing rules that curb anti-social behavior, promote pro-social behavior, and thus keep markets functioning.
Machine view: Income inequality reflects unequal effort and ability
Garden view: Inequality is what markets naturally create and compound, and requires correction
Traditionalists assert, in essence, that income inequality is the result of the rich being smarter and harder working than the poor. This justifies government neglect in theface of inequality. The markets-as-garden view would not deny that smarts and diligence are unequally distributed. But in their view, income inequality has much more to do with the inexorable nature of complex adaptive systems like markets to result in self-reinforcing concentrations of advantage and disadvantage. This necessitates government action to counter the unfairness and counterproductive effects of concentration.
Machine view: Wealth is created through competition and by the pursuit of narrow self-interest
Garden view: Wealth is created through trust and cooperation
Where traditionalists put individual selfishness on a moral pedestal, complexity economists show that norms of unchecked selfishness kill the one thing that determines whether a society can generate (let alone fairly allocate) wealth and opportunity: trust. Trust creates cooperation, and cooperation is what creates win-win outcomes. Hightrust networks thrive; low-trust ones fail. And when greed and self-interest are glorified above all, high-trust networks become low-trust. See: Afghanistan.
Machine view: Wealth = individuals accumulating money
Garden view: Wealth = society creating solutions
One of the simple and damning limitations of traditional economics is that it can’t really explain how wealth gets generated. It simply assumes wealth. And it treats money as the sole measure of wealth. Complexity economics, by contrast, says that wealth is solutions: knowledge applied to solve problems. Wealth is created when new ideas— inventing a wheel, say, or curing cancer—emerge from a competitive, evolutionary environment. In the same way, the greatness of a garden comes not just in the sheer volume but also in the diversity and usefulness of the plants it contains.
In other words, money accumulation by the rich is not the same as wealth creation by a society. If we are serious about creating wealth, our focus should not be on taking care of the rich so that their money trickles down; it should be on making sure everyone has a fair chance—in education, health, social capital, access to financial capital— to create new information and ideas. Innovation arises from a fertile environment that allows individual genius to bloom and that amplifies individual genius, through cooperation, to benefit society. Extreme concentration of wealth without modern precedent that has undermined equality of opportunity and thus limited our overall economic potential.
| |
|
|
|
sageflower • a year ago
I've read the book. It is clear and easy to read. The logic needs no enhancement. We all need to tend this garden or it will go to ruin. it is already well on its way there.
5 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Je' Czaja • a year ago
Yup. The old metaphor of mechanical laws is out of date. They were so enamored of machines, they applied the model even to human beings and ground them up for fuel-they were just resources, like standing timber-human resources.
5 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
DWAnderson • a year ago
This piece suffers from two serious problems, bit has one accurate insight.
First problem: Almost every description of current economic thinking is a straw man. No one believes that markets are infallible, the equilibrium states really exist, etc. They are all simplifications designed to highlight certain aspects of behavior. Almost everyone understands that models are useful for understanding aspects of how the world works, not for predicting specific states of the world.
Second problem: A pollyanaish view of how government operates. It does operate by the fiat of the omniscient and omnibenevolent. It has a very primitive feedback mechanism (voting), huge agency problems (bureaucracy), being subject to special interest capture, etc. That being said in the United States, it benefits from well meaning actors at many levels, but very often that is not sufficient to overcome its very serious problems and limitations.
The key insight is that the economy is like an ecosystem. True! When thinking about what the government ought to do, we should be thinking with more modesty about what the government can do to improve the operation of markets. IMHO this means trying to get the big things right (e.g. implementing a simple consumption tax or a carbon tax, intellectual property rights, etc.) while letting the actors in the market actors determine (imperfectly) where to make investments in industry. Investments in public goods are a closer call, but I would be modest about the likelihood that the government will get these decisions right and think we would be better off trying to see if there was some way to let market participants make these decisions, e.g. making it easier to build toll roads.
8 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
davidcayjohnston DWAnderson • a year ago
Actually only the minority of people who seriously studied economics understand your first, and accurate, point.
Sadly many Americans have no idea what equilibrium means, conflate the ideal barrierless "free" market with competitive markets and thus fail to see the damage from oligopolies, duopolies, stealth subsidies, etc.
9 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
jayrayspicer davidcayjohnston • a year ago
It's not a straw man argument if many people actually believe it, even if you don't. If you have a different argument, then the counterargument to the "straw man" may not apply to your argument, but it's still not a straw man; it’s just not addressing *your* argument. Perhaps you’re not their target audience.
Ah, but it's also not a straw man argument if it accurately states what you, in fact, believe, even if you agree with some orthodoxy more carefully than the hoi polloi.
Liu and Hanauer say, "Traditional economic theory is rooted in a 19th- and 20th-century understanding of science and mathematics. At the simplest level, traditional theory assumes economies are linear systems filled with rational actors who seek to optimize their situation. Outputs reflect a sum of inputs, the system is closed, and if big change comes it comes as an external shock. The system’s default state is equilibrium."
DWAnderson says, "No one believes that markets are infallible, the equilibrium states really exist, etc. They are all simplifications designed to highlight certain aspects of behavior. Almost everyone understands that models are useful for understanding aspects of how the world works, not for predicting specific states of the world."
First, as davidcayjohnston points out, many, many people, including many who directly influence government policy, literally believe the things that DWAnderson says no one or almost no one believes. They certainly say as much on the campaign trail and on the floor of the House and Senate.
Second, how exactly do the above two quotes differ in their interpretation of neoclassical/neoliberal orthodoxy? Liu and Hanauer assert that a simple interpretation of traditional theory *assumes* linear systems, rational actors seeking optimization, etc. DWAnderson says that these ideas are simplifications for the purposes of modeling, which is what Milton Friedman asserted. Where's the disagreement? Where is the alleged straw man? Liu and Hanauer seem to have accurately described DWAnderson’s explicitly stated belief.
The fact is that neoclassical/neoliberal orthodoxy rests entirely on simplifying axioms that make the work of an orthodox economist easier, but have no foundation in empirical reality. Economic actors are rarely rational and almost never even try to optimize their decisions outside of very narrow data considerations and time constraints. I have yet to encounter a cost/benefit analysis in the business world that really attempts a comprehensive and quantitative approach to external or intangible costs and benefits, even though this is actually possible with Bayesian methods. I’m sure it’s done occasionally, but who has time for that? Besides, data unavailability, near-incomprehensible multivariate interactions, and near-infinite opportunity costs render rational maximization mathematically intractable. Good thing nobody ever really tries it.
And while DWAnderson seems to be of the opinion that government and democracy are just too damn risky to trust with anything important, it’s painfully clear that markets can’t be trusted to referee themselves. The government referees the game. The people referee the government. If that’s not working, fix it. Don’t throw up your hands and put your faith in markets. Markets don’t care what we want. Markets set prices; they don’t have values. Democratic government allows the people to set values-based boundaries around markets and to encourage markets in the most beneficial and least harmful directions. Markets are not capable of making these decisions. Markets determine who wins and loses the games. They don’t decide what kind of league to set up. Society is OK with baseball. We’re not OK with gladiators hacking each others’ limbs off. There’s probably a market for that, though.
Markets are natural selection at work. Natural selection is blind; it has no goals with which to guide evolution. Humans are increasingly capable of guiding their own evolution. We care about the future of our species in a way that our genes can’t. We are also capable of guiding markets. And we should, because we care about market outcomes in a way that markets can’t. It’s one of those erroneous simplifying assumptions to hope that all the individual market decisions will add up to the aggregate will of the people. We know that’s empirically false. Without government guidance, all the individual market decisions add up to the aggregate will of the oligarchy.
see more
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Jorge Icabalceta jayrayspicer • a year ago
Your statement, sir, is full of contradictions as big as the contradictions in the original article by Eric Liu and Nick Hanauer. You, as the authors, talk about how economists (All economists?) think and what they believe. That is a huge mistake. You sir, do not know me and you do not know a bunch of economists. So, how can you talk in my behalf and in behalf of many economists you have not taken the time to ask?
Second, you and the authors keep talking about “markets” as if markets are some sort of devices. Well, let me enlighten you. Markets are people. I do not need to compare markets to machines or gardens. Why don’t we just state the fact that markets are people? It is just
pure nonsense to use other terms when you have the right one in front of you.
Third, I am tired of making nitwits understand that economic theory is just that, theory. We use economic theory as a vehicle to explore issues and to try to get a sense of what the hell is going on. But, in my 12 years of economic education, no instructor ever told me that theories are sacred. Besides, the very fact that economics is always in evolution is because we question economic theory and develop it. Nobody ever
told me all the bs you said about markets being perfect. In no book of
economics I have ever read that. All this constant attack against a theory by you and people like you is a distraction from the real issues.
What are the real issues? Well let me put them succinctly to you: Creation and distribution of wealth. The authors say economists act as if we do not know how wealth is created. That statement just shows how little the authors know economists. How about the distribution of
wealth? You say that economists do not care about that. Nothing is farther from the truth. We do care and we advise, we point out, we propose. But, the people in power do not listen. I dare you to go to onepercenters and try to convince them about how unfair their behavior is. I dare anyone to do that. The answer you will get is that they deserve that wealth. It is not economists or economic theory, it is people with power.
So, while you keep blaming anything or anyone for whatever is happening without taking into considerations humans and their
values, you are just wasting your time and other people’s time.
see more
3 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
jayrayspicer Jorge Icabalceta • a year ago
Jorge Icabalceta, I’m not sure why you’re attacking me or Liu and Hanauer. You seem to be complaining about exactly what we are complaining about. I totally agree that economics that don’t take into account humans and their values is useless or dangerous. Which is exactly the problem with neoclassical/neoliberal theory. The prevailing economic theory tells the one percenters that they’re not doing anything wrong when they so clearly are. And I never said anything about “all” economists. I singled out neoclassical/neoliberal economists. I don’t have to ask all economists in order to knock down the gibberish of the ones I happen to be talking about.
I also never said anything about markets being devices. Of course markets involve people making economic decisions. Liu and Hanauer certainly used a couple of analogies to make their points, but that’s fairly standard practice in debate, in order to illustrate a point. Don’t like the analogies? Point out their flaws, but you’re unlikely to get anybody to stop using them.
You should know that the word “theory” means "explanatory framework" in an academic setting. Dismissing something as "just a theory" doesn't really make a lot of sense, except in the vernacular. Unfortunately, the neoclassical/neoliberal theory is an explanatory framework founded on nonsense and useful to people who like oligarchy. Theories aren’t sacred, but they can be more or less useful in explaining the world and being productive of research and models that help people understand the world. Neoclassical/neoliberal theory utterly fails as a productive framework. It seems to explain human behavior, but when you look closely, the humans look more like robots. Consequently, the theory is incapable of making accurate predictions about the real world.
Neoclassical/neoliberal economics doesn’t say that markets are perfect or that people are rational maximizers (to take two examples). Instead, the theory states that in aggregate, for purposes of modeling, you can assume that they are. This bit of legerdemain is nonsense. It might make sense if they had any empirical research showing the shape of the distribution curves around “perfect” and “rational” and “maximization”, but they don’t, so the baseline of every model is built on a foundation of sand.
Until we have a proper theory, it's hard to even see the real issues. Economists may engage in impressive mathematics, but with bogus axioms, it’s no better than guesswork. Garbage in, garbage out. And since neoclassical/neoliberal gibberish is the prevailing economic theory, people in power actually do use it as their roadmap to policy. Countless influential people actually believe it and use it to justify destructive policies. They may not be listening to you, but they’re certainly listening to economists, very closely and very disastrously, because they’ve bet on the wrong theoretical horse. When the prevailing theory is doing this much damage, we have to keep hammering at its foundations to dismantle it.
see more
1 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
ChrisTavareIsMyIdol jayrayspicer • 6 months ago
Then you haven't studied economics.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
John M Legge Jorge Icabalceta • 9 months ago
Your descent into personal abuse reveals the shallowness of your understanding of both economics and reality.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Rjschundlr Jorge Icabalceta • 10 months ago
Economis Theories are valid as long as you know what are the values at play, Basic theory is that people value some things/time/recognition/etc. more than other things, as well as knowing that at a certain point the more you have the less you value more of it .... Etc. etc. one just has to know (which is differcult at times) what are the values being traded. As for the 1% or for that matter the .001% ers, you have no concept of their values and what they are dealing with ..... Part of the problem is envy! There is nothing unfair about trying to meet the needs of the people while making a profit. An actor gets paid for acting, some get paid more some less, some are in the top 1% some or in the bottom 1%, but there is noting unfair about that. ..... IF it was not for Steven Jobs, we would not have the Apple products, he had to learn how to be the CEO he became, and as a result he became very very rich, but his wealth benifited many other people, and the products he sold benifited many other people .... It was a win/win all the way ..... What is unfair, it not the conduct of most of the top 10 percent, it is the conduct of union leaders like the NEA that actively keep the POOR poor, instead of letting children go to the best schools for the children, the NEA work to keep children in schools that do not educate ..... This in not economics at play, it is raw power, as some would say PEOPLE POWER used against the POOR!
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
ChrisTavareIsMyIdol jayrayspicer • 6 months ago
Laughable response
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Rjschundlr jayrayspicer • 10 months ago
"Economic actors are rarely rational and almost never even try to optimize their decisions outside of very narrow data considerations and time constraints" .... That does not mean that they are acting irrational, it terms of their own values, and the time constraints they have to make choice .... The fact that their choices may differ from yours seems to be part to the issue you have with Adam Smith. Government almost never look our for the common man, which is why our founders tried to limit Government. Most of the time government trys to guide the economy towards a oligarchy.... Not aways for it. All the while taking funds from the producers and transferring them to employees of the state.Hense today, government employees get better pay, better benifits, at less risk, than non-government employees.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
davidcayjohnston jayrayspicer • a year ago
I think you meant to reply to DWAnderson, not to me...He made the straw man argument.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Henry Leveson-Gower DWAnderson • a year ago
I cannot see how models can be useful for anything if they fundamentally misrepresent the world they seek to describe. This defence of current economic models seems meaningless.
1 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Garrett Watson Henry Leveson-Gower • a year ago
"All models are wrong, but some are useful." - G.P. Box
2 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
John M Legge Garrett Watson • 9 months ago
A model that is built on false assumptions (as distinct from simplifying from reality) or incorporates a contradiction can be used to "prove" anything.
1 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Rjschundlr DWAnderson • 10 months ago
A good review of the situation, the government more often than not causes the problems that people blame the free market for. The Great Depression should have been a simple correction, but the Government both under Hoover, and moreso under FDR caused the Great Depresseion and our recovery was due to Truman not WW2. The same is true for the Great Recession of 2007-2016 which was caused mostly by poor Federal Policies, and then expended due to Obama's policies. We are in a international world of trade, our tax polices need to be reformed to adjust to new facts. The Free Market is best in the long run, which does not mean there are no Government, it just mean that we need better educated people in Government. Employment Base taxes promote the conservation of Labor (unemployment) which is foolish. There should be no taxes on employment until we have over employment. To replace the lost revenue from employment base taxes we should pass the FAIR TAX on GOODs which would do much to improve employment. And as pointed out by Adam Smith in 1776, parents should pick the school that their children go to, the state should just allocate funds to the schools or to the parents based on where the child goes to school. This would also promote employment and reduce government spending on support programs.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
John M Legge Rjschundlr • 9 months ago
What on earth are your smoking?
2 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Swami DWAnderson • a year ago
They should let DWA write the opinion pieces. More wisdom and nuance in his brief response than this entire rambling and in places dishonest original article.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Garrett Watson • a year ago
The irony here is that it is pro-market thinkers and economists who have been stalwart opponents of the idea that markets are machines. It's the interventionists and technocrats who tend to see societies and economies as mechanistic entities that can be improved through scientific intervention. New Institutional and Public Choice economists have been all about how important the "rules of the game" are to societal and economic well-being, for example.
2 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Andrew Garrett Watson • 10 months ago
Thank you. This article - and Evonomics in general - seems to be deeply confused over the applicability of complexity theory and evolution to economics. Many of these articles start with the premise that evolutionary and complexity sciences are interesting and novel frameworks for reevaluating how we think about economies (which they are!), though typically fall far short of taking even a cursory look into what exactly these fields of study entail.
They then somehow end with the bizarre conclusion that the justification for economic intervention flows from complexity science... because... science? It's as though someone said "Hey, this complexity science stuff sounds cool! Lets glue it onto the same command-economy policy advocacy that is already the status quo, except pretend it's something new that's needed to combat a mythical 'free market fundamentalist' straw-man that doesn't even exist!"
The market is itself an evolving organism. To tamper with it through technocratic intervention is to artificially manipulate a natural evolutionary process. That's not to say that a reasonable level of state regulation shouldn't exist, but it's incredibly bizarre to cite the bottom-up, decentralized, self-organizing principals of evolutionary theory as a logical basis for top-down intervention. Economic intervention has more in common with GMOs than natural evolution.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
efalken • a year ago
If you really want to change people's minds, don't use straw man arguments like "markets are efficient, thus sacrosanct." Otherwise, you are just preaching to the choir.
2 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Pedro Romero • a year ago
This is ideological, too bad
2 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
KåBe • a year ago
The irony is that as we started to dominate nature and shape her according to our needs, we started treating the economy as a system that was to complicated for us to understand and should be left to govern itself.
1 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Brian Gladish • a year ago
Markets are simply evolutionary processes. Are human beings a "perfect" outcome of biological evolution? The idea of perfection requires some normative point of view, which Evonomics displays in spades. Markets aren't "perfect," but just like biological evolution, they are a reality of life. If you don't believe that, just try suppressing them.
1 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Πάνος Μάντζαρης • a year ago
More from writers who do not seem to know what it is they are talking about ... :-( (as far as I can tell)
1 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
philofra • a year ago
The title is interesting: "Complexity
Economics Shows Us Why Laissez-Faire Economics Always Fails"
It sounds a bit too simple. For one, 'laissez faire' doesn't really or completely exist, just like 'free trade' doesn't really or completely exit. Things are always more complex than that, especially when humans are involved. If there had been a total laissez faire in place as the writer suggested the economic crisis of 2008 would have ended everything, since there would have been no back-up systems in place to fix or temper things. The back-up systems that saved a total economic meltdown from happening were constructed of complex mechanisms that had been developed from past knowledge and experiences. Fortunately there were so complex thinkers in charge at the time.
Ironically, though, things were not as simple as this article makes out because here was a 'complexity' involved that helped bring about the financial crisis of 2008. It was made of a complex web of derivatives that few economists understood. Those complex derivatives are what really were behind the meltdown of 2008.
1 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
John M Legge • a year ago
Excellent contribution. Missing reference: Eric Beinhocker http://www.randomhouse.com....
An easier read if you haven't been cursed with an economics education: http://www.transactionpub.c...
1 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
David Burns • a year ago
So free market advocates caused all the woes of history, and now we should give government intervention a try at last! Ha! My impression is that the gardeners have been at it from the beginning and the best the machiners have been able to do is prevent them from chopping off all the tomato buds.
Nassim Taleb has given a much better critique of the efficient markets hypothesis. His has the advantage of actually addressing the hypothesis, rather than a parody. His critique focuses on the different behaviors implied by assumptions about the underlying statistical distribution of events. This one seems to mistake the efficient market hypothesis for the perfect market hypothesis.
2 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Ted Howard • a year ago
So many great ideas in this post, and also so many mixed up ideas.
Laissez faire works in a sense, it produces the outcomes that it does, its just that in terms of long term survival probabilities, it delivers very low probabilities of long term survival for anyone in the system.
When things are genuinely scarce it works remarkably well (though with the noted problems), but as exponential advances in information processing bring about exponential advances in the domains where universal abundance is possible, the whole notion of markets (being a scarcity based value measure) introduces major instabilities that have a high probability of collapsing the system as a whole at some point (not just recession, but oscillation into a totally competitive modality taking all human life with it).
The article is really good, in as far as it explores complexity, and compares classical equilibrium economics with complexity economics. And that is only taking a single step into the realm of complexity. It is infinite, there are lots more steps.
Wolfram, with NKS, takes a step into the abstract and generalised realms of computation and relationship, but he holds on tightly to the notion of causality. He does go so far as to firmly establish the idea of maximal computational complexity, and thus demonstrate that there are entire classes, even in the most simple of computational systems, of systems that are not reducible to any sort of predictive formula. The only way to see what will happen in such systems is to run them and see. There are many levels of such systems in living systems, and as economics is the study of an aspect of human beings (an instance of a living system) there are many aspects of us that are not predictable in any sense (even if one assumes {as Wolfram does} that they are fully causal).
If one follows Bayes, and the experimental evidence of QM, where they actually seem to lead, then (in the twin contexts of complexity theory and probability theory) Ockham seems to take us to a place where any stochastic system which is constrained in some way to some set of probability distributions, will, in a sufficiently large collection, display sets of properties that deliver outcomes that very closely approximate hard causality.
So Wolfram, Dennett and many others hold firmly to assumptions of hard causality, which have the ultimate outcome of making us automata and invalidating any non-trivial level of morality. Much as I admire both Dennett and Wolfram and many others, the foundational assumptions of causality they cling to do not seem to follow Ockham's dictates.
It seems clear, that in a world that is fundamentally stochastic, fundamentally random to some degree, then it will develop properties that deliver both a close approximation to causality in large collections, and allow for genuine (non-deterministic) freedom to coexist. Thus we can get what we seem to have, both causality and morality (though neither being absolute - though workable in practice).
So what does this have to do with economics?
Economics is in a sense a study of human behaviour - what do we do and why?
Behaviour is about goals and goals can be thought of as deriving from values - but that seems to not actually be how it is.
Actually what seems to be reality, is that at every level, evolution (natural selection, selective survival of variants) seems to select what works (at the genetic level, at the cultural level, and at any other sets of levels that might emerge). So it seems that ultimately, all of our likes and dislikes, all of our morality, our deepest or highest desires, derive from survival at some level of systems.
So when Beinhocker talks of "fitness landscapes" and "individuals and groups cooperate to compete" that is true in a sense, and if taken at face value it leads to a not very useful understanding of evolution.
In order to be useful, the understanding must look at the nature of the strategic environment, the nested levels of context, as well as the nested levels of associated sets of strategies. This applies from the subcellular groupings of RNAs, proteins, DNAs, into cells, organelles, and on up the genetic tree of diversity of life forms. It applies equally to the mimetic and cultural environments that have evolved on top of (and in the context of) those genetic systems. And it applies to those entities that have emerged from that nested set of cosmological, chemical and genetic contexts and the emergent mimetic and cultural contexts.
So in this context, there is some real power in the statement "What I think you think about what I want creates storms of behavior that change what is", and the levels of replicators possible in the system seem to be infinitely extensible, not at all confined to the two reasonably well described ones of genetic and mimetic.
So rather than being like a garden, it is much more like wandering through a TARDIS, that every time you open a door to a room, it grows three new rooms, with three new doors, not just in the room behind the door you just opened, but in every room thus far in existence. This seems to be the nature of the reality we find ourselves in. The Zen Buddhists seem to have captured a flavour of it in their saying "that for the master, on a path worth walking, for every step on the path, the destination grows two steps further away".
In such a reality, it is the values we as free agents choose (in as much as we do choose, and are not simply tools of our unexamined genetic and cultural history) that are of prime importance.
It seems clear to me that individual life must take pride of place, followed closely by individual liberty (our own and everyone else's, in near equal measure) if we are to have any reasonable chance of living long enough to have a reasonable exploration of the infinities available to the enquiring mind. And in that context, Wolfram has clearly shown, that whatever basis one assumes, strictly causal, or more loosely constrained stochastic causal, the principle of maximal computational complexity will be our companion - which guarantees uncertainty and unknowability in practice of many classes of aspects of reality.
So it becomes very clear in logic and reason, that it is time for humanity to acknowledge the real historical utility of markets, the way in which they supported freedom in a context of genuine scarcity, and to move past such scarcity based paradigms into an age of freedom in abundance, where security (in as much as it can exist) is delivered by distributed trust networks, distributed information networks, distributed production networks, and massive redundancy at all levels (to give as much flexibility as possible to respond to the unknowns and unknowables that must logically reside in all complex systems.
The statement "If well-tended, markets produce great results but if untended, they destroy themselves" could arguably be said to be true for most of history up until very recently, when scarcity did genuinely dominate the world of goods and services.
Now that we have the computational ability to access universal abundance, either we go beyond economics, or economics will most probably destroy us - there really isn't any stable middle ground.
see more
1 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Aodhain o falluin Ted Howard • a year ago
This was a fantastic reply thank you for sharing
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Robert Lapsley Ted Howard • a year ago
I appreciate your post. It shows a well read understanding of complexity. I don't quite understand your idea of universal abundance. I have always felt it is obvious that as we expand our numbers, we will be incrementally and increasingly constrained by natural resources. In addition when considering the importance of structure of the nodes and connections in networks, some ties being more or less critical to the emergent properties of higher levels. I worry that as we continue to expand our economies we also risk cutting the ties that allow for the continued natural services we depend on.
I am really happy to hear mention of "the values we as free agents choose"! This before all else I think is the nut to crack. So... If our ethics and morality are human attributions of value… fundamentally describing our relationships with the world. These relations inform our reason and are responsible for the creative complexities of our modern lives, of all our history. I read you correctly, we could agree that “We” decide what relations are of value to us.
More, We decide the existential first, and principle concern, the foundation, the structural underpinning, the framework, supporting all of our patchwork morals… we humans decide what this should be. And, I hope we could agree that our continued existence on the planet Earth should be our first and principle concern. If so, then all other principles of moral conduct should be rooted here; from here stems our ethics.
I hope you would consider the entailed ethics it requires. If you agree with this first principle, it seems intuitive that there are objective truths that we can reasonably conclude. Like the obvious: we need what the Earth provides. We need water, and food, and air to breath. This is an obvious fact of biology, yet, few ever pause to consider Earth’s ecology is providing us these “natural services”, critical services that allow for our continued existence. Without any one of these, our future is improbable at best. So wouldn't the first principle of our continued existence entail our second principle of “Earth first”? Protecting the Earth’s ecology reduces the existential risk of our loosing the natural services provided. We increase the probability, we inflate the risk with our continued interventions in the processes providing such services.
It follows, economic agency, which serves to benefit the ecosphere, serves the whole of Humanity’s future, and the individual pursuing any interest at the expense of natural systems health, commits a crime against humanity’s future generations. Unfortunately from this my lonely standpoint, the hallowed and certain unalienable rights to “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” is now viewed by me as dependent and a lower order concern constrained by the first and second. If man governs his fate best by serving something greater than himself, that something should before all else do no harm to the ecosphere.
see more
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
David Bolinsky Robert Lapsley • a year ago
Robert Lapsley, If you have not run into the folks who study exponential growth, it would merit a look. There is evidence, with exponential growth in a broad range of important fields (computer science, algorithm design, genomics, proteomics, nanotechnology, solar power, etc) that the scarcity you describe (and which fits perfectly in a linear growth physical world with and exponentially growing population) will disappear, to be replaced by a universal abundance of food, power, clean water and universal education (to name but a few), all in less time than linear experience would predict. Peter Diamandis' book 'Abundance' is a cool place to start and you can great ideas keenly detailed in Ramez Naam's 'The Infinite Resource: The Power of Ideas on a Finite Planet.'
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Ted Howard Robert Lapsley • a year ago
Hi Robert,
The assumption that expanding numbers will create resource constraint is based upon the assumption of static technology. Our technical capacity is expanding at a far greater exponential than our population (population is currently about 3% per annum and dropping, while computation is 120% per annum and increasing). Thus we are finding ways to do more with less, faster than our need for more is increasing.
So yes, there are physical limits, and right now, we still have quite a bit of room inside the technology curve before we reach those limits.
When you look back into history, the hunter gatherer technology of sustaining humans required over a million square meters per person. As we developed agriculture that number has dropped, and as we refine agriculture and molecular level manufacturing even further, those number will drop further still. As we grow fruits and vegetables under cover, in small isolated units, we can isolate from insects and birds and mammals, and as filter technologies develop we will shortly even be able to remove airborne spores. Those two abilities remove the need for chemical sprays (which are low levels toxins for us, but much better than starvation).
The actual limit for humans, by living under our rooftop gardens and solar panels, on top of our water storage and deep underground recycling and high speed transport networks, seems to be around 500 square meters per person (for food and energy enough to live what most of us would consider a high standard of living - with energy efficient high tech giving us serving robots to do all the maintenance work on house and garden, and all the cooking cleaning etc required to maintain everything (including themselves). We're not quite at the level of being able to produce all that technology right now, and it will certainly be available within 20 years, so we had better be prepared for it.
At that limit of technology, and leaving half the land surface for natural ecosystems, while modifying the rest for human use, we could sustain 10 billion people using half the land surface, none of the water, and having sufficient reserves to survive a loss of half the capacity to natural disaster.
If we were to use 20% of the ocean for food and energy farms for coastal megacities we could easily double that population. So about 20 billion is a practical limit if we are ensuring that every individual has the sorts of freedom of travel, communication and manufacture that I as the CEO of a software company consider reasonable.
Everything has to do with the technologies we employ. Currently most of our manufacturing technology is based on scales that suit human supervised tools. When we have molecular level nano-scale manufacturing and resource recycling, then everything changes.
So yes - we need to consider the ecosystem we live with, and we don't need to be reliant upon them, we can isolate and optimise those aspects we need for survival purposes, while retaining the rest for enjoyment purposes. And I have been a lifelong conservationist, have studied ecology and biochemistry at university, currently chair our district zone water management committee, and a member of our regional biodiversity committee, and chair the Huttons Shearwater Charitable Trust, and have over 40 years involvement in fisheries management - so I don't just write about this stuff, I do it in practice, and am all too conscious of the practical issues we face, and the technological advances needed to address them, and the inadequacy of free market incentives to do that job.
And yes - it seems clear to me that ultimately all of our values resolve back to survival at some level, through some chain of genetic or mimetic evolutionary linkages.
And yes, I am certainly all about systems that enhance survival probabilities for humans first and foremost, and for most other life forms also (not for those that pose significant direct threats to human survival).
And also yes - clean air, with about 20% oxygen, clean fresh water, adequate nutritious, tasty, safe food are all prerequisites for a full life, as are health care, education, transportation, tools, shelter, information, and general security (freedom from threats).
I have some issues with the "pursuit of happiness", in as much as when you look deeply into the origins of happiness, at the genetic and cultural levels of evolution, through the many biochemical pathways, it seems to be various sets of survival directives averaged over the conditions present in the deep time of our genetic and cultural evolution. Little in that deep past is compatible our exponentially changing technological present, so many of the things that worked for our deep ancestors no longer work for us. So the default setting for "happiness" can lead us seriously astray (like drinking sugar water drinks) And with knowledge we can manage such things, and with that provisio, certainly, the pursuit of whatever we reasonably choose, within the context of the survival of ourselves and all others, and within the context of the greatest level of reasonable freedom we can supply to all.
I am not about serving anything.
I am about individual survival and individual liberty, and that comes in a context of cosmology, chemistry, evolution, and the existence of a large set of other sapient entities (human and non-human, biological and non-biological) with the same rights to life and liberty as myself. The complex system that results necessarily has flexible context sensitive boundaries at every dimension of interaction.
see more
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Andy White • a month ago
A far better comparison is a MIXED FARM than a Garden (a Farm is a working garden happening on a far larger scale and with specific function and purpose.... Mixed farming is about mixing animal husbandry with agriculture and horticulture.)
"Markets are a type of ecosystem that is complex, adaptive, and subject to the same evolutionary forces as nature."
This quote is what Daniel Dennett would call a Deepity, something that is superficially correct, but some thing that if where actually true would make the world vastly different to what it is.
"The markets" and "the Garden metaphor" both make out that economics is some "naturalistic reality" and can be considered using evolutionary thinking/theory. When the stark reality is that markets are entirely artificial creations (such as the farm to mark it as distinct from a garden - the working realities if farming and desired outcome make them distinctly "anti-natural").
Understanding the failure of liaise faire economics requires grasping on a deeper level than this article outlines the fundamental/ideological - PHILOSOPHICAL failure to understand human nature, or what society is and how civilisation actually functions.
To give a "brief" - money is a fantastic TOOL in that it allows for the organisation of human interaction that allows for the specialisation and interaction of different elements of society. In order for this to function "the system" needs to be controlled, regulated and policed to "stay on task" in providing both "a level playing field, and coherent/fair set of rules as well as a divisioning of teams into different leagues to protect community /local /regional/ national/ international and global interests".
Please note my switching from Farming to Sporting is intentional as it relates to the difference between "main st" and "wall st" economics - between economic and financial interests.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
ChrisTavareIsMyIdol • 6 months ago
Utter nonsense. traditional economics explains what has happened in the USA. When jobs are exported and you have massive levels of immigration, wages for the poor fall
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Kai • 8 months ago
I like the article - thank you very much for that! The metapher of the garden could possibly exchanged for another metapher. The major argument behind it is that we should steer the economy because otherwise the maximization of short term gains leads to catastrophes that might be called automatic corrections that certainly no one wants. Here is a cause and effect model that shows the logical need for a market intervention: https://www.know-why.net/mo...
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Jordan • a year ago
Generally, love the ideas presented here. Thank you.
However, in closing, the article all but equates wealth with innovation. This ignores the extreme problem which currently exists with hoarded, unshared, accumulated wealth: i.e.- assets which are protected by the exclusionary nature of ownership claims and held out of social circulation for the sole benefit of the owners..
When so many trillions are off-shored, and so much accumulated wealth is claimed by so few individuals, it is not sufficient to merely address the fairness of "new" wealth creation. The immorality and theft committed by prior generations is the most obstructive and damaging weed in the garden and it needs to be plucked out.
• Reply•Share ›
−
Avatar
Robert Lapsley • a year ago
The garden metaphor might be a rhetorical fallacy. These biased adjectives like “unhealthy”, (“tends toward unhealthy imbalances.”) imply intention. We resist entertaining the amoral nature of the dynamics of complex systems. I don't insist human agency has no effect on evolutions. But our ideologies are narrow, soft and imperfect. Human attribution of value need not align with the natural world’s evolution. Surprised we are when they differ, read “unintended consequences”. If no intended exist then any winding way is as good or bad as the next. We have been describing nature of systems dynamics for some time now, and if I am not off the rails, I would suggest that every possible pathway forward into the future is pressed. Every niche where potential can unwind, will be filled. Those extant manifestations that “survive”, those moves allowed for, encounter new constraints which open and close possible futures moves.
My point is we take care when characterizing the dynamics of our economies as value laden; our mores, ethics and morality are riding on top of natural systems.
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Вот почему женщины в Китае не болеют раком груди
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
| (>[2] /dev/null) |
| Публикувано | 11.04.17 15:30 |
|
|
Продължаваш да се опитваш да размиваш темата, само и единствено да не признаеш, че си пуснал идиотщина, която няма общо с реалността. Че не си учен е ясно, но н само учените имат доблестта да си признават грешките.
The last good thing written in C was Franz Schubert's Symphony No. 9.
| |
|
Тема
|
The Japanese practice of 'forest bathing'- science
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 12.04.17 02:05 |
|
|
This article is published in collaboration with .
Research has shown the health benefits of 'forest bathing', the act of being among the trees.
The tonic of the wilderness was Henry David Thoreau’s classic prescription for civilization and its discontents, offered in the 1854 essay Walden: Or, Life in the Woods. Now there’s scientific evidence . The Japanese practice of is proven to lower heart rate and blood pressure, reduce stress hormone production, boost the immune system, and improve overall feelings of wellbeing.
Forest bathing—basically just being in the presence of trees—became part of a national public health program in Japan when the forestry ministry coined the phrase shinrin-yoku and promoted topiary as therapy. Nature appreciation—picnicking en masse under the cherry blossoms, for example—is a national pastime in Japan, so forest bathing quickly took. The environment’s wisdom has long been evident to the culture: ’s Zen masters asked: If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears, does it make a sound?
To discover the answer, masters do nothing, and gain illumination. Forest bathing works similarly: Just be with trees. No hiking, no counting steps on a Fitbit. You can sit or meander, but the point is to relax rather than accomplish anything.
Forest air doesn’t just feel fresher and better—inhaling phytoncide seems to actually improve immune system function.
“Don’t effort,” says Gregg Berman, a registered nurse, wilderness expert, and in California. He’s leading a small group on the Big Trees Trail in Oakland one cool October afternoon, barefoot among the redwoods. Berman tells the group—wearing shoes—that the human nervous system is both of nature and attuned to it. Planes roar overhead as the forest bathers wander slowly, quietly, under the green cathedral of trees.
From 2004 to 2012, Japanese officials spent about studying the physiological and psychological effects of forest bathing, designating 48 therapy trails based on the results. Qing Li, a professor at Nippon Medical School in Tokyo, measured the activity of human natural killer (NK) cells in the immune system before and after exposure to the woods. These cells provide rapid responses to viral-infected cells and respond to tumor formation, and are associated with immune system health and cancer prevention. In a Li’s subjects showed significant increases in NK cell activity in the week after a forest visit, and positive effects lasted a month following each weekend in the woods.
This is due to various essential oils, generally called phytoncide, found in wood, plants, and some fruit and vegetables, which trees emit to protect themselves from germs and insects. Forest air doesn’t just feel —inhaling phytoncide seems to actually improve immune system function.
Experiments on conducted by the Center for Environment, Health and Field Sciences in Japan’s Chiba University measured its physiological effects on 280 subjects in their early 20s. The team measured the subjects’ salivary cortisol (which increases with stress), blood pressure, pulse rate, and heart rate variability during a day in the city and compared those to the same biometrics taken during a day with a 30-minute forest visit. “Forest environments promote lower concentrations of cortisol, lower pulse rate, lower blood pressure, greater parasympathetic nerve activity, and lower sympathetic nerve activity than do city environments,” the study concluded.
In other words, being in nature made subjects, physiologically, less amped. The parasympathetic nerve system controls the body’s rest-and-digest system while the sympathetic nerve system governs fight-or-flight responses. Subjects were more rested and less inclined to stress after a forest bath.
Trees soothe the spirit too. A study on forest bathing’s surveyed 498 healthy volunteers, twice in a forest and twice in control environments. The subjects showed significantly reduced hostility and depression scores, coupled with increased liveliness, after exposure to trees. “Accordingly,” the researchers wrote, “forest environments can be viewed as therapeutic landscapes.”
Berman advised the forest bathers to pick up a rock, put a problem in and drop it. “You can pick up your troubles again when you leave,” he said with a straight face.
City dwellers can benefit from the effects of trees with just a visit to the park. Brief exposure to greenery in can relieve stress levels, and experts have “doses of nature” as part of treatment of attention disorders in children. What all of this evidence suggests is we don’t seem to need a lot of exposure to gain from nature—but regular contact appears to improve our immune system function and our wellbeing.
Julia Plevin, a product designer and urban forest bather, founded San Francisco’s 200-member Forest Bathing Club Meetup in 2014. They gather monthly to escape technology. “It’s an immersive experience,” Plevin explained to Quartz. “So much of our lives are spent interacting with 2D screens. This is such a bummer because there’s a whole 3D world out there! Forest bathing is a and computer…from all that noise of social media and email.”
Before we crossed the threshold into the woods in Oakland, Berman advised the forest bathers to pick up a rock, put a problem in and drop it. “You can pick up your troubles again when you leave,” he said with a straight face. But after two hours of forest bathing, no one does.
Joy Chiu, a leadership and life coach on the forest bath led by Berman, explained that this perspective on problems lasts long after a bath, and that she returns to the peace of the forest when she’s far from here, feeling harried. “It’s grounding and I go back to the calm feeling of being here. It’s not like a time capsule, but something I can continually return to.”
(Facebook)
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Вот почему женщины в Китае не болеют раком груди
[re: |]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 13.04.17 00:38 |
|
|
Че arguemtnum ad hominem ти е любим, видяхме всички. Така не се води сериозна дискусия, но Дирът явно повече не може.
Редактирано от Mod vege на 13.04.17 02:20.
| |
|
Тема
|
Берлускони спасява агнета и ядосва месопроизводите
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 13.04.17 00:40 |
|
|
Бизнесменът и бивш италиански премиер Силвио Берлускони разгневи представителите на месната индустрия на Апенините, след като се появи във видео, в което „спасява” агънца и призовава за вегетарианска трапеза на Великден, съобщава РИА „Новости”
Видеоклипът на италианската Лига за защита на околната среда, в който Берлускони прегръща и храни агънца с биберон стана много популярен в мрежата. Политикът е сниман на фона на надпис „Защитавай живота, избери вегетариански Великден”.
Агнешкото месо за Великден е част от традицията в Италия, но през последните години я спазват все по-малко хора заради икономическата криза и активните действия на защитниците на животните.
„Невероятно е, но с деловите си умения той нанася щети на месната промишленост и се опитва да получи подкрепата на любителите на животни” изтъква в съобщение италианската организация на производителите на месни продукти „Асокарни”.
През 2016 година редица вестници в Италия съобщиха, че Берлускони е станал вегетарианец. Самият политик каза, че никога не е заявявал подобно нещо, но избегна категоричен отговор на въпроса дали още яде месо.
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Вот почему женщины в Китае не болеют раком груди
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
| (>[2] /dev/null) |
| Публикувано | 13.04.17 00:44 |
|
|
Защо ли ми се струва, че само за ad hominem си чувал... :) Шопенхауер е написал едно книжле, на английски името му е "The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument". Може да го попрегледаш, да се образоваш малко.
Ако искаш сериозна дискусия трябва първо да се научиш да признаваш когато сгрешиш и да престанеш да пускаш идиотщини от пропагандни сайтчета.
Та, кажи сега, какво казва научната литература. Има ли доказана вреда на млечните продукти за рак на гърдата или не. Май не, а? :)
The last good thing written in C was Franz Schubert's Symphony No. 9.Редактирано от | на 13.04.17 00:45.
| |
|
Тема
|
Matter Conscious? Neuroscience mirrored in physics
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 13.04.17 02:12 |
|
|
Why the central problem in neuroscience is mirrored in physics.
BY HEDDA HASSEL MØRCH
The nature of consciousness seems to be unique among scientific puzzles. Not only do neuroscientists have no fundamental explanation for how it arises from physical states of the brain, we are not even sure whether we ever will. Astronomers wonder what dark matter is, geologists seek the origins of life, and biologists try to understand cancer—all difficult problems, of course, yet at least we have some idea of how to go about investigating them and rough conceptions of what their solutions could look like. Our first-person experience, on the other hand, lies beyond the traditional methods of science. Following the philosopher David Chalmers, we call it the hard problem of consciousness.
But perhaps consciousness is not uniquely troublesome. Going back to Gottfried Leibniz and Immanuel Kant, philosophers of science have struggled with a lesser known, but equally hard, problem of matter. What is physical matter in and of itself, behind the mathematical structure described by physics? This problem, too, seems to lie beyond the traditional methods of science, because all we can observe is what matter does, not what it is in itself—the “software” of the universe but not its ultimate “hardware.” On the surface, these problems seem entirely separate. But a closer look reveals that they might be deeply connected.
Consciousness is a multifaceted phenomenon, but subjective experience is its most puzzling aspect. Our brains do not merely seem to gather and process information. They do not merely undergo biochemical processes. Rather, they create a vivid series of feelings and experiences, such as seeing red, feeling hungry, or being baffled about philosophy. There is something that it’s like to be you, and no one else can ever know that as directly as you do.
Our own consciousness involves a complex array of sensations, emotions, desires, and thoughts. But, in principle, conscious experiences may be very simple. An animal that feels an immediate pain or an instinctive urge or desire, even without reflecting on it, would also be conscious. Our own consciousness is also usually consciousness of something—it involves awareness or contemplation of things in the world, abstract ideas, or the self. But someone who is dreaming an incoherent dream or hallucinating wildly would still be conscious in the sense of having some kind of subjective experience, even though they are not conscious of anything in particular.
Philosophers and neuroscientists often assume that consciousness is like software, whereas the brain is like hardware.
Where does consciousness—in this most general sense—come from? Modern science has given us good reason to believe that our consciousness is rooted in the physics and chemistry of the brain, as opposed to anything immaterial or transcendental. In order to get a conscious system, all we need is physical matter. Put it together in the right way, as in the brain, and consciousness will appear. But how and why can consciousness result merely from putting together non-conscious matter in certain complex ways?
This problem is distinctively hard because its solution cannot be determined by means of experiment and observation alone. Through increasingly sophisticated experiments and advanced neuroimaging technology, neuroscience is giving us better and better maps of what kinds of conscious experiences depend on what kinds of physical brain states. Neuroscience might also eventually be able to tell us what all of our conscious brain states have in common: for example, that they have high levels of integrated information (per Giulio Tononi’s Integrated Information Theory), that they broadcast a message in the brain (per Bernard Baars’ Global Workspace Theory), or that they generate 40-hertz oscillations (per an early proposal by Francis Crick and Christof Koch). But in all these theories, the hard problem remains. How and why does a system that integrates information, broadcasts a message, or oscillates at 40 hertz feel pain or delight? The appearance of consciousness from mere physical complexity seems equally mysterious no matter what precise form the complexity takes.
Nor would it seem to help to discover the concrete biochemical, and ultimately physical, details that underlie this complexity. No matter how precisely we could specify the mechanisms underlying, for example, the perception and recognition of tomatoes, we could still ask: Why is this process accompanied by the subjective experience of red, or any experience at all? Why couldn’t we have just the physical process, but no consciousness?
Other natural phenomena, from dark matter to life, as puzzling as they may be, don’t seem nearly as intractable. In principle, we can see that understanding them is fundamentally a matter of gathering more physical detail: building better telescopes and other instruments, designing better experiments, or noticing new laws and patterns in the data we already have. If we were somehow granted knowledge of every physical detail and pattern in the universe, we would not expect these problems to persist. They would dissolve in the same way the problem of heritability dissolved upon the discovery of the physical details of DNA. But the hard problem of consciousness would seem to persist even given knowledge of every imaginable kind of physical detail.
In this way, the deep nature of consciousness appears to lie beyond scientific reach. We take it for granted, however, that physics can in principle tell us everything there is to know about the nature of physical matter. Physics tells us that matter is made of particles and fields, which have properties such as mass, charge, and spin. Physics may not yet have discovered all the fundamental properties of matter, but it is getting closer.
Yet there is reason to believe that there must be more to matter than what physics tells us. Broadly speaking, physics tells us what fundamental particles do or how they relate to other things, but nothing about how they are in themselves, independently of other things.
Charge, for example, is the property of repelling other particles with the same charge and attracting particles with the opposite charge. In other words, charge is a way of relating to other particles. Similarly, mass is the property of responding to applied forces and of gravitationally attracting other particles with mass, which might in turn be described as curving spacetime or interacting with the Higgs field. These are also things that particles do or ways of relating to other particles and to spacetime.
Conscious experiences are just the kind of things that physical structure could be the structure of.
In general, it seems all fundamental physical properties can be described mathematically. Galileo, the father of modern science, famously professed that the great book of nature is written in the language of mathematics. Yet mathematics is a language with distinct limitations. It can only describe abstract structures and relations. For example, all we know about numbers is how they relate to the other numbers and other mathematical objects—that is, what they “do,” the rules they follow when added, multiplied, and so on. Similarly, all we know about a geometrical object such as a node in a graph is its relations to other nodes. In the same way, a purely mathematical physics can tell us only about the relations between physical entities or the rules that govern their behavior.
One might wonder how physical particles are, independently of what they do or how they relate to other things. What are physical things like in themselves, or intrinsically? Some have argued that there is nothing more to particles than their relations, but intuition rebels at this claim. For there to be a relation, there must be two things being related. Otherwise, the relation is empty—a show that goes on without performers, or a castle constructed out of thin air. In other words, physical structure must be realized or implemented by some stuff or substance that is itself not purely structural. Otherwise, there would be no clear difference between physical and mere mathematical structure, or between the concrete universe and a mere abstraction. But what could this stuff that realizes or implements physical structure be, and what are the intrinsic, non-structural properties that characterize it? This problem is a close descendant of Kant’s classic problem of knowledge of things-in-themselves. The philosopher Galen Strawson has called it the hard problem of matter.
It is ironic, because we usually think of physics as describing the hardware of the universe—the real, concrete stuff. But in fact physical matter (at least the aspect that physics tells us about) is more like software: a logical and mathematical structure. According to the hard problem of matter, this software needs some hardware to implement it. Physicists have brilliantly reverse-engineered the algorithms—or the source code—of the universe, but left out their concrete implementation.
The hard problem of matter is distinct from other problems of interpretation in physics. Current physics presents puzzles, such as: How can matter be both particle-like and wave-like? What is quantum wavefunction collapse? Are continuous fields or discrete individuals more fundamental? But these are all questions of how to properly conceive of the structure of reality. The hard problem of matter would arise even if we had answers to all such questions about structure. No matter what structure we are talking about, from the most bizarre and unusual to the perfectly intuitive, there will be a question of how it is non-structurally implemented.
Indeed, the problem arises even for Newtonian physics, which describes the structure of reality in a way that makes perfect intuitive sense. Roughly speaking, Newtonian physics says that matter consists of solid particles that interact either by bumping into each other or by gravitationally attracting each other. But what is the intrinsic nature of the stuff that behaves in this simple and intuitive way? What is the hardware that implements the software of Newton’s equations? One might think the answer is simple: It is implemented by solid particles. But solidity is just the behavior of resisting intrusion and spatial overlap by other particles—that is, another mere relation to other particles and space. The hard problem of matter arises for any structural description of reality no matter how clear and intuitive at the structural level.
Like the hard problem of consciousness, the hard problem of matter cannot be solved by experiment and observation or by gathering more physical detail. This will only reveal more structure, at least as long as physics remains a discipline dedicated to capturing reality in mathematical terms.
Might the hard problem of consciousness and the hard problem of matter be connected? There is already a tradition for connecting problems in physics with the problem of consciousness, namely in the area of quantum theories of consciousness. Such theories are sometimes disparaged as fallaciously inferring that because quantum physics and consciousness are both mysterious, together they will somehow be less so. The idea of a connection between the hard problem of consciousness and the hard problem of matter could be criticized on the same grounds. Yet a closer look reveals that these two problems are complementary in a much deeper and more determinate way. One of the first philosophers to notice the connection was Leibniz all the way back in the late 17th century, but the precise modern version of the idea is due to Bertrand Russell. Recently, contemporary philosophers including Chalmers and Strawson have rediscovered it. It goes like this.
The hard problem of matter calls for non-structural properties, and consciousness is the one phenomenon we know that might meet this need. Consciousness is full of qualitative properties, from the redness of red and the discomfort of hunger to the phenomenology of thought. Such experiences, or “qualia,” may have internal structure, but there is more to them than structure. We know something about what conscious experiences are like in and of themselves, not just how they function and relate to other properties.
For example, think of someone who has never seen any red objects and has never been told that the color red exists. That person knows nothing about how redness relates to brain states, to physical objects such as tomatoes, or to wavelengths of light, nor how it relates to other colors (for example, that it’s similar to orange but very different from green). One day, the person spontaneously hallucinates a big red patch. It seems this person will thereby learn what redness is like, even though he or she doesn’t know any of its relations to other things. The knowledge he or she acquires will be non-relational knowledge of what redness is like in and of itself.
This suggests that consciousness—of some primitive and rudimentary form—is the hardware that the software described by physics runs on. The physical world can be conceived of as a structure of conscious experiences. Our own richly textured experiences implement the physical relations that make up our brains. Some simple, elementary forms of experiences implement the relations that make up fundamental particles. Take an electron, for example. What an electron does is to attract, repel, and otherwise relate to other entities in accordance with fundamental physical equations. What performs this behavior, we might think, is simply a stream of tiny electron experiences. Electrons and other particles can be thought of as mental beings with physical powers; as streams of experience in physical relations to other streams of experience.
This idea sounds strange, even mystical, but it comes out of a careful line of thought about the limitations of science. Leibniz and Russell were determined scientific rationalists—as evidenced by their own immortal contributions to physics, logic, and mathematics—but equally deeply committed to the reality and uniqueness of consciousness. They concluded that in order to give both phenomena their proper due, a radical change of thinking is required.
And a radical change it truly is. Philosophers and neuroscientists often assume that consciousness is like software, whereas the brain is like hardware. This suggestion turns this completely around. When we look at what physics tells us about the brain, we actually just find software—purely a set of relations—all the way down. And consciousness is in fact more like hardware, because of its distinctly qualitative, non-structural properties. For this reason, conscious experiences are just the kind of things that physical structure could be the structure of.
Given this solution to the hard problem of matter, the hard problem of consciousness all but dissolves. There is no longer any question of how consciousness arises from non-conscious matter, because all matter is intrinsically conscious. There is no longer a question of how consciousness depends on matter, because it is matter that depends on consciousness—as relations depend on relata, structure depends on realizer, or software on hardware.
One might object that this is plain anthropomorphism, an illegitimate projection of human qualities on nature. After all, why do we think that physical structure needs some intrinsic realizer? Is it not because our own brains have intrinsic, conscious properties, and we like to think of nature in familiar terms? But this objection does not hold. The idea that intrinsic properties are needed to distinguish real and concrete from mere abstract structure is entirely independent of consciousness. Moreover, the charge of anthropomorphism can be met by a countercharge of human exceptionalism. If the brain is indeed entirely material, why should it be so different from the rest of matter when it comes to intrinsic properties?
This view, that consciousness constitutes the intrinsic aspect of physical reality, goes by many different names, but one of the most descriptive is “dual-aspect monism.” Monism contrasts with dualism, the view that consciousness and matter are fundamentally different substances or kinds of stuff. Dualism is widely regarded as scientifically implausible, because science shows no evidence of any non-physical forces that influence the brain.
Monism holds that all of reality is made of the same kind of stuff. It comes in several varieties. The most common monistic view is physicalism (also known as materialism), the view that everything is made of physical stuff, which only has one aspect, the one revealed by physics. This is the predominant view among philosophers and scientists today. According to physicalism, a complete, purely physical description of reality leaves nothing out. But according to the hard problem of consciousness, any purely physical description of a conscious system such as the brain at least appears to leave something out: It could never fully capture what it is like to be that system. That is to say, it captures the objective but not the subjective aspects of consciousness: the brain function, but not our inner mental life.
In order to give both phenomena their proper due, a radical change of thinking is required.
Russell’s dual-aspect monism tries to fill in this deficiency. It accepts that the brain is a material system that behaves in accordance with the laws of physics. But it adds another, intrinsic aspect to matter which is hidden from the extrinsic, third-person perspective of physics and which therefore cannot be captured by any purely physical description. But although this intrinsic aspect eludes our physical theories, it does not elude our inner observations. Our own consciousness constitutes the intrinsic aspect of the brain, and this is our clue to the intrinsic aspect of other physical things. To paraphrase Arthur Schopenhauer’s succinct response to Kant: We can know the thing-in-itself because we are it.
Dual-aspect monism comes in moderate and radical forms. Moderate versions take the intrinsic aspect of matter to consist of so-called protoconscious or “neutral” properties: properties that are unknown to science, but also different from consciousness. The nature of such neither-mental-nor-physical properties seems quite mysterious. Like the aforementioned quantum theories of consciousness, moderate dual-aspect monism can therefore be accused of merely adding one mystery to another and expecting them to cancel out.
The most radical version of dual-aspect monism takes the intrinsic aspect of reality to consist of consciousness itself. This is decidedly not the same as subjective idealism, the view that the physical world is merely a structure within human consciousness, and that the external world is in some sense an illusion. According to dual-aspect monism, the external world exists entirely independently of human consciousness. But it would not exist independently of any kind of consciousness, because all physical things are associated with some form of consciousness of their own, as their own intrinsic realizer, or hardware.
As a solution to the hard problem of consciousness, dual-aspect monism faces objections of its own. The most common objection is that it results in panpsychism, the view that all things are associated with some form of consciousness. To critics, it’s just too implausible that fundamental particles are conscious. And indeed this idea takes some getting used to. But consider the alternatives. Dualism looks implausible on scientific grounds. Physicalism takes the objective, scientifically accessible aspect of reality to be the only reality, which arguably implies that the subjective aspect of consciousness is an illusion. Maybe so—but shouldn’t we be more confident that we are conscious, in the full subjective sense, than that particles are not?
A second important objection is the so-called combination problem. How and why does the complex, unified consciousness of our brains result from putting together particles with simple consciousness? This question looks suspiciously similar to the original hard problem. I and other defenders of panpsychism have argued that the combination problem is nevertheless not as hard as the original hard problem. In some ways, it is easier to see how to get one form of conscious matter (such as a conscious brain) from another form of conscious matter (such as a set of conscious particles) than how to get conscious matter from non-conscious matter. But many find this unconvincing. Perhaps it is just a matter of time, though. The original hard problem, in one form or another, has been pondered by philosophers for centuries. The combination problem has received much less attention, which gives more hope for a yet undiscovered solution.
The possibility that consciousness is the real concrete stuff of reality, the fundamental hardware that implements the software of our physical theories, is a radical idea. It completely inverts our ordinary picture of reality in a way that can be difficult to fully grasp. But it may solve two of the hardest problems in science and philosophy at once.
Hedda Hassel Mørch is a Norwegian philosopher and postdoctoral researcher hosted by the Center for Mind, Brain, and Consciousness at NYU. She works on the combination problem and other topics related to dual-aspect monism and panpsychism.
| |
|
Тема
|
Mandelbaum,Hossenfelder:probably no comp simulat.
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 13.04.17 02:34 |
|
|
Science doesn’t have all the answers. There are plenty of things it may never prove, like whether there’s a God. Or whether we’re living in a computer simulation, something by Swedish philosopher Nick Bostrom and others, and maybe your stoned friend Chad last week.
This kind of thinking made at least one person angry, theoretical physicist and from the Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies in Germany. Last week, she took to her blog to vent. It’s not the statement “we’re living in a simulation” that upsets Hossenfelder. It’s the fact that philosophers are making assertions that, if true, should most certainly manifest themselves in our laws of physics.
“I’m not saying it’s impossible,” Hossenfelder told Gizmodo. “But I want to see some backup for this claim.” Backup to prove such a claim would require a lot of work and a lot of math, enough to solve some of the most complex problems in theoretical physics.
So, you’d like to go prove that the universe is actually a simulation built by some programmer. No, you’re not religious and you’re not saying that God created the universe! You’re just saying that some all-knowing higher power designed the universe and life in his image, which you think is completely different. Let’s start with the assumption that ‘computer simulation’ means we’re living in a universe where all of space and time is based on discrete bits of data like a computer, with 1s and 0s.
That would require everything in the universe, at its smallest scale, has some definite property, some obvious state of yes or no. We already know that isn’t true, explained Hossenfelder. There are few definite things in quantum mechanics, only a probabilities. Elementary particles like electrons have a property called spin, for example. Quantum mechanics says that if we’re not looking at the particles, we can’t say what their spin value is, we can only model the probability of each spin value. That’s what Schrödinger’s cat is all about. If some process determined by quantum mechanics, like radioactive decay, was in charge of whether a cat in a closed box was alive or dead, then our present understanding of physics implies the cat is both alive and dead simultaneously, until we open the box to take a look. Quantum mechanics and the classical bits computers are based on don’t get along.
“I’m not saying it’s impossible. But I want to see some backup for this claim.”
___
If you expand the problem, you can code lots of classical bits, whose values are fixed, into quantum bits. Quantum bits don’t have a definite value of zero or one, but instead have some probability that they could assume either value. One physicist, Xiao-Gang Wen at the Perimeter Institute, has tried to model this , explaining the universe as being made of these “qubits.” Hossenfelder said that Wen’s models seem to mostly agree with Standard Model of physics, the mathematics behind all of our particles, but still can’t get his models to correctly predict relativity. And, “he’s not claiming we’re living in a computer simulation,” said Hossenfelder. He’s just describing a qubit-based universe.
Any proof that we’re living in a simulation would also need to re-derive all of the laws of particle physics (and special and general relativity) using a different interpretation of quantum mechanics than what our current laws are based on, in a way that perfectly describes our universe. There are people actually devoting their lives to doing these things, and so far, it’s not adding up.
Theoretical computer scientist Scott Aaronson said that there are still theories combining gravity and quantum mechanics that might work if the universe were made with quantum bits—so if you’d like to solve one of the toughest problems in theoretical physics, definitely give it a go. Aaronson was more in the why-does-it-matter camp when it comes to the question of whether we’re in a computer simulation or not. “Why not simplify the theory by cutting the aliens out of it,” he asked, “if they’re not really adding anything to the predictions?” Essentially, the aliens or master programmer is invoking some sort of higher being to explain away our problems. And if our theories work without us living in a simulation, why do we need the simulation explanation at all?
The real shame of the whole issue is that modifying the question can make for some really interesting research questions. For instance, can the rules of computing can create a simulation like the universe? A universe like ours would potentially require 10^122 qubits, said Aaronson. (That’s 1 with 122 zeroes after it, a meaninglessly large number—there are 10^80 atoms in the universe, approximately). And can the universe solve the , that is, can the universe calculate its own end, something computer programs can’t do?
Ultimately, someone who believes the universe is a simulation can just alter the simulation’s parameters so they’re always right. But that’s not science, it’s religion with aliens or a master programmer instead of God, and more boring because there aren’t any fun songs or tasty food rituals.
So, neither Gizmodo nor Hossenfelder nor Aaronson are saying we do or don’t live in a simulation. We are saying that if you think you can prove it, you’ll need a lot more than some hand-waving or philosophical waxing. You’ll need some hard evidence that the fabric of the universe itself works the same way a computer does, and agrees with all of our most complex laws of physics.
“I don’t want to discourage anyone from trying,” said Hossenfelder. “But what annoys me much more is this general dismissal of the theories that we have already.”
___
[]
by
According to Nick Bostrom of the Future of Humanity Institute, [/url=http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2015/01/do-we-live-in-computer-simulation.html]it is likely that we live in a computer simulation[/url]. And is that the superintelligence running our simulation shuts it down.
The simulation hypothesis, as it’s called, enjoys a certain popularity among people who like to think of themselves as intellectual, believing it speaks for their mental flexibility. Unfortunately it primarily speaks for their lacking knowledge of physics.
Among physicists, the simulation hypothesis is not popular and that’s for a good reason – we know that it is difficult to find consistent explanations for our observations. After all, finding consistent explanations is what we get paid to do.
Proclaiming that “the programmer did it” doesn’t only not explain anything - it teleports us back to the age of mythology. The simulation hypothesis annoys me because it intrudes on the terrain of physicists. It’s a bold claim about the laws of nature that however doesn’t pay any attention to what we know about the laws of nature.
First, to get it out of the way, there’s a trivial way in which the simulation hypothesis is correct: You could just interpret the presently accepted theories to mean that our universe computes the laws of nature. Then it’s tautologically true that we live in a computer simulation. It’s also a meaningless statement.
A stricter way to speak of the computational universe is to make more precise what is meant by ‘computing.’ You could say, for example, that the universe is made of bits and an algorithm encodes an ordered time-series which is executed on these bits. Good - but already we’re deep in the realm of physics.
If you try to build the universe from classical bits, you won’t get quantum effects, so forget about this – it doesn’t work. This might be somebody’s universe, maybe, but not ours. You either have to overthrow quantum mechanics (good luck), or you have to use qubits. [Note added for clarity: You might be able to get quantum mechanics from a classical, nonlocal approach, but nobody knows how to get quantum field theory from that.]
Even from qubits, however, nobody’s been able to recover the presently accepted fundamental theories – general relativity and the standard model of particle physics. The , but they are still far away from getting back general relativity. It’s not easy.
Indeed, there are good reasons to believe it’s not possible. The idea that our universe is discretized clashes with observations because it runs into conflict with special relativity. The effects of violating the symmetries of special relativity aren’t necessarily small and have been looked for – and nothing’s been found.
For the purpose of this present post, the details don’t actually matter all that much. What’s more important is that these difficulties of getting the physics right are rarely even mentioned when it comes to the simulation hypothesis. Instead there’s some fog about how the programmer could prevent simulated brains from ever noticing contradictions, for example contradictions between discretization and special relativity.
But how does the programmer notice a simulated mind is about to notice contradictions and how does he or she manage to quickly fix the problem? If the programmer could predict in advance what the brain will investigate next, it would be pointless to run the simulation to begin with. So how does he or she know what are the consistent data to feed the artificial brain with when it decides to probe a specific hypothesis? Where does the data come from? The programmer could presumably get consistent data from their own environment, but then the brain wouldn’t live in a simulation.
It’s not that I believe it’s impossible to simulate a conscious mind with human-built ‘artificial’ networks – I don’t see why this should not be possible. I think, however, it is much harder than many future-optimists would like us to believe. Whatever the artificial brains will be made of, they won’t be any easier to copy and reproduce than human brains. They’ll be one-of-a-kind. They’ll be individuals.
It therefore seems implausible to me that we will soon be outnumbered by artificial intelligences with cognitive skills exceeding ours. More likely, we will see a future in which rich nations can afford raising one or two artificial consciousnesses and then consult them on questions of importance.
So, yes, I think artificial consciousness is on the horizon. I also think it’s possible to convince a mind with cognitive abilities comparable to that of humans that their environment is not what they believe it is. Easy enough to put the artificial brain in a metaphoric vat: If you don’t give it any input, it would never be any wiser. But that’s not the environment I experience and, if you read this, it’s not the environment you experience either. We have a lot of observations. And it’s not easy to consistently compute all the data we have.
Besides, if the reason you build an artificial intelligences is consultation, making them believe reality is not what it seems is about the last thing you’d want.
Hence, the first major problem with the simulation hypothesis is to consistently create all the data which we observe by any means other than the standard model and general relativity – because these are, for all we know, not compatible with the universe-as-a-computer.
Maybe you want to argue it is only you alone who is being simulated, and I am merely another part of the simulation. I’m quite sympathetic to this reincarnation of solipsism, for sometimes my best attempt of explaining the world is that it’s all an artifact of my subconscious nightmares. But the one-brain-only idea doesn’t work if you want to claim that it is likely we live in a computer simulation.
To claim it is likely we are simulated, the number of simulated conscious minds must vastly outnumber those of non-simulated minds. This means the programmer will have to create a lot of brains. Now, they could separately simulate all these brains and try to fake an environment with other brains for each, but that would be nonsensical. The computationally more efficient way to convince one brain that the other brains are “real” is to combine them in one simulation.
Then, however, you get simulated societies that, like ours, will set out to understand the laws that govern their environment to better use it. They will, in other words, do science. And now the programmer has a problem, because it must keep close track of exactly what all these artificial brains are trying to probe.
The programmer could of course just simulate the whole universe (or multiverse?) but that again doesn’t work for the simulation argument. Problem is, in this case it would have to be possible to encode a whole universe in part of another universe, and parts of the simulation would attempt to run their own simulation, and so on. This has the effect of attempting to reproduce the laws on shorter and shorter distance scales. That, too, isn’t compatible with what we know about the laws of nature. Sorry.
:
“[Maybe] down at the Planck scale we’d find a whole civilization that’s setting things up so our universe works the way it does.”
I cried a few tears over this.
The idea that the universe is self-similar and repeats on small scales – so that elementary particles are built of universes which again contain atoms and so on – seems to hold a great appeal for many. It’s another one of these nice ideas that work badly. Nobody’s ever been able to write down a consistent theory that achieves this – consistent both internally and with our observations. The best attempt I know of are limit cycles in theory space but to my knowledge that too doesn’t really work.
Again, however, the details don’t matter all that much – just take my word for it: It’s not easy to find a consistent theory for universes within atoms. What matters is the stunning display of ignorance – for not to mention arrogance –, demonstrated by the belief that for physics at the Planck scale anything goes. Hey, maybe there’s civilizations down there. Let’s make a TED talk about it next. For someone who, like me, actually works on Planck scale physics, this is pretty painful.
To be fair, in the interview, Wolfram also explains that he doesn’t believe in the simulation hypothesis, in the sense that there’s no programmer and no superior intelligence laughing at our attempts to pin down evidence for their existence. I get the impression he just likes the idea that the universe is a computer. (Note added: As a commenter points out, he likes the idea that the universe can be described as a computer.)
In summary, it isn’t easy to develop theories that explain the universe as we see it. Our presently best theories are the standard model and general relativity, and whatever other explanation you have for our observations must first be able to reproduce these theories’ achievements. “The programmer did it” isn’t science. It’s not even pseudoscience. It’s just words.
All this talk about how we might be living in a computer simulation pisses me off not because I’m afraid people will actually believe it. No, I think most people are much smarter than many self-declared intellectuals like to admit. Most readers will instead correctly conclude that today’s intelligencia is full of shit. And I can’t even blame them for it.
| |
|
Тема
|
+ Comments to "No, we probably don’t live in a..."
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 13.04.17 02:36 |
|
|
131 :
naivetheorist said...
bee:
just a correction. Stephen Wolfram does NOT believe that the universe IS a computer (or a cellular automaton for that matter). if you read the beginning section of chapter 7 in his quitec literally weighty book "A New Kind of Science", you'll find that he takes the role of the theoretical physicist to be (in agreement with the view of von Neumann) constructing models that predict experimentally observed phenomena (so he is, like you a phenomenologist if i understand what you mean when you say you are a phenomenologist). he says in his lectures, blogs and book that "the universe (or any specific phenomena) behaves AS IF it is.... he does not claim that nature does in fact, follow the behavior of models which are simplified representations of aspects of reality (e.g. stephen might say that just because you can describe the flight path of a frisbee using differential equations does not mean that a person or a dog actually solves differential equations when playing frisbee catch).
best regards,
richard
9:25 AM, March 15, 2017
spink007 said...
The computer simulation hypothesis is what you get when you cross philosophy with journalism.
9:32 AM, March 15, 2017
SylviaFysica said...
Dear Sabine,
I think the simulation hypothesis belongs with other skeptical scenarios: yes, it is logically possible that the world could be very different from how it appears to us now or how we model it so far, but, no, there is no good reason to focus on this particular possibility. We should assign some probability to it, and then get on with science and critical thinking based on the higher probability cases. Eric Schwitzgebel has recently defended such a view under the name "1% skepticism". If we ever get evidence corroborating one of the - what are now considered to be - skeptical scenarios, then we should update our probabilities and develop theories for it, but prior to that it makes no sense: without evidence, there is nothing to work with.
One complication with this particular skeptical scenario is that Bostrom has offered an argument to the conclusion that we should assign high probability to the simulation hypothesis. Of course, there may be flaws in the argument, but even if you were to accept the argument, the fact that there is no direct evidence available seems a good reason for scientists not to spend too much time on it.
So, I definitely understand why all the attention to the simulation hypothesis annoys you, and the above points would be my way of responding to someone who brings it up.
Best wishes,
Sylvia
9:47 AM, March 15, 2017
Able Lawrence said...
An alternative way to refute the simulation hypothesis would be to estimate the computational requirements to run a simulation for the visible universe, even assuming qubits. What would be the memory requirement and can't we estimate the information content of the simulation vis a vis the simulated in terms of entropy. Perhaps that would show the meaninglessness of the simulation argument. It reminds me of Jorge Luis Borges short story on the country of cartographers who built a map as big as the country.
9:51 AM, March 15, 2017
AT said...
Hmm, somehow I am not entirely convinced by you arguments (or I did not read them carefully enough) that there is no simulation. If some really wants to pretend that there is quantum mechanics to (virtual) experimental physicists he/she/it will find a way. Just compute some time into the future and adjust past results as necessary to prevent suspicions (just think superdeterminism).
Of course, the question remains, why should one wish to degrade a virtual/real intelligence to a lab mouse? So, yes, overall I agree with you that the whole idea seems (like the multiverse) abandoning the theoretical physicist's job to describe nature.
Half off-topic, I wish to mention the Boltzmann Brain here, yet another mad idea about which I would like to read a blog post ;-)
10:07 AM, March 15, 2017
Uncle Al said...
Future of Humanity is a mumble factory trading apocalypse for self-importance. It is vacuum eager for gilded containers, the macroeconomics of political connivance. Future of Humanity demands credulity for shaking an aspergillum dispensing ubiquitous dread.
"today’s intelligencia is full of shit" and so willing to share, at gunpoint. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Entropy. Fear soft landings - the Third World.
10:18 AM, March 15, 2017
Sabine Hossenfelder said...
Hi Richard,
ok, thanks for pointing out. I should have been more careful phrasing that, will fix it.
10:32 AM, March 15, 2017
Sabine Hossenfelder said...
Able,
Well, Bostrom claims he's estimated it.
10:35 AM, March 15, 2017
Sabine Hossenfelder said...
AT,
Well, quite possibly you're not convinced there's no simulation because that wasn't what I was trying to argue. I was merely saying that the argument that it is likely we live in a simulation is wrong, or rather not even wrong - it's simply not an argument that lives up to the scientific standard. Maybe we live in a simulation - but I think it's unlikely for the reasons mentioned above: The difficulties in doing this seem to me vastly underestimated.
Yes, I've meant to write a rant on Boltzmann brains for some while, thanks for reminding me of this...
Best,
B.
10:40 AM, March 15, 2017
paperpandao1o said...
Very interesting, when it comes to deciphering junk from real science, you are my spirit animal, Sabine.
10:42 AM, March 15, 2017
Phillip Helbig said...
" It reminds me of Jorge Luis Borges short story on the country of cartographers who built a map as big as the country."
As far as I know, this scenario first appeared in Sylvie and Bruno Concluded by Lewis Carroll. Interestingly, this book also contains the idea of a train running in a tunnel which is a chord of the Earth, powered by gravity, with the journey always taking the same amount of time (about 42 minutes), regardless of the length of the chord.
10:43 AM, March 15, 2017
Phillip Helbig said...
"Yes, I've meant to write a rant on Boltzmann brains for some while, thanks for reminding me of this... "
Don't wait too long, otherwise one will materialize out of the void and write the post before you do!
10:44 AM, March 15, 2017
Georg said...
Hello Bee,
thank You for this Deep Thought(s) :=)
Georg
10:46 AM, March 15, 2017
aburt said...
Back when Bostrom first proposed this, I wrote a rebuttal, "Simulations and Reality in WYSIWYG Universes", exposing flaws in his math. (The paper was rejected by the journal he'd published his piece in, where he was, it appeared from the comments, the peer reviewer who rejected it. It was ultimately published in the SFWA Bulletin, in 2009, and is now available on Amazon/etc. as a little standalone thought piece ebook.)
Bottom line, by my analysis, the odds are much higher that the universe is exactly as we see it, not a simulation. (Though some other interesting conclusions follow from the math, about the nature of such universes, and the end game for intelligent inhabitants.) :) It was a fun analysis.
11:07 AM, March 15, 2017
Rob van Son (Not a physicist, just an amateur) said...
@Able
"An alternative way to refute the simulation hypothesis would be to estimate the computational requirements to run a simulation for the visible universe, even assuming qubits."
That has actually been done by Seth Lloyd
Computational capacity of the universe
https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0110141
I do not think he used qubits, but I am not sure. It is relatively easy to argue that, given the laws of nature, a simulation of the universe takes (much) more space than the universe itself. If you assume that the simulation runs according to other laws, anything goes.
11:11 AM, March 15, 2017
Matt Mahoney said...
Bostrom's simulation argument mistakenly uses probability theory to make statements about reality instead of statements about belief. If you say that the probability that we are living in a simulation is p, it means that you tested n universes and found pn of them to be simulations. In reality, no such test exists so it is not even a meaningful question.
11:33 AM, March 15, 2017
Kenneth Wharton said...
" there’s a trivial way in which the simulation hypothesis is correct: You could just interpret the presently accepted theories to mean that our universe computes the laws of nature. Then it’s tautologically true that we live in a computer simulation."
I wouldn't even go that far. Here's an argument against even this "trivial" point: https://arxiv.org/abs/1211.7081 . Whether or not you buy the argument, I hope you would at least concede that the statement "the universe computes itself like a computer" is not a tautology.
11:43 AM, March 15, 2017
Kenneth Wharton said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
11:49 AM, March 15, 2017
Matt Mahoney said...
Just because the universe is computable (Lloyd says 10^120 quantum operations) does not mean it is computable in a way that is useful to us. Wolpert proves that two computers cannot mutually simulate each other, which implies that a computer cannot simulate itself. A computer cannot have enough memory to know its own state because it needs at least one more bit to make any observation from its simulation and then has to include that bit in its state. Any computer that models the exact physics of our universe would have to exist outside our observable universe.
11:55 AM, March 15, 2017
Ben Jones said...
Suggesting the universe we're in can't be a simulation by appealing to computational complexity limits based on what we see in this universe is a bit of a circular argument. 'It seems very difficult to me' is like a computer game character having a hard time believing in computer game designers. Unknown unknowns.
I think the point of the hypothesis is that if it's possible to simulate experience (likely), and it's possible to nest simulations (also likely), it's a strange assumption to say you must be at the top of the tree. Nothing more controversial than that. Neither do I see any genuine showstopper in quantum mechanics. Maybe whatever box we are all running on really does simulate every single interaction! Or maybe it takes clever shortcuts, or fools us every time, or collapses wavefunctions on its own or whatever - we don't know anything about it. I personally find any of those ideas unlikely to the point of lunacy, but I don't have any ideological issue with it like you seem to, Sabine.
12:01 PM, March 15, 2017
Evan Thomas said...
"It’s not that I believe it’s impossible to simulate a conscious mind with human-built ‘artificial’ networks – I don’t see why this should not be possible"
I think Roger Penrose made pretty compelling arguments that it might very well be impossible. Everyone gets hung up on Gödel's Theorem here and seems to have missed the simpler arguments he made, which I thought were more powerful in some ways. To show that consciousness is not (fully) algorithmic in nature, we just need simple examples where we can show consciousness can do something an algorithm can't. Penrose lists some math problems that do not have algorithmic solutions (even in principle). Not only have we solved these problems, for some we've even proved they cannot be solved by an algorithm. The ones he talked about that come to mind are the halting problem, tiling problem and general Diophantine equations, although there were others, I believe.
Sounds really hard to simulate a part of the universe that is non-algorithmic doing something non-algorithmic like proving a problem is non-algorithmic, by using an ... algorithm.
Although, I seem to recall Penrose leaving open room for non-computational "algorithms", while admitting he has no idea what this would be like!
12:08 PM, March 15, 2017
Paul Mayo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
12:15 PM, March 15, 2017
Evan Thomas said...
Matt Mahoney, this was an interesting statement:
"A computer cannot have enough memory to know its own state because it needs at least one more bit to make any observation from its simulation and then has to include that bit in its state."
Sounds like an possible argument against a computer becoming self-aware, at least fully?
Then again, I'm not sure most humans are even close to fully self-aware!
Anyhow, thanks for sharing, will have to look into this.
12:17 PM, March 15, 2017
Serafino Cerulli-Irelli said...
Something more about Borges. “Nosotros (la indivisa divinidad que opera en nosotros) hemos soñado el mundo. Lo hemos soñado resistente, misterioso, visible, ubicuo con el espacio y firme en el tiempo; pero hemos consentido en su arquitectura tenues y eternos intersticios de sinrazón para saber que es falso." J.L.Borges, 'Avatares de la Tortuga'
"We (the undivided divinity that operates in us) have dreamed the world. We have dreamed it gnarly, mysterious, observable, continuous in space and reliable in time; but we have allowed into its architecture anomalous gaps of irrationality both indeterminate and timeless so we might know that it is a contrivance."
12:42 PM, March 15, 2017
L said...
Hi Bee, what's your opinion of https://arxiv.org/abs/1210.1847 ?
1:18 PM, March 15, 2017
עמיר ליבנה בר-און said...
It seems to me that there's another solution for the "accuracy of simulation" problem nobody talks about, a solution with amusing consequences.
The beings-that-are-not-called-gods simulate each mind individually, and turn people off once they study too much physics and strain the simulation resources. The simulation of society includes physicists of course, but the simulated minds only enjoy popular articles and the fruits of technology. (The simulators might need to exclude psychologists and sociologists, and some of the more observant philosophers. But still, the simulated beings would far outnumber the physical ones.)
Obviously, there's a very different distribution of professions on simulated beings than in our society, since the simulated physicists are killed early. But since the society is simulated, there is no need for it to match the distribution of brains.
The degree of belief in this simulation hypothesis would thus depend on your occupation. If you are a physicist, the argument above would imply you must be a real live mind, living its life in the physical universe. But if you are only a reader of physics blogs, you may as well be simulated - simulating just your mind likely doesn't even require any quantum effect. This effect is stronger the less you interact with society, since you require less simulation resources this way (as society is made up, just for you). So in this scenario we can except the less socially-fluent non-physicists to believe the most that they are living in a simulation.
2:05 PM, March 15, 2017
Louis Tagliaferro said...
Sabine said…
“The idea that our universe is discretized clashes with observations because it runs into conflict with special relativity. …the programmer could prevent simulated brains from ever noticing contradictions, for example contradictions between discretization and special relativity.”
I wanted to ask that you consider discussing the issue above (discretization and special relativity) in more depth for a future blog post? I appreciate how you often can explain the technical in a way that gives non-physicists like me a better understanding of the science and issues involved.
2:06 PM, March 15, 2017
Uncle Al said...
The simulation is analog not digital. It does not calculate. Its size is not strongly bound to be larger than its construct's size. The universe is its own simulation! There's little employment to be had here.
What simulates the simulation? God (retrograde intellectual diversity). Give generously to your local tax-exempt sales outlets.
3:11 PM, March 15, 2017
Kaleberg said...
Penrose is a mystic. I always have trouble taking him seriously.
I've always liked Bill Gosper's approach in HAKMEM from 1972. He considers the various ways that a computer program can tell the number system of the machine it is running on. Back then, not all computers were twos-complement. There were ones-complement and a variety of decimal machines. He then raised the simulation issue:
"By this strategy, consider the universe, or, more precisely, algebra: Let X = the sum of many powers of 2 = ...111111 (base 2). Now add X to itself: X + X = ...111110. Thus, 2X = X - 1, so X = -1. Therefore algebra is run on a machine (the universe) that is two's-complement."
To capture the spirit of the times: "If arithmetic overflow is a fatal error, some fascist pig with a read-only mind is trying to enforce machine independence." Ah, the 1970s.
4:12 PM, March 15, 2017
Dev Null said...
I don't disagree with the thrust of your argument, but one of your statements strikes me as unlikely, specifically "More likely, we will see a future in which rich nations can afford raising one or two artificial consciousnesses". This really reminds me of the early days of computing where many thought there'd only be a need for a handful of computers or that "640k ought to be enough for anybody."
5:24 PM, March 15, 2017
Sabine Hossenfelder said...
Dev,
Well, please allow me a little fun, I sometimes like to imagine what the future might look like. It's not that I think it'll stay that way forever. But keep in mind that in the early days indeed there were only a handful of computers. And they were huge. And not everyone got to book time on them. So it seems likely to me we'll pass through a similar state with quantum computers.
2:28 AM, March 16, 2017
Unknown said...
I see no reason to assume the "simulators" would go to extraordinary lengths to hide the truth of the simulation from us. So what if we discover it? Perhaps that's the point? Maybe that's when we "win the game"?
Who knows? Maybe it's just experimental cosmology.
What I find compelling about the hypothesis is the Bayesian argument of 'If we could simulate a universe, then so could someone else, and therefore it's more likely than not we're already in one (and maybe they are too!).' Also, if there turns out to be no TOE, then a simulation run on piecewise, discrete functions seems a perfectly compelling hypothesis. There being of course, no evidence to suggest a "theory of everything" exists, and much evidence to suggest it doesn't.
PS It's trivially easy to hide "the truth" from scientists if you're God, just throw the tiniest bit of noise into something and subtle effects are swept right under the rug. Good luck with your 5-sigma if God's against you.
2:54 AM, March 16, 2017
Serafino Cerulli-Irelli said...
Sometimes we read that QM is like an 'operating system' (OS). I tend to agree with that. A question then arises. If QM is a sort of OS (superpositions, quantum darwinism, quantum non-separability, quantum contextuality, all those famous quantum principles, etc., are then routines or subroutines of that OS?) can we say that QM can ***not*** be, itself, a 'simulation'? It seems so, to me. (I remember that Einstein asked: Is the Old One [or the Great Simulator?] ***free*** to choose the physical laws?)
5:16 AM, March 16, 2017
akidbelle said...
Hi Sabine,
thanks for the post; I guess the laws of nature enabling a computer to simulate our universe would be very different.
Why would this law be more natural than the ones we believe we know? If not, no interest.
J.
7:02 AM, March 16, 2017
nicolas poupart said...
Serafino,
The OS metaphor is doubly wrong. First, QM is Turing complete and it's compares much more to a programming language than to an OS. Second, an OS suggests that there is something more fundamental and necessary to the QM existence and this proposition is false. The Turing machine demonstrates that computability emerges with a minimum of components, the QM does not need to be simulated, its simple existence is enough to generate the whole computability.
9:11 AM, March 16, 2017
mlmcl said...
The simulation notion conceals professional envy. As a life-long programmer, I relate, even if I don't sympathize. Compared to today's virtual worlds we find the universe doesn't hang, doesn't crash, doesn't run out of resources, and doesn't need maintenance. There are no race conditions, no corrupt variables, no unintended side-effects. But this is like comparing a photo of a tree to a tree, it's not an analogy that flows in the other direction.
The term "artificial intelligence" should be abandoned. When we create intelligence there will be nothing artificial about it. And there is no special reason to believe that we'll properly recognize it or fully understand it. Consider our failure to communicate with other intellectually advanced species, like whales and elephants. We do it on our terms, not theirs, despite decades of study.
9:26 AM, March 16, 2017
JimV said...
I enjoyed the post, and don't like the simulation hypothesis either, but (like another commenter above, but independently) would very much like to hear more about this: "Indeed, there are good reasons to believe it’s not possible. The idea that our universe is discretized clashes with observations because it runs into conflict with special relativity."
I had concluded (again as several commenters above) that any such simulation would have to be done in some higher-level universe with higher computational capacities, which takes it out of the realm of our science - however, I will say this: it is the first instance of a god-hypothesis (god as the entities in control of the simulation) which makes any sense to me. For example, a miracle (something not possible for the simulation's code to produce) could be done by the equivalent of hex-editing the data.
As for Penrose's argument, mentioned above, here's an algorithm he seems not to have considered:
1) Try something, even randomly, such as Edison's search for a practical light-bulb filament (not the first feasible thing, but the best thing he ever found in years of searching, was bamboo fiber).
2) If it doesn't work, try something else.
3) If it does work, write it down so future generations will know about it and go on to improve it.
That's how blind nature produced Penrose. It is also similar to the way Dr. Bee found some equation-solutions mentioned in her previous post.
10:06 AM, March 16, 2017
Richard Burke-Ward said...
Sabine, four things:
1. Physics is a mathematical that hopes to predict how the universe will behave on every level. In other words, it *encodes* the universe into algorithms. Our brains also encode what we perceive (differently). Language does the same (differently). We don't perceive raw reality, we perceive multiple, divergent encodings.
One of these coding systems is maths. But we don't know how the universe *is*, we only know how we perceive it. We codify inputs into things that mean something to us.
I am not a solipsist, mainly because I am not smart enough to understand how others codify reality. I can't experience how a physicist sees the curls and spirals that denote the decay of a charm quark; I can't experience the sensorium of a frog. But I can see these things happen. Therefore I am not alone.
I can only code (and therefore understand) things that are within the boundaries of my own physical, experiential limits. (These limits grow with time and experience.) The fact that I can see that there is a larger 'super-set' of coding systems - and that there are possibly *super*-super-sets beyond - is proof, to me, that there is no way to directly apprehend reality.
We can model reality's behaviour, somewhat, but we can't *experience* it in the raw.
So, we absolutely *do* live in a simulated universe. The question is, is it just a product of our moment-by-moment encoding, or is there some larger principle at work?
2. Sabine, you are quite right to say that it's mathematically impossible for a small fraction of the universe to be capable of perfectly simulating the entire universe it is part of - or, by extension, for that simulation to also contain another perfect simulation... But, like it or not, and however fuzzy the quantum edges might be, we do live in a granular universe. Our universe is not infinitely divisible.
So, what if the 'simulation' that we live in is actually more granular than the universe that created the simulation? What if any simulation *we* make is more granular than our own universe?
The paradox about universes-within-universes disappears. I haven't done any maths on this; but I assume you'd end up with a finite integral, even though there is an asymptotic infinity.
3. You make assumptions about *why* some entity would run a simulation: that it is in order to receive some expected or unexpected output - a 'result'. This is anthropomorphic, and may not be the case. I personally can't imagine any other reason; but then I am human, and my thinking is anthropomorphic by definition. It doesn't mean such reasons don't exist.
Maybe some meta-entity wants to know just how granular a simulation can become before it ceases to have meaning (on its layer of reality).
Maybe Boltzmann brains are real (in some finer-grained universe), and the 'brain' happened to emerge with a coding system that simulates the universe we experience. (If it didn't, we wouldn't be here.)
4. Why assume that the physics of our universe are the same physics as the universe running the simulation? Or even that the simulator-universe si part of our larger meta-verse? It could be something else entirely.
One other observation, from Iain M Banks's novel "Matter". The novel is an exploration of what a universal simulation might look like, and how we can be sure that what we experience is real. One character points out that the best argument *against* our universe being simulated is that we suffer. We experience (and inflict) pain, mortality, horror, grief.
What conceivable programmer could be so cruel?
Then again, we are talking by definition about things we cannot conceive.
Thanks Sabine, as always,
Richard BW
11:25 AM, March 16, 2017
Old Man said...
Bee
Your truth is your perception of reality interpreted by your human experience.
In a nutshell this means that every human brain is wired differently. This would require a simulation for not only every human on planet earth, but also every mammal and possibly every living thing.
david z
12:25 PM, March 16, 2017
Son Tran said...
Hi Sabine,
You are looking at it from very limited perspective. Had you ever thought of reading about Rene Descartes? Everything comes down to energy. Even a thought and idea is made of energy. And energy can be neither created nor destroyed; rather; it transforms from one form to another.
1:26 PM, March 16, 2017
APDunbrack said...
I think one should separate out two kinds of simulation arguments: anthropocentric and non-anthropocentric. The first sort, I think, is, while not entirely impossible, certainly implausible for a number of reasons you point out. Unfortunately, people tend to make their arguments for what we should do on this basis - "humans should be interesting" and so on. The second sort, I'll come back to.
There are also two ways to take simulation arguments: as science and as philosophy. The former is concerned with predictions from the hypothesis; the latter is concerned with arguments for or against the hypothesis as "true" (metaphysically). Many scientists, when discussing the simulation hypothesis, are doing so not as scientists, but as (typically naive) philosophers, dealing vaguely with ideas rather than actual concrete predictions (although there are a few who make predictions, whom you point out and whom I was previously unaware of).
That said: let's take a non-anthropogenic simulation hypothesis. I don't think this is entirely unreasonable; it just takes simulating a sufficiently complex universe. However, since we have no idea what people who simulate us are simulating (or what technology they're using to do it), that seems to tell us nothing new scientifically. Insofar as the nested-simulation-argument is valid, the simulation hypothesis makes no predictions.
My own issue with the argument in principle: you can then ask "what counts as a simulation." Sure, an actual computer simulation does - but what about a by-hand calculation of the same thing? What about mathematically solving the differential equations for the same phenomena, providing the same solution? What about just thinking about the solution? If a teacher teaches his students how to solve this differential equation, does that spawn a bunch of new universes? I think if you take this to its logical conclusion (combined with something like mathematical Platonism - things turn out differently if you think the math has to actually be discovered to exist), you find that universes can only be the laws themselves in some abstract sense, and you more-or-less end up being Max Tegmark. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but again, I think that ends up being unhelpful and unpredictive metaphysics rather than anything scientific.
4:26 PM, March 16, 2017
Count Iblis said...
We do live in our own brain's simulation of a virtual world based on real world information. What we experience is not the real world but the virtual world, albeit event in the two worlds are highly correlated (unless you suffer from schizophrenia). You can do simple experiments to verify this, e.g. optical illusions like this one
https://twistedsifter.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/optical-illusion-same-gray-color-thumb-over-middle.jpg?w=800&h=600
if you obscure the boundary between the two squares with a finger, then both squares become equally dark. Or take the McGurk Effect:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8vWm3m0
8:08 PM, March 16, 2017
Kaleberg said...
It helps also if you remember that simulating a brain doesn't mean simulating something that always gets right answers. Most conscious animals we know use a biologically implemented Bayesian scheme that only indirectly requires any QM effects. It's a pretty good scheme, but it isn't always right and isn't particularly "quantum".
9:18 PM, March 16, 2017
Dana said...
From what I understand the simulation hypothesis is supported by mathematics but is not science. It's not falsifiable from my understanding, it doesn't make any predictions which can yield a true or false discovery, it does not reveal anything new about the universe. It does imply a multiverse in my opinion.
The simulation hypothesis suffers from the same problem that the problem of other minds suffers from. It cannot be tested, it's not science, but is a thought experiment. You can create a proof or come up with probabilities but if it doesn't produce something testable by scientists, physicists in particular, then what good is it?
So we live in a simulation? So what?
10:23 PM, March 16, 2017
David Schroeder said...
While evidently not viable as a scientific theory, the simulation hypothesis would make a nice sci-fi background plot for a Star Trek episode.
5:59 AM, March 17, 2017
Uncle Al said...
@mlmcl... "Consider our failure to communicate with other intellectually advanced species, like whales and elephants. We do it on our terms, not theirs."
If cetaceans broadcast (encoded) sonar images, we are fools for assuming our linear versus their volumetric language. Perhaps lines of physical theory should be 2D+ε holographic projections (photographic thick emulsion versus binary optics embossed film) re Contact (1997) and the primer. Holograms do not calculate. Lenses do not calculate, but they lose phase information.
10:23 AM, March 17, 2017
Serafino Cerulli-Irelli said...
Nicolas [9:11 AM, March 16, 2017]. I can agree. QM compares more to a programming language (or a syntax or, maybe, a many-valued language like the Aymara language) than to an operating system. I also think that QM does not need to be simulated. I'm in trouble when I think about the very meaning of computation, in the QM context. What is computed? Information? What is information? How is this information Turing computable? Via wavefunctions? Another interesting subject is, of course, the Turing-Church-Deutsch principle, and related consequences. S.
11:44 AM, March 17, 2017
David Brown said...
"The idea that our universe is discretized clashes with observations because it runs into conflct with special relativity." If nature is a multiverse that needs to be explained in terms of a Fredkin-Wolfram network underlying the Planck scale, then all arguments involving energy, spacetime, and/or quantum information might be wrong unless justified by some approximation that uses Fredkin-Wolfram information. Google "einstein's field equations: 3 criticisms" for my viewpoint.
1:13 PM, March 17, 2017
Jonathan Miller said...
I never could tell the difference between 'the universe is a computer simulation' and 'there exists a god, and perhaps that god is even similar to one in one of our religions'. As a scientist I don't think it is an interesting hypothesis and as a practicing religionist, after a little thought, I concluded that it also wasn't relevant to my relationship with God. That doesn't mean that the hypothesis doesn't imply anything interesting to theologians or philosophers, for example it might imply that god (or that which is doing the simulation, to use less loaded language) wasn't perfectly omniscient/omnipotent.
3:34 PM, March 17, 2017
Unknown said...
The whole notion of creating an "artificial consciousness" in a simulation, including encoding a "sense of agency" and self-awareness, seems outlandish.
Many very smart physical scientists & engineers, who often have a reductionist world-view, seem to significantly misunderstand & underestimate the problem. Ray Kurzweil's "singularity" mumbo-jumbo also falls into that trap.
Consider the model organism, the nematode c.elegans. Every worm has an essentially identical "brain" of about 300 neurons. I believe its neural connections -- its "connectome" -- have been completely mapped.
Yet, how the connectome leads to the worm's most basic behaviours is poorly understood, eg see:
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2805%2900940-1?_returnURL=http%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0960982205009401%3Fshowall%3Dtrue
IMO a more likely scenario for "artificial consciousness" is creating a "chinese room" type of simulation. It might very well pass any Turing test, but it's still just an unconscious "chinese room".
-- TomH
4:37 PM, March 17, 2017
Steve said...
> If you try to build the universe from classical bits, you won’t get quantum effects, so forget about this – it doesn’t work. This might be somebody’s universe, maybe, but not ours. You either have to overthrow quantum mechanics (good luck), or you have to use qubits.
Actually, if you have exponential classical resources available, there's no problem. This was proved in one of the first papers on quantum computation: http://epubs.siam.org/doi/abs/10.1137/S0097539796300921
>But how does the programmer notice a simulated mind is about to notice contradictions and how does he or she manage to quickly fix the problem?
This also seems like a non-problem. If it's a simulation, it could simply be restored from an earlier state as necessary, like save-scumming.
>Besides, if the reason you build an artificial intelligences is consultation, making them believe reality is not what it seems is about the last thing you’d want.
However, I'm totally in agreement that the motivations of the programmers and hardware-owners are so bizarre and inexplicable as to throw the whole enterprise into serious doubt. Of what possible value is our universe to anyone who doesn't live here?
9:07 PM, March 17, 2017
Sabine Hossenfelder said...
Steve,
Yes, first statement was very sloppy, sorry :/ Quantum mechanics should be possible as long as you have some kind of non-locality (in a suitable 'space-time'), it's quantum field theory that nobody knows how to do from classical bits. Hence my remark 'good luck': it might not be impossible, but nobody knows how to do it, and it will take some work to convince anyone it can be done. (The issue of locality is a thorny one. I am not at all sure it's even possible to replace the actual 'space-time' with a made-up space-time since locality is basically what defines the thing which we call 'space-time'.)
Second, I don't see how this helps - you'll still have to do the calculation which is what you were trying to avoid in the first place.
Either way, the message I was trying to get across is that if one wants to claim we live in a computer simulation one has to show it's possible to reproduce our observations this way. That's not easy, and vague words won't do.
3:27 AM, March 18, 2017
Henning Dekant said...
Whenever somebody espouses the simulation hypothesis to me I have to remind myself to be tolerant of religion. It is after all no more or less absurd than the idea that some guy thousands of years ago was nailed to a piece of wood to wash away our sins (whatever that is supposed to mean).
6:21 AM, March 18, 2017
Rob van Son (Not a physicist, just an amateur) said...
@Henning Dekant
" It is after all no more or less absurd than the idea that some guy thousands of years ago was nailed to a piece of wood to wash away our sins "
Human sacrifice was quite common throughout human history. Nothing singular about this story I think. Just that this particular way of torture was a common way to execute criminals.
9:26 AM, March 18, 2017
gurugeorge said...
Two random comments:-
1) For me the simulation idea falls down with "combinatorial explosion", which Daniel Dennett talked about in Consciousness Explained when discussing the Brain-in-a-Vat idea. Something like what you said about the choices an intelligent mind is going to make - a simulation would have to "anticipate" all the possible choices, and the possible results of those choices, etc., etc., ad infinitum.
2) Re. AI, I think that even with the great strides machine learning has been taking recently, it's not going to amount to actual intelligence: that will require different AIs talking to each other and making their own world together. IOW, intelligence is partly a function of sociality, most of the most intelligent creates are intensely social animals (with the odd exception of the octopus).
11:56 AM, March 18, 2017
Count Iblis said...
It's not clear to me whether the result in the paper cited by Steve:
http://epubs.siam.org/doi/abs/10.1137/S0097539796300921
applies here. Suppose we just do a brute force simulation of QFT, just put everything on a lattice and compute the time evolution of the wave-functional. Then the classical simulation will yield a MWI-like evolution, you'll end up with different sectors that have a different classical history that you can assign probabilities to using Born's rule. But we're interested in the inside view, and at that level Born's rule doesn't apply because all sectors end up being simulated, an observer has equal probability to find him/herself in any of the sectors where he/she is present regardless of the complex numbers referring to amplitudes that are supposed to yield the probabilities for the sectors.
2:14 AM, March 19, 2017
Sabine Hossenfelder said...
Count,
What's the lattice spacing?
2:55 AM, March 19, 2017
Count Iblis said...
You want our familiar length scales like the size of atoms to be much larger than the lattice spacing. One should therefore tune the bare couplings of the model defined on the lattice such that our familiar physics appears at scales much larger than the lattice spacing. The lattice artifacts lead to irrelevant operators, so they then become invisible at the scales we can probe. This can be done by using a model that has a critical fixed point and choosing the bare parameters such that the RG flow will let you hover near that fixed point for a large number of RG steps before you veer off toward the Standard Model.
5:13 AM, March 19, 2017
Sabine Hossenfelder said...
Count,
As you have noted yourself, you can do it up to a limited precision, highlighting the problem I pointed out: How does the programmer in advance what precision is about to be tested and if the precision limit is reached, how does he-or-she know what data to fill in?
8:20 AM, March 19, 2017
Count Iblis said...
Sabine,
Of course, I don't believe it's true, but I guess that a simulation on a lattice would not allow field configurations to arise that correspond an observer breaching the limits of the simulation.
Another problem is that the simulation actually doesn't seem to matter. Suppose that you simulate the early universe just after the Big Bang for a few seconds and then you stop. We then don't seem to appear in that simulation. However, the universe as it exists today is obtained by applying the time evolution operator to the early universe. Therefore, that simulation of the early universe does contain us in a scrambled way. This suggest to me that the simulation wasn't necessary at all, leading me to Tegmark's mathematical multiverse.
4:34 PM, March 19, 2017
George Rush said...
Sabine H.>> I think most people are much smarter than many self-declared intellectuals like to admit. Most readers will instead correctly conclude that today’s intelligentsia is full of shit. - I agree 100% with this part, but not the rest. Thanks for your interesting post!
12:13 AM, March 20, 2017
zarzuelazen 27 said...
Hi Sabine, I feel you haven't fully grasped the implications of the theory that 'reality is information' (or reality is computation).
It's *not* saying that 'reality is a simulation'. No, it's saying something much more radical than that - it's saying that there is literally no difference between 'the real world' and 'a simulation'. It's saying that the whole notion of a 'real world' is meaningless - it's like the aesther and can be dispensed it. The idea is that there's no hardware at all, no 'base level' exists - it's all 'software'.
This can work by allowing the quantifier 'real' to be continuous instead of binary. Instead of 'real' as being a binary yes/no, we could think of 'real' as a continuous, like the brightness of a light bulb. Then the idea is that there are only *degrees* of reality, things are more or less real, but no 'base level' of reality is needed.
Some questions for you: Is a simulated hurricane a 'real' hurricane. Answer: To some degree yes. Is a simulated you, really you? Answer, again, to some degree yes, up to and including 100%.
Is the 'simulation' of a thing actually drawing that thing into existence, by making it more 'real'?
And now here's the really huge kicker for you, the 'astonishing thought': Is the creation of the universe really completed yet, or is it still going on?
Think: what happens when one part of the universe simulates another part? (Remember: 'real' can be a matter of degree, and the simulation of a thing can literally summon that thing).
12:38 AM, March 20, 2017
Sabine Hossenfelder said...
zarzuelazen,
I think you haven't fully grasped what this blogpost is about.
3:11 AM, March 20, 2017
qsa said...
Actually this issue I think is misunderstood. We do not need to simulate the whole universe to prove it. We only need the correct form of the theory of nature to calculate, let's say, interactions of 100 atoms to the experimental precision(all aspects). It is clear that present day theories are lacking, but it is very clear that today's theories are also very close. So obviously we are almost there to prove the simulation hypothesis, at least that it is possible(maybe by an advanced civilization that has solved the problems of the human ones).
8:12 AM, March 20, 2017
John Anderson said...
To paraphrase G. Orwell, "They must be real intellectuals, no ordinary person would believe such nonsense."
Quis simuladiet ipsos simulades?
Did J. A. Wheeler know bit from Shinola?
So many other interesting problems: dark matter, matter-antimatter asymmetry, measurement problem, dark energy, neutrino oscillations, etc.
9:09 AM, March 20, 2017
akidbelle said...
zarzuelazen,
in any case HW or SW or both, what does that change? That you and I can refer reality to some macroscopic category inherited from our immediate environment. Why would there be even the beginning of a similarity between that dichotomy and reality?
If only information and no substrate, then information is active and interacts: I do not name this information.
J.
12:17 PM, March 20, 2017
Sabine Hossenfelder said...
qsa,
if you think we're close to simulating the presently accepted fundamental laws of nature, I recommend you read my post again
12:28 PM, March 20, 2017
qsa said...
Sabine,
I have read the article(many of the same arguments elsewhere) and many of the comments. It would help if your objections are spelled out more explicitly. Thanks.
1:54 PM, March 20, 2017
nicolas poupart said...
The problem is a curriculum problem, computer scientists have to go to quantum computing courses (at least as an option) and physicists have to take courses in the theory of computation (at least as an option). It is indispensable that the notions of computable numbers, formal incompleteness, automatons, complexity of the calculation be well grasped by physicists. This to avoid reinventing the wheel and to marvel at what is obvious to the other.
2:56 PM, March 20, 2017
David Pearce said...
A nice post: thank you. One small correction: I've asked Nick several times over the years what credence he personally assigns to our living in an ancestor-simulation. He's never reported a figure higher than 20%. That's rather different from believing that if posthuman superintelligence runs ancestor-simulations, then the principle of mediocrity dictates we're probably one of them – which is Nick's view.
3:29 PM, March 20, 2017
margarita mc said...
Mmm. I've only recently started to read your (most enjoyable) blog as part of my self education in science, and so have never heard of the simulation hypothesis before today.
You wrapped up your piece with:
"Most readers will instead correctly conclude that today’s intelligencia is full of shit. And I can’t even blame them for it."
And I was relieved that you had written that, Sabine, because as I was getting to the end of the blog post the thought that was pounding in my head was, "Do people actually get PAID for thinking up this **##* stuff?!"
I'm far too well mannered to have written a comment saying what you yourself said - but it was marvellous to have it said for me!
5:49 PM, March 20, 2017
Uncle Al said...
@qsa, "interactions of 100 atoms to the experimental precision"
Orthorhombic sulfur: space group Fddd (#70); a = 10.4646 Å, b = 12.8660 Å, c = 24.4860 Å; α,β,γ = 90°, has 128 atoms in its unit cell (DOI: 10.1107/S0108270187088152). You might need more than 100 atoms given that sphere close packing is 74% occupancy and sulfur manages only 17%.
7:52 PM, March 20, 2017
Tom Aaron said...
Im a geologist.
On all of these issues I use a geologic timescale. We are still motes on a dot. In a thousanf years? A million? A billion?
We dont know what consciousness is. We don't yet have full AI. We still haven't had any interaction with some alien intelligence. The bottom line is we are primitive creatures. Proposing some type of simulation is just another level that our brains can 'sort of' get around...the same with multiverses, parallel universes, etc. There is ZERO evidence for it yet its tossed out as a possibility. Its akin to
Creationism...no less legitimate yet no more absurd. Nothing in the physical properties of the Universe suggest a god or a simulated existence. It needs not be refuted as there is nothing to refute.
The next hundred years are going to offer some exponentisl advancements in technology and our understanding of existence. We may discover that 'reality' is more mind blowing than the possibilities we toss out today like 'simulation'. Today we our frustrated by our physics and impatient but the legitimate answesr will still be evidence based.
7:54 PM, March 20, 2017
Sabine Hossenfelder said...
qsa,
I explained in my post that your argument 'we do not need to simulate the whole universe' is an unproved and non-trivial assertion, so is your belief that we can reproduce the presently accepted fundamental laws of nature (the standard model and general relativity) on computers. We can't. We can only approximate them. I don't know why you expect me to repeat this and I'm not interested in repeating it yet again.
3:39 AM, March 21, 2017
Scott said...
The notion that we have solved problems that can't be solved by algorithms seems suspect. What counts as a "solution?" As long as it can be described and verified in finite time, it can be found (after a very long time) by a simple trial and error algorithm. And if it can't be described and verified in finite time, then how can we claim to have solved it?
Proving a problem unsolvable isn't the same thing as solving it! The so-called halting problem is a great example. The name is misused; is the HP finding a general program for determining halting behavior, or is the HP determining whether such a program can be found? The latter is solvable and solved; the answer is no, which is why the former is not and cannot be solved. Claims that the HP is an unsolvable solved problem trade on confusion between these two definitions.
That being said, Penrose is a pretty brilliant mathematician, and I think this is evidence that these things are hard rather than that some people are stupid or malicious for believing false or confused statements.
This is actually why I take Bostrom seriously! I don't necessarily think his argument is right, but then I'm not sure HE does. The point of pushing an argument like this is to see where and how it fails. I'd argue that Sabine's criticism here only applies if the argument can't fail — if it can't, then it's "not even wrong" and so frivolous. But I think it can fail, and in interesting ways that can teach us something. The fact that it can't be rejected based on physical evidence doesn't mean it can't be rejected, nor that such a rejection would invalidate the exercise. This is how philosophy (and math, I should add!) makes progress. It's just as hard and just as important as physics, though I don't necessarily expect physicists to agree!
My favorite analogy is with go (or chess if you prefer). There are some moves that you don't ever see in a pro game because they end badly. But knowing that they end badly requires playing them out! That's what I think Bostrom is doing; or at least that's why I think what he's doing is valuable, even if it turns out he's a confused true believer.
I'd be happier if this post engaged with the actual probabilistic argument he makes. It's not trivial, it can be justified by certain assumptions, and those assumptions are accepted in some other contexts. The question is, why should we reject them in this context? I feel that Sabine has given only half an answer here, and has not done anything to link that answer, in a careful way, to Bostrom's actual claims. As someone who takes the call to quantify humanistic and philosophical arguments very seriously, I'm slightly bothered by this unwillingness to meet half-way.
3:41 AM, March 21, 2017
Sabine Hossenfelder said...
David,
I've read your comment 5 times, but failed to make sense of it, sorry. He believes we live in a simulation with 20% probability or he believes we probably live in one of them (assuming that 'probably' means 'with almost 100%')? Your comment seems to say both.
3:47 AM, March 21, 2017
Sabine Hossenfelder said...
Scott,
I think you misunderstood the message I tried to get across. It's not that I think it's uninteresting, or that nothing can be learned from it, or that one shouldn't try to estimate the probabilities. I'm saying if you want to do that, you have to take into account the physical laws that we have confirmed to high precision. That's a non-trivial requirement, and without demonstrating that you can actually reproduce all our observations the simulation hypotheses is merely fiction. Best,
B.
3:51 AM, March 21, 2017
Cairo Silver said...
What's wrong with treating the universe as a computer?
I mean, if you argued against it by saying 'So where is that computer? Inside another universe? Is that a computer? Computers all the way down?', that's a valid argument against it.
But otherwise if a universe works by fixed rules and does not deviate from them, what's wrong with calling it a computer? Is the problem that 'computer' seems too intentful a word?
5:12 AM, March 21, 2017
David Pearce said...
Sabine, apologies for the ambiguity. I just checked the Simulation Argument FAQ (last updated 2011). Nick explicitly states that he assigns a probability to the simulation hypothesis of something in the 20% region. This is quite consistent with believing that _if_ posthuman superintelligence runs full-blown ancestor simulations, then we probably inhabit one of them. Maybe such simulations will prove technically infeasible; maybe humans will shortly go extinct; maybe any posthuman superintelligence will find ancestor-simulations too unethical or uninteresting to run. Maybe (and this would be one of my doubts, not Nick's) phenomenally bound subjects of experience can't arise at different levels of computational abstraction. Either way, Nick is much more cautious than some of his popularisers. Compare Elon Musk's recent claim that the probability we live in basement reality is “one in billions”.
6:41 AM, March 21, 2017
Sabine Hossenfelder said...
David,
Ok, I see. My biggest issue with Nick isn't the number but that I think it would be wiser to not mix up the simulation hypothesis with existential risks that actually have a sound footing in science.
11:16 AM, March 21, 2017
Sabine Hossenfelder said...
Cario,
Why don't you read what I explained in my post: It isn't compatible with what we know about the laws of nature. Unless you can prove that it can be made compatible, it's merely a mildly interesting tale.
11:17 AM, March 21, 2017
Tom Aaron said...
Cairo...is the Universe a computer?
Maybe yes. maybe no. But evidence is needed. We have none.
We don't know what existence is so we don't know if it follows some rational process. Our senses perceive fragments of reality that our minds are capable of detecting. Our math and physics are akin to watching a baseball game. Everything seems rational to the fans watching. Patterns are just accepted and some theory might be developed about how the number of strikes relate to the number of outs, etc. However, when we stand back and ask someone who has never seen a baseball game if the patterns represent reality he would go 'huh?...it has nothing to do wih gathering coconuts'.
The computer model, simulation, etc. 'assumes' a greater grasp on existence than what we have. Its akin to the ancients assuming that some god is responsible for the annual seasons. We are are still clueless to the extent of knowledge that we dont know. There may be a simulated existence, there may be a Sun god, the Universe may be a cimputer but 'so what?'. No evidence for any of these. Zero. We have finite knowledge and, like baseball, it may be irrelevent in understanding the bigger picture.
11:52 AM, March 21, 2017
George Rush said...
Sabine, obviously we might "live in a simulation". OTOH obviously you know what you're talking about. So, there's an apparent contradiction.
Minimally, a virtual reality simulation has to reproduce my experiences - or, from your point of view, yours. Most people say their consciousness can't be simulated, but not you. So, surely you agree that you personally could be a "brain in a vat"? Unlikely, but doesn't violate any physical laws, right? Moving beyond solipsism, if it can do one human, it can do 7 billion. A few orders of magnitude extra sim power is no big deal. Now, let's consider some of your objections.
From your previous post on the subject, "To avoid the inconsistencies, you’ll have to carry on all results for all future measurements that humans could possibly make, the problem being you don’t know which measurements they will make because you haven’t yet done the simulation." I guess you're talking about (to take simple example) a classic spacelike-separated Alice & Bob EPRB gedanken? The sim can easily provide random spin up/down results for A and B. But later, when results are compared, they must be consistent, with the right correlations. If that's what you mean, I claim it's no problem, happy to explain why.
Not sure why you think sim has to look at "all future measurements" Alice and Bob might make. But the objection is easily disposed of. As far as we know there may be only one future path. The entire history of the universe may be pre-known: no calculation necessary, sim just looks it up in a large database.
Then you say: "But there is a better way to test whether we live in a simulation: Build simulations ourselves, ... Eventually, the ... lowest level will find some strange artifacts. Something that is clearly not compatible with the laws of nature they have found so far and believed to be correct." This is no argument against sim hypothesis. Leaving aside some (rather important) issues, there's no reason this scenario couldn't happen. It may seem "crazy", but that's no argument.
In this current post, you say "... there’s a trivial way in which the simulation hypothesis is correct: You could just interpret the presently accepted theories to mean that our universe computes the laws of nature. Then it’s tautologically true that we live in a computer simulation. It’s also a meaningless statement." Wrong, it's far from meaningless. If we really are brains in vats, fed by thick conduits carrying encoded qualia, generated by a physical computer of some sort, tended by insectoid alien programmers - that's non-trivial! If the computer happens to generate those inputs by solving Standard Model equations, so what?
You assume sim must use the most advanced technology we ignorant naked apes can (sort of) understand at this stage of our development: digital quantum computers. But we have no idea what powerful computing resources might be available to us 100 years from now, much less a million. We can't constrain hypothetical alien programmers to our primitive techniques.
Although you're aware that only human experience needs to be simulated, you seem to think in order to do that, simulation of the entire universe, at all scales, must ultimately be involved. As you show, with primitive digital quantum computers, that probably can't be done. But your assumptions are flawed.
The solution to the "apparent contradiction" mentioned above may be: you're really not debating whether sim is possible, logical, or reasonable. Instead, you're investigating whether we can prove it or not: whether it's a scientific hypothesis, in the Popperian sense. But before going on I'll wait for response (if, indeed, you consider it worthwhile). BTW I don't "believe in" sim: although there's absolutely no evidence against it, there's not much for it either. Thanks for your time.
3:04 PM, March 21, 2017
Sabine Hossenfelder said...
George,
"Although you're aware that only human experience needs to be simulated, you seem to think in order to do that, simulation of the entire universe, at all scales, must ultimately be involved. "
What I am saying is, if you believe you can get away with not simulating parts of the universe when some of your simulated consciousnesses - whose actions you can't predict - aren't trying to probe them, I want to see how you do this. Unless you demonstrate that, it's just bla-bla but nothing any scientist can take seriously. The idea that you can somehow produce an explanation for all our observations that does not require the laws of nature to be how we have extracted them today is an extraordinary claim and nobody should accept it without a very solid backing. Best,
B.
3:10 AM, March 22, 2017
Topi Rinkinen said...
Hi Bee,
Let's assume the universe could be described with set of equations, and an initial condition. Then there (outside of our universe) can be a number of computers which can run the simulation and all of them would get the same result (assuming the functions are predeterministic).
If the number of computers running this simulation is more than 1, could someone inside the simulation have means to check out how many computers there are runnig the simulation? I guess not.
If a number of those computers are running the simulation in synchronization (so that you and me are writing excactly the same letters in same their-time), and then one by one those computers are shut down. Would we notice any difference? Even when the last computer is shut down? I believe not.
What if the equations are such, that the simulation can be done in kind of frequency domain (as opposed to time domain). What would be the point in time (in the simulating computer's wolrd time) that I press this T-letter? It's an ill-defined question.
If the frequency domain simulation was such that it could be distributed to several computers, which could run in parallel or totally in different times. How would it affect our capability of detecting the simulation? I'd say we couldn't sense it.
What if someone invented the equations, and started simulation in frequency domain, but aborted it after running a small part of it. Would we exist, and could we feel the simulation is incomplete? I say no, even if the small part is like one millionth of the whole simulation.
And the logical next question is, is there a need to start the simulation for us to feel our own existence? Or is there a need to "invent" the equations in the first place, for our everyday feelings?
...
Редактирано от Mod vege на 13.04.17 02:37.
| |
|
Тема
|
Part2:Comments "No, we probably don’t live in a.."
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 13.04.17 02:38 |
|
|
BR, -Topi
3:51 AM, March 22, 2017
George Rush said...
Sabine, it's quite plausible the sim could predict everyone's actions. Indeed, the entire future (not just human actions) may be pre-determined. Isn't Block Universe the most popular model among physicists today? If spacetime is static, sim would just be running a pre-recorded script. IOW humans would have no free will. Why are you so sure that, on the contrary, they do? Unless you demonstrate that, it's just bla-bla but nothing any scientist can take seriously. I won't address other points now, since this one is rather important. BTW Of course a sim must follow the laws of nature as we understand them. They simply describe - to pretty good accuracy - what we observe, and that's exactly what the sim must reproduce. Thanks, George
6:58 AM, March 22, 2017
Sabine Hossenfelder said...
George,
Please read more carefully. That something is determined doesn't mean it can be predicted.
That you accuse me of being sure that humans have free will is another demonstration how quickly people jump to mistaken conclusions about my presumed opinions.
Actually the simulation doesn't have to follow the laws of nature that we know - another sloppy misreading of yours. It has to, erm, simulate them. And therein lies the problem. If you still haven't understood why that's nontrivial, please re-read my blogpost.
7:22 AM, March 22, 2017
Steven H. Roemerman Sr said...
Sabine,
Thank you for this. I've been saying this for a long time. But it sounds more convincing coming from you.
11:42 AM, March 22, 2017
Srk9 said...
I think your argument is flawed. This explains why:
http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2010-11-09
Computing devices outside could be far more powerful than those inside. The simulation also need not run in real time or model the same universe. The simulated physics in a computer simulation containing sentient beings are the laws of physics as far as they are concerned. Also, WRT running in realtime, keep in mind that Turing completeness allows any language to simulate any other language, but makes no time guarantees.
Your argument is weak because you are trying to discredit something that is unfalisible.
12:01 PM, March 22, 2017
_Shorty said...
You're basing your opinion on what you know, and/or what you think you know. The fact that the computer you wrote this blog/rant on wouldn't be able to simulate the universe doesn't mean it is impossible for a computer that could to ever exist. The fact that something seems complicated to you doesn't mean it is complicated, period. Everything's relative. ;) The computer you wrote this blog/rant on is absolutely insane compared to computers 50 years ago. And in five years it'll be a piece of crap. Again, basing your opinion on the current capability of the computers we have now makes no sense. The fact that we think the universe is complicated and that we don't know how it all works does not mean that it couldn't be simulated by a computer more advanced than computers we have now, programmed by "people" or AI more advanced than us.
"If you try to build the universe from classical bits, you won’t get quantum effects, so forget about this – it doesn’t work." Unless you program it to do so. You don't seem to be too familiar with how computers work, frankly. Basically, your argument is similar to saying we can't have fractional numbers in computers because it is only 1s and 0s. Just because you don't know how to program something doesn't mean nobody else could be able to figure out how to program a solution to that problem either. There is absolutely nothing about the nature of quantum mechanics that would be restricted by a binary computer. And there's absolutely nothing saying a simulation has to be running on a binary computer as we know them, either. Sorry, but basically your whole rant is summed up by "I don't know computers very well, so it can't be computers." Makes no sense.
12:22 PM, March 22, 2017
Sabine Hossenfelder said...
Srk9,
So, erm, what is it then? My argument is flawed or it is weak? As to your first "criticism", you seem not to have read anything I wrote, you just produce further "it might be so or so". Write it down, demonstrate that you can reproduce the standard model and general relativity, then come back.
As to your second comment, I am not trying to discredit it, I just did.
12:24 PM, March 22, 2017
Sabine Hossenfelder said...
Shorty,
So what do you recommend? That I base my opinion on what I don't know? Like the people who believe that the universe can be simulated on a computer but who don't bother to find out whether the laws of nature actually can be simulated?
Having said that, you are assigning opinions to me that I don't hold. I'm not saying it's not possible that some day some being somewhere might be able to simulate a reality like the one we experience. I am saying that this claim isn't supported by what we presently know. It's speculation. It's a mildly interesting fiction. But not science.
12:29 PM, March 22, 2017
_Shorty said...
Anything can be simulated. You need to stop thinking that something can't be simulated because your Dell is a binary computer. There is a reason I quoted that specific sentence of yours. Because it is wrong. Absolutely nothing about a binary computer restricts it from simulating the probabalistic location of an electron. Why you would think it does is beyond me. Like I said, you don't seem to understand how computers and/or programming works. Your opinion is most certainly based on that fact. But even learning a tiny little bit about computer programming would show you how that opinion is not a very good one.
12:34 PM, March 22, 2017
George Rush said...
You say "if something is determined doesn't mean it can be predicted". Well, no, but it sure makes it a lot easier! Look, forget that superfluous word "determined". The question is: is it reasonably possible that sim could predict human actions? I re-read your blogpost, as requested. Here's the only relevant statement: "If the programmer could predict in advance what the brain will investigate next, it would be pointless to run the simulation to begin with." Fine, I can't think of a better argument. But surely we don't want to try to guess the hypothetical motives of a hypothetical programmer?
Re. "accuse" and "sloppy" - fortunately I deal with young people all the time, and know how easily you guys take offense. (I was much, much worse at your age.) You were saying human actions can't be predicted. Incorrectly, but reasonably, I equated that with free will. Apparently you don't believe in that. It would be best to merely say so - don't you agree? Ok, forget free will. No problem. But then, you can't use it to deny the prediction hypothesis.
Conclusion: as far as we know, it is indeed possible that sim can predict human actions. If not, please give some logical justification for your view. At the moment I have no idea what it would be.
You say "Actually the simulation doesn't have to follow the laws of nature that we know - another sloppy misreading of yours." No, it's not sloppy misreading, but sloppy language. I meant that its results must "follow" those laws, not that its unknown physical mechanism must obey the laws of our universe (which is obviously wrong).
You say "If you still haven't understood why that's nontrivial [simulating the laws of the universe], please re-read my blogpost." Ok, I did. Of course it's nontrivial for us, with our primitive computers, but sim could be (let's say) 10^100 times more powerful. It can merely solve those exact laws - not for the whole universe, just for the observations made by humans. You seem to think that implies space and/or time must be discrete. No, it doesn't - as Aristotle pointed out long ago. Happy to explain his (correct) reasoning, if you wish.
Certainly, you have some knowledge about this issue I don't. Let me admit that right up front. OTOH there may be things I know that you don't. That's conceivable, isn't it? At my age, the goal of conversation is not to prove who's got the bigger {whatever}, but to learn - and, to teach. To share information, achieving a consensus opinion if possible. Doesn't that make sense?
12:59 PM, March 22, 2017
George Rush said...
Sabine,
I googled you and found some really awful things from Lubos Motl. I see also you're arguing with Scott Aaronson. Finally, some on this blog are hassling you. Obviously you're very busy and have more important irons in the fire than me. It's understandable that your patience wears thin. Please don't feel obligated to address my points, it's not important. Although I don't happen to agree, I admire your taking a stance and fighting it out. Someday when you have the time I'd like to continue our conversation. Good luck, and best wishes ...
George Rush
4:11 PM, March 22, 2017
Joscha Bach said...
Dear Sabine,
Your post raises a multitude of very different and controversial points. This makes it very exciting (and the comments heated). Thank you for the brainfood!
1. Computational vs. computable:
A lot of readers point out that any physical theory is a computational theory, i.e. that the standard model and general relativity describe the universe as computational, even though it might not be (Turing) computable. A quantum computational universe would arguably be in BQP, i.e. it is effectively computable but not efficiently. The universe could also be hypercomputational (for instance because it is continuous or even acausal), but while that would be bad news for current computer science, it means that it is possible to physically implement hypercomputers or acausal computers (and universe-simulations), no?
If the universe is not computational, what else would it be? Is it possible to express a noncomputational theory of the universe in a formal language, or to even think about it?
2. Must the universe be computable?
Digital physics seems to be a minority position, and fraught with difficulties. I think it is great that you take a strong stance and argue that it is impossible in principle, for instance because Lorentz symmetry can in principle not result from discrete operations. I am not a physicist, but it seems to me that this is a highly surprising result and not trivial to prove, regardless of the difficulties to get discrete models to work. Until such a proof exists, it seems to me that rejecting digital physics may be justified only pragmatically?
3. Methodology of philosophy:
In the face of the absence of a generally accepted proof that the universe is uncomputable, and a considerable community that thinks it is: is it acceptable to consider the implications of a computable model without having solved the problem of deriving the standard model in that framework? This seems to be unfair to ask of a philosopher.
4. Simulation vs. computation:
If the universe is computable, it does not follow that it is a simulation. Even the inverse is not true, i.e. if the universe implements hypercomputational capabilities, then it is not clear why no hypercomputer running a universe simulation can be built.
But if we grant that the universe is computational or even computable, it is still extremely unlikely to be a simulation. I think here you have the strongest point to make against Bostrom: if the universe is a simulation, it is probably not one that is run by a posthuman civilization to learn about its own evolutionary history, because generating a googillion galaxies for the sake of simulating part of a planetary surface for a few thousand years is implausible.
5. Artificial intelligence:
You write "It’s not that I believe it’s impossible to simulate a conscious mind with human-built ‘artificial’ networks – I don’t see why this should not be possible. I think, however, it is much harder than many future-optimists would like us to believe. Whatever the artificial brains will be made of, they won’t be any easier to copy and reproduce than human brains. They’ll be one-of-a-kind. They’ll be individuals."
As a computer scientist, I find this baffling. If you build a neural network, even a very large one, what will make it hard to copy and reproduce it?
4:20 PM, March 22, 2017
Delta said...
A lovely rant!
P.S.: intelligencia -> intelligentsia
4:25 PM, March 22, 2017
Steve Baker said...
The simulation hypothesis seems feasible to me. BUT it's probably unfalsifiable...which means we probably shouldn't worry about it because it's up there with religion, the tooth fairy and other unfalsifiable things.
I think I see things in the laws of physics that a computer programmer would have thought to be a good thing to do. Having a finite speed of light, for example, makes parallelism in the calculations much easier and provides for a natural "edge" to the observable universe without needing a "wall" or some other unlikely-seeming boundary. The Big Bang is another handy thing - it provides a finite limit to history and a simple way to populate the simulated universe with fun "stuff" without hard-coding it all.
The fuzzy nature of things that happen at quantum scales just screams "round off error" to me - and although the things we know about what happens at those tiny scales don't really match the nature of the digital computers we've made - that doesn't make much difference. The laws of physics in the "parent" universe would have to be a lot different from ours in order for them to have the computing power they'd need. So all bets are off.
But all of this is essentially unfalsifiable. So we should make a note of an interesting hypothesis - and get on with figuring out what we can about the universe as we see it.
If evidence ever does come to light to prove that we're in a simulation - then we can start to be concerned about it.
5:02 PM, March 22, 2017
Stephen Pirie said...
Sabine
No need to be annoyed, the idea (our universe is a simulation) is easily dismissed.
The idea that we exist in a simulation rests on the ability to objectify (apply an algorithm to) the infinite. To objectify requires one to be apart from that which is being objectified.
But to be apart from the infinite means being outside of it, and "it" extends everywhere. Max Planck explained this simply with his "we can't get behind consciousness".
In other words, the infinite is consciousness and it is "immathematical", it's the realm in which poets, writers, artists, creatives, inventors dwell (but not too long, lest they be locked up in a mental health care facility, as more often happens to artists and the like). It is a realm that cannot be thought (reasoned) it can only be felt.
It is not a rational (computational) dimension. Both "reason" and "rational" have the Latin root "ratio" - in other words, the rational and the reasonable are subsets of a greater immathematical ground.
I think Bohm came to this realization, when he wrote that "The actual operation of intelligence is thus beyond the possibility of being determined or conditioned by factors that can be included in any knowable law ... Intelligence is thus not deducible or explainable on the basis of any branch of knowledge (e. g. physics or biology). Its origin is deeper and more inward than any knowable order that could describe it."
Artists get it. Bohm got it, as did Planck. Maybe those who conjecture the universe is a simulation will eventually "get it" as well, when they discover the poetic, the artistic within themselves.
The writers of "Contact" also "got it" when they had Jodie Foster, in a state of reverie, lament "they should have sent a poet".
7:02 PM, March 22, 2017
mark said...
I cant believe I missed the news that epistemology had finally been sewn up.
Let the kids have some fun.
9:58 PM, March 22, 2017
Cairo Silver said...
Sabine, if it comes down to 'Why don't you read what I explained' you're either tired from the day and don't have enough energy for charity (understandable, happens to us all), or you just decided to read uncharitably.
How do you prove the thing you're sitting in front of now is a computer? Then I'll know what you accept as a proof.
11:17 PM, March 22, 2017
Sabine Hossenfelder said...
_Shorty,
It is evident from your comment that you don't have the faintest idea what I'm talking about to begin with. The logic of your argument goes like this: Because I can calculate the outcome of a Bell-type experiment on my laptop this means quantum mechanics is a classical, local theory. Hey, I have broken physics! Please line me up for the Nobel!
Look, I don't have to know how a computer works to tell you what you can't and can't do with classical, local operations. For me a computer is just another model for reality, and models for reality is what I deal with for a living. I am sincerely sorry to hurt your computer scientist's pride, but in the end it's all physics. Now go and look up Bell's theorem. If you manage to disprove it, please publish your results and then come back.
I have no clue what you think my age has to do with any of that.
4:19 AM, March 23, 2017
_Shorty said...
I said nothing about your age.
I'll say this again. This:
"If you try to build the universe from classical bits, you won’t get quantum effects, so forget about this – it doesn’t work."
shows that *you* don't know what you're talking about. The fact that you don't know why doesn't mean it isn't so. Sorry, but that's the truth. You don't know what you're talking about, or that sentence wouldn't have come from you.
5:01 AM, March 23, 2017
Ashutosh Rai said...
Sabine,
As far as I get it, I think your main argument is the complexity of simulating the physical laws as we observe them. But is it not possible that the actual physical laws are much more complex, and we have no way to probe them (because we are in a computer) and what is our universe is actually a much smaller part of the world of the future beings? That is, they don't have to simulate the whole universe or all of its laws for us to be in the simulation.
6:23 AM, March 23, 2017
Jim Cross said...
I think of the simulation hypothesis as philosophical speculation and don't try to apply science to it.But if you want to do that I wouldn't disagree with your main points.
You wandered off the main point into some other areas about artificial brains and consciousness.
We will likely create (and to a big extent already have) hardware/software that do very specialized complex tasks - for example, drive a car. However, even when I drive a car, most of what I do is unconscious. Recently my consciousness is much more focused on listening to Warren Zevon while I commute to work and the actions of driving are almost automatic. Much of what the human brain does is not conscious.
So what would it mean to simulate consciousness? Do we mean that the artificial brain would possess qualia? Or are we simply saying the artificial brain has acquired some critical threshold of abilities to perform complex tasks that it now seems to be conscious?
6:44 AM, March 23, 2017
Sabine Hossenfelder said...
_Shorty,
You're right to the extent that my sentence failed to spell out explicitly that I was assuming the underlying interaction is local. You can do it classically if non-local. In that case, however, nobody knows how to get quantum field theory - see my note added. If you believe that you can prove it can be done, please enlighten us how, because we poor and stupid physicists haven't figured out how to do it. It's pretty clear though from your previous comments that you don't even understand the problem.
7:23 AM, March 23, 2017
_Shorty said...
Anything you understand can be modeled on a computer. Whether a computer/network fast enough and large enough exists today isn't relevant. And just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it is impossible for anyone to ever understand it. I know full well that you know more about physics than I ever will. This does not change the fact that anything that is understood can be translated to a computer algorithm and thus simulated on a computer. And, no, I'm not saying *we* understand everything that would be required to build a simulation of our universe. What I am saying is that if it were understood well enough it could be simulated. The only things we couldn't simulate would be the things we do not know enough about. "Classical bits", as you want to call them, are just fine and dandy. Modelling the behaviour you want is not limited by "classical bits." It doesn't matter if "classical bits" are not "quantum bits." You can still descrive quantum behaviour via "classical bits." You just need to know how to write a suitable algorithm. Just because you don't understand how to write it doesn't mean it is impossible to write. Anything can be modeled. Anything. As long as you understand what it is you're trying to model.
7:53 AM, March 23, 2017
Sabine Hossenfelder said...
_Shorty,
I give up. I merely post your last comment to demonstrate the communication failure.
7:56 AM, March 23, 2017
_Shorty said...
Keep it simple then. The two-slit experiment's results are due to quantum effects, correct? As I understand what you're saying, you believe you cannot model that experiment on a computer with "classical bits." Is that not what you're saying? Because that sure seems to be what you're saying.
8:02 AM, March 23, 2017
Sabine Hossenfelder said...
_Shorty,
Seriously? After all I've explained you didn't even bother to look up Bell's theorem?
8:07 AM, March 23, 2017
_Shorty said...
No need to look up anything. You think because you can't do something, nobody can. Not even someone with more knowledge and technology than you. *shrug* I honestly do not know how you cannot get that through your head. You are saying "I personally don't know how to do "A" right now. So nobody anywhere ever will be able to, either. Because the knowledge I possess right now says to me that it is impossible, and that means it will always be impossible." Scienticians. Heh.
8:26 AM, March 23, 2017
Sabine Hossenfelder said...
_Shorty,
As I said, you're welcome to try. But unless you manage to come up with a way to circumvent Bell's theorem, I can't take your claims seriously. (Neither will any other physicist.)
8:31 AM, March 23, 2017
_Shorty said...
As I said, you just don't get it. Your argument is no different than someone from 15,000 years ago thinking it is impossible for people to fly, so nobody will ever fly. And yet, planes.
The fact that you personally can't build a universe simulator right now because you can't see how it could possibly be done doesn't mean the universe you're in can't be a simulated one. It could be. You don't know. There's tons of crap you don't know. Just like everyone else. Your argument that it is impossible because you don't understand how it could be possible makes no sense. I'm no physicist, but I get that. Da plane, boss! Da plane!
8:52 AM, March 23, 2017
JimV said...
"Because the knowledge I possess right now says to me that it is impossible, and that means it will always be impossible."
a) That is a gross mischaracterization of what Dr. Hossenfelder has said.
b) In fact, certain things *have* been proved to be impossible, and will always be impossible. For a trivial example, if N is an integer, N*N+1 (N-squared plus one) will never have three as a factor. (Therefore you should read and understand Bell's Theorem.)
c) If your counter-position is that anything that seems impossible now might be possible in the future, that is an example of an unfalsifiable hypothesis (as long as the future of the human species still exists), which science has long known are not worth considering.
9:39 AM, March 23, 2017
Plato Hagel said...
Interesting analysis.
The interesting thing I find is that in order to valid the world as a "real object," we are using data from our measures. So how you use that data reinforces the belief that what is real, conforms to the data from the measures you use. But you create measure in order to validate? You see the circle?
So data "as information" may be called bits? You may not like to call bits data, so is there some "other way" information can be represented?
Consciousness, implies a range of perception that the mind is capable of? Any physical object, is focused reality conforming toward objectification. Consciousness creating measure is a subjective perception is what the mind created?
10:00 AM, March 23, 2017
Sabine Hossenfelder said...
_Shorty,
I am not saying it's not possible that we live in a simulation. I am saying that it's a non-trivial statement that isn't easy to make compatible with all we know about the laws of nature. Or some of us know, anyway.
It is really remarkable that you continue to talk down to me after you've just publicly demonstrated your utter ignorance of even basic physics.
11:25 AM, March 23, 2017
Bill said...
Hello Ms Hossenfelder,
I read your interesting blog post. I have to say, I am interested in physics but being a mechanical engineer I can't claim to understand even a tiny percentage of what you are. I'm here to make a question on the topic. I remember this from when it got published a couple of years ago: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1210.1847.pdf
It is supposed to be an effort to devise a scientific way that will lead to experimentation that will help us understand whether we live in a simulated universe or not. Not sure about the results, etc. Can't even understand the essence of the paper. Can you tell me if it holds any worth? Also, would there be any way that we can work our way scientifically to set up an experiment that will give us indications towards one way or the other? Because from your ramblings, I understand that you think we are not working on that direction, but follow a sallow approach of belief. Is it possible that we can prove one or the other, or do you feel this will remain a philosophical question that scientists should leave aside for now?
Thank you :)
12:28 PM, March 23, 2017
Stephen Pirie said...
_Shorty
"Anything can be modeled. Anything"
Rubbish. Actually, "Complete and utter rubbish".
Tell you what, why don't you disprove not only Bell's Theorem, proving that local reality is unable to explain the world we experience, but also Gödel' Incompleteness, Heisenberg's Principle of Indeterminism, and Chaitin's Randomness Theorem, in which he states "some mathematical facts are true for no reason, they are true by accident, or at random. In other words, God not only plays dice in physics, but even in pure mathematics, in logic, in the world of pure reason. Sometimes mathematical truth is completely random and has no structure or pattern that we will ever be able to understand."
If you think you can model randomness, not some computer generated randomness, but the genuine thing, go for it.
When you're done doing that, go off and model the infinite. Report back when you're done. After which you'll need to again model, and thereafter, yet again, and again and again (ad infinitum).
3:54 PM, March 23, 2017
_Shorty said...
I continue to talk down to you because you don't understand everything you think you do, as smart as you think you are. I know something you don't know. And it is eating you up inside. And you don't like that. Because you think I'm not anywhere near as smart as you. And that's why you continue to respond. Because you hate it. And can't leave it be.
I'll remind you, you don't know what knowledge I possess. You only know what I allowed you to see. You know, with my free will. hahahaha
4:02 PM, March 23, 2017
Sabine Hossenfelder said...
_Shorty,
I am posting your comments because you highlight the problem my post was alluding to. People talking about physics without knowing a thing about it to begin with. Do you realize at all that you're making an idiot out of yourself by proclaiming you can disprove Bell's theorem while at the same time demonstrating you don't even know what the theorem says?
3:08 AM, March 24, 2017
_Shorty said...
And yet, you don't understand something so simple. I thought you were supposed to be smarter than me? Confounded by an "idiot." Hilarious. With every interaction you confirm the stuff your "peers" publicly say about you. Quite entertaining. :)
6:45 AM, March 24, 2017
Qwertie said...
I winced when I heard Neil deGrasse Tyson supporting this harebrained idea.
My problem with the simulation hypothesis is that - even if there is some way to simulate a large space including quantum effects, or even if there is some way to deceive the brains in the simulation into thinking this is what is happening, it would be prohibitively expensive computationally.
In our universe, a simulator is necessarily much larger than that which is simulated. Wouldn't a computer builder in the outer universe have the same problem?
The usual way we deal with this problem is to make a simulated universe extremely simple compared to the real world, and certainly no more complex than necessary. Thus, for example, a first-person shooter doesn't simulate the inner workings of a person; the model of a person is no more complex than a single (classical) molecule in term of its physical behavior, and things like air, walls and mountains are merely drawn, not physically simulated.
Even if our universe were classical, it is hard to overstate how simple and inadequate our own computer simulations are compared to what we would need to accurately simulate, say, the inner workings of a tiny speck of dust. We can't simulate a single bacterium at the atomic level; simulating individual proteins is a big challenge. So our technology - which is perhaps far from theoretically optimum, but not *that* far - requires, what? A processor trillions of times larger than the space being simulated? Just for a classical simulation. Presumably the outer universe could have more a favorable ratio between the size of the computer and the amount of matter in the simulated space, but that ratio would surely remain above 1, wouldn't it?
There are two possibilities. Either the "programmer" is trying hard to deceive scientists, or else the physical laws and facts inferred by scientists are real. And the facts are these: scientists have inferred a universe whose complexity at the smallest scales is dramatically, even unfathomably, greater than what is actually necessary for micro-organisms (let alone humans) to exist, and whose size at the largest scales is not only beyond our ability to imagine, but indistinguishable from infinite.
It seems therefore that we can rule out the second possibility; surely the size of "the matrix" is not virtually infinite, especially since that implies it took a virtually infinite length of time to build it. The only remaining possibility is that the "programmer" (we should really call him "The Architect" - have you not seen The Matrix?) is intentionally deceiving us.
But if one of the goals is to deceive scientists into thinking we are not in a simulation, why work so hard at it? If "the architect" were doing enough simplifications to make the simulation tractable (such as running a classical simulation with an "ether", no relativity, etc.) why bother to fool us into believing we're in a dramatically more complex universe than we are actually in? If our laws of physics were much simpler, all the processes of life could still be possible, and the simplifications wouldn't make it any harder to deceive us. The only things that really need to be "covered up" are simplifications that can only be explained by positing a computer that simulates our universe.
And finally, what would be the point of deceiving us in the first place?
Some people bizarrely seem to think that quantum effects are evidence of a lossy "compression algorithm" that makes the simulation more tractable. The reality of course is that quantum effects make everything more complex and harder to simulate, not easier. Evidence of lossy compression artifacts have never been seen.
8:30 AM, March 24, 2017
Qwertie said...
This Shorty, huh? I could ask him why people are working so hard to build large and expensive quantum computers with modest, non-general-purpose computing abilities if classical computers are all one could ever need. I could point out that as a computer engineer who recently took a course in quantum computation, I might even have a clue about this. But I certainly have no desire to talk to him.
However, if Bell's theorem just says "No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics" (Wikipedia) I don't see how it is necessarily a roadblock for making a simulation. The "outer" universe could play by different rules, allowing instant data transmission across arbitrary distance, for instance. What I can't fathom is why, if this is The Matrix, our universe would be unimaginably large and the laws of physics would be absurdly hard to simulate.
11:16 AM, March 24, 2017
Sabine Hossenfelder said...
Qwertie,
Yes, indeed! The 'real' universe could work by other laws than ours. And these more fundamental laws could be used to give rise to the laws we observe. Which is exactly what theoretical physicists have been working on for decades...
11:48 AM, March 24, 2017
Bill Toulas said...
Hey Qwertie
Just some questions here. Why would you say that our universe is unimaginably large? For whose imagination is this claim valid? For ours? Why would that matter for the creator of the simulation? This simulation may not even have to do with us at all. Did that occur to you at all? Also, why do you suggest that the simulation should have laws of physics that are easy to simulate? Do you suggest that what we see as "hard" would also be hard for the creator of such a simulation? I wouldn't think so personally. Also, you said something about "very expensive to simulate" on a previous comment. Yeah, having a smartphone in the 80ies would be absurdly costly, but now it costs just $50. You say you studied quantum computing. What if the creator uses something relevant to this technology, or even something more advanced? Wouldn't that make a simulation much much cheaper to run?
11:52 AM, March 24, 2017
Koenraad Van Spaendonck said...
If there is such an entity as a creator who simulates 'all of it', then i would personally be more interested in the constitution of that creator, since he would be the only 'real' stuff around. Which means the simulation is the boring part of the quest, haha.
1:56 PM, March 24, 2017
Stephen Pirie said...
I agree with Sabine, I think the majority here are either ill-informed or ignorant of the deeper implication of quantum physics.
E.g. _Shorty, and all those who "think" that we or someone may one day, or is simulating or modeling reality.
As physicist Dr Bernard Haisch points out "the Leggett inequality that was recently measured ... rules out any possible interpretation other than consciousness creates reality when the measurement is made."
Max Planck said simply, "we cannot get behind consciousness".
Likewise David Bohm, "the operation of intelligence ... is deeper and more inward than any knowable order that could describe it"
Likewise physicist Freeman Dyson "Quantum mechanics makes matter even in the smallest pieces into an active agent, and I think that is something very fundamental. Every particle in the universe is an active agent making choices between random processes"
What the mechanically minded responding on this topic don't or refuse to appreciate is - as Dyson explains - all of reality is collapsing the wave-function, all the way down to the smallest particle, and as per David Deutsch's "shadow photons", those as well.
No one will ever, ever, ever simulate all of the individual particles, including the shadow particles in the multi-verse collapsing the wave-function in their own special way, according to constraints and systems within which they operate.
As Dyson also explains "consciousness is not just a passive epiphenomenon carried along by the chemical events in our brains, but is an active agent forcing the molecular complexes to make choices between one quantum state and another. In other words, mind is already inherent in every electron, and the processes of human consciousness differ only in degree but not in kind from the processes of choice between quantum states which we call 'chance' when they are made by electrons."
I share Sabine's frustration, but due to the fact that those who are mechanically minded (those who believe or even conjecture that one day we or someone can simulate the process of choice being performed by each particle in the universe, and multiverse), and who have not availed themselves of the quantum evidence, are also people who are helping shape societies. And that affects all of us, to our detriment.
For all those mechanically-minded folk, here's a question: What reaches into the infinite recesses of possibility to begin the collapse of the wave-function (from possibility to actuality). See my diagram on this https://stephenpirie.com/sites/all/files/simple-tools-fig.6b.png
What "mechanism" can do that?
What reaches into the unutterable, unspeakable, "immathematical" depths of existence, and does that, again and again, trillions of times each second?
If you want an answer, the quickest pathway is to ask an artist, poet, or anyone who is intuitively, precognitively gifted. Then go and study the real implications of quantum physics, and marry the two (left and right hemispheres in your heads), rather than being imprisoned in your left-hemispherical world of numbers, names and notions.
6:41 PM, March 24, 2017
JimV said...
"However, if Bell's theorem just says "No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics" (Wikipedia) I don't see how it is necessarily a roadblock for making a simulation." (Qwertie)
I think the point was that the simulation would require qubits, not classical bits.
As for computers getting better and cheaper, Moore's Law or any exponential law works in the earlier stages of growth and development, but cannot go on forever, and I think physics dictates that Moore's Law is just about done. (Circuit sizes in the range of small numbers of atoms.) Then going to qubits would require maintaining temperatures near absolute zero, which will add huge costs (outer space itself in Earth's vicinity is too hot for good efficiency). Finally, as mentioned in previous comments, the ability to simulate every parameter (mass, energy, spin, etc.) of every particle in the observable universe (so that wherever we look we find no glitches) is mathematically impossible in this universe. One must postulate a higher universe with magical capabilities, total unobservable and forever unknown to us, with incomprehensible motives (since if we want to simulate, say, the collision of two black holes for scientific purposes, there is no need to model ants as part of the simulation - or people either, which would also look like ants to such simulators). As also mentioned before, speculations involving unobservable, unknowable, and incomprehensible hypotheses are not encouraged in science - but knock yourself out.
6:49 PM, March 24, 2017
Thomas Schaefer said...
The whole discussion strikes me as pretty absurd. The best known methods for studying the time evolution of quantum many body systems without serious approximations can do maybe 100 atoms at most. This only works by treating nuclei as point particles. If you need the dynamics of neutrons and protons you can at most do a small nucleus, say carbon. And if you want the dynamics of quarks and gluons there are no known methods at all.
Of course we all hope for the advent of quantum computing. But you still need a physical system to encode a qbit. Indeed, the easiest way to simulate a quantum system is to make it, and let the quantum hamiltonian compute its own evolution. If our simulation overlords wanted to simulate a universe, they would first have to create a physical universe to run the simulation. What, exactly, would be the point of that?
10:29 AM, March 25, 2017
Stephen Pirie said...
JimV
"the ability to simulate every parameter (mass, energy, spin, etc.) of every particle in the observable universe"
Well, that assumes a certain interpretation of quantum theory that many (I believe a majority) of physicists would dismiss.
As David Deutsch explains (in The Fabric of Reality) "Single-particle interference phenomena unequivocally rule out the possibility that the tangible universe around us is all that exists" - aka, we exist in a multiverse, not simply just that which is directly observable (noting that recent experiments have established the superposition of molecules containing around 5,000 atoms, if I recall correctly).
Now, knowing each particle is in a superposition prior to observation, who's going to simulate those superpositions?
Which also means per Thomas Schaefer above, that not only would "they would first have to create a physical universe to run the simulation" they would also have to create the multiverse, containing all those superpositions, for every photon, quark, lepton, electron, etc.
As JimV adroitly suggested, "knock yourself out".
2:53 AM, March 26, 2017
Stephen Pirie said...
Furthermore, let's for the moment imagine that some higher-order entities were to simulate the multiverse, with all those endless superpositions.
At Cambridge University, mathematician Noah Linden and physicist Sandu Popescu found that
"in the typical quantum state occupied by any group of particles the links between the particles are mostly of a nonlocal character. Quantum theory isn’t just a tiny bit nonlocal. It’s overwhelmingly nonlocal. Nonlocality is the rule for our Universe"
So even those doing the simulation are part of the nonlocal interconnectedness. In other words, they'd be part of the simulation, for everything effects everything.
That "everything effects everything" I believe led physicist John Wheeler to suggest that we're also effecting the past -- in his delayed choice experiments, he envisaged (didn't get to complete it, I understand) using galactic lenses to confirm our choices now choose which past we experience all the way back to the Big-Bang. He concluded that we live in a participatory universe, wherein everything is helping/participating in the unfoldment/evolution/creation of an unimaginably vast self-organising system (hence why galaxies are known to distribute themselves fractally).
Good luck simulating yourself, all the present multiverse, and the past ones as well (necessary for the foundational delayed-choice experimental results)
3:26 AM, March 26, 2017
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Matter Conscious? Neuroscience mirrored in physics
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
| (>[2] /dev/null) |
| Публикувано | 13.04.17 02:58 |
|
|
Consciousness IS software. Останалото са глупости.
The last good thing written in C was Franz Schubert's Symphony No. 9.
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Mandelbaum,Hossenfelder:probably no comp simulat.
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
| (>[2] /dev/null) |
| Публикувано | 13.04.17 03:01 |
|
|
НЯМА начин да може като сме в симулацията да определим дали е симулация или не.
The last good thing written in C was Franz Schubert's Symphony No. 9.
| |
|
Тема
|
 With Polyphasic Sleep, You Can Thrive on Little...
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 13.04.17 03:45 |
|
|
by PHILIP PERRY
According to the National Institutes of Health, we spend about 26 years of our life asleep, one-third of the . The latest research states that between 6.4 and 7.5 hours of sleep per night is ideal for . But some need more and others less. A contingent out there, mostly women, who do surprisingly well on just six hours.
There is even some data to suggest that a slim minority, around three percent of the population, thrive on just three hours sleep per night, with no . Of course, most people need much more. Even though in general, Americans are getting far less sleep today than in the past.
Cutting out needful rest could damage your health, long-term. A recent study showed that sleep is essential to clearing the brain of toxins that build up over the course of the day. It also helps in memory formation and allows other organs to repair themselves. Our professional lives and our natural cycles don’t always mesh. Often, they are at odds.
What if you are insanely busy, like ten times the norm? Say you are going to medical school, earning your PhD, or are trying to get a business off the ground. There may not be enough hours in the day for what you have to do.
One thing you can do is rearrange your sleep cycle to give yourself more time. Paleoanthropologists espouse that our ancestors probably didn’t sleep for seven hours at a clip, as it would make them easy prey. Instead, they probably slept at different periods throughout the day and night, and you can too.
Though we find many modern ways to do it, napping could have played a central role in our ancestor’s lives.
What we consider a “normal” sleep cycle is called monophasic. This is sleeping for one long period throughout the night. In some Southern European and Latin American countries, the style is biphasic. They sleep five to six hours per night, with a 60-90 minute siesta during midday. There is a historical precedent too. Before the advent of artificial light, most people slept in two chunks each night of four hours each, with an hour of wakefulness in-between. That’s also a biphasic system. Then there is polyphasic sleep. This is sleeping for different periods and amounts of time throughout the day.
Certain paragons of history slept this way including Leonardo Da Vinci, Nikola Tesla, Franz Kafka, Winston Churchill, and Thomas Edison, among others. The idea gained popularity in the 1970’s and 80’s among the scientific community. Buckminster Fuller, a famous American inventor, architect, and philosopher of the 1900’s, championed this kind of slumber. He branded his version Dymaxion sleep.
Here, you take a half hour nap every six hours and sleep a total of just two hours per night. Swiss artist Francesco Jost practiced it for 49 days straight once, while observed by Italian neurologist Claudio Stampi. At first, Jost had trouble adjusting. But soon after, he was able to make it work with few side effects. He did have trouble waking at times, however. But the artist gained five more hours each day.
R. Buckminster Fuller, with his design of a domed city in the background.
Do a quick search of polyphasic sleep and you find that many people around the world are experimenting with it. There are different ways of doing it. Some try the Uberman schedule. Here, one takes six 30 minute naps throughout the day at 2 P.M., 6 P.M., 2 A.M., and 10 A.M. That’s three hours of sleep total. Another way to do it is the Everyman Schedule. Here, a three hour chunk of sleep takes place between 1 A.M. and 4 A.M. Then, three 20 minute naps occur throughout the day at 9 A.M., 2 P.M., and 9 P.M. That’s around 4.5 hours of sleep daily.
So what’s the science behind this radical system? Unfortunately, no long-term research has been conducted, yet. One 2007 study, published in the Journal of Sleep Research, found that most animals sleep on a polyphasic schedule, rather getting their sleep all at once. This also begs the question, how much sleep does the human brain need to function properly? The answer is unknown.
Sleep is broken into three cycles. There is light sleep, deep sleep, and rapid eye movement (REM) sleep. The last one is considered the most important and restful of phases. We don’t stay in any one phase for long. Instead, we cycle through these constantly throughout the night. So with polyphasic sleep, the idea is to experience these three phases in shorter amounts of time, and wake up rested.
Image by Häggström, Mikael. "Medical gallery of Mikael Häggström 2014". Wikiversity Journal of Medicine 1 (2). DOI:10.15347/wjm/2014.008. ISSN 20018762.
We don't know the exact purpose of these phases. Sleep is still something of a mystery. Without a good understanding, it’s difficult to quantify the impact a polyphasic schedule has. One question is whether such a schedule allows for enough REM sleep. Polyphasic practitioners say they are able to enter the REM phase quickly, more so than with a monophasic style. Jost for example, claimed he could enter REM sleep immediately. This quick entry into the REM state is known as “repartitioning.” The deprivation of sleep may help the body enter REM quickly, as an adaptation.
So what are the downsides of this altered sleep cycle? Boredom and a limited social life. For those who want to go out drinking with friends, stay up late watching movies, or spend time with the kids, the drastic schedule change can cause problems. It has to be rigidly kept to work. Another concern, some studies have shown that those who sleep under five or six hours per night may have a higher risk of cardiovascular disease and lower immune system functioning.
Some argue that sleep theories just don’t account for human diversity in needs. For instance, some insomniacs have praised a polyphasic style for helping them regain the ability to sleep. At issue is the lack of data. But of course, anyone who is considering seriously taking part in such a style should consult a physician and keep in touch with him or her regularly, throughout the process.
How people sleep and how much they need varies widely. This may or may not have a genetic component. More research on sleep may help us to determine what our brain and body needs, and how we can adjust our sleep patterns to get the most out of our day, without sacrificing our health.
To hear more about a polyphasic sleep style click here:
Using science, I cheated sleep for a year. Here's how.
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Mandelbaum,Hossenfelder:probably no comp simulat.
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
| (>[2] /dev/null) |
| Публикувано | 13.04.17 06:37 |
|
|
Между другото, неща като биха били много по-лесни за обяснение ако живеехме в симулация. Но това по никакъв начин не доказва, че живеем в такава. Такова доказателство е НЕВЪЗМОЖНО.
The last good thing written in C was Franz Schubert's Symphony No. 9.
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Вот почему женщины в Китае не болеют раком груди
[re: |]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 16.04.17 02:56 |
|
|
Това което съм пуснал, не е "идиотщина", още по-малко пропаганда, а е опит да се обясни фактът документиран от СЗО, че в Азия и в Африка, където на практика не ядат млечни храни, почти нямат рак на гърдата (както и рак на простатата), в сравнение със Запада, където се ядат редовно и много млечни храни.
Ето ти още едно изследване, подкрепящо горната хипотеза, и то е ново и сравняващо кажи-речи всички други изследвания:
В отговор на:
Та, кажи сега, какво казва научната литература. Има ли доказана вреда на млечните продукти за рак на гърдата или не. Май не, а? :)
Не е нито не, нито да. Явно е от многото цитирани изследвания, а и самата наука го казва, че не е ясна напълно етиологията на рака (на гърдата):
Разбира се, не ти пречи да си повтарящ мантрата, че отново си прав, а пък аз съм не само сбъркал, а и не искам да си го призная . Което е може би някаква твоя психическа проекция .
Редактирано от Mod vege на 16.04.17 04:59.
| |
|
Тема
|
Link Between Our Mind & the Quantum World: science
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 16.04.17 03:19 |
|
|
by ,
COULD QUANTUM CONSCIOUSNESS EXIST?
Despite all the research we’ve done, we still know relatively little about how the human brain works, and we know even less about the mystery of “consciousness.” Scientists disagree about whether consciousness exists at all outside the illusions of our own collective imagination. Some believe it exists independently although we’ve yet to understand its origins have brought quantum physics into the discussion.
This is probably in part because of the way that the “” challenged one of science’s most basic tenets: that there is an objective, observable reality that exists whether we’re looking at it or not. The revelation that observing and measuring quantum effects changes their behavior is troubling, but it also suggests to many people that consciousness itself is part of quantum theory. Moreover, as humans creating AI that, for all its achievements still can’t master some of the things that come so easily to our own minds (at least not yet), we are bound to see a blurry reflection of ourselves in quantum computers, which promise to achieve so much more than ordinary computers ever could.
However, it was the British physicist that, observer effect aside, quantum mechanics may be involved in consciousness. More specifically, he thought it might be possible that quantum events cause molecular structures in the brain to alter their state and trigger neurons in different ways; that literal quantum effects within the brain exist.
For all we can accomplish with the human brain, it has its foibles, and perhaps suspecting the existence of quantum consciousness is one of them. We possess superior intellects because of our , but it is also a well-proven fact that the human brain is prone to where none exist; in the midst of meaningless noise. And while the study of quantum physics is certainly not meaningless noise, it’s possible that our minds — which are — are wrong to see themselves in quantum effects. Does it really make sense to think that our lack of understanding of both consciousness and quantum mechanics ?
OUR PARTICIPATORY UNIVERSE
There is more to this question than the raw interest of philosophy: if there is in fact a connection between quantum mechanics and human consciousness, any major breakthrough in our understanding of either could help us understand both. For example, advances in quantum computing could enable us to master and uploading consciousness, opening the door to a form of immortality. Improved understanding of the superposition property could teach us how to conquer multiple mutually-exclusive ideas at once.
Or, perhaps we’ve been approaching this in the wrong way. As we look at quantum mechanics, we ask ourselves whether we disturb the effects by measuring, or whether it is the act of noticing the measurement impacting our consciousness that causes the disturbance. Is it possible that knowing how to think in the right way—achieving a quantum consciousness—will allow us to perceive quantum mechanics properly for the first time? We’ve always been part of Wheeler’s in some sense, lending our interpretation to what reality is as we record our own history.
For now, most of the scientific community regards quantum effects in the brain skeptically—an appropriate response at this point. Fueling the fast retreat from any quantum consciousness theories in the scientific community is the New Age quantum consciousness trend and the cottage industry arising from it with plenty of avid bloggers writing about things like telepathy, the afterlife, and telekinesis, and crafters and other products.
Whether or not consciousness influences quantum mechanics, and whether or not we eventually require quantum theory to fully comprehend how the brain works, for now we can enjoy the useful discomfort the association provides. Quantum theory has forced us out of our collective comfort zone as we consider new ways of thinking, and found ourselves living inside our own theories.
References: , , ,
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Вот почему женщины в Китае не болеют раком груди
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
| (>[2] /dev/null) |
| Публикувано | 16.04.17 04:35 |
|
|
Само пълен идиот може да използва лични наблюдения за потвърждаване на каквото и да е. Науката прави план, изолиращ личните наблюдения, защото те са най-субектвното нещо.
Пуснах ти вече два мета-анализа, които емпирично доказват, че млечните продукти НЕ влияят на рака на гърдата. Ти разбира се, като вЕрващ, на факти не разчиташ, нали? Фактите те интересуват само ако потвърждават фантазиите ти.
И отново се опитваш да даваш обяснения за механизма на работа на неща, които ДОКАЗАНО не съществуват.
The last good thing written in C was Franz Schubert's Symphony No. 9.Редактирано от | на 16.04.17 04:36.
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Вот почему женщины в Китае не болеют раком груди
[re: |]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 16.04.17 05:12 |
|
|
В отговор на:
Пуснах ти вече два мета-анализа, които емпирично доказват, че млечните продукти НЕ влияят на рака на гърдата. Ти разбира се, като вЕрващ, на факти не разчиташ, нали? Фактите те интересуват само ако потвърждават фантазиите ти.
Ако искащ да продължиш да водиш тази дискусия с мен, ще трябва да се придържаш към правилата на логиката, както и да четеш преди да пишеш.
В предния ми пост цитирах изследване-review, което за разлика от цитираните от теб мета-анализи, е по-генерализиращо и по-синтезиращо, докато мета-анализите в сравнение с него са по-скоро количествени.
PS: сега виждам че първото цитирано от теб изследване не е мета-анализ, а е review, но пък е с над 10г. по-старо от "моето"
Редактирано от Mod vege на 16.04.17 05:19.
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Вот почему женщины в Китае не болеют раком груди
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
| (>[2] /dev/null) |
| Публикувано | 16.04.17 05:32 |
|
|
Ох, горкия, ти дори не знаеш каква е разликата между мета-анализ и ревю бе. Къде си тръгнал да коментираш наука като дори не можеш да разбереш извода на публикациите, които пускаш? Разбира се, че мета-анализите са количествени, науката работи с количества, само идиотите работят с алабализми.
Я пробвай пак:
The collected data from other researchers and our own data are indicating that the presence of steroid hormones in dairy products could be counted as an important risk factor for various cancers in humans.
Знаеш ли какво означава думата could?
The last good thing written in C was Franz Schubert's Symphony No. 9.
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Вот почему женщины в Китае не болеют раком груди
[re: |]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 16.04.17 06:33 |
|
|
"Could" сочи към хипотезa(та) от първоначалната статия, което лекомислено ти нарече "идиотщина", "малоумни фантазии", и неуспешно се опита да обориш с някакви прашясали изследвания и с виртуално повдигане на тон (цели думи с главни букви) и с argumentum ad hominem.
Самоуважението ми ме спира да ти повтярам погрешните ти действия в тази дискусия.
Редактирано от Mod vege на 16.04.17 06:38.
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Вот почему женщины в Китае не болеют раком груди
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
| (>[2] /dev/null) |
| Публикувано | 16.04.17 06:45 |
|
|
Could сочи, че НЯМА факти, които да подкрепят тази хипотеза. Както вече казах, фантазиите какви механизми могат да доведат до повишен риск нямат никакво значение когато ФАКТИТЕ ги опровергават. Затова и ти казвам, че пускаш идиотщини. Не че глупостите за квантовото съзнание са по-смислени, но поне няма как да излъжат някой заблуден да си промени диетата на базата на цитираното.
Та, ще си признаеш ли най-накрая, че НЯМА връзка между употребата на млечни продукти и рака на гърдата? Или ще продължиш да вЕрваш на фантазии. Ясно е какво ще направиш, фактите не са важни, нали? :)
П.П. Забавното е, че дори не ти е ясно и какво е ad hominem... :)
The last good thing written in C was Franz Schubert's Symphony No. 9.Редактирано от | на 16.04.17 06:46.
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Вот почему женщины в Китае не болеют раком груди
[re: |]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 17.04.17 07:19 |
|
|
Имаш логическо противоречие между първите си две изречения, което се опитваш да пробуташ като желана от теб истина.
В отговор на:
Could сочи, че НЯМА факти, които да подкрепят тази хипотеза.
... както и че няма факти, които да опревергават тази хипотеза.
В отговор на:
... какви механизми могат да доведат до повишен риск нямат никакво значение когато ФАКТИТЕ ги опровергават.
Ето ти поредната ти логическа грешка, която не само обижда интелигентността ти, но и прави дискусията с теб досадна и с ниско качество.
Редактирано от Mod vege на 17.04.17 07:24.
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Вот почему женщины в Китае не болеют раком груди
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
| (>[2] /dev/null) |
| Публикувано | 17.04.17 15:52 |
|
|
Абе, ти наистина ли имаш проблеми с четенето? "няма факти подкрепящи хипотеза" и "факти, опровергаващи противното" казва точно едно и също, по два различни начина. Личи си, че не четеш научна литература. По дефиниция всяка хипотеза е грешна, освен ако няма факти които я подкрепят.
Намерил се кой да ме обвинява в логически грешки -- екземпляра, който не може да признае дори веднъж, че е сгрешил. :)
The last good thing written in C was Franz Schubert's Symphony No. 9.Редактирано от | на 17.04.17 15:54.
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Вот почему женщины в Китае не болеют раком груди
[re: |]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 17.04.17 19:15 |
|
|
В отговор на:
По дефиниция всяка хипотеза е грешна, освен ако няма факти които я подкрепят.
Отново грешиш. Горното ти твърдение е наречено "":
"... в съвременната литература понякога се говори за него като „проблем на индукцията“. Накратко този проблем гласи, че от твърденията за емпирични факти не могат логически да се изведат общите правила, които изграждаме под формата на хипотези и теории. Можем да наблюдаваме събития A1, A2, A3, но от тях не можем логически валидно да заключим за ненаблюдаваните A7, A8, A9, нито пък за всяко A (An)."
Kонкретно, да ти повторя какво казва науката (): "Several risk factors for breast cancer have been well documented. However, for the majority of women presenting with breast cancer it is not possible to identify specific risk factors (IARC, 2008; Lacey et al., 2009)".
Редактирано от Mod vege на 17.04.17 19:33.
| |
|
Тема
|
Ядливи диви растения: Суперхраните са навсякъде ок
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 17.04.17 19:29 |
|
|
ни въвежда в необятния свят на ядливите диви растения и ни споделя 5 безплатни „суперхрани“, които можем да си намерим сами, стига да излезем сред природата.
Растенията, може би основната причина животът на Земята да съществува изобщо, не спират да ме вдъхновяват. Те „улавят” слънчевата енергия и я превръщат в енергия на химичните връзки.
Ще кажете – това и децата го знаят, и може би ще сте прави, но замисляме ли се колко безценна е „зелената картичка” около нас, проявяваща се в най-красивия ѝ вариант напролет? Ние, хората, лесно спираме да ценим нещо, когато се среща в изобилие около нас. Приемаме го като един вид даденост, но именно от тази „даденост” зависим изцяло.
Въведение в ядливите диви растения
Така наречените „диви” растения не се нуждаят от нашата помощ за да разпространяват популациите си. Те са истински „сървайвъри”. В миналото традиционно са били ценна част от живота на хората по нашите географски ширини. Днес това отдавна е забравено. Проблемът, що се отнася до използването им за храна, а не само за билколечение, е, че са безплатни, тоест дори и най-ниската прослойка от населението може да си ги позволи.
Често ги наричаме пренебрежително „храна за животни”, забравяйки, че ВСЕКИ култивиран вид на нашата трапеза води своето начало от див негов събрат. В много източници е описан факта, че хиляди видове диворастящи традиционно са използвани за препитание в древните култури – североамериканската (описани в книгите на Виктория Бутенко), африканската, азиатската и т.н. До ден днешен те са на почит на много места, но за съжаление не и у нас.
Притежавам книга от така нареченото „царско” време, където чешки визионер обяснява как баташкия кмет разказва истории за семейства, оцелели при османските гонения в горите десетки дни, хранейки се само с листа, плодове и корени. Днес, стотина години по-късно, 99% от българите сме обречени, ако бъдем оставени сами в дивата природа. Но къде се е скъсала нишката?
Според мен, проблемът се крие в индустриализацията. Дълго време българите сме изоставали в технологично отношение от западния свят по политически причини. Интензивното земеделие не ни е било познато. След Освобождението сънародниците ни искат да наваксат в опит да станат „господин за един ден”, стремейки се да се станат много цивилизовани и забравят изконни традиции.
„Бурените” стават храна за бедните и животните, но не и за уважаващи себе си хора, стремящи се към европейско поведение. С такива примери, за съжаление, изобилстват някои източници от моята лична библиотека. Нека се опитаме да си припомним добре забравеното старо.
Какво трябва да знаем за дивите зеленолистни растения?
Дивите зеленолистни растения могат на ди дадат много витамини, минерали, антиоксиданти, фитохимикали, но не могат да ни дадат едно – стабилно количество калории, затова е добре да не се хвърляме в крайности. Те са идеална добавка към храната ни, но не и основно ястие.
Прекрасен, ако не и най-прекрасния начин да балансираме все по-бедните откъм микронутриенти хибридизирани сортове култивирани растения. Това им свойство се обуславя от факта, че осъществяват много по-добра симбиоза с микроорганизмите в почвата, които осигуряват прекрасна „доставка” на минерални вещества до корените им.
Именно затова, колкото и да се борим с тях и да ги тровим с хербициди, те постоянно се явявят, където са нежелани.
Аз и моето семейство традиционно използваме диви зеленолистни растения в кухнята си, при това ежедневно. Трудно ми е да отлича кои са ми най-любими, но ето пет фаворита и въпреки че са само тревисти, това далеч не означава, че няма ядливи листа при храстовидни и дървесни видове (пример – млади букови, черничеви и т.н)
1. Широколистен живовляк (Plantago major): моят фаворит. Ям го само суров на смути или директно. При сдъвкване има много приятен аромат на гъби.
Лъжичина (чеснова трева) (Allaria petiolata): въпреки че е кръстоцветно (зелево) растение, то много напомня вкуса и мириса на див чесън. Много приятна добавка към салатата.
2. Дива лобода (Chenopodium album): това е „светия граал” за много любители на зелените смутита отвъд океана. У нас е разпостранено повсеместно като досаден плевел.
3. Глухарче (род Taraxum): за него има изписани тонове. Най добре е да използваме младите листа и цветове в смутита и салати.
4. Миши ечемик (Hordeum murinum): доста особено за консумация растение. Представител е на сем. Житни, които традиционно са изключително богати на силициев двуокис. Не става за директна консумация, но ако се смели с вода в блендер и се прецеди през цедка, или най-добре торбичка за ядково мляко, ви дарява с прекрасен зелен сок, който е в пъти по-полезен от масово продаваните прахове от ечемичена и житна трева.
Силно препоръчително е да се спазват основни при брането на диви растения: Да берем само такива, които познаваме. Добра вметка тук е да не бързаме. По едно ново растение да се научим да разпознаваме на седмица е напълно достатъчно. Иначе шанса за грешка е доста голям.
Диви растения не се берат в градски и урбанизирани обществени територии, третирани с химикали обработваеми площи и дворове, в които не сме сигурни дали има необезпаразитени домашни животни, нито в близост до главни и второстепенни пътища.
Идеалният вариант е от собствения двор на къщата или вилата, както и от някое чисто място в природата. Изобилстват на сенчестите места в близост до река. Също така зелени листа се събират преди растението да изкласи, тоест да формира семена. Не е задължително това да е само пролетно време.
Добре се съхраняват за около седмица в затворен съд в хладилник. Сушенето им за зимата е оптимален вaриант, но не и замразяването им, ако не са минали термична обработка.
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Вот почему женщины в Китае не болеют раком груди
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
| (>[2] /dev/null) |
| Публикувано | 17.04.17 21:29 |
|
|
Изобщо не греша. Но определено е забавно колко отчаяно се опитваш да се хванеш за каквато и да е сламка, само за да не признаеш, че си сгрешил. :)
Ама много ти личи, че нямаш абсолютно никаква представа как работи науката. :)
Kонкретно, да ти повторя какво казва науката (СЗО):
Викаш, щом има няколко риск фактора (без да споменава млечните продукти), значи млечните продукти са рисков фактор, а? Ти си бил гений бе! :)
Всъщност науката казва ЕТО ТОВА:
Total dairy products intake was not associated with all cancer mortality risk
Хайде не се излагай повече. Видя се, че нямаш доблестта да си признаеш грешката -- най-обикновен вЕрващ.
The last good thing written in C was Franz Schubert's Symphony No. 9.
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Вот почему женщины в Китае не болеют раком груди
[re: |]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 18.04.17 01:47 |
|
|
В отговор на:
Изобщо не греша.
Грешиш, пишейки че по дефиниция всяка хипотеза била грешна (освен ако нямало факти подкрепящи я) - това, както писах, се нарича "проблем на индукцията". Т.е. мисленето ти е погрешно/проблематично, и имаш проблем с логиката, както и с научното мислене.
В отговор на:
същност науката казва ЕТО ТОВА:
Total dairy products intake was not associated with all cancer mortality risk
Науката казва и други неща:
"Specific dairy foods may contribute to breast cancer risk in women, although risk varies by source of dairy."
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Вот почему женщины в Китае не болеют раком груди
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
| (>[2] /dev/null) |
| Публикувано | 18.04.17 02:40 |
|
|
Пак не внимаваш като четеш. Всяка дефиниция е грешна преди да бъде потвърдена с факти. Това е основен научен принцип. И няма нищо общо с "проблема на индукцията" (каквото и да си въобразяваш, че означава това).
Май не знаеш и какво означава думичката may. Наблегни малко повече на английския, защото е задължителен за четене на научна литература. Не че ще ти помогне де, като гледам и с текст на български имаш проблеми.
The last good thing written in C was Franz Schubert's Symphony No. 9.
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Вот почему женщины в Китае не болеют раком груди
[re: |]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 19.04.17 04:48 |
|
|
В отговор на:
Всяка дефиниция е грешна преди да бъде потвърдена с факти.
Това го отдавам на липса на достатъчно твое внимание, преди да пишеш. Да те коригирам, не говорим за дефиниции въобще, а за (дефиниция) на хипотеза.
Ти писа, че хипотеза (по дефиниция) е грешна, освен ако нямало факти подкрепящи я. Това твое твърдение се нарича "проблем на индукцията", и не води до логически валидни изводи. Ето отново :
"...от твърденията за емпирични факти не могат логически да се изведат общите правила, които изграждаме под формата на хипотези и теории. Можем да наблюдаваме събития A1, A2, A3, но от тях не можем логически валидно да заключим за ненаблюдаваните A7, A8, A9, нито пък за всяко A (An)."
___
Горната логика важи и за думата may от въпросното цитирано от мен .
| |
|
Тема
|
Re: Вот почему женщины в Китае не болеют раком груди
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
| (>[2] /dev/null) |
| Публикувано | 19.04.17 06:49 |
|
|
Не ми пробутвай разни философски брътвежи, които очевидно дори не си прочел.
Има точно определен начин по който работи науката. Нарича се научен метод. Той много добре определя каква е процедурата по която алтернативната хипотеза се приема за вярна, а null хипотезата се отрича. Това се случва ако ЕМПИРИЧНИТЕ ДАННИ отрекат null хипотезата, дотогава всякакви алтернативни хипотези по дефиниция са грешни.
В случая с млечните продукти данните не отхвърлят null хипотезата, която твърди, че те не влияят на рака на гърдата.
Колкото и да се опитваш да дълбаеш и да замазваш, фактите че цитира идиотщина и че не можеш да го признаеш си остават.
The last good thing written in C was Franz Schubert's Symphony No. 9.Редактирано от | на 19.04.17 07:22.
| |
|
Тема
|
The 6 Secrets to Looking Younger
[re: Mod vege]
|
|
| Автор |
Mod vege (старо куче) |
| Публикувано | 28.01.22 06:10 |
|
|
- dr. Eric Berg
Video summary:
1. Avoid protein in combination with sugar
2. Avoid carbs in combination with fat
3. Practice fasting
4. Regular exposure to sun
5. Exposure to infrared light
6. Have a healthy liver (through consumption of cruciferous vegetables, healthy fats, etc.)
7. Get antioxidants from eating lots of vegetables
8. Low carb diet
9. Avoid sugar
10. Don't smoke
11. Manage stress
12. Breathing exercises
13. Consume quality and adequate protein
14. Pay attention to your gut microbiome (eat fermented vegetables, etc.)
Additional ways to look younger:
• Get plenty of sun or infrared light
• Support your liver
• Support bile production
• Consume enough fat in your diet
• Consume plenty of vegetables and have them with fat (like olive oil)
• Support your antioxidant networks (by doing exercise and fasting)
• Don't consume sugar or refined carbs
• Stop smoking
• Work hard to counter stress
• Make sure you consume a moderate amount of high-quality protein
• Support your microbiome
| |
|
Страници по тази тема: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | (покажи всички)
| 
|
|
