Excerpts

You are currently browsing the archive for the Excerpts category.

Michael Crichton was a major part of the first wave of very educated Americans weaned on genre entertainments who moved B movies to the A-List and put pulp novels atop the New York Times Bestsellers. All the while, he drew the ire of the science community by putting a spotlight on the Victor Frankenstein side of the laboratory, worrying about the Singularity long before the phrase came into vogue (Westworld), thinking about the value corporations might put on the things inside of us prior to Larry Page’s brain-implant dreams (Coma), and considering the perils of de-extinction (Jurassic Park).

The opening of Michael Weinreb’s terrific Grantland consideration of a bad writer who was also a great writer:

At the heart of nearly every Michael Crichton novel is the simplest of premises: a protagonist in trouble, losing control of his world, facing forces he can no longer contain. It’s not exactly a sophisticated plot device, but while Crichton could be a complex thinker in terms of subject matter and scientific inquiry, especially later in his career, he was also an utterly facile writer as far as sentence structure and characterization go. He wrote page-turners that aspired for dystopic realism, and because of this, he is still a polarizing figure whose literary legacy remains unsettled. He once said that scientists criticized him for co-opting their theories into fiction, and that book critics ripped him for writing bad prose.

But one might also argue that few writers in modern history have married high-concept ideas and base-level entertainment as well as Crichton did. His books are the ultimate union of the geeky and the pulpy. Which is why one of this summer’s surefire blockbusters, Jurassic World, and one of this fall’s signature HBO series, Westworld, are both based on ideas that originated in the mind of a man who died almost seven years ago.

♦♦♦

Start with, say, a handsome doctor lured by a beautiful woman to an island that is actually an experiment in the parameters of human need, run by a shadowy corporation that feeds people a drug that (for reasons unknown) turns their urine a bright and shiny blue. Or start with a vacationing playboy who finds himself trapped at a French villa by a surgeon who wields a scalpel as a weapon, like a James Bond villain. Or start with a heist gone wrong, or a madman wielding nerve gas and threatening to attack the Republican National Convention, or a doctor arrested and thrown in jail on charges of performing an illegal abortion.

Those are a few of the premises of the nine books Crichton wrote in the late 1960s and early 1970s under varied pseudonyms, when he wasn’t yet a full-time writer and was still playing around with what kind he’d want to be if and/or when he became one. In a way, these novels are the most fascinating experiments of his career, because they’re windows into his thought process, into his own angst about technology and humanity. They’re the demos and B-sides that eventually led to his first best-selling book, 1969’s The Andromeda Strain, about a microorganism run amok. And The Andromeda Strain eventually led to 1990’sJurassic Park, the story of the dinosaurs run amok, the story that turned Crichton into one of the most famous writers on the planet.•

Tags: ,

Japan was delivered to ashes by technology and rose from them by the same means, so it’s unsurprising the country arguably has the most complicated relationship with these modern tools–even more than the hyper-wired South Korea. In a world of technophobia, Japan has learned to stop worrying and love the bomb because, you know, keep your friends close and your enemies closer. From a RT piece about a Japanese pro-robot initiative:

Japan is, by popular opinion, the most robot-savvy nation, and it’s no surprise. Since the 1950s, love for machines has engulfed the nation and embedded itself firmly in the Japanese psyche.

And it wasn’t just vacuum cleaners either. Robots were beginning to be imagined as companions as well.

According to the IO9 website, a survey conducted in 2007 revealed that 40 percent of the nation’s women in their 20s and 30s actually talk to their computers. Another 10 percent give them names.

The nation is already crazy about robotic domestic pets, and one Australia-based researcher predicts we’re going to get anything from mechanical dogs to baby seals popping up within the next 10-15 years.

“Pet robotics has come a long way from the Tamagotchi craze of the mid-90s. In Japan, people are becoming so attached to their robot dogs they hold funerals for them when the circuits die,” Dr Jean-Loup Rault of the University of Melbourne wrote in a paper published in the Frontiers in Veterinary Science journal.•

Among other things, Matt Novak’s Paleofuture dispatch from the DARPA Robotics Challenge explains why technology associated with the agency–the Internet, driverless cars–usually pans out even if it initially seems outré. That something to consider since it has more than a passing interest in robotic warfare. An excerpt:

If DARPA has an interest in any particular technology, there’s a reasonable chance that it’ll be a practical reality within your lifetime. DARPA specializes in “high risk, high reward” research and development, which means that it’s pushing the limits of what’s possible. But DARPA isn’t interested in dicking around with impractical nonsense. Or anything that doesn’t have applications that contribute to national defense. “Here at DARPA we don’t do science for science’s sake,” Steven Walker, deputy director of DARPA, says in a video at the expo. Walker goes on to explain that one of the reasons DARPA was created was to create “technological surprise.”

The agency was founded in 1958 (then known as ARPA) on the heels of the Soviet Union’s successful launch of Sputnik, the first artificial satellite, into orbit. It was a national embarrassment for the United States — especially the Cold Warriors who insisted that American style capitalism would produce the best goods, services, and technologies. So the Eisenhower administration decided that it wouldn’t be surprised again.

Just one of many technologies developed by DARPA is the driverless car. Americans have been waiting on the fully automated driverless car for decades. In fact, scifi visions of the driverless car are nearly as old as the automobile itself. And with each passing day, we inch closer and closer to driverless cars becoming a mainstream reality on America’s roads.

Today we associate companies like Google with driverless car development. But DARPA has been working on driverless cars since before Google even existed.•

Tags: ,

Private enterprise endeavoring to start a new Space Race isn’t merely about cashing in–it’s also about the survival of a variant of our species–but the rich asteroid belt near Mars has certainly caught the attention of billionaire explorers. We want to mine up there to build new colonies but perhaps they’ll be a little something left over so that our first trillionaire can be minted. It would be the least pleasing result of space exploration, but it’s undoubtedly a driving force.

Sometimes during a gold rush people lose their manners. It’s important then to begin thinking now about how we’ll treat our hosts, whether they be microbial or what have you. At Aeon, Lizzie Wade has written a smart essay about what could become a next-level land grab–Manifest Destiny meeting Space Odyssey. She suggests that perhaps the Antarctic Treaty System could be used as a template for curbing our worst impulses. An excerpt:

There are two forms the discovery of alien life could realistically take, neither of them a culture clash between civilisations. The first is finding a ‘biosignature’ of, say, oxygen, in the atmosphere of an expolanet, created by life on the exoplanet’s surface. This kind of long-distance discovery of alien life, which astronomers are already scanning for, is the most likely contact scenario, since it doesn’t require us going anywhere, or even sending a robot. But its consequences will be purely theoretical. At long last we’ll know we’re not alone, but that’s about it. We won’t be able to establish contact, much less meet our counterparts – for a very long time, if ever. We’d reboot scientific, philosophical and religious debates about how we fit into a biologically rich universe, and complicate our intellectual and moral stances in previously unimaginable ways. But any ethical questions would concern only us and our place in the Universe.

‘First contact’ will not be a back-and-forth between equals, but like the discovery of a natural resource
If, on the other hand, we discover microbial or otherwise non-sentient life within our own solar system – logistics will be on our side. We’d be able to visit within a reasonable period of time (as far as space travel goes), and I hope we’d want to. If the life we find resembles plants, their complexity will wow us. Most likely we’ll find simple single-celled microbes or maybe – maybe – something like sponges or tubeworms. In terms of encounter, we’d be making all the decisions about how to proceed.

None of this eliminates the possibility that alien life might discover us. But if NASA’s current timeline holds water, another civilisation has only a few more decades to get here before we claim the mantle of ‘discoverer’ rather than ‘discovered’. With every passing day, it grows more likely that ‘first contact’ will not take the form of an intellectual or moral back-and-forth between equals. It will be more like the discovery of a natural resource, and one we might be able to exploit. It won’t be an encounter, or even a conquest. It will be a gold rush.

This makes defining an ethics of contact necessary now, before we have to put it into practice.•

Tags:

Somebody finally found that hermit Neil deGrasse Tyson in the cave where he hides from public attention and convinced him to conduct an Ask Me Anything at Reddit. 

Tyson, who’s written the forward to several books that study the intersection of art and science, answered questions on both topics. An exchange on each follows.

_______________________________

Question:

Which three works of art would you choose to give to an alien species that you feel best expresses the human experience?

Neil deGrasse Tyson:

Mmmmm.

I think I would have them visit the Rothko Chapel, in Houston. Obviously, there’s more than one work of art there, but it emanates from the same soul of creativity. That would be one of them, if I would be allowed to group that as one work of art.

Another group of art, I would say the Sistine Chapel, the ceiling. That captures the height of our artistic expression, triggered by religious emotion. And religion is a big part of what civilization has been. The Rothko Chapel is a path to your inner solitude.

And the fact that art can get you there – in a space, I think – matters.

And I would say third, again it’s a space – the Waterlily Room, in Paris, where you have the Waterlilies, where as Impressionist Art, you don’t think Waterlilies by seeing the artwork, you feel them. And it’s a way to have art convey a feeling more than a visual.

And this would tell the aliens that we, as a species, do much more than think.

We feel.

And then they’d have to contend with that.

Maybe they’d vaporize us, haha! I don’t know any force operating in our culture but art to capture that fact.

_______________________________

Question:

Stephen Hawking and Elon Musk have expressed their worries about the creation of an artificial intelligence. What do you think about it?

Neil deGrasse Tyson:

The people who worry about artificial intelligence – I’m not. I’m cool with it.

We already have artificial intelligence. It’s just where you draw the line. Where you say “This is something beyond the limit.” We have computers that beat us in chess, they even beat us in Jeopardy! We have a car that can drive itself. A car that can brake faster than you can. Airplanes that REQUIRE computers to fly because the pilot cannot control all the surfaces that are necessary for it to fly stably.

We have artificial intelligence around us at all times.

If they’re worried that there will be a robot invented that will come out of the box that will start stabbing us? If that happened, I’ll just unplug the robot. Or if it’s Texas, I’ll start shooting it.

I’m not worried, okay?

Nobody will put you on trial for shooting your own robot.

So I’m not worried. Really.

Plus if I programmed the damn thing – I can re-program you! So I’m good with putting as much intelligence as possible. Robots build our cars – not people! We can argue it, but it’s a fact.

And I’m old enough to remember – in the morning, there was a good reason that your car might not start for a dozen reason. And now cars start. Robots built that car. Gimme more robots.

Next!•

 

Tags:

It’s not easy for driverless cars to navigate tiny side streets that are barely mapped. Autos will have to communicate with one another, sharing information about unplanned detours and such. But that’s something corporate trucking need not worry about, its vehicles transporting via highways. As Scott Santens points out at Quartz, many of the nearly nine million workers in the sector could be unemployed as soon as it’s legally allowed. The technology is already there. An excerpt:

Any realistic time horizon for self-driving trucks needs to look at horizons for cars and shift those even further towards the present. Trucks only need to be self-driven on highways. They do not need warehouse-to-store autonomy to be disruptive. City-to-city is sufficient. At the same time, trucks are almost entirely corporate driven. There are market forces above and beyond private cars operating for trucks. If there are savings to be found in eliminating truckers from drivers seats—which there are—these savings will be sought. It’s actually really easy to find these savings right now.

Wirelessly linked truck platoons are as simple as having a human driver drive a truck, with multiple trucks without drivers following closely behind. This not only saves on gas money (7% for only two trucks together), but can immediately eliminate half of all truckers if, for example, two-truck convoys became the norm. There’s no real technical obstacles to this option. It’s a very simple use of present technology.

Basically, the only real barrier to the immediate adoption of self-driven trucks is purely legal in nature, not technical or economic. With self-driving vehicles currently only road legal in a few states, many more states need to follow suit unless autonomous vehicles are made legal at the national level. And Sergey Brin of Google has estimated this could happen as soon as 2017. Therefore…

The answer to the big question of “When?” for self-driving trucks is that they can essentially hit our economy at any time.•

Tags:

Google, the search AI company founded by Larry Page and Sergey Brin, has brought aboard Dan Doctoroff, who was not universally loved in New York City when serving as the Balbo to Bloomberg’s Mussolini, as the leader of Sidewalk Labs, which aims to reimagine and reorganize urban areas with technology. Interesting that Google recently has hired not only Doctoroff but also Ray Kurzweil, both of whom are Methuselah-esque compared to the average Silicon Valley employee. Perhaps it’s a new market inefficiency? Or maybe when you’re immortal like Kurzweil, 67 years old is toddler age?

From Miguel Helft at Forbes:

In a press release on its own site, Sidewalk Labs, which is based in New York, said:

While there are apps to tell people about traffic conditions, or the prices of available apartments, the biggest challenges that cities face — such as making transportation more efficient and lowering the cost of living, reducing energy usage and helping government operate more efficiently have, so far, been more difficult to address. Sidewalk Labs will develop new products, platforms and partnerships to make progress in these areas.

“At a time when the concerns about urban equity, costs, health and the environment are intensifying, unprecedented technological change is going to enable cities to be more efficient, responsive, flexible and resilient,” Doctoroff wrote in the press release. “We hope that Sidewalk will play a major role in developing technology products, platforms and advanced infrastructure that can be implemented at scale in cities around the world.”

Page credited Googler Adrian Aoun with bringing Doctoroff on board. Aoun, an entrepreneur who sold his last company, Wavii, to Google, has been working on special projects at the company. On his Facebook page, Aoun wrote: “I’m proud to announce a project I’ve been working on, Sidewalk Labs, with my good friend Dan Doctoroff!”

Tags: ,

It seems that drivers may surrender the wheel, but will they concede ownership as well? “We don’t think people will give up their own cars,” asserts Mercedes-Benz futurist Eric Larsen in a New York Times Q&A with Quentin Hardy. That isn’t nearly the most disputed thing he said during the interview.

When asked about electric vehicles, Larsen says that internal-combustion model “isn’t broken for most people,” since fracking has kept gas prices low and refueling with gasoline requires of the owner only five minutes weekly. I suppose in a lower-case sense, the model isn’t broken, but in the much bigger one, the one in which we’re putting ourselves in a very precarious position environmentally, the model seems hopelessly broken for everyone. 

An excerpt about changes to the automobile interior, which touches on another thorny issue–privacy:

Question:

What has changed inside the car itself?

Eric Larsen:

Screens have become more important. Will a driver’s screen get lots of upgrades like a phone app? If you have a five-year-old car now, people know it by looking at the sound system and the screen. Leased vehicles may be refurbished more often, as dealers look to make them seem newer. Cars may become more modular that way, and there won’t be model years in American cars the way there were.

There is more awareness in the controls. You can’t input long addresses into a navigational system while you’re driving. When a car knows it is at rest, it may allow you to put the seat back further, letting you work, sleep or watch TV from the driver’s seat.

But there’s also a tightrope of personalization and privacy. Companies can know how fast you drive, how tight you corner. We’ve already seen start-ups that tell how fast you’re driving and how you are braking by using the sensors in your phone. It can be a capability in the car itself. As you get into “pay as you drive” car businesses, that will become an issue. There are legal points that have to be worked out.•

 

Tags: ,

Transhumanist Party Presidential candidate Zoltan Istvan wants to radically extend life with the aid of organ printing, brain implants, etc. But won’t that lead to a dangerously crowded planet? That was one question asked of the fledgling politician in a smart Q&A conducted by Sarah Fecht of Popular Science. The exchange:

Popular Science:

How can the planet support an immortal population?

Zoltan Istvan:

There’s a very strong chance that within 10 years, most of us will be using IVF techniques and designing our babies. We’ll still probably be using the uterus for another 10 years, but giving birth is something that’s medically dangerous. Eventually there will be artificial wombs. There won’t be such a natural family as we see it now. In 25 or 30 years, making a family will be very much something where you sit in front of a computer, and you decide how you want to do this, and then probably they’ll have something–an aquarium or something in your living room or at the hospital, similar to the Matrix. Again that might be 35 years out, and it’s all dependent upon whether this kind of technology is ethically passed. But I do believe the future of having children will change dramatically, and that will also impact the population levels. You’ll find that people won’t necessarily want to have children if they can spend 100 years in great health.•

 

Tags: ,

Taking performance-enhancing drugs is a serious health risk, though that’s not why it seems to bother us when it comes to sports. For some reason–the shaky idea that competition should be pure?–we don’t want athletes using PEDs even though it doesn’t seem to upset that such usage is prevalent in many other competitive fields.

A paragraph from a 2012 Vanity Fair article about HGH use in Hollywood:

A business in Hollywood is small potatoes until it’s known by three letters: CAA, MGM, PMK, SAG, UTA, WME. These days, though, nothing is hotter than Hollywood’s latest health-and-fitness craze: H.G.H. therapy. Just ask any major-league Hollywood player. Earlier this year, following a game of tennis at a swank Beverly Hills country club, a prominent movie producer sat nursing a sore knee. “Just take this,” one of the club members said, offering a vial of H.G.H. A former studio executive recalls a recent dinner out with one of his colleagues. “He’s a family man with a wife and kids,” the executive says. “And he just starts talking about using H.G.H. I was like, ‘Are you crazy?! You’re fucking shooting yourself up?!’ But he said, ‘No, it’s great. And I feel great in the morning. And it’s invigorating.’ ”

All these people are searching for a “cure” for aging, the look of it and the biology of it also, a pursuit that will never end as long as there are humans. In a Vice piece, Seung Lee writes of drugs aimed not at defeating death but rather certain geriatric diseases that lead to it. An excerpt:

Private funds has been on the rise for anti-aging research, especially among Silicon Valley venture capitalists and tech giants looking for the next frontier to conquer. One of the most active donors has been PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel, who donated $35 million to an anti-aging researcher in Cambridge Universtiy in 2006 and $500,000 to a biotech start-up in 2010.

Google has joined the fray last year with the foundation of Calico. Described as mysterious and Google’s mad science project, Calico revealed plans to build an anti-aging research facility in the San Francisco Bay Area with a cost of up to $1.5 billion.

So far, the Alk5 kinase inhibitor has yet to draw any funds from firms and investors some forty-odd miles away, even though [Irina] Conboy considered these discoveries “low-hanging fruit.”

The researchers remain hopeful that the drug will continue to move forward in pace with the explosive growth of the larger anti-aging research community.

“I look at it as more promising than anything,” said Hanadie Yousef, the lead author of the Oncotarget study and currently a postdoctoral scholar at Stanford University. “When I was starting graduate school five years ago, there was absolutely nothing known about how aging actually happened. The field is growing so rapidly that I would bet within the next decade we’ll see effective anti-aging therapeutic methods.”

With the probability of anti-aging therapy on the horizon, death may take a different shape in the future. Death, as Conboy’s team hoped to accomplish, would no longer come with pain or suffering at some hospital with wires and machines keeping the body alive.

Instead, death will come by more natural causes such as cardiac arrest or a stroke—a relatively quick way to die than fighting years against cancer or similar diseases.•

 

Tags: , ,

Deciding to become a woman is the first normal thing Bruce Jenner has done since the decathlon.

I do feel a bit the way I would if Sarah Palin had become the first female American President, back when that bullshit seemed possible: Well, great, but did it have to be her? Jenner has long been your typical ex-jock conservative who never spoke up once when his party consistently sold discrimination in the U.S. to achieve its political ends. But pioneers are pioneers, so good for Caitlyn on her transition. Much happiness to her.

Some un-bylined writer at the Economist has given voice to something that’s true of both parties in the U.S.: They can only move as far Left or Right as the moment will allow. Despite being the standard-bearer of the GOP, President Richard Nixon pursued universal heath care and guaranteed basic income because those things were in the air at the time. Similarly, when it comes to Jenner, even the sweater-vest wing of the GOP has had to be restrained in its comments because the conversation about LGBT issues has so seriously shifted. 

From the Economist:

“I can only imagine the torment that Bruce Jenner went through,” offered Lindsey Graham, a senator from South Carolina. “I hope he’s—I hope she has found peace.” Though Mr Graham affirmed that he is a “pro-life, traditional marriage kind of guy”, he added that “If Caitlyn Jenner wants to be a Republican, she is welcome in my party.”

“If he says he’s a woman, then he’s a woman,” said Rick Santorum, a former Pennsylvania senator not known for his open-mindedness. “My responsibility as a human being is to love and accept everybody. Not to criticise people for who they are.” As an outspoken critic of gay relationships, Mr Santorum has long reserved the right to criticise people for what they do, but he refrained from knocking all that Ms Jenner has done to make herself womanly.

This combination of silence and accommodation has unsettled some conservative commentators. “A surgically damaged man appeared on the cover of Vanity Fair, and the applause is mandatory,” writes David French of the National Review. He then argues that the “sexual selfishness and radical personal autonomy” of the transgender movement “shares the same logic as such cultural catastrophes as no-fault divorce and abortion on demand”, which are naturally to blame for “poverty, depression, and increasing inequality between two-parent families and the transient remainder”. Mr French contends that conservatives are being bullied into a dangerous silence by left-leaning cultural arbiters. “By refusing to speak,” he writes, “we contribute to the notion that even conservatives understand that something is wrong—something is shameful—about our own deepest beliefs.”

Steve Deace, a syndicated radio host based in Iowa, offered a similar but more practical warning: “If we’re not going to defend as a party basic principles of male and female, that life is sacred because it comes from God, then you’re going to lose the vast majority of people who’ve joined that party.” 

It is surprising that a warning like this needs to be issued at all. Until recently, Republican politicians have been brash culture warriors.•

Tags: , , , ,

Martin Ford has written a New York Times op-ed explaining why “China could well turn out to be ground zero for the economic and social disruption brought on by the rise of the robots.” Outsourcing used to mean moving jobs out of country, but more and more it will mean shifting them out of species. And no matter what the official line is, better jobs don’t necessarily await the displaced. The opening:

OVER the last decade, China has become, in the eyes of much of the world, a job-eating monster, consuming entire industries with its seemingly limitless supply of low-wage workers. But the reality is that China is now shifting its appetite to robots, a transition that will have significant consequences for China’s economy — and the world’s.

In 2014, Chinese factories accounted for about a quarter of the global ranks of industrial robots — a 54 percent increase over 2013. According to the International Federation of Robotics, it will have more installed manufacturing robots than any other country by 2017. 

Midea, a leading manufacturer of home appliances in the heavily industrialized province of Guangdong, plans to replace 6,000 workers in its residential air-conditioning division, about a fifth of the work force, with automation by the end of the year. Foxconn, which makes consumer electronics for Apple and other companies, plans to automate about 70 percent of factory work within three years, and already has a fully robotic factory in Chengdu.

Chinese factory jobs may thus be poised to evaporate at an even faster pace than has been the case in the United States and other developed countries. That may make it significantly more difficult for China to address one of its paramount economic challenges: the need to rebalance its economy so that domestic consumption plays a far more significant role than is currently the case.•

Tags:

When you’ve been one of the leading minds behind getting cars to drive themselves, you tend to shoot for the moon. Sebastian Thrun certainly is with Udacity, his education start-up which currently offers nanodegrees in things like Data Analyst and Android Developer. Not exactly a Stanford or Harvard or even community college curriculum, but Thrun believes he’s just at the beginning of reimagining higher ed. From a Smithsonian Q&A Roger Catlin conducted with the Google X lab founder:

Question:

What is your dream for Udacity?

Sebastian Thrun:

If I could double the world’s GDP, it would be very gratifying to me, measuring it not by the company itself but by the impact it would have. We are launching an education system that Google has undersigned, a joint education for entrepreneurship. It’s a niche to some extent, but if you bring this to the Middle East, if you bring this to Africa, if you bring this to Bangladesh, to developing countries, to China and India, I think it can have a huge impact on their ability to participate constructively in the creation of wealth and prosperity. Specifically the Middle East, at this point, suffers from the fact there is no path for young people to participate constructively, so some of those, as a result, may choose other paths, like terrorism.

Question:

What are the greatest obstacles of reaching that goal?

Sebastian Thrun:

Eventually, it will take broadening the course catalog. We work with computer science and software stuff, but not everyone wants to be a software engineer.

Where should I start? Obviously we are iterating the student experience, and in some courses we managed to get the finishing rate from about 2 percent to over 90 percent. And that was really hard work to make it really good. So think about it as a car that in the beginning drives about 10 mph, but with relentless engineering you get it to about 100 mph. That’s the product quality. The quality of the experience. The second one, honestly, is that education is such a slow growing field, so there is a trust element. Like, do you trust a new player? And to some extent education is owned by the degree-granting universities that have an efficient delivery model. So to gain the trust of our students means we’ll be placing them in jobs, showing the job records, to show how the teaching really empowers them. That will bring new students, but that’s going to take some time.•

Tags: ,

The heart is a lonely hunter. Also it’s the organ in your chest that pumps blood through your veins and arteries.

An old metaphor ran up against new medicine in 1982 when Dr. William DeVries performed the first artificial-heart transplant on patient Barney Clark, who lived 112 days with the battery-powered pumper. A stunning media circus ensued, with the Frankenstein factor riling many Americans, as cutting-edge technology was introduced before old dreams and superstitions had been put to rest.

“I was surprised that people think it’s as big a deal as they think it is,” DeVries said later in the year. The same questions will arise should a greater understanding of genetics allow us to drive evolution. Let’s hope that debate is more rational.

Seven years before the first AHT occurred at the University of Utah Medical Center, Dr. Willem Kolff and his colleagues there were already eager to perform the procedure, as evidenced by Ronald B. Scott’s article in the February 17, 1975 People magazine. An excerpt:

Sometime this year doctors at the University of Utah Hospital in Salt Lake City will implant an artificial heart in a human—and for the first time the chances for success are very high. If the atomic battery-powered heart does work, it will be the capstone of one of modern medicine’s most illustrious careers for Dr. Willem Kolff, 64, who directed the project. In 35 years of remarkable innovation, beginning with a machine that does the work of the human kidney, Kolff has pioneered in the field of artificial organs. And in just seven years as director of Utah’s Division of Artificial Organs, he has almost single handedly created the foremost research team of its kind in the world.

Kolff says the work at the school is aimed only at making life more bearable for the physically handicapped, but if TV’s artificial Six Million Dollar Man were ever to become a reality, doubtless it would be the work of the Utah group. In addition to an artificial heart that kept a calf alive for 94 days, the researchers have created artificial eyes—actually miniaturized television cameras implanted in the eye sockets—which transmit pictures to the brain. The “eyes” were implanted in a totally blind Vietnam veteran, who was able to perceive blurry shapes.

Kolff’s team is now working on an artificial ear and on limbs that will attach not only to the skeleton of the patient but also to his central nervous system. With such prostheses or artificial members, an amputee could recover both motor functions and a sense of touch.

As a young man in Holland, Kolff was repulsed by suffering and death, which he witnessed more frequently than most boys because his father was a physician. “The thought of having a career where I would have to watch people die troubled me,” he recalls, “so much so that I once seriously considered becoming a good zoo keeper.”

Nevertheless, his father’s intense dedication to the profession impressed young Willem, and in 1930, at the age of 19, he enrolled at the University of Leyden Medical School. During postgraduate work at the hospital of the University of Groningen, the 29-year-old doctor was given charge of four patients—one a young man of 22 who was dying slowly from kidney failure. “I had the awful task,” Kolff recalls, “of telling this sobbing peasant woman that her only son could not be saved. I thought if we could only remove some of the waste products from his blood he might survive and live a normal life.”

Kolff dug obsessively through medical libraries searching for a clue that might lead him to a method for cleansing blood, and he began laboratory experiments on the problem. He found that waste materials in the bloodstream, which are normally removed by the kidneys, would seep through extremely thin cellophane casings (such as those used to wrap sausage) when the casings were submerged in a saline bath. Blood cells would not, being too large to pass through the porous membrane.

Kolff’s work in Groningen was interrupted by the Nazi invasion in 1940, and he removed to Kampen to continue it. In his laboratory there, he wrapped cellophane tubing around a horizontal drum, which had been partially immersed in saline solution. When the blood of the kidney patient passed through the tubing, as the drum rotated, the impurities percolated through the cellophane membrane while the purified blood could be returned to the patient’s system. Kolff had effectively built an artificial kidney.

His Rube Goldberg-looking dialysis machine alarmed many of Kolff’s conservative peers, and they were reluctant to refer their own failing-kidney patients to the brash young doctor. He was able to work only with patients thought to be terminally ill. Although most of the 16 of these showed marked improvement immediately after being hooked up to Kolff’s artificial kidney, all died. Then, finally, in 1944 the seventeenth patient, Sofia Schafstadt, survived.

While Kolff’s remarkable mechanical kidney did not arouse much interest in postwar Europe, physicians from the United States beat a path to his laboratory door. In 1950 he was invited to join the prestigious Cleveland Clinic, where he eventually became the scientific director of the artificial organs program.

“He was one of those men,” recalls Dr. Yukihiko Nosé, who replaced Kolff when he left for Utah, “who can completely overpower you in the beginning. He is a typical European, paternalistic and demanding. On their first day in the lab Kolff gave all new foreign doctors a three-page memo on how to survive in America. It told us how many times to bathe each week, what deodorant to use and how to dress. Until he believes in you, he expects everything to be done his way. He can be very difficult to work with at first.”

In Cleveland Kolff became something of a medical and social maverick. “They were all Republicans there. I was about the only Democrat,” he recalls laughing. “They were very suspicious of government grants—they thought if government money was withdrawn from a project, the clinic would be obliged to keep funding it.” Kolff was used to getting his own way and could be quite imaginative about it. He blithely circumvented the chain of command at the clinic whenever it served his purposes. “It seemed there was a constant state of siege between Kolff and the board of governors over which patients should be hooked onto the dialysis machine,” another former associate says. “Naturally the clinic wanted to limit the number of indigent patients. Kolff didn’t give a damn whether patients could pay or not—he thought rich and poor should be treated alike.” …

By 1967 Kolff had become increasingly impatient with the bureaucracy and politics at the Cleveland Clinic. In his 17 years there he had pressed the development of the heart-lung machine and the inter-aortic balloon pump, which had helped diminish the risk of heart surgery. But Kolff’s ways had offended some superiors, who had retaliated by clamping a tighter rein on his research projects. When Dr. Keith Reemtsma, now at Columbia, offered to create a division for Kolff at Utah, with improved funding and virtual autonomy, Kolff quickly accepted, even though the post paid only $26,000 a year—considerably less than what he earned in Cleveland. He is permitted to supplement his income as a consultant, but turns over most of the income to the university and charity.

At Utah Kolff remains an unorthodox operator—on occasion making appeals directly to the governor for support of his projects. So far no one seems to mind—least of all Governor Calvin Rampton. He is only too pleased at the publicity Kolff has brought the state, not to mention his growing, pollution-free small industry in artificial organs and spare mechanical parts.

Now Kolff’s department boasts more than 100 employees. A scientific Pied Piper, he collects machinists, veterinarians or chemists if he thinks they can help solve his problems. Distinctions between professional ranks and the skilled but less-educated staff members bore him. He is fond of saying, “I’ll take a good technician over a mediocre doctor any day.” The oftentimes dour Dutchman inspires fierce loyalty in his associates. Says one, “If a guy has a good idea, Kolff will go to the wall for him—he gives credit where credit is due.”

The designer of the artificial heart (which is made of silicone rubber) is a brilliant third-year medical student, Robert Jarvik, who seems destined for a career as remarkable as his chief’s. Recently, Levi Porter, a sophomore engineering student whose own defective kidney requires dialysis treatment, was instrumental in developing parts for a kidney machine small enough to be carried by the patient.

In stark contrast to the flamboyant life-styles of such other heart researchers as Christiaan Barnard and William DeBakey, Kolff leads an austere life outside the laboratory. A conservative dresser, preferring the same brown coat and striped tie, he spends most of his evenings at home with Janke, his wife of 37 years, sipping tea and gazing out at the Salt Lake Valley, which unfolds beneath the bay window in his living room. He has become a generous backer of the Utah Symphony Orchestra and holds season tickets for two of the best seats in the Salt Lake Tabernacle, where the orchestra performs. All of his five children—Jack, daughter Adriana, Albert, Kees, Therus—are grown now: three of his sons are doctors and one is an architect who designs medical facilities. The oldest, Jack, recently joined his father’s research team.•

 

Tags: , , , ,

Japan currently has a very low unemployment rate of 3.30%, but economist Noah Smith would like it to rise.

Well, that’s not exactly true. He thinks that number is illusory and the nation’s rife with bullshit jobs (in Graeber-ian terms) and redundancies, positions suited neither for humans nor robots. He argues that elevator operators or extraneous clerks will find something else to do and the economy will gain steam. Perhaps. But if all busywork is eliminated and many in these positions are only qualified for busywork, what would become of them? Even those qualified to do more may have to compete with white-collar automation going forward. What exists is a free-market safety net of sorts, and if you want to eliminate it, there probably should be a Plan B in place. Believing a political solution will necessarily come to pass if the market doesn’t provide seems optimistic.

From Smith at Bloomberg View:

There’s something even better than robots that could replace large numbers of Japan’s human jobs: nothing

Japan is a country famous for its low white-collar productivity; this is borne out by the statistics. Some of that comes from the reluctance by tradition-minded companies to adopt modern workplace technologies — there are still companies using fax machines or copying electronic documents onto paper. Some of it is from outdated management practices. Some of it is from employees staying at work for too many hours, long after their productivity has gone into free-fall. But some of it is certainly just a function of useless jobs. There are Japanese people being paid to do things that no one, not even a robot, should be paid to do. 

Any American who has lived in Japan has a long list of anecdotes about jobs that seem utterly pointless. There are security guards being paid to guard vacant lots. There are women standing in elevators pushing the button for you. There are crossing guards at intersections with functional traffic lights. 

Then there are the useful jobs for which Japanese companies simply hire too many personnel.•

Tags:

Wearables that track workers are, for now, mostly optional. Some employees get rewards for voluntarily attaching themselves to gadgets that provide real-time feedback to their bosses. But that trend toward quantification seems clear, especially in countries where unions are weak and good jobs may grow scarcer with increased automation. Even for that contingent job, you may need to surrender to the nudge of modern technology. It’s a further Uberization of the workforce.

From Sarah O’Connor at the Financial Times:

Technology has made it possible for employers to monitor employees more closely than ever, from GPS trackers for delivery drivers to software that tracks which websites office workers visit. Companies such as Profusion think wearable gadgets could open a new frontier in workplace analytics, albeit one that would further blur the lines between our work and private lives.

“I think there’s an inevitability that it will gain ground, and there’s a backlash risk that will follow if the data get abused,” says Mr Weston.

For employers, the simplest way to use wearable gadgets (and so far the most common) is to give them to staff and try to nudge them into healthier lifestyles — a financially worthwhile goal if the company is on the hook for their health insurance. BP, for example, gives Fitbits to workers in North America and offers them rewards if they meet activity targets. Indeed, one of Fitbit’s five strategic goals is to “further penetrate the corporate wellness market”, according to its IPO prospectus. Wearables could also be straightforward tools.

But the bigger prize is to use the data from such devices to make the workforce safer or more productive. Some warehouse workers already wear wristbands or headsets that measure their productivity and location in real-time.•

 

Tags:

As someone consumed by robotics, automation, the potential for technological unemployment and its societal and political implications, I read as many books as possible on the topic, and I feel certain that The Second Machine Age, the 2014 title coauthored by Andrew McAfee and Eric Brynjolfsson, is the best of the lot. If you’re just beginning to think about these issues, start right there.

In his Financial Times blog, McAfee, who believes this time is different and that the Second Machine Age won’t resemble the Industrial Age, has published a post about an NPR debate on the subject with MIT economist David Autor, who disagrees. An excerpt: 

Over the next 20-40 years, which was the timeframe I was looking at, I predicted that vehicles would be driving themselves; mines, factories, and farms would be largely automated; and that we’d have an extraordinarily abundance economy that didn’t have anything like the same bottomless thirst for labour that the Industrial Era did.

As expected, I found David’s comments in response to this line of argument illuminating. He said: “If we’d had this conversation 100 years ago I would not have predicted the software industry, the internet, or all the travel or all the experience goods … so I feel it would be rather arrogant of me to say I’ve looked at the future and people won’t come up with stuff … that the ideas are all used up.”

This is exactly right. We are going to see innovation, entrepreneurship, and creativity that I can’t even begin to imagine (if I could, I’d be an entrepreneur or venture capitalist myself). But all the new industries and companies that spring up in the coming years will only use people to do the work if they’re better at it than machines are. And the number of areas where that is the case is shrinking — I believe rapidly.•

Tags: , ,

Ghost malls have long been a fascination–a fantasy, really–of urban catastrophists thrilled by the stillness of decommissioned escalators. But while competition from online vendors has ended the phase in which any old mall was a license to print money, some analysts have recently begun arguing that upscale shopping centers that embrace technology can thrive at the very same time that their sadder siblings fall to ruins. It can’t just be a place–it has to be the place to be. In a Daily Beast piece, Joel Kotkin makes that very case. An excerpt:

To suggest malls are dead based on failure in failed places would be like suggesting that the manifest shortcomings of Baltimore or Buffalo means urban centers are not doing well. Like cities, not all malls are alike.

Looking across the entire landscape, it’s clear the mall is transforming itself to meet the needs of a changing society but is hardly in its death throes. Last year, vacancy rates in malls flattened for the first time since the recession. The gains from e-commerce—6.5 percent of sales last year, up from 3.5 percent in 2010—has had an effect, but bricks and mortar still constitutes upwards of 90 percent of sales. There’s still little new construction, roughly one-seventh what it was in 2006, but that’s roughly twice that in 2010.

Shopping in stores, according to a recent study from A.T. Kearney, is preferred over online-only by every age group, including, most surprisingly, millennials, although many of them research on the web, then visit the store, and sometimes then order on line. The malls that are flourishing tend to be newer or retrofitted and are pitched at expanding demographic markets. These “cathedrals of commerce” in the past tended to reflect the mass sameness of mid-century America; those in the future focus on distinct niches—ethnic, income, even geographical—that are not only viable but highly profitable.

This leaves us with a tale of two kinds of malls. One clear dividing line is customer base. In the ’80s and before, malls succeeded fairly universally, notes Houston investor Blake Tartt. But now it’s a matter of being in the right place. “Everything has changed and you have to be with the right demographics,” he suggests. “It’s not so much about the mall but the location that matters.”

Old malls in declining areas, notes a recent analysis by the consultancy Costar, do truly face a “bleak future” and should look to be converted into apartments, houses, corporate headquarters, or churches.

In contrast, affluent urban areas are becoming an unexpected hotspot for malls—even outlet malls are opening open in the urban core.•

Tags:

Speaking of going to Mars: Dr. Robert Zubrin and the Mars Society chose six fauxstronauts to “travel” to Mars in the Utah desert, which has terrain similar to that of the Red Planet. It’s a mission meant to discover what may lie ahead should we make it to our neighboring planet and one that raises awareness about a project close to the heart of the author of The Case for Mars.

From a byline-less CBS Denver report:

This week the group wrapped up a practice mission in the rural Utah desert.

“We are talking about the area known as Capitol Reef, not far from the Henry Mountains,” said Zubrin.

The Mars Society has organized a practice Mars station where hundreds of hopefuls who volunteered for the practice run were narrowed down to a crew of six.

They live in the desert for up to a month as if they were actually on Mars.

“The terrain is quite Mars-like,” said Zubrin.

The crew members on the most recent trip were from Europe. They perform missions that would theoretically helps Mars colonists such as collecting soil samples, building and moving equipment.

“We are starting to learn what is going to work on Mars, what is not going to work on Mars,” said Zubrin.

Zubrin calls the practice missions crucial to developing a guidebook to living on the red planet.•

Tags:

Elon Musk and other billionaire tinkerers want to go to Mars to save our species from extinction, but, of course, what we rescue won’t be us but a variant of us. And perhaps not one that seems so familiar.

Colonies on other planets will force evolution, perhaps not on the scale of gene editing, but pretty markedly. Or perhaps in addition to terraforming Mars, we might use genetic engineering to abet Homo sapiens’ survival on our neighboring planet. Of course, if that option becomes available, it won’t likely be soon. We’ll have to remake ourselves in a blunter way in space for the foreseeable future.

From Michael Tennesen’s fascinating The Next Species:

Biosphere 2 is an example of how long-term occupancy of a space station on a planet that is millions of miles from Earth could be extremely dangerous and fraught with perils that science may not yet know enough about. 

On the positive side, if we can overcome these hazards, then a Mars space station might offer a place where Homo sapiens can truly differentiate–becoming a new species. Carol Stoker, a planetary scientist at Ames Research Center, envisions a permanent research base of closed environments on Mars as the next most logical place to live outside of Earth. Still, she claims a child who grew up on the Red Planet, with one-third of the gravity of Earth, would never have the physical of skeletal structure to survive on our Blue Planet.

“It is likely that a second-generation Martian would be physically unfit to walk unaided on Earth, at least without intense weight and strength training,” says Stoker. “Just imagine if you suddenly weighed three times what you weigh now. Could you walk? Would your deconditioned heart be able to pump the blood volume needed? Whether we know it or not, we are constantly doing a lot of work against gravity.”

__________________________

Interplanetary travel would be a major evolutionary force for Earth-born settlers on Mars, and frequent travel between Earth and Mars would be unlikely because of the expense. Living on Mars could produce long-term biological changes that would make a return to Earth ultimately impossible. With isolation a natural part of the job, the gradual push of evolution toward becoming another species could happen in outer space just as well as here on Earth.•

 

Tags: ,

The disruption of traditional journalism as practiced in the twentieth century has brought some good things beyond just the technological advances of content delivery. One is diversity, as newsrooms had long been primarily the domain of the white male. Many of the web-only news sites have tapped into the larger pool of employees, and that’s made the story selections wider. But other factors have conspired to make the new normal simultaneously shallower.

Most of these financially successful nouveau news organizations have maintained–further developed, even–the dicier aspects of old-school journalism: native advertising, capitulation to clients, etc. But none of the large-scale ones have thus far shown the capacity to consistently publish probing articles that go much beyond headlines and basic facts. There are wonderful niche non-news publications (Aeon is my favorite example), but the latest wave of for-profit mass media is largely an attenuated thing. Perhaps that’s what smaller screens demand or maybe institutional wisdom has been lost, but it’s a step backwards, at least in these early stages.

From Michael Massing’s NYRB piece about digital journalism:

Arriving at BuzzFeed’s editorial offices (housed in temporary quarters while the main office is being renovated), I found two adjoining cavernous spaces filled with long tables, at which sat some two hundred people gazing at computer screens. I was introduced to Shani Hilton, the executive editor for news. Thirty years old, she had worked for NBCWashington.com, the Washington City Paper, and the Center for American Progress before joining BuzzFeed in 2013. I asked her to cite some recent stories she felt were noteworthy. She mentioned a report by Ben Smith about the threat by an Uber executive to dig up dirt on a reporter who had criticized the company (it kicked up a storm); a story by Aram Roston on financial conflicts of interest involving a top NSA official (which led to the official’s resignation); and “Fostering Profits,” an investigation into deaths, sex abuse, and gaps in oversight at the nation’s largest for-profit foster care company. As for regular beats, Hilton mentioned two in which she felt BuzzFeed had excelled—marriage equality and rape culture.

From talking with Hilton and with Ben Smith (now editor in chief) and from sampling BuzzFeed’s home page, I came away convinced of its commitment to being a serious provider of news; there’s a sense of earnest aspiration about the place. At the same time, I was surprised by how conventional—and tame—most of its reports are. Much of BuzzFeed’s news feed seems indistinguishable from that of a wire service. Its investigations, while commendable, fall squarely within the parameters of investigative reporting as traditionally practiced in this country, with a narrow focus on managerial malfeasance, conflicts of interest, and workplace abuses. There’s little effort to examine, for example, the activities of hedge fund managers, Internet billionaires, or other pillars of the new oligarchy.

In April, Ben Smith removed two BuzzFeed posts that were critical of the advertising campaigns for Dove cosmetics and the Hasbro board game Monopoly. Both Dove and Hasbro advertise on the site. After coming under much fire, Smith restored the posts, though he denied that their original removal had had anything to do with pressure from advertisers. Soon after, the writer of the post critical of Dove, Arabelle Sicardi, resigned. So much for “true journalistic independence.” Overall, BuzzFeed’s practice of journalism seems nowhere near as pioneering as the sleek platform it has developed to deliver its product.•

Tags:

Uber is good for consumer experience and the environment, but CEO Travis Kalanick is determined to convince the public the rideshare company is also beneficial to workers, and that’s a lie. When half your employees quit in the first year, you haven’t created good jobs. When your business model kills many more-stable positions, you’re not good for employment. When you publicly lust for that day you can be rid of all your employees, you aren’t a friend of Labor. Maybe all these things are necessarily collateral damage in the march of progress, but let’s be honest about it.

From Ellen Huet’s Forbes report about the company’s fifth-anniversary ceremony:

Uber is adding “hundreds of thousands” of drivers globally every month, Kalanick said, and has 26,000 active drivers in New York, 15,000 in London, 10,000 in  Paris and 22,000 in San Francisco, the company said. It has 20,000 active drivers (and 42,000 who have ever signed up) in Chengdu, China, a region where Uber’s two major rivals recently merged and control almost 99% of the market. Uber often signs up many more drivers than remain current active drivers: In a recent study of U.S. drivers, Uber found that that almost half of its drivers stop driving after a year.

Because Uber tends to experiment and explore many different verticals — courier service and food delivery, for example — it was surprising that Kalanick barely mentioned the company’s potential outside of its core ride-hailing service. He only made one allusion — “just imagine all the goods and services you could get delivered quickly and safely with just the touch of a button” — to Uber’s other services. He also made no mention of Uber’s advances in developing autonomous cars, which have involved poaching numerous engineers and researchers from Carnegie Mellon to staff up its own research center.

Instead, the address focused on Uber’s effects on cities, urban transportation and its driver workforce. An Uber driver who is also a military wife gave the introduction for Kalanick and spoke briefly, occasionally tearing up, about how Uber’s flexible schedule allowed her to volunteer at her son’s school.•

Tags: ,

It’s hard to imagine greater symbols of America living in the past than roasting pigs and gas-guzzling motorcycles, but an Iowa “Roast and Ride” is where GOP hopefuls just gathered to make a case that they should be the next President. In their speeches, the Perrys and Walkers of the world unironically promised to return America to greatness by wallowing in nostalgia for a world that no longer exists. According to an Economist report, there was one exception: Marco Rubio. An excerpt:

Mr Perry is 65 years old, while Mr Walker is 47. But the two governors sounded rather similar in their wistful recollections of modest childhoods marked by cheerful, hard-working, up-by-the-bootstraps small town thrift. Mr Walker was the undoubted star of the day even before he arrived. His speech was well-received, but it was a disappointment. He talked of an American Dream led astray, and set up a straw man attack on Mr Obama and the likely Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, saying that to listen to them, the measure of success in America was “how many people are dependent on government.” But in his own childhood in small town America, nobody said or wrote in their high school yearbooks that they wanted to grow up to be dependent on the government, Mr Walker said. The great thing about America, he went on, was that it offered equality of opportunity, even if outcomes were up to individuals. America is one of the few countries left in the world where it doesn’t matter what class you are born into, he declared, and many in the audience, notably the older voters with snowy hair, clapped enthusiastically.

But even in a political speech to activists, that was a riskily glib thing to say. The evidence is overwhelming that American social mobility has stalled in recent decades, and that accidents of birth have come to matter far too much. The great question of the age is how to fix that, and both thoughtful Republicans and Democrats have begun wrestling with competing solutions. Mr Walker simply sweeps that debate aside, and in doing so sounds like a spokesman for an imperfectly-remembered past when the American Dream came easily.

The contrast was startling when Senator Marco Rubio came to talk. The Cuban-American senator from Florida is only three years younger than Mr Walker, but he sounded as if he came from a different generation. The economy has changed in the past 20 years, he told the crowd. There is more global competition and machines can do many of the jobs that once paid good wages to middle class workers. We are living through a moment of transformation such as we have not seen since the Industrial Revolution, Mr Rubio said. Unfortunately, we have all of these leaders that are stuck in the past, he said. He was polite enough to add: “especially on the left”, but his rebuke to some of his Republican rivals was well made.

In part Mr Rubio is defending himself tactically from the charge that America is not ready to hand the White House to another young, eloquent senator (having tried that with a certain Senator Obama from Illinois). But he is right to challenge crowds such as the one in Boone. I like the 20th century, Mr Rubio joked. I was born in the 20th century. But it is time to build a new American century.•

We celebrate youth when we most fear death. We seek escapism when there seems no way out.

From a 1977 Interview Q&A Andy Warhol and Bob Colacello conducted with Sissy Spacek:

Andy Warhol:

It’s funny they never write about you in the scandal sheets. I guess it’s because you always play such a young person.

Sissy Spacek:

I’m grouped together with Tatum O’Neal and Jodie Foster. That’s fine with me. You see, you can get by with a lot more that way. People let things slide. That’s good, I guess.

Andy Warhol:

And child actors are getting so big again.

Sissy Spacek:

I wonder why.

Bob Colacello:

I think because everything’s going in an escapist direction because things are getting worse.

Sissy Spacek:

Do you think so?

Bob Colacello:

They don’t seem to be getting better. The news magazines always used to have hard news stories on the covers. Now it’s entertainment stories.

Sissy Spacek:

I see you—you get overloaded by the truth. That’s the nice thing about livin’ in Los Angeles. Anything that happens in the news—great tragedies, scandals—people just think, “What a great idea for a film!” Everything’s thought of in terms of “material.” Remember that thing in Uganda? They couldn’t get the films out fast enough.•

Tags: , ,

I put up a post of Thomas Piketty’s NYRB take on Sir Tony Atkinson’s Inequality: What Can Be Done? Here’s a passage from an Economist piece about the same book, which compares Atkinson’s work to Piketty’s conversation-turning Capital in the Twenty-First Century:

In the event, Sir Anthony is more radical than Mr Piketty; he calls for robust taxation of the rich whom he reckons have got off easily over the last generation (see chart). But that’s not all. He believes government should meddle in markets in all sorts of ways to influence the distribution of economic rewards. Sir Anthony’s recommendations are a throwback to the 1960s and 1970s, when trade unions were a dominant force in politics and the state was seen as a much-needed check on markets. Even the most egalitarian economists, such as Mr Piketty, are reluctant to recommend employment guarantees and wage controls. Sir Anthony is not. And if his arguments are not always wholly convincing, he may nonetheless succeed in shifting the debate.

Inequality begins with a clear statement of the harm done by rising income gaps: they unfairly punish those who suffer bad luck. They undermine economic growth and social cohesion. Perhaps most importantly, inequality in economic resources translates directly into inequality in personal opportunity. Wealth generates comfort even when it isn’t being spent; the rich enjoy the fact that they are insured against future hardship or could use their wealth in future to satisfy personal or professional goals.•

Tags: ,

« Older entries § Newer entries »