Say no to wanna-be space tyrants

This is not Mars

Somebody finally says what our colonies in space would look like (although, to be fair, there are so many distopian science fiction novels that have repeatedly said it): they would be slave compounds, or at their most charitable, company towns.

A million inhabitants live in the city under the soft pink sky of Mars, just a century after the first robotic probes from Earth visited the Red Planet. They farm and labor in habitats that shield them from dust and harsh ultraviolet radiation.

Promoted as a society unshackled from earthly laws, this town is in fact as unfree as possible. The company rules everything, owning not only the buildings but the water and air people need to survive. If a person took out a loan to pay for passage, the company effectively holds them in indentured servitude. Human rights are not a given, nor is bodily autonomy.

Matthew Francis makes that bold prediction in Scientific American. He goes on to say, though, that

Thankfully, this dystopia isn’t inevitable.

It isn’t? How does one plan to trick people into living in a brutally unsurvivable environment that lacks any appeal or relief from drudgery short of economic compulsion? I’m going to disagree. I think the entire plan is deadly, built entirely on corpses and bloody backs in the long run, and I see no other alternative. I would love to hear about this alternative plan that isn’t a product of capitalist exploitation. Instead, we get the familiar refrain naming the usual obscenely rich people scheming to take advantage of those less powerful.

However, some of the world’s most powerful men believe it’s part of humanity’s multiplanetary future, and as leaders of the private space industry they have the potential to realize much of the vision. For years, SpaceX chief Elon Musk has pushed claims that he will resettle a million people on Mars by 2050 using a thousand rockets built by his company, with the first settlers arriving by the end of this decade. Even sooner, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos’s Blue Origin rocket company is plotting to build an “office park” in low-Earth orbit in the next five years called the Orbital Reef. His ultimate vision, however, is trillions of people in space colony canisters, to produce “1,000 Mozarts and 1,000 Einsteins,” in his questionable phrasing, in coming centuries.

The only good news about space colonies designed by Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos is that they aren’t going to happen. Musk will not be launching a million people to Mars in 15 years, not even close (although I do see some fantasy synergy between Musk and Trump’s plan to deport millions of people on day one of his presidency — maybe he’s dreaming of filling his Martian city with Puerto Ricans, Haitians, and South American gang-bangers). Bezos is not going to build an office park in Earth orbit, not as long as he can bulldoze farm land for cheap and assemble giant concrete boxes here on Earth. Those are two professional liars. Don’t believe anything they promise, because all they really promise is controlling you to their benefit.

All you need to do to see their true vision of the future is look at what Musk does in the present. He’s a control freak. He’s building a compound in Austin, Texas. It’s creepy and controlling, and just the idea of building a “compound” for your family reeks of Mormon cultishness and Saudi dictatorships.

On a quiet, leafy street of multimillion-dollar properties, one stands out: a 14,400-square-foot mansion that looks like a villa plucked from the hills of Tuscany and transplanted to Austin, Texas.

This is where Elon Musk, 53, the world’s richest man and perhaps the most important campaign backer of former President Donald J. Trump, has been trying to establish the cornerstone of an unusual family compound, according to four people familiar with his plans.

Mr. Musk has told people close to him in recent months that he envisions his children (of which there are at least 11) and two of their three mothers occupying adjoining properties. That way, his younger children could be a part of one another’s lives, and Mr. Musk could schedule time among them.

He’s got lots of money, he could afford to give his wives and children complete freedom and the ability to be autonomous agents of their own will, but no — he wants them conveniently close to do his bidding. Do you really think his Martian workers would be allowed any kind of independence? If they whispered the word “union” he’d shut off their air. Musk is very concerned about birth rates, too. Workers would not only have quotas of profitable units produced, but would have quotas of children to pump out. Having a self-perpetuating labor force totally under his control is the main virtue of a Mars colony to him. The only pronoun he values is the possessive pronoun that he’d apply to children, workers, and women.

Francis has it right.

To put it bluntly: if our space overlords behave this way on Earth with governments looking over their shoulders, how will they behave off-world with little possibility of oversight or redress? Even returning to Earth from Mars might be technically impossible. Trusting your life to private space companies is a big gamble, not least since Florida Governor Ron DeSantis in May signed a bill shielding SpaceX and other companies from liability from death or injury incurred from spaceflight.

If you want a glimpse of the real future of space colonization, read this story about how Saudi princes control their own daughters. It’s got compounds. The few things it has that a Mars colony wouldn’t is gilded cages and shopping trips to Dubai (under armed guard, of course). That’s the fate of any people who find themselves at the mercy of wealthy, grasping autocrats, like Musk or Bezos.

We should not even be considering space colonization — take it right off the table.

Musk and Bezos don’t serve a fascist regime, but like von Braun, their visions are rooted in 20th-century colonialism, resource extraction and disregard for labor rights. Martian company towns off-world won’t be the libertarian paradise promised by our tech billionaires.

Space exploration, yes; space exploitation, no. It should not be in the hands of billionaires, who we have learned, are the worst people on the planet.

Some days, I wonder why I’m doing this

Yes. But they’ll feel like they’re the one who failed.

Today, I had 3 students (out of 11) show up for what I thought was a scintillating talk about the immediate aftermath of publishing The Origin. Wilberforce and Huxley! Huxley humiliating Owen on the hippocampus minor question! Fleeming Jenkins’ extremely awkward question! Darwin’s epic genetics failure! How can you not want to discuss these dramatic events?

Maybe I’m not as scintillating as I thought. How are these students going to learn anything if they don’t keep up? Less significantly, how do they expect to pass?

Retirement looks ever more attractive.

P.S. I should mention that my entire class is not at risk of failing. Some are. Others may be working on a lower grade than they want.

There are multiple “C words,” you know

While the Republican Party is busy covering the racism angle, Elon Musk is, in his @America account, making sure the misogynists know to vote for the convicted rapist.

It’s part of a misleading and suggestive ad.

Warning: This ad contains multiple instances of the ‘C Word.’ Viewer discretion is advised. Kamala Harris is a ‘C word.’ You heard that right. A big ole ‘C word.’ In fact, all of the other ‘C words’ think she’s the biggest ‘C word’ of them all. That’s right. She’s a tax-hiking, regulation-loving, gun-grabbing communist. And the worst part? She’s proud of it. Kamala Harris: the ‘C word America simply can’t afford. See you nationwide Tuesday, November 5th.

It ultimately reveals that the “C word” it is talking about isn’t the usual misogynistic slur (but you know you’re supposed to think it). She’s a communist. What stupid nonsense — I know communists, and I have to tell you, Elon, Kamala Harris is no communist.

The ad might be more persuasive if it used the correct “C word”: Kamala Harris is a capitalist, and yes, she is proud of it.

Only one week until the election, and a few months of bickering, lying, and phony lawsuits until we can possibly get down to the business of grabbing guns and imposing regulations, not that I think that will actually happen if the Democrats win.

Who is that jackwad?

Trump had a rally in Madison Square Garden this weekend and it was reminiscent of a Nazi rally. They brought on a ‘comedian’ who made a ‘joke’. I don’t know if you know this, but there’s literally a floating island of garbage in the middle of the ocean right now. I think it’s called Puerto Rico.

Ocasio-Cortez said it all in the clip above: this is what the Republican party is, a clique of elitist thugs who willingly insult entire ethnicities because they believe that they, by virtue of their whiteness, are truly superior. The Trump campaign is scrambling to distance themselves from this alienation of part of the electorate, but you know this is what the think, deep down. Notice that the audience laughed at the ‘joke’.

Walz was characteristically pithy: Hinchcliffe is a jackwad.

Hinchcliffe has responded!

Oh. It was just a joke. It was taken out of context. Where have I heard those excuses before?

Transphobia rots your brain

CSICon is currently taking place in Las Vegas, with a great speaker lineup: Neil deGrasse Tyson, Brian Cox, Michael Mann, Massimo Pigliucci, Steve Novella, etc. For some reason, they also included Jerry Coyne, who has become a right-wing crank over the years, and who is quite annoyed that Novella discussed the myth of the gender binary — and chose to talk about Sex and Race: Handling the Ideological Hot Potatoes. His abstract for the talk says he was arguing that race is a valid category because you can distinguish “race” genetically, which tells me that he doesn’t understand the argument. Individuals are unique and carry the record of their ancestry, but that ignores the fact that people use race as a catch-all for lumping people into stereotypes, which are not valid.

But I haven’t heard his talk, nor am I interested in hearing it. He did give a kind of “rebuttal” to Novella’s talk, though, summarized in one simple list. The list is a collection of his misconceptions and says far more about him than any argument us “woke” people would actually make. Further, it is embarrassingly stupid — irrelevant, confused, and not even wrong. It reminds me of the kinds of arguments creationists make that just reveal that they understand nothing about evolution.

Here’s Coyne’s list In Defense of the Binary Nature of Sex, which does nothing of the kind.

IN DEFENSE OF THE BINARY NATURE OF SEX
Argument is completely limited to humans; is the binary of reproductive systems also “delusional” in other animals (e.g., foxes, ducks) or in plants?
No evidence of any “brain modules” for gender identity.
Do people who are temporally binary, with gender fluctuating over time, change sex each time they change gender?
Fluctuations in referrals for gender dysphoria over time (20-fold in last ten years in UK)
Are “pure” members of one sex (with the corresponding genitals, chromosomes, gametes and chromosomes), but who feel they’re not of their natal sex, actually of the other sex?
People have incorrect feelings about their nature all the time (yes, in their brains), but this doesn’t mean that their self-image should be taken as biological reality.
And what do we do with people who sincerely feel that they’re other animals? Are they Indeed animals likes horses and cats?

Let’s take them on one at a time, shall we?

Argument is completely limited to humans; is the binary of reproductive systems also “delusional” in other animals (e.g., foxes, ducks) or in plants?

Who says the argument is completely limited to humans? It’s not. It’s just that we are far better at distinguishing subtle variations in our own species. Sexual development and differentiation in animals uses the same complex cascade of molecular interactions as it does in humans. There are differences in sexual morphology and behavior in individual animals that will leap out at you if you actually scrutinize them carefully. Even in spiders, which are only distantly related to humans. They exhibit different degrees of social behavior, aggression, cooperation, and yes, sexual activity. I’ve had spiders who exhibit no interest in sex at all; I raise them to adulthood, and can’t persuade them to reproduce even as their siblings readily mate at every opportunity. Every coupling is different. This is in a species that cannot communicate to us and every interpretation of their activity is subjective. What kind of biologist would look at the range of sexual interactions in any species and decide that they must be shoehorned into just two types?

As for plants — they don’t exhibit much in the way of behavior, expression, or culture, but they do have a complex range of sexes. How do you tell if a carrot is uncomfortable with its expected biological role?

No evidence of any “brain modules” for gender identity.

Jerry Coyne knows nothing about neuroscience. We know there are differences in the brain that are correlates of differences in behavior and thinking; I’m pretty sure Coyne wouldn’t be claiming that brains are like featureless potatoes with patterns of activity that arise without differences in morphology or connectivity of pharmacology. Modules are abstractions that are used to model the functionality of different parts of the brain.

Many complex networks are composed of “modules” that form an interconnected network. We sought to elucidate the nature of the brain’s modular function by testing the autonomy of the brain’s modules and the potential mechanisms underlying their interactions. By studying the brain as a large-scale complex network and measuring activity across the network during 77 cognitive tasks, we demonstrate that, despite connectivity between modules, each module appears to execute a discrete cognitive function relatively autonomously from the other modules. Moreover, brain regions with diverse connectivity across the modules appear to play a role in enabling modules to interact while remaining mostly autonomous. This generates the counterintuitive idea that regions with diverse connectivity across modules are necessary for modular biological networks.

The brain is a network with spatial and functional segregation of elements that we can call “modules”; trans people will have modules that differ from cis people, and people who prefer coffee to tea have their own kinds of modules. All Coyne is doing here is denying the existence of differences between brains, which I would hope most people would recognize is ignorant and absurd.

(Note that there are differences in interpretation in the neuroscience community; we can argue about modules vs. modes, but good grief, denying that there are neurological differences is like trying to claim that population structure doesn’t exist.)

Do people who are temporally binary, with gender fluctuating over time, change sex each time they change gender?

Sure, why not? Why can’t both sex and gender be fluid? Coyne just wants to force-fit everything into only one of two possible categories, but biology is more complex than that. His narrow-mindedness is not evidence of much of anything.

Fluctuations in referrals for gender dysphoria over time (20-fold in last ten years in UK)

Jesus christ, really? Culture and evironment affect everything, that varying rates of referrals is a product of the way that societies fluctuate in their tolerance of sex and gender differences. That he doesn’t recognize this is just a sign that he has a painfully simple-minded notion of how sex functions as more than just a mechanism for reproduction.

Are “pure” members of one sex (with the corresponding genitals, chromosomes, gametes and chromosomes), but who feel they’re not of their natal sex, actually of the other sex?

I’m glad I didn’t hear his talk, because I wonder if he also talked about “pure” members of one race. There’s no such thing as being “purely” a member of one complex multidimensional and weakly defined category. We are all part of a continuum along many dimensions. This point makes no sense unless you’re thoroughly soaking in the preconception that there can be only two sexes and everyone must fit into one or another in all particulars.

People have incorrect feelings about their nature all the time (yes, in their brains), but this doesn’t mean that their self-image should be taken as biological reality.

I am grossly materialistic. Self-image is part of one’s biology. If it’s in our brains, how can it not be a reflection of biological reality? I’m sorry if plasticity isn’t in Jerry Coyne’s vocabulary. I’m pretty confident that dualism isn’t part of his worldview.

And what do we do with people who sincerely feel that they’re other animals? Are they Indeed animals likes horses and cats?

I kew that was coming. And what about the people who sincerely feel that they are attack helicopters?

No, people can’t change species. They’re still people. Being a person, though, encompasses a wide range of possibilities. Trans people fully understand their biological realities and don’t imagine that genitalia are magical products of desire.

As for what we do with people who have ideas that are less rigid than Coyne’s dumb-ass cis-normativity…do we have to do anything, or can we just let them live in peace?

The FDA hates sunshine and exercise?

Remember this: Trump wants to put RFK Jr. in charge of America’s public health policy.

FDA’s war on public health is about to end. This includes its aggressive suppression of psychedelics, peptides, stem cells, raw milk, hyperbaric therapies, chelating compounds, ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, vitamins, clean foods, sunshine, exercise, nutraceuticals and anything else that advances human health and can’t be patented by Pharma. If you work for the FDA and are part of this corrupt system, | have two messages for you: 1. Preserve your records, and 2. Pack your bags.

There’s a bunch of both dangerous (opposed by the FDA) and innocuous (not opposed, and sometimes endorsed, by the FDA) things in that list, and a not-so-subtle paranoid conspiracy theory behind it all, but what I find particularly worrisome is the threat at the end. If you aren’t in favor of raw milk, ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, and random psychedelics, pack your bags, you’re going on Donald Trump’s list of undesirables.

At least I hate the Sacklers and Martin Shkreli as much as anyone, and I’m on the side of sunshine and exercise. In fact, I just had my morning vitamins and am going to go on a walk.

I think I see the problem here

An ironic slogan

As we get closer to the election, the frenzy of the media becomes increasingly apparent. All the stories about polls, about uncommitted voters, about wild rumors about immigrants, etc., it all has a purpose — to make us increasingly anxious and desperate for more “news”, that is, the stuff the media tells us will help us resolve our uncertainty. Except, of course, it isn’t what we need. I know how I’m going to vote, I informed my opinion on that by seeing what the candidates do and say, and all the caterwauling about how my neighbors will vote or how people a thousand miles away will vote doesn’t matter.

But that is what the media feeds on.

The machine is churning so fast right now that the works have been exposed. Sprockets have sprung, circuits are frayed, the housing is cracked, and the real engines of the news are exposed. It’s billionaires meddling.

The choice in the next election is obvious to every informed citizen, but the Washington Post went full chickenshit and decided this was the year they can’t make an endorsement. The publisher, William Lewis, had to twist himself into knots to justify that act of cowardice.

“We recognize that this will be read in a range of ways, including as a tacit endorsement of one candidate, or as a condemnation of another, or as an abdication of responsibility. That is inevitable,” Lewis wrote. “We don’t see it that way. We see it as consistent with the values The Post has always stood for and what we hope for in a leader: character and courage in service to the American ethic, veneration for the rule of law, and respect for human freedom in all its aspects.”

In the name of ethics, the rule of law, and respect for human freedom, the paper nobly refuses to support the candidate who opposes a fascist with no ethics, contempt for the law, who wants to lock up and deport millions of Americans. That is such a chickenshit excuse. You know the real motivation: they are afraid Trump might win, and they are preemptively kneeling before the monster who’d abuse his power to silence media that is critical of him.

And, of course, the Washington Post is owned by a billionaire, Jeff Bezos, who is probably pissed off at the only reasonable (if flawed) candidate who is talking about mild policy that might cost him another yacht. The thumb is on the scales.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the country, another major newspaper, the LA Times, refused to endorse a candidate who opposes Trump, and has lost the support of much of its staff.

Mariel Garza, who was until days ago the Los Angeles Times’ editorials editor, said she resigned from her post in protest after the paper’s owner, billionaire Patrick Soon-Shiong, blocked an endorsement the editorial board had planned to make for Harris. Soon-Shiong appeared to push back in a social media post, in which he claimed the editorial board was asked to “draft a factual analysis of all the POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE policies by EACH candidate” so readers could make an informed decision, but claimed the board did not follow through. Editorial board members Robert Greene, a Pulitzer Prize winner, and Karin Klein also resigned in protest, with both citing their disappointment over the blocked endorsement.

Patrick Soon-Shiong is a South African billionaire who bought his way into a position of influence. I can think of another South African billionaire who is poisoning our democracy. Maybe we should deport them all?

There are things we can do — weak, belated things, but it’s something. You can write a letter to the editor of the WaPo. It probably won’t get published, but increasing the tally of people who state their contempt for the editorial cowardice can help. Do like Martin Baron.

Former Washington Post Executive Editor Martin Baron, who led the newsroom to acclaim during Trump’s presidency, denounced the decision starkly.

“This is cowardice, a moment of darkness that will leave democracy as a casualty,” Baron said in a statement to NPR. “Donald Trump will celebrate this as an invitation to further intimidate The Post’s owner, Jeff Bezos (and other media owners). History will mark a disturbing chapter of spinelessness at an institution famed for courage.”

Or even better, if you are a subscriber, cancel it right now. I did. The darkness approaches. Don’t expect the Washington Post to light a candle.

Little boy, you are not yet ready

Today was the day I was going to try breeding a new generation of black widows. I gently introduced some males to some females, but then chickened out. No way were these males ready for the overwhelming majesty of a fully grown female.

That immensity is the female, on the left. The little guy on the right is a male, who I think is bit young for this exercise. He’s game, though, scurried right up to female and made a few tentative taps. It’s a bit like watching a mosquito getting the hots for a passing zeppelin.

I think I’ll have to tank up the males for a few more weeks.

Today I’m doing a “fool’s experiment” in the classroom

Fridays are the worst, from a teacher’s perspective, and Mondays are great. Students start out the week full of enthusiasm and slowly deflate, so today I’ve only got 50% attendance…and that’s typical. I try to pack Mondays with all the deep information, while on Fridays I try to do something different.

We’ve been talking about Darwin this week. I’ve given them an in-class exercise to browse through the Darwin project and begin to put together a short essay. Here are their instructions.

In your next essay, you’re going to be a real historian: I want you to read a few samples of primary historical references from Charles Darwin, and interpret and explain what he is writing about.

The Darwin Correspondence Project (https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/) is a massive archive of letters to and from Charles Darwin, containing about 15,000 documents that have all been indexed and made publicly available. I want you to dive into this pile of letters, pluck out a few, and read them carefully. You may have to do additional research to figure out who these long dead people were, but the Darwin Project has actually done a lot of that work for you.

Write a 750 word essay that explains the context and meaning of the letters you choose. Unlike most scientific writing, this kind of essay encourages quoting your source — but don’t use up more than 250 words in direct quotes.

You get to choose the topic of the letters. Some might contain heavy scientific arguments, others might be friendly chit-chat, some are questions about that flower you were supposed to mail to me. They’re all good and interesting! Peek into the mind of a famous scientist, and you’ll find both deep revelations and mundane conversation.

In class: before you go, summarize to the group what you intend to write about, or tell us something interesting that you found.

I’m in class, working in parallel with them, and occasionally interrupting to get an idea of what they’re focusing on. I was most interested in Darwin’s “fool experiments“. These were experiments where you figured that it would never work, or that the answer would be obvious, but you go ahead and do the experiment anyways.

‘I love fools’ experiments. I am always making them’, was one of the most interesting things the zoologist E. Ray Lankester ever heard Darwin say. ‘A great deal might be written as comment on that statement’, Lankester later recorded, but he limited himself to stating that ‘the thoughts which it suggests may be summed up by the proposition that even a wise experiment when made by a fool generally leads to a false conclusion, but that fools’ experiments conducted by a genius often prove to be leaps through the dark into great discoveries.’

That’s a really good idea. I should go do a fool’s experiment this afternoon, maybe I’ll be surprised.

My students are right now digging into Darwin’s religious beliefs, his love life, his speculations about the age of the earth, and are going to give me the details next week. This should be fun.

My political “dilemma”

Here’s the problem. The Democrats think it’s OK to murder Palestinians, but also think trans people should have rights. The Republicans think it’s OK to murder both Palestinians and trans people.

It’s not much of a dilemma, because of course I can’t vote for Republicans, but I can support part of the Democratic position, so I’ve got to vote Democratic party all the way down the line. It would make me much happier, though, if we could see some opposition to Israel’s genocidal actions.

I was surprised to see this evidence that anti-trans rhetoric is a key part of the Republican strategy.

They’ve spent almost $30 million on an ad that says Harris is providing humane social support to trans people in prison, which they think is deplorable, but I think is a point in her favor. Their second biggest focus is on immigration — they’re against it, I’m for it.

Their entire platform is built on hatred for non-white, non-straight people. Again, this is a crappy dilemma, because of course I’m pro-Democrat then.

Except that I wish voting for Harris didn’t also make me feel like I’m giving tacit approval to genocide.