Officials Say Reformulation of OxyContin Has Increased Interest in Abuse of Other Narcotics

From Join Together - now that Oxycontin has been reformulated so that it's harder to abuse, people are just turning toward other narcotics, including heroin.

Un-Natural Selection: Human Evolution's Next Steps

Un-Natural Selection: Human Evolution's Next Steps

by Joe Palca

Human beings are defying nature. Or at least we’re trying to.

For billions of years, species have evolved by natural selection, the process by which genetic mutations that help an organism survive are passed on from one generation to the next and harmful ones are eliminated.

But natural selection takes time — sometimes millions or even hundreds of millions of years. Humans have only been around for tens of thousands of years, but we are changing the world so much that genetic evolution simply can't keep up.

Millions of years ago, the natural environment was shaping us into the species we are now. Today, we create our own environments, and that has its consequences.

John Hawks, an anthropologist and geneticist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, says we've created a lifestyle that is at odds with the one natural selection provided us with. Consider, for example, what ate when we were hunter gatherers, long before we started farming.

"We adapted to a diet that was much more balanced in terms of lean meat, in terms of high fiber vegetables. And by de-accentuating those aspects of our former diet, we've created a new environment that humans aren't real suited to," Hawks says.

Sometimes, though, genetic adaptation can happen fairly quickly. Hawks says the classic example is a mutation in a gene that makes red blood cells. It's called the sickle-cell mutation and spread through Africa once malaria became a problem there.

“That's a highly adaptive mutation where it occurs when there's malaria around, because it's protective against malaria," says Hawks. If you inherit the mutation from just one parent, you don't get sick. You only get malaria protection. It's only when you inherit the mutation from both parents that you get sickle-cell anemia. So if you're not living in a malaria environment, the mutation is just bad.” And you don’t want that gene, Hawks says, because your offspring have a chance of having sickle-cell anemia.

Keeping Bad Mutations Around

Really bad mutations tend to disappear, because the people who have them frequently don't live long enough to pass them on. That's what natural selection is all about.

But now in some cases we choose to keep these bad mutations around. Take the gene mutation that causes phenylketonuria, or PKU. People with the disease can't break down the amino acid phenylalanine, a problem that can lead to severe cognitive damage.

"It's a devastating disease that you can completely eliminate if you pick it up early," says Matthew Hirschfeld, a pediatrician at Alaska Native Medical Center.

And it can be picked up very early — there's a genetic test for PKU that all babies in the U.S. get at birth. The treatment includes maintaining a diet with low levels of phenylalanine.

But curing the disease does not mean eliminating the mutation. Once upon a time, children born with PKU probably would never have offspring. Now they can, and that helps keep the mutation in circulation.

Choosing Our Genes

In fact, a large part of modern medicine is in the business of overcoming bad mutations.

“We want to have cures for things, we want to make things better," says Hawks. We do this with eye sight: Nearsightedness could have been fatal for people whose ability to survive depended on spotting dinner off in the distance. Now it doesn't matter if we inherited nearsightedness — we wear eyeglasses.

"We wear contact lenses," says Hawks."You get Lasik surgery. We can affect eye sight in many different ways. It's not perfect, but like many instances of technological development, we tinker at it and it changes and eventually we come to a point where we like it or keep changing.

We've turned the notion of natural selection on its head. Nature isn't the only force that picks the genes that stick around — we're doing it too. We're moving toward a time when we can routinely repair, remove or even insert genes in people.

The question is whether we can do as good a job as nature has done up until now.

more melding of technology & humanity

Panasonic engineers released a soft, fleshlike remote control that pulsates and becomes rigid when switched on.

Italian urologists increased the size and improved the function of test subjects' penises with a device called the Andropenis.

A Georgia Tech engineer created software that endows unmanned aerial drones with a sense of guilt.

from Harper's Findings, August 2009

robots learn to lie

granted, this probably didn't go beyond the scope of what they were programmed to do, but it's still freaky nonetheless.

10 robots were given points for how often they went for "food," a light-colored ring on the floor vs. "poison," a darker ring at the other end of the space. the robots had blue lights that went off randomly but gave away their position. there were only 8 spots near the food, so they had to compete for the spots. the robots who were the best at finding food went on to the next round. after 50 rounds, the robots started deceiving each other by not emitting their blue light so as not to give away their position when they were near food.

Tendency Toward Complexity

i'm currently reading "shantaram," by gregory david roberts. it's a fascinating book about a fugitive's life in india, first living in a slum, then working with the mafia. however, there are many times in the book when he waxes philisophical and it just annoys me, usually because it's not quite how i view the world.

but in one conversation they discuss the meaning of the universe and how you define good and evil. i couldn't believe how much it seemed to sum up my thoughts these days about evolutionary extinction and how nothing in the universe is random. i will insert those passages here when i have time, but basically since the "big bang" the universe has been expanding and forming more complex, moving towards an order. it is the "tendency toward complexity," and maybe "god" is the ultimate complexity.

i haven't wrapped my mind yet around the good and evil aspect of it; that good is anything that helps the universe along toward the ultimate complexity, and evil is anything that holds it back.

i'm looking forward to exploring this further!

personal robot

i just have to give a shout out to toys in babeland, a sex toy store. last fall on election day they gave away either a vibrator or a sleeve (the maverick, i believe) for free if you voted.

naturally, being one who loves free stuff, i went straight there on election day after spending the morning doing the "honk and wave" for my boss's re-election. i grabbed the silver bullet! changed my life... thanks toys in babeland!

swarming

now back to my fascination with evolving ourselves into extinction...i heard an interesting show on kuow the other day about "swarming." (http://www.kuow.washington.edu/program.php?id=16513)they're researching swarming instincts and how to translate that into robots. seriously.
http://www.swarms.org/

Scalable sWarms of Autonomous Robots and Mobile Sensors (SWARMS) project. The SWARMS project brings together experts in artificial intelligence, control theory, robotics, systems engineering and biology with the goal of understanding swarming behaviors in nature and applications of biologically-inspired models of swarm behaviors to large networked groups of autonomous vehicles. Our main goal is to develop a framework and methodology for the analysis of swarming behavior in biology and the synthesis of bio-inspired swarming behavior for engineered systems. We will be interested in such questions as: Can large numbers of autonomously functioning vehicles be reliably deployed in the form of a “swarm” to carry out a prescribed mission and to respond as a group to high-level management commands? Can such a group successfully function in a potentially hostile environment, without a designated leader, with limited communications between its members, and/or with different and potentially dynamically changing “roles” for its members? What can we learn about how to organize these teams from biological groupings such as insect swarms, bird flocks, and fish schools? Is there a hierarchy of “compatible” models appropriate to swarming/schooling/flocking which is rich enough to explain these behaviors at various “resolutions” ranging from aggregate characterizations of emergent behavior to detailed descriptions which model individual vehicle dynamics?
Vijay KumarUniversity of Pennsylvania.

breathe

i am breathing in and making my whole body calm and at peace. i am breathing out and making my whole body calm and at peace. this is how one practices.
- the sutra on full awareness of breathing

commitmentphobia

this sounds too familiar...

Fear of commitment
from wikipedia
Fear of commitment in popular literature refers to avoidance of long-term partnership and/or marriage but it is often much more pervasive. In 1987 the term commitment phobia was coined by Steven Carter in his book Men who can't love.
In romantic relationships, the paradox is that the commitmentphobic craves what he/she fears most: love and connection. This leads to a confusing and destructive pattern of seduction and rejection that is generally experienced by the love object as emotionally devastating. Though generally attributed exclusively to males, it is well-documented that commitmentphobia is not gender-specific.
While this behavior has been documented for some time, the word commitmentphobia (no space, no hyphen) was actually coined in the 1987 New York Times Bestseller Men who can't love by Steven A. Carter and Julie Sokol (M.Evans & Co. Publishing). Interestingly, in 1987, legendary New York publisher George de Kay (Body Language, Aerobics, Open Marriage, Atkins New Diet Revolution, etc.) resisted printing the word commitmentphobia on the original book jacket, fearing it sounded "too scientific and off-putting." Within one year, the phrase commitmentphobia had become popular American jargon and the sub-title of the book was changed to include the phrase "commitmentphobic."
Commitment phobia is rooted in fear -- fear of lost options or fear of making poor decisions. The commitment phobic mind sees decisions as permanent. It symbolizes being caged or trapped. Commitment phobics actually take commitment very seriously, which is why the decision to commit can be so hard for them. "A rolling stone gathers no moss" is the appropriate proverb for this subclass of individuals. And like the proverb, commitment phobia is a double edged sword -- on the one hand you avoid obligations, ties, and commitments yet at the same time the commitment phobic may secretly crave the lives of those who committed and the growth that those roots produced. But when push comes to shove, the CPs' fear usually wins out -- commitment phobics desire freedom above all else and sometimes, alternatively, they desire fantasy over reality and yet in other cases, they desire both.
Commitment phobia is largely unrecognized as a real disabling fear. It is sometimes thought to be associated with fear of death, fear of intimacy, etc. But most CPs usually show signs of commitment fears across many domains of life. Sometimes it is so pervasive that that it interferes in their ability to make simple every day decisions and on the larger scale, of managing and maintaining their life. CPs are prone to self-destructive behavior and escapism as a way to assuage their anxiety. Carter and Sokol refer to both active and passive commitment phobics but usually CPs have elements of both active and passive CP behaviors (some may have stronger preferences). In terms of personality types, commitment phobics are usually enneagram types 7s, 6s or 4s, which are types that tend to engage in push-pull behaviors (7s tend to be more "active" phobics while 4's tend to be more "passive"). Audrey Hepburn in Breakfast at Tiffany's is a classic example of a 7w6 active commitment phobic. Cameron Diaz (enneatype 7w6) recently admitted that she has commitment phobia, most likely of active variety.
"As a commitment-phobic individual, people often laugh at my only goal in life -- to get a dog. I have wanted a dog for at least 15 years and every New Years I tell myself, this is the year. 15 years and waiting... But like an ice-berg, the desire to have a dog is just the tip of the berg; where most of the hurt and anxiety manifests is in my one on one personal relationships. Each time I hope that this one will be different; That I won't run away. When forced to make a choice I almost freeze in panic. I have thoughts in my mind but I can't speak -- the only thing I can think of is how to get away from this source of anxiety. I may break things off or say something to get the other person mad (and therefore not interested in a commitment). I feel like a crab without a shell when cornered. And I can't stop feeling like that."

holding onto anger

holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned.
-buddha

dr. ecstasy

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/30/magazine/30ECSTASY.html?ex=1264827600&en=edb29c075c8aceed&ei=5090
great article on alexander shulgin. excerpt:
It was an acquaintance of Shulgin's named Humphry Osmond, a British psychiatrist and researcher into the effects of mescaline and LSD, who coined the word ''psychedelic'' in the late 1950's for a class of drugs that significantly alter one's perception of reality. Derived from Greek, the term translates as ''mind manifesting'' and is preferred by those who believe in the curative power of such chemicals. Skeptics tend to call them hallucinogens.
Shulgin is in the former camp. There's a story he likes to tell about the past 100 years: ''At the beginning of the 20th century, there were only two psychedelic compounds known to Western science: cannabis and mescaline. A little over 50 years later -- with LSD, psilocybin, psilocin, TMA, several compounds based on DMT and various other isomers -- the number was up to almost 20. By 2000, there were well over 200. So you see, the growth is exponential.'' When I asked him whether that meant that by 2050 we'll be up to 2,000, he smiled and said, ''The way it's building up now, we may have well over that number.''
The point is clear enough: the continuing explosion in options for chemical mind-manifestation is as natural as the passage of time. But what Shulgin's narrative leaves out is the fact that most of this supposedly inexorable diversification took place in a lab in his backyard. For 40 years, working in plain sight of the law and publishing his results, Shulgin has been a one-man psychopharmacological research sector. (Timothy Leary called him one of the century's most important scientists.) By Shulgin's own count, he has created nearly 200 psychedelic compounds, among them stimulants, depressants, aphrodisiacs, ''empathogens,'' convulsants, drugs that alter hearing, drugs that slow one's sense of time, drugs that speed it up, drugs that trigger violent outbursts, drugs that deaden emotion -- in short, a veritable lexicon of tactile and emotional experience. And in 1976, Shulgin fished an obscure chemical called MDMA out of the depths of the chemical literature and introduced it to the wider world, where it came to be known as Ecstasy.
In the small subculture that truly believes in better living through chemistry, Shulgin's oeuvre has made him an icon and a hero: part pioneer, part holy man, part connoisseur. As his supporters point out, his work places him in an old, and in many cultures venerable, tradition. Whether it's West African iboga ceremonies or Navajo peyote rituals, 60's LSD culture or the age-old cultivation of cannabis nearly everywhere on the planet it can grow, the pursuit and celebration of chemically-induced alternate realms of consciousness goes back beyond the dawn of recorded history and has proved impossible to fully suppress. Shulgin sees nothing strange about devoting his life to it. What's strange to him is that so few others see fit to do the same thing.

quit drinking again...

...it's not for me.
a layman who has chosen to practice this dhamma should not indulge in the drinking of intoxicants. he should not drink them nor encourage others to do so, realizing that it leads to madness. through intoxication foolish people perform evil deeds and cause other heedless people to do likewise. he should avoid intoxication, this occasion for demerit, which stupefies the mind, and is the pleasure of foolish people.
-sutta nipata

why selling drugs is the worst profession in america

lecture by steven levitt, co-author of "freakanomics."

http://www.glumbert.com/media/gang