The Unseen Enemy: How Science and Greed Are Extending Our Lives

"Man can't fight what he doesn't see." This simple statement captures a profound truth about human progress and our ongoing battle against disease and mortality.

As science advances and research and development expands, we're constantly uncovering new pathogens and harmful substances in our environment. While it may seem like the world is becoming a more dangerous place, the reality is that we're simply becoming more aware of the threats that have always surrounded us.

I recently explored Gapminder's visualization tools (gapminder) to examine life expectancy in the late 1800s. It was a stark reminder of how vulnerable humans once were. Regardless of where they lived, people could expect to die from various causes between the ages of 35 and 40.

However, as the Industrial Revolution progressed and wealth increased (measured by GDP per capita), life expectancy in wealthier nations began to rise dramatically. This trend coincided with advancements in science and technology, driven in large part by capitalist pursuits. The desire for profit and efficiency fueled innovation, leading to improvements in medicine, sanitation, and public health.

So, while greed may have its downsides, it's also been a powerful engine for progress, indirectly contributing to longer and healthier lives. We owe a debt of gratitude to those driven by profit who inadvertently paved the way for medical breakthroughs and a better understanding of the unseen forces that threaten our well-being.

Of course, this doesn't mean we should blindly embrace greed. But it's worth acknowledging the complex interplay between scientific progress, economic incentives, and human well-being. As we continue to explore the world around us and develop new technologies, let's strive to harness the power of innovation for the benefit of all humankind. 

A Blast from the Past: Revisiting a 4-Year-Old Draft

It's fascinating to stumble upon old drafts and realize how much time has passed. This particular post has been sitting in my digital archives for about four years, and I've finally decided to dust it off and share it with the world.

It's a bit like time travel, reading my own thoughts from a different era. It's interesting to see how my perspectives have evolved and what still resonates with me today. I'm curious to hear your thoughts as well. Does this post still hold relevance in our current world? Have our views on science, technology, and progress changed significantly in the past four years?

I believe this post offers a valuable reminder of the importance of innovation and the need to support those who push the boundaries of knowledge. While the specific examples and context may be a few years old, the underlying message remains timeless.

I'm eager to hear your feedback and engage in a discussion about the ideas presented in this "blast from the past." Let's explore together how far we've come and where we're headed in our quest for progress and understanding.

The #Dieselgate Blues: My Love-Hate Relationship with VW

My family owns two Volkswagens: a Jetta Sportwagen TDI and a CC. In the wake of the VW emissions scandal, I'm feeling a mix of emotions, mostly anger and disappointment.

Some of my friends think I'm overreacting. After all, I was so happy with our Sportwagen that we traded in our 2009 model for a brand new 2014 one back in March. But this scandal goes deeper than just a single car; it's about trust, environmental responsibility, and the blatant deception of consumers.

Let me rewind a bit. When I first arrived in America from Europe, I was critical of many things, including American cars. They seemed too big, inefficient, and, frankly, ugly. I was also surprised by the scarcity of diesel cars on the road. Europeans often viewed this as a sign of America lagging behind in automotive technology and environmental concern, as diesel engines were considered more eco-friendly and fuel-efficient.

So, when VW introduced its supposedly "clean diesel" TDI engines to the US market, my wife and I were eager to embrace them. We were willing to pay a premium for both the car and the fuel, driven by our environmental consciousness. In the US, diesel has always been more expensive than gasoline, unlike in Europe. We were genuinely impressed with the performance and fuel economy of our Jetta Sportwagen.

Then came the dieselgate bombshell. Our sense of moral superiority evaporated. The days of smugly challenging Prius owners are over. Now, every time I look at our Jetta, I feel a sense of shame. I imagine myself as a fallen disciple of a deceptive idol, spewing toxic NOx fumes and leaving a trail of coughing pedestrians in my wake. I feel the judgment of others, much like we used to judge Hummer drivers (though their offense was more about fuel consumption than toxicity).

It's no wonder that Japanese automakers struggled for years to develop diesel engines that met US emissions standards. They were baffled by German engineering prowess, unaware of the secret behind VW's success: cheating. This deception has caused VW's stock to plummet, scared off buyers worldwide, and allowed Toyota to reclaim its position as the world's leading automaker. Some critics even predict the demise of diesel technology altogether.

As VW owners, we're left with a difficult choice: sue or not sue? The resale value of our TDI cars has tanked, and a concrete solution to the emissions problem remains elusive. Numerous class action lawsuits are underway, making lawyers the only clear winners in this mess.

I'll keep you updated on the #dieselgate saga and how it unfolds. For now, I'm left with a deep sense of disappointment and a lingering question: Can we ever truly trust car manufacturers again?

The Price of Safety: Why Drug Costs Keep Rising

While attending a seminar on viral clearance for biotech manufacturers, I was struck by a sobering realization: the cost of bringing new drugs to market is steadily increasing. As science advances and our understanding of the world expands, we identify more and more potential threats. This, in turn, leads to stricter regulations and requirements from agencies like the FDA, whose mission is to protect consumers.

The FDA updates its regulations for drug testing and manufacturing every year, adding layers of complexity and cost to the drug development process. Pharmaceutical companies, naturally, have a limit on how much they're willing to invest in research and development. They need to recoup their costs and generate profits, which inevitably leads to higher drug prices.  

This creates a tension between public safety and affordability. While stricter regulations lead to safer drugs, they also contribute to rising costs, which are ultimately passed on to consumers. This explains, in part, why there's so much public criticism of drug prices.

To illustrate this point, consider the following examples:

• The current cost of characterizing a production cell line used to manufacture recombinant proteins ranges from $55,000 to $100,000.
• A New Drug Application (NDA) to the FDA can cost up to $250,000. It is important to note, that this cost, is only the FDA filing fee. The entire cost of bringing a drug to market is much larger than just the FDA filing fee.

These expenses represent just a fraction of the overall costs associated with drug development and regulatory approval. The ever-increasing regulatory burden contributes significantly to the escalating price of pharmaceuticals.  

The paradox here is that the very measures designed to ensure public safety are also driving up the cost of life-saving medications. This reality requires ongoing consideration for finding better methods to produce high quality pharmaceuticals that are still accessable to all.

Reflections on a "Socialist Childhood" and the Complexities of Freedom

Despite the generally negative perception of socialist societies, I have surprisingly fond memories of my childhood under communism. Thanks to my parents, I experienced a near-ideal upbringing. I didn't feel the restrictive hand of the regime; I had a comfortable home, plenty of food, toys, and engaging activities. My childhood was filled with family happiness, education, sports, outdoor adventures, and a love for reading, especially science fiction.

Growing up, I often engaged in philosophical discussions about the contrasting ideals of capitalism and communism. At the time, the concept of equality and universal wealth seemed logical and appealing. However, as I matured and witnessed the realities of both systems, my views began to evolve.

The idea that everyone, regardless of talent or effort, should receive equal compensation started to feel flawed. Could such a system truly motivate innovation, scientific breakthroughs, and societal progress? The revolutionary fervor of the early socialist era had faded by the 1960s, though echoes of it lingered during my youth.

I vividly recall the ban on wearing jeans in school. The authorities concocted various health reasons for this restriction (including erectile dysfunction!), but we understood the deeper symbolism. Jeans represented rebellion against the establishment, often accompanied by other symbols like heavy metal music or Jimi Hendrix. It seems silly now, but these small acts of defiance contributed to the eventual fall of the Iron Curtain.

These "symbols" were intertwined with the allure of Western consumer goods: stylish cars, fashionable clothes, and innovative gadgets that promised an easier life. Looking back, it's hard to say whether the desire for freedom or the yearning for material possessions was the stronger motivator. Perhaps it was a combination of both.

Twenty years after the transition to capitalism, many people in former communist countries are experiencing disillusionment. They've realized that while consumer goods are readily available, most are financially out of reach. The initial euphoria of freedom has given way to a sense of loss. People traded social and economic security, a low crime rate, and a sense of societal importance for a system where their influence is limited to voting and paying taxes.

The "aura of importance" has faded, replaced by the mundane realities of daily life. For many, freedom has become synonymous with routine, occasionally punctuated by affordable vacations. While material well-being has arguably improved since 1989, the increased personal responsibility and constant choices have created a new kind of stress and uncertainty.

There have been recent attempts to revive socialist ideals, thankfully unsuccessful. Studies show that while material conditions are better now, it will take more than 20 years to fully appreciate the complexities of freedom and build a new society that balances individual liberties with social responsibility.

The Android Orchestra: Can Robots Make Music, and Would We Call it Art?

  

Imagine attending a classical symphony concert where the musicians are not human, but advanced androids. Picture them on stage, dressed in formal attire, their faces replaced with screens, their movements precise and flawless as they perform a masterpiece. Would you consider this art, or simply a high-tech reproduction?

This question touches upon a broader debate: Is music performed from a written score truly art, or just a faithful rendition of the composer's intentions? From an amateur's perspective, one might argue that an orchestra's quality lies in the technical proficiency of its musicians, their synchronization, and their adherence to the notes. Individual expression is minimized, and the resulting sound is an average of all the instruments. The conductor acts as a pacemaker, ensuring everyone stays in sync.

However, conversations with knowledgeable musicians have revealed that there's more to it than just technical precision. The best orchestras and conductors bring a certain artistry to their performances, subtly shaping the music and conveying emotions beyond the notes themselves. Even the conductor's physical gestures contribute to the overall experience.

So, what's the appeal of attending a live concert? You already know the music, likely having heard recordings beforehand. You also know there will be imperfections, deviations from the score, and potential distractions. The comfort of your seat, the acoustics of the hall, and even the coughing of fellow attendees can all affect your experience.

Recently, I came across a blog about audiophile perspectives on music, which further broadened my understanding. (Read Eduard's blog). 

It seems there are two distinct ways to appreciate music. One is the live concert experience, a multi-sensory package encompassing the social atmosphere, the visual spectacle, and the performance itself. The other is the intimate enjoyment of a recording, free from distractions, in the comfort of your own home. Both center around music, but offer vastly different experiences.

This brings us back to the question of art. Definitions vary, but most emphasize creative skill and the communication of emotion. Art stimulates thoughts, emotions, beliefs, and ideas through the senses.

Would an android orchestra qualify as art? Based on these definitions, I believe it could. The act of programming the androids to perform with expression and nuance would involve creative skill. And if their performance evokes emotions in the audience, then communication is achieved.

Ultimately, the question of whether we consider it art is subjective. But the possibility of androids creating and performing music raises fascinating questions about the nature of art, the role of technology, and the future of human expression.

The Allure of the West: Exploring the Cultural Divide and the Enduring Appeal of Individualism

 The story of Osel Hita Torres, a Spanish boy raised as a reincarnated lama in a South Indian monastery, caught my attention recently. At 18, he decided to leave the monastic life and return to Madrid to study film. It seems that years of isolation, spirituality, and even worship couldn't outweigh the pull of the Western lifestyle. (dalai-lama-osel-hita-torres). 

This fascination with the "West" is something I've observed in my travels and conversations with people from all over the world. What exactly is it about Western culture that holds such allure?

Wikipedia offers various definitions, but they all revolve around the concepts of "Western culture" and "European civilization." The core values often cited include social norms, ethical values, and rationalism rooted in ancient Greek and Roman philosophies. The development of rational, logical systems for understanding and describing the world laid the foundation for philosophy and science, which together form the bedrock of Western societies.

I see these principles as a kind of "Rosetta Stone" for Western culture. Removing or suppressing any one of them could weaken or even reverse the direction of cultural development. They contribute to an asymptotic ideal of freedom—absolute freedom being unattainable, much like an asymptotic curve never quite reaching its axis.

In contrast, Eastern cultures often emphasize social harmony and collectivism over individualism. This makes sense when considering population dynamics. Larger societies, often arising in resource-rich environments, have a greater chance of surviving external challenges due to their larger pool of potential adapters. However, maintaining such societies requires a delicate balance, with the demands of sustaining a large population often pushing against the limits of resources. This necessitates a more selfless mindset, where individuals prioritize the collective good and accept limitations (egalitarianism). In practice, such societies tend towards stricter social control and less individual freedom.

Smaller societies, on the other hand, often develop in harsher environments with limited resources. They rely on the strength and ingenuity of each individual, fostering a culture of individualism and self-reliance. Think of the classic "pioneer" archetype, trusting no one, always ready to defend themselves.

Interestingly, societies built on individualism tend to be more expansive, aggressive, and even "greedy," even though larger, collectivist societies might have a greater need to expand due to population density and resource constraints.

The "socialist experiment" in the former Eastern Bloc, where people with Western cultural heritage were forced to live under collectivist systems, ultimately proved unsustainable. The desire for individual expression, the urge to possess what others had, and the aversion to conformity led to the eventual collapse of these regimes.

This cultural divide also has interesting implications for understanding innovation, a topic I'll explore in a future post.

Social networks - psychology behind blogging practice.

I am sitting on my folding chair on porch in my backyard, sipping coffee and having my laptop in my lap. Wonderful Sunday afternoon, almost autumn. Waiting for idea what to write about and hesitant whether to write at all. If you read one of my first posts - about write or not write the blog - you remember, I had this dilemma already. I speculated about why people write blogs and why it is good to write one. To me it was about the exercise. Well as it seems I didn't do many exercises, but...  there is always but. I did suffer with lack a feedback. As usually, authors want to see that someone did look at the the work and they anticipate reaction. Of course positive reaction is appreciated, but critique can help even more. Here I want to touch base with social networks. Frequently I read someones blog - opinion on something. Well, everyone is entitled to have an opinion. And if the opinion is expressed on public network with option to write comment, then anyone is entitled to write an comment on presented opinion. This is understood well. But the way how to present opinion and how to comment seems to be even more important than actual opinion. During reading many blog - opinions I already anticipate chain-reaction of comments. And yes they are there but after reading few I stop reading - vulgarisms, disrespectful comments,  strong counter -opinions (of the type - I know it better, you stupid and my opinion is louder and must be truth) - and many thanks to few with constructive opinion (there of course are still such a opinions. But as it seems in such loud environment I frequently inhibit my urge to write comment, because as it seems I am already afraid that I can't handle this opinion war. Then I realize - there is no constructiveness if I don't write, but I am still afraid to do so. So the same way I started to judge my most commonly used social networks - Linked In and Face book. For the second one I am going to make few comments - as it seems, many of us are just voyeurs, we like to watch, more private more dumpy is better and for the same reason we don't want to post, because - well - there are voyeurs that want to observe us you "dummy"... So the silence is the result. Why do we care then to have so many friends in friends list? First comes to mind is: more channels = more watching. Secondly many of us are  exhibitionists perhaps and we like to be watched??? Then maybe this is an answer - balance - like to watch and liked to be watched... Frequently I am thinking when I see people just trying to make an appearance that we mostly don't know how and what but we want people to know about us - we just press like button somewhere, thinking others will see at least what we like. Here I again see the problem with expression - we are afraid to express ourselves, because - what if the comments are not in favor of our expression? And here it is deep in us rooted - need for approval and worry of disapproval. So here I am with all my inhibitions - I will post some pictures - something that I like and maybe this wouldn't cause negative response. Then I look and voila - someone pushed like.... great - I am happy..... So little effort to make me happy...?...
And what about Linked in? It is professional network tool. What it is good for- maintaining contacts up to date, seeking people of certain professional background, presenting ourselves and showing our best, because this is what we anticipate of our contacts. Well this is at least what comes to my mind first thinking about Linked in. Of course human resources people (HR) love the "tool" for making their work easier when millions of people voluntarily offer information that otherwise they would need to gather some other way - more costly, more time consuming = more work. And then there is this self-promotion aspect. Well I can just post some general data and update it when I have some change, or - I can publish/update on daily or weekly base some information - which after each update shows my name in my entire linked to me network (this is analogue of FB - LIKE button). Then you can express your opinion, your critique - but wait - this is professional network - it is serious. They (superiors/bosses and potential bosses) can see you, what you think, what you dislike. They can see that you actually can express opinion and - is this always good? What if someone criticizes you in comments and everyone who matters can see it??? Well here is the problem of Linked- in and us and - Linked in being "social network". It is a tool so far to exchange CV data. It is big database. There are groups where actually social network idea can work, but being linked to our (not anonymous)  profile it will (or can) show our peers what we think...

P.S.: ups.... I guess you will be curious next time you see my FB pictures addition - or link to blog posting or my profile update on Linked in......

Career move.

Have you ever felt that nagging feeling that it might be time for a career change? That's exactly where I've been lately. It all started a few months ago when I began to question if my current role was still the right fit.

This feeling was amplified recently when I received an email from Harvard Business Review with the subject line: "Are you ready for your next career move?" Talk about timing! It's like the universe is sending me a message.

To be honest, I haven't been actively searching for a new job until now. I've been enjoying a great work-life balance and even just returned from a fantastic vacation in Slovakia feeling refreshed and energized. But with this renewed energy, I've also gained a fresh perspective on my current position and the possibilities that lie ahead.

Change is exciting! I've always embraced new challenges, and the thought of leveraging my PhD and MBA in a new environment truly motivates me.

So, I dipped my toes into the job market, updated my resume (which received rave reviews from friends in HR!), and sent out a few targeted applications. While some career websites suggest sending out a massive number of applications to beat the statistics, I prefer a more focused approach.

However, despite my qualifications, experience, and positive attitude, I haven't received any offers yet. It's a bit discouraging, but I'm not giving up.

I'm confident in my skills and believe I have a lot to offer. I'm a communicative and open person, knowledgeable in various fields, and always eager to learn. I'm patient and passionate, and I'm looking for an opportunity where I can truly make a difference and feel like I'm doing what I was meant to do.

This job search journey has been an interesting experience so far. It's made me reflect on my career goals, my strengths, and what I truly want in a job. I'm still optimistic and excited about the possibilities that await.

If you have any advice, insights, or even job leads, I'd love to hear from you! Perhaps there's a mentor or a perfect opportunity out there just waiting to be discovered.

Harry Seldon Said II: Psychohistory and the Paradox of Control: Is Freedom Compatible with Long-Term Survival?

In my previous post, "H.S. Said I," I explored Hari Seldon's psychohistory and its implications for predicting the future. One crucial aspect of this science is the requirement for subjects (people) to behave randomly, exercising free will without knowledge of the prophecy. Only then can accurate predictions be made. This implies that any form of "single direction" influence, like a dictatorship, must be prevented. Democracy, in some form, becomes a necessity, as strong centralized power inevitably breeds strong opposition.

This also suggests that religious influence is an unwanted interference, hence the need for a separation of church and state. The unpredictable and often violent outcomes of religious clashes throughout history highlight the need for a more coherent and unified society for psychohistory to work effectively.

But if individual free will and a lack of centralized control are essential for accurate predictions, what good is psychohistory in the first place? What's the point of predicting the future if you can't directly influence it?

The first and most obvious reason is the preservation of humankind. The past few millennia of human history paint a rather violent picture. For the last 60 years, we've teetered on the brink of nuclear annihilation. Even with two decades of denuclearization efforts, there are still enough weapons to wipe out most life on Earth (though bacteria and some resilient insects might be the ultimate winners). Preventing such catastrophic fluctuations would be a significant step towards ensuring humanity's survival.

The second reason is more complex and perhaps unsettling: control. If we assume that there's a "wise man" behind the scenes, subtly guiding humanity and preventing our self-destruction, then psychohistory becomes a tool for control, albeit with benevolent intentions. This, of course, opens the door to countless conspiracy theories about hidden agendas and the loss of individual freedom. Even if Hari Seldon's intentions are noble, who controls the controller?

This leads to another intriguing question, one that I'll explore in my next post...

The Irish Potato Famine: A Stark Reminder of the Dangers of Over-Reliance on a Single Food Source

My recent post about the potato's role in fueling the Industrial Revolution prompted me to delve into the tragic history of the Irish Potato Famine. It seems that we humans often need a powerful wake-up call to change our ways.

In the 1740s, a severe climatic disaster, with unusually cold and prolonged weather, led to devastating potato and oat harvests in Ireland. These crops were the primary source of calories for the Irish population at the time. The combination of food scarcity and harsh weather resulted in the deaths of an estimated 30% of the Irish population.

It took Ireland years to recover from this catastrophe. Sadly, history repeated itself a century later with the Great Irish Potato Famine. This time, the culprit was potato blight, a disease that ravaged potato crops. Approximately 10-15% of the Irish population perished, and a similar number emigrated, many to the New World. This influx of cheap labor arguably fueled industrial growth in the Americas (perhaps thanks, in part, to the potato's earlier contribution to the Industrial Revolution).

These tragic events underscore the dangers of over-reliance on a single food source, a lesson that extends beyond agriculture. As mentioned in my earlier post about human sacrifice by the Aztecs, dependence on limited energy sources can have dire consequences. This isn't just a story about oil and our current techno-society; it's a recurring theme throughout human history.

The Humble Spud: How the Potato Fueled the Industrial Revolution and Shaped Western Civilization

I love exploring Wikipedia. It's a treasure trove of information, always sparking my curiosity and leading me down unexpected paths. Recently, I've been researching low-carbohydrate diets, which naturally led me to investigate various carbohydrate sources (a topic for another post!). That's how I stumbled upon the fascinating history of the potato.

In Eastern Slovakia, where I have roots, the potato has been a staple food since its introduction. It replaced crops that had been cultivated for centuries, and for good reason. According to Wikipedia, potatoes can yield four times more calories per acre than grains.

This simple fact had a profound impact on history. The widespread cultivation of potatoes during the 18th century played a significant role in fueling the Industrial Revolution. As farmers were able to produce more food with less labor, they were freed up to seek work in the burgeoning industrial sector. The potato, with its abundance of easily accessible energy, also became a crucial source of sustenance for the growing industrial workforce.

It's fascinating to think that without the potato, the Industrial Revolution might have progressed much slower. This humble root vegetable played a key role in shaping Western civilization, contributing to its dominance in the 19th and 20th centuries. It also raises questions about why Europe, and not Asia, was the primary beneficiary of the expansion to the New World (a theme I'll explore in a future post).