Trolleys and embryos

I see via And Then There's Physics, which led me to Michael Tobis's blog, which linked to another blog called Scary Mommy, which noted in a series of tweets in October by a science fiction writer called Patrick Tomlinson, that he had posed a trolley problem scenario with the alternatives being saving a 5 year old child or a vat of 1,000 frozen embryos.   (It's not exactly the same as the classic "trolley", since it just a question of which you save from the burning fertility clinic, given that you can't carry both.   It removes the issue of taking a positive action - throwing someone off the bridge, or hitting the switch to divert the train from one track to another - that will lead to the sure killing.)  The point is to show anti-abortionists that, at heart, they surely can't perceive embryos as every bit as worthy of "life" preservation as a person already living as an independent human.

I just mention this because I first thought "hey I came up with that idea maybe 4 or 5 years ago."  I noted here in 2015 that I had put the argument up at Catallaxy perhaps a couple of years previously.

But then I went back and noted that Tomlinson said he has been using the argument for about 10 years.  Oh well.  Another case of originality fail.

I still think it's a great argument.  

I don't like abortion, instinctively.  But I can clearly see that the religious argument that it is a case of life from fertilization that warrants the same protection as all human life makes no intuitive sense, too. 

Modern humans have been around a while

I don't find this topic all that interesting (it's a tad too complicated and rubbery, and I'm under no obligation to find every branch of science interesting, am I?), but a new paper in Science suggests an age range for modern humans that means they were stumbling around the place before building much for quite a long time:

Southern Africa is consistently placed as a potential region for the evolution of Homo sapiens. We present genome sequences, up to 13x coverage, from seven ancient individuals from KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. The remains of three Stone Age hunter-gatherers (about 2000 years old) were genetically similar to current-day southern San groups, and those of four Iron Age farmers (300 to 500 years old) were genetically similar to present-day Bantu-language speakers. We estimate that all modern-day Khoe-San groups have been influenced by 9 to 30% genetic admixture from East Africans/Eurasians. Using traditional and new approaches, we estimate the first modern human population divergence time to between 350,000 and 260,000 years ago. This estimate increases the deepest divergence among modern humans, coinciding with anatomical developments of archaic humans into modern humans, as represented in the local fossil record.

I see from various websites that the previous estimate was a mere 200,000 years, so this pushes it back somewhat. 

So, this is how the world ends?

Geez, I don't like sound of this:

Mail-Order CRISPR Kits Allow Absolutely Anyone to Hack DNA

Experts debate what amateur scientists could accomplish with the powerful DNA editing tool—and whether its ready availability is cause for concern

It's from Scientific American, and ends with an unknown number of DNA hacking scientists saying it's nothing to be to be too worried about: 

Finally, what about the nightmare scenario: Is CRISPR so easy to use that we need to worry about biohackers—either accidentally or intentionally—creating dangerous pathogens? Carroll and others think that the danger of putting CRISPR in the hands of the average person is relatively low. “People have imagined scenarios where scientists could use CRISPR to generate a virulent pathogen, ” he says. “How big is the risk? It’s not zero, but it’s fairly small.” Gersbach agrees. “Right now, it’s difficult to imagine how it’d be dangerous in a real way,” he explains, “If you want to do harm, there are much easier and simpler ways than using this highly sophisticated genetic editing technique.”

Scientists in fields like this have an incentive to downplay risk, so if they actually use words like "relatively low", it doesn't exactly fill me with confidence...

Won't be on the talk show circuit for a long, long time

Yet more details of workplace predatory harassment of (now former) talk show darling Kevin Spacey has come out:

Eight current and former employees of Kevin Spacey's show "House of Cards" have accused the actor of sexual harassment and, in one case, assault, CNN reports. A former production assistant alleges that Spacey sexually assaulted him during an early season of the show. Other accusers told CNN Spacey's behavior, including inappropriate comments and nonconsensual touching, was "predatory" and caused a "toxic" work environment.

I've never watched House of Cards, and I can't say that I have ever found Spacey an appealing screen presence (not just because he plays a bad character, either), so it's not as if this is shocking because I liked him before.   But he has been a popular figure with the audience whenever appearing on the likes of Colbert or other late night chat shows.  I expect it will be some years before we see him on one of those again.

But what does feel kind of shocking is that such behaviour, which has become so verboten in your average workplace for decades now, has not been addressed in such a high profile and (yes) largely liberal by reputation industry.   (Mind you, the culture around key figures at Fox News was clearly toxic as well, and so well tolerated that million dollar contracts were renewed.  Conservative media does not really have grounds to gloat.)   

It's just odd to think that, when young Ms Smith from accounts at a small company 30 years ago could (and often did) deal effectively with her predatory boss if she wanted to, entertainment industry folk have been putting up with it for many decades since then.

Gone, the revolution

I don't think there has been as much written in the media about the centenary of the October Revolution as I expected.

There wasn't a bad interview with a couple of experts on Radio National last night - but I am not sure who's show it was on.

There was one Guardian column about it a few days ago, but I can't quickly find it again.  I was sort of expecting that outlet to be overrun with quasi sympathetic articles , but it hasn't really happened.

I see that Henry Ergas has a column in The Australian:  I doubt it's all that interesting.  The Weekend OZ may well be full of conservatives decrying it:  we shall see.

So I'm down to noting a very lengthy review of Kotkin's two volume biography of Stalin in The New Yorker, which covers the Revolution succinctly, as well as Stalin's later actions, and it's a very good read.

One minor detail amuses, in the section which discusses signs early on that Stalin would become (shall we say) a problem:

They had had some intimations: they knew he could be rude, and they even knew he could be psychologically cruel. During his Siberian exile, he had briefly lived with Yakov (Yashka) Sverdlov, a fellow-Bolshevik and later the titular head of the Soviet government, but the two broke up house because Stalin refused to do the dishes and also because he had acquired a dog and started calling him Yashka. “Of course for Sverdlov that wasn’t pleasant,” Stalin later admitted. “He was Yashka and the dog was Yashka.”

 There are many bits of information in the review which I either didn't realise, or had forgotten when I last read a long review of a book on Russian history.   For example, after a brief summary of the Terror of the late 30's..:

The numbers are hard to fathom. According to the best current estimates, Stalin was responsible for between ten and twelve million peacetime deaths, including victims of the famine. But the most hands-on period of killing was the Terror of 1937 and 1938. At its height, fifteen hundred people were being shot every day. Most of the victims were ordinary citizens, caught up in a machine that was seeking to meet its quotas. But the Communist Party, too, was devastated—in many provinces, first secretaries, second secretaries, third secretaries all gone. Entire editorial staffs were erased. The officer corps of the Army was devastated. Five hundred of the top seven hundred and sixty-seven commanders were arrested or executed; thirteen of the top fifteen generals. “What great power has ever executed 90 percent of its top military officers?” Kotkin asks. “What regime, in doing so, could expect to survive?” Yet this one did.

there is this:

In addition to everything else the Terror did, it greatly weakened the country’s international position. Stalin’s justified fear of the coming war made this war only more likely. The French and the British, contemplating a stand against Hitler over Czechoslovakia in 1938, did not feel they could count on the now depleted Red Army. Worse still, the Terror made Stalin an unacceptable ally for the British in 1939. Kotkin shows that Stalin’s first choice in the months before the war was not Hitler but Chamberlain. He sent detailed terms to Britain for a military alliance. Chamberlain was not interested, and Kotkin, refusing the benefits of hindsight, doesn’t blame him. Stalin had just murdered hundreds of thousands of his own citizens, staged show trials of his former comrades, and carried out purges of putative socialist allies in Spain. Hitler would eventually overtake him, but as of 1939 Stalin had killed more people by far. He was, as Kotkin says, “an exceedingly awkward potential partner for the Western powers.”

I didn't know about the approaches to Chamberlain.

The 20th century had a lot going on, to put it mildly...

Researching the vampire cure

Nature reports that a small study on infusing young blood into people with mild to moderate dementia has finished, and found some possible benefit, but it seems pretty slight.

The offspring remain safe from requests for blood, for now.  

Seriously...

Headline at Vox:

Rick Perry actually tried to argue that fossil fuels can help fight sexual assault

This is not the Onion.

Gay in Egypt

An interesting take on the matter of gay sex and gay identity in Egypt, and in Islam more generally, has appeared in The Spectator.  He starts by talking about the recent police arrest there of 60 allegedly gay men, found by scanning social media, and continues:

Obviously, that’s 60 too many. We should recall, though, that Egypt is a country of 95 million people, and those arrested mostly deny being gay. So either the police were not making much of an effort to round up the queers, or — more likely — there are in fact almost none in Egypt.

Of course, that’s not the same as saying that there are no Egyptian men who engage in gay sex.As someone who lived in the country for more a decade, is fluent in Egyptian Arabic and has written a book on the country that includes a chapter on male prostitution, I can testify quite emphatically that the exact opposite is true. And therein lies the rub, as it were.

Western correspondents filing dispatches about gay persecution in Egypt and the wider region are ignoring the more nuanced reality. Just as predictably, bigots determined to show how Islam restricts sexual freedom are also having a ball. But the latter especially are wide of the mark. The Koran singles out sex between men as a transgression, but uniquely in the Islamic holy book, proscribes no punishment. And there must be four independent witnesses to the act of anal intercourse (all other forms of gay sex seem to have escaped Allah’s attention). So it’s just a warning not to have sex in the middle of the street. Even then, for those caught, social rehabilitation is encouraged.  

Not sure if the author counts himself as bi or gay, but he certainly gives the impression that he thinks the far from unusual inclination of young arab men to want to bed attractive young guys (while simultaneously chasing women) is quite OK:

In Tunisia, two friends came round for dinner. A Justin Bieber special started on the cable TV channel, and I reached for the remote to turn it off. ‘What are you doing?’ one of them screamed. ‘Leave it on — that boy is so do-able.’

As with the Saudi, the Tunisians had not given any indication that they were ‘gay’. In fact, they spent the rest of the evening using my computer to chat with a French women one had hooked up with a few months earlier when she was holidaying there. Like most of the young, unmarried Arab men I befriended over the decades, they knew a gorgeous boy when they saw one, but would have considered it absurd to attach to such desire an all-consuming social identity symbolised by the rainbow flag.....

The commotion will blow over and Egyptian boys, like Arab boys everywhere, will get back to banging each other like rabbits as they have been doing for millennia. It would take more than the rantings of an MP to eradicate such a deeply entrenched tradition. The golden rule, though, will remain: discretion is the name of the game. And that’s the lesson the rainbow flag activists should now take on board.

 I'm sure that this pragmatic attitude (you can do gay stuff, but just keep it discrete) is considered appalling by Western gay activists who are all consumed with the importance of gay identity.  And I can understand the objection when gay identity can mean risking jail.    But I wonder if, in the long run, there will be a move back in the West towards the more ancient view that gay sex didn't have to equate with gay identity?

A late for Halloween story

At Catholic website Crux, the story of the Curse of St Peter.  Rather like an early, papal version of the Curse of Tutenkamun, actually.   

Opioids and libertarians, again

Jonah Goldberg in National Review makes some sense:

Think of the opioid crisis as the fruit of partial legalization. In the 1990s, for good reasons and bad, the medical profession, policymakers, and the pharmaceutical industry made it much easier to obtain opioids in order to confront an alleged pain epidemic. Doctors prescribed more opioids, and government subsidies made them more affordable. Because they were prescribed by doctors and came in pill form, the stigma reserved for heroin didn’t exist.

 

When you increase supply, lower costs, and reduce stigma, you increase use. And guess what? Increased use equals more addicts.

A survey by the Washington Post and the Kaiser Family Foundation found that one-third of the people who were prescribed opioids for more than two months became addicted. A Centers for Disease Control study found that a very small number of people exposed to opioids are likely to become addicted after a single use.

The overdose crisis is largely driven by the fact that once addicted to legal opioids, people seek out illegal ones — heroin, for example — to fend off the agony of withdrawal once they can’t get, or afford, any more pills. Last year, 64,000 Americans died from overdoses. Some 58,000 Americans died in the Vietnam War.

Kevin undone

Gee, if the account of Kevin Spacey's tactics for chatting up/groping men at news.com.au today is accurate, the long standing feeling from interviews that he is, well, creepy seems very justified. 

If he were to admit they are true, the only way I can see Spacey try to defend himself would be to argue that gay men have always been more blunt and direct when seeking sex (which would be true) - but it is refreshing to see that younger gay men are prepared to come out now and say that they don't welcome power plays in sex, just as women don't.   Acknowledging that gay men can be as sleazy as straight men is, in an odd way,  a good thing for normalising attitudes towards gay folk, as I can't help but feel that there has been an exaggeration implicit in the promotion of same sex marriage that everything is fine in the world of gay relationships apart from that issue.  For other human issues relating to relationships and decent behaviour to be acknowledged from the community is therefore a good thing.    

Convictions noted

That Western Australian case of the two nutty women who murdered an 18 year old Asperger's guy for a thrill kill has resulted in their conviction, as was entirely predictable.   Their attempts at blaming each other were exceptionally implausible. 

CCTV footage showed the teenager leaving the shops with the accused pair and security footage from their home showed the three entering the Broughton Way house around 10.30am.

"Mr Pajich did not ever emerge from that house alive," state prosecutor James McTaggart said in his opening address to the jury....

Mr Pajich's body was discovered around a week later buried in the pair's backyard garotted with multiple stab wounds to his chest and neck.

The home's loungeroom had a large section of carpet cut out, concealed by a couch, and police found multiple blood stains and knifes at the property.

Both women denied murdering Mr Pajich and blamed each other.

Lilley claimed she was unaware Mr Pajich had been killed and that Lenon must have murdered him and concealed the crime while she was taking a three-hour nap in the next room.

Lenon however admitted witnessing Lilley stab Mr Pajich to death, claiming she helped conceal the crime out of fear.

Bear in mind this:

Both originally lied to police and told detectives they had not seen Mr Pajich the day he went missing but later admitted he had visited their home.

During the trial, the jury heard how Lilley was obsessed with serial killers and knives, and had told a friend she wanted to kill someone before she turned 25.

She often referred to herself as SOS, a serial killer character she created for a book she wrote as a teenager in 2007.... 

Lilley, who took the stand for five days during the trial, claimed messages between her and Lenon about killing someone were role-play for a new book she was writing.

She claimed she was in character when she wrote Lenon a long message 13 days before the murder.

"I feel as though I cannot rest until the blood or the flesh of a screaming, pleading victim is gushing out and pooling on the floor, until all the roads and streets are streamed red and abandoned, and the fear in the back of everyone's minds and on the tongue of each human that's left standing is SOS," it read.

"I cannot shift this belief that the world has become not only ready for me, it needs me to be ready."

Lenon replied: "It's definitely time. I am ready. You are ready".

They should stay in jail for a very long time.  Preferably til dead...

Yet more murder

Gruesome murder is back in the news again this week.

I don't think that a likely serial killer in Japan is getting quite as much publicity as I expected.   Seems to have been pushed out of the headlines a bit by the goings on in Washington.  

Update:  the details appear to involve a very (sad to say) Japanese set of circumstances, involving loneliness, social media, suicidal desire, the quasi romantic (well, to some people - women especially perhaps) idea of doing it with someone else, and even the suggestion of disturbing sex.  Just awful:

Police suspect Shiraishi found suicidal women on the Internet and pretended that he also wanted to kill himself, posting, “Let’s die together.”

After they showed up, he invited them to his apartment where he killed them and took about 500,000 yen ($4,390) in total from the bodies, according to police.

Further information on his “obscene purposes” was unavailable.

According to police, the first victims were an unmarried couple.

In August this year, Shiraishi had a meal with the couple with whom he had become acquainted through Twitter.

On a later day, he invited the woman to his apartment, where he killed her, according to police.

The woman’s male acquaintance, unable to contact her, asked Shiraishi if he knew where she was. Shiraishi also invited him to the apartment and killed him, police said.

Shiraishi told police he killed most of the nine people when he met them in person for the first time.
Some of the nine people had posted suicidal messages on the Internet, and Shiraishi promised to meet them directly after exchanging messages online.

The Black Death (or sickness, at least)

I don't mind licorice, but don't eat it often.   I had read before that eating large amounts was not good for your health, but Vox explains in more detail:

According to the Food and Drug Administration, if you eat 2 ounces of black licorice — the equivalent of about four Twizzler vines — daily for at least two weeks, you could wind up in the hospital with an irregular heartbeat or even heart failure. 

That’s a lot of licorice — maybe more than most licorice lovers eat in a day. But the FDA is onto something: Licorice root contains a medically active compound called glycyrrhizin acid, and researchers have been discussing its potential health complications for years. Glycyrrhizin can elevate a person’s blood pressure, leading some to experience abnormal heart rhythms, lethargy, even congestive heart failure. Glycyrrhizin can also interfere with other medications and supplements, the FDA warned.

“No matter what your age, don’t eat large amounts of black licorice at one time,” the agency said, adding that people over 40 with a history of heart disease or high blood pressure seem to be most at risk of black licorice-related health complications.

Speaking of other teams...

Time to let the other team try

I still find Malcolm Turnbull likeable as a person, with his steadfast cheerfulness while the evidence continues to pile up around him that he and his Ministers are, shall we say, basically incompetent at this thing called "governing".  

So, seriously, isn't it time for an umpire or someone (electorate of New England, hello?) to tell him and his team that it's really time to take a break and give the other team, who could hardly do any worse, a go?   I mean, it just gets embarrassing after a while, watching the flaying about.

Rupert wants Donald

Who knows what's going on in the ageing mind of Rupert Murdoch, but people have been noticing how the Wall Street Journal is now agitating in defence of Trump and using all of the same "must get Hillary!" distraction squirrels as on Fox News and The New York Post, and up to and including hosting a piece arguing that Trump should just pardon everyone now, including himself!

It is all purely a coincidence that each Murdoch outlet is running the same line, I'm sure:

Paul Gigot, the editorial page editor and vice president of The Wall Street Journal, declined to comment. Mark Cunningham, the New York Post’s Executive Editorial Page Editor, also declined comment. Both did not answer questions regarding whether Murdoch had any input in editorial direction.

“There is a general flabbergastedness about the drift of the edit page,” said one former senior Wall Street Journal editor. “What is fascinating to a lot of people is, why are they now coming around to being sycophants to Trump, aping some of these things that are part of the Republican echo chamber?”

Given that these Murdoch outlets are actually encouraging Trump to get rid of Mueller, how dangerous has Rupert become to the rule of law and good governance?    "Very" is the obvious answer, surely.  

Murder talk (for Halloween)

I've noticed that the prosecution case in Perth against a couple of weird women has concluded, and the details are of the most chilling kind - a thrill kill by a woman with a nutty obsession with both serial killers and kinky sex:

Over the past month, the court has heard allegations of how Ms Lilley, a young woman obsessed with knives and serial killers, and Ms Lenon – a mother-of-three with a history as a “submissive” in Perth’s BDSM scene – had built a close relationship, referring to each other by ‘pet names’.

Ms Lilley was referred to as SOS – which was also a serial killer character in a book she had written in her teens, and also the name of an American serial killer who had murdered eight victims in the mid 70s’.

Ms Lenon was known as ‘Corvina’, a name she had adopted through her participation in bondage and sado-masochistic sex.

The state alleges after the two women met and moved in together, along with Ms Lenon’s younger children, they teamed up to carry out a ‘thrill kill’ on a vulnerable target.

That target, according to the state, was Mr Pajich, who was known to Ms Lenon through a shared attendance at a Kwinana college and his friendship with her teenaged son Cameron.

The 18 year-old was also on the autism spectrum, and according to Mr Taggart “still inhabited a child’s world”, including a passionate interest in computer games.

It was that interest which the state says Ms Lenon used to lure Mr Pajich to the Orelia house she shared with the 26 year-old Ms Lilley, who worked as a nightfill manager at Woolworths in Palmyra.
“Trudi Lenon delivered Aaron Pajich right into Jemma Lilley’s hands and together they murdered him,” Mr McTaggart said.

“These two ladies took Aaron Pajich’s life in a way that was as brutal and violent as could possibly be imagined.”

The motive, Mr McTaggart said, was Ms Lilley’s “life’s objective” to kill someone before she was 25 years-old, which she had revealed to a friend some years before.

 While it appears clear that they had some sort of sexual kink relationship, I'm not sure whether they count themselves as lesbians or not.

In any event, it got me thinking of other thrill kill nutty lesbian cases:   Brisbane had its famous one in  the "lesbian vampire killer" murder in 1991 - the main protagonist is now living in the community on parole.  

There was also the famous New Zealand case that was the subject of the Heavenly Creatures film.   (OK, not a thrill kill exactly, but a weird, obsessively relationship between young women none the less.)

Now, we're obviously not talking a huge sample here, but in comparison to male gay couples, apart from the famous Leopold and Loeb murder from way back in 1924, I can't say I have heard of any gay couple murders which are in the "thrill kill" category.

Sure, serial killers are almost always male, and presumably often kill for all sorts of demented reasons, but my point is that it seems that the shared idea of a kill, based on weird fantasy motivations, might be more of a female/lesbian thing than a male thing?  

I notice that some people complain of lesbians being too readily portrayed as obsessive killers in Hollywood -  I don't really know as it is a genre of film that generally doesn't interest me. 

But, given the grotesque examples of some lesbian murderers, I have to say I'm not all that surprised.  If any reader wants to set me straight with true stories of male couples murdering for the weirdest motivations, let me know...

I'm with Tony

Oh - tough guy cook and travel writer Anthony Bourdain is making a pretty transparent attack on Tarantino for working with Harvey Weinstein for so many years and doing nothing about his knowledge of Weinstein's uber sleaze behaviour.

I've never liked Tarantino or his movies, so good.   Mind you, Bourdain acts it up a bit too much for my liking too, but he's OK in small doses.    

Why Trump is interested in the JFK case

Great column by Adam Gopnik about the release of additional papers on the JFK assassination.

He starts:

The release last Thursday of previously classified, or at least unseen, government files of all kinds relating to the assassination of John F. Kennedy is being heralded as Donald Trump’s decision—though it was simply his decision not to prevent their release, which had long been scheduled. In fact, at the last minute, Trump listened to requests from the intelligence services not to release some three hundred of the remaining three thousand files. But that decision raised more suspicions, so on Friday night the President tweeted, “I will be releasing ALL JFK files other than the names and addresses of any mentioned person who is still living.”

And here are the best paragraphs:

The pretense last week was that, in releasing the files, Trump took action on behalf of the American people, in the pursuit of openness. But Trump acts in his own interest, and his pursuit of apparent openness has as its real end the undermining of public institutions and practices which depend on professionalism, independence, and trust. Trump was likely prodded to speak out about the files by Roger Stone, one of the figures from the fringes of American life whom the President has brought to the center. Stone wrote a book titled “The Man Who Killed Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ.” Last week, his profane rants got him suspended from Twitter, but he still appears to be in touch with Trump. Stone has warned of the “deep state,” the new villain of right-wing paranoia—well, an old villain, newly restored to primacy. The thinking in this case seems to be that, if Trump’s followers can be persuaded that no one in the “permanent government” should be trusted, they can perhaps be more easily persuaded not to trust the institutions of the state when, say, they pursue charges against anyone associated with his campaign. The implicit, and increasingly explicit, argument here is: Don’t listen to special counsels who worked for the F.B.I.; those are the guys that withheld all those documents  about the J.F.K. assassination.

As David Frum has pointed out, what Trump’s surrogates really mean by “the deep state” is the rule of law. The idea that there are civil servants or functionaries within the government whose chief trait is loyalty to the Constitution and to the ongoing administration of the state is intolerable to the autocratic mind. So, if those other actors question challenge the White House, they must be taunted, demoralized, and, if possible, dismissed.