Dumb science – Weaponizing science against humanity


Paul Wallis, Sydney Media Jam CO2Is “Science” totally thoughtless? Or just very stupid? From the ongoing mass of research which might be used to oppress humanity, it seems so. Very little thought appears to go in to handing the means of oppression to anyone prepared to pay for it.

In China, the Surveillance Society already exists, in a particularly pernicious form which drags in friends, family and associates in to culpability for an individual’s behaviour. This tech didn’t exist a decade ago, nor did the processing power, but now it does, and it’s being used against a nation of over 1.5 billion people.

That hideous spectacle may be just a taste of what’s possible. The new “wonder”, decoding thought, could be a lot worse. This technology is being given to governments, corporations, and other life-destroying, unaccountable, imbecile groups. Imagine cults, nutcase religions and terrorists with mind reading technology. They could literally be able to oppress people simply for thinking.

Speaking of thinking – Did anyone ever wonder why this great interest in decoding thought? Let’s consider the usual wrong answers:

  • Psychological/psychiatric benefits – For whom? Not for the patients, obviously. You don’t stop having a psych problem simply because some machine can decode your thoughts.
  • Understanding the human mind – Since when has that ever made a difference? Understanding what? To do what with that understanding? It’s a bit like inventing a gun to see what happens. No good can come of it, because the method can never be good for whoever’s on the receiving end of it.

There is no way this technology can ever “benefit mankind”, when it’s simply intruding, doing nothing much of value of itself, and making thoughts accessible to third parties. Would you voluntarily tell just anyone what you’re thinking, at any given moment, let alone invent a technology to help people know what you’re thinking? Nor is there any clear limit to how much intrusion is possible. It’s the ultimate invasion of privacy, and it shouldn’t be allowed to exist at all.  Yet “Science” is trundling along on its tricycle, happily handing this tech over to anyone who wants it. People who couldn’t find a sunny day or be trusted with the contents of a urinal are supposed to be trusted with something so fundamental? If you do trust them, you’re morons, and not the good sort.

You, Science, are going to be responsible for what may well be the worst oppression in human history. The fact that most of the idiots who weaponized the technology will also be oppressed by it is small beer compared to the responsibility for creating these technologies.

Unthinking Science?

Didn’t know that, eh?

Does “Big Science” ever think about these things? Not noticeably. Consider the vast range of current risks and threats to privacy and personal freedoms “Science” has unleashed, unwittingly or otherwise:

Genetics: The issues of genetic disease as a risk factor, accessible to employers, and basically anyone who knows how to set up business to find this information. Who knows what sort of other genetic information can be used to disadvantage individuals? I could guess, and you should be able to, too. Let’s also not forget GMOs, crank stem cell science, etc., etc.

Surveillance: A truly maniacal type of relatively new science, now much more efficient, where tiny minds use advanced tech to monitor employees in bathrooms, but can’t stop massive amounts of data being lifted from governments and the military.

Automation: A type of science whereby the entire life model of humanity and global economics will be irrevocably altered. The theory is that automation releases people from drudgery. If there’s no way of earning a living however, it also throws perhaps billions of people in to poverty and probably more crime. Careers, education and personal wealth by default, may well become things of the past through this single line of research. What’s the point of getting an education if you can’t have a life?

Hacking: I don’t have much time for hackers since I managed to get in to some firewall-making company’s email using four characters through a search engine. To me, that’s way too easy. No mental challenge at all. How much easier could it get than that? The fact is, however, that hacking, which is also highly preventable, is also highly profitable. It’s an industry. Internet security, that contradiction in terms, isn’t doing the obvious A-B things to stop it. Corrupt, like all other security? Bet your plastic petunias. The working practice is that someone creates a problem, you build an entire industry about NOT solving it.

Pharmaceuticals: You could hardly leave out the world’s least responsible area of science, creating iffy quality drugs for sick people at incredible prices. Suicidal thoughts as a side effect? Whoever thought that up should be shot, and so should anyone who tolerates it. Yet, it’s “Science”, in its modern clown suit of mistakes and idiotic ramifications. This, you trust? Why?

Science is naïve? Maybe not, but… About managing spin

Arguably, Science is totally naïve in one way. Modern science isn’t necessarily a pretty environment. The bitching, the backbiting, the bullying, you name it; it’s like an office environment, and no better ethically in many ways. Any rat race is still a contest of rats, and if the rats have PhDs, it’s a very complex marathon.

Being naïve in this environment isn’t a good move. You can have your work stolen, and maybe your money, too, if you’ve got skin in the game. More likely, in fact almost certain, is that your work will be subverted to some whacko mindset of the more or less totally criminal culture in all areas of management now able to abuse technologies.

If you want to read about science and corruption, read this actual history of a true obscenity, created by massive corruption. This was over 50 years ago, and it's a lot worse now.

If you want to read about science and corruption, read this actual history of a true obscenity, created by massive corruption. This was over 50 years ago, and it’s a lot worse now.

OK, so how do you be a scientist and be sure you’re not naïve? It’s tricky. You need to manage the spin on any science you’re doing. That’s a true qualitative issue, but you have an advantage. You’re dealing with criminals, sycophants, and often the usual corporate psychopaths. Any form of information can be stolen or otherwise accessed by these vermin if it exists in an accessible form. The easier to interpret the information is, the less secure it can be. The “cat sat on the mat” form of science, spelling out everything, is particularly vulnerable. Any fool can interpret it accurately.

The more secure form is “puzzle” form, where only the real experts can put together all the elements in any research scenario and extrapolate correctly. Expertise is a strange thing. The only truly consistent thing about it is that experts on the higher levels are much more risk aware, and more able to withhold potentially dangerous information from the global nutcase environment.

Anything can be broken up in to hundreds, or perhaps thousands, of components. Think of it as SSL2000, any number of elements. Destructive practices can be derailed in the process. A very simple example – The new antidepressant, for instance, can be delivered without the unforgivable “suicidal thoughts” side effects, even if some moron wants to include a very dumb, dangerous psychoactive compound. The dangerous elements can be written out of the research very easily simply by quoting the usual performance of garbage of this kind. Nobody needs to know why, just dollar values, and that sort of crap doesn’t stack up too well on that basis, either.

Put it this way – Research and its effects are the responsibility of REAL science. What idiots can’t see, can’t interpret, and can’t act upon can’t be used against humanity. Just bear that in mind before you give yet another weapon to some herd of imbeciles.









What does the universe do?


corporate dynamicOne of the strangest things about science, religion and philosophy is that one question is never asked – What does the universe actually do? If that question, the function of the universe, has ever been asked, nobody seems to have answered very coherently, and certainly not consistently.

There’s a reason for that – All these disciplines are infested with the sort of people who if told Mary had a little lamb, would spend years proving there never was anybody called Mary, and that lambs can’t possibly ever have existed.

Better res image

An image of the universe – Not quite so easily defined, is it?

The Three Stooges of Human Thought, in fact, usually stick to dogmas like Mommy’s apron. They also act like kids proudly reciting things learned in kindergarten. If trained to think in such a way, you’ll think in that way, despite your better judgment or information which contradicts dogma. You may be able to dig your way out of the dogma(s) but it’ll be a struggle, particularly against fanatical dogmatists.

So a gigantic space, when observed, produces gods, physics, and theories, right or wrong. If someone says the Earth is flat, that statement will be believed. This isn’t exactly the mentality required to figure out what the universe does.


  • What’s its function?
  • It processes a lot of matter and energy – Why, and what’s the holistic effect of all this matter/energy operation?
  • Does it have cycles of activity?
  • How much of its activity is observable?
  • Where is it going, and why? (How it behaves in movement is of course important; but why is the most likely indicator of its functions. How would you express, or model, the evolution of the universe? Might tell someone a lot about what it’s doing.)
  • Are we in a huge accelerator, or a vortex, or what?
  • How do we interpret the extremely complex shape of the universe, and in relation to exactly what, outside it, which may affect its behavior?
The cosmic microwave background - Not all that self-explanatory, either.

The cosmic microwave background – Not all that self-explanatory, either.

Functions are the best indicators of future actions and possibilities. If the past of the universe is fascinating, we may also note that what it’s doing now is perhaps more immediately relevant. So asking what the universe does is rather fundamental to understanding it.

If you remember the story of the exploration of the light spectrum, you’ll also remember that theories have a tendency to follow knowledge – or the lack of it – around like little lambs. Theories are usually only as good as their knowledge base. Sometimes predictions are right, but mostly they’re wrong, or progressively obsolete as new knowledge emerges.

Ironically, the value of theories depends on what you’re theorizing about.  If you’ve never asked the question “What does the universe do?” you’re likely to lack much of an idea of how to answer the question.

How many physical functions can you see in this one picture? Everything, in fact, from individual atoms and subatomic particles to macro structures, and all working together.

Consider a furiously expanding, accelerating, universe in which super massive black holes abound, vast amounts of energies and matter are processed continuously on a mathematically colossal scale, all of which quantum physics tangles together like a raindrop.

Merely accepting these facts gets no closer to understanding them. Questions, particularly those outside the normal frameworks, get useful answers. Acceptance gets nothing but current knowledge, which is inevitably superseded.

A few examples:

  • What if black holes are super aggregators, creating a secondary, much more “refined” universe using this one as material?
  • What if the non-universe around this one reacts to it the way two fluids interact, without joining, or perhaps by one mixing with the other?
  • What if dark matter is a secondary product of universal functions, and the non-dark matter universe has simply been converted in to another state? (Not entirely out of the question – Black holes effectively remove matter from the “normal” state; why wouldn’t another process do something similar?) Where does that leave current theories, and where are the new theories to explore that theory?
  • What if entanglement is some sort of core function of the universe, which can be used to interpret macro-universal behavior?
  • Do universes merge? If so, how would they do it?
  • What acts as an attractor to a whole universe, pulling it in so many directions?

These aren’t even particularly advanced questions – They’re simply extrapolations of observed facts, with some possibilities added.

I don’t want to turn this blog in to a soap box for my own theories, which are many, and subjected to regular panel beating on a more or less daily basis. It’s purely to ask that one question, because I have a feeling if nobody asks it, it’ll never get answered.




Is science naïve?


Wasp2If you define naiveté as an unwarranted trust with an unsuspicious outlook, the answer is yes. If you define it as failing to consider the motives of others, the answer is yes. If you describe it as blind faith in a nebulous ideal, it’s still yes.

The environment in which science is carried out is perhaps the least enlightened, most selectively ignorant, and facile in history. Science itself isn’t necessarily pure, with “Want a study with that?” now as common as “Want fries?”. Even the mad scientists are second stringers to this environment. In the US, the insane dictate to science. People don’t even seem to question the objectives and risks of types of research. They just do the science.

Science is now a commodity. Findings have to appeal just as much to hedge funds as to anyone else. Climate change scientists get death threats for quite literally analysing the weather. Studies are buried, only to emerge in pharmaceutical court cases after deaths. Information was known and suppressed. The corporate Thought Police are everywhere, as pig-ignorant as the lackeys and perverts of the Inquisition.

So much for the obvious. Science, however, has another, related, but arguably worse, problem, and it’s a serious one: Lack of foresight. In this environment, that’s a ticket to hell.

The creative process coverConsider the situation in which, while working with the demonstrably gaga, scientists continue to do work on serious subjects, to provide the gaga brigade with technology, information, and materials which can affect millions of people. Working for lunatics is common enough, but giving them advanced technologies?

It seems that few scientists ever consider the possible abuses of their work. Those abuses are reaching epic proportions in statutory violations which cost billions but don’t change the behaviour of corporations- or the scientists who work for them. It might be an overstatement to say that today’s discovery might be tomorrow’s torture treatment in the local concentration camp, but how much of an overstatement is it?

There is another side to this. Are people expected to “not discover” new things? Science is about discovery. It always has been. Are all studies based on PR? No, they’re not. Science is trying to do its job, even despite this rabid, animalistic environment.

There’s an interesting article in The New York Times called “The Age of Denial” by a guy called Adam Frank.

You're looking sane todayI’m certainly not going to disagree with Frank on his main themes. He’s an American scientist, which is a bit like Life of Pi, in terms of pre-installed funloving tigers in the personal lifeboat in career and social terms. Frank cites “The revenge of the C students”, which is a pretty good one-liner for covering the quite genuine lack of comprehension now available in US governments and society as a whole.

That line, however, leaves out the F students, who are now running the country and its corporations. They were never really students. They made their lives out of exactly the sort of culture which infests most workplaces. Lack of skill is made up for by skills in manipulation. They’re totally unreliable and totally untrustworthy.

Any knowledge of marketing, which most scientists seem to lack, would explain in turgid detail everything these executive morons know and will do. They’re basically salespeople. Their marketplace is their job. They have the business connections and equally moronic contacts who happen to be managing the money. They make money this way, too, so it’s a nice little cottage industry.

Naïve science, in effect, equates to not recognising these facts and blundering on regardless.

Mass Media page 3Ethics as a cure for naïve science? Believe it or not, yes.

So far, we’ve dealt with things people know, more or less, to some degree. A bit of scene setting was necessary.

Now a real question- What to do about it?

You can’t “cure” ignorance, greed, and stupidity. You can dodge them, though, and you can bamboozle them. You can also have some backroom work of your own to manage the specific personal and technical issues science raises.

This is going to be a rather long passage. Get a coffee or something.

Job page 21The attempt to install ethics into science is quite sincere and quite genuine. I have all the time in the world for those doing this thankless, frequently misunderstood work.

That said, ethics in science can go a lot further and be a lot more profitable, creating leverage in the dunghill against the dollar addicts. Better yet, it can realign the logic of many issues, without revealing itself to be ethical behaviour.

The basis of ethics is actually a type of personal motivation, but it’s also a form of social insurance. Doing the right thing ethically usually prevents or at least minimizes harm to others. All ethical systems have this added dimension.

Here’s an ethical situation:

Job page 13You’ve just discovered a neural stimulus. It’s cheap, it’s effective, and neurologists are naming their kids after it. It can cure paralysis in severe cases. It can also be used as a massive pain stimulator. As a means of torture, it beats oxy torches, and does no tissue damage. Like a Star Trek Klingon “agoniser” for $2.99.

You know this. Your ethics aren’t happy and nor are you, realising your chances for eternal fame as the inventor of a truly fiendish device are excellent. You weren’t trying to invent a portable torture chamber, for one thing. You know your invention will be on the net in an hour if you publicize. Do you proceed? You could, but you don’t have to.

Ethics can be great stimuli, too. You have an advantage. You know how the stimulator causes pain. You know how to thoughtfully leave that information out. You also know how to modify the equipment so it can’t have that effect. You block out the pain causing options inside the equipment, with a commendable lack of explanation, describing the blocks as modulators.

Job page 23The F students will never think of anything but dollars. They don’t get the tech at all. They see “neurologically supplied mansion”. They don’t know, or care, about what they don’t understand. That gives you a lot of leeway for applied ethics.

You even have some marketing material. Neural impulses are in a spectrum of micro voltages. So your stimulator blurb covers this mundane fact as if it was super science. You emphasise the need for accurate correlation with natural neural voltages “for best results”. The fiendish device is never developed, but the science is applied to a real problem.

There’s another type of ethical dilemma, rather inconsiderately and unhelpfully known as “the future”. What are the ethical risks of any future development of your science?

Can you see the train coming?

Are you tied snugly to the tracks?

Job page 25Say you have a chemical which does a great job of cleaning out pathogens in hospitals. It’s an extremely useful thing. It also just happens to be able to wipe out all life downstream, when it gets flushed out. It acts like a persistent bioweapon, and worse, could be used as one. It’d be a terrorist’s dream weapon, and great for the DIY nutcases, too. That’s what you know. What you don’t and can’t know is the future possibilities for using your discovery. You can guess, sure, but it’s not the same thing, is it?

“Well, um….” Is the honest answer. It occurs to you that you didn’t just wake up that morning and decide to find a way of obliterating all life on Earth, it just sort of happened. Yes, you do have an ethical issue.

You also have an advantage, in fact several:

  • You’re driving this idea.
  • You can steer the logic.
  • You can change the destination of the logic, well away from the super weapon.

Mass Media page 5There’s a word which will drive off the most delusive gargoyle in any kind of corporate or political entity: Risk.

You justify changing tack in your research by citing, honestly if not very specifically, unacceptable risk in the existing compound:

  • It’s unstable. (Of course, it’s unstable. It’s a bio agent.)
  • It’s hard to produce. (All new products are hard to produce.)
  • It lacks a good production scenario. (Any production person, confronted with fuzzy logic, will agree, simply because of the number of unknowns. Few will recommend a blank check if they’re responsible for it.)
  • It’s expensive. (Most are, at this stage, and a bit of real cost evaluation can always add a few digits to anything.)

You go for a softer option out of the goodness of your heart and your desperate desire to see corporate bozos make more money and breed.

Risk aversion is one of the few working bits of sanity in the modern social environment. It overrides most other considerations. It also defuses spending on nutcase products.

Naïve science, in fact, could use some risk aversion. The risk is abuse, both personal and of your work. Avoid it. Use your ethics as a defence. Nobody has to know…

Please excuse generalisations and over-simplifications in this article. I happen to think that the only real ethics are those which are applied. I’ve tried to provide a working model or so, able to be used anywhere. I hope it helps.

LOGO with Sydney Media Jam edit 300PPI


Where are the civilized people?


Wasp2People may find it hard to believe, but there was a time when obsessions and neuroses weren’t the sole basis of society. People had civilized intellectual lives, something few people have today. They had interests other than watching other people, and did something themselves. They even had something to talk about.

Some background:

The things civilized people didn’t admire included –

  • People weren’t obsessed with money and sex. These weren’t the sole topics of conversation. Nor were they the sole reason for social contact.
  • People weren’t proud of their ignorance. General knowledge was an expectation.
  • Criminals weren’t heroes and didn’t run countries. They were expensive minor nuisances.
  • People didn’t talk about religion, and minded their own business about your beliefs.
  • Illiteracy wasn’t a criterion for status. It was either a disability or proof of stupidity.
  • “Success” meant actual, unique achievement, not a return to the caves with some dismal, boring, collection of tales about battles with spreadsheets.
  • Politics was seen in its true light of employment for the useless and sycophantic. It was for the dummies in the family.

Continue reading