New York Under Water

Robinson_BR-3

ILLUSTRATION BY STEPHAN MARTINIERE

Science-fiction author Kim Stanley Robinson paints a vivid picture of life in New York City after the sea level rises more than 50 feet, drowning lower Manhattan and creating a forest of skyscrapers in his new book, New York 2140.

Your future commute to work is on a boat.

1

Numbers often fill my head. While waiting for my building’s morose super to free my Jesus bug from the boathouse rafters where it had spent the night, I was looking at the little waves lapping in the big doors and wondering if the Black-Scholes formula could frame their volatility. The canals were like a perpetual physics class’s wave-tank demonstration— backwash interference, the curve of a wave around a right angle, the spread of a wave through a gap, and so on—it was very suggestive as to how liquidity worked in finance as well.

Too much time to give to this question, the super being so sullen and slow. New York parking! One can do nothing but practice patience. Eventually the zoomer was mine to step into, off the boathouse dock and then out the doorway onto the shadowed surface of the Madison Square bacino. Nice day, crisp and clear, sunlight pouring down the building canyons from the east.

As on most weekdays, I hummed the bug east on Twenty-third into the East River. It would have been shorter to burble south through the city canals, but even just past dawn the southward traffic on Park was terrible, and would only get worse at the Union Square bacino. Besides I wanted to fly a little before settling in to work, I wanted to see the river shine.

I turned and thwopped across some big barge wakes, then hummed and gurgled into the city.

The East River too was busy with its usual morning traffic, but there was still room in the fast southbound lane to plane up onto the Jesus bug’s curving hydrofoils and fly. As always the lift off the water was exhilarating, a rise like a seaplane taking off, some kind of nautical hard-on, after which the boat flew over its magic carpet of air some six feet off the river, with only the two streamlined composite foils shearing through the water below, flexing constantly to maximize lift and stability. A genius of a boat, zooming downriver in the autobahn lane, ripping through the sun-battered wakes of the slowpokes, rip rip rip, man on a mission here, out of my way little bargie, got to get to work and make my daily bread.

 Robinson_BR
WATERWAYS: Current-day Venice provides a sneak peak at what a future commute in New York City could look like, if sea level rises sufficiently.juliohdez / Pixabay

If the gods allow. I could take losses, could get shaved, get hosed, take a hammering, blow up—so many ways to say it!—although all were unlikely in my case, being well hedged and risk averse as I am, at least compared to many traders out there. But the risks are real, the volatility volatile; in fact it’s the volatility that can’t be factored into the partial differential equations in the Black-Scholes family, even when you shift them around to account for that quality in particular. It’s what people bet on, in the end. Not whether an asset price will go up or down—traders win either way—but just how volatile the price will be.

All too soon my jaunt downriver got me offshore of Pine Canal, and I cut back on the jet and the bug plopped down into ordinary boathood, not like a goose crashing down, as in some hydrofoils, but gracefully, with nary a splash. After that I turned and thwopped across some big barge wakes, then hummed and gurgled into the city, moving at about the pace of the breaststrokers braving the toxicity in their daily suicide salute to the sun. The Pine Canal Seebad was weirdly popular, and they did indeed “see bad,” pods of old breaststrokers in full wetsuits and face masks, hoping the benefits of the aquatic exercise and the flotation itself counteracted the stew of heavy metals they inevitably took on. Got to admire the aqualove of anyone willing to get into the water anywhere in the greater New York harbor region, and yet of course people still did it, because people swim in their ideas. A great attribute of the species when it comes to trading with them.

The hedge fund I work for, WaterPrice, had its New York offices occupying all of the Pine Tower at Water and Pine. The building’s waterbarn was four stories tall, the big old atrium now filled with watercraft of all types, hanging like model boats in a child’s bedroom. A pleasure to see the foils curving under my trimaran’s hulls as it was hoisted into place for the day. A nice perk, boathouse parking, if expensive. Then up the elevator to the thirtieth floor and over to the northwest corner, where I settled into my aerie, looking through a scattering of skybridges midtown, and the superscrapers looming uptown in all their gehryglory.

2

The intertidal zone of lower midtown sloshed back and forth over an area with a lot of old landfill, and that double whammy had brought a lot of buildings down. Thirtieth to Canal was a wilderness of slumped, tilted, cracked, and collapsed blocks. A house built on sand cannot stand…

more…

http://nautil.us/issue/49/the-absurd/new-york-under-water

WIKK WEB GURU
Advertisements

‘Here we are all the same’

Resultado de imagem para ‘Here we are all the same’ Photo by Tim Dirven/Panos

Photo by Tim Dirven/Panos

The US Constitution guaranteed freedom of religion, but the fight for religious equality was only just beginning

by Richard D Brown is a board of trustees distinguished professor of history, emeritus, at the University of Connecticut. His latest book is Self-Evident Truths: Contesting Equal Rights from the Revolution to the Civil War (2017). He lives in eastern Connecticut.

The age of revolution brought an enlightened political ideology to the modern world. Among its many achievements, none faces greater global challenges than freedom of religion. Today, it seems almost unthinkable that any deeply religious people, whether in the Middle East or the United States, would create constitutions, bills of rights and statutes that would not only guarantee their own freedom of conscience, but also the religious faith of others. Why, we wonder, and how, did revolutionary-era Americans choose to adopt a radical regime of religious freedom?

Their reasons did not rely on any idealistic consensus that religion must be separate from politics and instead owed everything to their deep suspicion of power in the hands of flawed humanity. Informed by centuries of European history, revolutionary-era Americans believed that governments empowered to coerce belief – long the common European practice – became tyrannical. History proved that, where religion was concerned, governments resorted to coercion. Consequently, to provide a barrier against tyranny, key American patriots believed that protecting religious freedom was vital.

But old ways died hard. Leaders in every American state argued that religious observance was not only a divine commandment, but also a bulwark of social and political order. As a result, defenders of Protestant faiths battled over religious taxation almost everywhere, and debated whether to maintain established churches. At independence in 1776, nine of the 13 colonies were supporting state churches; yet by 1860, the US would become a country of almost complete religious freedom. How did this happen?

As early as June 1776, Virginia’s Declaration of Rights laid down the principle that ‘all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion’. This language, composed by George Washington’s neighbour George Mason appealed to Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson was at work drafting a state constitution and, in it, he echoed Mason’s doctrine with a provision that ‘All persons shall have full and free liberty of religious opinion; nor shall any be compelled to frequent or maintain any religious institution’. Virginia’s long-established Anglican Churchmen fiercely opposed this proposed disestablishment of their church. Arrayed against them, the state’s numerous Baptists and Presbyterians favoured the measure. Still, many patriots thought that ending state support for the Anglican Church would plunge Virginia into immorality and infidelity – magnifying the very disorder that the revolution provoked. The reformers’ rejoinder – that Pennsylvania, which possessed no religious establishment and no state support for religion, was not awash in immorality or infidelity – did not convince defenders of the status quo.

The result in Virginia in 1776 was compromise. Virginia suspended support for Episcopal priests and exempted Presbyterians and Baptists from religious taxes. Followers of other faiths and non-believers must still support the Episcopal Church, though they were not required to attend its services. The Episcopal Church also kept its monopoly of marriage fees and revenues from land dedicated to poor relief. This arrangement briefly stilled sectarian conflict. Three years later, when Jefferson won election as governor in 1779, he and James Madison attacked the remaining Episcopal establishment by sponsoring a statute of religious freedom. Though the legislature tabled their statute, it voted to end tax support for the Episcopal Church.

A few years later, after the war ended, governor Patrick Henry, supported by Episcopalians and Methodists, proposed using taxes to pay clergy of major Protestant denominations. Leading Virginians such as John Marshall and Washington, the national hero, thought Henry’s proposed state support for Protestantism reasonable. Baptists and Deists, however – coming from opposite ends of the religious spectrum – mobilised and blocked it with petitions carrying an unprecedented 11,000 signatures. Exploiting this momentum, Madison seized the offensive, bringing Jefferson’s Statute for Religious Freedom to a victorious vote in the Virginia legislature.

Virginia’s Statute for Religious Freedom expressed the revolutionary generation’s most fully developed commitment to equal religious rights. God, the statute read, had ‘created the mind free’. Indeed ‘the Holy author of our religion’ rejected earthly coercion. The law proclaimed that ‘our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry’. As Madison explained, if government could establish one religion, government could establish any religion. Just before Christmas 1785, Jefferson’s bill passed by a vote of 74 to 20. Afterwards, when a delegate proposed that ‘the Holy author of our religion’ be identified as ‘Jesus Christ’, a great majority of the delegates voted that down. The law, Jefferson wrote, aimed to be ‘universal’; it should protect ‘the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination’…

more…

https://aeon.co/essays/the-true-story-of-the-fight-for-religious-equality-in-the-us

WIKK WEB GURU

BIOTECH FIRM CLAIMS NEW MEDICAL RESEARCH WILL GIVE LIFE TO THE DEAD

by Paul A. PhilipsGuest  Waking Times

No, this is not something out of the X-Files and nor are the implications. Researchers at the American biotech firm Bioquark are working on a pioneering stem cell methodology that they think will give life to brain-dead patients.

In light of this research, there are the inevitable ethical implications when considering raising people from the dead. Besides this, bear in mind the ruling elite want immortality but they also want world depopulation. So it would be unlikely that they would allow any genuinely successful technology that gives life to the dead to be made publicly available. The ethical implications and the ruling elite’s viewpoint on immortality will be discussed later.

Majority countries define brain-dead as the irreversible and permanent loss of brain function, which is used to confirm death. However, Ira Pastor Bioquark’s CEO and researchers claim that dead patients’ brains can be resurrected through extracting, harvesting and then re-introducing their own stems cells into the body. Various peptides will then be injected into the spinal cord, used in conjunctions with laser treatment and the stimulation of nerve cells. MRI scans will be used throughout the treatment to monitor the progress, attempting to reboot the patients’ central nervous systems, thus give life to the dead.

While patients are deemed technically dead due to the brain stem no longer working, a number of bodily functions such as the circulatory, respiratory and digestive systems still exist. So far, the research has been able to revive comatose patients.

Dead or comatose, the methodology works on the principle that unlike central nervous system cells the stem cells have substantial regenerative capabilities, especially when planted at the lower brain stem and upper spinal cord regions. Similar to the salamander (capable of growing entire limbs after severe damage) the stem cells can regenerate and remodel the central nervous system: Bioquark also claims that patients’ memories can be erased…

Ethical Issues/Concerns

The project raises a number of ethical issues/concerns. What about consent? Indeed, a patient cannot give consent to anything if they’re dead. If the patient had been informed and signed a legal document prior to death giving the okay for the treatment then that would be acceptable. However, how many patients would be in this circumstance considering the treatment is new, only in the developmental stage and not well-known?

How many know what they’d be letting themselves in for? What sort of quality of life would these people have after some sort of functionality is restored to their brains? For instance, would they come round only to have vague memories, not knowing who they are and not recognising relatives or friends..?

-Perhaps it would be better to decline the offer of becoming a ‘living subject’ for this medical science experiment because:

…you already are immortal

Modern-day medicine, with its narrow, mechanistic, material-based approach would not embrace the idea that who you really are is an immortal multi-dimensional conscious entity: Those who have had near-death experiences have claimed that when the body ceases to function we move out of our bodies and journey on…

-Isn’t this one of a number of reasons to simply accept death and not engage in a medical research project that doesn’t allow nature to run its course..?

The Ruling Elite

Having an obsession with immortality, it’s more than apparent that the ruling elite don’t have the realization that all of us already are immortal: Whether it’s to do with transhumanism or through other technologies such as the hidden and suppressed cures to so-called incurable diseases, in achieving immortality the ruling elite will be entrapping themselves in a 5-sense 3-dimensional body prison: It could be said that because of fixations with money and control they will not be able to transcend their consciousness; venture out into the great multidimensional experience where there’s a whole new reality…

Finally

Here’s an excellent video that very aptly sums up the ruling elite and where they are at with their ideas of immortality.

About the Author

Paul A. Philips is the author of NewParadigm.ws.

This article (Biotech Firm Claims New Medical Research Will Give Life to the Dead) was originally created and published by NewParadigm.ws and is re-posted here with permission. 

http://www.wakingtimes.com/2017/06/30/biotech-firm-claims-new-medical-research-will-give-life-dead/

WIKK WEB GURU