Monday, December 23, 2002

The Origin of Religions, From a Distinctly Darwinian View. Dr. David Sloan Wilson, a renowned evolutionary biologist, proposes that religion evolved because it conferred advantages on those who bore it. By Natalie Angier. [New York Times: Science] I've found that when you go beyond the superficial definitions of religion, it's very difficult to distinguish anything fundamental about religion that is not also fundamental to other social organizations. This perspective could lighten some of the polarized debate. I heard Oakland (California) Rabbi Burt Jacobson observe a few years ago that perhaps the 'Ten Commandments' -- those stern pronouncements of a jealous, patriarchal god -- weren't commandments at all; perhaps they were gifts, a roadmap, a clue. Along the lines of: 'Listen carefully. I'm going to let you in on a secret. Here are the rules for how things really work. If you pay attention to them in your life, your life will probably go a lot better than if you don't.' [ The Laws of Nature: Sorry, no referendum available, no amendments possible] 8:43:52 PM    comment []  trackback []

Debate Erupts Over Authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Though much has been written about the Dead Sea Scrolls themselves, the ruins of Qumran where the scrolls were found was largely unexplored, until now. By John Noble Wilford. [New York Times: Science] "There is no new consensus," Dr. Katharina M. Galor, a Brown archaeologist and an organizer of the conference, said during a break in the talks. "Or the new consensus is that the old consensus is dead." 8:33:45 PM    comment []  trackback []

Patent Drift and Property Rights Tom Abate gets the title right: Agriculture, biotech mix uncomfortably He poses a key question: Schmeiser grew patented seeds. But he did not steal them from the seed store. Whose fault is it that Monsanto's seeds grew on Schmeiser's farm? He ultimately comes up with the right answer: But seed that drifts through the air, grows into a plant and produces new seed belongs to the person who owns the harvest. We are all familiar with the concept of exempting a practice from a new law, also called grandfathering. Seed saving is so ancient that it is Adam-and-Eved into the fabric of civilization. Schmeiser's right should trump Monsanto's patent. Unfortunately, some of his science, law and reasoning along the way are a bit weaker. Abate suggest that because patented Monsanto canola seeds blew onto Percy Schmieser's Canadian prairie farm, and 'a Canadian judge found that Schmeiser either knew or should have know that he was growing patented seeds that he hadn't paid for and ruled in Monsanto's favor.' But it wasn't the seed that drifted, it was the pollen -- which then contaminated Schmeiser's own property -- his legally owned seeds. Abate suggests that since Schmeiser 'knew that some of his saved seed carried the Monsanto brand -- since Monsanto inspectors warned him not to plant the saved seeds', that he's rightly guilty of patent infringement. I see it quite differently. Since he saved seed grown from seed he planted legally, that was subsequently infected by Mosanto drift, he's no more guily than someone who has evidence planted on him. It's Monsanto that should be liable -- for criminal trespass (of their patented genetic code onto his land and into his seeds' genomes), and destruction of private property (by rendering his legal owned private property unusable). ;The courts have yet to deal with the concept of 'biochemical privacy' articulated by the late Dr Robert van den Bosch, but eventually they will. When they do, they'll recognize pollution as a violation of fundamental property rights: no one has any business forcing their chemistry into anyone else's property -- biological or physical -- without permission. With that said, some interesting tort law will develop (contracts and rents for pollution?). And some even more interesting right-left political alliances will form. 10:57:55 AM    comment []  trackback []

More on e-waste Cell-Phone Makers Sign Life-Cycle Management Initiative Major mobile-phone manufacturers have signed a declaration expressing their interest in cooperating with the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal and with other stakeholders in the mobile-phone sector on the environmentally sound management of end-of-life mobile phones. Expression of interest isn't quite the same as commitment to action, but at least it's a step in the right direction. Also in greenbiz.com, Ted Smith of the Silicon Valley Toxics Campaign addresses The Challenges of Producer Responsibility in Electronics and the Computer Take Back Campaign: This platform has now been endorsed by hundreds of groups around the U.S.... This past year, 20 states introduced legislation related to e-waste, and the California legislature passed the first two bills in the country. Tellingly, all of the U.S. electronics companies and their trade associations opposed the California legislation, with the exception of Apple Computer. Dell Computer Company has emerged as the campaignÕs chief target because they are the industry leader in market share but have consistently been ranked as a laggard in the Computer Report Card. Consumer campaigns, especially focused through college campuses, are also in the works. But pressure from the organized purchasing power of large corporate and institutional buyers -- especially in Europe, but also including state and local government in the US -- may be what moves this opportunity through the tipping point. (Why 'opportunity'? Because it makes no sense to consign all that chemistry, metalurgy and engineering to the landfill -- especially when design for Extended Producer Responsiblity (EPR) will yield better products, with better price performance ratios. Translation: market share and profits for the companies that lead the way.) 10:20:07 AM    comment []  trackback []