Our Future Is Already in the Hands of Robots

High-Tech 'Bots in Medicine and the Military Are Still in the Model T Stage of Robotic Science

(CBS)  One of the Ten Commandments instructs us to observe one day of rest per week . . . a day of rest for HUMANS, that is. There's no commandment we know of that says a day of rest has to be observed by ROBOTS. In fact, these days 'bots are busy day and night, seven days a week, in ways and places most of us can barely imagine. Daniel Sieberg reports our Cover Story:

 The crowds, cheerleaders and mascots are not here for a football game or a basketball tournament.

This is a robotics competition called "FIRST," in which 10,000 kids from across the world descend on Atlanta and turn the Georgia Dome into a high-tech Super Bowl.

So (and this seems like an obvious question), what exactly is a robot?

Dean Kamen, the inventor of the Segway personal transportation device and founder of FIRST, replied, "Not only is 'What is a robot?' not an obvious question, I think it doesn't have an answer any more than 'What is a computer?'

"I think robot, to at least these kids, is a system of some hardware and some software with the ability to communicate and then to interact with its environment, either autonomously or through interaction with somebody, to accomplish a goal," Kamen said.

Of course, many of us think of robots as the stuff of movies . . . friends like R2D2 and C3PO, and foes like the Terminator.

The truth is that in real life robots generally can't think for themselves . . . yet. They still are really just high-tech tools.

The most recent example? Those robots that successfully capped the gushing BP well in the Gulf of Mexico.

But whether a mile below the ocean's surface or high up in the skies, today's robots are slowly becoming more intelligent and in greater demand . . . from medicine to the military . . . changing our lives from the ground up.

Colin Angle is the founder of iRobot, one of the world's largest consumer robotics companies. In 2002, the company swept the public off its feet with, well, a robotic vacuum called Roomba. And yes, it's still a robot even if it doesn't look like one.

"When we first started with Roomba, everyone thought robots were humanoid mechanical things," Angle said. "And when we went and asked people whether Roomba was a robot, they would all say no. They'd say it's an automatic vacuum cleaner or something. But over time, I think people have come to realize that you don't have to look like a human in order to be a robot."

iRobot's first big creation was the PackBot, a 40-pound remote-controlled vehicle. It even searched for the dead in the rubble of the World Trade Center.

On battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan, thousands of PackBots do the Army's dirtiest and most dangerous jobs, like looking for and destroying improvised explosive devices or IEDs.

And the next generation of 'bots is on the march, like this small-unmanned vehicle.

Army Staff Sergeant Daniel Ruegger described how 'bots with cameras can survey an area for booby traps. "Like on a checkpoint in Iraq, you can actually do a 'peek under' mode and actually drive under the vehicle and actually see if there are IEDs or bombs mounted [underneath."

"And your eyepiece is seeing everything it's seeing, in real time?" Sieberg asked.

"Correct, real time," said Ruegger. "What I was looking at, that's exactly what I'm looking at."

Ruegger believes advance warning from a robot sentry could've prevented an attack in Iraq in 2003 that nearly killed him:

"Two grenades came over and woke everybody up. And when I was getting ready. moving so, that grenade came over the wall and landed between my legs, pushed it away and tried to maneuver away from it, the blast. And as soon as I made the corner around the Bradley, it actually injured me."

"Had you had something like this 'bot, do you think that would've been prevented?"

"100 percent, I have no doubt in my mind," he replied.

We were given a rare look inside Fort Bliss, near White Sands, New Mexico, where soldiers like Army Sergeant First Class Kenneth Colbeck put robots through rigorous testing, such as one that can hover and send video of the enemy back through the chain of command.

He said a vehicle like this "is gonna save a lot of lives."

Enthusiasm for robots on the battlefield, it seems, is only outpaced by the speed with which the military is acquiring them, says the author of "Wired for War," P.W. Singer.

"We went into Iraq with a handful of drones; we now have 7,000 in the inventory," Singer said. "We went into Iraq with zero unmanned ground vehicles that are robotic; we now have 12,000.

"And these are just the Model T Fords, the Wright Brothers flyers, compared to what's coming," he said.

Singer spent two years talking to engineers, soldiers, and high-ranking officials about the future of robots used in combat. He says that robots still have a lot of growing up to do, especially when it comes to carrying weapons.

For example, a robot right now can already hit an apple at 800 meters using a 50-caliber machine gun. It can't, though, tell the difference between that apple and a tomato, which a two-year-old can do without thinking about it.

When you take that into war, it just illustrates all the dilemmas that come out of it.

Which isn't to say we're not halfway there. Since President Obama took office, the number of remotely-controlled drone strikes has almost doubled, from Pakistan to Somalia.

And while fully autonomous robots on the battlefield may be years away, an Army report recently identified 32 different tasks for robots . . . everything from weapons loaders to armed sentries.

The report's author, Lt. General Michael Vane, says we have to change our thinking about what robots can and cannot do.

"I think what will go hand-in-hand with an armed robot in particular is the level of confidence that humans have culturally with machines over time. And so there's probably going to be a place at which we will accept or not accept armed robots in autonomy," he said.

If all this sounds like sci-fi, consider this: Americans are already placing their lives in the "hands" of robots.

Robots work in hospitals as orderlies and pharmacists. They even allow doctors to examine patients from miles away.

Last year more prostate glands were removed robotically, by surgeons like Dr. David Samadi, than the old-fashioned way.

"I'm the surgeon who does the surgery from the beginning to the end," Samadi explained. "I make the skin opening. I close the skin. And they like that."

"Because you don't look much like a robot, I have to tell you!" Sieberg said.

At New York's Mt. Sinai Medical Center, Samadi is preparing to do a prostate removal. After a few tiny incisions are made so the operating tools can be inserted, Samadi moves to a separate control area that looks like something from a video game arcade.

High-definition cameras guide Samadi as he manipulates the extremely precise arms of the robot.

"It's an extension of my arms, with a big lens, that shows you the detail of the surgery with magnification and also the high definition, but you can maneuver it anywhere," he explained. "You can navigate it all over the abdomen and get into a lot of blind spots that we would not be able to access."

Along with his robot counterpart, Dr. Samadi has performed more than 2,000 of these procedures.

Samadi says robotic surgery also comes with a long list of benefits. It's less invasive, with shorter recovery time, and there's a better chance to retain sexual function.

Does he see a day when a patient goes into the operating room and there are no humans involved, only a purely autonomous robot?

"No, no, no, we're not there yet," he said. "I think the future, you never know. I think if we have, like, very accurate images that we can give to the robot and a custom-made surgery and well-designed, you'll never know. That may happen."

Could a machine ever be that intelligent? Well, IBM is testing a computer system called Watson that can do what was once thought to be impossible: Beat humans at "Jeopardy."

As for who will be designing that next generation of intelligent robot, you heard it here FIRST.

Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/07/25/sunday/main6711291.shtml  ; July 25, 2010The article is reproduced in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use and is for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.

Scientists supersize quantum mechanics

By Geoff Brumfiel 

A team of scientists has succeeded in putting an object large enough to be visible to the naked eye into a mixed quantum state of moving and not moving.

Andrew Cleland at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and his team cooled a tiny metal paddle until it reached its quantum mechanical 'ground state' — the lowest-energy state permitted by quantum mechanics. They then used the weird rules of quantum mechanics to simultaneously set the paddle moving while leaving it standing still. The experiment shows that the principles of quantum mechanics can apply to everyday objects as well as as atomic-scale particles.

The work is simultaneously being published online today in Nature and presented today at the American Physical Society's meeting in Portland, Oregon¹.

According to quantum theory, particles act as waves rather than point masses on very small scales. This has dozens of bizarre consequences: it is impossible to know a particle's exact position and velocity through space, yet it is possible for the same particle to be doing two contradictory things simultaneously. Through a phenomenon known as 'superposition' a particle can be moving and stationary at the same time — at least until an outside force acts on it. Then it instantly chooses one of the two contradictory positions.

But although the rules of quantum mechanics seem to apply at small scales, nobody has seen evidence of them on a large scale, where outside influences can more easily destroy fragile quantum states. "No one has shown to date that if you take a big object, with trillions of atoms in it, that quantum mechanics applies to its motion," Cleland says.

There is no obvious reason why the rules of quantum mechanics shouldn't apply to large objects. Erwin Schrödinger, one of the fathers of quantum mechanics, was so disturbed by the possibility of quantum weirdness on the large scale that he proposed his famous 'Schrödinger's cat' thought experiment. A cat is placed in a box with a vial of cyanide and a radioactive source. If the source decays, it triggers a device that will break the vial, killing the cat. During the time the box is shut, Schrödinger argued, the cat is in a superposition of alive and dead — an absurdity as far as he was concerned. 

Wonderful weirdness

Cleland and his team took a more direct measure of quantum weirdness at the large scale. They began with a a tiny mechanical paddle, or 'quantum drum', around 30 micrometres long that vibrates when set in motion at a particular range of frequencies. Next they connected the paddle to a superconducting electrical circuit that obeyed the laws of quantum mechanics. They then cooled the system down to temperatures below one-tenth of a kelvin.

At this temperature, the paddle slipped into its quantum mechanical ground state. Using the quantum circuit, Cleland and his team verified that the paddle had no vibrational energy whatsoever. They then used the circuit to give the paddle a push and saw it wiggle at a very specific energy.

Next, the researchers put the quantum circuit into a superposition of 'push' and 'don't push', and connected it to the paddle. Through a series of careful measurements, they were able to show that the paddle was both vibrating and not vibrating simultaneously.

"It's wonderful," says Hailin Wang, a physicist at the University of Oregon in Eugene who has been working on a rival technique for putting an oscillator into the ground state. The work shows that the laws of quantum mechanics hold up as expected on a large scale. "It's good for physics for sure," Wang says.

So if trillions of atoms can be put into a quantum state, why don't we see double-decker buses simultaneously stopping and going? Cleland says he believes size does matter: the larger an object, the easier it is for outside forces to disrupt its quantum state.

"The environment is this huge, complex thing," says Cleland. "It's that interaction with this incredibly complex system that makes the quantum coherence vanish."

Still, he says, there's plenty of reasons to keep trying to get large objects into quantum states. Large quantum states could tell researchers more about the relationship between quantum mechanics and gravity — something that is not well understood. And quantum resonators could be useful for something, although Cleland admits he's not entirely sure what. "There might be some interesting application," he says. "But frankly, I don't have one now." 

References: 

1. O'Connell, A. D. et al. Nature doi:10.1038/nature08967 (2010).

Source: http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100317/full/news.2010.130.html : March 17,  2010

The article is reproduced in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use and is for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.

Scientists discover tiny solar panels that create themselves

By Peter Pachal

File this one under "holy crap," but scientists at MIT have discovered molecules that spontaneously assemble themselves into a pattern that can turn light into electricity — essentially a self-creating solar panel. In a petri dish.

The researchers set out to create a synthetic process that imitates photosynthesis. Certain molecules respond to light by releasing electrons; the trick was discovering a substance that sticks them together in a consistent structure. Phospholipids do just that, and they also attach themselves to carbon nanotubes, which conduct electricity. With the nanotubes holding the phospholipids in a uniform alignment, the photoreactive molecules are all exposed to light at once, and the tube acts as a wire that then collects the resulting electrical current.

The most interesting part is that the tiny solar array can be disassembled and reassembled just by adding chemicals. Spray on an additive and the molecular components break apart into a soup; remove it with a membrane, and the system spontaneously puts itself together.

After repeatedly having the system go through disassembly and reassembly, the scientists found the system had no loss in efficiency. That could prove to be the best development of all, since losing efficiency over time can be a big problem with some solar systems. It all makes sense: if you want to build better solar panels, why not look for inspiration from the most successful solar-energy generators of all: plants.

Source: http://dvice.com/archives/2010/09/scientists-disc.php : September 7, 2010

The article is reproduced in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use and is for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.

Psychic

A psychic (pronounced /ˈsaɪkɨk/; from the Greek ψυχικός psychikos—"of the mind, mental", also called sensitive) is a person who professes an ability to perceive information hidden from the normal senses through extrasensory perception (ESP), or is said by others to have such abilities. It is also used to describe theatrical performers who use techniques such as prestidigitation, cold reading, and hot reading to produce the appearance of such abilities. It can also denote an ability of the mind to influence the world physically and to the telekinetic powers professed by those such as Uri Geller.

Psychics appear regularly in fiction and science fiction, such as in the novel The Dead Zone by Stephen King, or the Marvel Comics telepath and psychic Jean Grey. A large industry exists whereby psychics provide advice and counsel to clients. Some famous contemporary psychics include Miss Cleo, John Edward, Danielle Egnew, and Sylvia Browne.

Critics attribute psychic powers to intentional trickery or self-delusion. In 1988 theU.S. National Academy of Sciences gave a report on the subject that concluded there is "no scientific justification from research conducted over a period of 130 years for the existence of parapsychological phenomena." In a 1990 survey of members of that organization, only 2% of respondents thought that extrasensory perception had been scientifically demonstrated, with another 2% thinking that the phenomena happened sometimes. Asked about research in the field, 22% would discourage it, 63% would allow but not encourage it, and 10% would encourage it.

Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychic

License
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0

In the Crystal Ball: More Regulation for Psychics

By Elizabeth Diaz

Starting this week, fortune tellers in Warren, Mich., must be fingerprinted and pay an annual fee of $150 — plus $10 for a police background check — to practice their craft. The new rules are among America's strictest on palmists, fortune readers and other psychics, part of a growing push to regulate a business that has never been taken, or overseen, very seriously. But officials in Warren, a town of 138,000 near Detroit, say it's time to weed out tricksters. "We had no mechanism of enforcement to protect people against unsavory characters," Warren city-council member Keith Sadowski says. "We want to be sure there is some recourse in case we do get somebody who is not legitimate."

Regulating an industry that deems itself clairvoyant, has no standard education requirements and yet rakes in cash for revealing spiritual truths may itself be an act of faith. It also might make good economic sense: about 1 in 7 Americans consulted a psychic or fortune teller in 2009, according to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. That could be 30 million or more people.

Municipalities are struggling to manage their activities. Annapolis, Md., issues what it calls a "fortune-telling license" only if its police force concludes the applicant is "of good moral character." Last year, Will County, Illinois, decided to count fortune telling as an official business (along with tattooing and dog watching). Three years ago, Salem, Mass., famous for its 17th century witch trials — and something of a magnet for spiritual artisans — tightened its rules on background checks for psychics while easing its cap on the number of local fortune tellers allowed in town.

Warren's beefed-up regs came about this spring when Matt Nichols, a Warren police officer, told the city council that the town appeared vulnerable to fortune-telling crime. Once a year since at least 2005, Nichols says, he has had to try to persuade a psychic to return jewelry or cash taken from a client in exchange for performing spells or freeing the client from a curse. But since no regulations barred such acts, criminal charges weren't an option. "We are not looking to do anything to oppress people's beliefs," argues Nichols, who is also a member of the National Association of Bunco Investigators, a nonprofit group dedicated to combating scams and cons. "We are looking to specifically identify crime and people who prey on the vulnerable."

That makes sense, given the harm unscrupulous fortune tellers can inflict. Psychic Gina Marie Marks pleaded guilty Wednesday, Sept. 1, in Florida to grand theft and organized fraud. One of her victims testified that Marks swindled her out of $312,926.29 — and persuaded her to get a tattoo, to boot. It's now "a constant reminder of the psychological abuse I endured at the hands of this false prophet," she told a Broward County judge.

But other observers, peering into their own crystal balls, see new worries. Michael Steinburg, of the Michigan branch of the ACLU, suggests Warren's policy may jeopardize those practicing yoga or predicting the weather. "It makes it illegal to say incantations to give good luck without having a license," he tells TIME. The ACLU has defended the free-speech rights of Maryland fortune teller Nick Nefedro, who won his case in June to operate a shop in the Washington, D.C., suburbs. (In that case, the judge even challenged a common stereotype: "We are not, however, persuaded that all fortune telling is fraudulent," Clayton Greene Jr. wrote.)

But the transparency that regulation requires seems to be in short supply. Several psychics contacted by TIME refused to discuss their practices. Others, like members of the Astrology Association of St. Petersburg, Fl., fear discrimination may result. Some psychics, sensing the way the wind is blowing, are developing codes of ethics to ensure honest clairvoyance. Southern California medium Linda Mackenzie, for example, promises to not use her powers for personal gain or revenge. Allie Theiss, a psychic in Wooster, Ohio, posts a confidentiality agreement on her website and assures potential customers that readings are done without regard for a client's race, gender, creed, color or sexual orientation.

Not all psychics fear tougher government oversight. "I think it's wonderful," Julia Mary Cox, a Michigan psychic plying her craft near Warren, says of the town's new rules. "There are so many people practicing out there, doing it under false pretenses, giving honest people a bad name." But she concedes she wishes Warren's new rules could more clearly separate true fortune tellers from false seers. "They are not looking at any training," she notes. "I have a college degree, I have a background in religion and philosophy and English, and I have experience doing this." While all that may be true, it's also irrelevant. Cox concedes there's nothing like a driver's test for oracles. "There aren't any classes you can take where you say, 'Here are three boxes. Which box holds the apple?' " But given Americans' hunger to know the unknowable — and their willingness to pay for it — it's a safe bet that psychics are going to keep peddling predictions, regulated or not.

Source: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2015676,00.html : 
Thursday, Sep. 02, 2010

The article is reproduced in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use and is for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.

Memristors Getting Closer to Ultra-Fast, Brain-Like Computing, Says HP

"Memristors” are four decades in the making, but it turns out that this fourth kind of circuit element (beyond the inductor, capacitor, and resistor) might have more potential to change computing than even its creators first believed.


In a study this week in Nature, researchers with Hewlett-Packard report that they’ve achieved “stateful logic” with their memristor, whose name derives from a mashup of “memory” and “resistor.” In a nutshell, stateful logic means that the ’state’ of the memristor acts as both the computer and the memory. That’s a pretty big change from current computers, which typically load data from memory, perform operations on it, and then send it back [Nature]. In addition, memristors can store information even in the absence of electrical current.


While an engineer named Leon O. Chua theorized memristors back in 1971, they remained strictly theoretical until HP researchers created the first one two years ago. But while the researchers previously thought of it as just another kind of memory, this study’s find—that they themselves can perform logic—suggests memristors could go much further than that. Such a discovery can pave the way for chips that can both perform calculations and hold data, potentially eliminating the need for a traditional core CPU [CNET].


The H.P. technology is based on the ability to use an electrical current to move atoms within an ultrathin film of titanium dioxide. After the location of an atom has been shifted, even by as little as a nanometer, the result can be read as a change in the resistance of the material. That change persists even after the current is switched off, making it possible to build an extremely low-power device [The New York Times]. And the device’s speed is equally impressive: Stan Williams of HP, one of the lead authors, says they can turn on and off in a nanosecond.


Memristor development currently isn’t close to competing with ordinary silicon, but the ever-confident Williams and this team argue that they could overtake flash memory within three years, and someday surpass the phase-change memory of their competitors. For Chua, the dream goes further. “Our brains are made of memristors,” he said, referring to the function of biological synapses. “We have the right stuff now to build real brains” [The New York Times].


Source: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2010/04/09/memristors-getting-closer-to-ultra-fast-brain-like-computing-says-hp/ : April 9th, 2010


The article is reproduced in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use and is for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.

The Mapmakers of Society

The beginnings of a Scientific Dictatorship


By Daniel Taylor

In order to understand our history, the development of our society and political structure, the influence of the large foundations in America is an essential area of research. Their investment into the social sciences and medical establishment shaped their direction for the 20th Century and beyond. Social control and eugenics became a primary directive. These ideas, primarily due to the work of the Rockefeller and Carnegie philanthropies, spread throughout the intelligentsia and elite circles throughout the western world. 

Dr. Lily E. Kay's 1993 book "The Molecular Vision of Life: Caltech, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Rise of the New Biology" documents much of the early history behind the rise of eugenics and life sciences. Kay demonstrates that the drive for social control and eugenics was largely responsible for the emergence and growth of the science of molecular biology. Dr. Kay is a recipient of the Smithsonian Fellowship at the National Museum of American History, and an assistant professor of history of science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dr. Kay's 2001obituary from MIT describes her as "...one of the outstanding historians of biology of her generation."
As Dr. Kay documents, large foundations effectively drew the maps for society to follow. The intelligentsia, trained and schooled under the strong influence of the foundations, closely followed the vision of the elite. This vision extended into the realms of education, politics, religion, and the financial world. As Dr. Lily Kay has painstakingly documented, this influential group set out in the United States to engage in a massive research campaign to discover the inner workings of man and in turn to devise methods of social-biological control. The United States, in turn, became the 20th Century progenitor of eugenics.
Dr. Kay paints a clear picture of the massive influence that the wealthy elite in the United States wields, even to the "...development of culture and the production of knowledge in the United States..." Kay writes,

"Thus by the end of the Progressive Era, even before the large-scale commitment to the "advancement of knowledge" spurred by World War I, the human sciences received considerable support from the large foundations. Their numerous projects and the unprecedented scope of their financial and institutional resources shaped the development of culture and the production of knowledge in the United States. Through education, public opinion, stimulation of specific research agenda, and the promotion of selective categories of knowledge and research, the Foundation played a key role in the creation of a hegemonic bloc; the resources and prestige flowing into those fields relevant to problems of social control were instrumental in the formation of consensus between social and political elites, on the one hand, and academic interests on the other."

Large foundations - primarily Rockefeller and Carnegie - were investigated in 1915 by the United States Congress, which reported nearly identical findings to the later 1953 Reece Committee, dedicated to the same cause. The 1915 U.S. Commission on Industrial Relations reported that:

"The domination by the men in whose hands the final control of a large part of American industry rests is not limited to their employees, but is being rapidly extended to control the education and social survival of the nation. This control is being extended largely through the creation of enormous privately managed funds for indefinite purposes, hereafter designated "foundations", by the endowment of colleges and universities, by the creation of funds for the pensioning of teachers, by contributions to private charities, as well as through controlling or influencing the public press...

As Dr. Kay documents, many of the original members of the large foundations and their offshoots were driven by the philosophy that they were the chosen elite. In their minds, moral authority was on their side. They sought to guide the direction of the nation and mold mankind's development. Frederick T. Gates, a Baptist minister who worked closely with the Rockefeller family and its many initiatives, is quoted as saying,

"...when you die and come to approach the judgment of Almighty God what do you think He will demand of you...? Do you think he will inquire into your trivial sins, your paltry values? NO! He will ask you just One Question: 'What did you do as a trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation?'"

Chester Bernard, who served as president of the Rockefeller Foundation from 1948-1952, was unquestionably a member of the establishment. He saw what the Rockefeller Foundation and much of the scientific community was attempting to do and spoke out against it, but couched his criticism with the assumption of pure motives. Bernard writes in the Rockefeller Foundation's 1948 Annual Report,

"Inherent in our systematic efforts to promote the welfare of mankind there may be an assumption that... by reason and science we may govern the future of unborn generations in ways that we know are right... Do we mean that because we have learned to navigate the tides we shall also control them? ... We have already begun the attempts to regulate local weather. Where do we think we shall stop -- with the control of the speed of rotation of the earth, of its revolution around the sun? ... Pride goeth before a fall."

Dr. Kay comments on Bernard's criticism, stating that, "Given this wisdom, it is paradoxical that Barnard did not hear the dissonance between his poignant words and the Rockefeller Foundation's agenda in biology, where the primary justification for studying the fundamental mechanisms of soma and psyche was the promise of intervening in the course of human behavior on a global scale."
This original directive has remained unchanged. However, Dr. Kay concludes by stating that "The eugenic goals, which had informed the design of the molecular biology program and had been attenuated by the lessons of the Holocaust, revived by the late 1950's... a new eugenics... came to rest in safety on the high ground of medical discourse and latter-day rhetoric of population control."
Today we see this agenda moving full speed ahead. Foundations are acting more and more like governments. In an interview with the Seattle Times, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon was asked, "Some say the emergence of super rich philanthropies like the Gates Foundation has undermined the effectiveness of the U.N. and its member organizations, like the WHO." Moon responded,

"On the contrary that is what we really want -- contributions from the business community as well as philanthropies. We need to have political support, but it doesn't give us all that we need. NGOs and philanthropies and many foundations such as Bill Gates Foundation -- they're taking a very important role."

In 1996 the Rockefeller Foundation supplied grant money for early research on edible vaccines. The $58,000 grant, given to the Boyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research at Cornell University, was aimed at developing and transferring edible vaccine technology to developing countries.
Edible vaccines, according to the Indian Journal of Medical Microbiology, will be a more socioculturally acceptable alternative to needles. In other words, people will be less resistant to eating a mundane banana than taking a shot in the arm. The Journal states that new edible vaccine technology may serve a dual purpose of birth control.
As calls are made for lithium to be added to water supplies world-wide and genetically modified organisms spread throughout the ecosystem, the elite agenda of "...intervening in the course of human behavior on a global scale..." is fast becoming reality.

Source: http://oldthinkernews.com/Articles/oldthinker%20news/mapmakers_of_society.htm : August 05, 2010


The article is reproduced in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use and is for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.