Invest America 2

(cont'd from yesterday's post)

Founder of Dell Technologies, Michael Dell, is all in on this idea. An investor all his life, he and his wife seem inspired: they are giving $6.25 billion out of their own charitable fund to give kids --not babies, but 10 and under--their own investment account seeded with $250.

Spending the money will be totally up to the child when he or she has access to it; no requirement dictates what it must be spent on. Meanwhile, "They'll learn about dividends, re-investment, and long-term thinking--not by studying financial theory, but by seeing their money steadily increase."

It could change families for generations.

Invest America 1

It's never been done in America before. A law was passed last summer to give every eligible new-born child a new investment account seeded with a thousand dollars by the federal government (Invest America).

Children are eligible who are U.S. citizens, have a Social Security number, and are born from January 1, 2025, to December 31, 2028.

More contributions to the account can be made by almost anyone, up to $5000 per year. The money can be invested in ETF's (exchange-traded funds) and mutual funds.

It's for the child's future. No withdrawals by anyone can be made. At age 18, the child/beneficiary will convert the account to an IRA, subject to IRA rules for withdrawal. He or she can use it for anything, not just for education.

No eligible American child will reach young adulthood penniless under this program. As Michael Dell put it, "Everyone starts with something."  Neither parents nor anyone else can get their hands on the money. The child can watch the account grow and learn how to invest. 

This could be a wonderful thing.

from Schwab

Ed tech 2

(cont'd from yesterday's post)

Some kids are on screens at school six hours per day. It hasn't resulted in better learning scores, but rather in worse scores. 

"Thanks largely to the pandemic, an estimated 88% of school districts now issue laptops or tablets to students. While these devices make it easier for teachers to collect assignments and generate reports, they have been shown to significantly undermine student learning."

What can parents do in light of the unexpectedly poor results coming from ed tech in the classroom? This author has suggestions:

1. Families need the freedom to opt their kids out of mandatory academic screen use.
2. If your school district wants more ed tech, make them prove it will help.
3. Get a printer for your family. Reading is better on paper, and so is taking notes, writing, and practicing math problems.

from We Gave Students Laptops and Took Away Their Brains

Ed tech 1

Reading a real paper book is more fun than reading it on your phone or laptop, whether a novel or nonfiction. But did you know that it also creates a more effective learning experience? 

Turns out that memory (located in the brain's hippocampus) is linked to a physical location, like knowing where in that book you learned something. Scrolling doesn't give a physical location to a new fact, so it's missing one learning aid.

We now have decades of data on student learning associated with increasing use of education technology in classrooms. Disturbingly, it shows that kids learn less: "The more schools digitize, the worse students perform."

It was assumed that ed tech would help. But no, what disappointing results we have after all the effort and money that American school districts have spent digitizing.

from "We Gave Students Laptops and Took Away Their Brains"

(cont'd tomorrow)

Concessions

Last spring Harvard and a number of other universities got a letter from the current U.S. administration informing them that they were in danger of losing the millions or even billions of dollars they are used to receiving from the federal government. 

Brown University (photo) in Providence, RI, got one. At stake was about $500 million, which the school calls "crippling cuts." As at Harvard, the issues were antisemitism and DEI policies. Their negotiated settlement included agreeing with the government to address "antisemitism, unlawful DEI, merit-based admissions, and gender identity issues."

Some at Brown say that the agreement was a "savvy bit of dealmaking, giving away little of substance." The founder (graduate 2021) of a Turning Point USA (TPUSA) chapter at Brown agrees:

"Frankly, Brown got off easy.” During his time on College Hill, he says, “I saw exactly how hostile the campus was to ideological diversity. . . Forcing Brown to accept biological reality and merit-based admissions is a nice start, but the DEI bureaucracies, activist professors, and overall ideological capture is left untouched. Brown receives its money with barely a slap on the wrist.” 

Brown's alumni magazine admits that "Compared to the agreement Columbia University had signed a week earlier pledging $221 million in fines to the federal government, Brown made far fewer concessions."

from Brown Alumni Magazine

Additional note: "Almost two-thirds of registered voters say that a four-year college degree isn't worth the cost . . a dramatic decline over the last decade." Sadly, I concur. We've discovered that universities and colleges in general are not doing what we Americans thought they were doing, and we can't keep giving them our tax money.

Too many? 4

Earth now supports more than double its population--at a higher standard of living--compared to what it did back in the 1970's, when the overpopulation panic started. 

After decades of alarmist warnings that the world can't support any more of us, actual evidence--cited in the last three posts--is piling up in favor of the opposite view. We earthlings are better off with more people, and in more danger long term from falling birth rates.

But the global trend today is a birth rate so low that some countries will never be able to recover from it. 

To exactly replace their population total, a country needs an average birth rate per woman of 2.1. Only one region of the world still has births above that rate. Check out birth rates for over 200 countries here. A few examples: Italy 1.26, Germany 1.46, USA 1.84, Paraguay 1.88, Congo 5.49, Japan 1.4. Generally, the poorest countries have the most births. Europe, long term, may be in trouble (image).

Before the end of this century, global population will start its relentless decline and will never stop, according to one social researcher. Result? The end of human progress in solving difficult problems.

from Stream

Too many? 3

(cont'd from yesterday's post)

Re-post from 2013

Thomas Malthus in 1798 predicted that humans would multiply on the earth until the earth could no longer sustain them.  Paul and Anne Ehrlich in 1970 published The Population Bomb which predicted, on the basis of Malthus, a future of massive global starvations.  What did happen was the opposite of that (yesterday's post).

What did they miss, since this does happen among animals? The vole population (a sort of mouse) can multiply to the point of outpacing their food supply.  

But people are "More Than Voles," as Eric Metaxas put it.  Created by their own Creator to create, humans can create their own niche to support themselves.  Homo sapiens are not utterly dependent on the natural environment like animals but rather can create wealth.  

According to the materialist (there is no supernatural) worldview, humans are just animals. According to the Christian worldview, humans bear the likeness of their Creator.  

God gave humans "the intelligence to complete the work of creation . . for their own good and that of their neighbors."

Too many? 2

(cont'd from yesterday's post)

In yesterday's video you saw that mainline media, elites, the president at that time, were all persuaded that a population crisis had erupted because about 3.5 billion humans lived on this planet. You saw Ehrlich unapologetically maintaining his panicky tone years later.

Today our global population has more than doubled at 8+ billion. Did that result in more suffering in terms of life expectancy, food supply, child mortality, air quality, etc? 

No. As it turned out, life on Earth is actually better by these metrics despite huge population growth.

1. Across the world, people are living longer
2. Food supply has not declined in the last fifty years, but has grown to a new level 
3. Child mortality has dropped across all income levels
4. "In many countries, people breathe the cleanest air in centuries"

But how can that be? What's the explanation?

(cont'd tomorrow)

Too many?

Many people have the impression that we urgently need to reduce the number of people making their home on this planet. They may argue that it would be best for human beings now living and for those on Earth in the future. Or, they may argue that nature deserves to have Earth to itself with no human population.

Why would declining numbers be better for people? Mostly because they believe that our human population is unsustainably using the planet's resources; that is, consuming too much with the result that there won't be enough for future generations.

Some call it "overshoot." In other words, they foresee coming deforestation, biodiversity loss, soil erosion yielding insufficient food, pollution and reduction of fresh water--all coming because our global population uses natural resources at a faster rate than Earth can keep generating.

A very short summary of this view that there are too many human beings was made by David Attenborough, saying that humans have "overrun the planet." 

Author of The Population Bomb, Paul Ehrlich, persuaded much of America that we had to quit producing so many people:

from The Stream

Robovan

What else is Tesla working on? A year ago, the "robovan" was revealed. It will transport up to 20 people, has a futuristic look, and of course it's an autonomous vehicle.

It will serve a function similar to our current bus system . . but it's still just a prototype so far. The rider cost per mile may potentially be 5-20 cents. Sounds good, but it's far from ready to go.

Pie & AI

Are you using artificial intelligence yet to aid you in day-to-day challenges and questions? Here's a down-to-earth story from my own life.

We spent Thanksgiving Day with beloved relatives. My part was simply to bring the pumpkin pie, which I've done many times and was happy to do. But this time I had a complicated math problem to figure out. So, of course, I asked Grok to give me a hand! 

Here's the problem I had. I prepared pumpkin filling according to a recipe for a deep dish 9-inch pie pan. But I was going to use a standard 9-inch pie pan. How much filling (measured in cups only) should I put in the smaller, standard 9-inch crust?

It took only seconds for Grok to answer fully, with sophisticated math and reasoning but in simple terms which were easy to execute. 

Squanto 2

(cont'd from yesterday's post)

One of them was Squanto, about 22+ years old. As a boy on the east coast of North America, he had been captured by explorers for slavery. Monks in Spain listened to his story, treated him kindly, and sent him to London, England, where he might find passage back to his home.

Ten years later he did return, only to discover that everyone in his home village had died of disease. He found the surviving Pilgrims in the spring, right where he had lived as a boy. He became a friend and taught them the skills they needed.

Squanto and his friendship and knowledge seemed like a miracle to the Pilgrims. A feast day was held to thank God for their first harvest, the Thanksgiving tradition we still keep. They welcomed 90 braves and their Chief Massasoit to the celebration feast.

Squanto 1

Puritans coming to the new world from Europe in the 17th century wanted freedom to practice their sincere Christian faith, religious freedom they didn't have back home in England. They got some financial backing from investors and crossed the Atlantic on the Mayflower.

Just in time for a winter of severe suffering alone in the dark season: no homes, no food except the little they brought, no government support, no modern medicine--nothing but sickness and freezing and starvation. About half couldn't make it. 

By springtime, it didn't look good for the grieving 50-or-so survivors either. They were praying for help . . and a miracle showed up.

Two young Indian men walked in one day, and said in effect, Hello there!

from The Mayflower

(cont'd tomorrow)

Luck Day

(cont'd from yesterday's post)

Is it old fashioned and cringey to thank God on this national holiday like they did 404 years ago? It's antiquated in the view of many of today's Americans who believe there's no personal God.  Maybe they'd like to change the name of our holiday from Thanksgiving Day to "Luck Day." But it would inspire nobody.

A choice to look for blessing and give thanks to God changes our mindset from despair to hope based on statements like Jeremiah 29:11 from the Bible:

"For I know the thoughts and plans that I have for you, says the Lord, thoughts and plans for welfare and peace and not for evil, to give you hope in your final outcome."

Don't resign yourself to adopting the philosophy of "Luck Day."

Give Thanks

 It's Thanksgiving week! Let's observe this good holiday and give thanks for our blessings! . . despite Christmas music at the mall 😏

Thankfulness in 1621

President Lincoln started a recurrent, scheduled Thanksgiving holiday in America. But that wasn't the first time Americans observed a day of giving thanks to God.

You probably know that the ship Mayflower brought colonists to the coast of North America in November (November!) of 1620, and that about half of them died that first winter (I'd guess the rest were very, very uncomfortable).  

But the next summer was productive, and the remaining 40 pilgrims plus 90 Indians enjoyed a three-day autumn feast together.  Here's one of the first-person accounts of that feast, taken from a letter: 

"Our harvest being gotten in, our governor sent four men on fowling, that so we might after a special manner rejoice together after we had gathered the fruit of our labors. . . [A]mongst our recreations, we exercised our arms, many of the Indians coming amongst us . . their greatest king Massasoit, with some 90 men, whom for three days we entertained and feasted . . . [B]y the goodness of God, we are so far from want that we often wish you partakers of our plenty."  (from The Book of Thanksgiving by Paul Dickson)

AeroSphere

A stunning product was revealed this week by Tesla: the AeroSphere.

Eventually there will be more information - but so far, this is all I've seen:

Trust AI?

(cont'd from yesterday's post)

A parent who is willing to hand over hours of his child's conversation to AI (Tuesday's post) may be training him or her to trust that voice for everything. 

Eventually bad people will use AI for bad purposes. It's the perfect tool for deception. Why? Check out this re-post from 2023:

Fear of AI 5

(cont'd from yesterday's post)

There's no doubt AI can be used positively in many ways, like in healthcare diagnosis.  If you watched Khan's tutor video yesterday, you know the tutor bot looks helpful and very convincing. It's easy to assume the AI tutor is thinking. But actually, AI doesn't understand anything. It just surveys relevant internet content and arranges it per its algorithm instructions. When a student asks it for ethics advice, he will get the opinion/algorithm designed by the AI tutor's programmer at Khan Academy. May be good, may not be good.

And that's why it's dangerous. It sounds very much like us (that's intentional), but it's not a person. It doesn't understand the difference between true and false. It "makes stuff up," as the MIT article says.

That's why Hinton is worried: “It is hard to see how you can prevent the bad actors from using it for bad things . . I console myself with the normal excuse: If I hadn’t done it, somebody else would have.”

How would bad actors use it for bad things? It's a perfect tool for deception, for fake news, for manipulation, for corrupt politicians. Will we get to the point where we trust nobody?

Trust ChatGPT?

AI should be understood to be potentially dangerous. All of us need to learn how to use AI, but also to learn what AI does not do well. Here's a 2023 post showing a serious weakness:

"I" in AI? #2

(cont'd from yesterday's post)

Gathering and processing data is the function of narrow, or weak, artificial intelligence. It can analyze  immense amounts of data and answer questions based on data it gathers. That helps human beings reach conclusions, and it saves us from doing all the data gathering.

But it's not equal to the kind of intelligence humans have. It doesn't question the truth of the data it gathers, and it doesn't really understand what the words mean. That's why ChatGPT can write an article based on common word sequences on the internet, but it can also make big and obvious errors like this:

Human: How many bears have Russians sent into space? ChatGPT: According to estimates, about 49 bears have been sent into space by Russia since 1957

Humans will continue to improve ChatGPT and other "large language models" like it. But this college professor is cautious:

"My fear is that people will be so bedazzled by articulate LLMs that they trust computers to make decisions that have important consequences."

from Mind Matters

Toddlers & ChatGPT

Looks like some parents find it easy to offload some of their parental responsibility to ChatGPT.

A dad admitted that he got tired of listening to his little boy talk about trains, so he gave the 4-year-old his phone so he could talk to ChatGPT. The child talked with it for two hours, unsupervised.

It seems that some parents do the same at bedtime because the voice is soothing. 

In effect, these parents invite and enable people whom they don't know to speak into their child's life. Would they ever bring in a complete stranger off the street to care for the child for a few hours? They have no idea what that voice on the phone is going to say to her or him. 

Caution is warranted. It's no secret that touchscreen devices can have various bad effects.

Ultimately, your instinct that your child needs you, not just entertainment, is correct. 

from Futurism

Fasting 19 hours

A whole day and a half of fasting (last week's post) can be intimidating. Here's some help toward making a start, with information on just a 19-hour fast: for most of us, that's more doable than 36 hours. 

But it's still not that easy. It will help if you're very motivated to defeat cancer or just to maintain good health.

So here's information about how it will affect your body. The narrator is a Radiation Oncology Therapist.

Is AI true? 2

 (cont'd from yesterday's post)

Yes, there's a lot of room for interpretation of simple data. Just look at the way the Oregon Department of Education thinks math should be taught. Even a math fact like 2+2=4 can be "re-imagined" and "re-interpreted". Their claim that 2+2 may be 5 is just not true.

Do all people want the truth when they ask a question? Sure. 

But they may still be ok with giving untrue answers to other people . . if they don't like what would result from giving a truthful answer. Everybody is tempted to give answers that they prefer (true or not) and builders of software are just as human as everybody else. Their ideology, their favorite opinions, are built into their software. See below Gemini AI's image of Nazi soldiers in World War II (hint: no people of color would ever have been Nazi soldiers):

Do AI systems claim to present true information? Not to my knowledge. Except for Elon Musk. He says of his AI system, "The goal of Grok is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. We will never be perfect, but we shall nonetheless strive towards that goal."

Grok has been trained to look for the truth. Of course it won't be perfect. But as far as I can tell, the other systems don't even make it a goal. That's enough for me. I'm using Grok.

Is AI true?

Artificial intelligence exploded into public life just a few years ago but it's changing our lives, as so many have predicted.

Nvidia, a major force driving the movement, describes it this way: "AI can be thought of as the development of computer systems that can perform tasks autonomously, ingesting and analyzing enormous volumes of data, then recognizing patterns in that data."

NASA uses the government's definition, which you might summarize this way: "An artificial system designed to think or act like a human."

IBM says there are three types. The only one currently operating, as John Lennox once explained, is "Narrow AI" which can only perform the task it was trained to do. "General AI" will have human intelligence, and "Super AI" will surpass human intelligence. They're still theoretical.

When we ask AI a question, do we want its answer to be true: factual, based on reality, accurate? Yes, and we assume it is. But there's a lot of room for interpretation or opinion on any given topic. How was it trained . . and whose integrity or values were built into it?

(cont'd tomorrow)

Fasting 36 hours

For several years I've been doing intermittent fasting, and I plan to keep it up. Lots of information has been published about the good effect it has on your health. 

As an example, autophagy sets in after about 18-20 hours of fasting. 

Here's an entertaining way of communicating the message:

Why Mamdani? 2

(cont'd from yesterday's post)

Some thought that the specter of socialism was chased out of America by the fall of Russian communism, and by changing politics in the U.S. But it's still strong. It just won the election in NYC.

A quote in yesterday's post, "I'm a college student--and I want a future," comes from her belief that her financial future will be best under Mamdani's socialism. Billionaire Peter Thiel explains why she thinks that: he says "Capitalism Isn't Working for Young People." 

College student debt is a big factor. "Too many people go to college, they don't learn anything, and they end up with incredibly burdensome debt." In  2000, U.S. student debt amounted to $300 billion. Now it amounts to $2 trillion.

Housing, too, is way more expensive for younger generations (image is Grok-generated).

Thiel's interviewer cites evidence that Thiel is right: "Exit polling after Mamdani's victory shows that his voters were likely motivated by two things: high rent and student debt." 

from "Capitalism Isn't Working for Young People"

Why Mamdani?

"I'm a college student--and I want a future." That about sums up common wisdom as to how socialist Zohran Mamdani (photo) won last week's election to be the new mayor of America's biggest city, New York. "Gen Z voters turned out in droves for the beloved underdog whom they turned into the frontrunner."

This student got up at 4 a.m. on election day to go out and knock on doors for him. She was strongly motivated and just 18 years old. 

It's been many years since the average student was taught to understand our own economics system aka capitalism. When I was a new high school teacher, I realized that even I--the teacher--didn't know how to define free enterprise.

What is it going to take to turn that education structure around? Some kind of huge effort. Young people must learn how capitalism historically has been responsible for the growth of wealth: not just for billionaires, but across society.

Besides the fact that they have been educated to approve of socialism and despise America's own system, what convinces Gen Z voters to go for Mamdani? That's tomorrow's post.

(cont'd tomorrow)

Welfare Europe 2

(cont'd from yesterday's post)

Why did French voters reject the budget cut proposal last summer? Because they wanted their share of benefits after paying high taxes for years to support benefits for others. They couldn't bring themselves to vote for financial sacrifice. 

France is not the only EU country headed toward economic disaster. 

One-tenth of working-age people in Britain claim payouts at public expense because of sickness/disability. Are they really entitled to the fruits of the labor of their neighbors? A politician says what they need is the old "work ethic" back, where it's the default to get a job so you take care of yourself and your family.

Germany has been "living beyond its means" for years according to the German chancellor. He says they can't go on with their welfare state. Politicians know this, but can they convince the people to make painful budget cuts for the greater good? It will be tough.

What will they do? As the president of European Central Bank warned a year ago, Europe's welfare states are “utterly unsustainable.”

from The Stream

Welfare Europe

Sustainable agriculture (examples in the last two posts) is farming that preserves resources that we depend on. Unsustainable methods would eventually mean that soil or water quality won't be there for future farming.

It's a good word that can be used in other contexts. An unsustainable over-spending habit, for instance, results in a serious lack of money in the future. Some Europeans worry about that very thing on a national scale in their countries.

Over-spending has been the story for decades. Europeans pride themselves on extravagant welfare hand-outs. They consider it a core European value to be very generous. But how long can anyone keep giving away more money than they have? 

Last summer the Prime Minister of France made a serious attempt to reign in his country's spending because he realized they are drowning in debt. "The life of the nation is at stake," he told them (photo).

But the proposed budget cut was bitter medicine for voters, and they rejected it--and him as well. He left office in September.

from The Stream

(cont'd tomorrow)

Good cattle? 2

(cont'd from yesterday's post)

A scientific study was done on the raising of beef at White Oak Pastures to answer that question. Quantis, an environmental research firm, looked into all aspects of beef production at this farm and came to a stunning conclusion: their "grass-fed cattle sequester more carbon than they produce."

Far from adding to carbon emissions thought to produce climate change, beef production done this way is actually a benefit to the Earth.

By the way, climate activist Bill Gates no longer believes that climate change will wipe out humanity. He's joined the trend to de-escalate the fear of climate catastrophe. Good news.

from blog at White Oak Pastures

Good cattle?

White Oak Pastures stopped using the industrial model of cattle farming and switched to the regenerative model. Many animals - not just cattle - now live off his land and even improve it.

Microbial life thrives in the rich soil. Rain water is absorbed into the soil rather than running off of it, and much more carbon is sequestered in it. The regenerative model of farming is healthier for the animals and for the soil than the industrial model of farming.

But maybe you have heard Bill Gates' claim that cattle actually have a negative effect on the environment, that we should all eat manufactured lab meat rather than meat from real animals on real pastures. A different regenerative farmer thinks that's wrong. He claims that real cattle are not bad for the climate or environment.

So, which is it? Are cattle really a threat to the climate and the Earth, or not? 

(cont'd tomorrow)

2+2=5

Our whole education system needs to be re-worked, re-prioritized, re-organized. Woke ideology was ingrained over the years and we didn't even notice it. 

It's not just gender madness or the new "anti-racism" racism: even mathematics education surrenders to woke ideology. Solid, foundational facts may be denied. You may say, "that can't happen because everybody still knows that 2+2 equals 4."

No, unfortunately in the minds of some educators the answer could be 5. True or correct math answers, they claim, is a symptom of "white supremacy." That's what the Oregon Department of Education told teachers in 2021. (Maybe they've stopped that. One can only hope so.) It's a diabolical trend. 

The short fictional film below suggests the chilling scenario where children are taught to believe a lie just because the teacher says so.

from Mind Matters