Blog Editor


  • Copyright 2005-20012 by Adam Kolber
    All rights reserved.

« New Scientist on Brain Scanning | Main | Wired News Report: Your Thoughts are Your Password (Connors) »


I take your point, but, what makes you think there is such a thing as "thoughtful, nuanced . . . reservations about enhancement technologies"?

That is to say, there are certainly lots of questions to be asked about theoretical issues such as the definition of "health" or "normality", the role and goals of the healing professions, and so forth, and lots of thoughtful discussion needed on the implications of various technological or social developments in the health arena. And it is understandable that sincere, insightful people could reach different conclusions on the moral or practical advisability of various courses of action (though I suspect you're engaging in near-delusional optimism if you expect any of that from the CBHD).

But I'm not sure that any such analysis - "thoughtful", "nuanced", "sincere", "insightful", or whatever it may be - will lead to a blanket conclusion that what we currently experience and imagine as "good" health and "normal" body type is the only correct way for humans to live. That is to say, I think that, whatever our good-faith disagreements about basic moral or prudential principles, there are some conclusions it is not reasonable for reasonable people to reach, and I suspect that absolutist positions on questions of fundamentally personal value such as health or body function are one such. (Check with anyone in the Deaf-activism or disability-rights community if you disagree.)

I am not offering a moral argument. I am not claiming that it is bad or immoral for people to believe that certain forms of "health" or "therapy" are right or wrong - that would be an issue perfectly open to discussion. (In fact, it is the issue you suggest we should discuss.) I am offering more a logical observation: certain beliefs are untenable because there is no way to hold them without distorting reasonable beliefs fundamental to that subject beyond the bounds of rationality. Creationism is such a belief in the realm of science. "Scientific racism" is such a belief in the realm of anthropology or social science. And the therapy/enhancement distinction is such a belief in the realm of healthcare. Any issue so self-evidently fraught with personal value assessments cannot be asserted as a question of logic or fact - it is a category mistake (or, possibly, the naturalistic fallacy) to do so. And the plainly twisted logic and special pleading of the Leon Kass/CBHD types who do so is not mere evidence of poor argumentation on their part - it is the necessary result of deluding yourself into thinking you can do what can't be done.

Kass's "wisdom of repugnance" is the phlogiston of medical ethics; the CBHD's "10-foot-wide brick wall" of human bodily essentialism is its perpetual motion machine. These moral-epistemological fantasies can only result in the garbled and perfervidly emotional embarassments that constitute their pronouncements on moral issues. I don't urge others to try to better their examples in following such an ill-chosen path to factually grounded moral conclusions.

METOZ will be able to create A NEW KIND OF CLEAN ENERGY.
My idea is very difficult for understanding. It is not difficult for engineer - mechanic, who knows very good the Pascal’s law and even-arm lever.

The entire world is looking for a source of clean energy. I have discovered a certain paradox basing on which a machine called METOZ can be built which by harnessing the gravitation of our EARTH can produce clean energy.
The energy producing process is demonstrated in:
and can be very easily confirmed by an experiment.
I am also in possession of a set of calculations which prove that the METOZ machine:
1/ does not consume water / 39 A5-pictures /;
2/ does not consume compressed air / 39 A5-pictures /;
3/ produces energy to the outside = 4 839 kGm during a „swing cycle” /39 A5-pictures /;
/ this is a „weight cycle” = the centre of gravity of the water in the METOZ machine sinks ( downward movement ) /
4/ energy is produced / released to the outside = 44 600 kGm during the „straightening cycle” / 39 A5-pictures /.
/ this is a “pressure cycle” = the water mass centre of gravity inside the METOZ machine travels upwards (upward movement) /
Features: 1/; 2/; 3/; 4/, of the machine owing to appropriate dimensions of individual elements of the lever mechanism.
The METOZ has an even-arm lever of a 1.72 m length. The centre of gravity of the lever lies beneath the lever suspension point. The METOZ is equipped with two cylinders of a 1.6 m diameter each. Piston sidewalls do not contact directly with cylinder walls. The lever swing changes between 0 and 25 dgr
Figures ( 3 x 13 x 4 = 156 ) present temporary, consecutive action situations at intervals of . The middle figure presents the machine and the side figures the position of the left and right cylinder and the mathematical description of these situations.
In the past I have made two models, which confirmed the legitimacy of my theoretical assumptions concerning the METOZ machine. I have got photographs.
I am looking for a person who would be interested in my invention. I can offer ample information. I look forward to hearing from you.

13 - 03 -2005 Gdynia, Polska Zygmunt Orłowski
P.S. The term “gravitational paradox” use in this description relates to the mathematical and physical description of the action of the METOZ-machine.


Orlowski Zygmunt
Poland 2005
index html
“METOZ” is able to realize the cycle “deflection” and the cycle “straighening.” Both cycles are in accordance with current physic’s laws. “METOZ” as machine can not work and hand over the energy because it would be inconsonant to the law of conservation of energy.
I propose to execute the following intelectual process:
we have found ourselves in the Europe of XVII century. We know the trigonometry in the scope of being occured for “METOZ.” We know what is the even-arm lever and moment of force too. Just appeears Mr. Baise Pascal / 1623–1662/ and he publishes his hydraulics law with adequated experiment. All thinkers are sure that this law is correct and quite real. This time someone invents machine “METOZ”. Now turn up the following questions:
1/ why the implementation of the cycle “deflection” is impossible?
2/ why the implementation of the cycle “straightening” is impossible?Both groups: opponents and followers of bulding “METOZ” live in XVII–th century and they not know that:
a/ the idea of an “energy” will be introduced into science scarlerly in mid. of XIX century,
b/ the law of conservation of the energy will be exist scarlerly after 1847 y.
Please open GOOgle and klick metozor and after : index of metozor At is site that explains technical details in easy to understand language. example : or
Everyone is able to build just the model of METOZ machine and test it. Please, have a look at Perhaps METOZ is some duplicating machine of a clean energy. I am inventor and owner of Metoz machine invention. Everyone can take absolutely and legitimate the METOZ invention and build the Metoz machine. I can help only. I can not build METOZ. I am moneyless. Thank you for your time and interest.

Are you able to find any mistake in my elaboration? If so, do not hesistate to write an early reply.

Good post!

Great News

The comments to this entry are closed.