35 Best Survival Foods At The Supermarket

Thoughts on Tonight's Debate

The Great Barrier Reef was struck by an extremely harsh mass beaching event this year, and it looks like parts of the reef are struggling to bounce back. Drone imagery of Lizard Island’s North Point Reef shows that 97 percent of the bleached coral has died since the event earlier this year.“This is the first quantitative assessment of coral mortality from the last mass bleaching event. We don’t know how much coral died beyond this reef. But we do know that, according to other aerial surveys, almost one-third of the Great Barrier Reef experienced 'very high' and 'extreme' levels of coral bleaching last summer,” the researchers – from Macquarie University, James Cook University, and Griffith University – explained in an article for the Conversation.The latest mass bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef was confirmed in March 2024, marking the fifth such event in just eight years. The main reason these destructive events are becoming increasingly common in the Great Barrier Reef and beyond is clear: rising ocean temperatures caused by climate change. Corals have a mutually beneficial relationship with the algae that live in their tissues. The coral provides the algae with surface area for photosynthesis, while the algae provide the coral with their surplus sugar.Bleaching occurs when corals kick out the algae from their tissues in response to heat stress, as well as pollution or disease. Without their algae comrades, the coral lose a major source of food, making them weak and susceptible to disease. The algae are what gives the coral their bright colors, so their absence leaves them looking pale and white, hence the term “bleaching”.Bleached corals are not dead yet – they can sometimes recover and survive – but this latest discovery suggests the corals of North Point Reef are struggling to bounce back after 2024’s event. Meanwhile, earlier this week, UNESCO called on Australia to take "urgent" action to protect the Great Barrier Reef. This, they urge, should include setting more ambitious climate targets.UNESCO also asked Australia to gather and publicly release data on the latest round of bleaching "as soon as possible" so scientists can understand how severe the event was. The recent aerial survey at North Point Reef is just one small part of that – but it doesn’t bode well for the rest of the natural wonder. “Our data suggest an immediate action plan is needed to assess the extent of coral mortality on the Great Barrier Reef,” the researchers write.

The Juno spacecraft’s focus has turned from Jupiter itself to its moons, and a fly-by of Io has produced valuable data for understanding the Solar System’s most volcanic world. Among other things, it shows just how widespread Io’s lava lakes really are, and reveals that when a crust forms on them it is often surrounded by a ring of still-liquid lava.When Galileo discovered Jupiter’s four largest moons, he considered them so interchangeable he was at first reluctant to name them, giving them numbers instead. The Voyager 1 spacecraft turned that on its head, revealing worlds with very different characters – most notably Io, perhaps the most distinctive world we have seen up close.The Voyager craft spotted a volcanic eruption on Io and evidence this was the norm, not the exception. We now know Io has some large lava flows from these eruptions, but lava lakes within volcanic bowls known as paterae are much more common.Io’s volcanism is a consequence of neighboring moons and Jupiter treating it like a stress ball, pulling and relaxing it in ways that release heat inside. Other moons are also affected, but only to the point of melting water to make internal oceans. The forces on Io are large enough to melt silicate rocks, causing magma to burst to the surface.Juno passed by Io at a distance of 35,000 kilometers (21,700 miles or a tenth the distance from Earth to the Moon) in May 2023. The Galileo Spacecraft got much, but Juno is equipped with better instruments, including the Jovian Infrared Auroral Mapper (JIRAM), which like the JWST operates in infrared.Like a lot of Juno’s equipment, JIRAM was designed for what it could tell us about Jupiter, but its capabilities turn out to be quite well suited for investigation of the moons. “The high spatial resolution of JIRAM’s infrared images, combined with the favorable position of Juno during the flybys, revealed that the whole surface of Io is covered by lava lakes contained in caldera-like features,” said Dr Alessandro Mura of the National Institute for Astrophysics in Rome in a statement. “In the region of Io’s surface in which we have the most complete data, we estimate about 3 percent of it is covered by one of these molten lava lakes.” That’s equivalent to if the lava-filled craters left behind by volcanic eruptions on Earth covered a combined area almost as large as Russia.Chors Patera, a lava lake on Io, reveals a hot ring around its edge when seen in infrared. The lake is thought to be largely covered by a thick, molten crust, with a hot ring around the edges where lava from Io’s interior is directly exposed to space.Image Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/SwRI/ASI/INAF/JIRAM/MSSSSunlight at Io is far too weak to keep the lava liquid for long, so a crust quickly forms on each lake’s surface. However, JIRAM has shown that in some cases a liquid rim survives around the edge, but with no sign of spilling over. Instead of throwing a ring into the fire, on Io, the rings themselves are fiery.Mura and co-authors think they can identify similar, although much rarer, situations on Earth.“We now have an idea of what is the most frequent type of volcanism on Io: enormous lakes of lava where magma goes up and down,” said Mura. “The lava crust is forced to break against the walls of the lake, forming the typical lava ring seen in Hawaiian lava lakes. The walls are likely hundreds of meters high, which explains why magma is generally not observed spilling out of the paterae [bowl-shaped features created by volcanism] and moving across the moon’s surface.”In this view, friction between the crust and the surrounding walls breaks the crust at the edges, allowing us to see the still-molten material beneath. The researchers studying Juno’s images have an alternative explanation, although they consider it less likely. In this view, magma rises near the center of the lake and forms a crust that sinks towards the outskirts, allowing lava to be seen over the top.Juno has made four subsequent Io flybys, some of them considerably closer, since the one the study is based on, and another is coming soon. Images from these are still being investigated, and may settle the debate as to what is producing these lava rings, which could be fed into models of how magma rises on Io, helping us understand its interior.The study is published open access in Communications Earth and Environment. 

Scientists in South Africa have for the first time inserted radioactive material into the horns of live rhinos, as part of efforts to make the horns easier to detect at international borders and curb poaching.After facing near extinction, successful conservation work has seen rhino populations in Africa back on the up, with the vast majority of those animals living in South Africa. However, their home still has a poaching problem; 499 rhinos were hunted and killed in the country last year, and the rangers that try to protect them are increasingly finding themselves in the line of fire, too.Poachers target the animals for their distinctive horns, which are highly sought after in Asian countries for their use in traditional medicines.“This has led to their horns currently being the most valuable false commodity in the black-market trade, with a higher value even than gold, platinum, diamonds and cocaine. Sadly, rhino horns play a large role in funding a wide variety of criminal activities globally,” said Professor James Larkin, director of the University of the Witwatersrand’s Radiation and Health Physics Unit, in a statement.Larkin has spearheaded the Rhisotope Project, which has come up with a novel way of tackling the poaching problem – radioactivity.   After three years in development, on June 24 Larkin and the team began inserting low-dose, non-toxic radioisotopes into the horns of 20 live – but very much sedated – rhinos living in the UNESCO Waterberg Biosphere Reserve.“Each insertion was closely monitored by expert veterinarians and extreme care was taken to prevent any harm to the animals,” Larkin explained. “Over months of research and testing we have also ensured that the inserted radioisotopes hold no health or any other risk for the animals or those who care for them.”The goal of using radioactive material is to make poached horns easier to detect at places like airports and harbors, where there are already plenty of radiation detectors in place. Not only that, but it’s hoped that it’ll prevent the horns from being poached in the first place because, being radioactive, they’d no longer be fit for human consumption.“Ultimately, the aim is to try to devalue rhinoceros horn in the eyes of the end users, while at the same time making the horns easier to detect as they are being smuggled across borders,” said Larkin.  The team will now keep a close eye on the animals over the next six months, monitoring their vital statistics and overall health. All being well, it’s hoped the same technique could be applied to other animals that are the target of poaching, like elephants and pangolins.“This novel approach pioneered by Prof Larkin and his colleagues has the potential to eradicate the threat of extinction our unique wild-life species, especially in South Africa and on the continent,” concluded Professor Lynn Morris, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor of Research and Innovation at Wits University.

Renowned futurist Ray Kurzweil believes that advancements in nanotechnology and artificial intelligence (AI) will enable humans to live for 1,000 years. Kurzweil, who has a history of accurately forecasting technological developments, believes that by the 2030s, nanobots will be integrated into the human body, capable of repairing and enhancing it at the cellular level. This breakthrough could potentially eliminate diseases, reverse the aging process, and significantly extend human life spans. Kurzweil envisions a future where nanobots circulate in our bloodstream, performing constant maintenance and upgrades to keep the body in optimal health. These tiny robots would be able to repair damaged cells, remove toxins, and even modify DNA to prevent genetic disorders. Furthermore, AI would play a critical role in managing these nanobots, making precise medical decisions based on vast amounts of data and personal health metrics. This synergy between nanotechnology and AI could revolutionize healthcare, making disease and aging manageable conditions rather than inevitable aspects of life. Kurzweil’s prediction is grounded in the ongoing research and current trends in biotechnology and AI. The rapid advancements in these fields suggest that such a future is within the realm of possibility. For instance, scientists are already developing nanobots for targeted drug delivery, which could lay the groundwork for more sophisticated applications in cellular repair and enhancement. Additionally, AI is becoming increasingly adept at analyzing medical data and diagnosing conditions, a trend that is likely to continue and expand in scope. Despite the ambitious nature of Kurzweil’s predictions, they are taken seriously by many in the tech and scientific communities due to his proven track record of accurate forecasts. He has previously predicted the rise of the internet, the growth of mobile computing, and the advent of AI, all of which have come to pass. Kurzweil’s predictions also align with the broader trend of transhumanism, a movement that advocates for the use of technology to enhance the human condition. Transhumanists believe that technologies like AI and nanobots will allow humans to transcend their biological limitations, achieving unprecedented levels of health, intelligence, and longevity. The post Futurist predicts humans could live 1,000 years with nanobots and AI appeared first on Anomalien.com.

What would make you get a Neuralink brain-computer interface? Most people respond with an automatic, “Nothing.” But the assumption is that a brain chip would be unnecessary, a way to level up, to become smarter or stronger. Here’s what we all suspect: Once everyone agrees to an implant, it’s only a matter of time before chips are getting hacked, commercials are mandatory, and money gets involved. God forbid, let’s say you’re diagnosed with early-onset dementia. Your mind will deteriorate slowly until your wiring completely abandons you. But what if a brain-computer interface could preserve your memories and cognitive functionality? Or let’s say you’re paralyzed and getting a neural implant could restore any damaged nerves and allow you to move again. This is the hope that led 30-year-old Noland Arbaugh to become the first human to receive a Neuralink brain-computer interface. A swimming accident damaged his spine, leaving him a quadriplegic. And so far, the technology has made life at least a little easier. The process hasn’t gone entirely smoothly, but the implant has given Noland more freedom of movement. He can also use his mind to play chess and Civilization 6. Now, a second patient has been greenlit. Only Homer Simpson would buy the first-generation flying car, right? Not if you’re desperate enough. Here’s a hypothetical that is murkier than the previous two: What if your child died and you had the chance to download his consciousness and implant it into a brain-dead human? Or into some sort of android, when robotic technology is advanced enough? For many of us, this isn’t a logical or moral dilemma but a spiritual one. Tackling dementia and paralysis concerns the restoration of a living body. But when death comes into the equation, we are forced to ask, “What about the soul?” For decades, futurist Ray Kurzweil has balked at the idea that humans have souls that should be left alone, untouched by human hands. Who could have guessed that Kurzweil, like so many other brilliant nerds, would be toppled by Joe Rogan’s Socratic method? As our own Peter Gietl put it, “Joe Rogan might be the perfect foil for a futurist and woo peddler like Kurzweil. He knows just enough about these subjects to be dangerous but also asks questions with an Everyman logic that is a perfect antidote to cut through the vague science this man spews.” How can we understand evil within the context of artificial intelligence? Maybe we shouldn’t be worried about artificial intelligence but rather artificial consciousness. Or, even more harrowing, artificial spirituality. The boundaries of our social cosmos are already distinctly psychological. Where previous generations were afflicted by vast unknowables, comical ignorance, and inanimate technology, we’re lost in the squall of the digital unconscious, the connected brain, and data centrality — total interconnection by digital means. That’s without any devices implanted. A brain chip is internal. Social media is external and much less invasive. Yet look at the damage that it has caused, to children specifically, affecting notions of play, body image in pre-teen and teenage girls, and even sexuality and ideas regarding gender. Elon Musk is calmly but direly urging us to start preparing for a world full of AI that’s smarter than us. I’m a big fan of Elon and his role in what Jonathan Haidt has described as the “techno-democratic optimism” unique to America in relation to tech. But in this situation, it’s important to remember that the man owns the brain chip company. We all know that the dignity of any revolutionary medical tech is at the very least vulnerable to abuse. Plastic surgery didn’t begin with breast implants. Customization is an integral part of our new world. But where is the limit? What about genetic engineering? What about designer babies? These technologies are no longer plot devices in science fiction. It’s going to happen in real life, as people are increasingly willing to medicalize their lives. Here’s what we all suspect: Once everyone agrees to an implant, it’s only a matter of time before chips are getting hacked, commercials are mandatory, and money gets involved. We’re already witnessing widespread “de-materialization,” where physical objects are becoming obsolete as the world becomes increasingly digitized. You see this in the subscription model. You used to own movies. If you didn't, you rented a physical copy. Music used to be owned on physical media too. Now these items are accessed via subscription. Then there are the political implications. The brain is the source of all human behavior. If someone figured out how to control it, he could manipulate society to his advantage, fiddling with our species’ most dangerous tendencies and habits. We’ve moved past biopolitics — the elites’ control of our bodies. Now we live in an era of psychopolitics, where elites grip not just the politics, not just the body, but the total of the mind of citizens. Neuro-technologic reality also changes immediately. No one can keep up any more. The transformation of our habits, thoughts, beliefs, emotions, and actions is hard to prove and even harder to monitor. So why would we hand over our most important possessions — our brains — to a dubious invisible network, the same network that facilitates pornography and BuzzFeed? The language of online is structured mostly as exclamatory and imperative slogans. Declarative statements often serve as a Trojan Horse of discourse that is actually combat. It is part of the reason that everything seems so hard to resolve. The pace of life is daunting. We don’t even fully realize it. But we feel it. Things are different and we don’t know why. Inject a silicon chip into your brain, and there’s no way to know how much it has changed you. Our cultural illness is neuro-technological. It’s something we signed up for, and it sends constant updates. An automated disease manifested through emotion but guided by some unknown could lead or already has led to neuro-totalitarianism. On the other hand, it would be cool to order DoorDash without having to move at all, so sign me up!

A poison pill added to what was once common-sense legislation is, once again, making a well-intentioned bill radioactive. Bipartisan agreement about the need to keep kids safe online led to the introduction of the Kids Online Safety Act, which originally empowered parents to approve apps used by their children. The latest revisions, made to appease the progressive left, predictably substitute the judgement of federal bureaucrats for that of parents and their local elected officials. What was once a proposal to protect kids from abuse online will now open the door for the Federal Trade Commission and the government to impose the political and cultural values of unelected bureaucrats on children. Lina Kahn and the FTC’s unelected federal officials have no business parenting our children. In its current form, the bill does not deserve support from conservatives in Congress. Better options are available as states take more innovative approaches to the problem. This version of KOSA is not the answer. Originally introduced in 2022, KOSA appropriately gave state attorneys general the authority to enforce provisions about what content social media companies are responsible for blocking for children. Instead, the left demanded a one-size-fits-all approach in which their appointed political allies at the federal level are authorized to override parents. The outcry against the original bill from far-left and LGBTQ activist groups was predictably hyperbolic. These groups demanded and stirred opposition while branding the original draft dangerous. Though they nominally agree that children should not be exposed to inappropriate content online, they wanted kids of all ages to be able to access information about their sexuality. Consequently, blatant concessions to these LGBTQ groups take enforcement power away from state attorneys general. Now, the Federal Trade Commission would enforce KOSA’s duty of care provisions. Biden-appointed FTC Chairman Lina Khan is already under fire for inappropriately managing the commission to promote her personal left-wing ideologies — an allegation documented in a recent House Judiciary Committee report. Kahn and the FTC’s unelected federal officials have no business parenting our children. The new version of KOSA emboldens government overreach. Fashioned by Democrats, it completely surrenders to the pressures of these progressive groups, putting politics ahead of the safety of our children. State attorneys general already manage consumer protection for their states. Why would we shift this work to unelected bureaucrats in Washington? Decisions around what our children see online should be enforced by state officials who are elected and held accountable by the voters. One common-sense proposal leaders in my home state recently called on Congress to adopt would require parents to approve their children’s app downloads at the app store before they can even start using an app. This would empower parents and ensure they have oversight over all apps — from well-known platforms such as YouTube and Instagram to more dubious platforms like Whisper, an anonymous social media platform, or Stranger Talks, which is an app literally built for kids to talk with strangers. Giving parents a simple, streamlined solution to approve the apps their teens download within the app store is the best approach lawmakers can take to keep our children safe online. Ultimately, parents — not the government — should have the say over their children’s online usage. Congress would be better off writing legislation that puts parents in the driver's seat. Congress should focus on requiring parental approval of teenage app downloads at the app store, not legislation that enables federal bureaucrats with political agendas to determine what is appropriate for our children. KOSA in its current form is toxic.

As the 2024 Congressional Baseball Game entered its final inning earlier this month, the Republicans led the Democrats by a score of 21-10. With a man on first, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) came to bat. The pitcher, Rep. Chris Deluzio (D-Penn.), checked the runner and fired home. The ball tailed away, off the plate, and Scalise took ball one. The next pitch ran outside, as did the one that followed. With a count of 3-0, Deluzio went up and in with the pitch. But the majority leader held up, taking the four-pitch walk and making his way to first base without unshouldering his bat. Scalise applies the same prudent and restrained approach that he displayed at bat to the regulation of artificial intelligence. He made as much clear the day after the GOP’s victory at Nationals Park. Scalise said he doesn’t “believe that Congress should pass any AI-related regulations, establishing a new party position on the most important issue in tech policy,” Punchbowl News reported. Even staunch libertarians, who favor minimal regulation of AI, advocate some regulation and, in Scalise’s phrase, filling “gaps in the laws” where necessary. Washington is strongly attracted to action for its own sake, often tempted to impose stringent state control on emerging technology. However, Scalise recognizes that America’s technological dominance and the accompanying prosperity largely depend on lawmakers refraining from interfering in the market. “Ultimately, we just want to make sure we don't have government getting in the way of the innovation that’s happening,” Scalise said. “That’s allowed America to be dominant in the technology industry, and we want to continue to be able to hold that advantage going forward.” Often, to score runs or simply to maintain the lead, lawmakers must keep their proverbial bat on their shoulder. The alternative perspective — which favors regulatory action for its own sake — stems from the fallacy that something — anything — must be done. These action-obsessed anti-Scalisers believe that AI’s development must be centrally planned. For example, Sen. Corey Booker (D-N.J.) recently lamented that, should it fail to keep pace with European regulators, America will fall behind Europe technologically. In fact, ample data demonstrates the superiority of America’s light-touch regulatory style. And, as a rule, European regulators serve as a poor model to follow — in any policy area. Often, when free marketeers criticize manifestly inapt proposals, pro-regulation lawmakers deride them for supposedly rejecting all regulatory action. Buried in this ridicule lies a disastrous underestimation of the cost associated with faulty regulation. Also, the charge is false. Even staunch libertarians, who favor minimal regulation of AI, advocate some regulation and, in Scalise’s phrase, filling “gaps in the laws” where necessary. Many ills — even many that implicate legitimate governmental interests — have no discernable public policy solutions. History offers countless cases in which would-be technocrats’ efforts at central planning produced unintended consequences far worse than the pre-existing status quo. What’s more, many fears that drive efforts to hyper-regulate AI anticipate future ills with little chance of materializing — e.g., a supercomputer takeover, to take one worry of President Joe Biden. However, the basic laws of economics, psychology, and human association apply as much to the digital world as to the physical one. As Calvin Coolidge once said, “If you see ten troubles coming down the road, you can be sure nine will go in the ditch and you have only one to battle with.” Silent Cal would presumably have opposed hamstringing American innovation in the name of combatting those nine ditch-bound troubles. Nonetheless, both in Washington and in statehouses nationwide, too many lawmakers have credulously embraced the “something, anything” ethos. Proposals for licensing regimes, new agencies, and speech-crushing regulatory reform have swarmed Congress. Meanwhile, state lawmakers are now considering hundreds of AI-related bills. Consider Colorado’s Senate Bill 21-205, which Gov. Jared Polis (D) signed in May. “I appreciate the goals of the sponsors to begin an important and overdue conversation to protect consumers from misunderstood and even nefarious practices in a burgeoning industry and the bipartisan efforts to bring this bill to me,” reads Polis’ signing statement. Yet the rest of the statement reads like a veto letter. In it, Polis outlined the bill’s myriad flaws. “Government regulation that is applied to at the state level in a patchwork across the country can have the effect to tamper innovation [sic] and deter competition in an open market,” Polis wrote. Reading this, one would expect Polis to have vetoed the bill outright, but instead (to get something — anything — enacted) Polis signed it with a plea to ameliorate SB 21-205’s flaws during its two-year implementation period. A home run may be preferable to a walk, but if the batter sees no pitches near the zone, the choice often becomes one between a walk and a strikeout. Wishing for another viable alternative will not produce one. Wishing for the knowledge problem not to obtain in AI policy-making — or that half-baked AI regulations will not generate unintended consequences — will not make it so. America’s technology sector surpasses that of any other country. Washington should not blow that lead.