Lifeboat Foundation

… while Europe continues to suppress the risk incurred by it regarding the lives of all children on the planet. The cover-up of this proven fact must end and CERN halt the LHC experiment.

May I dare ask the people of Japan to rally behind the Cologne Administrative Court who publicly called for the scientific safety conference denied by Europe for 3 years?

Otto E. Rössler, chaos researcher, University of Tübingen (May 1st, 2011, for J.O.R.)

The LHC experiment at the European Nuclear Research Center is presently being continued in defiance of a public proof of danger — that the planet will be shrunk to a diameter of 2 cm in perhaps 5 years’ time with a probability of up to 8 percent if the experiment goes on. The continuation occurs in defiance of the recent public appeal by a court to allow for a scientific safety conference first.

No public voice on the planet acknowledges this critical situation – even though simultaneously another survival error unfolds before everyone’s eyes. The perhaps most cynical situation of history. What has gone awry?

Is “rational science” a myth that was imperceptibly abandoned? The scientific members of CERN cannot possibly believe that they are acting in accord with the rules of rational science, one feels. Nevertheless they are being held in high esteem across the planet – so high in fact that the world’s media appear to voluntarily observe the first global press curfew. How can the manifest irrationality – if it is one – be explained?

The reason has to do with opinion power – who would argue with 8.000 scientists? But suppose the mentioned proof is really on the table (as it is to the best of my knowledge): What would be the explanation, then? One would be forced to conclude that outdated science, if held fast to, is not science any more but rather the opposite: the most dangerous enemy of the future. We know this from medieval times where dogmatism took over under the mantle of orthodoxy (in the good sense). Did we re-arrive there again with the burden of a much more dangerous arsenal of instruments, acquired in a preceding period of rationalism?

Continue reading “Neophobic Science Seen as Cause of the Present Apocalyptic Danger” »

As I remarked in my heartfelt endorsement for astronomer Jeff Kanipe’s fantastic book at Amazon.com, Dobzhansky noted,

One can argue that all environments are hostile, and that death and extinction are probable events, while survival is improbable. Just how life has managed to overcome this improbability is a problem which many biologists find challenging and fascinating. In my opinion, this problem may well be used as the framework on which to build the teaching of biology [1].

Building upon profound observations along these lines, readers may find that Kanipe offers some poetically illustrated support for my conjecture that this problem may well be used as the framework on which to build the teaching of every science — from biology to cosmology to economics to political science.

On the Origin of Mass Extinctions: Darwin’s Nontrivial Error offers a few choice previews from this beautiful, optimistic, and most highly recommended book!

Continue reading “Cosmic Connection: How Astronomical Events Impact Life on Earth” »

Dear Lifeboat Foundation Family & Friends,

A few months back, my Aunt Charlotte wrote, wondering why I — a relentless searcher focused upon human evolution and long-term human survival strategy, had chosen to pursue a PhD in economics (Banking & Finance). I recently replied that, as it turns out, sound economic theory and global financial stability both play central roles in the quest for long-term human survival. In the fifth and final chapter of my recent Masters thesis, On the Problem of Sustainable Economic Development: A Game-Theoretical Solution, I argued (with considerable passion) that much of the blame for the economic crisis of 2008 (which is, essentially still upon us) may be attributed the adoption of Keynesian economics and the dismissal of the powerful counter-arguments tabled by his great rival, F.A. von Hayek. Despite the fact that they remained friends all the way until the very end, their theories are diametrically opposed at nearly every point. There was, however, at least one central point they agreed upon — indeed, Hayek was fond of quoting one of Keynes’ most famous maxims: “The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else” [1].

And, with this nontrivial problem and and the great Hayek vs. Keynes debate in mind, I’ll offer a preview-by-way-of-prelude with this invitation to turn a few pages of On the Problem of Modern Portfolio Theory: In Search of a Timeless & Universal Investment Perspective:

It is perhaps significant that Keynes hated to be addressed as “professor” (he never had that title). He was not primarily a scholar. He was a great amateur in many fields of knowledge and the arts; he had all the gifts of a great politician and a political pamphleteer; and he knew that “the ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is generally understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else” [1]. And as he had a mind capable of recasting, in the intervals of his other occupations, the body of current economic theory, he more than any of his compeers had come to affect current thought. Whether it was he who was right or wrong, only the future will show. There are some who fear that if Lenin’s statement is correct that the best way to destroy the capitalist system is to debauch the currency, of which Keynes himself has reminded us [1], it will be largely due to Keynes’s influence if this prescription is followed.…

Continue reading “On the Problem of Modern Portfolio Theory: In Search of a Timeless & Universal Investment Perspective” »

Perhaps the most important lesson, which I have learned from Mises, was a lesson located outside economics itself. What Mises taught us in his writings, in his lectures, in his seminars, and in perhaps everything he said, was that economics—yes, and I mean sound economics, Austrian economics—is primordially, crucially important. Economics is not an intellectual game. Economics is deadly serious. The very future of mankind —of civilization—depends, in Mises’ view, upon widespread understanding of, and respect for, the principles of economics.

This is a lesson, which is located almost entirely outside economics proper. But all Mises’ work depended ultimately upon this tenet. Almost invariably, a scientist is motivated by values not strictly part of the science itself. The lust for fame, for material rewards—even the pure love of truth—these goals may possibly be fulfilled by scientific success, but are themselves not identified by science as worthwhile goals. What drove Mises, what accounted for his passionate dedication, his ability to calmly ignore the sneers of, and the isolation imposed by academic contemporaries, was his conviction that the survival of mankind depends on the development and dissemination of Austrian economics…

Austrian economics is not simply a matter of intellectual problem solving, like a challenging crossword puzzle, but literally a matter of the life or death of the human race.

–Israel M. Kirzner, Society for the Development of Austrian Economics Lifetime Achievement Award Acceptance Speech, 2006

Continue reading “On the Problem of Sustainable Economic Development: A Game-Theoretical Solution” »

I am both the warner and the only reporter — a strange situation to be in. My scientific results prove that the currently running LHC experiment is going to shrink the earth to 2 cm in perhaps 5 years’ time with a probability of 8 percent if continued. They stay un-disproved for 3 years but no one takes notice. What is the explanation?

If my results were nonsense, some scientist would have taken the trouble to dismantle them publicly under her or his own name so I could respond and an open consensus – if need be that to disagree — could form as befits both science and the dignity of the public.

The fact that CERN currently continues in defiance of a Cologne court’s request to first admit a scientific safety conference is equally baffling, since again the public appears to have the right to know.

While CERN keeps a low profile, a well-equipped blog owned by a member of CERN’s sister institution, DESY, substitutes refutation by ad-hominem assaults to influence the media. Although experienced hatred is better than no response at all, this response throws a scant light on CERN’s science.

Continue reading “If No Single Scientist Openly Contradicts My Results: Why No Public Debate?” »

(NOTE: Selecting the “Switch to White” button on the upper right-hand corner of the screen may ease reading this text).

“Who are you?” A simple question sometimes requires a complex answer. When a Homeric hero is asked who he is.., his answer consists of more than just his name; he provides a list of his ancestors. The history of his family is an essential constituent of his identity. When the city of Aphrodisias… decided to honor a prominent citizen with a public funeral…, the decree in his honor identified him in the following manner:

Hermogenes, son of Hephaistion, the so-called Theodotos, one of the first and most illustrious citizens, a man who has as his ancestors men among the greatest and among those who built together the community and have lived in virtue, love of glory, many promises of benefactions, and the most beautiful deeds for the fatherland; a man who has been himself good and virtuous, a lover of the fatherland, a constructor, a benefactor of the polis, and a savior.
– Angelos Chaniotis, In Search of an Identity: European Discourses and Ancient Paradigms, 2010

I realize many may not have the time to read all of this post — let alone the treatise it introduces — so for those with just a few minutes to spare, consider abandoning the remainder of this introduction and spending a few moments with a brief narrative which distills the very essence of the problem at hand: On the Origin of Mass Extinctions: Darwin’s Nontrivial Error.

Continue reading “A (Relatively) Brief Introduction to The Principles of Economics & Evolution: A Survival Guide for the Inhabitants of Small Islands, Including the Inhabitants of the Small Island of Earth” »

If nothing else, Japan’s recent tragedy has brought the risk of current nuclear power plants back into focus. While it’s far to early to tell just how grave the Fukushima situation truly is, it is obvious that our best laid plans are inadequate as they relate to engineering facilities to withstand cataclysmic scale events.

Few places on the globe are as well prepared as Japan for earthquakes and the possibility of subsequent tsunamis. However, in spite of their preparedness — which was evidenced by the remarkably small number of casualties given the nature of the events that took place (can you imagine how many people would have perished had this same disaster struck somewhere else in the world?) — Japan’s ability to manage a damaged nuclear power plant was severely compromised.

As frightening as Japan’s situation is, what ought to frighten us even more is that there are many more nuclear power plants in equally vulnerable locations all over the globe. In California, for example, both the San Onofre and Diablo Canyon facilities are right on the coast (they both use ocean water for cooling) and the Diablo Canyon facility in particular is perilously close to a major fault.

Given what we’ve seen in Japan, the widely varying degrees of preparedness around the world, the age of many of the existing power plants and the consequences for even a single catastrophic containment failure, shouldn’t we be taking a long, hard look at nuclear power as a viable means of providing energy for the planet? Have we learned so little from Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and now Fukushima? Just how capable are we [really] of dealing with a second, a third or a fourth disaster of this type? (and what if they were to happen simultaneously?) With so many existential risks completely beyond our control, does it make sense to add another one when there are other, lower risk alternatives to nuclear energy within our reach?

Continue reading “Are Current Nuclear Power Plants an Existential Risk?” »

Forgive me my courage because I like you. The catastrophe at Fukushima is a testimony to human fallibility. For 3 years, an analogous trap has been opened up for the planet as a whole, but no one believes my proof: An 8-percent probability of the planet being shrunk to 2 cm in perhaps 5 years’ time if the LHC experiment at Geneva is continued.

500 planetary newspapers reported on my warnings in 2008, before the experiment fizzled. After it got resumed in 2010, there is a press curfew worldwide. Even the appeal by a court to at long last admit the scientific safety conference called for (my only request) is quietly skirted by CERN. Just finding out about the truth is asking too much.

The reason is painful and has to do with Einstein and Japan (“I made one mistake in my life,” he said). No one believes any more that he was even greater in his youth. This is what I found out: The famous equivalence principle (between gravity and horizontal acceleration) of 1907 is even more powerful than known. What is known is that clocks tick more slowly further down in gravity, as he proved. But this time-change result stands not alone: Length and mass and charge are equally affected (TeLeMaCh theorem, for T, L, M, Ch) as is easy to prove. Hence gravity is much more powerful than anticipated. Black holes have radically different properties, for example. And black holes are being tried to be generated at the LHC.

Why the planet-wide press curfew since 2008? Apparently a nobelist cooperating with the LHC gave the parole that the new result is “absolute nonsense,” which would be gratifying to believe if true. But the press for some reason forgot to ask back: “Did you discuss your counterclaim with the author?” (No.) “Has anyone proved it?” (No.) “Is anyone ready to defend it publicly in dialog?” (No.)

Continue reading “Short Speech to the World” »