Immortality – The Final Dilemma

Scientists are on the brink of discovering the reason why we age and die. The secrets of immortality are soon to be revealed but will the breakthrough lead to the biggest dilemma ever faced by humankind? Who lives and who dies when the earth’s resources simply cannot sustain perpetual birth and immortality. Many believe that scientists already know how to extend peoples lives by decades. The dilemma is who chooses those who will benefit?

The Daily Telegraph of London reports: “Researchers believe boosting the amount of a naturally forming enzyme in the body could prevent cells dying and so lead to extended, healthier life spans”.

Spanish Breakthrough

Scientists have already learned that the protein telomerase helps maintain the protective caps at the ends of chromosomes. These act like the sealed ends of shoelaces that stop them unravelling. As we age, and our cells divide, these caps become frayed and shorten until eventually they become so damaged that the cell dies.

Scientists believe boosting our natural levels of telomerase could rejuvenate them. A team at the Spanish National Cancer Centre in Madrid tested the theory on mice and found those genetically engineered to produce 10 times the normal levels of telomerase lived 50 percent longer than normal.

Maria Blasco, who led the research, told the New Scientist the enzyme was capable of turning ‘a normal, mortal cell into an immortal cell’. She added that she was optimistic that a similar approach may eventually lead to extended human life spans.

The Apartheid of Human Immortality

Will this next scientific step into the future present mankind with selective immortality? Once some practical form of extending life is discovered it will present an almost insurmountable political and moral impasse. By comparison the debates over abortion and euthanasia will be insignificant. Who will control this new science and most problematic of all decide who gets to be immortal?

Will there be affirmative action quotas; a social engineering experiment, which would be genocide dressed in an altruistic cloak? Will it apply for example to millions of starving Africans? There is compelling argument that there are insufficient natural resources to sustain those millions. Immortality granted will only exacerbate the problem of alternative liquidation by famine. It couldn’t happen? Stalin starved millions so that the economy could be boosted by the export of the grain needed to feed them. In the UK today medical resources are notorious for being allocated by post code. Social engineers too will be caught between a rock and a hard place.

Such a dilemma will cascade down through the castes and social classes inherent in all societies and cultures. There will be arguments and national passions aroused as the faceless unelected decide who are to be preserved and who will be given over so nature may take its course?

The Grim Reaper

For some there will be no escaping the Grim Reaper. But will the educated, the powerful, the influential, be able to buy their way to the top of the queue when the jabs are being rationed? Will a lottery be the answer or perhaps life on earth privileges extended to those who opt to die so that others may live?

Imagine the consequences if political scientists consider some ethnic groups more worthy than are others? Out of the blue mankind is faced by the imponderable contents of a Pandora’s Box from which will explode a far greater threat to mankind than that posed by nuclear weapons. It is a dilemma so problematic that the discovery may well have already been made and the pros and cons already being hammered out behind closed doors.

The War against Women?

There already exists, in the most developed and democratic societies, a pecking order of privilege. Some people are fast-tracked to high position and of course politicians and those in ‘the establishment’ already look after their own. Every year in Britain, and in other countries too, an unelected elite decide who is worthy of public recognition and who is not. Who, when the time comes, decides who is deserving of life and who is not?

On the threshold of the nightmare we realise that fathers, because of their position, could outlive their children and even their grandchildren. Imagine today you have a great-great grandparent who lived until 1822. Had the secret been known back then he might still be alive and in good health though his less privileged children had been dead for nearly one-hundred years.

Parents will live a normal lifespan but one or two of their children may be singled out to live twice as long as their siblings. A son who is a skilled doctor is more valuable to society than his less gifted brother or sister. Will females be considered more productive than men or vice versa?

How will 95 percent of the world’s population react when it finally sinks in that they must die naturally while the wealthy; the elite get to live for centuries longer? Time awaits no man and death has so far been the great leveller. What will happen when this is no longer true; when the rich and powerful no longer have to die while we poor peasants are worked to – death? ©

The Pew Center on Global Climate Change and the Business Environmental Leadership Council

The Pew Center on Global Climate Change was established in 1998 as a non-profit, non-partisan and independent organization whose mission is to address global warming (Pew). Alongside the creation of the Pew Center was the Business Environmental Leadership Council (BELC). BELC was created in the belief that businesses must develop efficient and effective solutions in addressing the climate problem. BELC has grown into the largest U.S. based association of corporations focused on addressing climate change. It currently consists of forty-one members representing $2 trillion in market capitalization and over three million employees (BELC). Many sectors are included, such as oil, gas, transportation, utilities, chemicals, and many more.

Many well known companies are part of BELC, including: Boeing, BP, GE, Hewlett-Packard Company, IBM, Intel, Lockheed Martin, Maytag, Novartis, Toyota, and many other companies with tremendous market influence (BELC). It is extremely interesting to note that the Pew Center doesn’t receive money from the companies of the BELC. Instead, it receives its money from The Pew Charitable Trusts (“Pew Charitable”). The Pew Center and BELC companies hold four core beliefs. First, they accept the views of most scientists that enough is known about climate change to finally do something about it. Second, businesses can and should establish and meet emission requirements, invest in new, more efficient products, practices, and technologies. Third, they recognize that The Kyoto Protocol is the first step in the international process. They believe that the countries that have joined the Protocol must implement the market-based mechanisms that are written into the Treaty. And lastly, they believe that significant progress can be made in both addressing climate change and sustaining economic growth in the United States (BELC). Before getting into the transnational controversy that the Pew Center and BELC is engaged in, examining the problem of global warming is needed to understand the context and scope of the issue.

Global Warming is a huge problem threatening the very existence of our species on this planet. In 2002, the Pentagon predicted that a sudden change in the Earth’s climate could cause

Prolonged droughts in northern Europe and the United States [that would] lead to acute food and water shortages, while typhoons and hurricanes devastate low-lying regions like Bangladesh. Africa is crippled by disease and famine; southern Europe is flooded with millions of refuges; in the Persian Gulf, Chinese and U.S. naval forces square off over access to Saudi oil fields. (Goodell 132)

This is what our own government believes will happen if the Earth’s temperature goes up a couple of degrees! Ross Gelbspan points out that since the start of industrialization in the 19th century, the human thirst for fossil fuels has gotten to the point where most scientists believe that global temperatures have risen at least 1 degree Fahrenheit over the last century (“Boiling” 24-27). In addition, the evidence shows that carbon dioxide levels have increased from 280 parts per million (ppm) over the last hundred years to about 380ppm today (“Denial” 16a). That means that within the next hundred years, if we keep up our pace, carbon dioxide levels will go up to a lot more than 480ppm because the amount of pollutants and greenhouse gases we are using keeps going up and up. The Pew Center has a policy program that does four main things to try to help the international and domestic community (the United States is responsible for 25% of global greenhouse emissions) clean up it’s act. First, it produces independent, non-partisan analyses of global warming policy alternatives in the United States and abroad. Second, it educates key decision-makers about policy options. Third, it encourages the domestic and international community to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. And lastly, they produce reports, policy briefs, working papers and Legislative/Administrative Proposals (Pew).

The Pew Center is located in Arlington, Virginia. Its measures and activities extend throughout the globe, especially because global warming is an issue affecting every nation. How can the world trust the Pew Center and BELC when the BELC companies are comprised of so many companies historically known to be huge polluters? This seems like a conflict of interest domestically. The United States hasn’t signed the Kyoto Protocol, and the Pew Center admits “The Kyoto Protocol is the first step in the international process” (Pew). When the President of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Eileen Clauseen, was asked why the U.S., the largest producer of carbon dioxide, has not ratified the Kyoto Protocol, her response was, “…no, it has not ratified the Kyoto Protocol. President Bush has also made it clear that the U.S. will not ratify the Protocol…” Clauseen goes on to say that

Most countries were waiting for the outcome of the November meeting in The Hague before moving forward with ratification. They are now awaiting decisions that might be made in Bonn. But whether enough countries ratify it for it to enter into force is an open question. The EU has indicated that it will ratify, and other may as well. It will take 55 countries representing 55 percent of developed country emissions for the treaty to enter into force” (“Global”).

Clauseen has acknowledged that it will take a substantial effort to reduce the current carbon dioxide levels in the air. It’s a complicated and controversial issue. On one hand, you have developed countries reducing their emissions and finding energy alternatives. We even have the United States acknowledging the threat of global warming. However, a huge problem lies within developing countries. These countries, located in regions such as South American and Asia, will add to the carbon dioxide level as they economically improve and as the standard of living for its people increases (Balaam 463). But this increase comes at a cost. We may see a “second wave” of industrialization sweep the developing world and create more climate problems. Or, the industrialized nations must help developing countries economically expand without destroying the world. However, creating “green and clean” infrastructure in developing nations becomes a huge monetary issue.

The Pew Center on Global Climate Change and the BELC are engaged in a transnational controversy that extends all over the globe and includes extremely poor third world countries as well as very rich countries. They are ultimately trying to reduce and eliminate global warming. Global warming affects all nations, and all nations have contributed to the problem. Thus, the key question is whether or not you can trust the Pew Center, and especially the BELC, in finding a solution. There are many actors involved in this initiative. Because the United States only contains 4% of the world’s population yet emits 25% (“Global”), it’s a huge actor because this problem is of global proportions. The leaders of many top businesses are also key actors because their companies are partly responsible for the environmental problems we face. Herein lies a conflict of interest and an open door for criticism. Many of these top businesses are a part of the BELC. Most of these companies are huge polluters and are, according to the Pew Center and BELC, trying to cut down on their emissions and come up with new alternative energy sources. How sincere are these companies in actually addressing global warming? Are they willing to accept the financial losses associated with being ‘green’ and ‘clean’? Other actors include all the heads of nations, NGOs, environmental and green groups, and even every single individual who makes an effort to reduce pollution.

In examining the international political economy of the global environment, there are four aspects of environmental problems in general: “…the environment as a communal good, the increasingly global scope of environmental problems, the proliferation of actors involved in these issues, and the multidimensional makeup and linkage between the immediate causes and effects of environmental issues” (453). A very positive example was when Alcan joined BELC on October 18. “Alcan is a multinational, market-drive company and a global leader in aluminum and packaging…aerospace applications, bauxite mining and alumina processing” (Michaud). Alcan has had great success in reducing its greenhouse gases. It has proven that it’s possible to address global climate change while maintaining competitive excellence, growth, and profitability.

The reason Alcan is such a positive example is because

The principal vehicle for this effort is Alcan’s GHG emissions reduction program, TARGET, which was implemented in 2001 and is a key component of the Company’s Environment, Health and Safety (EHS FIRST) management system. In TARGET’s first four years, Alcan’s cumulative GHG reduction objective was set at 575,000 tonnes of CO2e. By the end of 2004, Alcan far surpassed this by recording a reduction of 2.9 million tones of CO2e (Michaud)

This one company, a member of BELC, set its own policy and reduced its emissions 2 million tones more than its original goal! It is definitely interesting to note that according to Anik Michaud, the Pew Charitable Trusts, one of the United States’ largest philanthropies, established the Pew Center. It has an influential voice in improving the environment and is dedicated to providing credible information and innovative solutions to address global climate change. Maybe the Pew Center is sincere in its efforts to help global warming, seeing how it was actually setup by a charity. It’s important to understand some of the IPE problems regarding global climate change before examining what the Pew Center has done about it.

The environment has been severely abused as a result of economic growth, industrialization, trade, and investment policies of the developed nations. As more international trade and investment occurs, more industrially manufactured products and services are produced that require vast amounts of energy resources (Balaam 460). Over the last hundred years, the countries that are now industrialized have become so at the cost of the environment. A key environmental problem is in regards to growth in developing nations and there effect on environmental problems. This is a key reason why the Bush administration hasn’t signed the Kyoto Protocol; the protocol doesn’t call for an equal proportion of emission reductions for industrialized and developing nations. However, developing nations counter and say that they would mean vast amounts of international aid in order to economically and industrially prosper and curb emissions at the same time. It is interesting to note “Many of the newly industrialized countries (NICs), such as China, Taiwan, Indonesia, Thailand, and India among other, have also been criticized for their failure to take the environment into account (Balaam 460).

Thus, one can see that the Pew Center must address the climate issue globally and that BELC is needed in order to actually accomplish the reduction of greenhouse gases. What the Pew Center has done is put together a group of many top companies that operate in many countries. Because the Pew Center’s goal is addressing global climate change, having all of these top companies pledging to do there part makes the Pew Center more credible and puts them at an advantage over other environmental groups because it has ties to these forty-one companies that represent over $2 trillion in market capitalization. As Alcan illustrated, these companies are actually doing their part in curbing emissions while still maintaining economic growth.

After extensive research, it’s fair to say there are no major critics of The Pew Center on Global Climate Change. As a matter of fact, a Pew Center quote was used to debunk a critic of global warming in a PBS article. A huge critic of global warming is Petr Chylek, Professor of Physics and Atmospheric Science at Dalhousie University in Halifx, Nova Scotia. He wrote “Scientists who want to attract attention to themselves, who want to attract great funding to themselves, have to (find a) way to scare the public…and this you can achieve only by making things bigger and more dangerous than they really are” (“Debating”). The PBS article used this quote from the Pew Center to debunk Professor Chylek

Addressing climate change is no simple task. To protect ourselves, our economy, and our land from the adverse effects of climate change, we must ultimately dramatically reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases…shifting away from a century’s legacy of unrestrained fossil fuel use and its associated emissions in pursuit of more efficient and renewable sources of energy. Such a transformation will require society to engage in a concerted effort, over the near and long-term, to seek out opportunities and design actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. (“Debating”)

Most outsiders and environmental groups see the Pew Center as a step in the right direction. They also view the BELC as a collection of companies who are trying to make a difference. There are always going to be environmentalists so out of touch with reality that they believe every single industry or machine that pollutes should be destroyed and that every single area that is not used by humans should be reforested and inhabited by animals. They don’t realize the economic catastrophe this would cause: Millions would lose jobs because the companies they work for would be closed because they release emissions, millions would starve. This isn’t worth cleaner air and more animals flocking about. Never mind losing jobs, because cars would be illegal, how would anybody get to work in the first place? The emphasis is clear. This is the extreme side of the spectrum. The other extreme side is polluting and profiting so much that eventually, the planet would become financial rich but uninhabitable. Thus, the Pew Center’s approach is correct. Addressing the issue while sustaining economic growth is complicated but has proven to be possible.

It seems that The Pew Center on Global Climate Change is a very reputable and positive organization that is using its resources to address global warming. The research has shown that different sources all agree that both global warming is a huge threat and that the Pew Center is positively addressing it. The Pew Center receives its funding from The Pew Charitable Trusts. The Trusts will invest $204 million in fiscal year 2006 to provide organizations and citizens with fact-based research and practical solutions for challenging issues (“Pew Charitable”).

A great deal of evidence shows that the BELC are actually making a difference and curbing their emissions. Some companies are even exceeding Kyoto goals. Because the BELC companies openly admit that enough is known about global warming to address it, they actively participate in emission curbing activities. For example, BELC member BP Amoco “plans to bring its own carbon emissions to 10 percent below its 1990 level by 2010, exceeding the Kyoto goal of roughly 5 percent for industrial countries. (“Social”). Dupont, another BELC member, has already cut its 1990 greenhouse gas emissions by 45 percent. They plan to reduce them by 65 percent by 2010. This also proves that meeting the Kyoto goal is not only possible, but also surpassing it is as well (“Social”). Other BELC companies, such as Toyota and Boeing are advancing company-wide programs for reducing carbon emission. Toyota was the first automaker to mass-produce a hybrid car, the Prius (“Social”). Some BELC companies are also looking for alternative energy sources. BP Amoco and Dutch Shell have been investing heavily in new sources of energy. “BP Amoco is now a leading manufacturer of solar cells. Shell, already a major player in both wind and solar cells, is also investing heavily in hydrogen and will likely open the world’s first chain of hydrogen stations in Iceland” (“Social”).

With the evidence presented, it’s quite evident that a coalition of top companies, contrary to what one might think, are actually addressing the global climate issue. The deeper political economic issues behind all of this include political pressure from companies (non-BELC) that lobby hard for lax industrial regulations, environmental groups that lobby the opposite, the need to address this issue with every single country in the world, the need to unite with every country to fight this battle, and lastly, addressing the climate issue while still growing economically. There are many actors involved from many different perspectives. From the industrial side, business leaders are trying to lobby for regulations that help them. From the environmental side, organizations like the Pew Center are main actors because they are independent, non-partisan, and in this case, encompass many top companies that have been proven to take measures into their own hands and address the global climate issue. There are other actors as well, such as researchers who are trying to find that next big energy alternative, and each individual, who is ultimately affected by decisions that are made by the upper levels, because environmental policy and economic issues go hand in hand. In answering cui bono, one must first realize that The Pew Center on Global Climate Change isn’t looking to make a profit; The Pew Charitable Trusts contains billions of dollars. The BELC represents over $2 trillion in market capitalization and 3 million workers, so profit isn’t a big deal to them. The environment benefits. The people who live on this planet benefit. When addressing Global Warming and than asking cui bono, the answer is “Everybody.”

There are many interesting things I discovered as I researched the Pew Center and BELC. At first, I thought that a center that is comprised of so many companies that have historically been polluters made me think that they are in this for some kind of profit or publicity. However, as I dove into the information, I began to discover some interesting things. The Pew Center is funded by The Pew Charitable Trusts, thus BELC companies don’t contribute at all to the Pew Center. The Pew Center and BELC have formed a mutually advantageous relationship not centered on money. My research has showed that both The Pew Center and BELC companies heavily address the climate issue. This issue is very controversial to begin with. Even though all scientists believe global warming is occurring, not all agree that it’s a big threat. Some believe there is no need to curb economic growth to address this issue. However, the Pew Center and BELC realize that the evidence shows there really is a threat. Globally, it’s a very complicated situation. Poor nations don’t have the means to help global warming, and this is why a system needs to be setup where the international community helps these poor nations economically advance without destroying the environment. Industrialized nations must unite together to use their resources to rescue the planet from the condition The Age of Oil put us in. At first look, when you see an organization partnered up with very big companies, you would believe that it is not a good thing for the environment. But if you look at all they have done over the years, you can clearly see the BELC companies regularly exceed Kyoto goals and that the Pew Center regularly pushes for greenhouse gas emissions and even gives proposals to the United States government that fights this issue.

Works Cited

Balaam, David N., and Michael Veseth. Introduction to International Political Economy.

BELC. 12 Dec. 2005. Pew Center. 13 Dec. 2005

http://www.pewclimate.org/companies_leading_the_way_belc/ “Debating ‘Global Warming’.” 22 Apr. 2005. PBS 13 Dec. 2005

Gelbspan, Ross. “Our denial is at Category 5.” USA Today 26 Sept. 2005.

Gelbspan, Ross. “Boiling Point.” Nation 8 Aug. 2005.

Center. 23 Dec. 2005 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/liveonline/advertisers/pew062701.htm

Goodell, Jeff. “WAS IT GLOBAL WARMING?” Rolling Stone Dec. 2005.

Michaud, Anik. “Alcan Joins [BELC] to address global climate change.” CNW Group. 18 Oct. 2005

Pew Center on Global Climate Change. 12 Dec. 2005. Pew Center. 13 Dec. 2005

http://www.pewclimate.org The Pew Charitable Trusts. 12 Dec. 2005. Pew Center. 13 Dec. 2005

Social Funds. 26 July 2000. “Global Climate Coalition Cools Down.” 13 Dec. 2005

Platonic Fullerene Chemistry, Sir C P Snow and the Cure for Cancer

In 2008, The Times Literary Supplement included the book,’The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution’ in its list of books that most influenced Western Public Discourse since the Second World War. Sir C P Snow’s 1959 Cambridge University Rede lecture argued that unless Classical Arts theory was reunited with science, then civilisation would collapse, the reason for this being that scientists had let themselves be governed by an erroneous Einsteinian world-view, which demands that all life in the universe must eventually be destroyed. Modern science can be seen to be accelerating that destruction through entropic global economic rationalism, leading to global economic collapse and World War III.

In 1979, China’s most highly awarded physicist, Hun Huang gave the Australian Science-Art Research Centre the methodology with which to use the world’s seashell fossil record to reunite science with the ancient art-form mathematics. This was in order to prevent Einsteinian global chaos from accellerating entropic destruction.

During the 1980s, the Centre’s mathematician, Chris Illert, developed a seashell formula directly from the Classical Arts mathematics, in order to successfully generate healthy seashell bio-form growth and development simulations through thirty million years of space-time. In 1990 this discovery was reprinted by the SPIE Milestone Series,belonging to the world’s largest technological research institute, IEEE in Washington, as one of the important optical discoveries of the 20th Century.

The President of the Institute for Basic Research in the USA, Professor Ruggero Santilli, in liaison with the Centre’s mathematician, advanced the research into the realm of physics. In 1995 an international peer review of this work recognised the discovery of new physics laws governing optimum biological growth and development through space-time, as predicted by Kun Huang.

As Einsteinian mathematics can only generate deformed bio-form simulations, through space time, the Centre’s Royal Fellow of Medicine, Dr George Cockburn, together with the Centre’s director (the author of this article), considered that mainstream mathematics must be innately carcinogenic. The 1937 Nobel laureate in medicine, Szent-Gyorgyi, had also arrived at that conclusion. He considered that consciousness evolved in unison with the Einsteinian energies of chaos. Szent-Gyorgyi argued that within the human metabolism, the emotional conflict of being forced to live under an unnatural entropic yoke was interfering with the healthy evolution of human consciousness, contributing to cancer growth.

The director of the Centre’s work then focussed upon the functioning of the synergestic world-view derived by the famous American engineer, Buckminster Fuller. Fuller’s work was constructed upon the ancient art-mathematics of Plato. Both argued along similar lines to Sir C P Snow and Szent-Gyorgyi. The Science-Art Centre, drawing upon the cancer theories of Dr Cockburn, used 3-D glasses with asymmetrical electromagnetic lensing, to discover if artists over the centuries had unconsciously depicted hidden holographic images within their paintings. This subsequently proved to be correct.

The associated electromagnetic phenomenon appeared to be compatible with Szent-Gyorgyi’s electromagnetic cancer theories. Furthermore, the Centre successfully predicted that the negentropic properties of carbon signalling evolves consciousness. This occurs when the human metabolism gains pattern recognition of the Golden Mean geometrical dance of life (Buckminster Fuller’s Jitterbug). This geometrical dance depicts the process of proteins constantly enfolding in DNA (see: Theory of Carbon Signalling. Negentropy vs Entropy-Emergence of Self Propagated Biological Systems by Radoslav Bozov, Independent researcher, biology department, University of Virginia).

The Centre’s prediction was validated in 2011 when the Cornell University Library in the USA announced a quantum biological discovery by two Chinese scientists. They used mathematics to prove that proteins were continuously enfolded into geometrical patterns in DNA, in complete defiance of Einstein’s understanding of the laws of universal energy.

This article suggests that completely successful guidelines for cancer research can now only be possible when Buckminster Fuller’s balanced synergistic World Game Theory is implemented, as soon as is possible. In Fuller’s words this would ‘Make the world work, for 100% of humanity, in the shortest possible time, through spontaneous cooperation, without ecological offence or the disadvantage of anyone’. Fuller had received many awards including the Presidential Medal of Freedom, presented to him on February 23, 1983, by President Ronald Reagan.

Within a Einsteinian entropic world mindset, where Nobel Prizes are awarded for the development of a non-cooperative economic mathematical games theory, Fuller’s solution, for the betterment of the human condition is an impossible concept for the entropic mind to grasp. However, there is now enough data to program a supercomputer to instantly resolve this situation. All that is lacking is the anti-cancer medical will to implement it.

As already mentioned, Buckminster Fuller’s concept of the harnessing of universal energy to prevent Einstein’s chaos from occurring, completely echoed the ethos of C P Snow and Szent-Gyorgyi and other eminent scientists.

IBM’s chess playing computer, Deep Blue, became the world’s first computer to defeat a world chess champion. IBM’s Watson computer beat the greatest minds in America able to play the more complex game, Jeopardy. Fuller’s World Game Theory was alluding to a supercomputer to play the game of human survival, a choice between what he called ‘Utopia or Oblivion’. The idea of programming the Fullererne supercomputer must now include thousands of years of thinking related to what Einstein called mythological-mathematical intuition embracing ideas beond that of his entropic universe.

In 1957, the New York University of Science published a book, ‘Babylonian Myth to Modern Science’. In the book, Einstein was held to have derived his theory of relativity and his equation E=Mc squared from that Babylonian mythological mathematical intuition. Einstein believed that all of science was governed by a universal law of chaos that dictated the eventual destruction of all life in the universe. This is the same law that applies to the functioning of steam engines. When the heat runs out, the engine stops. Furthermore, if you wait long enough the steam engine will decay into a rusted, useless hulk. According to Einstein this decay must happen to the entire universe, causing all life in the universe to perish.

Conversely, in ancient Egypt, the mythological intuitions advocated infinite creative activity instead of extinction. The Goddess Maat’s mathematical science was held necessary to prevent the universe from reverting to chaos, in order for it to thrive within an endless evolutionary process. The Greeks developed the Egyptian ideas, in order to design a government in which the mathematics of Platonic Love prevented the extinction of life.

The Harvard University Press has published that the Great Italian Renaissance was constructed upon Marcillo Fincino’s writings, taken from ‘Plato’s Theology’. Plato’s atomistic theology was based upon fusing ethics into the theories of creation belonging to the Greek philosopher of science, Anaxagoras. He, in turn, had derived it from the mythological-mathematics belonging to the Egyptian creator-god Atum (the word atom is considered to have been derived from the creator-god’s name). The Platonic tradition of Greek philosophy transformed the mathematics into what is now recognised as being an infinite fractal expression, linking the living process to infinity. This fractal expression is diametrically opposed to the Einsteinian death sentence for humanity.

Harvard University’s Novartis Professor, Amy Edmondson, in her biography of Buckminster Fuller, gently admonished him for not explaining that he derived his balanced world-view directly from Plato’s mathematics. Fuller wrote that his world-view was about making the choice between Utopia or Oblivion. This echoed Plato’s concept that an ethical creative science could prevent civilisation from reverting to chaos. The name of the ancient 3rd Century BC Platonic Greek science was called the ‘Science for Ethical Ends’. Its sister atomistic science was called the ‘Science of Universal love’, with both embracing the physics principles of what is now referred to as Platonic Love.

In 1600, the scientist, Giordano Bruno was imprisoned and burnt alive by the Church in Rome for teaching about the science of Platonic love in England at Oxford University. Modern nanotechnology proves that the workings of the molecule of emotion, discovered in 1972 by Dr Candace Pert, functions as an infinite fractal expression, in defiance of Einstein’s world-view. Buckmister Fuller’s World Game Cooperative Theory, to guide the Platonic Fullerene medical science, is now the world’s top priority world peace concept.

It is possible to explain this situation briefly in philosophical terms. Many famous atomistic philosophers, such as Plato, Philo. Plotinus and Al Haitham, specifically warned not to use vision as the source of all knowledge. They associated that cerebral process with the definition of evil (anti-life) as a destructive property of unformed matter in the physical atom. Da Vinci, Descartes and Sir Francis Bacon thought otherwise and were the pivotal figures who ushered in the mechanical industrial age, inherited by Einstein.

Einstein’s use of vision was basic to quantum mechanics, as an act of visual observer participation, using light to view subatomic particles and in so doing altering the fabric of the universe. That concept led to E=Mc squared, atomic weapons and out of control nanotechnology, a far more serious proposition threatening civilisation than Plato predicted. The problem arises, that under the present scientific conditions it becomes impossible for mainstream science to reunite with Classical Art mathematical theories. Furthermore, the Arts cannot define any difference between aesthetically pleasing activity and the ancient ethical acquisition of scientific ‘Wisdom through Beauty’, as Sir C P Snow advocated. Although quantum biological research can measure and validate the importance of Snow’s vital bridging process, entropic economic rationalism must always remain hostile to it. Experience demonstrates that this human survival issue must become a legal-medical issue, governed by the proposed Fullerene World-Game supercomputer.

In 1986 the director of the Science-Art Research Centre of Australia, during his Artist-in residency at the University of Sydney, worked alongside a cancer research team where he added comments to a cancer research article published by the University of Sydney News. His contribution predicted the importance of the life-energy mathematics published by his Centre’s mathematician in Italy’s leading scientific journal. Furious eminent Australian scientists attempted to have his contribution removed from the article, because it dared to challenge Einstein’s world-view. In their ignorance they declared it to be a disgrace to the University of Sydney. This attack was so intensely emotional that it led to a front page article in the Sydney Morning Herald. The support that the director received from the medical world against this attack upon his Science-art theories, was such that he received the prestigious 1989 Dorothy Knox Award for Distinguished Persons, which was another Artist-in-residency at the Dumore Lang College, Macquarie University, Sydney.

In 1988 the Australian Medical Observer, published a feature article, written by its Science Writer, Dr Calvin Miller, which stated that the Science-Art article that had caused such contention, was asking the right questions and might possibly be heralding a new global Renaissance. The Centre’s book, entitled the 21st Century Renaissance was published in 2012. It was written in liaison with the University of Florence’s New Measure of Humanity Project. This project was directed by the two Italian chemists, Paolo Manzelli and Massimo Pregnolato, recipients of the 2010 Giorgio Napolitano Medal on behalf of the Republic of Rome, for their quantum biology life-energy discoveries. The 1988 Medical Observer article had correctly predicted the now internationally recognised Renaissance, pioneered in part by the Science-Art Research Centre of Australia. Australian politics is still preventing the Australian people from knowing about this, while at the same time several scientific conferences in Britain, Italy and China are celebrating the birth of the 21st Century Renaissance.

The late Royal Fellow of Medicine, London, Dr George Cockburn, the Centre’s Bio-Aesthetician, had written several books researching cancer. His work has now been found compatible to recently discovered evolutionary quantum biology systems associating carbon properties acting in defiance of Einstein’s erroneous understanding of universal energy systems. The Centre’s mathematical life-science discovery was the first, and probably the only one in the world, to prove life to be an inevitable consequence of expanding biological space, as described by cancer researchers developing the cancer theories of the Nobel laureate Szent-Gyorgyi.

Using Cockburn’s work, the Director of the Centre delivered a published Science-Art lecture at Yangzhou University in China in 2001, in which he predicted the aforementioned protein dance of life within DNA, which uses carbon signalling to provide intuitive evolutionary survival information to the mind. Later, he published the discovery that Plato’s spiritual optical engineering priciples created artistic emotion, resulting from intuitive pattern recognition of the geometrical Platonic thought forms belonging to Fuller’s dance of life.

In 2009 the Australian Director of the Science-Art Research Centre of Australia and its former mathematician were awarded Gold Medal Laureates for their Science-Art life-energy discoveries by the Telesio Galilei Academy of Science, London.

By linking mathematics to physics, in which the energies of chaos govern all of science, Einstein’s equation E = Mc squared, correctly described the functioning of the destructive potential of physical reality, which, although a political tool for power, can only accelerate humanity into a World War III chaos, linked to global economic collapse. The mathematics of Humanity, attempting to maintain healthy evolution through expanding space-time, was given an electromagnetic equation to balance E=Mc squared, by the Jesuit Priest, Tielhardt de Chardin. He was working with the scientist educator, Maria Montessori, who is listed in TIME Magazine’s ‘Century of Science’ as the greatest scientist of 1907.

The functioning of the molecule of emotion, discovered by Dr Candace Pert in 1972, behaves in a manner that Montessorri predicted, and obeys the universal laws of physics, postulated by the engineer, Buckminster Fuller. The carbon Fullerene chemistry, named after him, became the basis of the new medical science instigated by the three 1996 Nobel laureates in Chemistry. The science-Art Centre renamed the Fullerene Chemistry as Platonic Fullerene Chemistry, and together with a Dr of international Law, Michael Byrne, designed a human survival legal format for world peace that cannot be delivered within any Australia University. Although a department of the United Nations has investigated the situation and declared it valid.

Einstein would not accept Plato’s dictum that ‘all is geometry’, therefore dismissing the spiritual engineering optics of Plato, which were held to function in the act of creation leading to light and matter, arising from the dark Abyss referred to in the Old Testament. Einstein insisted that the universe was a physical phenomenon, although his protege David Bohm argued about the existence of a holographic universe. Furthermore, Sir Isaac Newton, within his unpublished Heresy Papers, was convinced that the physical universe had to be completed by a more natural and profound philosophy, based upon the physics principles of particle movement, which belonged to the once banished Platonic science (see Gregory, R. 1989, Alchemy of Mind over Matter, Nature. Vol. 342. 30 November, page 473).

As already mentioned, C P Snow delivered his 1959 Rede Lecture at Cambridge University advocating a reunification of Classical Art theory with modern science in order to save civilisation from entropic extinction. This article is about how the Australian entropic political culture treats such reasoning. It stands as a warning of how to judge the cultural integrity of governmental thinking, which seeks security by balancing budgets to provide more entropic employment to bring about an entropic environmental disaster through a lack of understanding about how to harness the negentropic properties of carbon.

If one observes the front cover of the current Third edition of Artists and Galleries of Australia, Vol. 2, it can be noted that the former Art Critic for the national newspaper ‘The Australian’ and former Chairman of the Visual Arts Board of Australia Council, Dr Elwin Lyn. AM, describes the Science-Art painting on the front cover by the artist Director of the Science-Art Research Centre. He wrote that after painstaking research, that the artist became recognised as ‘representing an unprecedented pictorial survey of most recent attitudes and consolidated values.’ Sir C P Snow called the scientists, who failed to link creative thought with science in defiance of the prevailing scientific world view, as reflecting the mentality of their neolithic cave dwelling ancestors. Surely the same thing applies to the cultural aspirations of the Australian Government.

In 1995 the Hon. Simon Crean, as the Federal Minister of Science, knew enough about the work of the Science- Art Research Centre to feel obliged to overturn a negative university assessment of the Centre’s work, by a major Australian University. Apparently, he may well have agreed with the negative scientific assessment, that while the work was not factually erroneous, it was inconceivable. He may well have thought that it could have no possible relevance to the emergence of the internationally recognised 21st Century Renaissance predicted in the 1988 issue of the eminent Australian Medical Observer. Now, as the Australian Federal Minister for The Arts, his ministry appears hostile to the Creative Physics discoveries associated with Science-Art research.

The complex issues raised in Science-Art quantum biological research may not be great thoughts of outstanding genius. However, the proposed Buckminster Fuller supercomputer will quickly sort out that minor problem in seconds. Until now all of the Australian Science-Art discoveries mentioned in this article were paid for by artists selling their paintings to help provide a sustainable future for the betterment of the human condition. Where was the federal Ministry for the Arts to offer encouragement and financial support relative to such a crucial cultural issue? The reader can contact the Australian Ministry for the Arts in order to learn that the author of this article might be considered delusional, or a person that they have never heard of. Then, one can enter the words Platonic Fullerene Chemistry on Google. By selecting any one such listing under EzineArticles, they will realise that virtually all of the other many thousands of listings can be traced to the author, or his Centre’s colleague Chris Degenhardt’s, copyright.

© Professor Robert Pope,
Advisor to the President Oceania and Australasia of the Institute for Theoretical Physics and Advanced Mathematics (IFM) Einstein-Galilei

Global Science Research and the Value of International Collaboration

Science research spending around the globe has increased by 45 percent to more than $1,000 billion (one trillion) U.S. dollars since 2002. In 2008, 218 countries generated more than 1.5 million research papers, with contributions ranging from Tuvalu’s one paper to the U.S.’ 320,000 papers. The U.S. leads the world’s production of science research, accounting for 21 percent of publications and nearly $400 billion worth of public and private science R&D. BRIC and other developing countries, including China, India, Brazil and South Korea, account for much of the increase in scientific publications.

Science Research in the BRIC Countries of China, India and Brazil

A study by the U.K.’s Royal Society points out that the BRIC countries, along with South Korea, “are often cited as rising powers in science.” From 2002 to 2007, the China, India and Brazil more than doubled their spending on science research, bringing their collective share of global spending up from 17 to 24 percent.

Engineering is a common focus of science research in China, India and Russia. Scientific fields in which China has developed a leading position include nanotechnology and rare earths. Agriculture and biosciences are two important fields of emphasis in Brazil, which is a leader in biofuels research.

In keeping with their rapid economic development and massive populations, China and India, the world’s first and second most populous countries, produce large and growing numbers of science and engineering graduates each year. In 2006, about 2.5 million students in India and 1.5 million students in China graduated with degrees in science and engineering.

International Collaboration

Today, over 35 percent of science research articles are the result of international collaborations among researchers from different countries, a 40 percent increase from 15 years ago. The number of internationally co-authored papers has more than doubled since 1990.

The U.S., U.K., France and Germany continue to be key hubs of international collaboration in science research. Researchers in other developed and developing countries actively collaborate with scientists from these countries. According to the Royal Society report, “while links between the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China) have been growing in recent years, they pale in comparison to the volume of collaboration between these individual countries and their partners in the G7.”

International science research often takes the form of regional collaboration. Regional political institutions, including the European Union (EU), African Union (AU) and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), each have their own research strategies that foster and facilitate regional collaboration in science research.

“South-South Collaboration” between developing countries is a growing form of international science research. The International Centre for South-South Cooperation in Science, Technology and Innovation was inaugurated in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia in 2008 under the auspices of UNESCO. An initiative of India, Brazil and South Africa promotes South-South cooperation in several arenas, including science and research collaboration in fields such as nanotechnology, oceanography and Antarctic research.

Collaboration’s Benefits and Drivers

There are a number of important benefits, motivations and enabling factors that help explain the growth of international collaboration in science research, including:

1) greater impact;
2) scientific discovery;
3) scale of research projects;
4) scope and complexity of research topics and international issues;
5) capacity-building; and
6) advances in technology and communications.

Fourteen countries experienced more than a three-fold increase in their standard domestic publication impact by collaborating with one or more of 22 partner countries. Each additional international author leads to an increase in a paper’s impact, up to a tipping point of about ten authors. By collaborating with one another, scientists can access complementary skills and knowledge and stimulate new ideas.

The scale of some major science research projects is too large for most countries to undertake on their own. In such cases, international collaboration is necessary to meet extensive requirements for human, financial and other resources. The scope and complexity of certain science research topics and objectives can also drive international collaboration.

Many of the world’s most pressing social problems are international issues that call for collaboration and cooperation. Climate change, food security, public health (e.g., AIDS/HIV, malaria and tuberculosis) and sustainability are just a few of the global issues that require international collaboration and solutions.

Collaboration allows scientists in one country to build their capacity to conduct significant science research by leveraging the resources of partners in other countries. Collaboration can be particularly beneficial to partners from developing and developed countries.

Advances in technology have contributed greatly to the feasibility and appeal of international collaboration. For researchers in developing and developed countries alike, improvements in communication technologies and services have made international collaboration simpler, faster and cheaper than ever before.

Success Stories

The Royal Society study presents several encouraging examples of cases where science research and international collaboration have contributed greatly to addressing important international issues.

The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) encompasses an international network of independent centers of agricultural research in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Middle East. Despite operating on a modest yet significant annual budget of $550 million, every $1 invested in CGIAR is estimated to yield a very healthy return of $9 worth of additional food in developing countries.

The World Health Organization (WHO) set up FluNet in 1996 as a global tool to monitor and evaluate influenza virus strains by leveraging data from a number of national influenza laboratories around the world. When the epidemic of severe respiratory illness broke out in Hong Kong in 2003, the FluNet network contributed to a coordinated, rapid response from the international science and medical community that identified the virus and helped minimize the related public health threat and consequences.

The Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization has immunized more than 200 million children and prevented over 3.4 million premature deaths since receiving a start-up grant of $750 million from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in 1999.

Royal Society Study – Knowledge, Networks and Nations

These are some of the key findings published recently in the Royal Society’s examination of global science research entitled Knowledge, Networks and Nations: Global Scientific Collaboration in the 21st Century.

The Royal Society study is based on statistics from international organizations, including the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), and the Society’s own analysis of data on science research articles published in roughly 25,000 separate scientific journals by the more than 7 million researchers around the world.

Science research encompasses both research and development, the “R” and “D”, respectively, of public and private R&D efforts, which range from abstract and conceptual exploration through to market-oriented development of scientific applications.

Research Findings

The Royal Society study paints an encouraging picture of growing international investment in science research. International collaboration is a highly valuable mechanism for promoting scientific discovery and maximizing the impact of science research. Publicly and privately funded science R&D has played a key role in successfully addressing key issues related to public health, food security and the environment, among others.