by Dennis Crouch
Martin Luther King Jr. received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964, and I re-read his speech today — especially the portion contrasting development of science and technology against development of the human spirit. The past 60 years have continued to reveal astonishing discoveries and invention. Yet King’s words and warnings continue to resonate because we have continued to neglect our internal realm.
Every man lives in two realms, the internal and the external. The internal is that realm of spiritual ends expressed in art, literature, morals, and religion. The external is that complex of devices, techniques, mechanisms, and instrumentalities by means of which we live.
King. In his speech, King did not decry advances in technology, but argued that the level of attention paid to material advances should be matched by attention to moral and spiritual humanism.
Modern man has brought the whole world to an awe-inspiring threshold of the future. He has reached new and astonishing peaks of scientific success. He has produced machines that think, and instruments that peer into the unfathomable ranges of interstellar space. He has built gigantic bridges to span the seas and gargantuan buildings to kiss the skies. His airplanes and spaceships have dwarfed distance, placed time in chains, and carved highways through the stratosphere. This is a dazzling picture of modern man’s scientific and technological progress.
Yet, in spite of these spectacular strides in science and technology, and still unlimited ones to come, something basic is missing. There is a sort of poverty of the spirit which stands in glaring contrast to our scientific and technological abundance. The richer we have become materially, the poorer we have become morally and spiritually. We have learned to fly the air like birds and swim the sea like fish, but we have not learned the simple art of living together as brothers.
Id.
King’s point here is that our material abundance and domination of the natural world are effectively worthless and potentially harmful if not accompanied by personal growth. At the time in 1964, King was likely correct that the “best brains in the highly developed nations of the world are devoted to military technology.” Although the military faces more talent competition today, we continue to see major developments in machinery of war; and continue to see major threats of global war, including actual war in Ukraine, Israel, and Yemen, for example. This threat of tech-first leadership becomes even more serious as we expand the use of integrated systems of artificial intelligence, including autonomous weapons systems. AI-powered machines can now independently identify and eliminate military targets based on algorithmic logic devoid of feeling or any intrinsic morality.
King’s focus on human development contrasts starkly with the recent “Techno-Optimist Manifesto” penned by billionaire tech investor Marc Andreessen. Whereas King warns of moral regress despite scientific advance, Andreessen sees innovation itself as the engine of perpetual growth and human betterment. “Technology is the glory of human ambition and achievement, the spearhead of progress.” Andreessen. In Andreessen’s framework, technology creates demand, leading to high-quality jobs that in turn provide capital for more technology. Andreessen’s “market economy is a discovery machine,” but Andreessen does not even address King’s internal human world. Rather, the manifesto argues that technological advancement is inherently virtuous and that it leads to material abundance and economic growth, which, in his framework, are synonymous with human flourishing. This approach is obviously lacking because it calls for hollow growth without purpose — a definition synonymous with a cancer.
As someone who has built a career around patent law and technology advancement, I deeply appreciate the fruits of human creativity. Technological leaps have cured diseases, revolutionized communications, and radically enhanced standards of living for billions of humans, including my own. However, I worry that tunnel vision techno-optimism loses sight of deeper human needs – connection, compassion, intimacy, and personal growth. I know this happens to me on a regular basis where I automatically focus so intently on the technical output that I fail to consider the full human context without asking “what is the point” and “why am I doing this?” King’s “poverty of spirit” is always ready to raise its head.
For many across the world, addictive distraction technology is exacerbating King’s problems of “ethical infancy” and “poverty of spirit.” Rather than take the time necessary to develop an internal world of values, it is easier for us to endlessly watch, scroll, and game, losing ourselves in validation-seeking and superficial status.
This problem of spiritual and moral lag, which constitutes modern man’s chief dilemma, expresses itself in three larger problems which grow out of man’s ethical infantilism. Each of these problems, while appearing to be separate and isolated, is inextricably bound to the other. I refer to racial injustice, poverty, and war.
King. Although King’s key 1964 problems of racial injustice, poverty, and war still surround us, we have advanced to recognize an earth-based crisis associated with human ‘domination’ of all regions of the world, including environmental degradation. I’m sure that others can expand upon other major difficulties we face that stem from our humanism failures.
As lawyers and technologists, it is also easy to live two or more separate lives. A moral and more spiritually focused life with our families, and our external professional life that ignores the internal as we follow “rules of the game” to maximize shareholder profits. The integration takes a moral courage that is no longer taught, but it is necessary if we hope to truly flourish both as individuals and a society.
Our patent laws provide blind faith in technical innovation, and I strongly believe that innovation usually provide a net benefit. But the system allows us all to operate without an ethical vision and instead to walk in an internal stupor of moral complacency. I am as guilty as anyone of falling into this trap of focusing exclusively on the technical and market details while avoiding the harder questions of ethics. I have repeatedly found myself compartmentalizing my professional life from my personal values. This life-work disconnect leads to a kind of ethical dissonance and lack of alignment, that over the years can infect all areas of a person’s life, personal and professional.
But the patent system’s mandate is to “promote the progress,” not merely technological capabilities or capital accumulation, but beneficial advancement. King offered a strong contrast between the internal and external worlds, but I believe that the two can also be further integrated: That developing our moral compass can guide our external actions, and that some technology can truly help in advancing our moral and spiritual growth, and the human condition. A few years ago, the Dalai Lama wrote along the same lines in his book titled “The Universe in a Single Atom” (2005)
Unless the direction of science is guided by a consciously ethical motivation, especially compassion, its effects may fail to bring benefit. They may indeed cause great harm. . . .Perhaps the most important point is to ensure that science never becomes divorced from the basic human feeling of empathy with our fellow beings. . . .
By the same token, spirituality must be tempered by the insights and discoveries of science. If as spiritual practitioners we ignore the discoveries of science, our practice is also impoverished, as this mind-set can lead to fundamentalism.
The point here is that technology and humanism, King’s outer and inner worlds, inform one another, and problems arise through imbalance of one over the other. As we stand here 60 years after Dr. King’s warnings, I continue to look for ways to integrate moral courage and compassion into our technological pursuits.
What do you think? What is our path forward? Do you have ways of defining value in a fuller ethical sense, not simply conflating it with economic output and convenience?
Another item that Wt is going to miss, but in the interest of providing interesting viewpoints from Right and Left (oh gee, so confusing, new terms and all
), one of my Fave’s Lex has this exchange:
link to open.spotify.com
Please Pardon Potential re(P)eat…
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
January 18, 2024 at 2:34 pm
In the Comment series 18 below, Wt, appears to want to paint Centrist as something that it is not.
THIS PIECE might help explain the b1as that Wt cannot see within himself:
The only surprise here is that the conservative cases picked up were actually high at 31%.
link to davidlat.substack.com
Ah, this is more in line with displayed tendencies: for hot button issues, that conservative number drops to 5%.
But those here that seek to deny Sprint Left have an unb1ased view…
Lastly, how dare this person br0ach d1vers1ty along the metric of 1de0l0g1cal d1vers1ty.
In the Comment series 18 below, Wt, appears to want to paint Centrist as something that it is not.
I wrote nothing about centrists. BTW, you are not a centrist — you have unabashedly and repeatedly use the language of the right.
Your cited David Lat’s article is entitled “Does Biglaw Have A Liberal Bent?” I didn’t read it, but the question posed led me to find the following (which I already knew):
link to pewresearch.org
From the 2016 research:
Highly educated adults – particularly those who have attended graduate school – are far more likely than those with less education to take predominantly liberal positions across a range of political values.
This is supported by the attached chart, which was from a 2021 NY Times article.
Lastly, how dare this person br0ach d1vers1ty along the metric of 1de0l0g1cal d1vers1ty.
What does this even mean?
Your accusation is simply untrue – regardless of the words I have used, as I am a centrist.
I have shown you that those words of accusation against the Sprint Left have been used by others – Left of Center, Center and Right of Center.
It is only YOUR Overton Window shift effect DUE to bias of Sprint Left that renders your One-Bucket opinion that I am something that I am not.
“I didn’t read it.”
Shockers.
“This is fine.”
You ONLY ingest that which supports your already biased view. You want ot ingest NY Times pr0paganda and the Swill of Hillary’s “Deplorables” mantra – like that worked for her.
Stop being a lemming.
..and unlike you, I DID bother with the items you provided.
And they do NOT support your side in our exchange, as even though there has been more polarization, there remains a definite Central – which I very much am – AND you also miss the nuance as to WHY the polarization has been becoming as it is (hint: the Capture of Academia by the Sprint Left).
Also, NY Times really needs a course in how to present data. A line chart for data that is discontinuous (data point at four year increments) is not the appropriate choice.
At this prior post, I rebutted one of our regular Sprint Left types as to active Woke in our institutions:
link to patentlyo.com
Silence to that rebuttal matches the equally heinous silence as to the Israel/Hamas situation.
Recently, the Dean of that institution (John Hopkins) issued a (rather feeble, “I’m sorry we were caught” type of apology).
But even that feeble thing outshines the “paragons of virtue” who would choose to enforce THEIR “ethics” on everyone else.
The walk-back:
link to msn.com
Avert your eyes, BobM.
“Silence to that rebuttal matches the equally heinous silence as to the Israel/Hamas situation.”
Sir, this is an Arby’s.
“Sir, this is an Arby’s.”
So, that is your ‘comeback?’
That may be the place you run off to when presented with Sprint Left
F
A
I
L
U
R
E
S
And it just keeps on getting better:
And SMASH:
link to instagram.com
Yup
Rather than replying – on topic – Malcolm runs to another thread and ‘Drives By’ there with nothing new.
Stop running Malcolm.
What’s the matter, your Sprint Left script has nothing for you to recite from?
Get used to it – the “most Victim” culture is just not sustainable.
Well Wt,
What is your view on the Israel/Hamas situation? The ensuing Harvard situation? The active backlash against Woke curriculum? (and yes, the John Hopkins situation is indeed Woke – you just do not get to hide behind the facade of “having a civil conversation” when the Sprint Left plays the Motte and Bailey game.
What is your view on the Israel/Hamas situation?
Since you asked:
I support the Israeli people.
I support the Palestinian people.
I do not support people who say that we need to support one and not the other.
I do not support Hamas.
I do not support the (current) Israeli government.
The ensuing Harvard situation?
Not very important in the grand scheme of things. There appears to be credible accusations of plagiarizing and she resigned, which is what she should do.
The active backlash against Woke curriculum?
I’m sure there is an active backlash against raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens, bright copper kettles and warm woolen mittens. Search hard enough, and you’ll find someone to complain about anything. That being said, if you would care to define “woke” or “woke curriculum,” perhaps we could have an interesting discussion about that. However, every time I’ve asked for YOUR definition of the “woke,” you always defer.
yes, the John Hopkins situation is indeed Woke
Is there is a John Hopkins situation? Let me investigate this. Oh, here it is. Some wacko (truly out there on the left) writes something and the University apologizes. Sounds like a reasonable response.
In contrast, DeSantis (one of the loudest of the anti-woke cheerleaders) says that black people benefited from slav ery and a good portion of the right imitate ‘see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.’ I could write a 10,000 word essay on all the things that have been said (and done) by the right that deserve condemnation but who have not been condemned.
Personally, the so-called “woke” agenda is pretty low in terms of importance to me. I’m more concerned about a Republican party that is parroting Russian talking points. I’m more concerned about a Republican party that cares little about climate change. I’m more concerned about a Republican party that embraces a wannabee dictator who himself feels the greatest kinship with real dictators. I’m more concerned about a Republican party that embraces a leader who won’t support our European allies. I’m more concerned about a Republican party that wants to transform this country into a white Christian-Nationalist country. I’m concerned that that the Republican party will go to great lengths to suppress voters. I’m concerned of a Republican party that is now looking to ban abortion nation-wide and is itching to turn back the clock on decisions such as Griswold v. Conn (contraception) and Loving v. Virginia. I’m concerned that for a society as rich as the US we lack universal healthcare. I’m concerned that the next election may be the last legitimate election I ever participate in the United States.
Did you read the Sunday NY Times? There was an article in which they quoted 17 of 45’s former cabinet-level appointees saying very unflattering things about him.
All of these things and more concern me much more than the so-called “woke” agenda. I understand everyone has different priorities. What is interesting is that just a couple hours ago I learned that one of the biggest purveyors of the anti-woke movement just dropped out of the Republican race. Apparently, his campaign against the “woke” agenda wasn’t as potent as he hoped it would be.
Now let’s see if this post gets moderated …
Well said
Please Pardon Potential re(P)eat… (MANY due to hyper filters)
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
January 22, 2024 at 8:48 am
Wt’s long winded excuse is the opposite of “well said.”
Let’s take a critica1 look.
“I support the [__] people.”
A nonsense non-answer, that simply avoids ALL of the context and crisis at hand.
This type of m0therh00d and apple pie is utter banal1ty, and the attempted excuse of, “I do not support people who say that we need to support one and not the other.” is the type of mealy-mouth running away from ANY principles that will provide exactly ZERO solutions to real world problems.
So much for “Left Principles” that Wt supposedly DOES support.
“The ensuing Harvard situation?
Not very important in the grand scheme of things. There appears to be credible accusations of plag1arizing and she resigned, which is what she should do.”
Where have you been, under a rock?
The fact that you think the W0ke captured Academia is “Not very important shows how very much afraid you are to open your eyes and see the world as it is.
Prof. Gay came under fire for her ant1-sem1 t1sm (you know, the issue you do not want to take an actual stand on), and THEN came under fire for rampant plag1arism with more than 50 documented instances.
You really think it “enough” that she step down as Dean (and in parting, v0m1t forth the WEAK ‘I’m sorry that I am a v1ct1m’ excuse she gave), and ONLY ‘retreat to her $900,000 a year professorship?
Really?
ANY student under her ‘tutelage’ with less than ONE TENTH of her transgressions would be summarily BOUNCED from the ‘Corporation.’
Your habit of “This is fine” while sitting in a room ablaze puts that little doggie to shame.
More “This is fine” from you with the contradictory “ active backlash against raindrops” and “Some wack0 (truly out there on the left) writes something”
Sorry, but your phrase of ‘wack0,’ while asserting ‘raindrops’ is the epitome of Motte and Bailey. Speaking of Motte and Baily, your assertion of, “However, every time I’ve asked for YOUR definition of the “woke,” you always defer.” is absolutely false, as I have provided to you the explicit definition through the links to Dr. James Lindsay. YOU choose to 1gn0re that which you find inconvenient.
That is ALL on you.
As to ANYTHING DeSantis may have said, that is NOT what I have said, so you do not get to try to put his words into my mouth. Let alone try to take anything out of context and spin it to attempt a point not under discussion. You want to dismiss wholesale actual definitions of Woke that someone was busted as saying the quiet part out loud, as if that somehow was not universal, but only “wack0,” and then paint ALL of anyone right of center with one brushstroke. Give Malcolm’s one-bucket back to him.
Your “This is fine” continues with your admission of, “Personally, the so-called “w0ke” agenda is pretty low in terms of importance to me. I’m more concerned about a Republican party that is…”
Yes, you reflect the 95% bias on critical issues that most attorneys have. Perhaps you simply need to readjust yourself and not get carried away with the Sprint Left and their attempts to shift the Overton Window.
“Did you read the Sunday NY Times?
I read the NY Times daily – but I read it critically, as it is nothing more than sloppy pr0paganda. You appear NOT to be able to read with any view of distinguishing anything, but merely read to reaffirm your already Sprint Left tendencies.
Wt’s v0mi1fest – Well said?
Most definitely not.
Alfred Nobel, the inventor of dynamite and other safer-to-handle explosive compositions, and a holder of over 350 patents, came to a similar conclusion late in life and so, rather than being remembered as a “merchant of death”, dedicated much of his estate to prizes for persons whose discoveries confer the “greatest benefit on mankind”.
Careful Mark, there is a certain person here that takes on a variety of historical pseudonyms that might be upset with your reference to Nobel as the inventor of dynamite.
PhilosophyO is an interesting thread.
Agreed,
But let’s be careful, lest we “micro-aggress” BobM…
Education and technology are the only lasting things we give our children. Material things disintegrate into dust, the money never lasts, and energy degrades with entropy. As patent practitioners, we are the holy scriveners which preserves the knowledge gained by our generation that is easily lost in time.
MLK gave his life peacefully seeking racial equality and we are no closer to “his dream” than we were 60 years ago despite all the protests and speeches. Technology has brought the Arab spring and freed Ukraine from a corrupt Kremlin puppet. I think ignoring the external world as MLK suggests is willful blindness to the material world’s impact on our lives through improved information technology and “connectedness.”
The spiritual and moral internal world may be what many of find worth living for but the technological is was makes modern life possible. As a contractor for the DOE, facing the challenges of peak oil causing the starvation of 30% population and mitigating the extinction level impact of climate change is just as important as MLK’s successful goals of school integration and equal protection under the law. Both external and internal worlds need to be improved and balance of work on both the external and internal is required.
Rather, the manifesto argues that technological advancement is inherently virtuous and that it leads to material abundance and economic growth, which, in his framework, are synonymous with human flourishing. This approach is obviously lacking because it calls for hollow growth without purpose — a definition synonymous with a cancer.
I disagree with this characterization and analogy. My comments are couched (pun intended) in terms of the US intellectual property system, although your comments only touch upon them slightly.
Technological advancement alone does not necessarily lead to growth. Not all technological advancements are commercialized (i.e., put into widespread practice). Whether a particular technology is commercialized (or not) is regulated by capitalism in that investments in a particular technology are made by private actors – each having their own motivations but generally looking to maximize return on their investment. Those technologies with a higher value to society will generally attract more capital than those technologies that society deems less valuable. Consequently, there is no unchecked growth (e.g., growth merely for growth’s sake). Rather, in an efficient market, growth follows the technological advancements deemed (by society as a whole) to have greater value.
However, I worry that tunnel vision techno-optimism loses sight of deeper human needs – connection, compassion, intimacy, and personal growth.
Some of these can be addressed with technology. Others cannot. If there is a great enough need, someone(s) is/are going to be looking for a solution. That is the wisdom of capitalism. If some problem isn’t attracting enough attention, then society, as a whole, has determined that this problem is not worth solving.
Capitalism gets criticized because society, as a whole, oftentimes has priorities that differ from the priorities of the individuals in that society. When those priorities don’t match, the system gets criticized by those individuals who believe their individual priorities are being ignored. That being said, our society does recognize that certain societal problems don’t get enough attention and empowers the government to intervene to address those problems.
In either situation, what is the role of intellectual property? To me, strong intellectual property rights rewards those that develop solutions to problems. And if the government participates in developing those solutions, they should be able to take advantage of the intellectual property rights attached to those solutions.
For many across the world, addictive distraction technology is exacerbating King’s problems of “ethical infancy” and “poverty of spirit.” Rather than take the time necessary to develop an internal world of values, it is easier for us to endlessly watch, scroll, and game, losing ourselves in validation-seeking and superficial status.
I’m not sure of the point you are trying to make here as you are delving more into abstractions than specifics. Are you criticizing intellectual property directed towards entertainment?
But the system allows us all to operate without an ethical vision and instead to walk in an internal stupor of moral complacency. I am as guilty as anyone of falling into this trap of focusing exclusively on the technical and market details while avoiding the harder questions of ethics.
Again, you are really abstracting here without providing specifics (either as to the problems you see or the solutions you want to achieve) that would greatly help in understanding your positions. What kind of ethical vision do want the system to have? Importantly, do you believe your ethical vision matches the ethics of society? Or is it possible that different people can have (very) different ethical visions?
That developing our moral compass can guide our external actions, and that some technology can truly help in advancing our moral and spiritual growth, and the human condition
To rephrase the point I just made, your moral compass can be different that someone else’s moral compass. If so, how should we determine whose moral compass should take precedence?
Getting back to my original points, there is a difference between innovating and making that innovation widespread (i.e., commercializing it). I believe that we should NOT attempt to cabin innovation in any significant way. In other words, no one person’s moral compass should determine whether any particular technology is eligible for intellectual property protection. Ultimately, under capitalism, innovations that society (as a whole) values will attract capital. And innovations that society (as a whole) does not value will die on vine. If groups (with different moral compasses) want to commercialize different types of innovations, capitalism allows for that as well.
What I don’t want to see is bureaucrats/judges making decisions (using their own moral compass or bowing to someone else’s moral compass) to determine what technology should (or should not) be incentivized by our intellectual property system.
This:
To rephrase the point I just made, your moral compass can be different that someone else’s moral compass. If so, how should we determine whose moral compass should take precedence?
Has been my point for many years now.
The Sprint Left is a religion in which THEY think that they have ‘the final answer,” that “history is over,” and that THEY must force that on everyone (which makes FORCE the ultimate goal).
It is endemic with “Don’t Question The Science” (when the basis of Science IS questioning).
It is the religion of anti-innovation, because “I don’t like that kind of innovation” as exemplified overtly by Malcolm (and subversively by the likes of Greg).
The Sprint Left is a religion in which THEY think that they have ‘the final answer,” that “history is over,” and that THEY must force that on everyone (which makes FORCE the ultimate goal).
In case you’ve forgotten (or perhaps just neglected to mention), the Sprint Right has been quite open and adamant in their desire to force their religion upon everyone.
Which Sprint Right is that?
Serious question.
As most all people holding civil discourse along the spectrum have LONG been quick to denounce that actual Sprint Right, AND the Spring Right definitely do not have the same leverage as the Sprint Left in many of such as Mainstream Media, and Academia, I want to make sure I understand what entities you think ARE “Sprint Right” (as opposed to those that are Central, but may only appear to be ‘right’ due to an Overton shift OF the Sprint Left).
As you may not recall, I myself HAVE been vocal against authoritarianism from either side of the aisle.
In today’s society though, the far greater danger is from Authoritarian Left.
And even going back 200 years or so, the FAR greater damage to the World has come from Authoritarian Left.
wow… another autocorrect snuck in there…
Which Sprint Right is that?
You know .. the overt fa cis m, ra cis m, calls for a religious state. Just look at the comments from Boebert, MTG, Hawley. What did Trump say recently about “poisoning the blood” of America? Do you know where that is from? Who do you think real-life Na zees and white supremacists support? It isn’t the left.
As you may not recall, I myself HAVE been vocal against authoritarianism from either side of the aisle.
Yet you use the language of MAGA all the time. No one looking to engage in civil discourse uses the phrase “woke,” which has taken on a meaning very different than it’s original usage. Anyone I’m seen who use that term has clearly established themselves by their words/actions as being firmly planted on the far right.
In today’s society though, the far greater danger is from Authoritarian Left.
LOL. The authoritarian left didn’t try to disrupt the normal exchange of power just 3 years ago. The authoritarian right wants to turn the US into the American Taliban, where religion rules (so long as you are practicing the ‘right’ religion). Have you not been paying attention?
The right is worried about trans boys in girl’s bathrooms and whether minorities can get preferences for jobs whereas the left is worried about climate change, universal health care, and the right looking to disenfranchise millions of voters.
I’m not enamored with everything the left does, but at least they are committed to American democracy — something I don’t see from the right.
I don’t care for nor follow Boebert and MTG too much, but Hawley is certainly not Sprint Right.
I think that you are exaggerating – and more than just a little – this white supremacy thing (that IS a Sprint Left dog whistle).
As I have stated, most all of the rest of the spectrum readily decry TRUE N A Z I I S M. Jordan Peterson covers this supremely well.
Wait – you do not consider Jordan Peterson Sprint Right, do you?
“Yet you use the language of MAGA all the time. No one looking to engage in civil discourse uses the phrase “woke,””
Yeah, I will call B$ on that – my language “of MAGA” is only to the point that the language I use is accurate. And please, spare me the “civil discourse” bit – Woke deserves NO SENSE of civility. Your assertion that people that use the term ‘must be Far Right is readily shown to be error in the number of people that ARE Left of Center and use that term – I have shared many of them, including Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying of the Darkhorse podcast.
That you want to classify the spectrum as Far Right only reveals that YOU have Sprint Left.
Move that Overton Window back to proper center, thank you.
As to Jan. 6, I see that you have drunk the Kool-Aid and see “insurrection” that was FAR MORE PEACEFUL than the entire summer long “Mostly Peaceful” r10ts. There was NO attempt to create any sort of American Taliban, and that you think so is purely a discredit to your cognitions, which – evidently – have taken leave.
I most certainly have been paying attention. The real question is, have you?
Your mouthing of (mere) right and left – as to what issues may occupy a normal spectrum – are just not at point here.
Stay on Point as to the dangers of authoritarianism. Your “committed to American democracy” is strictly a JOKE – clearly YOU have not been paying attention to the shenanigans of the DNC as they have entirely dis-enranchised ANY option other than the selected puppet of Biden.
Stick to patent law Wt. Politics is most definitely a BLIND spot for you.
Question: Is Billy that incredibly mentally damaged that he thinks the Dem Party’s preference for Biden (the current President, finishing his first term) is a prime example of “anti-democracy” in the US today?
Answer: Yes he is that mentally damaged but that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
Wow – you tell me how the DNC is doing as it “extolls” the “Democracy” of you only get one choice – a choice that for polled Democrats, 70% did not want.
But go ahead – retreat to that Sprint Left bubble and pretend that 1984ism do not abound under the Biden administration.
It’s rather cute how your Accuse Others meme plays out.
I have shared many of them, including Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying of the Darkhorse podcast.
Wasn’t Dr. James Lindsay on your list. Where did I see that name recently? Hmmm … oh here it is. What do they say about birds of a feather?
Bret Weinstein … going on his Twitter account, what do I find? Let’s see, here is RFK Jr. retweeting BW’s interview with Tucker Carlson. What did I say about bird’s of a feather?
What can I find out about Heather Heying? Okay … BW’s spouse. From her wikipedia page about the book she and her husband wrote: “Reviewing it for The Guardian, Stuart J. Ritchie wrote that the authors ‘lazily repeat false information from other pop-science books.'” Here is another excerpt: “Heying has said that she has taken ivermectin to guard against COVID-19 and that she and Weinstein have not been vaccinated “because we have fears [about the side-effects of the COVID-19 vaccines], as we have discussed at length on this podcast.” Ivermectin? Seriously?
As to Jan. 6, I see that you have drunk the Kool-Aid and see “insurrection” that was FAR MORE PEACEFUL than the entire summer long “Mostly Peaceful” r10ts.
I watched 1/6 live on TV. Don’t fool me. As for the BLM ri0ts, any violence associated with them were decried by those on the left. One side was angry with the historical mistreatment (including murder) of blacks by police and another side was angry because their pundits told them lies about an election being stolen.
There was NO attempt to create any sort of American Taliban
You aren’t paying attention to what your heroes are saying, are you?
clearly YOU have not been paying attention to the shenanigans of the DNC as they have entirely dis-enranchised ANY option other than the selected puppet of Biden
Entirely disenfranchised? The candidate list for the 2024 South Carolina Democratic Party Presidential Primary includes Joe Biden, Dean Phillips, and Marianne Williamson. Perhaps you are not aware but typically there is not a lot of competition in primaries for an incumbent president. Name me all of Trump’s competitor’s for the 2020 primary? The official delegate count was: Trump (2549), Bill Weld (1). Trump won 93.99% of all the ballots cast — truly a win the scale of which even communist USSR would be proud of.
“Perhaps you are not aware but typically there is not a lot of competition in primaries for an incumbent president.”
You’re attempting to debate somebody who thinks that Jordan Peterson is an “intellectual.”
Good luck.
You’re gonna need it.
Your comments only show your One-Bucket syndrome.
Stop Sprinting Left.
As to: “any violence associated with them were decried by those on the left.”
Most definitely not so – by certain politicians, by Mainstream Media. Rather than ‘decry,’ much violence was instead either “minimized” (hence the running joke of Mostly Peaceful) or supported and defended.
As to any sense of American Taliban, I am most definitely paying attention to wide arena of people – your notion of “my heroes” is disingenuous at best.
“The candidate list for the 2024 South Carolina Democratic Party Presidential Primary includes Joe Biden, Dean Phillips, and Marianne Williamson. ”
one – and there are more than one that ONLY list Joe Biden; the DNC has their machinations afoot with ORDER of primaries directly for Biden’s benefit, AND the DNC refused to support ANY debates based on the printed assertions that ONLY Joe Biden is the candidate.
Your recall of Trump candidate is also HIGHLY selective – timing anyone?
Get out of the political discussions Wt – you are cratering your credibility.
Smelly,
That you think that Dr. Jordan Peterson is not an intellectual says MORE about you (and not in a good way) than it does about me.
Let’s see you choose to actually share something cogent.
I’m not the least bit surprised that a basement dwelling !incel like you thinks he’s an intellectual.
The empty minded, and misaimed, ad hominem is a Malcolm tactic.
But you be you.
Another item for you to ‘explain’ Wt….
link to patentlyo.com
I’m definitely not a fan of WT’s patent maximalist rhetoric but it’s good to know he’s not a reality-denying schm-ck with wingnert nonsense pouring out of his ears like the usual suspects here.
None of this will register with Glibertarian Billy, however, who likes to pretend that he is a “centrist” while he recites every MAGAt script in the book.
Your KNOWN propensity of one-bucketing makes everyone who does not agree with you appear — to you — for be a MAGAt…
Yet you run at the collapse of your bucket, given the Israel/Hamas situation.
Tell us Malcolm, what are your views there? Havn’t you been fed your script on that narrative yet?
^^^ at 18.1.1.1.2.2, instead of engaging on the merits – Malcolm jumps to his usual mis-aimed attempts at insults.
Go figure.
link to patentlyo.com
As much as I despise Big Bank (and this person in particular), this is a reflection on the Sprint Left tactic of “One-Bucketing:”
link to facebook.com
WT, you were wrong about the laptop. Review our arguments. You need to reset yourself. Try to become an American. Go to different news sources. Your credibility is at zero.
It is recognized as the Sprint Left Lemming Effect.
An offshoot of the Motte and Bailey tactics of the hard core Sprint Left.
Shall I (again) provide the link to the explanation of the Motte and Bailey tactic? Those who believe in the religion of the Sprint Left will only clutch tight their eyes (again).
I’ve got a long response to your laptop post elsewhere. Unfortunately, it is stuck in “moderation.”
However, let me hit some of the highlights:
1) Chain of custody issues cloud the veracity of what is contained therein — nothing you cited changes that fact
2) Russia wants a civil war in US and is waging a disinformation campaign (since at least 2016) with right wing media parroting Russia talking points
3) Evidence shows that portions of the data of the laptop (lots of versions floating around) cannot be authenticated
4) Fox didn’t paid $787M because they were being honest — don’t believe everything you read from the right
5) Biden’s son is troubled (have you looked at Don Jr.?) — what of it?
Despite existence of laptop and 3 years after he took office, and the Republicans are still looking for things to impeach Biden on.
One would think that there would be public impeachment hearings already if they had anything (or the laptop amounted to anything).
Lastly — Russia, they have a friend in you.
Your bias and “This is fine” mantra is getting the better of you here as well, Wt.
1) You act as if no one EVER has had to deal with chain of custody issues and thus ANY of the actual incriminating items must be dismissed wholesale – even items WELL VERIFIED through other channels (like Biden’s rampant L I E S about interactions with his son’s foreign dealings and influence peddling, including enemies of the State).
Wake up son.
2) You A$$ ume that anything “right’ that MAY match a “Russion talking point” MUST BE Russian and must be dismissed out of hand.
This is painfully false, and gives cover to ALL Sprint Left Overton Window shift attempts.
3) See 1) – this just is not insurmountable (and, in contrast, you appear totally fine with ANY Left tampering of evidence, be it Hillary’s massive destruction or the convenient destruction of J6 evidence immediately before that evidence was to go to those that do not share the Desired Narrative.
“This is fine.”
As to 4), you are – again – attempting to kick up dust and conflate matters.
As to 5), this is pure nonsense, as the “what of it” is directly linked to improper action of Joe Biden and his interactions WITH his “troubled son.” Please stop the pr0paganda nonsense of “just a p00r boy.”
Bismillah!
The “Russia Russia Russia” accusation has been shown to be the workings of Hillary.
That you repeat it shows you to be hopelessly mired in Sprint Left pr0paganda.
OT, but per an AIPLA note it is nearly a year since the en banc Federal Circuit held oral argument in LKQ Corp. v. GM Global Tech, and 5 years since the Court took any other case en banc, much less a design patent case. Any information on what is holding it up? It will be fundamental for the 103 test for design patents.
In response to the last paragraph question of this blog:
One small but important step for improved ethics in lawyers is simply better and faster attorney disciplinary actions. It should not take years, if ever, to disbar or seriously discipline attorneys engaged in illegal or unethical activities. Civil suits for defamation may also be effective in some cases. Nor are FRCP Rule 11 and other attorney sanctions for frivolous, or even baseless, lawsuits enforced nearly as often, or as strongly, as the could be. Well-publicized cases may also deter others.
Word.
So…..
NO actual need for subverting patent law then.
Perhaps Malcolm’s “word” will be revisited by Malcolm.
It would be rewarding if MLK’s birthday/holiday became a kind of secular Christmas- the day of the year where we contemplate the meanings we make of this life. Where we rise above our animal history to a greater plane.
Ironic (everything is) because he was a man of religion, but almost everyone regards science and technology as a kind of anti-religion; a realm of physical fact where belief has no value. Yet we dimly recognize life itself as a kind of technology, and the ecology of natural selection as a kind of a market.
Nearly everyone- from the most committed racists to the most liberal dreamers- accept evolutionary cause and effect as knowable truths. The human mind as a working computer programmed to advance its owner is hardly novel. If there is a universal religion today, it must be sociobiology.
And if there is one core truth in sociobiology, it’s In Group Amity / Out Group Enmity We are hard wired to love and protect those we perceive to be In Group, and to hate and destroy those we perceive to be Out Group.
King, Gandhi, Pope Francis, and uncounted unknowns have had the widest visions of their In Groups, while the uncounted worst nihilists have In Groups that barely extend beyond their own skulls.
The human mind hasn’t changed a bit since the savannah. Technology moves exponentially faster than evolution.
But the human mind is easily- too easily- hackable, and the challenge that faces humankind is which set of hackers will succeed in the end.
Those that hack larger and larger In-Groups are the better people. MLK was a hacker of the best kind. I can think of a prominent hacker of the worst kind right now, and so can everyone else reading this.
Thanks for the post Prof Couch. Hope you do it every year.
Read this some 40 years ago or so:
link to en.wikipedia.org
Please Pardon Potential re(P)eat…
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
January 16, 2024 at 2:04 pm
Read this some 40 years ago or so:
link to en.wikipedia.org
Professor Crouch, thank you for tackling the tough ethics topic. Well done.
Since our technological advances necessarily involve interaction with the US Patent and Trademark Office, the IP community has a right to know how USPTO deciding officials were being trained to work together as a team to make those hard decisions.
Take a look at this so called team building, diversity training showing how the USPTO required GS15 and SES employees “to operate without an ethical vision and instead to walk in an internal stupor of moral complacency.”
My objections to these types of activities at the USPTO took buckets of moral courage yet was akin to committing professional hari-kari.
Current day USPTO leadership clearly must value these 2014 mindsets, as (i) responsible managing officials were retained/protected/promoted, (ii) the agency has not disowned or walked back these activities and (iii) the agency has not provided the IP community with any current, updated DEI type team building or bias awareness exercises.
link to linkedin.com
Where does the quote come from, please? Is it accurate? Can it really be that the USPTO positively requires its employees to:
“….walk in an internal stupor of moral complacency.”
Seems a bit unlikely to me.
“Seems a bit unlikely to me.”
Why?
Miss Burke’s exploits have been over several different fora of social media, and have been vouched for.
But you seem to not want to accept – what is plainly presented.
Much like MANY of the things that I have provided to you – on nigh countless occasions, you — when confronted with views not the ones you want — find that your horses will not drink at the well of wisdom to which they have been brought.
This consistency of yours – shown with your posts for well over a decade now – rather strongly hint that your platitudes of well-wishing in this thread are more than a bit shallow.
Thank you for the opportunity to clarify- the quote comes from Prof Crouch’s posting above. Here it is in full context.
Our patent laws provide blind faith in technical innovation, and I strongly believe that innovation usually provide a net benefit. But the system allows us all to operate without an ethical vision and instead to walk in an internal stupor of moral complacency. I am as guilty as anyone of falling into this trap of focusing exclusively on the technical and market details while avoiding the harder questions of ethics. I have repeatedly found myself compartmentalizing my professional life from my personal values. This life-work disconnect leads to a kind of ethical dissonance and lack of alignment, that over the years can infect all areas of a person’s life, personal and professional.
Reading Prof Crouch’s post, cited above, it reminded me of how all of us, even officials at the USPTO can have ethical visions blurred.
Ah. Thanks for the clarification. Let me see if I now understand you correctly. In short, you have a problem with “diversity”.
1. Dennis avers that it is “the system” which allows us all to operate in a morally complacent stupor.
2. You then assert that the USPTO, through its diversity training procedures,”requires” its operators, as a condition of their advancement through the ranks, to fall into precisely that complacent stupor, and
3. As the basis for your assertion, you cite USPTO training materials from 2014 which
4. are still in use today despite your sustained objections to them, at extreme sacrifice to your own professional advancement.
Or have I once again not grasped accurately what you want to say?
The piece reminds me of an exchange I had on the ‘phone some months ago, with a US patent attorney. By chance, the conversation turned to an issue currently being worked over, in “the media”. I forget what it was. Doesn’t matter.
I asked: is there not serious debate about this, between attorneys, inside the USA?
My correspondent laughed and told me that the days of “debate” ended some time ago. There is no civilised “debate” any more, he told me, about any issue that might be contentious. Instead, people don’t go near it. For good reason.
This is all going to come to light again as we move into the 2024 national election season.
2024 is a big year for democracy. Four thousand million voters in democracies will be voting, not just in USA but also in, amongst many countries, India and the UK. In May there will be elections for the Parliament of the European Union and it’s not looking good for parties defending the centre ground there. The demagogues and populists offering solutions to big problems; the more complex the problem the more facile the “solution” they advocate: they are the ones with their noses in front, also in Western Europe.
Really Dennis? You can google the topic and find countless videos of professors talking about the lack of academic freedom. Of not getting tenure if they don’t toe the Woke line. Of being driven out of universities if they don’t toe the Woke line. Of the social sciences being dominated by the Woke and not tolerating any dissent and not hiring or giving tenure to any professor who holds conservative views.
Please try to live in reality. Just look at the recent rating of Harvard as having essentially no free speech. Toe the line or the Woke goons will come for you.
I certainly have not seen it in the patent academic world or here at the University of Missouri. Before he was Senator, Josh Hawley was a law professor and my colleague right here at Mizzou Law. The faculty voted to give him tenure. The only reason he didn’t become tenured is that he left to pursue politics.
You haven’t seen it in the patent world? Come on. Almost all the journal articles you post on here are Woke and often they are supported by Lemley. It is pretty clear that the big corporations are driving who is hired in the patent world as professors. Yes, there are some exceptions. Highly distinguished people can be the exception. And there are a couple of universities like GMU that buck the trend.
Plus, I’ve posted before the article in the NY Times about Google paying law professors to write academic papers to their abstracts for large sums of money in the 10’s of thousands of dollars.
Please try to represent what is really going on in the world.
You should note too that people who write about these things such as Pinker say that places like math and I presume patent law are the last places where the Woke haven’t taken over but are taking over now.
Correct – and the indoctrination is being set AT the onset of math and science tutelage.
+1
One institute of higher learning — Rice University in Houston — created a 101 course entitled “Afrochemisrty.” Seriously? No, it is not the chemistry involved in the Afro hairstyle.
Rice used to call themselves the Harvard of the west. They have proved it here.
link to courses.rice.edu
“Description: Students will apply chemical tools and analysis to understand Black life in the U.S. and students will implement African American sensibilities to analyze chemistry. Diverse historical and contemporary scientists, intellectuals, and chemical discoveries will inform personal reflections and proposals for addressing inequities in chemistry and chemical education. This course will be accessible to students from a variety of backgrounds including STEM and non-STEM disciplines. No prior knowledge of chemistry or African American studies is required for engagement in this course.”
There is no final exam.
People that come to this country, I expect them to retain their own language but learn English. So if I am sure most Americsns feel the same, why can’t blacks retain their culture, and pass it on to the generations following them?
Why would this class offend you?
If there is no final exam, it probably is not graded except for being marked present.
The offense is in the capture of a purely rational subject, to which there is NO NEED for any injection of culture.
MOST ALL hard sciences have been this way – for centuries.
Sarah, there is no chemistry only for black people, or white people, or brown people, or purple people. There is just chemistry.
Just like there is no “talking white” just because someone is speaking grammatically correct. My daughters had black friends in college and high school who were accused by blacks that they were talking white. In both instances, the black friends were from another country, or their parents were.
When you start overlaying everything with race, you divide.
PM,
+1
Only one side of the aisle is playing the Critical Race Division Card. As much as Wt wants to assert that the right side of the aisle is “Far Right,” it just is not so, and the bias has been presented in an actual study to which I provided a link to the article discussing it – see Post 23 – (on ‘hot topic’ items, lawyers writ large are EXTREMELY biased left. It is only through their Sprint Left Overton Window shift, does it appear that even Left-Central people are ‘Far Right.’
EXACTLY LIKE YOUJ
JUST DID.
We need to look at what is going on in Israel and see this is a mirror lesson. Putting someone back in power that should have been prosecuted but was not… is just that a mirror we need to see. I think Joe made a terrible mistake. But I won’t vote for the other guy. We have had 4 years to pick another. Why they haven’t should not be because someone is in the Whitehouse already. It is because that is what they do. Change it.
PM,
One only has to look at the musings of Wt to see the Sprint Left bias and attempted equating of ANYTHING critical of the Sprint Left to a MUST BE Russian Collusion status to see how very desperate the Sprint Left are to NOT see all the facts on the table.