Lifeboat Foundation

Please, declare that I am wrong if I say that my proof stands undefeated that the citizens of the U.S. are currently subject to an attempt on their lives by the European Nuclear Research Council.

(The probability that the planet will be shrunk to 2 cm in a few years’ time is of the order of 8 percent if the LHC experiment is not halted immediately, according to my calculations based on Einstein’s equivalence principle published three years ago.)

I desire nothing more than a refutation but no scientist dares come forward so far. Ask Stephen Hawking.

Only your authority can cut through the Gordian knot. I subject myself to your judgment.

Otto E. Rossler, chaos researcher, University of Tubingen, Germany (For J.O.R., May 3, 2011)

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

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

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

Dear Lifeboat Foundation Family & Friends,

Here’s an executive summary of the thesis I posted a few days ago.

Abstract: This brief communique tables evolutionarily stable strategy for the problem of sustainable economic development on earth and other earth-like planets. In order to accomplish the task at hand with so few words, we hit the ground running with an exploration of Bertrand Russell’s conjecture that economic power is a derivative function of military power. Next we contextualize the formidable obstacle presented by teleological thinking. Third, we introduce Truly Non-cooperative Games – axioms and complimentary negotiation models developed to analyze a myriad of politico-economic problems, including the problem of sustainable economic development. Here we derive, contextualize, and utilize The Principle of Relative Insularity (a unified theory of value which unites economics, astrophysics, and biology) to solve the problem at hand: In the light of evolution, Popper’s solution to Hume’s problem of induction, and within a simplified game-theoretical context, we find winning economic development strategy for Islands and Relatively Insular States (RIS) = Maximum Ecological Preservation, and Globalized Economic Military Superpowers (GEMS) = Maximum Economic Development. Surprisingly, perhaps, we also discover these inherently opposed development strategies represent a strategic equilibrium, and thus evolutionarily stable strategy at the global level. Finally, we offer a synthetic narrative in which we explore several crucial logical implications that follow from our findings, especially as they relate to central banking, monetary policy, investment strategy, leisure activity selection, political ideals, and the ancient wisdom of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Thanks for reading!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Lifeboat Foundation Family & Friends,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As leaders of calorie restriction research and practice, Meredith Averill and I often participate in media events. A recent news conference covered rapidly evolving aspects of calorie restriction research that anyone could benefit from, whether they choose to follow a low-calorie lifestyle or not. Therefore, we thought it appropriate to share the details of the event with the Lifeboat Foundation audience.

The conference was hosted by the American Federation of Aging Research (AFAR). AFAR is a forward-looking organization that provides financial support for early- and mid-career scientists who are developing careers in the study of aging.

This conference, entitled “You are What you Don’t Eat!” presented two world-famous CR scientists, Drs. Luigi Fontana and Donald Ingram. After an introduction from AFAR’s board member, Dr. Jack Watters, both scientists shared many profound insights that could extend healthy lifespan for millions of people.

Dr. Fontana first reminded us how important calorie restriction research is for the health and financial viability of the health care system: “Cardiovascular disease (CVD), cancer, stroke and diabetes account for nearly 70% of the deaths in the United States and Europe. About 80% of adults over 65 years of age have at least one chronic disease, and 50% have two or more of these chronic diseases that accelerate the aging process¹ .” The point he makes is that health care systems, especially with our rapidly aging population cannot sustain this large number of people with disease.

Continue reading “"You are What you Don't Eat!"” »

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

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

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

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

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