in the name of Jesus Christ out out in the name of Jesus Christ be cast out be cast out can you bring him here come on bring him here so can you see how demons operate they are behind demons are behind the godless activities and destructive elements you see around they are destruction in the name of Jesus Christ leave him leave him leave him leave him all of you he overpower all of you with Jesus Christ our majority in the name of Jesus Christ thank you Lord in Jesus name amen how come my brother could you share what were the things you struggled with in your life before that brought you to the point of your deliverance at the race to deliver conference anger had problem with my jobs couldn't keep friendships just always had a problem keeping things how did you know like what would you what did you feel how did you know like you had a lot of anger how did it affect your daily life well every time I get a job or a friendship it always kind of push away it always it wouldn't last it affected my daily life certain things like my marriage and I mean life was just it was horrible and I know that you mentioned to me earlier that you always sense that rage inside of you and you realize that there was something wrong and that affected even your marriage to the point of divorce is that true yes it is very true okay and how did you come to the race to deliver conference who invited you my leader actually invited me he he talked about it and kind of recommended everybody show up and I'm very very happy I did very very life changing very very life changing now we want to come on let's put our hands together for God could you please share what were you experiencing during that deliverance what did you feel well while I was when I got delivered I didn't feel anything I mean I was blacked out but before I mean it was like I was on fire like I when I walked in that place it just everything inside me was telling me hey leave you don't need to be here just some excuse my mind just tell me get out here and I mean I've been to conferences before I've done all this but it just this time I stood there and it just every time John she would get close every time the presence got get close I've won run literally run and I couldn't because God want me to be there the Holy Spirit put me there to to change my life forever come on amen amen amen that is awesome praise God and how is your life now after the deliverance what changes do you see I probably have every change in the world oh man I got a beautiful wife a baby sorry to put you on the spot we're expecting our boy healthy baby we're not even close to a divorce I mean our marriage is flourishing beyond anything you can even imagine come on praise God I I was struggling with jobs for a while and what after this deliverance when I gave it all God and I started trusting him I have two full-time jobs that pay even anything I could even imagine that only God could done in my life there's no other way come on put your hands together our God is good breakthrough after breakthrough so after all these years struggling with the job couldn't hold the job now you have two jobs and I know that you mentioned to me that you had another job opportunity that you had to turn away right yes I actually my wife mentioned the job is a pretty big job but we'll pay more but I prayed about it and it's just one of those things where if God doesn't set me in that place where I need to be I don't need to accept it and I've learned that okay and would you please share how do you feel do you feel that spirit of rage and anger inside of you like you used to not one sense that deliverance ever since I got delivered I felt just a joy of love just the want to be able to help others and just to go out and just show love and joy and let people know that this is real this is not a joke that life without God is is nothing come on let's put our hands together for God our God is good and this is what happens when the evil spirit is removed a person can prosper there is no closed doors the doors are open and now God can move through that person now he also mentioned that it's it became so easy for him to pray it became so easy for him to just see God daily where before his deliverance that evil spirit was stopping him constantly and right now things changed and we praise God for that would you please share word of advice for people who might be struggling with anger or the things that they notice that are not normal in their lives what would you tell them if you're struggling with any problem whether it be anger whether a disease whether whatever it is give it fully to God and trust knowing that even if you don't see a sign have faith that God is going to work miracles in your life because if he can work a miracle in my life he can do it in anybody else's


Next up, we have Amna Rizvi Toner, a pharmacist by training, but also a PhD candidate in the Clinical Pharmacy Translational Science Program. Although her dissertation research focuses only on improving cancer care, she hopes to work toward improving healthcare for all. And so in her talk titled More than Skin Deep, Racism in Healthcare, she explores how healthcare disparities continue to persist despite widespread awareness. Racism is detrimental to the health of Americans, but the way in which it appears is not always obvious. The COVID-19 pandemic shed light on many examples of systemic racism, including previously unknown and seemingly innocuous sources of harm. Amna's talk will present one of these cases in detail alongside relevant political and historical context. But some interesting facts about Amna is that in 2022, she knocked on over 3,000 doors in the last election cycle to advocate for reproductive rights, and she also enjoys buying books she doesn't have time to read. Please join me in welcoming Amna. Thanks, Chloe. Okay. So let's go back to the end of the world. It's March 2020, and the world has come to a halt. Obviously, America has as well. Some of you Michiganders might recall receiving this public safety alert on your phone, where we were told to stay at home to prevent the spread of the COVID-19 virus.  We were told this repeatedly. As the pandemic grew on and the cases surged, we stayed in isolation and watched horrifying news around the clock. We saw the rise in cases lead to the possible rationing of medical equipment and the actual rationing of medical equipment. We saw arguments about who should get this medical equipment that can save lives. And we kept seeing hospitalizations rise. They rose so much, both the hospitalizations and the deaths from COVID, that hospitals started to rely on refrigerated trucks to store the bodies. They had to run out of space. The city of Detroit had one of those hospitals that used refrigerated trucks as standing morgues. So I'm going to pause here for a second, a minute, and ask you all to imagine that you are a person of color. Some of us don't have to imagine very hard.  You have a fever. Your throat hurts so bad, you feel like it's on fire.  You drive yourself to the ER. It's crowded. It's busy. There's a lot of people there. The nurse comes and hurriedly places a pulse oximeter on your finger. When the reading flashes, she noticeably relaxes, and she hurries on to the next patient who needs her care. But you're sitting there still confused, still breathless, wondering what to do. Someone tells you, it's OK. You're not an urgent case. Your blood oxygen level wasn't high enough to warrant more care. You can go home. You think, maybe I'm overreacting. Maybe it's all in my head. But you still can't breathe.  This time you have to call an ambulance. The ambulance comes, and in your case now is deemed urgent. You're admitted to the intensive care unit, where along with the pulse oximeter that looks at your blood oxygen level, they also draw a sample of blood to test more accurately what the oxygen level in your blood is, finding out that it's actually very low, while the pulse oximeter still shows that your value is high and you don't need urgent care. The doctors are puzzled. But they say, it's OK. You're here now. We can give you the care that you need. But that information would have been nice yesterday and potentially saved you a trip to the ICU. So what's going on? Why can't you breathe? Researchers at the University of Michigan found that black patients were three times more likely than white patients to have hidden levels of low oxygen in their blood when using pulse oximeters. Pulse oximeters, as I've mentioned, are these little devices that clip onto your finger. Some of you have probably used them before. And they display your blood oxygen level. However, the doctors finding this discrepancy noticed that when a more accurate test was taken, the elevated blood oxygen level showing that the patient was fine was actually incorrect and the patient needed urgent care. So why is this important? It's important because during the pandemic, during the worst times, they needed to use a way to prioritize patients. Well, if your blood oxygen level was high enough on this pulse oximeter, then you were fine. You could go home. You didn't need to be admitted. You didn't need supplemental oxygen or to be monitored further under the care of a doctor and a health care team. But the problem is for patients of color, their values were incorrect. They were being wrongly sent home. One of the researchers who published now, there's many studies that have been published talking about the death rates in patients of color due to this error. One of the researchers states that there's no doubt in her mind that patients were sent home to die from COVID-19 because of the pulse oximeter. So let's take a minute to back up and talk about how the pulse oximeter works.  Well, guess what else absorbs the light? Melanin. And melanin is present in higher concentrations in people of color. So 1976, you might be wondering why we did not know about this problem before. Well, we did. 1976, scientists had noted that the machine needed to be calibrated to patients of color, people of color, in order to provide accurate results because melanin interferes with the absorption of the light. I'll do the math for you. 1976 was 44 years prior to 2020 and 48 years prior to today, 2024. So the question might not be, why was it not known? I think the question is, why was it not prioritized? Why did nothing change? Why did we not do anything to fix this problem before it became an even bigger problem in tragedy? So why? Well, one of the answers is systemic racism. Systemic racism encompasses many different levels of racism that can be institutional, interpersonal, internalized, and we'll make you read the table, but essentially systemic racism is present in medicine and in healthcare. It was present in the past and it's present today. As we see with this example with the pulse oximeter. Systemic racism, in fact, is so embedded in systems that it's often assumed to reflect the natural inevitable order of things. So I'd like to draw your attention to the red box there, January 18th, 2024, a little over a month ago. No progress has been made since all these research studies came out showing that this error, it's the error that continues to take place in hospitals and critical patients where nurses, physicians, different members of the healthcare team used that blood oxygen level to see how much care they need to provide, who they need to prioritize. Nothing has happened since. And now one of the physicians that was on the papers publishing about this problem is suing the developers of the device to see if we can get somewhere. But 2024. So I think there's really not much difference between the systemic racism that people of color experienced in the past from the systemic racism that they experienced today. But I hope we've seen enough. And I hope that the first step everyone would agree on is to be more aware and to listen. So thank you for being here today and listening. And I would like to leave you with this quote, racism is not an event. As we've seen from COVID-19, other examples that maybe are more popular in school classes, it's not an event. It's not a singular instant or act. It's plural, it happens over time, it's a process. So thank you for being here to take one step towards doing something to reverse the process. Thank you.


All hands must be on deck, especially at the community level for Nigerians to address the issue of flood and drought in the country. Director of Hydrology, Federal Ministry of Water Resources, Bambari de Mokailes said this while giving a keynote address on accelerating action on water for climate resilience and economic transformation during the Africa Social Impact Summit 2023 details in the support. The United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 6 focuses on clean water and sanitation. By 2030, nations of the world hope to achieve universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water for all, as well as access to adequate and equitable sanitation in hygiene for all. As they break into a panel session at this disaster summit, the focus here is on achieving this development goal. Nigeria's government believes that Africa, though blessed with a diverse ecosystem, has been impacted negatively by climate change. However, experts believe that water, which is one of the critical components of the ecosystem's sustenance, is mostly affected. In order to solve these problems of water availability, we need stronger, effective, and more efficient collaboration, not only within the government sector but our other players in the economy. Also, it is important that within the private sector and the government sector, the various layers of the government structure within the system should also be very effective. Focal points of this cost include in funding and skilling health programs, talent management as a vehicle for addressing youth unemployment and promoting access to opportunities for employment and equity holds sway. Let me also use this opportunity to encourage all stakeholders present here today to take advantage of the policies of the government, especially the revised gender policies, to promote equity in all spheres of life. It is the engine room that propels SDGs into the much anticipated economic growth and development. However, while the world is moving to universal access to water and sanitation, stakeholders are calling for policies and investments in the wash sector in order to achieve the SDG number six by 2030, just in Macedonia, plus with these Lagos.


отриБ exhibited ڀ admissions arehowioneced ڀ existe finance literacy for women karma ары the women working business illustration рассc delivery ṇ bounces ښ the wife and child�� 那 types of women are ڝ Workers are群 ښ are  персон ڝ business women omnia ڈ to women to friendship ښ areto make them' ڀ the programs to make them fun ڝ We have published the series ڈ classes written in the ښ was the woman ڈ misunderstood ڈ usually did ڈ were they ڈ send ڈ are what ڈ been ڈ made ڈ conflict is ڈ themselves భర గి షర ఆర్ట ఆది లియి epile�ారం Biology


Have you ever sat down at your desk with the intention of studying for a couple of hours? You're 10 minutes in and you're just not feeling it. The whole process just feels boring and you can't seem to keep your focus. We've all been there before but there's different methods and tricks that you can use to help you continue to study for hours without getting bored. Staying engaged when you're studying and not getting bored is crucial to you being successful long term. Especially when it comes to exam time, you need to be studying more than usual and be doing it consistently. Not getting bored here is key. Throughout my time in university, I've spent countless hours studying and rarely have I found myself getting bored. And it's all because of these five tips that I'm going to share with you in this video. The first thing that you need to make sure that you're doing is varying your workload. Don't spend all day on the same topic. You want to make sure that you're doing a little bit from a variety of topics during the day. You're more likely to get bored if you're spending hours and hours and hours studying the exact same thing. And the aim is for you to stay engaged for as long as you can and stay studying and motivated for as long as possible and this just isn't going to happen if you're looking at anatomy of the upper limb for the whole day. There's also a higher chance that you'll face multiple hurdles if you're studying the exact same topic, which can be tough to overcome. What I mean by this is that, for example, you might be working all day on anatomy. Anatomy has its challenges. A lot of them come from the fact that there's odd naming systems and simply because there's just so much to memorize and learn. On top of this, you need to know which nerve innervates which part of the body, which muscles are attached at what origin and insertion and how these muscles all work to instigate movement. It's a tough thing to do. No doubt about it. And spending all day on it means you're kind of facing an uphill battle with no respite. The amount of anatomy and the challenges of studying it aren't going to go away, but learning them in bite sized pieces over the course of a few weeks instead of all just being calmed into one day makes it a lot easier. Another way to vary your studying is to not spend the whole day using the same study method.  You can go over exam questions, test yourself using Anki, watch a sketchy video or YouTube video on the things you don't quite understand. Changing up how you are learning and receiving information in this way, I think is so stimulating and it helps keep things fresh over the course of a long study session. Now, the best part of keeping your studying varied is that it helps you retain information that you're studying. Many studies have shown that obviously space repetition, but also varying the topic and module or schedule for your studying can help. Gamifying your studies can be so useful for you to stay engaged and not get distracted easily. We tend to learn better with games because they're fun. So it's best to try and use resources that help make your work into some sort of game. This could be puzzles, quizzes, flashcards, whatever. It could even be creating a paper to-do list so that you look forward to crossing off a task after you've completed it, sort of gamifying completion. It can seem like a slightly strange concept, but there are lots of wider benefits to making your studying into a game. It's important to look forward to studying and games like doing flashcards or doing past paper questions might be kind of fun in comparison to just going over lecture slides, endlessly and taking notes. Coming into studying with a good attitude like this and looking forward to your work can help you maintain interest and not get bored over the long term. Now, you can gamify your studying to actually learn the content, but you can also come up with your own version of the game, whatever it is, by challenging yourself with your studying habits.  I do this type of thing all the time, trying to find little ways like this to help push you towards your goals and keep you engaged and consistent with your work can be really helpful because it kind of gamifies the whole experience of studying and gives you something to look forward to. I've talked about extensively in another video, what the best music to listen to is when studying, you can check that out somewhere over here. But regardless of what music you choose, music can be a really good tool to keep you from being completely distracted and getting bored. If you really need to get work done, but you're feeling bored or unmotivated, then it's probably better to just listen to some music in the background, even if it's a bit distracting than not studying at all. Doing something is always better than doing nothing. Now, once you get into a rhythm of studying with your music, then it becomes something that, you know, is going to help you get into the zone. You can add music as part of your study routine, and it might even be something that helps you associate studying with something that you're looking forward to. After all, tasks that might be inherently boring to you can be made way more fun with music. For me personally, when my motivation is running low, but I know that I need to keep going, then putting on some lo-fi hip hop beats in the background solves this problem 90% of the time. Yes, I'm not as focused as I would be without the music, but at least it keeps me going and actually kind of makes the studying a bit more fun. If you can, I think listening to music without lyrics is probably better because with lyrics, it's very distracting to listen to words and read words at the same time. But hey, some people don't have a problem with that, so do whatever works for you. Try and find something that motivates you but isn't too distracting, and that should do the trick. Sitting at the same desk, looking at the same wall every day for the six weeks before your exam sounds terrible. You're likely to get bored just because of the repetitiveness of the routine itself. Changing up your study location can be a great way to just shake things up a little. Try studying outside, especially on a nice day like this. You know, this can be so motivating because it's so different to what you're currently used to and it can really give you the boost to keep you going. This could be at a garden, a park, your library, or even at an outdoor space like a cafe. If this isn't an option because you live in London and gardens aren't a thing, or if you live in the UK and the weather is usually really unpredictable, then, you know, you can try going to a library or a friend's house or a coffee shop, anything to just change your environment a little. This works wonders. You could even try just working in a different room in your home or in the communal area of your halls. I remember in my first degree at the University of Toronto, when we got bored of studying in our rooms, we would just move to the hallways and, you know, all sit in the hallway with our laptops or our notes and just study over there. You can also try empty lecture halls or just random rooms that you find throughout the buildings, communal sitting areas, lounges, things like that. It can really help make a difference to your routine. It helps with boredom because you're exposing yourself to something new, which means you're less likely to call it quits when it comes to studying after just a short while. Changing location can also be a motivator because actually getting up, getting dressed, organizing your bag and leaving the house, going to the library, for example, means that you're probably going to want to make the most out of your day, out of your journey. We also can't forget the effect of being surrounded by other people who are studying, going through the same thing as you, which can be really motivating in itself.  And this takes me on to my next point very nicely. I've said this loads of times before and I'll continue to preach this as something that's incredibly beneficial, study with other people. It's so motivating in itself. And because you're not only having to engage yourself in the work, but also engaging others and they're engaging you, you're probably going to be able to study for a lot longer. It's also holding you accountable for actually working because your friends will be wanting to work and making the most of your time together and you'll see them working. They'll see you working. So it's just a nice accountability bubble. You can also learn so much from other people on your course. This sort of study environment really does boost your productivity and can keep you from getting bored over long periods of time. If you see everyone around you is studying really hard or taking a break, then you're likely to do the same thing as them. And so doing everything together as a community is really, really valuable. When you study with your friends, you'll find yourself taking on their healthy habits. Also be careful because you might take on their not-so-healthy habits or their bad traits for studying and things like that, but just keep an eye out and do what works for you, what you think you would benefit from. The feeling that you're all in this together sort of studying and working towards an upcoming exam is irreplaceable. And I think it can keep you studying for longer and more motivated than a lot of the other techniques I share in my videos. I do have a Patreon which gives you access to a Discord server where people are studying in these community-based groups every day, all the time. And of course, there's tons of other things you can do in the Discord server over there. If you're interested in joining a group of like-minded people, I'll leave a link to that Patreon and Discord in the description down below. Thank you so much for watching this video. If you found any of it helpful, you can try and incorporate maybe one or two of these tips into your own studying, into your own life, and maybe then you can use them all together. I found all of these things really helpful when trying to not get bored while studying in like nine years of higher education or so. If you found something that really works for you and you're happy to share, then please do so in the comments down below. I'm probably going to be studying for the rest of my life as a doctor, so I'd love to see what's working for you all as well. That's it for me, guys, and I will catch you in the next one. Thanks. It helps so much with boredom because you're exposing yourself to something new, and so it's helped. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.


At present, I would like to focus on this topic, namely the animal ethics, a human relationship with domestic and wild animal. Once I finish this topic, I will try to address them. Now, we all know that there are species, there are endangered species, all of them. And they need our help, they are crying for it, that you please save us. And we as human beings have ignored this, have stopped listening to their cry. So, therefore, this whole idea of animal ethics or animal rights that people talk about today in 21st century, we look at that where we have gone wrong. What kind of philosophical foundation has caused this harm to the life of animals? And few of them are existing in countable number. So, this extinct animal community requires or demands, in fact, a compassionate approach which is as I was talking about, the approach which will help us not only storing them their life, not only conserving their life, but also will allow us to see that how both human beings and animals will collectively flourish in their endeavours. This flourishing attitude need not be only the personal attitude of the humans, but the humans being moral agents also allow other non-human beings to flourish. Because, as I said earlier, referring to the teleological notion of life centric ethics that every individual has got a purpose in life. They not only exist, but also try to flusom in their life, try to flourish in their life. And that attitude is inherently present in all living beings of the universe. That is the message we would like to give. But in a human-centered ethic, the kind of duties that we have shown has allowed natural environment to deteriorate. So, therefore, the human-centered ethics has to reform it, make it a life-centered ethic so that we do not allow whatever wrong has happened, has happened. Further, we do not allow the natural environment to deteriorate. Similarly, we try to protect the wilderness and that will show a kind of a responsibility that will enhance our responsibility. We do not treat ourselves as responsible agents. But our responsibility has been confined to some limited fears of our life. And therefore, the urge here is to enlarge it, to expand it. So as I was talking about moral extensionism, moral extensionism is possible if we make an attempt to enlarge the scope of our moral discourse or that will help us exhibiting a very deep sense of responsibility that a moral agent poses towards any wilderness projects that they take up. And that will also exhibit our obligations. So, we are not only obliged to our fellow human beings or we do not not only have obligation for our children, our students, our friends, but also we have obligation for other non-human beings that are there in our surrounding. So, let us expand our self and be inclusive in our approach which we will talk about a life-centered ethics where there is equality. We say that we are all equal when it comes to our social ethics in a society. We say that we are all equal, there should not be any untouchability in our society. In environmental ethics, which is life-centric in nature, that advocates a kind of equality which is biocentric, that every living being same, they are equal. That has to be a kind of a presuppositions when we talk about life-centric ethics. Then we also need to link with our past, what is good there in our past. And try to, as I was talking about, we need to rethink about our religious activities religious beliefs and try to modernize that. So, therefore, we have to see what is good there in the past and how that can be connected for preserve the value for our future generations. So, there are two things we have to do. We are living at present and we have to connect ourselves to the past, bring the good, the best of the past to us so that we cultivate in such a way that we offer a better world to our future generations. And that is how we can think of long-term value. People today have accepted, all of us, including myself, have accepted easy policies, how easily things can be done so that I live a comfortable life. Comfort is not only my requirement, my need, but it should be everybody's need. Now, everybody's need means people who are yet to come to the world, it will be also their need as well. So, therefore, it is my primary duty that I should create a value which will last long. So, when we conceptualize a policy, when we make a policy, we should see that that for another 50 years or 25 years, nothing has to be changed on that. We do not have a long-term policy. Now, we do not have the foresight to see that what will be our future generation needs, that we do not really think, but many developed nation are thinking ahead of us because they prepare a policy which will last long. So, they not only prepare policy for the present dwellers, but they also prepare policy for the future dwellers who will come and live in this beautiful world and that is how their policy to preserve or the policy to have a wilderness program as a world heritage is a meaningful project. But in our case, as my fellow participant pointed out, that many national parks, many heritage lanes are being eaten up slowly, gradually and being utilized for human purpose only. Now, once you start encroaching the land of the home of the other non-human beings, obviously, they will fight or they will disappear. Many times, you might be having this in the news that the leopard attacked few villagers, the elephants have come to the town, they have spoiled the land, things like that.  The forest is their home and once you destroy their home, where they will go?  So, therefore, when we talk about any policies, when we talk about ethics of a very enlightened type like life-centric ethics, we need to think of policies which will last long or which will have values for our future generation as well. That is what is my concern. Those who talk about sustainable development, they must see to it that we modify, we transform our attitude so that there is a harmony and that harmony between the individual human beings, the human beings per se and the non-human beings are maintained. If you start maintaining that, then steadily we will reach to a kind of an equilibrium. So, human living beings are not isolated beings. They are not isolated from other forms of life. If one has a deep look into the concept of life itself, one tries to re-examine the concept of life, what makes me human, then one has to connect to the other life forms. But sometimes, it is because of our ignorance that we have been utilizing them. We have been making use of their life for our well-being. And in that process, we have isolated ourselves. We have tried to claim that we belong to a different community. But life-centric ethics does not do that. Life-centric ethics respects to all forms of life. It tries to maintain that all life are to be respected. And that is how the concept of reverence of life is meaningful. Because such an approach will put us together in one community called the biotic community. And the biotic community not only think for the present generation, but will also think for future generations. I was referring to Derek Postoma yesterday. Derek Willem Postoma says that education is necessary to enlighten every individual that there is an intergenerational responsibility that every individual should cultivate. Intergenerational responsibility. This is a term which Postoma uses when he talks about that why we should care for the environment. We should care for the environment if you recollect. We should care for the environment because we are human beings, because we are citizen. So, it is in that context every citizen must cultivate the sense of responsibility, which is intergenerational responsibility. We are responsible for our fellow beings because they are also in trouble. It is not that. People who are yet to come as I said that the future society is yet to come and we have to offer them a good world, a good environment so that they cherish life much better than what is been given to us or what we experience in our everyday life. So, therefore we need to talk about a intergenerational responsibility, not only just a responsibility as a kind of a bare concept. Now, when we talk about animals and animal rights, let us see that how we behave with them. What kind of attitudes are being expressed by the humans to animals. Now, we inflict pain on animals, we torture them, we kill them. Animals are also raised, they are being raised for foods. We used in our research, test a medicine for example, when we test a research product, we now use them. We have been using them or inflicting pain on them when we are engaged in hunting, when we are engaged in fishing. They become a means to our pleasure and many times you might have noticed in the countryside that there are a lot of sports and entertainment programs used as animals extensively. So, therefore we need to really think upon such issues that how and what kind of mode of engagement that we have with animals, what kind of relationship that we share with animals. Now, today we live in a society where there is mass production and mass consumption and that is what is the message of globalization that you not only produce more but also consume more. Now, this attitude, the consumption process has been so haphazard that there are a lot of prices which is there particularly the health related prices is due to the kind of a mass consumption of which are people are talking about. Maggie has been in the news for almost one week or so that how massively certain things are been consumed and what we never bother about, what will be their health impact when we consume things because we are not an enlightened society. We have not developed things in a much sophisticated way to test what is good for us, what is good for the health of our children or health of what kind of health benefits a particular food item has. So, it is very recently people have started thinking more on this in India particularly but in many developed nations they have proper institutional mechanisms to test to notify to instruct the users that this is what an item contains so that you inform the consumer prior to their consumption and if the consumer is enlightened one if the consumer has the ability to purchase things then they will be consuming better things. So, here what I am interested to share with you is this that many times our engagement with animals and animal products have been such that we do not really care for our health when we consume them. So, there is an health impact which has to be also taken into account and when you talk about biodiversity and the balance in ecosystems we need to see that how such a diversity can be maintained how the balance could be maintained so that we leave a quality life. Yesterday initiating my debates on environmental ethics I was talking about the meaningful life and meaningful life and quality life are not different rather what we have meant quality life is a very comfortable happy life. We live in a society where many individuals only considers their happiness is now the first priority of course it is the first priority say for example being a parent I have the first priority that now my children should be happy it is not it even if I have to work hard but they should be happy. Now similarly when if that is our concern can that concern be a little extended to include other people into that particular sphere of happiness so that they leave a quality life. So, the RG Harry is basically to develop an ethical concern towards other and not being individualistic in our approach so that is what is the impact. Now, let us look at that how classically animals have been treated. Since the kind of modern rationality has been borrowed to India we need to see how it has been practiced many of you have pointed out yesterday that this is not been exclusively an academic program in Indian universities why environmental ethics is not taught in the school level. Now at the school level we do not find it because we have not thought about it and we have not prepared a curriculum which will help our children to develop an ethical attitude towards the other. So, therefore the time has come that we need to prepare ourselves think ourselves in those lines. Now, but if you look at the societies which have been enlightened societies and people in that enlightened societies have been talking about animal rights and they are talking in more academic terms as well as in active terms. So, here I would be discussing some of the philosophers who advocate and try to maintain in their theoretical approach that how animal rights could be treasured. If you go back to the history then you as I pointed out earlier that we still live in a culture of anthropocentrism we have not given up we have accepted the values of anthropocentrism and we have accepted it so deeply that it is difficult to give up that attitude but it is not impossible. So, the point is in an anthropocentric world humans are always treated as superior to other animals and this is what the Judeo-Christianic tradition has talked talks about but within that western philosophical tradition you find there is a conflict in the Greek philosophy itself there are alternative voices which has been raised. Now, in Greek philosophy when you treat human as a very respectable entity then you respect them because they are rational beings they are linguistic beings and humans have a very unique functions being linguistic being rational because it is the human being who are capable of building institutions animals and non-humans do live a societal life have some rudimentary form of societal life but they do not build institutions they do not their intentionality or their intentional attitudes are very very limiting attitudes limiting to their own community but when it comes to the human society humanity has expressed some kind of a unique linguistic functions where certain values are preserved and they are preserved by developing unique institutions. Institutions are grounded on certain norms or rules or principles and these principles are sufficient enough to regulate human conduct. So, most of us are behaving better because we have institutions today you have institutions today to regulate our conducts and that is and that is something very unique about human life and that has been made possible because we are not only rational beings but also linguistic beings. Now, this is a passage which I was referring to yesterday and please have a look to this passage that how an anthropocentric view is derived from the classical thinking religious belief but there are certainly a kind of a modified verse these religions have tried to modernize them try to they have lived up to a level where they have tried to see that yes whatever wrong has been done has done now let us do modify our approach. So, there has been some kind of a revision in that but if you look at if you try to trace where it has come from then possibly this is where it has come from in the western tradition. So, therefore what kind of possibilities that we are looking for the possibility is that we are using animals for food we are using animals for agriculture, transports etc. etc. Now, can we minimize can we have technology which will help us in performing better in agriculture in technology in transport and can we have alternative food items if we advocate say for example if you advocate vegetarianism can we have an alternative to that that is to be really something that we need to think upon that issue. Now, I also talked about a kind of a possibility where I mentioned about moral extensionism that is a concept where that how this is possible how animal rights is possible this is not a very distant dream people who are advocating animal rights see it is a kind of a possibility because we have the humanity has experienced a society where there was slavery and today people condemn slavery humanity has experienced some kind of a sexism what we called where there is a inequality between the two sex say male female inequality humanity has also experienced this gender inequality for a long but today we live in a societies where women are also equally respected these are the success which humanity has experienced racism we do condemn racism we do condemn colonial attitudes. So, therefore looking at this success story of the slavery sexism racism and colonialism we find in future if we change our attitude then maybe now we will succeed much larger sense to propagate this and maintain animal rights and that will help us equally to preserve on it. Now, if you are talking about human animal relationship then human see the animals as fit to use and so there is no direct duties to animals. So, most of our relationship is an indirect relationship I think that is something need to be revised because most of us look at when we are using slaves slaves were used as a kind of a property people used to buy slaves and use them as a property. So, in a very inhuman ways one human was used as a property similarly before the feminist movement you look at some societies where women were treated as a property. So, right to property is something was very direct but when we talk about animal we still use animals as our properties and therefore we have every right to mistreat them or ill treat them they have they become victim of our action our voluntary actions. So, therefore we need to revise this sense of belongingness revise this notion of property and property rights so that as I was talking about of biotic equality is maintained the duty of humans is that what we owe to each other do we owe anything as the owner of the property that is I think very important and the other one is when we treat the animals do we really like that treatment are we expressing some form of on a cruelty and that has to be discouraged condemned things like that. So, our mode of engagement has to be changed then only this concept duty will be meaningful to us if at all we have duty to other. So, for example, people who condemn child labour they think they feel that every child has a right to live right to grow as an independent individual in the society. Similarly, when we express our feelings and you know actions to the animals we also have a similar kind of feeling or we need to cultivate this refined feeling that we have a duty to preserve this extinct any species so that they helps us indirectly and directly to develop ourselves as better human beings or develop ourselves as a better society. So, we should discourage quality towards animal that is the method we will have a better sense of duty towards them. As I told you that within western tradition there are critiques there are philosophers who have been raising voice against the quality to animal. Pythagoras one of the Greek classical Greek philosopher during the time of Socrates and Plato Pythagoras talks about vegetarianism. He believes that that every animal or every non-human beings living beings were just a soul and they undergo some kind of an incarnation. This kind of understanding was revealing in the classical history of western philosophy western philosophical tradition and similarly people who have heard of Jean Rousseau Jean Jacques Rousseau and Jeremy Bentham Bentham who himself was a utilitarian but advocated animals that having the capacity to reason out things capacity to judge things. So, animals are incapable of reason which was in a totalian attitude was little very critically looked at by two important philosophers one is Jean Jacques Rousseau Rousseau and another is Jeremy Bentham. They are sentient beings and therefore they suffer like we suffer we feel pain and similarly animals do feel pain. So, therefore we should not inflict pain on animals like we do not allow somebody else inflicting pain on us we discourage it because we suffer. What we aspire to have what we desire rather is happiness. Similarly, if we compare that or thing in this line that animals who are sentient beings they do suffer and we should not inflict pain that could be an approach which Bentham brings to us. Then Darwin Charles Darwin himself also advocated that the animals are capable of emotions and feelings. They are not only having ability to judge things. So, for example in many times if you have looked at into discovery channels or some animal planets now the animals are paid specifically this sense the natural calamities much faster than the human sensibility. So, their sense is quite subtle and the sensitivity the power of sensitivity is so strong that this sense is much faster than much ahead of us than we sense. So, they give a kind of an alarming sound or they express a gesture that helps the humanity to great extent. So, that is what you know needs to be looked at when we talk about animal ethics that why we should respect animals why we should not inflict pain why we should not kill animals unnecessarily that now those considerations can be taken into account.  So, the whole idea is that vegetarianism and that is what the false writings helped Gandhi to change his attitude vegetarianism is also good for health it is not that those who are vegetarian are weak. Now, Gandhi had this kind of understanding in the beginning particularly in his childhood he believed that those who eat non vegetarian food are only strong and those who eat vegetarian food they are weak. So, when he encountered Salt and later on formed a vegetarian club or was part of the vegetarian club initiative is something one can looked at. So, Salt argues that argues against the vivisection of animals any living animals and he strongly argues in favor of vegetarianism and so also Bernatso and Peter Singer. Now, Peter Singer's argument in favor of the treatment of animals and vegetarianism is something very significant today Peter Singer is one of the living philosopher in 21st century who has written a book on animal liberation. Singer argues that argues a concept called preference utilitarianism. Preference utilitarianism is something different from what we understand utilitarianism. Let us understand what is utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is a concept as an ethical concept I have discussed little bit on that when I was talking of the types of ethics, deontological ethics, religious ethics and the consequentialism. The consequentialists are utilitarian. Utilitarians argue that all forms of utilitarianism define the right action as whatever will produce the best outcome for all affected differ about the good. The idea here is that whatever is good for us whatever has got maximum utility for the consumer that has to be used for the well-being of maximum number of people. So, maximum happiness for maximum number of people is the slogan. So, if x is an item and x has got some utility now the consumer has to see how many people will be affected, how many people really will enjoy the utility of the particular item called x. Now, if x would satisfy the maximum number of people then utilitarianism will accept x as a kind of a valued item. So, it is in that form all forms of utilitarianism needs to look at or maximum amount of happiness that a consumer gathers from the utility of a particular good is something that has to be kept in mind when we try to understand Peter Singer preference utilitarianism. Preference utilitarianism argues that whatever maximizes the satisfaction of the preferences involved which may not necessarily be their own happiness. If something is not on the contrary to the utilitarian thesis per se preference utilitarianism argues that it may not be necessarily be their own happiness. It may not be necessarily you know bringing happiness to me but if some preference is to be given for the benefit of or for the well being of some other community then we should try to maximize that and we should try to include that within our ethical standard. So, that interest of that community or the well being of that community is been protected. So, that is what and the preference utilitarianism precisely argued as I told you about the feminist movement the gender inequality which was prevailing in our society. Now, this has been argued looking at their success stories of slavery and gender inequalities acceptance of women, ethnic minorities are equal to those of males because something is good for us. If we live in a equal society if I treat my mother, my wife, my daughters in a family they are equal to me and give up my patriarchal attitude then that is always good for a family. So, here the attitude is that whatever is maximizing the satisfaction of mine preference will be given to that. So, gender equality will be maintained precisely because that will bring good to the family that will bring good to the society that will bring good to all kinds of institutions where women play a very important role women's are decision makers. So, that will help the society to grow in much larger and better way. Now, when it comes to entertainment how and gratification of pleasure you may come across that there are still some corner of India you have people believe in religious sacrifices where cocks sometimes a buffalo sometimes a goat is been sacrificed I think we need to change that attitude we need to modernize ourselves we need to think that the animals also have life and they should not sacrifice their life for our well-being and there was preference utilitarianism also has you know reflects upon this idea that recently when there was a there is a bane on beef in Bombay people have started thinking whether Dharavi's leather market will be affected by such bane on beef. Now, preference utilitarianism argues that if we stop collectively individually or from an individual point of view if certain actions are being performed it may not have impact on market. So, but a collective performance a collective action will definitely have some impact on the market because suppose I become you know I am a consumer of non-vegetarian food and all in a sudden I change myself that yes I would like to have vegetarian food now onwards and this attitude of mine may not have a greater impact in the market.  So, therefore it is important that we should cease to treat animals in ways that cause them suffer to you and to use them for food is to inflict suffering on the animals. So, the medical research using animals offer potential benefits to humans though the pay of rate is low much research is into conditions that suffer being upon themselves by choosing unhealthy and high risk lifetime. You will be surprised that many times the drugs are being tested not only on animals but also on human beings. In the third world countries the poverty rate is so high people test drugs on them. So, we actually Peter Singer's concern is that when we look at the animal life and when we look at the human life human life ridden with property malnutrition and being also the victim of this type I think such a unhealthy practice it is morally unhealthy practice and involves a high risk in our lifestyles and that has to be stopped. We need to stop it for our well-being for our good. Thank you.


This is why I love Bishop Patrick Wooden. As a matter of fact, this is why even non-Christians who love their children should love Bishop Wooden. Bishop Wooden has decided to take back and to reclaim one of the rainbow. But then just the month, if somebody's gonna have pride, it should obviously be us being proud and out of ourselves or who we are, but who we have, that is Jesus. It's an opportunity to speak and I wanna take the time to first wish everybody a happy Jesus Pride Month. For the month of June, we are designated this month to Jesus Pride because we love the Lord and we believe in biblical principles and we're glad to wish you a Jesus Pride as you wish the rest of us a happy Pride Month. Now, I'm standing before you today as a grandfather. I got to have wonderful grandkids. As a grandfather myself, a slightly younger, probably less mature, probably a little bit more adorable-looking grandfather than Bishop Wooden is, I can certainly concur and I wholeheartedly am with him in recapturing this month. This should be bothersome to anyone with children. You can't even let children be children. I have one who is in the age group of this book when Aden became a brother. And when Aden was born, everyone thought he was a girl. But once he came out as a trans boy, Aden and his parents fixed the parts of his life that didn't fit anymore and he settled happily into being himself. Aden didn't feel like any kind of girl. He was really another kind of boy. Now, this book is for kids, five years old, six years old, so forth and so on. And this book is available in 31 elementary schools in our county. This is garbage. And whoever is responsible for this ought to be ashamed. And I'm gonna say this, there is a judgment day coming but there is evidence that the guard of the Bible is passing judgment. When God passes judgment, you know what he does? He gives people over to vile affections, vile thoughts. When they reject his truth and decide no matter what, they're gonna believe what they want to believe anyway.  He says, have at it. And it's evident that in many cases, I'm seeing judgment pass because there is no way anyone in their right mind can argue that the things that we're hearing today that's been placed in our high schools, elementary schools, middle schools for kids to hear and read and practice has anything to do with making them better, making America better, making our neighborhoods better. This is trash. I pray that to the extent that you can, you will rise up against this. There have to be something in us that will make us want to protect the hearts and minds and even the appetites of our children. And many of them have no sexual appetite at all until they read this. Why are we sexualizing our children? I'm as angry about this as I can be. And I pray that you will consider our words and give our children a chance.  We wanna leave raising the children to the parents. Thank you very much. And he's absolutely correct in what he's saying. He says that God is gonna give them over. Notice what he says in Romans 1, he says, for this reason, God gave them over to a deranged, degrading, I'm sorry, passions for their women, exchange of natural function for bad, which is unnatural in the same way. Also the men abandon the natural function of the woman and burned in their desires toward one another. God is not happy. And so God will give you up over to that. And it's not as though that when he does that he is just gonna let you escape judgment. As a matter of fact, there is a promise from him, especially as it relates to children. He says whoever causes one of these little ones who believe to stumble, it will be better for him if with a heavy millstone hung around his neck, he had been cast into the sea. It would have been better for you to have that than whatever's going to end up happening. And so I thank God for someone like Bishop Wooden. I pray that more like him step out that make their voices known, heard. This is a time where we can't let someone want to co-op the rainbow and we know what it means. And then also not give what we are proud of ourselves, which is Jesus. Amen.


This study investigated the relationship between sleep loss and autoimmune diseases. It was found that sleep loss can lead to increased production of the cytokine GM-CSF, which can cause TH17 cells to become more pathogenic and promote autoimmune diseases such as uveitis. Additionally, it was discovered that this process involves interactions between TH17 and mild cells, which are mediated by GM-CSF signaling. This research provides insight into the mechanisms behind sleep loss and its association with autoimmune diseases, and suggests potential therapeutic targets for treating these conditions. This article was authored by Xuxing Liu, Yuhan Su, Jiao Hao Wang, and others.


Good morning, we're going to start now. My name is Steve Levine, I'm a Schwartz fellow here at the New America Foundation. Future Tense is a collaboration of New America Slate Magazine and Arizona State University. Our goal in this series of events is to explore very large questions and how technology might or might not impact them. If you look at Slate this morning, you'll see a terrific series of articles digging down into today's topic. We're here today to look at one of the most important topics of all, which is how we're going to power our lifestyles, our businesses, and our economies. Our aim is to cut through the fog of politics and ideology, and our aim is to start without any preconceived notions and to explore the following question. What energy technology, if any, is going to be scaling up and challenging the towering economics of fossil fuels in the year 2030? We've got an excellent cross-cutting group of experts to dissect it. Today's event is being webcast live, so everything is on the record. If you wish to speak up, please wait for the microphone, identify yourself, and be concise. Now I'd like to introduce Bruce Everett. We're lucky to have someone of Bruce's stature as the leadoff speaker. Bruce is an associate professor at the Fletcher School at Tufts University. He teaches petroleum in the global economy. Before that he was at Exxon for 22 years, 12 of those years as an executive, one of his positions was he was Exxon's natural gas manager for the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America, and he also was vice president for Qatar. After Bruce speaks, he's going to sit down for a conversation with Steve Call, the president of New America. Bruce? Okay. Thank you. Delighted to be here this morning. I have been working in the energy industry for about 40 years now, and it continues to amaze me that we always want to ask the wrong questions. One question that gets asked more than any to my experience is, how do we get rid of oil? It seems to me before we ask that question we ought to ask the question, why do we want to get rid of oil? Let's see. There we go. The internal combustion engine fueled by oil is the only affordable high-performance form of transportation we have today. Now, there are a number of reasons for this. One is that it's inexpensive. Another one that people have talked a lot about lately is the concept of energy density, which is how much energy can you actually carry around in the tank of your vehicle? If you really want to understand the concept of energy density, have a piece of the chocolate cake we had at Smith and Walensky's at the dinner last night. As you can see, oil has a very high energy density, much better than alcohols, compressed natural gas, hydrogen, or on the right-hand side of this, which we can't see, batteries. There we go. Okay. Now, it's pretty clear that oil and the internal combustion engine are going to dominate transportation until one of two things happens. Either something better comes along and it very well might. I am a technological optimist. This is likely to happen. When it happens, we should embrace it, or alternatively, when we decide to limit oil use by policy, which is what people seem to want to do. Now I guess my question is, why do we actually want to do that? Now, traditionally, there are four arguments that get offered in terms of the urgency of getting rid of oil, and they come and go over time and disappear and come back again. The first one is that we're running out of oil. There's a resource limitation. We've got to manage this transition. Now here's a little interesting arithmetic. In 1980, we had proved reserves of conventional oil of 667 billion barrels, or about 29 years of production. Since then, we've consumed 727 billion barrels. How much do we have left? Just do a little mental arithmetic. The answer is we have twice as much as when we started in 1980. How is that possible? The answer is that we tend to focus too much on proved reserves, which is a very conservative estimate of the oil fields that we're actually producing today. If we step back and look at the overall oil resource base and the hydrocarbon resource base, we can see that it's huge. In the next 50 years, we'll probably consume somewhere between five and 10 trillion barrels of fossil fuels, and we have lots of molecules out there. We have not only conventional oil and natural gas. We have heavy oil. We have coal. We have shale. We have methane hydrates. What we've done over the last 150 years is, as oil prices go up, we bring in other parts of that resource base. We go offshore. We go deep offshore. We go up to the Canadian tar sands. Now, I'm not saying that developing these molecules doesn't involve economic, technical, and environmental problems. It does. What I am saying is that lack of molecules is not our problem. In fact, resource extraction is a race between depletion, which shrinks the resource base, and technology, which expands the resource base. Technology can win this race over very long periods of time. In the oil industry, technology has been winning for 150 years. In the copper business, technology has been winning for over 3,000 years. Argument number two is that the environmental damage is unacceptable. I can recall during the 1960s and early 1970s people saying, we are going to choke to death on smog if we don't stop driving our cars.  Now, if we take a look at what's happened, in the U.S., sulfur dioxide down 76%, carbon monoxide down 80%, lead down 93%. We have done a very, very fine job with some good work by Congress and the EPA dealing with these local air quality problems. And today, air pollution correlates with poverty, not oil use. The big polluted cities of the world today are not L.A. and London. It's Mumbai, Beijing, Sao Paulo, Mexico City, and Jakarta. Now, local air pollution is one thing, but of course, we've gotten concerned about a different part of this problem now, which is carbon dioxide emissions. And regardless of what you believe about this problem, the one characteristic of carbon emissions is that it doesn't matter where it comes from. It doesn't matter whether it comes from the United States or China or any place. What goes up into the atmosphere stays in the atmosphere. Now this chart shows the Energy Information Administration's projection of global CO2 emissions from energy use in the year 2035, 43 billion metric tons. And you can see a couple of things right away. First oil is a relatively modest part of the problem compared to, say, coal. And secondly, the U.S. and Europe are a relatively small part of the problem compared to China, India, and the rest of the world. So in fact, if we were to engineer a 20% cut in U.S. oil use, which would be expensive and painful, that would reduce global carbon emissions by 1%. We can't even measure global carbon emissions with that kind of accuracy. In fact, it doesn't matter very much what these people do. It only matters what the people on the right do. There was an article in Sunday's New York Times bemoaning the fact that everybody in the world is working on climate change except the United States, which is not. Ladies and gentlemen, I would submit to you that that's not true. The Europeans have certainly done a lot of things with carbon trading, carbon taxes, renewable portfolio standards, all kinds of things that they've done. What they haven't done is reduce the carbon emissions. And the reductions that have occurred have occurred through the only tool that has been effective so far, which is prolonged recession. Argument number three is that oil consumption undermines national security. Eight consecutive presidents of both parties called for energy independence. If we have that kind of bipartisan support, why are we still importing oil? Well, first of all, there's no economically viable alternative. But secondly, and I think more importantly, the US economy is critically dependent on a secure international trade system. And oil is an essential part of global trade, which the US has to protect. If we go back in our history 200 years, and we look at Thomas Jefferson's dilemma. During the Napoleonic Wars, Britain and France were impeding our trade. Napoleon said, you can't trade with the British. The British said, you can't trade with France. Both countries were taking our ships, impressing our sailors, it was really bad. President Jefferson said, we need to be independent. So he asked Congress to pass the Trade Embargo Act, which basically said the states can only trade with each other, no international trade, solve the problem. Now what happened was an economic disaster. And very shortly, Jefferson realized the United States has no choice but to engage in the world, and Congress repealed the act. The result of that, by the way, was a substantial increase in the US defense budget. Now, this is a famous picture, February 1945 on the cruiser USS Quincy, of FDR and Saudi King Ibn Saud establishing formally the US security relationship. Now, it's interesting to note that this security relationship was established before the US became an oil importer. FDR realized that even if the United States doesn't need oil, everybody else does. And if the global economy is going to be both stable and prosperous, somebody is going to have to protect the Middle East and the oil flows that come from it. In fact, as the only global military power, the US must secure the Middle East and world oil trade. Whether or not we import any oil, the idea that we can free up our foreign policy by stopping imports of oil, I think is simply not true. The last argument is, well, yeah, okay, oil is better than everything else, but doesn't have to be, we'll just create something better. We keep falling in love with one technology after another, but the relationships just never last. I remember in the 1970s, under the Ford administration, we were going to have commercial fusion power by the year 2000. It was going to solve all our problems. And all we had to do was get from the 1970s to the year 2000. Well, it didn't quite work out. We had a fling with synthetic fuels made from coal, natural gas. Way too expensive, way too environmentally intrusive. That went out in the early 1980s. We actually married corn ethanol before we discovered that it was a terrible, terrible spouse. It raises our fuel prices. It raises our food prices. It does nothing for the environment and limits the range of our cars. But if we're going to get rid of this, it's going to be a messy and expensive divorce because the farmers love it. President Bush II loved the freedom car, hydrogen fuel cells. This was going to be the answer. Turns out that the market for $100,000 vehicles using $20 a gallon fuel is quite limited. Now, here's our latest fling, the electric car. We are in love with the electric car and this time it's going to last. If you look at the Nissan Leaf, which is a pure electric car, it's not a hybrid compared to a Nissan Versa, which is an almost identical car. Let's just take a look for a second at the energy storage systems for these vehicles. Nissan Versa uses gasoline, has a gas tank. Nissan Leaf uses a lithium ion battery. The Nissan Versa can store 13.2 gallons of gasoline. The Nissan Leaf can store two-thirds of a gallon of gasoline, the thing that's an efficient car. And the fuel tank for the Nissan Versa, without any gasoline in it, cost $200. The fuel tank for the Leaf cost $18,000. Now, that may come down and there'll be other speakers who'll talk about this today. But if that's the case, what is that vehicle doing in the marketplace today? What we hear about is, well, look at all the money you can save. You can save over $1,000 a year if you buy a Nissan Leaf. Every consumer's got to love that. Well, look at the price tag, okay? The Nissan Versa, the entire car, costs about as much as the battery costs for the Nissan Leaf. And we don't know that Nissan is covering its costs by selling the vehicles at that price. If you take out a car loan at 5.5% for five years, you're gonna end up paying a whole lot more for the Nissan Leaf than you are for the Versa, even though the fuel costs less. And look at the range, okay? The EPA plugs it, pegs it at 73 miles. You'd be lucky to get that if you run your air conditioner and your headlights and your music system. This is not going to be an acceptable vehicle for most people. Now, last February, that's eight months ago, the DOE estimated 2011 Nissan Leaf sales of $25,000. That would require you to sell just under $2,100 per month. Here's what we've got so far. We're on track for about half that. And this is our pattern. Over promise, under deliver, forget about it and move on. We also have this. You'd like to test one of these. Go down to 10th and K, Tesla Roadster, $109,000 and you get $7,500 tax credit for that. We had cash for clunkers. Now we have toys for the rich, okay? Great federal program. The point I'm making here, folks, is that we focus too much on technical progress and some technologies achieve technical but not commercial viability. We've all heard the Apollo analogy. If we can send a man to the moon, we can do anything. But sending a man to the moon required $150 billion of effort, and what did we get out of it, okay? A wonderful technical achievement. How many people here have been in space? Okay, last year the United States produced 12 million cars and trucks. We produced 1,000 civilian helicopters. How many people here own a helicopter? Okay, how many people here flew here on a supersonic aircraft? How many supersonic aircraft are currently in commercial service? None, okay? We keep putting the cart before the horse, okay? We force the technology into the market, throw billions of dollars at it, and then see if we like it. Do you remember the great musical Guys and Dolls that has a song, Marry the Guy Today, Changes Ways Tomorrow? Not good advice. Seems to me, seems to me, we ought to make sure these technologies work. We have to recognize the central role of transportation in our economy and our society. What we don't wanna do is end up agreeing with the Duke of Wellington, the great hero of Waterloo, who didn't like railroads because he said they will only encourage the common people to move about needlessly. Well, guess what? The common people like to move about and they don't consider it needless. So this, in my judgment, is why oil is gonna be with us for some time to come. Thank you very much. All, and we're just here for 15 minutes. This is a very fast moving day and I'm gonna do my part to keep it moving. I added five minutes to my time. You teach these ideas at Tufts University? I do. You must be used to some resistance. Well, actually, Stephen Fairness, what I try to teach my students to do is look at the problems analytically. I don't try to make sure that they adopt my views of the problem. So I wanted to use my time to do two things. One was to talk about the arguments that you made because I thought it was a terrific, lively and highly credible sort of Supreme Court brief for the defense of oil. But of the four arguments you made, I kind of wanted to go to number three where I thought if I were on the other side of that argument, I would have bore in a little bit hard on some of the things you left out rather than the things you had in. But before we go to the argument itself, I wanna pull a string on you a little bit, which is a lot of today is about looking forward. There are a lot of common forecasts about transportation fuel use, alternative scenarios out to 2030. We've adopted the 2030 kind of target just because it's common. ExxonMobil forecasts to 2030 these days, the National Petroleum Council has done similar exercises of all the majors essentially have similar targets. And when you look at the curve of transportation fuel use that all of their economists, forecasters, technology analysts lay out, they more or less adopt the view that oil is gonna be a robust part of transportation fuels in 2030, almost no matter what. But there are some variations as to how the curve might bend depending on technologies and market factors. So here's the trick I wanted to play on you.  And in my evil control over you and your family or whatever you hold dear, the Boston Red Sox or anything, I was able to coerce you into submission to my evil goal of trying to bend that curve in a market economy. Let's assume not radical repricing of oil. But I said to you, your job, if you and all you hold dear wanna survive in 2030 is to tell me what I could do to reduce the percentage of oil in the transportation economy most effectively between 2030. When you came back with your white paper, what would be it? Okay, just a couple of observations on that question, Steve, which is a very interesting one. First of all, if you take price off the table, the answer is nothing, because price is the only lever that actually works. Now, if you raise the price of gasoline, for example, substantially, there seems to be a view that several people I've talked to express that, well, then we'd encourage new technologies. And if you look at Europe where the average gasoline prices are sort of 650 or 750 and they have been for 30 years, Europeans drive smaller cars fewer miles. They don't drive advanced non-oil vehicles. So if we pushed this in the United States, what would happen is you would limit people's mobility and they would drive smaller, less safe, less comfortable automobiles. But you could push some oil out of the system. Now, it's my judgment that the economic and social consequences of that would vastly outweigh anything you could gain from it. But you could do it. Is there a way of pushing a new technology and that would make the average person say, my life hasn't changed, I'm just using natural gas instead of gasoline? I don't think so. Well, I thought that you might say that and also point to a couple of areas where my impression is that even in the major oil companies, there's a sense that there are inefficiencies even in the current pricing scheme and that those are in trucking and in the internal combustion engine and that you might wanna press for the best, most efficient hybrid vehicles that you could produce and you might wanna fix the anomalies in the trucking system. Two observations. First of all, if you're going to affect oil use in the United States, the only thing that matters is private transportation. It's just too big a share of the total transportation fuel use. The second thing is the internal combustion engine has been getting dramatically efficient year after year for over a hundred years and it does it on its own. My concern is when the government steps in and says, I have a vision for what the internal combustion engine ought to look like and I'm gonna drive it in that direction, you may in fact end up with a worse result because people in Washington are very smart but nobody is that smart. Now, when we look at direct injection engines, hybrids and things like this, they're getting better and better and better and better and better and they're tested in the marketplace in terms of cost and consumer acceptance. They're not tested in the political atmosphere of Washington where you as often as not get the wrong answer. So yeah, these things are gonna make a difference but I would suggest that the Exxon Forecast and some of these others already assume that that improvement in the engine continues over time. So it sounds like your answer to my question is if you really wanna do this, you need to raise the price of gasoline. Absolutely, and live with the consequences. Right, so I may need six or seven other advisers that I can coerce similarly. Now we could stay up here all day I think and have the sort of maybe too familiar argument about some of these big picture questions that you laid out in such a lively and concise way. You essentially said let's ask why would we want to reduce our dependence on oil? You went through four arguments. Let's set aside the question of peak oil and accept your forecast that technology will at least compete in that race adequately. Let's set aside the environmental issues because there'll be much discussion about them and they're just too ideological and for 10 minutes of conversation. But let's talk about the national security argument because that's one that crosses a lot of lines and there were two elements of the typical objection to oil dependency that you didn't address. So first let me ask you to address them. One is maybe three, the extent to which oil imports distort the American balance of payments chronically and leave us in this borrowing position because if you break down, if you put a PowerPoint slide up there showing the percentage of oil and gas imports, oil imports as a percentage of our trade deficit with China in reference to China is bigger than our deficit to China. Hardly gets much attention, is that a problem? Secondly, the extent to which uncontrolled spikes in global oil prices that flow through our economy and that are beyond our control. Nigerian militants in the summer of 2008 correlate with recessions according to economists so frequently as to maybe warrant some attention. And then finally, the extent to which on that balance of payments problem we keep transferring money to producers who maybe not for moral reasons but for structural reasons in receipt of such unaccountable wealth end up making the world a much less pleasant place. Now you could, I suppose, argue that that would be true if they were receiving money from cocoa exports rather than oil, but the fact is in our global economy oil wealth is a game changer if you're a dictator or a weak state. So what are your, you didn't address any of those in your interview. Let me answer the three of them. In terms of balance of payments, there is one smart thing that the United States ought to do and that is to open our own resource base really to full development. And if we did that, it would undergo a market test for which resources make sense and which don't and we would not only end up with slightly less expensive oil but we would also end up helping the balance of payments problem. If you're not going to do that, you have to be very careful, Steve, not to fall into the old trap of import substitution as an economic policy. This is what keeps lots of third world countries poor is they basically say I have to protect myself against balance of payments and balances so I'm going to keep inefficient industries going and I'm going to drive up the costs for my consumers while the rest of the world enjoys the benefits of trade. Now in terms of the second point was, refreshment memory again? Well, let's just, I'll remember it but let's go to the third one which I do remember which is the extent to which, oh, correlations with recessions. Okay, correlations with recessions. A simple point here, the United States is an open economy. We pay the world price for oil no matter how much we import.  Unless the United States wishes to not only reduce oil imports but to put up a huge energy tariff wall around the country, we will always be paying the world price for oil. Canadians who are large oil exporters pay the world price for oil plus a little more that their government puts on the fuels.  Now, we have to be very careful to say, well, I don't want the price of gasoline oscillating between $3 and $5 a gallon for my consumers so I'll saddle them with $10 gallon gasoline and they won't have to worry about it. Okay, what we will do then is we will instigate a prolonged deep recession in order to protect ourselves against its risk. Now, the third point, I think what we have to be careful of is the correlation between particularly terrorism and oil wealth, which is something that people like Tom Friedman talk about a lot. You have to be careful. It costs almost nothing to commit terrorist acts. I think the 9-11 cost less than $10 million. Now, the total retail value of all the petroleum products sold in the world in 2010 was $4 trillion. So if what we're saying is we're going to try to cut this down so that we keep millions of dollars out of the hands of people who would do us harm, I think that's unlikely to be helpful. Bear in mind that two of the most difficult countries in the world are North Korea and Cuba, countries that have no money, no oil, and no resources at all.  So I'm not sure that the process of trying to deprive bad people of oil money is anything that the United States can hope to achieve. Well, but see, all right, we can argue about whether Cuba is really such a serious medicine anymore or whether or not North Korea is more containable because it lacks oil or whether Iran has a big, robust revolutionary regime is more resilient in the face of international condemnation because it has cash flow that nobody can reach. But you're saying something different from what you were arguing, which is you're saying we can't do anything about it, but we're in the realm of arguing should we want to do something about it? Well, again, I think the point is if what you're trying to do is reduce the size of the global oil market to the point where people like the Iranians can't have any money, I think that's the wrong way to look at it. If we in fact believe that Iran's oil money is a national security threat, we should stop them from exporting oil, okay? That's a different problem from saying we need to reduce our consumption to the point where nobody buys any Iranian oil. That's never going to happen. Right, so another version of the same question about the kind of volatility in global oil prices, you're saying that it's impossible to change that because if you consume a lot of oil, you will therefore be subject to the world price and you use Canada as appropriately as an example. But that's different from saying that it would be healthier in the long run for the American economy if it was not subject to volatile prices for world oil, let the Chinese deal. We will always pay the world price for oil. Right, so therefore if that price is volatile and damaging to our economy, it would be in our interest to reduce the amount of oil we're dependent upon. Well, I'm not sure that's true. If the American consumer is paying $3.50 a gallon and we're not importing any crude oil and the world price spikes to $5 a gallon, the American consumer's gonna pay that. Right, so that's another reason to get oil out of their car. Well, if you can do that in such a way that he's better off, okay, but again, I'll go back to my analogy. You don't want it to fluctuate between $3.50 and $5 so you make him pay 10, that's not gonna be a solution. Now, let me just make one point here, Steve. We talked a lot at the dinner last night which was wonderful, by the way, about technology and being a technological optimist, and I am. The time is going to come when there is going to be something better than oil and there is going to be something better than the internal combustion engine and when that comes, we ought to embrace it. My point is that we have this tendency to pretend that we have it when we actually don't and we need to wait until we actually have it before we talk about replacing it. Right, well, and last question then, I mean, in that vector, you're willing to acknowledge though you would recommend against it that the most efficient way to manage that evolution even as a technological optimist would just be to send broad price signals and let the market take its course. So, I mean, in that sense, if you were to accept my dictator's mandate, really what you would want to do would be to change the price signal and let people in garages and everywhere else fiddle. Okay, yes, but you'd have to be realistic about what you expect. And again, I want to get back to my European point. Europeans have been paying very high gasoline prices for 30 years. They don't drive advanced fuels and it's not as though Europe doesn't have an advanced automotive industry. They certainly do. They have some of the most innovative car makers in the world. So the point is, if you raise the price, you will have the adverse effects. You will, and they will be serious. Then you're hoping that behind that comes something else which you may or may not get. So I'm not sure that's a good bet. Let me put it this way. Here's another analogy. If a doctor tells you I can replace your perfectly healthy heart with a much better artificial heart, there ought to be a really high standard for accepting that. Okay, my point is that the oil market for all its problems does what it's supposed to do. It gives us affordable high performance transportation. And there are serious externalities and we deal with them. But we cannot improve our overall situation by saying in order to eliminate the externalities, I'll eliminate the product because we don't have anything to replace it with. Great. Okay. Thank you, Bruce, for all of this. Okay, thank you. And on with the show, whatever it is.


Hi and welcome to the session. I am Asha and I am going to help you with the following question which says the sum of some lump terms of GP is 315 whose first term and the common ratio of 5 and 2 respectively find the last term and the number of terms. Let us now begin with the solution and let the number of terms of GP is equal to n. So, we are given that sum of n terms is equal to 315 and also we are given that the first term let us denote it by small a is equal to 5 the common ratio small r is equal to 2 which is greater than 1. The sum of a GP series is a into r raise to the power n minus 1 upon r minus 1. So, on substituting the values we have 315 is equal to 5 to 2 raise to the power n minus 1 on 2 minus 1 on 15 cone 5 is equal to 2 raise to the power n minus 1 or we have 63 is equal to 2 raise to the power n minus 1. So, 2 raise to the power n is equal to 64 which can be written as 2 raise to the power 6. So, on comparing we find that n is equal to 6.  Now, here we have a is equal to 5 and r is the common ratio which is given to us as 2 to find the last term and that will be the sixth term. The sixth term is given by a raise to the power 5 and this is the first term. Second term is given by a into r raise to the power 1. Third term is given by a into r raise to the power 2. So, the sixth term is given by a into r raise to the power 5. So, a is 5, r is 2, 2 raise to the power 5 so we have 5 into 32 which is equal to 160. Therefore, our answer is the last term is equal to 160 the value of n is 6. So, this completes the solution. Take care and have a good day.