A new invention reported by the New York Times this week promises to save us time, money and sanity. LiquiGlide “makes the inside of the bottle permanently wet and slippery,” so that their contents slide out easily. No more struggling to get ketchup out of the bottle–only to have it splatter on your clothes. No more precariously balancing the old bottle of liquid hand soap on top of the new one, for hours, in hopes of transferring the last bits of remaining soap that the dispenser pump could no longer reach. No more drinking tea that is lukewarm due to the minutes it took to extract the last teaspoon of honey from its bottle.
As described in the article, the technology works by means of a
“lubricant [that] binds more strongly to the textured surface than to the liquid [contained in the bottle], and that allows the liquid to slide on a layer of lubricant instead of being pinned against the surface, and the textured surface keeps the lubricant from slipping out.”
LiquiGlide, originally developed to solve “larger-scale industrial challenges, like preventing ice formation on airplane wings and allowing more efficient pumping of crude oil and other viscous liquids,” promises to save consumers quite a bit of money—assuming, of course, that it’s not too expensive to implement:
“Tests by Consumer Reports in 2009 found that much of what we buy never makes it out of the container and is instead thrown away — up to a quarter of skin lotion, 16 percent of laundry detergent and 15 percent of condiments like mustard and ketchup.”
I’ll be interested to hear more about the “edible” version of the lubricant that will be used on the insides of bottles containing food and condiments (its ingredients have not yet been disclosed). But in the meantime I look forward to trying out the technology in what is likely to be its first consumer application: Elmer’s glue, with whom LiquiGlide has signed an exclusive agreement.
In other news, unfortunately, a group of scientists are planning to use the “moral authority” of the United States to delay the use of potentially life-saving technology. At issue: “a new genome-editing technique that would alter human DNA in a way that can be inherited.” According to The New York Times, the technique, which could erase genetic diseases, such as certain forms of breast and ovarian cancer, “has already been used to edit the genomes of mice, rats and monkeys, and few doubt that it would work the same way in people.”
And yet a group of biologists published a paper last week in the journal Science, calling for scientists worldwide to hold off on clinical application of the technology in humans—progress in some countries, recall, is not hampered by an FDA—“until the full implications ‘are discussed among scientific and governmental organizations.’” (The inventor of the technique is the lead author of the article. A similar article, discussing the use of a rival genome-editing technology, recently appeared in the journal Nature.) Their concern is that, in addition to the probability of eradicating genetic diseases, the technology might be used “to enhance qualities like beauty or intelligence.” Many ethicists, no doubt the same ones who will dominate the discussions in the “approved” scientific and governmental organizations, believe this genome-editing technology should not be used for either of these latter purposes.
My answer to them: then don’t use it. These biologists are hoping to buy time to “educate” the public about how bad it could be, and thereby to instigate worldwide calls of “there ought to be a law!” so that governments will regulate the use of this technology and prevent its use for “unethical” purposes like—gasp!—the enhancement of beauty and intelligence.
So long as there is no fraud or other rights violations committed by the doctors who implement this technology, we should let the free market decide for what purposes it will be used. It is always evil for government to initiate force against citizens so as to prevent them from benefiting from the fruits of their labor or enhancing their lives. (And yes, this includes preventing the use of genome-editing technology to enhance beauty.) But it is particularly evil to contemplate preventing, to hope to prevent, by force, the enhancement of human intelligence. Given that our rational faculty is our primary means of survival, the potential to enhance human intelligence carries with it the promise of more innovation, more productivity with less effort—in other words, more enjoyable lives for everyone. How dare a group of scientists try to arrogate to themselves the right to make this decision on our behalf?
The good news is that, while we work to change the culture to one that will, at least for the most part, embrace the opportunity to enhance human intelligence and beauty, we can at least avail ourselves of new medical treatments overseas via “medical tourism,” albeit at considerable expense and some inconvenience. While many around the world will be cowed—or coerced—as a result of whatever “consensus” is reached by the “scientific and governmental organizations,” others will likely begin to exploit this technology and offer patients the opportunity to live longer, healthier, happier lives.
As usual, if you like what you’re reading here at News Sandwich, I encourage you to share these posts with your friends and followers. Thanks!
News Sandwich 