Conscious Choice cover

From the press release: In this ground-breaking new history of early America, historian Robert Zimmerman not only exposes the lie behind The New York Times 1619 Project that falsely claims slavery is central to the history of the United States, he also provides profound lessons about the nature of human societies, lessons important for Americans today as well as for all future settlers on Mars and elsewhere in space.

 
Conscious Choice: The origins of slavery in America and why it matters today and for our future in outer space, is a riveting page-turning story that documents how slavery slowly became pervasive in the southern British colonies of North America, colonies founded by a people and culture that not only did not allow slavery but in every way were hostile to the practice.  
Conscious Choice does more however. In telling the tragic history of the Virginia colony and the rise of slavery there, Zimmerman lays out the proper path for creating healthy societies in places like the Moon and Mars.

 

“Zimmerman’s ground-breaking history provides every future generation the basic framework for establishing new societies on other worlds. We would be wise to heed what he says.” —Robert Zubrin, founder of founder of the Mars Society.

 

Available everywhere for $3.99 (before discount) at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and all ebook vendors, or direct from the ebook publisher, ebookit. And if you buy it from ebookit you don't support the big tech companies and I get a bigger cut much sooner.


Romney’s energy policy proposal announced today would redirect science funding towards basic research.

Mitt Romney’s energy policy proposal, announced today, would redirect science funding towards basic research, according to this mostly positive analysis from the generally liberal journal Science.

Personally I’d like to get the federal government out of all this. Let the private market decide where the money should be spent for research. Moreover, we still have that federal debt to pay off. Where will Romney get the money?

Readers!
 

I must unfortunately ask you for your financial support because I do not depend on ads and rely entirely on the generosity of readers to keep Behind the Black running. You can either make a one time donation for whatever amount you wish, or you sign up for a monthly subscription ranging from $2 to $15 through Paypal or $3 to $50 through Patreon.


Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.


Your support is even more essential to me because I not only keep this site free from advertisements, I do not use the corrupt social media companies like Google, Twitter, and Facebook to promote my work. I depend wholly on the direct support of my readers.


You can provide that support to Behind The Black with a contribution via Patreon or PayPal. To use Patreon, go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation. For PayPal click one of the following buttons:
 


 

Or with a subscription with regular donations from your Paypal or credit card account:


 

If Patreon or Paypal don't work for you, you can support Behind The Black directly by sending your donation by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman, to
 

Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652
 

Or you can donate by using Zelle through your bank. You will need to give my name and email address (found at the bottom of the "About" page). The best part of this electronic option is that no fees will be deducted! What you donate will be what I receive.

3 comments

  • Tom Billings

    Indeed, the worst problem that science has today is not its level of funding, but that it is under monopsony/oligopsony funding. As a result, resources needed to follow up a breakthrough don’t get allocated ,because pre-experiment peer reviewers of funding in one or a few funding sources so often decide that a project is unworthy of funding, …because it is “Outside the main lines of research in the field”. Making sure that there can be *many* places to easily ask for funding would be a boon to actual progress in many fields of science, as opposed to the “publish or perish” mills that grind so long and so often fruitlessly today.

  • I’m OK with government doing basic research. Sure, you have your Bell Labs and IBM Fellows, but in the business world, basic research is almost a luxury. The NACA/NASA model has worked well, not only for aerospace, but a myriad of other industries. There’s something to be said for public funding of labs where scientists can pursue ideas without the pressure to turn a profit. Private industry can then choose among the findings for the most potential profit. I would say that public expenditure in research has been returned many, many times through private capital exploiting publicly-funded basic research.

  • Tom Billings

    “The NACA/NASA model has worked well, not only for aerospace, but a myriad of other industries.”

    Uhhhh, …Blair, there exists today *no* NACA/NASA model. There *was* a NACA model, and then NACA was swept into NASA, and within 5 years NACA’s model for research and cooperation with commercial industry was nearly submerged completely. What has dominated since 1961 is the Apollo model, which has left us high and dry, as far as the needed technology development in areas that would really grow both aviation and spaceflight. This continuing attempt to use NASA money to recreate “excitement” about a huge project has caused the monstrosities like the SLS for which there are neither funds nor programs to justify it.

    Compare this Multi-billions boondoggle not only with the lack of funding for developing orbital propellant depots, reusable landers, In Situ Resource Utilization and new spacecraft propulsion technology, but with the lack of development funding to advance non-piloted UAV-style civilian-carrying aircraft, and other aviation market expanders. NACA kept looking to expand capabilities to fill new markets, while NASA has continually looked for new “excitement”. Note that “excitement” primarily benefits the pols on the NASA committees in Congress

    In addition, the idea that there must be some large pot of money, distributed by a hierarchy, whether governmental or corporate, is not as valid as it used to be. Not only are aerospace projects being inserted into the “Kickstarter” style of website, but “crowdfunding” of new commercial start-ups is now a passed law, …if the regulating groups can keep their control freaks away from the computer long enough to get the regs reflecting that law actually published. They just blew another deadline on this effort last week.

    *Many* sources of funding, as opposed to one, or a few sources, that squeeze their funds through peer review groups of exactly those people with an interest in sending money to the sort of projects that will support their own “mainline” research, are what will be needed to exploit multiple breakthroughs. In the last 20 years such breakthroughs have been starved by peer review for years after the initial work is published, in fields from angiogenesis drugs to diabetes cures, to …….

Readers: the rules for commenting!

 

No registration is required. I welcome all opinions, even those that strongly criticize my commentary.

 

However, name-calling and obscenities will not be tolerated. First time offenders who are new to the site will be warned. Second time offenders or first time offenders who have been here awhile will be suspended for a week. After that, I will ban you. Period.

 

Note also that first time commenters as well as any comment with more than one link will be placed in moderation for my approval. Be patient, I will get to it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *