Scientists Use 3D Printer to Create First “Printed” Human Vein

In the way cool category, I found this article on slashdot.org today. A couple notable exerpts:

3D Printing technology has recently leapt into a new realm — we’ve seen printers that can create entire buildings out of stone, delicious meals out of simple ingredients, and now — perhaps weirdest and coolest of them all — a printer that can build body parts from cells! Scientists working on the Organovo NovoGen printer recently created the first “printed” human vein. This technology could replace other toxic and carbon-heavy medicinal practices like using artificial parts in the human body.

If you're not familiar with 3D printers, they build up three-dimensional objects by laying down two-dimensional layers of the object. I've seen them make plastic prototype parts. The idea here is a leap forward where they use "bio-ink" to build up the right result instead of borrowing a vein from another part of your body. Will replacement organs becoming in a few years?

The Next 100 Years - Chapter 2 - Islamic Wars

George Friedman has a delightful look at the 21st century in his book The Next 100 Years. In last week's blog entry, I digested his intro and chapter 1 where I describe geopolitics (one of my fascinations), the rise of several unexpected powers (like Turkey? really?), and the American Age. This week we get to chapter 2 where he describes the US-Jihadist war (al Qaeda and company) and introduces five main points of the American grand strategy. The idea is that the Islamic wars ultimately won't make that big of a difference in the long run, especially when taken in context of the grand strategy.

And, as always, I expect to cover the main points, but seriously, Friedman takes almost 20 pages on this topic. I'm gonna have to leave you wanting more ... which is why I hope some of you will read the book, too.

Friedman starts off reminding us that people are talking about "the long war." Surely, tThe United States and the Islamic radicals will be at this all century - or longer! Won't they? But remember from last week that what appears to be a permanent state today might wind up looking like a passing phase 20 years from now. Think of how history saw the world change from 1900 to 1920 to 1940, etc.

Ultimately, al Qaeda fails in its goals. Has already failed, in fact. Sure, there'll continue to be more underwear bombings, but that's hardly a victory. "The United States has succeeded, not so much in winning the war as in preventing the Islamists from winning, and, from a geopolitical perspective, that is good enough." Back in 2001, al Qaeda's goal wasn't just to attack the US; it wanted to demonstrate America's weakness and al Qaeda's strength. That, in turn, would lead to undermining Islamic governments that relied on the US (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, on and on) and make the situation ripe for al Qaeda to come into power - and ultimately re-establish the Islamic empire of earlier centuries.

To understand what happens next, think about the last 20 years. The collapse of the Soviet Union dramatically destabilized several regions that had been frozen in place as part of the Cold War. The Soviets' collapse and withdrawal ("like a tide receding"), exposed underlying nations that hadn't been free for a century or more. They had no sense of self-government and, sometimes, no workable economy. At the same time, American interest withdrew since there was no longer any confrontation with the Soviets.

What did these newly freed societies do next? Think about how Yugoslavia exploded once they didn't have the Soviets forcing them to play nice to each other. Likewise, the game shifted for that Islamic region between Yugoslavia and Afghanistan. Think of other areas all along the underbelly of the former Soviet Union.

The turmoil of this Jihadist era winds up as "less a coherent movement than a regional spasm, the result of a force field being removed."  Divisions within the Islamic world will prevent them from stabilizing their base even if the US were to actually withdraw altogether.

The American Grand Strategy

Friedman speaks to a Grand Strategy. I'd hardly say this is some codified strategy. There's no document like the Constitution that outlines it. Well, not that I've ever heard of! But knowing these five points clears things up dramatically. For example, the US response to 9/11 maybe made little sense on the surface ... but in reality, it was exactly in keeping with this Grand Strategy. You can see this playing out in 2001. Likewise in the Cold War, or America's response to Japan in 1941 ... on and on.

In truth, all nations have some Grand Strategy, it's just that not all of them can actually achieve it. It's not always about war, but it is about the processes that constitute national power.

And the United States? Truth be told, the strategy often does involve war. Its Grand Strategy originated in fear. Think of the struggle to gain freedom. Or setting out in defense in the War of 1812 and suffering defeats and set-backs. "Nations are driven by the fear of losing what they have." Keep that in mind as you read these five points of the Grand Strategy:

1. The complete domination of North America by the United States Army
   The US probably wouldn't have survived as the 13 colonies on the eastern edge of North America. Expanding westward gained critical agriculture and trade power (think of the North American river system in light of this). Battles and wars were fought in part to defend this.
   
   
2. The elimination of any threat to the United States by any power in the Western Hemisphere
   South America isn't really a threat. The connection up through Panama isn't adequate for a real invasion, and South America is broken in half anyway. The main threats come from Mexico and the Caribbean. The Monroe Doctrine addresses this. There's a strategic imperative on preventing European powers from gaining footholds. And, if you may recall, the main time the US really worries about Latin America is when foreign powers have based there. Think Cuban Missile Crisis, for example.
   
   
3. Complete control of the maritime approaches to the United States by the navy in order to preclude any possibility of invasion
   "In 1812 the British navy sailed up the Chesapeake and burned Washington. Throughout the nineteenth century, the United States was terrified that the British, using their overwhelming control of the North Atlantic, would shut off its access to the ocean, strangling the United States." Again, multiple battles and wars were fought in the 19th century to address this. On the Pacific side, acquiring Alaska and Hawii saw to securing those sea lanes much more peacefully. The US finally secured the Atlantic during World War II. But the end of WWII, the US had such a huge navy that no power was able to operate in the Atlantic without US approval. The US was finally invulnerable to invasion.
   
   
4. Complete domination of the world's oceans to further secure US physical safety and guarantee control over the international trading system
   The US emerged from WWII with naval bases scattered all over the world ... as well as the world's largest navy. Think of how this changed things from the previous century. No other power has ever been able to do this. And, geopolitically speaking, this is the single most important fact in the world: The US controls the world's oceans and therefore the trade routes.
   
   
5. The prevention of any other nation from challenging US global naval power
   We see a carrot and a stick approach here. The US wants to continue holding control of the oceans. Remember, nations never want to lose what they have. The most direct route is to make sure no one else can build a substantial navy. The "carrot" side of things is making sure people don't need big navies. The US makes sure everyone has access to the seas. The "stick" is to wear out enemies in land confrontations so they have few resources left over for navy building.

That fifth strategy brings us back to the Eurasian area of the Islamicists. The US needs to make sure that no Eurasian power becomes secure enough that it diverts resources to building a navy. There's no longer any single threat of a total coalition there, so the US focuses on secondary, regional hegemons who might develop enough security to begin probing out to sea. "The United States, therefore, worked to create a continually shifting series of alliances designed to tie down any potential regional hegemon."

The US has to engage in regular and unpredictable interventions throughout that region. In the post-Soviet world of the early '90s, the US invaded Kuwait. Then followed Yugoslavia and Afghanistan ... all to prevent hegemons from forming in those regions. Rather than being about oil (a popular notion) or about expanding democracy (my own feeling) ... these things were driven more by the Grand Strategy. And, alarming as they were, they were nothing compared to the investment of resources and blood that went into World War II.

Now we get to a paradox: The ultimate goal of all these interventions isn't to achieve something but to prevent something. Ultimately, this will play out regardless of who's in power in the US. Any US President will wind up following this Grand Strategy because it in the national DNA. From Vietnam to Korea to Kosovo to the present, US policy throughout the 21st century may seem irrational, but since the primary goal will often be just to block or destabilize groups like al Qaeda, they'll be quite rational.

What next?

"The international system is now badly out of balance." The US is the single super-power. But the "natural tendency of the international system is to move to equilibrium." In such an unbalanced world, "smaller powers are at risk from larger, unchecked powers." The logically form coalitions so they can match strength. But coalitions tend to fall apart, and the US can be an "unforgiving giant."

So, we see this contradiction: "On the one hand, the United States is deeply resented and feared; on the other hand, individual nations still try to find a way to get along with the United States. ... This will be a dangerous century, especially for the rest of the world."

My own take on this now

There's a lot not to love about these impersonal geopolitical forces, but let's not fool ourselves and pretend they don't exist. I completely agree that the Jihadists can't win in the end, but I've also noticed a common mistake many folks make these days when they underestimate the power of religious fervor to inflame and unite. A lot of geopolitics assumes that nations will behave in their own best interests - politically, economically - but don't overlook religious interests which can be taken quite seriously by some folks. America saw a demonstration of this in Iraq when the Iraqis behaved ... oddly ... as part of being liberated. Lessons were learned and tactics were adjusted.

Still, looking forward I'll have to agree that the Jihadists eventually must fade from the world stage and become a memory. The intrinsic forces don't exist to keep them going for decade upon decade. Will they fade in the next several years? Maybe not ... but soon enough.

Watch the news then for this common theme: America will play out its fifth strategy over and over by muddling up alliances and preventing hegemons. Other nations will fear, scorn, and even hate the US. Internal US politics will make much ado over this response ... but it's inevitable and the main debate will have to be how to navigate it with integrity.

Up next: Chapter 3 - Population, Computers, and Culture Wars.

You can find more on The Next 100 Years at Random House. Author George Friedman is the chief intelligence officer and founder of Strategic Forecasting, Inc. (Stratfor), a private intelligence agency whose clients include foreign government agencies and Fortune 500 companies.

Cody – Thursday, July 17

Today we sampled the old and new west by hanging around Cody, WY. We hit the tourist shops, lunched at a local diner, watched a gunfight (of sorts), and took in the Cody Stampede Rodeo (voted best large outdoor PRCA rodeo).

The rodeo was the high point for me. You gotta admire the culture that starts its event with a Johnny Cash poem about the flag, the national anthem, and a prayer to God for safety for the competitors and the animals alike. Laura was the only one of us who had seen a rodeo before, and I think we all agreed it was a hoot! As with other things I’ve mentioned here, you can see these things in video, but it’s not the same as being there. On the way in, the kids tried their hand at lassoing a “sheep.” During the rodeo, it was striking to see the bucking broncos, the races, the young and old alike trying their best. I think my younger kids really enjoyed the Calf Scramble were they call down all the kids 12 and under (about 300 kids) to swarm and chase two calves with ribbons tied to their tails. The first two kids to bring ribbons to the rodeo clown got prizes.

The Next 100 Years - Chapter 1 - The Dawn of the American Age

"I have no crystal ball. I do, however, have a method that has served me well, imperfect though it might be, in understanding the past and anticipating the future." George Friedman makes several rational and compelling predictions for the 21st century in his book The Next 100 Years: In 2020, China fragments. In 2050, a global war between US, Turkey, Poland, and Japan (the new great powers). In 2080, space-based energy powers Earth. In 2100, Mexico challenges the U.S.

In this blog entry and several to follow, I'd like to digest some of the high points of Friedman's book. In fairness to the author, I don't intend to give away all the goodies but whet your appetite to actually get your hands on this enjoyable analysis that he's done.

First off, I don't think we get a prophetic road-map of the 21st century from Friedman here. But we do get insight into a way of viewing world events. Personally, I expect to take the near-term predictions to heart, and tuck away the longer-term as food for analysis when the events come around. Assuming I live that long!!

Friedman's purpose is to identify the major tendencies that define the major events. And he says that he'll "be delighted if [his] grandchildren, glancing at this book in 2100, have reason to say, 'Not half bad.'"

Geopolitics

First off, let me describe the concept of geopolitics. This is the idea that nations more or less have to behave certain ways just because of their geographic and political environment. For example, Britain had to become a huge naval power in recent centuries because it was an island nation. It also enjoyed some insulation from invasion due to the surrounding water. People that play the game of Risk understand this pretty well, too. A player with a power base in North America will adopt a different strategy than someone in Europe or Australia, and it all has to do with the way he has to defend his borders and the avenues he has to pursue his goals (i.e., world domination).

Get over the idea that Turkey couldn't be a major world power

Next, let me get you to let go of the notion that you the world as we see it today would only change slightly over the next decades. For example, you might scoff at the idea of Poland or Turkey being a major world power. Why not Russia? or China? But consider this (borrowing from Friedmans' early pages still), if you had lived in London in the year 1900, you would have viewed London as pretty much the capitol of the world. Europe was enjoying unprecedented prosperity. Serious people were claiming that war has become impossible given the interdependence of the financial markets.

Twenty years later in 1920, Europe had been torn apart by World War I, and Americans and Communists had vaulted into the scene, and the peace treaty had been imposed on Germany guaranteed that it would not soon reemerge.

Twenty years later in 1940, Germany had not only reemerged, but had conquered France and dominated Europe.

Get it? And likewise, by 1960 the world changed dramatically again. Or who in 1980 would have predicted the fall of Communism around 1989?

If we carry that forward, then it's not too hard to believe that typical observers today (i.e., you and I!) wouldn't naturally guess at just how weird things can change: "At a certain level, when it comes to the future, the only thing one can be sure of is that common sense will be wrong." But I do love to pick up some good tools for watching things unfold!

The American Age

Back in 1871, with the unification of Germany, you could have seen that eventually Germany would feel insecure trapped between Russia and France and would feel the need to redefine the systems. Looking at the 21st century, Friedman hunts for pivotal events for the century. After you clear away the debris of the European empires and the Soviet Union, the lone superpower remains the United States.

And on multiple levels, the US will continue to be the lone superpower. Economics continues to be the chief force. Controlling trade used to mean controlling the North Atlantic (hence the power of the European empires). Now it means controlling the Atlantic and the Pacific, and the US is the only country in a position to do that ... largely a result of its unique geographic position bordering both oceans, its stability, and its economic powerhouse.

The "no agenda" zone

Let me point out that Friedman doesn't try to strike an agenda here. Not that I can tell, anyway. America doesn't become beloved because of its power; more often, the response is fear. We'll see this non-agenda idea raise it head from time to time in the book. We might not like the nobility behind different events, we might not agree with the implications for our own favorite causes, but the events will probably develop and happen anyway due to the impersonal forces at work.

Coalitions and the US strategy

The 21st century will revolve around two opposing struggles: Secondary powers forming coalitions to contain/control the US, and the US acting preemptively to prevent effective coalitions from forming.

The Islamic wars of the last ten years are an example of a group of Muslims seeking to re-create a great Islamic empire. Inevitably, they felt the need to strike at the US and demonstrate their power. But the US responded by invading. However, it wasn't necessarily with a clear goal of victory. The US doesn't have to win; it just has to disrupt the coalition. Watch for that theme over and over again.

The next big conflict will be Russia (inevitably) trying to reassert power. And the US can't avoid trying to resist. In the end, Russia can't win.

China won't be the next big challenger because of its geopolitical position (there it is again). It's physically isolated (Siberia to the north, the Himalayas and jungles to the south). Its population is largely in the east. It lacks major naval power (expensive!). But the deciding factor really is that China is inherently unstable. Whenever it opens its borders for trade, the coastal regions prosper while the interior remains impoverished. Efforts to resolve this prove inefficient, and ultimately they close their borders again. We've seen this multiple times before. Think of Mao equalizing the wealth - or poverty, as it were.

The end of the population explosion

Friedman calls this the single most important fact of the 21st century. Europe and Japan are already demonstrating the pains of declining population. The US is turning the corner. Developing countries will peek and start to decline much later.

Watch for the US to change its attitude toward immigration in the next couple of decades as labor shortages create competition for workers. Watch for accelerated dependence on automation and robotics. And, interestingly enough, watch for the unintended consequences of those changes!

Where next?

In coming blog entries, I'll try to digest Friedman's deeper take on these deliciously swirling issues. The Jihadist wars, population, looking for geopolitical "fault lines," China, Russia, a coming crisis in 2030 (right on schedule! - you'll see), a global war around 2050 (but not so devastating), golden ages, and Mexico challenging the US for domination of North America around 2080.

There are quite a few implications for us commoners. I'm retiring around 2030, so I'm keenly interested in the crisis that Friedman's predicting. I have strong feelings about human rights in China. I have an opinion about how some economic realities will drive public opinion about marriage and family. I'm curious about the forces that would drive a war when my children are raising their families. I believe that God isn't a passive bystander ... so how will His will assert itself? As they say: Stay Tuned!

You can find more on The Next 100 Years at Random House. Author George Friedman is the chief intelligence officer and founder of Strategic Forecasting, Inc. (Stratfor), a private intelligence agency whose clients include foreign government agencies and Fortune 500 companies.

The Five Dysfunctions of a Team

I have a friend who's an executive at another company, and he recommended this book to me (The Five Dysfunctions of a Team). He's asking his management team to go through the material, too.
 

Now your first question might be: What? Do you really think we have dysfunctional teams? My friend encountered the same thing at his shop. And, well, of course we're dysfunctional. In some way. In fact, I think non-dysfunctional teams are the exception in this world. Just think of all the fodder Scott Adams has to write about with his Dilbert comic strip! And to be honest, I'm probably a contributor to the dysfunction in my own team. So, if your on my team, you should probably know that I'm thinking of you when I think of dysfunctional teams, but I hope you won't be offended because I think of myself, too!
 
The author, Patrick Lencioni, makes the case that there are five basic ways our teams break down ... but he also describes how to address solving these dysfunctions. He also points out that each dysfunction builds upon the other, but you can disassemble your problems one at a time so you start straightening things out. So far, I've only watched the 90-minute video, but the book's coming up soon for me. Patrick reminds me of Dirk Benedict (think "Starbuck" on Battlestar Galactica and "Face" on A-Team - remember?). He only lacks the cigar. The video is a talking pitch, but the book reads like a set of fables about people that seem all-too-familiar.
 
Here are the five dysfunctions he describes and their solutions. I dunno: Is it too strong to say these are "solutions"? Maybe, but it's direction nonetheless.

1. Absence of Trust: The fear of being vulnerable with team members. And I completely agree! How many teams have you been on where people couldn't let down their guard? Do you recall how that's inhibited the team and kept them from their full potential? To address this, the leader(s) need to demonstrate vulnerability on their own. That sets the tone for the rest of the group, and it creates the environment where the next dysfunction can be addressed.
   
2. Fear of Conflict: Trust enables us to overcome this fear. We don't just hold it in anymore because we know we're in a healthy trusting environment. Good ideas start to come out and bad ones get challenged and improved. To promote this healthy conflict, leaders need to demand debate. Patrick used the phrase "mining for conflict" in which a leader actively looks for these opportunities.
3. Lack of Commitment: Teams that can't engage in productive conflict aren't able to have their ideas heard ... and so they can't completely buy in and commit. Leaders must force clarity and closure.
   
4. Avoidance of Accountability: When people don't commit to a decision, teammates aren't going to have the courage to enter the danger and stick together. On the other hand, when they do have this courage, they get to where they'll hold each other accountable and the leader doesn't have to be the only one doing that. The leader has to confront difficult issues. There's much more to this covered in the video, but a big idea that struck me is that we need to be able to hold people accountable for behaviors and not just results. Behaviors always lead to results, and if a leader is careless with behaviors, then he's not building in success for the results he wants.
   
5. Inattention to Results: When people aren't held accountable, then they're given tacit permission to focus on other things (other agendas, pet projects, etc.). The leader has to focus on collective outcomes.
   

 
More on this once I read the book. For now, what does this say to you?

Citation: Lencioni, Patrick. Leadership and Teams. TLC, a SkillSoft Company. © 2004. Online Video Clip, Books24x7. http://common.books24x7.com/book/id_18960/book.asp. (That link is for the 90-minute video, but you can also find the actual book on books24x7, too.)

What to blog on?

OK, I'm going to try my hand at blogging a bit. Been meaning to do this for awhile. The assumption is that I have thoughts worth sharing and time/energy to put into it!

By way of getting started, I created a little poll that you can find on the sidebar of my blog. If you want to egg me on, please vote there. If you want to hear about something else, please write a comment to this posting.

May this be a blessed and interesting New Year!

--Paul

P.S., some of the options to vote on may need a little explanation.

• The book The Next 100 Years takes a stab at predicting how geopolitical forces will drive events through the 21st century. For example, historically, Great Britain had to become a naval power because of their position as an island. Looking forward, we can predict that China will fragment internally and decline over the next decade; Turkey, Poland, and Japan will rise to be major economic powers; Russia will make another stab at greatness (because they must) and fail; forces will cause a serious war by 2050; and Mexico will vie with the US for being the controlling force of North America by 2080.
• The book Just Walk Across the Room speaks to practical personal outreach. More relational and less program-driven.
• The movie Second Chance is about a mega church in the suburbs and its sister inner city church. No, that's just the backdrop. It's really about an associate pastor at the mega church reconnecting with what real ministry means.
  

McLaughlin Christmas Letter 2009

Veni, Veni Emmanuel

I was reminded recently how all the world, not just Israel, was (is?) waiting for the Messiah to arrive. Redeemer, Savior, and King – come to save us from our own shame and darkness and to introduce us to His own peace and light. These days, we’re told to keep our ideology to ourselves. But – I find that hard, because it’s like learning about the cure to cancer or world hunger and then hiding it in my basement. So, I and others will probably continue sharing the cure while we can.

O Come, O Come, Emmanuel!

Let me catch you up on the happenings in our family for 2009. This wasn’t as much of a travel year for us. However we did make the long trip to visit Florida during our mid-winter break. It was delightful to see how the kids took in the exotic world there. To manage the trip, we arranged a house swap where we stayed in another family’s home in Fort Myers. It was good to see Laura’s brothers Mark and John and John’s family for a really short visit on the way home to Vermont.

This was the first summer when all of the kids went to summer camp away from home. The three girls went to a Christian girls’ camp in Maine, and the two boys went to a Cub Scout camp in southern Vermont. In preparation for these camps, all the kids worked hard on becoming stronger swimmers. We also got in a couple camping trips to “our” state park (Ricker Pond SP in eastern VT).

In the pet department, we added Mowgli the cat as a little-appreciated companion to grumpy black Bagheera cat and we added Nellie the dog – half spaniel / half dachshund / all sweet.

James will turn 10 along with his brother and sisters on Dec 26th. He and our other fourth graders, Jenna and Philip, have started musical instruments this year, and his is the clarinet. His favorite book of the year is Boomtown, home of Chang’s Famous Fireworks factory. Favorite new sport: Downhill skiing. Proudest moment: Making it to his school’s geography bee finals in a nail-biting tie-breaker.

Philip is our #1 imp. In previous years, his favorite books have been the Calvin & Hobbes comic anthologies, but this year he turned more to the geeky Foxtrot comics. He dressed as a “blue screen of death” for Halloween this year (an idea from Foxtrot). Favorite computer games this year have been Dust, Lego Digital Designer (which Paul also has gotten into), and Fancy Pants. Favorite move: Iron Giant. Favorite hat: His Indiana Jones fedora. Instrument: Saxophone.

Merry is in third grade this year. She’s a spunky kid that has to work hard at reading and speech. She likes to play pretend games, she loves Egypt, Greek mythology, pottery and art. She also entertained the rest of us with her ant farm. Favorite book: Hugo Pepper. Favorite computer game: Dust. Favorite TV show: NOVA(!).

Jenna continues to be our gentle shy girl. She continues to be tallest of our fearsome foursome. She is also into skiing this year. She’s added the viola to playing the piano. Favorite book: Island of the Aunts. Favorite trip: The Florida trip. Favorite summer activities: Jumping on our trampoline and playing tetherball. She is a lover of all animals, cute and cuddly.

Robin has settled into high school life quite well. Her forte is music with piano, voice, and flute. She is also going strong with her classes. She landed a small part in her school’s Little Shop of Horrors. She says her favorite bock this year was Geometry for Enjoyment and Challenge and Lord of the Flies (not). Her proudest moments involved doing the piano accompaniment of the middle school select chorus and the high school orchestra during their concerts.

Laura continues to be our masterful and mysteriously unsung homemaker and prime taxi driver. She works very hard to make the home a special home, and it shows. Every few years we have to reinvent part of our house, and 2009 hit the cycle nicely. She’s finally getting the basement transformed to include an entertainment area … in addition to ping pong, carpetball, Legos, etc.

Paul continues at IBM and is embroiled in a deliciously complex software project that’ll probably take us through 2012. I’ve also found myself serving as the cubmaster for the boys Scout pack. My mom died this year, and I know that mixture of joy for her new home and sadness that I’ll need to wait so long to see her again. Favorite book: The Next 100 Years (a geopolitical prediction for the 21st century … might even be the way it works out!). Favorite move: Star Trek (rocks!!!). Favorite computer game: Lego Digital Designer.

We’re always glad for the news we get from you, and we pray that you’re enjoying the presence, the arrival, of our Messiah.

Your friends,
The McLaughlins

Veni, Veni Emmanuel
Captivum solve Israel, Qui gemit in exilio, Privatus Dei Filio.
Gaude! Gaude! Emmanuel, Nascetur pro te, Israel!

O Come, O Come Emmanuel
And rapture captive Israel. That mourns in lonely exile here, until the Son of God appear.
Rejoice! Rejoice! Emmanuel shall come to thee, O Israel!