John and Ursula Schlosstein nee Gottschalk with their infant son Ralph. portraits family

Digital Image

The biology of Australian weeds, Limnocharis flava

The genus name Limnocharis is derived from the Greek limno (meaning marsh or pond) and charis (meaning grace) (Haynes and Holm-Nielson 1992) and flava is Latin for yellow. The genus is generally accepted to have two species, Limnocharis flava (Linneaus) Buchenau 1868 and L. laforestii (Duchass. ex Griseb) 1858. L. flava was first named Alisma flava by Linneaus in 1753 (Haynes and Holm-Nielsen 1986). Since then, other synonyms have included Damasonium flavum Mill. 1772, Limnocharis emarginata Humb. and Bonpl. 1808, Limnocharis plumieri Rich. 1815, Limnocharis laforestii Duchas. ex Griseb (1858) and Limnocharis mattogrossensis O. Ktze. (1893) (Woodson and Schery 1943).

Franks family papers, 1711-1821, [1965-1968].

Contains business correspondence, accounts and documents relating to Jacob Franks of New York, his two sons, Moses and David, a nephew, Isaac, and a John Franks of Halifax, possibly a member of the family.

Contract with John Moore for building house on Mill Street

Digital image

Warrant to pay John Moore for building house on Mill Street

Digital image

Greenwashing the Trans-Pacific Partnership: Fossil fuels, the environment, and climate change

There has been much controversy over the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) – a plurilateral trade agreement involving a dozen nations from throughout the Pacific Rim – and its impact upon the environment, biodiversity, and climate change. The secretive treaty negotiations involve Australia and New Zealand; countries from South East Asia such as Brunei Darussalam, Malaysia, Singapore, Vietnam, and Japan; the South American nations of Peru and Chile; and the members of the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Canada, Mexico and the United States. There was an agreement reached between the parties in October 2015. The participants asserted: ‘We expect this historic agreement to promote economic growth, support higher-paying jobs; enhance innovation, productivity and competitiveness; raise living standards; reduce poverty in our countries; and to promote transparency, good governance, and strong labor and environmental protections.’ The final texts of the agreement were published in November 2015. There has been discussion as to whether other countries – such as Indonesia, the Philippines, and South Korea – will join the deal. There has been much debate about the impact of this proposed treaty upon intellectual property, the environment, biodiversity and climate change. There have been similar concerns about the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) – a proposed trade agreement between the United States and the European Union. In 2011, the United States Trade Representative developed a Green Paper on trade, conservation, and the environment in the context of the TPP. In its rhetoric, the United States Trade Representative has maintained that it has been pushing for strong, enforceable environmental standards in the TPP. In a key statement in 2014, the United States Trade Representative Mike Froman insisted: ‘The United States’ position on the environment in the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations is this: environmental stewardship is a core American value, and we will insist on a robust, fully enforceable environment chapter in the TPP or we will not come to agreement.’ The United States Trade Representative maintained: ‘Our proposals in the TPP are centered around the enforcement of environmental laws, including those implementing multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) in TPP partner countries, and also around trailblazing, first-ever conservation proposals that will raise standards across the region’. Moreover, the United States Trade Representative asserted: ‘Furthermore, our proposals would enhance international cooperation and create new opportunities for public participation in environmental governance and enforcement.’ The United States Trade Representative has provided this public outline of the Environment Chapter of the TPP: A meaningful outcome on environment will ensure that the agreement appropriately addresses important trade and environment challenges and enhances the mutual supportiveness of trade and environment. The Trans-Pacific Partnership countries share the view that the environment text should include effective provisions on trade-related issues that would help to reinforce environmental protection and are discussing an effective institutional arrangement to oversee implementation and a specific cooperation framework for addressing capacity building needs. They also are discussing proposals on new issues, such as marine fisheries and other conservation issues, biodiversity, invasive alien species, climate change, and environmental goods and services. Mark Linscott, an assistant Trade Representative testified: ‘An environment chapter in the TPP should strengthen country commitments to enforce their environmental laws and regulations, including in areas related to ocean and fisheries governance, through the effective enforcement obligation subject to dispute settlement.’ Inside US Trade has commented: ‘While not initially expected to be among the most difficult areas, the environment chapter has emerged as a formidable challenge, partly due to disagreement over the United States proposal to make environmental obligations binding under the TPP dispute settlement mechanism’. Joshua Meltzer from the Brookings Institute contended that the trade agreement could be a boon for the protection of the environment in the Pacific Rim: Whether it is depleting fisheries, declining biodiversity or reduced space in the atmosphere for Greenhouse Gas emissions, the underlying issue is resource scarcity. And in a world where an additional 3 billion people are expected to enter the middle class over the next 15 years, countries need to find new and creative ways to cooperate in order to satisfy the legitimate needs of their population for growth and opportunity while using resources in a manner that is sustainable for current and future generations. The TPP parties already represent a diverse range of developed and developing countries. Should the TPP become a free trade agreement of the Asia-Pacific region, it will include the main developed and developing countries and will be a strong basis for building a global consensus on these trade and environmental issues. The TPP has been promoted by its proponents as a boon to the environment. The United States Trade Representative has maintained that the TPP will protect the environment: ‘The United States’ position on the environment in the TPP negotiations is this: environmental stewardship is a core American value, and we will insist on a robust, fully enforceable environment chapter in the TPP or we will not come to agreement.’ The United States Trade Representative discussed ‘Trade for a Greener World’ on World Environment Day. Andrew Robb, at the time the Australian Trade and Investment Minister, vowed that the TPP will contain safeguards for the protection of the environment. In November 2015, after the release of the TPP text, Rohan Patel, the Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Director of Intergovernmental Affairs, sought to defend the environmental credentials of the TPP. He contended that the deal had been supported by the Nature Conservancy, the International Fund for Animal Welfare, the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, the World Wildlife Fund, and World Animal Protection. The United States Congress, though, has been conflicted by the United States Trade Representative’s arguments about the TPP and the environment. In 2012, members of the United States Congress - including Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), and John Kerry (D-MA) – wrote a letter, arguing that the trade agreement needs to provide strong protection for the environment: ‘We believe that a '21st century agreement' must have an environment chapter that guarantees ongoing sustainable trade and creates jobs, and this is what American businesses and consumers want and expect also.’ The group stressed that ‘A binding and enforceable TPP environment chapter that stands up for American interests is critical to our support of the TPP’. The Congressional leaders maintained: ‘We believe the 2007 bipartisan congressional consensus on environmental provisions included in recent trade agreements should serve as the framework for the environment chapter of the TPP.’ In 2013, senior members of the Democratic leadership expressed their opposition to granting President Barack Obama a fast-track authority in respect of the TPP House of Representatives Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said: ‘No on fast-track – Camp-Baucus – out of the question.’ Senator Majority leader Harry Reid commented: ‘I’m against Fast-Track: Everyone would be well-advised to push this right now.’ Senator Elizabeth Warren has been particularly critical of the process and the substance of the negotiations in the TPP: From what I hear, Wall Street, pharmaceuticals, telecom, big polluters and outsourcers are all salivating at the chance to rig the deal in the upcoming trade talks. So the question is, Why are the trade talks secret? You’ll love this answer. Boy, the things you learn on Capitol Hill. I actually have had supporters of the deal say to me ‘They have to be secret, because if the American people knew what was actually in them, they would be opposed. Think about that. Real people, people whose jobs are at stake, small-business owners who don’t want to compete with overseas companies that dump their waste in rivers and hire workers for a dollar a day—those people, people without an army of lobbyists—they would be opposed. I believe if people across this country would be opposed to a particular trade agreement, then maybe that trade agreement should not happen. The Finance Committee in the United States Congress deliberated over the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations in 2014. The new chair Ron Wyden has argued that there needs to be greater transparency in trade. Nonetheless, he has mooted the possibility of a ‘smart-track’ to reconcile the competing demands of the Obama Administration, and United States Congress. Wyden insisted: ‘The new breed of trade challenges spawned over the last generation must be addressed in imaginative new policies and locked into enforceable, ambitious, job-generating trade agreements.’ He emphasized that such agreements ‘must reflect the need for a free and open Internet, strong labor rights and environmental protections.’ Elder Democrat Sander Levin warned that the TPP failed to provide proper protection for the environment: The TPP parties are considering a different structure to protect the environment than the one adopted in the May 10 Agreement, which directly incorporated seven multilateral environmental agreements into the text of past trade agreements. While the form is less important than the substance, the TPP must provide an overall level of environmental protection that upholds and builds upon the May 10 standard, including fully enforceable obligations. But many of our trading partners are actively seeking to weaken the text to the point of falling short of that standard, including on key issues like conservation. Nonetheless, 2015, President Barack Obama was able to secure the overall support of the United States Congress for his ‘fast-track’ authority. This was made possible by the Republicans and dissident Democrats. Notably, Oregon Senator Ron Wyden switched sides, and was transformed from a critic of the TPP to an apologist for the TPP. For their part, green political parties and civil society organisations have been concerned about the secretive nature of the negotiations; and the substantive implications of the treaty for the environment. Environmental groups and climate advocates have been sceptical of the environmental claims made by the White House for the TPP. The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand, the Australian Greens and the Green Party of Canada have released a joint declaration on the TPP observing: ‘More than just another trade agreement, the TPP provisions could hinder access to safe, affordable medicines, weaken local content rules for media, stifle high-tech innovation, and even restrict the ability of future governments to legislate for the good of public health and the environment’. In the United States, civil society groups such as the Sierra Club, Public Citizen, WWF, the Friends of the Earth, the Rainforest Action Network and 350.org have raised concerns about the TPP and the environment. Allison Chin, President of the Sierra Club, complained about the lack of transparency, due process, and public participation in the TPP talks: ‘This is a stealth affront to the principles of our democracy.’ Maude Barlow’s The Council of Canadians has also been concerned about the TPP and environmental justice. New Zealand Sustainability Council executive director Simon Terry said the agreement showed ‘minimal real gains for nature’. A number of organisations have joined a grand coalition of civil society organisations, which are opposed to the grant of a fast-track. On the 15th January 2013, WikiLeaks released the draft Environment Chapter of the TPP - along with a report by the Chairs of the Environmental Working Group. Julian Assange, WikiLeaks' publisher, stated: ‘Today's WikiLeaks release shows that the public sweetener in the TPP is just media sugar water.’ He observed: ‘The fabled TPP environmental chapter turns out to be a toothless public relations exercise with no enforcement mechanism.’ This article provides a critical examination of the draft Environment Chapter of the TPP. The overall argument of the article is that the Environment Chapter of the TPP is an exercise in greenwashing – it is a public relations exercise by the United States Trade Representative, rather than a substantive regime for the protection of the environment in the Pacific Rim. Greenwashing has long been a problem in commerce, in which companies making misleading and deceptive claims about the environment. In his 2012 book, Greenwash: Big Brands and Carbon Scams, Guy Pearse considers the rise of green marketing and greenwashing. Government greenwashing is also a significant issue. In his book Storms of My Grandchildren, the climate scientist James Hansen raises his concerns about government greenwashing. Such a problem is apparent with the TPP – in which there was a gap between the assertions of the United States Government, and the reality of the agreement. This article contends that the TPP fails to meet the expectations created by President Barack Obama, the White House, and the United States Trade Representative about the environmental value of the agreement. First, this piece considers the relationship of the TPP to multilateral environmental treaties. Second, it explores whether the provisions in respect of the environment are enforceable. Third, this article examines the treatment of trade and biodiversity in the TPP. Fourth, this study considers the question of marine capture fisheries. Fifth, there is an evaluation of the cursory text in the TPP on conservation. Sixth, the article considers trade in environmental services under the TPP. Seventh, this article highlights the tensions between the TPP and substantive international climate action. It is submitted that the TPP undermines effective and meaningful government action and regulation in respect of climate change. The conclusion also highlights that a number of other chapters of the TPP will impact upon the protection of the environment – including the Investment Chapter, the Intellectual Property Chapter, the Technical Barriers to Trade Chapter, and the text on public procurement.

John Searlen teoria tietoisuudesta

Tutkielmassa esitellään ja arvioidaan John Searlen teoriaa tietoisuudesta. Tietoisuus (consciousness) on Searlen mukaan tärkein mielenfilosofinen käsite. Searle ei määrittele käsitettä tarkasti, vaan tyytyy esittämään sitä kuvaavia esimerkkejä ja analogioita. Tietoisuuden keskeisimmiksi ominaisuuksiksi Searlen teoriassa näyttävät muodostuvan intentionaalisuus (intentionality), subjektiivisuus (subjectivity) ja kausaalinen vaikutus käyttäytymiseen (mental causation). Näihin ominaisuuksiin liittyvät myös Searlen painavimmat tietoisuudesta esittämät argumentit. Argumenttien analysointi on tutkielman tärkein tavoite. Searlen yhteysperiaatteen (Connection Principle) mukaan intentionaalisia tiloja voi olla vain olennolla, jolla voi olla tietoisia intentionaalisia tiloja, ja jokainen alitajuinen intentionaalinen tila on ainakin potentiaalisesti tietoinen. Toisin sanoen intentionaalisuuden ja tietoisuuden välillä vallitsee välttämätön yhteys seuraavasti: on loogisesti välttämätöntä, että jokainen intentionaalinen tila voi ainakin periaattessa päästä tietoisuuteen.Tutkielmassa kuitenkin osoitetaan, että yhteysperiaateeseen on syytä suhtautua epäillen. Searlen yhteysperiaatteen puolesta esittämä argumentti näyttää nimittäin sisältävän dilemman. Jos erottelu intrinsiseen ja näennäiseen intentionaalisuuteen tulkitaan Searlen tavoin, syyllistytään sen olettamiseen, mikä pitäisi todistaa; jos taas erottelu tulkitaan toisin kuin Searle, argumentti ei tue yhteysperiaatetta. Searlen mukaan mentaaliset tilat ovat aina jonkun mentaalisia tiloja. Tästä väitteestä Searle pyrkii johtamaan toisen, paljon radikaalimman väitteen: mielen ilmiöt kuuluvat omaan ontologiseen kategoriaansa, subjektiivisten mentaalisten tilojen kategoriaan. Searlen käsitystä tukee Thomas Nagelin esittämä, hyvin samansisältöinen argumentti. Yksimielisyys ei kuitenkaan ole erehtymättömyyden tae, sillä Paul Churchlandin kritiikki näyttää pahasti horjuttavan Searlen subjektiivisuusargumentin uskottavuutta. Churchland väittää Searlen syyllistyvän intensionaaliseen virhepäätelmään. Yksittäisen henkilön episteemisen pääsyn rajoittuneisuudesta ei Churchlandin mukaan voida tehdä mitään ontologisia johtopäätöksiä, koska tiedetyksi tuleminen ei ole objektin aito ominaisuus. Vastaväite näyttää olevan kohtalokas Searlen subjektiivisuusargumentille. Subjektiivisuuden ongelma näyttää olevan perustava metafyysinen vedenjakaja, joka jakaa mielenfilosofiset teoriat toisaalta materialistisiin, toisaalta dualistisiin. Searle uskoo, että mieli-ruumis -ongelma (mind-body problem) on ratkaistavissa ilman, että tarvitsee valita kumpaakaan. Ratkaisu sisältyy kahteen Searlen näennäisesti yhteensopimattomaan teesiin. Ensimmäisen teesin mukaan mentaaliset tilat ovat todellisia ilmiöitä, eikä niitä voida redusoida mihinkään muuhun tai eliminoida määrittelemällä ne uudestaan. Toisen teesin mukaan aivojen operaatiot aiheuttavat mentaaliset tilat ja mentaaliset tilat ovat aivojen piirteitä. Teeseistä jälkimmäinen osoittautuu ongelmalliseksi syistä, jotka Jaegwon Kim on esittänyt. Jos mentaaliset tilat olisivat aivojen ominaisuuksia, ei mielen ja aivojen välinen suhde voisi olla kausaalinen, koska kausaatiossa (causation) on aina kyse kahden erillisen entiteetin tai tapahtuman välisestä relaatiosta, jossa suhteen osapuolien välillä on oltava ajallista etäisyyttä. Toiseksi Searlen vertaus tietoisuuden ja aivojen suhteesta kappaleen kiinteyden ja sen mikrorakenteen suhteeseen epäonnistuu, koska tietoisuus ja kiinteys kuuluvat Searlen teoriassa eri ontologisiin kategorioihin, eikä niitä siten voi ongelmattomasti rinnastaa. Searlen analogia kiinteyteen murtuu myös siksi, että kappaleen mikrorakenne ei yksinkertaisesti aiheuta sen kiinteyttä. Tietoisuus ei siis voi olla samanaikaisesti aivojen ominaisuus ja aivojen kausaalisen toiminnan seuraus. Tutkielmassa päädytään puolustamaan kantaa, että Searlen argumentit eivät ole vakuuttavia ja että Searle ei ole onnistunut eksplikoimaan teoriaa, joka välttäisi dualismiin ja materialismiin liittyvät tunnetut ongelmat. Kysymys mikä on mielen suhde ruumiiseen, jää siten avoimeksi. Avainsanat: intentionaalisuus, mentaalinen, mieli-ruumis -ongelma, Searle, subjektiivisuus, tietoisuus

Untitled (after Steven and John)

'Untitled (after Steven and John)' takes inspiration from Spielbergian tracking shots and Baldessarian collages to create ghostly apparitions that explore the affective power of the cinematic close up. By appropriating and obfuscating this common filmic convention, the work investigates the intersubjective potential of the moving image.

Directional dominance on stature and cognition in diverse human populations

Homozygosity has long been associated with rare, often devastating, Mendelian disorders1, and Darwin was one of the first to recognize that inbreeding reduces evolutionary fitness2. However, the effect of the more distant parental relatedness that is common in modern human populations is less well understood. Genomic data now allow us to investigate the effects of homozygosity on traits of public health importance by observing contiguous homozygous segments (runs of homozygosity), which are inferred to be homozygous along their complete length. Given the low levels of genome-wide homozygosity prevalent in most human populations, information is required on very large numbers of people to provide sufficient power3, 4. Here we use runs of homozygosity to study 16 health-related quantitative traits in 354,224 individuals from 102 cohorts, and find statistically significant associations between summed runs of homozygosity and four complex traits: height, forced expiratory lung volume in one second, general cognitive ability and educational attainment (P < 1 × 10−300, 2.1 × 10−6, 2.5 × 10−10 and 1.8 × 10−10, respectively). In each case, increased homozygosity was associated with decreased trait value, equivalent to the offspring of first cousins being 1.2 cm shorter and having 10 months’ less education. Similar effect sizes were found across four continental groups and populations with different degrees of genome-wide homozygosity, providing evidence that homozygosity, rather than confounding, directly contributes to phenotypic variance. Contrary to earlier reports in substantially smaller samples5, 6, no evidence was seen of an influence of genome-wide homozygosity on blood pressure and low density lipoprotein cholesterol, or ten other cardio-metabolic traits. Since directional dominance is predicted for traits under directional evolutionary selection7, this study provides evidence that increased stature and cognitive function have been positively selected in human evolution, whereas many important risk factors for late-onset complex diseases may not have been.

Book Review: "The Interface: IBM and the Transformation of Corporate Design, 1945-1975", John Harwood, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2011

Within the history of twentieth-century design, there are a number of well-known objects and stories that are invoked time and time again to capture a pivotal moment or summarize a much broader historical transition. For example, Marcel Breuer’s Model B3 chair is frequently used as a stand-in for the radical investigations of form and new industrial materials occurring at the Bauhaus in the mid-1920s. Similarly, Raymond Loewy’s streamlined pencil sharpener has become historical shorthand for the emergence of modern industrial design in the 1930s. And any discussion of the development of American postwar “organic design” seems incomplete without reference to Charles and Ray Eames’s molded plywood leg splint of 1942. Such objects and narratives are dear to historians of modern design. They are tangible, photogenic subjects that slot nicely into exhibitions, historical surveys, and coffee-table best sellers...

Pragmatismi poliittisena filosofiana. Yksilö ja yhteisö John Deweyn ajttelussa

John Dewey (1859-1952) oli yhdysvaltalainen filosofi, pedagogi ja julkinen keskustelija, jonka ajattelu on merkittävästi vaikuttanut pragmatismina tunnetun filosofisen suuntauksen kehittymiseen. Tässä Pro gradu -tutkielmassa tarkastellaan Devveyn poliittista filosofiaa ja ajattelua. Tarkoituksena on selvitellä, millaista on Devveyn poliittinen filosofia ja voiko hänen pragmatistinen poliittinen filosofiansa tarjota jotain mielenkiintoista myös tämän päivän poliittisen filosofian kentälle. Tutkielmassa tarkastellaan Devveyn esittämää kritiikkiä klassista liberalismia ja individualismia kohtaan, Devveyn omaa poliittisen filosofian projektia sekä sen kohtaama kritiikkiä ja arvioidaan Devveyn poliittista filosofiaa yleisesti. Tarkastelun kohteena ovat muun muassa Devveyn käsitykset yksilöstä, valtiosta, demokratiasta, vallasta ja tiedosta. Ensisijaisena lähteenä tutkielmassa on Devveyn koottujen teosten sarja vuosilta 1882-1953, ennen kaikkea 1920-30-lukujen tuotanto. Lisäksi lähteenä on useita tuoreita artikkeleita sekä kommentaareja. Keskeisin löytö tutkielmassa on, että Devveyn poliittisen filosofian oleellinen piirre on "anti-essentialismi", eli huomion siirtäminen pois jostain oletetuista yksilöiden ja ryhmien olemuksista tai sisäisestä luonnosta niiden välisiin suhteisiin ja näiden ilmauksiin. Tähän liittyen Devveyn poliittisen filosofian keskeiseksi lähtökohdaksi osoittautuu perinteisen yksilö-yhteisö jaottelun kyseenalaistaminen. Tutkielma tarjoaa laajan katsauksen Devveyn poliittiseen ajatteluun sekä pragmatistiseen poliittiseen filosofiaan.