Sagittal balance in sitting and standing positions: A systematic review of radiographic measures.

Background: Sagittal imbalance can be caused by various etiologies and is among the most important indicators of spinal deformity. Sagittal balance can be restored through surgical intervention based on several radiographic measures. The purpose of this study is to review the normal parameters in the sitting position, which are not well understood and could have significant implications for non-ambulatory patients. Methods: A systematic review was performed adhering to PRISMA Guidelines. Using R-software, the weighted means and 95% confidence intervals of the radiographic findings were calculated using a random effect model and significance testing using unpaired t-tests. Results: 10 articles with a total of 1066 subjects reported radiographic measures of subjects with no spinal deformity in the sitting and standing position. In the healthy individual, standing sagittal vertical axis -16.8°was significantly less than sitting 28.4° (p < 0.0001), while standing lumbar lordosis 43.3°is significantly greater than sitting 21.3° (p < 0.0001). Thoracic kyphosis was not significantly different between the two groups (p = 0.368). Standing sacral slope 34.3° was significantly greater than sitting 19.5° (p < 0.0001) and standing pelvic tilt 14.0° was significantly less than sitting 33.9° (p < 0.0001). Conclusions: There are key differences between standing and sitting postures, which could lead to undue stress on surgical implants and poor outcomes, especially for non-ambulatory populations. There is a need for more studies reporting sitting and standing radiographic measures in different postures and spinal conditions.

The Unilateralist's Curse and the Case for a Principle of Conformity.

In some situations a number of agents each have the ability to undertake an initiative that would have significant effects on the others. Suppose that each of these agents is purely motivated by an altruistic concern for the common good. We show that if each agent acts on her own personal judgment as to whether the initiative should be undertaken, then the initiative will be undertaken more often than is optimal. We suggest that this phenomenon, which we call the unilateralist's curse, arises in many contexts, including some that are important for public policy. To lift the curse, we propose a principle of conformity, which would discourage unilateralist action. We consider three different models for how this principle could be implemented, and respond to an objection that could be raised against it.

Anthropic shadow: observation selection effects and human extinction risks.

We describe a significant practical consequence of taking anthropic biases into account in deriving predictions for rare stochastic catastrophic events. The risks associated with catastrophes such as asteroidal/cometary impacts, supervolcanic episodes, and explosions of supernovae/gamma-ray bursts are based on their observed frequencies. As a result, the frequencies of catastrophes that destroy or are otherwise incompatible with the existence of observers are systematically underestimated. We describe the consequences of this anthropic bias for estimation of catastrophic risks, and suggest some directions for future work.

Cognitive enhancement: methods, ethics, regulatory challenges.

Cognitive enhancement takes many and diverse forms. Various methods of cognitive enhancement have implications for the near future. At the same time, these technologies raise a range of ethical issues. For example, they interact with notions of authenticity, the good life, and the role of medicine in our lives. Present and anticipated methods for cognitive enhancement also create challenges for public policy and regulation.

Converging cognitive enhancements.

Cognitive enhancement, the amplification or extension of core capacities of the mind, has become a major topic in bioethics. But cognitive enhancement is a prime example of a converging technology where individual disciplines merge and issues transcend particular local discourses. This article reviews currently available methods of cognitive enhancement and their likely near-term prospects for convergence.

Astrophysics: is a doomsday catastrophe likely?

The risk of a doomsday scenario in which high-energy physics experiments trigger the destruction of the Earth has been estimated to be minuscule. But this may give a false sense of security: the fact that the Earth has survived for so long does not necessarily mean that such disasters are unlikely, because observers are, by definition, in places that have avoided destruction. Here we derive a new upper bound of one per billion years (99.9% confidence level) for the exogenous terminal-catastrophe rate that is free of such selection bias, using calculations based on the relatively late formation time of Earth.

In defense of posthuman dignity.

Positions on the ethics of human enhancement technologies can be (crudely) characterized as ranging from transhumanism to bioconservatism. Transhumanists believe that human enhancement technologies should be made widely available, that individuals should have broad discretion over which of these technologies to apply to themselves, and that parents should normally have the right to choose enhancements for their children-to-be. Bioconservatives (whose ranks include such diverse writers as Leon Kass, Francis Fukuyama, George Annas, Wesley Smith, Jeremy Rifkin, and Bill McKibben) are generally opposed to the use of technology to modify human nature. A central idea in bioconservativism is that human enhancement technologies will undermine our human dignity. To forestall a slide down the slippery slope towards an ultimately debased 'posthuman' state, bioconservatives often argue for broad bans on otherwise promising human enhancements. This paper distinguishes two common fears about the posthuman and argues for the importance of a concept of dignity that is inclusive enough to also apply to many possible posthuman beings. Recognizing the possibility of posthuman dignity undercuts an important objection against human enhancement and removes a distortive double standard from our field of moral vision.