Parents who worry that video games are teaching kids to settle conflicts with blasters and bloodshed can take heart: A new generation of video games wants to save the world through peace and democracy.

A team at Carnegie Mellon University is working on an educational computer game that explores the Mideast conflict -- you win by negotiating peace between Israelis and Palestinians. This spring, the United Nations' World Food Programme released an online game in which players must figure out how to feed thousands of people on a fictitious island.

This weekend, the University of Southern California is kicking off a competition to develop a game that promotes international goodwill toward the United States, a kind of Voice of America for the gamer set.

And lest anyone think only professors and policy wonks are involved, a unit of MTV this week announced a contest to come up with a video game that fights genocide in Darfur, Sudan.

Internet-based computer games, in which players create characters in a virtual world and interact to solve problems or win battles, are branching out from fantasy into serious social issues. Academics recognize their power as a new form of mass entertainment, and activists hope to tap into their enormous worldwide popularity to reach a new generation used to interacting through computers.

The people and agencies responding to Hurricane Rita's ominous approach to Texas and Louisiana appear to be fast learners.

Preparations for this latest weather onslaught, while hardly perfect, went better than they did a month ago in New Orleans. People evacuated earlier. There were more shelters awaiting their arrival. Food and water were stockpiled in great quantities; troops and surveillance helicopters were ready to help those who stayed behind; an improved system of post-storm communication was in place.

But preparation -- even when it hews closely to the "game plan" -- only gets you so far. In the coming days, people with varying levels of authority all along the Gulf Coast will likely have to make many decisions. Often they'll have to make them quickly, alone, and without experience to guide them. Let's hope they have learned one more thing from Katrina: Sometimes you need to break the rules to avert greater disaster.

The flip side of the steroid scandal in baseball is last week's announcement of the first cloned dog. Ballplayers are punished for using pharmaceutical technologies to improve their physical abilities, while scientists are rewarded for pushing toward a similar goal — in the words of artificial intelligence techno-visionary Ray Kurzweil, "reverse engineering our biology and then reprogramming it."

Biological engineering is not just about curing disease anymore. The incentives and profits are moving toward drugs, gene therapies and other technologies to enhance human performance — memory, creativity, concentration, strength, endurance, longevity. Asking athletes not to partake of these advances is not just hypocritical, it's likely to be increasingly futile.

Recently, the Partnership for a Drug-Free America recently gave its imprimatur to a new buzzword: Generation Rx. Its annual report on what Americans think of controlled substances showed that for the first time, more teenagers are abusing prescription painkillers than are using a variety of common illicit drugs.

What are these prescription drugs being used for? Some of them mimic the effects of street drugs. For instance, the pain reliever Oxycontin, when stripped of its coating, can produce a heroinlike high. The consequences of this kind of abuse are familiar. Antidrug advocates have warned for decades that drugs impair not only users' health but also their work. Drug-induced torpor even earned its own name: amotivational syndrome. Timothy Leary's flameout on the Harvard fast track probably frightened more middle-class parents than the warnings of J. Edgar Hoover.

But there is an aspect of prescription drug abuse mentioned only briefly in the report: ingesting to excel, not rebel. There's now a hypermotivational syndrome, use of prescription drugs not to escape the commanding heights of education and the economy but to attain them.

"Pleasure, love and grace are not man's to control. They come from identifying with life, and rejoicing in its splendor, vitality, and beauty. Although pleasure, love and grace are ephemeral, trust them and follow them, for they contain the meaning of life." – Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

It is time we steered by the stars, not by the lights of each passing ship.
- General Omar Bradley

Is science a young person's game? Many think so; Einstein, Bohr, and Kelvin come to mind as confirming instances. Indeed, youthfulness is alleged to provide many advantages in scientific research. First, some claim that young scientists have more time and energy than their older colleagues. Thus, while older scientists are occupied with gate-keeping and administrative duties, their younger colleagues devote their time to research. As a result, young scientists are thought to be more productive than their older colleagues.

Second, some suggest that young scientists are more creative. Things that older colleagues consider to be beyond question are more apt to be challenged by young scientists. As a result, young scientists are alleged to be responsible for the more radical innovations in science.

Third, some suggest that young scientists are quicker than their older colleagues with respect to accepting innovations. Old scientists, we are told, are especially resistant to innovation, because they are the ones responsible for yesterday's innovations that are today's orthodoxies.

Underlying these claims is the conviction that young scientists play a key role in the process of scientific change. These views about the advantages of youthfulness in science probably contribute to making science an attractive career to young people. The young are apt to be enticed into a career that offers them the opportunity to rise to a position of power quickly. In many other careers, leadership positions are reserved for older people.

All three of these popular views concerning the advantages of youthfulness are mistaken; critical scrutiny of the available data reveals a very different picture about young scientists. Before proceeding to show this, let me be clear about who counts as a young scientist. Some mathematicians and physicists suggest that after the age of 30 a scientist is no longer young. These are the sorts of people who believe the myths outlined above. I will count as young all scientists aged less than 35 years or younger. Scientists 36 to 45 years old count as middle-aged, and scientists aged 46 years and older are considered old.

The available data suggest that the middle-aged scientist is most productive and most inclined to make a revolutionary discovery. Despite great variation in the output of individual scientists throughout their careers, if we examine the aggregate output of many scientists, it rises from early in their career, reaches a peak in the middle, and then begins to decline thereafter.1

Globally networked, easy-to-use computers can enhance learning, but only within an educational environment that encourages students to question "facts" and seek challenges.

The physicist Murray Gell-Mann has remarked that education in the 20th century is like being taken to the world's greatest restaurant and being fed the menu. He meant that representations of ideas have replaced the ideas themselves; students are taught superficially about great discoveries instead of being helped to learn deeply for themselves.

In the near future, all the representations that human beings have invented will be instantly accessible anywhere in the world on intimate, notebook-size computers. But will we be able to get from the menu to the food? Or will we no longer understand the difference between the two? Worse, will we lose even the ability to read the menu and be satisfied just to recognize that it is one?

There has always been confusion between carriers and contents. Pianists know that music is not in the piano. It begins inside human beings as special urges to communicate feelings. But many children are forced to "take piano" before their musical impulses develop; then they turn away from music for life. The piano at its best can only be an amplifier of existing feelings, bringing forth multiple notes in harmony and polyphony that the unaided voice cannot produce.

The computer is the greatest "piano" ever invented, for it is the master carrier of representations of every kind. Now there is a rush to have people, especially schoolchildren, "take computer." Computers can amplify yearnings in ways even more profound than can musical instruments. But if teachers do not nourish the romance of learning and expressing, any external mandate for a new "literacy" becomes as much a crushing burden as being forced to perform Beethoven's sonatas while having no sense of their beauty. Instant access to the world's information will probably have an effect opposite to what is hoped: students will become numb instead of enlightened.

In addition to the notion that the mere presence of computers will improve learning, several other misconceptions about learning often hinder modern education. Stronger ideas need to replace them before any teaching aid, be it a computer or pencil and paper, will be of most service. One misconception might be called the fluidic theory of education: students are empty vessels that must be given knowledge drop by drop from the full teacher-vessel. A related idea is that education is a bitter pill that can be made palatable only by sugarcoating-a view that misses the deep joy brought by learning itself.

Another mistaken view holds that humans, like other animals, have to make do only with nature's mental bricks, or innate ways of thinking, in the construction of our minds. Equally worrisome is the naive idea that reality is solely what the senses reveal. Finally, and perhaps most misguided, is the view that the mind is unitary, that it has a seamless "I"-ness. Quite the contrary. Minds are far from unitary: they consist of a patchwork of different mentalities.

By Nick Bostrom

Once upon a time, the planet was tyrannized by a giant dragon. The dragon stood taller than the largest cathedral, and it was covered with thick black scales. Its red eyes glowed with hate, and from its terrible jaws flowed an incessant stream of evil-smelling yellowish-green slime. It demanded from humankind a blood-curdling tribute: to satisfy its enormous appetite, ten thousand men and women had to be delivered every evening at the onset of dark to the foot of the mountain where the dragon-tyrant lived. Sometimes the dragon would devour these unfortunate souls upon arrival; sometimes again it would lock them up in the mountain where they would wither away for months or years before eventually being consumed.

On New Year's Day, depressed by yet another article on Britain's 'happiness crisis', I took a sheet of paper, ruled it in two, and in the left-hand column began listing all the things that were getting me down. This is what I wrote: 'My grey hairs... my impending tax bill... my failure to write a bestseller... the commute to King's Cross on the Hammersmith and City Line.' (The list was actually much longer than this, but you get the gist.) Then I turned to the right-hand column and began listing all the things that were a source of happiness in my life: 'My good health... my wife and children... my friends... playing tennis (when I win).'

To my surprise, this exercise immediately lifted my spirits, and before I knew it the items in the right-hand column outnumbered those in the left. Then I got to thinking some more. Were there other approaches I could adopt, other attitudes or ways of thinking about my life that would also be likely to increase my total sum of happiness? In search of an answer, I immersed myself in the works of Plato, Aristotle and other great philosophers. I also began reading as many self-help books as I could lay my hands on: books like the Dalai Lama's The Art of Happiness and Norman Vincent Peale's The Power of Positive Thinking - of which the cover of the UK paperback edition boasts 'over 15m copies sold'. But while these experts had many useful insights (the Dalai Lama suggested I cultivate a spirit of compassion, while Peale advised that happiness was a matter of being more optimistic), none of them spoke directly to my own experience.

Then I heard about Authentic Happiness by Martin Seligman, a professor of psychology at the University of Pennsylvania. In his book, Seligman describes how every New Year he takes a sheet of paper, just as I did, and draws up an inventory of his life. The difference is that instead of listing the things that are making him happy or unhappy, he writes down his key life 'domains' (love, profession, friends, play) and assigns them a rating on a scale of one to 10. Having performed this exercise every year for the past decade, Seligman says he can now see at a glance whether his happiness 'trajectory' is on the up or going down, and where there is room for improvement. 'I recommend this procedure to you,' he writes. 'It pins you down, leaves little room for self- deception, and tells you when to act.'

As a guru of the new positive psychology movement - dedicated to the optimisation of 'positive emotions' - Seligman argues that there are no short cuts to happiness. Enhancing joy, rapture and contentment depends on our cultivating optimistic personality traits and Aristotelian virtues such as wisdom, justice, love and humanity. 'Positive emotion alienated from the exercise of character leads to emptiness, to inauthenticity, to depression and, as we age, to the gnawing realisation that we are fidgeting until we die,' he warns.

The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds, and the pessimist fears this is true.
- James Branch Cabell

"The third form of happiness, which is meaning, is again knowing what your highest strengths are and deploying those in the service of something you believe is larger than you are. There's no shortcut to that. That's what life is about. There will likely be a pharmacology of pleasure, and there may be a pharmacology of positive emotion generally, but it's unlikely there'll be an interesting pharmacology of flow. And it's impossible that there'll be a pharmacology of meaning."
...
"The good life consists of the roots that lead to flow. It consists of first knowing what your signature strengths are and then recrafting your life to use them more — recrafting your work, your romance, your friendships, your leisure, and your parenting to deploy the things you're best at. What you get out of that is not the propensity to giggle a lot; what you get is flow, and the more you deploy your highest strengths the more flow you get in life."

Change is the law of life. And those who look only to the past or present are certain to miss the future.
- John F. Kennedy

There are two kinds of selfishness: the kind that says, 'I must do what will make me happy,' and the kind that says, 'You must do what will make me happy.' The first is good, the second is bad."
- Kenton E. Sinner