The Wall Street Journal has an editorial today, entitled "How Humanity Will Survive." Although I read the paper regularly, I rarely -if ever- read the editorials. The reason is very simple. WSJ editorials are totally predictable and not very interesting. Whatever the most conservative thinking of the day is, the WSJ is there to be its cheerleader. The more extreme, the better. And with the recent Murdoch takeover it can only get worse. Although frankly it is hard to see how it could possibly get any worse than it already is.
But today's editorial caught my attention because of the title and the inset, "Start with space tourism." And the point of the opinion piece is simple. There is a good likelihood that some catastrophic event will kill us all unless we escape to another planet. And because this is the WSJ, don't count on the inept government to help us here. Even a government of friends of the WSJ. Private enterprise will lead the way to salvation. See what I mean about predictable? You have the fairy tale ending, the Hollywood ending, and the WSJ ending.
The idea that we have to escape is not new. Many people believe we will have to, including Stephen Hawking and a lot of his fellow physicists. And the reason is quite simple. These guys know their math and they that our growth is unsustainable. They know we are headed for disaster even if things look good now. They know statistics and understand fluctuations. And so they can imagine global warming on a freezing day, unlike most of us. But then again, they are smart.
The editorial states that on average a mammalian species lasts two million years. That means we better hurry up. They also list the Fermi paradox or the failure of evidence of intelligent life. Maybe the intelligent life self-destructs? Although all species run out as they destroy their niches, intelligent ones probably run out faster as they are better and more efficient at exploiting. That may not be Fermi's but is a paradox for sure. The smarter you are the shorter your existence will be.
And then there is the list of things that can go wrong. High on the list are space disasters. The intellectual drivers of this group are physicists and astrophysicists. They are the bomb designers of the Manhattan project and their progeny. It was they who postulated the meteor impact that killed the dinosaurs. An event that has now entered into the minds of kindergarten America.
Meteor impacts, planetary collisions, black holes emitting radiation, nuclear holocausts, etc. A worthy end to a worthy species so to speak. Whatever your conviction, you have to admit it sounds better than depleting resources and polluting yourself to death. And furthermore, a potential catastrophic impact requires action, and a positive (read war) attitude, instead of conservation (read retreat).
There is little doubt that action is better for business and the economy. And that is the theme song of the WSJ. So what if it expedites our demise by a few thousand years? The writer of this piece is unlikely to be witnessing extinction in any case.
I have little doubt that catastrophic events do happen from time to time. And there is plenty of evidence for meteor impacts and other disasters of cosmic scale. But I doubt that it will take an event of that magnitude to erase humanity from the planet. Furthermore, the way we are going, it seems rather unlikely that we will last long enough to witness any such an event. These events are very rare. And two millions years is a very short time indeed. If we even make it that long. Keep your fingers crossed.
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
happy new year
Happy New Year from San Diego. We hope things will get better in 2008 and that people will come to their senses and understand what it is they are doing to their existence. Not to the planet, because I am sure the planet has many millions of years left, with or without us. But to ourselves and our ability to survive here. Looking around the odds are not good. Too much is invested in the status quo. We are talking billions of dollars in infrastructure that is dependent on cars, airplanes and other wasteful mechanical means. Dependent on water being pumped in from hundreds of miles away. Water that is ever scarcer because we are depleting the storage tanks known as aquifers.
Food that needs to be trucked in. Food that requires 10 calories of carbon energy for every calorie of sunlight energy. Food that requires water that isn't there. And food that is packaged with layers and layers of plastics, cardboard boxes, jars, cans, etc. To say nothing of the miles we drive just to get it from the supermarket. And the carbon dioxide emitted from running our freezers and fridges.
We will think about that tomorrow again. Today, we celebrate. Happy 2008
Food that needs to be trucked in. Food that requires 10 calories of carbon energy for every calorie of sunlight energy. Food that requires water that isn't there. And food that is packaged with layers and layers of plastics, cardboard boxes, jars, cans, etc. To say nothing of the miles we drive just to get it from the supermarket. And the carbon dioxide emitted from running our freezers and fridges.
We will think about that tomorrow again. Today, we celebrate. Happy 2008
Monday, December 31, 2007
new year's eve
Time to reflect on 2007 and all that happened. It seems political events are once again headlines. Unrest, killings, war, famine, genocide, and oil. Maybe a line here and there about the climate change and global warming. But very little really about what is really happening to us. The dwindling resources and ecological disasters that underly the unrest and the wars and the games people play. The real events.
As we drove by scores and scores of new housing developments on both sides of the border yesterday, I couldn't help but wondering who will buy all these houses. Apparently 30% or so of the current housing, that is the market affected by the subprime crisis, is investment properties and second homes. That "market" is already over in the sense that these house were bought before the crisis hit, and paid for by banks, that will now have to either foreclose them or take losses. It does not include all the new construction we saw. That construction got caught in the maelstrom when trouble hit. And there is plenty of it and very few buyers. For sale and Price reduced signs are everywhere.
Not to mention that most areas we travel to are lacking or short on water already. No worries for the Jack in the Box next to our hotel though, where the sprinklers were irrigating the roadway yesterday. Waste is everywhere.
When it comes to construction, Mexico is starting to look like Irvine. Housing tracts that look every bit as great as the ones that make up orange county are now coming up along Tijuana and Rosarito beaches. Homes everywhere, from the deserts around Palm Springs, the Coachella Valley, to the playas of Baja. Do people realize that the baby boomers are aging and that there are fewer people to replace them ? And especially, fewer people with money to buy such expensive stuff. The US most likely will not stop growing due to immigration and fertile immigrant families. But growth will slow down and the newcomers don't have the money that the baby boomers did.
Lest you worry about slowing growth, be assured there is not of it enough to mitigate the climate effects though. But enough to make turmoil and cause a serious economic downturn. Which will help somewhat with the climate issues ironically enough.
As we drove by scores and scores of new housing developments on both sides of the border yesterday, I couldn't help but wondering who will buy all these houses. Apparently 30% or so of the current housing, that is the market affected by the subprime crisis, is investment properties and second homes. That "market" is already over in the sense that these house were bought before the crisis hit, and paid for by banks, that will now have to either foreclose them or take losses. It does not include all the new construction we saw. That construction got caught in the maelstrom when trouble hit. And there is plenty of it and very few buyers. For sale and Price reduced signs are everywhere.
Not to mention that most areas we travel to are lacking or short on water already. No worries for the Jack in the Box next to our hotel though, where the sprinklers were irrigating the roadway yesterday. Waste is everywhere.
When it comes to construction, Mexico is starting to look like Irvine. Housing tracts that look every bit as great as the ones that make up orange county are now coming up along Tijuana and Rosarito beaches. Homes everywhere, from the deserts around Palm Springs, the Coachella Valley, to the playas of Baja. Do people realize that the baby boomers are aging and that there are fewer people to replace them ? And especially, fewer people with money to buy such expensive stuff. The US most likely will not stop growing due to immigration and fertile immigrant families. But growth will slow down and the newcomers don't have the money that the baby boomers did.
Lest you worry about slowing growth, be assured there is not of it enough to mitigate the climate effects though. But enough to make turmoil and cause a serious economic downturn. Which will help somewhat with the climate issues ironically enough.
Sunday, December 30, 2007
observations near the border
We spent an interesting day today. First we drove through Irvine, CA, supposedly the safest city in the country. It isn't much of a city however, more like an endless sprawl of suburbia. One tract of housing after another, with a few business districts in between and a few malls. The latter two can be recognized by the enormous parking lots that surround them. The whole area is so non-descript, it could be anywhere. You can find neighborhoods like it in Pleasanton, Walnut Creek, Sacramento, and all over the LA basin I am sure. Cookie cutter luxury would be the word for it. Neighborhoods that are very pedestrian or bike-unfriendly. Only suited for cars, preferably big suburban SUV type cars.
And shortly afterwards we drove through Mexico, a different kind of sprawl here, mostly the result of poverty and neglect. Equally unsustainable really, although living in Irvine is probably more pleasant. Being in Mexico felt like being in a prison camp. We drove several roads that ran parallel to the border, a kind of no-man's land with high voltage lighting, lookout towers and other features you associate with concentration camps. The road went up and down a lot and so one had great vistas of a line drawn in the sand, with a fence next to it. On the right was Mexico, with housing and roads leaning against the border. On the left was a cleared zone, a kind of DMZ, or a no-man's land reminiscent of the space between the trenches in world war I.
And to top it all of, we spend one hour standing in a line waiting to cross the border to paradise. With us were hundreds of other cars, all moving at a snails pace in 7 parallel lanes that stretched for nearly a mile. All full of oversized vehicles, spewing out greenhouse gases. The amount of pollution generated for doing nothing was just staggering. All these cars with their engines running, their air conditioners or heaters blowing, all sitting nearly frozen on the road, waiting for the homeland security folks to do their thing. And what is that thing you ask ? They look in the car, they look at your papers and they say, go or welcome home. Or they pull the car aside for a closer look. It is senseless pollution on a grand scale.
And shortly afterwards we drove through Mexico, a different kind of sprawl here, mostly the result of poverty and neglect. Equally unsustainable really, although living in Irvine is probably more pleasant. Being in Mexico felt like being in a prison camp. We drove several roads that ran parallel to the border, a kind of no-man's land with high voltage lighting, lookout towers and other features you associate with concentration camps. The road went up and down a lot and so one had great vistas of a line drawn in the sand, with a fence next to it. On the right was Mexico, with housing and roads leaning against the border. On the left was a cleared zone, a kind of DMZ, or a no-man's land reminiscent of the space between the trenches in world war I.
And to top it all of, we spend one hour standing in a line waiting to cross the border to paradise. With us were hundreds of other cars, all moving at a snails pace in 7 parallel lanes that stretched for nearly a mile. All full of oversized vehicles, spewing out greenhouse gases. The amount of pollution generated for doing nothing was just staggering. All these cars with their engines running, their air conditioners or heaters blowing, all sitting nearly frozen on the road, waiting for the homeland security folks to do their thing. And what is that thing you ask ? They look in the car, they look at your papers and they say, go or welcome home. Or they pull the car aside for a closer look. It is senseless pollution on a grand scale.
Saturday, December 29, 2007
collapse continued
Humans do play a role in the collapse of their societies, but the stage is clearly set by geography, climate, weather, resources, and other factors. These factors determine how likely it is humans will be able to establish a settlement and maintain the viability of that settlement.
What seems to be happening then is a succession of boom and bust cycles, where humans become very successful and then overrun the resources, resulting a dramatic rollback, possibly followed by a new cycle. Some environments do not sustain many cycles, but others are very resilient. Many also offer alternative options. That was the case for Iceland for example. When one resource was destroyed, another (fish) was present and ready to be taken advantage of. The same cannot be said for people living on remote islands like Easter, where few alternatives did exist.
But it seems quite clear that humans behave very much like any other species and that they go on exploiting and mining and overusing their resources right up until disaster hits. It is like driving into a wall at 100 mph without ever hitting the brake or attempting to swerve. To the contrary, it seems that species accelerate when the wall is near, and thereby speed up disaster. And that is a point Diamond makes very well.
To be continued
What seems to be happening then is a succession of boom and bust cycles, where humans become very successful and then overrun the resources, resulting a dramatic rollback, possibly followed by a new cycle. Some environments do not sustain many cycles, but others are very resilient. Many also offer alternative options. That was the case for Iceland for example. When one resource was destroyed, another (fish) was present and ready to be taken advantage of. The same cannot be said for people living on remote islands like Easter, where few alternatives did exist.
But it seems quite clear that humans behave very much like any other species and that they go on exploiting and mining and overusing their resources right up until disaster hits. It is like driving into a wall at 100 mph without ever hitting the brake or attempting to swerve. To the contrary, it seems that species accelerate when the wall is near, and thereby speed up disaster. And that is a point Diamond makes very well.
To be continued
Friday, December 28, 2007
collapse
Recently, the New York Times published an editorial on "A Question of Blame When Societies Fall." In it the author discusses theories of Jared Diamond, put forth in his popular books, "Guns, Germs, and Steel," and "Collapse." The focus is especially on the latter work, which is understandable as it is a tale of destruction and loss and invariably brings up the question who is to blame. The first book, about how societies become powerful, also met with controversy but since it is more upbeat, much less so.
What is novel about Guns, etc. is that the prime movers of success appear to be accidents of geography, presence of raw materials, ease to grow crops, a hospitable climate, accessible trade routes and shapes of continents and their coastlines. People do not like such notions and human history books only mention these items in passing. Nobody wants to acknowledge that their success was due to being at the right place, at the right time. Surely individual choices must matter? What about the Yankee spirit?
But in general, since Guns, etc. is a tale of success, it is much less bothersome to read. And especially for us, since we are the ones who are successful.
When it comes to Collapse though, the roles are reversed in more ways than one. Here we have the tale of how societies failed. And although the book does mention some partial successes -after all there is no way to tell whether these will hold- the main focus is on failure. And unlike the first book, in Collapse, Diamond does seem to point a finger at humans. Perhaps he did so for no other reason than to attempt to convince us to be careful so we don't end up where some of our ancestors did. But pointing a finger is dangerous and it is likely to anger people, especially those whose forefathers were part of the collapse. And there is no shortage of these either.
And so a criticism like the one that ends the article, where the authors ask why Tikal, Chichen Itza, etc. are seen as signs of failure for the Mayans, but Stonehenge is not seen as a sign of failure for the British, are to be expected. The criticism is misplaced though. And there are several reasons.
One is that Diamond lost track of his story and in attempting to warn humans, gave them back the role that he had denied them -rightfully so- in Guns, etc. What is very easy to see in the stories about Easter Island, the Greenland Norse, and to some extent Iceland and Japan, is that geography, climate, resources, etc. play the key roles. The Icelanders and Japanese only survived because another resource was nearby and available, i.e. fish. But now that fish is running out, where will they go? Today, Japan is unable to feed more than 1/3 of its population and its food security ranks lowest among first world nations.
Humans do play a role in the demise of societies of course, but it is overall, average human behavior that matters, not individual choices. Another recent NYT article about the brain clearly illustrates this matter. For decades now neuroscientists have focused on single neurons. Led by advances in technology and by reductionism, many people have spent their lifetimes studying individual nerve cells. And surprise, surprise, they found them to be very complex. Add to that that the "single neuron guys" have been much more successful than the people studying the system as a whole.
So, in spite of all the medical evidence to the contrary, the single neuron people are now putting forth theories about the brain that rely on the magical abilities of individual cells. This by the way is a flattering notion for readers. Imagine having a brain that has billions of wonder cells. Does this not make you feel good?
But as any physicist would tell you, transistors are very complex too. We do not yet fully understand everything about them. Yet a transistor in a given circuit -such as a radio or a computer- plays a very simple role and one that is easily understood and that utilizes but a very small part of its "potential" as a computing device.
And the same is true for the brain. Single cells play a small role here. A role that is easily taken over by other cells should the first one die -and they do. The brain is an organized whole and our mental abilities operate at that level. The contribution of an individual cell is nearly immaterial at that level.
And the same applies to an individual human in a society. No matter how complex and gifted that person is, there is always someone else or a collection of others that can and do take over. The path they follow will not be identical, but except in truly rare cases, it won't matter. Because a society, like a brain has complex control mechanisms to deal with such events. Societies do not fall apart when one individual dies. And while some may accelerate or slow the demise, the individual contributions are puny compared to the other forces at work.
To be continued.
What is novel about Guns, etc. is that the prime movers of success appear to be accidents of geography, presence of raw materials, ease to grow crops, a hospitable climate, accessible trade routes and shapes of continents and their coastlines. People do not like such notions and human history books only mention these items in passing. Nobody wants to acknowledge that their success was due to being at the right place, at the right time. Surely individual choices must matter? What about the Yankee spirit?
But in general, since Guns, etc. is a tale of success, it is much less bothersome to read. And especially for us, since we are the ones who are successful.
When it comes to Collapse though, the roles are reversed in more ways than one. Here we have the tale of how societies failed. And although the book does mention some partial successes -after all there is no way to tell whether these will hold- the main focus is on failure. And unlike the first book, in Collapse, Diamond does seem to point a finger at humans. Perhaps he did so for no other reason than to attempt to convince us to be careful so we don't end up where some of our ancestors did. But pointing a finger is dangerous and it is likely to anger people, especially those whose forefathers were part of the collapse. And there is no shortage of these either.
And so a criticism like the one that ends the article, where the authors ask why Tikal, Chichen Itza, etc. are seen as signs of failure for the Mayans, but Stonehenge is not seen as a sign of failure for the British, are to be expected. The criticism is misplaced though. And there are several reasons.
One is that Diamond lost track of his story and in attempting to warn humans, gave them back the role that he had denied them -rightfully so- in Guns, etc. What is very easy to see in the stories about Easter Island, the Greenland Norse, and to some extent Iceland and Japan, is that geography, climate, resources, etc. play the key roles. The Icelanders and Japanese only survived because another resource was nearby and available, i.e. fish. But now that fish is running out, where will they go? Today, Japan is unable to feed more than 1/3 of its population and its food security ranks lowest among first world nations.
Humans do play a role in the demise of societies of course, but it is overall, average human behavior that matters, not individual choices. Another recent NYT article about the brain clearly illustrates this matter. For decades now neuroscientists have focused on single neurons. Led by advances in technology and by reductionism, many people have spent their lifetimes studying individual nerve cells. And surprise, surprise, they found them to be very complex. Add to that that the "single neuron guys" have been much more successful than the people studying the system as a whole.
So, in spite of all the medical evidence to the contrary, the single neuron people are now putting forth theories about the brain that rely on the magical abilities of individual cells. This by the way is a flattering notion for readers. Imagine having a brain that has billions of wonder cells. Does this not make you feel good?
But as any physicist would tell you, transistors are very complex too. We do not yet fully understand everything about them. Yet a transistor in a given circuit -such as a radio or a computer- plays a very simple role and one that is easily understood and that utilizes but a very small part of its "potential" as a computing device.
And the same is true for the brain. Single cells play a small role here. A role that is easily taken over by other cells should the first one die -and they do. The brain is an organized whole and our mental abilities operate at that level. The contribution of an individual cell is nearly immaterial at that level.
And the same applies to an individual human in a society. No matter how complex and gifted that person is, there is always someone else or a collection of others that can and do take over. The path they follow will not be identical, but except in truly rare cases, it won't matter. Because a society, like a brain has complex control mechanisms to deal with such events. Societies do not fall apart when one individual dies. And while some may accelerate or slow the demise, the individual contributions are puny compared to the other forces at work.
To be continued.
Thursday, December 27, 2007
energy tips
I found some useful tips in "How to Fix Your Life in 2008," in today's Wall Street Journal. The energy section is particularly interesting. One thing they recommend is to go to the energystar website and see how your energy bill stacks up against similar homes across the country. You can find it at www.energystar.gov under Home Energy Yardstick. I just completed my audit for 2006 and found that we are in the bottom 1%. That means we are better than 99% of homes. I am happy to say that our 2007 energy bills are much lower.
To give you some background, we do live in an above average sized home in California. It definitely qualifies as a luxury home. We are not some hermits living in the desert. We do have and use the latest and greatest appliances including a home theater system with widescreen TV -no plasma though-, gaming consoles, several computers -that are used daily and nearly round the clock-, high speed internet access, and the like. And no, I do not feel like we had to cut back or restrict ourselves in 2007. And we still have a ways to go as most of our light bulbs are the conventional incandescent type. Not because we do not like CFL's, but why replace a perfectly good bulb? When it burns out we will replace it, but for now things are fine.
We do not have solar panels, wind mills, or any other energy producing device. We buy all our power from the utility and we pay regular prices for it. Apart from electricity our home uses natural gas to cook, to heat water and for the furnace. All other appliances are electric. In our area 2006 was a year with 2932 heating degree days and 1019 cooling degree days. You can find out more about that on energy star, but suffice it to say, a regular year.
Our key improvements over the last two years have been in removing all appliances that work in standby mode. You know these boxes that are plugged in and use electricity even when they are "off." Removing these is as simple as putting them on a powerstrip and turning the powerstrip off. It is actually easier than using the individual off buttons -even with remote- that do not turn things off. Our whole home theater system is on such a strip. When we are done using it, I get up and flip the switch, simple. When I need it I flip the switch again and all the boxes light up and are ready to go. We did the same for many kitchen appliances. We no longer have fifteen clocks that all read a different time and that all need to be reset several times a year (where we live the power goes out at least 5 times a year).
But most importantly we turn things off when we don't need them. Although the WSJ does not mention this trick, I believe it is the number one energy saving method, and the easiest one too. Turn things off. It isn't hard.
There are no extra lights here to brighten the sky, and even the always-on internet box goes off when it is not in use for more than 10 minutes (say during lunch). That too is easy. The computers sleep when they are idle for 5 minutes and their sleep modes are very efficient. They spin down the disk and turn off the displays. Both reboot very quickly and I never feel I have to wait. But our key improvement for 2007 has been to retire the clothes dryer. A huge savings and our clothes look better than before. Nothing like sun and wind to dry clothes. It is the cheapest solar power you can get. The $5.00 clothesline has already paid for itself several times over. It has the best return on investment so far this year. Even though my stocks did quite well, they did not come close.
To give you some background, we do live in an above average sized home in California. It definitely qualifies as a luxury home. We are not some hermits living in the desert. We do have and use the latest and greatest appliances including a home theater system with widescreen TV -no plasma though-, gaming consoles, several computers -that are used daily and nearly round the clock-, high speed internet access, and the like. And no, I do not feel like we had to cut back or restrict ourselves in 2007. And we still have a ways to go as most of our light bulbs are the conventional incandescent type. Not because we do not like CFL's, but why replace a perfectly good bulb? When it burns out we will replace it, but for now things are fine.
We do not have solar panels, wind mills, or any other energy producing device. We buy all our power from the utility and we pay regular prices for it. Apart from electricity our home uses natural gas to cook, to heat water and for the furnace. All other appliances are electric. In our area 2006 was a year with 2932 heating degree days and 1019 cooling degree days. You can find out more about that on energy star, but suffice it to say, a regular year.
Our key improvements over the last two years have been in removing all appliances that work in standby mode. You know these boxes that are plugged in and use electricity even when they are "off." Removing these is as simple as putting them on a powerstrip and turning the powerstrip off. It is actually easier than using the individual off buttons -even with remote- that do not turn things off. Our whole home theater system is on such a strip. When we are done using it, I get up and flip the switch, simple. When I need it I flip the switch again and all the boxes light up and are ready to go. We did the same for many kitchen appliances. We no longer have fifteen clocks that all read a different time and that all need to be reset several times a year (where we live the power goes out at least 5 times a year).
But most importantly we turn things off when we don't need them. Although the WSJ does not mention this trick, I believe it is the number one energy saving method, and the easiest one too. Turn things off. It isn't hard.
There are no extra lights here to brighten the sky, and even the always-on internet box goes off when it is not in use for more than 10 minutes (say during lunch). That too is easy. The computers sleep when they are idle for 5 minutes and their sleep modes are very efficient. They spin down the disk and turn off the displays. Both reboot very quickly and I never feel I have to wait. But our key improvement for 2007 has been to retire the clothes dryer. A huge savings and our clothes look better than before. Nothing like sun and wind to dry clothes. It is the cheapest solar power you can get. The $5.00 clothesline has already paid for itself several times over. It has the best return on investment so far this year. Even though my stocks did quite well, they did not come close.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
