The Coming Singularity

There is a concept buzzing around called a Singularity. I've heard of it a couple of times recently, once from an old Science Magazine Podcast from 2/16/08 and more recently from an NPR Science Friday Podcast from 6/6/08.

You may have heard of the term Singularity when applied to Astrophysics. They call the first moment of the big bang a singularity because there is no way to know what comes before it.

In the sense I'm referring to here, it's also describing an explosive change that one cannot see across, but in this case, it's something that's going to happen to humanity in the future.

One of my favorite science fiction authors is Vernor Vinge. He started writing for Analog Magazine in 1966, so I'm sure I've read much of his short story works, since my father was an avid reader of Analog since I was very young. But the book that I really liked was Across Realtime, which was a compilation of short stories built into a novel. In the novel, a technology called a bobble is invented and used as a weapon of war. Big silvery bubbles are generated by this technology, which they later find out are not frozen matter, but bubbles of frozen time. Once they realize what they have, the technology is used to travel (one-way) to the future.

In the story, everyone that goes into their bubbles of stopped time that emerges about a hundred years later emerges to find out that the world is suddenly empty of people. Unsure of whether there was an invasion or some other kind of catastrophe, many of them got back in their bubbles of frozen time and skipped forward far into the future. No one ever could answer what happened to all the people, but they guessed that it happened suddenly. Did they wipe themselves out, experience the religious idea of rapture, or did the "graduate" and evolve into the next form of human, possibly a pure energy form? In Vinge's book, it was this unsolved mystery, but in real life, it's seen as a possible future.

Ray Kurzweil has a book called The Singularity Is Near where he explores this concept. He believes that technology, in particular machine technology, is growing on an exponential growth curve. This means that it accelerates and even the rate of acceleration is speeding up, to the point where it quickly outstrips our ability to comprehend it. The question is whether this is going to be a cause for mourning or celebration. If humans are going to graduate to some new form soon, what will happen to life as we know it? Are we going to forget the simple pleasures of enjoying a cool clear day, walking in the woods, eating a good meal, and laughing with friends? Are we talking about an existence like the Borg in the Star Trek series? I find the whole concept as difficult to grasp as religion.

The start of the fall

I've been listening to the Ancient Roman History podcast. This is a podcast with an accompanying blog, see http://thehistoryofrome.blogspot.com/2008/04/28-taking-stock-history-of-rome.html for the episode that I'm referring to.

This episode is called Taking Stock. The point that it refers to the point in history where Rome finally conquers all major rivals in the Mediterranean basis and begins their reign of uncontested dominance. At this point, economic and political forces set a course of action into motion that eventually transformed the democratic and stable Republic into the era of the Emperors.

There was an interesting progression where the wealth from conquering all the other nations became concentrated in the hands of a few. These few didn't care much for the state or the rules that governed society. Through a complex system of patronage, they purchased the loyalty of enough people to sway elections and get their own way in things. They brought back hundreds of thousands of slaves from the conquered lands and the poor Romans found themselves out of work, replaced by the free labor of slaves. Eventually, they had to find a patronage with a wealthy Roman or join the military in order to survive. Small farms disappeared as poor farmers sold their land and wealthy Romans gobbled up large territories. Eventually, this would lead to the downfall of the Republic and usher in the era or the Roman Emperors. Some would argue that this eventually led to the downfall of Rome itself, but that was 500 years later, so it's hard to point to a specific point in their history and say "this is when it all began".

I found it to be reminiscent of the course of events in U.S. history that we are seeing unfolding right now. Politicians and the wealthy cooperating to divide up their majority share of the wealth and power, and eroding the purity of the democratic idealism that the state was founded on.

I wrote the following comment in their blog:

"After listening to this episode, I thought about how the parallels to modern day America were so clear. I see that has been commented on here. After 9/11, when we perceived a strong external threat, we had a strong degree of unity. The speed with which this unity dissipated and the breadth of the divide that emerged has been stunning, to say the least. I considered it a product of political and economic/capitalistic pressures, and Rome's transition away from the Republic follows a similar course. You mention that individual rich Romans felt that they did not need the state any more, and it reminds me of current stories of astronomical CEO compensation and record profits by Exxon in an era of economic recession. I think the lesson to be learned here is when a small number of people get greedy for wealth and power, it starts a process. They start changing the rules to protect or enhance their ability to increase their already overwhelming advantage in wealth or power. At least when you study Roman history, you don't have to listen to people on the top of the heap whining about taxes and regulations when in reality, the world is their oyster."

We often hear the tired old saying that "those that ignore history are doomed to repeat it". In this case, I think people can be perfectly aware of history and still repeat it, thinking that this time it doesn't apply.

You've probably heard the stories about experiments done on rats involving drugs or the pleasure centers of their brains. The point of these stories is that when an animal is given unlimited access with no limits to the things that give it pleasure, they inevitably pleasure themselves to death. While this is demonstrated as physical pleasures, I believe there is a corollary in the area of wealth and power. Both of these states provide the opportunity to accelerate the acquisition of more wealth or power (or both). It's like some kind of tipping point, where once you get so rich or powerful, there are few limits to the amount of wealth or power you can accumulate. The question is, if wealth and power are somehow part of a finite supply, then the additions to wealth and power have to come at the expense of someone on the other end of the spectrum. This is how a system becomes top heavy and unstable. To exercise power, you have to have strong people below you. To enjoy wealth, you have to have a reasonably secure populace to provide a stable society for you. When wealth and power concentrate too much in the hands of fewer and fewer people, the system has to eventually collapse.

Volcanic Reaction

I have been working backwards through the old "Naked Scientist" podcast. This morning, on the way to work, I was listening to an episode (I think from November of 2005) that was talking about volcanoes.

They have a section called "Kitchen Science" where, usually with the help of elementary or middle school students, they do an experiment that you can do with materials found at home in the kitchen. This week's experiment was to inflate a balloon to about the size of your fist, bury it in a pile of flour with the knot sticking out just below the surface, and to reach in with a pair of scissors and snip the knot off of the balloon. I thought at first it would pop the balloon, but if a balloon isn't filled to the straining point, puncturing it causes it to leak out, not pop. You can try this at home to see what happens, but they caution not to actually do it in the kitchen if you don't like flour all over everything. They did it in the garage (which the Brits pronounce to rhyme with carriage).

Going off subject here - they have another experiment that I'm dying to try where you get a shallow saucer of milk and drip some food coloring carefully on the surface at various points around the saucer. Then you put a drop of liquid soap (the Brits call it "washing up liquid"). It's supposed to be really cool looking.

In the more serious part of the show, they interviewed a vulcanologist (who do NOT study Spock on Star Trek) explained had an excellent point about volcanoes and global warming. In one of Rush Limbaugh's books, he makes the point that volcanoes do much more damage to the environment than humans do. This is an attempt to dispel concerns about Global Warming, the logic of which has always escaped me. It seems to be saying that since we can't match the harm that volcanoes do to the environment that we should just have at it. That's kind of like pointing to the mass murderer and justifying killing a few people yourself because you'll never match his extent. It's like saying, "Why can't I shoot my neighbor? Hitler killed 6 million Jews?"

Well, it turns out that volcanoes only emit about 1% of the CO2 that humans do on a yearly basis. They tend to emit much more SO2, about 10% of what humans do. That's on a normal year, no mega-eruptions. For the large eruptions, the effect of the S02 dominates, and it turns out that S02 reflects heat back into space and actually has a global cooling effect. The scientist concluded by saying that without volcanic activity, human efforts that warm the globe would have been even more severe.

This goes to show that if you want to make a scientific argument, you should consult a scientist, not a right-wing talk show host with an Oxycontin habit that doesn't check his facts. I shouldn't say he doesn't check his facts, he doesn't use facts. He just makes up information, and when called on it, he responds that he's just for entertainment. If he's just for entertainment, then why do so many people repeat his rants as if they are based in reality?

So next time someone throws that silly argument at you around the dinner table or while sitting around the pub, you can tell them that Rush Limbaugh doesn't know the difference between a volcano and another orifice that erupts noxious gas.

Articles

The end of the Democratic primary season has brought a pause to the strange spectacle that has been the Democratic nomination process. After this pause, which drew media attention away from the President, we see a strange shift back to GW and find ourselves uncomfortably reacquainting ourselves with this latest iteration or incarnation of the President.

As long as there was another sideshow, we could forget the woeful tale of our Commander-in-Chief. There he is again, coming back into the spotlight, just as clueless, just as annoying, just as stubborn as he was when we last paid him any mind. He hopped on a plane to go to Europe for a farewell tour. You get the impression that he expected some kind of triumphant welcome and got a raspberry and a heckler instead. This time, he apologized for being beligerent and warlike in his attitude going up to the Iraq War. There was not much reaction to this, which has the feeling of apologizing for being an ass the night before when you got too drunk and acted like a fool. You can say you're sorry, but everyone has indelible visions of the stupid things that you did and can't quite believe that your apology means that you aren't capable of doing something similar in the future.

In the midst of this distraction, Representative Dennis Kucinich submitted Article of Impeachment for the President. I did not immediately realize that this is not the first time he's proposed to do this. I also thought that this was a serious charge, but as it turns out, most people are just content to wait until the President leaves and let him be. I read the Articles, and I have to say, I would be extremely pleased if he was ever made to be accountable for all his crimes and all the damage he's done to the country.

Some say history will vindicate him. I just can't imagine that. I know there are still people out there that support him and think he's doing a great job, but there are also people that believe in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus, so I don't think that's a valid alternate take on the situation.