Fanning the Flames of Hatred

We love to hate.

I know this is somewhat in direct opposition to the Symbiosis posting I just made, but something happened today that set off quite a rant in me.

I heard the news that after a month of negative ads by the McCain campaign, Obama's numbers have slid downward to below McCain's.

It's as if the country was asked to believe the worst accusations about a person and they came right out and jumped right on the task.

One thing that I have really despised about the Bush era in general, but some of their biggest supporters in particular, is their constant and persistent call to find something to hate about "the other side". It's somehow even better if it's not true, all it has to do is appeal to what people want to believe, not what they can be convinced of by facts. And just as hordes of people obediently forward emails of stories that are unbelievable at first glance, they usually don't take the time to dive into the stories they hear to determine whether they have any semblance of truth in them.

The sad thing about this is how easy it is for good people to fall prey to the siren song of hating your fellow man. I had a good friend years ago. He was a free spirit, probably lived outside of the law in some respects, had a healthy dose of disrespect for authority, and was fun-loving and funny. The last time I talked to him he told me, "I've been listening to a lot of talk radio lately. I really hate liberals." What I didn't say that day, partly because I was stunned by the statement, and partly out of respect and a desire not to have a fight with my friend was "What do you mean you hate liberals, you ARE liberal." Seriously, this guy was one of the most tolerant and liberal people I've ever known. Where did this sudden blindness to all that he believed in and loved turn into this hatred for "liberals"?

People are not shy to speak up about their hatreds. They feel vindicated and justified in thinking and believing that other people are somehow worthless and reprehensible. I'm talking about the divide in America, not about how Americans feel about other people in the world or how they feel about us. The bad thing about this trend is that I hear many people of faith spewing out this hatred, feeling perfectly justified in doing so, and not at all able to see the hypocrisy of being told by their religion to love one another, but feeling free by their associates to hate any and everything about those "others".

When we see radical Islamic fundamentalists espousing hatred toward America, we feel alarmed and repulsed. How can these supposed men of the cloth preach such tenets that are obviously contradictory to their religion? Yet we are blind to the hatreds we hold ourselves. Why is it so clear to see hatred in others, and so hard to recognize it in ourselves?

This is a trend that has to be recognized and reversed. Everyone hears how those who fail to study history are doomed to repeat it. I think it's much worse than that. I think that many that are perfectly aware of history are more than willing to repeat it, because they think "This is different." We look back on the 1930's and we dissect the rise of Nazism and smugly say, those Germans were sure stupid to follow Hitler. We even have this parable crafted for children about standing up to oppressive tyrants. You've probably heard variants of "I stood aside, because they weren't coming for me" stories. The punch line was when they came for you, no one was left to stand for you. Hitler had the perfect tool to recruit millions to his cause. He gave them what they wanted: something to hate.

Symbiosis

I've been hearing a lot of cases of symbiosis lately.

The concept is something that is not hard to describe. Two organisms live together and feed off of one another, helping each other to survive. To say that they feed off of each other isn't quite right, it's more like what one casts off, the other needs, so together they make a closed loop where they benefit each other.

Beatrix Potter, the author of The Tale of Peter Rabbit, was one of the first biologists to find a symbiotic relationship in nature. She put forth the theory (and apparently some beautiful drawings) that Lichen are actually a symbiosis of Algae and Fungus. Unfortunately, she forwarded her theory during a time when women were not taken seriously, and she was never recognized for her discovery during her lifetime. Almost 90 years later, Britain's Royal Society finally recognized her work and apologized for ignoring her.

I also heard a story about a slug that ate algae, which continued to live for a while inside the slug, continuing to produce energy through photosynthesis until they were digested.

From the world of basic cellular biology, we also know that most cells have structures in them called mitochondria (also known as the powerhouse of the cell) that some speculate were other primitive organisms that were absorbed and preserved in early bacteria. So the basis of most live might be in itself a symbiotic relationship.

One cool story that I keep hearing references to is that humans are themselves a great example of symbiosis. Apparently, there are 10 times more bacteria than human cells in your body. The bacteria cells are all much smaller than the human cells, so it's not like they are some huge visible lump. Still, the first time you hear that number, it's a very scary and strange thought.

Recently, I heard about a strange three-way symbiosis between this plant and a virus and a bacteria. This combination not only allows all three to live together and benefit each other, but it also allows the plant to survive in geothermal soils (that's hot - think Yellowstone and geysers).

I heard a comment by a microbiologist that was tracking the relationship between a bacteria, pylobacter, and stomach ulcers. Just when they found the relationship and started being able to treat people with chronic ulcers by attacking the bacteria, they found out something else new. They found out that pylobacter, which probably has been with humans for thousands of years, and co-evolved with us, is becoming extinct. They think that its disappearance is responsible for the rise in asthma. This means that they believe that the pylobacter, besides making us more susceptible to ulcers, makes us less susceptible to asthma. A strange symbiosis, to be sure. Along the same lines, they believe that human herpes viruses have historically made humans better able to fight off the plague. Scientists studying this field, where our bacteria that live with us create a benefit call the field probiotics.

These two examples of herpes and pylobacter are less cut and dried from the basic definition of symbiosis. It's not pure benefit and no detriment. It's a payoff. There are some problems that come with the gain.

This morning, I was learning about plant root cellular biology, and the instructor was describing how a plant manages to keep harmful bacteria or other organisms out of the roots while allowing nutrients and water in. First, he described a portion of the cell wall that was an impenetrable barrier and wrapped each cell and the entire root in a protective layer. Within this layer were porous parts that allowed nutrients and water to pass, if they wanted and needed them. So you have two types of membranes, one for keeping things out, and one for letting things in. Completely different functions, yet working together, they make the plant thrive.

It occurred to me that society is like this, in a way. You hear people of certain political persuasions saying that the world (or our country) would be better off without those of the opposite persuasion. However, if you think about it, different groups of people act like the root membrane does. Some are willing to think about new ideas and different ways of doing things. Others resist anything new or different from the way they've always done things or the way they've always understood things. If it weren't for people willing to be open to new ideas, you wouldn't have advances in science and society. If it weren't for people resisting new ideas, you would have every harebrained crazy idea sweeping society like the latest fad. Resistance to change and new things keeps society on an even keel and prevents us from discarding important traditions.

As the biologist said, they think that most species will be found to be symbiotic in one way or another. But the concept is so woven into the basic fabric of our lives, that it's not crazy to expect to see it expressed in how we interact with each other. The trick is to recognize it when it's right in front of your face.

Realistic Malaise versus Irrational Exuberance

I recently listed to a podcast featuring a speech of President Jimmy Carter. The speech was given on July 15th, 1979, where he spoke about the growing energy crisis in the United States and our crisis of confidence that followed. This speech was dubbed the Malaise Speech and was universally derided as being very depressing. Given the energy crisis and the Iran Hostage Crisis of Carter's term in office, it is little wonder that Carter's entire presidency is thought of as a thoroughly depressing time.

Unfortunately, much of what Carter spoke about and focused on turned out to be prophetic.

One of my biggest criticisms of our democracy is that it has become a quick fix style of governance. Given the 2 and 4 year election cycle, our politicians are more focused on immediate concerns rather than long term problems and planning.

This reminds me of learning to drive. When I first got behind the wheel, I had a steering problem. I used to look at a spot right in front of the car. This made me swerve back and forth a lot. Some instructor or family member figured it out. They told me to look at a point down the road a ways and aim for that. This single comment immediately fixed my driving irregularities. I steered smoothly after that, with no jerkiness or shaking of the passengers.

The ship of state has a similar rudder problem. With a classic battle of one side yanking the tiller in one direction and the other yanking it in the opposite direction, as well as panicky naysayers screaming "iceberg!" every few minutes, we are jerking around all over the place.

The problem here is that people with long vision first have to take an objective and realistic look at where we are now, what we are doing, and where we need to be and what it will take. Some of these harsh realities are tough for people to swallow. People tend to plug up their ears and chant "I can't hear you!" when you say something they don't like. It is almost impossible to get elected on harsh realities.

I believe history has proven that leaders with a long view were the best thing for our country. Many people do not know that Abraham Lincoln was very unpopular through much of his presidency. Lincoln had a long term vision which was largely responsible for the eventual success of the Union in the Civil War. He also had a kinder reconstruction plan which was never put into place after his assassination. We'll never know how much racial turmoil may have been forestalled if he had lived through his second term.

Unfortunately, we now seem to be in an era of quick fix, short term, or unsustainable movements. Alan Greenspan called it Irrational Exuberance. He was referring to an unwarranted boom in the market, which eventually reversed and fell. The warning was not to get too excited about the latest economic fad, not to fall prey of schemes to make a quick buck at the expense of rational, safe, or slow plans. I think it's fair to say that the last 12 years have had a fair dose of these economic fads. The dot.com boom and bust, the stock market roller coaster ride, and the highly speculative real estate market are just a few examples. The unfortunate reality is that when people look around and see that someone has figured out a way to make a pile of money, there is a rush of people copying these tactics. Unfortunately, history has proven that most quick rises are followed by devastating falls.

So the person counselling conservation and development of alternate energies (including Nuclear - most people forget that Carter advocated nuclear energy and was himself a navy trained nuclear submariner) gets no credit for having the right ideas at the right time, and those with wild schemes to get rich quick or solve long term problems with short term fixes will never be short of followers.

Visions in the Mind's eye

I was out running a few days ago, on a slightly stormy overcast day, where the clouds took on this very pretty blue gray color. This is midsummer when the blue cornflowers are in bloom in the ditches and on the roadside. I noticed that the cornflowers were the same color as the clouds in the stormy sky.

I remember thinking that I did not have my camera, and it would have made a beautiful picture. Sometimes you have to hold on to the pictures just in your mind. You hope you can remember them well and recall them when you want.

I ran past a foggy cove of a lake the other morning and the air was heavy and still. There was a Blue Heron in the fog across the cove, full of sailboats. I watched his ungainly, gawky form as he struggled to the air and then coasted across the water with an improbable grace that seemed to defy gravity.

So often these quick flashes are not recorded and quickly forgotten. They make up the fabric of life. You wonder what your mind does with so many details.

As I drove across Kansas, I saw long views in the open plain, simple still and silent, yet complete and majestic. I've been caught up in the overlooked details in wood grain or random patterns of shadows.

You wonder if there is meaning in the visions as they flash by. It's easy to say that some things are simply meant to be appreciated. Some things are just beautiful, they have no special meaning. But these things come together to make up your life's experience, even if they aren't recorded or remembered. That gives them meaning.

Liberal Education

Political discourse being what it is in this country (two armed camps volleying shots at each other) it sometimes pays to back up a bit and see how we got into this mess.

One of the things I note most often is the way that the conservatives and Republicans say the word "Liberal". I'm sure if you're alive and aware in America today, you've heard the word slither out of people's mouths, heavy with scorn.

I had a friend about 10 years ago that I've since gotten out of touch with. This guy was a free spirit, a bit of a hippie, funny, fun-loving, and rarely serious. Not a corporate hack type, not a cubicle dweller, a guy that really wanted a job that allowed him freedom and access to the great outdoors. This guy was not at all what you would consider Conservative. The last time I talked to him was when I phoned him at random about 3 years ago. In the course of the conversation, he mentioned that he had been listening to a lot of talk radio and that he "hates Liberals". I remember the feeling I had when I heard this. If you've ever seen Invasion of the Body Snatchers, or The Stepford Wives, you know about those parts in the stories where the character realizes that their friend is no longer there in the person they used to know. They are now mindlessly serving a new heartless master. This guy didn't have a conservative bone in his body. How did he fall prey to the propaganda?

And it is propaganda. When the dripping with scorn word Liberal comes out of a Conservative's mouth it means a person that is completely deluded, out of touch with reality, and determined to destroy the country. You have to pay attention to this, because there are people making a great deal of money while shovelling this bile out to the public. There are people getting rich and benefitting immensely from working their hardest to divide the people in this country.

What does the word liberal mean? In the Oxford English Dictionary, liberal is an adjective meaning: 1) willing to respect and accept behaviour or opinions different from one’s own. 2) (of a society, law, etc.) favourable to individual rights and freedoms. 3) (in a political context) favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate reform. 5) (especially of an interpretation of a law) not strictly literal. 6) given, used, or giving in generous amounts. 7) (of education) concerned with broadening general knowledge and experience.

If you look it up on Etymology online at http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=liberal&searchmode=none, it shows where the word came from: from French circa 1375, "befitting free men, noble, generous," from the Latin word liberalis "noble, generous, pertaining to a free man". The root for liberal and liberty are basically the same, it means "free". Other earlier meanings are "belonging to the people", "people", and "nation, people". Other references speak about liberal arts where man's efforts are directed to intellectual enlargement that was deemed worthy of a free man (as opposed to being servile or mechanical). Other meanings are "free in bestowing", and "free from restraint in speech or action" or "free from prejudice, tolerant". These were not always seen as good things. At the time of the founding of our county, the accepted meaning was "tending in favor of freedom and democracy" and also "favorable to government action to effect social change".

So liberal is a word that has long since evoked a feeling of expanding one's mind, freeing yourself from the constraints of the past, and enjoying liberty in life.

It is also used to mean generous or ample. Who wouldn't want a generous helping of your favorite dessert?

So the next time someone expresses scorn for liberalism, they should be asked, "Are you against a generous helping of freedom?"

The importance of Tobacco

I've always suspected that the plants that humans have always focused on could become more important, that we intuitively have love affairs with certain plants for a deeper reason that has not been revealed yet.

I'm talking mostly about tobacco. When I was a kid in the 70s, they were bringing out all kinds of information about tobacco to get people to be aware and get away from smoking. This is the era that they stopped TV advertising and Surgeon General warnings started showing up on cigarette packs. We started to understand the addictive nature of nicotine, but we also understood that the burning weed was gumming up our lungs with tar. I remember hearing that there were some 300 chemicals in tobacco that we didn't understand. This aspect of the tobacco plant is rarely mentioned. You hear about the handful of chemicals in tobacco that were found to be harmless, but it's not clear to me how harmful these chemicals are if they aren't burned and inhaled. I always wondered if some of those other chemicals weren't things that enhanced health. It seemed likely to me, because you would think that smoking tobacco would kill you a lot faster than it does, unless there is something about the plant that is also helping the body.

I don't know that anybody else is studying this, but you hear about how one of the reasons they didn't outlaw tobacco outright was that there were so many farmers growing it. I thought that it might be a good compromise to force the tobacco companies to look at healthy chemicals in tobacco in order to change the use of the crop from an addictive killer into a beneficial crop.

People have had love affairs with a few other plants, some with no healthy or good use, others with some good and some bad uses. Coca (cocaine), poppies (heroin), marijuana, and coffee come to mind as examples of plants with an addictive use profile. Corn, potatoes, sugar, wheat, and rice are other plant that we've had a long association with.

I tried growing some tobacco for a while. The breeds were available for sale through Seeds of Change (www.seedsofchange.com), a cool seed catalog that touted the benefits of growing tobacco as an insect repellent for other plants in your garden. I bought some seeds and grew the plants next to some of the other vegetables I was trying to grow. They came up very healthy and I was fascinated at how easy they were to grow. One day, when I went down to check on them, I noticed that they looked horrible. They were being devoured by these enormous green worms. While this carnage was going on in my tobacco crop, with me thinking that the advertisements were wrong to say that it repelled insects, I finally noticed the adjacent rows of vegetables were completely bug free. So maybe it was not accurate to say that they repelled insects as much as they attracted them away from other plants.

This isn't the first time that something else was discovered while looking at tobacco. The first virus discovered by man was the tobacco mosaic virus. While concentrating on what was causing problems with tobacco crops, man discovered a whole new kingdom of life.

Recently, I heard a story about scientists using tobacco as a factory for cancer fighting agents. [See Science Friday's 7/28/08 show archives, if you are interested - http://www.sciencefriday.com/program/archives/200807253] They did it by infecting the tobacco plant with a virus that then produces the beneficial chemical. While this is another example of a useful symbiotic relationship (see my posting Symbiosis), it is also a good example of our love affair with the tobacco plant yielding a benefit for human health.

We often talk about going bioprospecting in the vanishing rain forests of the Amazon to find new plants with beneficial drugs, but I think we should be looking a little closer at the plants we already have a long relationship with.

Acceptible Risks and Excessive Adventure

I often notice attempts to make the world overly safe. This started when I was a kid and the parents would tell us not to get in the pool until a half an hour after eating. I knew it was a sham when I was little. It was caution taken to a ridiculous extreme. There is practically a whole industry built around the misconception that we must make everything safe.

I had a wonderful rant one Thanksgiving when I was 18 or 19 and it was snowing a little bit outside. We had all the relatives around, and thought it would be fun to go out and rent a movie to entertain everyone. My father got angry and asked us if we were crazy to risk driving in the snow just for a movie. I started a half serious, half comedic rant about taking risks. I remember saying that we would never have colonized the country or flown to the moon if we were afraid of risk. I remember using the line, "This country was built on wild risky behavior!"

I've also noticed that risks sometimes make us stronger. You could argue that you only get ahead by taking risks. But more than that, risk is often fun. The sense of danger is what makes the activity more enjoyable. Personal trials also build experience and character. The efforts to overcome obstacles sharpen our minds and bodies.

There are also non-human examples of trial, ordeals, and collisions that are dangerous, damaging, and destructive, but bring about benefits. Fire often shapes the prairie and the forest: burning away the old things brings new life. I was recently looking at an area on the prairie that had been burned down earlier in the year and teh sand hill plums not only survived the fire, but were thriving. I have also heard planetary scientist speculate that meteor impacts bring life to protoplanets. Sometimes this is from the water that they bring, and sometimes one species can only survive after an impact wipes out a competitor, as we rose after the dinosaurs were wiped out. While this brought death to some, it brought life to others.

I recently had dinner with a British guy that worked for a company with an excessive safety policy. I thought he was railing against the absurdity of the policy, talking about how company members were required to report coworkers over incidents of unsafe practices. He talked about how if you saw someone going down a set of stairs and not using the handrail, you were supposed to write up the incident and hand it in. When I agreed with this and told him that it was absurd and that some risks had to be taken from time to time, he disagreed and started defending the policy. I sited the example of a person going skydiving, and his response was that you alleviate all risk by training and using safe equipment. I countered by saying that man would never have explored or colonized the Pacific if they stayed safe and waited until they had thoroughly tested equipment. He was convinced that enormous efforts to pare down the last percentage point of risk was worth the effort.

I think he ignores the fact that a certain degree of risk has a strengthening effect. Recent studies have shown that continual exposure to certain strains of bacteria can bring disease resistance and may even fend off diabetes. Our society has tried its hardest to keep people away from any bacteria for too long. Antibacterial soaps, antiseptic wipes, and hair trigger disposal of food that is past its expiration date has kept us away from exposure to all bacteria (good and bad). The overuse of antibiotics in people and livestock has done little to protect us, it has simply toughened up the bacteria and made us more vulnerable. Now we have MRSA and multi-drug resistant tuberculosis because we trained these strains to resist everything we could throw at them. See what happens to the bugs when they are under assault? They get stronger. The same thing applies to people.

Granite Siding

We were told that this person wasn't going to be in the office one afternoon because he had to be at home for a person that was coming by to do some work on his house. This person is always getting work done on his house, and I was joking I was joking about how he was going to install granite siding. You hear about people putting granite counter tops in, a very expensive prospect, and the joke was meant to convey that this guy would be willing to spend very generously on his house. Then I realized that the first home men had, caves, had granite siding.

The funny thing about this thought is that it got me thinking. I know that stone is supposed to be a good building material because it slowly heats up during the day, keeping a house cool until the end of the day, where it supposedly re-radiates the heat, keeping the house warm at night. But years ago, when the home was a cave, you were underground. Now people that really want to save money on energy will build what they call an Earth-Contact home. This is a house like a basement with the earth piled up around it to keep it insulated. Basically, these supposedly high-tech homes are caves, just like the most primitive home.

Tribute to discontinued Podcasts

I've subscribed to a lot of podcasts over the last 3 years via iTunes. I feel like I got in on the early stages of the form. There was a time when people were making their own, and it had a very non-commercial individual peer-to-peer feel to it. While I've listened to quite a few podcasts that were not well thought-out, well researched, or well rehearsed, I've also lucked into many that were excellent, and some of those were discontinued. This posting is a review of some of the best of those podcasts.

One of the more notable accomplishments was a high school student named George Hageman. He did a podcast called Military History Podcast. There were 120 episodes in July 2008 when he announced that he graduated High School and would be going to Harvard, so he was discontinuing the podcast. George also posted all of his podcasts on a blog at http://www.militaryhistorypodcast.blogspot.com/. The one cool thing that I learned about George was that his grandfathers fought in WWII on opposite sides, one being Japanese. I wrote to him once and suggested that he do a podcast on General Nathan Bedford Forrest from the Civil War, and he wrote back, but did not do the podcast. I can appreciate it, I know he did scripts that were submitted to him, but even so, he put out about one a week for at least a couple of years through High School, which is quite a feat. You just know this guy is going to pop up as an author one day, with that much energy to burn.

Another favorite podcast was Brain Food by Kyle Butler. Kyle was a Canadian college student, studying engineering. He actually was a guest on the Naked Scientist Podcast, by the Journal Nature in the UK, answering a question about the amount of fuel soccer fans were wasting through extra drag by flying flags on their cars. Kyle had a great way of explaining things, and it would be great if he got his own television show some day, making science and engineering fun for the masses. He had a girlfriend that he popped the question to and they graduated and got married at some point, and the podcast just stopped.

One of the funniest podcasts I ever stumbled on was Logically Critical by some guy that never did give his name. He put out these diatribes for about a year and a half, and then begged off due to time constraints. His website is www.logicallycritical.net, which is still up as of the writing of this posting. He claimed that he would break issues down logically without extensive research. He had hilarious sound effects and lots of spot-on information that sounded off the cuff. Several of his episodes were about religion, which he claimed he wasn't attacking, but that it wasn't very logical. Some of his "Wacky Bible Stories" were hilarious. All he did was paraphrase sections of the Old Testament, and that was funny enough. He did great voices and sound effects. I got the impression that this guy didn't finish college and worked hard, possibly in a blue collar job, but was a lot smarter than he was "on paper". It sounds like he was capable of whatever he put his mind to, but didn't buy into bullshit organizational structures.

Another great podcast was the President's Weekly Radio Address. This was a spot-on parody of the actual President's weekly radio address done by the folks that produce The Onion newspaper and podcasts. The problem with this podcast was that they didn't even have to change Bush's words much, or make up anything to make him look like an idiot. I think they got discouraged and depressed because the podcast was too close to reality. It also wasn't changing anything. Making fun of Bush wasn't causing anyone to rally around the cry of "Our President is an Idiot!" So they shut the podcast down around the time that gas prices maxed out and during the maximum period of hopelessness in Iraq, just before the surge got underway. Whoever read the podcast had Bush's voice down pat.

There was a political podcast called CallBox 7 which was put on by Daniel Brewer out of Florida. He was an IT type guy, so he really had the editing down cold. He spoke openly about being gay and considered himself not a liberal, but a progressive. He was pointing out some very on the mark flaws with politics in this country and I was writing in to him from time to time (I actually got read on his podcast a couple of times, which was pretty fun). The problem was that Daniel did such a professional job that trying to keep up with a weekly podcast was killing his social life. So he took on a co-host, I think with the intention of splitting the load and not having to work as hard, but it ended up still being the same amount of work, but now with this other guy plugged in. Will Radik was from San Francisco, and they did it via a Skype connection, I think. I liked Will, but Daniel & Will had such different styles that it completely changed the character of the podcast. It wasn't better or worse, just less focused. Will was like the lighthearted comic relief to Daniel's laser beam rage at the machine. I left the podcast on iTunes and noticed that Daniel started podcasting again around the time of the conventions. The most recent format involved 3 guests that watched the first Presidential Debate together and then commented on it. It's always fun to listen to a Daniel Brewer podcast in whatever format it's in.

The last podcast I wanted to mention is Strong Bad Email. This is the only video podcast I'm mentioning here, and since I have always had iPod Shuffles (no video), I don't do too many video. Now this is basically a cartoon, but it's pretty creative and funny. My nephews and cousins like it, from ages 8 to 16, so it plays on two levels, funny for kids and funny for adults (similar to Toy Story movies or Bugs Bunny cartoons). This podcast stopped for a long time and recently started back up again, but it doesn't have the feel of something that will last, only because it looks like it would take a lot of effort and time and podcasters typically don't get paid for their efforts.

While many podcasts are produced by the BBC, Slate, NPR, Nature, Scientific American, or Science (big established organizations with large staffs), there is something to be said for individuals making their own podcasts. A definite democratization of broadcasting that gives you all kinds of viewpoints, unfiltered and un(self-)censored by any corporate masters. Long live the free voice of independent podcasters!

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.

Texas Ascendent

I believe we can attribute the last 8 years of Oilmen dominating politics in this country to the 70's. During that era of inflation and a poor economy, people working in the oil exploration field were driven to the top. Big oil's rise brought many to the top strata of society. They were mostly conservative, religious, and as anyone with new found wealth, capitalists to the core. These economically advantaged people had their success drive their ideas to prominence. This is mostly because in this country, as in the world throughout history, money buys influence and power.

If you look back in history, you'll see that spending your way to prominence is not the way to form a lasting empire. The Dutch apparently funded much of the Spanish Empire because they were economically prominent. I'm not sure why they didn't form their own empire, or if the Spanish were ever able to pay them back. Imagine all of Central and South America speaking dutch today. The Dutch did not have the religious zeal of the Spanish, either. Verona is another example of a country without a specific creed or ideals, just a long run of economically prominence. They faded from history and today are mostly forgotten, although in their heyday they managed to have relations with nations on both sides of the Muslim/Christian divide.

I liked it better when we out-thought our way to prominence. We came up with better ideas and then put some blood sweat and tears into the equation to get ahead. Today's method of passing down wealth and influence and trying to rig the system to stay on top doesn't seem sustainable. I wonder what our country would look like right now if someone had come up with a 70% efficient solar cell that could be produced inexpensively in 1976 in Seattle. Imagine if wealth and innovation had flowed from some more liberal and free thinking part of the country. Imagine if our way out of the same energy crisis 30 years ago had been a sustainable and home-grown solution, rather than drilling our way out of the problem. I wonder what free thinking open minded people would have done with their wealth and power and how they would have transformed the country.

Oh well, it didn't happen that way then. I just hope it happens that way now.

Romans Always Won

I was listening to a podcast about ancient Roman history when I heard an interesting phrase. He said that the Romans always won in battle because they always handled their logistics correctly. They did everything the same, each time they moved off to war. They carried or collected enough supplies and had their transportation lines open and secure. Sometimes the warriors and the strengths of the armies were not so different, but the preparations and standardization of how to fight made the difference. So Rome dominated because they had a plan and a method.

The Roman Empire had a nice two episode spread in National Geographic a while back. It showed how their achitecture and engineering and their language, laws, and culture persisted after all this time. The history of ancient Rome podcast I have been listening to has concentrated on their wars and political development.

Roman influence has survived a long time, yet one of the things people also focus on about the Romans is that their empire eventually failed. When I was young, The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire was a very popular book. Many people have simplistic explanations as to how they fell from lack of morals and opposition to Christianity to outsourcing their military. Many people have drawn parallels between the America and the Roman Empire. If you consider Rome having a reign of around 800 to 1000 years, there is no comparison to America, we are simply too young. If you want to point out influence, wealth, power, and technology, you may have something there. I was going to say that one difference is that we don't go out conquering other countries, but you could argue that we do that economically.

What is interesting is the way a winner or leader is copied and emulated, as well as opposed and plotted against. Just by virture of their wealth and dominance, Rome was always at odds with the barbarian tribes around it. Their success made them a target. It is clear that they slowly stopped being what they were as far as the transformation that made them fall from grace. They lost much of their ideas and drive.

It doesn't matter that Rome itself fell if you consider that it's ideals and ideas infected the world and survived without the actual empire in existence anymore. The same would be true of America if we were to be surpassed as a world leader. Our organization and methods have already infected the world. Look at what some consider to be our biggest rival - China. They embraced capitalism and market economies in order to get where they are today. They may still call themselves communist, but who is kidding whom here? They are communist in name only. One little factor I keep hearing in the news is how many engineers and scientist each country has or is producing. The idea is that whoever the technological leader is will also be the world leader. That's based on the American model as well as the Roman model.

Just like sports teams can't win forever, one country or one group cannot dominate forever either. Countries may rise or fall, but what endures is the ideas that came out of the countries through their literature or works.