The Human Endeavor

The Influence of al-Ghazali on the Theory of Causality

2019-05-09T14:25:00.001-04:00

The Influence of al-Ghazâlî on the Theory of Causality

One of the most interesting features of the “Big Three” religions of the world is that the underlying doctrines of each can trace their lineages directly to an ongoing debate between the Aristotelian view of Materialism and Plato’s Theory of Forms that began nearly 24 centuries ago.[1] In dealing with the history of interaction between the adherents of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, Western scholarly views traditionally pitted Christianity—touted as the central religion—against the others in what essentially amounted to a power struggle to maintain the one true Will of the one true God. However, many scholars over the past several decades have begun adopting what is now understood to be the more appropriate, more accurate version of the history of the Mediterranean—namely, that these religions developed along similar lines in a broad, multicultural region of the world that was rich in trade, politics, and scientific advancements. For example, by the time of the Islamic Golden Age from roughly the mid-7^th to the mid-13^th centuries[2], the Mediterranean Sea had offered a relatively easy route for traders and conquerors alike to travel from Valencia to Tripoli and anywhere in between for several hundred years. Along with myriad goods, ideas on everything from religion to politics; from medicine to astrology; and from atoms to the formation of the universe were readily exchanged in cities such as Córdoba, al-Andalus (Spain) and Alexandria, Egypt, drawing influence from virtually every known part of the world at the time. Baghdad once served as the site of one of the intellectual, cultural, and scientific centers of the world and economic powerhouses such as Cairo began exerting a much larger trading influence around the Mediterranean through the trade of a number of ‘exotic’ goods.[3] By the mid-11^th century, Islamic influence on the entire region was ubiquitous and many great works of Greek philosophy, mathematics, and science had been translated into Arabic by Abu Yusuf Ya’qub ibn Ishaq Al-Kindi and others that followed.[4] Then in 1095, Abû Hâmid Muhammad ibn Muhammad al-Ghazâlî (Ghazâlî, or Muhammad, hereafter) began publishing works critically examining the philosophical arguments of Ash’arites and Mu’tazilites (collectively, Mutakallimûn) and those of the Greeks.[5] And it is to this most influential scholar that attention is turned.

Ghazâlî was born in the mid- to late-1050s in what is now northeastern Iran. Educated in Ash’arite theology by al-Juwaynî, Muhammad eventually ascended the political and religious ranks of Baghdad and was appointed to a position at the Nizâmayya Madrasa in 1091.[6] It was during this time that Ghazâlî began his endeavor to develop a rigid, more coherent analysis of the foundations of Islam. One of the ambiguities that arose during some of the preliminary translations of Ghazâlî’s tahâfut al-falâsifa (falâsifa) by Dr. Simon Van den Bergh was his view of the Theory of Causality.[7] But, before diving into falâsifa, perhaps it would be prudent to briefly examine the basics of the Aristotelian and Platonic views in which Islamic ideology find its roots.

On the one hand, Aristotle argued that in order to understand the internal structure of the physical world, experiments must be conducted within the framework of a rigid methodology. “The most exact sciences,” he writes, “are those that, more than the others, study the first things; for the sciences that are derived from fewer principles (for instance, arithmetic) are more exact than those (for instance, geometry) that require further principles… Further, the most superior science—the one that is superior to any subordinate science—is the one that knows the end for which a given thing should be done; this end is something’s good, and in general the end is what is best in every sort of nature” (Aristotle et al., p. 118). Aristotle later begins a long discussion Substance with, “The things called substances are, first, the simple bodies (earth, fire, water, and everything like that) and in general bodies and the things composed from them (animals and divine things and their parts). All these things are said to be substances because they are not said of a subject, but the other things are said of them” (Aristotle et al., p. 149). After a long line of reasoning that examines everything from Plato’s and Democritus’ arguments to the interaction between potentiality and actuality, he arrives at a few noteworthy understandings. “It is evident from what has been said, then, that there is an everlasting, unmoved substance that is separated from perceptible things (Aristotle et al., p. 191). He continues:

The nature of understanding raises a number of puzzles. For understanding seems to be the most divine of the things we observe, but many difficulties arise about what state it must be in if it is to be so divine…

then, must understand itself, so that its understanding is an understanding of understanding. In every case, however, knowledge, perception, belief, and though have something other than themselves as their object; each has itself as its object as a by-product (Aristotle et al., p. 192).

Finally, Aristotle wraps up his discussion of Substance by addressing knowledge:

[K]knowledge, like knowing, is of two kinds, potential and actual. Since the potentiality, as being matter, is universal and indefinite, it is of the universal and indefinite. But since the actuality is definite, it is of what is definite, and, since it is a this, it is of a this…

It is clear, however, that in a way knowledge is universal, and in a way it is not (Aristotle et al., p.195).

On the other hand, Plato used, for example, the parable of the cave to question whether something actually exists or whether it exists within the essence of that thing—what he called Forms. Although Ghazâlî eventually offers a sort of compromise between the two, since the majority of Ghazâlî’s refutations examined here regard Aristotelian Materialism, further elaboration on Plato’s Forms is unnecessary.

In his treatise falâsifa, referring to the authors of ancient works collectively as the philosophers, Ghazâlî begins the section ‘Refutation of their belief in the eternity of the world’,

THE philosophers disagree among themselves as to the eternity of the world. But the majority of the philosophers - ancient as well as modern-agree upon its eternity, holding that it always coexisted with God (exalted be He) as His effect which was concurrent with Him in time -concurrent as an effect is with the cause, e.g.., light with the Sun -and that God's priority to the world is the priority of the cause to the effect - viz., priority in essence and rank, not in time. Plato is said to have maintained that the world began in time. But some people put different interpretations on his words, for they would not have him believe in the origin of the world... The consensus of opinion among the philosophers is that as a rule it is inconceivable that something which has a beginning in time should proceed from the eternal without there being any intermediary (Ghazâlî 1058-1111 CE).[8]

In other words, the discussion involves determining causes and their effects. In Did Al-Ghazali Deny Causality, Goodman notes, “Ghazâlî’s argument against the sufficiency of observed causes to produce their effects does not deny but rather exploits the Philosophers’ emanative view of nature and assumes the rejection of a reductionistic view which might consistently have regarded the material objects as self-sufficient in their causal action” (Goodman, p. 91). And in Alon’s interpretation:

The definition of the universality of causality, namely the assertion that nothing has ever occurred without some cause, usually maintains that the existence of a phenomenon implies that of a cause. Such a definition of causality would seem to be acceptable to Al-Ghazâlî, as well as to even the most extreme opponents of causality among the Ash’arites, who accept the doctrine that Allah is the sole cause of everything…

Allah alone is responsible for their creation in a specific order, but it is in His power to disconnect them at will (Alon, p.399).

Abrahamov briefly examines falâsifa while referencing both Goodman and Alon:

Alon proves through a structural, contextual and semantic examination of chapter XVII of tahâfut al-falsâsifa (referring mainly to the above quoted section and what follows) that al-Ghazâlî seeks to reconcile the two opposing views on causality, the philosophical view and that of the Kalâm.[9] According to Alon, al-Ghazâlî’s admission that God acts through physical means and his acceptance of impossibility not only in the logical domain but also in the ontological one affirm causality. Goodman proves that al-Ghazâlî, using Aristotelian axioms expressed in Islamized terminology, holds causality but rejects the philosophers’ doctrine that causes are necessary… Thus we have only a partial picture of al-Ghazâlî’s views of causality, namely that which is found in his tahâfut (Abrahamov, p. 77-78).

Rather than rehash prior, exhaustive examinations of the same doctrine, Abrahamov decided to look at three of Ghazâlî’s other works, ilyâ, k. al-arba’în, and al-maksad al asnâ, to find the rest of the picture. In al-adba’în, Abrahamov explains that Ghazâlî, “begins with the assertion that God has willed every existing thing and that everything in this perishable corporeal world (mulk) as well as in the everlasting spiritual world (malakût) happens in accordance with God’s decree (kadâ) and by His determination (kadar), judgement (hukm) and will (mashî’a)” (Abrahamov, p. 78). The issue of kadar is then framed within the context of people misinterpreting verses of the Qur’an and how:

…only God and those firmly rooted in knowledge (al-râsikûn fî’l-‘ilm) know their true meaning… Kadar, according to al-Ghazâlî, is a secret, and any attempt to understand it is forbidden. Whoever wants to know God’s secrets must obey His precepts sincerely and do what pleases Him. But if he cannot be satisfied with only devotion, he must believe (‘alayhi an ya’takida) what Abû Hanîfa and his adherents say about this matter, namely, that it is God’s action that creates power in man (ihdâth al-istitâ’a fi’l allah) while man’s action consists of using the power that was created (wa’isti’mâl al-istitâ’a al-muhdatha fi’l al-‘abd) really and not just metaphorically using it (Abrahamov, p. 78-79).

Ghazâlî then goes on to explain four stages of God’s will and how it is manifest in the world. In the first stage, a direction for causality originating with God is established while in the second stage He “establishes (nasaba) absolute, basic, fixed and stable causes… which neither disappear nor change till the end of days” (Abrahamov, p. 80). The third stage deals with the abovementioned kadar (determination) and how God is directing cause toward their effects. And the final stage is where Ghazâlî concludes that, “nothing exists outside God’s decree and determination” (Abrahamov, p. 81). Using a parable involving a water clock, Ghazâlî writes that, “Everything that happens in this world, be it good or bad, useful or harmful, is according to God’s will, just as the clock moves according to the will of its maker” (Abrahamov, p. 83). This line of reason culminates in a compromise made between faith and philosophy. “Using the term hukm, which denotes wisdom… on the one hand, and the terms kadâ and kadar, which connote power, on the other hand, he reconciles the philosophical view that God is wisdom with the religious view that God is power” (Abrahamov, p.84). To sum up, “Man is led to act by a cause-effect chain” (Abrahamov, p. 89).

However, it appears that contradictions exist between ihyâ and falâsifa. It is within these contradictions that questions regarding Ghazâlî’s foundational views have arisen. For example, in falâsifa, Ghazâlî uses the idea of cotton coming into contact with flames to show the direction of cause-effect while allowing for God to circumvent such rules. Abrahamov explains,

In ihyâ, al-Ghazâlî holds the opposite view. He explicitly states that it is impossible for a conditioned thing to precede a condition; e.g., volition must come after knowledge. “Possibility (imkân) means derivation (tarlîb), and derivation does not admit change (lâ yakbalu al-taghyîr).” Likewise it is impossible that God would cause plants to sprout without man sowing or that a woman should give birth without sexual intercourse (Abrahamov, p. 96).

(It is interesting to note the first argument in that last line of this passage since it is now well understood that plants existed long before humans showed up to destroy the Earth through arrogance.)

Before moving on to other sources, Abrahamov’s conclusions are important to discuss since it is through them that an understanding of the compromise made between philosophy and Orthodox Islam can be understood. “Al-Ghazâlî’s theory,” he explains, “is that God created things and their natures and the he established the plan by which things influence each other. The condition-conditioned chain that al-Ghazâlî depicts in ihyâ is no other than the scheme he elaborates in al-maksad and k. al-arba’în” (Abrahamov, p. 97). Finally, he concludes the investigation by enumerating four facets of Ghazâlî’s causality:

By establishing a cause-effect chain with God as its First Cause and Maintainer, al-Ghazâlî affirms the following: a. God is Omnipotent and One, since He alone, at His will has created and continues to maintain the cause-effect chain. b. God acts through His wisdom and not capriciously. c. Consequently it is possible to acquire knowledge about the world, since every event or thing has a cause, and things happen or change according to a fixed scheme. d. Man is obliged to choose his actions but his choice is really compulsory too… Points a and d represent the religious view, while points b and c represent the philosophical view. (Abrahamov, p. 97-98).

While Ghazâlî at least partially accepted causality through his discussion of fire and cotton in falâsifa, he wanted to maintain the possibility of miracles—the second of his two main objectives along this line of reasoning. Alon details Muhammad’s first objective by saying, “He accepts the concept of the “nature” of a thing, without accepting this term itself. The word he uses instead is sifah, i.e. quality (literally “description,” “attribute”)” (Alon, p. 403). Even with the concession to causality, Ghazâlî still believed in the omnipotence of Allah because of his view toward miracles. “This,” Alon explains, “Al-Ghazâlî manages to do despite his partial acceptance of causality; he agrees to reduce the miracle to a phenomenon which follows the course of nature without the usual lapse of time” (Alon, p. 403-404). That is, Allah has the power to make things that would naturally happen over long periods of time happen instead over much shorter periods of time or instantaneously. And this is a main point of departure from the mutakallimûn view that some things, such as having knowledge and life contained within the dead, are impossible even for Allah. Ghazâlî accepted the idea of impossible but, “managed to attack the extremist mutakallimûn for their rejecting any notion of impossibility of Allah” (Alon, p. 404).[10]

Ghazâlî also departs from the Aristotelian view in how old he thinks is the universe. Goodman recognizes that in falâsifa, “Ghazâlî does not attempt to refute the Aristotelian view that matter is continuous. Nor does Ghazâlî attempt to refute the Philosopher’s notion of the continuity of time, but only to expose Aristotle’s fallacious inference that the continuity of time implies time’s perpetuity” (Goodman, p. 110). In other words, the Universe must have begun when Allah willed it so. Continuing:

If we wish to situate Ghazâlî’s own position as to causality, then he helps us a great deal by stating clearly his agreement with the Philosophers’ doctrine (which he takes them to task for not adhering to more strictly) that God is the ultimate cause of all events… but that one event within nature may be the proximate cause or effect of another and that within the frame of reference of nature and the characters with which things are created, one can even say that proximate causes must have their effects and vice versa unless other causes interfere… Thus Ghazâlî retains causality while rejecting the Philosophers’ doctrine of necessity among created causes (Goodman, p. 111).

Addressing the concepts of nature and creation, Ghazâlî makes a particular distinction within a framework that serves to actually bolster the Aristotelian views on the subjects:

Ghazâlî has a conception of nature (khalqa) distinct from that of the Philosophers, as a divinely created character of things. What is at issue for him is not whether the familiar pattern of nature’s operation, which we have learned to expect habitually in the course of long observation, is itself necessary in the sense that things could never have been otherwise and could never become other[w]ise. Ghazâlî’s answer to that question and the answer which all monotheists inspired by the Biblical tradition would give is… implicit in acceptance of the concept of creation itself… To put the matter in terms of Ghazâlî’s paradigm example, if life were an essential and inseparable property of living thing, then life would have belonged to all living things perpetually and would be inalienable from them in concept and in fact (Goodman, p.113).

In other words, if life is intrinsic to certain collections of matter, it should be that way in perpetuity. And, if that was the case, everything that has ever lived would still live. However, we see that this is not what is experienced so it is thus rejected.

At the outset, Goodman asked the question Did Ghazâlî Deny Causality and concludes, “[W]e have seen quite clearly from a thorough examination of his discussion on the subject, that even in the course of affirming the reality of the miraculous—of which the paradigm for Ghazâlî was the mystery of life and intelligence being imparted to what is in itself lifeless and inert matter—quite consistently he did not” (Goodman, p. 120).

A final topic of interest is in Ghazâlî’s ideas about the concept of doubt. Introduced in his al-Munqidh min al-Dalal,[11] Rayan has this to say regarding his Method of Doubt:

Al-Ghazali believes that reaching the truth of things requires knowledge of “true science.” It is apparent to him that “certain science” is the one in which the “known thing” is revealed in an undoubted way, and is not connected to the possibility of error and illusion, and the heart cannot have room to assess it. This means that al-Ghazali has doubt in every science that is not certain, and certainty for him is the criterion for the truth of things. Science is considered real only when it is absolutely certain and proves true in the face of any expression of doubt (Rayan, p. 166).

Ghazâlî used this method of doubt to shore up his developing arguments against Aristotelian views. “This thorough critical thinking,” Rayan concludes, “leads to an assessment of all types of knowledge that have been accepted for a long time, and to the shaking of trust in concepts that have been taken for granted as reliable. This in turn leads to review of the sciences according to logical criteria that are meant to distinguish the right from the wrong, the correct from the incorrect” (Rayan, p. 173).

So, in conclusion, it appears that, after examining exhaustive research from multiple scholarly sources, Ghazâlî ultimately did not deny causality but instead sort of embraced it through the application of a glorified “God of the Gaps” argument. That is, Allah functioned as Prime Mover that set all things, including time, into motion. And this, of course, implies that free choice in humans is something that doesn’t actually exist since, “even man’s thoughts and motives are determined by God” (Abrahamov, p. 86). Although he elaborates on the concept in ihyâ, the conclusion is ultimately the same: God did it.

Bibliography

Abrahamov, Binyamin. "Al-Ghazālī's Theory of Causality." Studia Islamica, no. 67 (1988): 75-

98. doi:10.2307/1595974.

Alon, Ilai. "Al-Ghazālī on Causality." Journal of the American Oriental Society 100, no. 4

(1980): 397-405. doi:10.2307/602085.

Aristotle, et al. Aristotle: Introductory Readings. Hackett Pub., 1996.

Catlos, Brian A. Infidel Kings and Unholy Warriors: Faith, Power, and Violence in the Age of

Crusade and Jihad. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2015.

Edward Omar Moad. "Al-Ghazali on Power, Causation, and 'Acquisition'." Philosophy East and

West 57, no. 1 (2007): 1-13. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4488073.

Goodman, Lenn Evan. "Did Al-Ghazâlî Deny Causality?" Studia Islamica, no. 47 (1978): 83-

120. doi:10.2307/1595550.

Plato, and W. H. D. Rouse. Great Dialogues of Plato. New York: Signet Classics, 2008.

Rayan, Sobhi. "Al-Ghazali's Method of Doubt." Middle East Studies Association Bulletin 38, no.

2 (2004): 162-73. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23062806.

[1] This is from my class notes.

[2] https://islamichistory.org/islamic-golden-age/

[3] Brian A. Catlos, Infidel Kings and Unholy Warriors (New York 2014) p. 192.

[4] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/al-kindi/

[5] Specifically, Neoplatonist’s interpretations of Aristotle.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Lenn Evan Goodman, Did al-Ghazali Deny Causality?, p. 105.

[8] https://www.ghazali.org/books/tf/Problem_I.htm

[9] Generally speaking, the word Kalâm refers to an Islamic medieval theology. However, The Kalâm Cosmological Argument is the title of a 1979 book by William Lane Craig that elaborates on the debate Ghazâlî entered when he began discussing causality.

[10] This can easily be interpreted as a Procrustean argument, as appears to be the case for most of Ghazâlî’s line of reasoning.

[11] http://ghazali.org/books/md/gz101.htm

Moving Toward A Resource Based Economy

2019-05-08T06:08:00.008-04:00

Moving Toward a Resource Based Economy

While there have no doubt been countless periods throughout roughly 7-million years of upright-hominid history that can be considered ‘significant’, perhaps none have been more pivotal than what is currently being experienced as the human species swiftly moves into the third decade of the 21^st Century. Never before have we had unfettered access to the entirety of humankind’s knowledgebase at our fingertips; yet, 17% of the global population is still illiterate.[1] Never before have we had the technology to easily and continuously feed over 7.5-billion people; yet, we still collectively throw away 30-40% of the food supply in the United States alone[2] while over 3-million children die from undernutrition each year.[3] Never before have we had the ability to produce more than enough energy to suit all human needs; yet around 14% of the global population still has little to no access to electricity![4] And, never before have we better understood the human mind and what causes aberrant behavior; yet, the United States prison population eclipses every other country on Earth with over 2-million incarcerated in a privatized, for-profit system.[5] Clearly, there exists a void between what we know and what we do with what we know! But, what is it that causes such a chasm between the two to continue widening despite the undeniable advancements made over the millennia? Is it some character flaw in ‘human nature’—greed, jealousy, or the lust for power? Unlikely, since those instead are all attributes of ‘human behavior’ that have evolved, along with the human body, subject to natural processes. What about some rogue corporation or government corrupting the system? Doubtful, since all entities are operating within the limits of the economic model in place. But, with this line of reasoning we seem to be nearing the correct question, which of course must first be addressed if we are to offer any semblance of appropriate solutions: Could it be the economic model itself?

Although historical records of European society leading up to 14^th century mostly indicate human interactions filled with disease, despots, and destruction, the Mediterranean instead offered, during that same period, some of the most culturally and scientifically enriched cities in the world. One could argue that these are but two stages in the natural progression of any seemingly-intelligent beings as they move toward becoming civilized. However, once such a species becomes capable of reciprocating influence with the environment that sustains it, a new responsibility manifests that eventually becomes the defining factor of any future progression. That is what happened with homo sapiens between the 18^th and 19^th centuries here on Earth. The discovery and subsequent, ubiquitous use of coal and oil quickly ushered in a new era of development that was unparalleled in history. But, fast-forward through two centuries of dumping ever-increasing amounts of what we presently understand to be potent greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and we stand on the precipice of the most dangerous paradigm shift in history. Many solutions have been offered but a common thread weaves them together and fates them to similar failures: All have been developed within the context of the current economic model in place. That is, no one even questions the existence of market economics—it’s just assumed that it will be used. Capitalism, neoliberal globalization, the free market—regardless of the label one chooses to help them nuance someone to death, one thing is clear: It is no longer relevant in the 21^st century. But, how do we address such a massive, relentless economic machine with hundreds of millions of participants too distracted or unwilling to even consider a change? It will be difficult but I believe that, just as those that led the great civil rights movements throughout the 20^th century, we shall overcome![6] Of course, the big question is always how?

If an economy is to have any form of success, the term must first be defined. So, what does it mean to have an economy? To economize, of course! At its very core, an economy should seek to avoid waste everywhere possible.[7] So, can we say that our current market economy avoids waste anywhere? Unfortunately, the answer is no. In fact, there is an entire industry that profits from waste so it can be confidently stated that waste is actually good for the market economy.[8] The more waste we produce the better; for, it means someone will have a job. But, there is an alternative that actually lives up to its name and appears capable of solving most of the problems that manifest as a result of market economics: A Resource Based Economy (RBE).[9] Throughout this brief exercise, I will be examining a few specific topics within the context of each model while asking the following questions: How does each model address the issue? And, Which model is more economical?

Let’s begin with human interrelations. In an RBE, the relationships people build with one another would tend to be focused on collaboration and the sharing of ideas and resources. There’d be an understanding that we are on this planet as a single species among millions and must work together to reduce waste and reduce suffering. An environment would be maintained where everyone is raised to their highest potential while machine automation provides strategic access to the necessities of life to everyone on the planet. In other words, we would be free to pursue positive self-fulfillment in life.[10] On the other hand, in a market economy, people tend to be far more individualistic and geared toward maximizing their self-interest, constantly buying more products, or "gaining the upper hand" when it comes to everything from job positions to the most innocuous of opinions about irrelevant, inconsequential topics. "Those damn liberals...!" you'll hear people say. "The Patriots are garbage!" is another favorite. Unfortunately, the fact that social hierarchy, rather than being some random, unwanted manifestation of a flawed system, is actually built right into this one, is all but universally ignored. The whole power structure and social stratification thing is great—for the people at the top of this glorified Ponzi scheme. But, at the foundational level the truth is this: if you don't serve an adequate function in this market economy, you might as well die because you're on your own—a veritable ‘anti-economy’.

What about growth? An RBE recognizes the Earth as a finite system that can generally be thought of as being closed. In other words, what's here is what we've got and we should do our best to preserve all of it. That means developing alternative resources, recycling, and designing products for maximum lifetimes so that overall consumption goes down. In stark contrast, the current market economy is situated firmly on the ideas of infinite growth and constant turnover. Products are mass produced irrespective of raw resource supply—many of which find their way into landfills not long after being purchased. But, that’s okay because as long as we increase consumption, we can always measure the health of the economy in terms of economic abstractions such as GDP and wave Adam Smith’s ‘invisible hand’ at all negative externalities. Right?—Wrong! Ask yourself, if you’re in a group that becomes stranded on an island with limited resources, would you want to implement a system that tries to use up those resources as quickly as possible or would preservation be the key to your survival?

What about Property? That’s important, isn’t it? In an RBE, people would have strategic access to the necessities of life. With the level of abundance capable of being created and maintained through machine automation, money has become an unnecessary restriction to access. Poverty in the future would be viewed as the inexcusable act of violence that it is—an unfortunate learning experience of the past as shameful and horrifying as slavery and likewise never to be revisited. Open source sharing of ideas and products would be much more efficient and much less wasteful in terms of resources. Does it make any sense to claim that everyone on the planet wants or needs one of everything ever produced? Of course not! And, does it make any sense to buy a car to then have it sit for 50% or more of the time wasting its functional utility in a parking lot? These are methods produced by people who have a singular goal in mind: profits. We must realize that the idea of property is ultimately a contrivance, as none of the crap we accumulate throughout our lives goes with us when we die. In other words, everything is transient—even our bodies. In a future RBE, accumulating vast amounts of wealth and resources while restricting others' access to those resources for profit would be seen as counter to responsible resource management. But, ‘profit at any cost’ is exactly what a market economy demands and rewards. The metric for success tends to be measured in terms of purchasing power; the more property you have, the more praise and power you are supposed to receive and wield. Plus, if you can patent an idea or copyright a certain work, you can restrict others' access to those ideas and works to generate even more profit. Again, this is more of an anti-economy than anything else. But, what would people do if they didn’t ‘work’? Wouldn’t they sit around and just do nothing all day, every day?

The technology that has been developed over the course of the past century is mind-boggling. We are currently capable of automating a majority of industries in existence today because most of those jobs exist for the sole purpose of perpetuating the market economy. Low-wage, low-skill jobs are an affront to human potential and, rather than being a source of fulfillment, tend to burden workers into submission with repetitive, boring tasks that only make sense within the context of such a system that must constantly distract them from the miserable reality of barely being able to pay rent and eat healthy food every day.[11] A Resource Based Economy would thrive on automation, replacing human labor in as many sectors as quickly as possible. The idea is to free humans from drudgery and dangerous jobs so that they can pursue positive self-fulfillment in life. What does that mean? Well, think about all the things you've been interested in throughout your life but were told not to pursue because they wouldn't make you money, or a living, or were unrealistic or out of reach according to someone else. If you're asking the question, What would people do in such a system of access? I'll simply throw it right back to you: What would you do if you didn't have to clock into the dictatorship 40 hours or more a week? Are you going to sit around and do nothing? If your answer to that question is ‘no’, then why assume as much about everyone else? We have machines to do our dirty work and they don’t need breaks, health insurance, pensions, or salaries, and they can work all day, every day with no complaints. In terms of manufacturing, we could even reduce our energy usage through large, automated ‘dark factories’ in which there is little to no lighting since machines doing repetitive tasks don’t need it. The industrial sector is the largest energy consumer so any reduction in usage would directly lead to a reduction in greenhouse gas production.[12] But, once those goods are produced, how might we get them to people? What does distribution look like in an RBE?

There are many ways in which the distribution of resources can unfold; choosing the best one to serve 7.5-billion people is a monumental task that must be carefully considered if we are to reduce human suffering and environmental degradation. People often argue in terms of more ‘equal’ distribution but then the conversation tends to get mired in a debate about opportunities and outcomes. But, I argue that equal distribution doesn't make sense for any economic system because people don't have equal wants or needs. Rather, through the use of strategic access centers, people would have all the fundamental goods and services available to them in an efficient, equitable system.[13] Today, we calls these malls and shopping centers but in an RBE there would be no debt, no barter, no servitude; and no trade of any kind—simply access. Automated delivery systems would even be put in place to maximize efficiency. Conversely, a Market economy relies on the classical ideas of labor for income and supply & demand to produce and distribute goods. We mass produce inferior goods and then hire people to sit in a chair driving that crap all over the world in planes, trains, trucks, and ships—a pointless exercise outside the context of labor for income. Nevertheless, regardless of the brand, the products are inferior and outmoded the moment they are produced because optimal design, production, and distribution are stifled in every stage of the process by something called ‘cost efficiency’. That is, in order to make a product and remain competitive nowadays, companies must cut costs along every stage of production—from design all the way through distribution. This inevitably reduces the quality of every single product on the market, increasing the amount of waste as products break down and are thrown away. An anti-economy indeed! But, with machine automation, this type of quality reduction is now effectively obsolete along with the waste it produces. In fact, here is a chart detailing the inverse relationship between manufacturing employment and manufacturing production from 1947 to 2011:

Figure 1: This graph shows how manufacturing production and manufacturing employment trends have developed from 1947 to 2010.[14][15]

It was around the year 2000 when manufacturing employment sharply declined as more companies began automating processes. This of course presents us with a massive problem: Our entire economic model is predicated on the assumption of labor-for-income while automation directly threatens that structure through the displacement of human workers. In other words, not only are workers in virtually every sector out there competing with each other for jobs in the marketplace, they are now competing directly with machines that do the jobs faster, more efficiently, and to a higher degree of accuracy and precision than any human or group of humans ever could. The unmistakable advantage of machine automation in the manufacturing sector is difficult to argue against outside of the labor-for-income aspect; workers simply shifted away from this sector into a burgeoning service sector.[16] But, not even the service industry is safe from automation. In 2018, the world’s first fully automated restaurant opened in Beijing.[17] Of course, this begs the question: If people in manufacturing had the service sector to accommodate their displacement, to which industry will those in the service sector move once automation is fully embraced by corporations wanting to cut labor costs and increase profits?[18]

This disconnect we’re experiencing—the sort of clash between traditional views and the emergent nature of technology—it’s doing much more than simply stifling socioeconomic progress. It’s killing people. That is, we currently have the resources and technology to feed, clothe, and house every single person on the planet—to build desalination plants all over the world—to provide renewable energy to at least every industrialized nation on Earth—to automate as many production and distribution systems as possible. But we choose not to do any of those things! Perhaps the most disturbing realization about all of that is that we have the resources to feed every single person on the planet—but we choose not to do it. Why? It’s simply not profitable since half the world’s population lives in poverty.[19] Meanwhile, an old building burns and suddenly over $1-billion finds its way to the “restoration” efforts in just 2 days.[20] Could you have ever possibly imagined such a cruel and callous system? Some people will actually rationalize this situation in terms of “preserving a national icon” versus “consequences of personal choice” or some other obscure dichotomy that misses the point or intentionally obfuscates it. The reality is that we are talking about human lives versus a building. Plain and simple. And I choose human lives every single time.

Where do we go from here? If we truly want to move into a new economic model that might actually economize, then we need to have a plan explaining how to get from here to there. And, of course, the transition is perhaps the most difficult part of the entire endeavor; we have to be cautious! While there are countless ways for such a paradigm shift to go horribly awry, there are perhaps but a few ways for the transition to be as smooth as possible. Fresco has this to say regarding the subject:

I am not advocating that these older institutions be overthrown: it is just that they are becoming unworkable. Unfortunately, it will probably take a social and economic breakdown to bring about the demise of the old system and its institutions. At this point, significant social change will probably only occur when a sufficient number of people, through economic failure, lose confidence in their elected officials. The public will then demand other alternatives. While we would like to think that this could usher in a bright new chapter in the human drama, it is far more likely that the most probable course will be a form of dictatorship, perhaps even an American brand of fascism presented to the people as a way of protecting them from the products of their own inadequate culture (Fresco 2013, p. 27)

One might argue that this is a rather grim outlook, but keep in mind that there are no utopias and no final frontiers. This transition will be the most challenging feat ever attempted by humankind but the reward is priceless. Human society—at least as long as it exists—will be in a constant state of change that is directly related to the socioeconomic policies in place. So we must leave posterity with the tools and knowledge that allow and in fact encourage them to embrace those changes. So, how do we get from here to there?

The details of Fresco’s plan can be found on the website for The Venus Project.[21] Phase One has been underway for several decades and has culminated in a 22-acre research facility in Venus, Florida. Documentaries, lectures, DVDs, books, and even tours are presently available. Phase Two is focused on releasing a feature-length film examining life within such a global system. Phase Three will implement a plan to build an entire research city to develop the aims and goals of a Resource Based Economy along the lines of the following 17 attributes:

· Recognizing the world’s resources as the common heritage of all Earth’s people.

· Transcending the artificial boundaries that separate people.

· Evolving from a money-based, nationalistic economies to a resource-based world economy.

· Assisting in stabilizing the world’s population through education and voluntary birth control in order to conform to the carrying capacity of Earth’s resources.

· Reclaiming and restoring the natural environment to the best of our ability.

· Redesigning our cities, transportation systems, agricultural industries, and industrial plants so that they are energy efficient, clean, and able to conveniently serve the needs of all people.

· Sharing and applying new technologies for the benefit of all nations.

· Developing and using clean and renewable energy sources.

· Manufacturing the highest quality products for the benefit of the world’s people.

· Requiring environmental impact studies prior to construction of any mega projects.

· Encouraging the widest range of creativity and incentive toward constructive endeavor.

· Outgrowing nationalism, bigotry, and prejudice through education.

· Outgrowing any type of elitism, technical or otherwise.

· Arriving at methodologies through careful research, rather than from mere opinions.

· Enhancing communication in schools so that our language corresponds to the actual physical nature of the world.

· Providing not only the necessities of life, but also offering challenges that stimulate the mind while emphasizing individuality over uniformity.

· Finally, preparing people intellectually and emotionally for the changes and challenges that lie ahead.

Phase Four is the final stage and would see a theme park built to educate and entertain visitors on the tenets of the system and how it will apply globally.

To me, this is the only system capable of operating within the carrying capacity of the Earth while providing access abundance to everyone. And while Fresco’s answer to how we get from here to there might be unsatisfying to many, we can, in the meantime, work the current system in whatever way is possible and necessary in order to force the transition. So, I’ve come up with three of my own transitional catalysts that could move us faster toward Fresco’s Phase Three.

First, whether you want to admit it, believe it, accept it or not, robots are likely going to take our jobs over the next 30 years.[22] So why not just let them? If we insist on automating the monetary/market economy, then we must shift the focus from labor-for-income to rent-for-income. But, what does that mean? Instead of robotics companies selling their products directly to manufacturing and service companies and displacing workers, require them through legislation to only sell directly to the workers with minimal exceptions.[23] The workers then rent the robots to the manufacturing and service companies for their salaries.

Second, energy companies will be bound by mandatory, exemption-free legislation to offer a number of transitional energy packages in order to swiftly move away from burning fossil fuels for energy over the next 10 years globally. Lifetime rentals and system buyouts are just two of the many possible manifestations of this train of thought. And the servicing requirement guarantees new jobs—at least until they are also automated. Then we’re back to the first example![24]

Lastly, we need a maximum age to hold office. Term limits are great but if we truly wish to move beyond stagnant, traditionalized thinking, then, with the help of such disciplines as cognitive psychology and sociology, it’s time to make the dinosaurs of thought retire from public service so fresh, young ideas are always circulating within the ranks of decision-making bodies.

Alas! In this modern era of instant-gratification and perpetual-dissatisfaction, do you want to know what truly matters?—Feeding, clothing, and housing everyone. Those are some of the only things that have ever truly mattered. But the difference now—in the 21^st Century—rests upon the fact that we are advanced enough to actually make those things happen. And, if you were fortunate enough like I was to win the birthing lottery and have grown up in one of the richest, most prosperous nations in the industrialized world, then I can say without a shred of doubt that we all know it. As Jacque Fresco once said, “If you think we can’t change the world, it just means you’re not one of those that will.” So, what will it be? Are you ready to change the world?

Works Cited

Catlos, Brian A. "Infidel Kings and Unholy Warriors: Faith, Power, and Violence in the Age of

Crusade and Jihad." Choice Reviews Online52, no. 09 (2015).doi:10.5860/choice.187244.

Feder, Kenneth L. The past in Perspective: An Introduction to Human Prehistory. New York:

Oxford University Press, 2019.

Fresco, Jacque, Jacque Fresco, and Roxanne Meadows. The Best That Money Can’t Buy: Beyond

Politics, Poverty, & War. Venus, FL: Global Cyber-Visions, 2013.

Ristinen, Robert A., Jack J. Kraushaar, and Jeffrey T. Brack. Energy and the Environment.

Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2016.

[1] https://ourworldindata.org/literacy

[2] https://www.usda.gov/oce/foodwaste/faqs.htm

[3] https://www.worldhunger.org/world-child-hunger-facts/

[4] https://www.iea.org/energyaccess/database/

[5] http://www.prisonstudies.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/wppl_12.pdf

[6] https://www.npr.org/2013/08/28/216482943/the-inspiring-force-of-we-shall-overcome

[7] https://www.dictionary.com/browse/economy?s=t

[8] http://fortune.com/fortune500/waste-management/

[9] https://www.thevenusproject.com/faqs/

[10] The qualifying term ‘positive’ is important here. There are likely countless ways in which humans can find self-fulfillment, but only some of those are conducive to maintaining both individual satisfaction and societal health.

[11] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/06/13/a-minimum-wage-worker-cant-afford-a-2-bedroom-apartment-anywhere-in-the-u-s/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.61ed8b6adb94

[12] https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.php?page=us_energy_use

[13] Within the discussion of economic distribution, the difference between ‘equal’ and ‘equitable’ is subtle, yet it stands the epitome of importance. Whether talking about opportunities or outcomes, ‘equal’ means that an individual’s particular advantages, disadvantages, wants, and needs are generally ignored. For example, not everyone needs blood pressure medication and not everyone wants a Lamborghini. And, of the people that need blood pressure medication, not everyone needs the same amount; of the people that want a Lamborghini, not all of them are physically capable of driving one. But, in a system of equal distribution, it is easy to imagine that everyone would get blood pressure medication—even if they didn’t need it; and no one would get a Lamborghini because not everyone can drive one. (That’s some strange logic but it pales in comparison to what has actually been put into practice by humans on this planet. People used to view owning each other as property as ‘normal’.) It is important to note, however, that this equal-equitable distinction is wholly irrelevant in the discussion of Rights and Liberties. If Rights and Liberties are to have any meaning then they must be applied equally. By Rights, I mean the set of actions and expressions free from unequal treatment based upon protected characteristics; by Liberties, I mean the set of actions and expressions guaranteed to all people by government through a social contract (such as a Constitution) as permanently allowable. But, in the future envisioned by Fresco, we will have moved far beyond the supposed need for politics and government. The defining characteristics of Rights and Liberties will be built right into the system when the Earth and all of its resources are declared as the common heritage of all the world’s people.

[14] https://www.aei.org/publication/phenomenal-gains-in-manufacturing-productivity/

[15] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MANEMP

[16] http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/cp413.pdf

[17] https://www.forbes.com/sites/lanabandoim/2018/10/26/first-restaurant-with-fully-automated-kitchen-opens-in-beijing/#52d56b3a8ece

[18] http://fortune.com/2018/10/26/haidilao-panasonic-robot-restaurant-beijing/

[19] https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2018/10/17/nearly-half-the-world-lives-on-less-than-550-a-day

[20] https://nypost.com/2019/04/17/nearly-one-billion-raised-to-rebuild-paris-notre-dame/

[21] https://www.thevenusproject.com/faq/what-is-the-plan/

[22] https://www.apnews.com/6034c9ce1af347ec8da996e39b29c51b

[23] Until the military is phased out, it will likely be one of the exceptions.

[24] http://thehumanendeavor.blogspot.com/2018/12/a-sensible-energy-solution.html

Envisioning Sustainable Economies Discussions

2019-05-08T06:01:00.004-04:00

1. Provide an example of a counterintuitive truth.

A fascinating counterintuitive truth I was recently introduced to--which sent me into a Google hole to confirm--is that the general American accent of today is closer to the pre-American Revolution British accent than the general, modern British accent.

2. Provide an example of an issue/position on which you've change changed your mind.'

Having grown up in a free market system (capitalism; neoliberal globalization; call it what you will) like everyone currently alive, and having been fortunate enough to win the birth location lottery in a "first world country", I was indoctrinated to believe that the biggest--perhaps the only--motivator for humans on planet Earth is (somehow) the transfer of something we call money. The money production and resulting labor-for-income processes were never supposed to be interesting or understood--simply passively accepted. But in 2009, I was introduced to the concept of a Resource Based Economy.

Even though I was familiar with the concept of a moneyless society because of shows like Star Trek, I had never given serious consideration to the possibility until it was laid out in a cohesive, sensible, but most importantly, entirely feasible manner by Jacque Fresco. Now, I admittedly will never look at money as anything other than a nothing thing. Money is meaningless and the faster we dispense with such a ridiculous concept in the digital age, the faster we can raise the standard of living for every human on the planet. For example, we have the resources, technology, and knowledge to feed, clothe, and house every single human on the planet easily, but choose not to in the name of a system that most claim "works" because, "if they just had the money..."

Paraphrasing Fresco: If you're stuck on an island with gold bars, jewelry, and millions of dollars in cash, but there's no fresh water, no arable land, and no food, you have nothing.

3. What is the biggest constraint of the size of the global human population?

Beyond the notions of government, money, social class, global markets, and all the modern conveniences taken for granted in industrialized nations, there is an often-overlooked, natural constraint that exists for all species on any planet in question: carrying capacity. The innovative capacity of the human species is perhaps boundless; however, if the systems by which the species operates on Earth either exceed or outright ignore the carrying capacity of the planet, then all of the electronics, transportation systems, agricultural advances, and niceties of the 21st century can only amount to so many millions of tons of junk...

Taking this a bit further, if those systems fail to raise the standard of living for every human on the planet to an adequate reflection of the technical and intellectual achievements of a supposedly intelligent species (i.e. one that ultimately reduces human and environmental suffering while maintaining a steady-state economy within the carrying capacity of Earth), then it seems to be a squandered potential--arguably a wasted existence.

4. What sources of growth (if any) are potentially infinite? What are the most promising tech advances on the horizon? For the economy? For the environment?

Infinite growth simply cannot occur within finite systems—lest our definitions of infinite and finite risk meaninglessness. For all intents and purposes, Earth can be viewed as such a finite system in that, once the Moon was splashed off some four and a half billion years ago and the planet began cooling, the three major inputs influencing its cosmic progression ever since have been the Sun (which contains over 99.8% of all the mass in the entire solar system), geologic processes leading to biotic processes (from abiogenesis to evolution through natural selection), and extinction-causing impactors (like the one that wiped out much of the reptilian world roughly 65-million years ago). In other words, the resources that are available and usable on the planet generally take so much longer than the average lifespan of humans and require such a vastly different set of conditions to generate that it’s safe to assume once they’re gone, they’re gone. Oil, for example, which was used to accelerate the expansion of the global economy in just over a century, took tens to hundreds of millions of years to form from decaying organic material. So, given the information our species has accumulated in the cosmically negligible amount of time it's been evolving on this planet, the only things of which I can think that even remotely resemble infinite growth are cancer and possibly the Universe itself. Cancer will grow indefinitely given a continuous supply of healthy cells and an environment in which to propagate; but even the Universe will stop growing if it ever reaches absolute zero! Thus, the argument seems to rest on philosophical grounds.

Philosophically, one could argue any number of arbitrary points about infinite growth, such as: Which infinity?—countable infinity or uncountable infinity? Does it matter? Is this a closed system or are there other major inputs aside from the Sun? Can something like intellectual capital—i.e. technical, linguistic, artistic, economic, or any other type of innovation borne of intelligence—be proffered as a realistic means by which humanity could achieve such a thing? Who knows? But, all of those questions will just lead to wasted time unless we move beyond the philosophical and cut to the heart of the issue to ask: Can Earth even sustain any kinds of infinite growth models? Without properly addressing and answering this arguably technical question, the human species risks exceeding the carrying capacity of the environment, which will inevitably cause conflict, territorial disputes, fresh water shortages, and unnecessary suffering. So, by continuing to rely on an economic model that uses scarcity (to maintain and drive up prices) coupled with its dichotomy, infinite growth (to maintain competition), while virtually every crucial life system on the planet is in decline as a direct result, the human species has mixed the ingredients for a disaster recipe—and we’re about to throw it in the oven! There’s still a small window of opportunity to turn the oven off and trash the recipe. But, we’ve waited so long to address this issue, while traipsing all over planet in “business as usual” fashion, that it will take an overhaul of the entire global economy and a concerted effort on behalf of practically every country on Earth over the next twelve years or so in order to remedy even a fraction of the damage we’ve inflicted (and continue inflicting) upon the environment. Infinite growth certainly isn’t the answer.

The latest tech advancements will only amount to so many millions of tons of junk unless they enhance the lives of all humans. If we stopped innovating right now and intelligently used the technology and resources already available, we could feed, clothe, and house every single person on the planet. Can we provide, say, one of absolutely everything ever produced to every single person on the planet? Of course not! And it’s ridiculous to even begin to assume that everyone would desire such a stockpile. (What if I want all of Europe to be my backyard so I can really spread out all of my stuff? Who’s to tell me I’m wrong for it anyway?! See how absurd?) With technology, however, we can realistically address the issue of providing all humans access abundance to the necessities of life while working toward providing wants in an automated, equitable, sustainable manner. This means the economic model in place must be directly related to the resources provided by the environment—a Resource Based Economy. Following the logic, a prudent foundational principle to immediately implement is that the carrying capacity of the Earth cannot be exceeded. To understand what we have, how much of it we have, and where it’s at necessitates a global resource evaluation. Once this happens and a constant-feedback system is in place, we can easily live within this carrying capacity through the intelligent distribution of resources and through the intelligent use of technology. So, what kinds of technology are we working with in 2019?

The amount of technology the human species has developed in the past century alone is mind-boggling. So, sparing an incredibly long list of innovations, I’ll simply present what I feel are the ‘Top 6 Technologies We Can Use Now to Transition to a Resource Based Global Economy’:

Renewable Energy

Energy is the cornerstone of modern society. But the most pervasive forms of energy production involve the burning of fossil fuels—a process that releases millions of tons of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere—while failing to create carbon sinks to pull that material back out. Fossil fuels have such a high energy density, it’s easy to see how, once discovered, coal, gasoline, and natural gas quickly became the foundation upon which the massive global energy sector still reigning today was built. However, combining sources, such as solar, wind, wave, tidal, geothermal, and nuclear, with 21st century battery and capacitor storage systems, there is more than enough available energy to cover the roughly 16 terawatts humans use each year.

Desalination Plants

Once humanity’s energy needs are met and possibly exceeded, a focus on desalination techniques could soon mean freshwater shortages never happen again. While there are several different ways to achieve this end, each requires a large amount of energy (see 1 above). Free access to fresh, clean water is foundational to a healthy life. There is no excuse for living in the richest, most technologically advanced society to have ever walked the Earth and having almost 10% of the world’s human population with no access to improved water sources and 35% with no access to improved sanitation!

High-Speed Internet

The internet is perhaps humankind’s greatest achievement; but almost half the world’s population don’t have access to it. If resources are to be accurately and efficiently tracked, monitored, and distributed, there is no other way than through the use of the Internet. No human or group of humans can process the amount of information necessary to allow such a system to effectively function. Networked machines are necessary and automation through open source information can lead to highly advanced monitoring systems that adjust parameters in real time, an efficient transportation grid, streamlined production and distribution systems that have waste reduction built right in, and manufacturing platforms for sharing designs (some of which already exist through websites like www.thingiverse.com (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.):

Vertical Farms

As a human organism, there is a certain set of bodily requirements that must be fulfilled in order to grow optimally and maintain optimal health: i. Clean, fresh air; ii. Clean, fresh water; iii. Nutritious food; iv. Sunlight; and, v. An enriching physical and social environment that includes close contact with others. The nutritious food requirement can be addressed by either converting old high-rises to vertical farms or building new ones for that purpose. Each floor can be dedicated to a particular crop or mutually-beneficial crops, some of which include bees. Meanwhile, the whole system can be handled in a fully- or at least partially-automated way through the use of sophisticated data tracking systems that monitor and adjust nutrient levels, water schedules, light schedules, & CO2 levels, and can alert the public when harvests are ready the way that advertisements reach us through social media as we scroll through the brain puke. Think of it like a modern supermarket but you just go get what you need and leave; it’ll be there tomorrow! Or, since we already have online ordering and delivery, just a few clicks and fresh produce is en route to your front door!

High-Speed, Automated Transit

While flying is arguably the most popular form of mass transportation, it still depends upon the use of large amounts of fossil fuels. The goal should be to reduce the use of fossil fuels to a bare minimum. (Let’s honestly acknowledge that until we develop long-lasting alternative lubricants, the use of oil will persist—even with the energy systems outlined above.) This means implementing MagLev rail systems as soon as possible to interconnect all major cities in each country or region with high-speed trains. As of 2017, Japan holds the world title for Fastest MagLev (test) train at over 374 mph! The technology already exists and will only improve as we fully engage with the 21st century.

Additive Manufacturing

In recent decades, manufacturing has witnessed incredible advancements through the development and use of machine automation. Now, with the advent of Additive Manufacturing (known colloquially as 3D printing), the world is on the brink of the next great fabrication revolution--one that promises a permanent reduction in most waste of resources. Everything from nanotech to entire high rise buildings can be completely revolutionized by prospective applications for this technology. As improvements inevitably arise and adjust to real-time data in a global feedback loop (made possible by the Internet), the future of recycling might one day simply be that it is built right into the system. That’s what nature has in-store for us anyway. As John Ortberg once stated while drawing parallels between the culmination of human existence in the modern world and the game Monopoly: “Now it all goes back in the box.” But, until that happens, our society can do its technical best to eliminate mass production where it has become obsolete, reduce waste to the absolute minimum, and increase the recycling of materials.

Until this point, there has only been a single en passant reference to the concept of money because, quite frankly, I don’t actually consider it a resource. You can’t eat money. You can’t stuff it into your gas tank and expect it to run your car. Money is a nothing thing (only about 3% exists as physical currency) and with the way Fractional Reserve Banking functions, the debt generated through the money-creation process itself is mathematically impossible to pay off. (Don’t take my word for it, though. Click the last link I’ve included below to read Modern Money Mechanics and learn the process. It’s actually pretty simple.) Therefore, it’s a pointless exercise to perpetuate such an outmoded concept just because we’ve convinced ourselves that money exchange, bartering, or some other form of labor-for-income is required to find purpose or fulfillment in life. It’s not--that’s a lie. Money can’t create real value, purpose, or fulfillment if the moment it’s produced it’s worth less than nothing. (That is, when a dollar is produced, it is “worth” one dollar of debt owed to the Federal Reserve by the U.S. Treasury plus the interest charged on that debt. But, the money to cover the interest charged on the loan was never created so a cycle of never-ending debt is the only thing we can ever experience.) Real value, purpose, and fulfillment likely can only come from the knowledge gained through the lifelong exercise of learning and the relationships built along the way. But, many of us are unaware because we devote the largest portions of our lives clocked in to mostly mundane, technologically obsolete jobs to (you guessed it!) make money. To what end? When the game’s over, it all goes back in the box...

https://www.thevenusproject.com/ (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.

https://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/global/wash_statistics.html (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.

https://ourworldindata.org/energy-production-and-changing-energy-sources (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.

https://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.

https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/howgeneswork/epigenome (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/09/these-are-the-world-s-fastest-trains/ (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.

John Ortberg: "It all goes back in the box" (2007)
5. What is the sustainable resource base? How much energy do we need to increase well being over time?

As stated in response to last week's question, energy is the cornerstone of modern society. And, we use around 16 terawatts of energy per year. Still, around 14% of the global human population has little or no access to electricity. If we assume a 1:1 correlation between that portion of the population and what would become their energy usage then, all other factors unchanged, if those roughly 1.1-billion people were to immediately start using energy at the average rate, a rough calculation shows that we would have to be producing over 18 terawatts of energy to satisfy global needs.

(Eq. 1) $16$

The sustainable resource base includes any resources that have regeneration and/or recycling rates comparable to or much shorter than the average human lifespan. But, there must also be a conscious component involved that requires us to design an economy with the intelligent extraction and allocation of resources built right in; i.e. maximizing product lifespans and minimizing waste. In terms of energy, the concept of emergy is critical to creating its sustainable resource base. Emergy tells us the relationship between how much energy it takes to extract a given amount of a source of energy and the amount of energy that given amount can actually produce. In other words, if we are to build hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of solar panels and windmills, how much energy would be involved from the beginning of the process(through fuels, goods, and services) to the point of a finished product that is actually sending energy to the grid and how does that number compare with the final yield of the finished product?

(Eq. 2)

EmergyYieldRatio=ResourceYield

This ratio clearly indicates that if we can increase the efficiency of the final yield of a given amount of a resource, then we are striving to minimize emergy. For example, say we have an amount of an energy resource that has the potential to produce an emjoule of energy; but the final yield of that amount after extraction, refinement, transportation, and use is just 70% of the original potential, then, using Eq. 2,

E.Y.R.70%=1.00emjoule0.70emjoule=1.43.

But, if we were to somehow increase the yield to 85%, then,

E.Y.R.85%=1.00emjoule0.85emjoule=1.17

So, when discussing the net emergy ratio of both renewables, such as solar, and non-renewables, such as oil, it is important to note that these two examples sit at the extremes in the results. That is, the net emergy ratio for oil is HUGE compared to that of solar. And it's because it requires such an intensive series of processes to produce a given amount of usable oil--each requiring their own varying amounts of the resource in question to function. Once a solar panel is produced and installed, it's all energy production and minimal maintenance for its average 20-year lifespan. But, once a gallon of oil is burnt, the carbon dioxide produced has an atmospheric half-life of about 30 years and then we're left to deal (or not deal) with the ramifications of ignoring the necessity of carbon sinks.

But, what about how increasing well-being is related to energy? Of course the idea of well-being is subjective. But, we can still frame it within the context of reducing human and environmental suffering while providing access-abundance to the necessities of life to every human on the planet. This can be used as a common definition of well-being that perhaps only the most callous isolationists in society would argue against. So, how do we achieve that?!

Coming full-circle, we start with energy--Everything starts with energy! Combining solar, wind, wave, tidal, geothermal, and (perhaps most importantly) nuclear, we could easily provide for all of humankind's energy needs. So, if well-being is directly tied to our access to resources, recreational activities, quality healthcare, knowledge and information, and all of the other things that contribute to a rich, fulfilling life, and each of those things is directly tied to particular energy requirements, then it is fair to assume that our well-being is at least indirectly tied to energy requirements in the 21st century. Unfortunately, after careful consideration, the unfulfilling answer to the question of relating energy and well-being might just be that we're going to need however much energy is necessary to satisfy well-being over time. That's because it's a dynamic equilibrium that will depend on social trends, resource availability, psychological pressures, and many, many other factors that will continue to change in the future given societal evolution throughout history. But, if we at least establish a sustainable resource base now, we might not have to worry much about destroying the planet in the near-future (i.e. making it uninhabitable for long enough to wipe ourselves out).

Alas! We'd be free to continue what apparently epitomizes modern sophistication: Using what is perhaps the greatest achievement of humankind to bully each other on social media, squandering incredible amounts of creative potential, and continuing the millennia-old tradition of killing each other over arbitrary philosophical differences...

Sophistication indeed!

https://www.iea.org/energyaccess/database/

6. What are examples of human behavioral patterns, which likely are part of an evolved human nature, and could be important to understand when designing sustainable social systems?

The terms human nature and human behavior represent but one of the many examples from the English language which tend to cause conflict from the outset of discussions involving them because their definitions are often muddled by misunderstanding, conflated without critical examination, or simply framed within the nature vs. nurture context. However, when I think of human nature, I don’t envision some set of inborn behavioral traits that we’re all destined to exhibit—we’re trying to separate the terms, aren’t we? Rather, my understanding of human nature informs me that, as a human organism, there is a particular set of requirements that must be fulfilled in order for our bodies and minds to grow optimally. And if we fail to meet those requirements, the likely result will be suffering both physically and mentally to varying degrees—whether those degrees are perceived by some as having contributed to their own individual growth or not. So, within the context of these given characteristics, what are the requirements that define human nature?

First, we need clean, fresh air. Our bodies have evolved in an oxygen-rich, nitrogen atmosphere that allows aerobic processes to proceed and complex lifeforms, such as humans, to exist. The structure and dynamics of Earth’s atmosphere maintain an adequate environment for all the flora and fauna that we depend upon to grow and survive. Without the proper proportions of what we call trace gases, such as water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane, a greenhouse effect simply would not sustain the present-day effective surface temperature. (Carbon dioxide comprises only around 0.04% of the atmosphere, yet its influence on atmospheric processes is vast.) As well, life would undoubtedly look much different nowadays had molecular oxygen never been released by early biotic processes and made it to the stratosphere to be dissociated by ultraviolet radiation from the Sun, forming ozone through a series of chemical reactions. In fact, the constant flux of large amounts of UV radiation likely would have sterilized Earth of all but the most hardy extremophiles long before conditions could have been established to evolve highly complex, multicellular organisms like human beings. Essentially, if the ozone layer, which depends upon molecular oxygen, had never formed, life evolving beyond something resembling Deinococcus radiodurans would have been unlikely. We obviously need that oxygen in the present-day atmospheric proportions of roughly 78% nitrogen and 21% oxygen, lest we face a forced, accelerated evolutionary adaptation in order to accommodate less efficient metabolism if oxygen levels in the atmosphere were to decrease. Take away the air completely and we all die.

Second, we need clean, fresh water. Considering the amount of freshwater on Earth—a mere 2.5% of all the water on the planet—and that only a fraction of that total is currently accessible, the preservation of its supply is absolutely crucial if over seven billion of us are to have ongoing access to it. Techniques exist which can desalinate saltwater; however, such processes are energy intensive and would best be integrated with a renewable energy grid. The freshwater sources that already exist have become so stressed by both an exponential increase in population and a market economy that allows privatization of those sources for profit, that if we don’t immediately take action, billions of people will live in high water stress areas by the end of the next decade alone—water scarcity affecting some 24-700 million in semi-arid places around the world by 2030. Humans generally will die in about 3 days without it; so, if there is one thing that should certainly be included on a list of attributes of human nature, it’s water.

Third, nutritious food is yet another foundational requirement for optimal growth in humans—as obvious and necessary as the previous two. Humans have been mastering agriculture (and later horticulture) for over ten thousand years; yet millions of children die each year globally due to hunger or undernutrition. We simply aren’t qualified to consider ourselves civilized under such conditions of placated indifference toward this atrocity. We collectively throw away 30-40% of all the food produced in the United States each year. That comes out to somewhere in the vicinity of over 66-million tons if 31% waste is assumed! Good food. Thrown away… And this doesn’t even take into account the millions of tons of grain fed to livestock yearly!—All while people starve to death. We’re a weird species but no matter how different we think we are individually, take away our food sources and we’ll die in just a few weeks. Fundamental indeed.

Fourth, to varying degrees based upon skin pigmentation, latitude, air pollution, and a few other factors, humans need sunlight for the production of vitamin D in the skin. Through a series of metabolic processes, vitamin D eventually “plays an important role in cellular immunity.” While the link isn’t yet fully understood, vitamin D has been implicated in preventing a host of autoimmune diseases. But, beyond this anthropocentric view, all life as we know it would die without sunlight and the stars that produce it. It’s pretty important—some might even call it a natural requirement.

Finally, humans have evolved as (at least partially-) social beings that require close contact with others in infancy. A baby left untouched but given adequate food and water will die. Furthermore, if our social ties in teenage years and into adulthood become tenuous or dissolve completely, or shift wildly throughout one’s lifetime, then the proclivity for violence—either committing it or becoming desensitized to it when it’s “the right kind”—through in-group/out-group categorization tends to increase. Thus, finding the optimized balance between social interaction and being alone (to think; to read; to do nothing; etc.) should contribute to a reduction in violence.

One might argue that a relevant education could be added to the list; however, humans won’t necessarily die without an education. We can, however, easily destroy ourselves through arrogance and ignorance if we’re not careful. And, these actions would all fall under the label human behavior. In the most basic explanation possible, the above list of five attributes contains all that is encompassed within human nature; everything else is human behavior. The big question is whether or not evolutionary processes such as gene expression are directly linked to behavioral patterns such as emotional expression. For this question, I will simply defer to one of the world’s foremost experts on the topic, Dr. Robert Sapolsky. Dr. Sapolsky has dozens of amazing lectures and presentations online that offer a glimpse into the intersection between behavior and evolutionary biology and I will leave you with this link to check out at least one of them:Robert Sapolsky (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.

Other Sources:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/born-love/201003/touching-empathy (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.

https://www.space.com/17683-earth-atmosphere.html (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3685888/ (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.

https://water.usgs.gov/edu/earthwherewater.html (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.

http://www.un.org/waterforlifedecade/scarcity.shtml (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.

https://www.worldhunger.org/world-child-hunger-facts/ (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.

https://www.usda.gov/oce/foodwaste/faqs.htm (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.

http://news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-million-people-grain-livestock-eat (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3897598/#R135 (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22776787 (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.

https://www.barnesandnoble.com/p/violence-james-gilligan/1111638342/2694171171478?st=PLA&sid=BNB_Core+Catch-All,+Low&sourceId=PLAGoNA&dpid=tdtve346c&2sid=Google_c&gclid=Cj0KCQiAh9njBRCYARIsALJhQkE2KTqktyFBZQ5tU95ZE044wdj1BSsN9FttterCUIZpQsDdPQT6XkcaAi9xEALw_wcB

(Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.

On the Foundation of a Goldilocks Economy

2019-03-05T20:02:00.004-05:00

Throughout my time in school, I've taken some interesting classes. I'm in one this semester called Envisioning Sustainable Economies that is just awesome because it's what this blog has been about since I started writing it ten years ago. Each week, we're given questions in an online discussion forum that deal with some of the most important elements of any economy and challenge us to offer solutions. Here is a just a small piece of what will be posted once the semester ends and I've answered all of those questions. For now, here is what I submitted as my term paper answering the question,

What is the Size and Growth Rate of a Sustainable Economy?

Perhaps the first step in understanding the functional size and growth rate of a sustainable economy in any meaningful way is to define the term. Interestingly, the definition and etymology of the word economy is typically ignored outright and discussions—whether in academic or social settings—often devolve into competing streams of word salad that fail to address any social or environmental problems in realistic ways. (For example, an “invisible hand” apparently waves away economic woes around the planet; but billions live in abject poverty despite this bold, baseless proclamation.^{^[1]} Hand-wavy indeed!) So, what’s it all about?

The modern English word economy stems from the Greek oikonomia (οικονομία)^{^[2]}, which translates to “household management”. But, why is that important? Well, in order to sustainably engineer any type of economy on the global scale of human civilization, the planet itself must first be understood for what it is: humankind’s household. As such, it must be intelligently managed. Of course, humans developed the techniques and technologies capable of affecting planetary processes only within the last two centuries or so; yet in that cosmically-irrelevant amount of time, every single life system on Earth has been driven to a stressed state of decline. Mass species extinction and biodiversity loss^{^[3]}; dwindling freshwater supplies^{^[4]}; arable land degradation^{^[5]}; ocean acidification^{^[6]}; carbon cycle tampering^{^[7]}; accelerating energy source depletion (Ristinen, Kraushaar, and Brack 2016)—humankind’s bootprint is immense and deep. But, while the damage is, in fact, teetering on the precipice of irrevocability, a glimmer of hope perhaps shines through—the realization that if the economic model in place on a given habitable planet fails to meet the needs of the all of the supposedly-intelligent life that perpetuates it, suffering will in one way or another exist for at least some of that life. Moreover, if that economic model also exceeds the carrying capacity of the planet, a suffering environment joins the list of the aggrieved. Both circumstances should certainly be avoided!^{^[8]}

Great!—a solid foundational context for an economy has been laid in the form of a household (Earth) and its manager (humankind). It’s now the perfect time to ask the question: Does the global economy currently in place on Earth meet the needs of all humans and operate within the carrying capacity of the planet?^{^[9]} The answer, disappointingly, is no. Species fall like dominoes—succumbing to the effects of anthropic forces the world over—while some people spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for the chance to shoot an elephant, a giraffe, or another “exotic” animal under the guise of conservation.^{^[10]} (Steve Irwin absolutely disagreed with such a flippant use of the term!^{^[11]}) Thousands of children die every day from starvation and hunger-related diseases^{^[12]} in underdeveloped countries while millions of tons of good food get thrown away every year in just the United States!^{^[13]} Billions of tons of carbon dioxide are dumped into the atmosphere yearly through the burning of fossil fuels for energy while clean, renewable sources—solar, wind, wave, tidal, geothermal—have been advancing for decades with minimal implementation (Ristinen, Kraushaar, and Brack 2016). Clearly, there is a massive disconnect between what’s possible and what’s actually put into practice. Proper household management, this certainly is not! No matter how much an economic model demands, infinite growth simply cannot occur in a finite system (or on a finite planet such as Earth). So, the only sensible approach, which avoids the ultimately unnecessary rehashing of streams of critiques against market economics, is to set the entire framework of it aside and start with the carrying capacity of an evolutionarily-adapted human-free Earth.^{^[14]} And, while the prospect of starting fresh here is (for obvious reasons) impractical, the exercise of designing a sustainable economy from the ground up[15] can give insight into what is possible given the current state of affairs in technology, socioeconomic systems, and resource distribution.^{^[16]}

The first thing to address is the question of scale: How big is a sustainable economy? In short, the scale of a sustainable economy must remain within the carrying capacity of a given planet while avoiding putting unnecessary stresses on the critical life systems dependent upon it. If, for example, the resources required for comfortable, modern human life face depletion with a particular economic model, then that model must be rejected. Any system that uses up resources much faster than their regeneration rates will inevitably fail to meet the needs of its constituents—rates of usage and waste production being determining factors in the timeframe. Likewise, any system that requires as its foundation the perpetuation of the dichotomistic ideas of scarcity (whether pretended or real) and infinite growth on a finite planet will inevitably fail to meet the needs of its inhabitants. The benchmark for living within the carrying capacity of the Earth is therefore determined by the planet itself—not by someone’s opinion. This means that, while growth is certainly allowable, it must be strictly limited to what the environment can handle. In the words of Industrial Designer and Social Engineer, Jacque Fresco, “You can’t exceed your environment.”^{^[17]} It doesn’t really matter what anyone thinks, believes, or speculates—nature has the final say in how this business of life, the universe, and everything^{^[18]} pans out.

What about the growth rate? Numerous growth models have been developed in the past few centuries that have attempted to predict future development based upon a multitude of factors. But, the most basic growth equation from differential equations has the following form (Farlow et. al 2007):

(Eq. 1).

This model, developed by Thomas Malthus in 1798, represents population growth or decay at exponential rates based upon whether k (called the growth constant) is positive (unrestricted growth) or negative (decay). Using separation of variables^{^[19]}, this equation can be rearranged and solved giving the solution (Farlow et. al 2007),

(Eq. 2)

where A is the initial population. Although this solution outputs a wildly-overestimated population in just a few decades—Malthus used a growth rate of 3% and a population of around 900-million—its derivation provided one of the first examples of predicting human population in the future. Furthering the exercise, replacing certain variables and including others (for example, variable growth rate) eventually gives a version of the logistic equation of Pierre Verhulst (1838), which takes into account the initial growth rate and the carrying capacity (Farlow et. al 2007),

(Eq. 3)

In this model, r is the intrinsic growth rate, y represents population, and L is the carrying capacity. The solution to this equation with the initial value of y(0) = y₀ can be used to more accurately predict future population and its theoretical maximum. Replacing the carrying capacity, L, with the threshold level, T; making the intrinsic growth rate negative; and using the same initial value mentioned above predicts a minimum population threshold, below which a species will become extinct (Farlow et. al 2007):

(Eq. 4) .

If a system is to remain sustainable, population growth rates must be taken into account. In fact, the growth rate of a population and its minimum threshold are perhaps two of the most important factors to consider (outside of carrying capacity itself) when developing a sustainable economy. If there aren’t enough resources to maintain a prosperous, healthy, growing population, it will eventually result in territorial disputes, war, poverty, unnecessary suffering, and countless deaths; if the population isn’t large enough to maintain positive growth (for any number of reasons), then the species goes extinct. But, what does this exercise say about the rate of population, economic, or other possible growth that should occur? Not much. That requires value judgements.

If an exponentially-increasing population causes untold environmental degradation and human suffering, and falling below the minimum threshold population spells disaster for the species, then the balance is struck somewhere between the two extremes in a steady-state economy. More specifically, the idea is to develop and implement an economy that varies appropriately with dynamic equilibrium and accounts for social trends, seasonal weather, climate, immigration patterns, and perhaps several other factors as they change through time—that is, a sort of Goldilocks Economy. The human species presumably would like to subsist with minimum suffering; so, the conditions on the planet—both natural and economic—have to be just right. And it appears that large deviations from this mindset can and will lead to disastrous conditions that tend to coexist—albeit in a somewhat detached manner—with affluence, as evidenced by the fact that some pockets of society are currently dealing with crop failures and starvation, freshwater shortages, and state-sponsored propaganda, while other pockets destroy food to increase profits, take 45-minute showers, and argue about which politicians lied to them in the best, most convincing way. Thus, the only viable option is to implement a global steady-state economic model that allows for dynamic equilibrium and raises the standard of living for every human on Earth. Anything less will undoubtedly continue the cycle of human and environmental suffering that has become all too common and acceptable around the world.

References

Adams, D. (2002). The Ultimate Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. New York: Del Rey.

Daly, H. E., & Farley, J. (2011). Ecological Economics: Principles and Applications.

Washington, D.C: Island Press.

Farlow, J., Hall, J. E., McDill, J. M., & West, B. H. (2007). Differential Equations & Linear

Algebra. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Joseph, P. (2017). The New Human Rights Movement: Reinventing the Economy to End

Oppression. Dallas, TX: BenBella Books.

Ristinen, R. A., Kraushaar, J. J., & Brack, J. T. (2016). Energy and the Environment. Hoboken,

NJ: Wiley.

Smith, A. (2009). The Wealth of Nations. Lexington, KY: Seven Treasures Publications.

Online Journals and Other Internet Sources

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/economy
https://e360.yale.edu/features/global_extinction_rates_why_do_estimates_vary_so_wildly
http://www.un.org/waterforlifedecade/scarcity.shtml
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/8/3/281/htm
https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1890/14-0802.1
https://www.pnas.org/content/112/2/436?etoc=&utm_content=buffer47939&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
https://www.thevenusproject.com/faq/what-is-a-resource-based-economy/
http://www.hsi.org/issues/trophy_hunting/facts/facts-about-trophy-hunting.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZVPKbZ4cKg
https://www.thp.org/knowledge-center/know-your-world-facts-about-hunger-poverty/
https://www.usda.gov/oce/foodwaste/faqs.htm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qKAse8388k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ag2OI_xpIhU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=envzev35Z2g

^{^[1]} This idea was proffered by Adam Smith in his 1776 book titled, Wealth of Nations.

^{^[2]} https://www.dictionary.com/browse/economy

^{^[3]}https://e360.yale.edu/features/global_extinction_rates_why_do_estimates_vary_so_wildly

^{^[4]} http://www.un.org/waterforlifedecade/scarcity.shtml

^{^[5]} https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/8/3/281/htm

^{^[6]} https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1890/14-0802.1

^{^[7]} https://www.pnas.org/content/112/2/436?etoc=&utm_content=buffer47939&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

^{^[8]} https://www.thevenusproject.com/faq/what-is-a-resource-based-economy/

^{^[9]} Economists might refer to this schema as Pareto Optimum.

^{^[10]} http://www.hsi.org/issues/trophy_hunting/facts/facts-about-trophy-hunting.html

^{^[11]} https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZVPKbZ4cKg

^{^[12]} https://www.thp.org/knowledge-center/know-your-world-facts-about-hunger-poverty/

^{^[13]} https://www.usda.gov/oce/foodwaste/faqs.htm

^{^[14]} https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qKAse8388k

[15] This, of course, requires more than just a few pages. Peter Joseph has done a fantastic job laying out the motivation and framework through his lecture ‘Social Pathology’ and his film Zeitgeist: Moving Forward.

^{^[16]} https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ag2OI_xpIhU

^{^[17]} https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=envzev35Z2g

^{^[18]} Douglas Adams’ Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy is one of the best science fiction books ever written!

^{^[19]} This is one of the many problem-solving techniques one learns in a class such as Differential Equation with Linear Algebra.

Anthropology Review

2019-02-04T23:54:00.000-05:00

These were my review notes from the class The Archaeology of Human History, Spring 2016 at CU Boulder.

1. Archaeologists are very interested in how the human mind developed. We look back in time at our hominid ancestors and try to figure out how smart they were. What lines of evidence do archaeologists have to determine the intelligence of our ancestors? Pick one of our ancestors (Homo habilis, Homo erectus, or Neanderthals) and describe what archaeologists have learned about their intelligence.

Lines of evidence regarding intelligence include the following:

1. Cranial Size

2. Tool Sophistication

3. Imprints on the inside of the skull

Homo Habilis: Oldowan and Levallois techniques

Homo Neanderthalensis: Mousterian technique (primarily flint)

Homo Erectus: Acheulean method (handaxes)

Archaeologists have learned at the Dmansi site that H. erectus practiced elder care. As well H. Neanderthalensis appears to have practiced some sort of ritualistic burial at the Shanidar site with the "flower burial".

2. In class, we discussed a new theory, proposed by Dr. Curtis Marean for the development of the modern human mind. He argues that modern humans not only had evolved increased cognitive ability and a lengthy period of social learning, but also pro-social behavior. What is pro-social behavior and how did it give modern humans the competitive advantage that allowed them to dominate the world? What technological advantages also gave modern humans a competitive edge?

Prosocial behavior is any action intended to help others outside of one's kin group; i.e. teaching non-related group members skills, sharing food and other resources, and protecting those resources. Through the sharing of ideas and technology, modern humans were able to cooperate when hunting and gathering, allowing larger groups to form and be maintained. The most significant technological advantages arose from the development of blades and composite tools. With these implements, moderns began to develop weapons, such as poisoned darts, making hunting and the protection of resources much more practical in terms of growing groups.

3. Neanderthals and fully modern humans had significantly different lifestyles and material culture. Describe and compare archaeological evidence found at Neanderthal and anatomically modern human sites from the Upper Paleolithic. Use real sites (from reading or lecture) or describe a "typical" site.

Bone needles are found in abundance at sites with AMH yet are absent at Neanderthal sites. With the bone needles, AMH were also able to make nets for trapping and woven clothing from furs, allowing survival in the tundra that was the Upper Paleolithic at the time. Art is found at AMH sites such as Lasceaux Cave in France but is absent at Neanderthal sites. According to John Hoffecker, developments in and the evolution of language allowed the "storage of symbolic information outside of the human brain." Evidence includes: 1. Classification of plants and animals; 2. Structured use of space; 3. Symbolic Representation (lion-headed human in Stadel Cave, Germany, 32,000 years old); 4. Sound is structured (music); 5. Burial rituals = attempts to manipulate life.

4. What is the earliest archaeological evidence for family structure or care for others among our hominid ancestors? How did this behavior change through time? Use specific archaeological examples and species in your answer.

The earliest archaeological evidence for family structure or care for each ancestral hominid:

H. erectus: An elder was discovered at the Dmansi site in Georgia with no teeth implying someone likely assisted with food preparation and other day to day tasks.

H. neanderthalensis: A skeleton missing part of an arm was found in Shanidar Cave, Iraq. It is likely that there was a hunting disadvantage and family care was required.

H. sapiens: Moderns practice/d after death care and maintain much larger social groups than previous hominids.

5. Why is the past important? How do people in the present use the past? After discussing these two questions select an example from our class lecture or other source and use it to explain how people use the past to create a social or national identity or as propaganda.

The past is important because it is where we come from. Not only does examining the past highlight both positive and negative events, utilizing the past in the present is important for the creation of identity. For exampe, architecture in many American cities directly reflects ancient Greek and Roman cultures; e.g. Washington, D.C. Other examples include the Mexican flag, incorporating ancient Aztec symbols; the Macedonian flag, which caused controversy with Greece in the 90s when the country was accused by Macedonia of essentially stealing cultural heritage; the country of Zimbabwe, being named after an excavation site; and the Navajo and Hopi tribes in North America, both of which lay claim to certain burial sites.

6. Technology changed enormously from 2.6 mya to 50,000 B.P (the Upper Paleolithic). Discuss the major changes you have read and discussed in class and explain what these changes suggest about cognitive development in the human lineage.

Beginning 2.6 mya with the Oldowan technique, practiced by H. habilis, the technological advancements of early hominids went through what is known as a "reduction sequence"; i.e. as intelligence increased, tool size decreased leading to refinement and composite tools. The sequence can be summed up in these steps: 1. Flint-knapping; 2. Handaxes; 3. Weapons; 4. Fire; 5. Better clothing. In other words, from Oldowan and Levallois (H. erectus) to Mousterian (H. neanderthalensis) to Aurignacion (fully modern humans; microliths).

What role does Archaeology play in the broader field of anthropology? How does archaeology use the scientific method to study the past?

Anthropology: The study of humans.

1. Cultural: Ethnologists: Ethnology; Participant Observation; Small scale; short term

Examples: Paul Shankman, Samoa; Terry McCabe, E. Africa; Margaret Mead;

2. Biological: Primatology; Modern Human Biology; paleoanthropology/osteology

Examples: Demmi Van Gerven: Health & Disease in Sudanese mummies;

Michelle Santher (?): Lemur ecology and paleoecology;

Matt Sponheimer: Early hominims in Africa;

Robin Bernstein: Growth & Development in Gambia;

3. Linguistic: Language preservation; How language shapes social identity, cultural beliefs, etc.

Examples: Andrew Cowell: Arapaho Language

Preserving Languages in the Solomon Islands

4. Archaeology: The study or interpretation of past cultures through their material remains (Large Scale).

Material Culture/Artifacts

Anything made and used by humans.

-Tools, houses, clothing, furniture, etc.

Archaeological Site

Any site where material remains and other artifiacts can be found indicating former hominid presence.

-Stonehenge, Maya Temple, etc.

Archaeological Research Program

1. Define research problem. (What do you want to know?)

2. Define relevant evidence and how to get it.

3. Design fieldwork or collection's work.

4. Conduct fieldwork.

5. Organize and analyze artifacts, ecofacts, features, etc.

6. Interpret results and publish them.

7. Curate (store) collection and documents.

Why is the past important?

The past is where we come from; it is not the "truth". Rather, it is a reconstruction in which positive events are generally highlighted. Because it is a reconstruction, it is contested. In terms of national or cultural identity, there are several examples: The Hopi of the American Southwest--origins in the Grand Canyon, emerged into the present world and are now in Arizona; Chaco Canyon in New Mexico (900-1150 AD) boasts great homes--multi-storied structures with big walls--and even prehistoric roads connecting other Chaco sites; Modern Zimbabwe is named after the Great Zimbabwe archaeological site; Strangely, instead of Native American culture, Americans look to Western cultures such as classical Greece and Rome; An ancient Aztec symbol is on the Mexican flag which has an eagle with a snake on a cactus on a rock in a lake where a great city would be built. In terms of propaganda, the Nazis elevated themselves with the idea of an ancient German superiority which claimed that since there were German artifacts in other countries, that was sufficient to annex those countries. They even went so far as to create a fake ancient site called Externstein which was actually a monastery.

Archaeological Methods, site formation processes, and dating techniques.

An artifact is anything that is made and used by humans. An ecofact is any organic material found at an site that carries archaeological significance. An excavation site is typically chosen once a survey is conducted to determine the relevant features of the land that could indicate former human presence. Using Relative Dating Techniques, such as Stratigraphy, Seriation, and Cross-Dating, a range of possible dates can be determined. Stratigraphy is the process of looking at the layers of an excavation site and dating it according to the convention that the oldest layers are on the bottom and the youngest are at the top. Artifacts in the layers are used to date the layers. Therefore, the dates are "relative". Seriation simply means arranging things in a series and in the context of archaeology, seriation implies that artifacts have life cycles: They appear, increase in popularity, then disappear. (Stratigraphy and Seriation were both used by Nels Nelson at San Cristobal to date the artifacts there.) Cross-dating refers to the process of examining, say, pottery techniques from around the world and using the patterns developed over time to date those techniques; i.e. everywhere we look, black-on-white appears earlier than glaze and 2-color glaze appears earlier than 3-color glaze.

Pottery is usually associated with absolute dating techniques. Absolute Dating gives us a sense of the calendar year with a range of time that the events took place. In other words, this method must be interpreted as it doesn't always give an exact date. Dendrochronology gives an exact calendar year by examining the number of rings in a cross-section of a tree (wet years give fat rings; dry years give thin rings). Carbon-14 Dating use the natural decay process of carbon isotopes to determine site dates and is usually only valid form up to around 40,000 years ago. (The first example of this is in the 1940s with Herb Dick at Bat Cave. This was later refined by Chip Willis in 1981 from 5500 to 3000 BP.) Other techniques include Potassium/Argon dating, where the radioactive isotope of potassium decays into argon at a known rate--its half-life, Luminescence Dating, which measures the amount of energy that is trapped in material recovered at sites as a result of natural radioactive decay in the surrounding soil, and Paleomagnetic Dating, which is based on the fact that the position of magnetic north is not fixed and continuously moves.

A final note should be made regarding the Bluff Great House. There are two main questions regarding this site: 1. Is the Bluff Great House a Chacoan great house site? 2. How closely was Bluff connected with Chaco Canyon? The evidence indicates that the Bluff dates to the correct time period. The fieldwork includes gathering ceramics to get the dates. In terms of connection, the Bluff architecture is similar to Chaco. The fieldwork here includes exposing architecture for comparison as well as collecting artifacts and determining where they were made.

What makes us human?

When examining the progression of hominid skulls, one of the most prominent features that indicates an increase in intelligence over time is the increase of cranial capacity in the genus Homo. Australopithicenes capacity was around 400-500 cc while Homo Habilis and Modern Humans had capacities of ~700 cc and ~1200 cc, respectively. As well, bipedalism is indicated by the connection of the spine to the base of the skull (foramem magnum), wider hips, longer femur, and the arching of the feet with an alignment of all of the toes. Homo Habilis (2.4-1.4 mya) appears in the archaeological record the same time as the first stone tools are found. The earliest stone tools date to around 2.6 mya in Gona, Ethiopia.

In terms of technology, there are a few key differences that have been noted between chimps and hominids. First, chimps used stone hammers to crack nuts (similar to early hominids) but there was little transport of those tools to other areas. Second, the tools were mostly organic materials; i.e. there were no tools to make tools. Lastly, there was no repair or maintenance on the tools so we find no concetrations of them.

Early hominid stone technology is called Oldowan and dates to ~2.5-1.5 mya. Oldowan tools (H. Habilis) were made using a technique called flint-knapping which depends upon conchoidal fracturing. Conchoidal fracturing occurs in minerals such as Obsidian or other volcanic rock and provides flakes that can be further refined for multiple tools. Two kinds of knowledge are necessary: That of angles and that of making particular tools. Through use-wear analysis (sometimes using scanning electron microscopes), it has been determined that Oldowan tools were used for cutting meat and plants as well as working with wood. Oldowan tools are typically found in concentrations with animal bone indicating this was NOT chimp technology.

At a site in Koobi Fora in Kenya, which dates to around 1.5-1.6 mya, flakes, cores, and broken animal bones were found together on the edge of a stream. At least two interpretations have been offered. First, this could have been a sort of "home base" where males would go out to hunt and would bring back food to females and children. Second, bone and stone washed in from other places and they have no relation to each other. In any case, the evidence suggests that stone and bone were used at the same time; i.e. there were cut marks on bone, cut marks near joints (indicating processing techniques), and blow marks to get to the bone marrow.

What is the significance of Homo Erectus in human evolution and early hominid development?

Homo erectus is dated ~1.8 mya to around 400,000 years ago. Although the field is constantly changing as new evidence emerges, it was believed that H. erectus descended from H. Habilis (there are some questions about this). One of the most prominent examples is the Nariokotome Boy whose post cranial skeleton is like us with a smaller capacity (~900 cc) and a low braincase. A characteristic tool technology associated with H. erectus is called Acheulean--the most prominent being the handaxe.

Although there are no dates associated with the site yet, a discovery published in the Fall of 2015 adds a new branch to our "family tree": Homo Naledi. H. Naledi was discovered in Rising Star Cave, South Africa and has a mix of both homo and australo traits (thumb and wrist are modern). The fossils were found deep in a cave with a 12 meter vertical shaft, suggesting the possibility of intentional disposal of the dead.

Greater intelligence and the use of fire are the main culprits in the journey Out of Africa (the first one). This migration was rapid and happened after the evolution of H. erectus. Evidence in Dmansi, Georgia dating to around 1.8-1.6 mya suggests the migration was north and took homonids through the Middle East. The Dmansi hominids were likely young individuals, one or two were possibly female, and highly resemble African H. erectus. Teeth missing from a Dmansi skull indicate the liklihood of elder care. Mostly complete skulls suggest that H. erectus was variable even in the same population.

In Gran Dolina, Spain, around 80 fossils and 200 stone tools were found dating to around 780,000 years ago. Although no handaxes were found, 25% of the bones show cut marks like those on animal bones demonstrating the possibility of cannabilsm. Several thousand miles away on the island of Flores (above Australia), a species called Homo Florensiesis was discovered (although it is argued that it is possibly a small H. erectus with a small brain) that lasted until around 18,000 years ago. LB-1 was an adult female around 30 years old, 3.5 feet tall, and had a cranial capacity of around 400 cc.

By examining the relative abundance of the oxygen isotopes O-16 and O-18 in ogranic material, a temperature profile has been created for the past 780,000 years by Shackleton and Opdyke. (From the book, p 111) "Simply, the colder the world gets and the more ice builds up on land, the lower the proportion of [O-16] in water and, concomitantly, in the shells of marine micro-organisms. The shells of those organisms can be collected, dated, and measured for their isotope concentrations. Those concentrations can, in turn, be interpreted as a record of fluctuations in worldwide temperature."

One of the key indicators of H. erectus' intelligence is the possibility of the projection of a mental template onto a stone in order to produce a tool. Whereas dogs can recognize a food bowl, we (modern humans) can imagine something that isn't there. So, the question is this: Is imagining a handaxe in a rock evidence of complex problem solving or is it just "hard-wired skill"? The evidence suggests that H. erectus was very similar to us in the use of sophisticated tools and the taming of fire.

(Other key terms: human babies are said to be secondarily altrical, meaning that they are physically but not completely mentally dependent upon their parents as newborns. Pleistocene refers to the geological epoch dating from around 2.5 mya to around 11,500 years ago. Reduction sequence is the relationship of increasing cranial capacity to thinness and refinement of tools.)

The Middle Paleolithic Period, Archaic Homo sapiens and Neanderthals

Archaic Homo Sapiens lived from around 400,000 years ago until around 40,000 years ago in Africa, Asia, and Europe. The best known example is Neanderthal. Classic Neanderthals date from 130,000 to 40,000 years ago. Oxygen isotopes tell us that this period was very cold.

Evidence indicates that the typical Neanderthal group size was around 10 people (in contrast to 30-50 for modern hunter-gatherers) with no larger groups (100-150 for modern hunter-gatherers). Neanderthals were big game hunters and scavengers that used tool techniques called Mousterian and Levallois (shaping a core; one big flake is removed from the top exactly the shape desired). Using edge-analysis, it has been determined that composite tools (multiple components) and spears were dveloped by Neanderthals. Bone chemistry indicates a diet consisting of mostly meat with some plants. According to John P. Speth of the University of Michigan, along the Lower Volga River, no evidence of organization of space or structures are found.

Several distinctions can be made between us and Neanderthals. First, Neanderthals had small home territories mostly in Eastern Europe. Second, there were no bone needles and, thus, no tailored clothing. In fact, there were no bone objects at all. Finally, there is no Neanderthal art. As well, the possibility of language has been debated and in 2013, a hyoid study, which reconstructed the muscles and performed a biochemical analysis, was conducted on a Neanderthal hyoid bone found in Kabara Cave in Israel and found that it functioned like human and chimp hyoids. The FoxP2 gene in modern humans, which is linked to speech, was also in Neanderthals so it was at the very least possible.

At the Shanidar Cave site in Iraq, a flower burial was discovered that contained pollen from medicinal plants dating to 60,000-80,000 years ago. The question: Is this a coincidence or did Neanderthals have medicinal knowledge? Speth says that if human cognitive hardwire was in place 2.5 mya then all change since that time has simply been the accumulation of human "know-how" and worldwide population growth. In terms of DNA, modern humans and Neanderthals split between 400,000 and 600,000 years ago.

What differentiates modern Homo sapiens from other hominids and what do we know about when and where they developed--both anatomically and in terms of human mental abilities?

The Replacement Model of the evolution of Anatomically Modern Humans (AMH) is currently the most accepted "Out of Africa II" model. Fossil evidence shows that the oldest AMH are in Africa and that there is continuity between premodern and modern types. Outside of Africa, modern humans are very different from premoderns. In Europe and SW Asia, premodern and modern humans were contemporary. Therefore, one could not have evolved from the other. At Lagar Velho in Portugal, the child in a child burial (~25,000 years ago) has a combination of Neanderthal and human charachteristics. And, according to DNA evidence, 1-4% of DNA in European, Asian, and North American people comes from Neanderthals but is absent in Africans.

Modern humans produced blades: a standardized stone form that could be used for many different kinds of tools. The earliest blade tools were found in Africa at Lake Baringo in Kenya and date to around 240,000 years ago. Blades and Levallois flakes were also found at the Klasies River Mouth in South Africa, dating between 115,000 and 90,000 years ago. Microliths date to between 70,000 and 80,000 in Africa. Dietary evidence was found in Blombos Cave in South Africa dating to 100,000-70,000 years ago. Eland, tortoise, fish, shellfish, birds, and ostrich eggs were all found along with ochre processing tools (100,000 years ago) and even crayons (80,000 years ago). So, fossil evidence, DNA, and artifacts all support the Replacement Model; i.e. modern humans evolved in Africa and migrated to the rest of the world.

Regarding newly discovered species, DNA from a finger bone found that Denisovians are as different from Neanderthals as they are from us. Today, Pacific and SE Asians have 5% Denisovian DNA; but not East Asians. DNA from the hair of an Australian Aboriginal was analyzed and it was discovered that Aboriginal and Europeans split 75,000 years ago, suggesting multiple migrations out of Africa. A new theory from Curtis Marean of Arizona State University, examining excavations in South Africa, explains that the reason humans were so successful at dominating the planet is because we are the most invasive species of all. Our defining characteristics are: 1. Great Intelligence; 2. Long childhood; 3. Highly developed social learning; and 4. Pro-social behavior (willingness to cooperate with non-kin). Marean suggests that these are genetically encoded. As well, there is a natural selection for pro-social behavior. The coasts represent dense, predictable natural resources where people could cooperate to defend food (Pinnacle Point, South Africa; projectile reconstruction; possibility of new weapons, poison tips, etcetera).

What significant changes characterize the Upper Paleolithic Period and how do they relate to Intellectual development?

The extinction of Neanderthals occurred between 45,000 and 10,000 years ago. The newest data suggest that around 45,000 years ago, this was a Neanderthal world with small pockets of moderns in the South. Over the next 5,000 years, moderns and Neanderthals were contemporary (the greatest gene flow was 77,000-114,000 years ago) and at some point between 40,000 and 39,000 years ago, Neanderthals were extinct. We know most about early modern human behavior during this time, though. The earliest European technology associated with fully modern humans around 45,000 years ago is called Aurignacion. Aurignacion technology is characterized by blade tools and microblades.

Composite tools, such as the Atlatl and rotary drill, were common. Blades were typically twice as long as they were wide and can be described as similar to a Swiss Army Knife in terms of versatility. Bone needles were used to fashion tailored clothing out of animal furs, such as rabbit, and proved to be excellent for insulation. Woven nets allowed the capture of smaller mammals for food and furs with much less energy expenditure. Combined with the use of structures, tailored clothing allowed the proliferation of modern humans in much colder climates. As well, the earliest evidence for domestication of dogs comes from around 33,000 years ago in Siberia.

Settlement patterns indicate organization of fairly large groups of people trading with distant groups and sharing seasonal gatherings to maintain relations. Burial sites reveal ceremonies and rituals such as at the Surgir site in Russia. It was here where the first evidence of art was found. On the Indonesian island of Sulawesi, there is rock art dating to around 40,000 years ago; i.e. hand prints and animals. However, most cave art (80%) is from the end of the Upper Paleolithic, known as the Magdelienian Period, from around 16,000-10,000 years ago. While animals are carefully drawn, humans are rarely depicted as stick figures. (Many hand prints appear smaller and less robust leading to the idea that they were painted by women or were perhaps of adolescents. The ring fingers in men are generally longer than the index while the reverse is true in women--showing a strong possibility that these were painted by women.)

The purpose of this "art" is a hotly debated topic. According to some, these were possibly-psychadelically-induced "trances" that resulted in an almost otherworldy experience that was documented by the cave paintings. Others suggest that these were used to document important hunts. Still others believe that these might have been used to actually teach how to hunt. Chauvet Cave in France, discovered in 1994, dates from around 32,000 years ago and boasts powerfully realistic images. Sixty-three percent of the images are of lions, rhinos, and other animals not typically hunted. There are also horses, bison, reindeer, red deer, aurochs, and even panthers and an owl (the only one ever found).

Stonehenge

2019-02-04T23:31:00.005-05:00

In the Spring of 2016, I was in an amazing anthropology class called The Archaeology of Human History. It was actually the inspiration for the final essay I wrote in the class Fiction & Reality (Technology and Transition), which I was taking that same semester. After spending three months swiftly moving through around six million years of upright hominid history, we were assigned a research essay on an archaeological site of our choice. I chose Stonehenge.

Located in southern England in Wiltshire, the megalithic structure known as Stonehenge has towered over Salisbury Plain for thousands of years. Dr. Anthony M. Perks, writing with Darlene Marie Bailey in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, explains, “For most of the past thousand years it has been a centre of mystery, and at least three kings and two notable physicians have taken serious interest in it and the lost people who built it” (Perks and Bailey 2003). Indeed, the site has been the inspiration for myriad hypotheses regarding its construction and use. Some of the most prominent of these hypotheses focus on celestial alignments during the solstices while others claim the site shows reverence for either the living or the dead. Perks and Bailey offer a rather different interpretation, approaching the issue from a medical standpoint and juxtaposing an overhead view of the site with that of a drawing of the human vulva. Whatever the case, the evidence suggests that these massive blocks of stone were quarried from up to 240 miles away (Feder 2014).

In 1974, the results of a thorough examination of Stonehenge by Alexander Thom, Archibald Stevenson Thom, and Alexander Strang Thom were published in the Journal for the History of Astronomy. This report details with meticulous precision the geometry that was likely used in the construction of Stonehenge as well as the probable dates around which construction took place. In short, the view just forty or so years ago was that Stonehenge probably took around 1,600 years to complete, starting around 4,800 years ago.

The earliest parts of the monument, probably constructed about 2,800 B.C., are the ditch and bank, the Aubrey holes, the Heel stone and perhaps the ‘stations’.... When people think of Stonehenge they probably think of the two impressive rings which were eventually built in the centre of the monument about 2,100 B.C. The outer of these rings is the sarsen circle which originally consisted of 30 huge stones, capped by a complete ring of lintels [Thom et al. 1974].

But, with more advanced methods and having been the first to excavate in those four decades, a team in 2008 used charcoal remains to determine a more precise construction period of the inner rings starting around 4,600 years ago (Feder 2014).

The stones of Stonehenge consist of an inner horseshoe of trilithon uprights, made of sarsen stone quarried from about 19 miles north of the site and weighing up to several dozen tons; an outer ring of 30 lintels, made from the same sarsen stone and placed atop the uprights to cap them at roughly six tons a piece; and bluestones, positioned between the two rings and quarried from over 200 miles away, each weighing over four tons. Feder tells us, “The tops of all of sarsen uprights [sic] were precisely carved to produce two knobs, or tenons” (Feder 2014). To fit onto the sarsens, holes were drilled in the bottom of the lintels to match the tenons and produce the full ring. So, not only did these ancient architects have to cut and then transport these massive stone blocks weighing several tons over huge distances, they had to place them into geometrically oriented holes in the ground and then position massive stone lintels on top! With what would be considered primitive tools by today’s standards, the people that built Stonehenge accomplished something that modern engineers, with the aid of automated machine technology, find exceedingly impressive. But, it’s not the only ancient site in the area. Stonehenge has been connected with another about 2 miles away called Durrington Walls. According to Feder, “Durrington Walls appears to have been the place where, perhaps, Stonehenge’s builders lived and where, almost certainly, the monument’s ancient visitors feasted (Olding-Smee 2007)” (Feder 2014). And while evidence suggests that Stonehenge was a ritualistic place, the nature of those rituals has been a hotly debated topic for centuries.

As mentioned before, a number of hypotheses regarding the purpose of Stonehenge have revolved around celestial observations (pun definitely intended). “It is universally admitted that the axis of Stonehenge pointed to the rising solstitial Sun,” writes Thom (Thom et al. 1974). Perhaps one of the most unusual, however, is that of Perks and Bailey, mentioned earlier. In essence, their idea connects that of Stonehenge being a place of reverence for the dead with that of Stonehenge being intimately intertwined with the Mother Goddess or Earth Mother.

The birth-canal analogy would account for the absence of any monolith at the geometric centre of the henge, despite the way in which one’s attention is drawn there: the central area is empty because it represents the opening to the world, the birth canal. This notion is supported by the remarkable find at nearby Woodhenge: the body of a sacrificial child was discovered buried at the centre of the circles.2 [sic] Clearly, we are approaching the concept of Earth Mother (Perks and Bailey 2003).

A hypothetical argument appears to be emerging:

If ideas of Earth Mother originated with or were shared by the people of the henge, Stonehenge could represent, symbolically, the opening by which Earth Mother gave birth to the plants and animals on which the ancient people so depended. The henge would honour her for giving them both life and livelihood (Perks and Bailey 2003).

Finally, tying the celestial concepts together with the Earth Mother/birth concept, Perks and Bailey speculate, “If we accept the underlying feeling that Stonehenge was some sort of temple, or at least sacred in some way, and combine this with the ideas of Earth Mother and Sun Father suggested by the stones, we can make sense of the many suggestions of ceremonials at the solstices” (Perks and Bailey 2003).

The tentative nature of archaeology is perhaps one of the only valid justifications for updating textbooks yearly. With practically every excavation that takes place, new information about our species’ past is uncovered. Stonehenge is certainly no exception in this regard. Four decades of separation between excavations and of technological and methodological refinement reveal just how varied the responses to the evidence at hand with the knowledge of the time can be. Doubtless, as new excavations are sanctioned, and as new methods are developed and old methods are either refined or abandoned, the story will be updated. In other words, without a time machine—I won’t go into the countless paradoxes that arise with one’s existence—we are practically beholden to applying the best of what we know up until now to the admitted construction of an interpreted history none of us experienced and which is in reality as unfathomable to us as our way of life is to those ancient hominids upon which our speculations are.

Bibliography

Feder, Kenneth L. 2014 The Past in Perspective: An Introduction to Human Prehistory. Oxford

University Press, New York.

Perks, Anthony M, and Darlene Marie Bailey. 2003 Stonehenge: a view from medicine. Journal of

the Royal Society of Medicine 96(2):94–98.

Thom, Alexnder, Archibald Stevenson Thom, and Alexander Strang Thom. 1974 Stonehenge.

Journal for the History of Astronomy 5(2):71-90.

The Case Against Fossil Fuels

2018-12-12T06:19:00.000-05:00

Another essay assigned for the class Energy & the Environment (Fall Semester 2018, CU Boulder) asked students to develop either a prosecutor's argument convicting human use of fossil fuels of causing an increase in global temperature or a defense attorney's argument for a "not guilty" verdict. Admittedly glossing over much of the data, I chose to focus on just a few simple concepts to make my point.

Greenhouse gases are a fairly well-studied component of planetary atmospheres. Included in the list of the most prominent—capable of regulating and/or destabilizing the climate on a given planet—are water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane. These gases tend to trap solar energy radiated from the surface of a planet (measured as its albedo) that would normally make it back to space and have relatively little impact on the equilibrium temperature at the planet’s radius from its parent star. And, if mechanisms exist on planets which continue pumping more greenhouse gases into their atmospheres—carbon sources such as volcanic eruptions—without other mechanisms to pull those gases back out (called carbon sinks), the actual surface temperatures of those planets exceedingly deviate from their equilibrium temperatures. A perfect example in our very own solar system is that of Venus. While the equilibrium temperature of Venus should be around -43 degrees Celsius, the actual surface temperature is over 500 degrees Celsius! Why? The atmosphere of Venus is mostly carbon dioxide, which traps much of the incident radiation from the Sun, and there are no known mechanisms to pull any of that carbon dioxide from it. Venus is a slow rotator (its day is longer than its year) and it is geologically dead with no magnetic field. But, we can learn much from examining the impact of greenhouse gases on global temperatures. So, what does it mean for us here on Earth?

Ice core samples from Antarctica have allowed accurate depictions of the natural fluctuations of Earth’s climate for at least the past 800,000 years. As well, since 1958 accurate measurements have been taken at Mauna Loa in Hawaii of the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere. These measurements clearly indicate an upward trend, and, when superimposed on the ice core data from the past 1000 years, is quite unprecedented, as shown in the figure from the textbook Energy and the Environment (3rd Edition):

Earth has gone through a series of global temperature fluctuations in its billions of years. From glaciations and ice ages to warmer, more moderate climates, the natural processes regulating outgassing and carbon sequestration—volcanic eruptions, plate tectonics, atmospheric composition, and ocean temperatures—have allowed long periods over which slow fluctuations in Earth’s climate occurred. But, human activities in just a few centuries have caused a wild deviation from the slowly regulated climate of the past. Since the industrial revolutions of the 18th and 19th centuries, humans have been dumping vast amounts of carbon dioxide, methane, and many other combustion and industry products, into the Earth’s atmosphere. We have created many carbon sources by pulling hydrocarbons out of the ground and burning them; but, we have created virtually zero carbon sinks over the same amount of time. And some of the most impactful carbon sinks that already exist—the oceans—are being warmed by this atmospheric feedback loop; i.e. the warmer the oceans, the less CO2 they are capable of absorbing. (This is how a runaway greenhouse effect accelerates!) We’ve also increased the human population exponentially and created an industry of gigantic agriculture that now contributes to more than half of the methane released into the atmosphere by anthropogenic means. An expectation of no repercussions would be inexcusably foolish!

It is very clear that human activities have been releasing hundreds of millions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere each year for decades. It’s also very clear what happens over time to atmospheres that experience a runaway greenhouse effect: Hotter, drier summers; colder, harsher winters; and wildly unpredictable, more severe weather phenomena such as hurricanes. But, we only live an average of 80 years on this planet so of course it seems reasonable to think that because we might not see a significant difference over the course of our lifetimes then it must not be that significant. But, we would be wrong and stupid to think so arrogantly. When the natural fluctuations of Earth’s climate have occurred over the course of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or even millions of years, the only insignificant thing around would be the average human lifespan. But that doesn’t preclude the possibility of having a significant impact on that climate, as all current data indicate we have increased the CO2 concentration in Earth’s atmosphere to levels never seen in several hundred thousand years.

Point blank: We are negatively impacting Earth’s atmosphere. All evidence points directly to human activities. And if we want to still have a habitable world for generations to come, then we better get serious about transitioning from fossil fuels to carbon neutral and so-called ‘alternative’ energy sources. The debate is over. We either act now or we deserve whatever we get for being such a pathetic, potential-squandering species.

Resources

Bennett, J. O., Donahue, M., Schneider, N., & Voit, M. (2017). The cosmic perspective. Boston:

Pearson.

Ristinen, R. A. (2016). Energy and the environment. Place of publication not identified: Nielsen

Bookdata.

Rothery, D. A., Gilmour, I., Sephton, M. A., & Anand, M. (2011). An Introduction to
Astrobiology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

A Sensible Energy Solution

2018-12-06T12:57:00.000-05:00

An assignment given in the class Energy and the Environment (Fall 2018, CU Boulder) called for students to write a letter to the CEO of an energy company as a sort of call-to-action. And if you have been following this blog and reading my content for the past several years, you'll probably understand that I wanted nothing more than to go on one of my usual tangents about how this economic model is destroying the planet; how we have a monetary system with disadvantage built right in; social stratification--you know, the things that this entire blog revolves around. But, I finally took a step back and tried to think of a transitional solution to this problem. I asked myself how I could possibly convince billionaires to reduce their massive profits to provide sensible, sustainable, clean energy solutions. Here is what I came up with:

To whom it may concern:

It was recently calculated that several tons of arsenic are produced in the waste ash at your facility each year costing consumers millions in additional cleanup costs. While this is alarming by itself, perhaps even more frightening is the general lack of willingness among the biggest energy providers around the world to even consider a transition to other sources. So, I’ve come up with a proposition that could be the game-changer we need on this planet. A few things first, though.
In the decades since WWII, the United States swiftly transitioned from a massive manufacturing economy to a massive service economy. But even the service industry has been overhauled recently by the rise of social media. Point blank: If your service sucks as a company in 2018, you’re going to fail faster than the time it takes to upload the viral video that destroys you. So, companies must remain at the cutting edge of social trends and keep up with consumer demand. That means meeting the wants and needs of customers—not creating monopolies and sacrificing the health of your customers and the environment in order to appease shareholders! Sure, people want (and, quite frankly, need) energy; but not at the expense of the planet their children will inherent one day. We’ve seen the charts; we’ve heard the arguments; and so have you. The data are clear. And we all know what the possibilities are with 21st century technology. So, enough with the obfuscation and doublespeak!
When I make a purchase nowadays, there are three main things I look for in a product or service: Reliability, versatility, and quality. I want the product I purchase to actually function the way I was told it would and the services I purchase to actually be performed the way I was told. The products should also be multi-faceted and perform a wide range of functions in all-in-one packages while the services should follow suit. Finally, my products better last a long time and include lifetime warranties. Enough with planned obsolescence!
In terms of energy, however, I have a slightly different outlook. That is, we currently have the technology and resources to transition into a global economy that produces 100% of its energy with clean, dependable, safe sources, such as solar, wind, wave, tidal, and geothermal. But, we willfully choose not to in lieu of creating markets for the shareholders of energy giants such as yours. This is wrong and detrimental to the greater population and we all know it. So, what can we do to compromise and move forward sustainably?
The service sector I mentioned earlier is something in which you should seriously consider taking a larger role. It’s simple, really. What you can do is offer Swap-Out packages to homeowners and HOAs. Start the transition by creating a new market that offers both rentals and buy-outs for energy installation packages. Here’s how it might work:

Stop putting up ridiculous billboards that say things like, “Wind stops. The sun sets. Choose coal!” Seriously. I can’t even roll my eyes hard enough to convey just how idiotic that sounds.
Invest in, buy, or partner with solar, wind, wave, etc. companies.
Retrain your employees at the coal-burning facilities to install and maintain solar,
wind, wave, etc. packages (depending upon region).

Work with governments (local, state, and federal) to create tax incentives to install the packages.
Create contracts with customers that offer at least three options:
1. Rental: The contract would include tiers of payments based upon the size
  installation. The packages would still be owned by your company and liability insurance would be split between the renter and your company (that is fair and we both know it). Part of the rental fees would also go toward maintenance costs (i.e. hiring the retrained coal plant employees, veterans, etc.).
2. Buy-out: This contract would include an option to actually sell energy back to the grid and would require the homeowner to carry their own liability insurance. The packages would be fully owned by the homeowner but the maintenance would, by law, have to be conducted by you. This, of course, requires a lifetime contract. (Yes, you read that correctly: lifetime contract.) This contract must have periodic renegotiation (say, every 5 years or so) to adjust for property sales, inflation, and other economic factors. This option not only guarantees jobs to maintain the new, on-site, mini-grids on the consumers’ properties, but it also should minimize the amount of resources used to maintain the larger grid already in place.
3. College Option: This option pays the tuition of select students choosing to pursue a career in the field of energy production. The student will be fully trained to immediately enter the work force upon graduation. Paid internships and on-the-job training will be a requirement for completion.

I realize the markets that have been created will be upset by these changes but let’s face facts and also realize that the planet itself doesn’t care about us. Or our markets. If we think that we can continue dumping millions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere without building carbon sinks and also without repercussion, then, quite frankly, we are an arrogant failure of a supposedly intelligent species and we deserve the onslaught of erratic weather and geological phenomena Earth has in store for us... But, as the leader of an energy giant capable of making the decisions to swiftly make this transition we need to make, the onus truly is on you to make it happen as quickly as possible. Make the right call. Be a leader.

Sincerely,

Kyle Benjamin

The Search for Life in the Universe: Europa, Titan, and Enceladus

2018-12-05T18:47:00.008-05:00

Throughout the history of humankind, a seemingly-inherent penchant for exploration, coupled with various climatic events, has driven the proliferation of the human species across planet Earth. Whether nomadic bands of hunter-gatherers were searching for newer, more abundant sources of food, or simply exploring for its own sake, homo sapiens successfully populated the Earth through a journey that began thousands of years ago in south-central Africa and took several dozen centuries. But, even with all that humankind has accomplished, and with all the introspective and extrospective information accumulated in the past four centuries alone, there is much left to explore both on the surface and in the oceans of this majestic world. Moreover, there is an entire universe out there—unimaginably vast and just waiting to be discovered. But, humans tend to get easily distracted by both forms of intergovernmental conflict (within and between governments), wars, manufactured controversy, and a host of other trivialities, ultimately veering the species off that road to cosmic discovery. Nevertheless, space programs the world over have managed to send spacecraft on trajectories that have taken them from precariously close to the Sun1 to beyond the heliosphere of the solar system2. Several rovers have successfully descended through the Martian atmosphere34 and one on Saturn’s moon Titan5; an orbiter/lander package was even sent to an asteroid6! And, while all of this exploration has been done in the hopes of gaining a deeper understanding of how life arose on Earth and whether or not it happened elsewhere in the cosmos, an extraordinary wealth of knowledge has been amassed regarding the physical and chemical properties of the cosmos itself. But, before drawing the lines of evidence for otherworldly life in this solar system, a few questions should first be answered: What is life? Are there certain elements that are considered crucial for life? How common are these ingredients? And, what processes exist on Earth have been identified as possible catalysts for the transition from inorganic to organic molecules?

A Definition of Life

For many centuries, philosophers the world over struggled to explain this experience called ‘life’. The elements that formed everything around were simple: earth, water, air, and fire. Life itself was viewed as something rather peculiar—especially human life. And somehow humans were supposed to strive for the good life, as Aristotle put it in his Nicomachean Ethics.7 In retrospect, however, something always seemed to be missing from these arguments: hard evidence. Thought experiments can take one but so far; it is only when unbiased physical, chemical, and biological experiments bear out the facts of reality through the accumulation of evidence that such claims should be accepted. And even then, uncertainties should always be taken into account. Perhaps this perspective seems obvious in the highly technical, information- driven world of today but it certainly wasn’t always the case. The concepts of innocent until proven guilty and evidence-based reasoning are relatively new in human history. Before the Renaissance began sometime in the 14th century, people largely took things at face value with very little thought—burning ‘witches’ alive and massacring countless ‘others’ that dared to question any form of assumed, typically divine, authority. In fact, life seemed to be defined in terms of that authority: God > kings > other humans > animals > everything else in the universe. But, this geocentric, authoritative perspective left much to be desired. Observations began to contradict doctrine which eventually led to a revolution in thinking. Life, it turned out, wasn’t so simply defined.

Although the debate rages on today, at least in philosophical circles, biologists and chemists have in recent years joined it in an effort to standardize the definition of life. Among the many that have been posited over the decades, the definition that perhaps best encompasses humankind’s present understanding was proffered by Gerald F. Joyce in the 1990s and then included in an anthology released in 2008 called Extraterrestrials: Where are They?: “In a very broad sense, living organisms turn food into offspring. They metabolize food and use the energy derived from the food to produce offspring, that is, to produce more life. Among biologists and biochemists a working definition of ‘life’ is: ‘a self-sustained chemical system capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution’.”8 Objections to this definition remain but it suffices for the purpose of this essay.

Follow the Water

Perhaps the most essential substance in which countless reactions can take place is water in its liquid form. Known as ‘the universal solvent’ for its ability to dissolve an array of other substances, water is a polar molecule with a negatively charged oxygen atom opposite two positively charged hydrogen atoms that are spaced 104.5° apart. This arrangement makes it “sticky”, a characteristic ultimately derived from electromagnetic forces; it also means that water is capable of conducting electricity when salts are dissolved in it. These properties prove essential in the synthesis of other molecules that could lead to self-sustaining chemical systems. Thus, the catchphrase for finding life throughout the astrobiology and space exploration community has unsurprisingly become “follow the water”.9 Since Earth harbors life everywhere liquid water exists, then a reasonable supposition would be that where there is water, there is life.

SPONCH for Life

The chemical systems that eventually gave rise to biological entities here on Earth can be described by the acronym SPONCH. Sulfur, phosphorus, oxygen, nitrogen, carbon, and hydrogen are the key elements to life on Earth, and, considering the relative abundances of these elements throughout the universe, presumably life elsewhere. So, if a search for life in the universe is to remain as objective as possible, a focus on these six elements and the many molecules that can be made from them, as well as environments with temperatures and pressures conducive to biological processes, can be considered reasonably unbiased. Carbon, the most chemically active element on the periodic table, is the basis for millions of molecules and its ability to readily form strong, stable bonds (even with other carbon atoms and some metals) makes it the most logical choice for a molecule long-lived enough to build self-sustaining, evolving systems. Silicon is chemically similar to carbon and has also been considered as a possible basis for life; however, its weaker bonds and completely different oxidation product—the solid silicon dioxide (SiO2)— present problems with known biological processes. For example, can the polymers formed by silicon remain stable in varying environments and for long enough to become biologically active? How would the mechanism by which this solid waste product is readily removed function? And, what kinds of silicon compounds could be used as energy sources? Of course, this line of questioning could likely continue ad infinitum, but it is clear that in the prebiotic race toward ‘self-sustaining chemical systems’, carbon is the winner.

Organic molecules are divided into large (lipid collections, carbohydrates, proteins, and nucleic acids) and small (fatty acids, sugars, amino acids, and nucleotides) varieties that perform a number of important functions in living systems. Combining these organic molecules through a process involving the loss of water is called polymerization and allows such ‘macromolecules’ to form. Both lipids, such as fats and oils, and carbohydrates called polysaccharides store energy while proteins perform a range of tasks. Nucleic acids, composed of smaller building blocks called nucleotides, are essentially the replication factories of biological molecules; deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and ribonucleic acid (RNA) being two of the most important (Rothery, Gilmour, Sephton 2011). But, in order for living systems to perform the myriad functions necessary to subsist and for evolutionary processes to proceed, lipids and proteins form membranes within carbohydrate/amino acid ‘shells’ that maintain stable environments. Thus, it can be stated with reasonable confidence that these cells are what can be considered life. And some of the places thought to have been possible crucibles for certain forms of life are at the bottom of the ocean floor near geothermal vents called black smokers that eject superheated mixtures of water and mostly sulfides while providing an immediate environment capable of sustaining certain forms of so-called extremophiles. So, having arrived at a reasonable definition of life (of course, several details were glossed over and many others were not mentioned, such as chirality, the RNA world, panspermia, the top-down and bottom-up approaches, and the details of boundary layers), some of the most promising possible environments for its existence elsewhere in the solar system can now be examined: Jupiter’s moon Europa and Saturn’s moons Enceladus and Titan.

To the Moons of Jupiter

At 5.2 AU, Jupiter is more than five times the distance from the Sun to the Earth and gets around 25 times less solar irradiance than here on Earth. The magnetic field of this gas giant is more than 20,000 times that of Earth, making life a much more difficult prospect on the surfaces of bodies orbiting close to the planet. Dozens of moons are in orbit around the Jovian world but only the inner Galilean moons—specifically Europa—are of present interest in this search for life. Io, Europa, and Ganymede are in a 4:2:1 orbital resonance, which keeps their orbits eccentric, while Callisto has an orbital period of just under 17 days with no resonance. (Orbital resonances tend to cause tidal heating as these satellites make their way around their orbits. Moons that are mostly rocky become geologically active when presented with the stresses of tidal forces.) In fact, Io is the most geologically active body in the entire solar system with many confirmed volcanoes currently erupting. But, in cases where moons have rocky cores surrounded by thick layers of ice, the rock-ice interface presents a situation where the tidal heating causes at least some of the ice to melt and form either a localized or a global ocean. Since the surface temperature of Europa ranges from around -160 degrees Celsius at the equator to less than -220 degrees Celsius at the poles, no known life can exist there. However, if the situation is similar to that of at least portions of the Earth’s oceans, black smokers could also exist in the subsurface ocean of Europa— confirmed by the Galileo spacecraft10—providing a possible energy source on which extremophiles of some sort might thrive. Plumes ejecting material from the surface have been observed by the Hubble Space Telescope:

"The perspective that plumes on Europa are fed by a subsurface ocean offers an opportunity to study the ocean composition and investigate its habitability. Europa is widely considered one of the likeliest candidate bodies in our solar system able to support biological activity [Shapiro and Schulze-Makuch, 2009]. Due to the association of liquid water with life, biological activity would most likely be found in an ocean beneath Europa’s ice crust. The plumes offer a unique chance to directly sample subsurface material in situ from space. (Southworth, Kempf, and Schmidt, 2005)"

The Galileo mission delivered some of the most spectacular images of Jupiter and, related specifically to this discussion, of Europa. These data revealed a moon made of water ice and silicate rock with a tenuous atmosphere of mainly oxygen and a likely iron-nickel core that, through tidal heating, is responsible for the situation of either warm ice or liquid water beneath the icy, mostly crater-free surface. Features resembling icebergs and tilted blocks on Earth are visible while a so-called “brown gunk” covers much of the crust, possibly the result of radiolysis of salts—a reasonable guess considering the thin oxygen atmosphere is almost certainly produced by the radiolysis of water. Some sort of process similar to tectonics exists on Europa, as evidenced by the stretched and cracked surface:

Figure 1: An enhanced true color image of the surface of Europa from the Galileo spacecraft. (NASA11) Despite the cracking and other tidal distortions responsible for the observed plumes, Europa surprisingly boasts one of the smoothest surfaces in the solar system. It is estimated that the icy crust is only about 10 to 15 miles thick.

A future mission with multiple flybys and perhaps several passes through the plumes themselves to collect particles for analysis could further confirm the existence of biogenic material. However, any spacecraft that orbits Jupiter must be overbuilt to some degree in order to withstand the effects of such a massive magnetic field. While electromagnetic shielding is certainly required, one failure of any component of such shielding could spell disaster for missions costing billions of dollars. And such an unfortunate event would mean that it would be several years—perhaps 10 or more—before another mission (assuming approval) could be at the Jovian system for similar investigations. Thus far, Pioneer 11 and 12, Voyager 1 and 2, Cassini- Huygens, and the Galileo missions have visited or flown past Jupiter giving us new perspectives and new insights each time as successive spacecraft were equipped with better instrumentation. NASA’s proposed Europa Clipper Mission is supposed to launch sometime in the 2020s and is host to a suite of scientific instrumentation focused on studying this possible abode for life12, including an ice-penetrating radar to accurately determine the thickness of Europa’s crust.13 Landing a rover on the surface of Europa would be a herculean undertaking filled with serious risks involving electromagnetic shielding and choosing the proper landing location. However, it is well within the realm of possibilities given the current state of technology. And, finding life anywhere outside of Earth would perhaps be the most important human discovery of all time. So, the possible reward seems to far outweigh the risks involved in such an important mission. Other possibilities where life might have developed separately are Saturn’s icy moon Enceladus and its large moon Titan.

The Jewel of the Solar System

Figure 2: The first colored image from the

Huygens lander of the surface of Titan. The

Cobbles are water ice. (NASA - Dr. David R.

Williams.)

On October 15th, 1997, the Cassini-Huygens spacecraft launched from Cape Canaveral Air Force station in Florida with the goal of studying the Saturnian system. A collaborative mission between the European Space Agency, the Italian Space Agency, and NASA, the spacecraft reached Saturn June 30th, 2004.14 The Cassini orbiter and Huygens lander were both successful; the former having now delivered nearly 20 years’ worth of data; so much that it is still being analyzed over a year after making its dramatic “Grand Finale” plunge into Saturn to avoid contaminating any moons that might harbor life. The Huygens lander was delivered to the moon Titan—the second largest moon in the solar system—and successfully landed January 14th, 2005.15 Through radar imaging, Titan showed signs of prebiotic chemistry, cryovolcanism, impact cratering, and dune field formation. Among the most fascinating discoveries have been the presence of methane lakes and that methane functions similarly to the way water functions on Earth in the hydrologic cycle; there might even be an underground ocean of liquid water with hydrothermal vents. The atmosphere is composed of nitrogen (about 96%), methane, and ethane, and has a pressure of 1.5 bar at the surface, similar to that on the surface of Earth. As well, Titan has a thick photochemical smog layer in the upper-middle part of the atmosphere. In short, all of ingredients necessary for life exist on Titan.16 Extending far beyond its original mission, the Cassini orbiter has provided some of the most spectacular images ever taken of another planetary body. It is no wonder that Saturn is known as The Jewel of the Solar System:

Figure 2: January 19, 2013 - This is a composite of images taken through red, green, and blue filters that shows the F, G, and E rings from around 753,000 miles from Saturn. The pale blue dot of Earth is shown toward the lower right of the image indicated by the white arrow. (PIA17171; Published July 22, 2013.)17

At around 300 miles across, the small, icy moon Enceladus is about the size of Colorado and has been identified as a second possibility for life, due to the likely existence of a subsurface ocean. By 2008, a set of geologic features dubbed tiger stripes were identified in the southern hemisphere. These so-called tiger stripes are at least 100 degrees Celsius warmer than the surrounding surface, indicating some type of geologic heating (likely tidal). In December of 2011, a series of high resolution images were taken of Enceladus. But, one of the most breathtaking views of this Saturnian satellite was taken over a year before on November 30th, 2010 and clearly shows geysers erupting from the surface:

Figure 3: Taken with the narrow-angle camera, this Cassini image across Enceladus’ south pole shows a series of geysers erupting. The Cassini orbiter eventually flew through these plumes to analyze their composition, identifying organic compounds, volatile gases, water vapor, silica, CO, CO2, and salts.1819 A few theories have attempted to model these geysers and are detailed by Southworth, Kempf, and Schmidt (2015) in a paper regarding both Europa and Enceladus.20

Future missions to the Saturnian system would likely put significant focus on this small but promising world. Investigations of a next-generation orbiter could include a dust collector for proper analysis of plume ejecta—responsible for Saturn’s E ring—and several high-resolution imaging systems across the range of spectra. A lander would make exploration of the surface and possible subsurface ocean much more fruitful in its returns since only so much can be learned from orbit. However, finding a landing site free from debris or giant, spikey ridges will doubtless be extremely challenging. It might require including instrumentation to analyze imaging data in real-time and then choosing a landing site. Next, the challenge of driving a rover on a moon that is almost 750 million miles from Earth would perhaps be just as exciting as successfully landing one there. But, the insight gained from such an endeavor would certainly prove invaluable—a mission well worth the financial undertaking. For example, a seismometer can be utilized to determine the internal structure as the moon is stressed under tidal forces, possibly answering the question of the source of Enceladus’ geysers definitively. And the rover could drill into the icy surface or release a tethered, shielded piece of radioactive material onto it to melt through; perhaps to eventually reach an underground ocean and explore via a tethered submersible. The possibilities are only limited by the resources involved in conducting such missions.

A Brief Comparison of Europa and Enceladus

With all that has been discovered about each of these moons, Europa and Enceladus present very different challenges that must be taken into account—especially if a budgeting issue forces a decision for one mission over the other. Jupiter is closer and Europa has been officially considered the most likely place in the solar system for life, but Jupiter’s huge magnetic field presents a significant engineering problem for probes and rovers moving through it. Saturn is almost twice the distance of Jupiter so it receives far less solar radiation but has a much smaller magnetic field requiring far less shielding, as evidenced by the Cassini-Huygens mission. Europa is also around six times the diameter and has an escape velocity nine times that of Enceladus. So, it is clear that many factors must be considered in a massive cost-benefit analysis if such a choice must be made.

Final Thoughts

In any case, one thing is certain: In the search for life in the universe, a return to both Europa and Enceladus is necessary, while a return to Titan would likely prove useful. It is absolutely amazing what has been accomplished by the space program in the United States considering the budget constraints over the past 50 years. To put it into perspective, the proposed defense budget for FY2018 was around $640-billion21 while NASA’s proposed budget for the same fiscal year sits at just over $19-billion22. It appears plenty of funding exists to drop bombs on people around the world that are different but the coffers apparently come up short when budgeting for planetary exploration that could prove just how similar humans are at a fundamental level. But, with the advent of the privatization of space, perhaps in just a few years some of the companies that have established themselves in the past decade or so, such as SpaceX and Blue Origin, will see the value in such exploration and aim for these possible abodes for life. There is no doubt that such a discovery will be considered the greatest achievement of humankind: It would mean we definitely are not alone. From there it is easy to follow the lines of logic to begin asking questions about intelligence. With thousands of exoplanets already confirmed, and an entire universe presumably filled with innumerable others, the likelihood of intelligent life existing elsewhere in the cosmos might just be inevitable.

Resources

Aristotle. (2009). The Nichomachean Ethics (D. Ross, Trans.). London: Oxford University Press.

Diamond, J. M. (1999). Guns, germs, and steel: The fates of human societies. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Joyce, Gerald F. (1993), The RNA World: Life before DNA and Protein, Website, https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19980211165.pdf.

Rothery, D. A., Gilmour, I., Sephton, M. A., & Anand, M. (2011). An Introduction to Astrobiology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Southworth, B. S., S. Kempf, and J. Schmidt (2015), Modeling Europa’s dust plumes, Geophys. Res. Lett.,42, 10,541–10,548, doi:10.1002/2015GL066502
Shapiro, R., and D. Schulze-Makuch (2009), The search for alien life in our solar system: Strategies and priorities, Astrobiology, 9, 335-343, doi: 10.1089/ast.2008.0281.

Zuckerman, B., & Hart, M. H. (Eds.). (2008). Extraterrestrials: Where are they? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Web, Online Journal, and Other Sources

http://parkersolarprobe.jhuapl.edu/
https://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/status/
https://mars.nasa.gov/mer/home/

4. https://mars.nasa.gov/msl/

https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/missions/cassini/overview/
http://sci.esa.int/rosetta/
http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.html
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19980211165.pdf
https://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/everydaylife/jamestown-water-fs.html
https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/missions/galileo/overview/
https://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA19048
https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/moons/jupiter-moons/europa/in-depth/
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/europa-clipper/
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/cassini-huygens/
https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/titan_images.html
Notes from ASTR2040, Fall 2016.
https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/resources/15868/the-day-the-earth-smiled-sneak-
preview-annotated/
https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/news/13020/the-moon-with-the-plume/
https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/resources/16074/encroaching-shadow/
https://agupubs-onlinelibrary-wiley-
com.colorado.idm.oclc.org/doi/epdf/10.1002/2015GL066502
https://csbaonline.org/research/publications/senator-mccain-and-outlining-the-fy18-
defense-budget
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/fy_2018_budget_estimates.pdf

Space Science: Practice and Policy

2018-10-09T04:24:00.002-04:00

My Spring 2018 semester at CU Boulder I took a class in which we talked about the past, present, and future of human exploration in space. Taught by Dr. Larry Esposito, the class was designed to introduce students to the policies that have influenced the proliferation of the aerospace industry around the world since the derivation of the rocket equation. Each week two teams of three would debate pre-determined topics, such as 'Global Cooperation or Competition in Space?' and 'Should Astronauts Return to the Moon?', in the following format: Each team had 15 minutes to present their initial arguments (five minutes for each person on each side). One team would argue the 'Pro' side and the other team would argue the 'Con' side. Then the teams had 10 minutes each for Rebuttals with a final round of Summaries lasting three minutes per team. With the remaining class time, the panels would be open for questions. As well, each student was required to give a 10 minute presentation at the end of the semester about a topic of their choice.

Both topics I debated had to do with the ideas of competition and cooperation while my final presentation examined the contrasts between our current global economic model and a Resource Based Economy. (If you've been following my blog for a few years, you likely understand that I chose cooperation over competition and will be a proponent for cooperation over competition for the rest of my life.) Of course, it might be considered a bit distasteful and boring to read from a script, but I had so much information to dive into during my debates that I managed to speak faster than I've ever spoken before: roughly 1600 words in just under 10 minutes for each debate! (Don't believe that's quick? Try reading from a script in front of a room of 30 people without mispronouncing a word or stumbling!) I even anticipated the usual, cliche arguments from the competition side! And, now I've decided to share with everyone both debate scripts as well as my final presentation script.

First Topic: Global Cooperation vs Competition in Space

Buckminster Fuller is quoted as saying, “You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” As a futurist, Fuller was heavily invested in the idea of human cooperation and spent much of his life advocating for a highly technical global society. He recognized the massive social benefit of programs such as Apollo and how these programs provide unmistakably strong evidence in support of cooperation. Fuller explains,

The strictly government-operated NASA Apollo Project… employed business’s industrial facilities but was a human-endeavor cooperating project. It held at bay any importantly diverting manifests of selfishness, even amongst its dramatically publicized astronauts. Their individual names have faded into a dim admixture of identities—omnisublimated by the magnificent demonstration of humanity’s industrially cooperative capability to accomplish history’s most imaginatively “impossible,” scientifically “possible” feat—rocket-ferrying of humans over to the Moon and returning them safely back on board our Spaceship Earth. (Fuller, p. 241)

Indeed, the landing on and safe return from the Moon by astronauts is perhaps one of humankind’s crowning achievements. It required a massive, concerted effort of thousands of people from around the world. Without the input of von Braun, however, it is unclear how advanced the space program in the United States would have been by the end of the 1960s. One thing is certain: The competition for nuclear superiority was at the forefront of thinking for more than thirty years. In that time, NASA was established and quickly grew to 4% of the national budget; steadily declining ever since. It is through this massive investment in space science that we were able to plan and eventually execute the missions that changed the course of human history. According to Carl Sagan in his 1980 book Cosmos, “The total cost of a mission such as Viking to Mars, or Voyager to the outer solar system, is less than that of the 1979-80 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Through technical employment and the stimulation of high technology, money spent on space exploration has an economic multiplier effect. (Sagan, p. 285)”

So, we are certainly capable as a species of bridging our differences for common goals. In Red Sky at Morning, James Speth argues, “Strong personal leadership from outstanding individuals has proven essential in forging many global-scale agreements… A major focusing event was when the ozone hole was discovered over Antarctica… The United States and other governments showed a willingness to compromise. (Speth, p. 94)” Perhaps one of the only fully realized global efforts, the call to end the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), proved that, with proper leadership roles filled and an adequately informed citizenry, humans are more than capable of resolving massive issues in a relatively short amount of time. Unfortunately, the excitement surrounding the proof-of-concept that cooperative resolution actually works was short-lived and the United States has failed to take the lead on virtually every environmental issue since .

Today, nearly half the population of the world is connected to what I personally consider humankind’s single greatest achievement: the Internet. The Internet has become a fundamental necessity in the First World and is being quickly integrated into the fabric of Third World nations. We are almost fully connected on a global scale—capable yet not fully implemented. But, this type of technology easily reveals the shortcomings of a highly competitive, increasingly polarized society: We are easily swayed by visceral reactions and even more easily distracted by the massive influx of both information and trivialities. For example, how can we have instant access to the entirety of humankind’s knowledge base, yet at the same time allow thousands of people to starve to death daily? Clearly, there is a violent clash between emergent technologies and the retention of traditional practices in the 21^st century. There also seems to be a disconnect between the development and the implementation of such increasingly powerful innovations, many of which arise as a direct result of space science funding, e.g. GPS and food preservation techniques, to name just two.

These disconnects spill over into nearly every other facet of society, including our desire to explore space. It can certainly be argued that competition was the driving factor behind the rapid development of our space programs. However, it must also be acknowledged that over the decades since, researchers around the world have heavily studied the effects of cooperative versus competitive environments on achievement and have found, unsurprisingly, that, while competition clearly works for achieving goals (we did, after all, land on the Moon), it is actually cooperation that produces optimal outcomes.

It can easily be argued that if funding were to increase significantly, the problems of building bases on the Moon, on Mars, and beyond could be easily solved. There seems to be no limit to human ingenuity. Many of us grew up watching an assortment of sci-fi shows, such as Star Trek, depicting what humankind’s adventures into deep space might look like. While the crews of these interstellar spaceships often found themselves in compromising positions, a common thread was woven throughout each series: Survival and social cohesion were ultimately the result of effective cooperation. Another important message to take away from these types of shows is that of a paradigm shift away from the mindset of infinite growth and into a steady-state mindset of preservation.

“To realize such a future, societies will have to free themselves from a variety of pernicious habits of thought, including the enchantment of limitless material expansion and what John Kenneth Galbraith has called, “highly contrived consumption of an infinite variety of goods and services. (Speth, p. 192)”

REBUTTAL

In a 1981 paper by Johnson, Maruyama, Johnson, and Nelson entitled, “Effects of Cooperative, Competitive, and Individualistic Goal Structures on Achievement: A Meta-Analysis,” the researchers, using a comparison of four conditions—cooperation, cooperation with intergroup competition, interpersonal competition, and individualistic effort—found that, through the methods implemented, “These results confirm the superiority of cooperation over both competitive and individualistic efforts and indicate that there is essentially no difference between the effects of interpersonal competitive and individualistic efforts on achievement. (Johnson, et al., 1981)”

So, the competitive market-based model we currently utilize on a global scale can be described as “failing to meet the needs of the world’s people.” It also fails to provide a direct incentive to explore space outside of the context of the market-based logic calling for extracting resources and selling them for profit. But, it’s not an easy subject to address as a world leader. How does, say, an American president advocate for global cooperation in, for example, space exploration while simultaneously leading the world in dropping bombs from drones? How do we address the problems that arise through nationalistic fervor when advocating for a globally cooperative citizenry? Bucky Fuller realized this folly and stated, “If any president of the United States or prime minister of any other quasi democracy even so much as discussed possibilities of de-sovereignizing, he or she would be immediately impeached (Fuller, p. 287).” So, it’s not an easy thing to talk about, especially when competition is the only kind of system in which we’ve developed globally. As Abraham Maslow stated, “I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. (Maslow, p. 15)”

But, our tools are no longer limited to the physical world. We now conduct much of our business and human-human interaction in the digital realm. And it is within this realm that the true power of open source ideology has been realized. Through sites such as Stack Overflow, Arduino, Wikipedia, and Python, we are able to share increasingly vast amounts of information with the world for free. And with the checks and peer-reviews of any updates offered, there is little incentive or likelihood for data corruption. It’s not an impossible engineering task to expand this concept to the physical world to, say, an automated transportation system which connects people to their destinations faster and more efficiently than ever before. As Jacque Fresco said, “We have to put our minds to this as we did to put a man on the Moon.” The concept can be extended for both planetary and off-world needs.

(Cosmos) “Human history can be viewed as a slowly dawning awareness that we are members of a larger group. Initially our loyalties were to ourselves and our immediate family, next, to bands of hunter-gatherers, then to tribes, small settlements, city-states, nations. We have broadened the circle of those we love. We have now organized what are modestly described as superpowers, which include people from divergent ethnic and cultural backgrounds working in some sense together—surely a humanizing and character-building experience. If we are to survive, our loyalties must be broadened further to include the whole human community, the entire planet Earth. Many of those who run the nations will find this idea unpleasant. They will fear the loss of power. We will hear much about treason and disloyalty. Rich nation-states will have to share their wealth with poor ones. But the choice, as H.G. Wells once said in a different context, is clearly the universe or nothing. (Sagan, p. 283)"

Second Topic: Space Can Improve Competitiveness

When discussing human activities in space, conversations tend to revolve around a few basic concepts. First, the militarization of space seems to be a constant hot topic which stands as a testament to human belligerence. Second, the prospect of prospecting for minerals and precious metals, for example on asteroids, has led certain experts to value these traveling wellsprings of material at quadrillions of dollars! Third, the competitive model espoused by the capitalist/free market mentality is repeatedly touted as the be all end all of economic models. So it only seems logical to extend these principles into the ‘final frontier’ of space. On Earth, however, this predatory system is actually rife with failures and corruption, perpetuating the inherently divisive ideology of social stratification--a still-thriving remnant of the days of kings and lords. Fourth, since extinction-level impactors are zipping around the solar system, many ideas have been offered over the decades to prevent one from hitting Earth, ranging from blowing them up (probably not the best idea) to simply pushing them into a different orbit. Lastly, perhaps the basis for all that we’ll ever do as a species, exploration has been at the forefront of human thinking for thousands of years.

Military Competition in Space

Even before the rockets capable of leaving Earth’s atmosphere were designed and built, scientists and science fiction writers alike talked about technological progression and how intimately it can be tied to a seemingly-unfettered desire to kill one another. From H.G. Wells’ atomic bombs and Nikola Tesla’s death rays to the actualization of thermonuclear warheads and directed energy weapons, human civilization appears hellbent on self-destruction under the guise of “terrorism prevention” and in the name of conquering insignificant pieces of this larger, yet equally insignificant, piece of space dust. Apparently, so the story goes, we’re incapable of cooperating on this planet without pointing giant weapons at each other and threatening global destruction. And somehow--as if by some magical “invisible hand”--market competition actually improves this situation. Meanwhile, here in reality, free market capitalism, free enterprise, laissez-faire--whatever you want to call it--has revealed itself over the course of the past two centuries to be arguably the most environmentally destructive ideology ever put into practice on this planet. Now, don’t get me wrong, we have developed some pretty incredible advancements across a wide number of fields. And it would be foolish to say that capitalism had nothing at all to do with it. But, we must step back, take a broad view, and realize that practically every critical system on this planet is currently in decline. And there is a common thread: the idea of infinite economic growth.

It is an unfortunate truth that many military campaigns throughout history have been directed toward land and resource acquisition at any cost. Just try and imagine this mentality extending into resource acquisition and control in space! Could it be only a matter of time before a military power reaches space and declares, “The rules have changed! We’re in charge now! WE OWN EARTH! WHO’S GONNA STOP US?”? That kind of throws a big wrench in the idea of mutually assured destruction. While nonarmament agreements such as the Outer Space Treaty have been put into place to prevent the weaponization of space, the modern practice of corporate and interest-group lobbying makes the likelihood of withdrawal from or abandonment of such treaties practically an inevitability. And with military operations shrouded in secrecy, it’s not a far stretch of the imagination to suggest that space-based weapons systems already exist.

So, I’m failing to see how military in space can improve competitiveness. We know that when militaries compete on Earth, men, women, and children die so what does that look like in space? Surely a military superpower based in space isn’t going to want to allow others the same ultimate advantage! Just think about it for a moment--militaries already don’t want to share weapons technology and airspace down here! But competition in space is somehow going to improve by moving militaries there? I disagree. It seems this is a dangerous approach because there are probably only a few things that can effectively be ‘improved’ by such a program: Paranoia. Secrecy. Inflated egos. Black funds. Destructiveness of weapons. The influence of decreasingly factual propaganda. Dare I ask, What could possibly go wrong?

Economic Ramifications

Economists around the world boast about the superiority of competition in economic models while routinely couching explanations of any negative impacts in flowery language such as externalities. However, the burdens of negative externalities caused by industrial activities rarely, if ever, fall upon the infractors. Rather, those costs are passed along to the consumer or to the environment itself. An example would be the introduction of pop tabs in the 1950s and the discovery of the subsequent accumulation of those tabs on the ocean floor. But, what would a negative externality look like in space?

Let’s say that sometime in the future, a space-mining company decides to haul an asteroid rich in precious metals to Earth orbit. But, someone miscalculated. Even with all the fail-safes in place, something goes horribly awry and the craft is unable to maneuver the asteroid into a proper orbit. Instead, the craft and a 0.5 km wide asteroid are now on an unpredicted collision course with Earth. Negative externality? Sure. You can’t feel the effects of that one if everyone’s dead!

Now let’s say that the orbital insertion was a success and mining operations have begun. If the company starts delivering hundreds or thousands of tons of, say, platinum, what happens to the value per ounce down on the surface? What about the Earth-based mining workers? Where is the improvement of competitiveness and what happens to the economy itself with a massive influx of previously rare metals from a single entity? Perhaps artificial scarcity will continue to be a thing and drive profits like in the diamond industry today. Of course this leads to the possibility that a particular company or government will monopolize certain aspects of space and refuse to share proprietary information.

The Apollo program is a perfect example of how one massive but successful first mission--the first to land on the Moon--can immediately elevate an entity to a global superpower even after several other firsts were achieved by others. It is not, however, an example of improved competitiveness, although at first glance it seems to be. Racing to gain the ultimate upper hand in space because we’re already threatening each other with nuclear weapons isn’t an improvement by any stretch of the word. What is gained? What is lost? What is overlooked? And does it matter? Carl Sagan was one of the most insightful thinkers in modern times. In his book Pale Blue Dot, he had this to say: “For me, the most ironic token of that moment in history is the plaque signed by President Richard M. Nixon that Apollo 11 took to the moon. It reads, ‘We came in peace for all Mankind.’ As the United States was dropping seven and a half megatons of conventional explosives on small nations in Southeast Asia, we congratulated ourselves on our humanity. We would harm no one on a lifeless rock.”

Rebuttal

After being awarded the Special Fundamental Physics Prize, Stephen Hawking wrote, “No one undertakes research in physics with the intention of winning a prize. It is the joy of discovering something no one knew before.” But, I would argue that this concept isn’t exclusive to physics. The drive to explore for the sake of discovery has been foundational to the proliferation of humankind across the globe. But some would go so far as to say that competition is part of something called human nature. Competition might have been relevant to homo sapiens on the plains of Africa tens of thousands of years ago but today the concept is simply a contrivance of inefficient socioeconomic values. Why? Two reasons: First, when people talk about the idea of human nature, almost 100% of the time what they are really talking about is human behavior. But conflating these terms is dangerous considering that, when someone is deemed to be a certain way by nature, it becomes almost nonchalant to simply dismiss them as irreparable and/or dehumanize them. Second, competition is driven by scarcity. That is, the more scarce a product or resource, the higher its value and the more people and companies that need those products and resources will compete for them. But, we have developed technology to a point of automation and have effectively made scarcity obsolete. We’ve even created synthetic materials to reduce the use and waste of natural resources. And if an asteroid is towed to Earth and mined, the massive influx of materials, by this very same market logic, would drive the prices so low that competition might not be viable. So I disagree with the premise that we are inherently competitive. Competitive values are taught.

Whereas our current economic model is based upon competition with pockets of cooperation, I advocate an inversion in that we could instead base our economic model on cooperation with pockets of competition. If our underlying goal is to share information, discoveries, and technology while becoming a space-faring global civilization, then a cooperative ideology is a prerequisite. Again, it is asinine to continue believing the lie that the only way for us to not kill each other is to threaten mutual destruction. This is a petty, immature mindset of which we should be ashamed for wanting to spread into space. As Carl Sagan famously stated in his book Cosmos, “We are like butterflies that flutter for a day and think it is forever.”

Final Presentation: Economics in the 21st Century

Good Afternoon, Everyone! The title of this presentation is 'Economics in the 21st Century'.

You might be wondering why I chose to talk about economics in a class about space. Well, we’ve spent the past 15 weeks examining the history and possible future of space missions. And one of the recurring themes has been the massive budgets those missions require. Some missions alone have stretched into several billion dollars; but that was before private companies like Blue Origin and Space X were permitted to enter a sort of new space race. With promises to cut the transportation costs to space to a fraction of today’s roughly $10,000 per pound, and with ambitious ideas to mine asteroids for an abundance of useful metals, an economic model thriving on scarcity, yet promoting growth—arguably today’s Market model—inevitably faces an uncertain future. But, instead of examining this model within the context of traditional economic jargon—GDP, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Consumer Price Index, and many, many others—I’m going to present a comparison of the current Market model to a new model.

Let’s start with the basics. What's the point of an economy? To economize, of course! At its very core, an economy should seek to avoid waste everywhere possible. So, can we say that our current market economy avoids waste, well, anywhere? Unfortunately, the answer is no. In fact, there is entire industry that profits from waste so it can be confidently stated, and without exaggeration, that waste is good for the market economy. The more waste we produce the better; for, it means someone will have a job. This is just one example of many that seems to indicate that a Market economy is really just an anti-economy. But, there is an alternative that actually lives up to its name and appears capable of solving most of the problems that manifest as a result of market economics: A Resource Based Economy. Throughout this brief exercise, I will be examining a few specific topics within the context of each model while asking the following questions: How does each model address the issue? And, Which model is more economical?

First, let’s talk about human interrelations. In an RBE, the relationships people build with one another tend to be focused on collaboration and the sharing of ideas and resources. There is an understanding that we are on this planet as a single species among millions and must work together to reduce waste and reduce suffering. An environment is maintained where everyone is raised to their highest potential while machine automation provides strategic access to the necessities of life to everyone on the planet. On the other hand, in a market economy, people tend to be far more individualistic and geared toward maximizing their self-interest, constantly buying more products, or "gaining the upper hand" when it comes to everything from job positions to basic opinions about irrelevant, inconsequential topics. "As long as I take care of my own..." you'll hear people repeat. "Pull yourself up by the bootstraps" is another favorite. It sounds harsh and unrealistic but at the foundational level, the truth is: if you don't serve an adequate function in this market economy, you might as well die because you're on your own unless someone is feeling generous.

Next, what about growth? An RBE recognizes the Earth as a finite system that can generally be thought of as being closed. In other words, what's here is what we've got and we should do our best to preserve all of it. That means developing alternative resources, recycling, and designing products for maximum lifetimes so that overall consumption goes down. In stark contrast, a market economy is situated firmly on the ideas of infinite growth and constant turnover. Products are mass produced irrespective of raw resource supply--many of which find their way into landfills not long after. But as long as we increase consumption, we can measure the health of the economy in terms of GDP and turn a blind eye to any negative externalities. As an example, if a group of us became stranded on an island with limited resources, would we want to implement a system that tries to use up those resources as quickly as possible or would preservation be the critical component for our survival?

What about Property? In an RBE, people would have strategic access to the necessities of life. Open source sharing of ideas and products is much more efficient and much less wasteful. Does it make any sense to claim that everyone on the planet wants or needs one of everything ever produced? Of course not! As well, does it make any sense to buy a car to then have it sit for 50% or more of the time wasting its functional utility in a parking lot? The idea of property is ultimately a contrivance as none of the crap we accumulate throughout our lives goes with us when we die. In other words, everything is transient--even our bodies. Accumulating vast amounts of wealth and resources while restricting others' access to those resources for profit is seen as counter to responsible resource management. But this is exactly what a market economy demands and rewards. The metric for success tends to be measured in terms of purchasing power; the more property you have, the more applause you are supposed to receive. If you can patent an idea or copyright a certain work, you can restrict others' access to those ideas and works to generate profit. Again, this is more an anti-economy than anything. But, how would we address the production and distribution of resources with an emphasis on strategic access?

The technology that has been developed over the course of the past century is mind-boggling. We are currently capable of automating a majority of industries in existence today. A Resource Based Economy thrives on automation, replacing human labor in as many sectors as quickly as possible. The idea is to free humans from drudgery and dangerous jobs so they can pursue self-fulfillment in life. What does that mean? Think about all the things you've been interested in throughout your life but were told not to pursue because they wouldn't make you money, or a living, or were unrealistic or out of reach according to someone else. If you're asking the question, What would people do in such a system of access? I'll simply throw it right back to you: What would YOU do if you didn't have to clock into the dictatorship 40 hours or more a week? Are YOU going to sit around and do nothing? Anyway, in terms of getting goods to people, equal distribution certainly doesn't make sense for any system because people don't have equal needs or wants. Rather, through the use of strategic access centers, people could have all the fundamental goods and services available to them in an efficient, equitable system. No debt, no barter, no trade; simply access. Automated delivery systems could be in place to maximize efficiency. Conversely, a Market economy relies on the classical ideas of labor for income and supply & demand to produce and distribute goods. We've even allowed ourselves to be convinced by the 18th century economist Adam Smith that there is some sort of "invisible hand" that waves away our economic woes. So, we mass produce inferior goods in the hopes of manufacturing public interest through strategic marketing and then hire people to sit in a chair driving this crap all over the world in planes, trains, and trucks--a pointless exercise outside the context of labor for income. Nevertheless, regardless of the brand, the products are inferior the moment they are produced because optimal design, production, and distribution are stifled in every stage of the process by something called cost efficiency. In a nutshell, in order to make a product and remain competitive, companies must cut costs along every step of the way. This inevitably reduces the quality of every single product on the market, increasing the amount of waste as products break down and are thrown away. An anti-economy indeed!

In fact, here is a chart detailing the inverse relationship between manufacturing employment and manufacturing production from 1947 to 2011. As we can see, it was around the year 2000 when manufacturing employment sharply declined as more companies began automating processes. In a much longer presentation, I would further examine the ramifications of this phenomenon but I want to bring this full circle and talk about space.

Jacque Fresco, the developer of the Resource Based Economic model, spent the majority of his time focused on ways to improve the standard of living on the surface of Earth. But it is remarkably easy to see how extending this value system into space is simply a matter of scaling. While we still have much to explore on Earth and in the oceans, the infinitude of space presents boundless opportunities for exploration and learning. With a framework of collaboration and open source sharing of ideas, the costs and risks of going into space could be drastically reduced in a matter of years. The discoveries made and technologies developed would be implemented in society as quickly as possible to benefit all instead of hoarding secrets in the name of strategic advantage. If, for example, we decided to mine asteroids in an RBE, the goal would be to promote resource and land preservation on the surface; not simply supplement mining operations there. The idea is that there are NO final frontiers and there will always be something to discover and learn. But, what about our market model?

We've learned this semester that the space race of the 50s and 60s was essentially the result of the United States competing with the Soviets for global military superiority. These governments spent many billions of dollars in the hopes of proving that they were the ultimate leaders of the world. In the end, the US won and first landed boots on the Moon July 20th, 1969. Unfortunately, we seem to have gotten distracted because the last boots to step on the Moon were just 3 years later in 1972. We've been busy pointing arsenals of nuclear weapons at each other. Luckily, over the course of the past decade and a half, there has been a resurgence of interest in becoming a space-faring civilization. But, we're still using an antiquated market model. While companies such as Space X are vowing to permanently reduce production and flight costs, we've managed to completely avoid discussing the very real economic ramifications of such actions. And asteroid mining? How in the world would an economic model thriving on scarcity deal with trillions of dollars worth of product being introduced at once? Quite simply, it can't. Automation puts people out of jobs in this model.

So, in conclusion, as we swiftly move into the full swing of the Digital Age, we must prepare ourselves for a transition into a new economic model--one that uses 21st century ideas to tackle our 21st century problems. We must develop new methods of production and distribution, provide strategic access to goods and services, and raise the standard of living for every human on the planet. Anything less will simply be the same cycle of exploitative methods we've been using for thousands of years. With that, I leave you with two quotes from the man himself, Jacque Fresco: "If we are genuinely concerned about the environment and the fellow human beings, and want to end territorial disputes, war, crime, poverty, hunger, and the other problems that confront us today, the intelligent use of science and technology are the tools with which to achieve a new direction--one that will serve all people, not just a select few." And, finally, "If you think we can't change the world, it just means you're not one of those that will." Thank you!

Responses to Fiction & Reality Prompts: Spring 2016

2018-09-05T00:54:00.002-04:00

In the spring semester of 2016, I was in one of the most fascinating classes I've ever taken: Fiction & Reality. I've already posted a few essays from that class but I never explained the amount of reading material we were assigned. In short, there were six books and around 28 (mostly) excerpts from larger works that ranged from 2-25 pages a piece. As well, we had to respond to prompts twice a week (with exceptions) regarding the reading, totaling nineteen responses. These are mine:

Question 1:

1. Describe how O’Brien talks about his experiences during the Vietnam War in “How to Tell a True War Story.” Why might he feel the need to represent those experiences the way that he does and/or what point might he be trying to make here?

2. Would you classify O’Brien’s text as fiction or nonfiction (e.g. memoir)? Why and what are the implications of this?

Answer:

War, as O'Brien states several times throughout this excerpt, is hell. And telling stories about experiences of war--well, that's a sort of hell in its own right. It's not necessarily about convincing someone else that the stories are true. Truth is subjective. "You can tell a war story," O'Brien writes, "by the questions you ask. Somebody tells a story, let's say, and afterward you ask, "Is it True?" and if the answer matters, you've got your answer. (p 79)" Perhaps what O'Brien is trying to explain is that by telling stories these soldiers are trying to convince themselves that they are true; that somehow they didn't imagine it all. Essentially, sometimes you have to fill in the perceived blanks--to try to capture in words that which cannot be described in our feeble languages--that unfathomable feeling just beyond the reach of utterance.

I think that O'Brien wanted to explain how not only through the stories themselves--whether or not parts of the stories are made up--but also through the seemingly disjointed presentation of the stories that war will completely twist your mind and make you question reality. This point is captured wonderfully in the following: "For the common soldier, at least, war has the feel--the spiritual texture--of a great ghostly fog, thick and permanent. There is no clarity. Everything swirls. The old rules are no longer binding, the old truths no longer true. Right spills over into wrong. Order blends into chaos, love into hate, ugliness into beauty, law into anarchy, civility into savagery. The vapors suck you in. You can't tell where you are, or why you're there, and the only certainty is overwhelming ambiguity. (p 78)"

Question 2: In your opinion, does D’Agata take too much artistic license in his essay, which will be read by many as nonfiction or at least as referential (i.e., it refers to the world outside the text rather than an imagined world)? Briefly explain your reasoning.

-OR-

Do you agree with D’Agata that his essay escapes the requirements of fact even if it claims to speak some kind of truth and will be read by many as referential? Briefly explain your reasoning.

Answer 2:

The question of whether or not John D'Agata takes too much artistic license in his essay, of course, depends upon the accepted definitions of the terms 'essay' and ‘nonfiction’. But before I get to that, a few things should be noted about this fascinating power struggle. First, the whole fact-checking correspondence kicks off with a rather awkward, immediate dismissal by John about the 'need' for a fact-checker for his essay as well as a short-lived middle-man experience for Jim's editor that is absolutely hilarious. Second, after several dozen pages of tense, increasingly agitated responses from John, Jim makes a snide remark about John's mother to which John replied, "Tread very carefully, asshole. (p 42)" At this point, it's an all out wit-fest with no end in sight--what wonderful entertainment! Third, reading this ongoing struggle, I found myself tending to 'side', if you will, with Jim and enjoyed the logic in his explanations. Fourth, I found out that 1997 was not a good year for reviews of the Stratosphere (p 81). Fifth, John gets pissed off and briefly stops responding but comes back into the conversation on page 107. From this point on, the arguably philosophical discussion that ensues is one of the most intriguing exchanges I've ever read.

What is 'truth'? What is an 'essay'? What makes something 'nonfiction' and if there is a line, where do we draw it? These and more are examined ultimately to be thrown away and essentially labeled 'irrelevant' when, after examining the timeframe of the official report that the coroner wrote and finding a large discrepancy that called into question everyone's account of the timeframe, including the parents and the coroner himself, Jim sort of throws his hands up (figuratively, but probably actually as well), backs out of the rabbit hole, and recognizes a truth that had been staring at him the entire time: "And at this point, does it even matter?...I don't know. I'd have done my job. But wouldn't he still be dead? (p 123)." Wow! Powerful.

But, to fully answer the question, I think that if we use John's subjective definitions of 'essay' and 'nonfiction', then, no. However, according to what society generally accepts as 'nonfiction', which by the way is what is known by John, Jim, the publisher, and everyone that will read this to be the genre of the book that the essay will be contained in, what John has done several times throughout the book--stretching facts, intentionally misquoting people, books, articles, etc., and even blatantly making things up--cannot be considered nonfiction. That's not to say that there aren't facts contained within the essay; there are. Thus, we arrive at an ongoing enigma, of which I will spare further analysis here: How do you examine others' questions of reality without consequently examining several other manifest questions from the examination itself?

Question 3: Why is it important that we recognize the many different meanings applied to the word “fiction” and how does the variety of definitions that Dorrit Cohn discusses support your answer?

-OR-

What is the difference that Paul Boghossian sets up between classically defined knowledge and socially constructed knowledge? In your informed opinion, are both types of knowledge equally real?

Answer:

As Cohn’s excerpt illustrates, human history is replete with examples of the struggle to delineate exactly what makes something ‘fiction’. Of course, whenever we speak to each other, we are speaking from our own experiences in our own interpretations of the words we use. (Something to ponder: Could our entire interactional experience in life then be considered fiction to others we encounter and share stories of ourselves with throughout it?) Consequently, this has led to a wonderfully colorful variety of categories under which a work might fall if labeled fiction. These categories essentially manifest from two adjectival variants of the Latin root fictio which have been vying for applicability to the written word for centuries: fictional and fictitious.

Thomas Pavel, mentioned en passant by Cohn, “differentiates between the two adjectives, with fictional signifying “contained in a work of fiction” and fictitious signifying “inaccurate” (Cohn p 3).” In other words, if we are, say, creating a narrative for a character in a novel we are writing then the work is said to be fictional. However, if we are quoting someone from a real-life event in which the quote is, for example, recorded on video and we intentionally insert narrative that isn’t there or manipulate context or really do anything to the person’s words while claiming that they are in fact their words when they aren’t, then we can call the work fictitious. “The only reason,” Michael Riffaterre states, “that the phrase ‘fictional truth’ is not an oxymoron, as ‘fictitious truth’ would be, is that fiction is a genre whereas lies are not. (p 3)”

So, the question of importance applies not just to the meaning of the word ‘fiction’ but also to our entire language. For, out of this realization manifests a fascinating examination of cultural relativism. Of course, this tends to lead down a seemingly never-ending Mobius strip of self-referring circles of discourse arguing furiously yet unresolvedly with such an inefficient, sometimes-subjectively-interpreted language that no nuance or facet of any society is safe from being exhumed by what appear to be scrying eyes—not even this very response. Sparing this admittedly appealing--ultimately (probably) fruitless--exercise here, it is safe to say that when trying to arrive at mutual conclusions regarding topics that are mutually researched, a mutual linguistic framework is quintessential because of the necessity to recognize subtleties in written works that could and often do lead to ambiguities in categorization.

Question 4:

Marie-Laure Ryan proposes a taxonomy of different kinds of truth claims because, she notes, “different types of assertions are true under different conditions” (821). How is this approach helpful in relation to our understanding what is real or what is fictional?

Answer:

In this essay, Ryan offers a somewhat “different” perspective for investigating theories of truth and validity. After touching on the topics of myth and science and how they seem to be uniquely evaluated, she expands upon the view of postmodernists, stating that, “…postmodernists hold that truth-value of the text is relative to a language or conceptual scheme, and that all conceptual schemes are equally valid and equally relative (p 3).” (What a way to be hand-wavy!) Then, Ryan proposes an alternative: “Rather than subscribing to a uniform theory of truth and validity, the members of a culture apply different standards to different types of text (p 3).” This essentially establishes that truth and validity are culturally relative and should be examined circumstantially within the context and framework of the established “truths” of each particular culture.

As a result of such philosophical exploration, several “conceptions of truth” (p 3) have arisen, including formal semantic theories, consensus theories, and theories regarding truth as a matter of coherence (p 3). However, one in particular is belabored here: correspondence theories. According to Ryan, “The spirit of the doctrine of correspondence is captured by formulae such as “A sentence is true if it designates an existing state of affairs,” or “To say of what is that is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, or of what is not that it is not is true (p 3).”

While it may seem a bit superfluous, and it may tend to become confusing and difficult to keep track of them all, having several interpretations of truth (such as literary truth and mythical truth, to name just two) and validity proves advantageous because we can step outside our own constructions and indoctrinated views and examine the world with different perspectives but without the hindrance of staunchly held preconceived notions disallowing such an empathetic approach. In other words, this approach gives us perhaps the most objective view of truth and validity since it forces us to step outside of our own worldview to understand how and why others view the world as they do and accept their versions of truth and validity as they do. “Neither entirely positivist nor relativist,” Ryan claims, “the present attempt to pair discourse types with truth conditions advocates a pluralism that legitimizes positivism within a certain area but relativizes its pronouncements by acknowledging the validity of other concepts of truth within other domains (p 14).”

Question 5:

Berger and Luckmann talk about the “reality of everyday life” in this chapter. What do they suggest about how and to what extent types (typification, typificatory schemes) affect our daily experiences and routines? Do you agree?

-OR-

According to Berger and Luckmann, what role does the language of everyday life play in allowing us to share our subjective experiences with others?

Answer:

In this chapter, Berger and Luckmann examine the idea of the social construction of reality. “Compared to the reality of everyday life,” explain Berger and Luckmann, “other realities appear as finite provinces of meaning, enclaves within the paramount reality marked by circumscribed meanings and modes of experience. The paramount reality envelops them on all sides, as it were, and consciousness always returns to the paramount reality as from an excursion” (p 25). The paramount reality is our everyday reality—the reality experienced mutually and objectively by all of us as we carry out our subjective interpretations of it. Those interpretations are made both expressible and apprehensible through what we call—using, by the way, that very same medium of mutual interpretation—‘language’; a sort of constantly-updating, self-referring morphology and syntax that is likely required as a medium of information exchange by supposedly intelligent species striving for perpetuation and perhaps growth (although nothing can or does grow forever). “Language,” Berger and Luckmann write, “which may be defined here as a system of vocal signs, is the most important sign system of human society” (p 36).

Face-to-face interactions are first-degree sign systems while written languages correspond to second-degree sign systems: “In the face-to-face situation language possesses an inherent quality of reciprocity that distinguishes it from any other sign system…. I speak as I think; so does my partner in the conversation” (p 37). Things like snarls, hisses, and clicks appear to be inadequate for describing our subjective experiences of our objective reality—the paramount reality defined earlier. Rather, the accuracy and precision with which we describe—or even can describe—those experiences appear to only manifest as a result of the development of language from utterance to lexical collections to lingua franca. As well, languages are capable of creating entirely new realities in and of themselves: “Language is capable not only of constructing symbols that are highly abstracted from everyday experience, but also of “bringing back” these symbols and appresenting them as objectively real elements in everyday life” (p 40).

Ultimately, through social interaction and the sharing of experiences by use of languages, a mutual knowledge-base develops and is accessible by anyone willing to at least basically learn a particular, mutually-understandable language. (As an aside, a few years ago, I discovered a rather fascinating, unique delving into an imaginary world called Codex Seraphinianus—the brainchild of Italian artist, architect, and industrial designer Luigi Serafini. In this encyclopedia, Serafini created an entirely new language, in which the Codex is written, as well as pictures of a fictional world the new language describes. Indeed, this book is fascinating and I highly recommend even a cursory glance at it.) As situational nuances organically evolve, so do the vocabularies we use to describe those nuances. In other words, we arrive at understandings about what we can or should talk about, with whom we can talk about those things, when and where we can talk about those things, and, of course, how we talk talk about those things (intonation). Essentially, a hierarchy of relevance emerges, prompting Berger and Luckmann to demonstrate, “Thus, I “know better” than to tell my doctor about my investment problems, my lawyer about my ulcer pains, or my accountant about my quest for religious truth. The basic relevance structures of referring to everyday life are presented to me ready-made by the social stock of knowledge itself. (p 45)” The relevance we ascribe to situational interactions dictates how we interact with others. The gist of this idea is captured in the final sentence: “In everyday life I know, at least roughly, what I can hide from whom, whom I can turn to for information on what I do not know, and generally which types of individuals may be expected to have which types of knowledge” (p 46).

Question 6:

According to Malin, how does particle/wave duality change our typical understanding of “subjective” and “objective”? (Your response can be brief, as long as you directly address the question.)

Answer:

Quantum mechanics is easily one of the most fascinating topics there is to study. Sure, I may be a bit biased considering I’m a physics major, but even if we set aside the exceedingly daunting mathematics required to understand the nature of nature—insofar as we are physiologically, mentally, and technologically capable—the concepts can be comprehended sans differential equations. In fact, several authors, such as Michio Kaku and Brian Greene, have done just that.

(As an aside, perhaps you know about this: a few years ago I was on dictionary.com and one way or another found myself looking up the word “know”. I found that there is a hierarchy to the synonymous words know, comprehend, and understand; and it’s in that order. To know is to be aware of something as fact or truth; to comprehend is to know something thoroughly and to perceive its relationships to certain other ideas, facts, etc., and to understand is to be fully aware not only of the meaning of something but also of its implications… These are the kinds of weird tidbits of information I have stumbled upon along the way.)

Anyway, to actually address and answer the question, Malin does a fantastic job of just landing on the surface to begin scratching it. Classically speaking, our subjective interpretation of the world was simply thought of as a subset of the objective world; i.e. if we measured something in the physical world, we were confident in “comprehending” that it existed irrespective of our existence and our measurements. In other words, we exist within an already-existing reality. And if we were to fire particles—either micro- or macroscopic—at anything, we were likewise confident that we could reproduce the path that particle took to get from A to B. But then Heisenberg came along and challenged the entire paradigm with a simple thought: “when the electron is not measured—in the space between the electron gun and the screen, for example—it does not exist at all as an actual “thing.” It exists merely as a field of potentialities” (p 48). In terms of an objective reality, this sort of implies there isn’t one. At least, there isn’t one until we measure it. The implications of this are philosophically vast and equally intriguing. Do we exist apart from reality or a part of it? (It turns out he wasn’t quite correct. But, the can of worms he opened up turned out to be, theoretically speaking, a wormhole.)

Question 7:

According to Berger, how does technology’s ability to reproduce and recontextualize images change how we see original paintings? (Briefly explain one element of this change.) In your opinion, does the original still have an aura to it (one that goes beyond just being able to see details that aren’t easily reproducible, such as an original context, texture, reflection, etc.)? That is, is the real experience somehow better in terms of the image and not just the object itself?

Answer:

Art throughout history has struggled with the idea of perspective. In the late Byzantine Era, moving into the Renaissance, a paradigm shift occurred with regards to perspective in paintings. Before this time, artists were constrained to two-dimensional pictorial representations of the world, maintaining a flattened sort of body composure—even in relief sculptures—reminiscence of the Egyptian aesthetic, often featuring either profile views of the head and lower body while showing a frontal view of only the upper torso or some combination thereof. By the late 15^th Century, artists such as Pietro Perugino had mastered the newly developed idea of linear perspective (Christ Giving the Keys to Saint Peter—1481-1482) opening the door to more realistic representations of the world than ever before in human history. Perugino and others were able to quite literally capture a new dimension of the world that was absent in art for millennia prior. In other words, before this time, artists could think of their work as islands of perspective existing irrespective of the world around; since this time, artists have had to critically think about every nuanced element of the world they are creating with the strokes of a brush—background, foreground, gazes, movement, colors, and so on. “The compositional unity of a painting,” writes Berger, “contributes fundamentally to the power of its image” (p 13).

The innovation of a device by Joseph Nicephore Niepce in 1826 that could capture the world without a single brush stroke has since changed nearly every facet of our society. “The invention of the camera,” says Berger, “changed the way men saw. The visible came to mean something different. This was immediately reflected in painting” (p 18). Particularly, in terms of art, cameras removed the necessity to travel great distances in order to see one-of-a-kind works: “Originally paintings were an integral part of the building for which they were designed” (p 19). So it was not only time-consuming, the journeys were likely very expensive. Centuries ago, works of art were typically reserved for the elites in society; art was commissioned by, for, and usually was of those in the highest echelons of authority. Then, the camera came along and shook up the entire industry. Berger explains, “When the camera reproduces a painting, it destroys the uniqueness of its image. As a result, its meaning changes. Or, more accurately, its meaning multiplies and fragments into many meanings” (p 19).

Berger gives the example of Virgin On the Rocks by Leonardo da Vinci, explaining the contrast of the original, located at the National Gallery, and the reproduction, in the Louvre. Essentially, the argument is that reproductions are now often seen by people before the originals, leading to a false sense of referent. That is, originals are now seen in relation to the reproductions; not the other way around as it should be. On this point, Berger tells us, “the uniqueness of the original now lies in it being the original of a reproduction. It is no longer what its image shows that strikes one as unique; its first meaning is no longer to be found in what it says, but in what it is” (p 21). As well, Berger states that, “When a painting is reproduced by a film camera it inevitably becomes material for the film-maker’s argument…. In a film the way one image follows another, their succession, constructs an argument which becomes irreversible. In a painting all its elements are there to be seen simultaneously…. The painting maintains its own authority” (p 26).

Having experienced many things in my travels, including exploring both the Louvre and the Palace of Versailles in France and seeing La Sagrada Familia in Barcelona, I can tell you that nothing compares to being in-person. Granted, it was 11 years ago when I was a naïve senior in high school, and I wish I would have given more of a shit about these finer aspects of our global culture, but I can distinctly remember feeling the history—not just seeing it. Surprisingly, I walked right past the ridiculously long line for the Mona Lisa at the Louvre. That’s right, I only saw it from about 25 feet away and its much smaller than what one might expect; so I didn’t see any detail. Instead, I moved on to the Ancient Egyptian section in which the smells and the darker atmosphere seemingly transported me to the excavation sites. In the Palace of Versailles, something I will never forget is the gold (so much gold) woven into velvet walls in at least one of the rooms (Louis XIV nearly bankrupted France to build it). In Barcelona, Gaudi’s gothic cathedral is one of the most spectacular, breathtaking sites in the world. Pictures and videos simply do no justice. It is similar to the feeling of standing at the Grand Canyon (the ultimate form of “original production”) after decades of only seeing it in pictures and on video: There is no comparison. And its strange because the contrast is, at least in that moment, indescribable in our feeble languages. Yet, we are constantly trying to put into words that which cannot. That is the power of witnessing originals instead of reproductions.

Question 8:

What figural (or fictional) truths does Proust communicate regarding how we interact with others OR how we perceive the world around us? Describe one such truth (with specific reference to the text).

Answer: (Added 2018: This book was torture and… I honestly chose not to read it or do the related assignments. J)

Question 9:

Consider one example of a metaphor (i.e. metaphorical concept) that we commonly use in our daily lives and briefly explain how it supports Lakoff and Johnson’s argument. For example, to what extent does it shape how we think, behave, and speak?

Answer:

Lakoff and Johnson explain, "We have found...that metaphor is pervasive in everyday life, not just in language but in thought and action. Our ordinary conceptual system, in terms of which we both think and act, is fundamentally metaphorical in nature" (p 3). In other words, everything we think, do, and perceive (our conceptual system) is metaphorical and plays "a central role in defining our everyday realities" (p 3). Alluding to the notion that most of our nuanced routines are done automatically, and hence beyond our awareness, Layoff and Johnson suggest a way to examine the conceptual system: "Since communication is based on the same conceptual system that we use in thinking and acting, language is an important source of evidence for what that system is like" (p 3).

There are numerous fascinating phenomena that occur in languages which highlight the versatility of human cognition—metaphors being one of the most pervasive. I'd like to point out one in particular (although several come to mind): "The Man". I’ve personally heard this hugely popular saying countless times throughout my life but I had never actually thought, until recently, about the strange variation in meaning that arises contextually. What I mean is that this expression (among many, many others) can take on either a positive or a negative connotation. In other words, if someone says, “You’re the man!”, we typify that as a good thing; if someone else says, “Just when you thought everything was going swell, the man came along and… [insert some Alex Jones-eque, conspiracy-laden mental disgorge]”, then it is typified as a bad thing—kind of like my bracketed insult implies here. (There are so many different sayings regarding this phrase, such as “be a man”, “be one’s own man”, “man’s world”, “man’s man”, and so on, that I would be here for days going through all of them. So, I’ll just stick with this very particular case here.)

The negative connotation of “the man” essentially undermines any semblance of critical thinking by chalking up a very real-world concept (government and our interaction with it) to a figment—an intangible, seemingly-esoteric yet ultimately nothing thing. It is similar to the “they” syndrome so many suffer from: “They will never let it happen!” and “I’m sure They are working on it!” and “I wish They would…” and so on. I have a question: Who are “they”? The term “they” is defined as “people in general”. So, there is no “they”! At least, there is no “they” that we all automatically know by mere announcement of the term. And we especially cannot claim to know what those “people in general” think about nuanced issues; nor what their thoughts are either collectively or individually without speaking to them. So, whenever someone uses “they”, that person usually has to define the term anyway. It means nothing. Just like the negative connotation of “the man”—meaningless; an empty gesture we all can smile and laugh at agreeably without rumination. Thus, language acts as both the means of cataloging, as well as the bane of, our existence. The former, a hallmark of our desire to explore ourselves and the universe; the latter, a manifestation of the stagnation (and possible declination) of critical thinking skills necessary to avoid using ridiculous, moronic-sounding “words” like “bae” and never-ending acronyms and initialisms. These are the things that make me truly wonder what everyone does with all of the time they save by typing “u” instead of “you”.

Question 10:

According to Stoppard in The Real Thing, how real are human relationships? What factors are involved in determining whether, for example, love is real or not?

-OR-

According to the play, what role does language seem to play in determining whether something is real or not? For example, does language make something more or less real?

Answer:

This is an extremely long quote but it’s a great summation of at least Henry’s take on the matter: “There is, I suppose, a world of objects which have a certain form, like this coffee mug. I turn it, and it has no handle. I tilt it, and it has no cavity. But there is something real here which is always a mug with a handle. I suppose. But politics, justice, patriotism—they aren’t even like coffee mugs. There’s nothing real there separate from our perception of them. So if you try to change them as though there were something there to change, you’ll get frustrated, and frustration will finally make you violent. If you know this and proceed with humility, you may perhaps alter people’s perceptions so that they behave a little differently at that axis of behaviour where we locate politics or justice; but if you don’t know this, then you’re acting on a mistake. Prejudice is the expression of this mistake” (p 52).

Later on, when speaking with his daughter, Debbie, about sex, she was using what he considered “propagandized” speech. Pointing out the dangers of such rhetoric, Henry explains, “Persuasive nonsense. Sophistry in a phrase so neat you can’t see the loose end that would unravel it. It’s flawless but wrong. A perfect dud. You can do that with words, bless ‘em. How about ‘What free love is free of, is love’? Another little gem. You could put ‘what’ on the end of it like Bertie Wooster, ‘What free love is free of is love, what?’—and the words would go on replicating themselves like a spiral of DNA…’What love is free of love?—free love is what love, what?—‘” (p 62).

Finally, in the conversation between Henry and Annie from pages 67-72, Henry is sort of implying that Annie has been cheating—possibly with Billy (since, you know, the reason that Henry and Annie are together is because she cheated on Max with Henry. And such is the reason I don’t trust ANYONE.)—after catching her telling what appears to be a lie about where she was the night before. After he corrects her, she claims, “I don’t know why I said I came down this morning. It just seemed easier. I wasn’t there last night because I caught the train straight from the theatre” (p 68).

Essentially, what I think Stoppard is getting at in this play is that language tends to bolster our perception of reality. As well, we can use language to distort others’ perception of reality; for example, by lying to them—however subtle or seemingly innocuous that lie is. Our modern perception of trust is fundamentally based upon communication. Through the use of language, we can create entire universes to feed to others that, at least while they are unaware of the ruse, placate them perfectly well—and as the adage goes, we’ll just “leave well enough alone.” I personally feel this is a pretty disgusting worldview that has led to my view which is pretty simple: We’re such an immature, arrogant, self-privileged, destructive species that, quite frankly, we deserve whatever we get for not utilizing language in a way to inspire the world to unify in our digital age.

Question 11:

Review the idea of language games as well as the distinction between seeing and seeing as (as related to the relationship between sensory perception and intellectual interpretation). How do both language games and seeing as play a role in defining reality?

Answer:

From the outset, this excerpt poses an enthralling question: “But how many kinds of sentence are there?” (p 14). There appear to be infinite possibilities given the rapidly evolving nature of human-created language. That is, there are myriad fun and interesting games one can play with language. Let’s take the following sentence:

For example, I can write this sentence in any number of ways.

Indeed, by merely moving the phrase ‘For example’ to various positions in that sentence, it would, at least in English, retain readability and grammatical correctness. Of course, ‘For example’ would clearly seem out of place after the words ‘this’, ‘any’, ‘number’, and, ‘of’. As well, I can rephrase the sentence from assertive to inquisitive: Can I, for example, write this sentence in any number of ways? Continuing the endeavor, the sentence can be ‘synonymized’ to a point beyond recognition yet retain its core message: This sentence proves that sentence structures are innumerable. Or, does it?

Another aspect of the excerpt examines not only the interplay between language, visual perception, and intellectual perception but also real-time changes in perception. Wittgenstein writes, “I observe a face, and then suddenly notice its likeness to another. I see that it has not changed; and yet I see it differently. I call this experience “noticing an aspect”” (p xi).

As Wittgenstein points out, these ideas of seeing and seeing as are linked: “The concept of a representation of what is seen, like that of a copy, is very elastic, and so together with it is the concept of what is seen. The two are intimately connected. (Which is not to say that they are alike.)” (p 208). So, while distinct, the concepts appear complementary. Seeing is ultimately the physiological act of light entering the human eyeball and being interpreted as electrical impulses by the brain. Seeing as is the intellectual process of categorizing, associating, and acting (or not acting) upon that visual information.

Question 12:

Do a close reading of a short passage from one of Retallack’s poems or from Stein’s Tender Buttons in order to analyze what the passage illustrates about language and meaning.

-OR-

How can experimentation with language attempt to address the power language has to shape thought (rather than simply express it)? Reference a small portion of one of the poems by Retallack or a passage from Stein’s Tender Buttons as you answer this question.

Answer:

These passages played tricks on my mind. I don’t really know how to explain this but here it goes: I actually read through both of these the other day. I thought, “What the hell am I reading? Why does this make no sense?” I quickly realized that was the point. So, I forced my way through them and I honestly didn’t really process any of it. It wasn’t until I sat down and tried to read them over again to write this response that I recognized the truly frustrating nature of both of these passages. The fascinating part is that I had been trying to extract some sort of meaning while sitting in my room and failed to do so. For some reason, I just haven’t been able to focus on these particular readings; i.e. every time I would read, the words were entering my brain but nothing was clicking…until I put on Beethoven’s “Moonlight Sonata 1^st Movement”. I read the first line of Retallack and the inner me said, “DUDE! How did you not get this before?!” Weird, right?

According to the me within me, although Retallack is a wonderful wordsmith, she is terrible with punctuation (and I’m even worse with comedy). But, all kidding aside, the lack of routine punctuation appears to be the point. The sentence I’m focusing on is this: “how will one ever get any rest on this restless dangerous earth far beyond the bounds of deeply held convictions or questions of making sense” (p 36). This certainly shapes my thinking in a number of ways. First, the lack of punctuation sends me into a sort of inner cringe meltdown despite knowing it was arguably intentional. Perhaps this was the most distracting thing for me. Second, you have to stand in awe at the beauty of a language in which almost every combination of words in a sentence retain grammatical correctness. Even without punctuation, it is easy to see how rearranging the thoughts in this sentence help it to, coincidently, “make sense”. Lastly, the rhetorical question that is asked without a question mark, read in its entirety without pause and understood, opens an endless stream of practically all of my views at once in my mind; i.e. deeply held convictions, boundaries, earth, sense; all of it.

It’s strange how the simplest things are.

Question 13:

After finishing the text, consider the following passage from the acknowledgments section. “While all these names may give an air of authenticity, I must confess that the book is not a history but a portrait or ‘gesture.’ And if those listed above disapprove of the fictional air I apologize and can only say that in Sri Lanka a well-told lie is worth a thousand facts” (206). If we consider the text in light of this statement, is any amount of license allowable here or do we need to draw the line somewhere? And what are the consequences (good or bad) of this approach?

Answer:

Ondaatje uses the terms ‘portrait’ and ‘gesture’ to describe his work here. A portrait is simply a “verbal picture or description, usually of a person” while a gesture is “something said or done as a formality or as an indication of intent”—both according to dictionary.com. That’s a bit ambiguous and perhaps that was his point. Considering the fact that on one edition the book is labeled as “memoir/literature” and on the other “fiction/literature”, it is easy to see how this has been the subject of debate within the publishing company since Ondaatje wrote it.

This was a fascinating read; I’m still processing it. A far cry from Proust, this book still shows a great deal of disjointedness but it is much easier to follow along. However, there were elements that really made me feel like I was where he was. For example, in the section labeled “MONSOON NOTEBOOK (iii)”, I couldn’t help but be reminded about living on my parents’ farm in Ohio on a dead-end road. This description is so vivid; so spot on! I’ve sat on the porch back there—no lights for miles around save perhaps a nightlight in the dining room that bursts out into the night like a supernova—to witness this very same “white downpour” he talks about.

The artistic license that Ondaatje has taken here is sort of painted and glossed over as acceptable based upon the quoted lines. It’s almost as if he is admitting—after the fact, might I add—that of course he inflated the stories! But, for the most part they are true. So, apparently that’s okay. After all, it’s up to the publisher to flesh out the details of categorical distinctions, right? Well, it might not be so simple because we are talking about a book composed of second-hand stories collected over two different excursions from multiple people. I’m not implying that the information was recorded by Ondaatje incorrectly. I’m simply saying that I don’t even trust people to tell me their favorite color or what they did last week let alone accurate stories from several decades ago! He obviously exaggerated much like D’Agata. As such, I feel the same way here—if Ondaatje is defining license a certain way to fit his narrative (a sort of Procrustean argument) then he is perfectly within his rights to call it a memoir. But, here in the world where publishers have to maintain a reputation of correct labeling and distinction between facts and fiction, it is safe to call this work fiction based upon this statement.

Question 14:

Hayden White talks about the role of form in the writing of history. In history proper, he points out that where the story (or history) begins, develops, and ends; what events are included or excluded; and what the central subject or authority is all shape the events or perception of reality described. Briefly, how might the three chronologies from Julian Barnes’ Flaubert’s Parrot exhibit this?

Answer:

White states that “[T]he doxa of the modern historiographical establishment has it that there are three basic kinds of historical representation—the annals, the chronicle, and the history proper—the imperfect “historicality” of two of which is evidenced in their failure to attain to full narrativity of the events of which they treat” (p 4). The degree to which narrativity intervenes is among several criteria he claims solidify the veracity of historical accounts—another criterion being chronology. “The events,” White explains, “must be not only registered within the chronological framework of their original occurrence but narrated as well, that is to say, revealed as possessing a structure, an order of meaning, that they do not possess as mere sequence” (p 5).

Averting an unnecessary departure from the question at hand, Flaubert’s Parrot demonstrates a sort of flirting with this careful balance of narrativity, chronology, and other elements. That is, in section I, Barnes maintains an air of objectivity in that, while there is certainly narration, there is no first person narration. As well, this section represents the minimal injection of seeming-opinion—overt in only a single section pertaining to 1846: “Should we regret the end of their affair? Only because it means the end of Gustave’s resplendent letters to her” (p 25). This section appears to be a chronicle that mixes a bit of genealogy in. “It does not so much conclude as simply terminate” (p 5).

Section II presents no quarrels with the idea of pre-Internet trolling: “He proves a slow child, content to sit for hours with his finger in his mouth and an ‘almost stupid’ expression on his face. For Sartre, he is ‘the family idiot’.” (p 27). This section is also far more descriptive offering nuanced storylines and projects deeper insights into Gustave’s interrelations throughout his life. It certainly reads like “history proper”—or at least some loose version of it.

Finally, section III clearly demonstrates autobiographical and journal-like attributes, presenting the information in an outright first person narrative. Not only are certain events catalogued, random thoughts and self-justifications are also interspersed throughout. His “People are like food” (p 33) analogies are just strange but something that perhaps many people can definitely relate with is this: “I have always tried to live in an ivory tower, but a tide of shit is beating at its walls, threatening to undermine it” (p 36).

Question 15:

Discuss one advantage and one disadvantage of Spiegelman’s choice to use either the comic form or anthropomorphized animals to represent his father's experience. (Use specific details from the text in your answer.)

Answer:

Combining the comic form and a subject as difficult as the Holocaust is no small feat. In fact, Spiegelman even addresses this complex issue at the beginning of Chapter One of Maus II in a conversation he is having with his wife while on their way to visit his father, Vladek. After setting the tone of the rest of the story with a fake heart attack scare—one that perhaps exemplifies at least part of the reason he decided on the comic format—Art explains, “I feel so inadequate trying to reconstruct a reality that was worse than my darkest dreams. And trying to do it as a comic strip!... There’s so much I’ll never be able to understand or visualize. I mean, reality is too complex for comics… So much has to be left out or distorted” (p 176). His wife tells him, “Just keep it honest, honey” (p 176). Alluding to the fact that this conversation is knowingly portrayed as one that definitely happened but probably not exactly as relayed in the comic, Art tells her, “See what I mean… In real life you’d never have let me talk this long without interrupting” (p 176).

Answering the prompt, one advantage to using the comic form is that you can construct at least half of the story with the images alone. And using anthropomorphized characters allows virtually everyone to relate with the story as these characters become more identifiable by doing so. As well, there are certain points in the story with nuances conveyed in the comic strip that simply could not have been through text alone. For example, the ‘Framed photo of pet cat’ at his therapist’s place just couldn’t have been the same without this single frame on page 203.

One disadvantage has more to do with writing the book itself—time. Figuring out exactly which frames to leave in the story—since there are several stories going on at once in the book—and which to leave out would certainly have been a monumentally time-consuming task. Another disadvantage—to be sure I’m actually answering this side of the question—is that the story can easily be mistaken as fictional since that’s what comic strips are typically categorized as.

Question 16:

In your opinion, is this film a work of historical fiction—about a girl who uses her imagination to escape her circumstances (mentally)—or is it a fantasy in which reality and what seems like fantasy co-exist? Explain briefly.

Answer:

To me, there is such a subtle difference between these two descriptions, work of historical fiction and fantasy (as described in this prompt), that it’s tempting to say that this film is a wonderful blend of both. However, it’s not so simple. After a few quick searches (to be sure that when I said this that it was accurate), I realized that none of this story actually took place. The location and the names in the movie were so vague, it seemed to lack historical accuracy. So, this is definitely a dark fantasy that was the creation of writer/director Guillermo del Toro—one that I enjoyed very much.

Throughout the movie, we’re sort of led to believe that this might really be happening to Ofelia. However, no scene is more revealing than when she reaches the faun with her little brother and Captain Vidal walks in. For the briefest of moments, we see from the Captain’s perspective that Ofelia is having a conversation with the air. That is, there is nothing and no one there. The Captain even stops for a second to scope her immediate surroundings only to realize that she is, in fact, talking to no one. Then, he takes her brother and shoots her.

In her dying moments, Ofelia becomes the immortal princess and meets her father…just like the faun had explained all along. All it took was the blood of an innocent.

Question 17:

How does Joe Sacco deal with the journalistic requirements of accuracy and objectivity in his work?

-OR-

In Tim Sullivan’s National Geographic article about North Korea, we can see how limited access to knowledge makes us speculate about the reality of the situation. Based on the what the article shows us, is the real North Korea knowable by anyone outside of it? Is it knowable by anyone inside the country?

Answer:

North Korea is, to America, one of those “pesky little countries” run by a ruthless dictator committing numerous human rights violations that is hell-bent on world domination and the destruction of the United States. We’ve been hearing this rhetoric for several generations of the family of current “Supreme Leader” Kim Jong Un (or as I like to call him, Jim Kong Douche). However, Americans sadly can never get any semblance of accuracy regarding ANYTHING since our media more closely resemble a series of circus attractions—lion tamers, jugglers, sideshow freaks, etc—than some ensemble of reputable journalists. The few American journalists granted the “privilege” to tour the country generally ring the same bells in articles, reporting a sort of surrealist, culturally stunted, almost scripted response of the people with whom they interacted. Sullivan writes, “How to make sense of a country where the leader embraces basketball bad boy Dennis Rodman and a week later threatens to let loose an atomic firestorm on the United States? This is a country where the reality of everyday life is kept hidden behind carefully created facades, and most visitors see nothing but a few perfectly paved roads and a handful of monuments to the family—father, son, and now grandson—that has controlled life in North Korea for 65 years” (p 1).

Essentially, nothing seems real within OR without North Korea. That is, the citizens of the country either willfully subject themselves to famine, poverty, and dictatorship or they are forced to accept those circumstances. Both possibilities are equally terrifying. As for anyone outside of the country knowing the “real” North Korea, it appears at this point that modern industrialized nations around the world view North Korea in the same light; and it’s something to the affect of: “Aww, how cute. Little Kim (not the rapper) has a little rocket he thinks will scare us. BAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! (As the finger is resting near the button that would wipe North Korea off the map.) So, even if it somehow is knowable, I don’t think anyone actually cares to know North Korea because it’s just become the laughing stock of modern culture. Indeed, it’s a sad situation.

Question 18:

Ignoring extreme digital manipulation for the moment, why do we tend to see photographs (or video) as closer to reality than other forms of representation? What is one problem with this confidence in photography? (Refer to specific details from either the Weschler/Morris or Sontag reading in your answer.)

Answer:

Every single person alive today has lived in a world of photography whether or not they have been directly exposed to it. Those of us in modern, industrialized nations are perfectly content with the expectation that little, handheld devices should, of course (!), come prepackaged with every innovative piece of hardware and software to enhance our lives, including the latest, greatest cameras. And just like that—with the touch of a piece of glass—the world around us is frozen as 1s and 0s in a matrix of constantly-moving electrons and updating algorithms. It’s much different than 20 years ago when we had to take canisters of film to be developed—not that we can’t still do that. Physical photographs will probably continue to exist for centuries to come despite the digitalization of our world. But, it’s just so easy nowadays to simply click a button to take a picture and click another button to delete that picture which existed in a realm that can be argued to both be real and not real—the quantum realm. But I’m going to resist going further off topic here…

When we look at a photograph and hold it in our hands, we sort of accept as given that the photograph is a slice of reality; something that someone, somewhere saw, had the device to capture reality at that moment, and then captured reality at that moment. It seems “automatically real”. We also gloss over the notion that art might be thought of as some kind of distortion of reality regardless of the form; i.e. painting, sculpture, song, movie, etc. Concisely, photographs capture reality while art distorts reality. But, what happens when distorted reality is photographed? Or when art shows reality as it is and then reality suddenly seems distorted?

Sontag argues, “Needing to have reality confirmed and experience enhanced by photographs is an aesthetic consumerism to which everyone is now addicted. Industrial societies turn their citizens into image-junkies; it is the most irresistible form of mental pollution.” (p 24). Image-junkies indeed! Today, we are supersaturated with endless streams of ridiculous camera angles capturing, not something that can rightly be considered tasteful; No. Instead, they capture self-absorbed, cringeworthy, duck-faced, narcissistic selfies that certainly can be considered “mental pollution.” And I suppose that is one problem with this type of confidence in photography: Some of us will find it supremely annoying and fake.

Question 19:

Saunders depicts a future or alternate world in which powerful pharmaceuticals take us beyond our biological limitations. In this context, what, if anything, remains that is human (in a traditional sense) and how does the story suggest this?

Answer:

This was such a fascinating story! But, let’s be honest: In order to answer this question, we need to understand what it means to be “traditionally human”. Sparing an extraordinarily long tangent (which would be fun but, as of this sentence, I’m at 8,663 words for responses in this class this semester), I assume that this means a human that has no sort of enhancements—biomechanoid or chemical. If this is true, then the framework of humanity (most of the organs and all of the chemical and physical POTENTIAL) remains. For example, the trademarked drugs that they are dripping into the machines connected to their lower backs appear to modulate the endocannabanoid system present in every mammalian species on the planet. As well, the speech centers and the hippocampus are directly affected. So, the reactions of modulating serotonin and dopamine production seem to have similar effects between humans and “enhanced” humans (metahumans?).

I’d like to address something else in this story that stood out to me especially. I read this story last night and there is a line that won’t stop repeating in my head. The reason? I dated someone for around 8 years—from high school into my mid-20s. I spent over a quarter of my life with her! And just like that, it was over. I’m just going to change one thing in the quote and then it is directly applicable to me. Saunders writes, “I guess I was sad that love was not real? Or not all that real, anyway? I guess I was sad that love could feel so real and the next minute be gone, and all because of something [someone else] was doing” (p 55).

I can’t get this out of my mind…

Why Do We Explore Space?

2018-06-18T19:46:00.000-04:00

For years, I have fostered the notion that we are living in the most pivotal point in humankind’s history. (Perhaps one day it will catch on!) The block of geocentric cosmic time that contains the past 150 years or so—that time since the Second Industrial Revolution in the United States—and the next 150 years is likely what will determine our future on this pale blue dot. But, that’s a lot of responsibility to consider just to answer this simple question. So, let’s lose some of this baggage and try to home in on a reason.

First, there seems to be this ubiquitous (yet factually unjustified) assumption that humans are inherently competitive and that we are just born to be better than each other. In other words, it’s built right in! Nonsense! This is patently false. Outside of the context of perhaps five fundamental necessities to grow and live optimally, nothing is inherent. That is, regardless of where you are from, what color your skin is, whether you believe in gods, etc., as a biological entity, to grow and function optimally, your body requires a specific set of necessities to be fulfilled. Those are: 1. Clean, fresh water; 2. Nutritious food; 3. Clean, fresh air; 4. Close contact with others (especially as newborns); and, 5. Sunlight. If there is an imbalance in either direction in any of these necessities, trouble can and likely will arise through disease. While malnutrition can certainly cause chemical imbalances in the brain directly leading to aberrant behavior, behavior itself is environmentally influenced—even at the genetic level. (I would love to continue this argument but I fear I’m getting super side-tracked so I’ll just move on.) So, competitive behavior is forced by the environment. (Of course, the tumultuous times during the Cold War certainly played a key role in the development of NASA and our space program. But, this is still considered an environmental factor.)

Second, we talk a lot about money. But, does anyone in our society even know that money is created out of debt? Has anyone heard of fractional reserve banking? Or is it just that people don’t know or need to know where money comes from—they just know they need it? For a supposedly intelligent species, we act so foolishly sometimes on such a grand scale. Similar to the myth of human nature being used to justify or denigrate abhorrent behavior, the myth of the necessity of money directly stifles our rapid ascent to a globally unified society beyond politics, poverty, and war. Think about it: the only reason that politics exists is because of inherent inefficiencies in a monetary/market system based upon debt and speculative trading of fictional assets; the only reason poverty exists is because a debt-based monetary/market system exists (poverty is entirely a human invention and it is ‘justified’ in any number of equally disgusting manners); the only reason war exists is because it is the biggest business ever created besides banking itself. “But we need it to live!” we tell ourselves. It’s really fascinating to live in a society that has the technology to feed, clothe, and house every single person on the planet with ease and without a price tag, yet would rather spend time bickering about who others should marry, who makes more crumbs—the “burger flipper” or the paramedic, whose god is so much better, whose president kicks more ass, or whatever the flavor of the hour happens to be. Senselessness! Yet still we explore—unfortunately in this case, more ways to be even stupider. (Space—the final frontier…LOOKOUT! America’s coming to bring you some freedom and democracy!)

Finally, we could say that we explore simply for the sake of exploring. The unknown is a fascinating realm to delve into. Perhaps our frontal lobe is what really sets us apart from other species of Earth. Specifically, our highly sophisticated prefrontal cortex allows us to plan future events in detail. So, if we are to point to a part of us that is truly responsible for the reason why we explore, point to the prefrontal cortex. We wouldn’t be able to plan any of this without it!

I suppose we now explore space because, once we were able to reach beyond all we had ever known, all we had ever known didn’t seem so significant anymore. Now we are perpetually trying to fill an ever-growing void both in outer space and within our minds. Perhaps we are trying to redefine our significance without realizing that it never was. In any case, humankind will likely continue to explore the unknown (hopefully) for millennia to come; for, all that is now known was once unknown.

Hinode: Seeing the Sun Three Ways

2018-06-18T19:35:00.003-04:00

Through the concerted efforts of Japan, the United States, and the United Kingdom, the satellite known as Hinode (formerly Solar B) was successfully launched September 26, 2006 from Uchinoura Space Center. Equipped with a high-resolution optical telescope, an X-ray telescope, and an Extreme Ultraviolet Imaging Spectrometer, this innovative spacecraft was developed to “reveal the mechanisms of solar variability and study the origins of space weather and global change,” according to the NASA Heliophysics Roadmap.¹ These telescopes would be used simultaneously to observe the photosphere all the way to the corona while stockpiling data in their respective wavelengths. The underlying goal of the mission was to “help solve the mysteries of the Sun.”²

Hinode—still in operation well beyond its 3 year design lifetime—has allowed astronomers to gain a much more robust understanding of the source of extreme heating of the corona while also acting as a wellspring for several other important discoveries about this giant plasma ball that is Earth’s life source. One of the aforementioned mysteries was the cause of monumental temperature increases from the photosphere, through the chromosphere, to the corona. Using the EUV Image Spectrometer, high-speed plasma flows have been observed that are thought to be the result of magnetic reconnection causing “the energy stored in the magnetic field [to change] into heat and plasma motions”.³The high resolution of each telescope, coupled with the high-altitude orbit outside of the influence of atmospheric distortion at roughly 680 km, has allowed unprecedented views of the polar regions of the Sun otherwise extremely difficult to observe from Earth’s surface at such highly oblique angles. “As a result, Hinode found strong magnetic fields in the solar polar regions. Until then, it had been thought that only weak and diffuse magnetic fields existed in those regions. But, the Hinode Solar Optical Telescope (HSOT) discovered that strong magnetic fields, which exceed 1,000 Gauss (0.1 Tesla) similar to the sunspots, exist as compact magnetic patches throughout the polar regions” (NAOJ).⁴ Other observations of the Sun’s magnetic field through the HSOT “made it possible to verify the magnetic field structure which triggers solar flares by comparing simulation models to actual observations” (NAOJ).⁵ The common theme here is the interplay between differential rotation, magnetic field generation, and temperature disparities between the three outermost solar layers: the photosphere, the chromosphere, and the corona.

Again using the HSOT and working with the idea of convective plasma movement, Hinode made a rather surprising discovery:

The Hinode Solar Optical Telescope discovered that these magnetic fields cover the whole Sun. These magnetic fields are much smaller and have shorter lifetimes than sunspots. In addition they point horizontally along the solar surface. These magnetic fields are called transient horizontal magnetic fields. This result was made possible by Hinode's high precision spectro-polarimetry. Since these magnetic fields exist everywhere on the Sun, the total amount of their energy becomes potentially enormous, and there is a possibility that this could provide the energy for the coronal heating (NAOJ).⁶

Of course, the possibility remains that a combination of these several factors is what causes the corona to heat to a whopping 1,000,000 K and beyond. However, it can at this point be confidently asserted that continued operation of Hinode will only enhance our understanding of the dynamics of solar magnetic fields throughout the Sun. Indeed, it already has!

As with any spacefaring mission, the machines we build and fire out of our atmosphere must be resilient and capable of withstanding the unforgiving, extreme conditions of space. This typically results in spacecraft capable of continuing data collection far beyond their intended mission lifetimes. It can also lead to observing Earth-related astronomical phenomena, such as solar eclipses⁷, from a completely different perspective. Assuming funding is extended, scientists could be collecting and analyzing data from Hinode and other missions for years, perhaps decades, to come. And with the advent of faster, more compact computer chips, artificial intelligence, memory metals, more advanced EM shielding, and many other innovations of the 21^st century, humankind is on a path to colonize another world—perhaps Mars—within only ten years or so while continually minimizing the risks involved. The data collected from such pre-space-colonization missions can only enhance our ability to overcome the enormous challenges that the Sun alone presents in moving from this beautiful world to the next.

Fig. 1. A processed image from Hinode, dated 02 February 2018.⁸ ©NAOJ/JAXA/MSU

References

1. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20090010233.pdf

2-6. http://hinode.nao.ac.jp/en/intro/science/discovery.html

7. http://www.isas.jaxa.jp/home/solar/eclipse20170821/index_e.html

8. http://hinode.nao.ac.jp/en/gallery/latest/

Climate Change in the 21st Century

2018-06-03T18:53:00.009-04:00

Ever since the Industrial Revolution began in Great Britain over two and a half centuries ago, humankind has been accelerating on a path toward global socioeconomic cohesion. From steam engines and steel mass production in the 1700s to ion thrusters and additive manufacturing in the 2000s, the capacity for human ingenuity seems to be limitless. However, with that limitless capacity for ingenuity comes the responsibility to not exceed a very real, limited carrying capacity of the planet itself. With a population of almost 7.5-billion people and counting^{^[1]}, the impact of the human species on Earth’s ecology becomes more pronounced and irreparable by the day despite the increasingly popularized notion of some global warming conspiracy. While denial in the face of the evidence isn’t a novel idea, much of the recent upsurge of seeming irreverence for environmental preservation arose from the transition to the Trump administration. As recently as December, President Trump was mocking the idea on Twitter, saying, “In the East, it could be the COLDEST New Year’s Eve on record. Perhaps we could use a little bit of that good old Global Warming…”^{^[2]}

And it’s not the first time the leader of the free world has taken to the social media platform to voice his opinion on the topic. Back in November 2012, Trump tweeted, “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.”^{^[3]} So it isn’t surprising that the United States began scaling back participation in key international climate change legislation within six months of inauguration, beginning with the Paris Climate Agreement in June 2017.^{^[4]} According to National Geographic, “the EPA budget^{^[5]} suggests eliminating the environmental agency's climate-change research program, which currently costs the agency $16 million per year.”^{^[6]} As well, a number of NASA missions designed to monitor various aspects of Earth--weather patterns, vegetation, and CO₂--are at risk, including the Deep Space Climate Observatory currently in operation. Perilous as the situation might appear in a sea of visceral misinformation, accusations and evidence of presidential infidelities, press disparaging, and insistence on an arguably unnecessary, multi-billion dollar border wall with Mexico, hope emerges from the bedrock of scientific analysis and peer review. While the concept can be extended to virtually any argument, objectively speaking, unsubstantiated opinions on the matters of climate change and global warming are irrelevant at best. Plenty of evidence already exists indicating a very clear, recently-induced human element in Earth’s climate. This paper will attempt to present a cursory glance of some of the most argued-against pieces of evidence regarding this issue. To begin, it is important to point out the distinction, if any, between climate change and global warming.

CLIMATE CHANGE OR GLOBAL WARMING?

In a paper published in Environment and Behavior in 2017, Daniel Benjamin, Han-Hui Por, and David Budesco presented the results of testing a series of hypotheses on 533 participants regarding the terms climate change (CC) and global warming (GW).^{^[7]} Setting up some historical context, Benjamin et al. explain:

The Charney Report (National Academy of Sciences, 1979) clearly differentiated between wordings using GW to refer to the change in global temperatures and climatic change to refer to other impacts, such as precipitation and moisture, as well. Scientists today consider CC to be a general term referring to sustained variations in conditions over time, whereas GW refers only to “one aspect of climate change” (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2013)—specific increases in air, surface, or ocean temperatures (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2013). (Benjamin et al. 2017, p. 2)

Despite the almost universally easy access to the entirety of humankind’s knowledgebase through the Internet, Americans today find the distinction one of the most politically polarizing subjects yet to be fully addressed and resolved. However, it turns out that those most affected by what are referred to as framing effects (i.e. referencing the same aspects of phenomena) tend to identify as Independent. Furthermore, the report indicates that the “key result is that those with partisan political affiliations are least susceptible to framing effects in the climate change context… It appears that framing effects have decreased over time for Republicans… [and] tend to be minimal for Democrats” (Benjamin et al. 2017, p. 16).

While the researchers ultimately call for further studies, the paper concludes, “The only unconditional recommendation one can offer is to tailor communications to moderates, who are most receptive to subtle messaging, and seek to touch on all facets of the problem to appeal to the largest possible number of people and segments of the populations. The key to influencing people’s intentions may lie in the communication of the details, especially how rectifiable climate change is” (Benjamin et al. 2017, p. 21). So, the aspect of framing often stifles conversations outright between those with staunchly held beliefs, trading honest discussion of facts for meaningless semantic debate. But if the conversations are geared instead toward moderates that are more receptive to opinion-changing information, then the impetus for global legislative and cooperative action might become a focal point in society sooner rather than never.

CARBON DIOXIDE AND OTHER GREENHOUSE GASES

There is perhaps no better example of a runaway greenhouse effect anywhere in the solar system than Venus. On Earth, carbon dioxide is released into the environment by a number of processes, including volcanic outgassing and corporate meetings in boardrooms; on Venus, the gas—a vestige of this once geologically active world—is responsible for an unforgiving atmosphere that not only contains sulfuric acid layers but also maintains a surface temperature of nearly 500 degrees Celsius and surface pressure around 90 atmospheres.[8] But carbon dioxide is just one of many compounds that fall into the category of greenhouse gases. Water vapor, methane, and ozone are three others that each play an important role in regulating a number of planetary systems on Earth. For thousands of millennia, the carbon cycle, consisting of sources and sinks that emit and absorb CO₂, respectively, along with active plate tectonics, have acted as a sort of planetary thermostat. Only within the past two and a half centuries has the natural dynamic equilibrium of climate change processes been shifted. In his book Red Sky at Morning, James Gustave Speth explains:

The scientists with the International Geosphere-Biosphere Program concur: “The evidence is now overwhelming that [rising temperatures] are a consequence of human activities… [W]e are now pushing the planet beyond anything experienced naturally for many thousands of years. The records of the past show that climate shifts can appear abruptly and be global in extent, while archaeological and other data emphasize that such shifts have had devastating consequences for human societies. In the past, therefore, lies a lesson” (Speth p. 60).[9]

Furthermore, in an article published in 2007 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS) by Canadell et al., the researchers showed:

Since 2000, a growing global economy, an increase in the carbon emissions required to produce each unit of economic activity, and a decreasing efficiency of carbon sinks on land and in oceans have combined to produce the most rapid 7-year increase in atmospheric CO₂ since the beginning of continuous atmospheric monitoring in 1959. This is also the most rapid increase since the beginning of the industrial revolution. (Canadell et al., 2007)[10]

In other words, the human species has become a giant carbon source while almost systematically ignoring a required mechanism to act as the giant carbon sink capturing the increasingly excess carbon released into the environment each year. The three basic areas into which the carbon can be absorbed are the atmosphere, the land, and the oceans. Fluctuations in the percentages of carbon each area can absorb depend upon a number of factors but for the oceans in particular temperature is crucial. Carbon dioxide dissolves in cold water much more rapidly than in warm water. In fact, as the oceans warm, even by a few degrees, their capacity for CO₂ absorption diminishes significantly. But the atmosphere has its own feedback loop and tends to increase in temperature as CO₂ concentration increases because greenhouse gases trap heat that would normally be radiated away from the surface of Earth. Meanwhile on land, the rates of carbon exchange appear to have remained stable, at least

-->

Figure 1: Fraction of the total emissions (F_FOSS + F_LUC)

that remains in the atmosphere (A), the land biosphere

(B), and the ocean (C). (Canadell et al. 2007)

over the past sixty years or so. But even in the face of this and other mounting evidence, denial has infiltrated the highest echelons of American government codifying the notion of alternative facts in an almost dystopian narrative that would be no surprise to George Orwell.

Former Oklahoma attorney general and climate change denier Scott Pruitt is now the administrator of an organization he previously sued more than a dozen times, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)[11]. Concerning carbon dioxide, Pruitt, in an interview with CNBC, stated, “So no, I would not agree that it’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see.”^{^[12]} That means that the leader of the free world and the leader of the most influential environmental protection agency on the planet both think global warming in one way or another is a hoax. Meanwhile the United States, representing just 5% of the world’s population, consumes almost a quarter of the world’s resources!^{^[13]} So, it shouldn’t be surprising when rich businessmen that might profit from scaling back environmental regulations find themselves in powerful political positions and begin doing just that.

The Efficacy of Long-Term Climate Models

While tourists sometimes visit the continent to bear witness to its vast ice desert, Antarctica is host to a number of scientific missions stemming from the Antarctic Treaty of 1959. According to the Secretariat of the Antarctic Treaty, “Since 1959, 41 countries have acceded to the Treaty… [T]hey are entitled to participate in the Consultative Meetings during such times as they demonstrate their interest in Antarctica by “conducting substantial research activity there”.”[14] Much of this research has involved collecting extensive ice-core samples that can be and have been used to build an atmospheric composition chronology. Measuring the varying amounts of greenhouse gases trapped at different depths of the drilled samples has given climate scientists an accurate picture of Earth’s atmospheric changes up to 800,000 years into the past in some sites.[15] As well, the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC), using “mass-emission data…based on fossil-fuel consumption estimates” shows a clear trend of consistent increases in carbon emissions from 2.55x10⁶metric tonnes of carbon to 9233.63x10⁶metric tonnes of carbon between 1751 and 2013.[16] The trillion dollar question is this: If carbon sources pushing billions of metric tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere each year have been created in the past two centuries, where are the carbon sinks pulling billions of metric tonnes of carbon out of the atmosphere each year? The short answer is that there aren’t any. At least, there aren’t any significant sinks that have been developed. And that’s a significant problem: Thinking that such an incredible amount of anything can released into the atmosphere without repercussion because intelligence, or gods, or whatever else, is the height of arrogance.

-->

Figure 2 - From NASA, this graph shows Global Mean Estimates of Surface Air

Temperature Changes from 1880 until present day.

The ramifications of such a massive influx of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have already begun to show. According to NASA, “The planet’s average surface temperature has risen about 2 degrees Fahrenheit (a little more than 1 degree Celsius) during the last century or so, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere. Last year was the third consecutive year in which global temperatures were more than 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit (1 degree Celsius) above late nineteenth-century levels.”[17] The trend of rapid increasing average temperature is pretty clear.[18] And it is unprecedented in a way that makes a Venus-like runaway greenhouse effect a very real possibility on Earth. Therefore, it is critical that governments, corporations, and citizens alike strive for greenhouse gas reduction, promote so-called green technologies, fund solar, wind, geothermal, wave, and tidal technologies, and use the power of voting to move humankind to a path that is synergistic with natural processes as quickly as possible.

CONCLUSION

The amount of information accumulated each day in the age of instant everything is staggering. The computers most Americans carry around in their pockets every day have processors that are orders of magnitude more powerful than those that landed astronauts on the Moon. The entirety of humankind’s knowledgebase is available at the swipe of an OLED screen. Academic journals, tutorials on just about anything, instant video communication, millions of songs and movies, online classes, banking—nearly every facet of modern society is now accessible from a device that even a child can use. However, all of that technology only amounts to so many millions of tons of useless junk if it isn’t used intelligently. In other words, if humans can engineer technology that releases massive amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, humans can certainly engineer technology that either extracts massive amounts of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere at a comparable rate or reduces greenhouse gas production altogether.

How can it be that in the face of the world’s foremost scientists studying this very topic, political leaders scoff and seem to think that more debate is somehow the solution? Or that there is some kind of global conspiracy involving China that… Well, this is where it always goes off the rails. Anyway, it’s irrelevant. The debates are over. The conspiracies are stupid. And this isn’t a problem that can be framed in a Republican or Democratic way. (There isn’t a Republican way to build an airplane. Engineers don’t vote on the shape of the wings based upon their political leanings. If the vote on the shape of the wings was based on a senator’s feelings, would it fly?) As mentioned earlier, polarizing issues tend to increase the divide between those with staunchly held, opposing views. So it might prove futile—as it seems to have done so far—to attempt solving the environmental degradation problem through political means. This is a human problem and that requires human ingenuity—not some outmoded social control mechanism of extorting countries into compliance that clearly isn’t working. Technology already exists to dramatically reduce, and in some case eliminate entirely, carbon emissions. In countries all around the globe, scientists have been and continue developing technology that can revolutionize the world. But, the political leaders in America appear more interested in bullying shooting victims, voting against homosexual rights while getting caught having gay sex in their offices or in public bathrooms, flying first class with public funds, threatening nuclear war, gutting healthcare for millions of Americans, and riling up racist rhetoric with the promotion of one of the most ridiculous wastes of money in the history of the United States: a wall along the border of Mexico. Unfortunately, this only proves that a sundial left in the dark is useless.

Works Cited

Keith Alverson et al., Environmental Variability and Climate Change, International Geosphere-Biosphere Program Science Series No. 3, 2001.

Benjamin, Daniel, et al. “Climate Change Versus Global Warming: Who is Susceptible to the Framing of Climate Change?” SAGE Journals, SAGE Publishing, 22 Sept. 2016, journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0013916516664382?journalCode=eaba.

Canadell, Joseph G., et al. “Contributions to Accelerating Atmospheric CO2 Growth from Economic Activity, Carbon Intensity, and Efficiency of Natural Sinks.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, National Academy of Sciences, 20 Nov. 2007, www.pnas.org/content/104/47/18866.

Chiacu, Doina, and Valerie Volcovici. “EPA Chief Pruitt Refuses to Link CO2 and Global Warming.” Scientific American, 10 Mar. 2017, www.scientificamerican.com/article/epa-chief-pruitt-refuses-to-link-co2-and-global-warming/.

Greshko, Micahel, et al. “A Running List of How Trump Is Changing the Environment.” National Geographic, National Geographic Society, 28 Feb. 2018, news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/03/how-trump-is-changing-science-environment/.

Jarmin, Ron. “U.S. and World Population Clock Tell Us What You Think.” Population Clock, 22 Mar. 2018, www.census.gov/popclock/,

Northon, Karen. “Long-Term Warming Trend Continued in 2017: NASA, NOAA.” NASA, NASA, 18 Jan. 2018, www.nasa.gov/press-release/long-term-warming-trend-continued-in-2017-nasa-noaa.

Speth, James Gustave. Red Sky at Morning: America and the Crisis of the Global Environment. Yale University Press, 2008.

Vitali, Ali. “Trump Pulls U.S. Out of Paris Climate Agreement.” NBC News, 1 June 2017, www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-pulls-u-s-out-paris-climate-agreement-n767066.

^{^[1]} https://www.census.gov/popclock/

^{^[2]} https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/946531657229701120

^{^[3]} https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/265895292191248385

^{^[4]} https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-pulls-u-s-out-paris-climate-agreement-n767066

^{^[5]} https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-02/documents/fy-2019-congressional-justification-all-tabs.pdf

^{^[6]} https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/03/how-trump-is-changing-science-environment/

^{^[7]} http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0013916516664382?journalCode=eaba

[8] Information in notes from ASTR 2040 – Search for Life in the Universe, Fall 2016

[9] Keith Alverson et al., Environmental Variability and Climate Change, International Geosphere-Biosphere Program Science Series No. 3, 2001.

[10] http://www.pnas.org/content/104/47/18866

[11] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/epa-chief-pruitt-refuses-to-link-co2-and-global-warming/

^{^[12]} https://www.cnbc.com/video/2017/03/09/epa-chief-scott-pruitt-says-carbon-dioxide-is-not-a-primary- contributor-to-global-warming.html

^{^[13]} https://public.wsu.edu/~mreed/380American%20Consumption.htm

[14] https://ats.aq/devAS/ats_parties.aspx?lang=e&lang=e

[15] http://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/co2/ice_core_co2.html

[16] http://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/ftp/ndp058_v2016/

[17] https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/long-term-warming-trend-continued-in-2017-nasa-noaa

[18] https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

Tesla: Powering the World

2017-05-11T16:14:00.000-04:00

When examining the modern world, it soon becomes abundantly clear that all the conveniences and technical achievements we utilize to better our lives have a singular thread inescapably interweaving nearly every facet of each: energy. Energy is the cornerstone of modern society and without our ever-increasing demand and production of such, our world, among other things, would be much dimmer. The toothbrushes we use to clean our teeth, the cars we drive, the cell phones we use, and every other electronic device and piece of machinery that has become an integral part of our interactions were produced, first and foremost, with the use of electrical energy. We take for granted the fact that we flip a switch and lights instantaneously come on; or that we can plug our devices into outlets across the country and marvel at the ease with which our manufactured boredom can become manufactured pleasure. How convenient! But, the extraordinary amount of engineering and innovation it took to transmit that energy over vast distances—sometimes hundreds of miles—is a story millennia in the making. So, what exactly does it take for long-distance energy transmission and how in the world was such a concept ever conceived?

By the mid-1850s, much work in the understanding of electricity had been conducted by heavy-hitters in the field—notably, Alessandro Volta and his battery concept in 1800; Hans Orsted, discovering magnetic field induction; George Ohm with electrical resistance; Michael Faraday, who published his Law of Induction in 1831; and Joseph Henry, developing the DC motor that same year.1 But, it would be several decades before a man named Nikola Tesla synthesized several of these concepts in an engineering tour de force that would forever change the course of human history. It is quite difficult to point to a single of Tesla’s innovations and call it the be-all-end-all. But we can get close if considering present widespread application. In any case, it is important to understand the progression as it unfolded in Tesla’s life. He was perhaps one of the greatest contributors to human progress to have ever lived. With nearly 300 patents awarded2, Tesla’s impact on our modern world is undoubted. And, while it can be argued that another determined experimenter might have arrived at similar innovations, it was ultimately the work of this rather strange, yet fascinating man that molded the world we enjoy today.

We now transmit power long distances exclusively by means of alternating current. Practically everything that the civilized world does revolves around the ongoing, rapid production and consumption of energy. Two of Tesla’s most important contributions that directly led to the current infrastructure were the applications of his alternating current generators at the 1893 Chicago World’s Fair and the installation of improved designs of those generators at Niagara Falls for the world’s first hydro-electric power station—the latter also represented the simultaneous introduction of renewable energy sources before the concept was popularized. Of all of Tesla’s contributions, perhaps no other is more widely applicable in the highly technical society that has been built up around the globe than the development of wireless technology. Today, wireless routers and cell phones have become ubiquitous—a testament to the innovative prowess of an incredible innovator working well ahead of his time.

Nikola Tesla was born in 1856 in what is now Smiljian, Croatia. His father was part of the clergy and had great expectations for his son to follow in his footsteps. “I was intended from my very birth for the clerical profession,” Tesla explains, “and this thought constantly opprest me. I longed to be an engineer but my father was inflexible” (7).3 His mother was a descendent of “one of the oldest families in the country and a line of inventors” (8). She had a profound impact on young Nikola’s perception of the world and it is likely that he picked up her trait of working relentlessly “from break of day to late at night” (8) that would reveal itself early in his studies. However, it was Tesla’s way in which he claimed he would see the world at a young age that would eventually blossom into a most fruitful output of ideas and inventions:

In my boyhood I suffered from a peculiar affliction due to the appearance of images, often accompanied by strong flashes of light, which marred the sight of real objects and interfered with my thought and action. They were pictures of things and scenes which I had really seen, never of those I imagined. When a word was spoken to me the image of the object it designated would present itself vividly to my vision and sometimes I was quite unable to distinguish whether what I saw was tangible or not. This caused me great discomfort and anxiety. (9)

Peculiar indeed! It is this method of envisioning working models in his mind that would later lead to what is one of Tesla’s most important inventions: the AC induction motor.

Throughout his life, Tesla went through several illnesses that nearly cost his life. After recovering from such an illness while working at his first electrical engineering gig in Budapest, this ability to envision his work in full detail would unveil itself while walking in City Park with a friend. The two had been reciting poetry and just as the sun was setting, Tesla was reminded of a Geothe passage from “Faust” when he was struck with an overwhelming vision. He explains, “As I uttered these inspiring words the idea came like a flash of lightning and in an instant the truth was revealed. I drew with a stick on the sand the diagrams shown six years later in my address before the American Institute of Electrical Engineers, and my companion understood them perfectly” (40). This vision in 18824 was that of the rotating magnetic field in a brushless AC motor that would eventually be used in virtually all AC electric motors and generators. But, before examining AC design, it is important to understand DC motors and generators to see why Tesla wanted to work on a more efficient design.

Michael Faraday outlined principles by which electric motors and generators operate in the law bearing his name, Faraday’s Law. This law states in its most basic form that, for a coil of wire, any changes in a magnetic environment will induce a current, or electromotive force (emf), in that coil of wire. The law can be written, as with virtually every other mathematical principle relating to electromagnetic phenomena, as either a differential equation or an integral equation. For the differential form, we use 𝚫𝒙𝚬 = −𝝏𝑩 / 𝝏𝒕; the integral form uses 𝑬 ⋅ 𝒅𝒔 = − 𝒅Φ / 𝒅𝒕. Generalized for multiple loops, Faraday’s Law can be summarized by Ɛ = −𝑵 𝚫𝚽 / 𝚫𝒕, where N is the number of turns or loops of the wire. This equation can be understood as a direct proportionality between the number of turns of a coil and the induced emf. That is, the more turns there are in the coil, the higher the induced emf. This is limited by several factors, however, including the stator permeability and pole piece saturation. It is also important to note that the main difference between an electric generator and an electric motor is the way in which they are wired and controlled. That is, an electric motor and an electric generator use practically the same exact components and design. So, what are they? How do they work?

[A generator is a device that converts mechanical energy into electrical energy. (In contrast, a motor is a device that converts electrical energy into mechanical energy. This requires essentially the same design. When a motor is turned with the connections reversed, it becomes a generator.) It consists of a ferrous frame, called the stator, pole pieces, wound with wire in opposite directions, and the armature, also known as the core, which is the rotating part. The armature is made of many thin strips of an iron-silicon based material, called laminations, that are typically laser cut or die punched, then stacked together and fixed by a shaft through the center of the stack. Around the ridges of the laminations, copper wire is wound in specific patterns a specific number of times. Essentially, the number depends on the permeability of the stator, i.e. the ease with which a ferrous metal can be magnetized, as well as the saturation point of the pole pieces, i.e. the maximum flux density of the pole pieces. At one end of the armature a piece called the commutator is attached to the shaft. The commutator provides a path to extract the induced voltage as the armature rotates through the magnetic field. (This exploits Faraday’s Law.) It is made by attaching evenly alternating conductors and insulators to the shaft and connecting one end of one of the windings to one of the conductors and connecting the other end of that same winding to the conductor on the opposite side of the shaft. This process is repeated until all the opposite conductors are attached in the same manner to a single winding.
The pole pieces are also made of high permeability ferrous material and are wound many times with thin copper wire. This winding is called the shunt field and produces the main magnetic field through which the armature spins. If self- excited, the pole windings are wired in parallel with the carbon-based brushes that contact the commutator which means that the output will vary greatly with varying speeds as well as changing load. (The brushes are made of carbon because it is very slick and resistance decreases as temperature increases.) If separately-excited, the shunt field is instead connected to a field supply with a field adjust (typically a variable resistor) and provides much better control. The strength of the shunt field depends upon something called amp-turns. Amp-turns refer to the amount of current put through a conductor coiled a specific number of times. Low currents produce low flux density while high currents produce high flux density. Saturation occurs as the output voltage tapers off when graphed with field amps on the x-axis and output voltage on the y-axis. The relationship is linear at first but tapers off as the pole pieces reach a point where the inherent molecular properties of the material, along with their limited spatial dimensions, prohibit any more field lines, and thus flux, from being produced. As loads are added to the generator, this flux tends to become distorted. This distortion is called armature reaction and is remedied by adding smaller interpoles between the main poles that are wired in series with the armature circuit.](Batenburg 2015)5. So, why did I drag you through that explanation?
It turns out that DC currents are difficult to transfer over long distances and the problem was not unknown to experimenters at the time. The size and amount of wire required to make such a feat possible is simply impractical. Interestingly, if you graph the output voltage against time, you will see something that is essentially the absolute value of a sinusoidal function. In other words, halfway through the period of what would normally be a sine function, the value reaches 0 and instead of continuing past 0 to the negative values, it repeats the previous positive values. That is, the function looks like it is “hopping along” the time axis. This has significant ramifications; namely, the DC generator consistently reaches 0 output voltage, meaning a large portion of input energy is lost while converting to electrical energy. This is the problem that Tesla sought to remedy. How did he do it?
By this time in the late 1880s, Thomas Edison had been well on his way to being one of the most productive and prolific inventors in the world. Paris was a bustling city that was thriving in technological updates. Tividar Puskas of the Edison organization was unveiling the incandescent lighting system in the city and Tesla was invited to attend by his brother Ferenc, for whom he worked in Budapest developing improvements for the telephone exchange there (Cawthorne 20). Tesla gained a fruitful understanding of motors and generators while working for the Edison company in Ivry and in his spare time he would solidify his AC motor designs (Cawthorne 21). After working in Germany and then traveling back to Paris, Tesla met Charles Batchelor of the Edison organization who invited Telsa to New York (Cawthorne 24). Tesla accepted the offer and arrived in New York on June 6th, 1884.
Of Edison, Tesla remarked, “The meeting with Edison was a memorable event in my life” (Tesla 48). However, admiration would soon turn to bitter dispute over the next few years that would not wane until Edison’s death in 1931. Tesla made many improvements to designs at the Edison company and was promised $50,000 that he never received. “The Manager had promised me fifty thousand dollars on the completion of this task but it turned out to be a practical joke” (Tesla 49). He resigned shortly after and setup the Tesla Electric Company with the help of a few investors. Around this same time, George Westinghouse had begun experimenting with AC systems. Eventually, Tesla and Westinghouse joined forces at the Westinghouse Electric Company in Pittsburgh to develop more efficient AC electric systems. With that began the long, bitter feud between Tesla and Edison sometimes referred to as the War of the Currents.
Edison was vehemently opposed to the alternating current system and eventually began public demonstrations to highlight the possible dangers of it. In fact, the controversy was accelerated in 1888 when Edison invited H.P. Brown to his laboratory “in order to electrocute animals” (Seifer 55). It wasn’t long before Brown began making and selling electric chairs to popularize a new form of execution. Due to this unfortunate series of events, investors began pulling out of Westinghouse forcing work on Tesla’s motor to be abandoned (Cawthorne 44). After traveling to Paris in 1889, Tesla returned to New York and setup a lab on Grand Street where he spent the next several years perfecting his AC motor design.
In 1891, Tesla demonstrated the efficacy of wireless devices. His lecture that year at Columbia College before the American Institute of Electrical Engineers began, “There is no subject more captivating, more worthy of study, than nature. To understand this great mechanism, to discover the forces which are active, and the laws which govern them, is the highest aim of the intellect of man.”6 Using a Geissler tube and a high frequency alternating current through what would later be called a Tesla Coil, Tesla showed that power can be wirelessly transmitted to light the tube, stating “The experiments which will prove most suggestive and of most interest to the investigator are probably those performed with exhausted tubes. As might be anticipated, a source of such rapidly alternating potentials is capable of exciting the tubes at a considerable distance, and the light effects produced are remarkable.”7 This lecture, perhaps one of the most important ever delivered, solidified Tesla’s position in the scientific community and would have a marked influence on many in attendance. Robert Millikan later remarked, “I have done no small fraction of my research work with the aid of the principles I learned that night” (Seifer 71).

Two years after the Columbia College lecture, Westinghouse was contracted to provide electric lighting for the Chicago World’s fair. As Seifer explains,

The Columbian exposition covered almost seven hundred acres, had sixty thousand exhibitors and cost $25 million. With 28 million attendees, the Chicago fair boasted a $2.25 million profit...

The Electricity Pavilion, adorned with a dozen elegant minarets, four of which rose 169 feet above the hall, was over two football fields in length and nearly half the measure in width. Covering three and one-half acres, this “spacious and stately” structure “befit[ted] the seat of the most novel and brilliant exhibit of the Columbian Exposition (Seifer 117-18).

Tesla was exhibiting many of his AC developments in part of Westinghouse’s section. The popularity of his ideas soared and “Tesla returned to New York exhausted but exhilarated” (Seifer 121). One of Tesla’s lifelong dreams was to somehow extract the monstrous amount of energy of the mighty Niagara Falls.

How extraordinary was my life an incident may illustrate... I was fascinated by a description of Niagara Falls I had perused, and pictured in my imagination a big wheel run by the Falls. I told my uncle that I would go to America and carry out this scheme. Thirty years later I saw my ideas carried out at Niagara and marveled at the unfathomable mystery of the mind (Tesla 28).

While Tesla’s popularity was rising in 1891, the same year his patent for the “ALTERNATING ELECTRIC CURRENT GENERATOR” (See Figure 1), Mikhail Dolivo-Dobrovolsky developed a 3-phase generator and designed a system to transmit the power produced over 100 miles from Lauffen to Frankfurt.8 This would prove crucial in the attempt to transmit the power generated at Niagara Falls to Buffalo, New York. “In short, without the Lauffen-Frankfurt success, there would have been no proof that AC was capable of traversing the twenty miles from Niagara to Buffalo, let alone from Niagara to New York City, which was over three hundred miles away” (Seifer 133). By the end of 1893, having proven successful numerous times, including with the lighting of the World’s Fair that year, Westinghouse had won the contract to design and build the hydroelectric systems to be installed at Niagara Falls. Working with General Electric (GE), the Fall’s first hydroelectric power plant came online in November 1896.9

Figures 1 & 2 (Left & Right): Nikola Tesla’s designs included in his 1891 patent for the ALTERNATING ELECTRIC CURRENT GENERATOR.10

Riding the wave of fortune and reveling in successful endeavors, things took a turn for the worse when, on March 13, 1895, Tesla’s laboratory on Grand Street burnt down—countless experiments and papers forever lost. It is reasonable to conceive of notes alluding to technologies that wouldn’t be realized for decades having been among the ashes. It’s hard to tell just how far ahead of his time Tesla was thinking. Of the tragedy, Charles Dana of the New York Sun had this to say:

The destruction of Nikola Tesla’s workshop, with its wonderful contents, is something more than a private calamity. It is a misfortune to the whole world. It is not any degree an exaggeration to say that the men living at this time who are more important to the human race than this young gentleman can be counted on the fingers of one hand; perhaps on the thumb of one hand (Seifer 146).

Tragic indeed! But, despite Tesla’s battle with depression, he was soon back to work further developing his concepts of wireless transmission (Seifer 147).

In 1898, Tesla filed Patent No. 613,809, METHOD OF AND APPARATUS FOR CONTROLLING MECHANISM OF MOVING VESSELS OR VEHICLES, which detailed designs for a remote-controlled boat. Tesla explained, “The apparatus by means of which the operation of both the propelling and steering mechanisms is controlled involves, primarily, a receiving-circuit, which for reasons before stated is preferably both adjusted and rendered sensitive to the influence of waves or impulses emanating from a remote source, the adjustment being so that the period of oscillation of the circuit is either the same as that of the source or a harmonic thereof” (Tesla).11 From this inspiration, an entire wireless world has been built in little more than a century since the patent was filed.

Figure 3: An overhead view of the boat designed by Tesla and filed with his Patent No. 613809 in 1898.12

In the mid-1890s, Gugliemo Marconi began experimenting with induction coils and other electromagnetic apparatuses—years after Tesla had developed and demonstrated wireless technology. However, in 1900, “Marconi took out Patent No. 7777, which enabled several stations to operate on different frequencies” (Cawthorne 53). It was for this work that Marconi was awarded the 1909 Nobel Prize. However, it wasn’t until after Tesla’s death in 1943 that “the US Supreme Court upheld Tesla’s patent number 645,576”, SYSTEM FOR TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY, essentially restoring to Tesla rightful credit for the discovery and initial use of radio waves (Cawthorne 181). The Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (BIPM) now defines the unit of magnetic flux density as the Tesla (T) in honor of the great “Wizard of Physics” (Seifer 121).13

It seems reasonable to proclaim that Tesla’s influence on the modern world continues to this day. And this is certainly true in some respects. Yet, it wasn’t until I was in my 20s that I learned about him. It appears that Tesla’s work isn’t pedagogically important. Sadly, we will never know the information lost in that laboratory fire in 1895. Perhaps the reason that we aren’t presented, even in high school, with supporting material for most of Tesla’s early work is because it went up in flames. As explained earlier, Tesla’s mind worked in peculiar ways that allowed him to perfect his designs without drawing a thing. In fact, almost no one aside from Tesla believed after 5 years of construction that the power station at Niagara would function. “The outlay was huge and no one knew whether it would work as the plans lay principally in Tesla’s three- dimensional imagination. However their worries evaporated when the switch was thrown and the first power reached Buffalo at midnight on 16 November 1896” (Cawthorne 69). With the regulations that have grown up beside the infrastructure over the decades, Tesla’s rather unorthodox method of design generally wouldn’t get financial backing these days. If investors are funneling millions of dollars into a project, they expect to see fully finalized designs—not the seemingly-fantastic claims of a lone engineer, however confident that engineer may claim to be in their work. Perhaps the reason why Tesla’s experiments aren’t generally considered methodologically important is that they were too unorthodox. Then again, we typically don’t have people with such a peculiar ability for interacting visions. This raises other interesting questions, though. Of the innovators, engineers, and scientists of the past several centuries, how many can we really point to and say, “They did groundbreaking, revolutionary work that changed the world!”? 50? Maybe 100? Nowadays, people unfortunately would rather enjoy exploiting and abusing the fruits of those 50 or 100 people’s labor for selfish ends than learn how to contribute themselves. It’s a weird world right now.

It’s a fascinating exercise to wonder how Tesla would view the modern world—the Internet, the Space Program, Lasers, cell phones, and lighting. After all, he did lay out the framework for what he called “The World System” that, in one way or another, predicts much of current, global society:

(1) The inter-connection of the existing telegraph exchanges or offices all over the world;

...

(6) The inter-connection and operation of all stock tickers of the world;
(7) The establishment of a ‘World-System’ of musical distribution, etc.;

...

(9) The world transmission of typed or handwritten characters, letters, checks, etc.;

(10) The establishment of a universal marine service enabling the navigators of all ships to steer perfectly without compass, to determine the exact location, hour and speed to prevent collisions and disasters, etc.; (Tesla 63-64)

It is not unreasonable to think (and perhaps I am a little biased and would simply love to hear him say it) that if Tesla were by some happenstance able to see the world today, he would be more than justified in proclaiming, “I told you so!”

Nikola Tesla was a masterful innovator whose work will, in one way or another, continue to be foundational for our ever-increasingly technical world. My hope is that his vision to provide “free” energy to the world will eventually be realized. Our system of competitive monetary acquisition and exchange has been outdated and unnecessary for decades now and Tesla saw it coming. Unfortunately, the word “free” was not what investors like JP Morgan or George Westinghouse wanted to hear. The situation is scarcely different in 2017. It is a rather unique, potentially tumultuous time to be alive. Never in humankind’s history have we had access to so much technology. And what exactly do we do with it? We kill each other over antiquated ideas, such as money and religion—mere figments of our imaginations. Where did our empathy go? Where have our critical thinking skills and respect for the environment that sustains us go? With so much information available at our fingertips, the number of people currently lacking basic scientific knowledge in society is frightening. We have the opportunity to build up our global society into one that is sustainable, efficient, and abundant; yet, we prefer to bicker about who people want to live and be miserable with. We’d rather focus on outmoded, supposedly righteous, religiously-based conjecture that has cause more death and destruction than anything in history. How do we move beyond the supposed necessity of untenable beliefs?

Children are capable of learning anything we teach them. We simply find excuses to not teach them the basics of physics, chemistry, calculus, biology, computer programming, and other disciplines important in the modern era, in, for example, elementary school because we might find them difficult. Well, our children are not us—they are capable of being exponentially more intelligent than us but we still fill their heads with garbage that makes us feel good. Perhaps this is because “that was the way daddy and granddaddy were raised” or whatever other primitive, selfish excuse used. Yeah? Well, compared to the amount of information available to and accessed by children nowadays, daddy and granddady weren’t very smart. We’re not even that smart! But we like to convince ourselves of it. In general, children are far more impressionable than teenagers while there is almost no comparison with adults. In other words, our future successes will be directly linked to the information we give the current generation of 5-10 year olds in these strange days. So, do we continue spreading lies and fairy tales or do we prove that we deserve stewardship of this marvelous world? Our choice at this point really is that simple. We have the information. We have the technology. We have the resources. What the hell are we waiting for?!

Endnotes

This timeline is available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_electrical_and_electronic_engineering
According to http://teslasciencefoundation.org/patents/, there are a confirmed 308 patents in 26 countries. “However, many patents related to the same inventions.”
This is taken from My Inventions and Other Writings on page 7. Tesla is lauding his father’s achievements and abilities as a multi-linguist. However, it is quite clear that Tesla wanted nothing to do with the clergy.
This date comes from www.teslasociety.com/biography.
This explanation, which is available in a much broader explanation on my blog,

http://thehumanendeavor.blogspot.com/2015/05/acdc-revolutions.html, was compiled from notes taken in a class I had in 2013 called DC Machinery in Ohio and presented in a much longer essay for my Honors Physics II course here at CU. In the DC Machinery class, which was taught by the same professor that taught my Circuits II class, we had the design of DC Generators/Motors drilled into our heads and this is the best way I can explain my understanding. It was interesting to be able to segue into multi-faceted discussions since we were talking about both DC and AC, often comparing the two to gain deeper insight into EM applications. The reason I decided to leave it in the way I wrote it before (with minor edits—namely, the parenthetical explanations in the first paragraph) is because the more I read this explanation, the more I felt I pretty much nailed it the first time and should just quote myself in full.

To be clear, I denoted the chosen text by indenting to express the fact that it is a quote and found that, if I were to subtract this section from the entire essay, I would still meet the 4000 word minimum. Considering the information I have provided in this section, to me it seems reasonable as long as I acknowledge as I did that I have used my own text and what text it was. In this, I feel I am being as honest as one can be. I hope that I am not mistaken!
The text of this lecture is available online from many sources. I used the site http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1891-05-20.htm.
See 6.
This story is outline on the website

http://www.edisontechcenter.org/LauffenFrankfurt.html.

9. The world’s first hydroelectric power plant was built on the Fox River in Appleton, Wisconsin. This is catalogued at http://www.americaslibrary.gov/jb/gilded/jb_gilded_hydro_1.html.

10. In his patent, readable at https://www.google.com/patents/US447921, Tesla explains, “In the systems of distribution of electrical energy from alternating-current generators in present use the generators give ordinarily from one to three hundred alternations of [current] per second. I have recognized and demonstrated in practice that it is of great advantage, on many accounts, to employ in such systems generators capable of producing a very much greater number of alternations per second-say fifteen thousand per second or many more. To produce such a high rate of alternation, it is necessary to construct a machine with a great number of poles or polar projections; but such construction, on this account, in order to be efficient, is rendered difficult. If an armature without polar projections be used, it is not easy to obtain the necessary strength of field, mainly in consequence of the comparatively great leakage of the lines of force from pole to pole. If, on the contrary, an armature-core formed or provided with polar projections be employed, it is evident that a limit is soon reached at which the iron is not economically utilized, being incapable of following without considerable loss the rapid reversals of polarity. To obviate these and other difficulties, I have devised a form of machine embodying the following general features of construction.”

11. The text of the patent wasn’t available on the US Patent Office website but I did find it at

https://www.google.com/patents/US613809?dq=patent+613,809&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0a

hUKEwjsxZyvns7TAhVX42MKHRHlBqQQ6AEIJzAA.

See 11.
This reference is from the introductory speech for Tesla at the 1893 Chicago World’s Fair by Elisha Gray.

References

Cawthorne, Nigel. Tesla: The Life and Times of An Electric Messiah. Chartwell Books, 2014.

Print.

Seifer, Marc J. The Life and Times of Nikola Tesla: Biography of a Genius. Secaucus: Carol

Publishing Group, 1999. Print.

Tesla, Nikola. My Inventions and Other Writings. New York: Penguin Group, 2011. Print. Tesla, Nikola. US Patent 447921 A. United States Patent Office, 1891. Grant.

Tesla, Nikola. US Patent 613809 A. United States Patent Office, 1898. Grant.

Tesla, Nikola. US Patent 649621 A. United States Patent Office, 1900. Grant.

-->

Discovering a Philosophy of Science

2017-04-16T10:44:00.000-04:00

Growing up in rural Ohio and being the youngest of three children, I was exposed to a set of rather unique circumstances that has in at least some ways led to my current philosophical purview. I can remember spending much of my time either at my grandmother’s house—she lived right next door—working on puzzles; playing scrabble; watching Matlock, MacGyver, and Murder She Wrote; or being outdoors exploring the seemingly endless woods. The neighbors on the other side had a dog kennel while the neighbors across the road were an older couple named the Kovach’s. Mr. Kovach was a veteran and what could likely be considered a master craftsman. He was almost always working on something in his garage that was set up for woodworking. My father worked for the telephone company and was also frequently working on or building something. One of the things I helped with for most of my life was baling hay. My family was heavily involved in the 4H program and the county fair so I was generally around hard-working people that cared about teaching young people how to self-sustain. I was never forced to attend church so my thought processes weren’t restricted to unnecessary, untenable claims and unquestionable truths. It left my mind mostly open to explore the workings of the world free from the threat of eternal damnation—something I find utterly ridiculous now. But, it wasn’t until I began my college endeavor almost 8 years ago that I realized I knew very little about the world and that the philosophy I had grown up with—certainly worthwhile in several aspects—was still rather flawed. Interestingly, it was outside of school where I was introduced to the lifework of a man that quickly piqued my interest: Jacque Fresco. And it was then, in 2009, that I began to seriously consider examining a philosophical outlook by which to live. Much of my general decision-making since that time has been influenced by the countless hours I spent watching interviews of and listening to lectures given by Fresco. Therefore, it is safe to say that I have arrived at a philosophy, which I will attempt to explain below, by aligning my values, as far as I have been capable, with those of Mr. Fresco.

Perhaps the most controversial concept that I have grown to embrace—the one that is certainly most difficult for people to even consider as plausible—is that of a global society that transcends the supposed necessity of an economic model based upon money. I’ve come to realize that the immediate rejection of this idea is easily understood as normal to us since everyone currently living on the planet, regardless of social status or geographic location, has known only a monetary based economic system and others like it. (Of course, it’s ridiculous because there can only be a system based upon money…right?!) But history is replete with instances proving that normal isn’t always correct. As Fresco states₁, “Everybody once believed the Earth was flat, but that didn’t make it so.” However, it should be noted that taking the idea of going against the norm to one extreme can also lead to the pockets of people nowadays that still believe the Earth is flat despite having an abundance of readily-accessible evidence and the ability to easily produce even more by performing their own version of an experiment Eratosthenes developed over 2000 years ago! And just as those people staunchly believe the Earth is flat and NASA is just a conspiracy mill churning out endless streams of CGI videos and pictures made in Photoshop, virtually the entire human population of Earth staunchly believes that economies are just not possible without some form of money or bartering. Lest we forget our massive technological achievements! Lest we forget that we were exposed to no other types of systems! To me, this is utterly bad science. But, what would a good philosophy of science say of such concepts as money? How would such a philosophy address several key issues such as experimentation, ethics, and asking the right questions?

I feel that a good philosophy of science should become completely detached from the idea of monetary economics. While I admit that money is in some ways a motivator of human behavior in our current society, it certainly is not the only possible one; nor can it be called the best since we haven’t fully and exclusively implemented any others to test outcomes. In today’s economy, nothing happens unless the movement of money occurs. Nothing! This means that any type of scientific exploration must survive a gauntlet of investment-related inquiry to be even remotely considered a worthy endeavor. In other words, funding, in a significant, perhaps unsettling, way, now dictates the direction of discovery. In my opinion, science should lead the economy—not the other way around. That is, anything that can be automated should be automated as quickly as possible. This has not been the case since displacing workers through automation without a replacement for income would cause the house of cards that is the current economic model to collapse. And if something is designed to better our lives, through mechanisms of the current economic model, such as intrinsic obsolescence, it is technically impossible for the final product to be the best, most efficient, most reliable product. The system itself will not allow it since a company must remain competitive and cannot do so by utilizing the most state-of-the-art designs, technology, and materials. Frankly, it would cost too much to be profitable—which, by the way, is the only real motivation of the current economic model. Irrespective of the amount of resources we have available on this planet, the motivation for companies has been to continually grow and produce more. But how can infinite growth happen on a finite planet? Simply, it cannot. So, the practice of monetary exchange is far more inhibitive, wasteful, and dangerous than it is motivating. Without the constraints of an unnecessary exchange medium, we could be freed from pointless, mundane “occupations”—most of which only exist as a direct consequence of a monetary system itself.

Fig. 1: A graphic from the site www.thevenusproject.com₂.

Sparing a long exploration of the transition to a moneyless society, which is far beyond the scope of this paper, the underlying philosophy of what Fresco calls a Resource Based Economy is based upon ideas and technologies we already have available to us today. In fact, we’ve had most of the technology required to manage such a society for about half a century. And that technology was developed through ongoing experimentation and improvement in design. But without money to influence the direction of research, as was undeniably the case up to now, how would we choose which experimental endeavors are worthwhile? The short answer is that no one chooses.

One of the most fascinating concepts that I learned from Fresco is that of arriving at solutions₃. Expanding on the concept of Figure 1, imagine that, rather than starting completely from scratch, we had all the knowledge and technology of our current society, but for one reason or another we also had the opportunity to develop a new method of social organization. What kinds of questions would we examine when money is no longer the dominant factor affecting all our decisions? First, the questions would shift from financial to practical concerns. For example, we might ask, “Do we have the resources and technical know-how?”, rather than, “Do we have the money?”, as Fresco has often suggested. Second, the questions regarding the ethics of scientific inquiry, discovery, and experimentation would be reexamined through a lens focusing on maintaining the environment which sustains us and the betterment of humankind (Figure 2). By reorienting our values in a manner that aligns with natural processes—for example, by recognizing factors such as carrying capacity before developing residential or industrial areas—we have the highest probability of maintaining a sustainable economic system for countless generations to come.

Fig. 2: Another graphic from The Venus Project website.

In any economic model that embraces scientific discovery, a method of theoretical development and confirmation must be accepted for cumulative progress to occur. While some might argue that science, at least in some areas, fails to present a complete picture of the workings of the universe, this is easily dismissible both as a logical fallacy, i.e. argument from ignorance, and by the crucial aspects that set science apart from every other discipline, i.e. two requirements that must be fulfilled in order for something to be considered a valid and sound scientific theory: 1. The theory must present reproducible evidence; and, 2. The theory must be falsifiable. So, science doesn't strive to discover and present us "the truth". ("The truth" tends to be un-falsifiable so it begs the question, is there such a thing?) Science can only give us close approximations to what we understand about the universe at a given time. As we refine the apparatus we use to probe the events of our world and the universe, our understanding, of course, is also refined₄. However, we can never reach a state of 100% understanding about a given phenomenon. The result is an arguably irrelevant epistemological/linguistic quagmire—one I can accept and move on from since it is abundantly clear to me that the methods of modern science, which have built the world around us and expanded our knowledgebase exponentially, works. The question people get hung up on is whether it will continue to work tomorrow; and the next day; and so on. My answer? Who the hell cares? The questions we should be asking deal with feeding the population of Earth; providing energy to everyone; curing diseases; reducing unnecessary human suffering; things that matter here and now. Philosophy is a wonderful endeavor, but as with any intellectual pursuit, even the whole subject runs the risk of extremes stifling progress. A good philosophy of science would teach experimenters to recognize this danger and develop ways to avoid it.

A good philosophy of science would teach us to immediately implement all current technology capable of feeding and providing clean, fresh drinking water to the entire human population; and do all we can to reduce human suffering across the globe as quickly as possible. This can begin today if we truly wanted. While theoretical models are beautiful and should be given credit when due, we have to test those theories. According to www.worldhunger.org₅, “the world produces enough food to feed everyone.” But, we don’t feed everyone. Poverty.com tells us that roughly 21,000 people starve to death daily₆. So, what’s the problem? Why aren’t we testing these data that tell us we can feed everyone? Clearly, our economic models and our general philosophy of science are experiencing some sort of disconnect. A good philosophy of science would recognize this and work to improve the system or reject it and develop a new system based upon all refined knowledge up to that point. (Knowledge, as I describe it, consists of aggregate data—all things that are and can be known.) It’s simply a matter of applying knowledge and technology that we already have. In my opinion, the defining characteristic of a good philosophy of science is that it, as Fresco says, enhances all human life.

I truly feel that we are living in the most pivotal point in humankind’s history. This is a bold statement that I will continue to make for the rest of my life since the range I have chosen to define as pivotal begins in the mid-1800s with the Second Industrial Revolution and will continue until around the mid-2100s. Three hundred years of exponential technological development; yet, what have we to say of our social values now that we are at the halfway point? We have so much potential as a species to build a truly magnificent civilization. Every great transition in the history of human thought was accompanied and possibly influenced by a technological revolution; that is, until the 20^th Century. Our technology quickly outpaced an evolution in social values and left us stuck in a sort of paradigm limbo. The clash of mostly-stagnant, traditional values with rapidly-updating technology has culminated in this extremely tumultuous, weird time that is the year 2017. We have more technical capabilities than ever before; yet, cling to outmoded and unnecessary concepts because they “make us feel good or special”. A final point a good philosophy of science addresses is that when dealing with evidence arrived at through repeated experimentation that may contradict our current understanding, our personal feelings toward the matter are mostly irrelevant. Unfortunately, this is perhaps the most difficult part to accept about what I feel is a good philosophy of science. But, with time and through the application of known technologies by those that currently have the economic standing to do so (a long stretch, I admit), perhaps I will live to see the day that we at least lay the groundwork for a Resource Based Economy.

Works Cited

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w

2. https://www.thevenusproject.com/

3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xa45LRPJXG0

4. This is from the first email I sent you dated January 18, 2017.

5. http://www.worldhunger.org/2015-world-hunger-and-poverty-facts-and-statistics/

6. http://www.poverty.com/

The ROVER Missions

2016-11-18T16:10:00.000-05:00

-->

For thousands of years, standardization has been a defining characteristic of Chinese culture. From the Terracotta Army, produced in the 3rd century BCE by hand, to modern manufacturing methods that incorporate machine automation, modular design has allowed us to increase extensively our capacity to provide goods to a rising global population, all while retaining elements of individuality. The ability to use the same pieces for a variety of configurations means that elaborate, updateable, interchangeable goods can now be assembled piecemeal from smaller, more easily mass-produced parts. When Henry Ford popularized the concept of the assembly line in the early 1900s, it perhaps marked the beginning of the modern era of mass production. And in the century since, both our knowledgebase and technical capacity have grown exponentially, giving us unprecedented access to view and experience the wonders of the universe. At this very moment, there are astronauts orbiting roughly 250 miles above the Earth’s surface in the International Space Station! We have a view of the cosmos that is virtually unfathomable even by modern standards. But, with as much progress as we made in the 20^th century, and with the ever-growing rate of progress made thus far in the 21^st century, humankind is bound to explore much more of the universe as it becomes technologically accessible to us; namely, our own solar system. So, what should we be sending out into the solar system?

The answer to this question depends upon what we are trying to find out. It presently costs around $10,000 per pound to send materials and people into space. Thus, it can be argued that the impetus for design already is that of carefully balancing efficiency and instrumentation so that cost can be minimized. With the advent of nanotech, 3D printing, smaller memory systems with much higher capacity, radioisotope power, and countless other technologies made possible by discoveries throughout the 20^th century, the call to reduce size while increasing functionality has never been easier to respond to. (The cell phones we so nonchalantly carry around in our pockets have far more computing power than that of the computers used to land astronauts on the moon!) However, due to the nature of exponentially increasing technical capabilities, even the Mars rover Curiosity is only as sophisticated as technology developed long before its launch in 2011. So, we have a very important hurdle to jump over when designing for otherworldly exploration; that is, once a project is approved and funded, deviation from the approved plan is highly unlikely. Therefore, even if new technology is developed while the project is being built that might enhance functionality, the likelihood of that new technology making its way into the project is extremely low, if not non-existent. There might, however, be a way around this problem if we embrace the concept of standardized interchangeability.

Now that practically all our instrumentation has been digitized and is much more compact, the idea of standardizing orbiters and rovers is more than feasible--it's inevitable. The idea is to build a single chassis that can have instrumentation easily and readily changed to fulfill objectives specific to each world the rig will be sent to. The Rapidly-interchangeable Orbiter/Vehicle Exploration Rig, or ROVER, is an ambitious project that represents the future of planetary body mapping. Incorporating everything from the Chinese-influenced standardization to Japanese origami, the goal of ROVER is to utilize the best of what we know works. For example, with the success of the Mariner, Viking, and Voyager missions in the 60s and 70s, and more recently with the Mars Exploration Rovers and Mars Science Laboratory in the 2000s, we have a pretty good idea of the instrumentation necessary to, say, search for life. Since we can’t go to most of the worlds that we are interested in exploring yet, it means we have to let robots be our remotely-accessed senses. Janet Vertesi of Princeton University spent several years studying the Mars Exploration Rover mission team gaining valuable insight into what it takes to plan for daily rover activities. Vertesi writes, “Skilled visualization and embodiment practices are part of adopting the robot’s sensitivities and mobilities relative to its environment on Mars” (p 399). In other words, we must become the robot to think and move like it. Once we understand how to think and act like the robots we send to other worlds, it becomes easier to plan their daily movements:

This skill is not only enacted through representational practices and talk, but is also physically performed through gestures and movements that write the Rover onto the human body. Eliding human and robotic experience begins at the level of talk about the robotic body. Although it lacks a humanoid shape, various parts of the Rover are verbally related to human body parts and actions… The Rovers ‘talk’ to Earth via communication antennas, ‘sleep’ at night, ‘wake up’ and ‘take a nap’, ‘stare’ or ‘look’ at targets on the surface regularly throughout the day. These active verbs describe technical activities, but also reinforce an experiential dimension of these activities consistent with human experience (p 399).

Again, the sensors required for each mission depend upon what we’re looking for. Say we want to send ROVER to Europa to look for signs of life; what will we need? Starting with the orbiter, there must be a way to communicate with both the team on Earth and the rover on the surface so the use of high-gain and low-gain antennas as well as UHF have proven effective in several previous missions. A new technology that can be incorporated into an orbiter is a version of CubeSats. CubeSats are tiny satellites about the size of a cantaloupe that can be released en masse from the orbiter to assist in surface imaging. While the CubeSats can be used to image the surface in the visible spectrum (possibly other wavelengths), the orbiter itself will house the more sophisticated imaging systems for infrared, ultraviolet, and radio. Once in orbit, telemetry spikes can be released that fall and impact the surface, communicating the data to the orbiter. (Telemetry spikes are an idea I have that could come in handy on a mission to Europa. Since Europa has a tenuous atmosphere, we shouldn’t have to worry about these spikes burning up in it. They can be released, the fall and impact data collected and transmitted to Earth, and then we can take time to analyze the data to determine the most viable landing area.) The idea is to gain as much insight about the surface as possible before releasing the vehicle to land. Another important instrument the orbiter will have is a dust collector and (if available) a compact mass spectrometer to study the material released from plumes that are pulled from cracks in the surface by Jupiter’s magnetic field. The orbiter must have a long-lasting power source. The Curiosity rover presents a convincing case for why we should probably choose radioisotope power for both orbiters and rovers on missions to the outer solar system. (Another rather ambitious idea is to include a sort of “mini-LIGO” [if it’s even possible] to measure the gravitational distortion that occurs as a spacecraft orbits a moon around a massive planet such as Jupiter.) Finally, due to the huge magnetic fields produced by Jupiter, electronic shielding is a given here.

The lander vehicle that will eventually be released will incorporate much more advanced versions of technologies that have been used before. Of course, if we want to see what we’re doing, we must have a variety of cameras recording data across the spectrum. Any material collected by the “arms” of the rover can be analyzed with onboard gas and liquid chromatographs that can detect chirality. The material can also be viewed through a microscope to search for microscopic signs of life. Europa is likely to have a large, sub-surface ocean of probably highly salty liquid water, indicated by the presence of a magnetic field. Therefore, we’re going to want to use ground-penetrating radar to understand the depth of the ocean. As well, we’re going to want to drill into the surface. Since it is currently unknown exactly how thick the crust is, a better option might be to bring along an apparatus that incorporates a chunk of sealed radioactive material that can be tethered, placed on the surface by the rover, and then allowed to melt through. Since the atmospheric pressure is so low, the melted water will sublime away, allowing the chunk to continue its descent into the unknown unabated by material that would normally slow the process by having to be continually removed. Even if we don’t reach the sub-surface ocean, some of the ice can be collected and melted for pH testing. If landing near one of the plumes created by tidal forces, the rover can drive close to it and collect some of the material being ejected for analysis. A wide range of spectrometers (visible, IR, gas, ion, etc.) will be housed in the rover giving it the greatest chance of finding evidence for biogenic materials. Essentially, ROVER will emulate the Mars Science Laboratory but will exceed its predecessor in the key areas of standardization and instrumentation. The objective of the ROVER missions is to cost-effectively explore every moon in the solar system by 2050.

The 20^th century marked a turning point in the human condition. We discovered truths about the universe that were unfathomable just a century prior. In just the past few decades, we have amassed more knowledge than in all of humankind’s history combined. We’ve even landed astronauts on the moon! But, we’re at an important crossroads in society. In my humble opinion, we are living in the most pivotal point in humankind’s history. We have the technology to easily feed, clothe, and house the entire human population of Earth; to automate most repetitive jobs; and to ensure the required dynamic disequilibrium for life on this beautiful world. But, we don’t really do any of that. Instead, we seem content with working on more elaborate ways to kill each other over imaginary concepts such as religion and money. (As an aside, I think it’s fair for me to at least mention a particular aspect of my view of money. That is, knowing that money is simply a form of debt, which is itself a figment, it appears we have been (and continue) asking the wrong question. The question shouldn’t be, “Do we have the money?” If we are serious about innovation, serious about taking care of the planet, serious about learning, growing, and taking care of each other, then the question is, “Do we have the resources and the technical know-how?” Money is a nothing thing. We can’t build the launch vehicles, the orbiters, the rovers, the instruments or anything else out of cash. At least, if we did, they wouldn’t work. Sure, we can argue about motivation but if it takes a figment of our collective imagination to motivate us to do anything on this planet for the betterment of it or ourselves, we are a sorry lot indeed and probably deserve to wipe ourselves out sooner rather than later.) So, we must ask ourselves the question, “Do we deserve stewardship of this planet?” If we can’t be bothered to take care of our very own majestic world—to ensure that we do not compromise Earth’s habitability—how can we possibly be trusted to take care of other worlds we might one day explore and possibly inhabit? In the 20^th century, we proved to ourselves that we can venture out into the universe. Now that we have swiftly moved into the 21^st century, it’s time to prove that we should.

30 Years

2016-10-14T01:42:00.001-04:00

Today marks the beginning of the fourth decade on this planet for me. Thirty years—what a ride! And, what a weird time to be alive! I’ve said it many times before and I will continually say this: We are living in the most pivotal point in humankind’s history. Never before have we had such unfettered access to information. We have the entirety of humankind’s knowledgebase at our fingertips. So, when I stop and think about the incredible amount of technology that has been developed in the past three decades alone, my immediate thought is that I can’t wait to see what we’ll develop over the next thirty years. Then I think about what we do with current technology and, quite frankly, I’m horrified. You could assume that the natural outcome of having so much information at our disposal would be a far greater level of intelligence throughout society. You could assume that, having reached a point of such streamlined, automated production and distribution, starvation at the very least would be a thing of the past. However, can we say that this is the case? (And the survey says…) Fuck no! Instead, what we currently have is an endless stream of competitive witticism.

Have you noticed that lately? Let anything happen—good, bad, ugly—and it’s a race to the comment sections of the news articles to be the first to unload an arsenal of insults and memes. Empathy died long ago and was replaced with a smug sense of self-entitlement and cherry-picked emotional offense. That is, the amount of hypocritical rhetoric out there is staggering. It’s amazing to me that people that can barely piece a legitimate sentence together jump right online to bestow upon the masses little nuggets of pseudowisdom in the forms of anecdote, misquotation, misinterpretation, and baseless opinion. We’ll argue vehemently about things that don’t even affect us. For what? What does it accomplish if the moment we put our phones down and look around the world, we have no answers by our own memories and cognition for why the world is the way it is? What does it accomplish if all we do is share information without understanding it? What does it accomplish if all we can say is, “Well, I can look it up!”? The fact of the matter is we all spend far too much time in this fictitious realm pretending to be something we’re not; pretending to know things we don’t; pretending we unquestioningly need these avatars in order to matter.

It seems weird speaking in terms of, “I remember when…,” but it’s difficult not to when I experienced an explosion of mind-boggling technology in my lifetime while simultaneously witnessing the erosion of social values. Nothing satisfies anyone anymore. Nothing. It’s probably because we can’t focus; our phones are practically grafted to our hands. You see, I graduated from high school in 2005 and I remember sitting in classrooms with people that were generally engaged. Was everyone there paying attention and participating? Of course not. There were simply people that didn’t give a shit. But, they were few and far between. And, according to my timeline, they are all doing exceptionally well nowadays. Success stories—every single one. (-__-)

I remember how amazing it was when teachers didn’t have to fear for their jobs and schools didn’t have to fear frivolous lawsuits when telling an unruly student to get the hell out of the classroom so that people that did care could focus and actually learn. What the actual fuck happened in 11 years?! Now I sit in college classrooms (COLLEGE CLASSROOMS!) and it’s like people can’t resist being on some type of device for a measly 50 minutes! They can’t sit there, shut the fuck up, and pay attention to the PhD at the front of the class that they are paying to teach! No, no—they have to turn to their buddy for a mini Mensa conference, ignore the professor giving the lecture, and exercise such a disgustingly profound sense of entitlement that the horrified feeling I talked about earlier becomes exponentially worse. The guy works at CERN; therefore, whatever you have to say is irrelevant. All of your questions that are about topics covered 3 semesters from now and needlessly take up precious class time now—irrelevant! As if it couldn’t get any worse, I then realize that some of these people I’m in school with will likely go on and get the chance to build rockets. Those rockets are going to fucking explode!

But, that’s not all. With all of that connection we have to this digital world, we are becoming increasingly disconnected from the real world. We’re ignoring the very scientific method that produced these wonderful devices which is also telling us that we are catalyzing an environmental catastrophe. For fuck’s sake, there are still people that actually believe Earth is flat! They’ll sit in front of a screen that is connected to the Internet, never having even stepped foot in a science classroom, let alone a laboratory, and hammer away furiously at the keyboard about all of the “research” they have done. Clearly, these people know far better than the astronauts currently in orbit around the Earth. It’s this type of unashamed idiocy that leads to the debacle that is the presidential race of 2016. Yeah, you knew I would eventually get here. How could I turn 30 and not address this ridiculous bunch of fuckery?

America: WHAT THE FUCK?! Seriously, WHAT THE FUCK?! I know I’m cynical but holy fucking shit! My cynicism seems like a refreshing, homely review of a delicious meal at a quaint little mom & pop shop compared to the actual state of this country right now. Hillary FUCKING Clinton?! Donald FUCKING Trump?! These are the idiots you all are arguing over? I’m not sure who is worse: you or them. You fuckwits are coming up with arguments to show your unwarranted support for one scumbag rich fuck head over another scumbag rich fuck head. Here, I’ll make it easy for you: We’re fucking doomed in any case. And it has nothing to do with either of these clowns; they really don’t give a fuck about you and never will. No, my fellow Americans, this has to do with YOUR apathetic outlook toward anything that doesn’t conform to your (generally narrow) worldviews—those hand-me-down opinions from the days of yore mixed with a newfound, safe-space-reinforced, seemingly unshakeable self-entitlement. There’s just one little problem: Someone forgot to remind everyone that our opinions are irrelevant and safe spaces are NOT real. But, coming back to the point at hand, someone also forgot to tell everyone that you reap what the fuck you sow. I’m so glad we have such beacons of Integrity, Trust, Honesty, and Respect to “choose” from this (s)election. Honestly, America, we deserve whatever we get! I really wanted to begin my next 30 on a non-cynical note but when I think about all of the stupid shit that I pump into my eyes daily (that’s right, I’m not exempt from any of this bitching!), I really can’t help it. And, if you know me then you know I can easily go on and on and on. But, most of you have stopped reading this by now and it wouldn't matter because nothing will change. The cycle of bullying, glorified dick and fart jokes, and ghosting continues. So, Happy FUCKING Birthday to me and enjoy the show, folks!

Love,

Kyle

Fiction & Reality Final Paper

2016-04-27T04:42:00.002-04:00

Technology and Transition

Monday, October 13^th, 1986: The day I was born. I don’t really remember much about the time in the 80s but I do remember the 90s. Technology that connected to a relatively new advent, the Internet, quickly made its way into homes across the country and around the world. By the end of the first decade of the new millennium, smart phones were ubiquitous and everyone that owned one began connecting to at least one of the several forms of social media developed in the past decade, sharing virtually every little detail of their lives with people that just ten years earlier would have been considered total strangers (some still are!). The dinosaurs of computing such as the Commodore 64 seem so unreal to those born after 2000 that have known since the time they were 5 only what it means to have the technology of the time: touchscreens, high speed internet, and endless games and apps. We’ve reoriented to living vicariously through pieces of glass, pretending the real world exists in a realm we can never physically touch. In essence, in the time since my birth, a paltry 29 years, our society has witnessed an unparalleled paradigm shift across multiple facets. But it’s not been only within my generation; it has been technology, as well as global environmental events, facilitating such transitions and connections throughout nearly our entire evolutionary history as hominids. In this essay, my focus will be on the technological aspect of our proliferation across and population of the world, how technology has essentially been the catalyst for every great transition in the history of several of our hominid ancestors, how the latest advents in machine automation are influencing the current generation’s ways of accessing as well as understanding information, and how through the implementation of a highly plausible, yet arguably radical, idea we can be the generation that changes it all once again. And we can change it to a system which manages resources sustainably and provides access to the necessities of life to everyone on the planet without a price tag. But first, where did we come from?

Feder tells us, “Sahelanthropus, Orrorin, and Ardipithecus are among the candidates for designation “oldest hominid”, all dating to about 6 million years ago” (Feder 2014). These were the first bipedal species and it was from one of these which evolved Australopithecus anamensis, 4.2 million years ago, Australopithecus afarensis, coinciding with a global cooling event 2.5 million years ago, and Homo habilis, producers of the first stone tools (Feder 2014). A stone tool making process known as Acheulean was developed by the next evolutionary ancestor of ours: homo erectus. It is also Homo erectus which began the process of migrating out of Africa, moving into parts of Asia:

The oldest evidence for the presence of hominids in China has been found in the form of chert, sandstone, quartz, and andesite cores and flakes at the Majuangou site in the Nihewan River basin… The site presents researchers with another example of how quickly Homo erectus must have spread across the face of Asia once expanding beyond its place of origin in Africa… Remember that the oldest Homo erectus find outside of Africa dates to 1.78 million years ago at Dmanisi [Georgia]… This implies it that it took Homo erectus just a little more than 200,000 years to spread across several thousand miles of territory (Feder 2014).

Weather has always been a supremely relevant factor in our evolutionary history; however, it is only through technological means that early hominids were capable of protecting themselves from the climatic changes that have occurred over the millennia. The Oldowan tools of Homo habilis and the Acheulean handaxe of Homo erectus, while distinctly different, both served purposes of cutting plant material and animal flesh. In a way, the Acheulean handaxe was the original Swiss Army knife—long before the Swiss Army; long before knives. Interestingly, the handaxe technology appears to have not migrated with Homo erectus, leading to several possible explanations, one of which is supported by Feder:

It is possible that Homo erectus first expanded out of Africa before they developed handaxe technology. Handaxes moved east with subsequent population movements (getting to India by 1.5 million years ago and China after 1 million years ago) (Feder 2014).

Although none of the explanations can definitively account for the absence of the handaxe technology from the migration of Homo erectus, tool-making has been an integral part of the survival of the subsequent species since. Feder continues:

Homo erectus was a stable and long-lived species. Fossils from Africa to east Asia show a consistent morphology from close to 1.8 million to 400,000 years ago. After 400,000 years ago, brain size, relatively stable during the existence of erectus, exhibits a rapid increase, signifying the evolution of the first Homo sapiens from an erectus base (Feder 2014).

So, what’s the point of going through this history? It turns out that each of these evolutionary transitions—bipedalism, the increase in brain size, and so on—appears to coincide with sophistication of these stone tools. Homo sapiens developed a technique called Levallois which produces consistent flakes from a stone core. Between this period around 400,000 years ago and when anatomically modern Homo sapiens evolved, blade tools were developed. Once the modern form of Homo sapiens replaced every other hominid species including Neanderthals (probably interbreeding with the species at some point) by around 40,000 years ago, the branches of our species in Europe developed several phases of tooling. Feder explains once more:

The blade technologies of the Upper Paleolithic are short-lived, and change is greatly accelerated. In western Europe, for example, the Aurignacian tradition consisted of a specific set of tools that included retouched blades, engraving tools called burins, and stone scrapers, and it is dated to between 34,000 B.P. and 27,000 B.P. (Feder 2014).

Following the Aurignacian, the Gravettian, from 27,000 B.P. to 21,000 B.P., and the Solutrean, from 21,000 B.P. to 16,000 B.P., the Magdelanian, from 16,000 B.P. to around 11,000 B.P., saw a shift from stone tools to bone and antler tools. It was during these latter periods that humankind began exploring the world through what many historians perceive as the first forms of artistic expression.

Although some of the earliest paintings of animals date to around 35,000 years ago in Indonesia, it is the fascinating work of Upper Paleolithic people near Lasceaux, France from around 15,000 years ago which represents a remarkable change in how our species viewed the world. By this time, the bow and arrow and spear-thrower had both long been a part of Homo sapiens’ hunting toolkit. The development of more sophisticated tools and weaponry, at least in the history of humankind, appears to be contingent upon the refinement of understanding. In other words, it is unlikely that the increasingly rapid technological progress our species has made would have occurred as quickly as it did if the incredibly complex neural network and associate memory system in Homo sapiens’ brain hadn’t evolved. Art, a logical outcome of designing with an associative mind, appears to function as a reflection of the broad, sometimes seemingly-disparate, connections and patterns that our individual minds are capable of making and seeing. John Berger, writing in Ways of Seeing and mostly with the assumption that everyone that is born can actually see, states, “Images were first made to conjure up the appearances of something that was absent” (Berger 1972). Of course, Berger was referring to Renaissance-era artwork, but the sentiment is equally applicable to Upper Paleolithic cave paintings. I’ll revisit more of Berger’s view shortly.

Transitioning out of the Pleistocene era, Earth began warming significantly, leading to an explosion of diverse plant and animal species around the world between 12,000 and 10,000 years ago. With a much milder climate, larger settlements began accumulating around resource-rich areas, along rivers and near river deltas, in places around the world such as Mesopotamia and in Central and South America (Feder 2014). In the span of a few thousand years, our species domesticated many different plants and animals, established large agricultural communities, developed hierarchy and social stratification, operated as vast trading economies, built massive monumental structures, and devised various languages—none of which would have been possible without the series of technological advancements taking place in conjunction with the change in Earth’s climate. So far, the idea that technology is the main catalyst for every great transition in human history holds.

Advancements in metallurgy, casting, and sculpting led to the next great transitional phase in our history manifesting in glorious jewelry, strikingly realistic statues, and beautiful relief sculptures on geometrically produced buildings. But then something happened in our history that stifled progress for about a thousand years: The Dark Ages. Not many historical records have survived from the time but before transitioning again into what is known as the Renaissance, atrocities such as the Spanish Inquisition were carried out and killed several thousand people for not believing in “the right god”. Sparing an unnecessary and long divergence, the Renaissance marked the beginning of another transition in human society.

The beginning of the 16^th century was an exciting time for progress. A fantastically realistic form of art had been developing in the area in and around Italy that harnessed the power of the newly-understood concept of perspective. Perspective uses converging lines to give an air of authenticity to three-dimensional representations on two-dimensional mediums. In other words, it shows the world as we see it. Berger writes, “Today we see the art of the past as nobody saw it before. We actually perceive it in a different way” (Berger 1972). Continuing the logic, Berger explains:

This difference can be illustrated in terms of what was thought of as perspective. The convention of perspective, which is unique to European art and which was first established in the early Renaissance, centres everything on the eye of the beholder. It is like a beam from a lighthouse—only instead of light travelling outwards, appearances travel in. The conventions called those appearances reality. (Berger 1972).

But perspective is only relevant to the single viewer of the work of art; i.e. perspective familiarizes the world to a single person when viewed in a single place. “The inherent contradiction in perspective,” Berger states, “was that it structured all images of reality to address a single spectator who, unlike God, could only be in one place at a time” (Berger 1972). Essentially, Berger best exemplifies the point I’m making here by writing, “The way we see things is affected by what we know or what we believe” (Berger 1972). I would take this one step further and say that there is a reciprocity involved. That is, the way we see things is affected not just by what we know or what we believe, but what we know and what we believe are also affected by the way we see things. There is a sort of social construction of knowledge through experience.

In Fear of Knowledge: Against Relativism and Constructivism, Paul Boghossian describes the concept of the social construction of knowledge and how it has influenced our species historically: “Our early ancestors thought they knew that earth was flat, but they were wrong. Although their belief about earth was justified, it was false. If a belief is to count as knowledge, it must not only be justified; it must also be true” (Boghossian 2006). Here, Boghossian highlights an important realization that early experimenters, perhaps most notable of which being Galileo Galilei, made: that shifting around rhetoric in a delightful, sophisticated manner doesn’t actually reveal many fundamental truths about the universe. Instead, it takes repeated experimentation, challenging of any preconceived notions one might have, and, when applicable, abandonment of those notions if they are found to be false. This concept of reserving belief for presentation of evidence was foundational for the four centuries of exponential growth in knowledge and technological advancement since Galileo turned his refined version of a telescope to the skies, discovering the first means by which we would explore the universe. Yet again, technology appears at the forefront of social progression and humankind’s proliferation.

Since the time of Galileo, we have seen the rise and fall of numerous governments and institutions, witnessed an astounding increase in population, developed unfathomable technologies and means of transportation and communication—some of us have even stepped on the moon! We’ve also allowed the establishment of a fictitious commodity that essentially is so engrained in our modern way of living, life without it seems a distant fantasyland to the vast majority of the population: money. Money is a nothing thing. It has no real value. As it stands, our current modern monetary/market system is wholly contingent upon the existence of electronic banking and the public perception that money is not only valuable, it is necessary. (Technology rears its head again in our quest to discover its influence on our progress.) Money is a socially constructed concept. And as much as I would love to expand upon the concept of money for 10 or so more pages, I’ll simply refer to what Boghossian has to say about it: “If we wished, we could make it the case that there ceases to be money in the future (although it would obviously be far from easy)” (Boghossian 2006). Imagine what we could accomplish by transcending this pretended necessity!

Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, an active public figure promoting the importance of science education and director of the Hayden Planetarium in New York City, has addressed many facets of our society through much of his work. In Death by Black Hole, Tyson explains:

Many factors influence how and why a nation will make its mark. Strong leadership matters. So does access to resources. But something else must be present—something less tangible, but with the power to drive an entire nation to focus its emotional, cultural, and intellectual capital on creating islands of excellence in the world. Those who live in such times often take for granted what they have created, on the blind assumption that things will continue forever as the are, leaving their achievements susceptible to abandonment by the very culture that created it (Tyson 2007).

After nearly 6 million years of evolutionary history, it took us merely 400 years since Galileo’s experimentation to create a system capable of connecting over 7 billion people: The Internet. And what do we do with it? We share cat videos! We bully and make fun of each other! We share glorified penis and fart jokes! We have all become so connected that we’re disconnected! But we also have access to the entirety of humankind’s knowledge-base. So, the Internet is probably the ultimate double-edged sword. We have the world at our fingertips yet waste so much of our time living vicariously through pieces of metal and glass that we risk losing the sense of responsibility that comes with stewardship of a planet.

Many people throughout history have speculated on the future of our species. Ray Kurzweil is perhaps one of the most prominent writers in the transhumanist camp that advocates the integration of machine technology with humans. “The singularity,” explains Kurzweil, “will represent the culmination of the merger of our biological thinking and existence with our technology, resulting in a world that is still human but that transcends our biological roots” (Kurzweil 2005). That sounds great and I understand where Kurzweil is coming from; however, I think that several fundamental aspects of our society need to be addressed before we start talking about such integration of technology with the human body. For example, we allow over 10,000 people to starve to death every single day; we are at constant war with ourselves, developing ever-decreasingly excellent methods by which to incinerate each other; and we have grown into a culture that prides itself on the notion of knowing how to look things up instead of knowing things. Technology is wonderful! But all technology has the potential to be beneficial as well as detrimental. Whereas rescue equipment can be outfitted on a helicopter that is used to save lives, missiles and machine guns can be strapped to that very same helicopter and used to blow people up. Technology is simply an extension of human attributes—intimately interconnected with every great transition in our history. This means that with current technology, we are the architects of the future. So, what kind of future can we have?

We currently have the technology, resources, and the understanding to design an economic model based upon sustainability, abundance, and preservation; to feed, clothe, and house every human on the planet. Known as a Resource Based Economy, the concept has been developed over the past 75 years by industrial designer and social engineer Jacque Fresco. Fresco recently turned 100 years old and currently resides on a 23-acre research facility built by him and his partner Roxanne Meadows in Venus, Florida. In a nutshell, the idea behind what he calls The Venus Project can be summed up best in Jacque’s own words:

In a Resource Based Economy all goods and services are available to all people without the need for means of exchange such as money, credits, barter or any other means. For this to be achieved all resources must be declared as the common heritage of all Earth’s inhabitants. Equipped with the latest scientific and technological marvels mankind could reach extremely high productivity levels and create abundance of resources (Fresco 2016).

It’s not unrealistic. In fact, in terms of shaping our own reality, humankind’s future has never been so pliable. We are living in the most pivotal point in our species’ history and have a chance to set a standard of unparalleled social and technological advancement. The choice is ours. If we can manage to unglue our eyes from what appears to have become our technological oblivion (phones), perhaps we can choose to set such an example that 10,000 years from now, our posterity will look back and exclaim, “That was the generation that did it! That generation was the one that decided a high standard of living is a right of every human on the planet! That generation, against all odds, rose to the occasion and proved that we have what it takes to deserve stewardship of this majestic world!”

That generation is my generation; it’s your generation. Our generation. What are we doing with what little time we have here?

References

Berger, John. Ways of Seeing. London: BBC and Penguin, 1972. Print.

Boghossian, Paul A. Fear of Knowledge: Against Relativism and Constructivism. Oxford:

Claredon, 2006.

Feder, Kenneth L. The Past in Perspective: An Introduction to Human Prehistory. New York:

Oxford University Press, 2014.

Fresco, Jacque. https://www.thevenusproject.com/resource-based-economy/

Kurzweil, Ray. The Singularity is Near. US: Penguin Group, 2005.

Tyson, Neil deGrasse. Death by Black Hole. New York/London: W.W. Norton and Company,

2007.

Fiction & Reality Written Response 3

2016-04-08T11:13:00.002-04:00

Are certain aspects of humanity’s past unspeakable or unrepresentable? Or are certain aspects of the past unknowable? Does either possibility place them outside of what we can understand as “real” (not in terms of their actual existence—that is certainly real—but in terms of how we can process them)? How might this be reflected in Maus or Running in the Family? Use specific details to respond to this question.

Since the advent of digital technology, access to information has been on a trajectory toward ubiquity. If there is a story that has been told or a piece of information collected somewhere through some experiment, it almost certainly lives within the framework of moving electrons and a vast cataloguing system of 1s and 0s. Strangely, we can’t actually see what we call ‘1s and 0s’; they are simply mathematical representations used to coordinate the translation and transportation of those electrons. In other words, we have since developed methods of representation as well as applications that were in a sense unknowable even 170 years ago when a large portion of the mathematics utilized in the digital realm—Boolean algebra—was being established. Perhaps that’s the way unknowability tends—from the past toward the future and not necessarily the other way around. The exceptions generally predate written language making any of these storylines an inference regardless of whether or not evidence is presented. So, to the extent that we can look at such evidence of written historical records, ancient artwork, translated ancient languages, etcetera; the past is knowable. Of course, this doesn’t account for the accuracy or truthfulness of that evidence but it does give us something to know.

One of the most remarkable things about language is that there is an unfathomable number of combinations of words. That is, there is an infinitude of ways to say something. So, to claim that something is unspeakable makes little to no sense. Even if we are referring to the sense of unwillingness to say something out of remorse, disgust, or other emotional quality, that does not diminish the undeniable nature of our ability to actually speak about it or represent it in some way. The very same technology that was used to produce this paper, with all kinds of strange things happening in an unseen yet mutually agreed upon as real dimension, can be used to represent interpretations of our mutually experienced reality through, for example, word processing programs. But, it doesn’t end there! New realities can be created and represented, too. Many blockbuster movies nowadays rely heavily upon computer-generated-imagery (CGI) to supplement footage of actors and actresses in real-world locations. Sometimes entire environments are digitally created using footage shot in front of green or blue screens. The point here is that we have reached an age in which anything can be virtually represented utilizing the latest advancement in technology. So, why do we still print books?

Quite simply, books are tangible. Although we consider what goes on behind these screens a sort of reality, it certainly is a far cry from actually picking up a book and reading from it. Processing the information as it is presented to us on a two dimensional screen is much different than processing information from a three dimensional object we can hold in our hands. This doesn’t necessarily mean that one medium is superior to the other; such a description is reserved for personal preference. However, it can confidently be asserted that both of these mediums present opportunities for interpretations of what can be considered “real”. For example, the existence of the Internet has manifested a common theme of social networking that is generally accepted as real. But, it’s not real; it’s a fictitious realm. Yet, our entire society appears to have embraced this fictitious realm as the only reality that matters. People are “friends” with thousands of people they don’t even know as if that number establishes some sort of significance. It doesn’t. Again, it’s not real.

Maus represents the struggle of taking a difficult subject in our real-world and making it palatable even if it means creating an entirely new reality to do it. That’s exactly what Spiegelman did here. Perhaps alluding to an overarching theme of dehumanization, Spiegelman chose specific animals to represent the different ethnicities in this work—cats for the Nazis; mice for the Jews; pigs for the Poles; and dogs for the Americans. It is practically a given growing up in a modern industrialized nation to have been introduced to the horrors of the Holocaust at some point in the form of one representation or another. Spiegelman uses a rather unique melding of three storylines—his writing the book; his father’s storytelling; and his father’s story itself—with a comic book/graphic novel form which offers a realness that perhaps would not have been achieved had the book been written in a traditional biographical format. A particular moment in the story that stood out was on page 232 when Vladek is talking about the cremation pits. “The holes were big,” he tells Art, “so like the swimming pool of the Pines Hotel here. And train after train of Hungarians came.” The frame then switches back to the past and shows in a slightly larger frame bodies being thrown into burning pits reading, “And those what finished in the gas chambers before they got pushed in these graves, it was the lucky ones. The others had to jump in the graves while still they were alive…” Then, in an almost surreal expansion of this most devastating reality, the largest frame at the bottom of the page shows flames engulfing bodies, three of which appear to be screaming in agony: “Prisoners what worked there poured gasoline over the live ones and the dead ones. And the fat from the burning bodies they scooped and poured again so everyone could burn better” (p 232). We know these horrible things happened. But still we ask ourselves how in the world could this possibly be real? That’s the distinctively human caveat: even in the face of evidence, we individually struggle to accept certain things as real. So when we talk about things being real, what we mean is real to us. Maus makes the Holocaust real to us.

Fiction & Reality Response Essay 2: Subjectivity, Perception, Language, and Subtlety

2016-03-13T10:32:00.004-04:00

How is it that we take so much for granted as real in our everyday lives, when it is typically more complicated than that?

The fact that, in order to write this essay, I am staring into what has essentially become our technological oblivion, tapping a few buttons that I’ve practically memorized, and watching my thoughts manifest in a program—which, by the way, is translating, in some unseen, intangible yet very real realm, a constantly-updating stream of 1s and 0s into several successive higher-level languages and eventually into something called “Times New Roman” text set to a 12-pt size, double-spaced, on a two-dimensional screen that is capable of representing the three-dimensional “real world”, manufactured from multitudinous disparate materials brought together as the result of an extremely long, complex web of design, innovation, business transactions, and manual labor—speaks volumes about how much in our modern age we truly take for granted. (Eat your heart out, Proust!) Berger explains, “We never look at just one thing; we are always looking at the relation between things and ourselves. Our vision is continually active, continually moving, continually holding things in a circle around itself, constituting what is present to us as we are” (p 9). With advertising and marketing agencies feeding us endless streams of mind-numbing “But wait, there’s more!” idiocy; telling us how disgusting our bodies look; how inadequate we are in the bedroom; how we will never amount to anything unless we get out there, unquestionably clock- in to the dictatorship for 40+ hours a week, and prostitute ourselves for money in whatever ways we morally rationalize to ourselves as acceptable so that we can buy all of the trinkets, planned obsolescence, and other wastes of precious, limited resources that will supposedly make our lives so much better; it’s no wonder people typically are just too inundated with distractions and perception manipulation to notice nuance nowadays.

Are there pragmatic reasons for doing so?

Of course! —There are pragmatic reasons for doing everything...right?

Are there consequences?

Cheesy philosophical jokes aside, by pragmatic standards, the idea of “consequence” is really just a description of our ongoing interaction with the paramount reality we all mutually experience. So, we call things choices and pat ourselves on our backs for being so very special and capable of making those choices; but we don’t realize, or perhaps refuse vehemently to realize, that none of those choices would exist were they not consequences of some earlier and earlier consequences—a possibly never-ending chain. In fact, none of us would exist by the same reasoning. Talk about consequences!

Why might it matter that we recognize what we take for granted?

In 1928, a book called Propaganda was released by Edward Bernays that was essentially the foundation for the highly influential sector of our world called public relations. In this book, Bernays describes the rather simple process of manipulating public opinion on large scales using regional and situational biases, nuance, and unrecognized consequences. Today, coupled with the ubiquity of the Internet, using these and several other techniques to manipulate public opinion has never been easier! Whereas Berger claims that the “camera isolated momentary appearances and in so doing destroyed the idea that images were timeless” (p 18), the Internet—or more accurately our misuse of the Internet and perhaps all of our modern technology—has simply destroyed the idea of actually knowing things and replaced it with the idea of looking things up. In other words, knowledge of how to look things up has become a poor simulacrum of, and at the same time has successfully depreciated and supplanted, knowledge itself.

Perhaps the most irritating “argument” I hear tends to reference minimum wage and how some people apparently don’t deserve a living wage because they “flip burgers” or something— as if that should be viewed as a pejorative. (By living wage, I mean a wage that can allow one to afford to live without any assistance programs outside of reasonable extenuating circumstances.) At its core, the argument hinges on self-placement upon some imaginary hierarchical scale that only exists in the minds of those perpetuating it which basically states “Everyone must EARN what they get. No entitlements. No freebies...” and so on. Well, I love being the eradicator of unsubstantiated claims, so think about this: Just by being born in a so-called First World country in our modern age, you were GIVEN cell phones, automobiles, planes, interstate highways, healthcare systems, supermarkets, the Internet, and computers; clean, fresh water delivered right to your spigots; and lights at the flick of a switch (or even the clap of your hands). You got all of that and more and in fact expect it—and what did you contribute toward it? Nothing! Don’t feel bad, though—I didn’t do anything to contribute toward it either; but I certainly expect it. For, we are all entitled to the fruits of our predecessors’ innovations because that is the nature of innovation itself: To allow for the free flow of information so that others can build upon that information and perhaps better some aspect of our world with it. But, a dangerous situation manifests when people begin alienating others by using dehumanizing tactics: Social stratification. This idea is not just socially constructed; it is socially reinforced—fascinatingly, even within the lower echelons of the class system itself. In other words, no matter our place on the hierarchical scale, the assumption that classism even exists is taken for granted without exception. So, I suppose the question at this point is this: What kind of consequences will arise from our current actions and social organization on this planet considering we’re no longer captivated by our own experiences of the universe because we were duped into striving to live vicariously through and emulate other people’s experiences instead?

Fiction & Reality Response Essay 1

2016-02-06T04:21:00.000-05:00

The following essay was written in response to the prompt:

Compare John D’Agata’s approach in Lifespan of a Fact with Tim O’Brien’s approach in “How to Tell a True War Story” (and/or “Good Form”). How do you feel about artistic license in both cases? Where do we draw the line regarding how much license we will accept and what are the factors involved in this decision? Explain your reasoning as you analyze the two texts and address why this is important.

Lifespan of a Fact

 with Tim O’Brien’s approach in “How 

to Tell a True War Story”

 (and/or “Good Form”). How do you feel about artistic license in both 

cases? Where do we draw the line regarding how much license we will accept and what are the 

factors involved in this decision? Explain your reasoning as you analyze the two texts and 

address why this is important. 

When writing stories relating to what Berger and Luckmann call the paramount reality (“The Social Construction of Reality” p 25), even if only for publishing categorization, authors must decide how much artistic license they will use. In my opinion, the line of acceptance is drawn between these genres. That is, if someone publishes a book, an essay, or anything between, within, or without that is labeled “fiction”, I would expect it to be a work of their imagination that has only the possibility of incorporating real-world scientific facts, historical events, people, and situations; if that person publishes a book, an essay, or anything between, within, or without labeled “nonfiction”, I would expect it to be based upon facts and real-world, documented events— not rife with misquotes and blatant fabrications. (Granted, “based upon” seems to present yet another dimension of the never-ending mental exercises that are writing and interpretation, but I’m going to spare a rather unnecessary tangent regarding the inefficacy of our language here and simply say this: Facts and real-world, documented events are corroborated by producible documents, photographs, unedited videos, and/or reproducible, falsifiable experimental evidence.) That’s not to say that in nonfiction, thoughtful, meaningful extrapolations cannot be made based upon presently available information. Instead, in doing so, integrity advises the use of a reasonable amount of discretion regarding the injection of unverifiable personal opinion and anecdote in something labeled nonfiction and requisites explicit statement of the use of such.

Having drawn the line of artistic freedom in the previous paragraph, in The Lifespan of a Fact, author John D’Agata and fact-checker Jim Fingal go head-to-head in a no-holds-barred battle of wits while trying to flesh out the defining attributes of fiction and nonfiction. Well, I suppose that’s not entirely accurate. Perhaps a better way to put it would be this: D’Agata wrote an essay— I stress this because he makes abundantly clear his reasoning for such self-permissive licensing by calling himself an “essayist” (p 53)—Fingal fact-checked it, and then proceeded to utterly destroy D’Agata by pointing out one factual discrepancy after another—names of bars (p 16), made up “facts” (p 85), and made up stories (p 91), among many others. In other words, D’Agata appears to have taken unwarranted artistic freedom. So Fingal’s analysis was meticulous—shouldn’t D’Agata have been meticulous in accurately relaying his research knowing that this was going to be published as nonfiction? I think so. Frankly, if someone, D’Agata in this case, gets factual accuracy called into question from the very first sentence (p 15) of their book or essay or whatever they would like to call the words they’ve pieced together under the future categorical term nonfiction and then proceeds to offer endless rationalizations and smartass remarks in response, it’s not only disingenuous, after a while it’s just childish and petty. Certainly entertaining, as this is one of the most interesting titles I now own, it’s still a bit petty for D’Agata to be so hand-wavy with what he calls “facts”.

In contrast, author Tim O’Brien, writing in the excerpt “Good Form” from his book TheThings They Carried, takes a very different approach. First, the book itself, and hence the excerpt, is overtly labeled fiction. Despite being written in first-person narrative style, I know that, while there may be demonstrably nonfictional elements, the story certainly is not entirely true. But, that’s okay because I know this from the outset—it’s literary fiction. Second, O’Brien makes a distinction between “happening-truth”, i.e. what happened in a nonfictional sense, and “story-truth”, i.e. waxing eloquent. Regarding story-truth, he says, “I can look at things I never looked at. I can attach faces to grief and love and pity and God. I can be brave. I can make myself feel again” (p 172). The importance of this distinction is captured in the interactional anecdote with one of his daughters in the last three lines: ‘“Daddy, tell the truth,” Kathleen can say, “did you ever kill anybody?” And I can say, honestly, “Of course not.” Or I can say, honestly, “Yes.”’ (p 172).

The thing that makes fictional (story) truths so appealing is that they allow us to create a world in which we can think and say and believe and do and be whatever we want. It’s just when fictional truths spill over into our mutually experienced reality—the paramount reality—without the outright fictional distinction, manifesting in book signing deals through the egregious, willful manipulation of public opinion and funds, our society becomes more and more disjointed and idiotic—debunked myth and baseless opinion taking precedence over reproducible, experimental fact. I’m not the PC police. In fact, I think that is one of the most annoying trends of the past few years: Everyone getting offended by every little thing. I personally feel that almost no sort of speech is off-limits—save very few examples of what can be termed social-violence-inciting speech. (I tried being straightforward in my meaning without having to navigate an entirely new set of explanations for what that type of speech is and what intent means. I’ll assume that you understand.) The beautiful thing about free speech is that I can say things that are offensive and, well, who gives a shit? Being offended is the most useless thing that a human can be. I bring up this point to clarify that taking the “no limit” approach to artistic freedom isn’t something I’m “offended” by. Rather, I feel that the “no limit” approach and shirking labels because someone thinks of themselves as “an artist that shouldn’t be constrained by those labels” not only perform a disservice to the general public that have the indisputable honor and privilege of reading such glorious literary tours de force but also reek of shameless, unfettered hipster narcissism.

Winning the Lottery

2016-01-10T17:15:00.002-05:00

In a world full of sham, drudgery, chaos, and confusion, a singular thought (almost) undeniably pervades ‘civilized’, modern, industrialized nations self-privileged enough to host lotteries capable of growing to epic proportions: What would I do if I won the lottery? With an estimated $1.3-billion Powerball jackpot ahead, this is a question that is certainly running through the minds of Americans.

For some, the idea that you pay a buck or two and get the understandably and acceptably minimal ‘chance’ to win hundreds of millions of dollars—well, it’s obviously an inviting prospect—they "just don’t do it". But let the lottery reach unprecedented levels and the rhetoric changes: "Of course it seems legitimate just this once to step outside of my normal routine and catch a small case of prospect fever: why not?" Whatever the rationalization, your typical blasé/never-play attitude toward what you deem ‘remote and nearly impossible odds’ rears itself impervious to all but the absolute remotest chances—1 in ‘the entire population of your country or more’.

Others take a more methodical, ritualistic approach to the lottery, playing occasionally as you pay for gas at a station that sells them and you happen to glance at the board that tells you whether the jackpot has reached some arbitrary point above or below which you’ll nonchalantly cave and buy a ticket. I wonder how unperturbed you will be when you win.

Yet others take the prospect to entirely new level—some would call it a new dimension. You have your list of ‘reliable, dependable numbers’ that have never hit anything (“but will someday; you wait and see”)—collections of increasingly superstitious digits attributed to birthdays, holidays, movies, addresses, games, and pretty much any other possible cipher combination justification imaginable—that you shuffle like clockwork into the same corner shop at the same times every week, hand the same already-filled-out play cards to the same cashier, have the same conversations about the same things you would buy and the same things you would do in the same places… Oh no! I’ve gone and done it: I made the word same weird by repetition. English is such a fascinating language!

Anyway, preferences of lottery-playing protocol aside, lottery-winning is an entirely different creature that requisites a number of critical steps in order not only to remain sane, but also to maintain your newfound wealth.

1. BREATHE and don’t die of a heart attack! I know that this event is unlike any other before and I know that, as someone that has never won a huge lotte…. Oh yeah! I’ve never won the lottery so just pay attention to the first line. I’ll repeat it: BREATHE and don’t die of a heart attack! You won’t get to enjoy anything if you’re dead.

2. FILL IT OUT. After the excitement settles a little and you stop jumping around flailing your arms about—possibly breaking things because you’ll ‘get a new one’—grab a pen! That’s right, if you haven’t already, turn that ticket over and FILL IT OUT NOW!

3. KEEP QUIET. The first call you should make should be to…NOOO! PUT THAT PHONE DOWN! YOU TELL NO ONE! In fact, get rid of the phone—you’ll thank me later. It’s already too late to go and try to collect your winnings so you just have to face the fact that if you won on a weekday, you’re going to have to wait until tomorrow morning; if you won on a Saturday, I’m sorry to tell you that tomorrow is going to be the most excruciating Sunday of your life. Again, TELL NO ONE!

4. KEEP IT CLOSE! Honestly, this step is so simple: DO NOT LET THE TICKET OUT OF YOUR SIGHT. Seriously, do you want to be the jackass that celebrated too frantically and dropped the thing into your fireplace or some other ridiculous, easily-avoidable scenario? No you don’t!

5. BE SENSIBLE. Since you have to wait this thing out, I highly suggest NOT ingesting any substance that puts your life at risk in any way. Let’s not kid ourselves, a large portion of American society is hooked on prescription drugs, and a smaller yet still noticeably pronounced segment of the population enjoys alcohol and harder drugs recreationally. Some of these people occasionally or regularly play the lottery so if you fall into this category, BE SMART! Keep the celebration responsible and reasonable. You now have the funds to do literally EVERYTHING and ANYTHING you’ve ever wanted to do—don’t fuck it up before you even see your winnings. Again, you won’t get to enjoy anything if you’re dead.

6. FIND A LAWYER. While you are waiting out the night or the most awkward Sunday ever, the most prudent allocation of your time would be toward researching lawyers. Let’s face it, no matter the level of financial knowledge you have attained thus far in life, you’re going to need a lawyer from here on out.

7. MAKE A LIST. If you’ve settled on a particular law firm or even several choices, the next thing would be to start your list of “Things You’ve Always Wanted”. Include all of the superficial commodities you’ve dreamed of—the houses, cars, vacations, jewelry, clothes, etc.—and then SET IT ASIDE. This is important. Trust me when I say that if you do this right, you, your kids, grandkids, great grandkids and so forth will never have to worry about any of that ever again—at least, as long as we continue using monetary/market-based economics. DO NOT start buying all of this crap. You’ll thank me for this one later.

8. MAKE ANOTHER LIST. This is the one that counts. This is the list that is going to set into motion the events that will unfold as ‘the rest of your life’. The first part of this list should contain any debt, mortgages, assets, and any other financial information about yourself that you will soon resolve. You don’t want anything financial looming over your head ever again so it’s best to resolve any of that before proceeding further. The second part of this list should contain any ideas you’ve ever had for investments, innovative technology, and really any other small- or large-scale projects that have interested you throughout your life. As well, you should weigh the pros and cons of accepting a lump sum or annuity payments. Use this opportunity to envision a better world because now you have the means to actually affect a significantly larger change than the rest of us ever will. Please don’t squander it!

9. ONE MORE LIST. Whether you would like to accept it or not, one day you’re going to check out permanently. Now that you are mega wealthy, you’re going to be putting yourself in situations you would have never otherwise found yourself in—some dangerous; some deadly. Frankly, you need to make a living will. And (I know that it sounds a bit paranoid at this point but it truly is important) remember to TELL NO ONE! You need to realize that people will be crawling out of woodwork you never knew existed trying to pry some of your wealth away from you by any means necessary. A strong yet healthy guard should be maintained.

10. BE THE CHANGE. So now you have your lists in hand and the day has come. It’s time to go present the winning ticket and collect your winnings. Whether or not you go lawyer-shopping first is up to you. Just keep in mind that before you actually have the money, the lawyer has the upper hand. After you collect, you literally have all of the bargaining chip(s). Some states allow you to remain anonymous so that’s another thing that is up to you. In any case, may you choose to, as Mahatma Gandhi famously stated, “be the change you wish to see in the world.” Be safe. Be humble. Be the best you that you can be.

I hope you enjoyed my (inexperienced) advice. I’ll be making my 'Second List' and posting it soon so stay tuned for that. I invite all of you to like and share this status along with your very own ‘Second List’ to show the world what you’re truly made of. You're all beautiful, powerful, amazing beings. So, I’ll leave you with something I’ve been saying for at least six years now: Live. Learn. Love…

The Library of Alexandria: A Bastion of Knowledge Lost

2015-12-01T01:25:00.000-05:00

The Library of Alexandria: A Bastion of Knowledge Lost

Kyle Benjamin

November 30, 2015

Figure 1: A map of ancient Alexandria from 50 BCE to 50 CE.1

Ptolemy I Soter, c. 376 BCE—c. 283 BCE, The Library of Alexandria (Comprised of a Museum and its main library and the Serapeum—added later), 4th Century BCE.

Marble, Gold, and Bronze.

Dimensions Unknown.

Location: Alexandria, Egypt (some ruins).

_______________________________
1 MacLeod et al., The Library of Alexandria, Centre of Learning in the Ancient World (New York: I.B. Taurus & Co Ltd, 2000), x.

The Internet is quite possibly humankind’s greatest achievement. In a single day, we can read practically any book ever written (and, in fact, any book that ever could be written)2, dive to the bottom of the Mariana Trench, climb to the top of Mount Everest, break the sound barrier, talk to virtually anyone on the planet in real-time, and even take a look around Mars—all from the unparalleled comfort of our beds. The Internet represents the culmination of our species’ desire to catalogue our interaction with and understanding of the universe. And the technology we have developed in our quest for more knowledge never ceases to astound. There are computer chips now, perhaps no larger than a fingernail, that will hold over 100,000 books in digital format (1s and 0s)! That many books would have taken generations to accumulate 2400 years ago. But, as I learn more about our history, it appears we are uniquely adapted on this planet to be broadly creative; to document the world around us through that creativity; to have a sort of analytic impulse. And, since that time so many centuries ago, we have developed increasingly creative ways to document this experience of life. However, we’re also uniquely gullible—a veritable albatross—and will believe almost anything. So, in discussing the Library of Alexandria, I will argue that, as a whole, the institution represented a center of analysis, learning, and information sharing—the mainspring of knowledge in the ancient world at the time. But, there is a particular element of the institution, the Serapeum, that was devoted to the reverence of the Ptolemy-created god Serapis.3 And, while the idea of the Greek Mouseion was focused at the outset on adoration of the Muses, incorporating an Egyptian tradition of using religious temples as libraries into Greek intellectualism manifested in what can be described as one of the first research institutes focused predominately on knowledge expansion.4 Therefore, this work falls mostly under the analytic impulse with only a sprinkling of the believing impulse.*

_______________________________
2 https://libraryofbabel.info
* The Art History class this was written for categorized the artwork studied into seven impulses. Figure 3 shows an explanation of each impulse.

Much of what we now know about the Library of Alexandria has been developed piecemeal from various ancient writings. One of the most prominent, called The Letter of Aristeas (c180-145 BC), indicates a high probability of The Ptolemeic Mouseion Academy (Mouseion hereafter) and its Library having been built under Ptolemy II Philadelphius but commissioned by his father, Ptolemy I Soter.5 Demitrius of Phaleron, a student of Aristotle, was chosen by Soter as the first librarian; having been noted for utilizing both an Aristotelian and a Platonic model before when designing a school for Theophrastus.6 The idea behind the entire institution was heavily influenced by both Greek and Egyptian tradition—a sort of synergy of religious and intellectual pursuits. The Mouseion and its Library, thought to have been a rameseseum consisting of a palace, museum, and shrine, essentially functioned as an academic research center where scholars were encouraged to live and work by the Ptolemies who offered a number of enticing amenities.7

The first three Ptolemies went through what can be described as a kind of bibliomania; i.e. an almost insatiable desire to own every book ever written. It is said that anyone entering Alexandria would have their books seized and copied and then have the copies returned to them; the originals, of course, being kept by the Library and translated to Greek, if necessary.8 The Library is estimated to have had between 400,000 and 700,000 texts and roughly 40,000 of those

_______________________________
3 MacLeod et al., The Library of Alexandria, Centre of Learning in the Ancient World, 5.
4 Heather Phillips, “The Great Library of Alexandria?,” Library Philosophy and Practice, August, 2010: 2.
5 Heather Phillips, “The Great Library of Alexandria?,” Library Philosophy and Practice, August, 2010: 2.
6 MacLeod et al., The Library of Alexandria, Centre of Learning in the Ancient World, 3.
7 Heather Phillips, “The Great Library of Alexandria?,” Library Philosophy and Practice, August, 2010: 3.
8 Heather Phillips, “The Great Library of Alexandria?,” Library Philosophy and Practice, August, 2010: 4.

scrolls were held in a “daughter” library inside the Serapeum.9 Saying that these people were interested in mapping and documenting the physical and social worlds is an understatement.

Historian P.M. Fraser proposes that according to Strabo, a Greek geographer, philosopher, and historian: “The Mouseion is part of the royal quarter and it has a cloister and an arcade and a large house in which is provided the common meal of the men of learning who share the Mouseion.”10 Statements made by both Rufinas of Aquileia and Aphthonius suggest a grammatical argument that can be made about their descriptions of the Serapeum being past tense, meaning they both had likely been to the site before 391 AD but wrote the descriptions after its destruction that year—part of Rufinus’ cursory description of the Serapeum being:

On the upper level there extended habitations in which temple staff and those whom they called hagneuontes, meaning those who are pure, normally resided.... In the middle of the entire area, there was the sanctuary distinguished by its precious columns, in it was a statue of Serapis, so large that its right hand touched one wall and its left, the other. That monster was said to have been made of all kinds of metal and wood. The interior walls of the sanctuary were believed to have been covered first with gold plate, overlaid with silver and finally with bronze, the last as a protection for the more precious metals.11

Other than the scarce statements mentioned, very little is known about the physical structure of the Mouseion itself since none of it survived into the 21st century. The only ruins

_______________________________
9 Heather Phillips, “The Great Library of Alexandria?,” Library Philosophy and Practice, August, 2010: 4.
10 El-Abbadi et al., What Happened to the Ancient Library of Alexandria? (Leiden: Koninklijke Brill NV, 2008), 53.
11 El-Abbadi et al., What Happened to the Ancient Library of Alexandria?, 90-91.

existing today are those of the Serapeum (see Figure 2). As with practically any ancient situation, centuries since have heard many stories of the unfortunate destruction of this most wondrous place. There was even an elaborate story popularized in the West by a professor at Oxford named Edward Pococke in 1663 about how an Arab general once ordered the destruction of all of the books.12 This story has been, among a few others, debunked as a myth with no clear intention. Nevertheless, while no number is absolutely certain, anywhere from 40,000 to 400,000 books are thought to have been burned in 48 BC in a last-ditch military effort by Julius Caesar that caused fires to rapidly spread through Alexandria.13 And there are so many varied, unconfirmed stories of how the Mouseion and its Library were destroyed that offering the details of all of them here would be time-consuming and ultimately futile. I will say that the Serapeum is generally thought to have been destroyed in 391 AD by Theophilus.14 In any case, it can surely be remarked that an unbelievable amount of information and history was lost.

Humans are unparalleled in our ability to create—at least on this planet. But if there is one thing that we are even better at, it would have to be destroying all of the things that we’ve created and even some of the things that we didn’t. The Great Library of Ancient Alexandria stands (no pun intended) as a testament to our tentative veneration of knowledge. Even after centuries of experimentation, cataloguing, and advancing our understanding of the world through some of the greatest thinkers in history, our penchant for unbridled arrogance and hostility eventually reduced another marvel of the ages to dirt: a bastion of knowledge lost. One might ask, to what end? Did we learn from it? We’ve reached, what I consider, the most pivotal point in humankind’s history. Access to information is not only light-speed, but quite literally at the tips of our fingers now, we

_______________________________
12 El-Abbadi et al., What Happened to the Ancient Library of Alexandria?, 213.
13 MacLeod et al., The Library of Alexandria, Centre of Learning in the Ancient World, 70.
14 El-Abbadi et al., What Happened to the Ancient Library of Alexandria?, 89.

produce enough to provide food, clothing, and housing to every human on the planet, we’ve walked on the moon, and we have learned more about ourselves and the universe in the past 60 years than in all of humankind’s history combined. Yet, tens of thousands die every day due to hunger and other poverty-related issues while we throw millions of tons of good food away annually, some people’s closets could clothe entire communities, we have enough vacant homes in the United States for every homeless person here to get more than one, we don’t even look up at the moon anymore because we’re too glued to our cell phones to be bothered with the likes of “outside”, and we still have people arguing from debunked positions with misrepresented or blatantly false information despite the ability to settle such arguments with a five-second Google search. So, what did we learn from it? Apparently nothing—we’re even more destructive than ever before. And, with all of its hopes and glorious possibilities of being the ultimate bastion of knowledge in the 21st century, we have successfully turned the Internet into the only thing we seem to be capable of producing with our greatest achievements: dirt.

Bibliography

El-Abbadi, Mostafa, William J. Cherf, Dimitar Y. Dimitrov, Maria Dzielska, Jean-Yves
Empereur, Fayza M. Haikal, Georges Leroux, et al., What Happened to the Ancient
Library of Alexandria? (Leiden: Koninklijke Brill NV, 2008).

MacLeod, Roy, Robert Barnes, Wendy Brazil, J.R. Green, Patricia Cannon Johnson, Samuel
N.C. Lieu, D.T. Potts, R.G. Tanner, John Vallance, and J.O. Ward. The Library of Alexandria,
Centre of Learning in the Ancient World. New York: I.B. Taurus & Co Ltd, 2000.

Phillips, Heather. “The Great Library of Alexandria?,” Library Philosophy and Practice, August, 2010: 2-4.

Figure 2: The remains of the Serapeum in Alexandria, Egypt. Taken from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alexandria_-_Pompey%27s_Pillar_- _view_of_ruins.JPG

Figure 3: Artwork explored in the Art History course I took was done so in relation to at least one of these impulses.

Generation Dumb: An Open Letter to My Fellow Americans

2015-11-23T18:17:00.005-05:00

My whole life I’ve been taught that being American is something that people around the world aspire to. There was always this quaint little story being repeated about a dream and how “if you work really hard, that dream will be realized;” how “if you’re ever downtrodden, there is plenty of opportunity to pull yourself up by the bootstraps;” how “America is the greatest country on the entire planet!” You remember hearing that, right? I know you do! We ALL were taught how star-spangled awesome we are. (In fact, some of you might still hear this or even say it yourselves.) The idea that America represents freedom, honor, justice, and a level of compassion that extends always-open arms to the needy, sick, and desperate is something that we kind of just accepted growing up—as if we are the only country on the planet that venerates these ideas—as if it is something we actually do. You see, I now know that it was just an emotional appeal. And, it worked pretty damn well! It works even to this day! Of course we all want to believe that we are a part of the best damn thing that ever happened to this planet! Right? I mean, isn’t that what we are? Isn’t the United States of America the best fucking thing on the entire planet—past, present, and future?

Sadly, and arguably embarrassingly, the answer to that question is a resounding NO! ‘Sadly’ because we undoubtedly have the potential to be yet squander it unashamedly—although I do feel that segregation through imaginary national boundaries is frivolous and unnecessary—and ‘embarrassingly’ because we self-congratulate as though we indeed are the best. Sure, it may be etched into the Statue of Liberty, “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”, but somewhere along the way we slid unquestioningly into our 40+ hour workweek routines and slowly our unprecedented compassion eroded; our respect for human life waned; our desire to uphold the principles upon which this country was founded all but disappeared. (For example, the principle of reviewing policies in the framework of the Constitution and changing them if necessary. Slavery was explicitly condoned in the Constitution but later changed through an amendment when people realized that it’s a fucking shitty policy.) It now seems we have no direction; only passive obedience to mindless materialism and artificiality with absolute irreverence toward the tired, the poor, and the huddled masses yearning to breathe free. And, the homeless—Oh, the homeless! Where do I even begin?

NONE OF YOU gave a flying fuck about the homeless in this country, many of which are VETERANS—that many of you step over and ignore on your way to get $6 coffees—until they were convenient for you to incorporate into your bigoted worldview. (You’ve probably even posted on social media about that time you gave a homeless guy “a five spot”.) In fact, you cared more about the fucking CUP that the shitty, overpriced coffee came in that YOU STILL WENT AND PAID FOR than you ever did about the homeless. What you probably didn’t hear about is the Denver PD arresting a group of people for building tiny houses for the homeless (on property that was originally used for community gardening but recently sold to a private developer) and then tearing the houses down. Essentially, the message there was “fuck the homeless!” So, where was the public outcry? (Crickets.) And that’s the problem! People tend to only give a shit when whatever they’re giving a fleeting shit about benefits them (or their social media accounts) directly. The moment anyone actually gets downtrodden, or even simply gets accused of doing something considered “offensive” or inappropriate, or really anything that goes against the trendy “norm” of the hour, LOOKOUT—The Social Justice Warrior Brigade (SJWB) will be Johnny-on-the-Spot to tell you what a despicable human being they are. And if presented with evidence that refutes or even destroys whatever bandwagon the SJWB has jumped on, the general response is something akin to, “Facts? Never mind facts! Facts don’t matter!” (Again, crickets.)

So, don’t sit there and try to sell me this bleeding heart bullshit! I’m not buying it! THIS CUP IDIOCY WAS JUST TWO FUCKING WEEKS AGO! Now, you’re all suddenly experts in foreign affairs?! Seriously?! Most of you still can’t differentiate the word ‘your’ from the word ‘you’re’; ‘there’ and ‘their’ from ‘they’re’; and ‘were’ from ‘we’re’. (Apparently, the claim is that it just isn’t important. That’s right, grammar isn’t important.) And, I’m supposed to believe that you’re magically qualified to talk about Syrian refugees? ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?! GO AHEAD AND FUCKING POINT OUT SYRIA ON THE MAP! In fact, go ahead and name all 50 states in the United States and point those out! I’m willing to bet that (sadly and laughably) a vast majority of you can do neither of those right now without Google. But, sure—your opinion is so VERY fucking special. (-__-)

Sometimes I wonder why I want to do so much for humankind when most of you are, quite frankly, so stupid. (Don’t take too much offense to that. You’re not special. I’m not special. And neither one of us is particularly intelligent. I’m at least smart enough to realize it, though. Plus, being offended is a useless thing to be.) But then I realize that I can’t even imagine living in any other period in our species’ existence. In my humble opinion, we are indeed living in the most pivotal point in Humankind’s history. That’s a bold statement, I realize, but we must consider the ever-expanding knowledge-base we have amassed—especially over the past 60 years or so. In that time, we have learned more about ourselves and the universe we are a part of than in all of our history combined. At least, some of us have. Most others seem to be stumbling around, drooling on themselves, aimlessly shifting from one manufactured hype to the next, acting as if just because they have an opinion it should be considered. Well, guess what, folks: Most of your opinions DO NOT matter. Someone needed to say it because people everywhere have become giant fucking pussies seemingly afraid of their own shadows.

That’s right: MOST OF YOUR OPINIONS DO NOT MATTER! Get that through your fucking heads, people. I know how this all started, though. I get it; we were all told that “everyone is entitled to their own opinion.” But, at some point, people forgot to pass along the caveat that, while we may be entitled to our own opinions (which is something that can easily be proven false with the line of questioning that follows the question, “Entitled by whom?”), whether or not those opinions hold any shred of veracity or relevance is a different story. As a result, the idea that opinion entitlement equals opinion relevance manifested. Thus, American exceptionalism is thriving today. But, when you start pointing out to people the blatant flaws in our socio-economic system, the response tends to be “Well if you don’t like it, you can just git outta here!” Just to be clear, this baseless opinion is supposed to be just as relevant as, say, the fact that the United States doesn’t even crack the top ten countries in the world in education; or that we really only lead the world in debt, military spending (which trumps at least the next ten countries combined), deaths by police, and healthcare costs. But, it just isn’t relevant. Saying, "if you don't like it, then leave" is a fucking stupid opinion. And those of you reading this that often hear these fucking stupid opinions by these next-level morons we all know should stop shying away from calling out this festival of unfettered fatuity. It's time to stop being afraid to say that most opinions are fucking stupid and just do not matter. It's time to stand up an...oh who the fuck am I kidding? I’m a part of one of the most privileged, yet proudly inept, generations to have ever walked the Earth: Generation Dumb. Our motto is simple: "Mommy, they're being mean to me!"

It’s so exhausting trying to explain things to people now that everyone has been deluded into this opinion-aggrandizing scam. I would consider myself someone that is well-educated. After all, I am currently pursuing an undergraduate degree in physics and, considering the reaction I get practically every single time I tell people, I would say that people would generally agree with that statement. Thus far, I have taken over 100 credits of college courses across a vast range of disciplines. I’m very much interested in socio-economic and political issues. It’s just that learning about the way the universe actually operates has always piqued my interest. The joy of finding things out about our interaction with this thing we call “life” is simply unparalleled. But, I’ll be the first to admit that the more that I learn, the more I realize that I don’t know a goddamn thing. Do I find that scary? Do I find that diminishing to this wonderful experience? Of course not! I find it overwhelmingly beautiful and humbling; yet, almost inexplicably exhilarating. Point-blank: Believing without evidence, or faith as many claim, is quite possibly the biggest waste of human existence there is; it’s pure idiocy. And, I’m tired of everyone tip-toeing around the fact that many in society pride themselves on this concept of “faith” (or “dumbassery”, as I like to call it). I’ll give the faithful credit for one thing: You are the ultimate rationalizationists. But, that’s more of an albatross than anything else; the albatross that I’ve given up on trying to help you leave behind. Again, it’s exhausting and I’ll explain why.

When someone that has never stepped foot in a college classroom, never cracked a scholarly journal, doesn’t regularly read anything longer than their friends’ grammatically incorrect, meaningless diatribes on social media, never does any research of any kind, and never tries to advance their understanding by listening to people that have—when that person tries to argue with me about, say, gravity, I have to ask the question, “Where could I possibly begin?” It took me YEARS of math, reading, problem-solving, and several experiments before I could factually utter the words “I sort of understand gravity.” Of course, that was in Newtonian mechanics; Einstein churned out a much more refined explanation requiring more math, more problem-solving, and several more experiments. And even with all of our experimentally-confirmed understandings of gravity, we have yet to arrive at an elusive yet infamous Theory of Everything—the idea that all of the laws of the known universe can be consolidated and condensed into an equation perhaps no longer than a few centimeters. But, you expect me to explain ALL OF THAT—the math, the concepts, the experiments, the EVIDENCE—to you in just a few minutes? Why? So that it destroys your haphazard, completely untenable claims only to have your arrogant, dumb face obliviously say to me “We’ll just agree to disagree” or “I just know in my heart of hearts and you can’t prove I’m wrong and…”? NO! It doesn’t work like that! The burden of proof falls upo…oh, fuck it! NEVER MIND!

Unfortunately, this quest for elegance through brevity, a worthwhile endeavor in the world of equation-making, has made its way into the information-sharing sector of our society morphing it instead into a sort of quid pro quo/“Get it first” instead of “Get it right” monstrosity absent elegance altogether. We now somehow think that talking points are a way to convey large chunks of relevant information. It just doesn’t happen that way; it can’t. Whereas 35 years ago we could sit and watch an interviewer ask a question and get a 5-minute, uninterrupted answer from a single guest at their own pace, now we can’t even hear more than 15-second, sound byte-style responses from sometimes 3 or more guests in an 8-minute-total “interview” about pressing issues that affect us all without endless interruptions, jabs, snide pseudo-intellectualism, and more advertisements than information that can rightly be labeled news. Then, we move on to “Miley Cyrus is at it again…” It begs the question: What the actual fuck?!

We want so badly to feel important; to feel powerful; to feel recognized. Again, we're taught to want all of that. And it appears we’ll ironically stoop to the bottom of the dirt to achieve those feelings. Meanwhile, we don’t stop and take the time to think about the fact that we’re all important in our own nuanced ways; to different people for different reasons. And, not everyone is always going to agree with those ways and reasons. But, if you call yourself any of the several tens of thousands of variations of “Christian”, you should recognize that the power is with love. That’s right, your very own doctrine tells you essentially to love powerfully—not say “FUCK ‘EM! Send ‘em back where they came from! We have millions of homeless here…” Great! I’m glad you’ve finally acknowledged it and you should again read what I said about the homeless above. But, you also need to realize that the money to cover the costs of the refugees was and is going to be created and there’s not a fucking thing you can say or do at this point to change that. You’ve given up that say by pretending to give a shit by sharing a quaint meme with grammatical errors that is supposed to be “enlightening” or by changing your fucking profile picture or by putting #LatestTrendyBullshit with a link to some minimally-educated clown giving what is portrayed as “truth” and then doing, quite literally, nothing else. Yeah? Here’s some fucking TRUTH for you: The fact of the matter is that the money to cover the costs of eradicating poverty worldwide could be created RIGHT NOW—this very moment. It’s a rather simple process that has been made to seem esoteric by those conversations that always shove economic and monetary jargon to the wayside in lieu of infotainment—pushing it into the “it’s complex” category. (In fact, it’s so simple that it can be summed up in about 50 pages. And that’s exactly what the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago did in 1963 with a booklet called Modern Money Mechanics--summed it up in 50 pages. In other words, it’s all a fiction. But, don’t take my word for it! DO THE RESEARCH YOURSELF!) It’s so easy that we create and distribute enough money for war every 8 days to easily end global hunger or provide education to every child on the planet or any number of other socially beneficial programs across the globe. More importantly, we have the resources and technology to feed, clothe, and house every human on the planet. Instead, here we are beating the fucking war drum YET AGAIN! What the fuck is wrong with you people?!

Oh yeah; I forgot I’m writing for mostly uneducated people. Dare I ask, when was the last time any of you opened a textbook or visited a website with peer-reviewed academic information? I’ve noticed lately that when I talk to people about these kinds of topics (or really any topic), I mainly get three types of responses. First, people will basically say that they don’t give a fuck. Second, I get the pseudo-intellectual/Alex Jones/”conspiracy theorist”-type responses which typically have no real evidence and are exceedingly speculative. And, lastly, the rarest of them all would be the engaged, well-read citizen that understands how to distinguish between credible information and baseless propaganda. To prove my point, the vast majority of you fell immediately into one of these categories as soon as you read the second line of this paragraph. If you are not in school, never went to school, or have no plans to go to school, you read that line and said, “Fuck textbooks!” (If you also said, "Fuck school!" or some variation, enjoy being a blithering fucking moron for the rest of your miserable, drama-filled, probably short, shitty little life.) If you get all of your information from people like Alex Jones, Fox “News”, or some popular blog that has no tenable information, then you read that line and started trying to connect the dots of how the “liberal, hippy-lovin’ propagandists and their communist textbooks are trying to jam a giant surgical needle into your head and suck your brains out only to replace them with…” Yeah, you get the point. You should also enjoy being a blithering fucking moron for the rest of your miserable, drama-filled, shitty little life. Seriously, that’s what kind of shameless turd you sound like to those that read that line and either said, “Textbooks are my existence right now! Mrrrrrrr FINALS!” or “I never want to look at a textbook again but my bookshelf is filled with them and my degree in engineering, physics, chemistry, philosophy, geology, education, or some other relevant field is hanging on the wall next to that bookshelf that reaches the ceiling.” Anyone that tries to insult people by apparently using words like “liberal” or “socialist” as pejoratives is a fucking cretin that I can guarantee has no clue what those words even mean.

Alas! What do we do? Well, I have plenty of ideas and know of many others but I keep getting told how “unrealistic” they are by all of you overly-qualified scholars. Never mind the fact that everything I talk about is 100% technologically feasible RIGHT NOW (i.e. automated transportation grid, solar, wind, wave, tidal, and geothermal providing more than all of humankind’s energy needs, vertical farms all over the world, desalination plants all over the world, 3-D printed EVERYTHING, automated service sector, and so on). Never mind the fact that when it comes down to it, you actually don’t know what you’re talking about. Never mind all of that because “facts don’t matter—your opinions do.” (-__-)

I’m not naïve, though; I realize that the amount of stupid out there is daunting. Indeed, the only thing I fear is the direction we are headed as a potential-squandering, immature society. We’re in the boredom-killing, victimhood-manufacturing business. Have you noticed that? No one can take a fucking joke about anyone or anything anymore without the whole “woe is me” bullshit. No one can take any fucking responsibility for anything in America anymore. Well, at least not anything negative that happens because of their very own idiotic choices. (For example, mothers that try to pull the whole “that’s not my baby” bullshit when their sons beat or murder someone. Fuck off already. Your son’s a piece of shit and you’re a shitty parent. Most people don't know how to raise kids. That’s what caused it. Period.) But, if something positive happens, of course that was you! You deserve a medal, a trophy, an editorial, a million fucking dollars from GoFundMe, a yacht, college funds, a retiremen… Give me a fucking break! Go cry in the fucking corner already and again stop acting like just because you have an opinion about or are offended by something that it automatically is elevated to the status of “EVERYONE STOP WHAT YOU’RE DOING AND LISTEN TO ME NOW! WHAT I HAVE TO SAY IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE I’M YELLING IT OVER AND OVER AGAIN! YOU WILL BOW TO MY EVERY WISH AND WHIM BECAUSE IF YOU QUESTION ME YOU ARE [insert cliché pejorative demographic]!” Seriously, will you please fuck off? I’ve learned quite a bit about the universe in my 29 years of existence on this pale blue dot. But, perhaps most revealing would be the sadness I feel when I realize that I can sum up my interaction with other humans in just a single, pitiful little sentence: We lie, cheat, and steal (some of us even kill) with no real remorse and, in continuing to doing so unabated and ignored, deserve whatever the fuck we get.

Sincerely,
Kyle