Decline of the Empire

The Back-up Plan

Dave Cohen — 2012-02-26T10:13:24-05:00

Regular readers know that DOTE is not a source of hope and inspiration about humankind's prospects in the 21st century. Subjects discussed include the 6th mass extinction, peak crude oil, anthropogenic climate change, the ongoing destruction of life in the oceans, and all sorts of irrational, destructive, but ultimately unalterable human behaviors. Looking at the grim, undeniable facts and trends, some observers (including me) anticipate all manner of annihilation and death as this century grinds on. So I'm sure you will be glad to know (as I was) that there is a Back-up Plan just in case the worst does indeed come to pass.

I discovered the plan in Project Icarus: Laying the Plans for Interstellar Travel at the website of the Atlantic. Free-lance writer Ross Andersen interviewed Andreas Tziolas, who is "drafting a blueprint for a mission to a nearby star." It is a 100-year mission. I'll quote the relevant bits.

Andersen — A lot of reasons have been offered for why this project, this general project of going to the stars, is important for humanity. Some have said that in the long term the project is necessary as a means of "backing up the biosphere," that we need to find another planet in order to ensure that humans survive future extinction events on earth. Others point to the potential for scientific knowledge, especially in the areas of cosmology or astrobiology. And then there's the idea that deep space is a kind of proving ground for humanity, that it provides the ultimate test of our intellectual and creative capacities. In your eyes, what is the most compelling reason we ought to pursue this?

Tziolas — This could be a very long conversation. At Project Icarus we keep adding new reasons and new motivations for going interstellar, as we call it. First is obviously the survival of humankind. If humanity is capable of achieving interstellar flight but does not pursue it, does not pursue a program of seeding other planets and other solar systems, then really we risk receiving a Darwin Award as a civilization.

If you can save yourself, but you don't, for whatever reason — how can you justify that?

When you're working on a sensitive document on your computer, the first thing you do is back it up. You make a copy of it, you email it to yourself, you put it in your dropbox, and your flash drive — sometimes all these things at once. Why do we pay this obsessive attention to backing up a document, which we can reproduce, when we pay no attention to backing up our civilization? There is no greater endeavor than ensuring the survival of humankind.

You also want to push technological boundaries. If you don't have one of these huge problems to solve, that's hard, really hard, then you won't motivate yourself to solve it. If the human population had never risen past one billion people, everyone would live very comfortably, spread out, there might not be high rises, transportation would be different the whole civilization would be different. The unique problems that come with high — populations have given rise to these technologies, to these ways of living. Similarly, had we never decided to go into space, our civilization would be very different. We wouldn't have cell phones, we wouldn't have satellite systems, and we wouldn't have this type of computational power. We would have been fine, but we would be stuck at a certain level of technological advancement.

In order to achieve interstellar flight, you would have to develop very clean and renewable energy technologies, because for the crew, the ecosystem that you launch with is the ecosystem you're going to have for at least a hundred years. With our current projections, we can't get this kind of journey under a hundred years.

So in developing the technologies that enable interstellar flight, you could serendipitously develop the technologies that could help clean up the Earth, and power it with cheap energy. If you look toward the year 2100, and assume that the 100 Year Starship Study has been prolific, and that Project Icarus has been prolific, at a minimum we'd have break-even fusion, which would give us abundant clean energy for millennia. No more fossil fuels.

We'd also have developed nanotechnology to the point where any type of technology that you have right now, anything technology-based, will be able to function the same way it does now, but it won't have any kind of footprint, it will only be a square centimeter in size. Some people have characterized that as "nano-magic," because everything around you will appear magical. You wouldn't be able to see the structures doing it, but there would be light coming out of the walls, screens that are suspended that you can move around any surface, sensors everywhere -- everything would be extremely efficient...

What are the main considerations involved in choosing a destination star?

Tziolas — Well we're somewhat limited by the timescale we've chosen. We want this to be a hundred year mission, and that puts our maximum range at fifteen light years, using the best estimates about fusion technology. Right now we're designing around Alpha Centauri because it's the easiest, and because it's a double star we expect it to be very interesting scientifically. However, if a terrestrial planet is discovered and it has a few oceans and it's within 22 light years instead of our maximum of 15, we would button down and make that our mission. Habitability is the prime consideration.

Interesting. I'm surprised it's that and not extraterrestrial life, but then I suppose they overlap.

Tziolas — If there were two planets: one of them is teeming with life, but it's not habitable because it's methane or sulfur based life, and the other is an Eden with an oxygen-nitrogen atmosphere and only eighty percent our gravity, so everyone would be a superman, and they're in opposite directions, where would we go if you had to pick one? To us, proliferating the human race must always come first. We would go to the Eden and not think twice about it.

The mind literally reels at all the different responses one could make upon reading about the Back-up Plan, but I do not consider shooting fish in a barrel to be sport. It's just so unfair. One also must take into account the sincere but delusional beliefs of Andreas Tziolas and others participating in Project Icarus.

I will only note that it comes as no surprise that Tziolas extols the fabulous virtues of the wonderful technologies—nuclear fusion and nano-magic if the project is prolific—which will flow from this intersteller mission, just as "mysterious" vapors once filled the cave in which the Oracle of Delphi helped the ancient Greeks and Romans made life and death decisions.

When ancient Greeks and Romans had to make decisions, they consulted the gods by drawing lots, casting dice, interpreting dreams and analyzing such signs as sneezes, thunderbolts and flying birds. But for matters of the utmost importance, they sought to hear the words of the gods in the mouths of oracles.

Paradoxically, in male dominated classical Greece the most influential voice, the Delphic oracle, belonged to a woman. The oracular temple was perched on the south slope of Mount Parnassus, surrounded by high cliffs, about 75 miles west of Athens. Getting to Delphi required either a long trek across the mountains or a sea voyage to the north shore of the Gulf of Corinth.

However difficult the journey, thousands of visitors sought guidance from the holy woman, called the Pythia, who spoke on behalf of the gods... According to sources, the Pythia was inspired by mysterious vapors, though these accounts have been largely ignored by modern researchers. Now, however, a team of archaeologists and geologists have proved that the Temple of Apollo sat directly above fault lines that likely released intoxicating carbon based gases into the adytum. Was this the oracle's secret?

I would say that Humanity's Fate is a matter of utmost importance, worthy of the Oracle. The story told here says that technology will save us, and the ambitious goal of traveling to a near-by star not called the Sun will help us achieve that goal. So saith the Oracle Andreas Tziolas, speaking for the Technology Gods. As I mentioned in the introduction, changing its behavior is not an option for Homo sapiens. That's off the table. Technology is thus the only way out. This is the conventional wisdom of our misnamed species.

Should everything go wrong, and every day it's certainly looking more and more like it will, it is good to know there's a Back-up Plan. Frankly, that's a huge relief.

I was worried there for a little while, but I'm not worried anymore!

Bonus Video — Make It So

Remedy du Jour -- February 25, 2012

Dave Cohen — 2012-02-25T14:40:35-05:00

I discovered jazz at the University of Chicago in the early 1970s when jazz-rock "fusion" was all the rage. Electric piano was in, traditional sounds out. Leading the way were Miles Davis, Joe Zawinul, Wayne Shorter, Miraslav Vitous and many, many other great musicians too numerous to list here. I loved this music and still do. I don't think there's been enough of it over the years. This "genre" was relatively short-lived. Maybe it had to be that way, I don't know. Today I present an all-too-brief fusion sampler of music from that time. There's not much to look at today, just a lot to listen to. This music has lots of long build-ups and theme changes, so if you're going to listen, listen all the way through.

Boogie Woogie Waltz (Weather Report, from their 3rd album Sweetnighter, 1973)
Also Sprach Zarathrustra (Deodato, from Prelude, 1972)
In A Silent Way/It's About That Time/In A Silent Way (part 2, Miles Davis, from In A Silent Way, 1969)
Pharaoh's Dance (part 1, Miles Davis, from Bitches Brew, 1970)

A Sharp Deterioration In The Job Market

Dave Cohen — 2012-02-25T10:58:59-05:00

The Bureau of Labor Statistics loves complexity. Their reports use lots of categories and adjustments to give us an "accurate" picture of the job market in the United States. Or so we are told. And after they've pigeonholed those surveyed, and after they've adjusted the hell out of everything, they come up with a magic number, the U3 "official" unemployment rate. That rate currently stands at 8.3%, which recently provided a pretext for politicians, economists and media blowhards to tell us how well we're doing.

When Gallup polls Americans to get a snapshot of the jobs market, they do not use a lot of categories. They do not make a lot of adjustments. They ask Americans some simple questions and publish the results.

The U.S. government in early March will report its February unemployment rate. That rate will be based on mid-month conditions. Therefore, Gallup's mid-month unemployment reading, based on data collected through the 15^th of the month, normally provides a good basis on which to estimate the direction of the government's unemployment rate for the month. In mid-January, Gallup results suggested the unemployment rate would decline, consistent with the government's positive January jobs report of Feb. 3.

Seasonal forces typically cause unadjusted unemployment rates to increase at this time of year. In this regard, some of the sharp increase Gallup finds in unemployment and underemployment may result from seasonal factors.

Although the government seasonally adjusts the U.S. unemployment rate, and the workforce participation rate could decline — both of which could drive down its unemployment rate — it still seems likely that the BLS will report an increase in the seasonally adjusted U.S. unemployment rate for February.

Regardless of what the government reports, Gallup's unemployment and underemployment measures show a sharp deterioration in job market conditions since mid-January. This is consistent with a similar decline in Gallup's Job Creation Index to +13 in the second week of February, from +16 for January. It is also consistent with an economy that continues to struggle with modest growth, particularly as gas prices surge. Further, it suggests that it is premature to assume the condition of the economy will not remain a major issue for Americans both financially and politically in 2012.

No one in the media reports Gallup's results. Politicians do not quote them. Economists ignore them. Yet here they are for all to see, as conspicuous as the nose on your face.

The unemployment rate is 9%. Underemployment, which includes those working part-time who want full-time work, stands at 19%, or nearly 1 in 5 Americans who are 18 or older.

Only a few bloggers report this stuff. Very few. We should not trust the government in this matter or any other. So much of what the government says is self-serving propaganda. Thus if you care about the state of the world you live in, it is incumbent upon you to seek out different sources of information and to make decisions as to their trustworthiness.

I think Gallup's numbers are in the ball park. Their picture of the jobs market is as good as we're going to get. The Bureau of Labor Statistics uses smoke & mirrors to pull the wool over the eyes of The People. They have no credibility. I no longer take them seriously. And neither should you.

So How Corrupt Is Washington, Anyway?

Dave Cohen — 2012-02-24T09:48:02-05:00

The American economy increasingly serves only a narrow part of society, and America’s national politics has failed to put the country back on track through honest, open, and transparent problem solving. Too many of America’s elites-among the super-rich, the CEOs, and many of my colleagues in academia-have abandoned a commitment to social responsibility. They chase wealth and power, the rest of society be damned.
— Jeffrey Sachs

Henry Blodget put the question in the title to now-reformed lobbyist Jack Abramhoff in Ex-Lobbyist Jack Abramoff: Here’s How to Clean Up Washington Corruption (video below). In his introduction Henry goes on to describe what goes on as legalized bribery. Abramhoff's response?

I think that's exactly right... [I crossed lines] you didn't need to cross. You can be completely contemptible, frankly, within the system, and be completely legal, and that's part of the problem in Washington.

Washington is pretty damn corrupt, but that's not the most amazing thing going on here in the United States. What is truly astonishing is that "serious" people who are taken seriously by other "serious" people propose policy solutions and push various political agendas without ever acknowledging this simple fact of contemporary life.

In other words, there's a whole lotta pretending going on.

Writing in Forbes, Nathan Lewis believes that The Crisis of Capitalism Is a Lack of Capitalism. In an interview with Bill Moyers, David Stockman calls what we have today Crony Capitalism, which is not really Capitalism because the markets have been distorted beyond all recognition.

Today, following the long-established principles of capitalism seems like it is a game for suckers. Capitalism is a tough game. Competition is fierce. The risk of failure is high. The profits, as noted, are often low. No wonder the successful are so highly regarded. American Airlines, General Motors, and Kodak provided useful goods and services for decades, on a grand scale, and provided prosperous employment for hundreds of thousands of employees. Nevertheless, they didn’t quite meet capitalism’s difficult standards.

Theft is a much easier game. The risk is low. The profits are high. There is no competition. You don’t even need employees. You just pay off the Congressman, and stick the money in your pocket.

This is not confined only to the financial industry. The entities that are thriving today are those that enjoy some sort of government favor. Defense contractors and the war industry. The education and healthcare cartels. Government employees and their absurd compensation plans. Competition is low. Profit margins are high. And why do we keep having wars with countries with lots of oil (or heroin)? You know why.

Yes, we know why. We can't even get a reasonable fix on what a barrel of oil should cost. If the markets are distorted, and have been for years, who can figure out what's really going? Only those on the inside, that's who. It's the same story in the equity markets, or any other market for that matter.

So how corrupt is Washington, anyway? Watch the video to find out.

Acidifying The World's Oceans

Dave Cohen — 2012-02-23T09:44:13-05:00

Every once in awhile I like to catch up on how our ongoing destruction of life in the oceans is progressing. If some recent results are anything to go by, things are humming right along. I haven't looked at acidification of the oceans since August, 2010, when I posted The "Other" Carbon Problem — Ocean Acidification, so it's time to take up this happy subject once again. The news comes out of the University of Hawaii, where researchers have found unprecedented, man-made trends in oceans acidity.

Nearly one-third of CO2 emissions due to human activities enters the world’s oceans. By reacting with seawater, CO2 increases the water’s acidity, which may significantly reduce the calcification rate of such marine organisms as corals and mollusks, resulting in the potential loss of ecosystems. The extent to which human activities have raised the surface level of acidity, however, has been difficult to detect on regional scales because it varies naturally from one season and one year to the next, and between regions, and direct observations go back only 30 years.

The study was published in the January 22, 2012 online issue of Nature Climate Change.

The team of climate modelers, marine conservationists, ocean chemists, biologists and ecologists, led by Tobias Friedrich and Axel Timmermann at the International Pacific Research Center at the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, came to their conclusions by using Earth system models that simulate climate and ocean conditions 21,000 years back in time, to the Last Glacial Maximum, and forward in time to the end of the 21st century.

In their models, they studied changes in the saturation level of aragonite (a form of calcium carbonate) typically used to measure ocean acidification. As acidity of seawater rises, the saturation level of aragonite drops. Their models captured the current observed seasonal and annual variations in this quantity in several key coral reef regions.

Today’s levels of aragonite saturation in these locations have already dropped five times below the pre-industrial range of natural variability. For example, if the yearly cycle in aragonite saturation varied between 4.7 and 4.8, it varies now between 4.2 and 4.3, which – based on another recent study – may translate into a decrease in overall calcification rates of corals and other aragonite shell-forming organisms by 15%. Given the continued human use of fossil fuels, the saturation levels will drop further, potentially reducing calcification rates of some marine organisms by more than 40% of their pre-industrial values within the next 90 years.

Living organisms need time to adjust to acidification of the oceans. Unfortunately, the man-made rate of change in ocean acidity is happening far too swiftly to allow those adjustments to occur.

“In some regions, the man-made rate of change in ocean acidity since the Industrial Revolution is a hundred times greater than the natural rate of change between the Last Glacial Maximum and pre-industrial times,” emphasized Friedrich. “When Earth started to warm 17,000 years ago, terminating the last glacial period, atmospheric CO2 levels rose from 190 parts per million (ppm) to 280 ppm over 6,000 years. Marine ecosystems had ample time to adjust. Now, for a similar rise in CO2 concentration to the present level of 392 ppm, the adjustment time is reduced to only 100 – 200 years.”

As I was reading this press release, it seemed important to note that the "models" these researchers used are only as reliable as the assumptions that go into them.

Figure left — Simulated surface aragonite saturation (top) and atmospheric CO2 concentration in ppm (bottom).

On a global scale, coral reefs are currently found in places where open-ocean aragonite saturation reaches levels of 3.5 or higher. Such conditions exist today in about 50% of the ocean – mostly in the tropics. By end of the 21st century this fraction is projected to be less than 5%. The Hawaiian Islands, which sit just on the northern edge of the tropics, will be one of the first to feel the impact...

“Our results suggest that severe reductions are likely to occur in coral reef diversity, structural complexity and resilience by the middle of this century,” said co-author Timmermann.

Regarding CO₂ emissions and their absorption into the oceans, these Hawaii researchers have extrapolated "business-as-usual" (BAU) for the rest of the 21st century. If you don't believe BAU can continue for another 90 years, or even another 40 years, you need to take such dire predictions with a grain of salt. That said, whatever the outcome, I don't doubt that rapid acidification will do great damage to all life in the sea which uses calcium carbonate to build skeletons and hard shells.

I think of acidification as the coup de grâce for marine life in so far as it comes on top of rampant over-fishing and seafloor bottom-trawling. Thus I was puzzled to read this result from the recent Nereus Predicting The Future Oceans conference held at the University Of British Columbia.

Adding ocean acidification and deoxygenation into the mix of climate change predictions may turn “winner” regions of fisheries and biodiversity into “losers,” according to research released today by University of British Columbia researchers.

Previous projections have suggested the effects of warmer water temperature would result in fish moving pole-ward and deeper towards cooler waters – and an increase of fish catch potential of as much as 30 per cent in the North Atlantic by 2050.

Warmer oceans would herd the fish into deeper, cooler waters, which would make them easier to catch. The projected increase in the North Atlantic was 30% by 2050. I wondered what they meant by this. This sounded a little "fishy" to me. Did they mean a projected increase from 17 wild-caught fish to 23 fish?

Accounting for effects of de-oxygenation and ocean acidification, however, some regions may see a 20-35 per cent reduction in maximum catch potential by 2050 (relative to 2005) – depending on the individual species’ sensitivity to ocean acidification.

Oh, I see. Instead of there being 17 wild fish to catch in the North Atlantic in 2050, there will be only 11 fish.

That's bad news!

Bonus Video — A Sea Change (trailer)