Frank Tipler doesn’t think much of the physics prize. Unfortunately, humans being humans, any such contest is going to be tainted by biases and politics.
Category Archives: Science And Society
What If?
Thoughts from Lileks:
I love new galaxy stories. I love learning that someone pointed a telescope at an empty patch and found 1000 new spiral galaxies, each of which no doubt teems with life. Yes, I think that’s so, and no, I’ve no good explanation for why we haven’t been visited by Vulcans. I’m a fan of the multiverse theory, and I’d also be comfy with the notion that this is one of an infinite number of iteration of the universe, each with their own laws. It would be a pity if we ended up in the one whose laws were A) everything’s far apart, and B) you can’t get there, but them’s the breaks. Some galaxies, however, have it worse off. You get those peculiar ones with enormous rapacious black holes in the middle and just a smattering of stars, you think: bad neighborhood. Imagine being a sentient being in a system that evolves sufficiently to figure out it’s going to be eaten by a black hole in a few thousand years, and how this would affect society. If you knew it would be all over in 2000 years, who would build? Would anyone try to escape if there were no systems to which you could flee? Futility would be the handmaiden at every act of creation. Or it might make everything precious. Or, most likely, both, and neither. Some people would still live their lives, go to work, make what they could for their ration of time. A great many would use the expiration date as the validation of the standard-issue nihilism that affects those with attenuated adolescence, and clothe their selfishness in philosophy.
More where that came from. By the way, the few Mayans still around say that the calendar thing is hogwash. But what would they know?
Why Star Trek Isn’t Science Fiction
Charles Stross explains.
Have We Reached A Tipping Point?
Is this the year that the media no longer cheer leads the warm mongers?
Augustine Report Perspectives
Popular Mechanics has rounded up some thoughts from some panel members, and others, including John Carmack. I haven’t had time to read them yet, myself, but may have more comments when I have.
[Update a few minutes later]
OK, I’ve skimmed them. Bob Park has nothing of interest to say, as usual. I think that Scott’s comment is the most interesting. I think that the answer to both questions is yes. We already can see the economic justification — if nothing else, there is a market for wealthy people who simply want to go. If the price can be brought down, that market is extremely elastic (look what happened to the cruise industry…). The way to bring the cost down is to build an affordable infrastructure, and start living off the land. The great tragedy of human spaceflight is that we have squandered tens of billions over the past decades redoing the unaffordable Apollo model of centralized bureaucracy. Had we not been diverted by the need to beat the Soviets to the moon half a century ago, I think that a NACA that had evolved into a technology agency for space as well as aviation might have had us much further down that road by now.
Saving Scatterometers
I haven’t dug into either the programmatics or the politics of this, but Jeff Masters says that the Senate is about to cut NOAA’s budget and move the funds to criminal alien assistance. I don’t live in south Florida any more (hallelujiah!) but I think that tracking hurricanes is a higher priority for that money. I do think that if I did dig into this, I might find more innovative and cost-effective proposals to do it than another QuickSCAT (like data purchase), but I’d rather have that than nothing.
I would also note that if the satellite had been designed to be serviced, and Shuttle had lived up to its initial program goals (including, of course, west-coast launch capability), we wouldn’t have to launch a new satellite — it would be an excellent candidate for repair, with its instruments still in good shape. But because Shuttle didn’t, it wasn’t. And because satellites aren’t designed to be serviced, there is less market to justify systems capable of servicing them. Chicken and egg. Such are the ongoing consequences of not being a spacefaring nation.
I wonder if this would have been more in the news if we’d had a more active hurricane season, and were still in the middle of it? Timing is all.
Don’t Panic!
It’s only a calendar.
Nutrition Thoughts
The costs and benefits of omega fats and Vitamin D. Getting this right would provide a much bigger improvement to our national health than any government “health care” program. And it’s frightening how retrograde the FDA is on these issues, and how many still take their recommendations seriously.
Of course, a healthy diet isn’t cheap, which is why it’s important to have government policies that promote wealth production, rather than destruction (as things like cap’n’tax, and government health care, would do).
Scrubbing The Atmosphere
Why aren’t we spending more money on it?
David W. Keith, a physicist at the University of Calgary, reviews some of the technologies for air capture of carbon and notes that there is not a single government program devoted specifically to that purpose. Dr. Keith estimates that less than $3 million per year in public money is currently being spent on related research, even though it could potentially be a bargain. He writes:
[Early] estimates suggest that air capture will be competitive with technologies that are getting large R.&D. investments. For example, the cost of cutting CO2 emissions by displacing carbon-intensive electricity production with roof-mounted solar photovoltaic panels can easily exceed $500 per ton of CO2. Yet even skeptics suggest that a straightforward combination of existing process technologies could probably achieve air capture at lower cost. And the fact that several groups have raised private money for commercialization suggests that there are investors who believe that it is possible to develop technologies to capture CO2 from air at costs closer to $100 than $500 per ton of CO2.
When I wrote about Richard Branson’s $25 million prize for figuring out how to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, I wondered if governments and other entrepreneurs would follow his example (and if we would someday have nanobots gobbling up carbon dioxide). So far, I guess, the answer is no, but perhaps Dr. Keith’s article will stimulate some interest.
Don’t count on it. It doesn’t give them enough control over our lives, or force us to tighten our hair shirts sufficiently.
[Sunday evening update]
Things seem to have gotten a little off track in comments. Let me restate the question, to get more useful responses. Given that the people currently running the country think that atmospheric CO2 is a problem, and given that we are currently spending much money to address this (wind, solar, other non-nuclear “green” tech, etc.), why are we not spending a higher proportion on this? I contend that I have already described why. The collapse of the Soviet Union having (at least temporarily) given socialism a bad name, the socialists have taken over the environmental movement, and are using it as a Trojan Horse for their (non-environmental) collectivist agendas. I’m looking for alternate explanations from the usual defenders of the watermelons. I’m also looking for plausible ones, but I don’t expect to see them.
The Dog
…ate my global warming homework. But the consensus must be defended.