Archive for the ‘Science’ Category

Musings on the Future of Work

Thursday, January 7th, 2010

Because I have recently moved in with a group of filthy hippies, I have recently had the opportunity to read a number of fascinating books written by overeducated douchebags who possess a fascination with motorcycles (Specifically, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance and Shop Class as Soulcraft). Don’t take this as an indictment - as an overeducated douchebag, one of my favorite things in the world is pontificating on obscure subject matter, and I enjoyed these books, pretentious though they were.

As such, I wanted to present some ideas on the subject. The great thing about having a blog that no one reads is that I can post as many pages of self-indulgent crap as I want. So there.

I talk a lot about the future here. It is a subject of great interest to me. But often, it is largely theoretical. Today I’d like to talk about something a little closer to home. To sum up, in a completely dishonest oversimplification, the author of Shop Class as Soulcraft discusses the value of manual labor, of traditional trades, such as plumbing, carpentry, auto repair, etc. The problem, as presented, is that our society has been training a generation of “information workers” without actual tangible skills. In theory, the economists and pedagogues say, the future of work takes place in virtual and theoretical spaces.

They weren’t wrong to think so, but they were dumbasses for not realizing that those jobs would migrate overseas as soon as someone realized the same function could performed by an Indian cog-drone in a sweat office in Mumbai for half as much. And yes, while everything physical that we need can be created and shipped in from China, such things cannot be maintained by overseas workers, no matter how much we would love that to be the case. If your car breaks down, you can’t just ship it to China. Though that would be cool.

The point that the author is trying to make, is that there is real tangible value in many “blue-collar” jobs, and not the luddite, reductionist, “simpler time” bullshit that so many people are fond of. A person who can see the products of their labor is more likely to be satisfied with and even happy with their job. What the fuck does a creative consultant do, and do they even feel like they’ve earned their wage?

There’s no need to rehash the argument. It’s smart, interesting, and flies in the face of common wisdom. I would like to address a different point, something that sprang from these discussions and others. While there are many things that can be pointed to as the problem with modern society, I would like to point to one in particular:

Specialization. The hallmark of an advanced society is specialization. As food gathering becomes less imperative, man hours are able to be directed toward increasingly specialized tasks. This phenomenon becomes more pointed with automation, industrialization and computation. There is no secret that our society is radically compartmentalized. A biochemist shares practically no experience with a motorcycle mechanic.

I believe this is a problem. Part of this is because the cutting edge of science - which bears heavily on the functioning of our society - is so far removed from the average person as to be magical in nature. It is difficult for a democratic society to function when so much of human experience is inaccesible to the majority. This also creates schisms between not only classes, but areas of study. With specialization, we form insular communities that work inward, rather than outward. Scientists lack the humanizing touch of poets and artists, and artists lack the technical prowess of the scientific community. This schismatic rift exists in dozens of pairing across society.

I don’t propose any particular solution, but I do believe that we have lost sight of one of the things that makes us as humans so great: diversification. Some of our finest scientists and artists were polymaths, renaissance men who were artists, natural philosphers and athletes: Da Vinci, Newton, Jefferson, etc. It is possible that specialization drives society forward more powerfully, but at the cost of the individual, and at the risk of myopic devastation.

Liberal arts colleges attempt (in theory) to remedy this, by teaching cross-disciplinary classes and encouraging diverse pursuits, but even in these institutions that most resemble a renaissance university, insularity and separation still persist. What we wish as a culture we must cultivate in ourselves, and if we wish to be a full, healthy and well-developed culture, we must be full, healthy and well-developed people. Artists taking chemistry, writers fixing motorcycles, scientists writing poetry. Interdisciplinary pursuits do not weaken a person’s intellect and drive - they strengthen it.

Or that’s how it seems to me, wasted off my ass at eleven o’clock on a wednesday.

Death by Tech: Loss of Habitation

Thursday, April 30th, 2009

Maybe you’re one of those people that laughs when they hear about all the poor little bunnies losing their homes when the bulldozers come through, or maybe you just try and not think too hard about how many fuzzy animals were crushed under the steel boot of progress, but in any case, you may want to try a little harder to be sympathetic. Why? Because it could happen to us.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'that meme is tired dude'...

I'm not sure what you mean by 'that meme is tired dude'...

That’s right ugly kitty. We could all lose the place we live in, not just fluffy bunnies and three-toed sloths.

What is it?

Many science fiction authors have put forward images of a future in which the primary unit of value is computing power. Imagine a future where all but the most entrenched luddites have uploaded into some form of computerized consciousness and the only limit on intelletual and social mobility is the quantity of computing power you have access to. So once all the silicon and other relevant materials have been sucked out of the earth, where do we turn? Well, several more science fiction authors have suggest that in the future we will produce a hypothetical element called computronium, which utilizes, by means of nanotechnology, every last atom to produce computing power. Some radical scenarios suggest that eventually all other elements will be useless, and that our future computer selves (named Vile Offspring by Charles Stross, a name I highly enjoy) will tear apart the entire inner solar system, including the earth itself, to produce more processing power.

Likelihood?

Hard to say. Human civilization has not exactly been one long forward movement. We take a lot of steps backwards too. (You may be familiar with one such millenium long cessation of thought…) So while things like mind transfers and the invention of computronium are theoretically possible in the coming infinite lifetimes of humans, it is hard to tell whether or not we will continue to follow the technological path we’re on. Also, we humans are notoriously sentimental, so we may move on to other sources of raw material before breaking down the earth itself, though this assumes a level of environmental consciousness we haven’t exactly maintained throughout history.

Pain Factor?

Minimal. Unless you count the soul-crushing pain of watching the only home you’ve ever known get chewed up by tiny machines in order to make it easier for Jim the Porn-Entity to spam your virtual inbox for the rest of eternity.

Thoughts on Battlestar Galactica

Sunday, April 5th, 2009

Since Battlestar Galactica has recently ended, and it was more or less the only sci-fi show on television with any integrity when it came to dealing with serious science fiction topic, I feel that it deserves a little bit of a review. Despite my irritation that it only ran four seasons and ER is finishing up its fifteenth, I feel that BSG had a pretty good run, and stands as one of the few triumphs of science fiction television. So here are some thoughts. (NOTE: Spoilers ahead)

Cylons

Important philosophical quandary, or just eye candy?

Important philosophical quandary, or just eye candy?

The new BSG took a step in an entirely  new direction with the Cylons when the restarted the franchise, replacing the clunky plastic robots with sexy women possessing uncontrollable libidos. While I secretly suspect that all the foreshadowing, mysticism and God-talk was just an excuse for the directors to write an overwhelming number of scenes with Tricia Helfer whispering innuendos into Baltar’s ear, there are a number of things to be considered. First, there is the obvious Blade Runner question: what separates man from machine? If a perfect human replica was created, would we be able to tell the difference, and would it matter? (And of course, the most important question, could we have sex with it?)

BSG operates on the premise that there is not a whole lot of difference between the cylons and humans,  and especially by the end of the series, they come to be accepted as equals, more or less. Actually, the writers kind of pass over this issue without dealing with it. The humans are vehemently opposed to the very existence of cylons, and then, without really dealing with the issue, they kind of just accept the presence of Athena and later the final five. No big deal. No one on the show really asks the important questions about the nature of human existence, and the differences (if there are any) between them and the cylons. They just kind of feel it out, acting largely emotionally, which is rather unsatisfying.

Still, I think that it’s an important question. As AI technology advances, this question is going to become more important and less theoretical. And maybe when our robot masters watch Battlestar Galactica and see our sexy representation of them, it will sate their burning desire to murder us and use our bodies for fuel.

Proto-Luddites

Advanced technology has brought us space flight, longer life spans and sexy robots. But clearly we should give it all up and live like monkeys.

Advanced technology has brought us space flight, longer life spans and sexy robots. But clearly we should give it all up and live like monkeys.

When the colonial fleet finally reaches (new) Earth, they come to a decision. They will break the cycle of human builds robots, robots and humans kill each other, by flying their fleet into the sun, throwing their technology away and going to live among the prehistorical humans of this world. While the motivations behind this action are, at best, strange, and at worst, fucking stupid, it does raise a number of interesting questions. (I could talk to you about the interesting take on Neitzche’s idea of eternal return, but falling asleep at your keyboard makes all sorts of funny lines on your face, and I don’t want that)

Actually, it raises an interesting question. Scientists (and other, less intelligent people) have been asking if we are capable, morally, of dealing with the technology we have created. Einstein said, “It has become appalingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity” (As evidence of this I would like to point to the abundance of fart applications on the iPhone). While this may or may not be true, it is an interesting choice that the humans of the colonies make in the final of Battlestar Galactica. While it may seem strange that the writer of a science blog would respect this decision, it is a valid point they make. All too often we make technological advances because we can, without ever stopping to ask if we should (Figure out what movie I stole that from and earn a virtual cookie). While I don’t advocate a primitive technology purge or anything of the sort, I would strongly encourage humanity as a whole to think a little harder about the ramifications of what it is they are doing when they advance their science.

Though I will say, that despite all that, the weird robot montage at the end of Battlestar Galactica was pretty stupid. Is that the note you want to end on? Fear the robots?

Did You Know?

Sunday, March 29th, 2009

Ok, I know I’ve already overwhelmed you with new posts, but holy shit, you need to see this:

Death by Tech: Energy Weapons

Sunday, March 29th, 2009

Wired has written extensively about the development of military lasers, and since it was recently announced that such lasers have reached what optimists are calling “military strength” I think it only fitting that this week’s Death by Tech focus on the increasingly likely possibility that your insides will be boiled and fried by advancing armies of laser rifle wielding stormtroopers.

"Pew pew"

"Pew pew"

What is it?

As of right now, military lasers are pretty innocous. The only likely use they will see in the near future is as countermeasures to mortars and rockets, and 105 kilowatts is barely enough power for that particular application. There are significant obstacles to militarization of lasers, mostly in terms of minaturization. Scientists are still working on getting a powerful laser to fit into a small enough space to militarily viable, and powering such a weapon is still difficult. Still, if such obstacles could be overcome, a laser or similiar energy weapon could make its debut on a modern battlefield in a decade or so. But…

Really, modern war is fought and won by treasuries, and if the prevalence of cheap, reliable AK-47s in the hands of militaries around the world tells us anything, it’s that laser rifles are unlikely to  be a mainstream weapon of war (if such a weapon is even ever developed) any time in our lifetimes. It is, however, not impossible to imagine that such a weapon could be useful in one relatively untouched theater of war…

ds2fire111

Likelihood?

As mentioned before, it is highly unlikely that any of us will be on the recieving end of a military grade laser any time soon. There are just too many reasons not to build one, not when bullets keep doing such a good job of killing us already. Still, if we act on the assumption that longevity treatments are coming, it is not inconcievable that sometime in the more distant future, a larger, planet or starship scale laser will  be pointed in your direction. But don’t hold your breath, good old-fashioned projectile weapons have a lot going for them.

Pain Factor?

Depends. If someone pointed one of those 105 kilowatt lasers at you, I guarantee it will hurt like hell, if it even manages to kill you. It will burn your flesh away in tiny increments, which is, as I understand it, pretty damn painful. As the power of such weapons increases the pain factor will probably go down, in fact, and you’ll die a lot faster. At least you have something to look forward to.

Immortality Becoming More Mainstream

Sunday, March 29th, 2009
No, not like that...

No, not like that...

Daily Galaxy recently posted an article on longevity and the possibility of living to 1,000. The article is good, but not remarkable, but what is interesting is that this article made it to the front page of digg, a social news site that get upwards of a million visitors a day. For something that a decade ago was considered science fiction to be considered legitimate news is a huge step forward. Here’s what the article said:

“Cambridge University geneticist Aubrey de Grey has famously stated, “The first person to live to be 1,000 years old is certainly alive today …whether they realize it or not, barring accidents and suicide, most people now 40 years or younger can expect to live for centuries…

…There are many, many different components of ageing and we are chipping away at all of them,” said Robert Freitas at the Institute for Molecular Manufacturing, a non-profit, nanotech group in Palo Alto, California. “It will take time and, if you put it in terms of the big developments of modern technology, say the telephone, we are still about 10 years off from Alexander Graham Bell shouting to his assistant through that first device. Still, in the near future, say the next two to four decades, the disease of ageing will be cured.”

Actually, even though I said there wasn’t a lot of uniqueness to this article earlier, there is a very interesting of discussion of people who don’t believe longevity is possible or even ethical.

“I just don’t think [immortality] is possible,” says Sherwin Nuland, a professor of surgery at the Yale School of Medicine. “Aubrey and the others who talk of greatly extending lifespan are oversimplifying the science and just don’t understand the magnitude of the task. His plan will not succeed. Were it to do so, it would undermine what it means to be human.” (Emphasis mine)

This is an important point, and one I think we all need to consider. There is no contention that much of what gives life its meaning is the fact that we die at the end of it - without that constant threat, will we be able to produce such beautiful works of art, and will we even have a desire to live if the threat of death doesn’t drive us to succeed and endure?

Of course, most longevity enthusiasts don’t suggest that they can completely defeat death, only stave it off for longer than previously considered possible. I do have some fear that if this comes to pass, then it will mark an end to an era of human productivity, or worse. Yes, would it not be wonderful if Einstein or Michaelangelo or Shakespeare had lived to work and produce for centuries, but what of Hitler, Stalin, Napoleon? What do we have to fear from an immortal dictator, or an undying tyrant?

In any case, I think this article is a little optimistic - it simplifies the process of defeating aging quite a bit, but it bears consideration. As in all things, I think that this is a supremely ethical act. Humans deserve the right to choose to live or not to, if it is within our power to give them that choice. And more than I fear an end to beauty and productivity, I look forward to a marked shift in the paradigm of human existence that will come about through an end to aging.

Check out the article, it’s definitely worth a read. Link.

Death by Tech: Fermi Paradox

Wednesday, March 18th, 2009

This week on Death by Tech I will be featuring another somewhat obscure death scenario: aliens! Stay tuned…

What is it?

The basis of this idea is rooted in the musings of a number of prominent physicists, astronomers and generally smart people. Here is how it goes: first, there is the argument of scale. The Milky Way contains 250 billion stars, and the universe itself has approximately 70 sextillion stars in the visible spectrum alone. Estimates on how many civilizations we might share the galaxy with - based on the Drake equation (which is controversial, at best) - range from 5 to 5000. Enrico Fermi takes this further, assuming that the nature of intelligent life is to explore and expand, and points out that even with slower-than-light space travel, it would take somewhere around five to fifty million years for a civilization to colonize the galaxy. This may seem like a long time, but on a geological time scale it is relatively insignificant. This begs the question, which Fermi so impertinently asks: Where is everybody?

It's quiet. Too quiet...

It's quiet. Too quiet...

This may not seem to have anything to do with death, but bear with me. Theories on why we haven’t seen any signs of alien civilization vary (one of my favorites theorizes that it is the nature of intelligent life to destroy itself) but most people interested in it figure that it is an interesting theoretical problem that will be solved as our technological capabilities increase. But it could be something more insidious.  Here are some of my thoughts on why we haven’t heard from anyone:

Aliens ate their brains. And they're coming for us...

Aliens ate their brains. And they're coming for us...

Or…

OM NOM NOM

OM NOM NOM

Or…

ZERLING RUSH KEKEKEKE

ZERGLING RUSH KEKEKEKE

You get the picture.

Likelihood?

Well, we’re not dead yet. There’s no way to tell, but there is certainly something ominous about the oppressive silence of the universe. It could be that we’re just not advanced enough for anyone to take notice of us (or maybe they have their own form of prime directive), so while the threat is pretty low, as we advance our technology, space could get very dangerous very fast.

Pain Factor?

Another unknown. If it’s alien facehuggers, probably pretty high. If earth is just going to be bulldozed to make room for a galactic superhighway, you probably won’t notice.

Sci-Fi Channel Suffers Collective Brain Anuerism, Passes it Off as Marketing Ploy

Tuesday, March 17th, 2009
Picard has a message for you SyFy

Picard has a message for you SyFy

In a move clearly made by a group of people with more MBAs than brain cells, the Sci-Fi channel has decided to go Web 2.0 all over its core fanbase’s ass and change its name to SyFy. Reasoning?

FTA: “By changing the name to Syfy, which remains phonetically identical, the new brand broadens perceptions and embraces a wider range of current and future imagination-based entertainment beyond just the traditional sci-fi genre, including fantasy, supernatural, paranormal, reality, mystery, action and adventure. It also positions the brand for future growth by creating an ownable trademark that can travel easily with consumers across new media and nonlinear digital platforms, new international channels and extend into new business ventures.”

This means less Battlestar Galactica and Eureka and more Ghost Hunters, ECW, Chase and Mansquito. I am not sure if the people who run the network actually even like science fiction.

Link.

Guide: How to Live Forever (Or close enough…)

Sunday, March 15th, 2009

Exclusive (Well, not really) information on how to live forever. Secrets of everlasting life revealed! Want to know more? Read on!

Metamaterial Revolution: The New Science of Making Anything Disappear

Wednesday, March 11th, 2009
An invisibility device. Sort of.

An invisibility device. Sort of.

A new article about the emerging science of metamaterials. The article has an obsessive focus on invisibility, but the applications are far greater than that. These metamaterials (at least in theory) could advance an overwhelming list of technologies, including supermicroscopes, nanotechnology, optical computers, cloaking, and more.

FTA: “…Scientists had long known that they could change the behavior of a material by altering its chemistry. For instance, you can alter the color and hardness of glass by adding lead. But now Pendry saw that he could also alter function by changing a material’s internal structure on a very fine scale, less than a wavelength of whatever he was manipulating…These new, structurally altered materials would soon become known as metamaterials, based on the Greek meta, meaning “beyond.” “We knew we were onto something,” Pendry says.”

Read the full article here.