incipit vita nova

Make 2013 The Year of the Woman

In keeping with my concept of "just change one thing," I've decided that this year, women should take any and all opportunities that arise. Any job, any activity, any organization. Any time a man has had the slot in the past, a woman should take it, at least temporarily. Yes, this includes Monday Night Football announcing duties, writing James Patterson books, making the current slate of Hollywood sequel-blockbusters, heading multinational corporations, and creating new bacteria in a lab.

They can start with a guest slot writing tech articles and futuristic speculations in Wired.

I wrote 2,200 words this morning because an absurd article and series of pictures was featured in Wired under the guise of predicting the "future of robots and jobs for people." If the article's audience had never read any sci fi published after 1935, seen Metropolis, or watched the Science Channel, they would think this was a thought provoking piece.

The entertaining photos featuring the always-adorable Jimmy Fallon having slightly scary sexytime with a hot robot mannequin, would be awesome . . . in another article. An article about Jimmy Fallon having a funny, intimidating get-together with a fembot.

Sometimes sci fi writers and individuals of the "tech" persuasion think they are smarter than other people. Smarter than horror writers, for example. 

Alan Rodgers, horror writer, had a name for the type of thinking evinced by Kevin Kelly in Wired: dumth.

I never liked Wired or got much out of it. Every time I do read something in it, I'm so overwhelmed by dumth I can't think straight.

The source of the dumth, I think, is people who don't know what they don't know telling other people who also don't know, that they know it all. It's nothing but a series of features illustrating comforting "factoids" to a subset of the population that's interested in a certain type of technology.

In this case, Kelly's "factoids" mesh perfectly with the obnoxious Fallon/fembot photos.

In this case, Wired backslid some from knowledge and understanding in the Fifties, and certainly from the Twenties.

In the Twenties, Fritz Lang's Metropolis portrayed Maria, a heroine in human form, and enigmatic some-time villainess in robot form.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the Fifties, Robbie the Robot did a lot of stuff. This classic "Robby" shot seems like the reverse of the Jimmy Fallon/Fembot images to me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Seriously. Jimmy. Why be ashamed for letting your natural desires take precedence? Obviously your "friend" doesn't share these feelings. She looks proud of what you just did.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wired could have snatched a woman off the street with a degree in engineering, gone to the corner Starbucks and found a random female writer, and advertised on Craigslist for a random editor whose native language was something other than English. They could have then stuck them in a room for 8 hours with an iPad and wireless connection, and asked them to come up with an article about how robots would affect jobs of the future, and the group would have come up with an infinitely superior article than what they shoveled up in another of their endless series of unexamined male tech-nerd assumptions.

How? Why?

The Kelly article focused on a number of speculations regarding robots, artificial intelligence, and jobs of the future. The title? "Better than Human." The thought-challenged fear-mongering subhead? 

Imagine that 7 out of 10 working Americans got fired tomorrow.

Seriously.

Fortunately, the article also features not-a-very-exciting robot, Baxter, a "workbot" produced by Boston-based Rethink Robotics, the same company that made the familiar household helper, Roomba. Otherwise known as a small robot that cleans the floor and trips people (as extrapolated in "Perfect Stranger" 2006).

I say "fortunately," because the article comes from a place of trepidation and fear-of-robot.

There are dozens of non-scary, non-human-replacing robots coming out of Japan right now. The adorable Riba, a nurse robot that lifts and transports patients safely and securely, is just one of them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of the many jobs suggested for robot-replacement listed in Kelly's article, "nurse" is not one of them.

Kelly suggests that robots will take the pill-dispensing part of pharmacists' jobs away, leaving them with more time to consult with patients on medications, unaware of what actual pharmacists do, or that they've already made this switch. He is blissfully unaware of the many other tech factors that have impacted the pharmacy industry and that medicine as a whole, is working to move closer to caregiver-patient quality relationships worldwide. Robots, high-end technology and information technology are all being used in myriad ways completely not addressed in the Wired article, and far from losing 7 of 10 jobs, health care is the fastest-growing field producing many jobs throughout the world.

 

But I digress into one illustration of the article's dumth. There are dozens more.

That's not my point. My point is, the way we conduct our dialog about lots of things needs to change.

My one simple thing is: give women the microphone for a bit. Let them lead the discussion for a change.

Do this for a specific period of time. Twelve months, let's say. 

Let this be women from non-traditional backgrounds. Let it not be the daughters or wives of senators, former presidents, corporate executives, or stockholders of major companies.

Let it be women who have not heretofore had the bully pulpit, the book contract, the TED talk slot or the microphone. Let it be women from the inner cities, from other countries, and let it be people whose first language is not English. Let the women who are currently in science, engineering and math programs have the first seat at the committee table. Let women serving or retired from leadership capacities in the military take the helm of the ship, and, hold your breath, gentlemen -- take charge of an army or two. Let them lead R & D programs. 

Let them write books. Let them make films. Put them in charge of television shows as showrunners. Don't gatekeep their stories, just put them out there. Start feeling the legitimate humiliation and embarrassment you should feel when you announce repeatedly the most "notable" fact about a first-time female U.S. senator is the fact she is gay. No -- it's not. What she has accomplished are the most notable things.

What's the worst that can happen?

I don't know -- why not ask IBM, Sam's Club, Yahoo and Guardian Life? They all instituted female CEOs in 2012.

Is Campbell's Soup still tasting good and selling? Are there new, tasty soups in the works?

Yes.

Already there are too many women out there doing all of these things for the media and management muzzle to shut all of them down and shut them off. The horse has left the barn. Meg Whitman is back in charge as a CEO at HP. There may be problems with her tenure, and she is not necessarily the best CEO ever, but she, along with Carly Fiorina, will always have the distinction of serving as a lightning rods so Ginni Rometty (IBM), Denise Morrison (Campbell's Soup), Marissa Mayer (Yahoo), and the most powerful American-based CEO you have likely never heard of, Indra Nooyi, born in Chennai in 1955, who has led PepsiCo for over a decade, could do their work without being shot down from behind by a media that hates women who break molds and barriers.

Why, the world has changed so that it hasn't even been able to shut me up. The robot that selects links and articles when we write these posts selected my own writing from December. Dalek Sec, himself an artificial, mechanical lifeform, knows these truths.

 

 

 

What a thought. Seven out of ten jobs lost to robots? How about all of them, Dalek Sec - all of them! 

Related articles

Jumpstart Your Creativity By Changing One Simple Thing

Copenhagen Rocks! (Science-Wise)

In August, the Centre for Geogenetics at the University of Copenhagen reported that there had been large fluctuations of Arctic sea ice in the past 10,000 years, including long periods of time where less than half of the amount of ice seen today was present. Sometimes when I think about efforts like the Franklin Expedition, discoveries like this seem so ironic. They need not have lost their lives, if they were not searching for a passage that was sometimes open, sometimes not. If they had a concept of change, which I am certain wasn't as tangible as it is today - and it's still not very tangible - they might not have invested so much time and effort for such a fruitless pursuit.

The bad news the study reports is that there is a clear connection between global climate change and current reductions in the level of sea ice. The good news found by the study is that from 8,000 to 4,000 BCE, there was much less sea ice, but it was still able to regenerate itself as temperatures cooled. The period between 8,000 to 4,000 BCE is called the Holocene Climate Optimum, a warm period (warmer than today) following the most recent Ice Age.

Yay!! John!!! Nebulas 2011

I'm not a mean person.  Plus, I'm sure I look like three-day old oatmeal with a wig stuck on top.  

This is what an all-day (I am not exaggerating) Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America board meeting will do to you.

I think John has the expression that I have on my face in most pictures!  And that is, believe me, nothing like him.  I'm going to actually write the name "John Scalzi" because I'm sure his many fans will seek this out - and ladies . . . yes, it was ALL my fault.  

Is that "Let me out, please" or "I hate you!"

I've been reading Packing for Mars: The Curious Science of Life in the Void by Mary Roach.

I think one all-day SFWA board meeting was of the equivalent grueling nature to . . . oh . . . say . . . halfway to Mars? That's over 250 days.  

Imagine two days, or three?  This would be like an intergenerational ship, by which time everyone would have evolved into shrieking hairless macaques.

 * * * * 

LOL!  Just scroll down.  I look like poor, long-suffering Richard Grieco with lighter hair.  Same style, same coloring . . . no makeup needed.

Will People Become Food for Computers?

This is the logo for a New Zealand computer supply company.

First thing I thought when I saw the "Singularity" story in TIME this morning was - OK, so these super-smart artificial intelligences will eat . . .??? Will people become "food" to feed computers, as seen in "The Matrix"?  Flashback 1999 - Jim Blaylock enjoyed the movie a lot just as I did, but we were both appalled by its taking "people as power sources" seriously.  So "The Matrix" computers feed the people with what?  They picked people's bodies to use as batteries over, oh, say - regular batteries or any other form of power generation?  (A:  People are very unlikely to become food or direct power sources for machine-based intelligence.)

I'm not really sure what "Singularitarians" think the outcome of exponential growth in artificial intelligence will be.  I know the general concept is a sort of "New World Order" thing - or possibly a greater-than end-Permian level extinction event (note: this is two extinctions *before* the dinosaur extinction).  Extinction event in a "good" way, I mean.  Like - all those Neanderthal Troglodytes out there eating cheezburgers and cheez doodles will go the way of Triceratops, while the "enlightened" will become superhuman.

In evolutionary terms, Ray Kurzweil's assertion that machines created by people will overtake their creators in intellectual capacity within 35 years (it's 25 years according to others) isn't unprecedented if one views other forms of life in addition to computer geeks and computers.  Evolution frequently speeds up and remains static.  Our sense of time is skewed by our own biological clocks.  In evolutionary terms, 35 years is a micro-nano-second.  And what Singularitarians (I don't mean to be mean to them - the average person doesn't think about this type of thing.  They just go about their lives.) are fixated on is a very narrow segment of very narrow concerns in the entire biosphere.  It's such a narrow segment that Mr. Kurzweil's ideas almost take on the nature of a niche religion.  The Singularitarians' beliefs are focused on the really big (yet hardly "new") idea that something man-made will take on a life of its own ("It's ALIVE!!!!") and that in a symbiotic relationship, the technological advance will enable people to take their own next evolutionary leap - which entails super augmentation of human intelligence by "merging" with machines and physical immortality by a variety of means.

The TIME article asserts that "The difficult thing to keep sight of when you're talking about the Singularity is that even though it sounds like science fiction, it isn't, no more than a weather forecast is science fiction."

How am I not to respond to that?  That's like being slapped in the face with a kid-leather glove!  At dawn, sir, we will meet . . .

The Singularity is a sci-fi-related and inspired idea.  I gave up on the TIME article after 4 screens so I can't say with certainty that they ever got around to mentioning Vernor Vinge, but somebody who's marketing the concept of "Singularity," holding conferences and recruiting "Singularitarians" is NOT the same as the person who used math and logic to illuminate the concept long before the change-point that is fairly obvious to most keeping track of technology today was at all obvious.  As to "it's like predicting the weather," well - as many commenters pointed up in various humorous ways - SKYNET!!!  Oy!  Describing the efforts of artificial intelligence to destroy humanity's "resistance" via time travel is the plot of Terminator (1984).  Humans fought back to stop Skynet in Terminator II (1991).

In my opinion, articles like this TIME presentation could be a strong piece of evidence to prove the assertion that computers are currently smarter than people.  As TIME journalists churn out their crap in the internet, the backchannel communication is laughing snarkily and feeding new "ideas" to the nonjournalists struggling to present concepts that exceed their capacity of reason.  

I'm the last person to make fun of others for being "stupid" or "dumb."  But to regard technological growth that has outstripped daily capacity of comprehension for years as whatever this article is presenting (ex: it presents the plot of the Terminator movies in descriptive terms as if the movies never existed and 75% of the population including kids hasn't seen them) - that's just not too smart.  If I were a computer, I'd eat this guy that wrote the article and go looking for Kurzweil next.

 

Top Five Badass Outdoor Adventurers

Aron Ralston has to be on the top of any badass outdoor adventurer list.  When I read the Outdoor Magazine with Aron on the cover, I could hardly believe his story (now told through the film 127 Hours).  The article went into extreme detail of Aron's hiking trip in Canyonlands Park in 2003, which turned into a grueling ordeal.

Without adequate food or water, Aron hung out for 127 hours in the canyon where a freak accident caused his right hand to be crushed under a boulder, trapping him.  The only way to free himself was to amputate the crushed hand, which had no circulation and was no good to him anyway.  He had a multitool knife.  I know that knife, I have it myself.  He first tried to chip away at the rock, but that didn't work.  Eventually, he broke his own forearm bones, and with the dull blade, he was able to sever his wrist and free himself.  Badass.

Some people think women can't be badasses.  Obviously they don't know me, and especially don't know Jerri Nielsen Fitzgerald, who in 1999, operated on her own breast while stationed at a remote Antarctic scientific outpost providing medical care to about 40 scientists.  Oh - this was during the Antarctic winter, with the last plane having left a few weeks before.  Jerri discovered a small lump in her breast and operated on herself for a biopsy.  The lump was cancerous, and Jerri removed her own breast cancer.  Jerri died in 2009, after the cancer did reoccur.  I'm sure she had better things to do in the next world, because if she hadn't, she probably would have wrestled the cancer down and told it to find some burly 300 lb. guy's man-boobs to infect instead.

Since we're talking cold-weather adventurers, Jerri might have gotten some inspiration from Ernest Shackleton, Irish-born explorer whose ship Endurance almost didn't have a name badass enough to stand up to his legend.

There are several excellent documentaries about Shackleton's Antarctic expedition, and one amazing dramatic film starring Kenneth Branagh.  

Shackleton was the type of badass who recruited men for his 1914 Antarctic voyage with this advertisement:

Men wanted for hazardous journey. Small wages. Bitter cold. Long months of complete darkness. Constant danger. Safe return doubtful. Honour and recognition in case of success.

There is much to say, and know, about Ernest Shackleton, but after the Endurance became locked in Antarctic pack ice, it took 22 months, but he brought every man of his crew, and himself - home alive.

 

 

 Here is a picture of Norman Ollestad, age 11, who survived a plane crash on Mt. Baldy that killed the pilot, his father, and his father's girlfriend.  Norman got himself down the mountain one step at a time.  His memoir of growing up with his adventurer father (the cover is a photo of Norman's dad surfing with a baby Norman slung on his back, surfing) and surviving the ordeal, is one of the best survival/personal stories of recent years.

First came Ernest Shackleton, who failed to reach the South Pole but who brought all 28 of his crew back alive.  Then came Scott and Amundsen - one of the world's most famous tragedies, and the explorer who safely made it to the Pole and back.  "I'm going for a walk; I may be some time," are the famous last words uttered by honorary Badass Mention Capt. Lawrence "Titus" Oates, who left Scott's tent during a blizzard, not wishing to burden his companions any longer.  Then came Douglas Mawson, possibly one of the baddest of Antarctic badasses ever.

Here is Mawson telling the -40 degree weather it can take a hike and wait for him to finish his pipe.

In our winter/Antarctic "summer" of 1912, Mawson and a 25-man team of scientists and explorers set off to map and explore the coast and interior of Antarctica.  Weather proved to be so harsh that the team was unable to make the 1200 miles of progress they had set as a goal.  While trying to return to their base camp, their main pack sledge, all of its dogs, and its pilot, Belgrave Ninnis, fell into a glacial ice crevasse.  This left Mawson and ski champion Xavier Mertz to continue on their own with minimal food.  Eventually, the two began shooting their dogs for food, which continued for 10 days.  Unbeknownst to the pair, they were being poisoned by excessive Vitamin A in the dogs' livers.  Mertz's condition worsened, and he eventually died, leaving Mawson to continue alone.  Struggling on, Mawson reached his base camp only six hours after the ship that had been scheduled to pick up the other men had departed.  Holing up in their camp over the long Antarctic winter, Mawson and the others were eventually rescued more than 10 months later.

Space Travel!

So where does space travel stand?  Is Richard Branson the only person making travel to space a reality now, other than the Space Elevator student-scientist teams?

NASA's approved budget for FY 2010/11 (the current government fiscal year) includes $1.6 billion for development of commercial space opportunities - i.e. similar to Virgin Galactic.

Just about three weeks ago, the Virgin team completed the first piloted flight of SpaceShipTwo, also known as Virgin Enterprise - the planned spaceflight vehicle, for which 340 tickets have already been sold!

This is out at the "international Spaceport" in Mojave, California - which believe it or not is in Los Angeles County.  This is the high desert north of Palmdale and Lancaster, which are the towns near Edwards AFB, the west coast landing site for the Space Shuttle.  I think this picture shows how gorgeous the "high desert," also known as the Mojave desert, can be.  At its pretty times, it's big sky country, and spectacular.

I have a charming neighbor who works for a major aerospace contractor (Northrop Grumman) and a while back, he shared with me a few of the amazing technologies just this one, admittedly important, company is working on.  Just one among the technologies is a lab-version of "beam me up, Scotty."  That's right - a matter transporter.  One of Northrop's teams working in Redondo Beach also just received Popular Mechanics' 2010 "Breakthrough Award" for its work in developing the LCROSS (Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite) that was successfully launched last year.  The award was given because the team developed commercial, affordable components that wouldn't just be used for the LCROSS, but could also be used in numerous other space operations.  Total cost to build and launch the LCROSS?  $57 million.  As a point of comparison, the Space Shuttle Endeavor cost $1.7 billion to build, and $450 million per launch.

I'm hardly the expert, but I think space science and technology has undergone a genuine revolution in the past two decades.  My impression of the former programs is that they were almost 100% government-sponsored, very hierarchical, and once begun, very difficult to adjust or alter in light of changing world- and technology conditions.  Now, the diversity of those working on space-related science and technology is staggering.  It isn't just different countries becoming fully-involved and engaged (Europe and Asia), it's nearly every university around the world with at least a few projects in experimental fields - including community colleges!  NASA just selected community college students to begin to work in space/technology centers to work - for real - on many different forms of space technology.

So, the answer is "no, it's not just Richard Branson."  Check out the agenda for the Space Manufacturing Conference taking place this weekend! This conference deals with real work currently being performed leading to asteroid mining and space settlement - moon or orbiting stations.

Why am I learning all about this?  Book, of course . . .

Now, as to why many people don't hear more about these exciting technological developments occurring worldwide, is it that members of the media don't understand, or don't care?  Or both?

"Perfect Stranger" and Liberal Eugenics

Many members of my family are involved in medicine.  I never chose that educational or career path, but I did end up with the basics of math and science to comprehend today's ethical debates.  I know very few people in medicine who share the cynical worldview of Dr. House, who is still a totally humane guy compared to eugenicists (those who philosophically favor the "culling" of weaker members of the human race - their definition of weaker, of course) like Peter Singer and current White House "Science Czar" John Holdren. Some people have even written books and coined the term "liberal eugenics" to advocate for the direct ending of human life to improve things for everybody else.

A responsible concern for the balance of health, well-being and the carrying capacity of our world is not the same as full-on eugenics.  I agree with most, if not all, of the carefully thought-out positions of Garrett Hardin, the ecologist who authored famous and controversial essays including "Lifeboat Ethics" and "The Tragedy of the Commons."  There is a world of difference between someone pointing up that, left unchecked, people can and will despoil group environments (the tragedy of the commons) as Hardin did, and advocating for directly ending people's lives - from infants to adults - as people like Singer and Holdren do.  In "Lifeboat Ethics," Garrett Hardin pointed up that providing temporary aid (food, medical aid, and unsustainable economic aid) to people with long-term problems that only they can solve themselves is akin to indefinitely keeping everybody on a lifeboat that has only a tiny amount of food and water.  This approach assumes that human life on earth is ultimately a "zero sum game;" however, many would argue that it is NOT a zero-sum game.  So far, it has turned out that food capacity has been able to increase, and that as time goes on and technology improves, many natural resources are able to be treated in a renewable manner.  

Ultimately, I think, the difference between the three scientists was one of careful thought and consideration.  Garrett Hardin's suggestions are just that - suggestions and food for thought.  He doesn't say "throw everyone off the lifeboat immediately!"  How can the problems best be solved, for the greatest good of all?  This type of thinking can lead to solutions.  The full-on eugenics thinking of Singer and Holdren leads only to dismay and even potentially violent actions.  People like Singer and Holdren ultimately believe in a static world.  There is little qualitative difference in the type of thought that advocates blindly providing resources to those in need (unlimited food aid to destitute countries or areas while investing no time or resources in solving the underlying reason food is lacking) and the eugenics and sterilization approaches of Singer and Holdren.  Both are simplistic and ignore the fact that life will survive and that people can solve their own problems.  What is needed is the means to build a sustainable structure for life, not the deliberate culling of the weak through either active (eugenics, abortion, mass sterilization) or passive (withdrawal of medical care, food, and untreated disease).

In a story called "Perfect Stranger," I wrote about the implications of Liberal Eugenics - i.e. the access of wealthier individuals to genetic engineering for their children, something that will certainly be a reality, if not in my lifetime, then in my daughter's lifetime.  In the story, the father Gary came to feel that his son Denny was no longer his own son.  Gary was miserable, after allowing his wife to make many choices of genetic "improvements" on their son, ultimately creating a "perfect" teen who was at the same time, totally estranged from his father and mother.

To me, this all boils down to, "What is 'better than'?"  With access to gene therapies that could create many "improvements" in a yet-to-be-born child, or even a growing child, do we really as frail humans know what is "best"?  Will the gene therapies also affect reproductivity - in other words, will the "improved" children pass their improved traits on to their own children?  You might get a resounding "no" from the knowitalls out there; I think otherwise.  There is a strong likelihood that genetic manipulation won't affect only the "desired" areas (i.e. eye color, weight, gender, hair color - to name a few that are in current use or development) while leaving reproductive capacity untouched.  There is certain to be a difference in impact between the genders as well, given differences in reproductive capacity and means.

I can say that something like changing eye color is probably not a good trade-off, when non-invasive methods can instantly achieve the desired result (colored contact lenses).

The physics of life is as implacable a rule as non-living, static physics of motion, energy and thermal dynamics.  Quantum physics merely makes it more of an uncontrollable system.  If we change a person on the genetic level (not chromosomes - that was a different series of stories by me) we are without a doubt going to get unintended changes along with the intended ones.  Many, if not all, people have instincts about this type of thing.  This is why people fear and oppose genetic engineering.  It isn't the simplistic fear of a "super race" that is of such concern, it's the real, non-simplistic fear of unintended consequences.  

And I have this to say to the Singers and Holdren's of the world.  Looking at any individual who you deem "worthy," Singer and Holdren - let's just say looking at yourself - do you have a perfect, unblemished ancestry of only physically and mentally flawless and "outstanding" forebears?  In the complex web of human ancestry, can you assure yourself that the lineage from which you arose, was comprised exclusively of people who'd pass your genetic perfection and deserving of life razor?  Singer, in your past, were there hunters, or people who dealt in livestock for slaughter?  Holdren, was every single one of your ancestors perfect in their use of natural resources and even money?  

In all the things that make us who we are - the tangible and intangible - can we make these choices for our own children and grandchildren?  Today's profligate march toward command and control mirrors the much less-sophisticated ideas of the 50's, and the horrific experiments in death of the mid-20th Century.  What lines did Hitler cut off among the millions who died in World War II?  Which person who might have found the cure for cancer or discovered a truly sustainable energy technology had their forebears destroyed in Cambodia, in Rwanda, in Bosnia?  In terms of mental illness alone, "genius" often goes hand-in-hand with bipolar disease.  My father and his twin brother were alike in almost every way, except that my father was non-mentally-ill and a genius, while his identical twin brother had Schizophrenia.  For certain, schizophrenia is one of the conditions frequently targeted for genetic non-reproduction by the Singers and Holdrens of the world.  This would be very disturbing to my many cousins, and yes, the world would be a far-poorer place were they and their children and grandchildren not in it.

 

 

Space Elevator!

The Space Elevator concept is real!  More than 100 colleges and universities from around the world have been working on projects related to building a real Space Elevator for several years now.

An annual conference and the "Space Elevator Games" with a prize sponsored by NASA and the Spaceward Foundation are growing events, and the next European conference will be in December in Luxembourg.  Eurospaceward!

What is the space elevator?  Well, we old-timey sci fi folk will recall the idea of a "skyhook" which was always envisioned as a giant constructed structure reaching above the earth's gravitational influence, thereby allowing access to space without expensive, costly, intensive and potentially dangerous rocket launches.  What's more, such a structure would provide "payload potential" far in excess of anything we could engineer/do via rocket launch technology, no matter what the fuel.

In a great example of "next generation" thinking, the Space Elevator of today uses technologies that weren't known to the concept originator, one of the world's most brilliant, original scientists, thinkers - and a science fiction real Grand Master of prose and thought - Arthur C. Clarke.  I (and several others privileged enough to know the "Star Wars" group that also included Jerry Pournelle and Larry Niven - can you say "Ringworld" - I can - could not love them more if I tried - know another interesting side note that sidesteps the politicians of the world completely . . . but for another day).  Anyway, long story short, the Space Elevator was first thought up by Arthur C. Clarke ages ago in his spare time after he finished inventing the satellite communications system that makes this blog, your satellite TV, your iPhone and your GPS possible . . .

Oh!  OK, today's Space Elevator that all these brilliant, fun, cool creative students and scientists from all over the world are working on is this:  An extremely thin, long ribbon or strip of ultrastrong material (currently envisioned to be constructed from carbon nanotubes) will be built between a platform in the Pacific Ocean and a point that could be as far away as 62,000 miles above sea level.  An "anchor" or counterweight will be at the top of the strip of ultrastrong material, that is currently envisioned as being about a foot wide, less than the thickness of a sheet of paper, and . . . well . . . up to 62,000 miles long.  The top of the elevator can be anywhere from LEO (Low Earth Orbit) to several other orbital points - each has its own advantages and disadvantages.  So far, the point with the most advantages and least disadvantages is the one that's farthest away - 62,000 miles.

A "lifter," carried by "climbers"  is a moving platform capable of carrying a worthwhile payload (5 to 20 tons, possibly more).  The "climbers" will move the platform up and down the "ribbon" using powerful lasers positioned on platforms surrounding the ribbon's earthbound Pacific Ocean platform.  The lasers will be trained on photovoltaic cells on the lifter and it is estimated to be able to travel up to about 118 miles an hour.  This is about a 3 week trip.  You know what that tells me?  I got that 118 MPH figure from "How Stuff Works" and . . . the most recent contest test runs were referring to an approximate 2-week trip, so they just shaved 7 days off this total - or increased speed approximately 50%.  

Right now, the "ribbon" teams have gotten ultra strong material of fairly long lengths (not 62,000 miles . . . gosh), and the laser teams are beaming their test lifters pretty far.  It's "Beam Me Up, Scotty," but different.

Now, what's the point?  Right now, our technology for reaching space kind of sucks.  Rockets are expensive, dangerous, and pretty much one-use items.  The elevator overall, no matter how they choose to construct it, is much less expensive, much less dangerous, and given current plans, I totally believe them when they say they'll have this going in less than 10 years.

What do we get?  A real space station!  And space commerce - you name it, anything that needs to be done in zero-g, from new medicines to chemistry to materials fabrication - and building big 'ol much farther-traveling spaceships than our first- and second-generation rockets and shuttles.  Our minds picture rockets going to the stars, or at least to the moon.  But "in space" - i.e. beyond the Earth's gravity and above our atmosphere, projects that seemed almost insurmountable, like a real trip to Mars with real people, and a colony or actual stuff being done on the Moon (mining, what-have-you) suddenly becomes DOABLE.  And, once constructed, there can be more than one Space Elevator.

Now - let's see.  What if a plane hits the "ribbon"?  I haven't read about that problem yet.  What if one of the existing or future communications or other satellites hits the ribbon?  They have a plan.  How about the radiation dangers for bodies going up and down, especially at that 2-week trip time?  They have a plan.  How about terrorism or destructive human behavior?  You got it - working on a plan.

Is everything going perfectly so far?  Well . . . there are over 100 schools and teams all over the world working on different aspects of the Space Elevator project/s.

 "

For some reason, this totally cracked me up, and still does.  DO turn sound on to hear the "climber" on its very rapid descent.  This is the University of Saskatchewan Space Design Team suffering a disappointment at this year's Japanese Space Elevator competition.  I know they'll figure it out very soon.

Why am I into all this?  Aw, well you know.  Uses for the Space Elevator, stuff like that!  (every picture tells a story, don't it . . .)

Facial Recognition: Lie to Me Part II

I think I pointed up before that I suspect I'm one of the "naturals" who can recognize deception or subterfuge, or hidden/unrecognized emotions.  As portrayed on the Fox TV show Lie to Me, people "like me," and the far better/more talented staff members on the show, sometimes have natural abilities in this regard, but all can receive training to better-recognize deception.  As most of these trainings, and the show, are television/video or internet-based, there's definitely an "x-factor" present in in-person contacts that I'm not sure can be "trained" or prepared-for much in advance. If you're interested, there is an online training in 3 different versions and price ranges available from Dr. Paul Ekman, whose work in identifying microexpressions gave rise to the popular TV show. In today's economy, this could be $20 to $69 very well-spent.

Here's a group photo from the famous legal drama 12 Angry Men, starring Henry Fonda. Henry Fonda is the tall, dark-haired man with a slightly receding hairline in the center of the photo.  This is a jury, brought together after plenty of ANGER (see title) about a young man accused of murdering his own father by a decent, thoughtful juror portrayed by Henry Fonda.

What emotions do I read in this picture?  Well, starting with Henry Fonda, he appears surprised and somewhat irritated.  In the lower right of the picture, with a thick, dark head of hair and narrow dark tie, is one half of the popular 70's sitcom The Odd Couple, Jack Klugman.  One would have to have considerable facial recognition disability to not see that he is completely dismayed, more than slightly angry, and cynical ("I can't BELIEVE this B.S.") at whatever has happened.  Now, there are ELEVEN of the twelve men in this photo - one well-known actor is missing:  Lee J. Cobb.  So obviously, this is one of the key moments where Lee J. Cobb, who serves as the antagonist to good, decent Henry Fonda, is being . . . what's the technical term - a DICK on the jury.  This film and the original stage play explored racial prejudice and "being a dick on the jury" in a very honest, moving and dramatic way.  

The younger man standing to Henry Fonda's left in the photo is actor Robert Webber, and I believe his expression could best be described as "cynical irritation" - and he looks as though whatever Juror #12 Lee J. Cobb said, was fully-expected by him in advance, and he isn't paying attention to a word of it.  The "gray flannel suit" guy in the glasses to Henry Fonda's right is portrayed by great actor Edward G. Marshall.  Of all in the picture, his expression is most-difficult to decipher; however, this appears to be the expression that a well-mannered, socially acceptable man gives when confronted with emotional bohonky.  He does not believe what the speaker (I'm assuming Lee J. Cobb) is saying.  In the rear, an older gentleman has a downturned mouth and disgusted expression -- this is Ed Begley, Sr., whose son Ed Begley, Jr. currently has the "green" reality TV show and appeared in many films and TV shows from the 70s through 90s.  I don't think he looks angry, though, or disbelieving, like Webber and Marshall (and Klugman).  I think he looks somewhat sympathetic to the speaker.  His eyes are wide and he looks like he is receptive.  I think the guy in the hat on the far left is Jack Warden, whose face is more familiar to me from later television shows - but the expression isn't hard to decipher:  "I don't give a damn - what now?"  One dark face toward the right rear of the photo is Martin Balsam - he is supposed to be the jury foreman!  What can be seen of the face says, "Let me out of here!  Where's the exit?"

Facial recognition.

There's no training or coaching in the world that can assist someone speaking about an important matter on TV, or much less in person, to radiate genuine sincerity.  Some people, like former President Bill Clinton, were inborn with the talent to inspire others that they are speaking sincerely, truthfully and empathetically.  As those who dislike former President Clinton frequently point up - he was an extraordinarily skilled liar.  I'm not one of those who disliked, or currently dislike, him.  I like the guy, and always have.  Because what his critics do not understand (and history has borne out) - if he wanted to take the time to "fool" people that he cared about them, why?  Because on some level, he did and does care.  I know that some feel he was a sociopath, but that is impossible.  No "sociopath" would love his daughter the way he does.  Sociopaths by definition, cannot feel genuine love.  All of their emotions are faux and it can be seen in their eyes.  Like - bad actors.  They are also very easily identified on video which emphasizes the subtle lacks that they can't imitate that real people have.  The best actors, and this 12 Angry Men picture shows twelve of them, are almost the opposite of sociopaths.  They are empathetic enough to convincingly portray real emotions in "pretend" dramatic situations.

So here's the 12th juror - the great actor Lee J. Cobb.  This might even be "the other side of the photo" - what they were all looking at.  Lee J. Cobb portrays the antagonist on the jury, a man whose terrible personal experiences make him predisposed to find the accused young defendant guilty of murdering his own father.

I can relate to Lee J.  If I somehow got on a jury where someone was accused of falsifying information to "frame" any number of others and committing limitless acts of fraud, I'd be so inclined to believe all evidence against them, pretty darn angry, and eager to point at my fellow jurors and inform them of what I'd personally suffered.  That's exactly what's going on here.  Lee J. Cobb is telling the other 11 they don't understand what he does, and don't know how treacherous bad kids can be.  He's emphasizing this with his finger (pointing is always bad when trying to convince others, by the way - why doesn't someone tell that to politicians?) and his face is hurt, shamed - and powerfully enraged - look at those flared nostrils and downturned mouth.  Lee J. Cobb - world class actor.  These great actors could "be" these emotions, to convince everyone, "naturals" at facial recognition or not.

 

To Build A Fire

I'm sure we've all heard of the "Seven Basic Conflicts" in literature:

• man vs. self
• man vs. man
• man vs. society
• man vs. God
• man vs. machine
• man vs. environment
• man vs. supernatural

And . . . Man vs. Nature.  By the way, the above online compendium invites readers to contribute a story conflict that doesn't fit into the above 7 categories.  Taking the terms literally, I can think of one right off the top of my head:  man vs. woman.

OK OK . . . that was a "joke" - this is about the classic plot conflict of man and woman and child vs. nature.

Implicit in these stories is the approach and assumptions of the author.  Is "nature" an adversary with a motive and goals?  The classic story that is taught as an example of this plot is Jack London's story "To Build A Fire."  This story contains numerous accurate details of extreme sub-zero weather.  The unnamed protagonist, "man," (some feel that the dog, who survives the ordeal, is a better hero - I tend to agree) experiences many events that would strike terror and set off survival alarms in the heads of more experienced or less hubris-filled artic circle travelers.

I've advised people who are creating hostile (or maybe just different) science-fictional worlds to read "To Build A Fire" and pay careful attention to the use of language that indicates not just "mood," but sets mood as it also communicates environmental facts that menace the protagonist from the beginning of his journey to its fateful end.

For example, right in the first paragraph:  "There was no sun or hint of sun, though there was not a cloud in the sky. It was a clear day, and yet there seemed an intangible pall over the face of things, a subtle gloom that made the day dark, and that was due to the absence of sun."

A "literary" explication would refer to darkness, gloom, lack of the life-giving sun, and use of words like "pall" as in "pall-bearer," a bringer of death.  The use of the word "clear" could indicate that the true situation is there for the protagonist to recognize, if he can just put his preconceived hubris and/or foolhardy plans aside and perceive the situation for what it is:  deadly danger.

However, readers lacking environmental knowledge don't need to use literary allusion to figure out what Jack London is getting at, because as the protagonist sets out on his foolish journey, London describes the exact temperature:  50 degrees Fahrenheit below zero, with a wind chill of 80 degrees below.  I know from my own experience that small frozen pools of water look like plastic and are immutable, instantly refreezing at 10 to 11 degrees F above zero if anything briefly melts them.  It's obvious that weather that's even that cold requires special precautions and respect.  The protagonist of "To Build A Fire" shouldn't have been traveling anywhere by himself, with or without a dog, on this day.  He sealed his fate the moment he set out in this story and the rest of the story is actually an explication of a series of encounters with the extreme, hostile, ultra-cold environment that to this day, the great majority of readers don't always fully apprehend, despite the story's careful, highly-accurate descriptions of the effects of extreme sub-zero Arctic weather.

Which is to say that I am starting to think along the lines that in construction of alien worlds, or in setting stories in space, the research into as many cause-and-effect relationships as we can possibly determine is essential.  This goes far beyond the usual "explosions in space are silent" and will also differ from earthbound combustion because space offers zero oxygen.  Many SF stories take a path through their imagined words of a similar nature to "the man's" in "To Build A Fire." 

They fail to heed the basic lesson that Jack London taught in this classic story, that human beings, no matter what they believe in safe circumstances, live in a world that is beyond their control.  Because it's true, and it's a part of what it is to be human, it's hard to think that this lesson wouldn't apply even more strongly regarding characters in stories set outside of the familiar Earthbound environment.