Views on the quest for alternative sources of energy (and groupthink):

Leave a reply

Here’s a response to a comment on Slashdot that explains my perspective of collective superficiality and the need for a demagogue to influence policy. Even better if this demagogue could be a scientist, but I don’t believe scientists possess the qualities required to be effective demagogues (skepticism and propaganda don’t mix):

Keep in mind that global warming, despite being well-known decades ago (and theorized since the 1820s!) did not become a mainstream issue until Al Gore stepped in. Individually, many people will agree with you, but collectively, society is fairly indifferent to this reasoning. Even now, everyone is becoming “carbon neutral” (often by simply slapping some money down for “offsets”) because it’s the fashionable thing to do. I’m starting to see “green” banners sprouting up on websites and advertisements indicating that an operation offsets its carbon production, but I’m not seeing any real work going into eliminating the source of the problem (emissions). Even the “fashionable” attempts at new fuel sources (Ethanol, Biodiesel, etc.) arose from ideas recently popularized by the Bush administration and rely on combustion of organic matter. These reactions are going to release chemicals into the atmosphere, and even if they are as innocuous as water vapor, we cannot predict what their environmental effects will be when emitted in large quantities (as evidenced by the fact that there is still a debate on the role of CO2 in the atmosphere). After all, even water vapor is a greenhouse gas, although drawing it from the atmosphere and putting it back later is probably fairly inconsequential. Ultimately, what we require is energy, not fuel, and it would be great if we could popularize the search for more efficient forms of renewable energy capture that do not rely on combustion of organic matter.

But that requires a demagogue, because while individuals are capable of thinking beyond the surface issues presented to them, the masses, collectively, are not. The “Support the Troops” phenomenon is another example of this: everyone loves to put stickers on their cars, but without action, that’s simply grasping the message without understanding its meaning. The message can’t only be about global warming, but must also be about the dangers of adopting nonrenewable energy sources. Similarly, the message can’t be about “supporting the troops” in some vague way, but must be about preserving their lives, however that end goal may be accomplished.

The fact that an entire industry has built up around the concept of fueling also doesn’t help. I don’t believe that this industry is holding back the solution, per se, but they are not helping: the researchers these companies employ are not going to be interested in, say, solar power, unless there was some way for the company to maintain its viability in an economy dominated by that form of energy.

But at least what society is doing now might serve as a temporary measure. Unfortunately, there does not appear to be any measure of transience to society’s current plan; whatever methods of energy production we select in the near future, they are going to be used for quite some time and we are going to devote significant amounts of resources to their production, as with oil.

Perseids

Leave a reply

The Perseid meteor shower will be visible Sunday evening into Monday morning. Quite a thing to marvel at, no? To me, the wonder isn’t that the meteor shower exists, but that we are able to comprehend it. Nature’s beauty echoes inside of us.

More societal superficiality

Leave a reply

Even when global warming finally comes to society’s attention (it only took 180 years!), people still think they can “solve” the problem by burning up as much greenhouse gas as they like and simply paying someone to “offset” the carbon. The methods being used to do so are laudable (planting trees, investing in cleaner forms of power, etc.), but these things should be done anyway. And people are brandishing their “carbon neutral” logos around as if the fact that they’re too lazy to do more than throw money at the problem is something to be proud of! It’s better than doing nothing, I suppose, but one really should be taking proactive steps to actually reduce one’s emissions in the first place.

And it’s only being done at all because it’s popular. The underlying environmental consequences behind the actions have either escaped the public altogether or the public simply does not care because the consequences most likely will not be paid in this generation. Otherwise they would have started doing this fifteen years ago when the alarm started to be seriously sounded. No, it took a politician who at this time has every right to sit back and laugh at society as it founders to get people to move… not a scientist or even the “scientific community” as a whole. Thus, it should be no surprise that the meaning behind the action is lost.

The Four Types of Talent

Leave a reply

I’ve classified “talent” into four categories. These are differences in type more than degree of talent, as all types are equally capable of acquiring high levels of skill and making new contributions to fields:

Talent with formal education – a talent that manifests with exposure to formal education. A student excelling well beyond his peers in a specific field may easily have this type of talent.

Talent with self-education – talent that manifests with education, say, by voracious reading. When a scientist picks up the works of a previous scientist on his own and goes on to perform great things in the same field, it is this form of talent that is being expressed.

Talent without education – talent that is present within an individual before any significant instruction is given. This form of talent often manifests as intuitive insight into the workings of a field, and may be difficult to express. Education may not necessarily be harmful, but it isn’t really necessary.

Talent, formal education contraindicated – people with this form of talent excel because they think of concepts in unusual ways. The thoughts of people with this talent are unconventional enough that attempting to reconcile them with conventional practice in a field through formal education may very well result in the loss of this talent altogether.

These are not necessarily distinct categories, and it is possible to be talented in one subject in one way and talented in a different subject in another way (of course). For example, Alice may be talented with both formal and self-education in producing widgets, while Bob might be talented with education in producing widgets but talented without education in music.

Talents that require education tend to result in more thorough and complete work, but do generally take more time and effort to develop than those that do not.

Compositional progress

Leave a reply

Finally, I’m beginning to see some significant progress as a composer.

I just wrote a short passage for piano, violin, and cello that sounds like a cross between Beethoven and Gluck. The violin part is rather challenging to play, the cello carries the melody, and the piano interjects with a diminished 7th chord at the end. How these composers managed to write entire pieces like this is still beyond me.

It’s going into “Facing Fears”. Believe me, you’ll recognize it; it’s stylistically very different from the rest of the piece (and yet it fits).

Despite the fact that this piece is classified “near complete”, I just keep getting new ideas and I never want to end it. It’s not even that long, but it’s just fun to write. (Which is a little unusual; to me, music is fun to compose and writing is a challenge that I force myself to undergo in order to relay that composition to the world… so it can be promptly ignored). As I mentioned in my Treatise, the music I imagine is quite compelling. The ideas just won’t let me go until I’ve made them manifest. They demand expression.

Sweat as a disinfectant

Leave a reply

I hypothesize that sweat acts as a selective disinfectant. This is a relatively easy experiment to conduct (have a bunch of people sweat, put the sweat in one petri dish and water in another, and try to grow some bacteria), but since I don’t have the equipment, I’ll theorize and leave the experimentation to someone who is equipped to, you know, perform science.

There are two theoretical angles that convince me of this: one is physiological behavior (people sweat when they’re sick and when they’re active, and in both cases, an antiseptic effect may be beneficial to the organism. Sweat is also hypothesized to have a sexual function, and indeed a disinfectant may prove especially beneficial in situations where body fluids may be shared) and the other, more compelling reason, is that sweat contains cresols, which happen to be the chemicals found in Lysol.

So someone do the experiment, and please mention me in a footnote or something if you got the idea here 🙂

Paper writing

Leave a reply

You know, we could easily write papers that are far more accessible to a lay audience. We don’t normally speak the way we write academic papers, and that sort of language is not required to accurately convey a precise meaning.

…But then our papers would never get published.

"Intellectual community" indeed!

Leave a reply

The very existence of an “intellectual community” is the reason that most scientists don’t accomplish anything. Trying to solve other people’s challenges and correct others’ inefficiencies is not how great discoveries are made – it never will be. It’s necessary, but it’s a barrier to significant scientific discovery.

Great scientists make observations, form hypotheses, and perform experiments (theoretical ones at the least) to confirm them. They don’t solve challenges left by other scientists’ work; that’s what people who simply want lots of publications do, because it’s easier.