future

The Science of Predicting the Future

esiegel — Fri, 26 Oct 2012 13:06:27 +0000

The Science of Predicting the Future

"Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." -Niels Bohr

What's going to happen next? It's perhaps the most important thing to know if we want to be prepared for practically anything in our lives. And without even thinking about it, most of us are actually very good at this in a huge number of aspects of our lives. For example...

Image credit: Crazy Adventures in Parenting.

I was hungry at work today, and I was prepared for it. Somehow, I knew that I was going to need food throughout the course of the day, and so I was prepared for it by bringing food from home. This is an incredibly mundane prediction, but think about it for a moment: how did I know I was going to be hungry?

In my case, it's because I've been in this situation before: thousands upon thousands of times before, in fact. Every day when I wake up, I get hungry after a certain amount of time. Perhaps today would have been different; perhaps it would have been the first time in many years where I simply wasn't hungry during the day. But I was so certain I would get hungry that I didn't even stop to consider the possibility that I wouldn't; I know from my own past experience that I'd get hungry, and therefore I planned accordingly.

Image credit: Johnny Nichols, 2008.

This is a fabulous example of a pre-scientific prediction! I've taken information from very, very similar situations that I've experienced before, I know -- looking back -- how those previous situations turned out, and so I can infer how this current situation is likely to turn out. This is something we do all the time in our lives, and something we've done frequently throughout history. The phrase Red Sky at Night, Sailor's Delight didn't come about because we understood the science behind the next day's weather and the properties of the atmosphere the night before, it came about because when we observed phenomenon A (the red sky at night), it was very often followed by phenomenon B (good sailing weather the next day).

We use this all the time in our lives: it's why we have confidence that the next untested apple we eat will be delicious and not poisonous (even though the occasional apple is poisonous), that our house hasn't burned down when we go to the store (although sometimes houses do burn down when you're at the store), and that the store you're going to will have apples to sell you when you go (even though they're sometimes out of apples).

Image credit: screenshot from weather.com (L) and the Old Farmers' Almanac (R).

Sometimes, this type of pre-scientific prediction is the best we can do. If we can make this into a truly scientific prediction, we stand to do much better, but it's a much more difficult task. A truly scientific prediction requires the following three things:

that the scientific theory that governs your phenomenon is completely understood,
the conditions that will affect the possible outcome(s) are known and understood in their entirety, and
that you have enough computing power to figure out what the outcome is going to be.

In addition, because measurements are imperfect (and sometimes physical laws aren't 100% predictive), you are also going to have a quantifiable uncertainty associated with your scientific prediction.

Image credit: NASA / Paul Chodas, Jon Giorgini & Don Yeomans / JPL NEO Program Office.

For some physical systems, the uncertainties can be so small that a prediction will be incredibly powerful; we know that on February 15th, 2013, a 45-meter wide asteroid will miss the Earth by only about 20,000 kilometers. Yet, the law of gravity is so well-known and the asteroid's properties and trajectory is so well known that we can state with great confidence that there is absolutely a 0% chance that this asteroid will hit the Earth.

In other cases -- like meteorology -- the uncertainties are very large. It's why we can't predict with very much certainty whether Hurricane Sandy will wind up striking New York with strong winds, weak winds, or not at all.

Image credit: NOAA's information about wind speed probabilities as of 10/26/2012.

We can speak intelligently about what the outcome will be in terms of probabilities and uncertainties, but this also requires a few things that are far from given:

Scientists who can communicate these results clearly and effectively,
A media / government that can understand that information, make reasonable and effective policies based on that information, and communicate these results to the populace, and
A populace that's scientifically literate enough to understand what's communicated to them and act in accordance with those recommendations.

This ought to be one of the main goals of science, as it's one of the most important services that science can perform for a society. Sometimes statistically unlikely things happen, sometimes we're unprepared for a disaster when it does happen, sometimes what seemed like a reasonable policy turns out to be ineffective, and sometimes people simply don't listen. Unfortunately, when the wrong combinations of those things happen, people wind up dead.

Image credit: collapsed houses in the Village of Onna, Italy, photo by REUTERS/Max Rossi.

In 2009, the L'Aquila earthquake was an unfortunate example of just such a breakdown: scientists correctly assessed the situation, which they then communicated to a civil protection official who issued the following statement:

The scientific community tells us there is no danger, because there is an ongoing discharge of energy. The situation looks favourable.

Which, of course, is not what the scientists said at all. The scientists reached the conclusion that the observed tremors could not help predict whether there would be a major quake, information that they never communicated to the general public.

Image credit: AP Photo / Pier Paolo Cito.

Because of the quake, 309 people were killed. It truly was a scene of horror, with tragic results. Unfortunately, this is what often happens when there's a natural disaster.

Was it a poor job of science communication? Yes, on the part of the scientists, and in particular on the part of the civil protection official, Bernardo De Bernardinis, who added that citizens should go have a glass of wine. But realistically, recommending evacuation based on what was observed would have been absurd; some natural phenomena are simply presently beyond the reach of science.

In other words, neither the occurrence nor the severity of this disaster could have been predicted. Which is why the following is all the more absurd.

Image credit: CNN.com.

The government official (De Bernardinis) as well as six Italian Seismologists were sentenced for manslaughter in connection with the L'Aquila earthquake. Now, Italian justice may be as phantasmal as an American kangaroo, but this is just absurd. It's science's job to use we know to predict -- to the best of science's abilities -- what's going to happen next, along with probabilities and uncertainties. These scientists did their job, and they did their job adequately well, if not spectacularly.

You do the world a disservice when you scapegoat scientists for a disaster they could not predict and an incompetent government official they could not control. We now live in a world where we jail scientists for failing to clean up the government's miscommunication about a disaster they could not predict, while we simultaneously accuse them of fear-mongering for the impending disasters that good science does predict.

Image credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center.

If you want to know what's going to happen in the future with any sort of accuracy, you need science. It's the only thing that's ever worked, and the more we do it, the better we get at it. This means we need to make the world safe for scientists to do science, we need to treat the science being done with the respect it deserves, and we need to improve and encourage communication between scientists and the public.

Remember, somewhere, right now, a scientist is hard at work trying to understand how some part of this Universe works for the sole purpose of trying to protect you from what are otherwise completely unpredictable natural disasters.

Image credit: http://murninghanpost.com/; a collage of disasters.

I'll be following very closely the aftermath of the L'Aquila Earthquake and the associated trial, and hoping that the world chooses to value the one defense it has against the wrath of a complex Universe: science.

esiegel Fri, 10/26/2012 - 09:06

Tags

education

Physics

Politics

right and wrong

Categories

Science gets into trouble the minute they actually go beyond the 'science' per sey and delve into the public arena. i'm around these guy and gals everyday, believe me, for the most part, the smartest of the bunch are no where near capable of communicating effectively, present blogger excepted---ethan is one of the best i've seen online or anywhere, I commend you sir. but getting back to what i was trying to say, i think scientists, for the most part, should stick to making observations and determining this or that based on the data they see (to put it simply), they should not be walked out to brief a sometimes scared public about the what they have interpreted. brief your public officials, thats what they are supposed to do, if they can't do it then vote them out of office and demand accountability or communication skills from the new guy/gal. its when scientists turn into some sort of advocacy for a certain subject that gets me riled up. again, make your observations, make determinations based on your observations, and generally shut the **** up after that. just my 2 cents.

You might want to read to Wiki-page on this disaster, and than you get to know some interesting facts about history, predicting, and realizing that those convicted scientists were no good, perhaps nice people, yes, but not good scientists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_L'Aquila_earthquake

Earthquakes mark the history of L'Aquila, a city built on the bed of an ancient lake, providing a soil structure that amplifies seismic waves. The city was struck by earthquakes in 1315, 1349, 1452, 1501, 1646, 1703, and 1706. The earthquake of February 1703, which caused devastation across much of central Italy, largely destroyed the city and killed around 5,000 people.

Italian laboratory technician Giampaolo Giuliani predicted a major earthquake on Italian television a month before, after measuring increased levels of radon emitted from the ground. He was accused of being alarmist by the Director of the Civil Defence, Guido Bertolaso, and forced to remove his findings from the Internet.

If they had any common sense, they would have warned the people but no, nobody wants to 'scare' the public.

... same goes for the LHC, a 100 000 times hotter than the heart of the Sun, and a frequency & density that is 10^9 higher than cosmic ray collisions in Nature, ... but no it's all safe.

The most sad fact of this case and for Science, was that a little guy had to withdraw his conclusions due to peer pressure. Just like for the LHC, I don't see anyone getting a paper published on it due to the same peer pressure. Can you imagine one person saying that this large experiment isn't safe jeopardizing this whole project, because of a wild guess. I don't see him or her getting a chance to make a career in particle physics ever.

This disaster is a very clear case of how scientists turn their heads away because of peer pressure, and very sad they for science in general.

Hi Ethan,
thank you for the post, I was hoping for you to write about this episode. Orac of Respectful Insolence also wrote a good post (http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/10/24/criminalizing-scientific-m…), go read it if you haven't.

I want just to add some context to the inaccurate statements by De Bernardinis: he did sound too reassuring, but you must understand what happened in the weeks before the quake. When De Bernardinis talked about "no danger ", he added "I said it to the mayor of Sulmona"; he was reassuring the people of Sulmona, a city 25 miles from L'Aquila. Why Sulmona? Because in those weeks a crackpot of the I-can-predict-earthquakes variety was writing on the web and going around Sulmona with loudspeakers, announcing that a strong earthquake was going to happen in Sulmona the next day (the earthquake in L'Aquila occurred a week later); this played a part in motivating the Commission to try and calm down the panicked population.
In that interview, De Bernardinis encouraged to stay attentive but not ansious, and the wine quip was prompted by a journalist remark, "Meanwhile we drink a glass of wine", to which the answer "Absolutely, a Montepulciano".

P.S.: "to use we know to predict" should be "to use what we know to predict".

Who would want to be a seismologist in Italy now? Anti-science has sure done its job this time. The idea of sentencing scientists with manslaughter for an earthquake is just the sort of thing that'll throw us back into the dark ages. Nice article!

Atom,

"Because in those weeks a crackpot of the I-can-predict-earthquakes variety was writing on the web …"

He was not just some kind of crackpot:

Giampaolo Giuliani

From 1971 to 1984 he was technical research in astrophysics at the Observatory of Campo Imperatore, employee IAS (Institute of Astrophysics Frascati), from 1984 to 1990 to ' Astronomical Observatory of Campo Imperatore ( AQ ).

He worked at the National Laboratories of Gran Sasso of 'National Institute of Nuclear Physics (INFN) as a non-graduate technical assistant of the Institute of Physics of Interplanetary Space of Turin , one of the twenty structures of ' National Institute for Astrophysics (INAF ) . He participated in the first experiment EAS-TOP and then experiment Large Volume Detector (LVD) for the detection of neutrinos produced by stellar gravitational collapse . He is now retired.

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giampaolo_Giuliani

… and the real reason why he had to shut up:

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/06/earthquake-warning-was-remo…

According to the expert, incorrect prediction “can be even more damaging that a real earthquake” because of the panic this can create and the effect it can have on the economy and property values in the area.

Those people didn't care about real safety, they only cared for their own property values and their job. It's good that they are in jail now.

"i think scientists, for the most part, should stick to making observations and determining this or that based on the data they see"

They do.

You're suffering from observation bias. You don't hear about the scientists who don't speak a lot in public, do you.

Ergo, all the ones you know are either personal aquiaintances or ones on the telly.

"its when scientists turn into some sort of advocacy for a certain subject that gets me riled up."

So scientists aren't allowed to be a human and to advocate for subjects like you can? Why?

No, the problem is that some scientists advocate things you don't like to hear. This is just a way of saying "Don't tell me things I don't want to hear".

"Italian laboratory technician Giampaolo Giuliani predicted a major earthquake on Italian television a month before"

And there are thousands of people proclaiming the end of the world is nigh. One day they'll be right.

But it won't be because they knew something others ignored.

The evidence was not evidence that an earthquake was imminent. pre-shocks and radon release happen and then no earthquake happens.

This "prediction" did not give a date or even a range of dates. It was little more than "This earthquake prone area is going to have an earthquake soon".

Then again, when a scientist predicted the tsunami that hit Thailand, he was prosecuted for harming the tourist industry and the economic welfare of the country.

And look at AGW.

Even conservative and restrained talk of the danger gets the scientists labelled "alarmist".

"“Because in those weeks a crackpot of the I-can-predict-earthquakes variety was writing on the web …”

He was not just some kind of crackpot:"

Ooooh, bad move. Quote all of his statement, chelle, dear:

"Because in those weeks a crackpot of the I-can-predict-earthquakes variety was writing on the web and going around Sulmona with loudspeakers, announcing that a strong earthquake was going to happen in Sulmona the next day"

Prediction:

Location: Sulmona. wrong.
Date: next day. wrong.

Unless your crackpot and his crackpot were different people.

Wow,

Well he wasn't the guy who drove around with the loudspeakers, he gave a phone call to the mayor of Sulmona, who organised it, and according to Giuliani he warned him for a regular quake at that time.

"By then, however, Giuliani was detecting a greater threat to the south-east, towards the city of Sulmona, 50km from L'Aquila. Its mayor was contacted, he took the alert seriously, and sent loudspeaker vans around to warn the populace (an event wrongly associated with L'Aquila in British press reports), which duly provoked a panic." http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/05/laquila-earthquake-predicti…

So some people are now trying to blame this honest guy who was cautious and made the measurements to cover up their own ignorance, that's sick.

"and according to Giuliani he warned him for a regular quake at that time."

Not according to the Mayor in question.

And still he had the location AND time incorrect.

Not much of a prediction.

Ha ha, you are going to trust a politician on his word, lol

Are you going to trust a scientist on his? Lol!

Wow,

"Are you going to trust a scientist on his? Lol!"

Haha, so true :mrgreen:

Yes I have at times found myself standing in RAIN where and when there was suppose to be SUNSHINE.

Whether YOU blame it on the WEATHER, the WEATHER CHANNEL, the WEATHER MAN, the SCIENTISTS, some UNAUTHORIZED CLIMATE EXPERIMENT, the POLITICIANS, , the SINS OF PEOPLE, YOURSELF or... tells a lot about YOU.

I personally blame the earthquake in Italy on the increasing number of tourists in Italy; all those people have shifted the tectonic plates ever so slightly and well they just all snore at the same time in the middle of the night (1:05 a.m. local time) and disaster is the result. It could happen anywhere. Look at the statistics.

"Haha, so true"

So you admit that your defense of Guiliani is incorrect! Well done for recognising your error :-)

Wow,

The sad thing is that many people trusted those scientist and died, that's why they have to go to jail. Guiliani is not to blame, he was on close on target.

No, those people trusted the builders of the homes.

The scientists didn't cause the problem.

Guilliani was wrong in his prediction.

So were the other scientists.

But they go to jail because people are arrogant assholes and want retribution.

chelle, here's an idea for you, dear.

Reat the bloody article before posting on it.

If nothing else, the unaccustomed exercise of your brain will be a pleasant change for you :-)

Balderdash! Michael Mann's computer models quite confidently predict the Earth's temperature fifty years from now, and under a variety of assumptions about our carbon dioxide emissions no less. Right? Of course I'm right. Environmental extremists routinely predict the future catastrophes if their agenda is not enacted, and the EPA would not be framing its regulatory agenda around these predictions if there was any uncertainty in their reliability. Right again? Of course I'm right again. The central point of this article is so much balderdash.

Wow,

Nope, the day of the disaster Giuliani predicted it correctly.

And damn right people want retribution, if those scientist had acted properly, than people would have gotten out of their houses; but no, instead they laughed all dangers away. And the way the Science community is now acting towards Giuliani is pure arrogance, people like 'Atom' want to picture him as the 'crackpot' that was the cause of it all, while he was correct. Scientists all over the world should be ashamed for how these scientists in Italy acted; instead of speaking of an anti-science plot, and picturing those Italians that lost family and friends as idiots, this is just sad.

The same goes for the LHC where you have temperatures that are 100.000 times hotter than the heart of the Sun, and a frequency & density level that is 1.000.000.000 higher than Cosmic ray collisions in nature, … everybody with some sense knows that this is a tricky experiment, but all safety arguments are laughed away. Well good luck!

"the day of the disaster Giuliani predicted it correctly"

Nope, he predicted a week early.

" if those scientist had acted properly"

They had.

"people like ‘Atom’ want to picture him as the ‘crackpot’ that was the cause of it all,"

Jeez, what a retard you are. No, atom pictures him as a crackpot NOT the cause of it all.

Then again, you're a crackpot yourself, so your love for him is expected :-)

"quite confidently predict the Earth’s temperature fifty years from now, and under a variety of assumptions about our carbon dioxide emissions no less. Right?"

Right. Though you neglect to say that there is also an error bar on it.

"Right again? Of course I’m right again."

Yup, right again, though to neglect to mention that Hansen's model results published in 1988 were within a whisker of the right value for sensitvity to CO2: he got 3.4 when a value of 3.2 C per doubling of CO2 would have been spot on.

And, dear, please don't post yet more crap about the "danger" of LHC. That shite belongs on the quackery thread for quackers tinpot theories like yours.

Pissing about on other threads until you can "slip in" a load of codswallop is still forbidden.

Unless you don't like to do what the owner of the blog wants... despite all your proclamations that you're a good little girl :-P

I think at least part of the problem was the government took the opportunity to use the 6 scientist and the govt spokesman as scapegoats for their lack of planning and investment. The town is in a known active earthquake area with a long history of serious earthquakes, yet there seems to have been no effort to reinforce at-risk buildings or enforce earthquake-proof building codes.

Wow = Idiot

chelle, you're a crackpot in love with crackpots.

They're the only ones that will put up with your tantrums :-P

Wow,

You didn't read the article but yet you keep on trashing the guy. What's the use.

"For several days, Giuliani had been watching with mounting anxiety as his four radometer stations, placed in and around L'Aquila, showed very high and rising levels of radon gas emissions from the ground. By Sunday 5 April, he was convinced that within 24 hours there would be a quake – but he could not raise a public alarm. He was under an injunction, served a week earlier, that forbade him to do so on the grounds that his predictions would spread unfounded panic.

Privately, that fateful evening, Giuliani phoned urgent warnings to relatives, friends and colleagues. Finally, he lay down fully clothed with his wife and two daughters, leaving the windows and doors wide open for a quick exit. A couple of hours later, they fled outside as the quake hit. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/05/laquila-earthquake-predicti…

You certainly love that kook!

So now you're saying he could have given a couple hours warning.

After being doubly wrong before, what do you think would have been done in those few hours?

Nothing.

a) they wouldn't have believed him because of his numerous failures before
b) they would need far more than a few hours to do anything about it

But you still gun for those other scientists.

Because you hate them :-^

Wow,

As usual you are twisting everything around when you are wrong.

… and here is an other of you nonsensical comments, because you don't read what others post, yet you keep on insulting others. You're no better than those criminal Italian scientist who waved everything away with a stupid joke.

“people like ‘Atom’ want to picture him as the ‘crackpot’ that was the cause of it all,”

Jeez, what a retard you are. No, atom pictures him as a crackpot NOT the cause of it all."

This was in the article he linked to:

"To me, this is a perfect storm. There was a crank stirring up panic, and the best scientific information available suggested that the risk of a major quake was low …"

No, as usual, I'm ensuring that you don't give only the information you want purveyed, chelle, dear (though it seems your hubby has taken over duty at the moment :-D)

I guess you don't like scientists unless "scientism" has dumped on them in your opinion, then there is rectal illumination for all! lol!

"This was in the article he linked to:

“To me, this is a perfect storm. There was a crank stirring up panic, and the best scientific information available suggested that the risk of a major quake was low …”"

Yup! I can read. Can you ;-)

Doesn't say anything about the quake being the crank's fault. Nor the arrest of the other scientists being his fault. In fact, it only appears to claim about the crank's fault for being a crank.

Which is rather tautological :-D

Wow,

"though it seems your hubby has taken over duty at the moment"

Nope. It seems that paranoia is taking over again in that beautiful mind of yours. Take care.

“Prediction is very difficult, especially if it’s about the future.” -Niels Bohr
I've heard something very like that attributed to Yogi Berra?

Paranoia? YOU talk of paranoia? My goodness. Well, thanks for the belly laugh before bed! ROFLMAO!

Wow,

I know for a fact that you are paranoid, because I am not a couple, nor have I ever used a sockpuppet name here, both are delusions of yours. You have developed some kind of obsession about people being anti-science.

Sure I do question the fact if making the most intense fire in our Milky Way couldn't combust surrounding matter, but I don't do this because I believe people want to do this on purpose to cause harm, but due to genuine ignorance that pops up on a regular basis (perfect storm). Just like the ignorance of those Italian scientists that was the cause of people losing their loved ones. They laughed all troubles away just like how you laugh the issues about your mental health away. Anyway, you are just an idiot; but they had a serious responsibility and they failed badly.

Chelle, stop with LHC and combustion already, or take it to the post, you know which. Do we have to play this game every time Ethan post's something. Go sit in the van with speakers and drive around your home town, or whatever. Just stop writting about it here once and for all!

SL,

"Go sit in the van with speakers and drive around your home town"

You just didn't get it, now did you? Giuliani didn't drove around with speakers, he made a phone call to the mayor of that other town who organized this. He is not the crank that people want to make of him. Show some respect for this guy, who was actually making measurements, stop being so ignorant.

You just won't shut the fuck up aboult LHC and when called on it, segue ito something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT in the hope that it would be forgotten.

You're just a tired sadsack troll whining on about "the establishmen" wot have got it in for ya.

Fuck right off.

Chelle

Some time ago on another post you made a comment claiming a frog thrown into a pan of hot water would jump out, but one in a pan of slowly heated hot water would not notice it was cooking until it was too late. I told you this was apocryphal and straight from the plot of Dante's Peak, which you said you had never seen. You really should watch it. In fact, swap volcano for earthquake, and apart from the dastardly scientist getting his comeuppance at the hands of the natural disaster he denied was going to happen instead of at the hands of the legal system, you could have written the plot.

But congratulations are due you for staying completely on post for once, and illustrating Ethan's point perfectly. You approach everything thinking in a way that has been totally appropriate through most of human evolution. In an environment where everybody is almost 100% ignorant of how the world really works, all you have to go on is trust in the individuals deemed to be the wisest. Even if they claimed sacrificing your youngest child to the gods of the ground was the only way to stop the earth shaking again and yet it still shook, they could then claim it would have shook even more were it not for your sacrifice. Because without science you have no idea of what would have happened without that sacrifice, so you can only ever look at one side of the equation.

There is always a cost (in the broadest sense) and benefit to any course of action, and humanity as a whole is more and more in a position to measure those. There will always be room to argue how much chalk is equivalent to a pound of cheese, but this must be done on the basis of evidence. Scientists and especially those they advise have to use their judgement. If people live in an area prone to earthquakes, how much does the probability of an earthquake have to increase before they are evacuated? Because whether you like it or not, there is a cost to that evacuation. And it’s not just financial. If you evacuate a town every time a crank predicts its destruction, then once a there is real evidence of an earthquake, the people may well say, "oh no not again”, and will stay where they are die. Whose fault would that be? Would you expect the cranks to be prosecuted after the event in such a case? If so can I suggest you put Dr Andrew Wakefield at the top of your hit list. He has been responsible for the killing and maiming more children over the last decade than all but the worst of oppressive regimes.

David L,

Stop bringing up this nonsense.

The one thing these scientist had to do was give a good assessment of the situation, and they did a very poor job doing so; and because they downplayed the risk people got killed.

Look at the storm that is nearing the East coast of the US, scientists aren't saying to sit back relax and drink a glass of wine; no, people are serious about this and saying to be on guard

Those Italian scientist should have took their job more seriously that is all. Also read the first comment on this blog by 'copernicus34' that says it all:

"make your observations, make determinations based on your observations, and generally shut the **** up after that."

"The one thing these scientist had to do was give a good assessment of the situation"

And they did.

Still not reading the flaming article, I see, chelle, dear.

PS I note your hubby has stopped posting again, little c. :-D

Wow,

Paranoid freak. I post from multiple devices, and pay no attention to what the cache settings are on each one. Just as a test I've now filled out my name with capitals, sigh.

"Stop bringing up this nonsense."

No Chelle it is not nonsense. What you seem to be incapable of recognising is it is perfectly possible for the scientists to say the risk of an earthquake is not significant enought to advise evacuation, and still be correct even if the earthquake subsequently occurs.

Yes, chelle, you ARE a freak and frequently paranoid.

This is pointed out to you in the hope that recognising your problem will help you find psychiatric help.

I only want the best for you, you know that :-)

Wow,

I have no mental issues. In contrast one has to only scroll up a little and check what type of Jekyll & Hyde personality you have:

You just won’t shut the fuck up aboult LHC and when called on it, segue ito something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT in the hope that it would be forgotten.
You’re just a tired sadsack troll whining on about “the establishmen” wot have got it in for ya.
Fuck right off.

Why all the hate for someone who just wants you to get better, chelle?

Feeling oppressed are we? :-)

Well, it's a shame that these scientists are being jailed for a natural disaster. Even if the scientists had given the facts for the likelihood of an earthquake of the magnitude that had followed, the majority would have remained within L'Aquila due to the low probability of it actually taking place. Science is not perfection and the combination of some politician's remarks and hindsight does not always help uncover the facts. It's understandable for these people to want retribution, but the Italian courts using these scientists as scapegoats does not bring about justice.
Unfortunately some like Chelle will always blame them, and will refute any amount evidence that may say otherwise, so there is no point in engaging people like that in this type of conversation.

Interestingly, with Sandy about to hit NYC right now, the local news is filled with coverage. They were just interviewing a lady who is disobeying mandatory evacuation orders, because she evacuated for Irene last year, and it wasn't that bad.

THAT is the problem with giving evacuation orders for 2% events. The Italian court is clearly wrong.

Rawr,

Unfortunately some like Chelle will always blame them, and will refute any amount evidence that may say otherwise,

Look this is what Ethan said himself:

"Was it a poor job of science communication? Yes, on the part of the scientists"

And these people were responsible for good communication, that was their job, and they failed. It was not about organising evacuations, it was about giving a clear assessment. If it wasn't for these scientist people would have been more cautious.

Science should learn an important lesson here, but clearly some don't want to realise that a deadly mistake was made. And some even want to blame someone who was warning people about the situation. Grow up and take responsibility for your own wrongdoings, it is not all kids play.

"THAT is the problem with giving evacuation orders for 2% events."

Too true.

Technically not all American kangaroos are phantoms. There is a resident population of feral Rock Wallabies on the island of Oahu in Hawaii...a product of an accidental escape in the 50's. Estimated to number 100 individuals, sightings are rare but consistent. Since Hawaii is part of the United States and wallabies are technically Kangaroos (or the other way around)...I'd say American Kangaroos aren't always phantoms.

Chelle you have a knack of quote mining the one phrase which supports (or rather the one which you chose to interpret as supporting) your stance, whilst ignoring everything else. You quote Ethan on “Was it a poor job of science communication?", but in his next sentence he says "But realistically, recommending evacuation based on what was observed would have been absurd;" So what exactly was the "deadly mistake"? The only lesson I can see is "don't be a scientist in Italy"

What would be your criteria for ordering an evacuation if you were the Chief Geologist for the San Fransisco Bay area? It seems to me your strategy would be "Look for a crank who agrees with me and ask his advice. Because if there is the slightest chance of a earthquake, one of the world's greatest centres of technological innovation has to grind to a halt"

chelle also HATES people quotemining her.

REALLY detests it.

Probably doesn't like the competition and since she has little intelligence to find another way of arguing her "point" feels put-upon when people do to her as she does to others.

Poor ickle babby... :-)

DavidL,

According to Wiki it was not about 'ordering an evacuation', but:

They were criticised in court for being "falsely reassuring"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_L'Aquila_earthquake#Prosecutions

Everybody in the Bay area, knows that one day a big shock can come, it is also the case in Japan. So I don't think that any scientists over there would say to sit back and relax when you just had two small earthquakes, but to be very cautious. And certainly no scientist will do so in the future after this verdict, that's why I find it a good thing. Perhaps the sentence is too much and should be reduced after one year, and they shouldn't pay for the damages ... but some people have lost family and friends forever, due their poor communication.

There is a lesson that every body could learn here, instead of accusing those judges, and claiming an attack on science. Here is an interesting article on the subject: http://world.time.com/2012/10/24/the-aquila-earthquake-verdict-where-th…

"According to Wiki it was not about ‘ordering an evacuation’, but:
They were criticised in court for being “falsely reassuring”"

Only in hindsight, which is 20:20 in every case.

Here we go again, chelle cheering on the nutbar crowd and cherry picking them quotes.

Ever heard of mens rea, chelle?

Judges should know of it.

When they ignore it, then they are open to criticism.

6 years of prison each!!! OMG!!! The worst criminals and gang members don't get that much sometimes. Absolutely appaling!

Chelle you are sidestepping the issue. "They may have been criticised by the court for being “falsely reassuring”", but the only people knowledgeable enough to make that judgement are the world's seismological experts, especially those with local knowledge, probably some of the six scientists involved.

In the real world there are no certainties. In this case, 40,000 people were made homeless. To keep it simple let's say that is 40% of those in the affected area, and the earthquake was expected in an area ten times larger, so 1 million people deemed at risk, of which about 300 died, so about a 3500:1 risk of dying. Lets add the chance of an earthquake being assessed at about 3% in the next 10 days and we are back to 1 in a million per person per day. Would that risk cause you to significantly change your behaviour if you had lived in the region? Is so, what risk would you ignore and advise others to do likewise? And how do you manage to live if you feel the need to always avoid a risk like that? (For comparison, it is about the same as the risk of dying on a seventy five minute commercial flight) It may even be safer to stay than risk driving out of the earthquake zone in the company of Italian drivers on Italian mountain roads!

DavidL,

I'm not sidestepping. Poor communication is what got people killed. You can argue as much as you want, it won't change the past and the mistake they made.

You can get a fine for not wearing your seatbelt. Well these guys said it was safe not to wear a seatbelt, they were stupid idiots.

Yes, you are sidestepping.

The scientists did what the evidence said was the best advice.

Jailing the scientists was revenge, not justice.

Wow,

"The scientists did what the evidence said was the best advice."

Are you insane, their advice was the worst, they could have given. Even Ethan said clearly:

"Was it a poor job of science communication? Yes

If you ever worked for a big company you know that they don't joke about safety, risk is never taken lighthearted, and this is what they did. These people who were responsible to communicate about the risks failed miserably. The evidence showed clearly to be on the look out, and not to sit back and relax.

Perhaps you simply don't understand what 'advice' means.

"their advice was the worst,"

Nope, it wasn't. It was a fair assessment of the EVIDENCE.

But we know you hate this evidence stuff.

"But the unreasonable person would shift the goalposts, bring up a new argument, point to some misinterpreted piece of evidence, etc., in some never-ending game of cat-and-mouse.
...
Because from here on out, you are no longer free to promote your own, personal, anti-scientific screed here. Not on this blog, not on any old posts, not on any new posts.
...
If you said your piece of mind and were properly informed, and you continue to plow ahead and promote your anti-scientific nonsense, you get one warning to take it to this page."

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/09/23/weekend-diversion-yo…

Chelle is confusing stupidity (bad judgment), mis-communimcation (bad advice), and slight negligence with criminal acts. You don't go to jail for those things. Do you get fired? Absolutely... but prison? It's borderline delusional to think that. If I leave a child in a hot car and that child dies is that negligence? Yes... is it criminal and should I go to jail for my stupidity? Absolutely not...

There's a great discussion over at Professor Matt Strassler's blog about all this. I think his take on it is right on.

http://profmattstrassler.com/2012/10/25/shock-foreshock-and-aftershock-…

Chelle, still you refuse to say exactly where they went wrong exactly what you would have done differently were you one of them. At what expected number of deaths per million people would you move the advice from "Carry on as normal" to "Sleep away from buildings", and at what level escalate to "Leave the area"? That is the judgement call the scientists had to make, and if you can't say where you would draw the lines, you are in no position to assess the judgement of others.

DavidL,

I would have said, to check your building, find a safe place to sleep cause there is a 2% chance that it a big quake might come. The same things that is being said in areas where there are hurricanes, every year.

Aquanerd,

The question is how high do you want to set standards. It makes me think of the Costa Concordia cruise ship disaster where 30 people died because the captain sailed too close to the cliffs. I had a discussion with my nephew who has been many years 1st on giant oil tankers, and who supported the captain because he's knows that from big ships sailing next to the coast you hardly get to see a thing; thus the captain probably sailed so close to please his passengers he explained to me, so they would get a nice view. He said that the captain only wanted to do good for is passengers, and he felt sorry for him, colleagues stick together. This drama is similar as the case with these scientists; they only wanted to do good for the people, and comfort them saying that nothing bad would happen. Well the great danger is wanting to please others, and if you don't set standards or penalties high enough people will always be attracted to lower safety standards, just to try to please others, that's the big problem; and it is probably why these scientists failed badly, and the cost of lives was so high. Wanting to do good sometimes does more bad than anything else.

Sure 6 years is far too high, but regarding their position and the lives that were lost, I believe that one year might be in order, just so everybody knows that the job of safety adviser should not be taken lightly, and you should stand above politics. And yes for the people that lose a kid out of their own stupidity, they are indeed already punished enough.

"I would have said, to check your building, find a safe place to sleep cause there is a 2% chance that it a big quake might come"

Which is why the buildings should have been better built. But that's Big Business.

And moreover, that would lead to no evacuation still. So even you would be facing charges of murder under your affirmed rationale.

"they only wanted to do good for the people, and comfort them saying that nothing bad would happen"

That, however, is YOUR quote.

Give us the SCIENTISTS declaration at the time.

Go on, get some data and evidence for your position.

Wow,

“they only wanted to do good for the people, and comfort them saying that nothing bad would happen”

That, however, is YOUR quote.

True, and that's why I also wrote "and it is probably why these scientists failed badly"

... but this is what also was said in a link I posted earlier on:

"According to the expert (Ignazio Guerra of the University of Calabria), incorrect prediction “can be even more damaging that a real earthquake” because of the panic this can create and the effect it can have on the economy and property values in the area." http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/06/earthquake-warning-was-remo…

I interpreted it as 'do good for the people', for not wanting to cause possibly unnecessary panic.

“and it is probably why these scientists failed badly”

Nope, it begs the question: did the scientists fail badly?

That is only your contention. Backed up by a quote you said?

You haven't a clue what "evidence" is, do you.

Get off to the http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/09/23/weekend-diversion-yo… thread, you're being a deliberate ignorant arsehole again.

“I would have said, to check your building, find a safe place to sleep cause there is a 2% chance that it a big quake might come”

So you still avoid answering. If a 2% risk per day merits a warning, do you then think a 20% chance per day would merit evacuation, and perhaps a 0.2% chance means just carry on?

But even if you can answer that question you are still left with the problem of deciding whether you are facing the 0.2% risk or the 20% risk. Only the expert consensus can determine that risk with any accuracy. And the earthquake actually happening will not make that risk assessment wrong, even if it was less that 0.2%. That is fundamental to the Science Of Predicting The Future

... and that's how a bullshitter tries to bullshit his way out of things. Too bad for those Italian scientists that those judges are used to hear bullshit stories, and lame excuses every single day.

Either get some evidence for once or piss off to http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/09/23/weekend-diversion-yo… where the dunderheads can waffle without clogging up GENUINE discussion.

Chelle,

Do I seriously need to give you a special invitation every time you are called out specifically to take a line of discussion over to this thread?

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/09/23/weekend-diversion-yo…

That thread was specifically placed there -- along with the comment policy with which you are well-acquainted -- to prevent the derailing of topical discussions.

When I see you engage in behavior like this I seriously wonder if you are trying to goad me into banning you from this site. I don't want an answer; I want you to -- now and forever -- cease commenting on any thread once you are asked to move your future comments to the place designated for them. This policy applies to everyone, and so far you have been the only one to continually violate it.

Stop doing so.

Wow,

Come on this is no genuine argument:

" you are still left with the problem of deciding whether you are facing the 0.2% risk or the 20% risk. Only the expert consensus can determine that risk with any accuracy"

Does he realise that 20% is 1 chance in 5? All the statistics are there, it has very little to do with consensus. The moment the frequency goes up, the higher the risk becomes. DavidL you should read this article I linked to earlier on:

"Indeed, what the government official had told the press turned out to be completely wrong. The discharge of energy isn’t a sign of decreased risk. It’s an alarm bell. In normal times, the statistical risk of a major earthquake in a given week along a fault-line like that in Aquila is something like one in 100,000, according to Thomas Jordan, director of the Southern California Earthquake Center at the University of Southern California and the author of a report on the Aquila quake commissioned by the Italian government. But when the ground starts to shake frequently, as it did before the major tremor struck, the chance soars that a disaster is on its way." http://world.time.com/2012/10/24/the-aquila-earthquake-verdict-where-th…

Ethan,

Well if this is the end than so be it,

Have fun!

You don't get 20% of an earthquake. You get one.

But if the cost of evacuation is 1Bn and the cost of cleanup without evacuation is 4Bn, then do the maths.

Of course, the planners can't say this, can they. So they need a scapegoat.

Well the other option would be to, for example, show some evidence of what the scientists who have been chucked in jail said that was enough to make them guilty.

You instead preferred to post about what they could have done to be guilty, then, when refused this option, huff off.

It is not possible that we can predict all the future disasters for the safety of human beings?

@Heart:

It is not possible that we can predict all the future disasters for the safety of human beings?

Currently, we can't.

Well, we could wait until they happen...!

Ah yes, the ancient fortune-telling art of Chronomancy. :)

Ethan, of course Chelle is trying to goad you into banning them, because that would be "persecution" and improve their crackpot street cred. I appreciate you bending over backwards to accommodate alternative hypothesis. Such is good science.

I also appreciate you bending over backwards to say that there was poor science communication when a bureaucrat translated "insufficient data for a prediction" to "no danger". Even though it is ridiculous to assign legal liability to the scientists, it is nevertheless important to recognize when things could have been done better.

DavidL:

At what expected number of deaths per million people would you move the advice from “Carry on as normal” to “Sleep away from buildings”, and at what level escalate to “Leave the area”? That is the judgement call the scientists had to make,

Maybe it works differently in Italy, but in the US that is exactly the sort of judgement call scientific advisors to the government don't make. A probability does not dictate a policy response. It may suggest one or support one, but ultimately its up to the people, as represented by their government, to decide how much risk to accept. Take Sandy as a more recent example: the role of meteorologists is to give the government their best informed estimate about path, wind speed, wave height, etc. That is the science part of hurrican response.That is where their expertise lies. But its up to government - not scientists - to decide whether 60mph winds mean evacuate or 80mph winds mean evacuate. That's a policy decision and relies on a lot more factors than just the storm physics. Its exactly the sort of decision that should be made by an elected official - and not a scientist - precisely because they are elected, and so (i) have been democratically chosen by the people to make such decisions, and (ii) can be held responsible for their policy decisions via future election.

I completely agree eric. I was a little imprecise in my language, trying to get Chelle to acknowledge the issues involved. The "system" makes that call. I would expect the recommended course of action to be a political decision anywhere in the world, based on the best scientific advice.

The scientists would only be negligent if they predicted a low risk based on data that a consensus of experts would have assessed as far higher risk. Chelle seemed think that scientists who predict only a 2% chance of an earthquake are automatically negligent if that earthquake actually occurs, and any attempt to justify their actions is after the event is just them bullshitting their way out of a hole. Classic projection of her evidence free world. The discredited Oracle must pay.

Before we build technologies that can alter nature, like that of controlling space-time, building global weather control system... we need a method of preventing corporations, both declared and undeclared [like the Bush/Cheney/Saudi/BinLadin Group/al-Qaeda (literally means the Corporation in Arabic)] to prevent disasterous results. The Corporation presently institutes suicide bombing to create political unrest so that the nations national resources are stolen by The Corporation like they are doing in Iraq (Iraq effectively gets nothing for the oil taken from them).

Search for "eliminate all corruption"

Not one major soft target of The Corporation has EVER been attacked by al-Qaeda (al Quida). Not one oil pipeline, top investor, related family, oil tanker, executive. Bin Laden would have been frozen and a forensic pathologist would have recovered a great deal of intelligence from his body. Bin Laden in part of The Corporation. His father and brother were both close associates of the Bush family. They were both killed in accidents near the Bush home; 10 years apart.

You might find my own book "Probing the Future: the art and science of prediction" (Booklocker.com) entertaining. IT discusses some of mankind's attempts to predict the future through the ages, including some famously bad predictions, and then examines the scientific basis for why it can be so difficult to make reliable predictions of the future state of complex dynamical systems.

hello.im iranian and i studying about future in english and this page are very good for me.thanks lot

A person can prophecy all he/she wants, but can't predict unless the Spirit of Truth is at work with that person, which can disclose, or enlighten that person with true, or factual information, therefore letting the person "know" what the future holds or will bring. It does that by bringing to the fro, or aligning the future event, to the NOW moment, where that "now" moment, (which is always with us, - now, now now - and which is the ONLY real Truth! ) also contains the past, so, likewise, that person, if asked, can also see, or can also be enlightened with past events to be able to describe exactly what transpired during that time.
A prophecies on the other hand, is different than a prediction in that, a prophecy can change, it is flexible, or adaptable, (go-with-the-flow) depending on the situations, or events leading up to it, so a prophesy can turn out be wrong, but of course, a prophecy can also turn out to be correct, but again, depending on the situations or events leading up to it.
A prediction, in the real sense of the word, is pre dictated, so it can't change.

But you don't have to wonder anymore whether the future can or cannot be predicted. For all you future needs and/or questions, just hire Futurist Paul Guercio and physicist Dr. George Hart, who run the MERLIN PROJECT, and ask them to ask MERLIN whatever it is that you wish to know (for a hefty fee of course) and Merlin will predict, and print out the answers for you.

Where will we all be in 100 billion years?

esiegel — Thu, 23 Aug 2012 17:19:44 +0000

Where will we all be in 100 billion years?

"It is always wise to look ahead, but difficult to look further than you can see." -Winston Churchill

We've come a long way in this Universe. Over the past 13.7 billion years, we've formed the light elements out of a sea of protons and neutrons, cooled and expanded to form neutral atoms for the first time, gravitationally collapsed hydrogen and helium gas clouds to form the first stars, borne witness to generations of stellar deaths and rebirths, lived through the formation of hundreds of billions of galaxies and the clustering together of thousands or more galaxies into clusters, filaments, and superclusters.

Image credit: Volker Springel and the Max-Planck-Institute for Astrophysics.

At the end of all this, at the present time, we find ourselves tucked away in a large but unremarkable spiral galaxy, the second largest one in our local group, more than 50 million light years from the nearest large cluster, in a Universe filled with over 100 billion large galaxies, ranging from just a few million to many tens of billions of light years away.

Image credit: NASA, ESA, the GOODS team and M. Giavalisco (STScI).

But although 13.7 billion years is a long time, it's just the early stages of a Universe that's going to be around for a very long time indeed. Thanks to our understanding of physics, astronomy, and the Universe as a whole, I'd like to leap 100 billion years into the future, when the Universe is many times its current age.

Image credit: Mark A. Garlick/University of Warwick.

The Sun will be long dead, having burned out the very last of its nuclear fuel some 93 billion years earlier, having blown off its outer (mostly hydrogen) layers in a short-lived planetary nebula, while the inner (carbon, oxygen and heavier) layers contract down to form a white dwarf. Although eventually this white dwarf will lose its heat and cool off, becoming a black dwarf, that will not have happened after only 100 billion years. Our Earth, unfortunately, will be just a barren, lifeless rock, if it survives our Sun's death at all.

Image credit: Vistapro Landscape Imagery, Rendered by Jeff Bryant.

Our galaxy will also look very different. Rather than the great spiral structure it currently exhibits, with its disk and its spiral arms, its big sister Andromeda, and the many dwarf satellite galaxies populating our local group, the irresistible gravitational force will eventually bring us all together.

Image credit: NASA; ESA; Z. Levay and R. van der Marel, STScI; T. Hallas, and A. Mellinger.

The first few billion years of the merger will cause intense star formation initially, turning both galaxies blue with hot, young stars. But those stars don't live very long. After multiple new generation of stars are born, go supernova, die, and trigger the formation of still newer stars, we will be mostly out of unburned hydrogen gas.

By time 100 billion years have passed, we will have settled down into a quiet, old elliptical galaxy, where star formation is very rare, and practically all the stars left in the night sky are cool, red, low-mass stars.

Image credit: 2MASS / E. Kopan (IPAC/Caltech).

But even this is not terribly different from the sky we have today. Sure, the stellar population will be skewed to be lower in mass, the galaxy dominating the night sky will be more massive and shaped differently, and the vast majority of light we receive will be red and infrared light, rather than the ultraviolet-visible-infrared mix we see today. Stellar corpses -- white dwarfs, black holes and neutron stars -- will be far more abundant than they are today, but all of these things still exist today.

Image credit: Harvey Richer (University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada) and NASA.

The big difference, however, will come when we look out beyond our galaxy.

Image credit: Atlas of the Universe, Richard Powell.

Instead of clusters and superclusters of galaxies, there will be... nothing. Dark energy will take care of that, driving all the other galaxies in the Universe, everything that isn't bound to our local group, our beyond our visible horizon. If we were born on a habitable planet 100 billion years from now, we'd conclude we were the only galaxy in the Universe.

Image credit: Jean-Charles Cuillandre (CFHT) & Giovanni Anselmi (Coelum Astronomia), Hawaiian Starlight.

Even the leftover glow from the Big Bang would be undetectable!

Image credit: NASA / WMAP science team.

100 billion years would shift the cosmic microwave background far into radio wavelengths, and dilute the density of photons so severely that it would take a radio telescope the size of Earth in order to observe it!

Image credit: NAIC - Arecibo Observatory, under the NSF umbrella.

How fortunate we are to exist when the Universe is still young: when new, blue stars are abundant, when the sky is full of galaxies and clusters, when dark energy has only begun to take over the Universe, and when the leftover glow from the Big Bang is still hanging around in the microwave.

Image credit: NASA / WMAP science team.

Only by chance did we arise here and now; a hundred billion years from now, many of our bodies atoms will be a part of different stars and solar systems, joined together with atoms that aren't even a part of our galaxy today.

Image credit: ESA/Hubble and NASA.

Our Sun will be long gone, having died like the nebula above more than 90 billion years in the past, but the matter and energy from our Solar System continues throughout the Universe.

And that's the future of each and every one of us, so don't miss out on today!

esiegel Thu, 08/23/2012 - 13:19

Tags

This is a bleak perspective:

If we were born on a habitable planet 100 billion years from now, we’d conclude we were the only galaxy in the Universe.

But stars ejected out of the galaxy by way of the still existing SMBH would still permit an observer to reconstruct standard cosmology IIRC (likely an arxiv paper; still), DM and DE both.

Presumably they can then predict that they are the only galaxy remaining in the _observable_ Universe.

Only by chance did we arise here and now;

If not eternal inflation is a fact, because it predicts the cosmic coincidence , us living when DE starts to dominate.

Since inflation seems to be a fact, even if the jury is still out on eternal inflation, I tend to think that this is a reasonable hypothesis at the moment.

I find that elliptical 'Aitoff-projection' image of the CMB around us a bit misleading, as it is an artificial composition of the 'flat' sky around us, and not so much like similar maps of Earth which is an actual spherical/round object. Having that said there is a much better option to look at it and that's by watching it on Google Earth with the Sky option. For those who don't know, you can download the 7 year map for that application from NASA's LAMBDA site.

What's cool is that you can zoom in and out, and you can sweep animate the 'view' and when you do so, the cycle starts to look like a Bubbling-Boiling-Quantum-Soup.

I took a short screenshot of it so you can check it out, and you'll also need to 'loop' play it to see the *effect*

http://tinyurl.com/boiling-mov (1.6 Mb - right click 2 download)

Anyway, what I would like know is, if it is 'statically' losing temperature like you suggest; "Even the leftover glow from the Big Bang would be undetectable!" or could the temperatures actually be fluctuating around, changing temperature at each spot; and if so, could it suggest that it is something active rather than a footprint … ?

"and not so much like similar maps of Earth which is an actual spherical/round object"

Oblate spheroid, you mean.

And aren't those similar maps an artificial composition of the 'flat' earth beneath us?

So what, then, is the difference that makes you accept one but not the other?

And why do you insist on asking "is it possible" questions that are little more than "is it possible that I will be crushed to death by falling hippopotomi by tuesday 3pm?"?

The answer would be "no" except for patently worthless values of "yes".

Most likely, the universe is both infinite and eternal - just not in the form we know it today. The author's prognostications are extrapolated from the universe we know ... or think we know.

"So what, then, is the difference that makes you accept one but not the other?"

We are sure about the shape of the Globe that we live on, but not of what is out there. It creates the impression that the Universe is one giant (expanding) bubble, while we are actually looking at it from within our own bubble.

"We are sure about the shape of the Globe that we live on"

You weren't. You thought it was a sphere.

That also is NOT a reason to say the projection is wrong.

"It creates the impression that the Universe is one giant (expanding) bubble"

Well, no. No more than a mercator projection creates the impression that the earth is one giant sphere.

"while we are actually looking at it from within our own bubble."

What bubble? You seem to have a little bubble world of your own, but that's your problem.

"Most likely, the universe is both infinite and eternal – just not in the form we know it today."

So it was a form smaller than today in the past. Just like the big bag theory says. That's not a form we know it to be today, right. Therefore it fits your proclamation.

"or think we know."

Or think that you know that they don't know.

Your knowledge could be wrong. It doesn't look as though it was infinite nor does it appear to have been eternal. Do you know different?

"Where will we all be in 100 billion years?" is kind of like "Where will the continent of North America be in 100 billion years". I'm sure the geologist have a mathematical model; but they don't have the hubris to answer such a question seriously.

The problem with a 100 billion year prediction about the universe is that it necessarily assumes a great many things that we currently assume to be true that will be shown to be false.

We need to understand quantum gravity, dark energy, dark matter etc; we need a lot more observation and experiment. After another 100 years of new theory and observation; maybe humans will be cured of the hubris of prediction the next 100 billion years or even the next 100 years of physics.
.
I mean we don't spend $300 million on LISA or LIGO just to find out what general relativity theory predicts; we want to discover something new.http://arxiv.org/pdf/1012.1109v1.pdf "Gravitational-wave astronomy promises to shed light on the “dark side” of the Universe. Because of their strong gravity, black holes and neutron stars are ideal sources and we hope to probe the extreme physics associated with them... Eventually, observations (gravitational and electromagnetic) will help us understand many aspects of extreme physics that seem mysterious to us today. The next decade will see signiﬁcant improvements in the various observational channels, and we should expect great progress in our understanding of the Universe." let me emphasize "GREAT PROGRESS"

ditto the James Webb Space Telescope, the Large Hadron Collider, etc..

If theory was that good we wouldn't need crash test dummies to test the classical mechanics of automobile collisions.

Disclaimer: I am just a crash test dummy.

How refreshing. A good start to the weekend. ;-)

WRONG!
THE UNIVERSE IS ABOUT 6000 YEARS OLD WE KNOW THIS BECAUSE JESUS CHRIST OUR SAVIOR TOLD US.

AND ALL THESE "SCEINTISTS" CLAIM TO BE WISE AND HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD HIMSELF!

THAT IS CALLED IDOLITRY AND IT IS SINFUL AND WRONG!

JESUS WILL COME BACK SOON AND HISTORY WILL THEN END AND ALL THIS NONSENSE ABOUT 100 BILLION YEARS WILL BE SWEPT AWAY AS WE WILL BE IN HEAVEN!!!!!!

“Where will we all be in 100 billion years?” is kind of like “Where will the continent of North America be in 100 billion years”. I’m sure the geologist have a mathematical model; but they don’t have the hubris to answer such a question seriously.

Um, I'd expect any geology STUDENT who actually read their first-year textbooks attentively would be able to answer that question: North America will not exist 100 billion years from now, precisely because of the solar life cycle described in this post.

What if the speed of gravitational force is infinite, time is effected by mass and relative to the current speed of light photons born in the future travel faster than those born yesterday?

"We need to understand quantum gravity, dark energy, dark matter etc; we need a lot more observation and experiment"

We've done that.

You may have missed it....

What you *can* say about it is that it is contingent on what we understand about [those things] being broadly correct.

"THAT IS CALLED IDOLITRY AND IT IS SINFUL AND WRONG!"

No, that's worshipping graven images. Which means that statue of the dude nailed to a dod of wood at the back of your church is sinful and wrong.

birdfish,

I have trouble differentiating between people on the internet who make sarcastic posts making fun of fundamentalist religious people and actual fundamentalist religious people making BS posts. I will assume that you are serious, and my apologies if you aren't.

1. When exactly did Jesus say "the universe is 6000 years old?" Where exactly does it even say so in the Bible? (Those are two different questions, BTW). I would assume that if Jesus actually said this, it would appear somewhere in the Gospels, since this pretty much is the only real record that we have about what Jesus actually said. I'm not really a Biblical expert, but I do have some knowledge, and I don't recall ever seeing anything in the Gospels about the age of the universe. Please enlighten me then, what chapter and verse are you thinking of here.

Further, I am quite certain that no actual number for the age of the earth is specified in Genesis either. Your 6000 years probably refers to a calculation made several centuries ago (sorry, I can't remember who did it off the top of my head). However, that was a calculation based on that person's own interpretation of the Scripture, not a number that actually appeared anywhere in the Bible. So again, if I'm wrong, enlighten me; which chapter and verse is it that says that the universe is 6000 years old?

I must assume that you believe in a literalist interpretation of the Bible. However, other interpretations abound, and there's no objective way to determine which one is correct. It seems to me, however, that the literal one is the LEAST likely to be correct. All kinds of contradictions exist between known mathematical and scientific facts and a literal reading of the BIble. For instance, if read literally, pi must have a value of 3, the earth must be a disk rather than a sphere, and bats must be birds rather than mammals. If, despite this, you want to believe that the Bible is literally true, fine, go right ahead. Don't try to argue this point of view on a SCIENCE blog, however. You won't gain any traction here with those ideas.

@Wow refering to Chelle

I think you are reading a bit too much into his/her post. I will give Chelle credit that using a 3d program such as Google Earth at least helps me spatially comprehend these maps. Much in the same way I hate viewing fish-eye images. I know the basics behind it, but for me it just doesn't click right away.

I was a bit thrown off by the bubble in a bubble argument but meh.

More generaly, don't get caught up in arguments over trivial things like sphere vs. oblate spheroid. You are correct but considering this is just a comments section on a blog, something that is 99% a sphere is ok to call a sphere haha. I'm all for being a dick at times but this has been one of the few blogs/boards that isn't full of regulars that smite everything that isn't perfect. I've seen you post on here and you are normally not but I don't want to see other people discouraged to post on here thinking they are going to be chastized.

@Chelle
As for the active vs. footprint question, yes the temperature fluctuations are active but the average of those would be the footprint. So as Ethan stated we would not be able to detect the CMB in 100 billion years because the footprint or average has dropped to such a low number. There will still be fluctuations but given the average is much lower, the degree in fluctuations will also be much lower. Kind of like a pot of water, the greater detail you look at it you will see fluctuations but there will still be an overall average that will decrease with time.

@Wow

Ok you can be a dick to birdfish lol

birdfish,

To continue: (hit submit too quick, sorry)

2. When exactly have scientists claimed to "have the knowledge of God himself"? I realize, (but I'm not sure that you do) that not all scientists are atheists. However, whatever the personal beliefs of the scientists are, God plays no role whatsoever in sciences. Not all scientists are atheists, but science is an atheistic process. Science relies on methodological naturalism in order to proceed. Basically, this is a realization that science cannot deal with anything other than natural phenomena. Supernatural phenomena (assuming that such exist) cannot be dealt with by science. Therefore, science must proceed without reference to God. The question of whether God exists, let alone any knowledge that He hypothetically possesses, is totally unaswerable by science.

I think the problem you have is that science is investigating things that you would prefer that science does not investigate. If your faith in God is strong, this should not bother you. Only if such investigation challenges your faith should you be concerned. Scientists care not about matters of faith. If scientific investigation causes you to question your faith, then too bad for you. If not, then please leave science alone; it has nothing to do with your faith.

"@Wow refering to Chelle

I think you are reading a bit too much into his/her post"

Then you've not read her posts before. She's an anti-science idiot who keeps bleating on and whining about how EVERY OTHER SCIENTIST has ***EVERYTHING*** (and I'm not exagerating here) WRONG.

Whined on and on about "tired light". Keeps yomping on about the aether. Insists that the universe is one huge hurricane like gyre. That gravity doesn't exist and that ALL science is done by nazi child killing monsters.

Really.

Not making this up.

Have a look at chelle's insanity over in the "With All The Suffering in the World..." thread on SWAB.

It wasn't the early stages by a long long LONG chalk.

Cody Lawson,

"yes the temperature fluctuations are active but the average of those would be the footprint."

mh, to be more precise, my question is, if those fluctuations keep on having the same frequency, than they are not fading away, even when the average is going down. What I mean is, for instance when you play some music, and the overall sound is suddenly a lot dimmer, but you can still hear the beat going stron (at the same pace), than you know that the band isn't slowing down, but that there might be a fly in your ear, or someone has turned down the speakers.

Cody, enjoy the feeling of your brain turning to mush as you try to work out with chelle what the hell she means.

@Wow

I officially rescind my comment haha. I just saw the Google Earth stuff so gave her the benefit of the doubt.

Back in college (was a government major and almost a classical civilizations major, just a huge astronomy nerd) I used Google Earth in a project to layer 3d battle formations to scale with the local topography. It's amazing the different perspective you get from seeing actual triremes in formation versus a large black triangle that says "triremes" on a drawn map. The program has huge potential as a means of teaching to new students. Plus it's just freaking cool.

So yea a bit of bias and nostalgia came up when I saw her refering to it. As for her ideas, yea that kind of stuff should be chastized. You can only argue with a pole for so long.

@Chelle

The fluctuations will also diminish as the average diminishes. If something is 100 degrees for example, seeing the temperature fluxuate within a couple percent, or degrees since we are using 100 as our base temp, would be entirely normal. As it got colder (into the CMB range) and the overall energy of the particles nears absolute zero, there simple is not enough energy for those fluctuations to occur at their previous level. You are now talking about fluctuations that or more like +/- .000002 versus +/- 2.

The band analogy just wont work. If you wanted to go that route it would be more along the lines of the drummer keeping a stead beat but slowly plays quieter due to fatigue. He will eventually hit a point where he can only exude 10% hit strength +/- 2 or so percent versus at 100% hitting with a +/-10% variation.

Does that make more sense?

Cody Lawson,

Read my comment at August 9, 7:01 pm at that topic that 'Wow' suggested, you are a good sheep, meh meh :mrgreen:

Thing is, I will make idle speculation that probably is completely wrong and don't put much thought into working it out myself. I.e. "Do photons self-gravitate, and if so, how do the gravitons exchange between two such photons?" or "Is Dark Energy produced by the Mass-Energy disappearing into a black hole singularity going through the extra dimensions and being sputtered throughout our 3D space?"

But unlike chelle, I don't think it any more than idle speculation or a little intellectual diversion.

She seems unable to drop the idea that she is somehow a Modern Gallileo and EVERYONE else is The Inquisition.

Chelle:

Got that Aether engine working yet? I know a guy at GE who said it could be the future of clean energy.

... slowly plays quieter due to fatigue.

Does that make more sense?

Yep, that makes perfect sense, thanks.

... and sorry for the meh-thing, I thought you gave up after Wow's intervention.

@Wow

I never got to reply back on the "colors" thread about averted vision. I was actually just sitting here imagining I was looking through an EP to see which direction I naturally gravitate towards. If memory serves me correct, I almost always go horizontally towards the nose about 1/3 of the FOV's radius. I will then bounce between about 1:30 and 4:30 (clock face) for the vertical axis. I have always wandered how far away one should technically look. But for just trial and error, that method has worked pretty well up.

I unfortunately have a dob so go-to is out of the question until I buy a stellarcat or platform. But the Explore Scientific 100 degree 14 will give you plenty of time to play with most objects. Seeing as how I am in Cygnus with the Carbon stars I am going to have to give the Blinking Planetary another look. Hell in two weeks it will be even more awesome since I will be back out at Okie-Tex!

The celestron SkyScout can be attached by a whitworth thread to your dob to give you a "push-to" scope.

You'll still need to learn a bit of star-hopping because your accuracy sill still require a fairly large field of view to keep your actual target in the FOV when "on target", from there you'll need to hop to the actual spot using the stars and go up a few eyepieces.

Alternatively, you can get a cheap Skywatcher/Celestron GOTO mount and scope for only a little more. A mak should give you good magnification and you don't really need light grasp for planetaries that warrant a high mag.

"...a hundred billion years from now, many of our bodies atoms will be a part of different stars and solar systems..." There is poetry in this.

@ Wow

Don't worry been doing this for a couple of years :) I almost dislike the Go-To scope simply because it takes the "hunt" out of it. It would be handy for planetary viewing but that's for tracking, not just finding.

I do at least appreciate the technology on the passive end. I originally used both a Rigel and a finder scope to hone in on targets, not too mention big ass star maps. I eventually got decent enough to ditch the finder scope. Then I figured out I could just pull up Sky Safari Pro and Sky Tools 3 to build my own charts with the limiting magnitude of that night's conditions and EP FOV's. Couple on a green laser and the Rigel even becomes useless.

So now I just sit back leisurely with my iphone's charts and casually push the scope to the location without breaking my back looking through different finders. You just gotta watch out for airplanes and keep your phone as dark & red as possible.

What kind of scope do you have? I got a 12" LightBridge but have practically replaced everything except the tube. I am actually in the middle of building a new rocker box. Heavy dew and particle board are not friends...

I might believe it, but are you not the same guy who a few months ago went on and on about man made global warming?

Universal warming? Maybe cooling this time 'round.

8" F5 Newt. 180mm Mak. 72mm Doubet APO. Two GEM tripods, one with full GOTO and one with just a RA motor.

Problem with the Newt is I'm not tall and looking through the scope on tippy-toe isn't secure or pleasant.

Try linseed oil on the particle board then wax over that.

Why asked such superfluous question "Where will we all be in 100 billion years?" when we can't even know exactly where will we all be in 1 thousand years?
While scientists can be extraordinary imaginative (often beyond words), it would be better to spend more time in doing some down-to-earth and realistic stuff to ensure that we will still be around in 100 years. (btt1943)

Ahem....
Blah blah blah blah.

I just had to weigh in.

Thanks

Sad to think a time will come when the brightest scientists in the universe will never know even the little we now know.

So, with nearly every other remote galaxy disappearing from our ken, will the ratio of Invisible Dark Matter to Baryonic Matter be maintained at 5:1 in the part of the universe visible to our remote descendants?

If not, what will this mean for the rotation curve of the remaining giant galaxy formed by the melding of the Local Group if there is less DM in the surrounding galactic halo to exert a gravitational "pull" on the galactic remnants?

"when we can’t even know exactly where will we all be in 1 thousand years?"

We will all be dead in a thousand years.

Unless someone invents in the lifetime of someone alive today an elixir of eternal life.

So we can say something.

It's interesting to think of the problem that newly born intelligent species would face after the big merger and the receding universe. As no light can get to us from the neighboring galaxies, their image of the _entire_ universe will be that of before Hubble. The universe will be limited to the coming super-galaxy. It'll be large for sure, but it won't give even the impression of infinity. And it is quite unlikely that they would even bother to hypothesize the CMB as it would be just too resource expensive to prove, an antenna the size of a planet.

As a consequence, the idea of dark matter will not occur to them for long, long, long time because it will take many more 100 billion years to observe the effect of the universal inflation in place packed with gravity on interstellar scale. This idea would make a fine base line for a sci-fi novel I guess...

dark energy, I mean...

In my honest and humble opinion...
Speculation about what life will be like, even 100 years from today and being accurate in your prediction, is about as difficult as throwing a baseball into a one metre sized hole....one hundred metres away... (certainly possible, but I would guess that there are more misses than hits, depending on who's throwing the ball).

As regards predicting things for a hundred billion years from now..hehehe...
My calculator ran out of spaces for calculating the odds of accuracy (actually, I don't own a calculator)... Let's just say they are so close to zero (for having even ONE prediction right) that I would venture calling it a mathematical zero.

Considering the "facts"
(May I steal a quote here... "Before one can truly gain an understanding of human evolution and modern human variability, a background in both the history of evolutionary thought and the principles that underlie its application is in order.")
Considering that the human race, in our current evolutionary stage, is only about 200 000 years old, our brains still not even at 10% of capacity, I would hope that any serious predictions about the future (relatively speaking) should be possible in about another 2 million years....After all "Evolution is hardly a thing of the past"

On the brighter side...
This thread does support recent "controversial" theories about human intelligence declining and being contrary to the Flynn Effect.

Can I take my tongue out of my cheek now sir?

That 10% is a bit of old bollocks, there.

A similarly bollocks example is noting the fact that if all our muscies could pull together, the average human could deadlift 25 tons and then concluding that because the deadlift record is 1/2 a ton, therefore humans use 2% of their muscles.

Erratum and Addendum
(Thank you Wikipedia)...The timeline of human evolution spans approximately 7 million years, from the separation of the Pan genus until the emergence of behavioural modernity by 50,000 years ago. ... The above figure of 200 000 years was based on my own opinion.

Note to self:
Start work on your Yottaseconds watch design, we only have 6.616×10(to the power of 50) Yottaseconds before nothingness!...or the Bolzmann brain...

@WOW
You forgot to add ... In YOUR opinion. :-)

@WOW
I forgot to mention something....Uhm... I forgot again... does that mean I really LOST that thought?...or simply that the thought is indeed stored somewhere but MY diminished capacity did not allow me to find it when I needed it.
I do know that we use 100% of our brains at some point or another. My first comment was actually worded BRAIN CAPACITY(computing power, if you like..or the capacity for improving it)... and should be read to indicate that (In my opinion) our human brain will evolve and allow more complex and faster thought processes in the next 2 000 000 years.

Should you have any theory to counter that, apart from saying "bollocks" and then making a totally irrelevant comment about muscle use, I would be happy to hear it.

The increase in capacity would require rewiring and longer connections (and likely a change in how signals propogate).

The brain still hasn't gotten rid of the lizard brain, 400 million years after it was invented.

We will get smarter not because we use our brains but because we don't rely on teaching rote learning in a family group.

We write it down and teach people the bits that we can use.

However, that does require most people aren't required to toil for necessary basics and we have infrastructure that allows specialisation and learning that specialised knowledge.

But if the WAIS and Greenland drop before 2100 or we keep BAU beyond 2050, we're going to be too busy trying to survive to live like that.

"Should you have any theory to counter that"

I did.

But if you're only using 10% of your brain, I didn't think you'd understand it beyond that level :-P

The number of connections and the range of them denote the power of the brains, but we're not that special.

We have, however, something those other brainy buggers on the planet doesn't have.

Libraries.

Though as the brains get bigger, they'll get slower and likely more prone to misfiring (longer transits, more transits and more firing neurons will make error correction a huge overhead).

Something much smarter than us biologically is probably going to be from a very different branch of life.

"But if you’re only using 10% of your brain,..."
I used 100% of my brain..to coordinate finger movements that typed "google.com", followed by large lags (no misfiring, just slow internet)...lol

Besides Googling, I do have quite a talent for imagination (not just the reproductive-Kant type but also the romantic/spiritual kind.

In MY imagination, I am able to envisage that we (humans) will not necessarily get "smarter", instead being able to handle more complex thoughts at a FASTER rate than presently the "norm"...This due to the ability of neurons to change the strength of their connections in response to the pattern of activity passing through them.(Plasticity)

My apologies for taking a slight detour off the "where will we be in 100 billion years" lane and going down the human evolutionary lane...

In short (and to avoid making myself seem more obviously unschooled on the subject)... I IMAGINE that our current human form will evolve more towards SYMBOLIC LIFE than Biological Life.... As regards brain power, PLASTICITY holds the key and hopefully we will be able to adapt as fast as the world(s) around us evolve.

End of lecture... Remember we have a test on Friday, please bring a sharp pencil. On second thought, forget about the test and just bring me 50$ for a pass mark!

The problem with the signal strength going up is that our thoughts are produced in a noisy environment.

And that makes it less reliable since you'll get cross talk.

It's no good getting an idea that makes your nose itch. It has to excite the right bits.

We won't get much smarter for thousands of generations, but we will, if we survive, get smarter because we build on older knowledge each day and stick it all in books so we can continue from a distant staging post.

The solar system, planets, stars, suns, being infinite informs infinitely life does/did exist. Time being infinite teaches future there is history. When 1 billion years occur history informs there was a beginning. I do have a head injury. A 4-day long coma proves life has a reason based on the fact now I do have a wife, and 2-years-old daughter.

"Considering that the human race, in our current evolutionary stage, is only about 200 000 years old, our brains still not even at 10% of capacity"

Considering this was your opening statement, the fact you now say:

"I used 100% of my brain..to coordinate finger movements that typed “google.com”"

Do you think you need to admit your error in your opening statement?

Or imagine a time wherein all populations use "gravitic" (also known as scalar, or zero point energy) technologies that do a kind of alt-counter symmetrical cycling of gravitics on a large scale such that in 100 billion years the condensing of mass within large elliptical, merged galaxies is so intense that the cycling back out of mass via the galaxy's massive, central black hole's poles creates new matter, proto-galaxies, and essentially a new universe cycle (in the eyes of those, like us, who are new to it). So, the old galaxies from before have gone resonant scalar yet the populations can alt-cycle in and out of the new proto-galaxies' space via simple technology. An older, more interesting cultural backdrop, and all part of the same, dark e / dark m universe.

Earth will have plunged into the Sun

2012 Predictions: The More Things Change...

sastyk — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 11:30:51 +0000

2012 Predictions: The More Things Change...

First of all, I owe y'all an apology for the radio silence. Somehow this month I've felt a deep need for some quiet, rest and offlineness. It was quite an autumn here - it started with the destruction of Irene and Lee (and dealing with those disasters are still a major part of life in our community although they've faded from public focus), included the usual autumn and holiday rush, our usual sequence of family events and birthday parties (three kids have birthday in six weeks, right after the high holidays wind up), ASPO, my book, two foster placements and the loss of M., and the wind up of Eric's semester left us all just bone tired. I didn't plan to stay offline for two weeks, it just kind of happened while we celebrated Chanukah and Isaiah's 8th birthday, cleaned and organized, caught up on chunks of life that have been left aside and generally took some deep breaths. Several incredibly kind emails in the last week have gently inquired whether I was ok, and I do appreciate it - and I am.

In the last few days, I've found myself able to look ahead again - to think about spring and chickens, about seed catalogs and what to do to make our farm more deluge-proof and a host of other things. I've started turning my head forward, and looking out again - it was restorative to have a period of quiet, and thanks all for bearing with me.

Meanwhile, I'm back just in time to post my annual predictions, something I've been doing since 2006. Let me just preface this with the official annual predictions preface that I've included since I started doing this: "I don't think everything that comes out of my ass is the high truth, and neither should you. Remember what you are paying for this wisdom, and value it accordingly.

First, let's take a look at how I did last year:

1. First and foremost, I'm going to repeat my prediction in Peak Oil Review - I think 2011 is the year the food crisis comes back. We're already seeing signs of it, and I think that the number of world hungry will spike again to over a billion. Energy and food prices will remain tightly intertwined, and whether we see major price spikes, demand destruction and a collapse of energy prices, or whatever else, food and energy will be increasingly hard to afford for a large portion of the world population, from the very poorest to the American and European middle class. Food will be an important site of the emergence of our energy and ecological crisis.

I called this one. World food issues have been growing steadily more acute over the last year, and now we are in many respects back to where we were in 2008. Food price volatility has been dramatic this year, reaching a high back in February, and spiking up and down.

2. 2011 will also be the year in which some mainstream segment of the US public or government starts taking peak oil seriously. This seems like it could be a good thing, but that depends heavily on *what* subset of the public or branches of government take it seriously and for what political purpose. I make no promises that peak oil activists won't go back to wishing they were being ignored.

Although there were some positive indications in 2011, I don't think this one came true - peak oil still hasn't hit the mainstream. Although given the noise about the Gulf of Hormuz, that could still change before the year ends - but I think that's unlikely.

3. Russia's wheat export restrictions and China's muscle flexing over rare earth minerals, along with the international landgrab going on for farmland are all part of an overall trend towards the recognition of limited world resources and the awareness that ensuring that there's something for your kids probably involves screwing someone else. The screwings will accellerate until morale improves - that being unlikely, I predict more and more international conflict over the limited store of goodies, and that some of that will become more acute and evident in 2011.

This was definitely true - the Rare Earths restrictions were a major issue this year, and the global landgrab continued to expand. Most of this is still happening outside the mainstream news - this implicit recognition of a world constrained my limits still hasn't entered most people's focus - but it is clearly shaping international policy.

4. The emergence of a new "khaki market" (Khaki's the color you get when you combine green markets and black or grey markets ;-)) economy for food, used goods and other materials will accelerate. These markets will respond to the increasing legislation of small scale production by ignoring it entirely. Small food producers will decline to be legislated out of existence and simply violate existing laws. Informal economies will develop and expand, either around or sometimes in opposition to regulation designed to discourage them. Crackdowns will ensue, but overwhelmingly be unsuccessful at either containing the growth of informal markets or approval of them in the general public. The battles will get nastier as more people depend for their basic needs on these informal khaki markets.

This one is a little hard to document in that no one really keeps good stats on whether there were more pop-up dining establishments, unlicensed farmer's markets and small food vendors working under the table, but it seems to be true - more of these things are in the news, there are more crackdowns and an increasing amount of social support for small producers who step outside the lines. My own take on this is that these "khaki markets" will be among the most important food resources we have - and the conflicts over them will only get bigger.

5. The ongoing trend towards housing consolidation among family and friends, sparked by a combination of populations aging, rising unemployment especially among the young and a destigmatization of extended family life will continue and expand. More of us will be moving in with other people in 2011. This will be good for a host of personal economies, but only make the housing market worse.

Again, this is one of those things that is hard to really call at the end of the year - the data for the past year simply hasn't come out yet. We do know that the housing market didn't rebound in 2011, but I think we have to let this one go until later this year.

6. In the interest of having one wholly self-interested prediction, chickens, the gateway drug to goats, will open the gateway and little cute milk and dairy-fiber goats will be the new backyard trend, making chickens look old fashioned and uncool. ;-)

Now this one may actually be true - two large American cities legalized backyard goats and several major news stories ran on the subject. But who knows where the trend is headed ;-). I'll call it a half.

7. The reports of the death of climate change as an issue at the national and international level will turn out to have been at least slightly exaggerated, but the terms of the debate will change to what we are going to do about how we're going to mitigate, rather than hold off emissions. Our new awareness of resource limits will also change the terms of the debate, as the peak oil and climate change communities finally really get to know one another.

No, sadly not - for the most part we continued on the path we'd been firmly upon - paying no real attention to the issue of climate change. Nor did the recognition of limits change any discourse. I was way too optimistic here. Folks still often see climate change and peak oil as either/or rather than mutually intersecting issues.

8. Someone from the peak oil community (almost certainly not me) will go mainstream in a way they have not so far. Generally speaking, movements tend to get one major public figure that catches the general imagination over everyone else - consider Michael Pollan for the food movement, for example. I'm going to take a wild risk and argue that our Michael Pollan will emerge in 2011.

Not that I know of.

9. Something will blow up big, much as the Gulf Oil rig did, revealing just how vulnerable we are in a complex society so heavily dependent on fossil fuels. The general public will be shocked and horrified to learn how contingent their lives and situations are. They won't, however, learn anything lasting from it.

I'd say Arab spring and the related issues with Libyan exports do qualify. Fukushima certainly does. It isn't clear to me, though that we didn't learn anything from Arab spring - it seems too great a coincidence to imagine that Occupy has nothing to do with the international recognition of people power. I think it will wait to see what we learned from Fukushima, but probably not much.

10. The emerging attention to our collective crisis will give some of the movement a jolt of new energy, time and investment in 2011. This will be the positive consequence of all the tough stuff we're facing.

I think this was true - there was a sense of renewal among the people I see working on these issues and among ordinary people. Occupy was the most prominent but not the only expression of this, of course,

All in all, it wasn't my best year - about six out of ten, much more in keeping with 2009 than 2010, 2007 or 2008, when I called eight out of ten. Still, since so often my predictions aren't positive, I'm ok with being wrong, except, of course, possibly about that goat thing ;-).

Moving on to this year's predictions, you'd think I'd be inclined to be more conservative, but the fact is, events don't seem to be driving in that direction, so either I'll be spectacularly wrong in the coming year, or I'll be right:

1. While Iran probably won't close the Straits of Hormuz, the vulnerability of US dependency on oil in other nations will continue to be highlighted by world event after world event, and sooner or later, one of them will blow up. I'm going to reach and suggest that we will have some kind of global-affairs related oil shock in 2012. And when that happens we will be confronted with the fact that the language of "energy independence" is false - nothing but dramatic and radical c onservation (of a kind that comes with heavy economic costs) would allow America to survive on its own reserves. Not offshore drilling, not biofuels, not shale - none of these can be brought online rapidly enough nor can they produce enough to quench our incredible appetite for liquid fuels. I'm going out on a limb and saying that 2012 is when we are confronted with this knowledge.

2. The economy will not recover much...yet again. Since early 2007, I've been pointing out that most major economic crises last a decade or more - that there a periods of decline and growth in them, but viewed retroactively, they look like a decade of economic crisis. This year we'll hit the official half-way point of our current economic crisis, and we'll see a lot of cheerleading and a lot of discussion of tiny signifiers, but we will continue also to see little growth, much less than required to keep things going, and frequent setbacks. I would expect to see a lot of uncertainty, not a lot of jobs growth and lots of world crises that shake markets over and over again.

3. Occupy will continue to be a presence and a rhetorical trope (ie, we'll speak about occupying nearly everything), but what will matter most is what Occupy is a preface to. While I doubt this will come to full fruition in 2012, my guess is we'll see the emergence of the next popular movement, inspired by Occupy but perhaps less politically unified and perhaps less gentle. Without diminishing Occupy's present accomplishments, I predict that in the longer term (ie, this won't be settled by the end of 2012 most likely) what Occupy will be historically known for is as the moment Americans became aware of the real power of popular protest and activism again - but the form will probably not remain the same.

4. The tension between local food and the food locals eat will rise as food and energy price volatility press more families economically. Local food activists will have to work harder at bringing their food to the people who most need food security and local access, but are least likely to have it. Food is one of the few places where there's a lot of buy-in on issues of resilience and adaptation, but the struggle of under-paid, low income farmers and small producers to get their food to the underpaid and poor eaters who need it most will be an emerging central issue.

5. The world food crisis will expand and extend into more nations. If 2011 was the year the food crisis "came back," 2012 will be the year it becomes impossible to ignore.

6. In 2012, the "brass ring" will come around for the peak oil issue, and there will be an opportunity, driven by events, to bring it into the mainstream and begin to shape a conversation around material limits. The big question is - will those of us able to do so grab the ring or will it pass around again? I'm not making any predictions on what will happen - just that the opportunity will exist. My hope is we'll all be ready.

7. The presidential election and a host of dramatic celebrity scandals, as well as a hot new diet craze will draw most media attention away from the fact that the world is hotter, we are poorer and we're banging hard against our material limits. All of these things will be attributed by presidential candidates to evil furriners, the failure of the other party to enact X policy and bad luck, rather than the actual facts. (Ok, I always give myself a gimmee ;-)

8. Thrift will be the new cool thing - after five years of getting poorer (actually, 30+ years of falling real wages, but who is counting) and never knowing whether they'll have a job or enough mone to pay the bills, the culture of thrift will hit the mainstream in fun new ways. Repurposing, repairing, mending, do it yourself and best of all, living on little will become emergently enjoyable, even competitive. A youth culture will emerge around cheerful acceptance of their poverty and hot young couples will be featured in magazines not buying stuff and loving each other for their ability to make George Washington scream.

9. I'm going to repeat my prediction that someone in the PO community will vault to prominence in 2012.

10. All of us will keep on keeping on, hopefully filled with the recognition that what we do really, really matters. This will hard to keep up sometimes and downright obvious others. We'll keep doing, even in the tough times because the future matters to us.

Happy New Year all! See you in 2012. Watch on Monday for a link to Peak Oil Review's annual predictions commentary, and check out what else I predicted, along with predictions from Richard Heinberg, Colin Campbell, Aaron Newton, Robert Hirsch and a host of others.

Cheers,

Sharon

sastyk Fri, 12/30/2011 - 06:30

Tags

future

2012

prediction

Something did blow up -- BIG -- worse than the spill, and like the spill is killing people even as we speak. You noted it at the time. I know it's difficult to discuss, as it's the fastest subject I know of (stunningly so) to get one shunned and marginalized. Bit it doesn't mean it's not happening.

My predictions:

1. We'll continue to destroy every aspect of the living planet on which we depend for our own survival. Until we can't, because the ongoing collapse of the industrial economy reaches completion.

2. We'll continue to spew emissions at a record rate every year, thus driving extinction of our species at our own hand. Until we can't, because the ongoing collapse of the industrial economy reaches completion.

3. Essentially no human beings in the U.S. or other industrialized nations will try to hasten collapse of the industrial economy. In fact, they will continue to fear this life-saving event.

Will somebody remind me why we believe we're sane?

Good to see you back. I was hoping you were OK as it did seem a long pause. Hope you had a good break.

Regarding last year's predictions, I have certainly seen #4 growing here. #5 isn't actually happening here -- our local economy is pretty stable -- but I keep hearing about it, so if nothing else it is becoming more acceptable.

Next year... I'm with you on most things, but I doubt #9 will happen, and I think #8 has already been happening. Not long ago I read an article about how well pawn shops are doing, and how people were choosing to make them their first stop for Christmas shopping. (I dunno about the hot young poverty stricken couples, though!)

My gut says "Occupy" won't go anywhere, but the potential is certainly there.

I think #1 is a foregone conclusion in an election year, or, possibly, in early 2013. There are too many people who would either be happy to attempt to spark events for political manipulation or will take advantage of such an event and hype it.

My prediction: Even before the death of the "beloved leader," I felt Korea was likely to be our next military hotspot, but I think the uncertainly about that region is even greater now. Most people don't remember that the Korean War never ended and we still have nearly 30,000 troops sitting on the border.

As to last year: On number 5 - I am Exhibit A evidence of this - in 2011, my husband & I became co-owners with an old friend and former neighbor of an 800 sq. ft. cohousing unit. We are all retired or semi-retired empty-nesters, and so far, it has worked very well. As to number 65 - I assume you know that Seattle now allows 3 goats and 8 chickens per household - and Seattle backyards, outside of very wealthy areas, are quite small!

As to this year's predictions: I think you're way too mild on number 2 - Europe is on the brink of going under, and when it does, I expect it will take the world economy down with it. 2012 seems likely to be the year we fall definitively into a major '30s - type Depression. And I have to agree with Mr. McPherson on this - although it will cause a lot of pain, its probably the only thing that will slow down the wholesale wrecking of the planet, so hard as it will be, it beats the alternative.

Good article, but it needs editing. Too many typos (sorry to be pedantic).

I was talking with a friend today, who was formerly employed by a high-end clothing boutique in a trendy shopping area. She told me, that when she worked there, the whole street was full of little boutiques, like the one where she worked, but now, where those designer clothes shops used to be are several consignment/thirft stores. In short, I'm thinking prediction #8 has already hit Maine, pretty hard. In fact, in my middle class circles, it's become trendy to show off our thrift store finds - like the wool "pea coat" I found at a thrift shop for $7.99 ;).

Love #7!

I predict things between the US and China are going to get a bit unsettled this year.

Thanks for sharing your predictions - they're always interesting to read.

I think you were right about the goat thing. Seriously, it keeps coming up in conversation with people. I got chickens this year, and everyone I know is jealous. They all want goats too.

Hooray, hooray, hooray--you're back! Glad you got some needed rest. It is good to listen to the season's mandates. With regards to a national figure to speak on peak oil issues, my vote's on Richard Heinberg. And yeah, we all want goats here, too.

Perhaps Peak Oil and resource limits finally will begin to be accepted as fact.

One thing that has struck me about the surge in Ron Paul's candidacy is how many Republicans (not necessarily a majority, but still more than before) are now accepting the idea that we were attacked on 9/11 not because some Muslims are envious of our "freedom", but rather because we've been in their face with around 300 military bases in over 100 countries.

My point isn't to push a candidate, but rather to point out that some long-established views of some rather obstinate groups in the US actually *can* change before hell freezes over.

A stretch to say Arab Spring had any impact on oil except in Libya where it wasn't rioting Arabs who had the effect but NATO bombers.

All your Peak Oil stuff clearly didn't work because the shale gas revolution showed that the amount of hydrocarbons around is at least an order of magnitude more than the scaremongers claimed. No doubt this scare wull be recycled yet again but pronanly not for a decade or so.

You are probably right that the economy will continue to tank as long as Obama (probably also Romney) are in charge though the US economy has done better than expected largely because of shale gas and it is unlikely, in an election year, that Obama will take strong steps to prevent it doing so.

The "world food crisis" depends entirely on the rich countries turning ever more food into particularly expensive oil, which depends on ever increasing subsidy. I am not sure more parasitism will be affordable in that direction.

There is the human factor - not scientific, but moral and ethical; as the environment breaks down, so will the now-eroding facade that we're "in this together." I think we underestimate the effect that middle class prosperity has had on making people nice, generous, and peaceful. Optimism about physical well-being has a profound effect on our willingness to see others as members of our species. There already exists an "us vs. them" divide within the U.S. based on old cultural values. I predict that the U.S. will eventually break up into separate nations along the unresolved boundaries (physical and social) of the U.S. Civil War, and then subdivide from there.

Neil,

The Peak Oil stuff is now fact. Production of conventional liquid oil has plateaued at best.

See Stuart Staniford's graph of this: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_IBX0n9wPMs/Tud9PZxoRfI/AAAAAAAACM0/Bf-_zw4ha…

Notice the large, light blue area that is conventional crude plus condensates. - It's flat.

Staniford goes on to say: Production of crude plus condensate has been basically flat since 2005, and the increase in that time in total liquids is largely coming from increases in NGPLs and other liquids.

The fact that other hydrocarbons have somewhat filled the gap in no way invalidates Hubbert's PO theory. The fact is conventional oil production has hit a peak and given that conventional oil is still by far the mainstay of transportation fuels, that is very concerning. You and I can hope that other liquids such as biofuels and coal to liquids grow to economically fill the gap left by flat to declining conventional crude, but it's just that - a hope. Given that I know you and I seem to agree on the idiocy of converting food into biofuels on a large scale, it seems that you're either putting a whole lot of hope into shale gas into liquids or something else to "save" us.

And to be clear, Hubbert and "scaremongers" aren't the same entity. Hubbert's theory is purely a mathematical one that dealt with conventional crude oil. Any agenda to smear PO and Hubbert et al as scaremongers is the denialists' doing alone.

There's tons and tons of hydrocarbons left. Nobody denies that. For example, there's something like 3000 gigatons of coal under the North Sea, dwarfing known world coal reserves (something on the order of 900 GT) but nobody knows how to do that level of hard rock mining a hundred miles off a coast under an ocean floor, so that coal is staying put, probably for a long time. There's tons and tons of kerogen in shale "oil" in the American West as well, but its energy density is so low that nobody can get it out and cook it into finished crude oil in any economic way. It's been said (accurately) that potatoes have a higher energy density than shale oil does, yet we haven't seen a call for the massive conversion of potatoes to motor fuel (mercifully.)

In closing, you say it's scaremongering, but when I look around now, at massive unemployment and hunger, all predicted by PO folks, back ten or more years ago, I'd sadly say they were correct. You may say that the real reasons for these problems lie outside of Peak Oil - that other hydrocarbons can and will save us even if said social and economic problems are caused by a lack of oil energy. But I see lots of suffering now, and to many of us in discussion circles such as Sharon's, it's beyond mere coincidence that high oil prices and flat conventional oil production preceeded the economic and social mess we know find ourselves in.

Oil Spill Eater II

OSEI Corporation Summary
US department of Interior study on the Characteristics,
Behavior, & Response Effectiveness of spilled Dielectic Insulating
Oil in the Marine Environment
The US department of Interior through solicitation number: M08PS00094, award number: M09PC002 through their Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and enforcement (BOEMRE) the old minerals management name paid for a study of dielectric oils ability to be dispersed, skimmed and bioremediated.
Page 12 starts the discussion on OSE II, and it states
âBioremediation Study
This bioremediation effectiveness testing protocol (CFR, 1999) was designed to determine oils ability to naturally biodegrade by quantifying changes in the oil composition resulting from biodegradation.
An EPA National Contingency Plan (NCP) approved product, Oil Spill Eater II (Oil
Spill Eater International, Corp.), was include in the experimental design. Bioremediation testing on Oil Spill Eater II (OSE II) has proven it to be effective at degrading highly-saturated crude oils in the laboratory. The following test flasks (labeled with unique identifiers) were prepared and set up on an orbital shaker at day 0 to reflect the following treatment:
Table 3. Bioremediation Study Sampling and Analysis Matrix
Treatment No. of samples at sampling times Total No. of analytical determinations
Day 0 Day 7 Day 28 Microbial Counts GC/MS Gravimetric
Control 3 3 3 9 9 9
Nutrient 3 3 3 9 9 9
Product* 3 3 3 9 9 9
Control = Oil + Seawater
Nutrient = Oil + Seawater + Nutrients
Product = Oil + Seawater + Nutrients + Product
*A NCP approved product, OSE II
A detailed description of the test procedure can be found in the Code of Federal Register Title 40, Chapter 1 Part 300â.

The study shows OSE II is very effective at remediating the dieletric oil. The study has some problems in the way it was carried out limited the complete effectiveness of OSE II. For some reason unneeded nutrients were added to OSE II which increases the toxicity of the test flasks, which in turn slowed down the degradation rate.
The administrators of the test also added, non indigenous bacteria after the test was started, this also caused a slow down in degradation and prevented OSE II from showing 100% degradation rate of the dielectric oil in 28 days. When they introduced non indigenous bacteria they set up a competition between the OSE II enhanced natural indigenous bacteria, and the foreign, non indigenous bacteria added after the start of the test. While these bacteria are competing they are killing off each other fighting for the food source, the oil. This would lessen the amount of oil remediated at the end of the experiment, since some of the time is fighting for food source and being prevented from just digesting it to CO2 and water.
The test however proved once again how effective OSE II is at remediating oil even dielectric oil. The results showed over a 67% reduction in the oil in 28 days. The reduction was exponential if you account for the slowdown due to the added bacteria, ( see the difference in remediation from day 0 to day 7 and from day 7 to day 28) so even with the adversities caused by the test administrators, it is easy to extrapolate, to understand OSE II would have only needed a few days more for 100% bioremediation of the oil, converting all of it to CO2 and water.
This test also tested dispersants and mechanical skimming of the oil as well. The dispersants, Exxonâs corexit 9500 and 9527A respectively showed poor results as the temperature decreased. Once again however dispersants do not clean up oil, it disperses oil into the water column, which is the equivalent of spreading the impact of the oil into the area of the water where 60% of the marine species live, adversely effecting these species ability to survive.
The BP Gulf spill also proved that both corexits eventually sink oil to the seabed increasing the spills impact to an additional area killing these species and destroying their habitats. Then the Gulf spill proved that the sunken/dispersed oil then migrates to the shoreline, impacting yet another area, where the same oil has to be addressed a second time. This is an absolute needless destruction of natural resources, and species, with the use of these toxic dispersants. Both Corexits were also found to be very toxic and deleterious by themselves to marine and wildlife species as well as to seabed, water column and shoreline flora and fauna. The Woods Hole Oceanagraphic institue also discovered that both corexits prevents oil from degrading, which means these dispersants are going to increase the time the oils toxicity will effect the environment.
This study was performed due to the fact a spill could impact the Nantucket sound, Cape cod, and Marthaâs Vinyard area in the US. The EPA/RRT, federal, state, local governments, and residents now have a choice, mechanical skimming, that will only get somewhere between 2 to 8% of the oil, dispersants that increase the oils impact to several additional areas, killing species, and destroying natural resources, only to have to address the same oil once again, once it comes ashore. Or OSE II, the product whoâs successful testing since 1989, and once again with this study shows OSE II limits the impact of the spill to additional areas, will not harm species, and converts 100% of the oil to CO 2 and water eliminating any additional steps, while protecting the environment. OSE II is far more economical than mechanical or dispersants. OSE II is simply cheaper, safer, and more effective, at cleaning up 100% of a spill.
This test along with the large number of tests already carried out on OSE II since 1989, proves once again OSE II is very effective at remediating oil and converting oil to CO2 and water. This Department of Interior test, through BOEMRE will now prove there is only one way to effectively clean up a 100% of a spill, preventing secondary impacts of the spill, and eliminating the entire spill to a safe non toxic CO2 and water. This study shows by the choice of NCP products for this test, that the best product tested at LSU in cooperation with the US EPA, and BP, was OSE II so OSE II was the best product tested for the BP gulf spill!

I think #1 is spot on. In reading it, I realized where all the US âoil independenceâ talk is coming from. It is the start of a disinformation campaign to try and thwart Obama's reelection.

It goes like this. Main stream media (controlled by big fossil fuel) starts by pumping up the idea of near term US oil independence. Doesn't matter if it is true or not, just get the meme out there. Obama has to decide on the wisdom of Keystone pipeline in 60 days. The only legitimate reason-based decision has to be no. MSM then makes refusal of Keystone front-and-center in why the US didn't achieve near term oil independence (doesn't matter that it was never reasonable Keystone is oil from Canada) and why gas prices are so high in August, September, October and November. A little tightening of supply by the big oil companies and high prices happen âby magicâ.

It is easily worth tens of billions to big oil to not have Obama reelected. Spending that through manipulation of gasoline prices is much harder to track politically than spending it on campaign ads.

Regarding last year's #5, I heard a report on the radio about new home construction trending in this direction. Pretty mainstream reporting:
http://realestate.msn.com/blogs/listedblogpost.aspx?post=0f9aeadb-0367-…
(look out for loud video!)

and from *two* years ago...
http://www.marketplace.org/topics/business/homes-hold-extended-family

More later, I'm resting too :)

Risa, can you clarify, please, which event you're referring to? I'm guessing you mean Fukushima, but Sharon alluded to it in her discussion already.

I see a blend of #4 & #8 arising this year- it will become hip to produce more of your own food. Chickens, goats, backyard farms, grinding your own grain, raw milk will all continue to gain in popularity. Sadly, it will not be working poor and poor people engaged in this. I expect more headlines about home-made foods causing illnesses, and a few trendy shops to open selling titanium milking pails. For most of us, late 2012 will be a bonanza of slightly used grain mills, milk pails and other odds and ends on Craigslist.

I will disagree about #1. I think 2012 will be the year we stop talking and start actually taking apart environmental protections to 'stop impeding our access to energy independence'. Seal pups to the furnace!

I'd argue that #2 is at least a half. The fact that there's so much hysteria (disguised as "hope" or even "assurance") concerning the "100-year supply" of shale gas suggests to me that underneath that rhetoric is a deep-seated understanding of peak oil--or peak energy, at least. If we don't have a problem, then we don't need shale gas as a "solution"! So I think you should give yourself a bit more credit there, Sharon!

Welcome back . . . :)

A certain amount of parnoia here.

To argue that it is "hysteria" to recognise that gas prices have already dropped fast but that it is sane to accept the threadbare scare stories against gas shows some dissociation from reality.

As does the suggestion that "Big Oil" is willing to articificailly raise the price of oil worldwide (& don't peak oil believers already believe it is too low or is this an exaple of believonmg 2 imposible and contradictory things before breakfast) simply to give Obama a few pouints lower ratings. "Big Oil" makes money and manyn of the compnies aren't even American. It cost Big Media very little (indeed is profitable if it gets the FCC onside) to lie and censor in support of Obama and the DFemoNazis, which is whyall those stories about Cain were treated seriously while the fact of Obama's links to organised crime/the Demonazi administration in Chicago were censored.

John Michael Greer on Whether Or Not We Can Change

sastyk — Mon, 09 May 2011 06:19:00 +0000

John Michael Greer on Whether Or Not We Can Change

I'm obviously always a fan of Greer's work, but I thought this week's post was particularly apt - he addresses the larger question of whether we must keep up industrial civilization until it falls apart (note, I do not say "if it falls apart" - implicit in the keeping up is that it brings us faster to collapse), or whether we can change.

George Monbiot, who's carved out a niche for himself as the staff pseudoenvironmentalist of The Guardian, had a blog post of his own on much the same theme. His argument is simply that most people in today's industrial societies are not going to accept anything short of continued economic growth, and so a strategy based on using less is simply a waste of time.

Like many people these days who worry about global warming, he dismisses the issues surrounding peak oil out of hand - the problem we face, he insists, is not that we have too little fossil fuel, but too much - and as evidence for this, he points to the recent announcement from the IEA that world production of petroleum peaked in 2006. Since industrial civilization hasn't collapsed yet, he tells us, peak oil clearly isn't a problem. I suppose if you ignore drastic and worsening economic troubles in the world's industrial nations, food riots and power shortages spreading across the Third World, and all the other symptoms of the rising spiral of peak-driven crisis now under way, you might be able to make that claim. Still, there's a deeper illogic here.

It's an illogic that seems highly plausible to many people. That's because the fallacy that forms the core of the argument made by Kay, Monbiot, and so many others is a common feature of today's conventional wisdom. An alternative metaphor - one at least as familiar to the peak oil blogosphere as Roger Kay's yeas - might help to clarify the nature of the failed logic they're retailing.

Imagine, then, that you're on the proverbial ocean liner at sea, and it's just hit the proverbial iceberg. Water is rising belowdecks and the deck is beginning to tilt, but nobody has drowned yet. Aware of the danger, you strap on a life preserver and head for the lifeboats. As you leave your stateroom, though, the guy in the stateroom next to yours gives you an incredulous look. "Are you nuts?" he says. "If you leave the ship now, somebody else will just take your cabin, and get all the meals and drinks you've paid for!"

Your fellow passenger in the metaphor, like Kay and Monbiot in the real world, has failed to notice a crucial fact about what's happening: when a situation is unsustainable in the near term, the benefits that might be gained by clinging to it very often come with a prodigious cost, and the costs that have to be paid to abandon it very often come with considerable benefits. It's far more pleasant to walk down to the cruise ship's bar, order a couple of dry martinis, and sit there listening to the Muzak, to be sure, than it is to scramble into a lifeboat and huddle there on one of the thwarts as the waves toss you around, the spray soaks you, and the wind chills you to the bone. Two hours later, however, the passenger who went to the bar is a pallid corpse being gently nibbled by fishes, and the passenger who climbed into the lifeboat and put up with the seasickness and the spray is being hauled safely aboard the first freighter that happened to be close enough to answer the distress call.

The metaphor can usefully be taken a little further, because it points up a useful way of looking at the equivalent situation in the real world. As a passenger on board the ship, your relation to the ship is a relation of dependence. You depend on the integrity of the hull to keep you from drowning, on the fuel and engines to get you to your destination, on the food supply and the galley to keep you fed, and so on. That dependence has very real advantages, but it has a potentially drastic downside: if the systems you rely on should fail, and you don't have an alternative, your dependence on them can kill you.

I wouldn't be so hard on Monbiot, because I take his comment about the IEA to be less "we should" than "we will," but I think Greer's larger argument is very important - we can change because we have to. It is possible we can't change in anticipation as an entire world, however we know very well because of the examples of people doing it historically, large chunks of societies can make radical changes.

One of the things that always troubles me about theories that begin from the confiding "Well, you and I recognize the reality of climate change/peak oil/resource depletion/etc... but most people will never change" is the implied theory of exceptionalism. In some ways, I find this just as offensive as narratives of American exceptionalism, or Christian exceptionalism. Those of us who have made possible shifts in our lives and propose to do more know that this is possible *because we've done it.* To imply that we are more special, better, more moral or whatever seems wrong to me.

It seems wrong precisely because I know it isn't true. The honest answer to any claim that I personally am more ethical than anyone else is "if only you knew." I am an ordinarily greedy, selfish, self-centered person. The only difference in me or you from most people, besides a certain amount of education and privilege is this, as Greer implies: My greed is for greater safety for my kids. My selfish desire is to make the things that matter to me last longer and do better. My self-centered vision involves making the most out of the least and enjoying it. And if my selfishness, greed and self-centeredness can be moved to make this shift, because my life, my future, my posterity depend on it, so can others - period.

Read Greer's whole piece - it is excellent.

Sharon

sastyk Mon, 05/09/2011 - 02:19

Tags

It's true, he's been on a roll the last few weeks.

Ultimately, exceptionalism = eugenics = genocide.

Sharon,

I had a similar take on Greer's piece. I guess I look at the present time as an opportunity to "practice" for the real thing, whatever that may be. Greer's "green wizardry", your "adapting in place" are all responses we can make today toward an uncertain world tomorrow. But change comes in uncertain form. Our hope is that the notes we practice today will make improvisation easier when we don't know the music.

"if the systems you rely on should fail, and you don't have an alternative, your dependence on them can kill you."

This is my view as well. I was talking to a friend yesterday about this stuff, and he said, "well, we'll adapt because we have to. I don't know how, but we will." He's a senior geologist at an... oil company. We didn't have time to flesh out the details, but I'm pretty sure he thinks that The Market will come up with solutions, and here in Canada we'll just adjust our agricultural practices and start growing pineapples or something.

Why is this turning up in Brains & Behaviour feed? If I wanted to read misunderstandings of Monbiot cobbled together with third-rate clichÃ©s, I'd stick with CiF. I gave up reading The Archdruid (*snigger*) report years ago and, strange, I know, I have no desire to irritated further by that twat.

"My greed is for greater safety for my kids. My selfish desire is to make the things that matter to me last longer and do better. My self-centered vision involves making the most out of the least and enjoying it. And if my selfishness, greed and self-centeredness can be moved to make this shift, because my life, my future, my posterity depend on it, so can others - period."

Exactly my response to those who treat me like some kind of martyr because I homeschool and say "I could never do that" or "I am sure you do a good job but most people wouldn't." My view, just try them and see how well most people can do.

"Modern civilization of industrial capitalism in its monopolistic form is bound to collapse. Presently many signs are visible like, peak oil, global warming, tsunami, etc. An economic architecture developed on the false theorem is bound to collapse. This is the lesson of communist countries. If the lesson is valid for monopolistic economies of developed and also developing economies, there are alternative courses (as suggested by Greer). Either we helplessly wait the collapse of the industrial civilization or take steps to systematically dismantle the same before it is too late. The former will bring catastrophes and pains. The latter will prepare us for change. Choice is of mankind". Said by Dr. M. G. Bokare, economist from India in his books Hindu Economics (1993) and The Taxless Economy (2010).

I'm always impressed by the thinking of people who a. don't even want to see anything they don't agree with and b. who use the word "twat" in a sentence. Ah, 15 year olds.

Sharon

Unfortunately for Greer's analogy, we have no way of knowing whether the "ship" will "sink" three years from now or thirty years from now, and there is no "lifeboat" and never will be.

People are never going to make real and hard sacrifices now for the sake of uncertain benefits across an uncertain timeline. It's not in human nature. It's hard enough to get the average person to go to the dentist every year if they don't have toothaches. Why and how are they supposed to incur extra lifestyle costs--in terms of both money, convenience, and time--to reduce their energy dependence when you can sure bet that all their other costs (work, taxes, time commitments) are not easing up on them? This doesn't mean they're bad, or ignorant, or living in denial. It just means they're people.

@ D. G. Bokare,

That is an interesting option you mention, "or take steps to systematically dismantle the same before it is too late.". There is another alternative, one that Greer points out in his analogy - don the lifejacket, head for the lifeboat. Viable and vital lifeboats are available today if you simply choose a different part of the system to depend upon. Options include Sharon's Adapting in Place, Greer's Green Wizardry which revives the 1970s "appropriate technology" tech, or even the Amish, who have been living off-grid for centuries, now, and they seem to be doing OK. Buddhists and other modern monasteries practice minimal dependence on stuff of corporate manufacture. Of course, you could go cold turkey and fully independent of this crumbling edifice, and eschew it all in your own fashion.

I recall reading in the Small Farmers Journal (Sisters, Oregon), nearly a decade ago, of the number of people choosing a quieter, lower-pace life with a hobby farm or going purely rustic, like Robert Redford's "Jeremiah Johnson" movie story (Johnson was a disillusioned Civil War veteran).

So what if the Lifeboat Option still leaves you dependent on some part of the system (Internet, Sharon's continuing insights, libraries, local roads) to make your personal transition. There is a more fundamental choice, to eschew the ship voyage entirely, managing directly all of your personal dependencies. But that closes a lot of doors, some of which might improve your personal future - or lead you to empower and enable the survival of part of your family or community.

I am convinced that individuals dropping out of the formal economy to pursue alternative ways to live -- relieves pressure on the greater economy. I don't see enough people doing something all that different, at any given moment, to 'crash the system'. And I don't want to see the system crashed, because at the moment there are not enough alternate resources in place to replace what the system is doing for the masses.

@ TTT,

Greer's point is that no one knows what date and time that the waves will roll over a specific individual. As I read the analogy -- the damage has been done, the fact that the voyage will never be completed, that the ship will not be carrying anyone to port, ever -- that has already happened. The choices are to jump ship in the hope of finding an alternate path to somewhere, or refuse to change and marry your future to the sinking ship.

I think it is implied that getting to the lifeboat, and getting far enough away before the ship sinks (and pulls down anything too close), improves your chances of surviving. If you think of surviving as living a life with less dependence on a corporate-nurturing economy as the lifeboat, then certainly, getting onboard that changed life cannot start too soon. The panic of rising waters will make thinking more frantic, and make choosing well more difficult. The first ones into the lifeboat are better able to help others, and partake in early group decisions. By changing early, you have more control over what happens to you.

It is less obvious, maybe, to Sharon's readers on ScienceBlogs than at her Chateleine's Keys blog, that the focus is first on your own choices, on what you perceive is required of you. Back to the analogy -- the Captain of the ship already made his/her last effective choice, resulting in the ongoing wreck. What the rest of the passengers do, eventually, has nothing to do with what you choose at the moment.

As the airline admonition goes, "Adjust your own oxygen mask first, then assist any children or other traveling companions."

Brad K:
Past some point of poetic ridiculousness, analogies must be abandoned. I am reminded of the "God's Egg" essay--author's name escapes me--which argues that humankind need not worry about environmental protection because, just as birds hatch out of eggs that nurtured their early development in order to spread throughout the world, humans are in the process of "hatching" from primitive dependence on Earth's resources and will simply colonize other planets when we need to.

If there is no indication that the "ship" will "sink" for 30 years or more, no one will get off. Nondefined and non-urgent problems do not get solved.

Been mulling your post and Greer's post for a few days now, trying to find a way to say why I do not like his post. I think he's stuck. If it isn't from the 70's, if he does not approve of it, then it is stupid, silly, and doomed. Be independent (he says), but _my_ way. And I do not think he actually read all of Kay's post before writing about it.

To the point- drink at the bar, or run for the lifeboat is a false choice. Did nobody think to bail? Patch the hole? A wise sailor once told me, "Step up into your life raft." We are not cargo to sit passively or move to another vessel.

Over at Leaving Babylon, we've had a lively discussion on some aspects of Greer's recent posts, particularly whether or not collective action is possible, and whether it should be added to the green wizard repertoire. Just click on my name to go there... all points of view welcome.

Unfortunately for Greer's analogy, we have no way of knowing whether the "ship" will "sink" three years from now or thirty years from now, and there is no "lifeboat" and never will be.

So true Sharon. I get tired of the "Oh well. I could never do that." drivel. I am now just continuing to quietly change my life and my family's, but am available to those who are interested.

Future Vision

cagapakis — Fri, 22 Apr 2011 09:43:45 +0000

Future Vision

Beautiful video imagining the future of augmented, prosthetic sight, by Superflux for the Human+ exhibition:

Song of the Machine from Superflux on Vimeo.

You can read more about the science behind retinal prosthetics in a great article in the Guardian by one of the project collaborators, Dr. Patrick Degenaar.

cagapakis Fri, 04/22/2011 - 05:43

Tags

Succession, Human and Wild

sastyk — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 10:45:18 +0000

Succession, Human and Wild

This week's project is getting the material up for my garden plants and herb CSA - I'm hoping to be able to offer a wide variety of plants from annual vegetables (my tomato list alone is insane) to unusual edibles, native plants, flowers and herbs. My garden obsession is making me a little nuts right now, since there are still 3 feet of snow on the ground and its about 12 degrees right now - nuts enough that I came up with this: my secret garden that can be planting in plain sight without anyone...not the neighbors, not the zoning board, knowing that it all (shhhhh!) delicious food plants!

I'm also thinking ahead to the future - to the ways that ecological succession can model human succession, and change the way we plan both our gardens and our lives

One of the concepts of ecological gardening that I find most useful is the idea of planning for succession in the garden. This maximizes the use of space and nutrients, and allows you to get the most out of your space as plants mature. And more than just planning for it, you can hurry it along a bit.

I find this to be a useful concept in gardening - but also in life. Most of us have to some degree prepared for our own succession under the current model - for example, we save for retirement, we put money aside for college, we move to a neighborhood with good schools even though we haven't had the baby yet. In this sense, we are planning for stage of life succession. But these methods of preparing for succession are, in most cases, weak ones - they depend heavily on sustaining large scale systems that really can't be counted on. Planning for the wrong kind of succession gets you nowhere.

Much, then, of what we do involves planning for succession - both in the plants we plant, but also in the lives we live, balancing likely outcomes and futures. In its simplest form, ecological succession involves just thinking a little about how plants grow and change - for example, most conventional garden books will advise you, when planting an orchard or a perennial bed, to just put in the plants and wait for them to grow. But this wastes a lot of time and space if you are talking about woody plants that take years to produce - and in the meantime, you can get more off that land. Two years after its establishment, for example, I can still plant garlic bulbs in between the asparagus roots in my new asparagus bed - eventually the asparagus roots will overflow the space, but that time is not yet here.

A simple example of the use of succession came this year for me when I built a new herb bed. I planted a large number of sun and soil compatible medicinals, but becaue the perennial plants remained small, I also interplanted them with annual vegetables and herbs - mostly basil, hot peppers and eggplant. I didn't harvest quite as much eggplant as I would have in a system where there weren't other plants, but I made good use of the interstitial spaces between plants, while still allowing space for them to grow. I also overplanted some of the perennials, particularly medicinals that get harvested for roots after the first full year of growth - next spring, I will dig the roots and the skullcap and feverfew can expand into the spot held by the elecampane.

There are plenty of more complex successions, obviously - the natural ones being the model that I use. For example, along my creek, what was a mowed grassy area has now, in the 8 years we've been here, converted to a brushy mix, and now to sumac and other fast grown trees. This will be followed by birch, honey locust and willow, and eventually by hardwood trees, in the natural order of things. I'm gently hurrying the process along in my own interests by weeding out around the hickory seedlings that pop up where the nuts fall. I'm also encouraging my goats to weed out the willow a bit, since we've got plenty.

In other spots, I'm making succession happen faster - I'm planting sugar maples, chinese chestnuts and black walnuts for later use. This is both a human and ecological process - my maples and nuts are in an area where soil remediation and smaller, quicker growing species provide me with some return now. But they are also a succession plant in a familial sense - my hope is that climate change will not have advanced so far as to prevent my children from tapping them and profiting from them in 30 years. I'm thinking ahead - I'll still be here in 30 years, of course, I hope, but I'm also trying to make the property as productive as possible for my family in the longer term.

You can use succession to actually prepare a system that doesn't currently support particular plants - remediating soil with plants is one of the obvious ones. Fungi and some plants will take up heavy metals, while other fix nitrogen and bring up trace minerals. For example, I undersow many of my annual vegetables with white clover, which provides a living mulch and a cover crop that really takes off after the annuals are harvested, holding soil, fixing nitrogen and getting ready for the next crop.

But not only is succession a useful concept in making good use of space, but I think it is worth expanding the idea of succession into the larger concept of garden design - just as you think about what happens as your plants grow and age and change and move forward, you can think about yourself in your natural system (your home and land) and how your goals are likely to change over time.

For a couple in their late 50s, for example, garden succession might be a gradual move towards lower maintenence models, and towards more physically accessible gardens - so while now it is perfectly possible for them to hoe a garden set low, they might begin the process of double digging or building up two or three high beds a year, bordered with stone or recycled plastic lumber, to allow them to garden while sitting.

The same couple may anticipate that as events progress, their grown children and grandchildren might return home - and begin looking at their home as a place that could be subdivided to give everyone private space.

Another couple, young and renting, may expect to move one or several more times before settling down, so their eye to succession may not focus so much on their particular garden, but on establishing relationships in the larger community that will benefit them in the longer term - perhaps they will want to work on expanding the local civic engagement with the food system, or building a network of community gardens. Certainly, they may want to pick up skills.

If they are living in a community where they have no close family ties, they might think about how developing "chosen family" in their community may be helpful if they choose to have children, or stay in the long term - perhaps they will want to find opportunities to meet people from other stages of life and connect with them, rather than socializing primarily in their own age group, because they are thinking about how their needs will change as they grow.

A family with young children may want to look at their space and their community with an eye to the day when their children need to make some money or learn a skill set. A single person in their 60s may want to begin looking at combining resources with a young couple or another elder to ensure a measure of security.

In the end, thinking of life, plant and human, as having a set of logical stages of succession is helpful to me because there's so much we can do to pave the way for the next thing, the next step, or to speed things along when we haven't prepared as much as we may want to.

Sharon

sastyk Thu, 03/03/2011 - 05:45

Tags

Although I am much older I still have planted a few things I hope to see develope fruit...but that may a too optomistic thought! I have a fig...it's really small but I looked at it today and it survived the winter. I have a Kumquat also which seems to be leafing out but it is really small as is the fig and I may not ever see fruit on these. I am not sure how long it will take to get to fruiting...but since I am over 80, it will have to be fairly soon! I wonder if 10 years would do it?

Joan, take heart - my figs started bearing in their third year! And remember Thomas Jefferson who went home from the presidency in his late 60s, and wanted to work on breeding fruit trees, his first garden love. He feared, however, that he was too old - he was already quite elderly by the standards of his day, so he focused on flowers and vegetables instead. He lived, however, another 17 years - it would have been time enough to see the trees mature and fruit after all!

I suspect you still have fruiting years - and good for you for planting for the long term! Think how much Jefferson missed!

Sharon

Thank you for another excellent post Sharon.

You have concentrated my mind on thinking about doing much more inter-cropping in the garden this year. Also, absolutely right about the long term stuff. I already have a small plantation of chestnut trees that I hope in a few years will be good for either garden posts (or firewood!). I hope when finances allow to buy a half hectare or so of land and just put it down to managed mixed woodland.

I was having a conversation with the locals a while ago and it was simply beyond their comprehension that anybody could contemplate growing stuff that will come to maturity in a couple of hundred years or so!

Unfortunately people are too mobile for this to work in most circumstances. People eventually move and the new owners tear up whatever was there and start with bare soil. You have to have a strong dedication to keep a property in the family for generations which is hard to maintain as property values fluctuate.

"thinking of life, plant and human, as having a set of logical stages of succession is helpful to me because there's so much we can do to pave the way for the next thing, the next step, or to speed things along when we haven't prepared as much as we may want to."

It is 'The Theory of Anyway'... again. Acting and living from an ethical base focuses all effort and offers a beautiful field of grace for our human fraility

Good post

This overview of succession (thinking about what to plant in gardens, putting down roots in communities moved to) has me wondering about why we practice succession in the first place. Of course, it's as simple as thinking that we want to plan for a specific or best-case-scenario future. I'm now curious as to how animals use succession. Is succession purely from an evolutionary origin, or is it ingrained in us by means of outside influence (school etc.)?

Relating back to gardens, I used to help my mom plant spring flowers. I got my own little mini-garden to plant what I wanted to. I love pansies, so I planted as many as possible very close together. As you can imagine, that did not turn out very well after a few weeks... I guess I didn't have any concept of succession in that the roots would grow out.

Nasty, Messy Things that Make You Late for Dinner: Energy, Environment, Reality

sastyk — Mon, 28 Feb 2011 06:36:32 +0000

Nasty, Messy Things that Make You Late for Dinner: Energy, Environment, Reality

I had been mulling over precisely how to frame this piece for a while, when I read Erik Lindberg's "This Is a Peak Oil Story." which admirably gets at the essential point that I've been wanting to make - that our collective crisis comes to all of us at different times and different ways than we imagined, and that exemptions are only rarely granted. Lindberg writes eloquently of his own experience of trying to undertake change - and failing in large part because of the precise circumstances he is trying to address:

I had imagined the rooftop farm thriving far into the future. Here, my children would some day learn the wonders of the ecological cycle of soil, to seed, to plate, and then (with the composting) back to soil again. We would be increasingly able to feed ourselves and our community from it. It would be a buffer in an age of decline, a model for bewildered neighbors as they experience the first spasms of contraction. It never occurred to me that the farm itself might be a victim of this decline. This was to be a Milwaukee landmark, I perhaps presumptuously assumed, an enduring symbol of Transition Milwaukee's earliest days

The investment I would need to keep the building is remarkably small. But try as I have, I am finding only closed doors and dried-up wells. An obstacle such as this, I have been trained to believe, would be but a simple matter. I have breezed by larger ones in the past. Ingenuity, creativity, "thinking outside the box," not to mention a burst of effort, would certainly shake loose a solution. Maybe it still will. But in the meantime, as the farm slips further from my grasp, I am flabbergasted and astounded, unused to this new loss of control.

The realization has slowly dawned on me the past few days: so this is what life after the peak is like. This is life with limits. Both the symbol of and material source of my family's personal transition will be gone, taken away by the events we thought we were preparing for. What, I wonder, will The Transition Movement be like as the limits of peak oil and other resource depletion begin to descend more fully upon us, difficult enough to accept and anticipate, impossible, perhaps, to truly imagine in all their dumb blunt force.

What I found eloquent and right about Lindberg's story is simply that it mirrors my own direct experience and the experience of people and organizations I know - that we who are preparing and doing good work are in some measure not expecting the realities into which we plunge. We speak, as Lindberg points out of "after peak oil" or "when climate change really hits" the way children do of "when we grow up" even though these things have already struck us. We are, in many ways, already living the grand sweep of adventure that we sometimes imagine will come "someday." Someday, in fact, is here.

In fact, they began to strike a long time ago - the world has been warming my whole life. Since 1979 when real wages began to drop, America has gotten less equitable and standards of living have fallen. The 1970s oil shocks too place while I sat in a carseat in line for gas with my parents before I turned two. I have literally lived with these realities my entire life, and so have a vast number of you - and yet we are still surprised and shocked by some of the realities. Or at least I am. That is what my "Anyway Project" has been about - bringing what I have done into line with what is.

It isn't just me, or Lindberg, though. Nearly all the major organizations dealing with peak oil and climate change have gone through recent difficulties. Some experience intellectual challenges of their basic premises, or reduced ability to raised funds, or a public perception that it just isn't on the agenda anymore. Individuals working on solutions find themselves caught up with lost work and high prices and are struggling with the fact that the organizations they work with are often concentrating on repairing a world that will emerge sometime in the future - with nothing to offer the present victims of the circumstances they are preparing for.

Like most of us, I know this and I don't. I sit on the board of ASPO-USA, with five other people who know a lot about energy depletion and its implications. And yet, we are all of us in some way viscerally surprised when funds dry up from donations and we struggle to keep the budget going. After all, this is important work! If there is money for anything, there should be for this, right? And there probably is if we just work harder and spend more time at it - but of course more time on money is less time on energy, right? I know from friends who sit on the boards of other organizations that the same struggles are played out everywhere, and that the same vague sense that "oh, wait, we're supposed to have more time" is prevalent everywhere. We knew it would come - but why aren't we ready as an organization? The people and organizations that articulate best what is to come may have a blind spot when it comes to themselves. What's our plan for the drying up of funds and resources?

Of course, that's a common thing. One of the joys of teaching Adapting-in-place for the last few years has been getting to see the inside of many people's lives and thinking about this. What I've learned is that we all make errors - every single one of us. We expect everything to fall apart last Thursday or we assume our job will be exempt. We believe that events will wait until we can afford that house, get our daughter out of college, finish our degree - or we think there's no point in starting because there's no time. Everyone has a vision, everyone is committed in some measure to it, everyone is in error in some way.

Including me. Years ago I began warning people that everyone will have individual experiences of the coming events that are different. Years ago I argued we should start speaking in the present tense about events, that we could no longer talk about "when climate change and energy depletion happen" (I wrote _Depletion and Abundance_ in 2006-7 and made precisely these arguments.) I have argued that the long view of history is important - it can allow you to see the overall picture of events, but that it is important to remember that individual experiences of major events vary hugely. In every crisis there is the early victim, the person who responded to the invasion of Rome with a "What are those guys on horseback....arrrrrrrrr!" and the person who saw the story through from childhood to old age. In every crisis there are people insulated from most of the disaster, who are literally unable to imagine what the world looks like to those in the thick of it. Read, for example, Stud Terkel's _Hard Times_ and Jeane Westin's _Making Do: How Women Survived the '30s_ to get a good look at the range of possible perceptions and experiences that existed in some cases in close physical proximity. I know those things, of course, and yet I forget them at times.

Those of us who write about the potential historical and social implications of our societal shift to lowered resource access and a warmer planet draw on historical narratives to guide us - we can look at how large stories full of individual narratives look from a long vantagepoint, and draw a series of lessons from them. It would be easy to forget in our focus on the overall experience, however, how many individual experiences, wide and terrible, good and bad, will make up the long view, and how history elides personal experience in some measure, or takes a few personal experiences to signify the vast whole.

What Lindberg is writing about is a universal experience, as far as I can tell - the banging up of imagined future histories and projections against the world of real people and real lives. I'm grateful that he's telling that story, telling one story and starting it here, and now, providing critique of narratives that focus on the future. Moreover, his is a reminder of something absolutely critical to any organization that attempts to address peak oil and climate change - simply speaking, they are happening now.

I argued some years ago in an essay about organizations in general that organizations that strive to protect communities against peak oil and climate change that have no response to the early victims, the people already living our joint future will fail - because they will seem irrelevant. Most of us have not fully grasped this point - indeed, I fully acknowledge that my own preparations haven't always. It is, however, fundamentally true - that the strategies we use now, in the early part of our crisis, must capture as many people being swept away by events as possible, must respond not just to the terrible disasters that may well be part of our future but to the disasters that are occurring today. We must find ways to live within the formal economy right now, even as we strengthen the informal economy for the day when there is nothing there. We must find a way to feed, support, fund raise, insulate, educate, protect, build and tend people and infrastructure today, right now, just as we prepare for a long view in which many of those things fall apart much more rapidly than at present.

In many ways this is a much harder project than the already very difficult project that most peak oil thinkers and organizations have put together - we were able, with some difficulty to imagine our future. That's hard enough in a society that offers no middle ground between apocalypse and technological utopia. With more difficulty, some of us pulled together a series of possible responses to that imagined future. Now comes the tricky part (yup, that was the easy part!) - adapting not just to what we believe will come but to what is, and being able to shift our adaptations as events unfold. This is tricky for organizations, this is tricky for human lives, and frankly, sometimes we'll fail.

Moreover, we live in a world where failure is viewed as a personal thing - as much as every one of us recognizes that we will be swept along by events, in some measure our talk of "after" is a bow of submission to the larger narrative that we are primarily personally responsible for our circumstances. I don't know Lindberg personally at all, but I would suspect that along with his narrative that this is a peak oil story - and it is - there is an inner part of him that thinks "I failed, if I were better and smarter and worked harder i would have done it right and it is really about me...other people seem to be doing ok."

How would I dare to write that about another person I know only through his writings? Because I too live in a head with those narratives floating through, and I suspect most of you do as well. We live in a society that stigmatizes precisely the events that most of us are going to go through.

What's the answer? In some measure it is accepting that our personal or collective visions for events may be wrong. In some measure it is recognizing that we have to be the ones to step forward and say "the disaster is now, it is just smaller than it will be." In some measure we have to provide the reality check to both the hopes and fears of others and to ourselves. Most of all we have to remember this - the sweep of history is one thing. Our lives and our work are another. Our strategies must respond not just to large and sweeping narratives but to bumpy, messy, uncomfortable things, the kind of adventures that Bilbo the Hobbit called "nasty, messy things that make you late for dinner." We must prioritize the strategies and resources that work when things go as planned, and when things don't - that serve people now and later. We must do the hard work of adapting our best laid plans to circumstances.

Sharon

sastyk Mon, 02/28/2011 - 01:36

Tags

Energy, Armpits, and Octopodes

cagapakis — Sat, 12 Feb 2011 09:16:05 +0000

Energy, Armpits, and Octopodes

I had a great conversation with Maggie Koerth-Baker from BoingBoing for bloggingheads.tv Science Saturday. We talked about all sorts of sciency stuff, including her upcoming book on the challenges of renewable energy, synthetic biology, the similarities between cheese and the human body, women in science/blogging, and octopus brains. I had a lot of fun chatting with Maggie and I learned a lot, and I hope you will too!

cagapakis Sat, 02/12/2011 - 04:16

Tags

im in love <3

As an engineering school grad, I'll add my two cents. In general, engineering is all about coming up with standards, which, once determined, will stand for a long time to come. So since, in professional work, there's always a lot of pressure for direct performance, anything that could add new complications is always met with, um, let's say a harsh and pained response. It definitely takes a mental toll over time. We'd be a better world if people were more honest about how we're changed by our personal experiences.

Also, the best response to arguments about capability in terms of gender or race or any other split is the statistical one. For almost any study out there, the difference between group capability is dwarfed (dwarved?) by the variance within each group. Just about everyone is in the overlap. As such, the case that some inherent differences should lead to wide gaps in results doesn't have a leg to stand on, even without taking any of the strong cultural biases into account. There are almost certainly some sorts of differences due to biology, if only b/c it's hard to see any kind of difference being completely isolated, but we've clearly already shown that anything that's there has no significant affect on making a prediction for any given individual. If we can't make that kind of decision, then what exactly are we looking for? Going for the belief-neutral response always makes counter-arguments sound like the biased tripe they are.

Keep doing good (and very cool) work!

Designer Bacteria

cagapakis — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 07:42:24 +0000

Designer Bacteria

Synthetic biologists work on designing living cells, but engineered bacteria don't usually come up when you think of "designer" things. This year however, a synthetic biology design is up for a Brit Insurance Design of the Year award, up against the Lanvin Spring collection, Angry Birds, and Rock Band 3! Designers Daisy Ginsberg and James King worked in collaboration with the 2009 Cambridge iGEM team (including awesome blogger Lab Rat) to imagine ways that people could use bacteria engineered to produce pigments in the future. Check out their video about the science and design of E. chromi:

cagapakis Fri, 02/11/2011 - 02:42

Tags

Interesting... Unfortunately, the eejits will scream "IT'S UNNATURAL! ONLY DOG IS ALLOWED TO DO THAT SORT OF THING!" and completely present things out of context, while misrepresenting the facts.
Fortunately, this is in Britain, so there may not be actual death threats against participants (sigh).

So far have received no death threats!

Also no one has asked me to make any dogs go purple...

Purple bacteria are, in my opinion, slightly *more* natural than mobile-phone games, which is the competition that we are up against...

I'd love to see this, but the graphic doesn't open as a video for me. Is it being blocked by AdBlocker or something?

Here's the direct link to vimeo in case the embedded video isn't working for you: http://vimeo.com/19759432

Orange Liberation Front? Really? I guess I don't understand the second half of the video. I'm totally down with chromatic engineering of bacteria (seems like you a "You had me at hello" sort of situation), but I'm not sure why the timeline with the fantastical speculations is necessary.

A lot of those crazy ideas in the timeline (I think) were ideas that the iGEM students came up with during a workshop designed to make them think creatively about future implications of their work. It's easier to understand the possible short-term uses but difficult to imagine what the future will be like. Some of them can get silly perhaps, but it's a great exercise for any student and biological engineer.

can you guys make some retroviruses that implant glow in the dark or UV reactive pigment sequences into my dermal cells, please. that'd be cool. and i'm jealous. when i was at cambridge we weren't writing bio code.

Truth Stranger Than Fiction

cagapakis — Sun, 16 Jan 2011 16:03:39 +0000

Truth Stranger Than Fiction

Yesterday I mentioned Symbiotic Households, an art project imagining genetically engineered mosquitoes that provide mood stabilizing compounds to a population plagued by worries caused by climate change. Today on twitter I saw a link to a US patent application filed by Microsoft about engineering parasites to monitor and maintain human health. The possible engineered parasites covered in the application include:

mosquitoes, fleas, ticks, bed bugs (Cimicidae Cimex lectularius), midges (such as Ceratopogonidae), other blood sucking arthropods, annelids or leeches, nematodes such as Ascaris lumbricoides (roundworm which typically invades the gastrointestinal tract and lungs), pinworms such as Enterobius vermicularis (gastrointestinal tract, colon, fingertips), whipworms such as Trichuris trichiuria (gastrointestinal tract), flukes or trematodes such as Fasciola hepatica, Fasciolopsis buski (intestinal fluke) and schistosomes (liver and gallbladder), tapeworms or cestodes such as those from the genus Taenia (gastrointestinal tract), hookworms, heart worms, roundworms, lice (head, body, and pubic), and the like.

Since parasites are already good at living in or on the human body, theoretically they can be engineered to not harm you while keeping track of what's going on and secreting medicines as you need them.

Parasitism and symbiosis are closely related in evolution and there is increasing evidence for the importance of all sorts of microorganisms and even parasitic worms being important for maintaining a healthy immune system. But when these relationships are engineered by Microsoft instead of evolved over millions of years there are a lot of difficult unknowns that would make me hesitate to be a beta tester, from horror movie outbreak scenarios to more mundane feature creep and frequent updates. No one knows what form parasite/symbionts will take, what they will be able to do for us in the future in our bodies or in our homes, but when truth and fiction are intertwined it's certain to be an exciting time.

cagapakis Sun, 01/16/2011 - 11:03

Tags

For truth stranger than fiction, see the humoristic "plausible schemes" suggested by David Jones, aka Daedalus in his column in New Scientist and Nature. Ironically, many of these seemingly insane schemes of him have later been seriously suggested, including ideas like the space elevator, uses of genetically engineered organisms, and so on.

Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_E._H._Jones

I generally disagree that truth can be stranger than fiction, because whatever strange truth might be out there, somebody will make a fictitious claim of it being the work of a vast conspiracy of invisible zombie reptilioids (in black helicopters) as part of a plot against their enemies,the mysterious and benevolent reticulums FROM SPACE.

(most of the above taken from actual conspiracy theories)

I agree the unknowns of introducing even a seemingly simple bio-engineering product into the extremely complex human system make real-human testing very risky.

But you know it's going to happen. The idea of solving human problems by simply removing the stress factor is very delusional. It's simply bio-engineered denial.

We need to get the messages from our bodies and minds and understand them, in order to formulate effective responses to changes in our environment.

I can imagine such bio-engineered compounds being helpful in treating disorders such as PTSD or panic attcks, but the compounds would have to be administered very carefully, and different individuals may respond differently to the same treatment.

It reminds me of when the doctors gave my late father valium to calm his nerves during his detox treatment from alcohol. They expected him to become lazy and nap a lot.

No such luck. He couldn't sleep for two days and nearly had a nervous breakdown.

So trying to oversimplify cause and effect in complex systems can be a debilitating mistake to make.

There is a pretty high degree of difficulty in doing this. There are commensal organisms that modern bathing practices remove that (to a first order) are a major player in the hygiene hypothesis, and probably a lot more important than parasites.

http://books.google.com/books?id=a3mwmXzpsjkC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA103#v=onepag…

David E. H. Jones is an inventor I have tried to emulate.

Really? Microsoft files a patent to develop bugs and no one makes the obvious joke?? My - you are a mature group. Good thing I'm here.