Tag Archives: Science

Amazon Drones, Luddites, and John Maynard Keynes

Posted on by

Amazon DronesThe news story that is catching everyone’s eye this week is from an episodes of 60 Minutes where Amazon owner Jeff Bezos declared that the company is contemplating using drones to deliver packages to customers.

This idea is frightening to a number of people as explained by this article.

The theory is that technology will replace jobs and there will not be enough work to go around. The idea first came to the forefront in the early 19th Century when textile workers began protesting against labor-saving machines like stocking frames, spinning frames, and power looms. This movement eventually became known as the Luddite movement.

A famous economist by the name of John Maynard Keynes promulgated the idea of technological unemployment in the early 1930s. This idea has waxed and waned over the ensuing decades but usually comes to the front when unemployment is high.

Judging by the comments I read; it seems many people today are more than happy to embrace the Luddite argument of technological unemployment. I don’t and I’m going to tell you why.

It’s absolutely true that technology ends jobs, certain kinds of jobs. If tens of thousands of drones are delivering packages and mail all over the United States then we will not need people to drive trucks and deliver goods. What we will need is mechanics, electricians, engineers, and designers to envision, design, build, and maintain the drones.

There was a time when owning a stable was very profitable but the advent of the automobile changed all that. There was a time when being a Chandler (candle maker) was a necessary and important function in society. The same for a blacksmith. Technology ended these jobs but unemployment did not skyrocket. New jobs were created and often better jobs. Skilled jobs that required an education but paid well. Jobs that were interesting and fulfilling.

I think the biggest misconception is that there isn’t going to be any work to be done. Look around. Look at your house, your street, your lawn, your computer network, a nearby bridge, a park, a hiking trail, a power line! Look in any direction and tell me you don’t see work that needs to be done. There is far, far more work to be done than there are people to do it.

Why do we have unemployment? Money. There isn’t enough money to pay people to do the necessary work and things fall into disrepair.

When we free people from delivering packages we make them available to pour concrete, to create art out of lawns, to make beauty where ugliness currently resides.

Will there be a transition as we move into the Automated Age? Absolutely. People who don’t have an education will have an increasingly difficult time finding a job. As automation takes over there will be fewer and fewer unskilled labor positions available.

But the positions that are available will largely be more rewarding and make society a better place. With automated vehicles police officers will focus on crime rather than traffic control. Roadside accidents will vanish, thus reducing the need for emergency vehicles and services. This will lower taxes substantially and reduce the size of government. Car insurance will shrink to nothing. For every awful forecast a Luddite threatens I promise wonders.

I guess I’m saying you can fear the future, fight against it, rail against it, shake your fist in rage or you can revel in the amazing glory that it will bring. The freedom that it will bring. The beauty that it will bring.

A people freed from the mundane and able to create. Robots that make life safer, better, easier, and cheaper.

Not enough work? I don’t think so.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Spear of the Hunt
Next Release: The Broken Throne

Privately Funded Mars Mission from Dennis Tito – Not so Private

Posted on by

Inspiration MarsNot that long ago a fellow by the name of Dennis Tito proposed a privately financed mission to send a pair of travelers to Mars and back. I was opposed to the project in principle because I prefer robotic missions to manned missions for a number of reason.

My opposition stopped short of saying he shouldn’t go ahead with the project. I felt that if Tito wanted to spend his own money or raise said money from Crowd Sourcing then it was his to spend. That the publicity of the mission might do some good.

Well, the truth comes out. Tito now admits without NASA technology and government money the mission will not go forward. He tries to shame the government into funding his mission and pretty much tries to shift any blame for the mission not taking place to a reluctance by the government to spend your tax dollars.

Tito claims that without the government money he will go ahead with another plan that will launch in 2021. I’m not holding my breath.

The reason I’m posting this update is for those who were greatly enthusiastic about the original story but will not have followed subsequent events closely. It’s a good lesson for all of us. When we hear grandiose schemes we are naturally excited. The idea of doing great things, of participating in such events, is very attractive. I’m not opposed to dreamers and those who support them.

That being said, I’m a pragmatist at heart. It’s great to dream big but it’s vital to work out the details.

A vast quantity of our tax dollars were wasted when President George W. Bush laid out a scheme for a manned mission to Mars and a Lunar Base that was completely unrealistic. At least in this case it’s Tito’s money, not mine.

It seems to me that one of the major problems that we face in the United States is not lack of dreamers, we have more of those than ever, but lack of practical doers. Everyone offers up amazing plans to fix everything and no one does any of the real work necessary to make them happen, or even takes the time to come up with a realistic plan of action. It’s enough merely to promulgate an idea. If that idea doesn’t come to fruition then it’s easy enough to blame someone else.

The next time you hear some amazing story from Tito, Elon Musk, your neighbor, your representative in Congress, or your favorite talking news head, well, take a few minutes to do some research and find out what it will take to make such a plan become reality.

Just a suggestion.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Spear of the Hunt
Next Release: The Broken Throne

No Coders, No Code

Posted on by

Computer CodeThere was an interesting article today in Small Business news about how the United States is not graduating many people who know how to write computer code. We don’t have teachers who can teach computer code.

The article points out that it is a growing field that requires far more people each year than are graduating from college. To a certain degree this is capitalism at work. If there are not enough people to fill a job, the salary for that job goes up and attracts more people.

Here’s the problem. Salaries aren’t going up because there are plenty of people to fill those job. They just aren’t from the United States. In countries like India, China, and Russia they are graduating large numbers of people with coding skills. The rest of the world is churning out scientists while the U.S. has a smaller and smaller percentage of their college graduates filling these niches.

As I’ve said before, I’m thrilled that the so-called Third World is changing their society in a capitalistic fashion. It’s great that China graduated seven million students from college last year. That India and the European Union are growing as well. When the world becomes filled with educated people who can do technical jobs with a high level of skill it helps everyone. That’s a great thing.

Women are becoming empowered. The birth rate and population growth is slowing and may soon even become negative! These are good things for our world.

What’s bad is that the United States is in danger of falling behind. We still graduate many students with scientific degrees, with the ability to write computer code, and who excel in all fields. That being said, the trend is not looking promising.

The success of the free market and capitalism is infecting the world. Oppressive nations cannot hide the lifestyle of those who live in modern, western countries. People who see that it can be better, want it better. The internet has made the world aware that it’s possible to have a good job, a nice house, and plenty of food.

This change has inspired nations like China and India and that’s good.

If China, India, and other nations start to produce all the best scientific minds, the best computer programmers, the finest researchers, and the most strident capitalists; what will happen to the United States? Will we be the world’s leading economy? Will we be wealthy and prosperous?

We face challenging times in the United States.

While our politicians play games and offer false solutions we sit by in idle leisure, generally happy with our lot in life. We have a roof over our heads, food in the pantry, and entertainment to consume. We are content to blame the other party for all ills without bothering to look in the mirror.

I’ve talked long enough about problems. What can we do to stop this trend?

I offer no easy solutions. Teach people critical thinking skills from kindergarten on up. Teach people how to think. Give them the tools they need to succeed in life. People with critical thinking skills realize that learning to write computer code will guarantee them a job and a decent salary in the modern world. They will not blame everyone else for what is wrong with their lives. They will not end up in a dead-end job and a miserable life. They will enrich their own lives and the lives of everyone around them.

The years are rolling past and time waits for no one. The modern world requires people literate with technology. The societies that produce the highest numbers of these people will become dominant. Those that do not will fall by the wayside. Not this year, not next year, but the wheels are in motion.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Sword of Water ($2.99 for a full length novel)
Next Release: The Spear of the Hunt (Out very soon!)

The Education Gap – Adults Count Also

Posted on by

EducationThere was an interesting study recently completed by a group called the Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies in which they tested adults in various countries on Math, Reading, and Problem Solving skills.

I recently wrote about how China and India are graduating huge numbers of college students and that the United States is falling behind. That this transition of intelligence from the US to other countries does not speak well of our nation and our chances to continue to be a world leader in scientific advancement, economic power, and military power.

The new study did not survey adults in China and India and I certainly wish that it had. It would give us a more complete picture. However, the U.S. continues to score extremely poorly on education tests pretty much across the board. This is often explained by the fact that in the U.S. we have a very diverse population with large numbers of immigrants. There is truth to this statement as smaller countries tend to have better educational systems simply because they have fewer students to teach.
The nations that dominate us in this most recent survey are generally smaller in population and that means we still have a greater number of highly intelligent people, it’s just that our average is lower.

I’m firmly convinced that our economic power, our scientific acumen, and our military dominance grew largely out of the fact we had a huge number of intelligent people in the United States in the 50’s and 60’s. Some of them born here and educated through our system and others who fled totalitarian regimes.

It matters not that we ended up with a huge advantage in intellect; it only matters that we had it and much of our power today stems from that time.

That advantage is clearly ebbing although we are still the world leader in economics, barely, and military might, by a large margin. It seems to me that if we continue down this path it is inevitable that new inventions, new ideas, economic power, and military power will shift away from the U.S. and to the increasingly smarter nations. That is why I’m disappointed India and China were not included in this survey.

I love the idea that other nations are producing intelligent adults. I’m all for education around the world. I love great ideas and the people who promulgate them. I think these ideas make all our lives better and result in economic bounty for everyone. I just want my country, the U.S. to keep up.

If this survey is to be believed; Americans rank 17th in Problem Solving abilities of the 23 nations surveyed. Yikes.

Here is a look at the entire file on the U.S.

They looked at a number of other factors and it makes for interesting reading including the fact that blacks and Hispanics in the U.S. were a significant drag on the scores. They make up a huge percentage of the worst scores with whites and Asians making up the high-end of the scale. Something the article does not talk about, I’m sure to avoid being accused of racism.

The article also talks about how those with higher intelligence are paid more, as it should be.

I’m not a fear-monger. I think despite these scores the U.S. has not fallen irretrievably behind other nations. We still have a massive population and many intelligent people. We need to focus on getting people to value education. President Obama, Colin Powell, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Sonia Sotomayor, and other highly educated and prominent minorities are making that effort but it in the end it comes down to the parents and the communities.

Those people who value education will succeed in life and those who do not, will not. Those nations that value education will prosper and those who do not, will not. Those who spurn academia, education, science, and intelligence will reap what they sow.

The gauntlet has been thrown down, the rest of the world is gaining, are we up to the challenge?

Time will tell.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Sword of Water ($2.99 for a full length eBook)
Next Release: The Spear of the Hunt

Science is a Force of Good – Even when you Disagree

Posted on by

Science HateThere’s a new science story making the rounds about life originating on Mars and coming to Earth. What I want talk about today is not this theory but the general attitude of Americans towards scientific endeavor.

The article spawned a number of comments I’ve found typical whenever there is a science story in the news. I’ll post a few here. I would say they are pretty standard.

Comment01

Comment02 Comment03 Comment04 Comment05 Comment06 Comment07 Comment08 Comment09 Comment10

There is a lot of science hate out there and I think there is a reason for it. Today I will talk about why that is and how I think it can be, rather easily, solved.

Since the beginning of what was called global warming and is now called climate change I’ve seen what appears to be a radical alteration in American’s attitude towards science. It is not only climate change but science and scientists in general. This negative attitude towards science is, in my opinion, a tremendous danger to our nation.

The U.S. preeminence in scientific endeavors was probably always overstated but did reach its peak during World War II when many of the greatest minds of Europe and Asia fled to the U.S. They came here to avoid totalitarian regimes who squashed scientific conclusions with which the state did not agree. A notable lesson there.

My Republican friends will think I’m picking on them with this post and they will be right. I’m largely not talking to Democrats and I’m largely not talking to medium to low IQ readers. I’m talking to highly intelligent Republicans. There are many of them and I’m friends with quite a few.

Being against climate change is something the Republican party has invested in. It’s great to be against something but they have promulgated the idea that scientists are largely on the take for government grants and change results to meet expected ideology. Republicans largely insist that scientists are just “guess makers” who don’t know anything at all. When a scientific theory is proven wrong Republicans attack science, in general, as always being wrong.

Republicans promote what was never a generally accepted theory as being stated as absolute fact. I cannot tell you how often in the comments sections I read, “All the scientists told us there would be an ice age”, “The scientists said there could never be life at hydro-thermal vents in the ocean.” A few scientists said these things and upon peer-reviewed evidence based investigation most scientists determined these predictions inaccurate. And yet in many people’s minds those ideas were promulgated by the majority of scientists. They use it to justify not believing anything a scientist says unless it meets their ideological standards.

This attitude against science is gaining momentum and largely because Republicans leaders and pundits perceive that it will help their party in future elections.

My friends, my intelligent Republican friends, I want you to imagine something. Imagine the rest of the world has cheap, renewable, abundant energy and the United States is still burning oil and coal and spending our wealth procuring these things. Imagine if because of stem-cell research the rest of the world produces healthy, long-living people and the United States does not. Imagine if the rest of the world starts to pull down meteors with vast amounts of rare and valuable elements and the United States is left out.

I’m not speaking of those three scientific endeavors specifically, I’m speaking about scientific advancement as a whole and using them as examples.

It’s great to look for evidence that climate change is not caused by human action. It’s great to try to find medical breakthroughs without using stem cells. It’s reasonable to argue that money should be spent in places beside NASA. But, if the facts indicate otherwise, it’s not acceptable to denigrate science because it doesn’t meet with your ideology. To do so is to, and I can’t make this any clearer, hasten the destruction of this great nation.

I don’t ask you to imagine this next thing. I simply ask you to look around. Who has faster internet connections than Americans? Who has more fuel-efficient cars? Faster trains? Better cameras? Cheaper and higher capacity USB drives? Who derives more energy from solar power, wind power? Nations without our natural resources, without our population to draw upon for scientists. Who has the Large Hadron Collider and who has an unfinished pile of junk?

How can we change this trend? It’s so easy, so simple. Follow the facts. If science comes up with an answer you don’t like, smile, shake your head, and say, “I was wrong.”

This is in your hands my intelligent Republican friends. You can sway the opinion of those around you. Other people look up to you, they respect you and your opinion.

Imagine a United States where science is reviled and scientists persecuted. Imagine our position in the world.

Do you want to live there?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Sword of Water ($2.99 for a full length eBook)
Next Release: The Spear of the Hunt

Mind Meld Science – Or Should I say Bad Science

Posted on by

Bad ScienceAnyone who follows my blog with any regularity knows to what nerd depths I can plumb. I saw a headline about one human sending an electrical brain signal to another. I figured it was probably misleading. Once I finished reading the story, particularly the last few paragraphs, my fears were confirmed.

The story is that a researcher sent an electrical signal from their thoughts to a device that captured the signal, broadcast it a distances over a network to a colleague wearing another device, and caused the arm of the second person to move.

The headline reads: U.S. scientist operates colleague’s brain from across campus

Wow, a person might say. Amazing! Imagine if people can control each other with the merest thought. Conspiracy theorist to the front of the line!

It’s not amazing. It’s mundane. Scientists have long known that electrical signals from the brain cause muscles to move. They’ve studied such signals at great length and by mimicking them have performed a number of experiments even being able to understand rudimentary thoughts based on brain activity.

Once the story gets past its sensational headline the article fairly quickly starts to reveal why this is not a big deal. It states that much work has been done to help paralyzed patients move their own limbs using similar methods. Animal thoughts have been transmitted to other animals who mimicked behavior. Human thoughts have been used to send electrical signal to artificial limbs and make them move as desired.

What we have here is simply the appropriate electrical current being applied to force a movement. It’s not a breakthrough, it’s not very impressive. However, there is something much worse about this particular case. Because it’s not a breakthrough, because no one independently verified the experiment; the designers didn’t try to publish the results in a scientific journal. They didn’t subject themselves peer review. They went straight to video on the university website.

Why? I’ll let the researchers tell you in their own words: “time was of the essence.”

This is the kind of thing that gives science a bad name. The top researchers in the field were “uneasy” with the announcement. Uneasy? How about pissed off?

That’s not how science must work. Unfortunately splashy releases of unconfirmed science gets noticed by the public and quickly promulgates through the media to a wider audience. This is the strategy of the talking heads on the news/opinion shows and of politicians.

This is dangerous and I spoke about why in my post about how lies in the research of stem cells are still causing damage years after they were told.

Many might remember a South Korean scientist who went through much more elaborate deception to get publicity about human cloning.

Real scientists, the people who performed this experiment are actually scientists, must restrain themselves from such skulduggery. The integrity of science is daily questioned by those wishing to discredit it. Let’s not give the naysayers ammunition. When we as a people don’t believe in science anymore, this nation of ours is in serious jeopardy.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Sword of Water ($2.99 for a full length eBook)
Upcoming Release: The Spear of the Hunt

The International Space Station – Countdown to Bust

Posted on by

International Space StationWe are now seven years from the likely end of the International Space Station or ISS.

Good riddance, say I.

Not everyone is going to agree with me on this one and there are a lot of people out there hoping to extend the mission past 2020. There are many passionate people on both sides of this debate and I’m open to listening to other opinions. But as things stand, I think of the ISS as a colossal waste of time, effort, and money. That’s not even the worst of it. It’s sucked in so much money and effort that other NASA missions were scrubbed for lack of funding.

In addition to producing almost nothing in the way of useful information it has also prevented us from learning so many other things. Now, I’m sure people will look at the list of what I call “nothing” and tell me how wrong I am. I think that until we actually need to grow tomatoes in space it is not really worth studying growing tomatoes in space. The effect of radiation on people is well-known, it is deadly. Any space travel will require shielding from radiation. Zero gravity is dangerous for human organs and skeletal structure. How much testing of this do we need and what benefit does it give us?

When this thing was proposed it was promised as a laboratory, observatory, and factory in space. It was also planned to provide transportation, maintenance, and act as a staging base for possible future missions to the Moon, Mars and asteroids. It’s been at most a glorified lab.

In the Yahoo article a proponent of continuing the ISS through 2028 says: We don’t know whether we should care, because the utilization [of the ISS] is really still in its early stages. The station hasn’t had a valid chance to demonstrate its research value.

He supposes that perhaps, maybe, in the next four or five years there might be a breakthrough to justify the cost of the thing.

Hasn’t had a chance? It’s been in continuous orbit for nearly thirteen years and currently the cost is about $150 billion and going up fast.

The price of this thing is shared between the US, Russia, Japan, Canada, and Europe (11 partners). Everyone else is backing out as fast as their obligations let them, or faster.

Meanwhile robotic missions continue apace exploring our solar system and giving us real and useful information. Robotic missions are far cheaper, last longer, produce more results, and do not risk the loss of life.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m all for exploration of space, of the mission of NASA, and of the long-term prospects of colonizing our solar system. I’m just firmly convinced that the best way to achieve those things is with long-term, robotic, exploration missions. I think we already know pretty much what we need to know about low-earth orbit.

Every tax dollar that goes into low-earth orbit exploration competes against private organizations attempting this sort of mission. NASA should be doing things that private industry cannot achieve.

Meanwhile the James Webb Telescope sits doing nothing. It’s total funding capped at $8 billion in no small part because of the ISS. I’m not saying the JWT wasn’t a badly managed project, I’m just saying let’s not pour another $100 billion into the ISS to keep it operational through 2028. Let’s not throw good money after bad.

If I had my way I’d bring back the current residents and shut the ISS down today.

I’d like to hear from those who disagree.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water (a bargain at $149,999,999,997.01 less than the ISS)
Upcoming Release: The Spear of the Hunt

Against a Cure for Down Syndrome?

Posted on by

Cure Down SyndromeI just read an absolutely fascinating article about health care and Down Syndrome. Scientists are moving ever closer to being able to turn off the effects of the extra third copy of chromosome 21. Eventually they might even be able to prevent the disease altogether.

The new therapy promises to alleviate or eliminate some of the symptoms of the syndrome by switching off the genetic material responsible.

What makes the article fascinating? How do these quotes strike you:

  • If Down syndrome were completely cured, the world would lose something from the absence of that culture.
  • We’re not looking for a cure. We’re looking to help and support people with Down syndrome live healthy and productive lives …
  • But ethicists fear that genetic manipulation could spell the end of the disorder …

In other words, we don’t want a cure.

I understand that relatives of people with the disease are worried that their loved ones will be forever changed by a cure. That the cure might turn off other genetic functions and come with its own peril. Particularly in the early years.

However, the reality is that someone with Down Syndrome is limited in their life’s potential. Their life is radically diminished from what it could be. Maybe they are happy but they cannot experience life fully. With modern therapy and understanding they have things better than throughout history but their intelligence is limited and their lifespan shortened. They often suffer from awful diseases.

I have friends with a Down Syndrome child and I’m eager to hear what they think about the possibility of a cure. My friend is a big, strong, athletic guy and his son will never be that. I know for a fact that they love him just as much their daughter who does not have the disease.

When I read these quotes from parents who do not want a cure, fear a cure, I certainly understand. They love their child the way they are. They fear that their child, if cured, could be forever changed, will have to suffer the trials of a full life.

Ignorance is bliss as they say. But it’s bliss with a price. A heavy price, too heavy a price.

Given a choice between going through life mentally challenged and happy or less happy but with a greater capacity to understand the good and bad that the world offers; which would you choose?

It’s like not playing the game because you might lose.

As for me, I’d rather play than sit on the sidelines. Yes, I might well lose, but the experience of life is worth it. I think everyone should have that chance. Everyone should be given the opportunity to live their life to the fullest. Maybe they will be unhappy and miserable, but maybe not.

I’m for a cure but I don’t have a Down Syndrome child. I do have a mentally challenged niece and if there was a way to cure her I would absolutely be for it.

What do you think?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water
Upcoming Release: The Spear of the Hunt

Lies in the Search for Stem Cells

Posted on by

Stem CellsBy now most people have heard of stem cells. These are cells with tremendous medical potential but also ethical concerns. There was a recent case in which it appears fraudulent claims were made because of these ethical concerns. Lies told in an effort to sway popular opinion.

If you’ve followed this debate then you’ve probably heard the fraudulent claims touted as amazing advances. This is an extremely dangerous event, dangerous to scientific progress, dangerous to public understanding of science, and dangerous on a personal level because of its potential to change the course of research and cures.

First a quick understanding of stem cells. I’m going to explain them at an extremely basic level; for a greater and deeper understanding I would highly recommend the Wiki article.

Every part of the human body is made up of cells. Your heart, lungs, liver, and other body parts are made up of cells which divide again and again to eventually perform a particular function.

Stem cells come in two flavors; embryonic and adult.

Embryonic cells can turn into any other type of cell and regenerate themselves. This has obvious medical potential. The ethical problem is that harvesting these sorts of cells means destroying (killing) embryos. These embryos are generally created during in vitro fertilization designed to eventually implant in a woman wishing a child. The process generates excess embryos which are either destroyed or used for scientific purposes to harvest stem cells.

I do not exaggerate when I say that embryonic stem cells have the potential to make people immortal. They can potentially regenerate any and all of your aging organs and body parts. One injection of stem cells into your heart and it is young and strong again. We’re certainly not at this point yet but astounding progress is being made.

On the other hand adult stem cells are useful in medicine but apparently did not offer the same potential. That is until November of 2011 when at a scientific gathering sponsored by the Vatican, a fellow by the name of Mariusz Z. Ratajczak announced he had found something called VSELS; cells which essentially acted like embryonic stem cells but were found in adults!

That’s a huge win. All the legitimate ethical concerns don’t matter anymore because these cells are harvested from the person seeking medical care. No embryos are destroyed.

This very much excited those who oppose embryonic stem cell research and much money, church money, was poured into a company called Neostem which was to repeat the findings of Dr. Ratajczak and further develop it. The church sponsored a number of efforts to promote the idea of these VSELS both from a scientific perspective and a publicity platform. That’s probably where you’ve heard of these adult stem cells that have the power of embryonic stem cells.

Here’s the reality. They’ve done four independent studies now and not only cannot find evidence of the regenerative power of VSELS but they cannot find the cells themselves. Their very existence was a lie, or if you’re in a charitable mood which I am not, wishful thinking.

This lie meant that money was spent by research agencies trying to duplicate the results of Dr. Ratajczak instead of finding ways to use stem cells to cure horrible diseases. Time was wasted, lives were lost.

Essentially, in order to save the lives of embryos, people lied. They lied and promulgated supposed scientific evidence to rational people who then passed those lies along to others. This creates an illusion of reality where it does not exist. When public perception trumps reality there is real danger.

When the goal is to sway opinions rather than present evidence we venture into the realm of propaganda. If we tell a lie often enough, loudly enough, and with enough conviction people believe it. People take actions based upon it. In the end the lie is revealed and people are hurt, badly hurt.

Just ask Aaron Rodgers.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current release: The Sword of Water ($2.99 for a full length eBook)
Upcoming Release: The Spear of the Hunt

DNA Collection from those Arrested

Posted on by

Fourth AmendmentThere is a very interesting case at the Supreme Court this week and oral arguments took place the other day. At question is whether or not the police can take DNA samples from those they arrest. The Fourth Amendment makes it quite clear that law enforcement officials cannot conduct searches and seizures  without reasonable cause. There are exceptions to this right for those who are arrested, fingerprinting being currently accepted as reasonable.

The particulars of this case are that the person arrested was swabbed for DNA and linked to, and eventually convicted in, a rape case from six years earlier. The DNA evidence was used in the conviction.

Those defending the right to swab arrested suspects argue that it helps solve crimes and puts offenders in prison. Justice Scalia points out that if the police went house to house searching everyone and everything that would also solve crimes and get convictions. This sort of unwarranted search is prohibited by the Fourth Amendment.

Justice Alito calls the case one of enormous importance. There are many people currently incarcerated who were swabbed in such a manner.

One argument that I hear frequently in favor of allowing law enforcement officers to use such tools is that only the guilty need be worried by these tactics. That if you are not guilty then why do you care? This argument completely fails to understand the point of the Fourth Amendment. The root of the law seems to be that in the colonies the government had the right to enter your house pretty much at will, largely under the rational of looking for customs violations. Imagine in today’s world if the police, sponsored by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), entered everyone’s home looking for pirated music, movies, and literature, and software. We are protected from such intrusions by the Fourth Amendment and I’m leery of weakening it, as are the justices. But, let’s examine the case in question.

To a large degree the case comes down to how invasive the justices consider a DNA swab. Is it equivalent to a fingerprint or a search of you home? If the former then it is permissible, if the latter, then it is not. Certainly the ease with which the sample is obtained is more akin to a fingerprint as it can be done in seconds. Opponents argue that a DNA sample holds far more information than a fingerprint and thus the two are not similar.

In the case in question the arrested man was being charged with assault and evidence of a much more serious crime was found in their search. If the police arrest me for failing to pay a parking ticket can they then enter my home looking for evidence of any crime and convict me with anything they find? The Fourth Amendment says no. The Fourth Amendment says the police must obtain a warrant from a judge after showing probable cause. In this case the police had no probable cause to suspect the arrested man of the rape six years earlier and thus, goes the argument, the evidence obtained by the DNA swab was illegal.

It is a difficult case and I find myself torn.

A DNA swab is simple, easy, not intrusive, and the man was arrested for a crime to begin with. On the other hand I’m not sure I like the idea of the police arresting me for a crime and being able to take my DNA. The police can arrest and hold you for up to 48 hours, depending on the state, without any justification. Perhaps an officers doesn’t like me, arrests me for some made up reason, swabs me, runs the results through the database, and finds a distant relative of mine committed murder thirty years ago. This is not as unreasonable as people would like to think. The police arrest people all the time who turn out to be not guilty or not even remotely connected to the crime. It is part of their job to investigate all possibilities and arrest is a tool in their arsenal.

In the end I find that I choose to broadly interpret the Fourth Amendment. I think the police can take DNA swabs from suspects but that information cannot be used in unrelated cases. If they want evidence for a different crime they must go through the process of obtaining a warrant. This interpretation would set the rapist free and I can see how people will disagree with me. It’s a tough case and I eagerly await the decision.

What do you think?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water ($2.99 for 300+ pages of daring deeds)
Next Release: The Spear of the Hunt

2018 Mission to Mars – Crazy or not?

Posted on by

MarsA fellow by the name of Dennis Tito is making news in my little corner of the space-geek world with a plan to send a manned mission to Mars. One of my favorite bloggers, Alan Boyle of Cosmic Blog, wrote up an interesting summation of events so far.

I’ve long been a proponent of robotic missions over manned missions for a variety of reasons that I don’t want to get into today. What I do want to discuss is the nature of this particular plan and whether it is sheer madness, a great idea, or something in-between.

The broad plan itself is simply to send two astronauts to Mars on a trip that would circle the red planet and return to earth in a total of 501 days. As Earth and Mars rotate around the sun there are only certain times when the round-trip can be accomplished so quickly. The next such alignment occurs in January of 2018. This means the technology has to be ready to launch at that time. Five years is a remarkably short period to make this happen.

The detailed plan is extremely sketchy but the basic technology is understood and certainly not impossible. They would have to use a rocket that is currently incomplete but scheduled to be finished by that time. A major stumbling block is the speed at which the returning vessel would enter Earth’s atmosphere. There are other pressing problems that currently have no solution but the entire concept is possible.

The funding for the operation is to come largely from donations and Tito’s own personal wealth.

Is the plan a worthwhile endeavor?

As I stated earlier, I’m of the fairly strong opinion that robotic exploration is the most useful method for finding out information from Mars, the moon, and other places within the solar system. Humans are just too frail and concerns about radiation exposure, food and water, waste disposal and other barriers make human space exploration a waste of time and money. We’ve already sent plenty of robots into orbit of Mars. Landed them on Mars. In this case we’d be spending billions of dollars to send two people on a round trip to Mars for no good scientific purpose.

So, at this point you probably think you’ve got my final conclusion all figured out. You’d be wrong.

If Tito wants to raise the money and make this a reality, I say go for it. It’s his money and his donor’s money. The astounding publicity of the event will certainly make millions of people as big a proponent of space exploration as am I. In the end it might create more money and science dedicated to robotic exploration.

Personally, I’d prefer that he use his considerable charisma and effort to help NASA fund missions that have been cancelled because of lack of funds. To that Tito might tell me to do what I want when I’ve made a few billion of my own, and he’d be right!

I applaud Tito’s spirit and wish him well. Although I would offer one major criticism. Don’t say The Right Stuff times ten ever again. Such a thing is impossible. Thank you for your courage and sacrifice Alan Shepard, Gus Grissom, John Glenn, Scott Carpenter, Wally Schirra, Gordon Cooper, and Deke Slayton.

Now, if only I could get a few million people to purchase my books maybe I could fund one of those cancelled missions!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water
Next Release: The Spear of the Hunt

Drugs in the Water Supply

Posted on by

Clean WaterThere was an interesting study performed by a group of Swedish scientists involving fish living in waters contaminated by pharmaceutical drugs. While the study itself is fascinating it’s the implications of the study that are most worth examining.

It turns out that much of the water we drink here in the United States and in Europe is contaminated by tiny amounts of pharmaceutical residue. By tiny we are talking about parts per billion. This is truly a small amount but it also means that every sip of water, every bite of food soaked in water, or every drink that uses water as it’s base most likely has tiny amounts of pharmaceutical drugs like oxazepam in it. Oxazepam is an ingredient in most benzodiazepines drugs like Valium and Librium. These are commonly prescribed medications and people get rid of them in various ways including flushing expired pills and defecating and urinating unprocessed drugs.

One of the problems is that water processing plants do not even attempt to filter out these impurities; they go directly into the system. A group of studies is now underway to determine the contamination level and if it is detrimental to our health.

I do not want to be an alarmist. The amount of drugs we are talking about is extremely small and there isn’t any evidence yet as to its affect on humans. However, it is affecting the behavior of fish. These drugs are designed to interact with the human body in certain ways and apparently everyone is on a prescription, whether they knew it or not.

We have been pouring pollutants of one kind or another into the air and water in vast quantities. These include greenhouse gases along with toxic substances. All of this cannot be good or right. On the other hand, the results of all these chemicals is the modern world. The very basics of what we consider a comfortable life are largely thanks to plastics, metallurgy, electronics, chemistry. The question becomes at what point are we creating such a toxic environment that we are actually killing ourselves?

This is a question that has been in the public eye since the beginning of the industrial revolution and one that largely remains unanswered.

We continue to pump chemicals into our air and water but we enjoy a lifestyle of tremendous wealth because of these scientific advances. Is there a solution? Can we simply turn off the spigot when billions of dollars in profits are at stake, jobs, livelihoods, comfort, luxury, transportation, energy?

We are moving towards greater awareness of these problems and trying to green our processes. I think almost everyone who reads this will agree that both of these are noble goals. Will we look back at this time and rue our shocking disregard for our own health, the health of our species? Or will we solve all these problems and remember it as a necessary albeit dark part of what will be a golden future?

I’m encouraged that such studies are taking place. I’m encouraged by the apparent majority that want clean energy, clean food, and good water. I’m optimistic but I can’t help but see the naysayers, the angry voices against science, the ever-present lethargy defined by fear of change.

What’s the future? I can’t say. I imagine a utopia where we have defeated disease, death, and toxicity on this beautiful planet. Where every person lives eternally with their life dedicated to achievement. Where the view from space is a beautiful blue marble, perfect and clean. That’s my dream. What’s yours?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Sword of Water
Next Release: The Spear of the Hunt

Rare Earth Elements and China

Posted on by

Irare earth elementsn my daily perusal of news stories I’ve noted a recent trend in misinformation about China’s monopoly on what are called rare earth elements and the danger this represents to the United States. I thought I’d take a quick look at what these elements are, how they are used, and how China’s cutback on shipment of the elements will affect the world. It’s not a particularly exciting story but I found it interesting and I thought some others might as well.

The Wikipedia article is extremely thorough and you should look at it for more details but I’ll try to summarize quickly.

Rare Earth Elements are not rare. They are fairly common although they encompass a wide variety of elements. Seventeen to be exact. Some are much rarer than others and they have many varied uses including with lasers, alloys, superconductors, magnets, and even chemical reducing agents.

The big controversy seems to be that China controls the total world output as almost a monopoly, currently about 90% . This is true but deceiving. China controls about 23% of the proven reserves of the elements although even this is a high figure because China has done far and away the most searching for the elements.

Up until 1980 the United States was the leading producer of these elements and even as late as 1990 China only produced about 27% of the total amount. However, they were undertaking a massive program to mine these elements and soon flooded the market with cheap product. This immediately wiped out all competition and lead to them reaching as high total contribution of about 95%.

A lesson about monopolies is in order here. I’m a Libertarian and I do think capitalism is the best economic strategy but there are anti-trust laws for a reason. Monopolies are dangerous not only to the general public but to nations as well. When one company or nation controls the vast majority of a highly sought after commodity only ill can follow.

Anyway, enough of that talk for now. This is about rare earth elements.

For various reasons China is now reducing its exports of the elements and the last few years have seen ramped-up efforts to resume mining in the United States and other countries for fear of shortages. This is a natural evolution of capitalism and perfectly normal. The thing to keep in mind is that there are actually plenty of these elements available. It is only because of the monopolistic practices of China that they are not being mined in more places, it simply wasn’t profitable. If it becomes profitable then the mines will spring up.

One more quick aside and then I’ll be done. The mining of these elements usually releases something called Thorium which is radioactive and has been blamed for a number of health problems around the mines, particularly in China and other countries that don’t have regulations against pollution. One reason China is reducing output is because of popular unrest over the rise in toxic waste in the water supply from unregulated, illegal operations.

So, I don’t foresee a rare earth element panic because other nations will begin to mine once China reduces output. It might take a few years to ramp up production but there is, in my opinion, no serious danger. Surveys of the seabeds near hydrothermal vents seem to indicate massive reserves are available for eventual exploitation. Health concerns are legitimate but that’s what limited governmental regulations are all about. Keep an eye on the mines and make sure they aren’t dumping Thorium and all should be well.

Thanks for listening to this boring blog. I hope someone finds it interesting!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Hammer of Fire
Upcoming Release: The Sword of Water

Earthquake Scientists Jailed for Bad Prediction

Posted on by

Scientist EarthquakeAn incredibly interesting and potentially dangerous verdict came down today in Italy. A group of seismologists were charged with failing to correctly predict the 2009 earthquake in L’Aquila in which 309 people died and another 60,000 were left homeless.

The details of the case seem to indicate that the scientists didn’t consider an earthquake to be imminent, despite smaller tremors, and told the local politicians as much. This information was disseminated to the people of the region who then did not evacuate or make quake preparations. Thus, when the earthquake struck, most people were unprepared. The main earthquake was preceded by weeks of smaller quakes which concerned people but the assurances by the government and scientists alleviated these worries.

The seven scientists brought to trial have now been found guilty and sentenced to as many as six years in jail for their crime.

I’m of two minds about both the prosecution and the guilty verdict. Firstly, I don’t doubt that local politicians, tourist boards, and businesses exerted some pressure on the scientist to minimize the threat for fear of lost revenue. I don’t know all the pertinent facts in the case but it seems likely this sort of influence was put forward. If the scientists buckled to this pressure and the evidence actually suggested that a quake was imminent then I’d support both the trial and the verdict, but, to be honest, I’m skeptical this happened.

Again, I’m not naive, I know the scientists were probably under some pressure but the science of earthquake prediction is inexact to say the least and to convict the scientists of manslaughter is a very dangerous precedent. My major issue is that the problem that the verdict hopes to alleviate, scientists not warning people of danger, will actually not be helped in any way.

Let me explain. In the future scientists will err on the side of alarmist predictions to avoid similar prosecution. It is like what we now see with the early Tsunami warning system. An earthquake happens, tsunami warnings shoot out across the region, nothing happens. This sort of Chicken Little event will cause the public to view such warnings with increasing skepticism. This will lead to greater inaction when a real threat approaches.

My conclusion is that both the prosecution and conviction of the seven scientists will mean less safety for the average person and will lead to greater insecurity as scientists blare out warnings too often and citizens begin to disregard them. There will also be over-reaction to the new warnings which will cause lost revenue and other potential harm in panicked populations. And, we’ll be frightening children unnecessarily which is not good.

I would have preferred some sort of internal review of the scientists to see if they unduly bowed to pressure in their conclusions about the likelihood of an earthquake and, if it is determined they did, that some internal sanctions take place.

What do you think?

[polldaddy poll=6628589]

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Hammer of Fire
Upcoming Release: The Sword of Water

Hubble eXtreme Deep Field – Religion and Science

Posted on by

Deep Field HubbleNASA released another deep field image of the night sky and it makes me ponder the difference between the religious view of an image like this and the scientific view. The picture shows a small section of the night sky, smaller than the size of the moon, and over five thousand galaxies. Each galaxy has potentially billions of stars although they vary greatly in size.

My thinking today is about how a deeply religious person looks at this compared to the way I look at this and all the middle ground in between. When I see this picture, I see such vastness that it confirms my atheism. No one entity could simply create this amount of material at the snap of a finger or wave of a noodly appendage. I like to think of a field of grass and all the geology, biology, chemistry, and other elements involved in it. To engineer such a thing would be a massive undertaking. Then to extend that to an entire planet, solar system, galaxy, and billions of galaxies that make up the universe. This is beyond any one creator no matter how powerful.

I can’t speak for religious thinking with any certainty but having spoken with religious people over the years they would likely take the opposite view. That such magnificence can’t be some coincidence. They would see a guiding hand that imagined, designed, and created this beauty.

I’m not really trying to come to any conclusions today just thinking about things. The way our minds shape our view of the world around us. Two people can look at exactly the same thing and come to very different conclusions. I’m of the opinion that my brain is somehow, certainly not fundamentally, different from a religious person’s brain. We see the world and interact with the world in different ways.

For me it’s not a matter of choosing to believe or not believe in god, it’s that I don’t, and I never will. I’ve been told that someday I’ll “see the light” and become profoundly religious. Honestly, I can’t imagine that ever happening. It requires a faith that my brain doesn’t understand. I see that picture and the thought that one creator entity made it all, every hydrogen atom, every chemical reaction, and I laugh. It’s impossible.

My religious friends might say that people thought flying was impossible but we do it now. It’s a bad argument because we’ve seen birds and insects fly from long before we could, but the concept is relatively sound. Things that seem impossible yesterday are completely possible today.

I just wonder if there is some genetic predisposition to religious thinking. Some gene-code sequence that makes a person more likely to be a faith-based thinker. I have no answers.

When I speak with most of atheist friends we all generally agree that there is something different going on. I’ll give one example and then call it a blog.

There are things in the bible, torah, quran that are ridiculous concepts. Noah’s Arc for example. It’s not physically possible to get that many animals and that much food in such a small space for a year. Anyway, I mentioned to my friend that at some point a religious person has to look at something like this, admit it’s ridiculous, and then say ‘I believe it anyway’. At some level of their thinking they have to do this. My atheist friend replies, “How do they do that?”

I have no answer. I don’t understand how you could look at something that is clearly false and choose to believe it anyway. I do think there are people more in the middle who don’t believe the bible, torah, quran tells literally true stories but they do believe in a higher power, noodly or not.

I find it interesting. What do you think?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
Current Release: The Hammer of Fire
Upcoming Release: The Sword of Water

Isolation as a Child leads to Brain Deficiency

Posted on by

brainsThere was an interesting article on Yahoo this morning and, as is often the case, the comment section was in many ways more thought-provoking than the story.

The gist of the article was that mice who were isolated from other mice or a stimulating environment showed significant brain abnormality as compared to mice who were not isolate or given an exciting environment. The main point being that early infancy is a vital time for children and that physical brain growth is altered by the environment in which the child resides.

What I found very interesting is that most of the comments focused on the idea that being alone is not bad at all. I’m someone who does not care to spend much time with other people but I think this is not at all what the study indicated. I wouldn’t mind seeing a study of adults who are isolated and the physical effect on their brains but I strongly suspect that the issue here is the growing brain of children.

I don’t want to get too far afield here but I’m always shocked by the number of people who either read the headline and not the article and come to an erroneous conclusion or those who actually read the article and apparently do not comprehend anything that it said.

Time and again I see earnest commenters, not those crazy-fun trolls, who have completely misunderstood what they are commenting about. Even in everyday conversation people just don’t make the effort to understand what the other person is saying.

That’s really about it. The article was very interesting but not unpredictable. The comments generally completely off base because of the lack of reading skills or the lack of reading comprehension. Nothing new to report. Take the time to understand what you read, what other people say, and react accordingly. Not a shocking conclusion.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery with a Libertarian Twist
New Release: The Hammer of Fire

P.S. I haven’t been doing many blog posts lately because I’ve been writing the rough draft on my fourth novel, The Sword of Water. I’ve written 50,000 words in the last two weeks. You can join Good Reads and check out my Q&A Group if you want to keep up with my progress.

P.P.S. I’m eventually going to be posting about the recent violence in the Arab world but I want to think about it a bit first. It’s an extremely relevant topic and I think deserves some serious thought before I start reacting to events.

Princess Scientist and Girl’s Self Image

Posted on by

Science PrincessI read a fascinating article at Yahoo yesterday about a woman named Erica Ebbel Angle who has a television show aimed at promoting science to Middle School students. Oh yeah, she’s also a graduate of MIT, has a Ph.D in Biochemistry, and has entered a few beauty pageants.

The reason this seems to be causing an issue is she is calling herself the Princess Scientist and some people think this is a bad message for young girls. That being pretty is of equal importance to being smart. I don’t think that’s the message at all but some people are up-in-arms.

The first thing I’d like to look at is the general pairing of pretty or athletic with stupid. Like most stereotypes it’s not completely unfair as many very athletic or very attractive people are not motivated to spend time on their education. Likewise it is completely unfair to associate stupidity either with athleticism or beauty in the individual. We had a player here for our local St. Louis Cardinals baseball club who was both an outfielder and graduated college with a degree in aerospace engineering.

There are plenty of intelligent athletes and beauty queens and many unintelligent, less athletic, unattractive people. There are a great number of people who fit into all combinations of both groups. It’s not correct to associate or disassociate one attribute with the other.

I think this is the root cause of the issue. People are unhappy with Dr. Erica because she is saying it’s fine to want to be attractive. There is an intellectual backlash against putting beauty in front of intelligence in this country and I’m not opposed to that idea but if you want to promote being attractive and intelligent then I see no issue. Not only is there not a problem but it’s a good thing.

Life isn’t just about being smart. A brilliant scientist who takes no time for personal hygiene is largely unwelcome in social situation and cannot use that intelligence to its best advantage. Why not encourage young women to pursue the sciences and be attractive at the same time?

The argument goes that time spent primping on beauty takes away from schoolwork. I’m not an expert on primping for beauty but the time I spent playing sports was good for me. My time at the gym working on my physical body helps me mentally. Life is a combination of attributes and we do well to work on many fronts. Would we tell a husband and father to ignore his kids to perfect his work? Time being a good father makes for a better worker.

All you girls and boys out there. Play sports, look good, but study in school. It’s not that hard to study and I regret not being a better student myself. I was too concerned with other things and that has limited me. Broaden yourself in every respect. Obsessing your focus on a single topic eventually tends to makes you a strange, unhappy person.

And for you adults who want to limit your children to one thing or another, shame on you. Encourage your children in all their endeavors.

You go Science Princess!

P.S. While there is an intellectual backlash against putting superficiality over intelligence the reality is our society largely promotes that idea. We worship the beautiful and athletic while ignoring the scientific achievers. That’s wrong and dangerous to society. Perhaps fodder for another blog.

Tom Liberman

Space Exploration Man versus Robots

Posted on by

Space ExplorationOne of the major debates about space exploration is the idea of putting people in space versus the idea of focusing on robotic exploration. It’s an argument that brings out a lot of nerd rage and I aim to take it head-on today. I’m bracing for some backlash!

I’ll tell you my position up front and avoid any suspense. I’m not a proponent of manned exploration. I think money is better spent on robotic exploration.

Now let’s take a critical look at both types of exploration and their advantages and disadvantages. Oh, and for the politically correct crowd, when I reference manned versus unmanned I’m talking about people, men and women.

Manned Exploration

The biggest advantage of sending people into space involves their ability to react to an unknown situation in a way that a computer cannot, at least cannot yet. The argument runs that if something were to go wrong that people would be able to fix it on-the-fly as it were. My rational against this idea is that at the speed events are happening humans largely cannot react fast enough, the space shuttle disasters being examples of this. The counter-argument is Apollo 13 where men were able to find a solution to a problem and fix it. My argument against that would be that there never would have been a problem if men weren’t aboard Apollo 13 in the first place. The systems involved to transport people are more complex than those used to transport machines. Oxygen catches on fire. Robots don’t need oxygen.

The second big reason you hear to promote manned missions is that if we as a race are to eventually colonize the moon and Mars we must learn how to live in a deep-space environment. This is a reasonable argument but I think there is plenty of time to test those complications out after we send in the robots to explore and prepare the way for manned missions.

Unmanned Exploration

The advantages here are many. The cost of sending robots into space is far less than sending people. The complexity of sending robots is far less than for sending people. One of the major obstacles for sending people into space is that they must have food and water. The biggest job the shuttles to the Space Station have is sending up food and taking back waste. Believe it or not, human waste is a major problem in space.

Another huge advantage of sending robots is their durability. Rovers on the moon and Mars can operate for years in the open. While it is true men would be able to drive the rover far more quickly from place to place, they are heavily restricted by radiation concerns. Shielding is a major issue for a journey to Mars or an extended stay on the moon. Men must stay in shelters a great deal of the time and prolonged exposure to radiation is a major problem for which there are not really good solutions as of yet.

To my mind the entire International Space Station idea has been a terrible waste of time and resources for the United States and the world. It is locked in low earth orbit. The total cost of the ISS is calculated at $150 billion dollars which includes shuttle flights and components provided by other nations. For that $150 billion we’ve gotten exactly what? We’ve learned about how deep space affects the human body, something we don’t need to know if we only send robotic missions. I’m not sure what else we’ve learned? It’s a long article with many links and I’m sure a proponents of Manned Missions can fill me in!

Meanwhile our robotic exploration continues to provide actionable information about planetary bodies, meteors, the sun, and other useful things that will help us eventually exploit the solar system.

I’m not completely opposed to manned exploration, I just think our resources return much more value when spent on robotic exploration. Curiosity cost about $2.5 billion although operational costs will continue (at a far cheaper rate than the ISS) to rise. Opportunity continues to provide useful information eight years after it landed and the twin rovers (Spirit conked out) total cost to date is about $1 billion.

The manned moon missions, while certainly romantic, brought us back a bunch of rocks of little value. If we put people on Mars or establish a station on the moon what is our goal? Just to do it? That’s noble but I’m all about practical when it comes to spending my tax dollars. I’m a huge proponent of space exploration and I’d keep my support if manned missions to Mars continue apace, I’d just rather see all that money spent on robotic exploration. Robotic science is in its infancy and the ability of these tools to explore space, deep-sea, underground environments far exceeds those of men.

Don’t hesitate to tell me I’m an idiot in the comments!

Tom Liberman

Science is good and so is the Higgs Boson

Posted on by

Higgs BosonThere was some fairly momentous news in the scientific community last week in regards to a sub-atomic particle called the Higgs Boson. It won’t be too difficult for you to find out more about this particle on your own but the purpose of my blog today is to speak to the topic of scientific endeavor and why it is such a good thing.

Lately when I read an article about scientific topics the comments tend to be filled with Luddite remarks about the practical worthlessness of research, generally from Republican based sources, or about how we could better spend the money helping people, generally from Democrat based sources. Not that the criticism is consistently from one side or the other. I just think that these sorts of advancements are crucially more important to society and my life than just about anything else. Yet, it seems, the majority of people in the United States are against funding research of this nature for one reason or another.

First off I will quickly mention something called Particle Accelerators. Not what they do but what damage a failure to appreciate this sort of research did to the United States. Many of the most amazing discoveries, scientific advancements, and great minds of the world are gathering at the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland. It was built for 7.5 billion Euros (about 5 billion dollars depending on currency exchange rates). Sadly, a much larger collider, the Superconducting Super Collider which was scheduled to be built in the United States was cancelled in 1993. It was estimated it would cost $4.4 billion originally but costs spiraled to $12 billion by the time of cancellation.

Now, spiraling costs and mismanagement are terrible things and good project management is necessary. Congress, with a Democratic majority in both houses and against President Clinton’s advice, cancelled the program in a cost cutting move. For those interested Republicans were solidly for cancelling (about 70%) while democrats were moderately for keeping funding (53%) All the work currently being done in Europe, collecting the great scientific minds of our generation, is being done in Switzerland. Good for the Swiss, not good for the United States.

In our current financial mess other scientific programs, technological advancements, and varied other projects will be lost. The cost of all these losses is incalculable.

But, back to my topic, why is science so good?

Computer science was the main stimulus behind the huge economic boom of the 1980’s. What a few people accomplished brought comfort, profit, jobs, ideas, health, and other things to more people than can be imagined. Abundant, sustainable energy technology will drive huge profits and change the world but a lot of the research is happening outside the US. Not that I’m all gloom and doom. Key players continue to drive the US forward in this field and others. All is certainly not lost.

What disturbs me is the seeming increase in the view that scientific research is a waste of money and time. Just take a second to look around you at what science has provided. The fibers in your clothes, electronics, electricity, computers, your mattress, your vehicle, your eyesight, your health, there really isn’t a moment of your day when science hasn’t brought you comfort and ease. In a representative republic if the people think science is a waste of time so will government officials. And we are headed in that direction.

Sure, some projects don’t work out. And managers need to watch costs to keep things in line. But when we devalue science in the United States we hurt only ourselves.

If you wonder why such a momentous scientific event like the confirmation of the Higgs Boson happened in Switzerland then remember the Superconducting Super Collider. I can’t tell you exactly why confirming the Higgs Boson is so good for you but I know this, it is.

Science = good.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist
New Release: The Hammer of Fire

Teaser – Super Powers

Posted on by

PsychicI just read a fascinating article about a scientific experiment that seemed to validate psychic ability. The research was accepted for publication in 2010 and the methodology published for peer review to see if similar results could be obtained. Well, the first study using the methods is in and the results are predictable (see what I did there?) but nevertheless interesting.

I’ll tell you all about it tomorrow and I have a feeling it is going to turn into a multi-part session. I would say that the vast majority of people in the world believe in some sort of mental or physical power that defies scientific explanation. Why is that? What evidence is there? What’s it all about?

Tomorrow the journey begins!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist