It’s Gonna Be The Future Soon

One of the main elements of the science fiction genre is the future. Looking to the future extends far beyond just the world of Science Fiction, but to speculative fiction, religion, the business and military worlds, and indeed, is a question that everyone inevitably asks, can we predict what will happen next? George Friedman’s latest book, The Next 100 Years: A Forecast for the 21st Century purports to just that. While Friedman makes a number of interesting, and at times, good points, the resulting work is deeply flawed in its reasoning. I’ve since reviewed this book for io9 – much of the summary for the book can be found here.

There are three major points that I took issue with when it came to this book, which are instrumental to the book’s findings: lack of sources, an overemphasis and reliance on history and the assumption that the world will return to similar political connections that characterized the Cold War. However, while this is the case, Friedman imparts a very important lesson through this book, reminding the reader that history and nations work with a sort of cause and effect mentality, where x event causes y reaction over z time. Major events take years to build and grow, and an essential thing for the reader to keep in mind is that the world and political structure can change over the course of twenty to thirty years.

This book has no index, notes or sources anywhere in the book, which is odd, considering the number of places that there should be some sort of citation, such as a UN report citing declines in birthrates, or historical information on the political stance of a country. The result of this is a lengthy opinion piece that gets stranger and stranger as the decades pile up. Unfortunately for the book, this does nothing to help with the book’s credibility, despite the author’s credentials, and essentially turns it into an extended op-ed. With no scholarly information to back up the author’s assertions, the book rests on the idea that the author knows just what he is talking about, and given some of the things that he comes up with, I am more inclined to file this under fiction, rather than non-fiction.

Much of the book’s reasoning seem fairly flawed to me. Friedman, right off the bat, suggests that what he terms the US-Jihadist war (This should probably be Western-Jihadist war, in all actuality) is merely a small problem that will go away within a couple of years. I’m not well versed in the intelligence community or up on the current information, but I would imagine that that’s as far from the truth as you can get. The conflict that’s ongoing in the Middle East is one that has been brewing for years, even decades. Israel, Palestine, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan and others close by have long-seated issues with the United States and the Western world, fueled by extremists who believe that our way of life is detrimental to theirs, and have literally been killing themselves to try and stop us. This is not a problem that will vanish without many of those underlying problems being corrected, which I don’t see happening. Furthermore, Friedman fails to take into account how things will change with time – the importance of petroleum, for example, which is not a sure thing. What will the effects of climate change legislation have on nations, and how will changes in these resources affect countries. Furthermore, South America, Oceania and Africa are barely mentioned throughout the book.

Friedman hangs his hat on this one assumption – that the global war on fundamentalist terrorists will go away, and that the world will resume tensions that were in existence during the Cold War. He predicts that Russia will consolidate its power and a Russian bloc in Europe. While there are indications that this is happening, I don’t believe that it will be anything like what happened before, and that the US will essentially enter another Cold War. Furthermore, down the road, he predicts that the eventual demise of Russia will lead to the rise of Japan, Turkey and Poland, which I find somewhat more unlikely, at least with Poland and Japan.

Much of his reasoning in these instances depends upon historical record and what has gone on before with these countries. He notes that Japan, despite its recent pacifism, will return to warlike routes and eventually challenge the United States. Turkey will do the same. I find Turkey’s case slightly more reasonable, because of its diplomatic ties, stability and economy. In addition to these two countries, he also cites German and Russian tendencies to war. This to me is a particularly dangerous assumption, because countries and cultures are redeemable, as seen with Japan. Countries will not go to war or suddenly become aggressive simply because they have done so in the past. Japan has become incredibly tame, with a culture and multiple generations of people to support that. Germany similarly. Warfare, as Clausewitz notes, is an extension of political policy, and with a culture that is largely against war and conflict supporting a political structure, a highly militant Japan rising again seems unlikely. Friedman’s assertions that by the middle of the century, with lunar bases and ‘Battle Stars’ operated by the United States, are on the face ridiculous. (The cost alone of creating the International Space Station, which houses 6 scientists is in the trillions – the prices for stations that house people in the hundreds is magnitudes higher. Even then, with a mindset of defense against other nations, this still doesn’t fly.) But, even then, the idea that the Japanese will bomb these US facilities in a Pearl Harbor-esque attack on Thanksgiving evening is just nothing sort of laughable. History certainly has its place, but it cannot be used reliably to predict the future with an instance such as this. Analyze trends and motivations, yes, but using a country’s prior methods of warfare, in this manner, is pure fiction.

This is unfortunate, because the book is presented as fact and not necessarily as an exercise in history or how to think about how these events might work in the future. The result is a ridiculous and absurd argument for a return to older political thinking from people who were immersed in that world for so long.

The Nobel Prize and The President

This morning’s news that President Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize was an enormous surprise for both me and the President, who was informed earlier this morning of the news. The Nobel Prize Committee, in a short press release on their website, cited that the President has “created a new climate in international politics”, as well as reemphasizing the role of the United Nations and work towards nuclear disarmament. While I am surprised that the President has been awarded the prize, I believe that this award comes too prematurely, and could serve to undercut the short-term credibility of the organization.

President Obama has really done little thus far to deserve such an award, in my view. While I am a fan of the President, and largely agree with a number of his policies, many of the major policy initiatives that he has sworn to undertake have not been fulfilled yet. The prison facility at Guantanamo Bay is still in operation, despite orders to close the base, attempts at a peace between the Israeli and Palestinian governments have not changed in any significant fashion and two wars in the Middle East still rage on.

Despite that, I think that the awarding of this prize is a significant marker in the way that the tone has shifted towards the United States because of President Obama. Given that the nominations for the prize were due around the time that he went into office, I have to think that this wasn’t because of any specific policies, but more about the post-election period where his administration began to plan out their strategy for the next four years, which included ending the war in Iraq, closing Guantanamo, and working on fixing the country domestically, all things that have yet to happen, and most likely won’t for the foreseeable future. The fact that the prize seems to have been awarded on the potential of a person is a bit disturbing, because a failure of the Obama administration to achieve some or all of these goals will undermine the award. The speeches and talk prior to the election sounded good – fantastic, even – but it has to be remembered that it is the actions that will distinguish the president, not his words.

Still, the mere presence of a riveting figure appears to be worthy of the prize, and there are some good indications that his entry into world politics has yielded some results. Iran has agreed to open nuclear talks with the rest of the world, and the US has made some significant moves towards reducing its nuclear arsenal, along with Russia. What is more important, I feel, is the overtures that the President is making, pushing for a more important role for peace, apologizing for some very wrong things that the United States has undertaken and showing that at least there is significant efforts to change the very standoffish stance that the United States has undertaken in the past eight years. While these have not been backed up with the same significant actions, the United States has shown the first efforts towards this with renewed efforts in the State Department.

Is the president deserving of this award for his actions in office thus far? Not really, no. But, as the New York Times points out, it’s not unprecedented, that individuals with potential have been awarded the Prize, such as West German Chancellor Willy Brandt. As the Times suggests, there is already something in progress with the election of President Obama. I just hope that it will play out as expected.

The Progressive Era, Government and Industry and Trust

The political climate over the past year has gotten me thinking about the relationship between government and the economy, and it’s turned my thinking around in a number of different ways. It’s an incredibly difficult subject to approach, and I’ve often found myself caught between both sides of the argument.

I’ve recently been studying the Progressive Era, especially in the state of Vermont, in the early 1900s. From the mid 1800s to that point, Vermont underwent a bit of a technical revolution, with larger industries, namely with Granite in Barre, coming into the state, with their own histories with organized labor and several incidents of unrest. In my current research, I’m examining Byron Clark, a Burlington man who I feel exemplifies the Progressive era as a model representative, and through this research, I’ve come across several sources that have noted that the Progressive Era was a time of massive social reform in response to industry.

“The progressive era has long been recognized as one of substantial contribution to social legislation. Working through state and national legislatures, reformers rewrote child labor laws and safety and factory inspection statues. They cast the society’s response to industrial accident and death into the new form of workmen’s compensation. They limited working hours for some women and in a few cases, for men. In some states, night work became illegal. By 1915, several states had passed minimum wage legislation.” (1)

As business and the economy grew in the United States during this time, many of these reforms were left to the states. As the economy likewise began to nationalize, so to did reformers, who saw a need for uniform legislation to cover a more uniform economy. (2) Clark wasn’t involved with this level of the Progressive era, as I’ve found little evidence that he worked in state-wide or national politics, but his actions clearly indicate that he saw a need for the sort of things that industry detracted from in society – the need for a well rounded education in the body, mind and spirit of children, for example, which still lives on with him today through the continued operation of YMCA Camp Abnaki in North Hero, VT.

My point in all of this is that the unfettered rise of industry in this country is one that is not pretty. It was exploitative on a wide scale level, by industry bosses who raced to undercut their competitors at the expense of the workers who made up their bottom line. One of the more interesting reads that I’ve come across is David Von Drehle’s book, Triangle: The Fire That Changed America, which looks at the Triangle Shirtwaist factory fire that killed a number of workers because the company’s upper management felt that the risk of workers taking too many smoking breaks outweighed the risk of proper safety. As it happened, workers died because the fire escapes were chained up.

A friend of mine, in her blog, pondered the question, why is it more important to distrust government over industry? There are valid arguments for distrust of any sort of governmental setup – an overabundance of regulation when it comes to industry can harm the innovation and expansion of market power that helps keep the economy robust, as many Republican members of congress have noted in their oppositions to the current reforms that are ongoing in legislation at the moment.

This, I think, is where the Progressive era can be extremely helpful. Faced with the excesses of industry and overwhelming legislation, the Progressive Era is a transitional point between the two extremes, from a laissez-faire part of history prior to the era, to the New Deal reforms of the 1930s and 1940s. The Progressive Era was the middle ground that seems to be so coveted by the American public, but for some reason, it seems to be unobtainable.

Like Amber noted in her blog, I don’t trust Industry. From its own history throughout its rise, it has proven, time and time again that the interests of a nation and the well being of the people are not at the forefront of any sort of industrial agenda, aside from the added effect of raising a country’s GDP and economy. In this excuse, it seems to be okay for companies to contaminate our ground and air, duck responsibility for accidents and try to deceive the general public. While I was in college, I worked with a small company that helps to inspect and analyze groundwater contamination, and by Dad, who’s worked at the company, has been called as an expert witness on the behalf of some, going up against larger oil companies who try to pass off the problem to those who ultimately are not responsible. Similarly, with companies such as Union Carbide, Pfizer and Monsanto Corporation are all modern companies who have had similar accidents for which they have shown that while they can provide much good for the well being of the nation, they can also cause a great amount of harm for those who are unfortunate enough to live in the same areas. People who argue that industry can be responsible may have some valid points, but they miss or disregard most of the arguments that prove that this isn’t the case. Industry cannot be responsible for its own actions because it has shown that. Regulation, in many cases, not all, helps to keep this behavior in check, to keep industry responsible for its actions. This is the greatest lesson out of the Progressive era that I’ve come across.

From the past and present, we have to look to the future. The current argument of government vs. economy is one that will rage on for a long time, and I’ve found myself thinking about it while reading Paolo Bacigalupi’s first novel, The Windup Girl. It’s a hard SF novel that deals with this very issue – a world that is overrun by industrial greed, in the form of large agricultural companies who have decimated the planet with artificial plagues that have run out of control. I’m hoping to write up a review for the book in the coming week or so (I’m taking my time with it right now), but I think that there are some valuable lessons here – industrial and corporate powers are really not the ones to be trusted – their interests lie elsewhere. While generating a profit is hardly a bad thing, it should not be at the expense of the lives of the people around them.

1 – William Graebner. “Federalism in the Progressive Era: A Structural Interpretation of Reform.” The Journal of American History, Vol 64, No. 2 (Sept 1977), 331
2 – Ibid, 332

Today, We Watched the Sky Fall

There is something that’s been bothering me on this day, and it’s something that I’ve noticed happening for a couple years now:

“Remember 9-11!”

This year, I’ve been seeing more and more of this, people pouring out a simple one or two sentences, sometimes all in caps, reminding me that I need to remember the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the thwarted attack on United 93. As if I could forget. The events of September 11 will likely remain with me for the rest of my life – I can remember that day as clearly as I remember last week, and in the ensuing eight years, it has changed our world far more than any event that I can remember.

These simple status messages just don’t cut it for me. I’m sorry, but from where I’m sitting, status messages are more about the person than anything else, and I’ve always seen these sort of messages as a simple reaffirmation that whichever person posts something like this, they want everyone else to see that they remember the day, that I’m honoring their memory in the maximum 140 characters and that with that out of the way, I can resume the next 364 days without issue.

What a fucking shallow thing to do.

September 11th was an incredibly complicated and vile act. Just under 3,000 people have died as a result of the attacks, either as passengers on the airplanes, bystanders or rescue personnel. The attacks were planned well in advance by Al Queda, and those plans were spurred on by larger actions on the part of many individuals and nations. In turn, it has unleashed some of the absolute best and some of the absolute worst this nation has to offer upon the world.

I am saddened by what happened. I remember the absolute horror that registered while I watched online as the news poured in. I remember the confusion and the terror of the unknown, wondering if another airplane would come down somewhere else. I can remember the smoke rising and the countless pictures that poured in. It’s something that I don’t think that I could forget if I wanted to. In the meantime, we have launched two major conflicts around the world, changed legislation, opened prisons and distrust anyone with a water bottle on an airplane. Every single one is a pointed reminder of what happened eight years ago. I can’t forget, and I refuse to simply honor those who died on one single day. They deserve better, especially in this nation with such a short attention span.

We are reminded every day that something terrible happened, and I am so tired of being told to support the soldiers overseas, otherwise I’m unpatriotic, I’m tired of the idea that any opinion that differs from the larger public consciousness is nothing short of treason in some people’s eyes, I’m tired of the polarization that has infected this country and I’m tired of 9-11 and the memory of those innocent people being used, manipulated into serving an administration’s agenda. I’m tired that despite all of the remembering that is going on, we’ve largely forgotten why we’re in the situations that we’re in today.

Today, we watched the skies fall and change the world. I’ll never forget that.

Exploration vs. Scientific Modes of Spaceflight

Now that I’ve since finished my last seminar of classwork for my Master’s, I’ve begun to switch gears and begun work on my Capstone Paper, the final paper before I get my diploma, should I pass. I’m very excited to begin this mode of work, because I’ve gotten a topic that I’ve gotten really interested in – the Space Race. Originally, I’d intended on studying something with the comic book industry and the Second World War, but there’s a huge lack of sources. Since then, I’ve switched gears, and will be looking to the early days of Mercury, Gemini and Apollo, and the military roots and implications that the American space program represented to the United States during the Cold War. I’m still working to narrow down my sources, and will likely spend the weekend working through sources to get a comprehensive bibliography put together, along with a tighter thesis.

While talking with my program director earlier today, I came across a realization about the space program that I hadn’t realized or considered before – the current Space program will never, ever be as successful as the Mercury – Apollo era, for one simple reason – there is no certain, end all goal for the current plans for space travel. This is in no way trying to say that what we’re doing up there is useless, far from it. The difference between the two is that in 1961, President John F. Kennedy set an end goal for American space ambitions. Americans would reach the lunar surface by the end of the decade – an extraordinary declaration that left many at NASA and the nation stunned, as the cumulative United States spaceflight experience amounted to a mere 15 minutes with Alan Shepherd’s Freedom 7 flight earlier in the year.

From that point forward, there was a clear point to work to, and the space missions that came afterwards followed a specific path to reach the moon. The Mercury missions were designed to get mankind to space and into orbit, the longest time in space amounting to just over a day, with Mercury 9. Project Gemini followed with a slate of missions that were designed to test space flight, where the first docking and EVA on the US’s part took place. Finally, the Apollo missions are most noted for the Apollo 11 mission that landed on the moon. This was the validation of the efforts of the US, but leading up to that saw other specialized missions that saw humanity to the moon and back, testing the Apollo hardware in each of its phases.

While reaching the moon was the most visible goal and most dramatic part of the space race, it is far from the most important aspect. The space race did a number of things, but everything was done with an overall goal in mind, one that was contested early on by mission planners who felt that we should skip the moon all together and head for the other planets. What the early missions provided was structure and essentially, building blocks that helped to bring the lunar landings from science fiction to reality.

Following the Apollo missions, there was a lull. The space shuttle program was approved, as well as Skylab, and the entire mission and focus for space shifted from an exploration model to one of scientific discovery. Skylab was essentially the turning point, utilizing leftovers from the Apollo missions for something new entirely. However, there has been no overarching goal for space since the Apollo years. The public has turned away from space and NASA’s efforts up there, I suspect because of a perceived lack of purpose. The Space Shuttle, while a wonderful machine, has not really full filled any sort of plan to reach the next inevitable stage, missions to Mars, beyond scientific experiments that require a zero-gravity environment, servicing space stations and satellites. The information gathered about living in space for extended periods of time has been incredibly helpful and will no doubt be utilized in a future mission, but these experiments were not expressly conducted for a martian mission.

Mars is the next logical step for future space flight missions beyond the International Space Station (which, looking at it, is a good goal that has brought together nations, but has largely failed to capture the public’s imagination like the Lunar landings did. Let’s face it, walking around on the moon is a lot cooler). What is required of the United States is a large, overarching series of missions that will begin to pave the way for heading to Mars. The technology is certainly there, as is the willpower, but what is needed the most is guidance from up on high. Kennedy’s statement in 1961 was a powerful catalyst that set everything in motion, and any further trips to Mars, and indeed, even the Moon, will require such a thing, but will also require a comparable plan.

Now is also the best time for such a project, when one thinks about it. At the peak of the Apollo program, NASA employed around four hundred thousand people, and that does not count the other multiple hundreds of thousands that would have worked in the defense and aerospace industries during that time designing, building and supporting the missions leading up to the space program. In a book that I’ve been reading, it was noted that not a single dollar was spent on the moon – it was spent on earth, and provided a massive boost to the economy during that time by supporting those industries. This is exactly what will be needed in the coming years, and I hope that with China and India beginning space programs of their own, this will provide an acute sense of urgency for US mission planners and policy makers to begin to really consider such an endeavour.

Vermont Political and Financial Woes

Over the past couple of years, I’ve gotten far more cogniscent of how politics work and what things mean. While I’ve largely followed national politics over the past two years, I’ve gotten a heavy dose of state politics, even more so since the national recession began. In the past couple ot months, I’ve become extremely frustrated with Governor Jim Douglas (R-VT) and his reactions to the state bugetary crisis.

Like many states, Vermont has been hit fairly hard, at least on the state budget level. Overall, we’ve been lucky – we don’t have large masses of housing that can’t be sold, heavy industry that’s been outsourced to other countries, etc. That being said, we still have a projected $200-$300 million gap, and it’s splitting the state down party lines, and not in any good way. There’s certainly ways to do this. Cut spending like crazy, eliminating programs, departments and personnel, as the Republicans suggest, or raise taxes and maintain a lot of these programs, as the Democrats have suggested. Both ideas have merit, in my eyes. There have been numerous layoffs already within the state, and some program cuts. The State Senate has already put together a number of plans, with cuts upwards of $100 million, with several additional taxes, such as a .05 cent gas tax and a couple of income ones, only to be told flat out by Gov. Douglas that he will accept no tax hikes at all.

Wait, what?

In normal years, I can fully understand not wanting to have any sort of increase in my taxes – I like my money. But these are extrodinary circumstances, which leads to a sort of double edge sword – while there are most likely programs that are out there that do cost money to operate that can be lost, there are plenty out there that need to remain, because in addition to all of those regular people who have problems, the people whom those programs serve and help to lead any sort of life. Saying no to a .05 cent gas tax makes absolutely no sense, especially when Douglas makes the argument that it will prevent people from … whatever he’s been saying that it’ll prevent them from. Bullshit, because a year ago, a gallon of unleaded regular was at least $2 higher than it is today. If there was a time for such a thing, now is it. Once this crisis is over, I’d be more than happy to see it go. This tax in particular would be designed specifically to help fix Vermont’s roadways, which, as I’ve been doing as a lot of driving and can vouch for this, need a lot of work. Between the potholes, cracks and bumps, that money can be put to good use, and free up funds for other programs.
Education has been a big issue as well – while listening to the radio, Douglas noted that we have a declining number of students, but are paying for a higher amount. I honestly can’t see any problem with this, beause education is the one place that really needs the attention and funds, especially when things such as arts and culture are being stripped away from our schools. Keep the funding and the teachers, and we can provide a far better education for the students that we do have. We certainly need that in this country.

My dad had a good point the other day – Douglas seems to only be saying no in order to maintain a sort of party line – Republican = no taxes, or no higher taxes. While this is admirable, there is nothing good that can come out of this, and he is increasingly alienating the Democratic majority in the Vermont House and Senate, which will make it harder for him in the long run, especially with an election coming up in 2010. He has already suffered a defeat – a needless defeat – earlier this year when he opposed the Marriage Equality Bill that brought Vermont to be the first state to legalize same-sex marriage via legislation, not by the courts.

I’m not opposed to cutting taxes, but I am opposed to the drive to indescriminantly cut away programs simply to maintain a party image to help with re-election. I’m regretting my decision to vote for Gov. Douglas, because I hoped that he would be sensible during this financial crisis. Sadly, I seem to have been wrong.

Education …

 has produced a vast population able to read but unable to distinguish what is worth reading.

G. M. Trevelyan (1876-1962) British historian  

 

During my senior year of college, I took a course on Norwich University’s history. Initially, I wasn’t a huge fan of the idea of the course, because honestly, how intertesting is the history of one’s own institution? I ended up loving the course, and wound up typing up a piece on the Norwich University students who fought at Normandy, and went to France to talk about it. 

 

One of the things that I really took away from the course was the school’s founder, Alden Partridge, and his ideas about education. He was an incredibly patriotic man, who believed in the idea of a citizen soldier, but who also believed in a well rounded education. One of the big things that I learned was the idea of experiencial learning, and how much of the school’s history was set around this style of learning. Partridge would take students out on hikes, marches, field trips, while bringing in experts on all sorts of vocations, but also making sure that his students got out of the classroom and into the field, where students could learn something hands on. 

 

While I majored in History at Norwich, I also minored in Geology, which I think Partridge would have liked – a mixture of sciences and arts. The Geology department at the school is absolutely fantastic, and those classes are amongst the ones that I miss the most while at the school. We took field trips – lots of them. It wasn’t uncommon during some of my courses that we would get together on a weekend and end up in the middle of New York while looking at rocks along the way to see how the rock beds changed as we went further into what was a sea. More memorable, however, was the geology trips to the American southwest, where we visited and studied the Colorado Plateu and Grand Canyon. I feel that because I saw this all close up, I understand it far better than I ever could have by mere examination in a book. 

 

Over the past couple of months, I’ve gotten hooked on a webpage called Not Always Right, which features stories from people in service postitions and their odd, funny or disturbing encounters with customers. While reading these, I’m often astounded at the sheer stupidity of people featured in them, and it makes me a bit sad at just how ignorant, backward or just plain oblivious people can be, and while listening to the radio on a program about the state of education or something along those lines, the root problem to this can be solved by some of Partrige’s ideas when it came to teaching – experiencial learning can help to solve some of the problems. 

 

I think that the biggest problem that the United States faces when it comes to educating students is that our education system is largely out of touch with how life really works. Thinking back to high school, I can narry remember a class in which I learned something useful that I apply to today. Most of my social interactions I’ve learned from summer camp, where I could work with people in the real world. But in school, I never really learned how exactly Shakespheare fit in with a job or anything along those lines. 

 

The general consensus seems to be that our education system is very out of date and needs to be revised because a lot of students aren’t learning what they really need to learn. The content is there, but it seems to me that people aren’t making the connection between the academic world, and how to apply things in real life. Looking back to High School and College, the best classes that I had were the ones that the teacher worked to link the class’s content with real world applications. In classes such as tech, mathematics, sciences seem to have concepts that are much mroe easily applied in the real world, while classes such as history and other social sciences are a bit tricky, but it is doable. 

 

What the US needs to do is look to experts in the education field and to see just how kids are learning nowadays. The argument of “It worked for me” just doesn’t work because the world that we live in is constantly changing – what might have worked for a politician years ago might not even apply now. 

 

Learning and education is the most important thing that we can spend money on – teachers shouldn’t be cut back, and we need programs that help to support failing schools, rather than undercut their support when they clearly need it the most. But above that, we need to teach people how to think, reason and operate in the world once they come out of the educational system and into the real world.

Earth Day, or Why Being Green Doesn’t Really Matter

Today is Earth Day, the 39th occasion set up by the United Nations to celebrate and bring attention to the environment, and I’m glad to hear that it’s still going strong. Protection of the environment is something that I’ve long believed in, through my time as a Boy Scout and in high school, where I have since gained a considerable appreciation for the world and nature itself. I’m often astounded when I talk to some people who profess that they really don’t like the outdoors, and can’t seem to appreciate what’s out there.

That all being said, there’s a one big thing that I’m skeptical about, and that’s global warming, or climate change, whatever the politically correct term of the moment is. More accurately, I’m skeptical about our response to the entire thing.

I’m not desputing that global warming exists, it does. Scientists have tracked temperatures rising a bit over the past century, and the notion of a greenhouse gas has been around for about as long. The Republicans who say that it’s unproven and that it’s a scare tactic generally don’t know what they’re talking about, or are pandering to their bases. The real question is to what extent is humanity responsible, and I’m leaning towards the side where we’re certainly not responsible for the phenomenon, but we’re probably not helping it either.

Climate change is probably a much better, abit more sensational term. One of the many things that I’ve heard from people, especially in Vermont during the winter, is: “It’s cold out! If there has been global warming, why is it cold?” and from others, “2 degrees doesn’t sound like much, it’s not going to matter” and so forth. Global warming doesn’t necessarily equate to a uniform rise in temperature around the globe, and it causes other problems associated with weather. Weather is complicated, and it’s influenced by a lot of things – warming in some areas affects something else, which in turn has effects elsewhere. A rising temperature of just a couple degrees can have much larger effects because of these influences, and things that we can’t necessarily predict.

However, while we’ve likely influenced our planet’s climate, I can say that we didn’t cause it – global warming is an event that has happened a number of times before in Earth’s past. While in college, I minored in Geology, and while I’m certainly not an expert in the subject, I did learn that there is irrefutable geologic evidence for times when the earth has been very warm – much warmer than it is today. Over every continent, there are massive deposits of limestone, linked to warmer temperatures, and which are also overridden by glacial formations. I see the Earth as a set of larger systems that are largely self-correcting. Increased parcipitation, such as water or snow helps to reflect temperatures. Global warming events are typically followed by a global cooling event or an ice age. (Don’t start stocking up on Sterno and overcoats, this won’t happen for a long time, no matter what Hollywood thinks). And despite these things, the planet is still here, life is still flourishing, and will continue to do so. Species will die, but others will adapt, as will people. We’ll just move to where our cities aren’t flooded and pick up elsewhere. Farmers will move from areas that aren’t productive to places that will be.

While I’m not convinced that we’re responsible for Global Warming, I’m not necessarily against the emmissions caps that have been proposed, the same with technologies that help to limit the pollutants that we inevitably create by driving all over the place. They’re still pollutants, and can cause a lot more localized damage to the people who have to live around it, and the environment nearby. Walking out to a Vermont cemetary on various occasions, one can visibly see the damage that acidic rain has caused, from the marble headstones that are so weathered that their original names can no longer be seen. The health problems that industry causes is immense, and instead of worrying about limiting how much we drive, we should be more worried about things like that, especially in growing countries that we send our business over to, such as China, where environmental laws aren’t all that stringent.

The main thing that bothers me about this neo-liberal green movement is the absolute shallowness to it. While it’s a very good thing that there is a sort of public consiousness to being green, recycling and whatnot, I think that people are embracing it far more as a fashion statement than by any real motivation to help save the planet. Prius drivers in particular are a group that I’d like to single out. I absolutely despise this car, and I think Jay Leno put it best: “With the Prius, you can go look, I’m diving an unattractive car, because I’m saving the planet.” The Prius doesn’t do anything but give drivers a little more distance per gallon of gas – it doesn’t change our driving habits or anything like that, which is what is really needed. In the same clip, much of the discussion is over the Honda Clarity, a hydrogen powered car, which is the sort of change that is needed, because it allows us to maintain the same driving habits, while getting rid of the pollutants. Similarly, I don’t think that electric cars will do anything

But when it comes to driving, what is needed is a complete re-evaluation to how we get around. I see gridlocks such as in LA, New York City, Boston, which is just ineffective – people spend far too much time just sitting, while not moving. This is one reason why I’m very excited for systems such as the high-speed rail that the Obama Administration has proposed, but also for things such as the Personal Rapid Transit systems that are starting to be built in London and in Abu Dhabi, systems that will be far more effective at getting people where they need to go, enmasse. Beyond that, even the idea of commuting to work should be re-evaluated, especially with the use of the internet. Why spend four hours in traffic to sit in front of a computer, when you can just as easily to that at home?

The entire Green fad out right now is just that, a fad. People are latching onto the idea because it’s popular, but also because they don’t have to do anything. Changes will happen when it is most advantageous to us – this was one reason why the spike in gas prices was possibly one of the best things that could happen for the environmental movement – it forced people to change their ways and driving habits to adapt to new conditions – people were forced to be green, essentially. The current recession should do the same thing with businesses that are ineffective and waste money, and while we’re in the mindset of efficiency and getting the most bang for our buck, we should turn out attention to the things that will really make a difference – rethinking how we get power, how we get from place to place. The planet will take care of itself, it’s done this before. We need to take care of ourselves in the meantime.

Either that, or I say we intentionally set off a couple of the really big Volcanos in the Pacific, the ones that’ll lower global temperatures a couple degrees from the several cubic miles of stuff that they’ll blow into the atmosphere.

Technology & Pirates

Last night, on my way home from work, I ended up listening to a couple commentators discussing the recent rise in piracy off the coast of Somalia. This has been of particular interest here in Vermont, as Captain Richard Phillips is from Underhill, and recently was returned home safely after a 5 day standoff with the pirates who took him hostage. 

The article in general was examing a number of high tech ways that vessels, which generally don’t like to arm their crews (for safety reasons), are adopting to fend off pirates. These items range from types of foam that can prevent someone from climbing up on a ship, water cannons, directed sound and light emitters that deafen or blind combatants, all of which have had some use in the seas already. Most of these things I remember being developed by the military for non-lethal warfare, and they seem to be pretty effective at repelling boarders, which is hoped will help to stop piracy in that region. 

I don’t think that it’s going to work, however. 

A short while ago, I did several reviews and an interview with Wired for War author Peter Singer, and I think that there are several parallels between this high-tech approach to taking on 21st century pirates, and our new, high tech ways to taking on insurgents in a 21st century world that Singer has outlined. Additionally, there were several points in my own studies on methods of warfare that give me some pause when it comes to new and high-tech gadgets being put into combat situations. 

On the more obvious side, technology seems to be the silver bullet for warfare. Soldiers nowadays have enormous capabilities compared to their historical predecessors. Our soldiers can fight in the dark, can shoot a person from over a mile away, can fly over a hostile combat zone from thousands of miles away, and talk to one another while fighting in a way to coordinate their movements. These advances have allowed our military personnel to be far more effective in combat, and as a result, more people come back alive than before. There is very little downside to this. 

What I fear, however, is that our military, and indeed, our society, has come to expect far more from fighting forces, and are more willing to utilize technology as a method of warfare. While covering the 2009 Colby Military Writer’s symposium here at Norwich University a month ago, the panel discussion brought up the point that President Eisenhower noted in his fairwell address in 1961, warning against the rise of a military industrial complex, noting that going to war nowadays is far easier, because the personnel required is smaller, with technology being percieved as making up the difference far better than humans can. 

This has certainly been a big issue for Iraq, and numerous talks and people I’ve spoken with have noted that the human element to warfare is something that cannot be underestimated or eliminated. Author Alan R. King, noted that many of the problems that we had in Iraq was a failure to understand the human element within the country, with in turn cause the situation to worsen. Peter Singer also noted that a number of human rights groups have looked into the idea of utilizing unmanned drones in genocide areas, such as Sudan’s Darfur, in an effort to stop the violence, and former CIA operative and author Robert Baer has noted that for all the satellites in orbit, having an operative in a room with someone is the best way to gather intelligence, because they can see, hear and feel everything that it going on, things that robotic solutions cannot do at the present moment. These ’solutions’ are really not solutions. 

So, when it comes to the rise in Piracy in Somalia, technology is certainly going to deter some pirates. But, what happens when they aquire a water cannon of their own, or use goggles and ear plugs to counter the countermeasures? The same thing is happening in Iraq at the present moment with children armed with spray paint – an expensive robot is taken out of commission by a far cheaper solution. The other issue that I see with extensive countermeasures against pirates is that this could up the ante when it comes to the pirates themselves, and they have already threatened to do so following the deaths of the three pirates who took Richard Phillips the other day. Simply killing and deterring pirates at this point is a short-term solution, as we have found killing insurgents. Where there are people who have taken up arms, there will be people to follow, and the situation will escalate. 

President Obama has recently said that they will be putting a stop to the rise in piracy over there, but what exactly does that mean? Will we send in a carrier group to cover a large amount of ocean, while not addressing the underlying problem? Or will he go the route that will be unpopular and attackable by working with the remains of the Somali Government to try and control the problem through economics, which will ultimately solve the problem? The pirates are the symptom of a country in dire need of help, and working to alleviate that symptom will not bring about any sort of long term solution.

Same-Sex Marriage

Vermont has been in the news a lot lately. Earlier last month, our Senate voted 26-4 in favor of a bill that would legalize ‘gay marriage’ in Vermont, making it the third state after Connecticut and Massachusetts to do so. Back in 2000, the state made a splash with the introduction of Civil Unions, which granted many aspects of marriage to same-sex couples, although not in name.

Today, the State Representatives voted in favor of the bill 95-52, despite a threat from Governor Jim Douglas that any such bill would be vetoed as soon as it reaches his desk. His statement has caused a divide in public opinion towards the bill and the governor’s actions. It’s certainly a contentious issue, and while I can admire the desire to advocate patience and a broad examination of the issue, that’s not really what’s happening in the state – Douglas has taken it upon himself to essentially listen to his own beliefs and convictions, rather than what the people of Vermont seem to be trending towards, and has hidden behind an excuse that he would much rather have the budget passed first.

I can admire the personal conviction, I really do. I can understand why people don’t wish to support the bill, and I actually agree with Douglas when it comes to getting the state’s finances squared away first. The state is working to fullfill a $200 million shortfall, and is facing a number of postitions that are going to be cut, which is extremely unpopular at this stage. But, this decision on Douglas’s part will likely hurt him in the long run, especially as he’ll likely be running for re-election in 2010. Marriage that is more inclusive is becoming a more popular within the state.

What annoys me more is that these arguments dredge up much unpleasentness between both sides, and the arguments of the religious right in paticular are the arguments that are the most distressing. Their arguments are ones of fear, mistrust and ignorant thinking that represents the worst of our society, and while I’m not sure that marriage is a federal issue, it is most certainly a state one, and that it shouldn’t be prohibited based on one’s gender, no matter what religious texts are followed by the legislators. Religion can certainly inform the opinions of politicians, but it should not dictate policy.

Marriage is a civil issue, and as we have seen in our history, seperate but equal laws are not. Civil Unions have existed for nine years, and in that time, there have been problems that have cropped up, especially in other states. Allowing same-sex couples to marry would eliminate this problem, and it should be done.