Luke's Change: an Inside Job:
A few years ago, an email forward made the rounds making similar claims. I know at least one person who, because of that forward, gave up their prior belief that George W. Bush was behind 9/11, saying that if they could make a Star Wars conspiracy sound that convincing, maybe there wasn't anything to the real-life conspiracy theories either.
Of course, careful observers will notice a few errors in the video... But I'll leave those to the YouTube commenters.
Showing posts with label space. Show all posts
Showing posts with label space. Show all posts
Monday, March 25, 2013
Thursday, January 24, 2013
Reasons for Optimism IX
1. Last week, initial jobless claims fell to a 5-year low. At 335k, jobless aid applications haven't been this low since the beginning of the recession in January 2008.
2. Don Boudreaux continues his Cleaned by Capitalism series with an entry on the washing machine. See Hans Rosling's TED talk for more on the washing machine.
3. The Slingshot water purifier, invented by Dean Kamen and backed by Coca-Cola, is expanding from initial trials in Ghana to Paraguay, Mexico and South Africa. In the video below, Kamen says, "Global organizations... work on top-down, government-to-government big programs, and we're working on the Slingshot, the little tool that David needs to take on Goliath. [...] We could empty half of all the beds in all the hospitals in the world by just giving people clean water."
4. A new study shows that official poverty statistics in the United States grossly overstate poverty. The poverty rate has declined by 25 percentage point since 1960, and 8.5 percentage points since 1980.
5. Via Mark Perry, U.S. oil production grew more in 2012 than in any other year since we started keeping track. Weekly U.S. oil production is now at it's highest point in 20 years.
6. Planetary Resources, the asteroid mining company, has released a tech update, including video of a prototype for the Arkyd-100 satellite. But perhaps I should call them an asteroid mining company, because Planetary Resources isn't the only one anymore. A company called Deep Space Industries is also targeting asteroids. Deep Space Industries plans to bring back samples weighing 50+ pounds by 2016, and to have an established mining operation by 2020.
7. Bigelow Aerospace's inflatable space station idea is getting a boost with a two-year trial as a module on the ISS.
8. TSA has cancelled its contract with Rapiscan, the makers of the naked scanners. All naked scanners will be removed from airports by June. They will be replaced by scanners that do not show such fine detail. While the health concerns remain, this is definitely a step in the right direction.
2. Don Boudreaux continues his Cleaned by Capitalism series with an entry on the washing machine. See Hans Rosling's TED talk for more on the washing machine.
3. The Slingshot water purifier, invented by Dean Kamen and backed by Coca-Cola, is expanding from initial trials in Ghana to Paraguay, Mexico and South Africa. In the video below, Kamen says, "Global organizations... work on top-down, government-to-government big programs, and we're working on the Slingshot, the little tool that David needs to take on Goliath. [...] We could empty half of all the beds in all the hospitals in the world by just giving people clean water."
4. A new study shows that official poverty statistics in the United States grossly overstate poverty. The poverty rate has declined by 25 percentage point since 1960, and 8.5 percentage points since 1980.
5. Via Mark Perry, U.S. oil production grew more in 2012 than in any other year since we started keeping track. Weekly U.S. oil production is now at it's highest point in 20 years.
6. Planetary Resources, the asteroid mining company, has released a tech update, including video of a prototype for the Arkyd-100 satellite. But perhaps I should call them an asteroid mining company, because Planetary Resources isn't the only one anymore. A company called Deep Space Industries is also targeting asteroids. Deep Space Industries plans to bring back samples weighing 50+ pounds by 2016, and to have an established mining operation by 2020.
7. Bigelow Aerospace's inflatable space station idea is getting a boost with a two-year trial as a module on the ISS.
8. TSA has cancelled its contract with Rapiscan, the makers of the naked scanners. All naked scanners will be removed from airports by June. They will be replaced by scanners that do not show such fine detail. While the health concerns remain, this is definitely a step in the right direction.
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Recent Reasons for Optimism VI
While it's been awhile, I think it's time for another installment of Recent (more or less) Reasons for Optimism.
The Best of Humanity
1. Buzzfeed profiles some of the heroes of Sandy Hook. A single man embodied the worst that humanity can be and caused enormous suffering. But these six women stood up to the challenge and saved dozens of lives, some at the cost of their own.
2. Buzzfeed also has a list of "26 Moments that Restored Our Faith in Humanity." My favorites include the responses to Hurricane Sandy at #4 and #5, the man with the arthritic dog at #23, and the "parents of the year" at #24.
Health
3. This infographic, covering the leading causes of death since 1900, has some great reasons for optimism. The number one cause of death in 2010 was heart disease, but the deaths caused by heart disease have fallen steadily since their peak in the 60s, from about 370 to 193 per 100,000. Deaths from the second-worst killer, cancer, have also been falling since they peaked in the early 90s.
4. Scientists in the UK have successfully spurred nerve regeneration in paralyzed dogs by transplanting cells from the dogs' own noses to the injured areas. It remains to be seen if the technique will work in humans, but over several months, the dogs went from complete paralysis in the rear legs to being able to walk on a treadmill without assistance.
5. Jan Scheuermann, who is paralyzed from the neck down, can now operate a robotic arm using only her mind "with speeds comparable to the able-bodied" and with a 91.6% accuracy rate.
Civil Liberties
6. The Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously passed a bill that would require law enforcement to actually get warrants to read private emails, no matter how old the email is. The bill will now go to the full Senate, and if it passes there, would also need to pass the House and be signed by Obama, but at least it's a step in the right direction.
Technology
7. Self-driving cars are inching closer to reality. Ford plans to introduce cars that can drive for you in stressful stop-and-go traffic, possibly by 2015. But Volvo will beat them to the punch with cars that can drive themselves at slow speeds in 2014. Meanwhile, a company called Rio Tinto is already using ten driverless trucks to transport iron ore, with plans to expand to 150 over the next few years.
8. 3D printing is coming to a store near you, at least in Europe. Staples will be offering 3D printing services next year in The Netherlands and Belgium. No doubt the US will soon follow, if this turns out to be profitable for them. Meanwhile, Virginia Tech is providing 3D printing free for students (ht). Researchers in Britain are also having some success in printing electronics.
9. From Planetary Resources, a nearly hour-long video with a great amount of detail on the work they're doing to mine asteroids. Early in the video, Eric Anderson says, "The fact of the matter is that the population of the planet has grown a lot over the last couple hundred years, and people live longer, people live much better lives. It's really an extraordinary time to be alive. And yet, we're just at the cusp of doing some of the more incredibly exciting things that we never thought were possible before."
Some more highlights:
Economics
11. In the US, household net worth is the highest it's been since 2007, and higher than any point prior to 2006. The total value of US real estate is also on the rise for the first time since 2006.
12. Don Boudreaux is in the midst of a series of blog entries detailing how everyday items are both less expensive and higher quality today than in 1956, based on an old Sears catalog from that year. So far, he's included women's clothing, bedsheets and lawn care. Mark Perry has made similar observations using other old advertisements, including dishwashers and home entertainment.
And finally, not a reason for optimism, but rather a quote from Winston Churchill: "A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty."
The Best of Humanity
1. Buzzfeed profiles some of the heroes of Sandy Hook. A single man embodied the worst that humanity can be and caused enormous suffering. But these six women stood up to the challenge and saved dozens of lives, some at the cost of their own.
2. Buzzfeed also has a list of "26 Moments that Restored Our Faith in Humanity." My favorites include the responses to Hurricane Sandy at #4 and #5, the man with the arthritic dog at #23, and the "parents of the year" at #24.
Health
3. This infographic, covering the leading causes of death since 1900, has some great reasons for optimism. The number one cause of death in 2010 was heart disease, but the deaths caused by heart disease have fallen steadily since their peak in the 60s, from about 370 to 193 per 100,000. Deaths from the second-worst killer, cancer, have also been falling since they peaked in the early 90s.
4. Scientists in the UK have successfully spurred nerve regeneration in paralyzed dogs by transplanting cells from the dogs' own noses to the injured areas. It remains to be seen if the technique will work in humans, but over several months, the dogs went from complete paralysis in the rear legs to being able to walk on a treadmill without assistance.
5. Jan Scheuermann, who is paralyzed from the neck down, can now operate a robotic arm using only her mind "with speeds comparable to the able-bodied" and with a 91.6% accuracy rate.
Civil Liberties
6. The Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously passed a bill that would require law enforcement to actually get warrants to read private emails, no matter how old the email is. The bill will now go to the full Senate, and if it passes there, would also need to pass the House and be signed by Obama, but at least it's a step in the right direction.
Technology
7. Self-driving cars are inching closer to reality. Ford plans to introduce cars that can drive for you in stressful stop-and-go traffic, possibly by 2015. But Volvo will beat them to the punch with cars that can drive themselves at slow speeds in 2014. Meanwhile, a company called Rio Tinto is already using ten driverless trucks to transport iron ore, with plans to expand to 150 over the next few years.
8. 3D printing is coming to a store near you, at least in Europe. Staples will be offering 3D printing services next year in The Netherlands and Belgium. No doubt the US will soon follow, if this turns out to be profitable for them. Meanwhile, Virginia Tech is providing 3D printing free for students (ht). Researchers in Britain are also having some success in printing electronics.
9. From Planetary Resources, a nearly hour-long video with a great amount of detail on the work they're doing to mine asteroids. Early in the video, Eric Anderson says, "The fact of the matter is that the population of the planet has grown a lot over the last couple hundred years, and people live longer, people live much better lives. It's really an extraordinary time to be alive. And yet, we're just at the cusp of doing some of the more incredibly exciting things that we never thought were possible before."
Some more highlights:
- 17% of near-Earth asteroids are easier to reach than the surface of the moon.
- Platinum-group metals are usually mined in concentrations of a few parts per billion and have an average price of $1500 per ounce. A single 500-meter asteroid has more of these metals than have been mined from Earth in the history of humanity.
- Anderson: "Some of the naysayers to asteroid mining say, well gee, if you bring back all the platinum, then the price will crash. And I say, great. I would love to see that. I would like to see a world of abundance."
Economics
11. In the US, household net worth is the highest it's been since 2007, and higher than any point prior to 2006. The total value of US real estate is also on the rise for the first time since 2006.
12. Don Boudreaux is in the midst of a series of blog entries detailing how everyday items are both less expensive and higher quality today than in 1956, based on an old Sears catalog from that year. So far, he's included women's clothing, bedsheets and lawn care. Mark Perry has made similar observations using other old advertisements, including dishwashers and home entertainment.
And finally, not a reason for optimism, but rather a quote from Winston Churchill: "A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty."
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Aftermath: Reflections on Obama's Re-election
Barack Obama has been re-elected President of the United States.
For starters, Gary Johnson was not a spoiler. While the results are still coming in, as of 11:30pm Pacific, there was not a single state won by Obama where Romney would have won even if every Johnson voter had voted for Romney instead.
Second, there is no mandate. While Obama won, he won with a far narrower lead in both the popular vote and the electoral college than he had in 2008. While Democrats increased their lead in the Senate, Republicans increased their lead in governorships, and the House is on track to be more or less the same as it was. This was very much a status quo election.
On the whole, will we be better or worse with Obama as president?
First of all, expect the fiscal cliff to stay in place. After all, we just re-elected most of the people who put it there to begin with. While I haven't spent too much time learning about the fiscal cliff, Wikipedia claims a 19.63% increase in revenue and a 0.25% decrease in spending, or a nearly 80-to-1 ratio of tax hikes to spending cuts. This will not end well-- and even if our new old government leaders manage to avoid the cliff, the re-elected Obama is in a prime position to extract concessions he was unable to before the election. Any compromise will include more tax hikes than spending cuts, if spending is actually cut at all.
Second, Obamacare will be implemented fully over the next few years. Expect the nation's health, freedom and balance sheet to all suffer. Although to be honest, I don't believe Romney would have done any better.
The national debt will continue to grow. If the fiscal cliff causes a second recession, expect more stimulus and bailouts, probably for Europe too. We may look back at $1.5 trillion deficits and laugh about how small they were. On the other hand, the same probably would've happened under Romney, considering his plan to index military spending to 4% of GDP.
On other long-term important issues, I don't expect Obama to do much of anything. He'll keep ignoring space (mercifully), Social Security will continue to stumble forward without reform, trade deals will be forgotten, immigration won't change. We'll mostly withdraw from Afghanistan on schedule, although the lack of attention the war gets these days means we'll probably keep troops there for the long haul, same as we've still got troops in Germany, Japan and Korea. On trade and Afghanistan, at least, Romney would have been even worse. While Romney may have avoided the fiscal cliff, his insistence to go after China on trade might have been just as bad for the economy.
The main difference between the two candidates in terms of our long-term welfare is this: With Obama's victory, 2016 will see another wide-open primary for Republicans, where we'll have another shot at nominating a true spokesperson for liberty. Had Romney won, we wouldn't get that chance until 2020. So hold onto your hats. It's gonna be a rough four years for liberty, but we made it through the last four. We'll make it this time, too.
For starters, Gary Johnson was not a spoiler. While the results are still coming in, as of 11:30pm Pacific, there was not a single state won by Obama where Romney would have won even if every Johnson voter had voted for Romney instead.
Second, there is no mandate. While Obama won, he won with a far narrower lead in both the popular vote and the electoral college than he had in 2008. While Democrats increased their lead in the Senate, Republicans increased their lead in governorships, and the House is on track to be more or less the same as it was. This was very much a status quo election.
On the whole, will we be better or worse with Obama as president?
First of all, expect the fiscal cliff to stay in place. After all, we just re-elected most of the people who put it there to begin with. While I haven't spent too much time learning about the fiscal cliff, Wikipedia claims a 19.63% increase in revenue and a 0.25% decrease in spending, or a nearly 80-to-1 ratio of tax hikes to spending cuts. This will not end well-- and even if our new old government leaders manage to avoid the cliff, the re-elected Obama is in a prime position to extract concessions he was unable to before the election. Any compromise will include more tax hikes than spending cuts, if spending is actually cut at all.
Second, Obamacare will be implemented fully over the next few years. Expect the nation's health, freedom and balance sheet to all suffer. Although to be honest, I don't believe Romney would have done any better.
The national debt will continue to grow. If the fiscal cliff causes a second recession, expect more stimulus and bailouts, probably for Europe too. We may look back at $1.5 trillion deficits and laugh about how small they were. On the other hand, the same probably would've happened under Romney, considering his plan to index military spending to 4% of GDP.
On other long-term important issues, I don't expect Obama to do much of anything. He'll keep ignoring space (mercifully), Social Security will continue to stumble forward without reform, trade deals will be forgotten, immigration won't change. We'll mostly withdraw from Afghanistan on schedule, although the lack of attention the war gets these days means we'll probably keep troops there for the long haul, same as we've still got troops in Germany, Japan and Korea. On trade and Afghanistan, at least, Romney would have been even worse. While Romney may have avoided the fiscal cliff, his insistence to go after China on trade might have been just as bad for the economy.
The main difference between the two candidates in terms of our long-term welfare is this: With Obama's victory, 2016 will see another wide-open primary for Republicans, where we'll have another shot at nominating a true spokesperson for liberty. Had Romney won, we wouldn't get that chance until 2020. So hold onto your hats. It's gonna be a rough four years for liberty, but we made it through the last four. We'll make it this time, too.
Sunday, June 24, 2012
Recent Reasons for Optimism V
The latest installment of recent reasons for optimism was a bit delayed on account of this being the tenth day of a ten-day workweek for me. But that doesn't mean there was any less good news! There's been lots of good news in health, but there's also reasons for optimism on the economy, civil liberties and even the threat of asteroid impact.
Health
1. First the bad news-- the cytomegalovirus (CMV) infects 50-80% of people in the US, UK and Australia, and decreases life expectancy as much as smoking or drinking because of its unique effects on the immune system. Now the good news-- researchers at the University of Birmingham are working on an antiviral drug to reverse CMV's effects, potentially adding years to life expectancy. The drug has shown promise in mice, and tests on humans will begin soon. Finally, the great news-- researchers at the University of Connecticut at Farmington have genetically modified CMV to take advantage of what it does to the immune system. The result is a self-reinforcing cancer vaccine. In a study on mice, an untreated control group died of cancer within 23 days; the CMV-treated group lived for the entire length of the study.
2. A new breathalyzer can detect some kinds of cancer on your breath (ht Jason Silva). Although currently less accurate than more complicated tests, it's also far less costly, and could provide cancer screening to the poor around the world who can't afford current tests.
3. One more on cancer: Researchers have developed a patch (that looks very much like the birth control patch) that completely eliminated a certain kind of skin cancer after wearing it just three times, for three hours each. It was a very small trial, with just ten patients, but three months later the cancer was still gone from all ten patients, and after six months, there was no cancer in eight out of ten patients.
4. In Sweden, doctors have successfully transplanted a vein into a 10-year-old girl without the use of immunosuppressive drugs. They accomplished the feat by removing all of the donor's cells from the vein and replacing them with the girl's own stem cells.
Cyborgs and Robotics
5. We're one step closer to brain implants, as a team from MIT has invented a fuel cell to convert glucose in the brain into electricity that can be used by implants or prosthetics. (ht MR)
6. Picking up different kinds of objects is difficult and expensive for robots, especially when the shape of the object may not be known in advance. In an amazing example of the simplicity of innovation, a team at Cornell has found a solution using a balloon and ground coffee.
Economics
7. I've mentioned before on this blog that world income is higher than ever before and steadily increasing. Matt Ridley shares a graph showing that not only is world income higher, it's also more equitable.
8. Great news for free-traders: Both Mexico and Canada have now joined the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations. The TPP, originally an agreement between New Zealand, Chile, Brunei and Singapore, is now being expanded to include the three NAFTA countries, the US, Canada and Mexico, as well as Japan, Australia, Peru, Vietnam and Malaysia. If an agreement is reached between all these countries, the TPP would become the largest free trade area in the world, comprising a full third of world GDP.
Civil Liberties and Crime
9. The Canadian government has backed down from their plan to record private conversations at border crossings and airports. What makes this even more encouraging is that this rapid about-face came in a non-election year, with the Conservatives' majority solidly in place until 2015. And it may not be just the Canadian government-- the US Department of State has withdrawn a request for bids to develop a system to monitor social media.
10. New Yorkers are striking back against that city's "stop and frisk" policy with a new app that allows New Yorkers to easily record and share video of police encounters and report them to the NYCLU. This is a small example of advancing technology being used to protect civil liberties.
11. Crime is down across-the-board. Violent crime fell by 4% from 2010 to 2011, the fifth year in a row it's fallen. That's true across the country, with every region except the Northeast seeing a drop of 4.5% or more. Property crimes were also down for the ninth year in a row, down 0.8% from 2010.
Everything Else
12. NASA scientists say there is little to no threat of a civilization-ending asteroid strike. Lindley Johnson of the Near Earth Object Observation Program says, "We know everything out there that is that big, and there is just nothing right now that's in an orbit that's any threat toward the Earth."
13. Ed Krayewski at Reason lists the "top 5 pieces of good news in the bad news." Some of his reasoning is a bit strained, but it's nevertheless an interesting list.
14. For even more optimism, check out these "21 Pictures That Will Restore Your Faith in Humanity." Among the obligatory pictures of people rescuing animals, there's a Subway restaurant giving free food to the homeless, a dry cleaner's offering free cleaning for the unemployed for job interviews, and the story of the Japanese seniors who volunteered to clean the radiation at Fukushima so the young wouldn't have to.
Health
1. First the bad news-- the cytomegalovirus (CMV) infects 50-80% of people in the US, UK and Australia, and decreases life expectancy as much as smoking or drinking because of its unique effects on the immune system. Now the good news-- researchers at the University of Birmingham are working on an antiviral drug to reverse CMV's effects, potentially adding years to life expectancy. The drug has shown promise in mice, and tests on humans will begin soon. Finally, the great news-- researchers at the University of Connecticut at Farmington have genetically modified CMV to take advantage of what it does to the immune system. The result is a self-reinforcing cancer vaccine. In a study on mice, an untreated control group died of cancer within 23 days; the CMV-treated group lived for the entire length of the study.
2. A new breathalyzer can detect some kinds of cancer on your breath (ht Jason Silva). Although currently less accurate than more complicated tests, it's also far less costly, and could provide cancer screening to the poor around the world who can't afford current tests.
3. One more on cancer: Researchers have developed a patch (that looks very much like the birth control patch) that completely eliminated a certain kind of skin cancer after wearing it just three times, for three hours each. It was a very small trial, with just ten patients, but three months later the cancer was still gone from all ten patients, and after six months, there was no cancer in eight out of ten patients.
4. In Sweden, doctors have successfully transplanted a vein into a 10-year-old girl without the use of immunosuppressive drugs. They accomplished the feat by removing all of the donor's cells from the vein and replacing them with the girl's own stem cells.
Cyborgs and Robotics
5. We're one step closer to brain implants, as a team from MIT has invented a fuel cell to convert glucose in the brain into electricity that can be used by implants or prosthetics. (ht MR)
6. Picking up different kinds of objects is difficult and expensive for robots, especially when the shape of the object may not be known in advance. In an amazing example of the simplicity of innovation, a team at Cornell has found a solution using a balloon and ground coffee.
Economics
7. I've mentioned before on this blog that world income is higher than ever before and steadily increasing. Matt Ridley shares a graph showing that not only is world income higher, it's also more equitable.
8. Great news for free-traders: Both Mexico and Canada have now joined the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations. The TPP, originally an agreement between New Zealand, Chile, Brunei and Singapore, is now being expanded to include the three NAFTA countries, the US, Canada and Mexico, as well as Japan, Australia, Peru, Vietnam and Malaysia. If an agreement is reached between all these countries, the TPP would become the largest free trade area in the world, comprising a full third of world GDP.
Civil Liberties and Crime
9. The Canadian government has backed down from their plan to record private conversations at border crossings and airports. What makes this even more encouraging is that this rapid about-face came in a non-election year, with the Conservatives' majority solidly in place until 2015. And it may not be just the Canadian government-- the US Department of State has withdrawn a request for bids to develop a system to monitor social media.
10. New Yorkers are striking back against that city's "stop and frisk" policy with a new app that allows New Yorkers to easily record and share video of police encounters and report them to the NYCLU. This is a small example of advancing technology being used to protect civil liberties.
11. Crime is down across-the-board. Violent crime fell by 4% from 2010 to 2011, the fifth year in a row it's fallen. That's true across the country, with every region except the Northeast seeing a drop of 4.5% or more. Property crimes were also down for the ninth year in a row, down 0.8% from 2010.
Everything Else
12. NASA scientists say there is little to no threat of a civilization-ending asteroid strike. Lindley Johnson of the Near Earth Object Observation Program says, "We know everything out there that is that big, and there is just nothing right now that's in an orbit that's any threat toward the Earth."
13. Ed Krayewski at Reason lists the "top 5 pieces of good news in the bad news." Some of his reasoning is a bit strained, but it's nevertheless an interesting list.
14. For even more optimism, check out these "21 Pictures That Will Restore Your Faith in Humanity." Among the obligatory pictures of people rescuing animals, there's a Subway restaurant giving free food to the homeless, a dry cleaner's offering free cleaning for the unemployed for job interviews, and the story of the Japanese seniors who volunteered to clean the radiation at Fukushima so the young wouldn't have to.
Monday, June 4, 2012
Recent Reasons for Optimism Reloaded
I know "Reloaded" was the second movie, and this is my third Recent Reasons for Optimism entry, but... yeah, I don't have a good reason, so on to the optimism! Space news dominated the week, but there are also reasons to be optimistic about agriculture, health and the economy.
1. For starters, Joshua at PostLibertarian has his own list of reasons for optimism, including SpaceX's success with the Falcon 9, Cubify's new 3D printer and the lowering of legal hurdles for driverless cars. Also check out his previous reasons for optimism, including lower child mortality and improving technologies, among others.
2 Speaking of space, SpaceX has also just signed their first commercial contract for the Falcon Heavy rocket. The Falcon Heavy is basically three Falcon 9's strapped together. When completed, it will be able to take 58.5 tons into orbit, more than double the shuttle's 26.8 tons at less than a quarter of the cost.
3. SpaceX isn't the only good news in space. A company in the UK has announced plans (ht One Per Cent) to launch nanosatellites that, once in orbit, can dock with each other in novel configurations. One of the benefits would be easier in-orbit upgrades to satellites equipped with the technology. In a perfect example of the Matt Ridley quote in the sidebar here, the nanosatellites would use Kinect cameras to sense each other and make docking possible. "The more we invent, the more inventions become possible."
4. Just one more about space: Virgin Galactic has been granted an FAA permit for the first rocket-powered tests of SpaceShipTwo, which will eventually carry tourists into space. They plan to begin those tests this year, with an eye to actual tourist flights starting in 2013-2014.
5. The Free Exchange blog at The Economist reviews two recent books, one painting a picture of an America in decline, the other the opposite. In blogger R.A.'s words, "To spin a story of decline, one has to demonstrate that policies are considerably worse than they used to be, and that they're unlikely to improve. It's actually quite difficult to do this." While there are looming problems, R.A. says, "these issues, and other worries as well, are not being ignored or greeted with complacency," and "American innovation is proving as impressive as ever."
6. Two studies covered at World Climate Report (ht @mattwridley) portend good news for crop yields. Increased atmospheric carbon dioxide helps rice out-compete weeds and encourages more photosynthesis in wheat. Higher temperatures also improve wheat water use efficiency. The scientists predicted that by 2050, global warming would raise wheat yields by about 5.8% in lower altitudes and more than 10% in higher altitudes.
7. A ten-year-old girl, Sammie Hicks, was until recently only able to hear with a hearing aid. In April, she was given a cochlear implant and recorded for Youtube the moment it was finally turned on in May. She jumps as the sounds come in, and adjusts to hearing herself breathe for the first time. In the video, she starts crying, and later said, "It was overwhelming. But the reason I really cried? I couldn’t believe all the stuff I was missing." In a later video, she talks about hearing pencils writing at school, and the wind on her way home.
8. Paralyzed rats with "severe spinal injuries" were effectively cured of their paralysis, regaining the ability to walk after 2-3 weeks and achieving "100% recuperation" after 5-6 weeks of treatment, including a special stimulating device and the ratty equivalent of physical therapy. A similar treatment for humans could be available within just a year or two.
9. The plural of anecdotes is not data. However, anecdotally, in my little corner of the world, the economy seems to be improving. People I know who have been unemployed, some for a very long time, over the last few weeks have been finding jobs. Walking down the street this past week, I've seen "Now Hiring" signs in the windows of local businesses. There are fresh faces working at businesses I frequent, and even the local mall is expanding.
10. With Friday's disappointing employment numbers from the establishment survey, you'd be forgiven for thinking the economic data is all doom and gloom. However, the household survey told a different story. While the establishment survey measured only 69k new jobs, the more-accurate household survey picked up 422k. Even the establishment survey looks better when you look at the private sector, which is where we want the growth to happen anyway. And while the unemployment rate ticked up from 8.1% to 8.2%, this was because the labor force grew by 642k as the long-term non-employed start looking for work again. That's not a bad thing!
11. Finally, a note on optimism itself. The CultureLab blog at New Scientist interviews Elaine Fox, author of the book Rainy Brain, Sunny Brain. Fox believes that we can retrain our brains to become more optimistic. She also cites research on the benefits of optimism, saying, "The research shows that, as long as they are realists too, people who have an optimistic mindset and feel like they are able to cope when things do go wrong benefit in all sorts of ways. The evidence is also quite strong now that an optimistic mindset is beneficial for our health. People with optimistic mindsets are also more successful in business, and seem to live longer."
1. For starters, Joshua at PostLibertarian has his own list of reasons for optimism, including SpaceX's success with the Falcon 9, Cubify's new 3D printer and the lowering of legal hurdles for driverless cars. Also check out his previous reasons for optimism, including lower child mortality and improving technologies, among others.
2 Speaking of space, SpaceX has also just signed their first commercial contract for the Falcon Heavy rocket. The Falcon Heavy is basically three Falcon 9's strapped together. When completed, it will be able to take 58.5 tons into orbit, more than double the shuttle's 26.8 tons at less than a quarter of the cost.
3. SpaceX isn't the only good news in space. A company in the UK has announced plans (ht One Per Cent) to launch nanosatellites that, once in orbit, can dock with each other in novel configurations. One of the benefits would be easier in-orbit upgrades to satellites equipped with the technology. In a perfect example of the Matt Ridley quote in the sidebar here, the nanosatellites would use Kinect cameras to sense each other and make docking possible. "The more we invent, the more inventions become possible."
4. Just one more about space: Virgin Galactic has been granted an FAA permit for the first rocket-powered tests of SpaceShipTwo, which will eventually carry tourists into space. They plan to begin those tests this year, with an eye to actual tourist flights starting in 2013-2014.
5. The Free Exchange blog at The Economist reviews two recent books, one painting a picture of an America in decline, the other the opposite. In blogger R.A.'s words, "To spin a story of decline, one has to demonstrate that policies are considerably worse than they used to be, and that they're unlikely to improve. It's actually quite difficult to do this." While there are looming problems, R.A. says, "these issues, and other worries as well, are not being ignored or greeted with complacency," and "American innovation is proving as impressive as ever."
6. Two studies covered at World Climate Report (ht @mattwridley) portend good news for crop yields. Increased atmospheric carbon dioxide helps rice out-compete weeds and encourages more photosynthesis in wheat. Higher temperatures also improve wheat water use efficiency. The scientists predicted that by 2050, global warming would raise wheat yields by about 5.8% in lower altitudes and more than 10% in higher altitudes.
7. A ten-year-old girl, Sammie Hicks, was until recently only able to hear with a hearing aid. In April, she was given a cochlear implant and recorded for Youtube the moment it was finally turned on in May. She jumps as the sounds come in, and adjusts to hearing herself breathe for the first time. In the video, she starts crying, and later said, "It was overwhelming. But the reason I really cried? I couldn’t believe all the stuff I was missing." In a later video, she talks about hearing pencils writing at school, and the wind on her way home.
8. Paralyzed rats with "severe spinal injuries" were effectively cured of their paralysis, regaining the ability to walk after 2-3 weeks and achieving "100% recuperation" after 5-6 weeks of treatment, including a special stimulating device and the ratty equivalent of physical therapy. A similar treatment for humans could be available within just a year or two.
9. The plural of anecdotes is not data. However, anecdotally, in my little corner of the world, the economy seems to be improving. People I know who have been unemployed, some for a very long time, over the last few weeks have been finding jobs. Walking down the street this past week, I've seen "Now Hiring" signs in the windows of local businesses. There are fresh faces working at businesses I frequent, and even the local mall is expanding.
10. With Friday's disappointing employment numbers from the establishment survey, you'd be forgiven for thinking the economic data is all doom and gloom. However, the household survey told a different story. While the establishment survey measured only 69k new jobs, the more-accurate household survey picked up 422k. Even the establishment survey looks better when you look at the private sector, which is where we want the growth to happen anyway. And while the unemployment rate ticked up from 8.1% to 8.2%, this was because the labor force grew by 642k as the long-term non-employed start looking for work again. That's not a bad thing!
11. Finally, a note on optimism itself. The CultureLab blog at New Scientist interviews Elaine Fox, author of the book Rainy Brain, Sunny Brain. Fox believes that we can retrain our brains to become more optimistic. She also cites research on the benefits of optimism, saying, "The research shows that, as long as they are realists too, people who have an optimistic mindset and feel like they are able to cope when things do go wrong benefit in all sorts of ways. The evidence is also quite strong now that an optimistic mindset is beneficial for our health. People with optimistic mindsets are also more successful in business, and seem to live longer."
Friday, May 25, 2012
Recent Reasons for Optimism Redux
Some more good news from this week:
1) Child mortality rates in Africa are falling rapidly, and the decline appears to be speeding up. Twelve African countries are seeing declines rapid enough to meet the United Nations Millennium Development Goal of cutting child mortality by two-thirds from 1990 to 2015. Child mortality in three countries, Senegal, Rwanda and Kenya, is falling twice as fast as needed to meet the MDG.
2) In Israel, human skin cells from patients suffering from heart failure have been turned into functionally young, beating heart cells which were "equivalent to the stage of his heart cells when he was just born." The cells were successfully grafted onto rat hearts; human tests are still a ways off.
3) A telomerase gene therapy, when applied to adult mice, extended their lifespans by 24%. Telomerase encourages the regrowth of telomeres, the DNA equivalent of the plastic nub at the end of shoelaces. Telomerase has been shown to increase cultured human cell lifespans; the successful tests on mice have taken the treatment to the next step.
4) In non-health news, a British company is building robotic fish that can automatically test the seas for pollution. The latest buzzphrase seems to be "the internet of things," but the Brits are pushing past that to bring nature itself online.
5) MIT has developed a more life-changing technology for some of us: a nanotech coating for the insides of glass and plastic bottles that lets you get all of the ketchup out of the bottle. And it's not just for fun-- they estimate their coating could help save one million tons of food from being thrown out every year.
6) This morning, the SpaceX Dragon capsule successfully berthed with the International Space Station, becoming the first privately-built spaceship to do so. In the images below, which I captured from NASA's live stream, you can see both the Dragon capsule and the CanadArm used to catch it.
7) It's not quite space, but two California men launched a balloon to about 27 km and took the picture below of the recent solar eclipse (ht). As technology and living standards improve, everyday people are now accomplishing feats for hobbies and even school projects that were once the sole domain of governments and well-funded academics.
8) Earth is often thought of as the solar system's watery planet, but Jupiter's moon Europa has 2-3 times more water than we do. On the surface it's all ice, but geothermal heat could mean liquid oceans under the ice dozens of miles deep. That's good news for extraterrestrial life in our solar system.
9) The provincial government of British Columbia decided this week that its mandatory vehicle emissions inspections had been successful. With the objective of cleaner vehicle emissions achieved, the government is now phasing out the program for non-diesel vehicles, which will save drivers $23 per year per vehicle, not to mention the hassle of the inspections themselves. That may not sound like much, but any time a government actually ends a program because it achieved its objective deserves celebration.
10) Finally, not really news per se, but a nice reminder in the form of Canadian graffiti. Photo courtesy of the Expected Optimist's better half on a trip to Tsawassen, BC.
2) In Israel, human skin cells from patients suffering from heart failure have been turned into functionally young, beating heart cells which were "equivalent to the stage of his heart cells when he was just born." The cells were successfully grafted onto rat hearts; human tests are still a ways off.
3) A telomerase gene therapy, when applied to adult mice, extended their lifespans by 24%. Telomerase encourages the regrowth of telomeres, the DNA equivalent of the plastic nub at the end of shoelaces. Telomerase has been shown to increase cultured human cell lifespans; the successful tests on mice have taken the treatment to the next step.
4) In non-health news, a British company is building robotic fish that can automatically test the seas for pollution. The latest buzzphrase seems to be "the internet of things," but the Brits are pushing past that to bring nature itself online.
5) MIT has developed a more life-changing technology for some of us: a nanotech coating for the insides of glass and plastic bottles that lets you get all of the ketchup out of the bottle. And it's not just for fun-- they estimate their coating could help save one million tons of food from being thrown out every year.
6) This morning, the SpaceX Dragon capsule successfully berthed with the International Space Station, becoming the first privately-built spaceship to do so. In the images below, which I captured from NASA's live stream, you can see both the Dragon capsule and the CanadArm used to catch it.
7) It's not quite space, but two California men launched a balloon to about 27 km and took the picture below of the recent solar eclipse (ht). As technology and living standards improve, everyday people are now accomplishing feats for hobbies and even school projects that were once the sole domain of governments and well-funded academics.
8) Earth is often thought of as the solar system's watery planet, but Jupiter's moon Europa has 2-3 times more water than we do. On the surface it's all ice, but geothermal heat could mean liquid oceans under the ice dozens of miles deep. That's good news for extraterrestrial life in our solar system.
9) The provincial government of British Columbia decided this week that its mandatory vehicle emissions inspections had been successful. With the objective of cleaner vehicle emissions achieved, the government is now phasing out the program for non-diesel vehicles, which will save drivers $23 per year per vehicle, not to mention the hassle of the inspections themselves. That may not sound like much, but any time a government actually ends a program because it achieved its objective deserves celebration.
10) Finally, not really news per se, but a nice reminder in the form of Canadian graffiti. Photo courtesy of the Expected Optimist's better half on a trip to Tsawassen, BC.
Friday, May 18, 2012
The SpaceX Launch
Tomorrow, the Space Exploration Technologies Corporation, better known as SpaceX, will, if all goes well, launch the first private cargo ship to the International Space Station. Many, including me, are hailing the upcoming launch as a triumph for the private space industry. To be fair, however, it's not exactly an entirely private enterprise. SpaceX has, to date, received $381 million in taxpayer money from NASA. Success tomorrow means another $15 million from NASA in their current contract, as well as another contract worth about $1,600 million to deliver future NASA payloads to the ISS.
Given the costs involved, and the public-private nature of what SpaceX is doing, some on the right have begun to criticize the company and even the NASA program under which they're operating. The Republican-led US House Appropriations Committee recently released a report comparing SpaceX and other NASA-funded private space companies to Solyndra, the failed, government-backed solar power company.
As someone who leans libertarian yet also supports the NASA-SpaceX partnership, I think it's important to confront this criticism. While SpaceX is, effectively, a government-sponsored enterprise, it's important to remember the direction of movement here. Compare space exploration to other government-dominated industries, and you'll see what I mean.
Solar
Prior to government spending on renewable energy in the past few years, solar power got some government help in the form of individual tax credits, but it was primarily a private industry. In the last few years, solar production has been growing exponentially, driven almost entirely by government subsidies. Solyndra was just one example of a general move from a small, private industry to a large, government-supported industry.
Mortgages
Housing finance through mortgages was a private industry from America's founding until the New Deal created Fannie Mae in 1938. Freddie Mac came along later in 1970, and both remained government-backed privately-owned companies until the 2008 financial crisis. The current federal government conservatorship of Fannie and Freddie completes a decades-long move from a wholly private to a government-run mortgage industry.
Autos
Despite licensing requirements and safety regulations, auto companies have been wholly private enterprises for many decades. That came to an end with the 2008 financial crisis and the GM and Chrysler bankruptcies, in which the US and Canadian governments became minority stockholders of both companies. Since there have been efforts to back these governments out of ownership roles since then, and since Ford and indeed the Asian auto companies never went bankrupt in the first place, this is hopefully not part of a general movement from private to public. However, it is at least a temporarily public ownership of a typically private industry.
Space
In contrast to the solar, mortgage and auto industries, space has never been a private industry. The first launch into space was done by the Soviet government. Until 2004, every human being who had ever gone to space had been sent by one government or another. Far from taking over a previously private industry, NASA's partnership with SpaceX is part of a general move from public to private.
While conservatives and libertarians are right to criticize the movements from private to public in the solar, mortgage and auto industries, it's a mistake to lump in with those the space industry's movement from public to private. It's true that the space industry continues to be almost entirely public, and it will be years or possibly even decades before private sources of revenue outpace public sources in space. However, the NASA-SpaceX partnership is the next, necessary step down the road to an independently profitable private space industry. It is in this context that we should view SpaceX-- not as a private contractor feasting on government largesse, or a crony capitalist waste of taxpayer dollars, but as a necessary step in the privatization of space.
EDIT: I just came across this quote from Phil McAlister, NASA Commercial Spaceflight Development Director, that I think is appropriate to add: "Once we get the private sector out there, there will be no turning back. [Spaceflight] will no longer be subject to the prevailing political winds. It will just push further and further out, no more looking backwards, only looking forwards."
Given the costs involved, and the public-private nature of what SpaceX is doing, some on the right have begun to criticize the company and even the NASA program under which they're operating. The Republican-led US House Appropriations Committee recently released a report comparing SpaceX and other NASA-funded private space companies to Solyndra, the failed, government-backed solar power company.
As someone who leans libertarian yet also supports the NASA-SpaceX partnership, I think it's important to confront this criticism. While SpaceX is, effectively, a government-sponsored enterprise, it's important to remember the direction of movement here. Compare space exploration to other government-dominated industries, and you'll see what I mean.
Solar
Prior to government spending on renewable energy in the past few years, solar power got some government help in the form of individual tax credits, but it was primarily a private industry. In the last few years, solar production has been growing exponentially, driven almost entirely by government subsidies. Solyndra was just one example of a general move from a small, private industry to a large, government-supported industry.
Mortgages
Housing finance through mortgages was a private industry from America's founding until the New Deal created Fannie Mae in 1938. Freddie Mac came along later in 1970, and both remained government-backed privately-owned companies until the 2008 financial crisis. The current federal government conservatorship of Fannie and Freddie completes a decades-long move from a wholly private to a government-run mortgage industry.
Autos
Despite licensing requirements and safety regulations, auto companies have been wholly private enterprises for many decades. That came to an end with the 2008 financial crisis and the GM and Chrysler bankruptcies, in which the US and Canadian governments became minority stockholders of both companies. Since there have been efforts to back these governments out of ownership roles since then, and since Ford and indeed the Asian auto companies never went bankrupt in the first place, this is hopefully not part of a general movement from private to public. However, it is at least a temporarily public ownership of a typically private industry.
Space
In contrast to the solar, mortgage and auto industries, space has never been a private industry. The first launch into space was done by the Soviet government. Until 2004, every human being who had ever gone to space had been sent by one government or another. Far from taking over a previously private industry, NASA's partnership with SpaceX is part of a general move from public to private.
While conservatives and libertarians are right to criticize the movements from private to public in the solar, mortgage and auto industries, it's a mistake to lump in with those the space industry's movement from public to private. It's true that the space industry continues to be almost entirely public, and it will be years or possibly even decades before private sources of revenue outpace public sources in space. However, the NASA-SpaceX partnership is the next, necessary step down the road to an independently profitable private space industry. It is in this context that we should view SpaceX-- not as a private contractor feasting on government largesse, or a crony capitalist waste of taxpayer dollars, but as a necessary step in the privatization of space.
EDIT: I just came across this quote from Phil McAlister, NASA Commercial Spaceflight Development Director, that I think is appropriate to add: "Once we get the private sector out there, there will be no turning back. [Spaceflight] will no longer be subject to the prevailing political winds. It will just push further and further out, no more looking backwards, only looking forwards."
Sunday, May 13, 2012
Mitt Romney on Other Issues
This is the fifth and last in a series of entries revisiting Mitt
Romney's policies as stated in the debates. Upcoming entries will address Gary Johnson's and Barack Obama's policies. The first in this series covered foreign
policy; the second
covered economic policy. The third covered social issues, and the fourth covered health care. This entry wraps up the series by covering a few things that didn't fit into any other areas-- in particular, space, flip-flopping and a few general quotes.
Space:
In the 18th debate, Romney said space exploration "should certainly be a priority," and criticized Obama for destroying jobs on the space coast. He later mentioned science, commercial and military benefits from space exploration, but the outsized emphasis he placed on jobs made clear that he sees NASA as a jobs program for Floridians.
In the 19th debate, he said he did not have a plan for space, but would develop one after he got into office. He opposed Gingrich's plan for a moon base, and said he liked manned spaceflight.
Flip-flopping:
Throughout the debates, there were many times Romney was accused of changing his positions or actually did change his positions. These range from the inconsequential that can be written off as having misspoke, to the minor that can be reconciled with a bit of effort, to the major that are nearly impossible to reconcile with any consistent underlying belief. While I pointed out the inconsequential flips within the original debate analyses, I will not list them here. I have tried to find ways to reconcile different positions, and I am only including in this list positions that cannot be reconciled or where the reconciliations imply something Romney might object to if stated directly.
Reconcilable Inconsistencies:
In the 6th debate, he said, "[Romneycare] is a state plan for a state. It is not a national plan... please don't try and make me retreat from the words that I wrote in my book. I stand by what I wrote. I believe in what I did." However, as was widely reported at the time, the hardcover edition of his book included the line "We can accomplish the same thing for everyone in the country," referring to Romneycare, while the paperback removed that line. This line does not necessarily imply a national plan; it may just imply that he wanted the other 49 states to adopt plans similar to Romneycare, which is consistent with his constant defense of that program.
He wants to block grant Medicaid to the states, and then restrict how quickly the block grants grow. In the 8th debate, he wanted to grow them at 1-2% per year, while in the 10th at inflation-plus-one-percent. Reconciling these two numbers requires an inflation rate of 0-1%, which is possible, but implies a persistently stagnant economy during a Romney administration.
In the 15th debate, he said he did not run for re-election in Massachusetts because he had set out a list of 100 things he wanted to accomplish and had accomplished them, so he didn't need to run again. If he was elected as President, however, he said, "of course I'll fight for a second term." Does this imply he expects not to accomplish very much with his first term?
In the 16th debate, Romney was attacked by Gingrich for ads run by a SuperPAC working to elect him, but successfully got Gingrich to admit that exercising any influence on the SuperPAC would be a violation of federal law. He then criticized Gingrich himself for not exercising any influence on his SuperPAC. This can only be reconciled if Romney believes it is appropriate to attack someone for not violating a federal law that he himself chooses not to violate.
In the 18th debate, a moderator pointed out that Romney in the 17th debate had wanted to focus on Obama instead of the other Republicans, but in the intervening time had dramatically upped his negativity towards Gingrich. He justified it by saying he learned "something" from losing to Gingrich in South Carolina, apparently that voters like negativity.
Irreconcilable Inconsistencies:
In the 9th debate, the moderator accused Romney of being for the automaker bailout before he was against it before he was for it again. In that debate, and others, Romney took a position against the bailout and especially against the government-managed bankruptcy process, which he likened to Obama "put[ting] his hands on the scales of justice." Earlier this month, Romney switched back to supporting the bailout and managed bankruptcy, saying, "I pushed the idea of a managed bankruptcy, and finally when that was done, and help was given, the companies got back on their feet... So, I'll take a lot of credit for the fact that this industry has come back."
Also in the 9th debate, he claimed that the problem with health care is that "government is playing too heavy a role." However in that debate and many others, he repeatedly defended the individual mandate at the core of both Romneycare and Obamacare, and even championed the individual mandate as a conservative solution for health care. When directly asked about this inconsistency, he instead talked about how he did not want to eliminate Medicaid.
In the 11th debate, he said on immigration, "I'm not going to start drawing lines here about who gets to stay and who gets to go," then immediately said that illegal immigrants should not "get to stay." Whether or not that's an appropriate line to draw, it is drawing a line.
Also in the 11th debate, he complained that Obama wants to cut "a trillion dollars" from defense and spend it on Obamacare, and that this would amount to spending us into bankruptcy. Spending the same amount of money on defense, however, would not be spending us into bankruptcy.
In the 18th debate, he said, "We're still a great nation, but a great nation doesn't have so many people suffering." To formalize, a ∈ B, a ∈ C and B ∪ C = ∅.
Collected Quotes:
"There are a lot of reasons not to elect me, a lot of reasons not to elect other people on this stage, but one reason to elect me is that I know what I stand for, I've written it down." (From the 6th debate.)
"I don't try and define who's rich and who's not rich. I want everybody in America to be rich... I want people in America to recognize that the future will be brighter for their kids than it was for them." (From the 6th debate.)
"We are a patriotic people. We place our hand over our heart during the playing of the national anthem. No other people on Earth do that." (From the 6th debate.)
"I'm running for office, for Pete's sake, I can't have illegals." (From the 8th debate.)
In the 9th debate, he called himself "a man of steadiness and constancy."
Asked why he was not planning on releasing his tax returns until near the end of the primaries, Romney answered, "Because I want to make sure that I beat President Obama." (From the 17th debate.)
When asked in the 20th debate to describe himself in one word, Romney answered, "Resolute."
Space:
In the 18th debate, Romney said space exploration "should certainly be a priority," and criticized Obama for destroying jobs on the space coast. He later mentioned science, commercial and military benefits from space exploration, but the outsized emphasis he placed on jobs made clear that he sees NASA as a jobs program for Floridians.
In the 19th debate, he said he did not have a plan for space, but would develop one after he got into office. He opposed Gingrich's plan for a moon base, and said he liked manned spaceflight.
Flip-flopping:
Throughout the debates, there were many times Romney was accused of changing his positions or actually did change his positions. These range from the inconsequential that can be written off as having misspoke, to the minor that can be reconciled with a bit of effort, to the major that are nearly impossible to reconcile with any consistent underlying belief. While I pointed out the inconsequential flips within the original debate analyses, I will not list them here. I have tried to find ways to reconcile different positions, and I am only including in this list positions that cannot be reconciled or where the reconciliations imply something Romney might object to if stated directly.
Reconcilable Inconsistencies:
In the 6th debate, he said, "[Romneycare] is a state plan for a state. It is not a national plan... please don't try and make me retreat from the words that I wrote in my book. I stand by what I wrote. I believe in what I did." However, as was widely reported at the time, the hardcover edition of his book included the line "We can accomplish the same thing for everyone in the country," referring to Romneycare, while the paperback removed that line. This line does not necessarily imply a national plan; it may just imply that he wanted the other 49 states to adopt plans similar to Romneycare, which is consistent with his constant defense of that program.
He wants to block grant Medicaid to the states, and then restrict how quickly the block grants grow. In the 8th debate, he wanted to grow them at 1-2% per year, while in the 10th at inflation-plus-one-percent. Reconciling these two numbers requires an inflation rate of 0-1%, which is possible, but implies a persistently stagnant economy during a Romney administration.
In the 15th debate, he said he did not run for re-election in Massachusetts because he had set out a list of 100 things he wanted to accomplish and had accomplished them, so he didn't need to run again. If he was elected as President, however, he said, "of course I'll fight for a second term." Does this imply he expects not to accomplish very much with his first term?
In the 16th debate, Romney was attacked by Gingrich for ads run by a SuperPAC working to elect him, but successfully got Gingrich to admit that exercising any influence on the SuperPAC would be a violation of federal law. He then criticized Gingrich himself for not exercising any influence on his SuperPAC. This can only be reconciled if Romney believes it is appropriate to attack someone for not violating a federal law that he himself chooses not to violate.
In the 18th debate, a moderator pointed out that Romney in the 17th debate had wanted to focus on Obama instead of the other Republicans, but in the intervening time had dramatically upped his negativity towards Gingrich. He justified it by saying he learned "something" from losing to Gingrich in South Carolina, apparently that voters like negativity.
Irreconcilable Inconsistencies:
In the 9th debate, the moderator accused Romney of being for the automaker bailout before he was against it before he was for it again. In that debate, and others, Romney took a position against the bailout and especially against the government-managed bankruptcy process, which he likened to Obama "put[ting] his hands on the scales of justice." Earlier this month, Romney switched back to supporting the bailout and managed bankruptcy, saying, "I pushed the idea of a managed bankruptcy, and finally when that was done, and help was given, the companies got back on their feet... So, I'll take a lot of credit for the fact that this industry has come back."
Also in the 9th debate, he claimed that the problem with health care is that "government is playing too heavy a role." However in that debate and many others, he repeatedly defended the individual mandate at the core of both Romneycare and Obamacare, and even championed the individual mandate as a conservative solution for health care. When directly asked about this inconsistency, he instead talked about how he did not want to eliminate Medicaid.
In the 11th debate, he said on immigration, "I'm not going to start drawing lines here about who gets to stay and who gets to go," then immediately said that illegal immigrants should not "get to stay." Whether or not that's an appropriate line to draw, it is drawing a line.
Also in the 11th debate, he complained that Obama wants to cut "a trillion dollars" from defense and spend it on Obamacare, and that this would amount to spending us into bankruptcy. Spending the same amount of money on defense, however, would not be spending us into bankruptcy.
In the 18th debate, he said, "We're still a great nation, but a great nation doesn't have so many people suffering." To formalize, a ∈ B, a ∈ C and B ∪ C = ∅.
Collected Quotes:
"There are a lot of reasons not to elect me, a lot of reasons not to elect other people on this stage, but one reason to elect me is that I know what I stand for, I've written it down." (From the 6th debate.)
"I don't try and define who's rich and who's not rich. I want everybody in America to be rich... I want people in America to recognize that the future will be brighter for their kids than it was for them." (From the 6th debate.)
"We are a patriotic people. We place our hand over our heart during the playing of the national anthem. No other people on Earth do that." (From the 6th debate.)
"I'm running for office, for Pete's sake, I can't have illegals." (From the 8th debate.)
In the 9th debate, he called himself "a man of steadiness and constancy."
Asked why he was not planning on releasing his tax returns until near the end of the primaries, Romney answered, "Because I want to make sure that I beat President Obama." (From the 17th debate.)
When asked in the 20th debate to describe himself in one word, Romney answered, "Resolute."
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Everything We Hold of Value
The company Planetary Resources, and their plans to mine asteroids for gold, platinum and water, have been all over the news and the blogosphere the past few days. Now that I've stopped jumping up and down in excitement, here are a few thoughts I've had.
I) This is yet another piece of evidence to counter Tom Murphy's idea that the space age is over. As such, it's also another piece of evidence against his idea that growth must stop.
II) The announcement came just days after the space shuttle Discovery's last flight over DC on her way to the Smithsonian, and while the other shuttles are still being sent out to their final resting places. I can think of no better timing-- and indeed, maybe this was intentional-- to symbolize the transition from public to private. Space exploration is no longer the sole domain of government. As the private sector takes over, the industry will grow like never before.
III) The venture very well may fail. As the New York Times notes, it wouldn't be the first time a company had aimed to mine asteroids only to fail before getting there. That kind of thing happens in the private sector. It also happens in the public sector, with one very important difference. When Solyndra failed, it took with it my money, as well as yours, if you're an American taxpayer. The continuing failure of the United States Postal Service keeps taking taxpayer money with no end in sight. But if Planetary Resources fails, the only people who will lose money are those who are running it.
IV) One piece of evidence cited by reporters and bloggers as a reason they'll fail is NASA's upcoming OSIRIS-REx mission, which is spending a billion dollars to bring back just two ounces of material from a near-Earth asteroid. If they succeed, it will be an amazing example of the private sector's ability to do the same thing government does only cheaper. And even if they fail, they will surely develop some technologies along the way that will make things easier and cheaper for NASA's next asteroid mission, as well as the rest of the private space industry.
V) If they succeed, the added supply of gold will wreak havoc on any country using gold as a base for their currency. Anyone who still wants to go back to the gold standard needs to convince themselves that Planetary Resources-- and any successor companies-- will fail.
VI) In related news, a Canadian company recently got its first customer for material mined from the bottom of the sea near Papua New Guinea, with what they say is the "world's first commercial sea-floor mine." They're planning to begin operations in 2013. With mining on the bottom of the sea and in space, in a couple decades everything we now think is rare will be plentiful.
I'll close this with a quote from Peter Diamandis, one of the billionaires backing this enterprise: "If you look back historically at what has caused humanity to make its largest investments in exploration and in transportation, it has been going after resources, whether it's the Europeans going after the spice routes or the American settlers looking toward the west for gold, oil, timber or land. Those precious resources caused people to make huge investments in ships and railroads and pipelines. Looking to space, everything we hold of value on Earth - metals, minerals, energy, real estate, water - is in near-infinite quantities in space."
I) This is yet another piece of evidence to counter Tom Murphy's idea that the space age is over. As such, it's also another piece of evidence against his idea that growth must stop.
II) The announcement came just days after the space shuttle Discovery's last flight over DC on her way to the Smithsonian, and while the other shuttles are still being sent out to their final resting places. I can think of no better timing-- and indeed, maybe this was intentional-- to symbolize the transition from public to private. Space exploration is no longer the sole domain of government. As the private sector takes over, the industry will grow like never before.
III) The venture very well may fail. As the New York Times notes, it wouldn't be the first time a company had aimed to mine asteroids only to fail before getting there. That kind of thing happens in the private sector. It also happens in the public sector, with one very important difference. When Solyndra failed, it took with it my money, as well as yours, if you're an American taxpayer. The continuing failure of the United States Postal Service keeps taking taxpayer money with no end in sight. But if Planetary Resources fails, the only people who will lose money are those who are running it.
IV) One piece of evidence cited by reporters and bloggers as a reason they'll fail is NASA's upcoming OSIRIS-REx mission, which is spending a billion dollars to bring back just two ounces of material from a near-Earth asteroid. If they succeed, it will be an amazing example of the private sector's ability to do the same thing government does only cheaper. And even if they fail, they will surely develop some technologies along the way that will make things easier and cheaper for NASA's next asteroid mission, as well as the rest of the private space industry.
V) If they succeed, the added supply of gold will wreak havoc on any country using gold as a base for their currency. Anyone who still wants to go back to the gold standard needs to convince themselves that Planetary Resources-- and any successor companies-- will fail.
VI) In related news, a Canadian company recently got its first customer for material mined from the bottom of the sea near Papua New Guinea, with what they say is the "world's first commercial sea-floor mine." They're planning to begin operations in 2013. With mining on the bottom of the sea and in space, in a couple decades everything we now think is rare will be plentiful.
I'll close this with a quote from Peter Diamandis, one of the billionaires backing this enterprise: "If you look back historically at what has caused humanity to make its largest investments in exploration and in transportation, it has been going after resources, whether it's the Europeans going after the spice routes or the American settlers looking toward the west for gold, oil, timber or land. Those precious resources caused people to make huge investments in ships and railroads and pipelines. Looking to space, everything we hold of value on Earth - metals, minerals, energy, real estate, water - is in near-infinite quantities in space."
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
The Undiscovered Country and the Final Frontier
Tom Murphy at his Do the Math blog recounts a conversation between an "Exponential Economist" and himself, a "Finite Physicist" (ht Marginal Revolution). Murphy's basic point is this:
There are a few specific problems with his argument that need to be countered.
I) The economist in Murphy's discussion says that economic growth is not equivalent to energy growth, and that growth in both GDP and utility can continue even if energy use stagnates. Murphy hand-waves this away by insisting that energy underpins the entire economy and that it will drag down the rest of the economy when it stagnates. Robin Hanson at Overcoming Bias and the commenter Vaniver on Hanson's post both raise direct critiques of Murphy's point. Vaniver points out that even with a constant quantity of energy, the price and therefore percentage of real GDP of energy can continue to rise. Hanson shows mathematically that even if one economic factor is held constant, the economy can continue growing as long as any other factor continues to grow. Hanson agrees that exponential economic growth will eventually cease, but only because he expects "diminishing returns to everything," not just energy or other physical resources.
II) Both of Murphy's above limits rest critically on the assumption that the discussion remains "grounded to Earth," that there is no "exodus to space, colonizing planets, living the Star Trek life, etc." When the economist for whatever reason accepts this assumption, Murphy says he sighed in relief that he wasn't dealing with "a space cadet." Indeed, in a previous blog entry, Murphy had derided the idea that we'll leave Earth as "escapism." You can read his full argument for why we won't go into space at the above link, but it basically amounts to two ideas: space is really, really big ("You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mindbogglingly big it is," as Douglas Adams would say), and all the good stuff is here on Earth, so why would we even want to leave?
In other words, if we never leave Earth, we'll be doomed to economic stagnation; but we'll never choose to leave Earth, because there's no reason to. Well call me a space cadet, but the counterargument is obvious. If the only way to achieve economic growth is to go into space, why would we ever stay on Earth? Indeed, the more we find ourselves constrained by Murphy's energy limits, the more we will want to go to space and the more resources the market will make available to do so.
His two constraints on energy are easily overcome by a space-based civilization. First, the waste heat of energy use is far easier to get rid of in the depths of space than in Earth's atmosphere; here, the bigness of space works to our advantage. Waste heat is only a constraint if we stay on Earth, which no doubt is why Murphy is so keen to stay on Earth in the first place. Second, there's no reason at all to think that a space-based civilization would be limited to the amount of energy in the sunlight that strikes Earth. The total energy output of the sun is about 2.2 billion times the amount that hits Earth. Even if we don't leave the solar system, and even if we don't become any more energy-efficient than we are right now, that would give us quite a few centuries of extra growth. Even modest gains in energy efficiency will add millennia of extra growth before we hit the limit, and non-solar sources of energy will extend that even further.
Murphy might counter that the space age is over; we once went to the moon but haven't been back for decades, and now even the shuttle will never take flight again. This, of course, ignores the continuing advances being made by other countries and even private organizations, at a time when the only real economic value in space comes from tourism and national bragging rights. By the time Murphy's constraints begin to come into play, there's no reason to think that we'll still be constrained to Earth. A few centuries from now, we could easily be more of a space-based species than a planet-based one, especially once you consider likely advances in genetics and cybernetics that will help us adapt to life in space.
III) In contradiction to Cowen's and Hanson's summaries, Murphy's point is not that exponential growth will stop, but that all growth will stop. He doesn't say our limited resources may prohibit exponential growth, but rather, they "may prohibit continued growth." His epilogue makes it clear that he foresees "a model in which GDP is fixed—under conditions of stable energy, stable population, steady-state economy."
Other commenters on Hanson's post suggested that space only provides linear expansion opportunities, and that we would eventually outpace the speed of light if we grew exponentially. Once our civilization becomes large enough, this is true. If the speed of light is as fundamental a constraint as physicists believe, we will eventually run up against it. But once we've extended our growth limit to the speed of light itself, I think it's fair to say that Murphy's limit of "centuries, or possibly much shorter" has been soundly defeated. Moreover, growth even at some fraction of the speed of light is still growth! We're not going to hit that "steady-state economy" until the accelerating expansion of space pushes all other galaxies beyond the edge of the visible universe in a trillion years or so. Maybe I'm just short-sighted, but that's far enough in the future that it's not gonna keep me up at night.
(Translated from Trek-ese, the title of this post is, of course, The Future and Space.)
Earth’s physical resources—particularly energy—are limited and may prohibit continued growth within centuries, or possibly much shorter depending on the choices we make.As the discussion continues, Murphy settles on something of an upper limit to growth at around 400 years, which roughly corresponds to two limits. First, in about 400 years the waste heat from our energy use will be so great as to raise the average temperature of Earth to the boiling point. Second, in about 400 years, the energy we use will reach the "total solar input striking Earth."
There are a few specific problems with his argument that need to be countered.
I) The economist in Murphy's discussion says that economic growth is not equivalent to energy growth, and that growth in both GDP and utility can continue even if energy use stagnates. Murphy hand-waves this away by insisting that energy underpins the entire economy and that it will drag down the rest of the economy when it stagnates. Robin Hanson at Overcoming Bias and the commenter Vaniver on Hanson's post both raise direct critiques of Murphy's point. Vaniver points out that even with a constant quantity of energy, the price and therefore percentage of real GDP of energy can continue to rise. Hanson shows mathematically that even if one economic factor is held constant, the economy can continue growing as long as any other factor continues to grow. Hanson agrees that exponential economic growth will eventually cease, but only because he expects "diminishing returns to everything," not just energy or other physical resources.
II) Both of Murphy's above limits rest critically on the assumption that the discussion remains "grounded to Earth," that there is no "exodus to space, colonizing planets, living the Star Trek life, etc." When the economist for whatever reason accepts this assumption, Murphy says he sighed in relief that he wasn't dealing with "a space cadet." Indeed, in a previous blog entry, Murphy had derided the idea that we'll leave Earth as "escapism." You can read his full argument for why we won't go into space at the above link, but it basically amounts to two ideas: space is really, really big ("You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mindbogglingly big it is," as Douglas Adams would say), and all the good stuff is here on Earth, so why would we even want to leave?
In other words, if we never leave Earth, we'll be doomed to economic stagnation; but we'll never choose to leave Earth, because there's no reason to. Well call me a space cadet, but the counterargument is obvious. If the only way to achieve economic growth is to go into space, why would we ever stay on Earth? Indeed, the more we find ourselves constrained by Murphy's energy limits, the more we will want to go to space and the more resources the market will make available to do so.
His two constraints on energy are easily overcome by a space-based civilization. First, the waste heat of energy use is far easier to get rid of in the depths of space than in Earth's atmosphere; here, the bigness of space works to our advantage. Waste heat is only a constraint if we stay on Earth, which no doubt is why Murphy is so keen to stay on Earth in the first place. Second, there's no reason at all to think that a space-based civilization would be limited to the amount of energy in the sunlight that strikes Earth. The total energy output of the sun is about 2.2 billion times the amount that hits Earth. Even if we don't leave the solar system, and even if we don't become any more energy-efficient than we are right now, that would give us quite a few centuries of extra growth. Even modest gains in energy efficiency will add millennia of extra growth before we hit the limit, and non-solar sources of energy will extend that even further.
Murphy might counter that the space age is over; we once went to the moon but haven't been back for decades, and now even the shuttle will never take flight again. This, of course, ignores the continuing advances being made by other countries and even private organizations, at a time when the only real economic value in space comes from tourism and national bragging rights. By the time Murphy's constraints begin to come into play, there's no reason to think that we'll still be constrained to Earth. A few centuries from now, we could easily be more of a space-based species than a planet-based one, especially once you consider likely advances in genetics and cybernetics that will help us adapt to life in space.
III) In contradiction to Cowen's and Hanson's summaries, Murphy's point is not that exponential growth will stop, but that all growth will stop. He doesn't say our limited resources may prohibit exponential growth, but rather, they "may prohibit continued growth." His epilogue makes it clear that he foresees "a model in which GDP is fixed—under conditions of stable energy, stable population, steady-state economy."
Other commenters on Hanson's post suggested that space only provides linear expansion opportunities, and that we would eventually outpace the speed of light if we grew exponentially. Once our civilization becomes large enough, this is true. If the speed of light is as fundamental a constraint as physicists believe, we will eventually run up against it. But once we've extended our growth limit to the speed of light itself, I think it's fair to say that Murphy's limit of "centuries, or possibly much shorter" has been soundly defeated. Moreover, growth even at some fraction of the speed of light is still growth! We're not going to hit that "steady-state economy" until the accelerating expansion of space pushes all other galaxies beyond the edge of the visible universe in a trillion years or so. Maybe I'm just short-sighted, but that's far enough in the future that it's not gonna keep me up at night.
(Translated from Trek-ese, the title of this post is, of course, The Future and Space.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
