Beyond words
Very occasionally, something leaves me speechless. This video is one of those things.
Lost comments from August 25 – Found!
I regret to verify that this website has recently lost some comments. This has recently been brought to my attention by three readers. After hearing from several of you, I scrolled through the comments chronologically. On most days, we receive about 10 comments. For August 25, I seen no comments. August 25 was one of the two consecutive days that we took down the server for an hour to upgrade our hosting capacity; this is a somewhat complicated procedure. I suspect that something went wrong during that process, though I am not positive. I think that I lost two or three of my own comments. [more . . . ]
The God Equation
In mathematics we know that no matter how perfectly you carry out the calculations, if your constants are wrong, your answer will be wrong. In science, the assumptions you make before beginning your experiment can affect the outcome of the experiment. Keep that in mind as we go forward. There has been some amazing scholarly work done with regard to the bible over the ages. And yet I feel that much of it rests upon several erroneous assumptions about the nature of God that don't hold up to common sense scrutiny. Believers have told me that creation "bears witness of the creator". In other words, we can see the hand of God in nature. I agree! I think that the creative/destructive forces of the universe do reveal their nature through creation. With that in mind let's look to nature to see the nature of "god"! God vs Satan In the bible we are told that there is a cosmic battle going on between the forces of good and evil, i.e., God vs Satan. However, the separation of good and evil doesn't hold up in light of common sense observations of the universe. Bad and good are NEVER completely separate things. Nothing is ever all bad or all good. Here is an example:
From Wiki: “The parasitoid wasp Glyptapanteles lays its eggs, about 80 at a time, in young geometrid caterpillars. The eggs hatch and the larvae feed on the caterpillar's body fluids. When they are fully developed, they eat through the caterpillar's skin, attach themselves to a nearby branch or leaf and wrap themselves up in a cocoon.”For the wasp, this is good. For the caterpillar this is bad. Horrifically so. [More . . . ]
Instant Rockstar and Instant Respect
Now you don't have to learn how to play the guitar. All you need to do is pretend that you can play guitar. At my neighborhood Walgreens, there is now a big display featuring Paper Jamz plastic and 
cardboard string-less guitars (electronic sensors pick up where your hands are). For only $25 ($15 extra if you want a separate amp made mostly out of cardboard), you can be an "Instant Rockstar." I picked up one of these "guitars" to see whether I could feel like an "Instant Rockstar" right there in the aisles of Walgreens. I felt the glow of stardom for only a few seconds, because you can't actually play Paper Jamz guitar like you can play a real guitar (I play the guitar professionally). You can't play individual notes, you can't play precise rhythms, the sound range is extremely limited, there are no dynamics and there is only one genre offered: distorted rock chords.
Each of these five models of "guitar" is loaded with only three songs. Once you master the three songs on one of the guitars, you'll need to go back to Walgreens and pay $25 for a different model in order to play three more songs. Instead of real guitar lessons, just go to Rockstarz Academy.
The manufacturer of the Paper Jamz "guitar" tells you that you'd be wasting your time and money to buy a real guitar and learn how to play it. The Paper Jamz display actually includes a video promo with this opening line: "Why play an electric guitar when you can play Paper Jamz?" Why, indeed? I would offer one good reason why you might want to forgo the Paper Jamz "guitar." When you play a fake guitar instead of a real guitar, you will get fake respect, instead of real respect. To paraphrase and expand the Paper Jamz motto, "Why live a real life when you can watch TV and pretend to be living a life?"
Amotz Zahavi made it clear that in order to be reliable, a signal means to be expensive. If you want lots of respect, then, go practice hard so that you really learn how to play the guitar, and then come back and impress people by playing real 
songs. Paying $25 and then banging on a piece of plastic and cardboard isn't going to get you much respect, unless your audience consists of three-year-olds. Then again, I'm probably missing the point because massive numbers of Americans are under the delusion that reality is the way they desire it to be, rather than the way it actually is. Buying a cardboard guitar can bring instant respect to many teenagers because they believe it can.
We are a society that craves instant respect. We show off our gadgets and toys to the have-nots for instant respect. We join the military so we can carry guns, wear uniforms and blow things up in order to get instant respect, even though we've floundered through life until then. We celebrate family tragedies, sickness and addictions because these bring us respect as high-ranking victims. We strive to shake hands with Hollywood and sports celebrities, because this brings us instant respect. We become fans of professional sports teams in the hopes that they will win their championship, which seems to bring us respect.
I hope that everybody buying a Paper Jamz guitar really takes the time to impress their friends by "playing the guitar" before they lose all interest in "playing" the three songs programmed into their "guitar." I'm not denying that this gadget is technologically impressive or that it could be fun for a small child. But within a few months after buying a Paper Jamz guitar, this gadget will undoubtedly end up in the back of the closet, and it will eventually be tossed into a landfill with all the other gadgets we buy in our attempts to gain instant respect.
How to get from here to there regarding renewable energy
According to a recent article by Richard Kerr in the August 13, 2010 issue of Science ("Do We Have the Energy for the Next Transition?") it's going to be extremely difficult to move the world away from power-packed fossil fuels to more diffuse and less useful renewable energy:
Never has the world so self-consciously tried to move toward new sources of energy. But the history of past major energy transitions-from wood to coal, and from coal to oil and gas-suggests that it will be a long, tough road to scaling up alternatives to fossil fuels that don't stoke greenhouse warming. The big problem is that, for the first time, the world is moving to tap new energy sources that are, in many ways, less useful and convenient than the currently dominant sources: fossil fuels.
[For instance] oil is densely packed with energy, easily transported and stored, and efficient at releasing its energy in modern engines. Renewables are another matter.
[caption id="attachment_14020" align="alignright" width="300" caption="Image by Erich Vieth (using creative commons images)"]
[/caption]
How much energy do we need to replace? The number is staggering. "Replacing even half of the coal, oil, and gas consumed today would require 6 terawatts of renewable energy . . . In contrast, renewables today produce just 0.5 terawatts."
Kerr suggests that oil production might peak at around 2030 and natural gas section might keep pace with demand only until 2050. What then? He suggests the the "sobering reality" that only one renewable, solar energy, could meet future energy demands by itself (although wind power could make significant contributions). All of the other types of renewables "would provide just 1/10 to 1/10000 of today's energy output from fossil fuels."
How should we attempt such a daunting transition to cleaner fuels that are otherwise much less desirable? Kerr argues that the best way to approach this transition is to "reduce consumption," and, fortunately, we have the technology for reducing consumption drastically. I previously posted that modest conservation measures with regard to transportation could save enough oil to retire all of the 4000 oil drilling rigs in the Gulf of Mexico. Based on our long and unimpressive track record, Americans will readily express interest in reducing consumption but they lack the political will to actually do so. One huge approach to saving energy would be to immediately implement strict requirements for building highly energy-efficient residences and office buildings. There are many substantial things we could be doing to save energy, if only we cared enough about our future to do so.
Kerr closes his article with this less than cheerful conclusion: "Conservation would buy time for meagerly attractive renewables to make some inroads before fossil fuels begin to bow out."
(Note: Kerr's article is available online only to subscribers)