Astronomical energy density is key to becoming an interstellar species

I've been thinking recently about the actual energy costs of our consumer culture. The energy argument for most of what we do is concerned primarily with economies of scale. The idea is that by increasing the number of a given good we decrease its unit cost. My first question is: how are we measuring cost? Monetary cost? That doesn't seem very objective. How about total energy cost? And I do mean the whole process, not just some arbitrary human-defined subset of the process, like the cost of a cheeseburger being computed as just the cost to grill it.

What if we address the actual energy cost in say, producing, shipping, and cooking a domestic chicken and then dealing with the refuse in our conventional way. I suspect that the actual energy cost for just maturing the chicken is significant. If we compared it to the way in which a chicken lives in a state of nature when there are no humans to guide the process we would find that the energy gap is enormous. An ecology is pretty damn efficient in terms of energy use. Everything is useful to the ecosystem, and nothing goes to waste. For human use, the chicken would be a far lower energy cost if I were a hunter-gatherer and had hunted, killed, cooked, and eaten the bird myself. Our process doesn't achieve any efficiencies above this. In all likelihood, our process is abysmally inefficient when compared to an ecology. Our economies of scale just decrease this substantial difference.

So what is it about our methods that allow them to be successful? If the energy costs are so much greater, how are we able to accomplish anything? The answer is obvious. We inject our abundant energy resources into our manufacturing and production processes to speed things up. Currently that energy is primarily in the form of petroleum. Petroleum has a far higher energy density than the solar collected by living plants. We speed up a process by adding gobs and gobs of energy to it. This allows us to make tremendous progress in respect to human goals whereas ecosystems change at a leisurely pace, slow but incredibly efficient. Left alone (and free from catastrophic disaster) earth's ecosystems would far outlive any existing human system. But the processes by which biological systems evolve are as slow as they are efficient. If we didn't bootstrap ourselves using available energy we wouldn't have been able to do the things that we have done. Abundant and cheap energy enables human innovation.

So, we are burning through our low-density energy resources at a frenetic pace, a pace which quickens each year. We are on an asymptote of energy usage (and an asymptote of innovation). The possible failure modes of such meteoric increases can be seen in examples posed by nature (earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, volcanoes), or by the catastrophic failures of human systems (dam failure, exploding circuits, overpopulation and disease). The possible failure modes of unchecked growth are just as abysmal as our inefficiencies. My prediction is that we must, nonetheless, continue to ride the asymptote. And that if we peak in energy usage and roll-off or alternatively stabilize, then we will either crash and die off quickly, or live alone and sequestered to our dinky little speck of the galaxy. The reasons are manifold.

Clearly we can become much more efficient in doing what we do. If we approached ecological efficiencies and we stopped finding new ways to use energy, human energy usage would stabilize. If at the same time human populations were to stabilize, we would probably begin decreasing our overall energy usage. This sounds like exactly what we should be doing, decreasing our energy dependence by increasing efficiencies and stabilizing our populations. The problem is not the efficiency gains or the possibility of sustainable energy use. These are both good. The problem is that such a scenario makes no stipulation that we a) find new ways to use energy, and b) find new energy sources.

If we fail to do these two things then we will fail to leave this solar system. Period. If we fail to ever leave the solar system, this is a terminal species failure. The sun dies and then we die. Interstellar travel is necessary and the sooner we embark, the better. Low-density energy sources won't cut it, but they currently fuel our technological endeavors. These endeavors must become ever more fantastic or we risk the slow death of a species stranded on a lonely planet far from the nearest interstellar pub.

The energy cost of interstellar space travel is quite literally, astronomical. I suppose if we don't care how fast a colony reaches their destination then the energy required at first appears quite minimal. But this presupposes that a) it would be acceptable to take tens of thousands of years of travel time, and b) that somehow such a ship will sustain life in the void between solar systems for such an incredible duration. There is a great novel by Robert Heinlein that explores the likely failure of such a slow moving ship (Children of the Sky). The results would look something like Mad Max but where everybody is insane (even the law enforcers), the Manual of Astrophysics is treated as a book of analogical gospel, and the ship IS the universe.

So the scenario of low-energy interstellar travel is not a likely one. At the other extreme, we would prefer to reach another habitable star system with a portion of a human lifespan. Even if we choose one of our nearest stellar neighbors (Alpha Centauri), this means we would need to reach speeds approaching 10% of the speed of light giving us a travel time of around 50 years. The energy required for such a feat for even a very small craft is quite large. The Voyager I spacecraft left the solar system traveling at about 38,000 mph, putting it at Alpha Centauri distance in only 80,000 years. Clearly we have to move much, much faster to achieve speeds necessary to be successful in interstellar travel. 40 years would be nice. We would need to achieve (and decelerate from) speeds of 134,120,000 mph and provide 40 years of energy to sustain the lives of several hundred people. Achieving the speeds necessary is the easier part of the problem.

Clearly, we need some fantastic, astronomically-dense energy sources in order to travel unreasonable distances. Nuclear fission or fusion might work. The energy densities are orders of magnitude greater than those of chemical reactions (including the chemical rockets we currently use for extraterrestrial travel). We will require some very smart engineering to use these energy sources safely over a long journey. But right down here on the ground we will need to have already developed these technologies for widespread use. This means that we must continue to innovate and to find new and ever more fantastic uses for energy. It means that we must continue to increase our demand for energy by orders of magnitude and fuel this innovation. We need to ride the asymptote or we won't ever be able to leave. We must find and use new energy sources and technologies terrestrially to fill the very large energy-gap between us and any expectation of interstellar space travel.

Conservationism is still necessary. Efficiency is absolutely necessary, and becomes even more necessary as energy densities and power generation capabilities increase and we get closer to our technological goals. We must enable our species to use energy at an ever increasing pace. If our energy usage were to taper off now, we wouldn't likely ever have the ability to create the energy technologies necessary for interstellar travel. Such a decrease in energy usage would be an indicator that we had failed, terminally. I hope this won't happen. I think that unless catastrophe strikes (asteroid impact, thermonuclear war, bird flu kills too many people, zombies eat all of my neighbors), we will continue along our asymptotic energy consumption curve. I don't think the alternative is a viable option. We have to.



This indicates that we shouldn't be concerned so much with how much energy we use. Energy use is good, really, so much as it drives innovation and isn't just due to stupid human engineering deficiencies. It is also impossible to proceed if we are using low-energy-density bio-fuels. High-energy physics experimentation requires significant fractions of our current energy production. Future experiments will require larger energy resources still. Current power sources won't cut it. We need to replace petroleum, coal, and similar bio-fuels as soon as possible. For the future, they are useless. For now, they pollute and contaminate and prevent forward progress by maintaining energy scarcity and maintaining high energy costs. That energy costs have recently increased is a sign of our current failures. We are continuing to innovate, but our energy sources are not keeping pace. They are slowing us down. If this continues over many decades, it will be our first indicator of a potentially terminal species failure.

If we don't make major breakthroughs in astronomically high energy density technologies or we choose to curtail the research necessary to do so because we continually find new petroleum reserves or continue to invade unfortunate petroleum rich nations (or planets) ... it will take us an astronomically long time to innovate ourselves off of the planet and out of the solar system. If this happens, we will be here a very long time, all the while continually screwing up the efficient clockwork of Earth's ecosystems.


Some references used:

• Power flattening and minor actinide burning in a thorium fusion breeder, 15 Dec 2000, Science Direct
  
• Civilization's Energy Future - http://www.civilizationsfuture.com/energy.html
  
• Solar System Extrema - http://www.nineplanets.org/datamax.html
  
• Energy Density, Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density
  
• Aerospaceweb.org - Spacecraft Speed Records - http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/spacecraft/q0260.shtml
  
• Charlies Web Sector 14 - Travel time to Alpha Centauri - http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8450/centauri.htm
  

Computing Subversive's Bill Of Rights

Have you ever been told by an employer or academic institution that you MUST only use a specific hardware, operating system, or software solution? The reasons given are manifold and sometimes even appear rational and reasonable. Justifications that I have heard are: "We only want to support one system." "It is not allowed to use unsupported systems." "We cannot pay for support for any other system." "We don't know how to administer and support that system." "We don't know how secure the operating system that you want to use is." "There is no vendor contract or support for that software." "It might be spyware/malware/freeware/open-source." "It must be approved first." "We have an exclusive contract with a company that only provides their craptastic solution and the contract doesn't allow us to use other systems."

Even though the people carrying out the policy decisions of your company have every reason to suspect that your unsupported solution may be more secure, robust, or proficient than what they are using, they don't defend you. They only care that their costs 'appear' low or that there is an appearance that things are 'secure'. They want to legally protect themselves from you and the threat you pose by being a user of computing resources. You don't pass go. You don't collect $200. You are stuck with the shit you are given or you have to go through a painstaking process of proving one exception at a time that you have adequately prostrated yourself in the eyes of the policy managers. Then you might be able to use your unsupported system.

I am one of these subversives. I am a delinquent in the eyes of the policy mandate-ers with their cheeky pocketbooks, corn-fed contractors, and indignant securitizing homogeneity enforcers. I have been successful at using my choice of hardware, software, and operating system. I am able to do this because I am tenacious and because I demand that the computer systems that I use be flawless to the tasks that I have at hand. I am extremely proficient at my job and my use of computing systems. I outright refuse to accept any force-fed least-common-denominator solution.

My company has numerous policies setup to stop me. They want me to use any Microsoft supported version of Microsoft Windows and I have to always, always spend extra time justifying why each hardware purchase is not using the cheapest available solution. I abandoned the Microsoft Windows playground during my sophomore year as an EE student shortly after discovering the unnerving stupidity of Microsoft's basic design principles. I then immersed myself in world of Linux distros and command shell environments. I started my first post-graduate job expecting to use the most customized, specialized, and secure computer systems on the planet. And...I then quickly discovered that I was expected to throw away all of my hard-boiled Unix experience and to use a child's toy.

Ok. So you get that I am bitter. I get more bitter every time I am expected to justify myself. This happens every few months. Some new policy is born that has more or less ambiguous language that says I must not use what I am using. It will be taken away unless I can justify its use. Further, that I am not allowed to justify its use using an argument of personal preference or efficiency. And it doesn't matter that nothing has changed on my end. That the same justifications apply. I jump through the paper hoops of fire and navigate the gauntlet. I didn't choose to play a game of "hot lava" today, but am hop-skipping over imaginary flames nonetheless.  I can never guarantee that my efforts will be successful. I could end up with barbecued feet and an empty tool bag full of Fisher Price toys and a Dilbert etch-a-sketch to replace my sophisticated arsenal of computing tools.

I think that the problem is, however, far deeper than my unrest and unease. The problem is one of a large institution making a definitive choice of a specific implementation of a computer system, when, by definition each of these Turing machines is fully capable of emulating the others. The difference being in user familiarity, in implementation and user interface details, in their level of proprietary or open design, in their methods for product testing and making guarantees. Sure, I understand that an organization has needs, and when it needs one, an organization should acquire a large petaflop computing system and use it for boiling eggs or performing network and computing security tasks. But in respect to 'personal' computing, an organization doesn't use these, individuals use personal computers. I use personal computers. I might access mainframes, but my daily tasks are done right here in Sunnyland. And in Sunnyland I need a computing system built to the oddities of my brain, my experiences, and my tasks.

Even if the organizational organism itself uses a personal computer, it shouldn't ever specify one for you. Clearly you will use a personal computer in a very different way than an organization organism. You have hands! It would be slightly better if it were your office-mate or next door neighbor telling you what software you should run or what type of computer you have to buy. But even this is complete nonsense. Just because you sit in the same cubicle or live on the same street gives someone no insight into your cognitive abilities and peculiarities. If I've got a different driving style than you and am most efficient using a 6-speed manual transmission, I should damn well be able to..no..I should have the right to choose a the manual over any automatic.

So, you are reading this and being a business owner, or policy enforcer, you think that I am out of my fucking mind. If you let your employees drive whatever computing vehicle they wanted, you would not be able to afford the cost! You wouldn't be able to guarantee computer security! So, yeah, I'm not talking about cost. If you want to put a restriction on how much I am allowed to spend, do it, but if I am a expert and expect the best tools I will either quit my job or purchase them for myself. If I am expected to perform at my peak performance within the bounds of a budget I must still be able to choose the computing environment that fits my specific needs. And if you are smart you won't use cost limiting as a method to get me to use a pre-chosen solution. Clearly, if you are doing this, you've missed the point.

And as for the 'security' arguments...If you are only doing security on the host level...you've lost. If you want secure personal computers, the only way to do this is to educate your population! You don't tell your scientists that they can't use a hammer because they might smash their fingers! Just teach them how to hit the nails without damaging themselves, their tools, or their colleagues. So you don't have that type of security expertise in house? Pay for external security firms to educate them for you. You'll will be better off doing this instead of trying to keep up with the incredibly fast-paced world of software.

The proposal that I am taking my sweet time in getting to is this: A Bill Of Rights guaranteeing an individual free choice of human-machine interface. Give the individual the inalienable right to choose for themselves the type(s) of computing environment(s) that work best for their tasks. I am sure that this is the right approach. Our organizations, if they are mandating a specific environment, do not have your best interests at heart. Your health and cognitive proficiencies are being used against you. They are wasting you. They are throwing away tens of thousands of your precious life hours in order to fulfill some pre-ordained requirement created by financiers of big-business or big-government. I do not have the time to have my life wasted so blithely. I should have the right to work as proficiently and efficiently as I know how. The real screwed up part of this is, we are currently the minority. Most computer users don't care about computing environments because they don't know enough about their computing environments to give a damn. So when a bunch of don't cares are thrown on a balance scale against individuals organization make up any damn thing they choose and throw away their most proficient computing resources. Us!

I don't expect such a computing subversive's bill of rights to be mandated for all companies, except in the particular case when that company is the U.S. Government. As a taxpayers and employees we must repair this problem or risk everything by steeping our best and brightest in the mud of mediocrity. Just think this: if you were an Olympic runner, would you be able to perform if forced to run in flip-flops? Just remember, in respect to human-machine-interface, your flip-flops may just be my rocket-boots.

Some related examples of writing on computing consumer rights. Note that all of these are concerned with consumer rights in respect to product quality. These are necessary protections but I believe are related to basic product guarantees rather than providing users with the ability to choose HMI specifics.

• Are You 'Visioning' Your Company's Future?, Global Future Report
• Computer Owners' Bill of Rights, GreatBrook
• Computer User's Bill of Rights, CUBOR Project
• Computer User's Bill of Rights, Usability Institute
• A Geek Bill Of Rights, Newsweek
• Cloud Computing Bill of Rights
• A COMPUTER USER'S MANIFESTO, Business Week

I believe that for any of these usability and accessibility guidelines to make a difference, first and foremost, a user of a computing system must be able to choose an optimal solution for their individual characteristics.

Linux Grub bootloader harddisk UUID inanity

I spent the last couple of hours figuring out why my Ubuntu machine was not booting. Everything was fine...and then I removed a backup IDE hard-disk to place in my safe deposit box. Rebooted to remove it and then uhg....hang...then an initramfs. My Linux skills are rusty. WTF is initramfs? Oh yeah, low-level initialization and startup stuff that I don't want to know about. Super. So....UUID are supposed to make life easier by using a unique identifier for each device. However, it doesn't work like it should and the unique identifier is unique alright...unique to the machine and apparently impermanent as well, making the whole concept.....worthless. I personally can't tell one long sequence of hexadecimal from another. Meaningless noise. The old system of using simple cryptic names like /dev/sda1 etc. worked just fine and if there was a boot problem I could diagnose it by determining if my partitions had changed names (which they shouldn't, ever, but do and is thus a reason for UUID). Ending up at the initramfs prompt can be caused by lots of things that I don't really care to concern myself with. One of them is having incorrect boot parameters as specified in the /boot/grub/menu.lst.

So the fix was easy...just not documented in the startup or identified by the non-error-like weirdness of ending up with a non-bootable system only because a stupid machine-unique-id was rendered incorrect due to some inanity in IDE versus SCSI devices. Basically, at the Grub menu, hit ESC and edit the boot command for the kernel that you'd like to use. Where it reads root=UUID=somelongsequenceofhex just remove the UUID=somemachinereadablebullshit and replace it with the partition that you know contains the boot partition. In my case this was /dev/sda2 so it reads something like root=/dev/sda2. If you don't know your boot partition, boot off of a Linux distro CD, get a command shell, look at your /proc/partitions file and figure it out. Knoppix is good for that, or use your distro CD. I've got 2 raid arrays with 5 disks each and 2 IDE disks. I can spot my root disk solely based on partition size.

Once you've got the right boot command your system will then boot normally, like it should have done to begin with. Run the blkid command on your boot partition to retrieve its machine-unique-id and replace the invalid UUIDs in your /boot/grub/menu.lst file. You also need to change /etc/fstab to reflect the apparently random UUID changes. That was a complete waste of time, but now your Linux system will boot without being poked and prodded.

I really, really love Linux. I love the philosophy of open-source and I love the feeling of personal power that I have knowing that I can (and do) modify my system to my liking from the ground up. But I don't like arbitrary bullshit. Proprietary or open-source, it doesn't matter. These things should work...flawlessly...autonomously... My boot partition didn't fucking move, change, or disappear. The magic fucking 8-ball that Grub is using just gave the wrong answer even though the game itself is rigged.  Damn it.  Don't play games with my time.

• http://www.webdav.org/specs/draft-leach-uuids-guids-01.txt


• http://wolfger.wordpress.com/2007/08/31/ubuntu-and-uuid/


• http://liquidat.wordpress.com/2007/10/15/short-tip-get-uuid-of-hard-disks/

Extraterrestrial Population Control

If I were a space faring species who was non-conquest driven and didn't want conquest driven species from poisoning the galaxy like cancers... I would actively search for new species hell-bent on conquering the galaxy and stop them at their beginnings. I'd use effective long-term treatments to eliminate the disease. Probably the easiest: send asteroids big enough and numerous enough to prevent fast-paced development but not destroy them. Do this periodically. For most sentient species asteroids that weren't planet busting wouldn't eliminate them. Asteroid impacts would simply extend their gestation period, making it far more likely for a conquest driven species to self-terminate before becoming space faring.

The target species would likely fall into one of 3 categories

• a) self-termination: die off due to stupidity or internal conflict
  
• b) conquest-relaxation: successfully deal with the long-term environmental effects of asteroid impacts and subsequent delayed technological development
  
• c) live long and prosper: prevent multiple, sustained asteroid impacts through cohesive action
  

The first possibility helps eliminate threatening species. The second is unfortunate for the target species, but increases the chances that, if they survive nuclear winter, they won't destroy the rest of the galaxy as conquistadors (due to the higher probability of self-termination occurring). The last possibility would mean that the species had successfully run the gauntlet and that the species is capable of acting in a cohesive manner against an external threat.

The idea here is that there must be some way to 'test' a species for suitability. It is intuitively the case that a species which is very conquest driven is very likely to be factional and unable to cohesively act when threatened (especially for extended periods of time). Another possibility is for a conquest driven species to to be totalitarian, which may mean that they can act cohesively over long periods of time, but are unlikely to have the technological resources necessary to prevent asteroid impacts.


A couple of years ago I was listening to the Astrobiology Magazine podcast on a regular basis. On one episode, Frank Drake, the originator of the Drake Equation was interviewed. The thought experiments that the Drake equation explores allow us to take an interest in our self preservation that is very non-homo-sapien-centric. In all likelihood there are many, many thousands of other sentient species in just our arm of the galaxy. It is in our best interests in taking this into consideration when solving human problems. The prospect of being seen as a threat as we slowly reach into interstellar space has potentially dire consequences.

So as we all have been told, asteroids have hit the Earth in the past with devestating consequences. We can estimate (in a similar way to the Drake equation method) the likelihood of a random asteroid hitting the earth. Now what is really interesting is that we can also estimate the increase or decrease in this likelihood based on current Earth politics and the status of human space technology and weapons using an estimate of the number of peacekeepers present within the galaxies sentient races.

A trilogy by the Welsh science fiction author Alastair Reynolds explores some of these ideas on a grandiose scale.

Beneficial Environmental Impact

Climate change happens. Can we make it hotter by dumping carbon dioxide into the air? Sure. Would not dumping CO2 into the air stop climate change? Not likely. Climate change has been a regular occurrence for the last 400 thousand years as demonstrated by data from the Vostok ice core[1].

Clearly, we can affect things dramatically, but climate change has been happening without us and will continue to happen in spite of us. Further, of all of the affects that we have on Earth ecosystems, climate is one of the least measurable and most unlikely to be impacted positively by human activity. If we really wanted to affect climate change we would have to change our thinking and technology in revolutionary ways. Our automobiles would have to produce byproducts which counteract the accumulation of carbon dioxide. It is not important whether the source of a greenhouse gas is human in origin, geologic and caused by volcanic ash, or the result of bovine flatulence. If we want to prevent the impact of increased carbon dioxide we must create technologies (or perhaps just plant trees) to reverse it.

I think that we all agree that pollution sucks. And most pollution isn't just affecting our climate, it effects our ecosystems, it effects our lifestyle. It effects us. New research suggests that soluble nano-particulate matter produced by automobile exhaust contributes to or causes cardiovascular disease [2,3]. This might mean that we need to take drastic measures to prevent long-term exposure to the disease-causing particles. And we are currently faced with auto-mobile-ization by the developing world as incredibly cheap gas-powered automobiles are released. Even at 50+ miles per gallon, millions of new vehicles will still increase emission of harmful pollutants and CO2.

I find it very frustrating to realize that of all of the many things we do that we consider 'environmental' still do not have a beneficial impact on the environment. All of our gas-electric hybrid vehicles, solar panels, wind-power; the whole lot, still have a detrimental effect on the environment. The creation of these devices and their use still have a overall detrimental environmental impact. In a very self-serving and shallow logic, this is OK. It is better than if we had not used these things. Agreed. Better to pollute less than pollute more. At least some of us are somewhat more conscious of our environment. But it is not enough.

If we really wanted to 'control' the climate, we cannot do this by minimizing our impact. We must to optimize our impact. And the impact must be of positive benefit to the environment. We must create human by-products that have the effect of reversing environmental damage or removing pollutants from the air.

There are a few examples of this.

• Planting trees
• Preventing asteroid impacts: treaties and methods
• Preventing volcanic eruptions (we don't currently think this is possible, but it should be)
• Careful environmental monitoring and management
• Awareness and protection of endangered species (who are endangered for reasons which are not related to human activity)

Most of the things that we currently do as individuals, which are necessary but not sufficient, simply decrease our overall footprint:

• Buy local produce and products
• Grown your own crops and support community gardening
• Use recycled paper as much as possible (office supplied, toilet paper)
• Use cold-water wash in the laundry
• Don't use bottled water
• Recycle everything that is recyclable
• Re-use paper products (bags, printer scrap paper) and plastic containers (bags, washable food containers)
• Compost waste food instead of adding it to the landfills
• Bring your own re-usable bags to the grocery store
• Buy bulk cereals, grains, loose-leaf tea, and other bulk packaged products when possible
• Use greener transportation (use public or mass transit, a hybrid vehicle, or ride a bicycle)
• Use non-toxic and biodegradable cleaners and detergents (e.g. http://www.seventhgeneration.com/)
• Re-use 'grey-water' from the kitchen and bathroom for gardening (requires use of non-toxic cleaners)
• Use low-flow (aerated) faucets, shower-heads, and low water use toilets
• Use passive solar heating in the home

Note that all of these things are great things to do to minimize your footprint. However, none of them has a beneficial net effect on the environment.

References:

[1] Barnola et al. CO 2-climate relationship as deduced from the Vostok ice core: a re-examination based on new …. Tellus B (1991)

[2] Mills et al. Do Inhaled Carbon Nanoparticles Translocate Directly into the Circulation in Humans?. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine (2006)

[3] Zareba et al. Cardiovascular Effects of Air Pollution: What to Measure in ECG?. Environmental Health Perspectives (2001)

A radical proposal for "Green Streets"

I'm fed up with our cities. Developed nations, such as the U.S. probably have the worst cities on the planet. Why? Because they aren't built for people. They are built for automobiles. The concessions made to other forms of transportation (bicycles, pedestrians) are exactly that, concessions. Our cities are dumbly built for large, noisy, dangerous, inefficient, environmentally devastating, pervasive automobiles.

As you can tell, I am not an automobile fanatic, but I do have an appreciation for them. Some (very few) are very appropriate, well-built transportation machines, designed with purpose and with the future in mind. They have their place, but that place is not cities.

I don't want to share the road with automobiles as a bicyclist. It means that any accident is likely a fatal accident. I don't want to be a pedestrian at *any* traffic intersection.  I want green streets. I want human navigable spaces that span a city. I want most of the city to be like a university campus, where the automobile is the least efficient method of transportation. I want a city where people and bicycles and skateboards are safe from the stupidity of the automobile.

There are many reasons why I prefer taking the "scenic" route through campus instead of hitting a city street right away on my route home every day. I feel safer. It takes longer, but I don't really notice because I don't have to worry about being killed by a haphazard driver. The scenery really is better. Much better. I enjoy it so much that I sometimes go to campus on the weekends just to ride around. What if the whole city were this enjoyable for human-powered-locomotion? Do you think that we'd cut down on greenhouse gas emissions? What about fitness? How many more people would ride a bicycle to work?

So here is my radical proposal:

1. Convert 50% of navigable roadways in every city into a walk/bike/skate space with walk and ride paths and green foliage.
2. Ensure that these human-navigable-spaces span a city so that we can navigate anywhere without traveling any more than a block on asphalt-and-automobile streets.
3. Partition existing city funding such that our automobile roadways are better AND we get fabulous human navigable spaces to travel in.
4. Do this over a period of 10-20 years; saving money, ourselves, and the environment

If we need some additional evidence to support the effort, do studies concerning the total cost of automobile roadways compared to the total cost of the proposed human spaces.

For example:
Automobile roadways incur many costs:

1. Construction and maintenance
2. Accidents and hospitalization
3. Environmental cost
4. Personal health costs
1. Physical fitness
2. Psychological costs (stuck in traffic, frustration, road-rage)
5. Lost energy
1. Lost energy costs due to asphalt heat-absorption/dissipation
2. Lost energy costs due to lack of green spaces
6. Personal financial loss
1. Cost of gasoline for 1-10 mile commute
2. Cost of automobile ownership and insurance
7. ...
8. ...

Human navigable spaces have some costs as well, but most are significantly lower or actually beneficial. When compared to costs incurred to construct, maintain, and use automobile roadways it seems inane to be designing our cities in any other way.

Check out this recent graphic on fatalities and serious injuries in the UK.  Zoom into the street level and look for regions where *you* would want to live -- I guarantee that these are going to be green streets.

Fembots from Venus - Some flying, some spageti, and a noodly appendage

There are so many bad ideas and erroneous claims that none of us should be expected to take the time to validate the bullshit. If I think that there are fembots on the surface of Venus, I've got to find evidence. The evidence needs to be testable and falsifiable. The evidence must have a direct relationship with whatever that I claim (voluptuous fembots in this instance). If the evidence is insufficient or erroneous, then nobody needs to go any farther in the search for robotic female Venetians. Really. Don't bother. You would be wasting your time. I made it up.

It would be fantastic if there were fembots. I imagine that they would be sort of like the fembots from the Austin Powers film, only with real tits instead of gun-boobs. This all sounds sexist and kind of dumb, but I'm not talking about feminism, I'm talking about religion.

Nobody in their right mind should be doing the things that they are doing and believing the nonsense that they are believing based on a declared absence of evidence. It doesn't matter if it sounds good. It would be nice if a lot of other baseless, nonsensical fantasies were true, but they are not. Our whimsical fantasies have no viable evidence, cannot be 'proven' false, and should be tabled, indefinitely as anthropological remnants of early human sociology. Period.



Suggested reading for the budding contrarian or emerging atheist:

• The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster
• Letters to a Young Contrarian - Christopher Hitchens
• Beginnings: The Story of Origins - of Mankind, Life, the Earth, the Universe - Isaac Asimov
• The God Delusion - Richard Dawkins