What a goddamn depressing day. Nothing surprising happened today, but it's amazing that we can be ready for something, brace for it, and still when it gets here it just takes the wind out of the sails and backhands our happiness like that dad did to his kid at the baseball game I went to last night (playfully...?).
It starts with waking up alone, something that mercifully happens very rarely to me. My wife is in Hawaii right now on her last few days of pre-job vacation (is it a vacation if it's pre-job? I guess it is, since she technically worked three days last week, but I'm not sure it fits the spirit). She left yesterday morning, gets back Friday, then flies out on Sunday to go to a company gathering for the new job until next Tuesday. This is not the first, nor the longest, time we've spent apart from each other, but I would always rather she be here with me - selfish, I know.
Dear Alison, please don't take the preceding paragraph the wrong way, I know that we both need our alone times sometimes, and I would never want my ramblings to make you feel bad about going on a vacation that I would have gone on too if our situations were reversed!
It's not only sad to wake up alone, but it always takes me a lot longer (something that would amaze Alison, who knows it takes me a long time to wake up as it is), and I hit the alarm for 30 minutes this morning before finally rolling out of bed. Whenever I do this, I inevitably feel ashamed later for the half hour earlier I could have gotten to work, which would have meant a half hour earlier getting home, and a half hour less of time wasted doing nothing, since I'm obviously conscious for that half hour. But actually getting up is so hard.
Today was an astounding day weather-wise. No fog to speak of when I got up, and it was actually warm enough that I was way too warm when I got down to the Castro on my commute this morning for the fleece I was wearing. In fact, it was a waste to carry the thing today, I never wore it again. Beautiful day; I actually took a walk this afternoon for 15 minutes, rather than eating lunch outside or going out.
But at 10:00 the news came in that the Supreme Court of California was upholding Proposition 8, the ban on gay marriage that the voters of California voted in this past election cycle. I think that everybody who was being realistic knew this would happen, but it hurts the same. I'm not going to go over again how much this sucks (not really my place because I'm not one of the many people the ban hurts, except by making me feel guilty for being allowed by law to marry the person I love), or how people who are anti-gay-marriage are jerks and bigots and such, because that's been said thousands and thousands of times. I listened to Forum and Talk of the Nation today, which both had shows on this topic. It seemed that the prognosis was generally good for the future, from the law professor who asserted that the court's opinion would logically lead to the State of California getting out of the marriage game entirely (something I wholeheartedly endorse), to the Governator (a conservative! Well, a California/Hollywood conservative, anyway...), who said that it's only a matter of time at this point before gay marriage is legal and equal (cold comfort to people today, as I'm sure Johnson's Reconstruction was to black people after the Civil War). It also amazed me to hear the opinions of people on both sides of the issue, from the pro-gay-marriage (It's religion, religion, religion) to the anti-gay-marriage (Marriage is for procreation, never mind that people who are biologically unable to have children are allowed to get married, and gay couples are allowed to have children; or, Why do gay people need marriage? Domestic unions are the same! I can't come up with an apt, non-clunky simile here, so please provide your own). I personally think that religion does have a lot to do with it, although a lot of people are likely uncomfortable with the idea, or all their friends are voting against it (I was in Williams, AZ, a few years ago on a job, and the folks from the City who we were working for chose seeing Brokeback Mountain as a jesting allusion to closeted homosexuality in a coworker, as in "I bet you're going to go see Brokeback Mountain [you big fag]!" I think there are likely a lot of similarities between small-town northern Arizona and much of inland California), or any other number of reasons that are not based directly in religion. Incidentally, those same City workers, I'm sure, don't go to church on Sunday, or, if they do, it's only for show.
I also had a ticket tonight to see City Arts and Lectures tonight with Dr. James Hansen. No, not the late, great Muppeteer, but the famous scientist. The one that spoke out against Bush II-era administrative censorship of scientific results. He had an interview-style talk that ranged over the science of climate change (no slides, and a layman audience, so you can imagine the scientist in me was left wanting more; luckily, he's a big nerd and easily intimidated - the scientist in me, not Dr. Hansen), although it dealt a lot with the political side of things. Every time I see one of these talks I get really depressed about the future, because I remember that everything I do as a consumer and user of energy is completely insignificant to actually solving the problem, and that the changes must be large, rapid, and fundamental to actually effect change. That realization then gets passed on to the cynic in me (who, though brooding and kind of an asshole, usually rules the roost), who declares such institutional changes to be pipe dreams that only the blind optimist believes will actually happen before things like this and this and this and this occur and won't somebody please think of the poor penguin babies?! No, we as a race/culture are far too selfish for that (I was thinking on my way home tonight that the "selfish" appellation is something that pretty much anybody on pretty much any side of pretty much any ideological debate could apply to the other side; isn't that exciting!) to ever occur. And that, my friends, is a depressing prospect when you know what the person familiar with climate feedback processes knows. A questioner in the audience mentioned, and Dr. Hansen confirmed, that the projection with all ice gone from Greenland and the Antarctic, as well as all ice caps melting, is about 70 meters, or 250 feet, of course happening over a long time frame, although the rate will continue to accelerate should we do nothing.
I took the subway home to the Castro after the lecture and surfaced to loud, thumping music and news vans and police everywhere, having entirely forgotten in my bout of inner composition on the subway (plus, I'm reading a thoroughly enjoyable book about Ireland right now, much better than the previous one, but more on that another time). I went to the Hot Cookie for a treat, more to avoid the news cameras on the other corner of the intersection than anything else. I did not buy a chocolate penis. They had a DJ on a flatbed truck cranking out some truly inspiring volume, but the party seems to have happened earlier in the night, if it ever got going (I'm sure it did; I've learned that people who live in the Castro do one thing spectacularly well, and that's party). There were maybe 100 people in the street then (around 10pm), and some of them were still dancing away. I wonder now, if I could be as down about things that really don't affect me directly, how can they be dancing when they've just been officially told by the government that they are, in the words of Dr. Harry Newman, "less than?" I guess they're just optimistic, and at least on this issue I can see some light at the end of the tunnel, with the examples set by good old Iowa (how did I ever make fun of you so much as a child, implying that all of your residents wore these things?) and several northeastern States.
Maybe tomorrow will be better. Maybe a little Baja Fresh or curry in a hurry will brighten my day.
Showing posts with label science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label science. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Thursday, January 8, 2009
What I've been reading
I just finished a book, which is getting annoyingly rare these days. I walk an hour plus every day now (I stopped taking the terrible neighborhood bus because it's terrible) plus 20 minutes on the subway per day. Which seems like a lot of time to spend reading except that it's not the easiest thing in the world to walk and read at the same time. Alison made it a little easier since she bought me a nifty reading light for a pre-Christmas gift. It still takes me about a month to read a book unfortunately. This book I just read is The Dominant Animal: Human Evolution and the Environment by Paul and Anne Ehrlich. Alison had heard of these folks before but of course I'm ignorant and had not.
The book started out very slow...the whole beginning of the book was a lesson on the mechanics of evolution (why we evolved, and stuff). It was a strange way to write this book, with a lot of very technical scientific writing mixed in with language pandering to the completely non-scientific. It felt a little trite to the scientist in me, but also a little muddling to the non-geneticist in me.
It got way more interesting toward the end, with a lot of stats about the human ruination of the environment. I think that everybody should at least read the last half of this book to get a better understanding of our impacts, in case you don't already know. It's leading me to greatly reduce my meat intake (not because of my health, or the high price of good meat, or the cow farts, or the fertilizer in the waterway, or even my lovely wife's aversion to it, but rather simply because it turns out to be an incredibly inefficient way to get our food energy, and would make much more sense in terms of sustainability to eat vegetables instead).
My main conclusion drawn from this book is that there is basically no hope for the human race. I have felt this way for awhile to a certain degree, but the way we're headed in this book seals the deal. People, we are screwed.
Next I'm going to read The World Without Us by Alan Weisman. I hope this book cheers me up by thinking about what will happen to the world once we've destroyed ourselves. Alison already read this book, and wrote a blog post about it.
It's unfortunate that we as a species have decided that it's our right to do whatever we want to to make us happy at the cost of everything else on this planet, but there it is. It's also unfortunate that when we go down we're going to take with us an unprecedented number of species away from this world. The generalists will survive, cockroaches and rats and such. In a world devoid of lots of the species that usually fill the ecological niches present in this world, at least there should be a species explosion to fill them in rapid (geologically) order, yay!
The book started out very slow...the whole beginning of the book was a lesson on the mechanics of evolution (why we evolved, and stuff). It was a strange way to write this book, with a lot of very technical scientific writing mixed in with language pandering to the completely non-scientific. It felt a little trite to the scientist in me, but also a little muddling to the non-geneticist in me.
It got way more interesting toward the end, with a lot of stats about the human ruination of the environment. I think that everybody should at least read the last half of this book to get a better understanding of our impacts, in case you don't already know. It's leading me to greatly reduce my meat intake (not because of my health, or the high price of good meat, or the cow farts, or the fertilizer in the waterway, or even my lovely wife's aversion to it, but rather simply because it turns out to be an incredibly inefficient way to get our food energy, and would make much more sense in terms of sustainability to eat vegetables instead).
My main conclusion drawn from this book is that there is basically no hope for the human race. I have felt this way for awhile to a certain degree, but the way we're headed in this book seals the deal. People, we are screwed.
Next I'm going to read The World Without Us by Alan Weisman. I hope this book cheers me up by thinking about what will happen to the world once we've destroyed ourselves. Alison already read this book, and wrote a blog post about it.
It's unfortunate that we as a species have decided that it's our right to do whatever we want to to make us happy at the cost of everything else on this planet, but there it is. It's also unfortunate that when we go down we're going to take with us an unprecedented number of species away from this world. The generalists will survive, cockroaches and rats and such. In a world devoid of lots of the species that usually fill the ecological niches present in this world, at least there should be a species explosion to fill them in rapid (geologically) order, yay!
Monday, August 6, 2007
Article XI
Look at this! Alison has another article out today. She's had some other articles bumped that are finished, so there should be more soon. Go here to read the article. It is about scientists' findings regarding the cause of the skin disorder Rosacea. Hooray science! Hooray wife!
Saturday, August 4, 2007
Important research!
OK, I was just listening to Whad'ya Know on NPR as I try to every week. They did a segment on a very important new study released by some researchers at the University of Texas on the reasons why people have sex. The list reaches 237 (!) different reasons, from "I was attracted to the person" (most popular) to "I wanted to give someone else a sexually transmitted disease (e.g., herpes, AIDS)" (least popular). Take the survey! How fun!
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
Many things 1
I have many things to blog about right now. This will be a several-part post probably.
The big news is that my article that I have been working on for basically the past three years was accepted, and I uploaded the final version today. It will be printed eventually in Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences, which, if that doesn't sound exciting to you, I just don't even know. I'm now waiting on other people to get their articles through the ringer so our special issue can be published. I will finally have been published in an important periodical, woohoo. My only hope is that I will have gotten there before Alison and Arun.
Second, I read the following article yesterday: Wolfgang Puck: I Want Animals to Be Happy. It seems that Wolfgang Puck has decided that, at no extra cost to the consumer, he will instigate reforms to his culinary empire (including frozen foods even, which is pretty amazing) so that all animals used for his food will be hormone-free, and cage-free (nothing mentioned about vegetarian-fed). Also, he'll start using as many organic ingredients as possible, and make an effort to use recycled materials and reduce waste.
There were a few quotes in it that made me laugh:
"I'm not going soft, or, heaven forbid, vegan." - Apparently being vegan carries a stigma still...
"Why shouldn't cows and pigs feel sunlight on their backs, grass under their feet? Fish shouldn't be jammed into tanks too full for them to even think about swimming. They should be able to exercise their muscles and feel a current. Yes, they'll be killed for food—but until then, they should have a nice stay on Earth."
"As for foie gras, my customers and I can easily live without it."
He also gave the following quote, which I think is important for people to understand. It is in reference to his upbringing in Austria: "We never stocked cans in our pantry. Instead, we ate summer fruit in the summer and winter vegetables when the weather turned cold, just as nature intended. Our chickens were raised to run about the property, and were fed a wholesome diet. Our cows didn't know a thing about bovine growth hormones. And the food tasted better." I think that most people have no idea any more of the things that happen to their food, and the energy that it takes to make sure that we can have strawberries all year. I love being able to eat the same thing at any time of the year, but I think, once we move to Albuquerque, Alison and I are going to start trying to eat more things we grow ourselves, or are locally grown; that makes for a big sacrifice, bigger than it might seem. That means apples in the summer and fall only, bananas and oranges never (so sad), and fresh green chiles only in the fall. We'll see how long that lasts.
The big news is that my article that I have been working on for basically the past three years was accepted, and I uploaded the final version today. It will be printed eventually in Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences, which, if that doesn't sound exciting to you, I just don't even know. I'm now waiting on other people to get their articles through the ringer so our special issue can be published. I will finally have been published in an important periodical, woohoo. My only hope is that I will have gotten there before Alison and Arun.
Second, I read the following article yesterday: Wolfgang Puck: I Want Animals to Be Happy. It seems that Wolfgang Puck has decided that, at no extra cost to the consumer, he will instigate reforms to his culinary empire (including frozen foods even, which is pretty amazing) so that all animals used for his food will be hormone-free, and cage-free (nothing mentioned about vegetarian-fed). Also, he'll start using as many organic ingredients as possible, and make an effort to use recycled materials and reduce waste.
There were a few quotes in it that made me laugh:
"I'm not going soft, or, heaven forbid, vegan." - Apparently being vegan carries a stigma still...
"Why shouldn't cows and pigs feel sunlight on their backs, grass under their feet? Fish shouldn't be jammed into tanks too full for them to even think about swimming. They should be able to exercise their muscles and feel a current. Yes, they'll be killed for food—but until then, they should have a nice stay on Earth."
"As for foie gras, my customers and I can easily live without it."
He also gave the following quote, which I think is important for people to understand. It is in reference to his upbringing in Austria: "We never stocked cans in our pantry. Instead, we ate summer fruit in the summer and winter vegetables when the weather turned cold, just as nature intended. Our chickens were raised to run about the property, and were fed a wholesome diet. Our cows didn't know a thing about bovine growth hormones. And the food tasted better." I think that most people have no idea any more of the things that happen to their food, and the energy that it takes to make sure that we can have strawberries all year. I love being able to eat the same thing at any time of the year, but I think, once we move to Albuquerque, Alison and I are going to start trying to eat more things we grow ourselves, or are locally grown; that makes for a big sacrifice, bigger than it might seem. That means apples in the summer and fall only, bananas and oranges never (so sad), and fresh green chiles only in the fall. We'll see how long that lasts.
Monday, April 2, 2007
Let me reiterate!
The Environmental Protection Agency is an Agency whose function is Protecting the Environment.
I am sad. The Tigers lost. However, the Braves won. Bad + Good. The Dbacks will be my own personal rubber match.
I am sad. The Tigers lost. However, the Braves won. Bad + Good. The Dbacks will be my own personal rubber match.
Putting the "sup" in "supreme"
The supreme court stood up for the environment today by telling the Environmental Protection Agency to do its job (namely, being an Agency whose function is Protection of the Environment). Notice there is no mention so far of this news on the EPA website.
I guess I haven't been following very closely, since I didn't even know that the EPA was refusing to even regulate tailpipe emissions. The pertinent passage:
Shockingly, this was an ethics-line vote, as the liberals voted with the majority, and the conservatives voted to dissent. Kennedy made the difference. I love how apparently the EPA was trying to not regulate tailpipe emissions for reasons completely unrelated to the Environment, whose Protection I may remind you this particular Agency is designed for.
Here's my solution: regulatory agencies should be part of the judicial branch rather than the executive branch so that its policies are determined by the law, rather than by the current administration's party. Of course, I'm sure that if the democrats were in power over regulation right now, and presuming that they were doing their job (big presumption!), I'd probably be arguing against that exact change. Oh well.
I guess I haven't been following very closely, since I didn't even know that the EPA was refusing to even regulate tailpipe emissions. The pertinent passage:
Three questions
The court had three questions before it.
* Do states have the right to sue the EPA to challenge its decision?
* Does the Clean Air Act give EPA the authority to regulate tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases?
* Does EPA have the discretion not to regulate those emissions?
The court said yes to the first two questions. On the third, it ordered EPA to re-evaluate its contention it has the discretion not to regulate tailpipe emissions. The court said the agency has so far provided a “laundry list” of reasons that include foreign policy considerations.
The majority said the agency must tie its rationale more closely to the Clean Air Act.
“EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change,” Stevens said.
Shockingly, this was an ethics-line vote, as the liberals voted with the majority, and the conservatives voted to dissent. Kennedy made the difference. I love how apparently the EPA was trying to not regulate tailpipe emissions for reasons completely unrelated to the Environment, whose Protection I may remind you this particular Agency is designed for.
Here's my solution: regulatory agencies should be part of the judicial branch rather than the executive branch so that its policies are determined by the law, rather than by the current administration's party. Of course, I'm sure that if the democrats were in power over regulation right now, and presuming that they were doing their job (big presumption!), I'd probably be arguing against that exact change. Oh well.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Boooooooooooo!
Not much in the news today. Just this: Waters off Alaska Arctic to see exploration wells
I can't wait until the day when we're no longer destroying our world to keep the lights on. Everybody should go back and watch the polar bear animation in Inconvenient Truth.
Ho-hum.
I can't wait until the day when we're no longer destroying our world to keep the lights on. Everybody should go back and watch the polar bear animation in Inconvenient Truth.
Ho-hum.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
I mean, really.
Here is an article from MSNBC. The link from the main page read "Study: Americans torn between science, astrology".
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17206139/
What year is this? Answer: it is now 2007. It is not 1503. Or even 1692. Having accepted that, why do people still believe in stuff like astrology? I had to spend some time this past month starting to disillusion my 11-year-old niece on this very subject. Why do we need to convince adults?
Here are a few quotes from the article:
"[M]ost readers of horoscopes are women, contributing to the listing of "female" as a leading negative factor in science literacy."
"[T]here also has been a drop in the number of people who believe evolution correctly explains the development of life on Earth and an increase in those who believe mankind was created about 10,000 years ago."
"[A] second major negative factor to scientific literacy was religious fundamentalism and aging."
"Having taken college science courses was a strong positive influence, followed by overall education and informal science learning through the media. Having children at home also resulted in adults being more scientifically informed, he said."
Plus there's this from a website arguing against astrology from a religious point of view:
"When children open the Sunday newspaper, according to a recent newspaper industry survey, the first (and usually only) section they read is the "funny pages". Among all other demographic groups, the daily horoscope section is the most faithfully read." (Emphasis mine)
How about this. Here are several horoscopes for me today:
From Astrology.com:
Your powers of perception are heightened thanks to these sensitive celestial energies. The solution to a tricky situation suddenly is crystal clear. You don't know how you know it, but you know just what to do.
From Daily-horoscopes.com:
You'll make important progress with either a domestic or work project. Later, you'll be skipping as you make spontaneous plans for a fun night together. This is a fabulous time to dote on number two in your life.
From Dailyhoroscopes.com:
Take care when discussing emotional things today. Forgetting the ground rules to stay focused you might find yourself, or another in a difficult place, emotionally. A group meeting among neighbors can be handled successfully if you do not garnish the story. You may have a lot of fun when it comes to the process of story telling so try putting your stories in books--they would be a great success! You greatly enjoy social and romantic activities. You truly desire fun and should not hesitate to get to know new people and form new acquaintances. The exchange of ideas becomes a focal point in your life. Learning, knowing a little about many things and staying in touch and on top of the latest developments are the things that satisfy the stimulation of the mind.
From Astrology-online.com:
You can make life easier for an older member of your family. You can handle situations that require contact with institutions or large corporations. You may be somewhat emotional concerning a rather private matter.
Clap-trap. Please don't believe that the stars control your life. If you don't believe me (and I haven't presented any evidence - but then again, neither do astrologers), please believe the Bad Astronomer.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17206139/
What year is this? Answer: it is now 2007. It is not 1503. Or even 1692. Having accepted that, why do people still believe in stuff like astrology? I had to spend some time this past month starting to disillusion my 11-year-old niece on this very subject. Why do we need to convince adults?
Here are a few quotes from the article:
"[M]ost readers of horoscopes are women, contributing to the listing of "female" as a leading negative factor in science literacy."
"[T]here also has been a drop in the number of people who believe evolution correctly explains the development of life on Earth and an increase in those who believe mankind was created about 10,000 years ago."
"[A] second major negative factor to scientific literacy was religious fundamentalism and aging."
"Having taken college science courses was a strong positive influence, followed by overall education and informal science learning through the media. Having children at home also resulted in adults being more scientifically informed, he said."
Plus there's this from a website arguing against astrology from a religious point of view:
"When children open the Sunday newspaper, according to a recent newspaper industry survey, the first (and usually only) section they read is the "funny pages". Among all other demographic groups, the daily horoscope section is the most faithfully read." (Emphasis mine)
How about this. Here are several horoscopes for me today:
From Astrology.com:
Your powers of perception are heightened thanks to these sensitive celestial energies. The solution to a tricky situation suddenly is crystal clear. You don't know how you know it, but you know just what to do.
From Daily-horoscopes.com:
You'll make important progress with either a domestic or work project. Later, you'll be skipping as you make spontaneous plans for a fun night together. This is a fabulous time to dote on number two in your life.
From Dailyhoroscopes.com:
Take care when discussing emotional things today. Forgetting the ground rules to stay focused you might find yourself, or another in a difficult place, emotionally. A group meeting among neighbors can be handled successfully if you do not garnish the story. You may have a lot of fun when it comes to the process of story telling so try putting your stories in books--they would be a great success! You greatly enjoy social and romantic activities. You truly desire fun and should not hesitate to get to know new people and form new acquaintances. The exchange of ideas becomes a focal point in your life. Learning, knowing a little about many things and staying in touch and on top of the latest developments are the things that satisfy the stimulation of the mind.
From Astrology-online.com:
You can make life easier for an older member of your family. You can handle situations that require contact with institutions or large corporations. You may be somewhat emotional concerning a rather private matter.
Clap-trap. Please don't believe that the stars control your life. If you don't believe me (and I haven't presented any evidence - but then again, neither do astrologers), please believe the Bad Astronomer.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Your crow, sir.
I lied.
Please read this story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6364663.stm
Let me just say for a moment that scientists have been saying this for years. The public, unfortunately, hasn't listened. Instead, they'd rather listen to people who know nothing about science (helpful hint: the fact that you can put Doctor before your name doesn't make you a scientist) (helpful hint #2: Michael Crichton is dumb).
So John McCain is on board, eh? I used to trust the things he said, back when he was still a maverick. He used to do his own thing. I used to say that I would actually vote for him. But then something funny happened: he turned into a king-size flip-flopper and party-line-toer. Put on top of that the fact that he's working with sore loser Joseph Lieberman, and I am highly dubious that anything meaningful will happen. But then again, maybe they already understand that.
Well, my mood was "happy" when I started.
Please read this story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6364663.stm
Let me just say for a moment that scientists have been saying this for years. The public, unfortunately, hasn't listened. Instead, they'd rather listen to people who know nothing about science (helpful hint: the fact that you can put Doctor before your name doesn't make you a scientist) (helpful hint #2: Michael Crichton is dumb).
So John McCain is on board, eh? I used to trust the things he said, back when he was still a maverick. He used to do his own thing. I used to say that I would actually vote for him. But then something funny happened: he turned into a king-size flip-flopper and party-line-toer. Put on top of that the fact that he's working with sore loser Joseph Lieberman, and I am highly dubious that anything meaningful will happen. But then again, maybe they already understand that.
Well, my mood was "happy" when I started.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
