Steven Lyle Jordan's Blog, page 13

Welcome to 2030?

A Futurism article written by Denmark Parliamentary member Ida Auken, entitled Welcome to 2030. I Own Nothing, Have No Privacy, and Life Has Never Been Better, presented itself as a blog post from a person living in 2030, and what their life was like.  (Take a look… it’s a short read.  Then come back.)

At the end of the post was the caveat that the article was intended to start a discussion about some of the pros and cons about future technological development.

The article was written in November 2017 for the annual meeting of the Global Future Councils, and sadly, there are no comments on the Futurist page to suggest any discussion was mounted.  But I’ve only just seen the article, and as the author clearly intended, it’s stirred my juices a bit.  So I’d like to make the following observations:

First of all, there isn’t nearly enough detail; the blogger just states what is, not how they came to be… the equivalent of “something cool happened, and now everything’s wonderful.”  So what’s there to discuss?  The level of wonderfulness?

The post suggests in general that all goods, cheap and expensive, simple and durable, have become “free,” leaving the public to simply request anything they want, whether it’s a pair of socks or a flying taxi across town, and they’ll get it free of charge.  It suggests that because everything’s free… no one owns or keeps anything.  Even living spaces are shared with strangers when not being used.

Supposedly this means that these things are now subsidized by some government or institution.  The post doesn’t make clear how far this goes—is a pack of gum free?  How about a plane ticket to Antarctica?  A bucket of caviar?  A prostitute?—but it suggests that no one needs cash for anything.

[image error]Does this mean no one actually works for a paycheck?  Do people handle highly-complex tasks, wait on tables and cook for hungry lunch-goers just for kicks?  Or is literally every imaginable job being handled by automation in 12 years?  There is no way to know from the post.  But I will say that accomplishing that in 12 years seems outright impossible.

The suggestion that everything is free for the taking/using also ignores certain human tendencies, like collecting things you like that are readily available.  If I had free access to a shirt that I really liked, I’d find some place to keep it so I could wear it again (in case I couldn’t find it later).  If cars were free, I know people who would want to either obtain their favorite car, or get a free car and decorate/accessorize it to their personal preference, and drive it exclusively.  Millennials and their children have shown no sign that they don’t share these traits.  Maybe the posters have traded homes for backpacks, and carry just a tiny amount of possessions.  Or maybe everyone has a storage space somewhere, holding their stuff.  Are the backpacks and storage spaces free?

The post also suggests that all items, once used, are reused by someone else or recycled after use.  Though that sounds dandy, it’s not always the most economical or efficient a way to do things; complex items, like cars, are better maintained over time than dumped after 1-2 uses.  I suppose, if everything really is free, then trashing a car after a few uses and building a brand new one may be economically feasible.  But it’s still inherently wasteful.  A disposable economy isn’t the most efficient means of running a civilization.

[image error]The post suggests that (largely due to driverless cars) public transportation becomes easier, quicker and more convenient than privately-owned cars.  Granted, if the world ever adopts a fully driverless auto system, where intelligent maps and feedback systems allow driverless cars to move around more efficiently, I can see a lot of improvement to the present transportation system.  But individually-owned cars have the advantage of being able to get you to your destination in the time it often takes for a public or hired car to even arrive at your door; the claim of being quicker may only apply to long trips or heavy-traffic periods, but not for most short trips.  And I can’t imagine any public transportation system easier or more convenient than a car that can take you door to door.

The post also goes out of its way to insult us, asking “What were we thinking” in accepting congestion and pollution in our daily lives.  Since, before clean energy and self-driving clean cars, people had to struggle to go from home to their 9-5 jobs, often using gas-guzzling cars because they were all gas-guzzlers, it’s not like people had much choice in the matter… that’s what you did to make a living.

The post makes an interesting statement: “When products are turned into services, no one has an interest in things with a short life span.”  This point is dubious: It has been demonstrated by the public that, when products become services, the public no longer cares about a product’s life span; it only has to work when the public wants it, and no consideration is given for how long it will last afterward.  This, again, is the hallmark of a disposable economy, and it tends to lead to more waste, higher costs and cheaper goods.

The post also suggests that environmental problems seem far away.  So, global warming and the ravages of climate change—extreme and unprecedented weather, catastrophic flooding in areas and droughts in others, sea level rise, dying oceans, etc—have been reversed in 12 years?  Bravo.  And another dubious statement: “Nobody would dare to touch the protected areas of nature because they constitute such value to our well being.”  I’m beginning to doubt the author has ever been to an American national park.

In fact, it’s possible that the reasons I don’t agree with some of the author’s suggestions are simply because I’m not Danish.  I suspect that some of the attitudes expressed by the post are more consistent with northern European attitudes and institutions, which are significantly different than American attitudes.  That doesn’t make them wrong; but Denmark and the U.S. are very different countries, and due to the differences in scale between them, what might make sense in one country might not work the same in another.  As an example, small countries can afford to roll out things like internet service to every household, while in vast countries like the U.S., providing internet service to every household is magnitudes of order more expensive, and provided by privately-owned profit-based companies instead of governments, and so has not been accomplished yet.  (If ever.)

Near the end, the blogger expresses dismay at those who rejected the wonders of technology and left the city (presumably to live in Yurts and hunt their own food), and are clearly not enjoying the experience of free everything and total leisure.  I wonder with dismay about all the people who want in on city life. Granted there will be people who want to live the old-fashioned life of working for wages and buying everything you need… but I’m pretty sure there will be a significantly larger population who’d rather live the easy life of the city.  And if that city isn’t already inundated with people like that… someone must be actively keeping them out.  Are there fences and walls around the city, outside of which, hordes of people fight to get in?  Or are they kept at bay with continuing supplies of free goods thrown over the walls to placate them?

[image error]

So, ultimately the post’s city is yet another example of a Metropolis of elites, living in their ivory towers, while the rest of humanity slaves away at its feet and wishes to somehow be granted entry into a world of leisure and plenty.  Maybe the only way this fully subsidized, disposable economy can exist is on the bent and broken backs of unseen workers, the ripened fruit of others’ labors outside the city.

Or, at the very least, a city that uses technology in the most extreme ways, producing at impulse and disposing of used items as quickly, and refusing to share its gifts with those outside the city in the belief that the outsiders would rather live the life of a busy, dirty, cruel past.  The blogger writes off those outside the city as Bohemians, and feels sorry for them.

You can see that I wasn’t too impressed by the post: Too lacking in detail about the technology that transformed the poster’s life, yet too full of assumptions about what makes a good life; the speaker has a low opinion of people who don’t agree with that assessment; and no interest in trying to take the gospel to the outsiders to improve their lot.  It’s a fairy tale with a thin, fragile backdrop that barely conceals the machinations behind it.  The concerns of technology are totally lost behind the social implications of a no-effort, no-cost lifestyle enjoyed by only a few.

I’m not confusing the story with the author, and I understand that Auken is not a fiction writer; but I don’t see that she provided enough to base a useful conversation on the future pros and cons of technology in 2030.  Hopefully the discussion at the Global Future Councils was more constructive… I would have been at a loss to contribute much.

Black Panther: A movie about brotherhood

[image error]Having just come from seeing Black Panther, I’m happy to say I enjoyed the movie greatly: It was another example of a fantastic superhero movie from Marvel Studios.  I have to admit here that, when the Marvel Studios logo animation and music started at the beginning of the film, I actually got tingles in my body; they have managed by now to subliminally associate the logo with epic excitement with characters I’ve known since my childhood, tapping into emotions I rarely have a reason to exercise.  And those emotions were put through their paces by this movie.

At the core of the movie is, of course, T’Challa, the prince who is made King, and given the Black Panther title, when his father dies in a terrorist incident.  T’Challa is ready to accept the mantle of King, and encounters the expected (and unexpected) challenges to his authority; in the end, his superior fighting prowess and support of many followers wins him the day.  Just like you’d expect from any superhero movie.  But in many ways, Black Panther is very different from other superhero movies, and in the afterglow, I found myself thinking of those differences and reflecting on what they really meant, within the movie and in the greater scheme of things.

Just to get it out of the way, I must consider the science fiction aspect of the movie: The mythical land of Wakanda has incredibly developed technology, courtesy of an asteroid that struck that part of Africa, made of a unique metal unlike anything else on Earth, Vibranium.  Vibranium is not only an incredibly hard metal (Captain America’s shield was made out of it), it absorbs impacts, and it can be used as a power source.  Learning to harness these characteristics has turned Wakanda into a modern-day Atlantis, capable of technological wonders that dwarf anything else in the world.

[image error]

 

Vibranium also doesn’t exist; nor, I’m sure, could any material in this universe exhibit the properties it has.  So Wakanda’s technological gifts are the kind of magic that even Arthur C. Clarke would have belly-laughed at, before shooing you out the door.  But that’s okay, because this is a Marvel Studios superhero movie, always chock-full of otherworldly beings, godlike powers, unimaginable energies and impossible engineering marvels (like Iron Man suits, spider-webbing and shrinking technology)… so science fiction isn’t even a label I’d seriously apply to these movies.  Just call it all fantasy, and move on.

And like all superhero movies, the underlying theme is “might makes right;” the winner is always the one with the most powerful punch.  Like all superhero movies (and far too many other adventures, dramas, comedies, etc), so much of the action, fighting, tension and antagonism could have been solved by people talking out their disagreements or just stopping to think about what they were doing… and Black Panther is no exception.  Again, we have to forgive this flaw as it is part-and-parcel of superhero movies (and, ye gods, so many others) and keep moving.

[image error]Since this movie is about an African King and his family and subjects, demonstrating a superiority in science and technology and a noticeable lack of influence by non-African races, Black Panther has an embedded quality of empowerment and independence that shines like a beacon to African-Americans in the United States who have felt restricted, controlled, denigrated and insulted by their country and its largely European leaders.  Black Panther provides a symbol for them to stand beside and even emulate.  In the US’ current social atmosphere, fanning the flames of racism seemingly as a knee-jerk reaction to the elevation of an African-American to the highest place of office in the country, Black Panther will surely take a prominent position in America’s future racial conflicts (though whether that position will be primarily positive or negative is, at this point, impossible to say).

[image error]And I’d be remiss not to point out the level of female empowerment in Black Panther.  Much like last year’s Wonder Woman movie became a shining example of female empowerment, Black Panther is brimming with even more equally-powerful female characters, whether it’s T’Challa’s mother, his sister the scientist (who would put Q to shame), his all-female royal guard, or his love, who functions as one of Wakanda’s spies out in the rest of the world.  Maybe it’s significant that when they are outside of Wakanda, they rarely meet or interact with any other females… a clear indication that, outside of Wakanda, it’s a man’s world. Within Wakanda, men and women work together, and succeed, equally.

Black Panther is also a family epic on multiple levels.  At first, we discover that T’Challa disagrees with some in his family and circle of advisors about the future of Wakanda, choosing instead to follow the isolationist direction set by his father and other Kings before him.  But the discovery of an unknown family member who has lived outside of Wakanda, and who also questions Wakanda’s isolationist choices, puts T’Challa in the position of finally weighing the wisdom of his ancestors against the views of his family and friends.

[image error]The family drama plays in parallel to Wakanda’s mission to stay isolated from the rest of the world and its problems.  On one hand, the Wakandans can honestly say that, with their superior technology, they could almost certainly take over the world if they so desired; and their resistance against that is part of a moral code not to impose themselves on others.  But as the antagonists of the movie ably point out, the other side of that coin is doing nothing when one group is wronged by another, stronger group… and everyone is well aware of how Africans, in particular, have been wronged by other nationalities, losing land and sovereignty, kept down and destitute, taken as slaves, and much worse.  The antagonists want what’s right, after all: They want protection for the powerless, the ability to defend themselves against aggressive outside forces, and to live free.  If, as European doctrine teaches, “might makes right”—and Wakanda is truly the most mighty—shouldn’t Wakanda protect their fellow Africans and rule the world?

Although there is merit in protecting your own people from harm, taking no action while your brothers and neighbors are harmed is much harder to justify.  And T’Challa has been put in the position of deciding whether isolationism is still the best course for Wakanda and for the world, or whether Wakanda must choose to take a stronger guiding hand in improving the lot of all humans on this planet.  It’s not unlike the position the United States has been, on one side or another, since its founding; at first needing the protection of stronger nations so it could survive, and later becoming the protector of other nations when it was strong enough to do so.  And the resources of the US have often been seen as almost Wakanda-like by other nations and their people, many of whom have fled dangerous or hopeless conditions in order to live a better life in the US… and in so doing prompting just the kind of isolationist viewpoints in the US, keeping outsiders out and denying US resources to others.

In a significant way, Black Panther addresses the greatest threat against a peaceful and enlightened world: The danger of treating others as threats instead of family—the destructiveness of deliberately anti-social behavior, pitting brother against brother.  It’s an argument that transcends the movie screen and echoes throughout our modern reality, the debate between isolationism and philanthropy, protectionism for disadvantaged populations elsewhere, and our role on the world stage.  Indeed, later in the movie T’Challa speaks in carefully-chosen words of the need to build “bridges, not barriers,” insisting that, essentially, we are all of one tribe, and must start treating each other that way.

In essence, the best of Marvel’s movies have equally embodied epic conflicts with personal conflicts—Tony Stark became Iron Man when he discovered his weapons were being sold to the enemy and used against civilians—Steve Rogers volunteered to become Captain America because he wanted to protect the world from the “bullies” in Nazi Germany—Thor learned humility and understanding through his careless actions.  In Black Panther, T’Challa learned that leadership is more than blindly following tradition… it’s about embracing the truth.  And in watching Black Panther, we are presented with not only a pro-brotherhood social message, but a better view of all peoples as part of one big family, deserving of our respect, cooperation and support.

[image error]

 

Aliens are unlikely to hurt us, because SCIENCE

A recent article from Universe Today suggests that, if an alien message is received by the Earth, it should be deleted before reading… without even opening… for fear that said message will likely be a Trojan Horse designed to infect our systems and plunge Humanity into ruin.

Sigh… another one of those posts that assumes (or expects) spacefaring aliens to have a malevolent agenda.  And why do they assume that?  Because all humans have a malevolent agenda, therefore we have to expect spacefaring aliens to be just like us.  This belief is sad and disgusting, on so many levels, that it makes me tired just thinking about it.  Why do we have to assume aliens will be evil… what is it about aliens that make us believe, as H.G. Wells suggested, they will behave like European soldiers taking over a bananna republic?

[image error]

Why can’t we assume, for instance, that the aliens have a strong understanding of science?

After all, they figured out how to traverse the inhospitable regions of space… that demonstrates a strong knowledge of science, otherwise they wouldn’t get much past their own orbit.  And if they understand science, they ‘re going to understand some pretty basic principles.

For instance, they’ll understand that there is an incredibly small amount of resources that they might possibly need that can only be found at the end of a multi-light-year journey to another star.  In fact, if they have the technology to mount such a technologically-complex trip, they can probably build their own matter compilers and transmuters and apply them to other bodies in their own star system, which would be far easier and cheaper than long star trips to mine them from other systems and take them back to their own.

Also, they’d be aware that, although there are a number of elements that could be mined from Earth, at great effort and danger from the indigenous life forms and nigh-unpredictable surface conditions, those same elements are also available throughout the Solar System on other planets, moons and asteroids.  Why fight the locals when you can land on and plunder every other body in the Solar System that Earth’s life can’t even reach?

They would be aware that the entire population of Earth, whether it was just the fairly intelligent dominant life forms, or any other life form on the planet, would not be as effective in supplanting their workforce and doing back-breaking slave labor as would a good base of broke-back-resistant, repairable, replaceable robots.

They would be aware that our cities and infrastructure were inherently inefficient, poorly constructed and ultimately unable to withstand the natural conditions of Earth’s atmosphere, and so would not be worth occupying… or even wasting the ammunition required to blow them up.

And if they were interested in us at all—after all, if they understand science, they’ll be aware of how absolutely unique and fascinating the Earth is, with its incredible variety of life forms adapted to such a wide range of climates and conditions—it would make more sense to build their own infrastructures isolated from and independent of terran infrastructure; or even smarter, to create a base independent of Earth, in near or high orbit, to observe and maybe even interact with us, but from a safe distance.

[image error]

There is absolutely no reason to expect aliens to desire to conquer us and take over, just because that’s what so many of us have done on our own planet.  Despite our obvious behavioral shortcomings, we must come to grips with the fact that that behavior simply doesn’t translate to cosmic distances and the superior intelligences required to reach the stars.  The only reason to come so far would be to study and learn about us, to further their knowledge of the wonders of the universe, and maybe teach us a new trick or two.

If aliens can make it to us, that means they understand science; that means they are smart; and if they’re smart, they’re not going to come all this way just to blow humans up and plunder our planet.  That would be incredibly, unbelievably and monumentally stupid.  When you know science, practicality always wins out.

UBI’s win-win-win scenario

A recent Twitter thread about Universal Basic Income recently caught my attention.  One of the thread’s commenters made a good point:

Automation will increase inequality and productivity to the point when most humans (we serfs) won’t be needed.

So why would the owners want to keep paying us? What’s in it for the powerful?

— Hank (@equilibrium42) February 2, 2018

What, indeed?  If the rich and powerful continue to get richer and more powerful, and the common people get less and less opportunity, won’t they eventually get fed up and revolt?  Won’t they rise up, out of a sense of self-preservation or just plain anger, and start tearing up the works?  Won’t the rich and powerful eventually expect this to happen?  And expecting this, won’t they take steps to make sure their property and resources won’t be trashed?

In ancient Rome, the leaders offered “bread and circuses” to the masses… free entertainment and wheat to keep the people happy with their lot (and less opposed to the political activities of the leaders).  This was necessary because the abundance of slave labor (their form of human “automation”) meant the Roman people had no work, so no way to make a living.  Bread and circuses kept them from revolting, and the empire continued on (for a time, anyway).

Cut to today, when machine automation is eroding the jobs market, and more people are finding themselves unable to find work.  Some social programs, like food stamps and unemployment insurance, provide support for individuals and families, but not much.  And in the future, more and more people will be needing that kind of support.  The government can provide a great deal of it, from the taxes it earns from production and profit… but maybe that won’t be enough.

[image error]Maybe that’s where the rich and powerful—let’s just call them Industry—come in.  The government can set up the basis for a Universal Basic Income, but it can be further supported by industry, who are providing the lion’s share of the resources for UBI in the first place.  Perhaps the government pays out a “ground floor” UBI to the public; then industry adds to that with “sponsored” income… income they take credit for in order to garner favor in the public’s eye for themselves (and, probably, their products for the public to buy).  The public gets a healthy UBI, and then some, giving them less of a reason to dislike industry and their corporate activities.  The public is not only satisfied, but they have a reason to support the industrial activities that finance their extra income.  And they may even buy industry’s products with what extra income they save or make with supplemental jobs.

Of course, industry doesn’t have to provide actual cash to supplement UBI; they could provide other resources—such as government-approved branded apartments or tiny homes, food, clothing or other goods and services—while the government provides the UBI itself.

Sure, this approach sounds crass and commercial, but that would only a bad thing if the government and industry conspired to create low-quality homes or goods that didn’t suit the public, undermining the support that’s supposed to keep the public placated.  It’s in industry’s best interest to keep the public happy, and incidentally, in the government’s best interest to monitor and maintain that relationship by making sure industry is providing quality goods and services to the public.

[image error]Admittedly, it also sounds like a bread-and-circuses scenario… and it must be admitted that it could devolve into just that.  In fact, we’ve already been given our corporate-sponsored bread, via fast food and cheap snacks, and our corporate-sponsored circuses, via television, social media and sports fanaticism.  And they are serving today just as they did in Roman times, providing enough distraction from the day-to-day issues of modern life to placate and mollify the public, allowing industry and the governments to do what they like without fear of reprisal.

What we need is for industry to provide something more substantial with their money than endless and meaningless sports and media spectacles… we need from them nourishment and homes, not bread and circuses.  We need the government to provide the UBI, and to properly regulate the resources we get from industry.  And we need We, the People to take part in their government’s workings and demand better, not to meekly accept what we are offered.  If government, industry and the public participate in the system with equal dedication, that’s a win-win-win scenario for UBI.  Without that dedication, it’s only a matter of time before that system, too, falls.

 

Intelligent alien-themed SF movies

Aliens.  Unarguably the most popular single theme in science fiction, before even space exploration and dystopias.  Aliens are the poster-boys of science fiction, have been since it began, and will probably remain so as long as there is SF.

Unfortunately, the overriding majority of SF movies about aliens are done poorly.  The two most popular methods of depicting aliens are either to make them humanoid, usually mimicking an existing human group, faction or race in order to make a social or political statement… or to make them monsters to frighten us and to give us an excuse to fight.  The former depiction can occasionally be called clever; the latter is almost always juvenile.

But there have been a precious few SF movies that have approached the idea of aliens intelligently, and given the audience something serious to consider besides running, shooting or treating them like illegal immigrants.  I consider the list below to be the most intelligent of alien-themed SF movies.  (This list is certainly not comprehensive: Most notably, it’s mostly American; there are probably a few movies that haven’t been widely seen in the USA that should be on this list, but I can’t very well add movies I’ve never seen.)

In no particular order, I present my meager list of intelligent alien-themed SF movies:

[image error]Forbidden Planet—This may be the first movie to suggest, rather than actually deliver, aliens in its story; in this case, a race called the Krell that died off long before the humans in the story arrive, leaving behind only their vast caverns of still-running machines to be discovered by Dr. Morbius.  The officers of Spaceship C51-D are attacked, but not by aliens; instead, the monster is imagined by Morbius’ subconscious, trying to protect his daughter, and created by Krell machinery.  We don’t know what the Krell actually looked like, how they lived, anything about their biology; we only know their machines were so sophisticated that they may have been instrumental in killing off the entire species.

[image error]The Day the Earth Stood Still—This movie suggests that there is a vast conglomerate of alien races out there, but we only see one—Klaatu—and he suggests that his appearance has been manufactured in order to better bring his message to Mankind.  Socially and psychologically, this makes a lot of sense, though in the end even that doesn’t assuage the fear and paranoia of most of the cast of the movie, and especially the military.  Klaatu also demonstrates the sophisticated technology at his disposal, selectively stopping power worldwide as a peaceful but serious example of their abilities.  Klaatu’s technology also extends his life after being injured, just long enough to present his message (and his warning) before leaving.

[image error]Solaris—Russian or American version, take your pick: Solaris effectively demonstrated that life in the universe may be totally outside of our ability to understand.  Solaris is a living planet, and the scientists hovering above trying to study it are as microbes trying to understand a human brain.  This point is driven home by the creations of Solaris, characters derived from the traumatic memories of the scientists which believe they are themselves alive, and know no more about why they are suddenly there.  The scientists don’t know whether Solaris intentionally sent these characters, or if it was some spontaneous reaction to their probes; are the characters counter-probes, efforts to communicate, attempts to help, hinder, delay or destroy them?  All they know is the existence of those characters are torture to the scientists, who eventually don’t care what they are or what they’re for, they only want to be rid of them.

[image error]2001: A Space Odyssey—Similarly to Solaris, the aliens in 2001 are supposedly too advanced for us to ever understand; and like Forbidden Planet, we never actually see them or find out what they want.  We only see their tool, the Monolith, which appears when it’s needed, leaves when it is not needed, and can influence early humans in using tools and learning to kill for food and protection.  In the year 2001, a Monolith dug up on the Moon sends a signal into space, driving an expedition to Jupiter where another Monolith in orbit transports astronaut David Bowman to places unknown to live out his life… then transforms him to a new life form designed to sit sentry over Earth.  Everything is accomplished by the Monoliths, though we never learn what their motives are or how their incredible feats are accomplished.  One of Arthur C. Clarke’s famous sayings is: “Any technology, sufficiently advanced, is indistinguishable from magic;” and the Monolith is the embodiment of that saying.

[image error]2010: The Year We Made Contact—Long overlooked because Peter Hyams’ movie was so different in tone to Kubrick’s 2001, 2010 was still based on Clark’s sequel novel 2010: Odyssey Two, and excellent in its own right.  Again, like 2001, we never see the aliens, we only see the Monoliths, which accomplish many incredible feats.  This time, the Monoliths’ actions provide light and heat for a new life form that is just developing on Europa… and simultaneously send humans a warning to stay away from it.  We also find out that some aspect of David Bowman and the computer HAL are inside a Monolith… who knows what’s in store for them?  As for Europa, we see that the life form grows over millions of years into a swampy garden, with who-knows-what in its ponds… and a new Monolith shows up, jump-starting the evolutionary processes once again.

[image error]The Andromeda Strain—The other side of the spectrum from the above movies, the alien life in The Andromeda Strain is bacteriological and microscopic, having arrived by colliding with a space probe that crash-landed in a western town.  It’s unique biology kills off all but two inhabitants in the town—an old man and a baby—and a classified team of scientists must figure out how the life form functions, and kills, before it has a chance to wipe out Mankind.  Based on Michael Crichton’s novel, it’s a murder mystery on a timeclock, with an abundance of medical realism but without all of the histrionics of alien invasion flicks with unrealistic biologies and intentional plot devices.

[image error]Contact—Another movie that never shows us aliens, Contact is about a radio signal that sends us schematics on a machine to take humans into space.  This movie is really more about the politics and social conflict of the endeavor than it is about actually building the Machine and going to meet the aliens.  And somewhat anticlimactic for both characters and audience, when Dr. Ellie Arroway finally makes the trip, the aliens scan her memories and present themselves as her late father, explain that this is a first step, and send her back without a shred of evidence that she ever left.  This may make Contact‘s aliens the most elusive of any movie, especially considering they deliberately sent the schematics and intended for humans to build the Machine and visit them.

[image error]Europa Report—Filmed in the “found footage” style, this movies depicts a manned mission to Europa, which goes through a lot of the issues and mini-disasters we’ve come to expect from even realistic space expedition movies.  In a way, this can be considered a sequel to 2010, in that it visits the Jovian moon Europa, and by the end of the movie, a life form that seems to be attracted to the heat and light of the spacecraft envelops and destroys it… an approximation of events that were written into Clarke’s 2010 novel.  In the 2010 novel, the alien is a barely-ambulatory vegetable mass, acting purely on instinct in the name of self-preservation, and cannot be blamed for the human deaths it inadvertently causes.   In Europa Report, the alien is more active, octopus-like… but the result is the same.

[image error]Arrival—This movie is unique in that it not only tells an intelligent story about aliens… but we actually see the aliens.  Alien-looking aliens, no less!  The alien craft in Arrival park themselves in multiple locations, allowing groups from many nations to examine them at the same time and try to communicate.  Like Contact, politics inevitably enters the fray: Countries who distrust each other must work together to find out what the aliens want.  And the alien language is far too complicated to just plug in vowels and decipher.  A team of professional linguists finally decipher enough of their language, and in so doing, find a new way to understand the flow of time, and use it to avert a decision by other countries to attack the aliens.  The aliens look like giant cephalopods, suggesting they may not be aliens at all, but evolved creatures from our own oceans visiting us from the future (and as such, possibly excluding them from this list).  But they seemed to have come from space, even if they didn’t exactly go back to space at the end of the story.  Maybe we changed their future timeline?

So, that’s my list.  Are there any movies you think I should’ve included here?  Feel free to let me know in the comments.

One ring to rule them all…

…and I’m not talking about Orcs.

[image error]In past posts I’ve mentioned my desire for a Universal Key… a single key or similar device that would get me into everything that I had locked or password protected, negating the need to carry around a ringful of metal keys, security fobs and lists (taken down or memorized) of scores of login names and passwords everywhere I went.

Today I’m happy to announce that the Token may have solved that problem… and then some.  Token is a secure device, in the shape of a ring, that can verify your identity, unlock locks, sign in to secure electronic systems, and make digital payments, with just a touch (or knock) of your hand.

Token has given a lot of thought to the use of their system.  To begin with, the ring has its own fingerprint sensor, registered to your finger.  To use it, you have to scan your fingerprint, and when Token accepts it, you put the ring on.  The ring stops working if it detects it’s been removed from your finger, so if it is lost or stolen, others cannot use it on your accounts.  Token must be charged to use, and a single charge will typically last 2 weeks.

[image error]

You store your ID credentials on Token’s EAL5+ certified secure element… it’s not stored on the cloud, so others don’t have access to it, and you don’t have to worry about connectivity issues blocking its use.  Token acts as 2-Factor Authentication—your credentials plus your fingerprint verification—satisfying many systems that require 2FA and making systems that don’t require 2FA that much more secure.  You use an app on your phone to set up each site’s credentials.  You can use Token in place of your:

Credit card (Visa or Mastercard)
House key (with our companion Token Lock)
Desktop login password (Mac or PC)
Keyless Ignition Car Key Fob
Passwords
Access badge (HID SEOS)

This means I can access any of my accounts as needed, use it to make credit card payments, have keyless entry to my home, the ability to drive my car, and log onto my computer… without carrying keys or logins/passwords.  Just the kind of functionality I was hoping for!  It doesn’t work on everything yet (if your vehicle requires a key to start, you’re out of luck so far), but it covers enough systems to make it highly worth checking out.

[image error]Naturally, the minute I mentioned this to my wife, she immediately brought up that gag used in multiple crime dramas and action-adventure stories; you know, the bit about the person who uses some form of biometric data (usually a fingerprint or eye scan) to get into some secure facility, only for the bad guys to grab them, cut off the identifying part of the body, and use it to gain access to the secure place.  Does Token reference this on its site?  No… probably because of the absolute rarity of something like that ever actually happening in real life.  Seriously… Loki isn’t really hovering nearby, ready to eviscerate your eyeball!  But if you’re really concerned about that kind of thing, I suppose you could leave the Token in your pocket in insecure environments and not take it out until you plan to use it, or you know your surroundings are safe.

Token rings are now available to preorder.  And this will surely be only the first in many such devices.  I expect devices may eventually be embedded under the skin, and the 2FA is accomplished by sensor that confirms it is attached to living tissue.  Might be hard to charge, though wireless charging is being developed already.  But in the meantime, I like this Token system.  Can’t wait to try it out myself.

Autonomous vehicles don’t need to be full-sized cars and trucks

The Detroit Motor Show has been showing off some of the autonomous cars of the future… mostly prototype designs with simulated (or just plain nonexistent) sensors and computerized innards designed to move the vehicles around safely.  But amongst all the forward-thinking designs, one image had me laughing: A shot of a Ford Focus or similar vehicle, sporting a carrying shelf for pizzas.

[image error]

This is Domino’s autonomous pizza delivery research vehicle, which they will use to test the idea of delivering pizzas without needing drivers.  And while I applaud the idea of testing any idea, however good, bad or silly, I’m appalled that they would do such testing with a standard-sized car!  Why do you need a full-sized car to deliver pizzas?

This is the epitome of inefficiency that so many people seem to be blind to: The desire to use a vehicle that is far more than you need for the job.  This is why people still buy SUVs, and use them to drive a single individual to work in the morning.  This is why people don’t get the incredible economy of smaller vehicles to save fuel and materials, take up less space on the roads and parking lots, and put less of a load strain on our roads.  And this is why so many people are afraid of the idea of autonomous cars—the idea that full-size, highly dangerous vehicles are tooling around and potentially risking our lives as they try to make sense of a constantly-shifting environment.

If you’re designing a vehicle to do driverless deliveries, you should be looking at those economies in scale, not just for cost-saving, but to help calm the public expecting to have to dodge driverless cars rushing around trying to deliver things in 30 minutes or less.

[image error]As it so happens, there are a wealth of significantly smaller vehicles that can make deliveries, save money doing it and bring calm to those who fear large autonomous vehicles.  A perfect example is the Elio from Michigan-based Elio Motors.  This 3-wheeled vehicle gets 84 miles a gallon and has a much smaller footprint than a standard car.  Elio intends their car to be a one-seat commuting car for less than $7,000, but there’s no reason why this vehicle couldn’t be a delivery vehicle.  Its test phase could include a driver at first, to make sure the vehicle was performing properly; then convert the driver’s cage to a storage and delivery system, and watch it go.

[image error]Another such vehicle is Arcimoto’s electric trike for $12,000.  This particular vehicle is a 2-seater, but that provides much more space for cargo.  Maybe something larger than pizzas, such as postal delivery packages (imagine this with protective panels and a Fed-Ex logo on its side).  These vehicles would cost significantly less than full-size cars and trucks, so delivery companies could buy more of them, and the fleet of them could cover more ground faster than a single driver behind a huge truck.  They would also do less blocking of residential traffic when they deliver, since they are small enough to be driven around when they stop.

There are many such vehicles out there, many by startups hoping to break into the vehicle market with their smaller and more efficient designs.  And their smaller size can be packed with extra sensors and protective gear, not only to read the roads but to present less of a hazard if they do make a mistake and bump into unexpected obstacles along their route.  Even if they aren’t sporting extra padding, they’ll be a lot less of a hazard than a Ford Focus running into someone darting out between parked cars.

[image error]This logic extends itself to larger bulk deliveries as well, using a larger number of smaller vehicles to do the delivery load of one man in a big panel truck.  This would probably put much of the public at-ease, considering how many of us have witnessed delivery trucks for Fed-Ex, UPS and the other carriers flying down residential roads at breakneck speeds in order to meet their delivery schedules.  An automated fleet of Mercedes Sprinters would be a lot easier on the public’s eyes, and much more calming compared to the sight of overstressed drivers racing by in their big trucks.

Here’s hoping common sense will prevail among delivery vehicle designers, and the many smaller vehicles vying for a foothold in the public’s perceptions will become prospects for sensibly-sized delivery vehicles.

Throwing an elbow into the works

This has never happened to me: A novel that I’m writing has reached the end… only to demand I keep writing.

My new Kestral novel was almost finished its primary draft.  And then it wasn’t.  I realized, as I was getting to the end of my drafted story, that it didn’t want to end there.  My climax… wasn’t the climax.  I was going to have to revise the ending.

Never in 16 previous novels has this happened to me.  My method has always been to fully plan out the book’s cues in an outline form and, following the cues from the outline, write the draft to fill in the details from start to finish.  The writing itself was organic, but structured along those cues, like a scaffolding that you use to construct a sculpture.  I always knew that when the scaffolding was complete, it was time to start writing.  Imagine constructing a human sculpture around a human scaffolding, reaching what you thought was the end of the sculpture, and suddenly realizing that what you thought was the end of an arm was really only the elbow!

You immediately have to question yourself: How did I think this elbow was the end of an arm?  Or is it really the end of the arm… and demanding I add an extra joint to really finish it?  What happens to my sculpture if I have two elbows on it?  Or, if I missed an elbow… what else did I miss?  A knee?  A hand?  Will it all look balanced when I’m done?  Will it look natural… realistic?  Or just wrong?

As I build the real end of my narrative, I keep reminding myself that this isn’t a human sculpture; I can add to the narrative without throwing the whole thing off.  As long as I do it right, and don’t add a knee where an elbow is required.  But I have to wonder if this means a major change to my writing process, and how it will impact future writing projects.

Needless to say, this throws off my Kestral re-release schedule (such as it was).  We’ll have to see what other changes happen because of this.

Roadblocks

I’m rapidly approaching the end of writing on my new Kestral novel… which was my next step in firing off my next promotional push for the entire Kestral series, and then my other books.  Unfortunately, the kind of breaks I’ve come to expect as SOP in my life have placed a nice, solid roadblock in the way of books promotion.

[image error]At the end of 2017, my full-time work contract ends.  With that ending comes an end to income.  I’m not well-off; I’m a middle-aged man with a mortgage and way too many years before I can look at retirement (if ever).  A previous bout of unemployment forced me to liquidate my savings to pay bills.  I wouldn’t call myself destitute, but I do not have what anyone would call extra income.

I’ll be looking for a new full-time or contract job in 2018, therefore.  And job hunting may or may not allow me much time to work on bookselling.  I’ll probably try to spruce things up when I can, but long-term strategies don’t seem to work when I’m job hunting.

And I needed steady income to pay for various points in my promotional plan… a new Kestral novel cover, for example.  I was really hoping that a paid-for cover would step up my game and increase my books’ popularity.  I may be able to create a very nice cover for the book myself… but considering my covers have rarely helped to sell my books (not even the one I won a design award for), I wasn’t counting on the effectiveness of a personal cover this time around.

I was also counting on some online help that it turns out I won’t be getting: A facebook site that offers book production and promotion tips didn’t like the tone of one of my blog posts, and decided to block me from their site.  (Milquetoasts.)  I managed to glean a few points from them before that, but I was hoping for a bit more support than their freaking out at my use of language.

Come New Years’, I’ll be taking a needed vacation away from books and jobs for a bit.  When I get back, job hunting must take center stage.  What will happen to books promotion?  What will happen to Kestral?  Hopefully it’ll just be delayed a bit; but I have no way to know.

 

Filed under: promotion, writing Tagged: book promotion, Kestral Voyages

Asteroid mining: Not WHEN… IF

A favorite science fiction subject involves groups of humans taking excursions to the asteroid belt, in order to mine for various elements to send back to Earth for its burgeoning needs.  The Expanse, a series of books and now a TV series by Daniel Abraham and Ty Franck (under the pen name S.A. Corey), feature large groups of colonists permanently occupying some of the largest asteroids in the belt, working to mine the other asteroids and perform other supporting tasks.  Many feel that this is the logical future for Mankind, moving out to the belt to bring its vast resources back to Earth, and speculate that it’s only a matter of when for this benchmark of the future to happen.

I’ve pointed out before that a lot of science fiction is still based on 20th century (and older) notions, both romantic and historic; and the concept of industrial-scale mining efforts among the asteroids is one of those.  Thanks to the realities of the 21st century, asteroid mining for resources has evolved from a when argument to an if argument.

[image error]In the past decades, scientists and engineers have developed two technologies that will soon directly impact the value and profit margins derived from mining.  One of them, the most well-known so far, is 3-D printing: This system of building multi-faceted objects is already revolutionizing manufacturing and materials use.  So far most 3-D printed products comprise one or two elements, but we are rapidly learning how to combine more elements to create much more useful objects and products.  Engineers speculate that we’ll be able to build objects, molecule by molecule from multiple elements, fairly soon.  Applying computer models are also showing us how to more efficiently build individual components, improving efficiency using less actual material.  And that will mean a much more efficient use of materials, wasting much less and avoiding the use of other materials that are often used in fabrication that are not part of the finished product.

[image error]The other, less well-known development, is the ability to bombard atoms with subatomic particles to create new elements at the atomic level, also known as Nuclear Transmutation.  Once the fictional realm of alchemists, modern scientists and engineers are learning how to bombard atomic elements using particle accelerators to change their states or create new elements.  This marvel of a concept still has a ways to go to achieve bulk efficiency, but it has the potential to take almost any element and turn it into other elements.  The possibility of applying this to waste materials and “recycling” them into new, useful elements, is also on the board, helping us to clear the incredible amount of waste products that are choking landfills and floating about our oceans.  And using waste materials as raw materials will hopefully give the world the incentive to clean up as much of that material as possible for resell to new element processing.

So, within a few decades, we could see fully viable systems using existing and recycled old elements to reform them into useful materials at the atomic level; and passing those on to computer-aided 3-D printing systems to create new products more efficiently and with less material waste (see below)—in fact, any cast-off waste can probably be broken down and reused to create other elements and products on another line somewhere.

[image error]

Without even resorting to actual calculations, we can expect an element-synthesizing and 3-D printing system will be much cheaper than the cost of lifting heavy manufacturing equipment, people and life support resources off of Earth with rockets; sending them all past Mars to create a sustainable habitat out of a large-ish asteroid (or bringing an entire sustaining habitat with them in the form of a giant city-satellite); working to mine the materials and sending those resources back to Earth.

[image error]To begin with, traveling from Earth to the nearest point of the asteroid belt is a journey of 254.5 kilometers… more than six times the closest distance from Earth to Mars.  If you compare present estimates of 300-day trips to get to Mars, you’re looking at maybe a 5-6 year trip to reach the asteroids.  That’s a damned long way to push a lot of heavy equipment.  And that’s assuming the elements desired happen to be adjacent to Earth’s shortest flight distance when you’re ready to go; if a particular asteroid is targeted, you might need to wait a number of years for that travel distance to close sufficiently, or risk doubling the length of your trip (10-12 years—helpful Steve).  And if you plan to move from asteroid to asteroid, better bring or be able to synthesize plenty of fuel while out there… unless you plan to have Earth send you tanks of fuel and other supplies across 255 kilometers every so often.  Bottom line: We won’t be ready to take that trip for decades; in fact, we may need to wait until we can build a base on Mars to act as a depot or launch point, just to get us partway there.

[image error]Even if we optimized the asteroid-mining process as much as possible, sending only skeleton crews out there in smaller ships in order to supervise a 99% robotic mining and shipping system, we’re still looking at a much larger projected cost to go to the asteroids than to synthesize our own elements here.  The only way to justify that cost would be if some element proves to be so valuable AND so hard to synthesize here on Earth that collecting it from asteroids makes up for the expense.  And there aren’t likely to be many elements that will prove that valuable, especially as our abilities to re-synthesize elements improves over time.

So: By the time we’re ready to mount the first expeditions to the asteroids, the need to go may be past and gone.

We may still be able to learn many things from the asteroids; robotic probes should be sent to the belt to examine the asteroids and see what they can tell us about the early days of our Solar System or the universe at-large.  Maybe we’ll even discover new elements that aren’t known or available on Earth, which might be useful for something, or are capable of being synthesized here once we know about them and their properties.

But the idea of traveling to the asteroids to mine and send materials to Earth is another romantic 20th century notion whose day is almost done.  Thanks to the things we’ve learned so far in the 21st century, we are rapidly approaching the day when we can reliably say that we don’t need the minerals in the asteroid belt for Earth… because we can make them right here.

Filed under: science, technology Tagged: 3-D printing, Asteroid Belt, asteroid mining, recycling, The Expanse, transmutation, waste recovery