Jacob Foxx's Blog, page 59

Game of Thrones Recap: The Mountain Versus Viper

Another bloody episode. Martin and HBO are treating us to a slaughter fest. For every new character introduced, another is killed. The Seven Kingdoms just can’t seem to get its act together and Daenerys is finding the path back to Westeros much longer than expected. Yet the balance of power hasn’t changed much this season. The Lannister-Baratheon faction is still the strongest with its prospects steadily improving. Stannis Baratheon has a glimmer of hope but is still a long shot. The North is in chaos and the threat beyond the wall still grows.

Tywin Lannister time and again proves to be the wisest and most effective prince. He rules most of the kingdom and has assembled the strongest alliance. Joffrey was sadistic and unpredictable. Tommen seems much more cooperative. Still, he must work to ensure his alliance with the Tyrells remains intact. What does he do? Puts Mace Tyrell on the small council, keeps open hope for Marjaery-Tommen match, and placates Prince Oberyn.

 

SPOILER ALERT!!!

 

Prince Oberyn’s death at the hands of Ser Gregor is a big victory for Tywin. If Oberyn’s brother wants to start a war, it will be on a flimsy pretext (Oberyn volunteered to fight on Tyrion’s behalf) and against a stronger enemy. the Martells have thus far been cautious. I expect the pattern to continue. There won’t be a war between Tywin and Doran Martell. At the same time, I think Martell is a good fit as an ally for Daenerys if she ever gets to Westeros.

At the same time the Lannister House is starting to crumble from within. Jaime Lannister’s attempt to save Tyrion’s life damages his position, especially when Tyrion demanded trial by combat. His oath to help Sansa, although still unknown, as brought him to act against the interest of his own family. There is no strong heir for the Lannister name.

One of my favorite characters Tyrion looks like his life is over. There will be an execution. This eliminates the last decent human being in the family. Jaime’s dedication to his oath and his attempt to save Tyrion’s life shows he might want something more than just a free pass to sleep with Cersei at will. He hates his father and his dedication to Cersei is waning.

Would he help Tyrion escape? My guess is probably no.

In Braavos, Ser Davos made an excellent point. Tywin Lannister is the undisputed power behind the Lannister-Baratheon dynasty, and he is 67 years old. Once he dies, power moves to King Tommen Baratheon and Cersei Lannister. Neither have his talent. This contingency depends on Tywin dying sometime soon however. It appears the dynasty is not stable and civil war could continue.

Stannis Baratheon just doesn’t have what it takes to defeat Tywin Lannister. He lacks creativity and relies heavily on the Red Priestess for guidance. But his associate Ser Davos has shown some cunning. Still, he isn’t a statesmen and isn’t educated. It would be interesting to see him rise to the occasion. The Red Priestess seems content to hold her position of influence without pressing Stannis to act.

There could be a new northern faction in the making. the losers of the War of the Five Kings are finding their way to the Eyrie. For the first time since King Robert’s death, Sansa Stark is safe. Petyr Baelish sees Catelyn in her, and definitely has a thing for the young beauty. Sansa also showed some cunning and tact for the first time, lying to protect Petyr. It also looked like Lysa’s murder was the first act Petyr didn’t plan.

Sansa and Arya Stark are about to be reunited. Arya’s reaction to learning of her aunt’s death is priceless. Everywhere the Hound goes, his potential benefactors are dead: Catelyn Stark, now Lysa. Arya is learning about the real world but is not particularly clever. There is definitely potential but she isn’t ready to play the game of thrones yet (see what I did there). Also Arya wants revenge and might be aware Petyr betrayed her father.

More potential allies are making their way to the Eyrie.  Lady Brienne and Podrick are on their way. Blackfish Tully is also still alive and probably on his way there. If he finds his way, you have the makings of a new force. It won’t have manpower but it has a safe position in the mountains and a strong desire to take down the Lannisters.

The heir to the Eyrie is young Robert (called Robin) Arryn. He is weak (physically and mentally) and spoiled. Petyr seems to think he is an ideal puppet. Bran and Rickon are alive but far from safe. The North is nearly under the full control of the Boltons, so building a power base there is unlikely. Yet, in the long term, a Stark-Arryn-Tully alliance makes sense. It would be up against Roose Bolton, Walder Frey, and Balon Greyjoy.

From a balance of power perspective, it makes sense for this potential new force to ally itself with Stannis Baratheon, recognizing his claim to the throne. The new force lacks the power to make a claim on its own and needs allies.

The Mother of Dragons has hit a wall. Daenerys dismissed Jorah Mormont from her side. She learned of his spying and his pardon from King Robert. Tywin sent it to fracture her council and it worked. She loses a very wise, capable knight. Barristan Selmy is wise but he is not as creative as Jorah. Dhario is no knight, just a great warrior. Daenerys is weaker after the loss of Jorah, distracted by rebellions to her rear in Yunkai and Astapor. She is out of the game for the Iron Throne for now.

It seems to me the fate of the Seven Kingdoms will be decided in the North, one way or the other.

J

The post Game of Thrones Recap: The Mountain Versus Viper appeared first on Jacob Foxx.

Virtual Violence in Online Gaming, and its Impact on the Youth

For years news anchors, pundits, and politicians have railed on the societal effect of violent movies and video games. A recent article in WIRED has the headline Why Online Games Make Players Act Like Psychopaths. The headline is referring to the players’ psychopathic behavior in the game, not in real life. At first glance the headline is a little misleading. I doubt it was an accident. Their hope is to draw in those who believe violence in video games causes violence in real life, even though the article doesn’t touch on that issue. The misunderstanding made me think about the decades old debate on the impact of violent games.

When I was 10, I played Mortal Kombat for the first time. It was awesome. It had ninjas, monsters, martial arts, and blood. There was no other game like it. It was challenging, with great graphics for its time. A year or two later, the sequel came out, which was even better, then another came out, then another. Mortal Kombat was the beginning of a long line of violent games that enthralled players and terrified the old folks.

It didn’t take long for the country to go into full freakout mode, with TIME Magazine examining the impact of video game violence on America’s youth. Conservative dads and suburban soccer moms were terrified the games were encouraging violence and brutality among their children. Some parents forbid their children to play it, only to find out their “good” sons (and some daughters) desperately sought out friends and classmates with the game.

Their fears proved unfounded. America is no more violent than it was before kids started playing Mortal Kombat. In fact, it is less violent.

Violent crime in America has declined dramatically since the 1990s. Homicides are down in almost every part of the country. The prevalence of psychopathy and violent tendencies among young Americans hasn’t changed significantly since social scientists began trying to measure such things. At the same time there’s no evidence to suggest violent games and movies somehow decreased violence. It is only a correlation (a distinction pundits are unable to make).

Unfortunately a large number of people won’t use logic or look at the evidence. They still perpetuate the myth that Grand Theft Auto turns kids into criminals. The myth reemerges time there is a high profile murder or mass shooting in America: Columbine, Tucson, the knockout game, Aurora, Sandy Hook, now UC-Santa Barbara. In many of these cases, the killers played violent video games or loved watching Quentin Tarantino movies.

Most who believe violent games cause violence have never played them. They observe others playing, noticing their sudden change from rational, moral beings in real life to those that will beat and rob a hooker for $200 in Vice City. Their conclusion is that committing horrible acts in the virtual world is desensitizing them to real violence, softening that tough moral barrier. Their conclusion is false.

If the moral barrier is that weak, one has to wonder how good a “good person” really is.

There is a hidden presumption in this thinking: that the players didn’t have violent or immoral impulses before playing GTA or Mortal Kombat. This is outright false. Violence usually stems from anger, frustration, jealousy, desperation, or just simple desire. “I want that and I will hurt others to get it.” Everyone feels these things at one time or another. Video games don’t create these impulses; they allow individuals to explore these feelings in a virtual world without any consequences. Better to explore them there than in the real world.

In the real world, the overwhelming majority of people never act on these impulses because they have a conscience. Violent games do not create or cultivate these feelings. It merely provides a cathartic release for those preexisting feelings.

The article in WIRED points out reasonable people act like psychopaths in online games. This is true. The answer to why is simple: because they can. That is the point of these games. They are not tests of integrity, morals, or discipline. People have their integrity tested and monitored all the time in the real world. Gamers love entering fantasy world where those constraints don’t exist and there are no consequences for crossing where those barriers used to stand.

It is important to point out a regular or good person can commit violence under the right circumstances. In such dire situations, people surprise themselves at what they are capable of. Throughout most human history, life was much more brutal. Violence was a fact of life. Harming others was the only way to defend one’s self and protect one’s property. Americans are very fortunate to live in an age where we are don’t face situations that may force us to become violent or brutal.

In the movie Unforgiven, Little Bill (played by Gene Hackman) orders W.W. Beauchamp to pick up his revolver and shoot him. But Beauchamp can’t do it. Even given enough time and space to kill Little Bill, he can’t do it. Little Bill points out that if he’d given the revolver to gunman English Bob, he would’ve used it without hesitation. English Bob is a killer. One is a normal, rational person and the other is a psychopath.

Imagine if Little Bill said “pick up the gun and kill me, or I am going to pick it up and kill you.” In this case Beauchamp might’ve done it, faced with a life-or-death situation. Regular people can overcome the constraints of the conscience when forced to do it by necessity.

The difference between a normal person who kills and a psychopath, is that the normal person will be overcome with guilt and shame after the act. The show The Walking Dead demonstrates this perfectly. When protagonist Rick Grimes kills someone, he almost always experiences feelings of regret and shame afterward, even though it was done in the defense of himself and others. The Governor, meanwhile, feels nothing after killing someone, only satisfaction that he accomplished his goal.

Violent games and movies don’t change people. The feelings and impulses are already there. Whether one’s conscience and morals are enough to stop them is what matters most. It is also situational. Violence arises when people feel desperate, hopeless, or threatened. If there is no other recourse, they will become brutal.

A society’s goal ought to be to eliminate the desperate situations that can drive good people to do bad things. To deter those without a conscience, a just society must have a credible deterrent of imprisonment.

J

The post Virtual Violence in Online Gaming, and its Impact on the Youth appeared first on Jacob Foxx.

Review: Godzilla

The big guy has returned. After the disastrous 1998 reboot starring Mathew Broderick and a toothless T-Rex, American filmmakers finally gave Godzilla the modern CGI, 3D treatment it deserved. The new Godzilla has spectacular visual effects, disturbing imagery of destruction, great action sequences, questionable science, and of course is very cheesy. As a fan of the franchise, I was entertained and think it stayed true to the original story bringing it into the 21st century. Whether the super-lizard has a place in the new century, is yet to be seen.

The human characters weren’t that interesting, as expected. The story is driven by the monsters. What really impressed me was that the filmmakers did not to use the seizure-inducing flashes of lights, rapid movements, and indecipherable combat sequences. In this movie, you can see exactly what is going on, and the monsters move like real animals. Seeing great cities torn down is strangely satisfying. It is also humbling when something from nature does it.

Godzilla is mostly fantasy. The creature is a daikaiju or “strange creature,” which places it in the same category as vampires or werewolves. Even in the original films, Godzilla was never treated as a natural organism. In some movies it is a mythical force, in other movies it was spawned from our abuse of science. It came into existence due to human’s use of nuclear weapons, waking it from his sleep.

The attempted scientific explanations for Godzilla’s size, power, and mere existence are ridiculous. The larger organisms become, the more energy required to keep them alive. To feed and maintain a creature of Godzilla’s size (about 300 feet tall), it would have to eat enormous amounts of food. There’s also the fact that there’s only one in most movies. Either it reproduces asexually (as the 1998 movie asserted) or the species can live extremely long periods of time and it is the last of its kind. Actually, large creatures can live long lives. There is one species of whale, the Bowhead, that some marine biologists believe can live 150-200 years.

Biology places limits on the size of creatures based on the limited resources available to keep it alive. Still, some creatures can keep growing. The anaconda continues to grow throughout its life. The longer it lives, the larger it gets, and more food it requires to maintain its size. If one could keep an anaconda alive for a long period, it could grow to Hollywood-size. Course, there’s no explanation as to how Godzilla has been kept alive.

As for genetic mutation from radiation, I couldn’t find anything to justify that one. There is no documented genetic mutation from nuclear radiation on the scale needed to create a creature like Godzilla. Usually genetic material is damaged by radiation, not altered in specific ways to enhance the organism. The mutations are usually fatal or deforming.

Okay, enough of the painful contorting of science to fit Godzilla. He is a fantastical creature with mythological origins. Some liken him to a god of destruction like Shiva, with no moral position other than to maintain a balance on Earth. When something is out of balance it awakens. The western world is more accustomed to benevolent deities who are our creators, governing the universe justly and compassionately. In the eastern world, there are many gods, deities, and spirits all with varying personalities, purposes, and abilities. Some are just and compassionate; some are not.

Godzilla is neither ally nor enemy of humanity. It simply “is.” Godzilla is from a time when the Earth was more radioactive (billions of years ago), fighting other monsters to maintain a balance in nature.

The movie plays on our fear of giants, ancient evils, and the excesses of modern science. Specifically, it plays on our fear of nuclear power. The monsters feed on radioactivity from our power plants and weapons (great metaphor!). We are responsible for their return. There is a distorted environmental and nuclear disarmament message here, but the movie never delves on it. The only direct message is that humanity does not dominate nature. There are still forces out there we cannot overcome. As we cross the line, nature will put us back in our place.

The movie has some very silly moments. In one scene, US navy warships travel alongside Godzilla within a hundred yards! None fire on Godzilla, just follow it. On land, soldiers seem to think assault rifles and pistols can hurt the monsters. There’s also a lack of shock and awe at the first glimpse of these creatures. Some look surprised and scared but others treat it like just another natural disaster. The Japanese expert on the monsters was a weird character with a goofy look on his face. Played by Ken Watanabe, the character says almost nothing and walks around with a surprised and confused look on his face throughout the movie.

All Godzilla movies are cheesy. For me that is part of the appeal. You have fantastic creatures with sad attempts to make it somewhat plausible. The creatures used to be guys in costumes hopping around sound stages. In a way, it was the Japanese version of the WWF. There were monster death matches in the middle of cities where we could see combat and destruction.

Oddly, Godzilla is both a devastator and sympathetic character. After destroying Tokyo there’s almost a remorse when it dies or retreats. Never mind the thousands killed, we kind of like the big guy and are thankful he killed the other monsters. The combination of horror, action, and comedy is most movie franchises can’t accomplish.

I give it 4 stars, but it is not for people who love hard science fiction. This is a monster movie with a modest attempt to add some science. The visual effects, 3D, and action sequences are beautifully done and are very striking. See it in 3D and IMAX.

J

The post Review: Godzilla appeared first on Jacob Foxx.

Review: Speaker for the Dead

Orson Scott Card is among the best contemporary sci-fi authors out there. Ender’s Game sits near the top of my top 10 all-time favorites list. Like the masters before him, he knows good science fiction is more than just creating cool futuristic gadgets or weird aliens. Card has a deep understanding of human nature. Not only does he present a “what-if” in his stories, he tries to explore how the thing will impact society, his characters, and what it means for the future.

The sequel to Ender’s Game, Speaker for the Dead, was published and received almost equal critical acclaim as its predecessor. With sky-high expectations and the inevitable comparisons with the first novel, the book faced serious headwinds. Despite the obstacles, Speaker for the Dead triumphed, taking on new themes while connecting with the characters and events of the first novel.

While I would agree Ender’s Game is the better of the two, it is a marvel Card was able to follow up with such a strong unplanned sequel.

Three thousand years after Ender’s victory over the buggers, humanity has colonizes one hundred worlds across the galaxy. On the planet of Lusitania, humanity lives side-by-side with an intelligent yet primitive species of pig-like aliens. In what appears to be a cultural misunderstanding, a leading scientist on Lusitania is murdered by the alien piggies.

On the nearby world of Trondheim, Ender Wiggin, his life extended thanks to time dilation from near light speed travel, is a teacher and prominent spiritual leader known as a “Speaker for the Dead.” No one knows his true identity except for his beloved sister Valentine. He is called to Lusitania to speak of the dead scientist. With him he carries the dormant cocoon of a hive queen, still searching for a world for her and rebuild the bugger race.

Card moves on from the military aspect of Ender’s life and places him in a new diplomatic role. Ender wants to atone for his role in the near annihilation of the buggers, but also ensure that humanity as a whole doesn’t make the same mistake again. He fears another inter-species misunderstanding.

Ender also fulfills a new religious role as the “speaker for the dead.” The new human government gives the speaker a specialized role, with certain legal authorities that give him access to Lusitania. His authority is in direct opposition to the Catholic Church, which is still an influential religious institution in the future. As a result, Ender is met with suspicion when he arrives on Lusitania. Just as with aliens, he understands the Catholic Church, and comes to appreciate them. His approach is disarming and allows him to overcome.

The biggest challenge for Ender is the intransigence of Novinha, the woman who called him to Lusitania. She feels responsible for the death of the scientist, and now seeks to block human interaction and understanding of the piggies. As Ender arrives, her abusive husband dies as well, leaving her family drowning in conflicting feelings of pain but also relief. Her guilt weighs heavily, driving her to punish herself. Her children live in the shadow of her choices, unable to understand. Some love and adore her. Others hate her. Yet Novinha is the key to unlocking the mystery behind the piggies’ murderous acts and the Lusitanian ecosystem.

While battle school was a highly competitive environment filled with brilliant children, Lusitania is a provincial town dominated by its turbulent past, religious prejudices, and a collection of adult characters dealing with their past choices. It is an entirely new setting and new set of themes.

The anti-militaristic theme of loving your enemy is present, but is extended to understanding and loving the unknown, what is foreign or alien. Empathy is desperately needed not only between humans and piggies, but also within Novinha’s family. To be clear, Card is no hippy. This is not about blind love and compassion for others, it is about understanding. From understanding follows love, not the other way around.

As much as I loved the depth of the book, there were certain aspects of the older Ender I did not appreciate. He has grown into an almost omnipotent being, a new age messiah. He has an AI companion named Jane who is all powerful within the interstellar internet. In addition to Ender’s prominent status as an intellectual, a speaker, and a family therapist, it is all bit too much. Where he doesn’t have brilliant abilities, he has Jane, a powerful ally that is inexplicably awarded to him. It is sort of too good to be true.

Ender also has an instant and powerful impact on the inhabitants of Lusitania. People seem to drawn to him and melt in his arms. He is a prodigy, but for him to have such a tremendous aptitude in human relations and diplomacy is puzzling. In Ender’s Game, you learn a lot about the origin of his greatness. In Speaker for the Dead, it is inherent and unexplained.

The origins of the Lusitanian ecosystem is a little unrealistic. It is the result of a plague that killed off millions of species, leaving only a few symbiotic survivors. The theory of evolution doesn’t support the case for such an effective killer. Viruses tend not to thrive when they kill off their hosts with such proficiency. It’s a a small technical thing, but it sort of bothered me. The rest of the science is sound.

Ender’s Game is the superior of the two, but not by much. Speaker for the Dead is an excellent sci-fi novel in its own right. The flaws are minor and are overshadowed by Card’s impressive imagination, thematic depth, and understanding of human psychology.

J

The post Review: Speaker for the Dead appeared first on Jacob Foxx.

Are We Using up the Earth’s Natural Resources?

Are we using up the Earth?

Many are convinced that humanity is on the verge of depleting the planet of its natural resources, leading to our inevitable demise. In Joss Whedon’s Firefly, the voice over says humanity is forced to leave Earth after we “used up” everything there. In the movie Avatar, Jake Sully mentions Earth is dying, barren due to over-consumption. From H.G. Wells to James Cameron, there has been a commonly held fear of consuming all of the planet’s natural resources and leaving us with a barren planet. Combined with the numerous environmental issues facing us as a nation and a planet, the fear is becoming prevalent throughout the world.

When I was in elementary school, my teachers taught me about numerous threats to the environment and the desperate need to stop it. We needed to recycle, use less electricity, drive electric cars, and use compost for bio-waste. We needed to plant trees, save the whales, and stop greedy industrialist from raping the Earth for profit. From what I saw on TV and what I read in science class, I had no reason to doubt it.

As I grew older I noticed most of their dire predictions were not coming true. The O-zone is not depleted, nor does it look like it will deplete any time soon. We are not running out of landfill, topsoil, or trees. In fact, the forest acreage has slightly increased in the last couple decades. Air and water pollution are down.We are not dying from all sorts of lung infections, or pollution-caused diseases. The number of cancer deaths per year is declining and cancer prevalence hasn’t changed much.

Most importantly, there’s no evidence to suggest we are running short of any vital natural resource, not even oil.

Course, all those horrible predictions were from the early 1990s; they could still happen. But why are almost all of their predictions so off? Even if we are producing less pollution, shouldn’t we be running out of natural resources?

An article by Matt Kidley in this weekend’s Wall Street Journal offers a theory.

According to Kidley, the world is not running out of resources, and probably never will. The “barren Earth” predictions of environmentalists are based on false assumptions. They assume technology doesn’t change, our consumption habits remain relatively the same, and that greater prosperity equals greater consumption.

There are number of flaws in this kind of scientific modeling. Human factors are never static for long, in fact they often shift due to the emergence of scarcity in resources. Second, most natural resources are not finite. They are replenished, recycled, and reused often with steadily increasing efficiency.

We have not been a static civilization for centuries. Since the dawn of the industrial era, the resources we consume and how we consume them is changing all of the time. How do we keep doing this?

Kidley believes it is market economics that explains the constant changes in resource usage. He uses the example whale oil. Humans used to use whale oil to fuel our lamps, generating light and heat.Our demand for whale oil nearly brought whales to extinction. But before we wiped them out, the market forces started shifting capital and resources away from whaling. The price of whale oil skyrocketed due to the scarcity of whales. A decrease in supply led to an increase in price. People started buying less oil, soon humans needed to find a cheaper source of heat and light if they wanted to maintain their pleasant standard of living.

Eventually petroleum came along. Thomas Edison and Nicola Tesla brought us all sorts of new electrical innovations, which all but put an end to whaling.

Let’s apply this example of market force to today’s most controversial resource, petroleum.

Here is the thought experiment:

Let’s say it is the year 2150. We learn from government and industry experts that we are nearing the end of the world’ petroleum reserves. It is getting harder to find it and extract it. Naturally the markets will freak out, driving the price of oil up. Along with oil, so goes the price of gasoline and plastics. The more expensive, innovative energy sources such as solar, wind, nuclear, and hydroelectric start becoming more competitive. Investment capital would instantly flow to these technologies away from petroleum production in a desperate attempt to protect our standard of living.

Market forces can anticipate and react to scarcity of resources as long as it has knowledge of their quantity, whether through surveys or just the fact that we can’t find and extract as much, the market and price will move upward putting pressure on humanity to find another resource before they use it up.

Many resources don’t have a finite quantity. They are constantly replenishing themselves. What are the three resources we worry about the most as humans? Food, water, and electrical energy. Thomas Malthus and many other thinkers believed the Earth could only produce enough food for a few billion people. All the farms in the world and the best climate conditions could only produce so much. Eventually there’d be too many of us and famine would be widespread. In one sense they were right. Using 19th century technology, there were limits to food production and yield per acre. Then came fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides, refrigeration and motorized harvesting equipment, which dramatically increased crop yields per acre. It look less people, less land, and less time to produce the same amount of food.

This is why a few American farmers produce so much food today, despite over 90 percent of Americans working in the manufacturing or service sector. In addition, the top producers of food in the world are predominantly industrialized countries, including the United States, China, Brazil, Russia, Japan, and Australia. They have become so efficient at it, the bulk of the labor force is able to move onto more lucrative careers.

Farmers in Africa and Asia lack access to fertilizer and other useful technological innovations that push up crop yields. As a result, their farms are hopelessly inefficient, which is why so many of them experience problems with famine. It also means that there is much potential for growth in their agricultural production. In other words, the Earth can produce A LOT more food than it does now.

A shortage of fresh water is another common fear. My teachers frightened me with stories of rampant water pollution in America and throughout the world, threatening our fresh water supply. We used so much for farming and to water our opulent suburban lawns that eventually the taps would go dry.

The water shortages never happened, or haven’t happened yet. Even desert countries seem to find stable sources of water. Kidley points out countries like Cyprus and Israel use drip irrigation, a system that uses less water to keep fields sufficiently fed. As a result, the world uses half as much water as experts projected thirty years ago.

A revolution in shale oil extraction has given access to potentially billions of barrels of oil previously thought unrecoverable. It is likely we have enough oil to last us centuries.

It is basic market economics: when something becomes scarce the price goes up. When the price goes up, we need to find cheaper alternatives. That doesn’t mean that our use of certain resources to the point of scarcity doesn’t do serious environmental damage. Our quality of life is closely intertwined with the health of the ecosystem.

Still, won’t we eventually run out of resources to consume? In most cases the answer is no. Most of the vital resources we use are already renewable.

We regrow food every year using the same soil, seeds, sunlight, and rainwater. Are we using any of these up? Sunlight and rainwater are factors governed by our atmosphere, which we are damaging through the release of greenhouse gases. It is fair for ecologists to raise the alarm on human activity blocking sunlight, altering temperatures, of negatively affecting rainwater. These are all important concerns that should be researched and analyzed thoroughly.

There is also the potential of solar-powered desalinization plants. This technology is relatively new and not very economical yet. However, if we start running out of rainwater, this technology will start looking pretty practical. The odds of draining the oceans is pretty low, I’d say. It is hard to say we will one day run out of ocean water, since all the water humans use eventually ends up back in the ocean. Thanks to desalinization, we can use the same water over and over.

Kidley uses the example of tellurium, a rare earth element used in solar panels. Once a solar panel has reached the end of its service life, the tellurium can be recycled and used in new solar panels.He points out that industries that use rare metals often recycle them due to their high cost. In fact, we recycle metals all the time. When we use iron in cars or buildings, the iron atoms don’t go anywhere. We can recapture them and reuse them once those cars and buildings have become obsolete (as all human innovations inevitably become).

The fact is we don’t really “consume” in the sense that we use up a resource.  In some cases it is accurate. Oil can’t be reused, and the process of forming fossil fuels takes a very long time. There is also a finite amount of metal in the Earth’s crust. That amount is massive but it is finite. However, consumption is also a term used in economics, that means purchase of goods or services. It doesn’t mean something is used up or destroyed. As the economist Thomas Sowell wrote in his book Knowledge and Decisions, “man neither creates nor destroys matter, but only transforms it.”

Climate change has the potential to impact some fairly basic economic activities of humans. It could alter atmospheric conditions, which need to be stable so that our crops get the sufficient sunlight, stable temperature, and rainwater.

By the environmentalist definition of consumption, economic growth or increased human activity increases carbon emissions, unless we change our ways. Yet, the government’s reports indicate US carbon emissions are going down! We still use plenty of oil, coal, drive trucks, and all of our other dirty habits. There is no cap-and-trade system or carbon tax in the US, yet we are already decreasing how much carbon we put into the atmosphere. This is thanks in large part to new technological innovations in extracting natural gas, as well as new cleaner coal power plants.

I believe we are not using up the Earth’s natural resources. It is true we are placing considerable stress on the environment, but we are not consuming it. Most of what we use from the Earth replenishes itself, or is recycled after use. The evidence suggests we are on a path to permanent sustainability.

Rather than gradual environmental decay, I am more concerned about nuclear warfare and the absolute catastrophic damage it could do the the environment. No market force can account for it or shift capital accordingly. Enormous stretches of land and resources can be rendered useless. The resources we take for granted: sunlight and freshwater, could be taken away quickly due to fallout and nuclear winter.

Even if we do develop artificial light and water purification methods that can remove radioactive particles, many will die of famine and drought before we implement them. Innovation is a process. It needs time and investment. There are times when great minds can rise to the challenge of a catastrophe, but not before millions suffer and die.

Let’s hope we don’t need such great minds anytime soon.

J

The post Are We Using up the Earth’s Natural Resources? appeared first on Jacob Foxx.

Book Review: The Maze Runner

The era of dark science fiction continues with another young adult dystopia from James Dashner. The Maze Runner is another story about our dark future and the importance that the youth will play in our redemption. The movie comes out soon and is generating some buzz. It is a good read, but doesn’t have the depth of its more successful cousin, The Hunger Games.

The Maze Runner begins with a boy named Thomas, dropped into a huge maze with no memory of his previous life. The amnesia isn’t total, as he is able to recall how to speak, and how the world works but doesn’t remember his family, friends, where he was before the maze. He meets a community of boys, mostly teenagers, all sent there for some unknown reason. They live a fairly comfortable existence as long as they stay within the safe zone of the maze, a large space in the middle of the maze they call the Glade. The maze surrounding the Glade is filled with dangers.

The maze walls move and there are creatures, half beast, half machine, known as the grievers. They were a neat innovation of Dashner’s, serving as its minotaur of the labyrinth. Thomas and his good friend Chuck are very likable and admirable. The descriptions of the maze itself are interesting, making the challenge of getting out daunting. Dashner does a good job revealing the mysteries of the maze little by little, keeping you hooked.

While it is labeled dystopian fiction, there is no dystopian element to The Maze Runner. It is the first book in a series, with the sequels focusing on a post-apocalyptic reality outside the maze. Within the maze, there is no broken or failed society. If anything the Glade society is close to ideal, almost utopian. The boys cooperate as a fully functioning community, almost self-sufficient. They build a semi-democratic hierarchy, a rule system, and solid respect for one another. Comparisons to Lord of the Flies are not accurate or fair. There is no breakdown here, no examination of the dark side of human nature. Peter Pan might be a better analogue.

The ivory covered walls, the shifting paths, the bizarre creatures, and shipments of supplies through an underground shaft all make the maze surreal. It isn’t the real world. The memory manipulation all suggest a contrived reality but its purpose is unclear. It is so elaborate that you’d think its purpose has to be of vital importance, given the time and cost of such a place. Otherwise, it is more of a fantasy similar to the maze of the movie The Labyrinth or the maze in Alice in Wonderland.

There is also a lack of a political element to this dystopia. There is no capital here, only elusive and mysterious Creators (Dashner capitalizes it), who you learn nothing about. Dystopias are supposed to be used as a commentary or indirect criticism of the world. The Maze Runner doesn’t attempt a critique.

If you take it as more of a fantastic challenge rather than a dystopic vision, it does better. It is not a broken world, but one filled with heroes. Some of the boys are just too good to be true. The lack of memory, deadly grievers, and mysterious maze is a lot to deal with. Yet, the boys seem to handle it well.

There is the beginning of a love story in the book, but it doesn’t really progress. The first girl to show up in the maze has a connection to the main character Thomas, but you never find out what it is. They are telepathic, which is an odd little detail that is never explained. It creates a layer of intimacy for two kids that don’t remember one another. Dashner doesn’t bother with the obvious hormonal impact of having one attractive teenage girl in the middle of a village of teenage boys who haven’t seen a girl in months, even years.

Delving into teenage sexuality probably would’ve shifted the book out of the young adult category, something Dashner probably wanted to avoid. Still, even teenage readers, especially boys, are going to notice this glaring detail.

It becomes clear that Dashner’s boys, who call themselves the Gladers, are special. They seem smarter, wiser, and mentally tougher than normal teenage boys. Even the girl seems to have a special inner strength and intelligence. They were all chosen for the maze. There is no evidence of post-traumatic stress, emotional problems, violent tendencies, or anything else that can come with incarceration. Perhaps it is because they don’t remember their previous lives. The sequel probably sheds some light on it.

Overall, enjoyable just not terribly deep. Had it not been for the wake of The Hunger Games phenomena, this novel probably would be getting a lot more attention. The movie release will probably change that.

4 Stars.

J

The post Book Review: The Maze Runner appeared first on Jacob Foxx.

Earthlike Planet Found

Astronomers have been searching for planets outside the Solar System for years. Hundreds have been found. Only recently did they discover a planet highly similar to Earth in size and distance from its star. The planet lies in the habitability zone (also known as the Goldilocks zone), the right distance from its star to have water in a liquid state. If astronomers are correct, it is a strong prospect to possess alien life, or one day support human life.

Kepler 186f, as it is called, is over 400 light years away, the fifth planet orbiting a star in the Cygnus constellation. It is nearly the same size as Earth, which means there’s a good chance it has similar gravitational pull as well as other characteristics. The most important detail is its distance from its star.

Scientists have long believed that life needs a liquid medium in order to evolve. A planet must have sufficient conditions for liquid water to exist including a temperature between 0 and 218 degrees Fahrenheit, sufficient air pressure, etc.

About 20 planets have been discovered that may be habitable for humans. Most of them are too large or small in comparison to Earth, creating some difficulties in terraforming and colonization.

Kepler 186f provides more circumstantial evidence that there is life on other worlds. The conditions necessary to support life on multiple planets. The odds that the right chemical reactions that spawn have only occurred on Earth are becoming remote.

However, there are a few other factors to keep in mind. Earth has endured several mass extinctions due to asteroid strikes as well as dramatic shifts in climate. These mass extinction events occur rarely thanks in large part to the planetary arrangement of our star system. The gas giants Jupiter and Saturn, absorb a large number of asteroids including some that may have struck Earth. Without them, it is unlikely life would have the time needed to evolve into advanced multi-cellular creatures, let alone intelligent life. A planet that is constantly bombarded with asteroids may be too volatile to support life.

Our star system is also on the mature side, meaning much of the random material floating about around it has formed into planets, moons, or inhabits the asteroid belt. Many star systems are young, which means there is all sorts of debris floating around, colliding with its orbiting planets. It also takes a while for planets to form, cool, and make possible the conditions to support life. Many of the planets we have discovered may be too young to have spawned life yet.

Earth also has a strong magnetosphere, O-zone, stable orbital eccentricity, and fairly slow and stable rotation. All of these factors are amenable to life. It is unclear how many planets possess these qualities. None in our Solar system do (although Mars may have once).

It is very likely life is common throughout the universe. The sheer number of stars and planets makes it a near certainty. However, intelligent life is a different matter. Millions of species have evolved on Earth yet only one managed to achieve the level of cognitive ability necessary to build a civilization. We still aren’t exactly sure how homo sapiens evolved. Without that important piece, we just aren’t sure how intelligent life evolves and what conditions are necessary for it to evolve. One thing is for sure, it takes a lot of time, a stable world, and biological competition.

It isn’t the strongest nor smartest species that survive, but those most adaptable to change. Life may thrive on other planets but that doesn’t mean any intelligent species will emerge. It took over 4 billions years for it to emerge here.

I also consider the Ancient Aliens possibility: maybe we aren’t the first or only intelligent life on this planet. When we look for evidence of civilization, we often look for traces of human civilization. We have no idea what an alien civilization would leave behind; it is possible we wouldn’t recognize it if we saw it. There very well could’ve been a wise dinosaur or other unknown creature. It’s a fun concept explored in the classic book Dinotopia.

Anyway, that’s all I got.

J

 

The post Earthlike Planet Found appeared first on Jacob Foxx.

Game of Thrones Recap: The Lion and the Rose

Weddings are extremely dangerous in Westeros. People die. The royal wedding in King’s Landing was no different. Many will be happy with the result, but it doesn’t change anything. The war is still a stalemate, the Baratheons and Lannisters remain at war. The North remains in chaos, with Greyjoy and Bolton fighting for control and the Starks in hiding.

If you notice, the title of this post has the word “recap” in it, which should be an indicator that there are spoilers. But just in case:

SPOILER ALERT!!!

King Joffrey is dead, poisoned by one of his many enemies. The list is long, so to chop it down a bit, we should ask: cui bono?

To Whose Benefit?

Let’s remove the losers from the list: The Tyrells and the Lannisters. They’ve lost standing as a result of the very public assassination. The king-to-be is now Tommen Baratheon, Joffrey’s younger brother. He is too young so a regent will be appointed, most likely Tywin Lannister.

Joffrey tried to have Tyrion killed and constantly humiliated him. On a personal level, Tyrion benefits, but consider this: he thought the manner of Robb Stark’s death was a mistake. “The North never forgets.” He was also quickly arrested. The animosity between Tyrion and Joffrey is well-known in the capital. It makes no sense for Tyrion to kill Joffrey at the wedding with no escape plan or plausible deniability.

Sansa benefits big time. Her tormentor is dead, the one responsible for her father’s death. Her husband is arrested, possibly leaving her free to escape. Sansa lacks the cunning to plan it, but her drunken benefactor Ser Dontos might be behind it. Her plight appeals to the hero or guardian type, the one who has a sense that the weak should be protected. The Hound felt pity for her and offered to take her from the capital. Olenna and Marjaery both sympathize with her position and tried to take her to Highgarden. The Stark men may be dead but the children still have friends.

It just makes sense that a Stark agent committed the act. One wedding assassination, followed by another: an eye-for-an-eye. Do they have any agents in the capital?

Stannis Baratheon does not benefit strategically but certainly wanted the boy dead. Tywin is the true leader of the Lannister House, not Joffrey. To restore his claim, he needs Tommen dead is well, killing the last of King Robert’s supposed heirs.

Prince Oberyn is another suspect but he wants revenge for an old crime. Joffrey wasn’t even alive. Also, poisoning doesn’t seem like his style. I think he wants a duel.

A couple outside possibilities: Shae, Bronn, and Brynden “Blackfish” Tully. Shae and Bronn could’ve conspired to kill Joffrey in a misguided attempt to protect Tyrion. Bronn is a cunning warrior, but I don’t think he would do something this foolish. It is too high-profile for him. Blackfish is a long shot, but he would’ve had to have traveled from the Red Wedding all the way to King’s Landing without being detected, found fellow conspirators and executed it without any hint of a Tully being in the capital.

Top bet is on Ser Dontos on behalf of Sansa (3:1), then there’s Shae (5:1), Tyrion (8:1), Oberyn (10:1), Stark agent (15:1), Bronn (15:1), Stannis (25:1) and Blackfish (50:1).

The events of the royal wedding should make a lot of people happy, but in the end doesn’t change the dynamic of the war. It is a personal blow to the Lannisters, but not a political one. The Tyrells have lost a lot, unless they can somehow convince Tywin of a new marriage between Marjaery and Tommen. Usually the girl is younger, not older. A Jaime-Marjaery marriage makes more sense, uniting the two houses, forcing Jaime to rule Castlerock and be a normal prince, not a King’s Guard loner. The Loras-Cersei marriage still makes sense. But who to marry Tommen?

Lannisters need a powerful ally and to restore unity in the kingdom. Tyrell and Martell fit the bill. Frey is a house on the rise but he is a northerner and looked down upon by many. I don’t think House Arryn is very strong, and doesn’t have a female heiress. Baratheon and Greyjoy are in a state of rebellion.

Tywin could hold off on arranging a royal marriage, and perhaps commit to finishing off Baratheon. A major victory in war could help keep the houses in line, since no alliance through marriage appears possible.

Excellent episode, typical HBO fashion. One boring episode followed by a great one.

J

The post Game of Thrones Recap: The Lion and the Rose appeared first on Jacob Foxx.

Weapons of the Future: The US Navy’s new Railgun

Science Fiction has often speculated about the weapons of the future. There are phasers, photon torpedoes, laser cannons, pulse rifles, powered suits, battle mechs, warships in space, ion cannons, blasters, and the one we are all hoping for, the light saber. While we are probably decades away from most of these (maybe centuries), one futuristic armament has become a reality: the railgun.

The first time I heard of the weapon was in the movie Eraser. Arnold Schwarzenegger fights evil weapons manufacturers trying to sell handheld railguns to terrorists. In the movie, the weapon could fire a lightweight aluminum round almost the speed of light. It’s armor-piercing capability unmatched by any modern rifle or cannon. On TV a railgun or mass driver has made appearances in Babylon 5 as well as Stargate Atlantis. Even before that, science fiction authors like Arthur C. Clarke and Robert Heinlein described weapons similar to the railgun concept.

A railgun uses electricity rather than chemical propellent to launch a projectile. The weapon consists of a barrel with two parallel rails (hence the name), a battery or some other major power source, and a round designed to travel at extremely high velocities. The round accelerates along the two rails. One is a negative rail, one is positive with the round held between the two completing the circuit. Electrons flow from battery or power cell, to negative rail, through the round, to the positive rail. The currents are going in two different directions, which produces a Lorentz force, accelerating the projectile to incredible speeds.

The what gives a gun power is not the size of the round but its velocity. Larger rounds contain more propellent, hence have more velocity. Their size or weight isn’t as relevant. Artillery uses enormous explosive rounds, but generally a line-of-sight weapon relies on velocity, not mass or explosives. A typical rifle can fire a round (nothing more than a small piece of metal) to about 2,500 mph. According to the US Navy, their new railgun can reach muzzle velocities of over 6,000 mph. Researchers have been able to alter the power of the electromagnetic pulse, altering the velocity and trajectory of the projectile, giving it additional battlefield capabilities, such as air defense and even indirect fire. They believe its effective range could be 100 miles! Such a weapon could strike Washington D.C. from Richmond with no trouble.

Cruise missiles can accomplish this feat today, but they require rocket fuel, a guidance system, and an explosive warhead. In addition, a railgun leaves no chemicals behind after impact, it is purely a kinetic weapon. There would be no unexploded ordnance left behind, which can be dangerous even years after the war is over. As long as the electricity is generated from a clean energy source, the weapon leaves no carbon footprint (doesn’t need fuel).

Railgun from Transformers

The US Navy railgun is large, heavy, and requires a lot of energy. The batteries are charged by a warship’s power plant. It is not ready to be a land-based weapon. The current version is too heavy to move on a vehicle (the gun mount, barrel, and power cell). Maintenance is also an issue. It is unclear how reliable the weapon is, and whether it can withstand battlefield conditions.

The Navy predicts it will begin arming its surface warships with railguns in the next couple years.

Electromagnetic-powered weapons are becoming more practical as we learn more about electromagnetism, as well as alternative means of producing and storing electrical energy. If scientists can develop a means of generating and storing large amounts of electricity, energy weapons will replace the traditional rifle and cannon on the battlefield. In other words we would see the rail cannon, or any other variant of the terms for a non-chemical projectile weapon.

Since an electromagnetic pulse is used to propel the projectile, we could see the terms pulse rifle and pulse cannon used for a projectile weapon. Science fiction has sometimes used to the terms to refer to direct energy weapons, but no one owns the rights on what futuristic weapons will actually be called.

The other technology that could change warfare is of course direct energy, or lasers. Lasers also require a lot of energy, and also have reliability issues. They also generate a lot of heat. Still, the technological challenges are surmountable.

We are a few years from the ship-mounted railgun. We might be a decade or two away from all chemical-propelled artillery and rockets being replaced with railguns as well. It will change the focus of militaries away from chemicals and ammunition, to energy. Electrical energy sources and storage will become the most important supplies for an army.

J

The post Weapons of the Future: The US Navy’s new Railgun appeared first on Jacob Foxx.

Game of Thrones Recap: Two Swords

The dust continues to settle after the Red Wedding and the fall of Yunkai. No new significant events, just some plot buildup. Joffrey and Margaery still aren’t married. Daenerys still hasn’t made it to Westeros, or Pentos for that matter. She’s still marching around Slaver’s Bay. John Snow still knows nothing.

In King’s Landing, Jaime surprised his father by rejecting rule of Castlerock. He wants to stay near his sister/lover. Cersei is upset, feeling he came back too late. She might think he could’ve stopped her engagement to Loras Tyrell if he were there. This is a problem. Jaime endured years of sharing Cersei with King Robert, but he was the king. Course he won’t have to share Cersei with Loras. Loras doesn’t swing that way. Ironically, this triangle could work out for all parties.

A major intra-house conflict is brewing. The Lannisters may have learned of Tyrion’s relationship with Shae, and the fact he hasn’t consummated his marriage with Sansa. This is a serious problem for my favorite character.

Tywin Lannister is running out of worthy successors. Jaime has taken himself out of the running, Cersei is about to become a Tyrell, and Tyrion is a dwarf. His grandson, the king, is a psychopath. Who is left? There’s two other grandchildren, including the young Tommen. Officially Tommen is a Baratheon, so is Joffrey. Castlerock cannot pass to either of them, only the throne. Tywin might have to swallow his pride and let Tyrion rule there. Of course he needs to produce an heir, which isn’t going to happen.

The future of House Lannister revolves around Tyrion.

Prince Oberyn Martell has entered the capital and wants revenge for what happened to his sister. She was the queen before King Robert usurped the throne. She was raped and murdered by Gregor Clegane, one of the Lannisters’ bannermen. He is the youngest, so he doesn’t call the shots for his family. The fact that they sent him rather than the eldest son is telling as is their absence from the war to date. They despise Baratheon and Lannister, and probably wanted them to wear each other out then maybe make a run at the throne themselves. Too bad the Lannisters gained the advantage so quickly.

The likely targets of Oberyn’s rage are those involved in the war: Tywin and Jaime. If Gregor Clegane was around, I’m sure he’d take a run at him. A possible duel or some sort of confrontation is brewing. It could start a war, if the Martells want it.

Here is a missed opportunity: The Martells and Starks would’ve been natural allies. Robb Stark should’ve tried to ally with them in exchange for the right to secede and become an independent kingdom. Neither Robb nor the Martells considered this. It is the same missed opportunity of Stannis as well.

John Snow recovered from his wounds but could face execution for desertion and violating his oath (getting some action). The King Beyond the Wall, Mance Raydor, is preparing an attack on the wall. They claim to have 100,000 men but I doubt it. There’s no way that many fighters could survive in that climate without access to natural resources. As usual, he probably exaggerated. Still, he may have enough to bust through the Night’s Watch and into the North. Roose Bolton and Balon Greyjoy would have some interesting decisions to make then.

In the East, the Mother of Dragons approaches another slave city. Her attraction to her new servant, Daario Naharis is a serious threat to her future. He got to see her in her birthday suit and has already declared his love for her, as his queen. Clearly he meant more. If Daenerys wants the Iron Throne, she must be available to marry a prince from one of the other houses. Even if she never does, like Queen Elizabeth I, the prospect must always be available to keep the other Houses vying for her attention. If she is sleeping with one of her knights, it weakens the prospect of a royal alliance, making it difficult to retake the throne.

The Unsullied are fantastic soldiers but aren’t enough to overcome the armies of the Seven Kingdoms. The Lannisters, Baratheons, and Tyrells all have formidable forces. Daenerys could find allies in House Martell and in the north but the rest are rivals. Unless one of the challengers is convinced they can’t get the throne, they will oppose the return of the Targaryens.

DEATHWATCH:

Arya’s situation has improved. She got her sword back and has a horse. The Hound is protecting her, although he won’t admit it. Still, they are going through hostile territory towards the Vale. Lady Lysa is not very stable and Littlefinger will be there by now. Arya may not be safe there.

Joffrey is making enemies everywhere he goes. The major players in King’s Landing despise him and Tywin is finding him difficult to control. If he can’t manage him, Tywin may find alternative means of ruling the Seven Kingdoms.

Tyrion is in serious danger. Joffrey wants him dead. If his family finds out about Shae, they may decide he’s more trouble than he’s worth. Joffrey will at least. I don’t think Tywin or Jaime want him dead, or see any gain by it. Sansa is back on deathwatch. As Tyrion goes, so goes Sansa, the adorable fool.

Prince Oberyn is instantly put on deathwatch as well.

 

Two Swords was a fairly boring episode, other than Arya’s revenge and some nudity in the whorehouse. The first episode was used to build up new plot lines. We’ll see how long it takes for them to reach fruition.

J

The post Game of Thrones Recap: Two Swords appeared first on Jacob Foxx.