Technology=Electronics?: Nature vs. Artifice

It seems there is an increasing tendency to equate technology with electronics. This seems a rather narrow definition to me. I just watched a segment on the Today show discussing the amount of ‘tech’ in the lives of kids. The obvious culprits were discussed: iPods, laptops, game systems, etc. There was the obligatory nostalgia for the good ‘ol days, when kids weren’t inundated with technology. But, ultimately, that’s inaccurate. To use the simplest example, take the bicycle. It has wheels and gears, each cutting edge at the time of their invention (or discovery – lets not quibble). Perhaps the importance of the bike was that it “got you outside”. But the degree to which ‘outside’ is anything short of technology itself is in question as well. Leaving aside the fact that the American landscape has been shaped by humans since well before the arrival of Europeans, a step outside today constitutes every bit as much participation in the artifice of humanity as does listening to an iPod. We have edited the landscape certainly – polluted it, scarred it, shaped it to our will. But more than that, any venture outside is still participation in a human-defined activity. Hiking in ‘preserved’ forests, taking a ‘nature’ walk or driving through rush hour downtown are all equivalently unnatural. One of the defining characteristics of humanity as a species is our ability to adapt our environment to ourselves. The problem is, we have a real problem defining which of our adaptations are ‘natural’ and which are ‘artificial’. A skyscraper must be unnatural, right? But what about a teepee? A log cabin? A fire built in a cave? When do our environment-shaping activities cross the threshold to technology?

Entropy, Sustainability and Society

Lately, I’ve been thinking about energy a lot – not the rolling-blackouts in California or the kilo-watt hour variety, but the more esoteric, entropic kind of energy (to understand this sentence, please see the third law of thermodynamics). We can debate fossil fuels, renewable resources and “clean” energy all we want, but ultimately our source of power is the Sun. Everything we do is powered by the Sun’s energy variously stored and distributed. And the third law tells us that eventually that energy will run out. Now, obviously, that won’t happen anytime soon. But, the whole environmental and energy debate has us concerned about the world of our grandchildren – why draw the line there? Eventually, we will exhaust the Earth’s supply of nonrenewable resources – it’s inherent in their name. Thus, we will be completely reliant on “renewable” resources or will be forced to find some sort of extra-terrestrial analog of fossil fuels.

So what is a “renewable” resource? Trees, food, etc., right? However, as stated earlier, we ultimately derive all energy from the Sun. So renewable resources, in theory, should only be able to provide energy at the same rate as the Sun provides it to the Earth. Now that’s a complex math problem if ever there’s been one: how much energy does the Sun radiate, how much hits the cross-section of the Earth, how much of that is converted to useful energy, etc. The list goes on. However, the pertinent question that I find intriguing at the moment, is whether that daily output from the Sun is enough to sustain today’s global society, let alone tomorrow’s. And if it isn’t enough, that leaves us with a startling conclusion: human society, as currently organized, is inherently unsustainable.

I’ve made a lot of assumptions here. And I’m not arguing for the veracity of my statement of unsustainability. But I think it poses a much more interesting question, if less relevant, than does the controversy over fossil fuels. Ultimately, any type of energy production (wind, geothermal, solar, hydro-electric) redirects energy from somewhere. No energy is free energy. There is no question that we affect the system in which we live – we are a part of it and changes in parts necessarily constitute changes in the whole. I’m curious what time frame is relevant for us as a species, a society and as individuals. Decades? Centuries? Millenia? Or more? And what does our choice of time frame say about what should change? Individual practices? Cultural norms? Global societal organization?

Cold War, Part Deux?

The Pentagon released a report on China’s military spending, predictably criticizing them for increased military spending even though we’re currently conducting a war. A Chinese spokesperson responded by saying “China pursues a national defence policy that is defensive in nature”. I think it’s great that this statement makes sense; gotta love the holdover ridiculous logic from MAD. The report also alleged that China was building anti-satellite weaponry and – get this – “expressed concern about China’s decision to shoot down a defunct weather satellite in a test in January 2007.” I revel in the irony. I leave you with one last quote from China: “We do not pose a threat to any country. The US should drop its Cold War mentality”. Amen.

Ideology and Fiction

I just finished reading Orson Scott Card’s novel, Empire. The story begins with the simultaneous assassination of the President and Vice-President of the United States. In the ensuing chaos, a group called the ‘Progressive Restoration’ seizes New York City (specifically Manhattan) through by means of killing the police force with futuristic mechanical walkers (think War of the Worlds circa Wells, not that Spielberg/Cruise crap that shamed movie audiences the world over a couple of years ago). This provokes a mini-Civil War that is put down relatively quickly, though it may result in the installation of a President with dictatorial ambitions (he was an admirer of Augustus).

I thoroughly enjoyed the book. What was most interesting, though, was not the unlikely coup or the unlikely technology. Rather, it was the entirely likely inability of the partisan political elements to communicate effectively enough to avert the Civil War. I’m no expert on politics, so take my opinions with a grain of salt. But Card did an excellent job highlighting the unsavory results of partisan rhetoric being taken seriously to the point of condoning revolution. The important distinction was the view each side had of the Progressives – one side saw them as ‘revolutionaries’, the other as ‘rebels’. This is inherent in the ideology of both sides – they talk past one another quite often because their views are often incommensurable.

This review is hardly unbiased – I fully agree with Scott’s assessment of the political situation in our country. I think his assertion that the political platforms in this nation are entirely too broad. Foreign policy informs very little on other domestic or religious issues. On a more scholarly note, Scott’s novel interests me as a future history which takes place in what is now the past. It is a political commentary contained in a science fictional imagination of a dystopian tomorrow. In that way I find it comparable to the works I’ve been focusing on for my thesis. In any case, I definitely recommend the book.

Star Wars, Episode VII

So the missile launch was a success…probably. According to this CNN article, the Pentagon has ” ‘…a high degree of confidence we got the tank.’ ” Such vague language doesn’t bode well in light of the Patriot fiasco. A quick read of the relevant chapter from The Golem at Large will reveal the uncertainties implicit in a test such as this. Hopefully, discussion of the satellite’s destruction won’t devolve into semantic arguments about the meaning of “intercept”. The fact of the matter is, though, regardless of the outcome, opinions are unlikely to change. In the event of damage to other countries, opponents will claim failure and proponents will talk of mitigation of disaster. On the flip side, if all the debris falls safely into the ocean, proponents will claim success and opponents will decry a waste of taxpayer dollars. Should be an interesting show for everyone.

Furthermore, the article reports the Chinese reaction to all of this. They see this action, naturally, as a threat to the security of space. CNN relates a bit of history about a ground based Chinese missile destroying a satellite a few years back and an American air-to-air missile doing the same as far back as ’89. It seems inevitable, but also disappointing, that ‘Star Wars’ hasn’t lost the implications of escalation it generated back in the ’80s. The technology is probably nigh unrecognizable compared to its origins, but the debate remains unchanged.

Scientifically Minded, Historically Inclined

I’ve always harbored an interest in science. It was one of the driving forces of my youth. However, as time passed it became clear that I was much more interested in the how and why of science than the what. Hence the transition from an undergraduate degree in physics to a graduate program in the history of science. This will likely show through in my posts – they’ll deal less with the ‘hard’ science and more with historical context and interpretation.

For example, I expect my first post of substance to address the use of a missile to shoot down a failed U.S. spy satellite. The Today show ran a report this morning, mentioning the use of a “kinetic kill” weapon, likened to “a bullet hitting a bullet”, and voiced concern over the initiation of an “arms race in space” with China. These buzz words (or phrases, I guess) are at least 20 years old (though the arms race was with Russia then). The new and intriguing development is that the launch of the missile will represent a real test of a technology half a century in the making. From this side of the launch, it seems as though it will be pretty clear whether or not the satellite was successfully intercepted. However, it may be that the result is just as nebulous as the Patriot missile during the Gulf War.

Me Manifesto

In adding to the sea of unending blogs, I feel that mine needs a purpose in the form of a manifesto. As an historian of science, I’m going to attempt to keep my entries somewhat relevant to the field. Due to the nature of my research and interests, though, it’s likely I’ll often wax political, fictional and polemical. There – a statement of purpose and disclaimer all in one…no mean feat, I assure you.