Musings

I have been giving a great deal of thought to the developing global effort to reduce the environmental impact of modern society, and the nascent efforts to switch to ‘clean and green’ energy systems, and the reduction of atmospheric contaminants and human-produced greenhouse gases.

I have concluded that we have only one last chance to get it right because of our terrific rate of consumption of vital and non-replenishable raw resources. We can only reclaim a small percentage of these resources through recycling and our focus must be on conservation and wise and cost-effective use of the remainder. My definition of ‘cost-effective’ includes the environmental ‘costs’ as well.

I am still planning on taking a break from blogging for a while, but I thought this post to be important.

A recently released study by MIT on manufacturing efficiency has revealed that modern manufacturing methods are spectacularly inefficient in their use of energy and materials. According to the detailed analysis of the energy use of 20 major manufacturing processes, manufacturers have traditionally been more concerned about factors like price, quality, or cycle-time, and not as concerned over how much energy their manufacturing processes use.

Other factors such as residual pollution, atmospheric alteration, and the consumption and degradation of potable water and downstream effects are still little studied or understood.

The MIT study covered everything "from soup to nuts" in terms of standard industrial methods, according to the authors, "from heavy-duty old fashioned industries like a cast-iron foundry, all the way up to semiconductors and nanomaterials." It includes injection molding, sputtering, carbon nanofiber production and dry etching, along with more traditional machining, milling, drilling and melting. There were some boundaries on the processes studied, however: The researchers did not analyze production of pharmaceuticals or petroleum, and they only looked primarily at processes where electricity was the primary energy source. Overall, new manufacturing systems are anywhere from 1,000 to one million times bigger consumers of energy, per pound of output, than more traditional industries. In short, pound for pound, making microchips uses up orders of magnitude more energy than making manhole covers.”

We have to bring these processes ‘into focus’, the main theme of this blog.

An example used in the study was the manufacture of solar panels to create electricity from sunshine. To quote the authors, “Solar panels are a good example. Their production, which uses some of the same manufacturing processes as microchips but on a large scale, is escalating dramatically. The inherent inefficiency of current solar panel manufacturing methods could drastically reduce the technology's lifecycle energy balance -- that is, the ratio of the energy the panel would produce over its useful lifetime to the energy required to manufacture it.”

I would suggest that the manufacturer use the initial output of the plant to create a solar energy production system on site that is sufficient to power subsequent production without further input from the electrical grid. I know of only one company that does this at present. Similar analysis and retooling of processes in other industries needs to be done immediately. This is where the so-called ‘stimulus dollars’ should be going, not to leaping headlong into say, electric cars. We need to first examine the life-cycle costs of such vehicles, including the production and environmental costs of electricity at the coal-fired plants that feed the grid to refuel them.

And, speaking of the electrical grid, we are about to invest billions into a fragile and inefficient means of generating and distributing electricity. Now, Nicola Tesla worked hard to figure out how to beam it through the air, but the fact is, the distribution system should be underground. There are a variety of reasons for doing this, ranging from the existing dangerous saturation of the terrestrial environment by electromagnetic radiation, to the catastrophic destruction of the system in the event of EMP pulses from a nuclear attack, or by a large coronal discharge from the sun. It is stupid in the extreme to leave this distribution system that our very modern existence requires, on the surface.

The figures the MIT team derived in the study are actually conservative, the authors say, because they did not include some significant energy costs such as the energy required to make the materials themselves or the energy required to maintain the environment of the plant (such as air conditioning and filtration for clean rooms used in semiconductor processing). All these things would make the energy costs worse. The bottom line is that new processes are huge users of materials and energy. Because some of these processes are so new, they will be optimized and improved over time. But as things stand now, over the last several decades as traditional processes such as machining and casting have increasingly given way to newer ones for the production of semiconductors, MEMS, nano-materials and devices, for a given quantity of output, we have increased our energy and materials consumption by three to six orders of magnitude."

Each and every existing and planned industry needs to be subject to study relative to its environmental impact, and we should only retain those that are absolutely vital to the continuation and advancement of our technical civilization at present. The rest should be considered expendable luxuries that we can’t afford for the near-term.

I would venture to guess that through exhaustive conservation and efficient use and recycling strategies, we could halve our present energy and resource consumption. This buys us time to plan a sustainable future for mankind, and this is where the Obama administration and other governments around the world should be investing our time and precious treasure, and not in saving financial institutions and outmoded industries. We need to put on the brakes and refocus our efforts on what really matters.

What is meant by the phrase ‘Environmental Remediation? The simple answer is, of course, restoring the environment. But, this is subject to vast interpretation. It depends on who you talk to, and when.

In the beginning, many environmental protection organizations sprang into existence, primarily to protect some endangered species such as the whale. These proliferated and broadened their scope to many species, and some focused on buying up and setting aside vast tracts of land as a type of ‘protected habitat’. As it was recognized that some species required extremely large open range to facilitate seasonal migration, the idea of ‘interconnecting corridors’ took hold and land started to be set aside for this purpose.

As our knowledge grew of the interaction and dependence of some species upon others, we started talking about ‘ecosystems’ and ‘microenvironments’ or ‘niches’. The Gaia hypothesis gave us the first glimpse at how life itself modified the ‘natural state’ of the planet to be more suitable to life, and thereby made the idea of a globally interconnected ecosystem take hold.

But still, these views were species-centric to humans, and our focus was on other species that we admired or needed to feed the top predator on the planet (us). The fact is, it is all a game of numbers. There is a sort of ‘golden mean’ to the ratio of prey to predators regardless of their position in the ‘food chain’. It is roughly 240 to 1.

Now, to be entirely exact in our definition, we must include the lowliest virus, including those that prey on humans. Here, the ratio becomes skewed, because viruses have been around a lot longer than cellular life forms, and they are very good at what they do. The same is true for prions, the non-living entities that emulate conventional life forms so well.

So, when we speak of ‘environmental remediation’ all of this must be taken into account, and can only be referred to in terms of the moment, because of the on-going process of evolution. Any definition must be regarded as a snapshot, subject to constant revision.

Now, it has been demonstrated that the United States consumes ‘resources’ on such a vast scale, that it would take three planet earths to support a similar lifestyle for peoples all around the planet. The very idea of countries such as China or India achieving a similar consumption-based economy is absurd in the extreme (baring technical breakthroughs in hydroponics, fresh water generation, extreme mineral extraction, and so forth). Even the ‘westernized’ countries in Europe and Asia, while close, will never get there.

It is therefore obvious that in the near future, the standard of living in the United States will reduce and normalize at some level of poverty similar to that of countries elsewhere (baring a WWIII scenario where everything goes up in smoke).

In this process of global ‘normalization’, environmental remediation will become a distant dream as resources useful to humans are finally consumed (unless of course, we regain our sanity and cooperate and share the hard work as well as the resources). And, this is likely to be concomitant with a mass extinction event. Life on earth could reduce to simple life forms; the viruses, bacteria, simple plants and insects. Perhaps a few small animal species would survive, and over millions of years, evolve into unimaginable new ‘higher’ life forms.

We can however, change this chain of events if we act quickly.

First, we must dramatically reduce the human presence on the planet to a level approaching the ‘golden mean’ and maintain it at that level. I have previously estimated this to be a planet-wide population of less than 800 million. This can be humanely accomplished within 50 years—sooner, and less humane, if we let nature have her way in bringing things into balance.

Secondly, we much choose our territories for occupation very well, and not give in to the temptation to expand into areas set aside for other species. And, we must either resume our former pre-technical position in the food chain, or do operant conditioning on the species that formerly considered humans a tasty meal. The latter method will be very costly in time and resources, but would make our surviving cites and farms a little more secure.

Lastly, we must change our cultures with regard to last rites for the dead. It will be no longer proper to bury or cremate the dead. Alternatively, we must take the view that these remains are a vital protein source for the species that formerly fed on us (predators, scavengers, birds, etc., and not just the bugs in the ground). Some percentage could also be turned into fertilizer for our food crops.

As many countries are once again embracing the death penalty for incorrigible, murderous, criminals, it seems to me that they can be put to better use than simply strapping them to an electric chair, shooting them, or giving them an injection.

You see, top predators of humans such as lions are designed for speed, and are not normally scavengers. We run too damned fast for the lesser predators that usually scavenged our remains. Lions, Leopards, Crocs, Alligators and so forth need their exercise to remain healthy. So, I propose we turn these criminals loose in close proximity to these predators, and perhaps televise the event from blimps overhead; all proceeds to be donated to the remediation fund.

I used to joke with my backpacking friends that “When I die, I want to be rolled out of the bed of a pickup truck somewhere in the slickrock wilderness.” Well, now it’s an idea whose time has come.


Artwork courtesy of Travis Adams

People under stress are seldom rational. As such, you have a choice in how you interact with them. In these troubled times, social acrimony seems to be everywhere, from the impulsive act of road rage or butting in line at the checkout counter, to acting aggressively to assert one’s will on others.

If you are subject to this kind of abuse, here are a few words of advice:

First, consider the source. Is the person simply angry or is he or she seemingly desperate? Often, if you can set aside your own ego and show a little empathy or courtesy, you can shame the person gently into modifying their behavior. It beats the hell out of punching them out. However satisfying at the moment, such action will work to your long-term detriment, either physically by injuring yourself, or subtly, by damaging your self esteem.

It is far better to respond thoughtfully than simply react with the old fight or flight impulses that have governed life on planet earth since the beginning of history. Humans, if we are to believe our own propaganda, are better than this. We can rise above being simply animals, but it takes patience and perseverance. Countering aggression with politeness and unwarranted consideration for the disturbed individual can often do wonders, and cause them to question the basis for their own behaviors.

But at the same time, never show fear or apparent intimidation. The person in question has no knowledge whatever of your capability for violence. Keep them guessing and off guard; you will gain their respect. And, if you are forced into a violent confrontation, be ready to act with the maximum violent response. This means emulating a Pit Bull. You don’t have to know how to fight, just focus on ripping out their guts. Start by biting off their nose or ear. Gouge out their eyes. Don’t pause for breath or ease up until they cease twitching. Remember, the Pit Bull only weighs about 90 pounds, and can’t think too well. You have a big advantage. The trick is, don’t stop attacking in order to be defensive. This is a recipe for losing the fight.

Some people are simply deranged, and need to be put out of their misery before they harm someone else. You have to be enough of an amateur psychologist to recognize the difference. Take Osama bin Laden, for example. Today, he purportedly released another tape from his hidy-hole in Pakistan, that starts with a phrase that includes, “our enemies by virtue of religion…” The truly religious have no enemies. They love others as they love themselves, and God, presumably, loves us all. He is projecting his own demented hatred, and needs to be put down, as do others that kill and maim in the name of some value system.

In the coming years, there will be great struggles for the basic necessities of life all around the planet. We can extrapolate my commentary above to these future conflicts.

We can cooperate, have empathy, and share what we have while developing long-term solutions to our problems, or be unyielding, and in the process, destroy everything of value. And, it will be important to identify the incorrigible and demented societies, and deal with them harshly and quickly, should they take advantage of the generosity and kindness of others.

I have been watching with vast amusement, the little war going on between Jim Cramer (Mad Money), CNBC, and Jon Stewart at Comedy Central. Now, granted that the ‘Daily Show’ is a thinly disguised vehicle for heavy pot-smokers and the liberal left, it does have its moments.

And, I have to admit that in spite of Cramer’s bias for encouraging speculation in stocks, I have bought one of his books, and it does include a few pearls of wisdom. However, it seems that the security of his show leaves something to be desired; apparently there seems to be a correlation between advance buying of the stocks he recommends (up to a week) and the show segment wherein he makes his recommendations.

So, this leads me to offer a little tutorial for new or unsophisticated investors on what they are really about to engage in.

First of all, it is important to understand the BIG difference between being an ‘Investor’ and being a ‘Speculator’. An investor is someone that funds, directly, the startup or ongoing operations of a company. The money goes into the company’s working capital account. A tier one speculator is an outsider that buys the company’s stock --underwriter's syndication stock offered to clients prior to the IPO (Initial Public Offering ) being freely traded, and a tier two speculator is someone that buys a stock after the IPO (the vast majority of the so-called ‘investing’ public, who buys from the stock holdings of the IPO speculators).

Now, there is NO DIFFERENCE between being a gambler and being a stock speculator. You are simply betting on the future prospects of a company as opposed to betting on a roulette wheel, slot machine, or a deck of cards. While the odds of traditional games of chance are usually biased heavily in favor of the house, the odds in the stock market are variable, based on the level of accurate and TIMELY information held by the various buyers and sellers of stocks.

The strategy is simple: Sell to the last fool willing to buy ( hopefully at a profit), and avoid being the last fool to buy.

I don’t mean to imply that you shouldn’t play the game. Everything in life is a game of chance, and if you are properly informed, and act at the proper moment, you can succeed. But much depends on your time horizon; that is, when you will ultimately need to cash out. If you are a retiree, you have little time remaining in your horizon. You can’t afford to wait, say, ten years, for a ‘down’ stock to recover to a level where you can sell without a loss. If you are young, and have many years until retirement, you can afford to wait.

But, all of this also depends on market breadth or ‘Liquidity’. If no one is there to buy your stock, it can’t be sold, regardless of its ‘Valuation’. So, it is far riskier to buy a stock that has few shares traded on a daily basis, than one that has millions of shares traded on that same day.

And lastly, to have the best possibility of making money in the stock market, you must invest directly in a company than plans to take its stock public in the near future, or you must buy subscription stock for the IPO from the stock’s underwriter, usually an investment bank such as Goldman Sachs, or a major brokerage (market-maker) such as Morgan Stanley.

You cannot buy into an IPO with an on-line trading account such as TD Ameritrade or E-Trade. These are companies serving tier two stock speculators only. There; I hope I brought everything about the stock market into focus for you.

In the Amazon Rainforest lives an unusual tarantula that makes its home in the forest canopy. The thing that got my attention was its amazing ability to tread water.

This little beastie is uniquely adapted to the seasonal flooding that occurs in the rainforest by its ability to leap from a tree trunk or leaf to the surface of the water and paddle about happily, looking for food or sex. Ordinary tarantulas of similar size would sink and drown almost immediately. Examine the photo below to see this amazing adaptation. The photo was taken by the owner of the weblog, Walking the Amazon, and you should stop and visit this very interesting blog. See it at:Walking the Amazon



Note the bristles of hair all over its body. These take advantage of the surface tension of the flood water to maintain the spider’s buoyancy. This got me to thinking about the unfortunate boating accident involving some NFL Football players that were fishing in a small boat off of the coast of Florida. Of the four people involved, only one survived, and all were wearing life preservers. Setting aside the possibility of shark attacks, it seemed to me to be unusual that search parties could find no sign of the missing men, including their life jackets.

Maybe the technology needs to be updated. In fact, I had a wild idea for not only new tech life jackets, but also swimwear for snorkelers and folks that can’t swim. My idea is simply to mimic the spider’s adaptation by fabricating a material that incorporates a multiplicity of tiny, long polymer ‘hairs’ all over the material’s surface.

Made of hydrophobic polyethylene oxide molecules, these hairs, if long enough could support even the heaviest person for a very long time, perhaps indefinitely.

If a non-swimmer wore a body suit with this material, he or she could paddle about without a worry, and snorkelers could drift about as oceanic tourists without fear of drowning from exhaustion. I see only two drawbacks to this idea. First, is that to a hungry shark below, you might look like a more appetizing morsel. The other is that on the beach, the wearer would look a lot like Bigfoot, and draw a huge crowd of Crypto-zoologist crazies, or maybe get shot by a trigger-happy redneck.

Well, I offer this idea free to the entrepreneurs out there that want to make a buck from my feeble brain.