Who is John Galt?

I am going to postpone the series on the fourth dimension for one more day because I would like to talk about the book I just finished, Atlas Shrugged. I mentioned this briefly when I talked about some of Ayn Rand’s philosophies; today I would like to review the book (don’t worry, I won’t give away any plot details). 

The first thing people notice about Atlas Shrugged is that it is very, very long. And they’re right: the copy I read was 1,100+ pages, but the font was so small it probably comes out to about double that (I think my eyes are much worse after having read it). Unfortunately the length is complimented by the fact that there are huge sections that are almost unbearably boring, particularly in the first half of the novel. Atlas Shrugged is not light reading by any means, but that does not mean it is lacking in suspense—there are a multitude of scenes that are very captivating, it's just that most of them reside near the end of the novel, making the beginning boring.

Throughout the novel Rand lectures the reader, which some think detracts from the entertainment value of the book. To some extent this is true—her constant lecturing can be a bit annoying, but Rand’s ideas are the purpose of the novel in the first place, and I think the not-so-subliminal messages make it interesting. However, this message can get very repetitive, and the fact that the whole book is built around Rand’s philosophy does detract from both its entertainment value and its ability to be believed. At one point, just before the novel’s closing, one of characters launches into a 50-page lecture; this is the read “meat and potatoes” of the book, though it is incredibly boring as well. Almost all the characters are caricatures; they are either Rand’s heroes or her villains, either clearly “good” or clearly “evil.” As the novel progresses this becomes even more and more apparent; near the end of the novel the villains have become so pronounced that the plot just about lost whatever was left of its realism. Even in the names of Rand's villains is this obvious: the controller of the economy is Wesley Mouch, whose name is a clear reference to "mooch." Likewise, the President is Mr. Thompson, a reference to the machine gun commonly used by 1920's mobsters. Indeed, there are far too many characters, especially considering they can all be grouped into two factions. Also, the fact that some of the characters are introduced and then forgotten can become extremely annoying, as does the fact that the novel’s real main character is not introduced until the book is two-thirds over.

Of course, it is a must-read for anyone who fashions themselves an Objectivist or is interested in the works of Ayn Rand. The philosophy behind it is very interesting—even though I abhor Objectivism I found the concepts discussed very thought-provoking. Along with The Fountainhead and perhaps Anthem, Atlas Shrugged effectively describes the Objectivist philosophy and its applications. The Fountainhead uses Howard Roark to describe what Rand’s idea of a “prime mover” is; Atlas Shrugged shows how much the world needs Rand’s prime movers and what happens without them.  

My final word is this: read it if you feel you are up to the challenge. Atlas Shrugged is the kind of book that keeps you from reading anything else at the same time, due to the multitude of characters and plot details to remember. Also, I strongly recommend that anyone who reads it keep an open mind while doing so. After about 500 pages or so, what Rand is preaching suddenly begins to make more and more sense, mostly likely because by that point you have heard it over and over and have been reading about a fictional world in which it does work (I suspect that this is why the book is so long in the first place). Always think about what Rand has to say, do not treat it as gospel.  

I realize I never answer the question I asked in the title of today’s post, “Who is John Galt?” I’m not going to answer it entirely, as it would give away some plot details. I will simply say this: the phrase is an integral part of the novel, and each time you hear it it will mean something slightly different. 

Gaza: it’s not over yet

I would like to postpone the series on the fourth dimension for one more day, in light of a piece of world news I would like to talk about. The article in question can be found here.

What does this mean? Simply that a ceasefire is far from a permanent truce. I suppose we knew that already—the Gaza crisis that just ended was a result of the previous ceasefire expiring. But I for one did not expect violence to erupt just yet; I figured it would be another few months at least until something happened.

The article also mentions the fact that George Mitchell will be traveling to Israel soon. However, I think that this is pretty inconsequential; though the US and Israel are allies, I doubt we will be able to negotiate a truce. The tumultuous relations between Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank will continue as always, and there is little we can do about it. I will repeat what I have said before: the UN needs to act, and swiftly. Though Secretary General Ban-Ki Moon (below and left) called for a ceasefire as soon as the conflict started, he did little but talk throughout the whole affair. The UN has committed troops to Africa, Asia, and other areas of Middle East in peacekeeping operations—why is this one exempt? Unless the UN demonstrates that it has the weight of the world behind it, it is never going to accomplish anything. 

Why does the conflict continue to escalate? According to a few New York Times articles I read recently, it has to do with the mindset of the people in the region. Both the Israelis and Palestinians are adverse to any kind of compromise, especially one that involves monetary repayment or a gift on land. Both sides want the opposing government to make concessions, but do not want their own government to apologize for anything. Also, to the surprise of many Americans, Hamas has a huge amount of support from Gazans, even those who admit the organization’s military wing has the most influence. The reason is simple: they want someone to exactly what Hamas is doing. The same goes for the average Israeli—the air strikes and invasions of Gaza have had huge popular support. We often believe that it is the governments in the region that are the root of the problem, but this is only half of the truth. Though I still believe that Hamas can be “cleaned up,” such a task would not have the popular support of many Gazans, which would make the process more difficult.

We must remember that this is a place where the usual “rules of war” do not faze either side a bit. Israel must present a dignified and civilized image to the Western world, and Hamas must to the same to some extent—but they are locked in a desperate stuggle against each other where almost anything goes. I doubt the Israeli army had any moral qualms about using white phosphorous; their main concern was probably that the rest of the world would find out and accuse them of war crimes.

Sadly, it appears that the Gaza crisis will continue to flare up without warning for many years to come, barring a huge change in the status quo. We can only hope that sooner or later both governments will come to the realization that neither of them can truly win this battle and make concessions. In the meantime, as I said before, all we can do is watch and wait.   

World news flash 1/26/09

I would like to take a day off from the fourth dimension to discuss a few current events. The series will continue tomorrow.

First, as those who follow world news already know, the Tamil Tigers have been mostly defeated. No, I’m not talking about a sports team—the Tamil Tigers (right) are Sri Lankan rebels who have been fighting the government for more than 20 years. They are fighting a “freedom struggle” against the government for an independent homeland in the north and east; the Tamils are predominantly Hindu and Catholic, while the rest of Sri Lanka is mostly Buddhist. However, the Sri Lankan army has captured many of their key strongholds over the past few months—last Sunday, their last base was destroyed. However, the Tigers have just released a statement that they are by no means defeated and they will continue fighting. They have also refuted claims their leader, Velupillai Prabhakaran, has not left the country. I think that the recent events are going to be a setback for the Tigers, but I doubt this is the end of the movement. Are the Tigers in the right? Yes and no. Some of their methods are horrifying, like suicide bombs and the bombardment of innocent civilians. But the Sri Lankan government has clearly not treated the Tamils fairly. All in all situation would be best resolved by UN intervention, but since this is an unrealistic goal the Tamil movement is not entirely unjust.

Next, I would like to cover the first few days of the Obama administration. These first few days have been surprisingly eventful, from the bill to close Guantanamo to allowing federal funding to go to abortion agencies to his statement on oil independence. I am not surprised at any of these actions, but I must admit I am amazed at how quickly he was able to get these to pass. The Guantanamo decision, which is the most controversial, is actually the one that will affect us the least. Though the bill was signed a few days ago, the prison will not close for another year at least. Even then, many inmates will be transferred to other prisons. As for the decision to allow federal funding to go to abortion agencies…I am not surprised that Christian activist groups exploded at this, but I am glad Finally, I found Obama’s statements on oil independence to be very intriguing. Oil independence is a very desirable goal, but I don’t think it is not one he can achieve during his presidency. Though he preaches a “clean energy economy,” there is only so much he can do in 4 or even 8 years, and oil independence is an enormous task that will take much time and effort.

Finally, I would like to talk about Iceland. Today their leading political coalition announced that it is basically collapsing under the economic strain. However, the ruling conservative party will not allow one of their opposition parties, the Social Democrats, to run the government; it is likely that they will simply find other conservative officials to replace the ones resigning from key positions. Also, it is likely that Iceland will apply to join the EU within a year. Though this has little significance in the big picture, it is frightening that the global downturn can have such powerful negative effects on a country like Iceland, whose economy has been booming for the past decade. 

From Flatland to the fourth dimension (part 5)

I find it extremely amusing that this series, which is now tied with the “law and order” series for the most posts, is about math. I am by no means a math-oriented person. However, as I have said before I find this topic fascinating, and for that reason I feel it deserves this many posts. But I’m digressing. The point is: today’s post will cover the following in topics in four dimensions: water and islands. If you have not read posts 2, 3, and 4 in this series, please do so before reading this one.

First, water. In all dimensions water fills up its container, but the nature of the container is obviously dependent on the number of dimensions. In two dimensions, in order to create a water-tight container the vessel’s surface is a line and the “seal” is two points. In three dimensions, a water-tight container’s surface is a plane (like the surface of a bowl) and the “seal” is a line (imagine saran-wrap or tinfoil stretched over a bowl). In four dimensions, the container’s surface must be 3D and the seal a plane, since the water has so many directions to escape. This is difficult if not impossible to visualize, but try to picture it. Along with this is the concept of surface area: in 2D surfaces are lines, in 3D they are planes, and the 4D they are three-dimensional. This is almost certainly impossible for us to visualize, but think about it like this: imagine a warped sphere, full of curves and indents…this what a body of water in zero-g in 3D would look like. But in four dimensions this is only the surface of the water…the rest of the water is sloshing about in the other perpendicular directions. And, if the water surface is not four-dimensionally flat, we wouldn’t even be able to see all of the surface (this is really hard to visualize—try to use the 3D-2D analogy).

Along with the concept of water go the concepts of river and bridges. In two dimensions, a river moves from higher elevation to lower elevation, but it covers the entire ground surface and cannot be crossed with a bridge (unless the bridge spans the entire length of the river). In three dimensions, rivers still move from higher elevations to lower ones, but they and they zigzag depending on the terrain. A 3D river can be crossed with a bridge. In four dimensions, a river is very similar, but there are two key differences: a river in 4D would corkscrew, and there is no need for a bridge—one could simple walk around a river.

Related to rivers is the idea of lakes. In 2D, there is only one kind of lake. In 3D, though, there are two kinds: linear and round. The surface of a linear lake, as the name implies, is thinner, like a river, but a round lake is more circular. In 4D, there are three kinds of lakes, linear, flat, and globular. The surface of a linear lake is like a cylinder; the surface of a flat lake is flat, and a globular lake has a spherical surface.

Next, and somewhat related to water, is the concept of 4D islands. First, though, let’s look at an island in two and three dimensions. In 2D, the surface of an island is a line; to “search” all of it, one must simply move from one end to another. In three dimension, land surface is a plane. To search a 3D island, one must move in a 2D grid to cover all the land area. Like the surface of water in four dimensions, the surface of land is three-dimensional. To search this surface, one must move in a 3D grid along 3 axes.

The series on the fourth dimension will continue, unless for some reason I grow bored with it all of a sudden. 

From Flatland to the fourth dimension (part 4)

For the past two days I have been talking about the fourth spatial dimension and its implications. Today, the series continues with four-dimensional levitation, rotation, rolling, and truncation. If you have not read parts 2 and 3 of this series I strongly recommend doing so, and reading part 1 wouldn’t hurt either. Otherwise, today’s post is probably going to be very confusing. 

In part 3 of this series, I explained how a four-dimensional being could touch any part of a 3D object, even the inside. Today’s first topic, levitation, is related to this. In three dimensions, it is possible to attach a 2D plane, like piece of paper, to a wall with a nail. Consider hanging up a 2D of a square: the square would rest on the 3D nail, which would perpendicular to it. Now, imagine the same thing in four dimensions with a “tetranail.” To us, the cube would be suspended in the air, held by this “tetranail,” which we would see only as a hovering sphere. 

Next, I would like to discuss the rotation of 3D objects in four dimensions. Before I get to this, though, I would like to explain rotation of 2D objects in three dimensions. The key here is that an object of n-1 dimensions is being rotated in n dimensions on an n-2 axis. Consider a basic example: a square is rotated on its axis around one of its sides. This means it must be rotated out of its plane, which is different from just spinning in inside of its 2D plane. The latter means that the square is being rotated around a point; the former means it is being rotated around a line. To the “Flatland” observer, all but one line of the square disappears when the square is rotated out of the plane; when the rest of it returns, it appears to be reversed in such a way that spinning it will not turn it back to the way it was. (For example: if the letter “f” were imprinted on the inside of the square, after it is rotated the “f” would be backwards.) All this means that the four-dimensional equivalent would involve rotating a cube around one of its planar sides. The rest of it would disappear, and then re-appear on the other side of the cube. If letters were imprinted on the sides, they would be backwards. This is difficult to imagine—it would appear that it would be necessary to break the cube for it to do this, but this is not true. What we cannot see is that while the rest of the cube is “disappeared,” what it is actually doing is rotating around the remaining side on the 4D perpendicular axis.

I would also like to discuss 4D rolling rotation. Imagine a ball resting on top of a frictionless book. The book can be moved sideways in 4 directions, making the ball appear to “roll” on top of it. There are 4 perpendicular directions for it to roll. In four dimensions, though, the book would have a 3D surface, and the ball would be a glome (4D sphere). The ball now has six perpendicular dimensions to roll in—for comparison, recall that our 3D world only has 6 perpendicular directions! However, it is interesting to note that the area where the glome touches the book is still a point. (In 2D, a circle contacts with other objects at one point, and the same happens in 3D with spheres. So the same must occur in four dimensions.) Also, a 3D ball can roll in a circle, but a 4D ball has 3 possible circles to make. 

Next, I would like to talk about truncation in four dimensions. Truncation, or cutting off the corners of an object, is a simple geometrical procedure. In four dimensions, though, it has some interesting implications. In 3D, when a cube’s corner is cut off it leaves a triangle. In four dimensions, when the corner of a hybercube is cut off, it leaves…a tetrahedron. I find this incredibly mind-boggling, imagining the corner of an object to be a three dimensional shape (as if a hypercube wasn’t hard enough to visualize already!). In reality it is no different than what a hypercube’s side is normally, but I think this is an interesting way to look at it.

Tomorrow the series on the fourth dimension will continue. 

From Flatland to the fourth dimension (part 3)

Last time, I explained the concept of the fourth spatial dimension and a few applications of it. Today, I would like to discuss more of what the fourth dimension would be like. I advise against reading today’s post without reading yesterdays, and reading part 1 of this series is also advisable, though not as necessary.

Yesterday I explained how we can deduce certain aspects of the fourth dimension by analogy. This is precisely what I would like to do today: explore what it would be like to experience four dimensions by looking at what it be like to experience three after living in two.

I would first like to talk about four-dimensional beings. A four-dimensional being would obviously be in the shape of a 4D figure, and it would be able to move in all 8 perpendicular directions, at least in zero gravity (like the way we can move in all 6 directions in zero-g). This obviously hints at the structure of a 4D being—it must have at least 4 legs to be stable (humans are not stable—we would need 3 legs in a tripod). But, like human beings, it is possible to get away with less—but I doubt a 4D being could have less than 3 because there are now more directions to “fall” (fall over, that is). Also, a 4D being’s line of sight would be a cube. This is because a 2D being’s is a line (recall the explanation of how “Flatlanders” see in part 1 of this series) and human beings see 2-dimensionally. However, because we have depth perception we can distinguish 3D objects. But our field of view is still a plane—our vision is akin to a photograph; everything is reduced to a 2D image. Thus, a 4D being would see in terms of a cube; a 4D photograph would be three-dimensional. At first this sounds normal enough, but consider the implications: 2D vision grants us the ability to see all the sides and the inside of an opaque square at the same time—a 4D being would be able to see all the sides, and the inside, of an opaque cube at the same time. Therefore, from the correct vantage point, a four-dimensional being could look at a human and see every inch of his skin as well as the inside and outside of all of his organs.

Next, consider what happens when four-dimensional beings or objects interact with our three-dimensional plane. This, too, can be done by analogy. In Flatland, the three-dimensional character reaches in and touches the insides of a two-dimensional character; this is the equivalent of touching the inside of a square drawn on a piece of paper. A 4D beings would have similar powers, and would be able to reach inside of sealed 3D objects or beings.

Also, consider what happens when a 4D object is passed though our 3D plane. This, too, can be explained by using an analogy from Flatland. When a square passes through a two-dimensional plane, a 2D observer sees a line appear and then later disappear. The observer can only perceive only one “square” at time (think back to when I described a cube as a stack of paper squares). Likewise, when a sphere is passed through a 2D plane an observer would see a line appear, grow in size, and then shrink and disappear. (Again, think back to part 2.) Similarly, if a hypercube is passed through our 3D plane we would see a cube appear and then disappear, since we can only see one cube at a time. If a glome (4D sphere) was passed through our 3D plane, we would see a sphere appear and grow in size and then shrink back down to nothing again. This is a bit harder to visualize, but it is essentially the same: the glome is made up of an infinite number of spheres, but we can see only one at a time because of the way they are stacked. 

I would also like to talk about geometrical nets. A net is a shape of n-1 dimensions that can be folded into an object of n dimensions. The net of a cube, for example, is 6 squares in the shape of a cross; these can be folded into a box. Interestingly, the net of a hypercube is 8 cubes arranged into a 3D cross: 4 cubes are stacked vertically, and the other 4 are attached to the other 4 exposed sides of the cube second from the top. The nets of other 4D figures are also 3D figures. However, though we can make the nets, we cannot fold them, since they must utilize the four-dimensional 8 perpendicular directions in order to fold. Note that once folded, one cube of the net of a hypercube remains in our 3D plane; the others will appear to have simply vanished because they are outside of our plane. In an amusing short story by Robert A. Heinlein, an architect builds a building that is the net of a hypercube, and an earthquake causes the building to fold into the 4D shape. This is impossible, of course, but the concept is clever.

Tomorrow, I will cover even more aspects of the fourth dimension as extrapolated by analogy. 

From Flatland to the fourth dimension (part 2)

Before I begin, a quick word on inauguration day: All I can say is that I am proud to be here during this historic event. We should rejoice at the changing of the guard in US politics and at the fact that Obama’s victory represents a step in the right direction for race relations. I already talked about my predictions in “In 103 days…” and I hope that what I talked about will really come to pass.

Now, to business: yesterday I briefly mentioned the mathematical concept of the fourth dimension while discussing Edwin Abbot Abbot’s Flatland. Today, I would like to devote an entire post to this intriguing mathematical topic.

First, let me make one thing clear: I am discussing the fourth spatial dimension; today, the layman uses the term “fourth dimension” to describe time, in accordance with Einstein’s idea of “space-time.” But here I am using the term in reference to the hypothetical next spatial dimension, as I shall explain.

The best way to explain the fourth dimension is by progression and analogy. First, consider a line, which has one dimension. It has two perpendicular directions, north and south (also known as length). Now, “drag” the line in a direction perpendicular two the existing two directions, like rolling a pencil covered in paint across a table. The result is a square, with two dimensions. The second dimension has four perpendicular dimensions: north, south, east, and west (also known as length and width). Now, drag the square in a direction perpendicular to the existing four (imagine lifting a paper square with string attached to the corners straight up off a table). The result is a cube, with three dimensions. The third dimension (the one we live in) has six perpendicular directions: north, south, east, west, up, and down (also known as length, width, and depth). Now, this is where it gets tricky: move the cube in a direction perpendicular to all 6 directions. The result is a shape with 8 perpendicular directions and four dimensions. This fourth dimension is to us what the third is to second; imagine how a box differs from a piece of paper and you will get an idea of what the fourth dimension is to us. Can’t imagine it? Don’t worry: it’s technically impossible to fully visualize it. But don’t give up yet—using analogies, we can figure out many aspects of the fourth dimension.

By moving a square out of our three-dimensional “plane,” a figure called a hypercube is created. As I stated previously, this object is the 4D equivalent of a square of cube. I would like to discuss some of the properties of this shape by analogy. For example: a line has 2 vertices, a square has 4, and a cube has 8, so a hypercube must have 16. A line has 2 sides (which are its vertices), a square has 4, and a cube has 6, so a hypercube must have 8. But remember that a square’s sides are lines, and a cube’s sides are squares, so a hypercube’s sides must be three-dimensional cubes. Confused? Remember that the fourth dimension has 8 perpendicular directions. Think about how a cube can be created by stacking square pieces of paper on top of each other; likewise, a hypercube is essentially an infinite number of stacked cubes, placed on top of each other on the new perpendicular axis. Still having trouble? Look at the figure to the top right; this is a drawing of a hypercube. Can you see the 8 cubes? If not, try looking at the figure below to the left and try to see the 8 cubes there, then look back at the other one. See how they are the same picture only projected differently? (Some of the cubes are “slanted” because of perspective, like the squares in a drawing of a cube. As you can see there is actually more than one way to draw a hypercube—read this But I prefer the one to the right because it shows the extrusion into the fourth dimension.)

A 4D sphere, called a glome, can be explained in a similar way. A 3D sphere is a infinite number of circles of increasing-then-decreasing size stacked on top of each other. (Try to imagine making a sphere out of a stack of pieces of paper. How would you cut the paper? The answer is into circles of increasing-then-decreasing size.) Likewise, a glome is made out of spheres stacked in increasing-then-decreasing size. Like the hypercube, these sphere are stacked in the new perpendicular direction.

Geometry-minded people’s brains are probably going crazy with all the applications of this idea. Personally I am not particularly interested in geometry, but I would like to elaborate just a little on 4D geometry. For example, look at a triangle, the simplest polygon it is possible to create. In three dimensions, the closest equivalent is a tetrahedron, a polyhedron with four sides made of triangles. Thus, the 4D equivalent is a pentachoron, a 4D figure with 5 sides made of tetrahedrons (a polychoron is the word for a 4D shape, like polygon or polyhedron). Also, similar to how regular polyhedrons exist in 3D, regular polychora exist in 4D. However, geometry is not really my area and I am not entirely sure about all the properties of these figures. Perhaps another day I will explain more about them.

If the concept of the fourth dimension still isn’t making sense, I recommend perusing this website—it’s very helpful.

Tomorrow I will look into more aspects of the fourth dimension.

From Flatland to the fourth dimension (part 1)

Today I would like to talk about Edwin Abbot Abbot’s famous 1884 science-fiction novel Flatland. This book is renowned for its criticism of Victorian society as well as for its explanation of abstract geometrical theories.

The setting of Flatland is a two-dimensional world in which all of the “people” are geometric shapes moving around in a plane. The first half of the story explains the nature of Flatland and its society; the second half focuses on the main character’s encounter with a sphere.

Abbot begins with an explanation of what Flatland actually is. I will take a moment to do so as well, since it is very important to the story and to the points I am trying to make. Flatland is a two-dimensional plane, like a piece of paper. The inhabitants are two-dimensional polygons that move about the plane; they have no concept of the third dimension. A Flatlander can move in four perpendicular directions (north, south, east, west) and its field of vision is a line. No part of a Flatlander is three-dimensional; for example, a Flatlander’s “face” is not on its surface but on one of its sides.

Confused? Here’s a demonstration that will help: Put several coins on a table or desk and then bend down next to it so your eyes are level with the surface. See how the coins look like lines? This is how a two-dimensional being sees. Move the coins around a bit and try to visualize them as living beings, thinking about what they biological structure would have to be. (This is actually how Abbot explains it.)

The plot of Flatland is very simple; in the first half, Abbot explains what Flatland is (like I just did) and how its society functions. The second half is considerably more interesting; a Sphere visits the main character, A. Square, and tries to explain the idea of three dimensions to him. The Sphere first attempts to do so with words, notably with the phrase “Upward, not Northward” but A. Square simply cannot understand. To demonstrate, the Sphere pokes A. Square in his intestines, which he can reach by putting his finger into the Square insides from “above” (three dimensional above). However, A Square is still not convinced, so the Sphere knocks him out of his plane and drags him about outside of Flatland.

The duo then visit other societies that are defined by dimensionality: they first visit Lineland, in which the inhabitants are forever stuck next to the same people because they are in a line (one dimension). Next, they look at Pointland, which is inhabited by a single dimensionless being. Communication with it is impossible because the being is a solipsist; it believes everything it hears is its own thoughts, since it cannot move, see, or feel. A. Square then suggests that there could be more than three dimensions, since until recently he only knew of two. The Sphere dismisses this as nonsense, and sends A Square back to Flatland. A. Square later tries to teach others about the third dimension, but without the sphere he is incapable of doing so. Since he cannot show his peers the direction of “Upward, not Northward,” he is thrown in jail for heresy.

Flatland clearly satires Victorian society: Abbot goes into detail explaining a class system based around shape. The few sides a “person” has, the lower their rank; triangles are working class and are considered non-intelligent; polygons with many sides are priests or leaders. The king is a polygon with so many sides he is almost indistinguishable from a circle. Certain shapes can “evolve”—all shapes except triangles gain a side each generation, increasing their rank. The lower class triangles do not share this attribute; they are forced to first become equilateral triangles. However, they only progress at a rate of half a degree per generation—this obviously signifies the perpetual enslavement of the working class by the Victorian elites. Women in Flatland are straight lines, and they are forced to move in such a way that they constantly swing back and forth so they can be seen (remember that looking at a straight line in a certain way makes it look like a point, which is hard to see). This is also a parody of Victorian women, who were also “invisible” unless they made their presence known. Colors are banned in Flatland society, since lower classes could paint themselves to look like higher-class shapes.

But Flatland is better known for its explanation of dimensional theories of geometry. Abbot explains the theory of the fourth spatial dimension by analogy in the story, and certain plot events are actually methods for “studying” the fourth spatial dimension. Tomorrow, I will delve deeply into what the fourth spatial dimension actually is, some applications of it, and how it relates to Flatland. 

Gaza ceasefire: nothing gained

It appears the fighting in Gaza has subsided. Israel declared a ceasefire yesterday and has announced that they will be removing troops from Gaza. Today Hamas stated that they have agreed to the ceasefire and look forward to seeing the Israeli army out of Gaza. But the damage done speaks for itself: over the past few weeks, over 1,300 Palestinians have been killed, thousands more have been injured, many been driven from their homes and Gaza’s food supply and utilities have been crippled. And what has been achieved? Almost nothing. Hamas remains in control, and I doubt they are on any better terms with Israel than they were a month ago. Their military wing remains enormous, and they are still firing rockets at Israel on occasion.

So, where do we go from here? I don’t know. But I think there are many things we can learn from this brief crisis in Gaza. 

Firstly, this Gaza crisis reminds us of how turbulent the situation there really is. This is probably evident to people in Israel and Gaza, but to the rest of us sheltered in the Western world we do not hear much about it. This especially reminds us that a ceasefire is not a peace treaty or a time of peace; the Israeli attacks were prompted by Hamas attacks and tension that arose when the previous ceasefire ended. From this I gather that unless the UN or surrounding countries can make the current ceasefire last longer and be more legitimate war may well start again. 

Also, the crisis reminded us of how many Palestinians stand firmly behind Hamas and its militant wing. Many Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank called for another intifada (which fortunately did not happen). Others stood strongly behind Hamas even after admitting that Hamas was mostly responsible for starting the violence.

Next, I would like to address the issue of white phosphorous gas. Many Palestinian news stations accused Israel of using this deadly gas, the use of which against populated areas has been outlawed by the UN and the Geneva Convention. Did they use it? I think the answer is yes. A later UN investigation clearly shows evidence of some of these WP bombs being used. (The picture on the left is one such piece of evidence.) So what does this mean? For the most part, it simply reinforces the message that Israel is not afraid to get its hands dirty. I am surprised and worried to hear that they even have WP weapons in the first place. I hope that should this conflict begin again Israel will refrain from using these weapons, but I am not optimistic about this. There is little we can do to prevent this, though, as the neither the UN nor humanitarian groups have been able to influence Israeli military policy thus far. 

I still believe that Hamas can be cleaned up and made more legitimate, as I discussed in “How to handle Hamas,” but I realize that is probably never going to happen because no one is going to step up and do it. Israel can’t—Hamas will physically fight them every step of the way. The UN can’t—they are far too weak to put such a program together. The US can’t—we have our own problems right now. So Israel’s goal of destroying them entirely is much more realistic. But is it the right course of action? I am not entirely sure. One thing is sure, though: we won’t be hearing the end of Gaza anytime soon. I have no doubt that the violence will continue, certainly before the year comes to a close. All we can do is watch, wait, and hope for the best.

Tomorrow I will begin a series that I hope you will find interesting.  

In 103 days…

In three days, President-elect Barack Obama will be inaugurated. This means that in 103 days we will have reached the 100^th day of his Presidency. Why am I bringing this up? Very simple: a lot can happen in one hundred days. The example I’m thinking of is FDR: in one hundred days he got the New Deal going and was already in the process of pulling the country back together.

Today, I would like to address two issues: first, I would like to offer a brief prediction of what the world will look like in 103 days, and I would like to amend some of the things I said in a previous post, “Beyond FDR.”

First, predictions. The economy will probably be about the same; many economists are predicting that we won’t see any kind of turnaround until late 2009 or 2010 at the earliest. But will we lapse into depression? Probably not, but certainly not in 103 days. I suspect Obama’s huge stimulus plan will have passed by then, but it will still be too early to see the effects. The world will have fallen even deeper into recession, following the US trend. No major wars or conflicts will have developed, barring a major catastrophe. Obama’s foreign policy will look good but probably will not have the chance to try and prove itself just yet. However, I do think there will be one noticeable change in the American people: optimism. Obama will continue to look good in his first hundred days, and the media will continue to portray him as a strong, competent leader. Because of this, he will look like the leader most Americans want, and he will imbue us with a strong sense of hope and pride. Why such an optimistic prediction? Read on:

In my previous post, I stated that the media is too politically charged to allow a politician to be great. Though I still believe that the media does make it harder for a person to achieve true greatness, there are times when the media actually facilitates this, FDR was one of these people who was helped by the media—today, I think Barack Obama is another. The “liberal media” has always supported him, but even now conservative pundits are commending him on a well-run campaign and a historic win. Are some people unhappy? Yes. But on the whole everyone admits that his election is monumental, and a victory for race relations in the US. As far as Obama’s presidency goes, I think the media will continue to support him as long as he does at least an average job—they have set him up for greatness, and in times like these people want to see a hero leading their country. Unless he does a terrible job in his first hundred days, the media will continue to stand behind him. Because of this, future generations will look back and see our negative media praising our 44^th President, and they will look upon him as a great leader. In summation: greatness is achievable, even today. Though it takes more media help than before, it is possible.

On a more humorous note: in three days, we can all go back to saying “nuclear” instead of “nucular.” (But it may take us 103 days to get used to it!) 

Hume’s guillotine

In one of his books, the philosopher David Hume explains that all religions state what “is” (whether God exists or not, the nature of man, etc) and then what “ought” to be (morality). But Hume asks, can we really derive an “ought” from an “is,” and if so how can it be explained logically? This famous query has since become known as the is-ought problem or Hume’s guillotine, and it is one of the central questions of ethical theory and meta-ethics. Because of its importance, I would like to talk about it today.

Hume himself thought that it is impossible to logically derive an “ought” from an “is.” Because of this, says Hume, there can be no moral knowledge of any kind. From this we can derive two moral theories: moral skepticism and non-cognitivism. The former, as its name implies, is the idea that moral beliefs are unknowable. The latter holds that moral statements are neither true nor false. Both make it impossible to derive any system of morality, and for this reason Hume believes that no objective morality can exist. 

But not everyone agrees, and many critics have given what they consider to be answer to the question or pointed out problems in the theory. I would like to discuss some of these as well:

John Searle, who I have talked about at length in my posts about the Turing Test and the Chinese Room, explains in a paper that the inherent nature of a thing can describe its purpose if this purpose is included in the definition. Many philosophers side with Searle, stating that there is no reason the “ought” cannot be described as part of the “is.”

Ayn Rand, who I have also spoken about previously, dismissed the problem entirely. She stated that an “objective” theory of morals is necessary therefore must exist. Man’s purpose, according to Miss Rand, is the rational pursuit of one’s self interest; this is the greatest form of Objectivist morality. To me, her logic seems a bit sketchy, but this is not really the purpose of today’s post, so I’ll move on.

The third and perhaps most important criticism comes from naturalism. Like Searle, naturalists see no problem with deriving an “ought” from an “is,” and they believe that “oughts” are necessary when describing beings in terms of their goals. For example: “A ought to do B to achieve C” makes B the morality. Also, naturalists hold that moral rules descend from evolutionary truths, such as monogamy from pair-bonding. Thus, morals are an extension of the instinct to survive.

What do I think? I am inclined to agree with Searle and the naturalists. In terms of some religions Hume is correct, but he is certainly not right in every case. Morals are indeed an extension of our survival instinct, or at least our ability to adapt to them is. However, the naturalists would have us believe that morals are always “efficient” because of this, but since human nature is so mutable I think this is not always true.  

What does this mean for us? Very little. It simply shows that we are very far from developing a concrete theory of morals. Of course, this should be no surprise, since we have not worked out a concrete theory of metaphysics or epistemology either. However, the is-ought problem is something to keep in mind when examining a religion or belief system, and even though I disagree with Hume’s conclusion I must admit he has created an interesting philosophical tool. 

Coal’s insidious influence

When we think about coal, we think about the bygone era when the sooty stuff was burned to heat our homes. We think of the first Industrial Revolution, of industrialists in top hats surveying strip mines. In other words: coal, in our minds, is not “modern”—it is a symbol of our past. But in reality, this is a myth. Big Coal is alive and well in the US, and it is even more powerful than Big Oil. Today, I would like to deconstruct our incorrect notions about coal, and explain why it plays far too big a part in the US’s energy future.

First, the raw facts: Coal generates 52.1% of electricity in the US. The US currently possesses 1,374 coal mines. In 2007 1,145,600,000 tons of coal were mined. Over 80,000 Americans are employed in the coal mining industry, and many times that number of people live near coal mines. More importantly: coal is not going anywhere anytime soon. US coal reserves stand at about 275 billion tons, which is more than any other nation in the world possesses. The EIA predicts that coal production will increase by 1.1 percent until at least 2030. Likewise, the amount of electricity produced by coal will increase.

Why is this a problem? Coal mining is dangerous, coal itself is a pollutant, and coal burning releases a variety of toxic gases into the air. Coal mining is one of the most dangerous industries in the US, resulting in a number of fatalities each year. Even worse, coal mines are a major source of pollution. Acid mine drainage and fine particulates are harmful to human health and the environment, and blasting mines ruins whole tracts of land. When coal is transported, it releases fine particulates that are hazardous to human heath. And when coal is burned, it gives off CO₂, SO₂ and other hazardous contaminants. Fortunately technologies such as CCS and IGCC are making coal-burning power plants cleaner by filtering out CO₂ and other pollutants. But overall the phrase “clean coal” is a myth because the whole process from start to finish is extremely dirty and dangerous.

So, how do we break away from this dirty energy source? The answer is alternative energy. So far, the US is lacking in terms of clean energy—today renewables only power 1% of our electricity. The other problem with alternative energy sources is that they require electricity to produce, and as I explained above most of this electricity comes from coal. But since many alternative energy sources achieve energy “payback” very quickly (10 to 22 months for photovoltaics!) they can more than make up for the coal used to create them. So if global warming, peak oil, and threats to national security weren’t already enough reasons for the US to pursue energy independence through alternative energy sources, coal certainly is. The sooner we act on this one, the better. I sincerely hope Obama realizes the seriousness of this problem and corrects it by supplanting coal with better, cleaner energy sources. 

On “Paths of Glory”

Yesterday I saw the 1957 Stanley Kubrick movie Paths of Glory. This film is a compelling drama centered around the court-martial of three French soldiers during WWI. I found the film fascinating and gripping, and I would like to discuss some of its themes here today.

I would first like to summarize the plot of the movie. The first half-hour was a bit slow, as it focused on introducing the characters. These include an egotistical General Mireau, a pragmatic Colonel Dax (Kirk Douglas) and several other military persons. After this, the drama begins to start. Pressured by the French army commanders, Mireau orders Colonel Dax to lead an obviously suicidal assault on a German position. The attack is a disaster, as the French are greatly outnumbered. Mireau, however, blames the attack on the cowardice of the French troops. Near the end of the attack, Mireau tries to order his artillery to fire on his own men in order to get them to move forward despite facing a fortified German trench. The artillery commander refuses, and the troops refuse to advance, causing the attack to fail. In order to “teach the men a lesson,” as well as clear himself of any blame, he orders a military court-martial, asking his lieutenants to select three men to be tried for cowardice. Three men are selected, but not for any legitimate reasons: one is picked by his lieutenant because the two argued the day before, another is chosen because he is a “social undesirable,” and the third is picked by lottery. The trial that follows is a farce, albeit a dramatic one. Despite the fact that Colonel Dax (who has been made defense lawyer) is able to prove all three men innocent, the court disagrees and decides to execute them. Dax, who is the only character not trying to save his reputation, tries to convince Mireau to call of the executions, but he is unsuccessful; the three soldiers are killed by firing squad in a dramatic climax. Dax then reveals that Mireau tried to fire on his own men during the attack; the French military commanders publicly shame Mireau and discharge him, and then offer Dax a promotion for his shrewdness. Dax refuses and gives an ending monologue of lament at the cruel nature of the world.

Now, I would like to discuss some of the social issues hinted at in the movie. Like all Stanley Kubrick films, Paths of Glory contains a multitude of social criticisms. Paths of Glory has been interpreted as an anti-war film, but Kubrick stated that this is not how he intended it. Clearly, the film speaks out against authoritarianism and militarism, as is evident in its portrayals of true “military men.” Mireau, for example, is portrayed as sadistic, greedy, and naïve—he believes he is a “true soldier,” who cares about his men and thinks his ideals are noble. However, he is also shown as cruel, inhuman, and violent—he famously declares, “If those little sweethearts won't face German bullets, they'll face French ones!” Similarly, another general states “one way to maintain discipline is to shoot a man now and then.”

The film also criticizes over-patriotism—Mireau and some of the other officers claim to be acting “for France” and committing atrocities with patriotism as the justification. Likewise, none of the “good” characters are patriotic, especially Colonel Dax—he makes several negative comments about patriotism at several points in the film.

The movie also criticizes human nature as a whole through Colonel Dax’s horrified reactions to the war. From start to finish, he is sickened by both the greed and cruelty of the officers and by the brutality of the war in general. Additionally, the movie shows how industrialized warfare is just as brutal as what preceded it—as one of the characters pointed out, the machine gun, the new weapon of the time, can “cut you up better than a bayonet” and kill even more people than primitive weapons.

Surprisingly, Kirk Douglas received a lot of negative publicity for this film since it criticized the French. Later on, though, people have come to recognize this as one of his best films. For Kubrick, this was the film that propelled him to stardom—it marked the end of his “B” movies, as even though it was unpopular it was regarded as a piece of fine filmmaking. After this, he went on to create masterpieces such as 2001 and A Clockwork Orange.

If I had to give Paths of Glory a grade, it would almost certainly be an A+. It was a highly effective drama that contained a powerful social message that rings true all throughout human history. The acting and the filmmaking is top-notch, and as a whole the film is very compelling. I strongly encourage you to watch it if you haven’t already. 

The end of the neocons?

I don’t have as much time as I would like today, so I am forced to keep this post short.

I just read this article on the BBC News about the how the US’s foreign policy is about to drastically change now that neoconservatives are no longer in power. So, the question I would like to pose is, is this a good thing for our nation in the years to come?

Most Americans would immediately answer yes. The aggressive foreign policy has become even more and more unpopular with Americans as the Bush years passed, and today Bush’s popularity is at an all-time low as a result of this. Neocon foreign policy does suffer on many levels: it focuses entirely too much on the Middle East, and it is often pigheaded in its single-minded approach. It almost always leans toward intervention, even in cases where it is clearly unjustified. Also, the influence of the religious right has caused neoconservative policies to view the world in a oversimplified way, grouping nations and peoples into the categories of “good” and “evil.”

But there are some advantages to an aggressive foreign policy, and a passive stance many be more undesirable than it seems at first. Remember that the UN is next to useless, as recent events have proven. The UN has failed to act on several humanitarian crises, and it is clear that though they are useful in negotiating alliances and agreements, they fail miserably when it comes to intervention. In some cases, intervention is the most desirable solution, and when long-standing conflicts erupt into war intervention is the only way to prevent atrocities. For example: many predict upcoming conflicts between India and Pakistan, and the Gaza/West Bank crisis is not going to solve itself. Also, the continuing search-and-destroy mission against Al-Queda is a result of neocon policies, and it has clearly done some good. My point is that in these instances, intervention is acceptable. Also, remember that in today’s global economy true neutrality is almost impossible. In its early history, the US implemented an isolationist policy, but this was abandoned because economics made war a necessity. Today, we are economically tied to a multitude of nations, making the situation even more complex.

However, I am neither advocating a neoconservative approach to foreign policy nor a passive one. I am suggesting that we use moderation—in the years to come, a combination of both types of policies is probably the best method. One thing is obvious: the global situation in the future is not going to be good, so we must approach each situation carefully. We cannot risk a radical or hasty foreign policy—if the US is to weather the coming storm, we must act cautiously and with extreme care.

But perhaps this whole discussion is irrelevant—as the article points out, neoconservativism has appeared and reappeared at various points over the past few decades. Either way, it is clear that the next four years at least will be largely free of neocon influence, and how the Obama administration handles foreign policy may determine how soon the neocons will return.

Now, an update on yesterday’s post: The idea that a device that can simulate a brain is different from a computer program is nothing new. In John Searle’s Minds, Brains, and Programs (the paper containing his famous Chinese Room proof), Searle explained the difference between the way a brain processes information and the way a computer program does. Searle explains that human beings are essentially “machines;” the fact that we are composed or organic matter is irrelevant. Thus, a machine with a brain can hypothetically constructed, and such a device could have consciousness like a brain. What is so revolutionary about Edelman’s work is that no one has been able to build such a device until now.

Beyond Turing-completeness

Today I read an article in the science magazine “Discover” about a new kind of computer called Darwin 7. The article was in the form of an interview with computer scientist Gerald Edelman. Edelman explains that in the biological world, there are obvious advantages to consciousness, particularly the higher-order consciousness human beings have. Conscious beings are able to adapt to different scenarios and learn, making them more adaptable. Therefore, says Eldelman, it would be advantageous to create computers that are based around a model of a brain rather than being programmed. Edelman and his colleagues have done just that: The device is called Darwin 7, and it is, as Edelman says, a computerized brain.

Before I discuss the implications of this it is important to explain the difference between a computer program and a BBD, or brain-based device (like Darwin 7). A computer program consists of a series of instructions typed in computer code. In my post on the Chinese Room, I explored John Searle’s proof that a computer program cannot truly have understanding because it has syntax but no semantics. But a BBD is very different—its “brain” is not encoded but instead is an physical object. It simulates the neurons of an organic brain in order to “think.” In other words, a BBD is not Turing-complete; it is something different entirely. Searle’s proof does not apply; a BBD is capable of true understanding and learning.

The latter has already been tested, says Edelman: Versions of Darwin 7 have been taught to perform various tasks, and the advantages of a machine that can learn are very clear. In one test, robots controlled by a BBD played soccer against robots controlled by an AI program. The BBDs won 5 games out of 5, since they were able to adapt to every situation, while the AI-controlled robots did not have conditionals for every scenario.

Furthermore, Edelman says that the future of BBDs is bright. Edelman and a colleague have created a BBD that is about as complex as a cat brain, and it is very close to what he calls a “conscious artifact.” This BBD is so complex that it runs continuously like a real brain (simpler BBDs only react when they receive input), but it lapses into a “rest state,” similar to the state people’s brains are in when they are not thinking of anything. The point it, sooner or later BBDs are going to surpass AI because of their ability to learn. 

In my mind, the concept of super-smart a BBD re-raises the question of computers in relation to the future of humanity. Science fiction sends us conflicting messages about how computers will affect our chances for survival as a race—some SF preaches an optimistic message, while other works warn us that computers will be our downfall. Today, though this fear is somewhat present in our culture, most computer scientists hold that there is nothing to fear from AI since they are simply a collection of conditionals. They still follow Searle’s Chinese Room, so they are incapable of though are therefore cannot consciously act to destroy humanity. But BBDs are different. Though I know little about the subject, it appears that BBDs are far more likely to “betray” humanity than a lifeless computer program. The more complex a BBD, it seems, the more intelligent it is and the more likely it is be irrational. Additionally, remember that BBDs are modeled after human brains—and human brains are not exactly the most efficient or rational thinking machines in existence; far from it. So, while I have few qualms with letting a computer program run the world, a BBD is a different matter. Before we use these new devices, we need a far better understanding of them. Hopefully BBDs will facilitate the study the brain, which in turn will allows to create better, more stable BBDs. For now, though, all they do is play soccer, so I am not worried just yet.

On a different note: I would like to end with an amusing hypothetical situation involving Turing-completeness. Recall that even analog computers are Turing-complete, since they can technically be programmed for every task. In a comic strip (link), Randal Monroe envisions a new kind of computer, which is technically Turing-complete. I find his idea both hilarious and fascinating, if somewhat impractical. Even funnier, it is a philosophical stance that technically cannot be disproven. So I guess we could be just a bunch of rocks. 

Objectivism in society

Before I begin: Today’s post is about Ayn Rand. For those offended by Rand or her beliefs, consider yourself warned.

Objectivism—a term which I will use today in reference to the philosophies of Ayn Rand—has never been overly popular, but its influence is surprising, especially considering how radical it is. Today I would like to discuss the reasons fort the unexpected significance of Rand’s beliefs.

Objectivism first began in the mind of Ayn Rand. It was unheard of until she published the now-famous novels Anthem, The Fountainhead, and later Atlas Shrugged. Since then, the philosophy has aroused suspicion, controversy, and criticism. But I’ll come to that later; first I would like to explain how this unusual idea caught on in the first place. The answer is quite simple: networking. Rand spread her philosophy through her books and through Objectivist groups and societies.

The first and perhaps most influential Objectivist group is “the Collective”, which consisted of Rand and her close friends. The group met to discuss Objectivist philosophy and politics. The name is ironic because Objectivism rejects any kind of collectivism; it was something of an inside joke among Rand’s followers. However, quite a few influential people rose out of this group, including Leonard Peikoff and Alan Greenspan. Today, Greenspan controls the Federal Reserve Board and is once of the most important economists in the world. Later on, other Objectivist movements were founded, spreading Rand’s works and her beliefs.

As these groups waxed in influence, critics began to accuse them of cultism. The Collective, in particular, came under fire, since Rand was known for excommunicating people from it. She also made sure she was in control of many of the organizations formed later, and many of her followers showed an uncanny amount of admiration for her.  This caused her critics to insultingly dub her the “guru” of Objectivism and call her followers “Randroids,” a portmanteau word combining “Rand” and “android.” This aspect of Objectivist groups also caused Rand’s critics to accuse her philosophy of being hypocritical, since people were supposedly following it blindly in the name of reason. Rand retorted that no Objectivist followed her blindly, but this is of course hard to prove. 

Objectivism has never been popular with academics and intellectuals. This is mainly because of its anti-intellectual spirit, but it is also because of Rand’s harsh and often unjustified criticism of many prominent philosophers. Though Rand cites John Locke, Aristotle, and Nietzsche as her inspiration, she dismissed David Hume’s is-ought problem with little explanation, and famously called Immanuel Kant “a monster.” Most of her critics hold that Rand was not as familiar with the history of philosophy as she claimed to be, and even some of her friends admitted that she had not read as much philosophy as she claimed to. Also, many of her political views came under fire—her conservative-sounding views on feminism seemed at odds with her pro-choice stance on abortion, and her hatred of taxation appeared to contradict her rejection of anarchy. Also, the left was infuriated at her repeated attacks on fiscal liberalism, while the right was aggravated by her repeated denunciations of Christianity. 

In the public sphere, though, she remains quite popular. Her three works of fiction are all regarded as modern classics, and her ideas are often quoted. Objectivist societies and still up and running, and many colleges in the US have Objectivist clubs or organizations.

Rand’s legacy has been carried on by Leonard Peikoff, her colleague and “intellectual heir”. A former member of the Collective, Peikoff wrote several Objectivist books including the famous “Objectivism: The philosophy of Ayn Rand,” which is a prominent Objectivist manifesto. In 1989, Peikoff denounced David Kelly, an Objectivist who began to deviate from Rand’s original beliefs and “correct her mistakes.” Peikoff insisted that Objectivism is a closed system that only follows Rand’s original ideas. Today, most Objectivist groups back Peikoff, but Kelly went on to found a few groups on his own, including the Atlas Society. Many critics of Objectivism in general pointed out that Peikoff was excommunicating Kelly, revealing how cult-like Objectivism actually is. Regardless, the fact remains that Rand’s legacy is still contested.

So, why are Rand’s ideas still so popular? I am not entirely sure, but I would say it is because they are so controversial and radical and because of her three acclaimed novels. This popularity is enough to keep the Objectivist organizations going, which distribute her works and spread her ideas even further. I doubt we will be forgetting about this controversial philosophy anytime soon, no matter how unpopular it may be.

And now, for your amusement, here is a direct quote from Rand herself about the influence of Kant, as printed in an Objectivist newsletter:

“Suppose you met a twisted, tormented young man and…discovered that he was brought up by a man-hating monster who worked systematically to paralyze his mind, destroy his self-confidence, obliterate his capacity for enjoyment and undercut his every attempt to escape…Western civilization is in that young man's position. The monster is Immanuel Kant.”

Drake’s Equation and the Great Filter

Astronomer and scientist Frank Drake devised what is now known as the Drake Equation to answer the question of how much extraterrestrial life exists in the universe. In this equation, Drake included a variety of factors that determine if detectable intelligent life can exist (click on image at right for exact explanation of variables). In 1961, Drake and his colleagues estimated the values of these factors, and their result was that there should be approximately ten planets in the galaxy with intelligent life. This gave much encouragement and support to programs such as SETI, but so far NASA has been unable to find either an Earth-like planet or life beyond Earth. Today, the values in his equation have been revised, yielding a new result of 2. Even so, the Drake Equation is mostly based on conjecture, and though it is the best attempt to explain the apparent absence of extraterrestrial life it is far from reliable. Also, Drake’s equation only applies to detectable extraterrestrial life—for all we know, there could be plenty of life out there: as long as it isn’t constantly broadcasting on the handful of frequencies we monitor, we would have no way of finding it.

Regardless, the question remains: Is there extraterrestrial life? And if there is, why haven’t we seen it? Futurist Robin Hanson suggests that there is a “Great Filter,” or a factor preventing extraterrestrial life from flourishing. Hanson examined the evolution of life on Earth, and his conclusion (which is mostly accepted in the scientific community) is that the Great Filter exists in one of the following eight steps toward complex life:

1) The right star system (including organics)

2) Reproductive something (e.g. RNA)

3) Simple (prokaryotic) single-cell life

4) Complex (archaeatic & eukaryotic) single-cell life

5) Sexual reproduction

6) Multi-cell life

7) Tool-using animals with big brains

8) Colonization explosion

Today, we are still unsure of which one of these is the Great Filter. However, many scientists and philosophers have examined the Great Filter, and various different conclusions have been drawn. My favorite analysis of the subject is the futurist Nick Bostrom’s (the link to his paper can be found here). I would like to take a moment to summarize Bostrom’s analysis and conclusion and why I find it to be the most satisfactory.

Bostrom explains that human beings are between steps 7 and 8. Therefore, the Great Filter could be either behind us (in steps 1-7) or ahead of us (step 8). However, most of science tells us that steps 2-7 follow naturally from each other, since once simple life begins (at least according to biologists) it will eventually evolve into complex life. This leaves us with two options: either the Great Filter is the initial synthesis of life, or it is space colonization and expansion. There is some evidence that suggests it is the former: though organic compounds have been spontaneously created in a simulated “natural” environment, no cellular life has ever been synthesized. If it is the latter, though, our future looks quite bleak. This would mean that some factor that we will encounter in our near future will either cripple us or destroy us entirely (Nuclear war? Overpopulation? Epidemic?) For this reason, says Bostrom, we should rejoice at not seeing any simple extraterrestrial life, since that would imply that the Great Filter is ahead of us.

Looking at the problem from a purely scientific point of view, it seems to be common sense that some extraterrestrial life must exist. The galaxy is not the universe—there are billions of galaxies, and so many stars that we can never search them all. Though the Drake Equation says life is unlikely, the universe is so big it is bound to be somewhere. For now, though, we are going to have to be content with pointing radio antennas at the sky, since we have no other way of searching for life. Perhaps this is for the best—I doubt human beings would react well to finding extraterrestrial life. But that’s a discussion for another day. 

Our growing world

In 2010, the UN predicts that the world population will be approximately 6,830,283,000. In 2020, it will be 7,540,237,000. In 2030, it will be 8,130,149,000. And in 2050, it will be 8,918,724,000. In other words: our world is undergoing a population explosion. In a matter of centuries—a blink of the eye in relation to human history—the world will be packed with human beings.

How did this happen? How did we, as a species, manage to break out of our early years as hunter-gatherers and form such large, complex societies? The answer, as Jared Diamond explained in his groundbreaking book Guns, Germs, and Steel, is agriculture. Once agriculture was developed, societies could support large populations and specialization, leading to more complex and larger groups of human beings. Over time, fertility rates increased as a result of this newfound food supply, eventually creating the population explosion that formed the modern world.

But the “why” is irrelevant—the issue this population forecast raises may be the most important question of our time: How do we deal with it? How do we support a world population of 10, 20, or 30 billion?  This is obviously a problem of resources: Today, I would like to go down the list of resources essential to our survival, and discuss possible solutions.

The first and most important resource is water. Fresh water makes up only a small fraction of the total amount of water on this planet—and we have an endless demand for it. Remember that water is not only for drinking—even more is needed for agriculture, industry, and infrastructure. Fortunately, desalination is a viable alternative—Israel, Saudi Arabia, and other countries have the technology to desalinate a cubic meter of water for about 50 cents. In other areas of the world this technology is more expensive—so, in order for the world to begin transitioning to desalinated water, the technology must be made cheaper and more readily available. However, this is not as easily achievable as it sounds, and I would not be surprised if fresh water becomes the cause of resource wars, especially in Africa or the Middle East.

The next resource, which is equally important, is food. The future of agriculture does not look as bright as the future of water—even as far back as the 1800’s, the economist Thomas Malthus predicted that overpopulation would eventually result in an food crisis, since he believe that food production increases at a linear rate and population increases at an exponential rate. Though this theory has been proven wrong, Malthus’s prediction is right: food production has not been increasing as much as it needs to be. Even in the past few years, food riots have occurred in areas like the Philippines, where he price of wheat has skyrocketed due to shortages. Looking forward, it is obvious that land is going to become an issue for the food industry. North America and Asia have already used of most of their arable land, while Africa and South America have more untapped potential, especially Africa. In order to ensure a more stable food supply, the world must encourage a major agricultural revolution in Africa. Furthermore, in order to grow food more efficiently, high-density crops such as lettuce must be grown in place of more inefficient ones. Next, the effects of global warming (regardless of whether it is natural or man-made) will have a huge impact on the future of agriculture. If it reduces the amount of arable land in the world, we may have a much harder time supporting a large population. Though hydroponics and vertical farming can counteract this to some extent, the loss of arable land could seriously cripple farmers, which could leave the worldwide agricultural industry in a slump. Also, the food industry is linked to the water supply—if water desalination does not progress enough, agriculture will suffer regardless of any other factors. Additionally, this is linked to the problem of fertilizer—modern fertilizers use a large amount of petroleum, and if peak oil is true and/or the oil industry crashes a food crisis will occur, hurting the agricultural industry even more. Fortunately (and somewhat surprisingly) the amount of land area occupied by human dwellings is not much of a threat to agriculture—cities are predicted to become even denser, and the UN predicts that in the next 20 years 3 out of 5 people will live in a city. Even so, there are a multitude of problems confronting the food industry, and unless these can be solved we are almost certainly headed for a Malthusian catastrophe.  

The next resource we need to worry about is energy. I am not as worried about this one as I am about an impending food crisis, but energy is still an issue we need to consider. The first step is to gradually transition to renewables, but this is not too much of a problem because many countries are motivated by global warming to do so anyway. Obviously relying on a non-renewable resource in unwise, and with the world population expanding so quickly a finite resource can run out startlingly fast. However, I am not worried because the technology of renewable energy will continue to increase over the next few decades, and very soon renewables will be economically superior to finite sources of energy.

In addition to these, overpopulation has other adverse effects on our planet. I would like to take a moment to discuss these as well.

The main problem posed by overpopulation is the danger to the environment. Deforestation and desertification will most likely increase as the population rises, which will harm ecosystems and my result in mass extinctions. Also, air pollution may be a result on an increased population unless filtering technology increases dramatically. If global warming is man-made, overpopulation may very well drive it over the edge. This would not only hurt the environment even more, but it would also make things more difficult for the agricultural industry.

Next, overpopulation may result in widespread poverty. Even if we manage to handle the resource problems well, I doubt we can deal with them well enough to allow however many billion people there are to live in prosperity. This may make it harder to ensure we have enough of the resources listed above, and it might lead to an increase in crime or other factors that lower quality of life. Malthus would have us believe that we should welcome this—he famously stated that when people allow themselves to expand, nature will take over and do the job for us. However, I hope we can avoid poverty to the point of starvation by implementing our own, more peaceful solutions to overpopulation and by ensuring that the human race has enough food.

Because overpopulation makes our future looks quite bleak, many intellectuals have suggested ideas to curb the population, preventing this Malthusian crisis from occurring. Though most of these ideas are wildly impractical or controversial, I would like to talk about them because they may be our only hope for the future.

One of the more popular—and also more controversial—solutions to the overpopulation problem is eugenics. Many groups have advocated a “one-child rule” for the entire planet, in the hopes that this will curb the exponential trend of population growth. This is probably the most viable of the solutions offered, and even though the rule would be ignored to some extent it might be able to reduce population growth somewhat. The main problem with this program, though, is that it would be very difficult to implement—the UN is not influential enough to convince many nations to submit to the program, so it would have to come from an international agreement like the Kyoto Protocol.

On a similar vein, some have suggested that we must make changes to our social structure, such as the elimination of marriage or even polygamy. These are probably not as effective, and since they are so radical I doubt many countries would implement them. However, plain old feminism may be good enough to reduce the population growth rate, coupled with an increase in the availability of contraception. Overall, though, none of these are true solutions, since they are probably not powerful enough to really curb the growth of the world population.

Other scientists and economists have offered more radical solutions, such as space colonization. Though this would solve the population problem, it is far from a practical solution. Space travel remains exorbitantly expensive, making it impractical to transport large populations to other worlds. Also, not means of space travel currently exists that can transport human beings outside of the solar system within one lifetime, and astronomers do not even know if other planets capable of supporting human life exists. However, outer space may be a viable source of resources—the Moon, for example, contains a variety of useful metals, and lunar ice could be a potential source of fresh water. For now, though, this solution to the population problem resides only in the realm of science fiction.

Fringe groups are also suggesting that vaccinations should no longer be issued, so that healthcare will decrease, causing people to die “naturally.” This will create a sort of social Darwinism, which will gradually reduce the population. Though this may be effective, it is hardly a desirable or practical solution. No country is going to willingly give up vaccinations, and no one wants to hear that the solution to overpopulation is to allow a large amount of the population to die.

So, what is the verdict on overpopulation? Simply this: we should be worried. Though the dreaded Malthusian crisis may not happen in our lifetime, our children and our children’s children may have to deal with it. We should work towards ensuring that our supply of food, water, and energy is secure, so that we can deal with overpopulation as smoothly as possible. Unless space colonization becomes viable, we are going to have to figure out how to stabilize our population. Overpopulation is often over looked, but very soon it is going to determine whether we as a species are able to survive as a large and complex civilization. The sooner we start dealing with it, the better.