Search in Breaking from Mundane

Saturday, February 26

The Technological Singularity

                The word “singularity” means a time or place in which the normal laws of physics do not apply, such as in a black hole. But there is another singularity with a much different meaning, one which many people say will be coming within the next ten years: The Technological Singularity.
                Everybody puts a different date and meaning to the Technological Singularity. Some say it will be when robots take over the world, others say it will be when humans all die or leave earth and leave only super intelligent robots behind. All these involve one similar thing though: A time will come in which robots are smarter than humans. This is a scary thought, and one many people would like to shrug off as science fiction. But how far off is it really? This graph shows calculations per second (also per 1,000 dollars….whatever than means) on the y-axis and year on the x-axis. The white curve represents how technology will advance if it continues at its current rate. The figures on the right show where mice, insects, and humans stand as far as calculations per second go. Finally, the little black dots on the line show dates where the computers with the number of calculations per second were created, and they are the reference points for drawing the white curve.

                The graph is fairly old, with the newest point being from 1998, so this graph seems like sort of a stretch right? Wrong. Last year Tianhe-1 was put into action in China as the second computer able to process a quadrillion processes per second. That’s equal to 1015, or just short of a human’s brain. So technology is actually advancing faster than the graph suggests!
                All that being said computers are still ultimately limited. Unless built into a robot, computers are unable to build or use anything outside of cyberspace. So instead we must relate to robots, what if such an advanced computer was made into a walking robot? What would it be capable of? Some people say nothing at all outside of its programming. Robots/Computers are incapable of emotions. But is it possible to create a robot capable of emotions? In 2007, three US scientists successfully simulated half of a mouse brain, resulting in activity characteristic of thought patterns with similar nerve synapse firing as observed in mice in nature. The complex simulation only was able to last ten seconds, however this is just the beginning. If scientists can successfully create a real working mouse brain, how far are they really from a human-like one? Another interesting robot-rat combo: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-0eZytv6Qk
                So if robots are capable of thinking and acting like humans, what will happen then? Well, either we would coexist, or robots would take over in the work force. Robots don’t have to take breaks, eat, or drink. So what will humans do? Probably all die off.
                So do I believe it? Yes I do. I think there will come a time when robots are as intelligent as humans. But I think that as long as we keep a nice “STOP ALL” switch around, we’ll be just fine.

References:

Saturday, February 19

The Crisis Point

                The population of the world in mid-2010 was estimated to be 6,852,472,823 people. According to many projections, this is expected to increase by 150% by 2040. This is very likely true, as populations tend to grow exponentially or at least geometrically.  According to Thomas Malthus’ theoretical scenario, this is very, very bad.

Population of the World, including future estimates
                Malthusians and Neo-Malthusians believe that the resources of the earth increase linearly, basically in the form of an x = y equation. This is pretty much true for water, food, minerals, and such. This puts a bit of a carrying capacity for the earth on how much of a population it can sustain, and, unfortunately, we are moving close to ours. Malthusians believe that because the population graph is increasing exponentially, and resources are increasing only linearly there will come a time when the two lines collide. When they do, there will no longer be enough resources for the population and there will be a mass die-off, the likes of which no one has ever seen. At first this sounds absolutely crazy, but when you think about it, it really is pretty much true, even if we aren’t always increasing exponentially.
What Resources and Population on the same graph MIGHT look like (this is in no way a scientifically accurate line drawn for the resources)
                Population growth graphs are remarkably inaccurate as they don’t take Industrialization into account. How does Industrialization affect population growth? Well, when a country industrializes, its birth rate goes down. Look at the US for instance: our population is currently only growing at 0.9% per year. Countries like Germany, which have been industrialized for a while, actually have more deaths than births. Countries like Kenya however, have huge rates of births and lowering death rates. These are where the huge population growths come from. Because of this, as these countries become more advanced, the population growth will slow dramatically. So many of these projections, that show population growth continuing at the same rate, are likely inaccurate.
                This doesn’t matter to Malthusians though, as they still believe the “Crisis Point”, as it is so-called, is inevitable, and it probably is. Unless, of course, the world population stops growing all together. Technocentrists see another way out though. Technocentrists believe that with technology, the earth can be changed to hold more and more resources in support of the human population. This is also true: during the Green Revolution of 1945, huge amounts of food were produced in extreme excess. Because of this, Technocentrists believe that as long as technology keeps getting better, we will never run out of resources.
                So who’s right? I believe both are. I believe that with technology we will not run out of resources for a long, long, long time. But there has to be an extent to this working. Eventually we will run out of room. Eventually we can no longer build any higher. Eventually we can plow no more land. What then? Well, if population keeps growing, then probably the “Crisis Point” will occur and most of us will die.
                What can we do to stop it? Nothing. There are two possible outcomes: either a mass die-off will occur as Malthusians predict, or all countries will industrialize and population growth will come to a plateau. Either way, I hope I’m not around when the earth gets too crowded.

P.S. I scheduled this to upload at 12:00 today and it didn't. How dissappointing.

References:
Freshman-Level Geography

Wednesday, February 16

Capitalism for Dummies

A friend of mine posted this list online and I thought I'd share it:

Traditional Capitalism: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull. Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows. You sell them and retire on the income.

Australian Capitalism: You have two cows. You try to wrestle them.

Iraqi Capitalism: You have two cows. They are biochemical weapons.

Perestroika Capitalism: You have two cows. You have to take care of them, but the government takes all the milk. You steal back as much milk as you can and sell it on the black market.

Jewish Capitalism: You have two cows. You set them on fire and they burn for 8 days.

Cambodian Capitalism: You have two cows. The government takes both and shoots you.

Mormon Capitalism: You have two cows. You tell everyone that they should as well.

Military Capitalism: You have two cows. The government takes both and drafts you.

Texan Capitalism: You have two cows. You teach them to fire guns.

Totalitarian Capitalism: You have two cows. The government takes them and denies they ever existed. Milk is banned.

Jehovah’s Witness Capitalism: You have two cows. You go door to door telling people that you do.

Bureaucrat Capitalism: You have two cows. At first the government regulates what you can feed them and when you can milk them. Then it pays you not to milk them. Then it takes both, shoots one, milks the other and pours the milk down the drain. Then it requires you to fill out forms accounting for the missing cows.

Real Capitalism: You don't have any cows.
The bank will not lend you money to buy cows, because you don't have any cows to put up as collateral.

Environmental Capitalism: You have two cows. The government bans you from milking them.

Surreal Capitalism: You have two giraffes. The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.

Californian Capitalism: You have two cows. They are happy.

Bush Capitalism: You have two cows. You think that cows and humans can coexist peacefully. You give all of the milk to the upper class when they have cows of their own, and the lower class needs milk.

Martha Stewart Capitalism: You have two cows. After decorating them, you sell them because a farmer told you the price of milk might go down.

Ayn Rand Capitalism: You have two cows. You sell both so that you can invest in a new dairy company. After it does well, you sell you stock and buy a cow farm.
After that does well, you take out a loan using cows as capitol and build a milk manufacturing factory. After making your milk the most sold, you sell the company and retire to Hawaii with your millions of dollars.
Tennessee Capitalism: You have two cows. Both become country music stars despite having no talent.
Soap Capitalism: You have two cows. One is actually the other’s ex boyfriend undergone a sex change to become a cow. The other is concealing a jealous rage at the quality of the converted cow’s milk. Both cows will end up falling in love by the end of the year.
Obama Capitalism: You have two cows. And you know nothing more than that statement without your manual.
Dick Cheney Capitalism: You have two cows. You accidentally shoot them both while aiming for quail.
Korean Capitalism: You have two cows. Before long one cow believes the other has better grazing land and threatens to bomb her unless its unknown demands are met.



You guys have any more to add to this list?


American Capitalism: You have two cows. You sell one, and force the other to produce the milk of four cows. You are surprised when the cow drops dead.

French Capitalism: You have two cows. You go on strike because you want three cows.

Japanese Capitalism: You have two cows. You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk. You then create cow cartoon images called Cowkimon and market them World-Wide.

German Capitalism: You have two cows. You re-engineer them so they live for 100 years, eat once a month, and milk themselves.

Italian Capitalism: You have two cows, but you don't know where they are. You break for lunch.

British Capitalism: You have two cows. Both are mad.

Russian Capitalism: You have two cows. You count them and learn you have five cows. You count them again and learn you have 42 cows. You count them again and learn you have 12 cows. You stop counting cows and open another bottle of vodka.

Arkansas Capitalism: You have two cows. That one on the left is kinda cute...

Saturday, February 12

Global Warming: We're All Going to DIE!

                Okay, so maybe that was a dramatic title, but this is seriously the impression most people are giving. The earth is getting warmer and before you know it we will all be dead. Lately I’ve heard that by 2050 almost all coastal areas will be flooded. If I recall correctly, weren’t we told that would have occurred by last year? And what happened to the idea that the earth was going to freeze over? I specifically remember watching the movie The Day After Tomorrow. What was that? Five years ago?  People believed it too. “By 2030 the earth may enter another Ice Age!” but now we have a change of mind.
                Now some of you may have gotten the impression there that I don’t believe Global Warming (AKA Climate Change) is occurring. IT IS. If you say it isn’t then boo-on-you. Don’t go on Jeopardy any time soon. The real debate for this issue should only be “Are we responsible?”, I say we are not, but I understand where people who do believe it’s our fault are coming from. By the way, the reason the name has been changed to “Climate Change” is not because it isn’t Global Warming anymore, it’s because the warming has caused changes in extremes. This means that just because it’s very cold right now is not because Global Warming isn’t happening. It’s actually because it is happening. You see, polar caps act as a sort of regulator for temperatures. So when you reduce that it creates a greater extreme. Look it up, I’m sure somebody else can explain it better than I can. And in case a lot of you have forgotten the way the earth tilts, it is currently Summer in the Southern Hemisphere and as hot as ever.
            I consider most of the charts I see very inconclusive, or showing only very small sections in great detail so it makes it evident the temperature has gone up dramatically. Most of these charts I will be posting come from http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/temperature/. I’m going to make comments on them, but I really want everybody to formulate their own opinions.
Please note other highs. Also note we have not gone down any in temperature since the Montreal Protocol of 1987 which ceased production of the major Greenhouse Gas contributor CFC. However, CFC have a potential lifespan of 110 years so I honestly can't say a lot.
    
Up is colder since we're looking at Oxygen-18 levels. Looks fairly consistent to me. We haven't even been around a million years, remember that.

Ocean Temperatures
This is Greenland's Temperature over the last 130k years. Please note that the LEFT side is modern time.
This shows deep ocean temperatures. Please note that DOWN is colder and the RIGHT side is ancient times.


                So is the earth getting warmer? Yes it is. Is it our fault, I think it is not. We’ve had warm spells in the past and many ended in an Ice Age. Don’t forget the Medieval Warming Period, which some say was even warmer than today, which grew progressively warmer over two generations and ended in the Little Ice Age. But even if it is our fault, what can we really do about it? We can’t stop cows from farting methane gas. We won’t stop breathing. We can reduce our pollution though, but shouldn’t we really be doing that anyways? I honestly don’t care if my kid can’t see a polar bear in its natural habitat because I don’t think we could really prevent that (Plus my kid better not be going off to the Polar Regions on his own anyways), but I do care if my kid has to wear a gas mask to school because of all the smog.
                "This planet has been through a lot worse than us." - George Carlin

Saturday, February 5

Euthanasia / Medicide

                Since I’ve been writing more controversial lately we might as well continue on the same footpath. Euthanasia of the terminally ill, is it right or wrong? I can’t cover every argument for both sides obviously, so I advice everyone to do some of their own research into the matter.
                First off I have to say that most people on the opposing side fall very deeply into the slippery slope fallacy: “If we start killing off people now then what’s to keep us from, in the future, killing anyone we deem worthless?!”. Laws are passed one at a time and if you view this as a slope, then the ball is already rolling. We allow people to kill themselves by over dose, jumping from a bridge, sticking their head in the oven, or whatever else they choose. We also allow the closest relative of a person stuck in a vegetable state to “pull-the-plug”, how is this really any different than letting somebody kill you as you lay dying?
                A good point that the anti-Medicide side points out is that the definition for “Terminally ill” is very broad. Jack Kevorkian described a Terminal illness as “any disease that curtails life even for one day.” I can see here where people are having issues. If we get people who rush to decisions ending up in the hospital with a severe case of Pneumonia, we may lose quite a few people who would still be alive (And, cough, paying taxes). But no, seriously, this really is an issue, and I think the best way to do it would be to change the wording if made into a law. Perhaps to something along the lines of “Only applicable for people deemed mentally capable by a psychologist and whose projected recovery is less than 10%”. That last percentage there could be changed to something different if you like: 5%, 4%, 25%, whatever.
                One argument I’ve heard says that we would end up with doctors killing people just because it is cost effective. This makes a little sense, as a health care provider may find they are better off financially with a dead uninsured person than a terminally ill uninsured person. However, what is to make people think a doctor would get away with this? If it isn’t proposed yet then surely they will require at least two or three witnesses to the signing. And I believe there should also be a waiting period of at least three days, and on the last day have the person sign again if they have not changed their mind. And what’s to keep the doctor from pressuring the patient? Well, honestly, nothing. What’s to keep my friends and family from coming over here and telling me I would be better off dead? Well, honestly, nothing.
                Following through on that last thought, what is to keep it from becoming involuntary? Well, this is a bit tricky, especially with the surprising large number of illiterates we actually have. How are they going to know what they are signing away? Well, in my idea of the way the law should be, the witnesses are to be informed of the contract in its entirety and given copies of the document being signed. A reader should be present to read the document word-for-word. I feel that as well as being mentally competent, the person must also be an American citizen. If they are an American citizen and don’t know how to speak or understand English…well…what are they doing here?
                What is to keep doctors from going around and killing people? I think euthanasia should only be delivered at a hospital, and only to people unable to leave the hospital due to their condition.
                I guess I made my stance pretty obvious, I believe in Medicide, but only under the correct circumstances. I want everyone here to watch the movie Johnny, Get Your Gun. Also, think for a second about if you were dying of skin cancer. Your body feels like it’s burning and you can feel your flesh being devoured from the inside out. You don’t want to live any more but you’re stick to a good handful if I.V.s. You are given five months to live, but will not recover. That’s five months you have to deal with this horrible feeling. Do you want to die now? Or would you rather just spend five more months in excruciating pain locked in a lonely hospital room?
 “Matthew Donnelly loved life. But Matthew Donnelly wanted to die. For the past thirty years, Matthew had conducted research on the use of X-rays. Now, skin cancer riddled his tortured body. He had lost his nose, his left hand, two fingers on his right hand, and part of his jaw. He was left blind and was slowly deteriorating. The pain was unrelenting. Doctors estimated that he had a year to live. Lying in bed with teeth clenched from the excruciating pain, he pleaded to be put out of his misery. Matthew wanted to die now. His pleas went unanswered. Then, one day, Matthew's brother Harold, unable to ignore Matthew's repeated cry, removed a .30 caliber pistol from his dresser drawer, walked to the hospital, and shot and killed his brother. Harold was tried for murder.” - http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v1n1/suicide.html
                Fair? Or Unfair? You decide.

***Some Images Were Removed From This Page To Avoid Potential Lawsuits and/or Shutdowns. My apologies***

 
References:
Google Images