5/2022

 Current Technology to Fight Climate Change

In last month’s column I promised to delve deeper into the technology that addresses climate change which in addition to war, plagues and world hunger is one of the major problems we  (the human race) must face, or not only will we go down a very ugly path in the near future, we will take a lot of other life forms (like puppies) along with us.  Please don’t tell me that, in your humble opinion, Climate Change is not really real but it’s a hoax perpetrated by the Liberal Left Government. I view myself as a Centrist and believe anyone can believe in anything they choose but the test of the belief should not be “majority rules” --- that’s one of the reasons we invented Science. As the saying goes, “The only way to refute science is with more science”.  

A well-known cause of climate change is the use of non-renewable sources like coal, oil and gas to heat and cool our homes and power our vehicles. A solution is to find renewable sources of energy that will not cause chemicals to be released into the atmosphere. 

The idea of “renewable energy” is based on the capture and storage of energy that is usually wasted in a process. A simple example is your backyard compost heap (which during the  decomposition process produces  a large amount of heat into the air and is essentially wasted). What if there were a way to capture and possibly store the heat energy released which could be reused to heat a home or turn a turbine to convert the heat to electric energy?   Well, Good News folks...scientists and engineers are investigating that problem and are finding  many possible solutions, none of which are mutually exclusive choices. In other words a solution may consist of one or more approaches. (This is similar to the gun control issue where politicians are proposing returning to the 1994 ban on automatic weapons and the other side claims, “It's not a Gun issue, it’s a mental health issue”.  Well, guess what?  These are not mutually exclusive choices --- a reasonable solution is to do both and let the congress thrash out the costs, which they are elected to do.

 “There is a renewable-energy technology used for heating and cooling that doesn’t always get the appreciation it deserves: ground-source heat pumps. These systems, which draw heat out of the ground to heat buildings in winter

 Technology Includes the Internet

Most of the topics addressed in this column have focused on the Internet which is just one of many technologies. To begin, let’s be sure about what “technology” really is.  According to Britannica it is,“the application of scientific knowledge to the practical aims of human life or, as it is sometimes phrased, to the change and manipulation of the human environment.” (https://www.britannica.com/technology/technology)

Of course, there is an opposite school of thought which cautions us to be wary of change, ranging from “The best way to clear up muddy water is to let it alone”  (an ancient Zen Buddhist proverb) to the more succinct maxim provided by the Beatles in the song,  “Let it Be”.  Obviously, the truth resides somewhere between the two philosophies.  Another way to look at it is as a nice symbiotic relationship between science and engineering. Science advances engineering which in turn advances science.  Science is the basis for engineering and engineering is used to build structures that can be used to test the science. Three good examples are medical, gaming and climate technologies.

Medical technology has advanced from the use of  plants and chants to X-rays and pharmaceuticals to prevent, diagnose and ameliorate many diseases and other mishaps.  A contemporary example could be found in our country’s response to the scourge of Covid. Because of advances in other technologies such as transportation and communication, Covid is no longer considered a pandemic. (PBS NewsHour, 4/26/2022). 

 

Games, on the other hand, are considered to be a waste of time to many but a tonic for many others. They are flourishing under the wing of the Internet but they existed in various forms several thousand years ago.

“The history of games dates to the ancient human past.  Games are an integral part of all cultures and are one of the oldest forms of human social interaction. Games are formalized expressions of play which allow people to go beyond immediate imagination and direct physical activity. Common features of games include uncertainty of outcome, agreed upon rules, competition, separate place and time, elements of fiction, elements of chance, prescribed goals and personal enjoyment. Games capture the ideas and worldviews of their cultures and pass them on to the future generation. Games were important as cultural and social bonding events, as teaching tools and as markers of social status. As pastimes of royalty and the elite, some games became common features of court culture and were also given as gifts. Games ...were seen as a way to develop strategic thinking and mental skill by the political and military elite."

"In his 1938 book, Homo Ludens, Dutch cultural historian Johan Huizinga argued that games were a primary condition of the generation of human cultures. Huizinga saw the playing of games as something that "is older than culture, for culture, however inadequately defined, always presupposes human society, and animals have not waited for man to teach them their playing".[4] Huizinga saw games as a starting point for complex human activities such as language, law, war, philosophy and art.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_games)

You don’t read much about Climate Technology (except in my good friend’s column above) but I recently came across an article in the Wall Street Journal  by Patricia Price that updates the general public on the existing technologies that address climate change.

The article begins with a short discussion of the problem and follows with a range of possible solutions, “Climate experts on a United Nations panel recently expressed concern about the state of climate science, saying the past decade saw the highest average yearly greenhouse-gas emissions from human activities ever recorded. Countries, they said, must make major, rapid shifts away from fossil fuels if they have any hope of meeting goals laid out in the 2015 Paris Climate Accords.... The Wall Street Journal recently asked energy academics and researchers which specific climate-technology breakthroughs they think have the potential to be most transformative. Some talked about technologies on the horizon; others focused on existing technologies that could be deployed to help get the world to zero emissions by 2050.

In a future column, I’ll try to summarize what they said about the new technologies being developed to end or at least reduce the effects of climate change. And if you can’t wait , the quickest way to get to Price’s full  article is to search on: “Can technology save the day? “ An interesting question, as technology was partially responsible for our current dilemma . Can technology be used to solve the problems created by technology or will it make things even worse? I have no answer but I do know that we must proceed very carefully.

 

Internet Companies and Free Speech

 In the old days, the discussion of privacy was centered on the Government snooping around in its citizen’s affairs. Currently, private enterprise has become the villain of the moment.  Along with many conservatives, Elon Musk is challenging websites like Facebook and Twitter for what he considers a violation of the first amendment to the Constitution which contains language protecting freedom of speech. Seems like somewhat of a contradiction for Conservatives to complain about a private enterprise censoring their posts. The owner or editor of a newspaper has the prerogative to publish or not publish Letters to the Editor precisely because the newspaper is a private enterprise and not the government. Certainly there are differences between social websites like Facebook and Twitter and Newspapers but both have the liberty of choosing which posts to publish --- or not.

Hate speech or any speech which incites the populous to riot is rejected by the Letters section of  most legitimate newspapers. Of course, the precise definition of “hate Speech” is complicated and the job of the Editor is to decide whether or not to print a letter. Way back in the 60s, stores were posting signs, “No Shirt, No Shoes, NO SERVICE” which made many a Hippie grumble but it was accepted that the store owner could make up their own rules once you've entered their domain. My guess is that if you post “NIKE Sucks” on a website like Facebook then they may decide to reject it.  Worse, if you work for Nike and say that to your boss, she has the right to fire you.  So censorship, as evil as it sounds, has an accepted usage in any society.

It appears we are currently trying to balance the individual’s right of free speech with the rights of a business or corporation.  Within recent memory, the Supreme Court has ruled that corporations have many of the same rights as people (which, by the way,  is the reason some women’s groups are urging their members to declare themselves as a corporation in order to gain the right to govern their bodies).

A recent example of this conflict is the case where Margory Taylor Greene, in her run for the Republican nomination for re-election to her house seat, posted ads on the Internet containing misinformation and hate speech that were deemed inappropriate by Facebook and Twitter.  At first these corporations sent warnings to clean up her act, but the last straw was a video ad you can view by searching on,  “Marjorie Taylor Greene Blows Up ‘Socialism’ Prius In Psychotic Ad” which has generated a fairly large reaction on the Internet.

You can view the ad in full on the Fox News website but you have to consent to them showing you ads (which means you will soon be receiving “information” from those advertisers who pay Fox for this privilege).  Now, I very cleverly got around this hurdle but It didn’t work for several tries and I don’t remember exactly how I did it other than using the “brute force” problem-solving technique of trying everything that I could think of until it worked. If that approach is not your cup of tea, try viewing the tweet by Ron Filipkowski @RonFilipkowski which shows just the highlights (or depending on your political persuasion --- lowlights) and gives the gist of the controversy:  “Marge Greene says in 2022 she is going to “blow away the Democrats’ socialist agenda,” then blows up a car with “socialism” on it with a 50-caliber rifle she is auctioning off for contributions.” It really is quite amazing and unsettling.  Also, if you search on the above quote you can see a 4 minute video presenting the rationale for Facebook’s ban. Finally, you can view MSNBC’s take  (which is definitely slanted against the ad), on the whole hooha.

Here is a synopsis selectived from the Internet on the unfolding of  this hooha (Note that my bullet points are represented by 3 dashes rather than the standard representation as three horizontal bullet holes due to the inordinately complicated process afforded by my word processor, Gdrive.).

--- “Greene's Facebook ad reached more than 2 million people before being deleted.

--- "Big Tech censorship of conservatives must end," Greene said.

--- Facebook stands by its decision; "We removed this ad, which advocates the use of deadly weapons against a clearly defined group of people, for violating our policies against inciting violence," Facebook said in a statement to Fox News.

--- Facebook told Greene's campaign that she can't have ads "promoting the brandishing of firearms," according to an email reviewed by Fox News.”

This kerfuffle is more than just a political problem, it is a societal problem.

The Internet certainly facilitates more non-facial social interaction but due to the physical distance between sender and responder, it is more rough and tumble. At least with face-to-face conversation, one is more apt to be polite.  Internet comments have a tendency to be very, very rude. 

While one may choose to exceed the speed limit, it is punishable by law and works to control and punish this illegal behavior.  When does rudeness while “driving” on the Internet become egregious enough to warrant applying some law and order?  To solve this problem, we first ned to elect congress-people who will work across the aisle. May all our children live long enough to see this come to fruition.