Science and Technological Knowledge and Breakthroughs

[Huntn]

Excellent focus today on NPR’s Science Friday about the prospect of restoring coral reefs, using genetically altered coral better able to withstand warming oceans.

Meet The Scientists Reviving The World’s Fading Corals
Listen to the broadcast here:

Meet The Scientists Reviving The World’s Fading Corals

A quarter of the world's corals are now dead—but scientists on the front lines of the coral crisis are working on some inspiring solutions.

www.sciencefriday.com

Now here is the difference between this post and the one at the other place we visit frequently....
We are supposed to be an advanced civilization. We have experienced a string technological/industrial ages, and we now have enough knowledge to understand the impact of billions of people living on the Earth. So we know the Earth is warming, the oceans are warming, as we strip mine them of edible fish, and now we see the coral reefs dieing, and what do we do about it?

We pass treaties, climate treaties which are too little to late, plus our Big Fat Shit Head Ass Hole pulls the US out of the Paris Climate Agreement. Which brings to mind the Fermi Paradox which considers despite the probability that there should be a huge number of advance civilizations using the Drake Equation, yet we see no evidence of any civilizations.

Fermi paradox - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Drake equation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Fermi paradox, named after Italian-American physicist Enrico Fermi, is the apparent contradiction between the lack of evidence for extraterrestrial civilizations and various high estimates for their probability (such as some optimistic estimates for the Drake equation).

So what does it say about our species that we know we are harming the Earth, our home, possibly killing it, yet we are good with that or we can only bring ourselves to make superficial changes because it will interfere with our life style, and there will be no panic until the hammer falls and it’s too late? Or are we just stupid mammals unable to work together to make the tough choices we need to to save ourselves and are in the process of proving the Fermi Paradox?

I figure I’ve got another 20 years maybe, so really this is an issue for our Millenials to grab by the horns, or maybe as a species, we are not that advanced, and just don‘t want to survive that badly.

I’d also like to hear the perceptions from our members who live outside the US. Does the human race have it’s shit together?

 

[Huntn]

Technically not a breakthrough at this point, but a new awareness, put VR goggles on a milk cow allowing them to see a nice green meadow and pipe in classical music, while they are actually trapped in a barn for the winter and they will produce more milk!

Cows enjoy VR and produce more milk

These cows enjoy green pastures all year round thanks to virtual reality goggles. Turkish rancher/dairy farmer Izzet Kocak says the headsets, accompanied with classical music, soothe the cows and…

www.scmp.com

 

[SuperMatt]

Technically not a breakthrough at this point, but a new awareness, put VR goggles on a milk cow allowing them to see a nice green meadow and pipe in classical musi, while they are actually trapped in a barn for the winter and they will produce more milk!

Cows enjoy VR and produce more milk

These cows enjoy green pastures all year round thanks to virtual reality goggles. Turkish rancher/dairy farmer Izzet Kocak says the headsets, accompanied with classical music, soothe the cows and…

www.scmp.com

Just like “The Matrix” movies... maybe we will soon all be just like those cows.

 

[thekev]

The Drake equation is just a model. It doesn't say there should be a huge number of civilizations unless you assign parameters that output such a result. Glancing down the page, others have refined the parameterization somewhat.

 

[Huntn]

The Drake equation is just a model. It doesn't say there should be a huge number of civilizations unless you assign parameters that output such a result. Glancing down the page, others have refined the parameterization somewhat.

Please clarify.

As long as I’ve known about it, the Drake Equation has been intriguing to me, especially combined with the Fermi Paradox, an interesting topic of speculation, nothing more, except the fuel for discussion, we observe in human beings, the case where an answer to a problem regarding our survival stares us in the face and we choose to thumb our nose at it because _______.

 

[thekev]

Please clarify.

As long as I’ve known about it, the Drake Equation has been intriguing to me, especially combined with the Fermi Paradox, an interesting topic of speculation, nothing more, except the fuel for discussion, we observe in human beings, the case where an answer to a problem regarding our survival stares us in the face and we choose to thumb our nose at it because _______.

The equation itself is a proposed solution to determining the number of civilizations with which communication might be possible. It has several parameters, some of which can be estimated to a reasonable degree. We don't seem to have a lot of evidence to support any particular choice of estimates for

fl = the fraction of planets that could support life that actually develop life at some point
fi = the fraction of planets with life that actually go on to develop intelligent life (civilizations)
fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space

which are required to produce a concrete value for

N = the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which communication might be possible (i.e. which are on our current past light cone);

 

[Huntn]

The equation itself is a proposed solution to determining the number of civilizations with which communication might be possible. It has several parameters, some of which can be estimated to a reasonable degree. We don't seem to have a lot of evidence to support any particular choice of estimates for



which are required to produce a concrete value for

I’ll suggest that if the numbers are in the billions, and we know some percentage of planets are in the livable zone, then the possibility exists. I have thought that the expanse is so incredibly large that we could easily be unaware of civilizations with the ability to communicate across the Cosmos just because they are so far away.

Yet we seem to be witnessing some support for the Fermi paradox right in front of our eyes.

 

[thekev]

I’ll suggest that if the numbers are in the billions, and we know some percentage of planets are in the livable zone, then the possibility exists. I have thought that the expanse is so incredibly large that we could easily be unaware of civilizations with the ability to communicate across the Cosmos just because they are so far away.

Yet we seem to be witnessing some support for the Fermi paradox right in front of our eyes.

The equation only suggests a huge number of civilizations if the parameters used suggest it. I can follow it up until parameter L, which seems awfully optimistic to me. I assume time units are normalized between R* and L. The other parameters condition the ones preceding them. Also L would be even more optimistic if we're assuming 2 way communication here, where communication latency is a real thing. Google is giving me conflicting numbers for the distance from the earth to the edge of the Milky Way, but either way it's many thousands of light years.

 

[Huntn]

The equation only suggests a huge number of civilizations if the parameters used suggest it. I can follow it up until parameter L, which seems awfully optimistic to me. I assume time units are normalized between R* and L. The other parameters condition the ones preceding them. Also L would be even more optimistic if we're assuming 2 way communication here, where communication latency is a real thing. Google is giving me conflicting numbers for the distance from the earth to the edge of the Milky Way, but either way it's many thousands of light years.

What is reasonable?

 

[thekev]

What is reasonable?

Whatever someone can support via evidence. Generally you would want someone else to be able to retrace your steps in arriving at any particular figure. Keep in mind this is still a pretty simple equation. It assumes that we have some number of civilizations broadcasting in all directions from somewhere in the Milky Way. It then uses the other parts to estimate in such a case, how many might be able to send out a message that would reach us. The further away they are, the higher the latency. Unlike packets over the internet, you're talking about years, centuries, or milleniums in each direction.

 

[Huntn]

Whatever someone can support via evidence. Generally you would want someone else to be able to retrace your steps in arriving at any particular figure. Keep in mind this is still a pretty simple equation. It assumes that we have some number of civilizations broadcasting in all directions from somewhere in the Milky Way. It then uses the other parts to estimate in such a case, how many might be able to send out a message that would reach us. The further away they are, the higher the latency. Unlike packets over the internet, you're talking about years, centuries, or milleniums in each direction.

I’m not saying Drake is fact or even theory, it’s according to wiki:
The equation was formulated in 1961 by Frank Drake, not for purposes of quantifying the number of civilizations, but as a way to stimulate scientific dialogue at the first scientific meeting on the search for extraterrestrial intelligence ...

You can be fairly pessimistic about the numbers and still come up with a large number of civilizations. And part of the Fermi paradox wants to know if I’m not mis-stating, why don’t we have any evidence of other civilizations? It’s all speculative and intriguing, nothing more, but I’ll stand by the notion that if you want to observe what could be the process of a civilization unable to not destroy itself, have a look at Planet Earth. This is what I have been saying, nothing has been proven, and I accept your rejection of the entire idea.

 

[Huntn]

Warnings About Artificial Intelligence:
I think if not handled properly there is a real danger here. Ask yourself, what happens to the ability of people to earn a wage in a capitalist society, when AI takes over the role of the human brain? Accounting, banking, construction, every management position, etc, etc, etc.

I am getting a little ahead of the situation as it exists today, but I want to be an optimist, I could imagine us evolving into socialist Utopia where people spend their lives exploring their intellectual and physical potentials, not spending a life of sweeping the floors, digging ditches, or handing fast food to customers across a counter.

However this is tempered by my pessimistic fear that we are not ready, might not ever be ready, more accurately said: too primative to make this work for us, and not destroy ourselves in the process. The number one problem is us, too individualistic, selfish, greedy and often corrupt, not like an ant or bee colony.

8 Risks and Dangers of Artificial Intelligence to Know

Artificial intelligence has potential, but the dangers of AI have grabbed more attention in recent years. Check out eight dangers of artificial intelligence.

builtin.com

From the article the dangers:

• Automation-spurred job loss
• Privacy violations
• Deepfakes
• Algorithmic bias caused by bad data
• Socioeconomic inequality
• Market volatility
• Weapons automatization

As AI grows more sophisticated and widespread, the voices warning against the potential dangers of artificial intelligence grow louder.
“The development of artificial intelligence could spell the end of the human race,” according to Stephen Hawking. The renowned theoretical physicist isn’t alone with this thought.

 

[Herdfan]

Warnings About Artificial Intelligence:
I think if not handled properly there is a real danger here. Ask yourself, what happens to the ability of people to earn a wage in a capitalist society, when AI takes over the role of the human brain? Accounting, banking, construction, every management position, etc, etc, etc.

I am getting a little ahead of the situation as it exists today,

Are you really though? Maybe in specific examples, but if we aren't careful we will lose control before we know it.

 

[Huntn]

Are you really though? Maybe in specific examples, but if we aren't careful we will lose control before we know it.

Getting ahead of myself mostly has to do with the idea of humans creating a socialist utopia. We are not anywhere close to that. We are closer to cave people than Star Trek, we are selfish. To much me, mine, not enough we, us. Yes 200 years ago small tribes did pull together, but that no longer exists for the most part.

Anyhow, while not an economist by any means, I’ve been citing an issue with Capitalism and automation forever. The common good seems to be something that is begrudged, because it means money comes out of my pocket to support someone else.

Capitalism has historically been great at creating wealth, but not for everyone, it feeds our selfishness. Although there are a few exceptions, mostly Capitalism and corporations only cares about making money for me, a small group of we, they don’t care about the big we, they are happy to send jobs other places to pollute the Earth and disenfranchise fellow citizens (we are supposed to be on the same team) and pay other people at slave wages so I can be wealthy. And you want me to pay taxes to support these other losers?

 

[ArgoDuck]

I’d also like to hear the perceptions from our members who live outside the US. Does the human race have it’s shit together?

Great post, and as one of those who live outside the US…

These days i‘m a social scientist (I started out studying physics and mathematics, but my first career was in the computer industry), and this background leads me to disregard our talk as a species, and look instead to our action.

On this basis, the clear answer is NO! The human race does not have its shit together.

Many years ago i speculated that we are the victim of a most unfortunate mutation (‘intelligence’) which increased our fitness far beyond what was necessary to adapt to our environment at that time.

The result? That we have become able to dominate our environment (we are superior to it) but being a social species we cannot overcome ourselves (we are not superior to each other).

Because we can dominate our environment to a large degree, we have arrived at a point no other species seems able to do: we are completely able to ignore reality.

Those two points above are our tragedy, and probably tragedy for most of our fellow species.

I stated that we have ‘intelligence’. As i think about this now, i think that clearly we have enough to be dangerous, but not enough to be great. For if we did, we would not all look at the same situation and each come away with - often - entirely opposite understandings of it. That looks like paradox, but assessing ourselves as a species with highly limited intelligence explains this perfectly, i now think.

Because i’ve done modelling of non-linear dynamics (NLD) within human populations - this is the same general domain in which tiny changes in greenhouse gases lead to large, potentially disastrous climate effects - i entertain the very faint hope that the tiny (but growing) efforts to "make the tough choices" @Huntn refers to will in turn lead to large, sweeping human change at such scale that we survive after all…

I think we will know reasonably soon which side of the Fermi paradox we come down on. Like @Huntn i figure i have another 20 years: not long enough to know the final answer, but long enough to know whether there are good signs for our ability to help ourselves…or none.

(afterthought: the Drake equation is of course not useful until we are able to reasonably approximate the values of all its terms. However, this hardly alters the point of the first post, which is our urgent situation now. Such quibbling over irrelevant detail is - alas - evidence of our all too common inability to engage with reality)

 

[Huntn]

Nuclear Power 2023- An EV discussion inspired me.

I’ll propose that nuclear is a vital component of any plan of ridding ourselves of reliance on fossil fuels.

Ultra safe Nuclear power. The fuel is uranium, not as common as thorium, and I’m not clear on just how dangerous it is, although they claim the way it is utilized, the technology is completely safe, no reliance on cooling water and electricity to pump the water, no chance of a meltdown. Watch the how this works video here:

Ultra Safe Nuclear

Reliable Zero-Carbon Energy Anywhere. Advanced nuclear developer of the Micro Modular Reactor (MMR) and other energy systems using TRISO and FCM Fuel.

www.usnc.com

Ultra Safe Concept on Vimeo

TRISO and FCM Fuel

Manufacturing TRISO particle fuel and FCM Fuel.

www.usnc.com

Then there is thorium reactors, ironically this technology has existed since WWII but it might be argued the Super Powers were more interested in powering their nuclear weapons, judgements clouded as compared to using thorium from the start.

The big deal about thorium, is that it is relatively plentiful, it is not highly radio active, and there is no application for bombs, no danger of meltdowns, and the waste does not create millions of barrels of highly toxic waste that no State wants to store.

Thorium-based nuclear power - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Are thorium reactors the future of nuclear power?

In this video by the YouTube channel Undecided with Matt Ferrell, you can explore the world of thorium energy.

interestingengineering.com

Thorium Nuclear Reactors: A safer alternative?

As the global climate change crisis mounts and the global population has surpassed 7 billion, the search for plentiful, environmentally-friendly energy has taken on new urgency.

science.howstuffworks.com

 

[Huntn]

Nose Pickers. Beware! The picking part, not the eating part, lol. Seriously, the idea is that by picking at the inside of your nostril, membranes are damaged making it easier for a certain bacteria to get into your sysytem and go to your brain. I’ll ask, what does it take to damage your nose by picking it?

Mouse Study Suggests an Unexpected Link Between Nose-Picking And Alzheimer's

 

[Huntn]

Did you drink decaffeinated coffee in the 20th century?
It’s not the emphasis of this article

Science | AAAS

www.science.org

But in the 20th century, TCE was used for many purposes, including making decaffeinated coffee, dry cleaning, carpet cleaning, and as an inhaled surgical anesthetic for children and women in labor. TCE is highly persistent in soil and groundwater; inhalation through vapor from these hidden sources is likely the prime route of exposure today. However, it’s detectable in many foods, in up to one-third of U.S. drinking water, and in breast milk, blood, and urine.

 

[Huntn]

Scientists create electricity from humidity

Beginning steps:

This New Device Generates Electricity From Thin Air

Nearly any material covered with tiny holes can derive energy from humidity, per a new study, opening doors to more sustainable power

www.smithsonianmag.com

Nearly any material covered with tiny holes can derive energy from humidity, per a new study, opening doors to more sustainable power