Science/Tech

You are currently browsing the archive for the Science/Tech category.

Michigan State University evolutionary biologist Bjørn Østman just did an Ask Me Anything at Reddit on his field. A few exchanges follow.

___________________________

Question:

Will alien life be very similar to life on earth due to convergent evolution?

Bjørn Østman:

That is a viable hypothesis. Some people (e.g. Stephen J. Gould) think that nothing like humans would evolve if the we “replayed the tape of life.” However, I personally predict that if we find life on other planets, then it will resemble some species from Earth in some ways, perhaps even as much as there being creatures with 4 limbs (which I think is not coincidental, but because it is a highly versatile solution to locomotion). In other words, I think convergent evolution is a very likely outcome.

___________________________

Question:

Are different races in humans an example of slight speciation? What accounts for the differences between humans of different origins?

Bjørn Østman:

Yes, I do actually think that you could call different human races “slight” speciation. We might call it incipient speciation. Some biologists will disagree, but imagine Danish and Japanese people hadn’t interbred for the next 100,000 or one million years, then perhaps they would really have become different species. The biological differences between different ethnicities likely arose from random changes that became dominant through neutral processes (genetic drift), as well as though adaptation in some cases, like skin color, where dark skin protects against the sun, and pale skin is more efficient at producing vitamin D in the sun.

___________________________

Question:

I’m fascinated by the crazy, now extinct predators that very early humans had to contend with. I’m thinking Saber Cats, Hyenadon… and what else? What amazing and epic fauna did very early humans encounter and ‘overcome’?

Bjørn Østman:

Wolves, man! I think our notion of werewolves came from the ever present danger of being eaten by wolves int he areas where they lived together. But cats everywhere. Lions, leopards, mountain lions – those are so effective predators. Without tools, I think humans would not have become the top predator, but would have lived in fear of these today.

___________________________

Question:

Are humans done evolving? Have humans gotten to the point where we adapt our surroundings to us instead of the other way around? Do you think another homo species will arise on Earth?

Bjørn Østman:

We are not done evolving. We still evolve biologically, though there are some aspects of humans life that have been taken over by cultural evolution. Just to mention one prominent aspect: medicine has alleviated many selection pressures. For much of our history a large factor in how we evolved was diseases. Diseases is a very strong selection pressure for evolving resistance. We are now resistant to many diseases that previously killed us, and yet when new ones arise today, we can fight back with medicine. For example, we don’t need to succumb to HIV/AIDS, such that only the few that by chance are lucky to be resistant will survive, while everyone else dies (which incidentally is an excellent example of how selection works). As a result in part of medicine (particularly improvements in hygiene), the human population is now as large as it is. However, most people who argue that humans have stopped evolving seem to not have understood 1) that the increase in our population size leads to an increase in genetic diversity, which is the fuel for evolution, and 2) that evolution takes time, and there will come a time (perhaps in hundreds of thousands of years, but I am not so optimistic) when things will change, and the environment will again favor some human subpopulation over others. You can read more about this from my colleague Madhusudan Katti in reply to the sad claim from David Attenborough’s that humans are no longer evolving. 

If and when humans go extinct, it could be that eventually another intelligent species would evolve. However, they would not likely be identical, and would be a different species, so not Homo sapiens.•

Tags:

From a lively Financial Times essay by Izabella Kaminska about the next three decades before us and the disruption and challenges we’re likely to experience:

“I am in New York to participate in a ‘future of work’ inquiry. Fittingly, among the movies I digest on my United flight from Geneva is the The Internship, about a couple of forty-something salesmen who, realising they have no skills for the modern digital workplace, decide to fling themselves headfirst into a Google internship programme.

The future of work event gets me thinking, more than usual, about what we can expect of the world in 30 years. One thing most of us agree upon is that technological disruption is already having a meaningful impact on our modern definition of employment. Whether it’s The Jetsons’ two-hour working week that will soon be upon us, or a divided dystopia made up of a working underclass serving the leisure elite, depends increasingly on the choices we make today. Will my goddaughter even have a career to look forward to, let alone anything remotely resembling a job? A like-minded futurist who has some authority in employment matters convinces me it’s best to be optimistic. As the economist John Maynard Keynes predicted, technology has the potential to free mankind from the drudgery of uncreative work – providing, of course, that society finds a way to ensure that technological power doesn’t end up being overly concentrated in too few hands.”

Tags:

Kurt Vonnegut, who was pained by the inequalities of life–both the natural and man-made varieties–raises the specter of mass extinction during a 2005 interview with Jon Stewart. 

Tags: ,

Retail outlets have always vanished, but they were usually pushed out by others like them that were simply run better. Now they disappear into a computer screen, into a smartphone. It’s progress and it’s better, but there’s still something vertiginous about the speed of it all. From “Blockbuster Video: 1985-2013,” Alex Pappademas’ smart Grantland postmortem about a chain store we all hated and maybe secretly loved to hate:

“Even now, it’s hard to feel warm feelings for a Blockbuster. The company was a Borg-cube dedicated to pushing big-time Hollywood product. They frowned on NC-17 movies and foreign films and employees with long hair. If you wanted those things, you could go somewhere else, until you couldn’t, because Blockbuster also frowned on sharing any marketplace with a ‘somewhere else.’ They transformed the home-video business by plowing under the competition, then failed to adapt fast enough as that business continued to change. Mourning them is like mourning some big, dumb robot that has succumbed to rust after standing all night in the rain.

By the end of this year, 2,800 Blockbuster employees will lose their jobs. There is no other aspect of Blockbuster’s passing you could really call ‘sad,’ unless you’re like me and you feel a weird chill each time you live through the disappearance of that which was once ubiquitous, especially in the physical-media-retail sector.

Time only moves in one direction, and my daughter will never set foot in a Tower Records. Or a Waldenbooks, or a Coconuts, or even a Borders. All those chains were gone by 2011, victims of Amazon and Netflix and iTunes and our hunger for convenience, which is almost always the force that makes technology’s wrecking ball swing.”

Tags:

Privacy as we knew it is gone, and no amount of legislation will change that–not for nations, corporations or individuals. It’s sort of like outlawing hammers in a kingdom of nails.  And it was all done out in the open. We agreed to it, at least tacitly.

The opening of “Privacy Isn’t a Right,” Josh Klein’s Slate essay about the way it is now:

“Privacy isn’t your right anymore. We sold it for pictures of cats and the ability to tell anyone in the free world what we had for breakfast.

I’m not saying it was a bad trade, either. The Internet as we know it came about through the monetization of metadata—information about us—instead of by replicating traditional models of content sales. As a result the Internet exploded into a plethora of useful services and platforms of every shape, size, and description. What’s more, it was a great leveler—nobody had more valuable personal information than anybody else, so everyone was able to trade it in for the same kinds of services. 

The problem with all this is that ‘privacy’ as a notion was abdicated the instant you clicked ‘agree’ to the online services agreement you didn’t read. And yet most consumers haven’t yet realized that their date has left the restaurant and they’re stuck with the bill.”

Tags:

Ford assembly line, 1913.

From a New York Times article by Bill Vlasic about the centennial of the assembly line, Henry Ford’s enduring gift to the manufacturing world, which has been updated but never abandoned:

“Updating the assembly line is a big part of the ‘One Ford’ corporate strategy that has helped the nation’s second-biggest automaker lead the recent recovery of the American auto industry.

‘There are probably very few inventions in the auto industry that started 100 years ago and are still here today,’ said John Fleming, Ford’s executive vice president for global manufacturing.

So much has changed in the industry since Mr. Ford installed the first, rudimentary assembly line at his company’s Model T plant in Highland Park, Mich., in October 1913.

But automakers around the world use essentially the same basic method of mass production, turning a bare automotive chassis at one end of the line into a finished car at the other.

In the beginning, the line was a critical step toward ensuring that the same processes were repeated over and over to manufacture one specific model of the highest quality. Now, the modern assembly line produces a wide variety of vehicles that are virtually custom-built at a moment’s notice for customers in far-flung markets.”

Tags: , ,

From Grandon Keim’s contrarian Nautilus article which revisits and revises the American transition from horses to automobiles:

“History loves smooth transitions, such as horses to cars. ‘There’s an assumption that you have this clean break between eras,’ says urban historian Martin Melosi. ‘In the real world, that doesn’t happen.’ The idea of a neat transition from horses to the automobile age is a history-as-approved-by-victors myth that elides several decades when horse travel declined but automobiles were uncommon, used primarily to haul freight. The automobile as we now conceive it, a personal transport machine, wouldn’t come along for nearly half a century.

The late 19th and early 20th centuries was actually the age of streetcars. Running on steel rails, a few pulled by horses but most powered by electricity, they were the dominant urban mode of vehicular transport. The first suburbs date to this time, rising along streetcar lines in Boston, Los Angeles, Pittsburgh, and other cities. The ‘streetcar suburbs’ featured single-family houses branching off store-lined main streets, the very model of walkable, humane villages now celebrated by urban planners and citizens. Only a handful of wealthy drivers actually thought of cars as personal transportation, and that mostly involved weekend countryside jaunts.

To the average city dweller, the idea of a city oriented around transportation in cars, and especially privately owned cars carrying one or a few people, would have been incomprehensible. Indeed, the modern idea of a street as an artery, existing primarily to convey vehicles, would have been foreign, says Christopher W. Wells, author of Car Country: An Environmental History. Streets were more like parks, used by streetcars, horses, cars, and pedestrians, but also as playgrounds and gathering places.

In this environment, motor vehicles were seen as dangerous intruders, a threat to public safety and especially the safety of children. Blame for accidents was laid entirely on drivers. In 1923, Cincinnati residents even required that cars operating in the city be modified so they couldn’t go faster than 25 miles per hour. ‘Today we learn that streets are for cars. That’s 100 percent opposed to the dominant view a century ago,’ says Peter Norton, who wrote Fighting Traffic: The Dawn of the Motor Age in the American City. ‘It’s a different mental model of what a street is for.'”

Tags: , , ,

A brief and wordless look at a secretarial pool in a 1970s computerized office in the UK.

I’ve written before that I don’t think it’s clear how we reconcile an automated society and a capitalist one. We managed to reinvent work in America during the Industrial Revolution by throwing ourselves into new information businesses (marketing, public relations, advertising, etc.). Perhaps such alternatives will emerge again. If not, we need to reconfigure our economic model, maintaining free markets but sharing the wealth somehow. Otherwise inequality will reach traumatic levels. At the New Yorker blog, Joshua Rothman interviews Tyler Cowen about these issues and others. I have questions about Cowen’s vision of America’s future, but he always makes intelligent points. The interview’s opening:

Question:

In Average Is Over, you argue that inequality will grow in the U.S. for the next several decades. Why?

 Tyler Cowen:

There are three main reasons inequality is here to stay, and will likely grow. The first is just measurement of worker value. We’re doing a lot to measure what workers are contributing to businesses, and, when you do that, very often you end up paying some people less and other people more. The second is automation—especially in terms of smart software. Today’s workplaces are often more complicated than, say, a factory for General Motors was in 1962. They require higher skills. People who have those skills are very often doing extremely well, but a lot of people don’t have them, and that increases inequality. And the third point is globalization. There’s a lot more unskilled labor in the world, and that creates downward pressure on unskilled labor in the United States. On the global level, inequality is down dramatically—we shouldn’t forget that. But within each country, or almost every country, inequality is up.

 Question:

You think that intelligent software, especially, will make the labor market more unequal. Why is that the case?

 Tyler Cowen:

Because of the cognitive requirements of working with smart software. And it’s also about training. There’s a big digital divide in this country.”

Tags: ,

Futurist Jordan Brandt of Autodesk recently published a conceptual proposal which suggested how Elon Musk could manufacture his new transportation model, the Hyperloop. Brandt, who is currently working on 3D printing and 4D printing (self-assembling, self-replicating), just did an Ask Me Anything at Reddit. In it, he addresses one of the chief concerns of manufacturing via printing: more waste. The exchange:

Question:

Why is 3d printing so revolutionary? Is it going to replace traditional manufacturing?

Jordan Brandt:

Near term 3d printing will augment traditional manufacturing, helping us through the ‘last mile’ of automation. Long term, it’s totally revolutionary

Question:

Won’t there be a serious environmental impact from the proliferation of even more objects in the world? Or do you think that recycling technology will evolve hand in hand with 3d printing technology so that we can just reprint all our waste?

Jordan Brandt:

Imagine if you could get your $.10 bottle deposit by simply throwing your water bottle into the 3d printing recycler (like filabot). Seems like less CO2 emissions than having trucks drive around, pick everything up, recycle, and then redistribute new products?”

Tags: ,

From Pamela McClintock’s Hollywood Reporter interview with IMAX Chairman Greg Foster, a passage about the emerging international film markets after China:

Hollywood Reporter:

How much does Imax’s future growth depend on international?

Greg Foster:

About 60 percent of our business comes from overseas, including 20 percent from China. Of the 300 theaters we operate overseas, 125 are in China. We just made a deal to build 125 theaters with Chinese exhibitor Wanda. Rich Gelfond had a strong vision about China and is responsible for our business there. In China this year so far, Imax carried four of the five top-grossing movies: Iron Man 3Pacific Rim and two Chinese movies, Young Detective Dee and Journey to the West: Conquering the Demons.

Hollywood Reporter:

What’s next after China?

Greg Foster:

Southeast Asia is booming, and we want to be a part of that boom. We recently struck a deal to build more than 20 new theaters in Indonesia, further boosting our presence there. Our South Korean presence is also growing, and Gravity recently scored the highest opening average theater gross of any movie in Imax’s history, or $107,900. That’s insane.”

Tags: ,

Paper will survive the Digital Age, but publishing will never be the same business again. From Carolyn Kellogg at the L.A. Times:

“Ninety-eight British publishers closed their doors in the year ending August 2013. The cause? E-books and online discounts.

Closures were up 42% over the previous year, according to the Guardian. The companies that folded included the 26-year-old healthcare publisher Panos London, and Evans Brothers, which published popular children’s book author Enid Blyton for 30 years.

During 2012, e-book sales in Britain rose by 134% to more than $346 million. While print sales still dominate the bottom line in Britain with more than $4.6 billion in sales, that total was a 1% drop from the year before. The trend is toward e-books, and that trend has not been good for publishers.”

Tags:

The opening of a Phys.org report by Bob Yirka about a UK city moving, if gingerly, into the era of autonomous vehicles, with the mobilization of 100 driverless pods:

“Milton Keynes, a town north of London, has announced that it will be deploying 100 driverless pods (officially known as ULTra PRT transport pods) as a public transportation system. A similar system has been running for two years at Heathrow airport. The plan is to have the system up and running by 2015, with a full rollout by 2017. The move marks the first time that self-driving vehicles will be allowed to run on public roads in that country.

The  look like very small metro rail cars, with sliding doors for exit and entry. Passengers can call (and pay £2 per trip) for a pod using their smartphone. The pods travel using rubber wheels on a special roadway, not a track, between curbs that help in guidance. Each pod is computer driven by independent onboard systems, though humans () can take over if there is a problem.”

Tags:

"Dr. Nelden advertised for a man willing to sell an ear for $5,000."

“Dr. Nelden advertised for a man willing to sell an ear for $5,000.”

Selling your finger so that your kid can have music lessons is one thing, but a deal between a German restaurateur and a Western millionaire to transplant an ear from the former to the latter is one of the wilder antique newspaper pieces I’ve ever read. The story from the November 19, 1903 New York Times:

Philadelphia–Dr. Andrew L. Nelden of New York to-day performed the operation of grafting an ear upon the head of a Western millionaire, who the surgeon says he is under bond not to reveal. The operation was to have been performed in New York, but District Attorney Jerome is said to have interfered.

Dr. Nelden advertised for a man willing to sell an ear for $5,000, and from more than 100 applicants he selected a young German, who at one time conducted a restaurant in New York.

Dr. Nelden said to-day:

‘The operation has been performed and promises to be successful. It took place at a private hospital here, where I was assisted by a Philadelphia physician and one from New York. I think they will be willing to have their names known later.

‘The two men were placed in opposite directions upon an elongated bed. One-half of a volunteer’s ear –the upper half–was cut off, together with about four inches of the skin behind the ear.

‘This was twisted around and fitted to a freshly prepared wound upon my patient’s head. The half ear was held in place by bandages, and the two men were bound so that they could not move their heads. They must retain this position for at least twelve days to allow the circulation to come through the flap of skin that still remains as part of the volunteer’s scalp.

‘If this half ear starts to unite properly the lower half of the ear will be grafted in the same manner.'”

Tags: ,

We look back on pioneers with admiration–awe, even–their foolhardiness forgotten, their sense of adventure and sacrifice appreciated. It doesn’t matter if we’re talking about wagon-train Westerners, early aviators or Apollo astronauts who trusted in missions too difficult to comprehend–these are the heroes, the ones who’ve expanded the horizons. We look differently at the new pioneers, those who are taking a dangerous journey within, testing the human limits of biology and chemistry with the aid of drugs and implants. Just like their predecessors, they’re risking everything for a chance at a better life for them and for us. There will be casualties–there always are in pioneering.

A new video of biohacker Tim Cannon.

Tags:

Relatively wealthy nations benefit from ambitious space programs, even if it does test the conscience to send Whitey to the moon while sister Nell is nursing rat bites. But what about a relatively poor country like India, with its ambitions for space missions? Can that be justified? A rationale from the Economist:

“From a distance, India’s extra-terrestrial ambitions might seem like a waste of money. The country still has immense numbers of poor people: two-fifths of its children remain stunted from malnutrition and half the population lack proper toilets. Its Mars mission may be cheap by American (or Chinese) standards, at just $74m, but India’s overall space programme costs roughly $1 billion a year. That is more than spare change, even for a near $2-trillion economy. Meanwhile, spending on public health, at about 1.2% of GDP, is dismally low. What if the 16,000 scientists and engineers now working on space development were deployed instead to fix rotten sanitation? And why should donors bother to help tackle poverty where governments have enough spare resources to think about space? For some countries, at least, decent answers exist to such questions. Trips to the Moon and Mars may well be mostly about showing off. But most space programmes are designed to get satellites into Earth’s orbit for the sake of better communications, mapping, weather observation or military capacity at home. These bring direct benefits to ordinary people. Take one recent example: a fierce cyclone that hit India’s east coast last month killed few, whereas a similar-strength one in the same spot, in 1999, killed over 10,000. One reason for the improvement was that Indian weather satellites helped to make possible far more accurate predictions of where and when the storm would hit. Otherwise, improved data on monsoon rains, or generally shifting weather patterns, can help even the poorest farmers have a better idea of when to plant crops.

From a Singularity Hub piece about a flying robot that absorbs crashes, allowing it to learn by trial and error the way some insects do: “GimBall’s cage makes it mostly collision-proof and even informs its flight pattern. The robot evokes an insect repeatedly flying into a window until it finds open space and freedom.”

The Kardashians are the human detritus of capitalism, but they have a market.

It’s obviously no secret that fame has never been more lucrative and the Warholian fifteen minutes now stretches on seemingly forever. It’s the dark side of democracy, the gates, stormed, are gone for good. It’s one of those times when a victory seems like a loss. The opening of an interesting New Yorker blog post by Vauhini Vara about a service that aims to further capitalize on the shallow end of the talent pool:

If you’ve been dying to lunch with Mike Tyson before watching his one-man performance from the front row, you may be in luck. If Only, a Web site run by the San Francisco entrepreneur Trevor Traina, will set it up for fifty thousand dollars. You can also meet the singer Shakira for fifteen thousand dollars, or dine at the estate of the celebrity chef Michael Chiarello, with him, his wife, and eleven of your guests, for twelve thousand dollars. Madonna, Joe Montana, and Alice Waters have also offered ‘experiences’ through the site.

‘We’re recognizing that anyone who’s a top talent or a luminary has a natural market for their expertise, but no one has really created that marketplace for them,’ Traina told me over the phone last week. ‘Their time and attention has value, just like an empty guest room has value.’ IfOnly, in other words, aims to do for celebrities what Airbnb did for guest bedrooms: help people squeeze revenue from the unmonetized spaces in their own lives.•

Tags: ,

Before we have citizens conducting genetic engineering experiments in their garages, creating new life forms, we’ll see the average person being able to play with electronics on a scale unimaginable even a decade ago. Example: A Microsoft researcher believes we’re close to being able to print paper computers. From Paul Marks at New Scientist:

“‘IMAGINE printing out a paper computer and tearing off a corner so someone else can use part of it.’ So says Steve Hodges of Microsoft Research in Cambridge, UK. The idea sounds fantastical, but it could become an everyday event thanks in part to a technique he helped develop.

Hodges, along with Yoshihiro Kawahara and his team at the University of Tokyo, Japan, have found a way to print the fine, silvery lines of electronic circuit boards onto paper. What’s more, they can do it using ordinary inkjet printers, loaded with ink containing silver nanoparticles. Last month Kawahara demonstrated a paper-based moisture sensor at the Ubicomp conference in Zurich, Switzerland.

Kawahara says the idea is perfect for the growing maker movement of inventors and tinkerers. Hobbyists will be able to test circuit designs by simply printing them out and throwing away anything that doesn’t work. That will reduce much of electronics to a craft akin to ‘sewing or origami,’ he says.”

Tags: , ,

Loewy "aboard" his S1 steam locomotive.

Loewy “aboard” his S1 steam locomotive, 1939.

Loewy with Studebaker Avanti, 19

Loewy with Studebaker Avanti, 1962

Coffe shop, Idlewild Airport, 1962.

Coffee shop, Idlewild Airport, 1962.

As you can see from the Google Doodle, today would have been the 120th birthday of Raymond  Loewy, the French-born industrial designer who revolutionized his field after emigrating to the U.S. He was a veritable Disney of design, bringing a sleek intelligence to too many product categories to count. Here’s an excerpt from his 1986 New York Times obituary:

“His impact on industrial design was first felt in the 1920’s, when everyday objects tended to be dowdy in color, ungainly in shape and bulky in form. Mr. Loewy’s goal was to make such objects sleek and unencumbered.

He led the movement to change when he redesigned the Gestetner duplicating machine, ridding it of its gawky protuberances, encasing its mechanical parts in a simple shell and mounting the whole on a graceful base.

Mr. Loewy was later credited with creating a new profession of designers who have left their mark on nearly every aspect of modern life. As the architect Philip Johnson put it, ‘Raymond started industrial design and the streamlining movement.’

Soon after Mr. Loewy’s success with the Gestetner copier, the Loewy look began to crop up on hundreds of products – refrigerators, ballpoint pens, ocean liners and passenger trains, tricycles and motorcycles and buses, and eventually spacecraft.

Mr. Loewy gave objects a shape, an image, a ‘packaged’ look, putting his unique mark on Coca-Cola dispensers, dinnerware, sewing machines, toasters, electric clocks and radios and television sets, and even cookie shapes for Nabisco. An Eagle and a Jet

The familiar eagle silhouette logotype of the United States Postal Service is a Loewy design, and so is the distinctive look of the President’s white Air Force One jet.

The premier industrial designer was a showman, and by no means was he self-effacing. He said, for example, in a 1979 interview: ”My early colleagues and myself helped create the life styles of Americans and, by osmosis, of the rest of the world. I found it difficult to reconcile success with humility. I tried it first but it meant avoiding the very essence of my career – total exhilaration and the ecstasy of creativity.'”

Tags:

Tools are great, but they can induce tunnel vision, and a narrow people probably won’t create more great tools. The opening of  Robert Twigger’s excellent Aeon essay in praise of the polymath, a soul seemingly squeezed out of the contemporary Western economic model except at the highest levels: 

“I travelled with Bedouin in the Western Desert of Egypt. When we got a puncture, they used tape and an old inner tube to suck air from three tyres to inflate a fourth. It was the cook who suggested the idea; maybe he was used to making food designed for a few go further. Far from expressing shame at having no pump, they told me that carrying too many tools is the sign of a weak man; it makes him lazy. The real master has no tools at all, only a limitless capacity to improvise with what is to hand. The more fields of knowledge you cover, the greater your resources for improvisation.

We hear the descriptive words psychopath and sociopath all the time, but here’s a new one: monopath. It means a person with a narrow mind, a one-track brain, a bore, a super-specialist, an expert with no other interests — in other words, the role-model of choice in the Western world. You think I jest? In June, I was invited on the Todayprogramme on BBC Radio 4 to say a few words on the river Nile, because I had a new book about it. The producer called me ‘Dr Twigger’ several times. I was flattered, but I also felt a sense of panic. I have never sought or held a PhD. After the third ‘Dr’, I gently put the producer right. And of course, it was fine — he didn’t especially want me to be a doctor. The culture did. My Nile book was necessarily the work of a generalist. But the radio needs credible guests. It needs an expert — otherwise why would anyone listen?

The monopathic model derives some of its credibility from its success in business. In the late 18th century, Adam Smith (himself an early polymath who wrote not only on economics but also philosophy, astronomy, literature and law) noted that the division of labour was the engine of capitalism. His famous example was the way in which pin-making could be broken down into its component parts, greatly increasing the overall efficiency of the production process. But Smith also observed that ‘mental mutilation’ followed the too-strict division of labour. Or as Alexis de Tocqueville wrote: ‘Nothing tends to materialise man, and to deprive his work of the faintest trace of mind, more than extreme division of labour.’

Ever since the beginning of the industrial era, we have known both the benefits and the drawbacks of dividing jobs into ever smaller and more tedious ones.”

Tags:

I wonder if huge companies like Google or Amazon (or the ones that supplant them) will eventually buy (or build) solar or wind facilities to provide their own carbon-neutral energy, allowing them to control costs on their massive servers and such while providing a cleaner environment. And perhaps they could sell energy to others in the manner that they offer the cloud. A big dream, I know. From an Associated Press story about Microsoft purchasing power from a Texas wind farm:

Houston — It takes a lot of energy to store all the data 1 billion people and 20 million businesses plug into their computers, phones, tablets and gadgets. So as part of an effort to become carbon neutral, Microsoft Corp. has entered a 20-year deal to buy power from a new wind farm in Texas, the first time the tech giant is directly purchasing electricity from a specific source. 

The deal announced Monday between Microsoft and RES Americas is being funded in part by money collected from a ‘carbon fee,’ an internal tax of sorts that the company has been charging its departments for every ton of carbon produced. Microsoft also hopes the deal will be a model for other parts of its global operations, said Brian Janous, Microsoft’s director of energy strategy.

As part of an effort to become carbon neutral, Microsoft has entered a deal to buy power from a new wind farm in Texas, the first time the tech giant is directly purchasing electricity from a specific source.

The vanilla wafers — for sale for years — have seen an uptick in sales following a campaign to connect with customers via Facebook and Twitter.

‘We’re definitely looking at this as a first of a kind, but it fits into our overall desire to have more control over our energy supply,’ Janous said.”

“Fuzzy Williams, another chimpanzee, was also picked as a likely subject for experiment.”

Some bored and/or drunk keepers at the Bronx Zoo dressed chimpanzees in cute outfits in the name of “science,” as evidenced by an article in the May 3, 1909 New York Times. An excerpt:

“The experiments which began a year ago with Prof. Melvin Haggerty’s study of ‘monkey psychology’ in the monkey house at the Bronx Park Zoo have been carried on by several of the keepers who took up the work where Mr. Haggerty left off, and they say that some interesting results have been achieved in the last few weeks. James Riley, one of the keepers, who presides over the big family of primates in captivity there, says he is going to write a book about it all. Some of the chapters will probably be written by Fred Engelholm, another keeper who has taken a leading part in the experiments with the monkeys.

It was Riley’s idea–the continuation of Mr. Haggerty’s experiments. Riley was very much interested in the way Mr. Haggerty went about his studies in the monkey house. In fact, Riley was a valuable aid to Mr. Haggerty while the Harvard man was there. He built some of the apparatus which was used in the experiments, such as trapdoor platforms, hollow tubes with secret springs, and other puzzles which the monkeys were supposed to solve in order to get stores of food which were hidden. While Mr. Haggerty’s experiments brought forth some surprising results, they did not go far enough to suit Riley and Engelholm.

When Mr. Haggerty packed up his apparatus and left the zoo with his two trained ringtails, Algernon and Percy. Keepers Riley and Engelbolm started in on their own account. They had plenty of time for their experiments in the Winter, when there were few visitors at the zoo. Each of the keepers had read several books on monkeys, written by men who had conducted experiments along a line which had apparently never been touched.

Baldy, a small black chimpanzee, was chosen as the most intelligent of all the monkeys at the Zoo. Fuzzy Williams, another chimpanzee, was also picked as a likely subject for experiment, and so were two of the ringtails, Mickey and Quickstep Slim. At the outset Riley built a little safe with a combination lock. There were only eight letters to the combination and it was not difficult to open it, provided the letter was known. After a few weeks of instruction Riley says that both of the chimpanzees were able to get into the safe quite readily. Always they found something nice in store for them–a banana, an apple, or some other fruit which monkeys like.

This experiment, however, was along the general line which had been adopted by Mr. Haggerty. Riley and Engelholm say they decided to try to teach the monkeys the significance of certain acts and sounds. They got a small dinner bell, which rang when a small button on top was pressed. They began by pressing this bell every time they fed the monkeys. After a few days they put the bell on a little shelf in Baldy’s cage. At first the chimpanzee insisted on ringing the bell almost constantly. But a few slaps on the hands broke him of this. The keepers taught Baldy to ring the bell whenever he saw them coming with food. It required more than a month’s training to accomplish this. But the keepers had plenty of time and patience.

The next experiment was with blackboard and chalk. The two ringtails, Mickey and Quickstep Slim, were chosen for the experiment. One of the keepers spent an hour or so a day in their cage drawing on the blackboard. The pictures drawn were very crude, only a few rough lines to represent some animal or inanimate object. Both monkeys seemed to take a keen interest in the blackboard work, the keepers say. When Mickey was first handed the chalk and put before the blackboard he seemed to think the chalk was something to eat, and began to nibble it.

‘But,’ says Riley, ‘after a little while he would sit there before the board, drawing just as we had been doing. The marks of the chalk on the board seemed to afford him a never-ceasing pleasure. Quickstep Slim also learned to use the chalk on the board instead of eating it. …

After the blackboard experiments the keepers tried to teach Fuzzy Williams and Baldy how to box with gloves. In this they had a hard task. The chimpanzees were willing enough to romp and to maul each other at times, but they seemed unable to learn how to use the gloves properly. The boxing gloves were made by the keepers and stuffed with wool. They were able to fit the hands of the monkeys. After putting them on, Riley would hold one of the chimpanzees and Engelholm the other, and would ‘bait’ them as cock fighters bait the cocks in the pit.

This experiment is still in its first stages, the keepers say. But they hope to develop boxers in Baldy and the other monkey.

There was another trick which the keepers taught one of the ringtails. It was to sit beside a small tub of water and hold a fishing pole over the tub. Of course the monkey did not know what he was doing, but the spectacle he presented was very amusing.”

Tags: , , , , , ,

A manufacturing job can disappear, an autonomous machine replacing a human worker, but will people invite the transition, will they hand over the wheel? The technology for driverless cars is close, but questions remain, both legal and practical. In the latter category: Driverless vehicles are so good environmentally because they crash so infrequently that they can be far lighter which means they’ll require less fuel. But how can cars be made so lightweight if we’re still split between autonomous vehicles and human-guided ones? From Kevin Robillard at Politico:

“Driverless cars are poised to begin transforming the nation’s roadways before the end of the decade, a major transportation group said Wednesday, but a top federal transportation official warned things might not be so easy.

The Eno Center for Transportation released a paper that predicted a nation full of driverless ‘autonomous’ vehicles could save $447 billion and 21,700 lives annually by preventing 4.2 million crashes and reducing fuel consumption by 724 million gallons. Still, switching from highways full of drivers to highways full of computers won’t be simple.

‘We’re looking at the introduction of AVs by the end of the decade,’ Daniel Fagnant, the paper’s author, said at an event Wednesday.

The switch to autonomous vehicles comes with enough potential benefits to make transportation policymakers giddy. Computers don’t get drunk, fall asleep or get distracted by text messages. They can stay a precise distance away from the car in front of them, reducing time and fuel wasted by congestion.

The headache comes in getting there.”

Tags:

Some more predictions from Norman Mailer’s 1970 Space Age reportage, Of a Fire on the Moon, which have come to fruition even without the aid of moon crystals:

“Thus the perspective of space factories returning the new imperialists of space a profit was now near to the reach of technology. Forget about diamonds! The value of crystals grown in space was incalculable: gravity would not be pulling on the crystal structure as it grew, so the molecule would line up in lattices free of  shift or sheer. Such a perfect latticework would serve to carry messages for a perfect computer. Computers the size of a package of cigarettes would then be able to do the work of present computers the size of a trunk. So the mind could race ahead to see computers programming go-to-school routes in the nose of every kiddie car–the paranoid mind could see crystal transmitters sewn into the rump of ever juvenile delinquent–doubtless, everybody would be easier to monitor. Big Brother could get superseded by Moon Brother–the major monitor of them all might yet be sunk in a shaft on the back face of the lunar sphere.”

Tags:

« Older entries § Newer entries »