Thoughts on Earth Day, or A Travel Brochure for Earth

Credit: NASA

A few weeks ago, on a beautiful day, I went for a jog through a nearby park and started thinking about what a nice planet we are so lucky to live on. Our nearest neighbors are a stormy, roiling furnace and a frigid, vacuous desert. The latest survey has found that there are a lot of planets out there, a lot of them may be habitable as well (capable of sustaining liquid water), but still, planets like Earth don't just show up everywhere.

Last year, astrophysicist Stephen Hawking made a mildly provocative statement that there is almost certainly intelligent life out there besides ourselves, but that it would be a mistake to try to contact them. Given what a rare oasis our planet is, maybe Hawking is correct in apparently believing that the plot of Independence Day is the most likely outcome. Hawking bases this on the idea that intelligent, space-faring species will probably act a lot like us. But then, it's not inconceivable that they might come to Earth just to take pictures, talk loudly about how inferior our customs are, and leave lousy tips. As annoying as this might be, interstellar tourism would be a boon to the global economy, which would certainly make people more concerned about conserving our planet's ecosystems.

So what sorts of things might be in a travel guide for Earth?

How denial gets between science and politics

I read this article the other day which made me think a bit about Tim's previous post on polarization. It's a bit of a long read for an article, but it deals with the psychology behind the interesting phenomenon of denial of fact, even under overwhelming evidence supporting said fact—also known as "motivated reasoning" or confirmation bias. This is a counter-intuitive, yet very familiar aspect of human nature.

It's a good read, for me it was most interesting for some ideas that touches on briefly, which is what made me think of Tim's post. First it touches on the widely held perception that the country is becoming more partisan, or polarized. Given that this is an easy scapegoat for anyone wanting to decry American politics, I'm a little skeptical about how much truth there is to this, although the last few years have seemed awfully polarized, It's not getting any better at any rate. The strange part is that this might be happening because of the democratization of information and the media, not just in spite of it. As Mooney writes:

Okay, so people gravitate toward information that confirms what they believe, and they select sources that deliver it. Same as it ever was, right? Maybe, but the problem is arguably growing more acute, given the way we now consume information—through the Facebook links of friends, or tweets that lack nuance or context, or "narrowcast" and often highly ideological media that have relatively small, like-minded audiences. Those basic human survival skills of ours, says Michigan's Arthur Lupia, are "not well-adapted to our information age."

Of course it get's worse. He also cites a study that shows that people tend to judge the trustworthiness of a source of information based on whether their findings agreed with their own values, rather than the source's expertise. So people can essentially write off any information that contradicts their worldview.

Lists; A Good Thing

As many of you know, our blog contains many lists. (I know you were expected a sweet hyperlink that highlighted all the list posts. Frankly I'm too lazy to do that.) I for one am a huge fan of this list. Besides the wonderful music you guys post about, it has not been a great year for pop music. (Justin Bieber featuring Rascal Flatts? shoot me now)

Ok Dave, enough of the crappy intro, what is this post all about?

Here we go. I was going to make a list of all the interesting things I have seen on the bike path next to my house. Sure the guy in the Jesus sweatshirt, or the couple who makes out in the same place everyday at 4pm exactly are interesting, but that is not what our blog is about. Stadium 110 demands insight, insight that I have been failing to communicate to you, the blogosphere.

When I finished my bike ride, I realized; no I don't want to make a list of things that I find interesting, I want to make a list of skills /traits I have been developing and share them with you.

1. Since "reading" is one of the hot topics, I figured I would start with a book recommendation. World War Z is an oral account of the zombie apocalypse that occurs in roughly 2012. Stupid Premise, but oddly enough it is very well written and a very enjoyable read.

2. Photography.
Maybe film school has rubbed off on me a bit, but I am really starting to get into taking photos. Here is one I actually think is pretty decent.
The mountain is a little blury in the background, but I have not touched this photo up at all. Ps This is Camp Shira 2 on Kilimanjaro at roughly 15,000 feet.

3. Ex-girlfriends:

In the media we are lead to believe that breakups can result in friendships. After the mess I was in this year I realize that is very rarely the case. I'm not saying its impossible, but most of the time if you are dumped or if you do the dumping, sh&@t goes down emotionally between two individuals.

4. Everything is cooler when put to movie trailer scores. (Video to follow in subsequent post). The time to compress the video is measured in hours.

5. Spring Concert 2k11
a. (sweet Dave a list within a list)
b. Good times ahead
c. Alcoholic whip cream = game changer.
d. Return of the cobra
e. Warm half-drunk keg to be consumed with breakfast Saturday morning
f. Dinosaur towel?
g. Let's do this.


Well there yah go. It is my sincere desire that this post can be considered one of the "high quality" posts we have all come to expect from one another.

THE COOLEST THING I'VE EVER SEEN ON THE INTERNET

Welcome to my new time waster.

http://mandaflewaway.tumblr.com/post/2057242738

I hope this never goes away. No matter what I make, it sounds good.

Found on College Humor.

First Book Review: Anathem

I'm compsing. So I'm writing a book review for the blog. I mentioned this in my comment on Mark's most recent post, but I feel that this book merits its own post. The book I am referring to is Neal Stephenson's Anathem.

Anathem takes place on a planet called Arbre, which is strikingly similar to the planet Earth. The Arbran civilization has also gone through a history very similar to that of human civilization, except the novel begins approximately 3,600 years from their equivalent of our present day. In Arbran history, a series of Terrible Events 3600 years before the story began wiped out much of the population. These Terrible Events were largely attributed to advances in science (at least as far as can be guessed, 3600 years is a long time) and the world civilization was entirely overhauled. All of the scientists, mathematicians, and philosophers were separated from society in Concents. Within these Concents, the scientists were further divided into groups that were allowed outside the walls of the Concent every 1, 10, 100, and 1000 years. Oners were often just members of the outside world interested in Concents, tenners were the most common members. Within the Concents, the members are further divided by their philosophical and epistemological preferences into Orders. The two major orders are based off of those who believe that words themselves contain meaning versus those who believe that only the physical concepts contain meaning. The history of philosophers in Arbre matches that of Earth. Since the Terrible Events, the Concents and the rest of the world have only interacted once, to destroy an oncoming asteroid. Approximately 1000 years before the story begins, it becomes clear that the Thousanders have developed a new form of technology that can change matter at any place on the planet, the outside world freaks out and kills nearly every member of the Concents. The three Concents that were untouchable reconvene, set up a new code of conduct, and restart.

When the book starts, it focuses on a young Tenner whose mentor is Anathematized, or removed from the Concent. As the book progresses, it becomes clear that he was removed due to an external crisis and that the world of the Concents will be forced to interact with the secular world yet again.

While it's a long read (900 pages), its engrossing and thought-bending. It includes one of the best thought out implementations of quantum mechanics in a sci-fi novel that I've ever encountered. The world(s) that he creates pull you in and keep you guessing about how it all works and what is going on, which he subsequently explains quite well. If I had to sum up Anathem in 1 sentence, I'd say that it's the only book that explains orbital mechanics in detail that I also couldn't put down.

Books, Book Readin', andTop 5? 10? Book Lists

Currently Reading - The Nine: Inside The Secret World of the Supreme Court by Jeffery Toobin (Review)



Some of you may know this about me, but I enjoy a good read now and then. I love reading up on random shit on the inter-webs and when a topic interests me, I write it down on a "Topics To Explore" list I have going. Those of you who lived with me or went to school with me may also know that in Northfield in the spring, there is always a book fair at the ice arena. It's called the Jesse James Book Raid and it lasts three days. The first day its like $5 for a box of books. The Second day it gets cheaper and then on the last day after 1pm, whatever is left... IS FREE.

I don't really have a good title, but I think you all should read this.

Let's talk politics, my friends. I want to talk political climate, the accepted political "spectrum", the actual political "spectrum", partisanship, and the incredibly simplistic way that our society deals with it all. I want to talk about a country divided, with arugula-eatin'-namby-pamby-fag-lovin'-baby-killin' blue states on the coasts and inbred-racist-gun-totin'-gay-hatin'-Jesus-lovin' red states in the heartland.

We live in quite the country at quite the time. I'm going to refrain from writing an entire post about how our country has changed since September 11th, 2001, and just trust that you all understand that it has (although I could write such a post, but sometimes I wonder if it all just has to do with the fact that September 2001 was also the beginning of my high school career, and thus probably the dawn of my awareness of the world outside small-town Maine).

For whatever reason (and there are plenty of theories), our country has turned into a relentlessly partisan place. On any issue that enters the consciousness of the populous (political, fiscal, moral, cultural) the solution is broken down into black and white, right and wrong. That, in and of itself, is a terribly dangerous existence. But what's worse, our perception of the right and wrong solution/response/action for a specified issue entirely depends on our color of choice - red or blue. And even worse than that, the people around us that we (knowingly or unknowingly) interact with automatically color us on a specific issue based on what they know about our beliefs on entirely disparate subjects. Even more catastrophically worse, we judge each other's value and worth as people by looking through the previously mentioned judgmental lenses that I've already described. If what I've said hasn't confused you, this should horrify you. All kidding aside, your value as a human being or contributing member to our society should not be based on your beliefs on issues of fiscal, political, cultural, or moral importance.

How can you possibly deduce someone's opinion about the use of war in foreign policy based on their previously stated belief about whether or not a fetus is a living human? How can you possibly claim to know someone's belief about border security based on their sexual orientation, or known support for gay marriage? Is it logical to leverage a person's belief about government spending to determine their belief about the legality of marijuana, or their thoughts on teaching creationism in public schools? These are all disparate topics - belief in one thing does not lead to belief in an entirely unrelated thing.

Let me explain further. Each of the issues that I've discussed above fall into different categories. Some are moral/cultural/religious (creationism, gay marriage), others regard policy (marijuana, immigration), still others relate to fiscal matters (taxation) or foreign policy (war on terror, immigration). As you can imagine, some issues fall into more than one category. All of these categories have an associated spectrum of belief. Broken down most simply, we can say there's an authoritarian-libertarian spectrum, and a liberal-conservative spectrum. But if we just stop there, that is really where the problem starts.

We must break it down further!

There's a fiscal spectrum, that ranges between spendy and thrifty. There's a moral/cultural/religious spectrum that ranges between liberal and conservative. There's a foreign policy spectrum that ranges from idealism to neo-conservatism. Of course, not all of these spectra can be completely independent. People leaning towards the authoritarian side of said spectrum will likely range toward to the liberal side of the fiscal spectrum - that's just the classic example of having a big government and needing a way to pay for it. But that's not the problem here. The problem is that we/media/society/political parties have taken all of these spectra and tied them together, putting liberal/blue/Democrat at one side, and red/conservative/Republican at the other. If we say there are four "spectra" (we're still simplifying here, admittedly, but anyway - authority, fiscal, moral, foreign policy), then there are EIGHT possible combinations of beliefs if we stick with a black and white approach to this (I've already explained why a black and white approach is a bad idea). That means we're dumbing down EIGHT possibilities to TWO. Can you honestly sit there and say that RED or BLUE perfectly sums up your beliefs?

Without taking time for justification, and putting myself at the risk of doing exactly what I'm saying is so bad, I'm going assume that we're all fairly liberally-minded individuals along most of the spectra I've mentioned. So, many of us listen to some of the unnamed conservative commentators on the radio or on TV and get so angry about the blanket statements they make about "liberals" or Democrats. But, we've all done the exact same thing before. Educated people, members of an accepting, open generation like ourselves, have bought into this and deal with these things in the exact same way. My roommates are all fairly left-leaning and aware individuals (again, putting myself at risk of sounding hypocritical), and I have heard them all make comments or uninformed judgments about "Republicans". Case in point (and remember this was said seriously): "Oh my god, I think my co-worker is a Republican. I don't know if I can still be friends with him."

These last few paragraphs have been an arduously long-winded attempt at saying that this all goes in every direction. People who "hated" George W. Bush and expressed it as such are just as guilty as those who "hate" Barack Obama, because it's not what we believe but how we're expressing it and synthesizing it that is the problem. Our country is at a critical juncture - it's as divided and ruthless a political culture as it's ever been (although I don't profess to speak for years I didn't experience, I just get that feeling.) An opinion on one belief does not connote an opinion on another (even if party affiliation may say otherwise). If we all, as a people, continue to judge our fellow citizens based on their party affiliation or opinion on a specific matter, our country will continue to be a divided place. A nation founded on free-thinking where difference of opinion is expressed with resentment rather than respect won't go anywhere - we'll just continue to spin our wheels and embarrass ourselves.


(Disclaimer: I tried not to stream-of-consciousness this post, but it likely seems as though I did.)

Link for Ted

SPRING TERM

Alyssa the you-know-what

music: chromeo.

Song title: Night by Knight

Elliot is up

Girl don't be a momo

You don't know whitch way to go

What

what

what okya

yo

this is me.

I say she's too dramaic.

I think she's too boner matic in the vagina. night by nitha.

Go.

Just kidding.

Um.

Fu...

Dude...

doo

doo

doo

(poops!)

CORNER OF COLLEGE AND UNION up in this bitzhc.

(Cue dance party. by very white boys, not that I have anything to say about being white.)

(scene change)

(fade to black)

(slow leade into http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izrJEi-AB0o )

Elliot go.

yo my name is elliot B.

no no

no

no

no

fuck

no

no

hip hop

every time I do I do things.

lougie.

do the dougie.

that's what I was I was looking for beyofore on the floor your momma on the whore.

floors legit

and when I take a shit, its shlegit

"shitty long on my cock." -freeho

this shit it block

him hop hip o my slop and I eat the hen.

midget.

midget.

midget.

ridge-it.

bridget sucked my nuts.

On the fence.

on putting my defense.

holly at you momma bitchen kitchen.

farther from the truth.

And now I pass the mike, To michael bluth...

CAW.

Remember that time David and I didnt get laid?

My grandfather was a cabbie.

This is how a non-scommped drunk post shall commence. I am drinking--err, drunk--with Mounisger Smelliot FartFace.

There were a number of ladies surriounding us all day. or evening. I am making an effort to postin with good spelling.

Dudes, drunk posting is hard.

Here is smelliout:

(Free-Hou out)

lets play a love game do you love game are you in the game? something the love game. l-l-l-l-l-l-l-l-lets have some fun this beat is siiiick. THE STORY OF US, IT ALWAYS STARTS THE SAME WITH A BOY AND A GIRL AND A HUT AND A GAME?

I think she means jabba the hut. He's the only Hut I can think of.

OKay. So here's the best game ever. It isn't a love game. It's still fun and its called telephone pictionary. Obviously a shitty name for it. If you can think of a better name, feel free to let me know. Here's how you play.

1. For as many people as there are in the group you are, cut that many pieces of paper per person. Thus, if you are playing with 6 people, then each person gets 6 pieces of paper for a total of 36 pieces. The pieces of paper dont need to be that big. Only about 2x4 inches per piece.
2. To start, everyone writes down a word/phrase on their piece of paper.
3. Everyone passes their pieceS of paper to the left (or right, honestly i dont care). The important part is that ALL of the pieces of paper are passed at one time, not just the one you wrote on.
4. The person who receivers the papers reads the word/phrase and then draws a picture on a different piece of paper that "describes" the word/phrase.
5. All the pieces of paper are passed to the left (or right, honestly I dont care...honestly).
6. The receiving person sees the image and then writes a word for the image but DOES NOT look at the previous card which says the word that caused the other person to draw the picture. THIS IS HOW ITS LIKE TELEPHONE AND PICTIONARY AT THE SAME TIME.
7. "the world is spinning" -FreeHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
8. skeet
9. etc continuing from step (6).
10. I apologize if the above description is unclear.

And now...stream of consciousness from free ho.

"So there was a mountain this mountain is rounded on top. most of the time it was obscured by clouds. But one time it was clear and I saw both caps. One was gorgeous and the other one was taller. The other one was purple. Tri-coconut oil. It was a gorgeous blue sky. we would see things from miles around. SPeed and endurance...muircamp. THe little people caught me on the ridge. STOP. JUMP. SHIFT. STANDING Down there. THE RED. THE WHITE. THE CLEANLines. RUMMMMM RUMMM RUMMM. To the devils kitchen we go, look for the rum rum rum through the dark. From the back of the motorcycle. Look at the fins look at the dark look at the motorcycle. Look at the markers look at the red. Make camp. Learn to ride. Learn to DRINK. BIG bend. moab (mother of all bombs). THat was the best night of my life. That was the best day of my life."

Note: open to interpretation.