Engineers vs. Druids

Paul Saffo, at Edge.org (scroll way down):

There are two kinds of fools: one who says this is old and therefore good, and the other who says this is new and therefore better. The argument between the two is as old as humanity itself, but technology's relentless exponential advance has made the divide deeper and more contentious than ever. My greatest fear is that this divide will frustrate the sensible application of technological innovation in the service of solving humankind's greatest challenges.

The two camps forming this divide need a name, and "Druids" and "Engineers" will do. Druids argue that we must slow down and reverse the damage and disruption wrought by two centuries of industrialization. "Engineers" advocate the opposite: we can overcome our current problems only with the heroic application of technological innovation. Druids argue for a return to the past, Engineers urge us to flee into the future.

The Druid-Engineer divide can be seen in virtually every domain touched by technology. Druids urge a ban on GMOs, while Engineers impatiently argue for the creation of synthetic organisms. Environmental Druids seek what the late David Brower called "Earth National Park," while Engineers would take a page from Douglas Adam's planet-designing Magratheans in Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, making better Earth by fixing all the broken bits. Transhumanists and singularitans are Engineers; the Animal Liberation Front and Ted Kaczynski are Druids. In politics, Libertarians are Engineers, while the Greens are Druids. Among religions, Christian fundamentalists are Druids and Scientologists are Engineers.

The gulf between Druid and Engineer makes C. P. Snow's Two Cultures seem like a mere crack in the sidewalk. The two camps do not merely hold different worldviews; they barely speak the same language. A recent attempt to sequester oceanic carbon by dumping iron dust in the Pacific off of British Columbia intrigued Engineers, but alarmed Druids who considered it an act of intentional pollution. Faced with uncertainty or crisis, engineers instinctively hit the gas; Druids prefer the brake.

The pervasiveness of the Druid-Engineer divide and the stubborn passions demonstrated by both sides reminds me of that old warrior-poet Archilochus and his hedgehog-fox distinction revived and elaborated upon by Isaiah Berlin. Experience conditions us towards being Engineers or Druids just as it turns us into hedgehogs or foxes. Engineers tend to be technologists steeped in physics and engineering. Druids are informed by anthropology, biology and the earth sciences. Engineers are optimists—anything can be fixed given enough brainpower, effort and money. Druids are pessimists—no matter how grand the construct, everything eventually rusts, decays and erodes to dust.

Perhaps the inclination is even deeper. Some years back, the five year-old daughter of a venture capitalist friend announced upon encountering an unfamiliar entree at the family table, "It's new and I don't like it." A Druid in the making, that became her motto all through primary school, and for all I know, it still is today.

We live in a time when the loneliest place in any debate is the middle, and the argument over technology's role in our future is no exception. The relentless onslaught of novelties technological and otherwise is tilting individuals and institutions alike towards becoming Engineers or Druids. It is a pressure we must resist, for to be either a Druid or an Engineer is to be a fool. Druids can't revive the past, and Engineers cannot build technologies that do not carry hidden trouble.

The solution is to claw our way back to the middle and a good place to start is by noting one's own Druid/Engineer inclinations. Unexamined inclinations amount to dangerous bias, but once known, the same inclination can become the basis for powerful intuition. What is your instinctive reaction to something new; is your default anticipation or rejection? Consider autonomous highway vehicles: Druids fear that robot cars are unsafe; Engineers wonder why humans are allowed to drive at all.

My worry is that collective minds change as a snail's pace while technology races along an exponential curve. I fear we will not rediscover the middle ground in time to save us from our myriad folly. My inner Engineer is certain a new planetary meme will arrive and bring everyone to their senses, but my gloomy Druid tells me that we will be lucky to muddle our way through without killing ourselves off or ushering in another dark age. I will be happy if both are a little right—and a little wrong.

...

Read More

Accelerando

User "graykat777" posted the image above to Reddit last night (click here for larger version). The user's local utility company is raising rates due to too many people practicing good energy conservation. While this seems psychotic, think of it this way: if it costs X dollars to run a power plant, plus Y dollars per kW/h to burn coal, then you can only cut out Y as usage drops. X is a constant (paying power plant workers, maintaining equipment, servicing power lines, etc). So when earth-friendly folks cut their utility bills, the power company can scale down Y but is stuck paying X no matter what.
On Reddit there was the usual outcry against utility company monopolies, and gnashing of teeth that we can't leave one electricity provider for another when rates go up.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that this is a good thing.

Here's my logic: everyone starts behaving more energy efficiently by turning lights off, switching to CFL bulbs, using smarter thermostats (and dealing with cooler houses in winter and warmer houses in summer), adding insulation to their attics, etc. and that decreases their electrical bills. Then the utility company raises rates to recoup the lost revenue. This pushes people to do more things that are even more energy efficient to recoup their efficiency savings. The electrical company raises rates again, repeat repeat repeat until you end up with super efficient houses and apartments and utility companies that have their backs against the wall and have no choice but to shut down coal plants.
Far-fetched? Maybe. But the higher they raise their rates, the more cost-effective it gets to do energy efficient upgrades to your dwelling.


_

Read More

In Which I Eat Lance-Flavored Crow

Here's what I wrote, back in June, 2012:

As my friend Adam says "Lance Armstrong is either the greatest athlete of all time or the greatest liar of all time." Which is more likely? A ten year long conspiracy that foiled hundreds of blood tests, investigations and video surveillance...or he simply did not dope?

Of course it is clear now that the former scenario turned out to be the right one. Despite the unlikelihood of it, Lance perpetrated a decade-long conspiracy involving hundreds of willing and unwilling accomplices, beat hundreds of blood tests, lied to everyone, consistently, and never once cracked under the pressure of the improbably complicated house of cards he had built.

Going farther back, here's a gushing homage to Mr. Armstrong I wrote in 2009:

But as an engineer, Armstrong is really the posterboy for biomechanical engineering. From wind tunnel testing to adjusting the bike mechanics and aerodynamics, to ergonomics of the bike seat, to aero bars, to his intense training regimen that is, like horses, set up to peak at race time, to his embrace of new technology, the man and the economy that surrounds Armstrong proves that science and technology can coalesce into a superior version of the human condition. Although most of us do not have 6 hours a day to ride and a team of dieticians to provide us with perfectly designed meals, we do get the shake down of technology that has largely been brought about in the last 10 years...a.k.a. The Reign Of Lance.

Ten years ago you just didn't see people on bikes much. Nowadays you see them on carbon fiber bikes with disc wheels. These technologies weren't invented by Armstrong or even his team. But the freakish success of Armstrong in TdF after TdF has proven the success of the technologies.

Yet, its clear now that Mr. Armstrong relied as much on cheating as he did on his technology.

This whole situation makes me sad. I feel betrayed. I feel like a fool. Now, I wasn't a squawking, staunch defender of Lance...the whole situation seemed dubious at its core and I never risked my reputation to defend him. But I assumed he was innocent and idolized him just like everyone else. I dismissed European newspaper article after article because of Nationalistic pride.

So what now? The question I have is whether Lance will go to jail. Maybe not here in America, but abroad. A while back, a newspaper in London claimed that he doped. He sued them for libel, and during the trial (under oath) he denied doping. Will he be arrested on perjury charges? And what of the dozens of other cyclists he admonished and marginalized when they claimed evidence of his cheating? Will he face dozens of libel suits, now reaping what he's sown? I see a fair chance he winds up penniless by the end of this.
What of his sponsors? They probably cannot recoup their losses, but they can blackball him out of the sports world for a long time. When it comes to athletic sponsorships, there is a big difference between a guy who cheats on his wife and a guy who cheats at his game. Remember Pete Rose? Multiply by one thousand.

As for me...I really am just sad. The bike I ride is a Trek 1500 "Team Discovery Edition". I bought it in 2005 after Lance won his 7th Tour. My favorite jersey for riding is my 2007 Team Discovery Levi Leipheimer edition (national road race champion) version. Now, Leipheimer is disgraced too, listed as an admitted doper in the USADA case against Lance.

I have a book I bought, years ago, entitled "The Lance Armstrong Performance Program" written by Chris Carmichael. Perhaps the tagline should read "how to cheat, lie, and manipulate your way into history." The whole thing was a sham. All ten years of it.


_

Read More

Gun Control

With President Obama's announcement about whatever the administration plans to do in regards to gun control happening in 10 minutes*, the topic is hot on my mind. Especially because I have a five year old.

Friday afternoon, I took off early and headed to a farm north of Lawrence, KS, to hunt deer. The weather was lovely, hot and humid and unseasonally warm for mid-January in Kansas. I hunkered down with a Remington Model 700 bolt-action rifle, chambered in .308 Winchester. Dad put some custom loads together using Barnes TSX 150 grain bullets and 47 grains of powder...the bullets are incredibly consistent and fast.
Dad had volunteered to "push" as in he was meandering through some woods upwind of me. The idea is that the deer run from him right to me. Nevertheless, by about 4:30 he'd sat down next to me, and no deer had appeared in the field full of wheat stubble I was watching. Things got exciting around 5:25, shortly after the sun had set. A couple deer walked out of the woods about 250 yards away. Dad spotted them in his binoculars, but I couldn't see them in my scope due to lens flare (of course they choose to be straight west of me at sundown). Then a few more appeared, about 200 yards away. They walked due North, and despite the horrible lens flare, a large doe (that's a female deer, city slickers) moved far enough up the field I could see her. "Can you see her? Do you have a shot?" Dad asked.
"Yeah. Worth a shot." I actually ended up zooming my scope back to 7 power in order to reduce lens flare. I steadied the rifle. The doe was perfectly broadside to me, head down as she munched wheat stubble.  I inhaled a breath and held it. I clicked off the safety and squeezed the trigger, holding the crosshairs right on the deer's shoulder. The crack of the rifle and the kickback surprised me, as always. The muzzle flash confirmed I had kept my eye open. I gazed through the scope and saw the deer lurch, then run. But it didn't run normal. Another second passed, and another, and it came to a stop. Then it fell.
I saw that one of the other deer in the field had not left the scene, it was hesitating to leave its fallen comrade. The biologist in me knew: this was the yearling child of the doe I just killed, and it wasn't sure what to do without mama leading it. The carnivor in me knew: yearlings taste fantastic. "Should I shoot another?" I asked my father. "Your call. You've got another tag." Repeat of the above. This deer fell immediately and did not run. Two shots. Two dead deer. My hunting season was over in less than a minute.
I unloaded my rifle and gave it to dad, who would go get the truck. Then I headed across the wheat stubble to field dress my deer.
Some people might find it grisly, the act of field dressing. Essentially you split the abdoment open from ribs to anus and pull all the guts out. Then, you cut through the diaphragm and cut the heart and lungs out. The purpose of this is to remove the parts of the deer that would make the meat spoil. Then you hold the deer up as best you can as the blood runs out of the body cavity, and you're done. I did that twice. In the failing evening light, I basically had to do it by feel. Thankfully I have done this for 15 years now.
We headed back to town, and dad took the deer to hang up in his barn overnight. I went home and kissed my wife and daughter and told them all about the hunt.

The next morning (Saturday) the three of us packed into the car and headed to the farm. Dad and I needed to skin and cut the meat off the deer so we could freeze the steaks and ground the rest into burger. The wife and my 5 year-old came out to see the dead deer.
The Abstracted Daughter is no longer squeamish about dead deer. She's been seeing my father and me shoot them since she was born. She'll touch their fur, admire how big they are, and generally just talk rapidly about things. Then she'll lose interest and go back inside.
But her witnessing the death is extremely important, for two reasons. The first reason is that I want her to understand that hunting isn't some sort of atrocity, or an act of cruelty. Hunting is a method of obtaining food, of spending quality time with your friends and family, of using guns in a safe, recreational manner. The second reason is that when she sees these dead animals I bring home, she is learning what the end result of a bullet is. I like to think that gun safety will seem more real to her because she has seen just how dead a bullet makes a creature.

Sunday, we were sitting at the kitchen table. Earlier, I'd heard on the news that a 4 year-old boy had accidentally shot himself in the head while playing with a gun his father had left out. I went up to my room and got out my pistol. I keep it unloaded, safety on, with no clips in it. The ammo is kept nearby but separate, as sort of a balance between me being able to grab it fast and load it should the need arise and my child not being able to hurt herself. I brought the pistol down to the table and showed it to TAD.
"Do you know what this is?" I asked her.
She looked at it. "Your gun," she said.
"And is it okay for TAD to play with it?"
"No," she replied immediately.
"TAD, what is a gun for?"
"For shooting things," she replied.
"And what happens to the things that I shoot?"
"They die," she answered, then went on "is that the gun you used to shoot deer?"
"No, for deer I use a much longer gun. I keep this gun around in case someone were to break in to our house or try to hurt us."
She pondered for a second then asked "has that ever happened before?"
I answered, "No, TAD, not once. And I hope never. I never want to use this gun. But I keep it just in case."
"TAD," I finished, "you must never, EVER play with this gun. If you want to play with a gun or pretend to be a hunter, let me know, and I will gladly buy you a toy gun that is safe. Got it?"
"Got it" she answered.

Whatever your stance is on gun control, whether you are for or against citizens being able to buy high-capacity ammo clips and semi-automatic rifles, one thing is true: with the level of gun ownership in this country we must educate children about the dangers of guns. As a parent, it is my social contract with my child to never leave a loaded weapon where she could misuse it. It is my responsibility to teach her both how to use a gun as well as how to not use a gun. That's gun control to me.

*Correction: Mr. Obama was just having a press conference, the gun control specific stuff happens tomorrow.
_

Read More