I treated myself to the new Sarah Vowell book in hardcover and breezed through it in about two weeks. She is such a joy to read and I really enjoy her writing style. This book was about the end of the Hawaiian Kingdom. I share in her sentiment regarding the end of the Hawaiian kingdom and this book shines light on the other side of the concept of "Manifest Destiny". Understanding what really happened in Hawaii saddens me but most of all it frustrates me that we (as a society) are not taught these things in school.
What I liked best about Vowell's assessment of the annexation was exactly how hypocritical it was of the United States to go through with it after the founding fathers worked to try to limit the power and warn of the risk of overreaching that power, especially with regard to the navy. The underlying reason for Hawaii's importance was it's strategic location in the Pacific. If it is any consolation, it certainly wasn't an easy sell to Congress, though, as it took time to finalize the annexation.
It all started with the missionaries. Apparently, some verse in the bible encourages readers that it is their responsibility to invade territories and push their religious ideals on indigenous people who were living just fine without them for hundreds, sometimes thousands of years. This is the basis of the concept of "manifest destiny" we all read about in junior high -- the idea that it was God's destiny for us to expand the US settlement across North America to the Pacific Ocean. The missionaries arrived in Hawaii in the early nineteenth century and there was really no looking back for the indigenous Hawaiians at that point. Sure they were able to have access to some modern ideas and concepts (like monogamy and allowing women to eat bananas -- no joke!) but it came at the cost of freedom.
The majority of this book outlined the events that took place soon after the missionaries arrived in Hawaii and ended with the formal annexation at the turn of the 20th century, which meant I enjoyed the majority of the book until the end, where I become extremely frustrated, angry, and slightly ashamed.
Once the missionaries settled in they convinced the locals how beneficial it would be for them to grow sugar (instead of the local staple, taro root) and sell it to settlements in California and Oregon. The locals were successful at this but soon, the US put tariffs on imported sugar, making the Hawaiian sugar more expensive and less attractive. The Hawaiians sent a representative to Washington to lobby for a special agreement to include no tariffs for Hawaiian sugar coming in to the US. The US agreed on one condition -- Hawaii cannot contract their ports or land with any other nation. This is a direct violation of sovereignty, as pointed out by Vowell. To me, this was the most appalling part of the book. Do you know that currently, Congress is not allowed to dictate to individual US states where they should allocate their federal funding? This is protected by STATE SOVEREIGNTY. So we respect our states as sovereign but we do not do the same for other sovereign nations? Who the hell do we think we are?
This brings up another point that was expressed by many indigenous Hawaiians at the time. Wasn't the United States established to escape colonialism and the control of the British monarchy? The founding fathers were anti-colonialism and against invading territory and starting wars (Does this seem relevant today, in 2011? You bet.). Hawaii lost its freedom to the country that was founded on freedom. It seems not only backward but blatantly hypocritical.
This book was an interesting insight into what happened with Hawaii. It saddens me that even an aerial view of this was not taught in school. It makes me wonder how the history books will read when they reflect on the time we are living in now.
Friday, May 13, 2011
Friday, April 29, 2011
Our Posthuman Future
I realize it has been a while since I posted. I have been busy studying for a work certification exam for many months and once I finished that (and passed! yay!) I knitted a scarf for next winter. Either way, I was not able to devote the time to read a book so I am pleased to say I am back in action. I might have another work exam on the horizon so I want to get in a couple of books before having to take another break.
On a recommendation from Chris, I read Our Posthuman Future by Francis Fukuyama which discusses human nature and the consequences of intervention in “germ line” engineering. Much of this book was highly philosophical, discussing the higher-level ethical debate as to whether humans should even be permitted by law to meddle in human nature. I feel Fukuyama outlines serious concerns for society as science advances and this possibility becomes more of a reality.
There were a few very noteworthy points made that I would like to highlight rather than give a general overview of the topics discussed. One of which is the concept of self esteem and our ability as a society to control it with drugs. Fukuyama points out that self esteem used to be something earned – if you wanted to feel like you accomplished something, you worked hard and were then rewarded with that feeling. But lately, self esteem has been treated as an entitlement, something everyone needs to have whether they deserve it or not. People with low self esteem are treated with drugs to hormonally fix their “imbalance” rather than focusing on actions that will positively impact self esteem. Another example of applying prescription drugs to a situation where other therapeutic methods could yield better results is with young children exhibiting “attention deficit hyperactivity disorder”, aka KIDS HAVE SHORT ATTENTION SPANS IN GENERAL. Rather than spending the extra time and energy necessary to engage children, parents and doctors are quick to turn to drugs like Ritalin. Both of these examples show the power neuropharmecology has on influencing behavior. He uses these examples as a warning of things to come (this book was published back in 2002).
Another point I felt was noteworthy was the distinction made between rights and interests, which I feel is important for this discussion since modifying our genes may fall into one of these categories that may help determine how it should be regulated. An interest is distinct from a right, in that, “I may have an interest in a pleasant two week vacation, but that cannot compete with another person’s right not to be held as a chattel slave to work someone else’s fields” (p. 110). The point being made here is very important as it levels the playing field for human beings in that our rights are universal while our interests may vary depending on socioeconomic status. The force pushing against this ideal is money – if the individual has enough money they can afford a two-week vacation while paying someone to tend to their fields. Wealth changes our ability to address our interests but it should not necessarily provide someone with additional rights. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. Since wealth tends to further both the interests and the rights of individuals (or corporations), human gene engineering will end up as a tool for the very wealthy to have “designer babies”.
Here is where I will express my opinion on this very controversial topic. As Fukuyama points out, if you ban human genetic modification in the United States, scientists and pharmaceutical companies will simply take their research to another country where the practices are not banned. This race to the bottom is inevitable under current international trade agreements. I feel that modifying organisms on the genetic level, whether it be plants or animals, cannot be sustainable in the long term. I am not a scientist so I cannot speak to whether or not it is SAFE. Regardless of the safety concern, the consequences of genetic modification on a human level seem extremely hard to predict. Anything that uncertain involving the building blocks for human life is not something we want to be messing with. Fukuyama likens genes to an ecosystem – each part influences the others. When you are dealing with a system that interconnected, you had better be sure of the outcomes before you start messing with the individual parts.
On a recommendation from Chris, I read Our Posthuman Future by Francis Fukuyama which discusses human nature and the consequences of intervention in “germ line” engineering. Much of this book was highly philosophical, discussing the higher-level ethical debate as to whether humans should even be permitted by law to meddle in human nature. I feel Fukuyama outlines serious concerns for society as science advances and this possibility becomes more of a reality.
There were a few very noteworthy points made that I would like to highlight rather than give a general overview of the topics discussed. One of which is the concept of self esteem and our ability as a society to control it with drugs. Fukuyama points out that self esteem used to be something earned – if you wanted to feel like you accomplished something, you worked hard and were then rewarded with that feeling. But lately, self esteem has been treated as an entitlement, something everyone needs to have whether they deserve it or not. People with low self esteem are treated with drugs to hormonally fix their “imbalance” rather than focusing on actions that will positively impact self esteem. Another example of applying prescription drugs to a situation where other therapeutic methods could yield better results is with young children exhibiting “attention deficit hyperactivity disorder”, aka KIDS HAVE SHORT ATTENTION SPANS IN GENERAL. Rather than spending the extra time and energy necessary to engage children, parents and doctors are quick to turn to drugs like Ritalin. Both of these examples show the power neuropharmecology has on influencing behavior. He uses these examples as a warning of things to come (this book was published back in 2002).
Another point I felt was noteworthy was the distinction made between rights and interests, which I feel is important for this discussion since modifying our genes may fall into one of these categories that may help determine how it should be regulated. An interest is distinct from a right, in that, “I may have an interest in a pleasant two week vacation, but that cannot compete with another person’s right not to be held as a chattel slave to work someone else’s fields” (p. 110). The point being made here is very important as it levels the playing field for human beings in that our rights are universal while our interests may vary depending on socioeconomic status. The force pushing against this ideal is money – if the individual has enough money they can afford a two-week vacation while paying someone to tend to their fields. Wealth changes our ability to address our interests but it should not necessarily provide someone with additional rights. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. Since wealth tends to further both the interests and the rights of individuals (or corporations), human gene engineering will end up as a tool for the very wealthy to have “designer babies”.
Here is where I will express my opinion on this very controversial topic. As Fukuyama points out, if you ban human genetic modification in the United States, scientists and pharmaceutical companies will simply take their research to another country where the practices are not banned. This race to the bottom is inevitable under current international trade agreements. I feel that modifying organisms on the genetic level, whether it be plants or animals, cannot be sustainable in the long term. I am not a scientist so I cannot speak to whether or not it is SAFE. Regardless of the safety concern, the consequences of genetic modification on a human level seem extremely hard to predict. Anything that uncertain involving the building blocks for human life is not something we want to be messing with. Fukuyama likens genes to an ecosystem – each part influences the others. When you are dealing with a system that interconnected, you had better be sure of the outcomes before you start messing with the individual parts.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Abe Lincoln -- A CSPAN book
The book I am reading now is about Abraham Lincoln and it is a compilation of snippets from various Lincoln biographies and interviews with Lincoln biographers. Needless to say it is a bit repetitive, but very interesting. I didn’t mean to start with something so negative but the repetition was very noticeable early on and continues throughout the book.
There were many things about Lincoln I did not know before starting this book, which does not really say much. I discovered that Lincoln might have had his own form of “daddy issues” – to the point where he even refused to come to his father’s dying bedside. Not to mention the fact that the first woman he seemed to be truly in love with died very tragically (Ann Rutledge). Once those two situations are fully understood it is not shocking to hear that he was manic depressive to the point where his family and friends were “afraid to leave sharp objects around” (p. 14). The whole idea of such vulnerability really makes Lincoln very accessible to the average person. He experienced devastating heartbreak (some say he never truly recovered) and had problems with his parents, just like we do today. Just like us!
One of the things I found most interesting so far about the Lincoln Presidency was how willing his opponents were to serve him following his election. Stephen Douglas ran directly opposite him as the Democratic Party candidate and upon Lincoln’s election came to Lincoln and said, “This is not a time for partisanship. I’m with you.” He appointed the runner-up from the Republican Party as his Secretary of State (ringing any bells?? Hilary Clinton? Appointed Secretary of State under Obama after losing to him in the primaries?) and appointed another guy who wanted to be president as his Secretary of Treasury. It seemed like the spirit was to involve everyone, regardless of which party they were representing. The book also mentioned the crowds that would attend any political debates or speeches were very substantial. One of the authors likened politics in the period to sporting events today since they would sit through up to four hours of debates or speeches. Could you imagine sitting there for FOUR hours while politicians hundreds of yards away from you are debating or delivering a speech when microphones and speakers (and jumbotrons) and any other kinds of speech enhancing technology haven’t been invented yet?
One of the things that I found the most interesting and that really stood out as a, Wow, as a society we have really deteriorated, moment was the way visitors to the White House were treated when Lincoln was president. People would travel from all over the country to come see the president and voice their concerns to him and they were welcomed into the White House with open arms. There were specific timeslots reserved for meetings like these, as much as five hours a day, twice a week. Lincoln called these “public opinion baths.” Lincoln very much enjoyed this time and actually said it was “invigorating” for him and was what the president “owed the people who had elected him.” That kind of dedication from a president is truly awe-inspiring. Even if we had such a devoted leader today, “unscreened, no security check” pop-ins of course would NEVER fly. It reminds me of when my grandmother was a young lady and she would take her son (my uncle) to the grocery store in a baby carriage and leave the baby carriage outside the market alongside all of the other baby carriages with sleeping babies inside. We have turned into a society where elected officials cannot even drive down West 57th Street without their twelve SUV/Escalade caravan (AHEM, Bloomberg) protecting them from the people they are supposed to be protecting. I feel like we have all noticed even in our lifetimes the increase in security for such basic things (like random buildings in NYC) but reading about people just walking into the Cabinet Room really just drives the point home. Can you imagine walking into the White House today to speak with Barack Obama? I think the person at the front gate would laugh at you. We have come a long way.
PS – As an update to a previous post, I did eventually get connected with some fantastic podcasts for Astrology courses at Ohio State University and they are my new obsession on the train to work. I have yet to revisit that chapter in Hawking’s book but I will soon. Hawking also released a book this week that I am going to add to my list for this blog (the list is getting quite long at this point).
There were many things about Lincoln I did not know before starting this book, which does not really say much. I discovered that Lincoln might have had his own form of “daddy issues” – to the point where he even refused to come to his father’s dying bedside. Not to mention the fact that the first woman he seemed to be truly in love with died very tragically (Ann Rutledge). Once those two situations are fully understood it is not shocking to hear that he was manic depressive to the point where his family and friends were “afraid to leave sharp objects around” (p. 14). The whole idea of such vulnerability really makes Lincoln very accessible to the average person. He experienced devastating heartbreak (some say he never truly recovered) and had problems with his parents, just like we do today. Just like us!
One of the things I found most interesting so far about the Lincoln Presidency was how willing his opponents were to serve him following his election. Stephen Douglas ran directly opposite him as the Democratic Party candidate and upon Lincoln’s election came to Lincoln and said, “This is not a time for partisanship. I’m with you.” He appointed the runner-up from the Republican Party as his Secretary of State (ringing any bells?? Hilary Clinton? Appointed Secretary of State under Obama after losing to him in the primaries?) and appointed another guy who wanted to be president as his Secretary of Treasury. It seemed like the spirit was to involve everyone, regardless of which party they were representing. The book also mentioned the crowds that would attend any political debates or speeches were very substantial. One of the authors likened politics in the period to sporting events today since they would sit through up to four hours of debates or speeches. Could you imagine sitting there for FOUR hours while politicians hundreds of yards away from you are debating or delivering a speech when microphones and speakers (and jumbotrons) and any other kinds of speech enhancing technology haven’t been invented yet?
One of the things that I found the most interesting and that really stood out as a, Wow, as a society we have really deteriorated, moment was the way visitors to the White House were treated when Lincoln was president. People would travel from all over the country to come see the president and voice their concerns to him and they were welcomed into the White House with open arms. There were specific timeslots reserved for meetings like these, as much as five hours a day, twice a week. Lincoln called these “public opinion baths.” Lincoln very much enjoyed this time and actually said it was “invigorating” for him and was what the president “owed the people who had elected him.” That kind of dedication from a president is truly awe-inspiring. Even if we had such a devoted leader today, “unscreened, no security check” pop-ins of course would NEVER fly. It reminds me of when my grandmother was a young lady and she would take her son (my uncle) to the grocery store in a baby carriage and leave the baby carriage outside the market alongside all of the other baby carriages with sleeping babies inside. We have turned into a society where elected officials cannot even drive down West 57th Street without their twelve SUV/Escalade caravan (AHEM, Bloomberg) protecting them from the people they are supposed to be protecting. I feel like we have all noticed even in our lifetimes the increase in security for such basic things (like random buildings in NYC) but reading about people just walking into the Cabinet Room really just drives the point home. Can you imagine walking into the White House today to speak with Barack Obama? I think the person at the front gate would laugh at you. We have come a long way.
PS – As an update to a previous post, I did eventually get connected with some fantastic podcasts for Astrology courses at Ohio State University and they are my new obsession on the train to work. I have yet to revisit that chapter in Hawking’s book but I will soon. Hawking also released a book this week that I am going to add to my list for this blog (the list is getting quite long at this point).
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Abandon Earth -- or Start a Revolution
I have officially gotten to a point in this book where I found myself reading words on a page and not understanding any of it. When going through the chapter entitled, "Protecting the Past", I noticed I was barreling ahead despite not really having a clear understanding of what I was reading. I try very hard never to do this -- it sometimes defeats the purpose of reading. I like to re-read sentences until I fully understand the concept before moving on. This one chapter though, it just left me in the dust. I even tried to get a crash course on time travel from a friend at a bar to better understand, but I think he had had a few too many drinks to coherently explain theoretical physics in a clear way (shocker). He did suggest I check out a few podcasts from Ohio State University that would lead me out of the dark (which I definitely plan to do). I will have to re-read that chapter after I listen to the podcasts.
The next chapter, "Our Future? Star Trek or Not?" was the complete opposite of the chapter I described above -- it was very easy to understand. It was almost too mainstream. I could see an article like it in a newspaper. In this chapter, Hawking shows the exponential explosion of growth and progress that has taken place in human society and how it is intuitive that some of the growth will not be sustainable. Population growth, electricity consumption, and the number of scientific articles published have all increased exponentially in recent times. If these trends continue at their current rates, by 2600 the world's population will be standing shoulder to shoulder and electricity use will make the Earth glow red-hot (page 158). Luckily none of us will be around that far in the future to witness whether that will be come a reality or not.
After reading half a dozen books and watching half a dozen documentaries on the food economy and the future of food, I have personally come to the conclusion that genetically modifying our food (fruits, vegetables, and animals) will end up biting us in the ass at some point. So if someone asked me how I would feel if they wanted to do the same thing with HUMANS -- on a cellular level actually go in and add favorable traits while minimizing or removing the less favorable ones -- I would tell them that is crazy talk and what are we going to become but some kind of Brave New World lab experiment. This is also just my humble opinion -- I claim to not be an expert in anthropology or biology, or futurism. That is why it shocks me to see someone like Hawking, a dedicated EXPERT in his field, anticipate the ability of the human race to increase its own biological complexity, especially if biological systems are to keep ahead of electronic ones. Our limiting factor? Brain size, restricted by the size of the birth canal. He predicts that in the next hundred years we will be able to grow babies outside the human body to circumvent this limitation. What could POSSIBLY go wrong?
Hawking was actually in the news this week as going on the record suggesting for humans to "abandon earth" (Click here for article). But this is just his prediction for the very long-term as he feels that earth will likely be uninhabitable for mankind in the future. Of course this is just a rational conclusion drawn by a scientist based on observations of extrapolated data and previous behavior of human society (i.e. man narrowly escaping extinction during the Cuban missile crisis in 1963), but the way the news reported this was of course sensational, as illustrated by the headline, "Stephen Hawking's Warning: Abandon Earth -- or Face Extinction." Really, Big Think? Is that what you got from his interview? Much of what Hawking predicts is based on past human behavior being indicative of future behavior, and based on that I would have to agree -- it appears our future is bleak. However, I disagree that man will continue along its current trajectory. I believe that something will disturb the status quo to a point where man will be unable to continue with business-as-usual. Any number of things on a global level could interrupt the path of human existence -- nuclear war, water crises, food crises, oil/energy crises, a political revolution, etc. This is only my opinion and as I mentioned before, I am no expert. But maybe there is a little bit of hope rooted at the bottom of my beliefs -- maybe I hope there is some kind of global crisis that ends up changing the future for our great-great-great-great-grandchildren so they will not be destined to live in space stations with artificial gravity where being "with child" means you have a pod at home growing a fetus genetically modified to include all of the characteristics (physical and psychological) you deem to be important in offspring.
One more chapter in "The Universe in a Nutshell", then it's 24/7 studying for the series 24 principal exam for work =(
The next chapter, "Our Future? Star Trek or Not?" was the complete opposite of the chapter I described above -- it was very easy to understand. It was almost too mainstream. I could see an article like it in a newspaper. In this chapter, Hawking shows the exponential explosion of growth and progress that has taken place in human society and how it is intuitive that some of the growth will not be sustainable. Population growth, electricity consumption, and the number of scientific articles published have all increased exponentially in recent times. If these trends continue at their current rates, by 2600 the world's population will be standing shoulder to shoulder and electricity use will make the Earth glow red-hot (page 158). Luckily none of us will be around that far in the future to witness whether that will be come a reality or not.
After reading half a dozen books and watching half a dozen documentaries on the food economy and the future of food, I have personally come to the conclusion that genetically modifying our food (fruits, vegetables, and animals) will end up biting us in the ass at some point. So if someone asked me how I would feel if they wanted to do the same thing with HUMANS -- on a cellular level actually go in and add favorable traits while minimizing or removing the less favorable ones -- I would tell them that is crazy talk and what are we going to become but some kind of Brave New World lab experiment. This is also just my humble opinion -- I claim to not be an expert in anthropology or biology, or futurism. That is why it shocks me to see someone like Hawking, a dedicated EXPERT in his field, anticipate the ability of the human race to increase its own biological complexity, especially if biological systems are to keep ahead of electronic ones. Our limiting factor? Brain size, restricted by the size of the birth canal. He predicts that in the next hundred years we will be able to grow babies outside the human body to circumvent this limitation. What could POSSIBLY go wrong?
Hawking was actually in the news this week as going on the record suggesting for humans to "abandon earth" (Click here for article). But this is just his prediction for the very long-term as he feels that earth will likely be uninhabitable for mankind in the future. Of course this is just a rational conclusion drawn by a scientist based on observations of extrapolated data and previous behavior of human society (i.e. man narrowly escaping extinction during the Cuban missile crisis in 1963), but the way the news reported this was of course sensational, as illustrated by the headline, "Stephen Hawking's Warning: Abandon Earth -- or Face Extinction." Really, Big Think? Is that what you got from his interview? Much of what Hawking predicts is based on past human behavior being indicative of future behavior, and based on that I would have to agree -- it appears our future is bleak. However, I disagree that man will continue along its current trajectory. I believe that something will disturb the status quo to a point where man will be unable to continue with business-as-usual. Any number of things on a global level could interrupt the path of human existence -- nuclear war, water crises, food crises, oil/energy crises, a political revolution, etc. This is only my opinion and as I mentioned before, I am no expert. But maybe there is a little bit of hope rooted at the bottom of my beliefs -- maybe I hope there is some kind of global crisis that ends up changing the future for our great-great-great-great-grandchildren so they will not be destined to live in space stations with artificial gravity where being "with child" means you have a pod at home growing a fetus genetically modified to include all of the characteristics (physical and psychological) you deem to be important in offspring.
One more chapter in "The Universe in a Nutshell", then it's 24/7 studying for the series 24 principal exam for work =(
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Why not start with a doozy?
"The Universe in a Nutshell"
By Stephen Hawking
I know it's not exactly easy Sunday reading, but I have been in quite a science kick lately. Last month, I was determined to read "A Brief History of Time" and I found it at Borders accompanied (within the same bindings) by one of Hawking's more recent publications, "The Universe in a Nutshell". Needless to say I reacted as if I had found a $100 bill in my pocket. I quickly got through "A Brief History" and decided to start blogging during "The Universe".
I found "A Brief History" to be very interesting and generally not impossible to follow. The version I have is illustrated, so the diagrams seem to help readers understand the concepts. However, in "The Universe", there are many more illustrations and they seem to take up at least 75% of the pages, with only about 25% of the pages containing ACTUAL TEXT. This is slightly disappointing and I have been pacing myself so this book will last me at least a week.
I am about halfway through "The Universe" and I think I am really starting to get a grasp on some of the theories and concepts in theoretical physics. Part of what possessed me to read both of these books was that I was fascinated by the idea that some people truly believe the earth is only 65,000 years old when it seems entirely logical that it is much, much older. I wanted to understand WHY we believe it is older and why we believe the universe is as old as it is.
One of the vignettes (page 78) describes the early universe moments after the big bang and paints sort of a timeline of events that took place in the billions of years following the big bang. I found this to be incredibly useful as it provides context for the creation of the universe. I know we cannot really comprehend what a billion years is, but if I can visualize a timeline of events in my head including the creation of the universe, the creation of the earth, the appearance of life on earth, and the appearance of HUMAN life on earth, I will feel somewhat satisfied with my own understanding of exactly where along the line the tiny blip we call human civilization falls (because it really is tiny). This vignette on page 78 describes the start of the universe as a singularity with an infinite temperature and infinite density and within one hundredth of a second the temperature would have been 100 billion degrees. At this point the universe would mostly have consisted of photons, electrons, and neutrinos (which are all light particles) and their antiparticles, together with some protons and neutrons. Next, for three minutes after the big bang the universe will have cooled to about one billion degrees (not too shabby, cooling 99 billion degrees in three minutes... I bet that even beats how quickly scrambled eggs cool) and protons and neutrons would have started to combine to form the nuclei of helium, hydrogen, and other light elements. Only hundreds of thousands of years later (!) will the temperature have dropped enough (to a few thousand degrees) to allow electrons to slow down to the point where they could begin to form atoms. The atoms that form at this point in time are not the kind of elements that make up life like carbon and oxygen. Those elements didn't come until much much later (billions of years later) from the burning of helium in the center of stars.
This insight into how scientists believe the early universe developed is very important as it describes why it is believed the universe is between 10 and 20 billion years old. I find breakdowns like these very helpful -- it is always good to take a step back and look at the big picture, for clarity sake.
Another good takeaway from the first half of this book was on page 34 -- The Rubber Sheet Analogy. I was having trouble understanding how large bodies (like stars) can warp spacetime and this analogy helped me to at least conceptualize it. If a large ball is placed on a rubber sheet it will cause the sheet to be curved near the ball so that if you try to roll another smaller ball across the sheet it will go around the larger ball.
That is all for now; I will savor the second half of this book and report back once finished.
=)
By Stephen Hawking
I know it's not exactly easy Sunday reading, but I have been in quite a science kick lately. Last month, I was determined to read "A Brief History of Time" and I found it at Borders accompanied (within the same bindings) by one of Hawking's more recent publications, "The Universe in a Nutshell". Needless to say I reacted as if I had found a $100 bill in my pocket. I quickly got through "A Brief History" and decided to start blogging during "The Universe".
I found "A Brief History" to be very interesting and generally not impossible to follow. The version I have is illustrated, so the diagrams seem to help readers understand the concepts. However, in "The Universe", there are many more illustrations and they seem to take up at least 75% of the pages, with only about 25% of the pages containing ACTUAL TEXT. This is slightly disappointing and I have been pacing myself so this book will last me at least a week.
I am about halfway through "The Universe" and I think I am really starting to get a grasp on some of the theories and concepts in theoretical physics. Part of what possessed me to read both of these books was that I was fascinated by the idea that some people truly believe the earth is only 65,000 years old when it seems entirely logical that it is much, much older. I wanted to understand WHY we believe it is older and why we believe the universe is as old as it is.
One of the vignettes (page 78) describes the early universe moments after the big bang and paints sort of a timeline of events that took place in the billions of years following the big bang. I found this to be incredibly useful as it provides context for the creation of the universe. I know we cannot really comprehend what a billion years is, but if I can visualize a timeline of events in my head including the creation of the universe, the creation of the earth, the appearance of life on earth, and the appearance of HUMAN life on earth, I will feel somewhat satisfied with my own understanding of exactly where along the line the tiny blip we call human civilization falls (because it really is tiny). This vignette on page 78 describes the start of the universe as a singularity with an infinite temperature and infinite density and within one hundredth of a second the temperature would have been 100 billion degrees. At this point the universe would mostly have consisted of photons, electrons, and neutrinos (which are all light particles) and their antiparticles, together with some protons and neutrons. Next, for three minutes after the big bang the universe will have cooled to about one billion degrees (not too shabby, cooling 99 billion degrees in three minutes... I bet that even beats how quickly scrambled eggs cool) and protons and neutrons would have started to combine to form the nuclei of helium, hydrogen, and other light elements. Only hundreds of thousands of years later (!) will the temperature have dropped enough (to a few thousand degrees) to allow electrons to slow down to the point where they could begin to form atoms. The atoms that form at this point in time are not the kind of elements that make up life like carbon and oxygen. Those elements didn't come until much much later (billions of years later) from the burning of helium in the center of stars.
This insight into how scientists believe the early universe developed is very important as it describes why it is believed the universe is between 10 and 20 billion years old. I find breakdowns like these very helpful -- it is always good to take a step back and look at the big picture, for clarity sake.
Another good takeaway from the first half of this book was on page 34 -- The Rubber Sheet Analogy. I was having trouble understanding how large bodies (like stars) can warp spacetime and this analogy helped me to at least conceptualize it. If a large ball is placed on a rubber sheet it will cause the sheet to be curved near the ball so that if you try to roll another smaller ball across the sheet it will go around the larger ball.
That is all for now; I will savor the second half of this book and report back once finished.
=)
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Welcome...
I decided I want a place to write freely. But then I couldn't decide what to write about. I am not necessarily an 'expert' in anything, so why would anybody want to read what I had to say about politics, the environment, or science? Not that I assume anyone will even be reading this blog; it is more for my own benefit than for other people's enjoyment.
I finally realized I can write about what I truly love to do (and have loved to do since my days following The Babysitter's Club): READING BOOKS! Reading IS something I am somewhat of an expert in. I have loved reading books since I was very young. During college and graduate school I was forced to read all kinds of books for school, which kind of took the fun out of reading in that I had no flexibility -- I HAD to read the books on the syllabus.
It was only when I finished graduate school did I really resume my love affair with reading. I have been trying to trade off novels and what I call "smart books" -- really just fiction and non-fiction. (I find myself doubling up on the nonfiction books in between novels.)
In this blog I will write about the books I am reading and which parts I am finding the most interesting. Please note: there will be spoilers as I mentioned this blog is more for me to have a place to write for myself and to keep track of all the books I read.
Thanks and enjoy!
I finally realized I can write about what I truly love to do (and have loved to do since my days following The Babysitter's Club): READING BOOKS! Reading IS something I am somewhat of an expert in. I have loved reading books since I was very young. During college and graduate school I was forced to read all kinds of books for school, which kind of took the fun out of reading in that I had no flexibility -- I HAD to read the books on the syllabus.
It was only when I finished graduate school did I really resume my love affair with reading. I have been trying to trade off novels and what I call "smart books" -- really just fiction and non-fiction. (I find myself doubling up on the nonfiction books in between novels.)
In this blog I will write about the books I am reading and which parts I am finding the most interesting. Please note: there will be spoilers as I mentioned this blog is more for me to have a place to write for myself and to keep track of all the books I read.
Thanks and enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)