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).
Thursday, September 16, 2010
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)