A few non-spoiler world-building thoughts about #AvatarTheWayOfWater
The General tells us the Earth is dying. At the same time the Earth, or maybe just some American-led faction of it, is capable of launching fleets of very big near-light-speed interstellar vessels.
So it's a future of ecological collapse and amazingly high tech on a mega-industrial scale (those starships must represent thousands of terawatt-years of energy in launch costs alone @anderssandberg@robert_zubrin ?)
In which case it represents the dark side of decoupling. Earth's civilisation is clearly way beyond fossil-fuel use and capable of synthesising just about anything, but the Earth's environment is still going to shit.
Which raises two questions, one in world, one out of world.
In world: Why do these clearly ecocidal colonisers care whether the Earth dies or not? They have access to effectively unlimited energy and tech that can build cities in a year or less. Are they really so deeply attached to a world they have despoiled to death?
Out of world: do people worry about this sort of future -- one in which extreme unchecked technological progress leaves a terminally ill environment in its wake...
...rather than the more common environmentalist concern that it proves self defeating because its effect on the environment leads to its own collapse...
...or the #ecomodernist view that once the technosphere has left the biosphere behind the biosphere will be regenerated, or regenerate itself?
cc @atrembath /ends
PS if you see this thread as just a way of trolling @AdamRutherford by yet again taking semi-seriously something he despises you may have a point.
Of my various responsibilities the essay strand, invented by @tomstandage is both my shame and my delight.
Shame because it always comes in last in terms of priority and so we end up doing far too few of them.
Delight because they are ace, and a bit different.
Most of my job this year was running the briefings @TheEconomist, and far and away the biggest thing there wast the Ukraine coverage, especially the first six months of it. You can get a lot of that from this thread of @shashj's
Having had a lovely time at @TheEconomist Christmas party last night, I thought it would be good to thread together some of what I have done there this year. Here are the five biggest projects I worked on; I'll thread some of the shorter stuff later on
January brought this study of military hide and seek by @shashj, about whom it is impossible to say too many good things economist.com/technology-qua…
Looking back on it from the other side of February 24th brings out its prescience as to what manoeuvre warfare can and cannot do in an age of sometimes massively distributed sensors, and thus on how to think about attritional warfare in the modern age.
For #AsteroidDay, some thoughts about the threat and the history of addressing it.
tl;dr Don't worry about the asteroids; worry a bit about the way science works.
So: there was a time in the early/mid 1980s when a very few people had begun to worry about the threat of asteroid impacts, but no-one has started to do anything about it.
Their worries were focused on the possibility that the impact of a large asteroid (a body with a diameter >1km) would create something like a nuclear winter -- a smaller version of the dinosaur-killing apocalypse 66m years ago which might kill a quarter of Earth's population.
So about that muon story. I have two issues.
Almost everyone has gone for the "crack in the standard model/possible new force of nature" version of the story. I understand why that is. But
1) it completely downplays the fact that, on the very same day, a new calculation of the number in question suggested that there was in fact more or less no disagreement between theory and experiment. nature.com/articles/s4158…
Here is the press release that Penn State put out about this, apparently in ignorance of the timing of the Fermilab result eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2…
This New Yorker piece on solar #geoengineering by Bill McKibben really irritated me, not because I disagree with it (although I do) but because of the fatuous way it expresses itself. newyorker.com/news/annals-of…
His argument is that the Scopex experiment looking at stratospheric aerosol injection should not go ahead now, because over the next decade all of humankind's effort needs to go into emissions reduction and Scopex would be a distraction which bad actors would exploit.