Computers, Society, and Nature

Existential questions from the drawing room seem to be left by the wayside. . . Can a genetic clone really fill the void left by a lost & gone pet? Or, is it nature or nuture? Now that legal barriers and technological shortcomings are subsiding, the real questions are: can cloning be profitable?

Many months ago, mention of Dolly et al would have been strictly science & technology, but the latest leap in closing is squarely a business article. The LA Times and NY Times both reported a price drop to the tune of $18,000.

You have to admire their style: “To display its work and perhaps to help demystify its science,” the laboratory at Genetic Savings and Clone is built within glass walls for the viewing pleasure of the public. The parlour talk has worn thin, and biomedical ethics has invited in ribald attitudes.

In a world where information is quickly commodified wherever it is uncovered, and genetics hold a bounty of information, perhaps it’s only a matter of time until price tags become affixed to every trait of someone’s child. . . or for the time being, someone’s pet cat.

As seen on slashdot, Burlington Vermont is embarking on a plan to run fiber to the home. It’s interesting to note the approach: provide a fibre infrastructure at low cost, and then allow the private sector to lease a part of the bandwidth for phone, television, and internet.

The article is actually fairly informative, and does a nice job of presenting the head of the project, as well as some of the hurdles the project has faced. It’s interesting to note that the city feels it’s unlikely any private sector companies would get around to putting in the fibre for a good many years.

What we take for granted as technological niceties are easily cloaked becuase they seamlessly mesh with our human needs. Or, our human needs mesh with technology? An interplay evolves, and happily, the two combine. Hence, the “Cyborg Manifesto” by Donna Harraway. This is old-hat for most, but reconsider the slurry of new gadgets with consumer comfort as their prime design goal, or, better, yet, consumer performance. The attack comes from both sides: humans being copied into computer/robot models and also computers complementing the mind&body. Some more glib developements: Ãœbergeek keyboard, ultra-manipulative computer interface, and reading to maximize space and efficiency.

Okay, it’s not about computers or the environment, but it’s a feel good article. Canada ranks number one in astronomy, in terms of the frequency that others cite our publications in astronomy-related scientific journals.

I love the title of the article, which isn’t explained but the reference should be apparent (the author knows his Canadians): Canada Looks Up, Way Up

In lieu of the status quo, what new technologies will be the top contenders against coal-fired power plants? No sectors will die out entirely (they’re all so neat!), but some will shine brighter… say, solar power? British Petroleum is picking up the slack and pouring money into this sustainable technology. Sustainable? Well, the costs of materials and energy-intensive production process have been depressing solar power.

Several months ago, radical departures form the standard volatic cell design emerged – my favorite was a spray-on polymer that aligned its molecules to conduct electricity from sunlight. For others, dive through the Technology Review issues of 2004.

Of course, technology works best in conjuntion with a support network. Just because there may be a patch of sunny-year-round grassy fields, it doesn’t mean electricity can be shipped efficiently enough without a proper power grid. Also from Tech. Review, May 2005; new superconductivity shortcuts include nanotube wires, with virtually ZERO resistance. Maybe wind farms will spring up in North Dakota like they’ve always wanted.

As for BP’s new solar program – it’s comforting when petroleum-intensive R&D makes room for green technology. But, one must always wonder, where is the line between greening and greenwashing?

Nick Christof, of the NYTimes, believes that the Chinese government is doomed. What or who’s going to do it? Blogs.

the Internet is beginning to play the watchdog role in China that the press plays in the West. The Internet is also eroding the leadership’s monopoly on information and is complicating the traditional policy of “nei jin wai song” – cracking down at home while pretending to foreigners to be wide open.

Colour me sceptical, but the Chinese government has been around for a long time and, I’m guessing, can find ways to use a new technology just as well as its citizens.

In a realistic breakdown of energy source options, the tally puts nuclear power far in the lead. A true-to-their-roots assortment of environmental movements continue to speak out against shifting energy supply to nuclear power plants, refusing to budge. Greenpeace sent an emergency email requesting petitions in favor of Sen. McCain releasing the generous subsidies for nuclear technology from the bill on climate change. They and others view such actions as a surrender, whereby conservation and clean energy are dismissed. Since when is nuclear energy such a hero?

But the long and short of it is that, as Stewart Brand and others are beginning to admit, and hard-line no-nukes folk are beginning to concede, the need for carbon-free energy eclipses the risk from nuclear power. In the three decades since a reactor has been built, technology has improved considerably; managerial concerns (the ‘Human Factor’) may never be infallible, and are what draw the most criticism towards nuclear power.

Shortly after his article in Technology Review (accompanied by a pitcure of Stewart the saintly prophet), the New York Times kicks in with a comprehensive follow-up, chock-full of reactions from across the board. Perhaps nuclear energy will get its wings after all.

See previous post for all the environmental heresies.