global human footprint mapping

This article in Nature Communications is about detailed global mapping of human impacts on the Earth’s ecosystems.

Sixteen years of change in the global terrestrial human footprint and implications for biodiversity conservation

Human pressures on the environment are changing spatially and temporally, with profound implications for the planet’s biodiversity and human economies. Here we use recently available data on infrastructure, land cover and human access into natural areas to construct a globally standardized measure of the cumulative human footprint on the terrestrial environment at 1 km2 resolution from 1993 to 2009. We note that while the human population has increased by 23% and the world economy has grown 153%, the human footprint has increased by just 9%. Still, 75% the planet’s land surface is experiencing measurable human pressures. Moreover, pressures are perversely intense, widespread and rapidly intensifying in places with high biodiversity. Encouragingly, we discover decreases in environmental pressures in the wealthiest countries and those with strong control of corruption. Clearly the human footprint on Earth is changing, yet there are still opportunities for conservation gains.

Curtis LeMay

This article in The Daily Beast has some terrifying quotes from Curtis LeMay, who massacred hundreds of thousands (millions?) of Japanese civilians in World War II and almost started World War III in 1969.

  • “There are no innocent civilians. It is their government and you are fighting a people, you are not trying to fight an armed force anymore. So it doesn’t bother me so much to be killing the so-called innocent bystanders.”
  • “When the Russians had acquired (through connivance and treachery of Westerns with warped minds) the atomic bomb and yet didn’t have any stockpile—that was when we might have destroyed Russia completely and not even skinned our elbows doing it.”
  • “My solution would be to tell the North Vietnamese that they’ve got to draw in their horns and stop their aggression or we’re going to bomb them into the Stone Age.”

no more antibacterial soap

The FDA is finally banning antibacterial soap. Companies have about a year to phase out triclosan and triclocarban, the two toxic chemicals people have been putting on their bodies and in their mouths all these years.

Evidence suggests that the chemicals used in antibacterial soaps can alter hormone cycles and cause muscle weakness, NPR reports. Triclosan also kills good bacteria and could help create germs that are resistant to antibiotics; the chemical has been known to contaminate streams and has been found in human milk and dolphin’s blood, according to Vitals.

While antibacterial soap is often marketed as being more effective than soap and water, experts say that it actually isn’t. Washing your hands with regular soap (if you do it the right way) is just fine.

Hospitals and the food industry can still use antibacterial soap, but otherwise, companies have until September 2017 to rid their products of the banned chemicals or remove those products from the market altogether.

Here’s how to wash your hands like a surgeon:

 

autonomous vehicles and suburban sprawl

Planetizen says autonomous vehicles won’t lead to more sprawl.

While we recognize the synergies AVs have with transit (something that is likely to be impacted by the technologythat we will discuss in the future), we do not share the belief that AVs will cause a new, unprecedented wave of sprawl. Rather, growing patterns of sprawl and longer “super-commutes” are unlikely outcomes of AVs for three key reasons: 1) the presence of existing land use, transportation, and infrastructure controls and growth management plans; 2) trends in housing consumption and residential preferences; and 3) social dynamics and the emergence of more informed decision-making.

I think the biggest effect of autonomous vehicles within urban areas will be on parking. At the moment, we have enormous numbers of parked vehicles taking up enormous amounts of space right where we are trying to live, work, and shop. With autonomous vehicles, we should either be able to share them, meaning a smaller number of vehicles in motion more of the time rather than parked, or if we really still want to own them, they can go park themselves in out-of-the-way places and come get us when we call them. This could lead to some very vibrant, social, creative, green urban areas.

I can also imagine some people will choose to live completely cloistered lives where they are sitting in comfortable vehicles several hours a day while going to and from work, or going to far-away vacation homes on the weekend. You could even imagine people choosing to live full-time in autonomous RVs.

August 2016 in Review

3 most frightening stories

3 most hopeful stories

3 most interesting stories

  • Bokashi is a system that essentially pickles your compost.
  • There is an unlikely but plausible scenario where Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate, could become President of the United States this fall. Speaking of implausible scenarios, I learned that RIchard Nixon made a serious attempt to pass a basic income bill in 1969.
  • Here is a short video explaining the Fermi Paradox, which asks why there are no aliens. Meanwhile Russian astronomers are saying there might be aliens.

RNA interference

Monsanto is trying to use genetic technology to kill honeybee pests.

RNA can also “silence” specific genes, preventing an organism from using them to make proteins. In 1998 scientists discovered that they could engineer stretches of double-stranded RNA to do the same thing. As a lab technique, RNA interference—or RNAi—turned out to be useful for learning about genes by turning them off. It also showed promise in fighting viruses, cancers, and even harmful pests and parasites. The researchers at the seminar were talking about using RNAi to prevent mosquitoes from spreading malaria, but that gave Hayes another idea. “I thought, could this be adapted to honeybee predator control?” In other words: to kill mites…

Traditional pesticides act like chemical backhoes, killing their targets (beetles, weeds, viruses) but harming good things along the way (beneficial insects, birds, fish, humans). RNAi, in theory, works instead like a set of tweezers, plucking its victims with exquisite specificity by clicking into sequences of genetic code unique to that organism. “If you could design an ideal pesticide, this is the stuff you’re looking for,” says Pamela Bachman, a toxicologist at Monsanto.

 

Syria as a proxy war

Jeffrey Sachs says the war in Syria has morphed into a proxy war between the U.S., Saudi Arabia and allies on one side, and Iran and Russia (and the Syrian government) on the other side. He also says the U.S. role is much larger than the public has been led to believe, and the media is not doing its job of asking questions.

the curtain gets lifted from time to time. In January, the New York Times finally reportedon a secret 2013 Presidential order to the CIA to arm Syrian rebels. As the account explained, Saudi Arabia provides substantial financing of the armaments, while the CIA, under Obama’s orders, provides organizational support and training…

Through occasional leaks, investigative reports, statements by other governments, and rare statements by US officials, we know that America is engaged in an active, ongoing, CIA-coordinated war both to overthrow Assad and to fight ISIS. America’s allies in the anti-Assad effort include Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, and other countries in the region. The US has spent billions of dollars on arms, training, special operations forces, air strikes, and logistical support for the rebel forces, including international mercenaries. American allies have spent billions of dollars more. The precise sums are not reported…

The stakes of this war are much higher and much more dangerous than America’s proxy warriors imagine. As the US has prosecuted its war against Assad, Russia has stepped up its military support to his government. In the US mainstream media, Russia’s behavior is an affront: how dare the Kremlin block the US from overthrowing the Syrian government? The result is a widening diplomatic clash with Russia, one that could escalate and lead – perhaps inadvertently – to the point of military conflict.

Obviously, the U.S. and Russia are massive nuclear powers. Iran may have nuclear weapons, and rumor has it Saudi Arabia has a nuclear arsenal ready to go in Pakistan. So in addition to the human tragedy unfolding, the risk of World War 3 appears to be a real one here.

possible alien signal

from KurzweilAI:

On May 15, 2015, Russian astronomers picked up a radio signal on the RATAN-600 radio telescope in Russia “in the direction of HD164595,” an international group of astronomers stated in a document* now being circulated through contact person Alexander Panov, according to Paul Gilster of Centauri Dreams, who blogged about the data on Saturday, August 27, 2016…

Power required for such a signal would be astronomical, he explains. If broadcast in all directions, the required power is 1020 watts (100 billion billion watts) — hundreds of times more energy than all the sunlight falling on Earth. If aimed at us, assuming an antenna the size of the 1000-foot Arecibo instrument, they would still need to transmit more than a trillion watts.

In addition, the signal was received at 11Ghz (2.7 cm wavelength), in a part of the radio spectrum used by the military, so the signal may be due to terrestrial radio-frequency interference, or to gravitational lensing from a more distant source.

Nixon and basic income

In 1969-70, Richard Nixon made an attempt to guarantee a basic income to all families in America.

Richard Nixon was not the most likely candidate to pursue the old utopian dream, but then history sometimes has a strange sense of humor. The same man who was forced to resign after the Watergate scandal in 1974 had been on the verge, in 1969, of enacting an unconditional income for all poor families. It would have been a massive step forward in the War on Poverty, guaranteeing a family of four $1,600 a year, equivalent to roughly $10,000 in 2016…

According to Nixon, this generation would do two things deemed impossible by earlier generations. Besides putting a man on the moon (which had happened the month before), they would also, finally, eradicate poverty.

A White House poll found 90% of all newspapers enthusiastically receptive to the plan to pay an unconditional income to all poor families. The Chicago Sun-Times called it “A Giant Leap Forward,” the Los Angeles Times “a bold new blueprint.” The National Council of Churches was in favor, and so were the labor unions and even the corporate sector. At the White House, a telegram arrived declaring, “Two upper middle class Republicans who will pay for the program say bravo.” Pundits were even going around quoting Victor Hugo – “Nothing is stronger than an idea whose time has come.”

It seemed that the time for a basic income had well and truly arrived.

“Welfare Plan Passes House […] a Battle Won in Crusade for Reform,” headlined The New York Times on April 16, 1970. With 243 votes for and 155 against, President Nixon’s Family Assistance Plan (FAP) was approved by an overwhelming majority. Most pundits expected the plan to pass the Senate, too, with a membership even more progressive than that of the House of Representatives. But in the Senate Finance Committee, doubts reared. “This bill represents the most extensive, expensive, and expansive welfare legislation ever handled,” one Republican senator said. Most vehemently opposed, however, were the Democrats. They felt the FAP didn’t go far enough, and pushed for an even higher basic income. After months of being batted back and forth between the Senate and the White House, the bill was finally canned.

In the following year, Nixon presented a slightly tweaked proposal to Congress. Once again, the bill was accepted by the House, now as part of a larger package of reforms. This time, 288 voted in favor, 132 against. In his 1971 State of the Union address, Nixon considered his plan to “place a floor under the income of every family with children in America” the most important item of legislation on his agenda.

But once again, the bill foundered in the Senate.

personal carbon trading

I heard “personal carbon allowances” mentioned recently, and hadn’t heard of it before, so I grabbed this from Wikipedia:

Personal carbon trading is the generic term for a number of proposed emissions trading schemes under which emissions credits would be allocated to adult individuals on a (broadly) equal per capita basis, within national carbon budgets.[1] Individuals then surrender these credits when buying fuel or electricity. Individuals wanting or needing to emit at a level above that permitted by their initial allocation would be able to purchase additional credits from those using less, creating a profit for those individuals who emit at a level below that permitted by their initial allocation.

Sounds good in principle, although I think a carbon-based sales tax would be simpler and more straightforward. This concept assumes that people have time and motivation to sit around, do research, make rational choices, and engage in transactions to maximize financial gain. Busy people balancing careers, families, and the minuscule leisure time left over don’t necessarily have time to do this. For this to work, I think it would have to be pretty automated. Maybe a future of automated, computer-controlled financial transactions and markets could pull this off.