Dead Horse

I know that this quote has already had it's moment in the sun, but I felt that this should be shared again, in light of recent events. I'll speak on this more later on.

The following is an excerpt from the New York Times magazine by journalist Ron Suskind, from 2004.

In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.

The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''

I can almost hear the crazed Bond villan laughter in the background. But maybe I'm just looking at the wrong reality.

Vacation is teh aw5om3!!!1!!11

Ima goin' to Europe baby! June 27th flight outta JFK!! Aww Yeeeah!!!

Job Search

Well, finally, *someone* recognizes my genius. Heh, right... Anyway, after months of sending out applications (numbering somewhere between 30-50, I'm really not too sure) I've got a solid interview at Memorial Sloan Kettering. I know, it's about damn time. But my GPA isn't anything special (3.43 last semester, but everything before senior year was, well, utter shit of 2.86). I figure I'm a late bloomer type, but if I wait too long, I'll find myself in the middle of winter with nobody to pollinate. Hopefully, this is the break I've been waiting for, because if I can get into MSKCC, then I'm set for the next two years. And since they're starting up a graduate program... wow, just... wow. A Ph.D from MSK would probably be pure gold, and I've no doubt the experience would put me pretty far ahead of the competition. It's not exactly the bleeding edge for genetics research, but until Creig Venter starts teaching classes and mentoring grad-students, I really couldn't ask for too much better.

Speaking of Venter, there was an interesting peice about him the other day. Apparently, he's trying to copyright tailored organisms, and catching some flak over it. Now, normally, I'd probably agree with him; after all, tailored organisms are usually so heavily engineered that they simply can't be confused with "natural" organisms. They're creations of the mind, intellectual property. However, what does the ability to copyright an organism mean for the future? Also, if Venter's offering becomes universally used, then we would have another microsoft on our hands. My position is that any copyright issued to him would have a very short period of protection. 10 years, 15 max. But I'm not the one in control of issueing patents and copyrights, so I suppose we'll just have to wait and see how the current system manages to screw it up beyond our wildest and most cynical dreams.

Logic: Cold, calculating, utterly neccesary.

Hey, not the arguement I'd choose, but it's actually pretty neat.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JnxtITOzug

The counter-arguments I've seen can be grouped into three categories.

- Global warming isn't happening.
Yes, it is. Average global temperature is increasing. The levels of temperature increase are not equal in all areas, and winters are not expect to get warmer in all areas (actually, in some areas, they're expected to get colder, as oceanic currents are disrupted). This has been proven beyond any doubt to the scientific community. Note that the scientific community does not include bloggers, oil execs, and right-wing think tanks. We're talking climatologists, meteorologists, biologists, chemists, physicists and other experts who entered the field because they were interested in the world around them. If they wanted money, they would have gone into a different field.

- Global warming isn't caused by humans.
While volcanoes and forest fires do put out a lot of CO2, they don't, in fact, contribute as much to atmospheric CO2 as humans do. And even if they did, the traditional carbons sinks (ie forests, the seas) are losing their capacity to hold CO2 (causes are deforestation and increased temperature, respectively), while humans are contributing a significant amount of CO2 that even a pristine ecosystem might not be equipped to handle.

- The consequences of responding the global warming might be worse then the consequences of global warming.

The "consequences" of responding the global warming are usually described as massive layoffs, economic downturn, huge amounts of regulation, overbearing government, and starvation due to said economic depression. While this is horrible, it does not threaten modern civilization. And while it might set us back 20-40 years, third-world countries will be the main victims.

In comparison, here's the worst-case consequences of global warming: Sea levels rise 20 feet or more. This wipes out the coastal regions of every major continent, and the rise in global temperature turns every major agricultural zone into a desert. This all happens over the span of 20-50 years, after the Antarctic sheet breaks up completely, and our albedo decreases accordingly. Billions are displaced, leading to widespread destabalization of established trade routes and resource war.

Also due to the change in climate, ecosystems are also disrupted, allowing non-native species to invade new ecosystems. Invaders include many species which are hostile to humans, such as disease-carrying insects and new brands of bacterial and other microscopic pathogens. This both decreases agricultural output, as well as expose non-resistant populations to novel pathogens, leading to massive plagues. In short, there becomes a serious possibility for the collapse of modern civilization. This is not Greenpeace and PeTA talking, this is a sizable portion of Earth's scientists talking, when asked to consider worst-case scenarios which could result from global warming.

So, which is worse? A really bad global depression? Or maybe the prospect of a nuclear exchange between several Eurasian nations as the drowning costal states invade the land-locked ones due to a catastrophic refugee crisis? How bad is another rust belt when compared to NYC, DC, Charleston, Baltimore, San Fran, Norfolk, Jackson, Providence and Miami underwater? Which would hurt the US more? The loss of several auto companies, or the displacement of our agricultural heartland into Canada?

I'll address the other objections later on, but for now, I need to go to sleep so I can continue the job search tomarrow. Sloan Kettering, oh how I lust for thee.

Elite

Am I an elite? I work my ass off to know as much as I can about my field as possible. I easily solve problems and handle concepts that are beyond the grasp of most well-educated Americans. I am smarter, better educated, and more capable of increasing the knowledge available to mankind then >95% of the human race. My dream is that my efforts - combined with the efforts of thousands of other Americans - will make the advancements of the past century seem pitiful when compared with the wonders my generation is destined to create. So yes, if this willful arrogance and belief in one's own ability to change the world are the hallmarks of an elite, then I am an elite, and I hope never to become anything less.