Ian Haight's blog

3G Solar/Diamond Eye/John Searle

A mini-hiatus felt appropriate recently.  So much going on at work with the end of the school year, it has been a tiring time.  Last Saturday I slept for about half the day, and family was supportive of that time so I guess I really needed it.  :)

Yesterday I was at the gym, watching I believe episode 8 in the ongoing Star Trek movie franchise.  This is the one where the crew goes back in time (once again!--if only it were so easy) and meets the inventor of the warp drive which allows the first Earth space ship to travel at the speed of light (I think; I'm not as up to speed on these matters as I used to be).  The inventor, Zephram Cochrane, marvels at all he will cause to come into being and how different the future is from his time.  Notably there is the idea that Earth's economic system of the future does not utilize money because humans are motivated by self-improvement and altruism.  Technology eliminates poverty, disease, and war, because there is nothing for nations to compete over.  This sounds a lot like Edward Bellamy's Looking Backward, written in 1889.  I want to concentrate on other matters, but suffice it to say Looking Backward, a response to the Gilded Age in a similar vein as Herbert Croly (see last post), has the main character wake up in the year 2000 AD to a whole new world of economics and human behavior.  In this world, human beings are motivated not by wealth but by self improvement and altruism.  All the material desires of every human are met, so once again, nations no longer compete over resources. 

Here we are in 2011, and unfortunately, the world doesn't work like Looking Back envisions.

Still, we have techonology.  It's fun to think about and talk about.  I'd like to believe we have the means and technology to create a world like Star Trek of the future or the dreamed 2000 AD world of Looking Back; others have said it is possible to make the necessary transitions for this kind of future.  For whatever reason, change has not occurred--at least the scale of change necessary for the visions to come true.  In that spirit, here are 3 technological innovations which could be positive changes:

-3G Solar has invented a Dye Solar Cell.  What is that?  It's a way to generate solar power that is much cheaper than silicon systems.  Why does this matter?  To me it's interesting because it makes living without a power grid much more affordable for common people.  It's a solution to the complaint that buying an electric car is simply transferring fossil fuel sources from the gas pump to the city power plant.  

-Diamond Eye This is an experimental tech that might take off.  Apparently an engineer in Iran has found a way to cure eye disorders, including near and farsightedness, by using electromagnetic energy. The technology has an 80-100% success rate, although as of 2008 it had been tried on only 25 people. I like this story because it involves the use of electromagnetic energy, something I have an interest in because of Nikolai Tesla, who also devoted significant research to electromagnetic energy.  Tesla was quite a remarkable persona; one of the stories I'm working on has a Tesla angle.  I'll leave it at that.

-John Searle If you haven't heard about Searle he is the inventor of another kind of electromagnetic technology.  Explore the website at the end of the link; part of the claim is that his technological device could create flying machines and cars that run on electromagnetic power, requiring no conventional fuel source.  Tesla again...?

Herbert Croly: The Promise of American Life

Last post I referred to an essay that discusses how principles of democracy are compromised by capitalist impulses when such impulses become exaggerated in a society.  I did a little homework and found it fairly quickly: Herbert Croly's The Promise of American Life, an essay published in 1909, I presume as a response to the Gilded Age's excesses and Social Darwinism.  I skimmed the essay and found this gem that I had highlighted:

"...under a legal system which holds private property sacred there may be equal rights, but there cannot possibly be any equal opportunities for exercising such rights." 

And then a few sentences later in the same paragraph:

"Those who have enjoyed the benefits of wealth and thorough education start with an advantage which can be overcome only by very exceptional men,--men so exceptional, in fact, that the average competitor without such benefits feels himself disqualified from the contest." 

Croly goes on to argue that industry should be regulated by government to serve the ideals of democracy, the purpose being to make these ideals available to the majority of citizens.  At the same time, Croly wants government to empower industry so that industry can better serve the needs and livelihoods of citizens. 

I have read analyses of Croly's essay that are directly opposing in understandings, I'm sure at least in part because Croly advocated for aspects of both democratic and republican ideologies in his essay.  Here's my thing: no matter what ideological side one falls on with Croly, it's undeniable Croly wanted people to have fair footing in terms of economic opportunity at the outset of life, and he felt it was the responsibility of government to help.  Good paying jobs were a big part of that equation. 

So the issue and questions from last week are the ending point for this post: Is America providing equal economic opportunity to all its citizens?  As a follow on, do Americans enjoy equal access to the fulfillment of their rights as citizens, rights empowered by a fair distribution of wealth?  Using Croly's line of reasoning, after a simple check of the data posted last week, the answer to both questions seems to be "no." 

I don't lack faith in things changing because things did change in the 20th century after the publication of Croly's essay.  Wikipedia (yes I am one of those who thinks Wikipedia is a decent source for general information--I've seen the accuracy percentiles used by journalists when determining credible sources) claims economic inequality lessened in the US from 1890-1940, and then began to increase again from 1970-2000.  From what I have seen we can extend that curve through to 2010, given 2011 hasn't finished yet. 

I believe the worm will eventually turn, but how and under what circumstances?  Technology seems the most likely key, but again, there is quite a premium on cutting edge technology, meaning those who control and have access to cutting edge technology are still the power and wealth elites. 

Seoul International Forum for Literature/Capitalism Gone Wild

Well there's a lot going on in the world in terms of economics/the global economy.  Isn't there always?  What appears to be happening in the U.S. is a repeat of what prompted political-economic theories from the 20's and 30's (if I'm correct--off the top of my head of course) where you have wealth so centralized and exclusive that democratic freedoms and rights for the majority (meaning the middle class and of course the poor) are lessened.  The argument goes that capitalism run wild is undemocratic because only the rich have real opportunities.  Having wealth, the rich are able to afford a privileged education, have better access to meaningful knowledge and are given the means to know how to use it.  All of this results in freedom to enjoy Constitutional rights and liberties better than your average Joe (or Jane in this day and age of single parent households headed by women).  The quality of and access to what Americans consider to be citizens' rights (consumer protection, education, health care, etc.) appears to be on the decline.  No one denies wealth is becoming more concentrated in a smaller percentile of the American population.  Historically, this is a trend that leads to instability in American society.  With the semester coming to an end I haven't had the time to track down the essay reference, but the summation here makes sense doesn't it?  Here are two links for some evidence:

Time ran an article on this very issue with accompanying charts, but here is a recent compilation of the evidence presented in the form of charts by Mother Jones.  Mother Jones is a liberal magazine but many of the sources for the data are government agencies which are supposed to be non-partisan.

A quick 2:00 summation can be found via this Youtube video.  The source for the data is the CIA which for this kind of information I trust.  The commentator goes off on a tangent at the end, but the outcomes he mentions are unsurprising and similar to what prompted that essay from the 20's and 30's.  I will try to post info on that essay next week.

 

In the meantime the Daesan Foundation's 2011 Seoul International Forum for Literature is scheduled to run from 5/23-5/27.  If you are in the Seoul area you'll want to check out some of the sessions.  I was truly impressed and learned a lot at the last forum which had several Nobel Laureates in Literature and Pulitzer Prize winners in poetry all presenting essays in seminars.  If I were working in Seoul I think I'd be trying to arrange field trips for my classes!  Maybe someday....