Author: JohnMatel

Posted on

End of Spock

I watched Star Trek back in 1967, when it was new. Spock was my favorite character, but my thinking about Spock evolved with changes in tech. I wrote this back in 2008 –
“I remember in the old Star Trek when Spock would say something like “impact in 10.5 seconds.” How stupid is that? That is why I prefer Picard. By the time he says 10.5, the number has changed. It is unjustified precision, but it is easy to fall into the Spock trap. It is attractive and makes you seem intelligent. BTW – my own experience in using deceptive numbers is that you are much better off using precise odd numbers. For instance, 97 is a more credible number than 100 or 90.  Remember that Ivory Soap was 99 and 44/100ths percent pure, not 100 %.”

Therefore, I love Spock out of nostalgia. However, he is an ideal from the 1960s, as suited to our world as other things from the 1960s. We used to think of intelligence in terms of ability to remember a lot of facts and do quick calculations. These things machines now do for us most of the time. For humans we now treasure the kind of intelligence that can make intuitive and creative leaps. Technology removes a limiting factor and makes the next step possible. Spock is as out-of-date as those Nehru jackets.

It might seem silly to argue about the attributes of fictional character, but it is from mass-media fiction like this that many of us get most of our philosophy. Beyond that, it gives us a point of common culture. Most people my age and younger know Spock. I doubt there is any literary or historical character with better name recognition.

Spock is great subordinate but a poor leader. He knows the parts but cannot see the whole. I see this personally. I consciously used Spock as a role model back when I was 12-13 years old. I can see find traces even in my speech patterns, overusing using the word “indeed,” for example, or on the sarcastic side, saying “explain, Spock” when somebody comes up with a dumb idea. Nevertheless, as I wrote above, Spock was an ideal from the 1960s. Times changed; I evolved.

Posted on

Fracking for the best reasons

I strongly in favor fracking for what I consider good environmental, economic and geopolitical reasons. Let me explain my trifecta.

Start with environmental. U.S. CO2 emissions are lower than they were ten years ago, in fact lower than any time since the mid-1990s. Gas replacing coal is a big factor. Natural gas is the cleanest of fossil fuels in almost every way. Renewable forms of energy are developing very rapidly. Inexpensive natural gas may slow its development a little, but not significantly. Using gas is reducing emissions faster than renewables could be developed and deployed to do the job. As prices come down and networks are built, renewables will replace most fossil fuels and the overall footprint will have been less. Recall that deploying technology is as important as developing it. Things take time.

Fracking has environmental costs, as do all forms of energy exploration. But those costs are lower than the alternative fuels – the real alternatives at this time and the next decade. Water problems can be addressed and mostly have been. The bigger problem with fracking comes with new roads and increased traffic in rural areas. This is serious, but – again – we have to compare to real world alternatives. I love forests and do not wish to see any destroyed. However, I also know that fracking has relatively small footprints and forests return. This is not forever.

Economically, there is no doubt fracking is great. It has pumped more money into the U.S. economy than all the fiscal stimulus and has been part of almost all the good new jobs created since the great recession. Inexpensive fuels is helping bring industry back to the heartland. Beyond that, gas is a feedstock for things like fertilizers and chemicals, so it goes even farther.

I saved the geopolitical part for last, since it also includes ecological and economic factors. As I wrote, I am confident that renewable alternative energy source will be dominant within a few decades. This means that much of the world’s fossil fuel resources will remain in the ground, unused and made much less valuable. If this happens, I want it to happen to not in America. Let the fossil fuels that lay under places like the Middle East or Russia stay unused and “wasted.” Let American sources be used while they still have value. Let’s use it like it’s going out of style, because it is and let others get stuck with the excess inventory.
This points to another geopolitical benefit. Much of the world’s exportable concentrated fossil fuels lays under unstable places, places often not friendly to us. With our American energy boom, they just do not matter as much anymore. Think of how much more acute would be the problems with Russia or Iran if they could much more effectively deploy the energy threat. It is bad enough as it is. It could be worse.

The great thing about fracking is that natural gas and oil it produces tend to be widely dispersed. This spreads the wealth and diversifies risk, instead of having it all under a few easily threatened places.

I am aware of the risks. There is no life w/o risk; I am also aware of the benefits.

If there were natural gas under my land, I would permit fracking. I would be very demanding in terms of where the pads should be located, how the roads should be maintained and how the natural communities should be respected and restored, but I would let it happen. I think this is the smart play for our country generally. Do it right; do it with a larger margin of error than we think we need. Spend the extra time and money to ensure protection. But do it – because the benefits far outweigh the costs. A century from now, when we have transitioned to a cleaner energy economy, we will look back and see that using fracking as a bridge was a smart idea. By that time, the forests we replanted will be vibrant. Some will be “old growth” and some plantation forests will have grown, been harvested and be growing again. Signs of fracking will be curiosities like those stone wall that once separated cultivated fields and now have forests on both sides.

Posted on

Needing less

Sometimes we need less. In fact, there is some advantage to single people living in very small spaces, since it encourages them to get out of the apartment. The limited space also discourage accumulation of lots of stuff. But you know what will come next. Activists will discover the “injustice” of the small space and demand a “livable” standard.
Fairfield Inn where I stay in South Hill has a kind of mini-suite with a bedroom separated by a half wall from a kind of sitting room. The King Suite, which is 375 sq Feet, would be sufficient for an individual or a couple w/o kids. They would have to be organized and frugal, i.e. not have too much stuff, but it could be pleasant enough. That would be a nice design for an apartment building.
Reference
Posted on

Creole culture

I learned a few things today. First I attended a talk by a poet from New Orleans about Creole culture with Mona Lisa Saloy I visited New Orleans a couple years ago and walked all across the city from the French Quarter to the causeway so I feel a little like I know the place, but it was good to learn a bit more about aspect of the culture.

The creole culture is very old. Mona Lisa described how it was formed from a mix of French and African strains. It is hundreds of years old and related to the Caribbean cultures nearby. She showed pictures of Mardi-Gras, which reminds much of Carnival in Brazil
Smithsonian is doing a series of lectures on “intangible culture.” By its nature, intangible culture is hard to grasp. It is the culture carried in the hearts and minds of people, manifest in behaviors and not in stuff. That means that it is by nature also dynamic and ephemeral and must be renewed with each generation.

Mona Lisa read some of her poetry and it was a performance worth hearing. I imagine that the poem just do not have the same heft if you just read them. The beauty of intangible culture is also it poignancy. You have to be there. It can be experienced and enjoyed but not preserved and only imperfectly transmitted. I recall once driving from Payson, Arizona to Phoenix. It is a beautiful drive down the piney mountains to the desert floor. I remember sublimely beautiful purple clouds at sunset. I thought of taking a picture, but I knew it would not do it justice. We stopped to enjoy the moment, the colors and the warm breeze and the feeling that cannot be expressed. This is how I understand the concept of intangible culture. That is the intangible, cannot be touched or maybe recedes when you try do touch it or have it. It can be described but not really transmitted.
Funny thing. It is what you cannot express that gives life meaning.
Reference
Posted on

Asians more wealth than whites in America

Changing demographics something new and the same old American success story. Various immigrant groups have surpassed the wealth of native born populations. If we look at America in twenty-five year intervals, we would find that people were pretty much sure that not too much had changed recently but it was going to. They would be right about the second, but not the first.
At some points in our history, outsiders have included, the Irish, the Germans, the Italians, the Jews, the Poles and … well lots of others. Each time the established people thought THIS time these guys would never fit in. As erstwhile newcomers integrate into the American mainstream, everybody starts to think this was just inevitable. We remember our struggles or those of our family and forget that we are now part of the establishment and so are they.
Reference
Posted on

Net Neutrality

The internet is an excellent example of government, businesses and people each doing their parts to innovate. Like all good relationships, no partner was too overbearing. They played important but separate roles. Government was a catalyst for innovation and provided R&D muscle, but not manage or plan innovation.

Innovation is synonymous with inequality. Early adopters take the risks and reap benefits. When innovations go mainstream, they turn. Some fret about “fairness”. Pocket calculators were “for the rich” some advocated bans in the interests of fairness. We talked about digital divides. Some demanded government create basic computers for all. The market got there first.

Regulation need not slow innovation, but it usually does. The quest for “fairness” slows innovation. It is a trade-off between innovation & inclusion.W developed one of the most remarkable systems in history and in a short time and made it generally available. Careful not to break it.
Posted on

A Sustained past and a sustainable future

My tree farm article for Virginia Forests Magazine.

The American Tree Farm System was founded a few years before Aldo Leopold published his “Land Ethic,” so central to modern conservation and influential to development of tree farming. Leopold wrote, “The land ethic simply enlarges the boundaries of the community to include soils, waters, plants, and animals, or collectively: the land.” Today we recognize this as a commitment to diversity and sustainability. What seems obvious now was hardly common when tree-farming ideas were developing back in the 1940s and 1950s.

I mention Aldo Leopold because his well-known work provides a convenient marker. Of course, there are many more. We depend on contributions by thousands of individuals. Our conservation ethic was build the old fashioned way, though hard work and practical experience on the land, putting theories into practice and putting practices into theories. We have so much more in terms of technologies, techniques and scientific research. We can manage our land better than they did, but we know that we can see farther because we stand on their shoulders. We never will reach a final destination. We are always becoming, never finished. Our challenges are different from those of the first tree farmers but no less difficult.

Among the challenges most urgent are climate change and invasive species. Tree farmers think in terms of decades and we base on plans on the assumption that conditions as our trees grow and mature will be broadly predicable based on current conditions. This assumption may be becoming less valid. We are can foresee changes that the growing forests themselves will create. Watching these changes unfold is one of the great joys of a naturalist. We know that the maturing trees will change the amount of water that runs into our streams. We plan for it. We understand the effects of canopy closure on wildlife and vegetation. We expect to see more turkeys and fewer quail, for example, as the trees grow. We plan for that too. We anticipate a succession of biological communities as the forest matures. All this we know from experience. But what if past performance does not predict future behavior. What about changing rain or temperature patterns or the impact of invasive species? What about a combination of things, where changing climate patterns turn a previously benign species into a threat? Let us specify that we need not even be talking here about global climate change. A new subdivision with its roads and activity may influence local conditions enough to change the dynamic on our land. Nature is always in a state of dynamic change, but humans have accelerated the rate of change, requiring more of us. We got ourselves into trouble and we have to get ourselves out of it.

Aldo Leopold wrote, “A land ethic, then, reflects the existence of an ecological conscience, and this in turn reflects a conviction of individual responsibility for the health of land.” We have responsibility to adapt to changes and anticipate them. Diversity and flexibility are among the best ways to “plan.” When uncertain, seek more options. Elsewhere in this magazine are articles about longleaf pine restoration in Virginia, examples of how we can diversify our forestry. We cannot be sure of conditions when these longleaf pines mature, but we can do all possible to do the sustainable thing today.

Posted on

CO2 and forests

CO2 helps plants grow faster, but it is complex in that there are often other limiting factors. As you eliminate some, others become more prominent. A limiting factor for trees is often water or a shortage of one or more of the big three fertilizers: Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Potassium. Humans have added CO2 to the air, but also added Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Potassium, so much that they are sometimes pollutants. It might be that we have lucked onto something good out of potentially bad if increased CO2 levels allow faster growth to suck up some of that excess NPK. This is unlikely to apply as much to tropical forests as temperate ones, however.

Throughout earth’s history, CO2 levels in the air have fluctuated but have generally been dropping until recently. I mean, we are talking geological time. The drop has been happening for the last 200 million years, when CO2 levels were 4-5 times as high as they are today. At this time, earth was universally warm and great forests of giant ferns grew all the way to the arctic. I have always been interested in such things, but there is probably no practical use for this knowledge.
Reference
Posted on

Virginia whiskey and brandy

Chrissy and I went to visit the Chrissy & I went up to visit the Catoctin Creek Distilling Company in Purcellville.   You can follow the link for details.  They make small batches of rye whiskey and brandy, all from locally sourced products. They try to make it a closed loop process.  For example, the leftover grain (after the whiskey is made) goes to local farmers, where it is fed to cattle and, according to the tour guide, the meat ends up at the “Market Burger” restaurant across the street. 

I am not a great connoisseur of whiskey, although I have learned that I like some more than others.  Generally I like bourbon better than rye.  Most of the decent bourbon brands are okay.  I am not sure I could really tell most of them apart.  Scotch can be good, but it depends much more on the brand.  I am not fond of brandy, but the Catoctin Creek folks make a brandy called “1757” (the year Loudoun became a county) that is very good.  But since I cannot tell very much by the taste, I like the stories.  I know that many of the stories are not true, but I like them still.  The story of the Catoctin distillery is one of a local business trying to make an ecologically friendly booze.  I like that.

The tour was interesting and short.  I have been on distillery tours before .  We went on the Kentucky Bourbon Tour a few years back.  But I learned something interesting.  the spirits come out in three groups: the head, the heart and the tail.   The head is too strong and that is the stuff that will kill or blind you.   The heart is the part they make into whiskey.  The tail is too weak to be used directly, but at the Catoctin Distillery they use it as the base for a gin they make.  After the tour we had the tasting.  As I said, the “1767” brandy was good.  My second favorite was Roundstone Rye 97.   It was a little too strong.  The 97 refers to the proof.

After the tasting, we went over to Market Burger across the street.  They were very good, old fashioned burgers.  We didn’t notice any of the whiskey flavor in meat that they might in theory have picked up from the whiskey grain feed.
Purcellville is a nice little town.  It is the start of the W&OD bike trail.

Posted on

Recent times

I have not been that busy but I have been putting more onto Facebook. Facebook is much more ephemeral. I generally link to articles I find interesting and make a few comments. I don’t tell much of my experience and I need to get back to that.

Summing up the last couple of months, life has been strange. I feel in between. Smithsonian is a great place to be. I am getting a really good education. State Department is sometimes good about these developmental jobs. I got a lot out of my year at Fletcher School of Law & Diplomacy. It changed my outlook and made me a better diplomat. I think that paid off the State Department over the next ten years. I have no doubt that all the things I am learning at Smithsonian would make me a better diplomat too, but I am at the end of my career now. I will get the benefit, but State will never get the pack back. I think from the strictly practical point of view, they should not have made the investment in me. But …

I love Washington and the part I love the most is the area around the Mall, i.e. Smithsonian. It is a great gift that State is giving me.

My pictures are some of the leftovers.  The top are the elm trees on the Mall from last fall.  Next is the Art Museum.  Museums should be done slowly.  Being on the Mall allows me that.  I can go in, spend time in one place and then go.  Below that is the National Arboretum with the Capitol in the background.  It is a great place to walk at lunchtime.  Bottom is Jack Rose Dining Saloon.  They have hundreds of whiskeys.  I attended a Smithsonian program on whiskey.  We go to taste a variety of types and pretend to be learning.