I have just read an article written by Farish A. Noor which bears the title
"We do not own, nor are we owned by history"
(http://www.othermalaysia.org/content/view/105/1/)
This article could serve as a good wake up call for those who have had a 'nostalgia of past glory' and become too obsessed with it.
Dr Farish notices that people of different ethnicities and religions always being 'brainwashed' since young to embrace the "greatness" of their ancestors and civilizationsas if 'somehow the accumulated credit for human labour can be passed down from one generation to another like capital gaining interest in the bank'. At the same time, he cynically points out that the same group of people who "have no problems whatsoever taking credit for what was done ancestors hundreds of years ago" miraculously, as if they are being affected by some sort of selective amnesia, "would not want to take responsibility for the mistakes and outrages committed by their very same ancestors long ago".
Also, Dr Farish has, though indirectly, pointed out that people today, no matter she's a Chinese, European, Indian, Arabian or Malay has been living (on average) a much better life than her ancestors who allegedly lived in 'the age of glory'. From the economic perspective, this couldn't be more true. Before 19th century, no country in the world has ever achieved a GDP per capita higher than USD 1 200. But today, a country with GDP per capita of USD 1 200 is considered 'relatively poor', and some countries like Luxomberg has GDP per capita as high as USD 70 000. But still, many people (I must admit, at one time in my life, I was one of the herd) seem to be too fond of the 'past glory' that they choose to overlook this fact. As Dr Farish aptly put it:
"Furthermore it is almost comical to note how this recourse to nostalgia often harps back on the achievements of singular individuals who may not have acted with the interests of others or posterity in mind. Muslim apologists talk about the greatness of Muslim Sultans and Emperors, oblivious to the fact that if they were living in the days of the great Muslim empires of the past they would probably be playing the lowly role of serfs and peasants, to be stepped on and exploited by the very same Great Sultans they so admire today. Likewise apologists for China’s great imperial past forget that the greatness of China was meant primarily for the Emperor and the ruling elite, and not for the ordinary Chinese masses: Some may look to the Forbidden Palace in Peking as proof of China’s past grandeur, but the Forbidden Palace was precisely that – an elite enclave that was forbidden to millions of ordinary Chinese. The same applies for the great temples, forts and castles of the Christian West and Hindu India. So why this love of great rulers and greatness in general?"
Finally, I think Dr Farish's profound insight can readily be extended to other 'orthodox establishments' like 'tradition' and 'nationalism'. All these are sobering and perhaps even provocative and radical to some, enough for many people to chew on for a long time.
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Saturday, May 26, 2007
Quotes of Winston Churchill
Winston Chuchill, one of the political figures that I admire most. A great man with a great sense of humour in my opinion. He got many witty remarks, below are some of those which I like very much:
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life."
"There is no such thing as public opinion. There is only published opinion."
"Study history, study history. In history lies all the secrets of statecraft."
"Some people regard private enterprise as a predatory tiger to be shot. Others look on it as a cow they can milk. Not enough people see it as a healthy horse, pulling a sturdy wagon."
"To improve is to change; to be perfect is to change often."
"Politics is almost as exciting as war, and quite as dangerous. In war you can only be killed once, but in politics many times."
"Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts."
"We make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give."
"To build may have to be the slow and laborious task of years. To destroy can be the thoughtless act of a single day."
"He has all of the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
"Politics is the ability to foretell what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month and next year. And to have the ability afterwards to explain why it didn't happen."
"Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen."
"I am prepared to meet my Maker. Whether my Maker is prepared for the great ordeal of meeting me is another matter."
"Dictators ride to and fro upon tigers which they dare not dismount. And the tigers are getting hungry."
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty."
"I am an optimist. It does not seem too much use being anything else."
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life."
"There is no such thing as public opinion. There is only published opinion."
"Study history, study history. In history lies all the secrets of statecraft."
"Some people regard private enterprise as a predatory tiger to be shot. Others look on it as a cow they can milk. Not enough people see it as a healthy horse, pulling a sturdy wagon."
"To improve is to change; to be perfect is to change often."
"Politics is almost as exciting as war, and quite as dangerous. In war you can only be killed once, but in politics many times."
"Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts."
"We make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give."
"To build may have to be the slow and laborious task of years. To destroy can be the thoughtless act of a single day."
"He has all of the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
"Politics is the ability to foretell what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month and next year. And to have the ability afterwards to explain why it didn't happen."
"Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen."
"I am prepared to meet my Maker. Whether my Maker is prepared for the great ordeal of meeting me is another matter."
"Dictators ride to and fro upon tigers which they dare not dismount. And the tigers are getting hungry."
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty."
"I am an optimist. It does not seem too much use being anything else."
Friday, May 25, 2007
Quote of the week--The Tyranny Of "Fairness"
In some intellectual circles the desirability of equality of outcome has become an article of religious faith: everyone should finish the race at the same time. As the Dodo said in Alice in Wonderland, "Everybody has won, and all must have prizes.".....
if what people get is determined by "fairness" and not by what they produce, where are the "prizes" to come from? What incentive is there to work and produce? How is it to be decided who is to be the doctor, who the lawyer, who the garbage collector, who the street sweeper? What assures that people will accept the roles assigned to them and perform those roles in accordance with their abilities? Clearly, only force or the threat of force will do. -------- Milton Friedman in his book "Free To Choose"
if what people get is determined by "fairness" and not by what they produce, where are the "prizes" to come from? What incentive is there to work and produce? How is it to be decided who is to be the doctor, who the lawyer, who the garbage collector, who the street sweeper? What assures that people will accept the roles assigned to them and perform those roles in accordance with their abilities? Clearly, only force or the threat of force will do. -------- Milton Friedman in his book "Free To Choose"
Comparative Advantage And Gender Roles
The term comparative advantage was first suggested by economist David Ricardo. According to him, a country should always concentrate on producing what it's best at producing, at the same time it should import the other commodities from countries which have comparative advantage at manufacturing those goods.
Ricardo argued that, even if a country could produce everything more efficiently than other countries, it would reap profit from specializing in what it's best at manufacturing and trading it in exchange of other commodities. Hence, comparative advantage shouldn't be viewed as something absolute. To further illustrate my point, consider the US and Vietnam and their abilities to produce two types of good : airplanes and televisions. US could definitely produce both types of good with better quality than Vietnam, but Vietnam's ability to produce television is better than that of producing airplanes, as a result, the US shall let Vietnam produce televisions and US should concentrate on producing airplanes, in that way, both country could profit from trading televisions and airplanes with each other.
Even though comparative advantage is an economic terminology, we could see that it also applies to gender roles in human society. Women today undoubtedly enjoy a lot more freedom than their counterparts who lived just a few decades ago. Basically, apart from a handful of countries, most of the legal systems in the world grant equal rights to both genders.
But, despite the fact that women nowadays are endowed (at least legally) with the same amount of choices in all aspects of their lives as men, why many women still choose to assume their traditional role as housewives, the "rice making maid" (as in cantonese) for their husbands ? Why many women still prefer making-up than building careers ?
One common point of view is that the male dominant society has way too many invisible constraints and unforeseeable pitfalls that they left women with few choices. Another popular view is that men as the breadwinners of their families has become the norm of our societies, so why should a woman subject herself to much hardship if she could "delegate" the job to her husband?While both point of views have their own credits, it would be presumptuos if one thinks that a woman choose not to work simply because she thinks working is too hard. Many women choose to be a housewife because their families need a keeper, a guardian; and their children need a caring mother who take care of them wholeheartedly.
If we consider it from the Ricardian perspective of comparative advantage, since men generally do a better job in securing financial resources than rearing kids and home keeping, so unless their wives could do an even better job at earning money, it would be wise to concentrate on their career, while letting their wives to look after their children and homes. In that way, it benefits the whole family the most. Hence, choosing to become a housewife does indeed prove to be a wise choice for a lot of women.
Similarly, many women give priority in making-up because that's the best they can do (in attracting the opposite sex): you don't have to be a genius to realize that a beautiful girl has a better chance to attract more affluent and wealthy potential spouses. On the other hand, since women have chosen to concentrate on their presentability, then men will have to opt for building up financial strengths. The result, both parties will reap the most benefits.
Whether this is a result of natural selection or a deeply-rooted custom is not important. The fact is, the comparative advantage of gender roles has existed in that way instead of the other way around, and most of us are just trying to follow the rules, and passing them to our future generations.
Ricardo argued that, even if a country could produce everything more efficiently than other countries, it would reap profit from specializing in what it's best at manufacturing and trading it in exchange of other commodities. Hence, comparative advantage shouldn't be viewed as something absolute. To further illustrate my point, consider the US and Vietnam and their abilities to produce two types of good : airplanes and televisions. US could definitely produce both types of good with better quality than Vietnam, but Vietnam's ability to produce television is better than that of producing airplanes, as a result, the US shall let Vietnam produce televisions and US should concentrate on producing airplanes, in that way, both country could profit from trading televisions and airplanes with each other.
Even though comparative advantage is an economic terminology, we could see that it also applies to gender roles in human society. Women today undoubtedly enjoy a lot more freedom than their counterparts who lived just a few decades ago. Basically, apart from a handful of countries, most of the legal systems in the world grant equal rights to both genders.
But, despite the fact that women nowadays are endowed (at least legally) with the same amount of choices in all aspects of their lives as men, why many women still choose to assume their traditional role as housewives, the "rice making maid" (as in cantonese) for their husbands ? Why many women still prefer making-up than building careers ?
One common point of view is that the male dominant society has way too many invisible constraints and unforeseeable pitfalls that they left women with few choices. Another popular view is that men as the breadwinners of their families has become the norm of our societies, so why should a woman subject herself to much hardship if she could "delegate" the job to her husband?While both point of views have their own credits, it would be presumptuos if one thinks that a woman choose not to work simply because she thinks working is too hard. Many women choose to be a housewife because their families need a keeper, a guardian; and their children need a caring mother who take care of them wholeheartedly.
If we consider it from the Ricardian perspective of comparative advantage, since men generally do a better job in securing financial resources than rearing kids and home keeping, so unless their wives could do an even better job at earning money, it would be wise to concentrate on their career, while letting their wives to look after their children and homes. In that way, it benefits the whole family the most. Hence, choosing to become a housewife does indeed prove to be a wise choice for a lot of women.
Similarly, many women give priority in making-up because that's the best they can do (in attracting the opposite sex): you don't have to be a genius to realize that a beautiful girl has a better chance to attract more affluent and wealthy potential spouses. On the other hand, since women have chosen to concentrate on their presentability, then men will have to opt for building up financial strengths. The result, both parties will reap the most benefits.
Whether this is a result of natural selection or a deeply-rooted custom is not important. The fact is, the comparative advantage of gender roles has existed in that way instead of the other way around, and most of us are just trying to follow the rules, and passing them to our future generations.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Sunday, May 06, 2007
Alien Civilization, Yet Another Perspective
My friend Michelle has offered some points of view of hers regarding alien civilization especially on energy requirement (for space faring) and alien mindset. She also warns of the risk of anthropomorphism and having assumed too much on how (intelligent) aliens would think.
I have to admit that these are indeed very tricky topics and at first look, it may seem that anything is possible. But with the help of some scientific facts and theories, we could rule out quite a number of possibilities.
First of all, on space crafts which can be refueled midway. This is possible, given that the aliens know for sure they could find fuel for their space crafts in another star system. For example, if they are using fusion energy to power their ships, then they could probably harvest hydrogen from any star they come across.
On the compositions of planets. True enough, life supporting planets in other star system would not be exactly the same as planet earth. In fact, it’s pretty safe to say that the probability of coming across a planet in other star system which has exactly the same size and same composition as the earth is practically zero. At the same time, it’s also pretty safe to say that the chances of finding a planet abound with elements that couldn’t be found in our solar system is next to zero, if not zero at all. To see this point, one has to understand how all the elements (hydrogen, oxygen, iron, uranium, you name it) in the universe are created. Simply put, the universe only has hydrogen in the beginning, then burning stars fuse the nuclei of hydrogen into heavier elements, the energy released through fusion will support a star from collapsing under its own weight. But not all fusions release energy, when a massive star starts making iron in its core, energy is drawn from the star because making any element heavier than iron requires energy. Subsequently, the star no longer has the energy to support its weight and it will undergo gravitational collapse, the result is one huge spectacular supernova explosion which releases more than 10^40 Joule---about the same amount of energy released by all the stars combined in one single galaxy. During the explosion, heavier- than-iron elements (like gold, silver, iridium, uranium etc) are created, but compared to lighter-than-iron elements, they are rare. Later, all the elements will spread across the galaxy and become the ingredients of new star systems and their planets. That is why every star system will have more or less the same composition, hydrogen, helium, carbon, oxygen, silicon, nitrogen and their compounds. So, even though I am certain there are yet more (heavy) elements to be added to our periodic table, but they could only be synthesized in labs. No natural process known could produce them, even one as intense as supernova.
On the efficiency of fuels. Einstein’s famous equation E= mc^2 asserts that there is a limit to the amount of energy released per unit mass. For 1 Kg of fuel, the limit would be about 9 x 10^16 Joule. But of course from the second law of thermodynamics, we know that we can not transform heat into work with 100% efficiency. On the other hand, just like anyone with some knowledge in chemistry wouldn’t believe that one could simply turn water into petroleum, anyone with some knowledge in physics wouldn’t believe that there’s a chemical process which releases more heat per unit mass than nuclear fusion. Chemical processes only involve sharing of electron between ionized atoms, whereas nuclear fusions involve the union of nuclei to form new elements. You couldn’t even put them on the same scale.
On alien society. This is perhaps the trickiest part. Like what Michelle said, anyone who’s trying make a guess on alien mindsets is subject to the risk of anthropomorphisms. But thinking that intelligent aliens would form tribes and nation states isn’t anthropomorphism, it’s natural selection. We see animals which hunt in groups or packs, occupy territories, chasing away intruders. The purpose of all these is to secure resources. Hence forming tribes and nation states isn't really something unique to human. On the other hand, aliens need energy as well, just like any other living thing in the universe, so it’s prudent to assume that they too need to secure resources, hence they will need to form tribes or nation states as well. Of course, my arguments are based on the assumption that they face intense competition, but without intense competition for resources, I wonder if any species would eventually develop the brain power needed to propel them into the age of civilizations.
I have to admit that these are indeed very tricky topics and at first look, it may seem that anything is possible. But with the help of some scientific facts and theories, we could rule out quite a number of possibilities.
First of all, on space crafts which can be refueled midway. This is possible, given that the aliens know for sure they could find fuel for their space crafts in another star system. For example, if they are using fusion energy to power their ships, then they could probably harvest hydrogen from any star they come across.
On the compositions of planets. True enough, life supporting planets in other star system would not be exactly the same as planet earth. In fact, it’s pretty safe to say that the probability of coming across a planet in other star system which has exactly the same size and same composition as the earth is practically zero. At the same time, it’s also pretty safe to say that the chances of finding a planet abound with elements that couldn’t be found in our solar system is next to zero, if not zero at all. To see this point, one has to understand how all the elements (hydrogen, oxygen, iron, uranium, you name it) in the universe are created. Simply put, the universe only has hydrogen in the beginning, then burning stars fuse the nuclei of hydrogen into heavier elements, the energy released through fusion will support a star from collapsing under its own weight. But not all fusions release energy, when a massive star starts making iron in its core, energy is drawn from the star because making any element heavier than iron requires energy. Subsequently, the star no longer has the energy to support its weight and it will undergo gravitational collapse, the result is one huge spectacular supernova explosion which releases more than 10^40 Joule---about the same amount of energy released by all the stars combined in one single galaxy. During the explosion, heavier- than-iron elements (like gold, silver, iridium, uranium etc) are created, but compared to lighter-than-iron elements, they are rare. Later, all the elements will spread across the galaxy and become the ingredients of new star systems and their planets. That is why every star system will have more or less the same composition, hydrogen, helium, carbon, oxygen, silicon, nitrogen and their compounds. So, even though I am certain there are yet more (heavy) elements to be added to our periodic table, but they could only be synthesized in labs. No natural process known could produce them, even one as intense as supernova.
On the efficiency of fuels. Einstein’s famous equation E= mc^2 asserts that there is a limit to the amount of energy released per unit mass. For 1 Kg of fuel, the limit would be about 9 x 10^16 Joule. But of course from the second law of thermodynamics, we know that we can not transform heat into work with 100% efficiency. On the other hand, just like anyone with some knowledge in chemistry wouldn’t believe that one could simply turn water into petroleum, anyone with some knowledge in physics wouldn’t believe that there’s a chemical process which releases more heat per unit mass than nuclear fusion. Chemical processes only involve sharing of electron between ionized atoms, whereas nuclear fusions involve the union of nuclei to form new elements. You couldn’t even put them on the same scale.
On alien society. This is perhaps the trickiest part. Like what Michelle said, anyone who’s trying make a guess on alien mindsets is subject to the risk of anthropomorphisms. But thinking that intelligent aliens would form tribes and nation states isn’t anthropomorphism, it’s natural selection. We see animals which hunt in groups or packs, occupy territories, chasing away intruders. The purpose of all these is to secure resources. Hence forming tribes and nation states isn't really something unique to human. On the other hand, aliens need energy as well, just like any other living thing in the universe, so it’s prudent to assume that they too need to secure resources, hence they will need to form tribes or nation states as well. Of course, my arguments are based on the assumption that they face intense competition, but without intense competition for resources, I wonder if any species would eventually develop the brain power needed to propel them into the age of civilizations.
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
Quote of the week
As a result of the burning of coal and oil, the driving of cars, and other human activities, the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing at a rate of about half a percent per year. … The physical effects of carbon dioxide are seen in changes of rainfall, cloudiness, wind strength, and temperature, which are customarily lumped together in the misleading phrase "global warming." This phrase is misleading because the warming caused by the greenhouse effect of increased carbon dioxide is not evenly distributed. In humid air, the effect of carbon dioxide on the transport of heat by radiation is less important, because it is outweighed by the much larger greenhouse effect of water vapor. The effect of carbon dioxide is more important where the air is dry, and air is usually dry only where it is cold. The warming mainly occurs where air is cold and dry, mainly in the arctic rather than in the tropics, mainly in winter rather than in summer, and mainly at night rather than in daytime. The warming is real, but it is mostly making cold places warmer rather than making hot places hotter. To represent this local warming by a global average is misleading, because the global average is only a fraction of a degree while the local warming at high latitudes is much larger.-------Freeman Dyson
Alien Civilization, Another Perspective (By Michelle Wong)
1)Energy requirement. I think as for the energy harvesting point of view, let's may be assuming it in this way. Driving your car to Singapore will take 3 full tanks of petrol. So since you can't drive all the way to Singapore with 1 full tank, you would have at least stop twice to refill. Then, can the same analogy can be applied here?
And the second suggestion would be that we need a lot of petrol/coal/natural gas or whatever energy supplier to generate 10^13 Watt because these listed supplier above is producing only so much energy per unit mass. But what if the alien is using different material which generate 10 millions time of energy for the same unit mass? That planet might not be the exactly the same planet as we have now, not only in terms of composition of matter but could be also the different matters (and I wonder is the chemistry periodic table is fixed and no more additions or expansions?).
2) The mindset of alien civilization. This is very interesting to actually think it in hypothetical way, if I am about to dream of the Utopian society :P But putting that aside, I would have to ask myself the few obvious question. What is their motivation to explore the universe? The reason I ask myself this question is that since you suggested that a LOT of energy is required, they must be looking for something before investing such enormous amount of energy! (of course, we presume that They think humanly like us *cost-benefit analysis*, which might not be true as I will ask later). Since you had proposed that it could be due to escape from genocide/warring/conflict, should we be worried about if our planet is habitable to them, or they will just pass by? :P
I read this somewhere about the question: if 2 different species of animal meeting up together for the first time in their lives, for example like Galapagos tortoise vs Orang Utan, what would be the reaction. They said that the observation made often than not is actually neutralism, instead of jumping straight to fighting. Of course, they said it based on evolutionary psychology (I think it is in George Miller's The Mating Mind). Now, the trick question is, will human-alien relationship be something like neutralism or fighting over reproduction/survivality?
Another interesting point: what makes these aliens so great in producing such advanced technology to be able to travelled to this space. We might think they must have such high intelligence, philosophical undertakings (if they manage to be so peaceful and have no conflict at all), or supreme collectivist mindset (you know, just be collective, like the ants in the hive), and so on. But take a step backward: put yourself into the ant shoes and have a look at human being. If you look at human from the eyes of ant, you would be wondering what makes them travel so fast, or you as a fish, wow, human being actually floating on the water at one moment and sinking into water next and so forth. At the end, actually we are comparing it in a very different realms: one being ant/fish, and another one would be human being. Why I brought this up? I would think that if there is any alien to be met in the future, let's not presume too much on why or how they become where they are from the very human perspective, i think some call this anthropomorphism.
And coming to your last point: how good we could reconcile with others in ensuring our survivality, i think a lot of philosophers/great thinkers have expounded heavily on this subject by understanding human nature and the prospects of it. There is only 2 points coming to me at this moment: Hegel said "What experience and history teach is this — that nations and governments have never learned anything from history, or acted upon any lessons they might have drawn from it." and resources will become scarcer and rarer, and may be we are bound for collision, 2 persons wanting the same thing. But what resources or at what rate, I have no idea ;)
And the second suggestion would be that we need a lot of petrol/coal/natural gas or whatever energy supplier to generate 10^13 Watt because these listed supplier above is producing only so much energy per unit mass. But what if the alien is using different material which generate 10 millions time of energy for the same unit mass? That planet might not be the exactly the same planet as we have now, not only in terms of composition of matter but could be also the different matters (and I wonder is the chemistry periodic table is fixed and no more additions or expansions?).
2) The mindset of alien civilization. This is very interesting to actually think it in hypothetical way, if I am about to dream of the Utopian society :P But putting that aside, I would have to ask myself the few obvious question. What is their motivation to explore the universe? The reason I ask myself this question is that since you suggested that a LOT of energy is required, they must be looking for something before investing such enormous amount of energy! (of course, we presume that They think humanly like us *cost-benefit analysis*, which might not be true as I will ask later). Since you had proposed that it could be due to escape from genocide/warring/conflict, should we be worried about if our planet is habitable to them, or they will just pass by? :P
I read this somewhere about the question: if 2 different species of animal meeting up together for the first time in their lives, for example like Galapagos tortoise vs Orang Utan, what would be the reaction. They said that the observation made often than not is actually neutralism, instead of jumping straight to fighting. Of course, they said it based on evolutionary psychology (I think it is in George Miller's The Mating Mind). Now, the trick question is, will human-alien relationship be something like neutralism or fighting over reproduction/survivality?
Another interesting point: what makes these aliens so great in producing such advanced technology to be able to travelled to this space. We might think they must have such high intelligence, philosophical undertakings (if they manage to be so peaceful and have no conflict at all), or supreme collectivist mindset (you know, just be collective, like the ants in the hive), and so on. But take a step backward: put yourself into the ant shoes and have a look at human being. If you look at human from the eyes of ant, you would be wondering what makes them travel so fast, or you as a fish, wow, human being actually floating on the water at one moment and sinking into water next and so forth. At the end, actually we are comparing it in a very different realms: one being ant/fish, and another one would be human being. Why I brought this up? I would think that if there is any alien to be met in the future, let's not presume too much on why or how they become where they are from the very human perspective, i think some call this anthropomorphism.
And coming to your last point: how good we could reconcile with others in ensuring our survivality, i think a lot of philosophers/great thinkers have expounded heavily on this subject by understanding human nature and the prospects of it. There is only 2 points coming to me at this moment: Hegel said "What experience and history teach is this — that nations and governments have never learned anything from history, or acted upon any lessons they might have drawn from it." and resources will become scarcer and rarer, and may be we are bound for collision, 2 persons wanting the same thing. But what resources or at what rate, I have no idea ;)
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Alien Civilization, A perspective.
When showing for the first time a couple of years ago, the movie Independence Day sure had captured the heart of millions of people with its thrilling plot and stunning computer graphic effects. It’s a movie stuffed with alien spacecrafts and actions, so to speak. After such a long time, the exhilaration should have all lost in the void that embeds planet earth. But one question lingers: how likely is an advance alien civilization visiting earth to be combative in nature, eager to fight and conquer anything that stands in the paths of their spaceships? My guess is, we are not likely to come across an alien civilization bound on conquest and annihilation.
Let’s look at some facts first; manned space travel is no ordinary feat, at least in our terms. The vast amount of resources, energy, and technology needed to build a spaceship, to cater for people (I mean aliens) who travel with it, to avoid any potential danger, to power it and the time needed to traverse celestial distances is simply unimaginable to any of us. It may sound ignominious, but our current scientific knowledge and technology is so limited that we cannot even overcome the technical difficulties at theoretical level. The sheer amount of cost spent just to escape the confines of our home planet is a testimony of our primitiveness.
In 1964, astronomer Nikolai Kardashev proposed a general method to classify how technologically advanced a civilization is by measuring (I shall omit all the technicalities here) the total amount of energy a civilization could utilize. By the Kardashev scale, a type I civilization is able to harness all the power available on a planet. A type II civilization is able to harness all the power available from a star and finally a type III civilization would be able to harness all the power of a galaxy, which, in the case of our galaxy, the Milky Way, equals to about 10^36 Watt (1 followed by 36 zeroes). Currently, our civilization is a type 0.7, which consumes 10^13 (10 trillion) Watt. By extrapolation, it’s estimated that the earth will reach type I sometime around 23rd century.
Naturally, an alien who comes knocking at our doors must have belonged to at least a type II civilization and as a corollary of that, they must at least be several millennia ahead of us in terms of science and technology. At the same time, one should always keep in mind that despite how advance our alien friends might be, there must have been a time when their ancestors were living a savage lifestyle, much like how our ancestors lived theirs dozens of millennia ago. And as a life form, they need energy to keep things going around. In order to secure access to certain resources, some sort of nation states could have been formed to protect them from others.
There have been many occasions, whether on TVs, books or games which feature aggressive and combative alien races, yet these alien races have somehow managed to rally themselves under a single planetary government. Given their combativeness, it makes one wonders how they could reconcile with one another in the very first place! My point is, throughout the course of history, an alien civilization which is combative in nature would have fought so many wars with one another that they are likely to have destroyed themselves before they even have a chance to colonize other planets. Even if they managed to escape the fate of self-annihilation, constant wars and conflicts would have hindered progress significantly if not totally. In addition, unless they learn how to live with each other peacefully, more wars will eventually break out. The more advance the civilization becomes, the more deadly the weapons deployed and the direr the consequences will be.
On the other hand, civilizations which have come to realize the importance of sharing resources and working together would have a better chance to become a space faring species. Not only due to the fact that they could avoid any potentially devastating conflict, but cooperation would have allowed them to do just about anything more efficiently, from scientific researches to dealing with planetary issues.
As a conclusion, instead of worrying about being exterminated by some alien civilizations, we should instead worry about ourselves. Whether we will become a space faring species in the next few millennia or we will destroy ourselves would largely depend on how good we could reconcile with each other, and how willing we are to set aside all our differences and work together for the sake of our children.
Let’s look at some facts first; manned space travel is no ordinary feat, at least in our terms. The vast amount of resources, energy, and technology needed to build a spaceship, to cater for people (I mean aliens) who travel with it, to avoid any potential danger, to power it and the time needed to traverse celestial distances is simply unimaginable to any of us. It may sound ignominious, but our current scientific knowledge and technology is so limited that we cannot even overcome the technical difficulties at theoretical level. The sheer amount of cost spent just to escape the confines of our home planet is a testimony of our primitiveness.
In 1964, astronomer Nikolai Kardashev proposed a general method to classify how technologically advanced a civilization is by measuring (I shall omit all the technicalities here) the total amount of energy a civilization could utilize. By the Kardashev scale, a type I civilization is able to harness all the power available on a planet. A type II civilization is able to harness all the power available from a star and finally a type III civilization would be able to harness all the power of a galaxy, which, in the case of our galaxy, the Milky Way, equals to about 10^36 Watt (1 followed by 36 zeroes). Currently, our civilization is a type 0.7, which consumes 10^13 (10 trillion) Watt. By extrapolation, it’s estimated that the earth will reach type I sometime around 23rd century.
Naturally, an alien who comes knocking at our doors must have belonged to at least a type II civilization and as a corollary of that, they must at least be several millennia ahead of us in terms of science and technology. At the same time, one should always keep in mind that despite how advance our alien friends might be, there must have been a time when their ancestors were living a savage lifestyle, much like how our ancestors lived theirs dozens of millennia ago. And as a life form, they need energy to keep things going around. In order to secure access to certain resources, some sort of nation states could have been formed to protect them from others.
There have been many occasions, whether on TVs, books or games which feature aggressive and combative alien races, yet these alien races have somehow managed to rally themselves under a single planetary government. Given their combativeness, it makes one wonders how they could reconcile with one another in the very first place! My point is, throughout the course of history, an alien civilization which is combative in nature would have fought so many wars with one another that they are likely to have destroyed themselves before they even have a chance to colonize other planets. Even if they managed to escape the fate of self-annihilation, constant wars and conflicts would have hindered progress significantly if not totally. In addition, unless they learn how to live with each other peacefully, more wars will eventually break out. The more advance the civilization becomes, the more deadly the weapons deployed and the direr the consequences will be.
On the other hand, civilizations which have come to realize the importance of sharing resources and working together would have a better chance to become a space faring species. Not only due to the fact that they could avoid any potentially devastating conflict, but cooperation would have allowed them to do just about anything more efficiently, from scientific researches to dealing with planetary issues.
As a conclusion, instead of worrying about being exterminated by some alien civilizations, we should instead worry about ourselves. Whether we will become a space faring species in the next few millennia or we will destroy ourselves would largely depend on how good we could reconcile with each other, and how willing we are to set aside all our differences and work together for the sake of our children.
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)