As Canada falls into a conservative bender, I see Obama’s inauguaration as something to distract me from domestic issues. So much so, that Carmen, I, Jake and Edwina, decided to make the trip to inauguation…the night before. We drove all night got to the monument, cheered and drove back. Here is some footage I took of that world wind tour. Alas, my camera froze as we got on the Mall, unbeknownst to me, and some great interview footage was lost…ah well. Enjoy what made it:
“So the election is tomorrow.”
Let me share how I think that sentence should be emphasized. “So, TH
E election is tomorrow”.
Lots of people are saying this is an important, even historic day. I agree. But really, the changing of the guard in arguably the most powerful position in the world, is by its nature important, and usually historic in some way or another.
However, tomorrow, in my view, is monumental.
Sure, big political events like the falling of the Berlin wall and 911 were impactive. But our world suffers from social inequities as well as political and ethnic battles, and the former are usually sidelined, even though they probably play a larger role in the latter than it seems. Racism is still rampant if less out in the open, and having a black person in the oval office (as President), is such a powerful image in the struggle for racial equality, and frankly in the American Dream, that even I, a Canadian, am in awe. The contrast provided by the trivial Canadian election last month has many of us Canadians looking at the US for hope.
And, “there is nothing false about hope”, even for us Canadians. That line (from Obama’s New Hampshire speech) is powerful. The will.i.am/Common/… rendition of it has millions of hits on youtube. It’s effect here in Canada has passed into the streets. I recently bought an Obama “Yes We Can” teeshirt. I will wear it into pieces I am sure. There are hundreds around, in shops and on people. I have turned on the radio and twice in the last month heard different songs about Obama (my favourite were the reggae varieties!). Near my house there is a market. While buying groceries one day I saw a sheet posted to a public phone (very clearly just some individual’s statement) with Obama’s face and the word ‘messiah’ written underneath.
‘Messiah’ is a hefty title, but when in the recent history of the world have you ever had to defend why someone doesn’t merit that title. I think that individual actually has at least some ground to stand on: no one in any case I can think of has or had a projected future centered around them that has been anywhere near as optimistic the one the optimists project with Obama. I have heard that Bush actually thinks God put him in the white house (not sure how true that is). Let’s consider for a minute what Obama might think of himself in this projected future.
For effect, pretend you are Obama. Imagine waking up in the morning and thinking: “if everything goes accordingly my plan, I will change the world and am the most suited person in the world to do so, and(!) in fact many people think it is my responsibility to do so”. How unbelievable is it that someone wakes up with that thought and may be right?
Still pretending you’re Obama, now think of when you and your wife discussed the presidential bid, way back a year ago or more. You talked about the impact on your family, the prestige, all the good and bad stuff. If you get elected, there is a chance that because of what you represent, someone might try to kill you. You agreed (as the Obama’s must have) that the opportunity to take this role outweighs the value of your life, and ultimately your family. Imagine having that conversation with your spouse! That’s crazy!
Sure, the reality of his presidency will be much less utopian than the change he is projecting (he’s got his work cut out for him). Nevertheless, I think tomorrow by itself is a major shift in the social evolution of the world. The Mayans say we are entering a new cycle in 2012. Our world has been plagued by wars and injustices for millennia. Maybe this is the turning point.
And maybe not, but if it is, what a great story to be living through…and we can hope can’t we?
FIve years ago, I got into the anti-”ballistic missile defense” movement after flipping through two documents that I just refound on the net.
The first was a report by MIT and the Union of Concerned Scientists called “Counter Measures” (the document is hundreds of pages, but they have since made a short video 
, you’ll need realplayer). It argued that the system is doomed to fail both technically and practically.
The second was “Vision for 2020“, a United States Space Command document from 1996 outlining their goals from missile defense up to the year 2020. This document showed BMD as only the first stage in a plan that leads the US into “dominating the space dimension of military operations to protect US interests and investments. Integrating Space Forces in war-fighting capabilities across the full spectrum of conflict.” Also, it writes the “control of space is the ability to assure access to space…and an ability to deny others the use of space, if required.” The image on page 15 of a satellite laser weapon blasting what is very clearly Iraq supports this notion of preemptive attack through space.
At that time, Canada was being asked by the States to join the missile defence system. Working with other students and with the help of the group Science for Peace, we did a public lecture on the issue. I really got into it. That Halloween, I even dressed up as BMD:
So, five years later, I check in again. What’s happened since? Well…
In 2005, Canada, through the words of Paul Martin, officially ‘pulled out’ of missile defense shield. However, it seems this was more of a gesture to quell public dissent than to actually affect policy. Canadian companies, scientists, and military have continued to work towards manifesting a missile defense shield.
In 2006, Bush and the US government came out with a new “National Space Policy“. Unfortunately, it’s even more aggressive (encouraging a move to “develop and deploy space capabilities that sustain U.S. advantage.”).
Nevertheless, there have been some specific decisions by the Canadian government slowing the advancement towards the militarization of space. Most recently (just a couple days ago), Industry Canada blocked the sale of Canada’s space industry’s star company, MDA, to Alliant Techsystems, a big arms manufacturer involved in missile defense. MDA is the developer of the Canada Arm and Radarsat II (a superduper detection system). This move should not be taken lightly. It is the first time in the history of the country that Industry Canada has blocked any such sale (where both seller and buyer were in agreement). Though this move was not directly against missile defense, it shows that the Canadian government cares about the soviergnty of its space industry, and that soviergnty conflicts with the vision for 2020.
So in closing, the last five years seem to have strengthened the argument that missile defense is much more about industrial relations and growth, than about potential enemies and the capability to defend against them. There may be some people that think those political and economic benefits (to some) warrant taking steps towards the weaponized space envisioned in VIsion for 2020. I still don’t.
Isn’t global warming the phrase of the decade? I mean what other phrase has mobilized/forced politicians, consumers, and companies to have a say on it? You can’t avoid it … I don’t mean global warming; I mean having a say on it. Anyway, while some consumers may feel like they’ve done their part in the fight against global warming by buying a cleaner car, others are focusing on what may arguably be the larger issue: maintaining biodiversity.
An ecosystem is a complicated network of dependencies. The more diverse the group of species within an ecosystem, i.e. the more biodiversity it has, the more robust it is against being toyed with. In the same sense, reducing biodiversity means increasing the fragility of the biosphere and increasing inability of life to sustain itself through tough times.
So, global warming or not, a great way to strengthen life’s presence here on earth is to make sure there are lots of different species. Unfortunately, species are dropping like flies due to things like habitat destruction and, yes, to some extent global warming. However, with all the focus on global warming, other issues that affect biodiversity may not be getting the attention they deserve.
Take the politics of seed diversity as a case in point. The market and economy, through seed-selling companies, have had a huge effect in last hundred years on crop biodiversity. There has been a trend in the market towards a more controlled seed biodiversity enforced by ownership laws. In the strange world in which we live, as a company you can own a genetic strain of a crop. Anyone who is caught producing from those genes without your permission is liable. A natural consequence is that companies, even though they certainly have seed vaults of their own, are homogenizing the seed market by pushing only a few varieties: you push the strain you sell. A homogeneous seed market is just waiting for a bug to devastate it and we are back to the threat of dwindling crop biodiversity.
It seems we are entering an age of drastic measures when it comes to biodiversity: Global Crop Diversity Trust is building a seed vault under a mountain near the north pole as a safe guard to our extinctionizing tendencies. Filled with millions of strains of different crops, the Trust, funded by various government organizations, is like a Noah’s Arc for crops. Popularly known as ‘the doomsday vault’, it does seem a little drastic, perhaps overly so, but who are we kidding – this is important, not only for life on the planet, but more directly, for putting food on the table of our children. So, when driving your clean cars, be careful not to drive over your neighbors exotic garden, the future of our food may depend on it.
This is an oldie but a goodie. Gershenfeld, half visionary, half techno-zealot, puts the do back in dork. Computers will no longer just be for information, but will be used to change the physical world (aka digital fabrication). Two points:
1) Digital fabrication is perfectly suited for personal product production. That is, you biuld what you want.
2) Digital fabrication is a great way to solve local problems, locally.
Yet another TED gem
Upon entrance to Berlin Hauptbahnhof:
Wow. I feel like I’ve stepped into the well-oiled machine that is Germany. The Berlin main train station is right out of what I imagine the glory days of Metropolis would be like. You know? Like the feel of one of those gigantic fancy stream-lined expresso machines. Maybe it’s just because there was an eerily worn poster of the classic film on the wall in the hostel I just dropped Carmen off at…but I’m surrounded by things that give that sense of technological ‘triumph’: multiple sets of rows of tracks each extending out into different directions and layered on top of each other in a structure too big to seem to have a roof. But, sure enough, looking up through the gaps in the crisscrossing network of escalators, the full glass ceiling shines back, as if from man-made heaven, reassuring us feeble humans that despite the monstrosity of the whole affair, the futurist’s complexity is still neatly packaged, tamed, and manageable, at least in principle. Would Lang be proud or petrified?
