|
America's
Military Power
Saturday, February
9, 2002
Excerpts
from article describing the unique nature of U.S. military power
and the plans to expand its scope in reaction to the 9-11-01
attack on America ...
-
- - begin excerpts - - -
Arms
makers flourish in a world changed forever
America's
military power is quite awe-inspiring
When
George Bush pledged that "whatever it takes, whatever it
costs" America would win "the first war of the 21st
century", he meant it.
The
mammoth military budget the President proposed his week - a
$US48billion ... or 12per cent boost after inflation - was in
the context of a budget of nips and tucks, shaving money from
highway building and food for the poor, and putting off dealing
with old problems such as the lack of universal health coverage.
This
was a war budget, a "guns before butter" budget, and
not just for 2003. Military spending would increase steadily
until it hit $US451billion in 2007. The numbers are huge, but
it is the comparisons that stagger.
The
world's only superpower, unchallenged since the fall of the
Soviet Union in 1991, now accounts for about 40per cent of the
world's total military spending, up from about 36per cent a
few years ago.
Just
the proposed increase is more than the total military spending
of countries such as Britain, France and Italy. As for Mr Bush's
designated "axis of evil" states - Iran, Iraq and North
Korea - the increase alone is more than four times their combined
budgets.
The
first response is simple awe that one nation so bestrides the
globe. Paul Kennedy, history professor at Yale University and
author of The Rise and Fall of Great Powers, wrote in the London
Financial Times this week that he had scrutinised the British
and Roman empires and found that, historically, there had never
been a military giant to compare with the United States.
The
British Empire was run "on the cheap"; Rome was huge,
but it had a rival in Persia. "Nothing has ever existed like
this disparity of power; nothing," Professor Kennedy said.
That
the United States, with such superiority, would seek to boost
funding to Cold War levels - the proposed increase is the largest
since Ronald Reagan began his build-up against the Soviet Union
21 years ago - is a signal, first, that the White House sees
the struggle against terrorism as potentially as long and tension-filled
as the Cold War.
Judging
from the confused and angry reactions of many European nations
to Mr Bush's "axis of evil" speech, it has not yet
sunk in that the United States sees the world utterly differently
since September11.
...
America's faith that its military might would deter any attack
was shattered on September11, and it is now preparing not just
to retaliate against a missile attack, or against biological or
chemical terrorism, but to launch a pre-emptive strike if necessary,
possibly against Iraq.
A
decade after the Cold War ended, America's military reach is expanding
into Central Asian countries such as Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan.
According to the Washington Post, Mr Bush has granted the CIA
authority to undertake covert and lethal action in 80 countries
to root out the al-Qaeda network, the broadest powers in the spy
agency's history. ...
-
- - end excerpts - - -
Source:
Empire
State Building Vacancies
Saturday, February
9, 2002
Complete
article detailing some of the extent of the reaction to the
9-11-01 attack on America in New York City:
-
- - begin article - - -
Vacancy
signs tell tale of fear
Vacancies
have soared in the Empire State building and other landmarks
in Manhattan since September 11.
With
businesses fearful of more terrorist attacks on high-profile
targets, the Empire State was reported this week to be 15 per
cent empty, with 91,400 square metres of office space without
tenants.
Available
space in the 102-storey skyscraper, which after the destruction
of the World Trade Centre towers again became the city's tallest
building, has tripled since September 11, according to Crain's
New York Business magazine.
Many
tenants are leaving or seeking to sublet. "There's the
feeling that the second shoe is going to drop," an estate
agent, Elizabeth Martin, said. "Tenants there really fear
something else will happen, and they will be next."
The
company which manages the building, Helmsley-Spear Inc, has
introduced tightened security in an effort to win back confidence.
Nonetheless, several businesses with offices in the building
say employees have resigned and clients are too frightened to
attend meetings there.
The
Telegraph, London
-
- - end article - - -
Source:
A
Recycled Universe
Monday, February 11,
2002
Excerpts
from an article which might lead one to contemplate all that
is from a perspective far removed from traditional religions
(well, far removed from traditional religions of the monotheistic
god, though quite at home with many of the cyclic ideas prevalent
in eastern religions like hinduism / buddhism / taoism / confuscianism
...) and quite apart from the notion that the big bang was "the"
one and only big bang ...
Quite
a mental exercise required here, as contemplating the physical
nature of reality requires an almost infinitely greater amount
of mental effort than does the cop out from ancient myth (and
the childhood of most in non-eastern cultures) known as "god
(or allah or the sky daddy) did it" ...
-
- - begin excerpts - - -
Universal
cycle of birth and rebirth - Big
bangs result when two 10-dimensional
"branes" collide (1) and expand (2) and
then collide again (4). In this scenario,
our universe (3) marks just one phase
in this infinite cycle.
...
A universal cycle of birth and rebirth occurs every trillion
years or so, according to one new cosmology.
...
The big bang clearly marks some kind of first. That fearsome
flash of energy and expansion of space set in motion everything
our eyes and telescopes can see today.
But
on its own, the big bang theory would leave us in a curved universe
where matter and energy aren't well mixed.
In
fact, we now know that spacetime is flat and that galaxies and
radiation are evenly distributed throughout.
To
shore up the big bang theory, cosmologists proposed that the
universe began with a burst of exponential expansion from a
single uniform patch of space, whose stamp remains on the cosmos
to this day.
Such
inflationary cosmologies have worked so well they've crowded
out all the competition.
During
this past year, however, one group of researchers has started
to challenge that idea's preeminence, though the field of cosmology
has yet to be completely taken with the new approach.
Drawing
on some cutting-edge but unproved notions in particle physics,
the challengers interpret the big bang as a violent clash between
higher-dimensional objects.
In
the latest installment to the saga, the authors of this interpretation
have found a way to turn that single clash into a never-ending
struggle that rears its fiery head every trillion years or so,
making our universe just one phase in an infinite cycle of birth
and rebirth.
...
String theory has spawned more than one attempt to do away with
the big bang singularity.
...
strings could also exist in a more fundamental, 11-dimensional
theory.
They
collapsed one of these dimensions mathematically into a minuscule
line, yielding an 11-dimensional spacetime, flanked on either
side by two 10-dimensional membranes, or branes, colorfully
dubbed "end of the world" branes.
One
brane would have physical laws like our own universe. From there,
... six of those 10 dimensions could be made extremely small,
effectively hiding them from everyday view and leaving the traditional
four dimensions of space and time.
...
By turning back the clock in string theory, they found that
as our universal brane passed through its starting singularity
in reverse, it went suddenly from a state of intense but finite
heat and density to one that was cold, flat and mostly empty.
In
the process, it shed another kind of brane into the 11-dimensional
gap. Run forward in time, the big bang appeared as nothing more
than two branes smacking into each other like cymbals.
They
christened this process the ekpyrotic model, after the ancient
Greek "conflagration" cosmology wherein the universe
is born in and evolves from a fiery explosion.
...
the singularity could be interpreted as a collision between
the two "end of the world" branes, in which only the
gap dimension separating them shrinks down to zero for an instant.
...
The pre-bang universe had to be dark, flat and infinite, seemingly
by fiat. But why should it have begun in such a state?
The
answer, according to the latest work from Steinhardt and Turok,
has to do with dark energy, the force that is driving the galaxies
apart at ever-increasing speeds.
Drained
Branes - As the universe accelerates, it will become harder
for light to travel between distant corners of space.
Over
time, galaxies will become isolated from their neighbors; stars
will wink out; black holes will evaporate quantum mechanically
into radiation; even that radiation will be diluted in a sea
of space.
The
universe could end up much as the ekpyrotic model suggests it
should appear before the big bang.
...
the dark energy, combined with the milder singularity of the
ekpyrotic model, provides a tidy way of setting up a cyclic
universe.
Our
brane and its counterpart would bounce off each other as usual,
but instead of going their separate ways, they would smack each
other again and again as if connected by a spring.
This
attractive force between branes would in fact be a special case
of the kind of force that inflationary cosmologies posit to
explain the early universe's blowup.
The
branes' oscillating motion would work to pump space into our
universe like a bellows, explaining the acceleration that we
see today.
The
model is intriguing in drawing the ultimate link between early
inflation and the current acceleration of the universe, Albrecht
remarks, but "the case would be a lot more compelling if
they were able to really show that a cyclic universe is possible."
Guth
is also unmoved. He explains that although he awaits the day
when cosmology merges with string theory, he expects inflation
to be that cosmology. ...
In
general, not all physicists are convinced that colliding branes
can generate the small fluctuations in matter and energy density
that inflation neatly resolves.
Such
minute variations in these quantities are required to explain
the way in which stars and galaxies clump together and the detailed
properties of the cosmic microwave background radiation.
In
the ekpyrotic model, the necessary fluctuations are supposed
to arise as the branes ripple quantum mechanically, so that
different areas would strike one another and take off expanding
first.
The
ekpyrotic camp is convinced these ripples can generate the exact
variations we see today.
"I
think it's surprising how well this model works in terms of
reproducing everything we see and yet being so different,"
Steinhardt remarks. "That's quite shocking and, I think,
important, because we thought we were converging toward something
that was a unique cosmic story."
But
the singularity remains as another hurdle.
Despite
the recent advance, no one is certain whether features such
as brane ripples could actually pass unmolested from big crunch
to bang.
"What
happens at the singularity?" Seiberg ponders. "This
is a big open question." So although the singularity in
string theory may be, as Turok says, the "mildest possible"
one, it is still a wild card.
The
dealing isn't done, however, making it too soon to say if colliding
branes will hold or fold. Perhaps it will attract new players
with even more imaginative ideas.
"I
happen to think the cyclic model is a real intriguing one,"
Steinhardt says. "It has a lot of new ingredients that
people haven't had a chance to play with. When they play they
might find other interesting things that we missed." Or
not.
-
- - end excerpts - - -
Source:
- Scientific
American [link inactive]
|
The
Why of Sex
Wednesday,
February 13, 2002
Excerpts
from article
describing theories regarding the success of reproduction
via sexual means:
-
- - begin excerpts - - -
Birds
do it, bees do it -- even fruit
flies do it. Scientists are studying fruit
flies to see precisely how sexual
reproduction benefits the species.
How
mixing genes keeps species sound
...
it’s so widespread among plants and animals that there
must be some payoff. After more than a half-century of debate
and 20 published theories, scientists are still trying to
pin down just what the payoff is.
...
It is easy to forget that sex is not the only game in town
for the plant and animal kingdoms. In fact, there are thousands
of asexual species now.
...
It’s inefficient and genetically unpredictable. So what’s
the appeal of sex, biologically speaking? Most of the world’s
species reproduce sexually, but some carry out nature’s
orders without a mate.
...
it is rare for an asexual species to persist a very long time
in evolutionary terms, suggesting again there’s something
beneficial about sex.
Yet,
at first blush, it makes some sense to have self-reproducing
females and just dispense with males altogether, even before
you consider things like singles bars.
After
all, if your job is to pass on your genes to future generations
— and according to evolutionary biology, that is your
job — sex just gets in the way.
Consider
the notion of two mating sexes. Each female passes only half
her genes to each offspring, rather than all of them. And
about half her brood on average ends up without a womb, which
chops the next generation’s productive capacity in half.
What’s
more, sex breaks up the successful gene combinations found
in the parents and gambles on new, untried mixes in the next
generation. Does that make any sense?
Maybe
so. It’s pretty clear, scientists say, that the evolutionary
lure of sex has something to do with that gene-mixing. While
clones merely pass along their genetic endowment in a chunk,
sexual species shuffle the deck.
To
understand that, remember that the genetic makeup of an organism
is somewhat like a baseball team. Everybody has a full team,
with all the positions covered, but who plays at each spot
differs. And there are good players and bad players in the
same way there are good genes and bad genes.
Clones
essentially pass their own rosters on to their offspring,
while sexual species create new rosters.
...
Why tinker with a successful genetic lineup?
Currently,
most scientists offer two general theories about why sex is
so good: It helps a species get rid of harmful mutated genes,
or, alternatively, it helps the population take advantage
of beneficial mutations. Call it bad genes vs. good genes.
Of
course, the explanation could be some combination of those
two ideas, although scientists suspect one or the other is
probably the major factor.
The
bad-gene idea says sex can make the faulty genes sitting ducks
for elimination by natural selection, by separating them from
good genes as they pass through generations.
It can group bad genes together so they get wiped out in batches
when the unfortunate recipients don’t reproduce. Sex
can also break up harmful combinations of genes, even when
each by itself isn’t so bad.
The
alternative view says sex can help good genes spread through
a species or bring favorable combinations together, speeding
up evolution and helping species adapt more quickly to changing
environments. One version says sex helps defend populations
against evolving parasites and germs, for example.
...
it appears humans naturally produce harmful mutations so often
that we’d go extinct if we didn’t use sex to get
rid of them. But it’s not clear how often that situation
occurs in other animals, and therefore how widely the bad-mutations
theory of sex can be applied.
...
Most evolutionary biologists probably favor theories about
promoting the spread of good genes rather than those focusing
on eliminating harmful mutations. ...
-
- - end excerpts - - -
Source:
Unintelligible
Redesign
Wednesday,
February 13, 2002
Excerpts
from
article which iterates the reasoning behind the outright dismissal
of the latest religious arguments for god (intelligent design)
...
-
- - begin excerpts - - -
This is the way creationism ends. Not with a bang, but with
a whimper.
According
to scientists, teachers, and civil libertarians, the Taliban
has invaded Ohio. Creationists have devised a theory called
"Intelligent Design" (ID) and are trying to get
Ohio's Board of Education to make sure it's taught alongside
Darwinism.
Unlike
creationism, ID accepts that the Earth is billions of years
old and that species evolve through natural selection. It
posits that life has been designed but doesn't specify by
whom.
Liberals
call ID a menace that will sneak religion into public schools.
They're exactly wrong. ID is a big nothing. It's non-living,
non-breathing proof that religion has surrendered its war
against science.
Creationism
used to be assertive and powerful. Darwinism wasn't allowed
in schools. As Darwin gained the upper hand, conservatives
fought to preserve creationism alongside evolution. They lost
the war on both fronts.
Courts
struck down the teaching of creationism on the grounds that
it mixed church and state. Meanwhile, scientific evidence
discredited the belief that the Earth was created in six days
and was only 6,000 years old.
Like
the Taliban, creationists were washed up. Their only hope
was to flee to the mountains, shave their beards, change their
clothes, and come back as something else.
What they've come back as is the Intelligent Design movement.
...
Creationists haven't repainted their Edsel. They've taken
out the engine and the transmission.
Without
distinctive, measurable claims such as the six-day creation,
the 6,000-year-old Earth, and other literal interpretations
of the Bible, creationism no longer materially contradicts
evolution.
The
reason not to teach intelligent design isn't that it's full
of lies or dogma. The reason is that it's empty.
...
A theory isn't just a bunch of criticisms, even if they're
valid. A theory ties things together. It explains and predicts.
Intelligent design does neither. It doesn't explain why part
of our history seems intelligently designed and part of it
doesn't.
Why
are our feet and our back muscles poorly designed for walking?
Why are we afflicted by lethal viruses? Why
have so many females died in childbirth?
ID
doesn't explain these things. It just shrugs at them.
"Design
theory seeks to show, based on scientific evidence, that some
features of living things may be designed by a mind or some
form of intelligence," says one ID proponent. Some? May?
Some? What kind of theory is that?
... Intelligent design, as defined by its advocates, means
nothing. This is the way creationism ends. Not with a bang,
but with a whimper.
-
- - end excerpts - - -
Source:
Down
with Evolution!
Scientific American
0302 Issue
Excerpts
from article
describing the efforts of creationists to water down educational
standards in the U.S.:
-
- - begin article - - -
Since
1920 creationists have been successful in persuading legislatures
in five Southern states to pass laws favorable to their views,
but the courts consistently struck them down, saying that they
violated the establishment clause of the Constitution.
In
the 1990s creationists began focusing instead on changing state
educational standards.
The
most famous attempt to do so in recent years--the decision of
the Kansas Board of Education to eliminate evolution from the
state's science standards--was not a success: the decision was
reversed in 2001 when antievolution board members were defeated
for reelection.
...
In the absence of a majority favoring strict standards for evolution
teaching, it is easy to see why creationists have been able
to make headway even outside the circle of evangelical Christianity.
In
1996 Pope John Paul II reaffirmed the Catholic Church's commitment
to evolution, first stated in 1950, saying that his inspiration
for doing so came from the Bible.
Despite
this, 40 percent of American Catholics in a 2001 Gallup poll
said they believed that God created human life in the past 10,000
years.
Indeed,
fully 45 percent of all Americans subscribe to this creationist
view.
Many
who are indifferent to conservative theology give creationism
some support, perhaps because, as mathematician Norman Levitt
of Rutgers University suggests, the subject of evolution provokes
anxiety about the nature of human existence, an anxiety that
antievolutionists use to promote creationist ideas.
-
- - end excerpts - - -
Source:
- Scientific
American [link inactive]
Fossil
Strengthens Dinosaur-Bird Link
Thursday,
February 14, 2002
Excerpts
from article detailing the latest fossil evidence regarding
the evolutionary link between dinosaurs and birds:
-
- - begin excerpts - - -
Two-legged
predator shows similarities to oldest-known bird
A
130 million-year-old newly discovered fossil of a small meat-eating
dinosaur found in China provides further evidence of the evolutionary
link between dinosaurs and birds, scientists say.
...
The new dinosaur, called Sinovenator changii, was probably feathered
and is almost the same age as the oldest-known bird, Archaeopteryx.
..
Sinovenator was a two-legged predator like the mighty Tyrannosaurus
rex, but it was the size of a large chicken with a skeleton
less than 3 feet (1 meter) long.
It
had a birdlike shoulder joint, a wishbone and a pelvic bone
that pointed backward, similar to modern birds, and was found
in the fossil beds in northeastern China’s Liaoning Province,
an area that has yielded other important fossils.
Paleontologists
have been strongly divided over whether birds evolved from dinosaurs.
But Makovicky, who co-wrote the Nature report with colleagues
from the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing and the American
Museum of Natural History in New York, said the dinosaur fossil
should resolve the issue.
“These
findings help counter, once and for all, the position of paleontologists
who argue that birds did not evolve from dinosaurs,” he
said.
...
Scientists weren’t sure exactly where troodontids were
placed in the evolutionary tree because they had features that
are present in birds and others found in different dinosaur
groups.
Sinovenator
will help eliminate some of the confusion, said Makovicky, adding
that the fossil also cuts the time gap between the appearance
of birds and dinosaurs that are closely related to them.
...
Theropod dinosaurs, two legged predators such as Sinovenator,
and birds have more than 100 similar anatomical features including
a wishbone, swivelling wrists and three forward pointing toes.
“Our
study suggests that dromaeosaurs (swift-running theropods) and
troodontids are each others’ closest relatives and that
those two groups share a close common ancestor with birds,”
said Makovicky.
-
- - end excerpts - - -
Source:
|
