Aquatic Ape Theory, Love it!!
Just watched this video of self-taught evolutionary theorist Elaine Morgan who lays out the previously abandoned theory that humans evolved from an aquatic existence. The Aquatic Ape theory, originally proposed by Sir Alister Hardy in 1960, answers the question: Why are we naked? Sweet! I’ve always wondered that! She outlines the theory’s main points:
- We are naked like other mammals either currently living in water or evolved out of water, including dolphins, whales, and other pachyderms.
- We stand upright on two legs because we needed to get the top half of our bodies above water. She points out that the only time other apes walk on two feet for extended lengths of time is while they’re wading.
- We are capable of speaking where other apes are not because of breath control learned while in an aqueous environment. She points out that other primates have all the working parts to speak, but are unable to accomplish the fine breath control it requires.
- We have a fat layer outside of our body cavity like other aquatic mammals, and quite unlike any other primates.
Interestingly, Morgan began her pursuit of evolution because she felt that evolutionary theory was too male-centered. She began to proclaim the aquatic hypothesis after becoming irritated with the the widely-accepted savannah theory. According to the savannah theory, humans became naked because men needed to cool down while hunting. From Wikipedia, “she thought that if humans lost their hair because they needed to sweat while chasing game on the savannah that did not explain why women should also lose their hair as, according to the savannah hypothesis, they would be looking after the children.”
I love two things about Elaine Morgan: she was a television writer, and clearly isn’t afraid of allowing imagination to influence vision, unlike so many rigid-thinking scientists. (So much evidence is only “discovered” if one assumes it exists and proceeds to look for it.) Secondly, she technically is not a scientist, and proves this by looking at the theory of evolution through a new lens, a feminine lens. Other women scientists, and any scientists from ethnic backgrounds other than Anglo/Euro, must struggle with hypotheses that fail to exalt Caucasian males as the inheritors of the earth. Elaine Morgan may well go down in history as the visionary who saw truth where others did not. I don’t know if her theory is right, but I’m super glad to see her get some recognition.
Enjoy the video!
How Obama Plans to Improve Energy Infrastructure
If you’ve read the last two installments in this series, Peak Oil and the Grid and Theories That Claim the Sky is Falling, you’ll have some idea of the urgency behind Obama getting the energy infrastructure of the country the investment it needs. Thankfully, Obama gets it. He understands that the grid cannot support alternative energy development in its current state, and that it needs a radical overhaul to turn it into a smart grid.
One of the biggest changes, and also the most controversial, is the need to unify the grid across state lines, in essence, nationalizing all, or part, of the grid. In an interview with Rachel Maddow, Obama said:
One of, I think, the most important infrastructure projects that we need is a whole new electricity grid. Because if we’re going to be serious about renewable energy, I want to be able to get wind power from North Dakota to population centers, like Chicago. And we’re going to have to have a smart grid if we want to use plug-in hybrids then we want to be able to have ordinary consumers sell back the electricity that’s generated from those car batteries, back into the grid. That can create 5 million new jobs, just in new energy. But, it’s huge projects that generally speaking, you’re not going to have private enterprise would want to take all those risks. And we’re going to have to be involved in that process.
So what is a smart grid? How would it differ from what we have now? According to the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL):
The Modern Grid will have seven key characteristics that benefit consumers, business, utilities and national security:
Self-Heals A self-healing modern grid detects and responds to routine problems and quickly recovers if they occur, minimizing downtime and financial loss.
Motivates and Includes the Consumer With a modern grid, commercial, industrial and residential energy consumers will have visibility into prices and the ability to choose a program and a price that best suits their needs.
Resists Attack Security is built in from the ground up in a modern grid.
Provides Power Quality for 21st Century Needs A modern grid provides electricity free of sags, spikes, disturbances and interruptions. It is suitable to the data centers, computers, electronics and robotic manufacturing that will power our future economy.
Accomodates All Generation and Storage Options A modern grid allows plug-and-play interconnection to practically any source of power, including renewable energy sources and storage.
Enables Markets A modern grid supports consistent operation from coast to coast while allowing innovation locally and regionally.
Optimizes Assets and Operates Efficiently A modern grid allows us to put more power through existing systems, build less new infrastructure and spend less to operate and maintain the grid.
Opponents object to a “national smart grid” on the grounds that many of the current plants and power lines are privately owned and fall explicitly under the jurisdiction of the states in which they reside. The mish-mash of regional connected power plants has no current incentive to update with new smart grid technologies since it does nothing to increase their upside. In oder to rapidly develop a smart grid, Obama’s administration will have to throw big money at the project (Gore advises $400 billion over 10 years), and exercise eminent domain to create the interstate energy backbone that the new grid would require. Even environmentalists object on the grounds that regional wildlife and landscape will be disrupted.
Can Obama overcome all of these obstacles? He can if enough people realize the absolute necessity for an overhaul of the current grid system. At this point in the game, with financial markets crumbling under short-sighted greed-happy mismanagement, long-term investment in the future must become a priority.
Theories That Claim the Sky is Falling: Doom Science 101
Well, here’s some fun thinking!! It’s certainly new and sparkly, but not in the least bit cheerful. Welcome to the terrordome of environmental science. Today’s post discusses three well-researched and peer-reviewed theories that claim civil society as we know it is doomed to end: Peak Oil Theory, the Olduvai Theory, and a third theory that lacks an official name, but spells out environmental degradation as a mean culprit in the demise of humanity. Sure you’re ready for this? Quick! grab a beer! (Be sure to read my earlier post, Surviving the Economic Downturn, for tips!)
First, a brief summary. All of these theories present a less-than-pleasant view of a problem called “overshoot.” This term is defined by the difference between the population of the earth (our environment) and our environment’s “carrying capacity,” the ability to provide all of the resources that we require to survive.
Peak Oil
If you’re into Armageddon and that sort of thing, check out the website Life After the Oil Crash for a really good time. The intro to the site begins, “Civilization as we know it is coming to an end soon.” Righty-o!! The site goes on to explain their heavily researched prediction that our oil-dependent society will degrade into chaos with a decrease in oil production, worsening over time:
Oil is increasingly plentiful on the upslope of the bell curve, increasingly scarce and expensive on the down slope. The peak of the curve coincides with the point at which the endowment of oil has been 50 percent depleted. Once the peak is passed, oil production begins to go down while cost begins to go up.
In practical and considerably oversimplified terms, this means that if 2005 was the year of global Peak Oil, worldwide oil production in the year 2030 will be the same as it was in 1980. However, the world’s population in 2030 will be both much larger (approximately twice) and much more industrialized (oil-dependent) than it was in 1980. Consequently, worldwide demand for oil will outpace worldwide production of oil by a significant margin. As a result, the price will skyrocket, oil dependent economies will crumble, and resource wars will explode.
Peak Oil adherents do not see any new energy technologies on the horizon that could avert the oil shortage. In my *vast* internet research (cough, cough), I came across very few arguments against peak oil. I did find one:
…like believers undaunted by the failure of alien spaceships to take them to Mars on the date predicted, Peak enthusiasts keep moving the date of the oil apocalypse further into the future. In the new, revisionist models of Hubbert’s prediction, the high point in the curve of discoverable oil on our planet will come in a decade or so. Though we have a reprieve, goes the new theory, still, we’re running out of crude, dude! There’s only another twenty years left in proven reserves! Oh, my! “It’s true that there’s only twenty years’ supply left—and that’s been true for the last hundred years,” Lewis Lapham told me … Lapham of Harper’s magazine is the only editor in the hemisphere with hard knowledge of the petroleum market, insight he inherited legitimately: His family helped found Mobil Oil, the back half of what is now Exxon Mobil.
He asked, “Why in the world would oil companies, or any company, announce that there’s lots of its product out there? You’d bust your own market. It’s better to say the cupboard’s bare.” As Lapham noted, we have been “running out of oil” since the days we drained it from whales. OPEC’s big headache before the war shut down Iraq’s fields was that there was way too much oil. We were swimming in it and oil prices stayed low.”
The Olduvai Theory
The Olduvai theory is slightly more broad-reaching than Peak Oil. Its author, Richard C. Duncan, another serious lover of bell curves explains it thus:
The Olduvai theory is defined by the ratio of world energy production and population. It states that the life expectancy of Industrial Civilization is less than or equal to 100 years: 1930-2030. After more than a century of strong growth — energy production per capita peaked in 1979. The Olduvai theory explains the 1979 peak and the subsequent decline. Moreover, it says that energy production per capita will fall to its 1930 value by 2030, thus giving Industrial Civilization a lifetime of less than or equal to 100 years. This analysis predicts that the collapse will be strongly correlated with an “epidemic” of permanent blackouts of high-voltage electric power networks — worldwide.
This, as you would guess, leads to ever increasing shortages of all other goods and services and the subsequent decline of civil society, yada, yada, anarchy, the end. For a detailed look at the stages of collapse, one can read the imminently practical paper called the Five Stages of Collapse written by a Russian named Dmitri Orlov who watched the Soviet Union collapse and draws parallels between the USSR of the 80s and the US today. He says:
The US is an oil importer, burning up 25% of the world’s production, and importing over two-thirds of that. Back in mid-90s, when I first started trying to guess the timing of the US collapse, the arrival of the global peak in oil production was scheduled for around the turn of the century. It turned out that the estimate was off by almost a decade, but that is actually fairly accurate as far as such big predictions go. So here it is the high price of oil that is putting the brakes on further debt expansion. As higher oil prices trigger a recession, the economy starts shrinking, and a shrinking economy cannot sustain an ever-expanding level of debt. At some point the ability to finance oil imports will be lost, and that will be the tipping point, after which nothing will ever be the same.
According to Orlov, we’ve already reached the first of the five stages: financial collapse. Yikes, hard to argue with that one.
Environmental Degradation
Moving on to our third theory, the widely espoused argument that environmental degradation in general will be our downfall. From yet another happy place to visit, dieoff.org:
Today, many people who are concerned about overpopulation and environmental degradation believe that human actions can avert catastrophe. The prevailing view holds that a stable population that does not tax the environment’s “carrying capacity” would be sustainable indefinitely, and that this state of equilibrium can be achieved through a combination of birth control, conservation, and reliance on “renewable” resources. Unfortunately, worldwide implementation of a rigorous program of birth control is politically impossible. Conservation is futile as long as population continues to rise.
So, these theories are pretty extreme. Are they TRUE?? Well, that remains to be seen, but they are instructive. They remind us to be humble, to understand that life is fragile, and to tread lightly on the earth. Environmental activism has taken hold for a reason. We do understand that our consumption mentality cannot be sustained, and we do know that energy independence and sustainability are urgent and required for many reasons. Duh pookie is big on population control, here in the US and overseas. I might even go so far as to say that religion is the root problem today, not for its best contributions (love, humility, charity), but for its worst: regionalism, sectarianism, closed-minded thinking, persecution of those who differ in belief, and an adherence to archaic rules, like no birth control, that are impractical and unwise in our present-day civilization.
It seems pretty clear to me: less people, more stuff to share, less strife.
The next installment in the series explores alternative energy approaches and the realities facing the Obama administration.
Peak Oil and the Grid
The next few posts will be a series exploring the concepts of Peak Oil, Smart Grids, Obama’s infrastructure plans, and the possible future(s) of energy and power use.
If you’ve never come across the concept of Peak Oil, now’s your chance to read up. Peak Oil theory is built upon the simple and obvious fact that petroleum resources are finite. Here are a few statistics:
- Oil currently accounts for about 43% of the world’s total fuel consumption [PDF], and 95% of global energy used for transportation.
- For every one joule of food consumed in the United States, around 10 joules of fossil fuel energy have been used to produce it.
- Of the 65 largest oil producing countries in the world, up to 54 have passed their peak of production and are now in decline, including the USA in 1970/1, Indonesia in 1997, Australia in 2000, the North Sea in 2001, and Mexico in 2004.
- Global oil output could peak by 2020 – much earlier than expected – amid a collapse in investment due to the financial crisis, the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) chief economist Fatih Birol claimed.
So that’s your two minute Peak Oil Primer. There is no universal consensus about when oil production will peak. There does seem to be fairly universal agreement that it eventually will. Combine this fact with Global Warming theory, and your looking at a recipe for catastrophic failure if we don’t seek solutions — soon.
So, energy independence and alternative energy sources are getting lots of focus these days. When looking for solutions to the Peak Oil/Global Warming problem, logic dictates that we develop a range of alternative sources such as wind, solar, and geothermal.
But here’s where we hit a wall: our decrepit electrical grid. According to a blogger at MSN Money referring to a US Department of Energy report:
America’s total annual electricity bill is $250 billion. That’s about half what it spends on oil. There are more than 3100 electric utilities in the U.S. — 200 of them publicly traded, 2000 state run and 900 cooperative. The current electricity grid is frequently compared to a Ford Model T: While China and Europe have modernized their entire infrastructure in recent years, the US continues to do emergency repairs on a spluttering side-valve, 20-horsepower engine that breaks down with startling regularity…
The embarrassing fact about electricity is that 60% of it comes from coal — which is dirtier than oil. Some analysts claim that electric cars will actually increase global warming. But the reason we’re so dependent on coal is because of the inflexibility of our electricity grid.”
Our grid system is antiquated, fragile, inefficient, and worst of all, uni-directional, i.e. it cannot handle the intake or upload of generated electricity from outside sources.
Enter Obama. According to SmartGridNews:
We expect the Obama Administration to announce two things that will converge to give this already growing sector an additional boost. The first is a Clean Energy program to stimulate five million new jobs. The second is a “New Deal” stimulus package based on rejuvenating essential infrastructure.
In both case, the Smart Grid will be a centerpiece. We cannot achieve clean energy without a Smart Grid to transport it where needed. And we are increasingly reliant on the electric power system as the critical infrastructure that makes our way of life—and our global competitiveness—possible.
So we just might be in luck if Obama really can rally a New Deal effort to restructure the grid
using Smart Grid technology. Proponents like T. Boone Pickens and, of course, Al Gore are pushing to elevate the discussion. The nonprofit organization Repower America has committed to developing a plan for renewable energy production within 10 years. They’re looking for new members if you’re interested.
Next installment: The theories that claim it’s too late, we’re already past the point of no return…
I Want a Modular Pod-Car for My Bailout Money
The Big 3 Auto industry bailout is all the rage now on blogs and news sites. Though many raise the question of why the car companies have not produced more desirable vehicles (UAW drives up prices and kills profits for affordable fuel-efficient cars, bad management with no vision, car companies force consumers to believe they want SUVs through advertising, etc., etc.), I have a different question:
What could the car companies be making that would reinvent our current scenario?? Solar-powered pod cars of course.
Even a decent hybrid would make me happy, but can you imagine the massive coolness of a WPA-like effort that created modular pod cars, solar-powered, that ran on rails for long-distances? In the software industry, modular development isolates the flaws in a program to a specific function that can be retooled as needed without crashing the entire program. Modular transportation would provide as-needed resources without the all-or-nothing approach we have now. For example, my family goes up to Tahoe fairly often in the winter. We decided we needed all-wheel-drive for safety on those trips. Not to mention a car that could slam a snowbank and we’d survive. But that leaves me driving a 20 mpg car on a daily basis. We could give up our trips to Tahoe, but my sanity would suffer! (Mountains… snow… ahhh…) It would be sooooooo groovy to be able to unhook my personal pod for day trips to the grocery store. To tack on the 4WD engine-assist only when needed. To take the rail at least 50% of the way: hook the pod to the rail and go, via geothermal or solar or some other non-coal, non-petroleum renewable source.
I have never understood why we get so brainwashed into our current scenarios that it seems like we have no other options. Yes, it would be really freakin hard to institute a change of that scale. But we have huge problems that need solving in new ways. We need more cooperation and much, much less “every man for himself” thinking. We tend to think of state-imposed programs as unAmerican and bad. It would be great if the Gates Foundation or Buffet’s money took on this task. Heck, I bet the Ikea guy could kick some ass with this! GoogleCars anyone?!?! Open source. With third party add-ons.
We are not going to be able to operate our Spaceship Earth successfully nor for much longer unless we see it as a whole spaceship and our fate as common. It has to be everybody or nobody. ~Buckminster Fuller
Where’s Our Green New Deal? Treasury Reinforces Old Economy
I haven’t read Thomas Friedman’s new book Hot, Flat, and Crowded, but I’m going to. Friedman argues that we are at a unique moment in history where we need to forcefully impose green thinking. He takes the long view that we absolutely MUST shift out of our oil/coal dependent energy economy and throw money at all opportunities for green energy innovation. Here’s a quote from a HuffPost interview:
Just don’t tell me — this is the Cheney line — let’s let the market work. Just let the market work. As if the market is neutral. We give nothing to renewables. We give very little to renewables. And we have legacy subsidies and tax incentives for dirty fossil fuels. The whole thing is totally skewed. This market has been gamed from the beginning. If we’re going to game the market let’s at least game it so that clean fuels are on an equal footing with the dirty fuels.
We should be throwing money at this problem. This could give birth to a whole industry. This is not a thing you nickel and dime.
In the meantime, Neel Kashkari is pissing off finance execs by refusing to discuss recent Treasury decisions. Treasury increased funding to AIG from $123 BILLION to $130 BILLION with no explanation, among other mysteries. Bloomburg News is suing Treasury under the Freedom of Information Act for details about who/what institutions are receiving the massive amounts of dollars the government is throwing at them. WHATUP WITH THE SECRECY?? IT’S TAXPAYER MONEY!! Here’s a quote from the Bloomburg article:
The Fed has lent $1.5 trillion to banks, including Citigroup Inc. and Goldman Sachs Group Inc., through programs such as its discount window, the Primary Dealer Credit Facility and the Term Securities Lending Facility. Collateral is an asset pledged to a lender in the event that a loan payment isn’t made.
The Fed made the loans under 11 programs in response to the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression. The total doesn’t include an additional $700 billion approved by Congress in a bailout package.
So, is our country bleeding or what? It’s all headlines right now, we’re not experiencing food shortages or energy blackouts yet. But dang! Is there impending doom? What would REALLY happen if these financial institutions collapsed, or to put it another way, if the Invisible Hand did its worst? Mass unemployment at least. Are we are only staving off the inevitable?
Like Friedman, I can’t help feeling like our country’s lack of imagination at the highest levels is our biggest burden. Hurry Obama!!! We need you. And don’t forget to make Al Gore, or somebody with VISION, Chief of Energy Independence when you pull together your cabinet!
-
-
About
Welcome to duh pookie where we work hard to bring you sparkly new thoughts.
-
- RSS Feed
-
Visit Political Voices of Women Community
