Jeff Sayre Webtrepreneur » science

The Ecosphere And the Economy

Jeff Sayre — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 18:31:37 +0000

One of the many joys I periodically experience is that aha moment of seeing connections within and between systems. As a trained scientist with a graduate degree in business, my insights often transcend the myopic blinders of those who remain oblivious to the larger connections on Earth. One such aha moment I had almost 20-years ago was that of the relationship between the economy and the ecosphere.

Life Is About Complex Adaptive Systems

What was the impetus behind this aha moment? In 1995 I read the first edition of the book, Complexity: Life at the Edge of Chaos by Roger Lewin. It changed my perspective on humanity’s relationship to the ecosphere.

This book was my introduction to complexity theory and the concept of Complex Adaptive Systems (CASs). In brief, a CAS is a network of self-similar adaptive agents. These agents operate as a supra-entity, as a collective. Each individual agent interacts and communicates with the others in a dynamic way. A CAS’s overall behavior is shaped, altered, and dependent on the experiences of each individual agent and that of the collective as a whole.

Before reading this book, I had an innate sense of the interconnectedness of humankind with Earth’s ecosystem services. After all, prior to receiving my MBA, I majored in ecology (I also majored in molecular microbiology). But the notion of CASs opened up a more technological understanding of this interconnectedness and made me realize that economies cannot thrive in the longterm without full integration into the ecosphere.

Economies As Malfunctioning CASs

Economies depend upon raw materials that are processed to create and exchange value of some form or fashion. The raw materials range from basic materials such as natural resources to higher-level materials such as human thought, energy, and action. All along the way, inputs of one type of material are transformed into outputs of another type of material.

Each subsystem within an economy is its own Complex Adaptive System (CAS). In fact, economies operate as nested CASs. Transactions within and between an economy’s CASs ebb and flow across information channels—the outputs and inputs that conjoin the various parts of the overall system.

The set of all economic subsystems is a singular high-level economic CAS, the master CAS in which all other economic system exists. Here we use the singular term “economy” to encompass the global economic engine, the net affect of all subset economies.

In a healthy functioning economic system, the likelihood (probability) of outputs from one Complex Adaptive System being properly received and utilized as inputs to another CAS is high. The issue with today’s economy is that outputs that are deemed of low-value (have limited utility in being processed into new outputs) are usually classified as waste products and expunged from the system.

Another way of stating this is that waste products are not perceived by the economy as worthwhile inputs for any other process. The terms byproduct and waste are often used interchangeably to differentiate what is considered low-value materials from that which is considered useful output.

The Economy Has Become Malignant

The economy is not the highest-level Complex Adaptive System. And as much as some people may like to believe, the economy is not the most important CAS either. For purposes of this discussion, we will assume that the highest-level system is the ecosphere—the concatenated, symbiotic network that encompasses the atmosphere, biosphere, geosphere, and hydrosphere. It is the complex web of planet-wide foundational services upon which all life depends.

From an information theory viewpoint, CASs can only have two operating states—they ingest inputs and release outputs. In order for CASs to operate in harmony, in a healthy and symbiotic manner, all inputs and outputs must be processed. In other words, nothing is considered waste. Another CAS exists that can readily accept a given output as its needed input. This is exactly what a properly functioning ecosphere does. There is not a single output that does not act, is not received, as an input into some other CAS at the same or different level.

A malfunctioning economy–such as our current global economy–accepts the existence of some outputs that cannot be reused or repurposed anywhere. The issue that the global economic CAS currently is facing is that some of the waste products expunged by lower-level economic CASs are not readily usable by the ecosphere—or at best are not needed in the quantities that they are currently being produced.

What does this mean? The “waste” generated by a diseased economy might actually not find a CAS at any level that wants or needs it as an input. From this sense, an unhealthy economy acts more like a cancer than a valued collection of tissue. Over time, it provides little value, maybe even harm, to the larger CAS of which it is a part.

Sustainability and Growth Can Be Counter Currents

Economies depend on growth as a key measure of health. As the highest-level CAS, the ecosphere depends on resource sharing and recycling. If one sub-level CAS consumes a disproportionate share of those resources, the higher-level CASs can get out of balance. In other words, growth in one CAS is not necessarily sustainable when it results in other CASs losing resiliency. The notion of economic growth as the only desirable, sustaining measures of health needs to be revisited.

All economic outputs need to be viewed as resources that should and can be utilized by at least one other CAS—whether a subsystem CAS within the economy or a higher-level CAS outside of the economy. By retooling the economy to properly think about its inputs and outputs, this diseased, misbehaving tissue cluster can be reintegrated into the larger CAS.

Shouldn’t we want to truly integrate the economy into the ecosphere? After all, the ecosphere is the higher-level CAS upon which the global economy ultimately depends.

Additional Resources

For more resources on Complex Adaptive Systems, visit the Santa Fe Institute’s site.

Notes

Part of this article was originally posted to a Google Plus post by me as a comment to one of Seb Paquet’s posts. I’ve decided to extract my comment and expand the concept into an article that lives on my blog, under my full control. Why would I do this? See my article, Is Surrogate Blogging via Google Plus a Good Idea?

Cybernetics, the Social Web, and the (Coming?) Singularity

Jeff Sayre — Wed, 20 Jul 2011 21:10:59 +0000

Over the past year or so, I have been doing a lot of thinking, reading, and ruminating about several topics: the outdated thinking of Web-2.0 startups, the need for a revolution in the microblogging space , what identity in the Social Web is really all about, and the meaning of a truly user-centric Social Web. As I’ve been furiously writing about these topics, in the back of my mind, I’ve been wondering where all of these advancements may eventually lead.

Whereas you will find my insights and thoughts about the Social Semantic Web strewn throughout my website, this article is an attempt to extrapolate a few of those ideas in a more provocative and profound–if not frightening–way. So, you have be forewarned. Any resemblance to reality may be greatly over exaggerated!

Pioneering the Philosophical Study of Cybernetics

First a little background about how I got interested in computers, science, and the natural world. My Father (Kenneth M. Sayre), a well-known expert in ancient Greek philosophy, is also a recognized thought leader in the Philosophy of Mind and Artificial Intelligence (AI). He is one of the pioneers of the philosophical study of cybernetics and AI.

While completing his PhD at Harvard, my Father worked at M.I.T.’s Lincoln Laboratory, joining a team of several AI pioneers—Marvin Minsky, Oliver Selfridge, and Edward Fredkin. My Father shared an office with Fredkin, the two of them spending many hours playing Go.

After leaving M.I.T in the late 1950s he went to the University of Notre Dame (ND), joining the philosophy department. Over his more than 50 years at ND, he has written eighteen academic books, six that deal with cybernetics, AI, and Philosophy of Mind.

Belief and Knowledge: Mapping the Cognitive Landscape (1997)
Cybernetics and the Philosophy of Mind (1976)
Consciousness: A Philosophic Study of Artificial Intelligence (1969)
Philosophy and Cybernetics (1967)
Recognition: A Study in the Philosophy of Artificial Intelligence (1965)
The Modeling of Mind: Computers and Intelligence (1963)

In the past several decades, his work has focused more on ancient Greek philosophy and environmental ethics. His latest book, Unearthed: The Economic Roots of our Environmental Crisis, looks at the relationship between the laws of thermodynamics, ecology, and our current state of economic unrest—topics that are all important with the subject matter presented in this article.

So I guess it is no surprise that as a kid growing up, I was fascinated not only by computers and technology, but also by science and nature, especially ecology—although that was more of my Mother’s influence.

With my Father’s work in AI, he had access to Notre Dame’s mainframe. As a freshman in high school, I learned how to program on the University’s very big computer. Once the first personal computers came out, I was hooked on computer technology. Even though computers fascinated me, there were not many career options in programming when I went to college, so I pursued undergraduate degrees in molecular microbiology and ecology.

As I look back at the people with whom my Father rubbed elbows and I consider his early career, I think it’s quite fitting that I find myself thinking about the forefront of technology and how humankind is possibly racing toward it’s cybernetic destiny.

Cybernetics and the Social Web

Although there are many different definitions of cybernetics, in general, cybernetics covers a range of topics from how systems describe themselves, to how they control themselves, and even to how they organize themselves. On page 18 of his book, Cybernetics and the Philosophy of Mind, my Father defines cybernetics as the “study of communication and control functions of living organisms, particularly human beings, in view of their possible simulation in mechanical systems.”

A lot has changed in humanity’s intraspecies-communication abilities since my Father’s book came out (almost 35 years ago). The biggest change, in my view, is the emergence of the Web-based Internet. With advances in chip architecture, the promise of chip-based photonics, the emergence of quantum computing, and the revolution in manufacturing thanks to nanotechnology, a lot is about to change with regards to humankind’s ability to control biological systems using mechanical (albeit nanosized) systems.

I argue that if the technological realities of the next several decades mimic my conjectures below, then cybernetics will not be about the “simulation [of humanity’s communications and control functions] in mechanical systems”, as my Father states. Instead, it will be about humanity’s assimilation with its electromechanical creations. In other words, it will be about the merging of man and machine (women as well).

So how exactly are cybernetics and the Social Web tied to together?

Before we take a closer look at how the Social Web plays a part in humanity’s cybernetic destiny, let’s set the stage by talking a little bit about technology’s exponential growth and the coming singularity.

In the Beginning… or Let There Be Technology

Taking a page out of the creation myth, once the Universe came into existence thanks to the Big Bang, the stage was set for the rise of humanity, its technology, and its eventual cybernetic destiny.

In his intriguing book, The Age of Spiritual Machines, prolific inventor and futurist Ray Kurzweil makes an interesting statement. To summarize his statement in a prophetic manner, physics begets chemistry begets biology begets technology. From the moment that our Universe came into existence, the Laws of Physics quickly became set in stone, paving the way for the eventual rise (albeit very far into the future) of the technological transformations I’ll present below in the section Cybernetic Phases of Humankind.

Life Appears Linear Even When Living on a Curve

One of the foundational threads that play an integral role in much of Ray Kurzweil’s writings, is the notion of the exponential growth in computational power. In the early 1900s, way before silicon-based chips and Moore’s Law, basic mechanical computational devices existed. Going all the way back to these devices, Kurzweil has plotted on a graph the growth of computational power as measured by calculations per second per unit cost of computation. The graph shows an eerily steady exponential growth in computational power over the past 100 years.

Assuming that there is no reason this trend will not continue into the foreseeable future, it can be extrapolated that by the year 2020, a $1,000 computer will have the computational capacity of a human brain. But, and this is an important point, artificial computers are significantly faster at calculations than are our brains as they are electron based and not biochemically based.

By the year 2030, that same $1,000 will purchase a computer that is 1000 times more powerful than the one you purchased it 2020. That means one little computer will be able to perform as many calculations per second as 1000 human brains sitting in a big corporate think tank.

How little will these massively-parallel computers be? Try the size of a sugar cube. Remember that sugar cube as it is the sweet connection that comes into play later.

If you look at where we currently are on the graph of computational power, you’ll notice something interesting. It appears that the current state of the growth in computational power is on an asymptote. This is another important point. At this point in the curve, the doubling in processing power begins to accelerate. As Kurzweil points out, the exponential growth of computing power may actually be growing exponentially.

The interesting thing about living on a curve–especially an asymptotic one–is that it is often difficult or impossible to comprehend that accelerated exponential growth is occurring. In fact, exponential growth is often only observed from a historical perspective.

How is the exponential growth of computation related to cybernetics? Why is it important to understand?

At some point in our current asymptotic ascension on the computational power scale, we may reach a singularity, more accurately termed the technological singularity. The term singularity is taken from physics, from the theory of black holes. The singularity is the spacetime point at the “bottom” of a black hole’s event horizon. It is where all matter and energy that fall into a black hole eventually end up.

It’s interesting to note that according to Einstein’s general theory of relativity, the Universe started as a singularity. This makes it easier to understand the technological singularity. An observer on the other end of the Big Bang’s singularity, for instance in another universe, would have no idea of what is happening in the new universe.

Therefore the technological singularity is a point where the rate at which new technological advances are being made is so great that it is impossible for today’s current humans to comprehend. The implications of a technological singularity extend well beyond the continued exponential increases in computational power.

Instead of new advances and innovations happening in a few years or months or days, once the singularity occurs, the mind-boggling computational powers at our disposal will lead to innovations happening in hours, minutes, or seconds. Only those entities that are integrated into the new technological landscape will be able to comprehend this quickly evolving existence.

For a general, high-level view regarding humankind’s cybernetic destiny, see my article, The HyperWeb: it’s All About Connections.

Cybernetic Phases of Humankind

Now we arrive at the synthesis of all of these seemingly disparate topics. What is the relationship between the Social Web, cybernetics, and the singularity?

Although I have not read about the classification that I’m about to propose, it is possible that someone may have already written about this using these or similar terms.

I will spend less time on the early phases as it is the later phases that have the most intrigue. When reading about the below phases, keep in mind that at the juncture between one phase and the next, there are overlaps that make it difficult to clearly determine the proper phase to best classify a given era.

As humanity progresses through each of the phases below, we separate ourselves further and further from the rest of nature, from the natural world, from the original Web of Life. We become more reliant on our technology and less on the services of the global ecosystem.

Phase 1: The Natural Web

This phase is also called the Web of Life. It encompasses all geochemical and biological activity before humankind and goes right up to the emergence of the Web-based Internet. Humanity is still very dependent on nature and as a result remains relatively outward looking.

Phase 2 The Anthropocentric Web

This phase is also called the Web of Documents and the realm of social networks. It encompasses what is best known as Web 1.0 and Web 2.0. Here the focus shifts inwards, focusing on innovating more efficient and novel ways in which humans communicate.

I believe humanity is on the cusp of its next cybernetic phase. We are at the Web 2.5 stage ready to break through into Web 3.0.

Phase 3: The Social Semantic Web

This phase is also called the Web of Data, the Semantic Web, or the Social Web—the latter term being what I’ve been heavily promulgating. Human data on a global scale is encoded into machine-understandable data. This enables the linking of data and allows for the serendipitous discovery of new connections with other datasets. Data now becomes the unit of exchange on the Web, not documents. Instead of Hyperlinks being the engine of exchange, it is Hyperdata.

Imagine being able to automatically discover people with whom you share similar skill sets, interests, and ideas. Imagine being able to ditch the social networking silos and instead operate and control your own communications channel that can link up with, share, and communicate with anyone else on the Web in real time. Linked data and new communication protocols will make that possible. The Web will finally become social.

This phase is best known as Web 3.0. It has also be refereed to as the Giant Global Graph.

Phase 4: The Artificial Synaptic Web

This phase is also called the Web of Information which is enhanced by the Web of Sensors. This will be the Web 4.0 era.

Remember those sugar-cubed sized, massively-parallel computers? The Artificial Synaptic Web is where artificial neural networks interface with organic, biologic neural networks. In other words, human brains.

Some humans will opt to augment their bodies by having one of these sugar-cubed sized computers implanted into their brainstems. It will of course be an Internet-enabled device. It will provide new avenues for data exploration and communication.

Data from the Giant Global Graph will now be populated with sensor data from the millions (maybe billions) of ubiquitous micro and nano scale devices — some of which are interfaced with cell clusters within our bodies. We will be able to communicate directly with one another, from one brain to the next.

At this stage in the Web’s evolution, the inputs and outputs are not via the Web browser–an archaic interface that differentiated the Web from the rest of the Internet during its first three or four decades.

Whereas we can still think in terms of a Web-based Internet in Web 4.0, that phrase will not mean what it means today. The new Web will not require Web browsers to process client data. The Web will instead be analogous to the Web of Life, to an ecological Web but with fewer connected participants, with fewer dependent species, and objects.

The major difference will be that instead of humanity accessing the Social Web via a browser on a disparate device, our brains will be the Web browsers. For those of us who opt to have a neural network interface implanted into our brainstems, we will no longer need a separate piece of physical hardware like a smartphone, tablet or notebook computer.

Phase 5: The Global Brain

This phase is what I call the Web of Cyborgs, Web of Machines, or Web of One. In essence, this is the new version of humanity as superorganism, as the collective. It is where connective intelligence merges with collective intelligence. It is where the familiar is thrown out the window. What we currently consider normal reality morphs into a surreal, science-fictionesque world.

This will be the Web 5.0 and Web 6.0 era—although I’m not truly clear on what Web 6.0 will encompass.

The biologic and artificial become one with our basic organic infrastructure improved by synthetic biology and enhanced by nanotechnology. Molecular machines combined with exceptionally-powerful computational devices, turn us into human-2.0 types.

This phase occurs around the time of the singularity—which is predicted by Kurzweil to happen in 2045. The singularity will allow human-2.0 types to continually innovate new technologies and do so at increasingly faster rates.

At this stage, cloud computing does not occur between Internet-connected server clusters. Instead, the cloud is the Global Brain—the networked neocortices of all brain-stem augmented humans. The cloud will be grey matter and nanobot powered. Instead of silicon chips crunching calculations, it will be living tissue and graphene-based machines computing in a symbiotic relationship.

Those who do not participate in the Global Brain–either by choice or more than likely due to lack of economic means–will be left out. By the time Phase 5 comes along, version-1.0 humans will be considered inferior models and changes will occur so rapidly that it will be impossible for any human-1.0 types that are still alive to comprehend what is going on.

The End of Humanity, the End of Nature

The final phase of humanity’s cybernetic destiny will be the beginning of the end of our species. By that, I do not mean we die off—at least not in a traditional manner. I mean that we speciate for the final time, we evolve into a new form of life—part organic, part inorganic, augmented by our technology. It is the beginning of a new chapter in humanity’s evolution. It is a period where we will transcend our ties to natural-selection based evolution. It could very well be the end of nature, the end of the natural world as we know it.

By the time our cybernetically-hybrid species passes into this final phase of humanity’s cybernetic destiny, global resources will be utilized at a frenetic rate. All accessible matter on earth–organic and inorganic–that has not already been bended to meet our needs will be repurposed to feed our growing hunger for increased computational power. The Earth’s ecosystems will quickly be used up and our organo-machine brethren will head out into the solar system, looking for ever more resources to consume.

If our species artificially evolves to this point, it is clearly debatable whether the term humanity can be applied to it any longer. My guess is that our humanity will have long been subverted by our need to consume resources, build more organo-mechanic drones, and spread our way of existence throughout the solar system, the Milky Way, and eventually on to other galaxies.

In the most extreme version of this vision, you have to look no further than popular science fiction programming to get a possible glimpse at the Web of Cyborgs. Think Star Trek’s Borgs, Battlestar Galactica’s Cylons, Star Gate’s Human-form Replicators, maybe even the world of the Matrix, and possibly even Doctor Who’s Cybermen. Although the first three are more true to this vision than the last two. Also, the Matrix is an alternate vision where the machines take over and control humanity rather than humanity and machine becoming one.

Our Star Shall Shine No More

Will this fantastical vision of humanity’s cybernetic future come about? Who knows. It is just one possible, logical extrapolation of my idea about cybernetics and the Social Web. Is this a good thing?

There is a very real, practical reason for humankind to strive toward creating technologies that will allow for efficient space travel. The Sun, the star that powers our planet, will eventually go boom. Yes, that is estimated to be roughly 5 billion years from now and there are a vast number of more pressing issues that humanity faces, but it is the ultimate determinate of a timeline for life as we currently know it.

Some even speculate that the time for us to leave Earth is fast approaching as the carrying capacity for our species is reaching a tipping point and environmental degradation is accelerating. Whatever the reality and for whatever reasons, if we as a species are to continue in some form and fashion, we will at some point–albeit in a heck of a lot sooner time than 5 billion years–need to leave our planet and seek out a new home.

But this vision transcends the pastoral view of humankind eventually launching into an idyllic star trek across our galaxy. At its foundation, this vision assumes that we will become overly engaged and dependent on our technologies, that we will figure out our own genetic code, that we will fully understand how our brains work and develop molecular machines that can be integrated into our very bodies. Advances in computer chip architecture and molecular machining combined with discoveries in synthetic biology will allow us to accelerate our evolution, blurring the line of what is human and what is machine.

It may be that humanity’s real version of Star Trek may not be dominated by a species that even resembles homo sapiens 1.0. We may be more like the Borg after all.

Humanity 2.0 Will Need Some Rules

Personally, as someone who is extremely fascinated by nature, especially ecology, the thought of Earth’s currently-dominant species running amuck with the assimilation of all Earth’s natural resources is a terrifying prospect. Although I am fascinated with nanotechnology, and believe that it has the potential to bring some great advances in material science and medicine, I hope that humanity figures out when to stop. I hope that our species can figure out a way to benefit from the coming singularity without the need or urge to convert, to bend all matter to our purposes.

At the point where the Global Brain has awakened, I suggest we use our collective and connective intelligence to figure out a less drastic way to launch ourselves into space. The Universe is a vast place. Let’s utilize resources on asteroids, moons, and planets where life does not exist. Let’s capture the energy of suns in solar systems without life. Let’s push forward with all our great new technology but maintain some semblance of our original Earth-bound humanity and preserve (or simply pass by) naturally-evolved life wherever we find it.

And to think that all of this was innocently triggered from reading a few blogs, thinking about social media, and writing about the emergence of the Social Semantic Web. Perhaps a little less caffeine and more sleep are in order. Ah, heck, resistance is futile!

Epilogue

There are a number of respected technologists, physicists, and neurobiologists who believe the singularity is much father away than Kurzweil’s predictions. There are others who simply believe it will never occur. I’m not here to take a stance on this particular issue one way or the other. I’m just postulating what could occur if the notion of a technological singularity is correct. The timing is truly immaterial to this thought experiment.

For an alternate view and timetable of humanity’s future challenges and changes, see this website. I believe that if the singularity occurs within our lifetimes (say within the next 30 to 50 years), then this alternate vision is too conservative by a few magnitudes. As Ray Kurzweil states, technological revolutions have not occurred in nice, orderly, linear fashions.

The asymptotic growth of technological acceleration–when your view is from within the curve–often appears linear. To most viewers, it is not apparent that in fact the curve is approaching infinity, that growth is accelerating at an accelerating rate. Thus the assumption of a significantly drawn-out time scale as evidenced in the Future Timeline website may be overly conservative.

And for a very far-out look at where some people believe we may be heading, I recommend this fascinating short video from the Director of District 9 presented at a TEDxVancouver event.

Finally, I have discussed a few of these ideas with my Father in the past. But I have never shared this full version with him as I know that he would not be happy with this vision of humanity’s trajectory.

Whatever may transpire, it is clear that the next 50 years will be a remarkable time. May the force be with you, live long and prosper, nanu nanu, never give up and never surrender.

Additional Resources

A new documentary about Ray Kurzweil and his ideas about the singularity was recently released. If you are interested to learn more about the singularity, I recommend watching Transcendent Man.

Updates

July 20, 2011: Don’t think that human-brain machine-neural interfaces will ever exist? Literally right after posting this article, I came across this: First Artificial Neural Network Created out of DNA: Molecular Soup Exhibits Brainlike Behavior. When you combine that with research presented in Soft Memory Device Opens Door to New Biocompatible Electronics, you begin to see that bridging the brain with computers via some sort of small, implantable device may not (someday) be that far fetched an idea.

August 17, 2011: IBM announces first working chips modeled on the human brain. These cognitive computing chips are a major step toward large-scale, brain-like computing. IBM’s goal is to produce a fully-integrated brain-like computer that is 10 times more powerful than the human brain but takes up the same volume of a brain. Remember that sugar-cubed-sized neural implant that was 100-times more powerful than a human brain? This is a step toward that realization.

The Answer is Ebooks

Jeff Sayre — Mon, 07 Jun 2010 15:03:16 +0000

One of numerous variables that are often overlooked in calculating the environmental impacts of any product replacement is ecosystem services. It is an exceedingly difficult variable to include as it encompasses additional subvariables, many of which are difficult to fully quantify.

As publishers and authors scramble to figure out which of the quickly-evolving publishing paradigms will take hold, the issue of what product type is greener–ebooks or paper books–keeps coming up. In my mind, there is no longer any debate. The answer is clear. Ebooks are the preferred choice. Here’s why.

Looking Beyond Carbon

My wife (as many of my readers know) is a successful children’s book author primarily writing books about science and nature. Therefore, this issue is very close to our hearts.

Like most paper-based children’s books published these days, most of her books are sent overseas to be printed in Asia. One of our greatest fears about the sourcing of the paper used to print her books was recently confirmed: most of the paper used by Asian printers contains some pulp from virgin Indonesian rainforests.

This is absolutely devastating news to us. As avid naturalists who have literally spent thousands of hours in rainforests around the world, this confirmation of our fears hit us like a nail-riddled two-by-four in the face.

( See the Rainforest Action Network’s recently-released report, Turning the Page
on Rainforest Destruction: Children’s books and the future of Indonesia’s rainforests )

The e-book versus treeware book calculations do not, in fact cannot, take into account the loss of ecosystem services from the destruction of complex, highly-biodiverse virgin rainforest habitat. Unlike virgin temperate forests that are not as complex or species diverse, tropical forest recovery is a significantly longer process, requiring centuries. In fact, it is not yet fully clear if a destroyed virgin tropical forest can actually recover.

Environmental calculations that simply compare carbon emissions are woefully myopic. Furthermore, the more robust cradle-to-grave analyses (sometimes called life cycle analysis) are inadequate at fully quantifying the scope of ecosystem services. Ecologists are still discovering the immense complexity and real-world economic value provided by intact, virgin rainforest— vital services that are lost (possibly for good) when the land is destroyed.

Suffice it to say that ecosystem services of all forest habitat are numerous. And when comparing temperate to tropical forest ecosystems, those factors are often multiplied many fold. I will not go into the currently-known ecosystem services provided by virgin rainforest habitat. You can read the linked-to report to learn some of these.

Are We Hypocritical?

Of course, April and I did not turn our backs on the fact that books are printed on paper. Even before publishers started sending the majority of their children’s books overseas to be printed in Asia, we knew that forests in Europe and North America were being destroyed to print her books. Most of those forests, however, were non-virgin forests, having long ago been destroyed. We took some solace in the fact that very few virgin acres of temperate forest were being decimated for producing paper.

Yes, there are many environmental impacts of foresting, paper manufacturing, printing, and distribution of which the book publishing industry is complicit, but we rationalized that the environmental benefit of April’s message resulted in a net positive. With this recent revelation, the environmental calculus may have shifted to a net negative.

So the next time you read or hear a debate about the environmental costs of ebooks versus paper-based books, think about what is happening with the production of paper-based children’s books. When it comes to children’s books, we feel that the answer is clear. Paper-based children’s books need to be phased out. Paperless ebooks are the better alternative.*

What are We Doing About this Issue?

As some of you know, my project of the last several years is to build a pioneering ebook venture that will redefine the concept of book publishing and sales in the Web 2.0 / Web 3.0 Internet age.

My resolve has been strengthened many fold with this unfortunate news. I am redoubling my efforts and will be unveiling our new publishing vision later next year.

* It is not currently possible to fully account for the actual environmental costs of producing ebooks and ebook readers. But we feel that once those costs are taken into account (materials mining, solvents used for electronic component manufacturing, energy used in production and distribution, usage patterns, etcetera), the ebook ecconomy will still turn out to be more environmentally friendly than the old-style, habitat-destroying, paper-based publishing. Producing any product–hardcopy or digital–requires resource exploitation. We believe that fewer resources and significantly less sensitive habitat will be destroyed if the publishing economy transitions to being fully-digital based.

Big Snow Equals Global Cooling, What?

Jeff Sayre — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 18:56:57 +0000

With the recent record-setting snowstorms in the Mid-Atlantic states, global climate change deniers are once again crying foul with global warming and ringing the global cooling bell. People need a heaping helping of science literacy to weather this storm, to rationally understand the overall processes that can cause massive winter storms like this even when the average global temperature is increasing.

So, here are three sources to get you started:

My blog post, The Hot Air About Global Climate Change
A timely, short recap of the affects of global warming on global climate
A humorous, but poignantly true, report from the Daily Show

With 2010 Winter Olympics about to begin, big snow in the higher mountainous elevations is to be expected. But there are questions of whether there will be sufficinet snow for some of the planned events. Granted, Vancouver is not the coldest or snowiest place on earth, but its mountains usually have more consistent snowpack this time of year. In fact, it appears that this Winter Olympics will be the warmest on record.

As I sit in my office looking out at a gorgeously sunny day–where I live, it’s an unusual treat to have 7 days in a row with bright sun in the winter–and pondering the fact that our average snowfall is almost 15% below for this time in February, I think how odd it is that states to our east and to our south are having an exceptionally severe winter yet Vancouver is scrambling to preserve what little snow they’ve got. But then I think about the science and realize that global climate change does not mean hotter and drier everywhere at the same time. So, if you are in the global cooling camp, please cool down your hot rhetoric and learn more about the science.

UPDATE:

November 17, 2010: Here’s a study showing that Global Warming Could Cool Down Northern Temperatures in Winter.

It’s Chemical Free and Not Tested on Animals!

Jeff Sayre — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 22:55:14 +0000

As a trained scientist, there are two phrases that stir up my ire every time I see them in marketing copy: “chemical free” and “not tested on animals.” I know that may seem odd, but with our woefully-gullible and science-challenged populace, this is a real issue to me.

I was planning to post an article this morning about the Semantic Web and Web 3.0 but this gnawed at me as I just ran into these phrases once again. So, I decided to write a quick rant. I’ll post the more serious stuff in a week or two.

Okay, my rant is now officially beginning…

«rant»

I Am Not an Animal

Contrary to the Elephant Man’s insistence, he was indeed an animal. So was his mother. So were all the people who mocked him. So is every human being that has ever lived or is currently living.

People–our species, Homo sapiens–are in the Kingdom Animalia. We are animals just like the birds and squirrels outside my window; just like the butterflies that I enjoy watching in the summer; just like the mosquitos that I don’t enjoy nearly as much as the butterflies; just like the fish I had for dinner last night, which I enjoyed more than the mosquitoes who seem to enjoy me.

Get over it people. We ARE animals. If you think otherwise, then go back to school and take a basic science class.

People = humans = Homo sapiens = animals

animals = {people; fish; flies; gnats; beetles; cats; dogs; mice; lions; aardvarks; sloths; worms; snakes; frogs; turtles; sharks; bees; and many more species}

So, the next time you want to write about the difference between humans and animals, instead think about writing about the difference between people and non-human animals.

Case closed.

Universe in a Vacuum: It’s Chemical Free

We’ve all seen advertisements for chemical free skin-care products, or all “natural” chemical free laundry detergent, or chemical free organic lawn products.

To these amazing claims, I ask, Oh really?

Chemical free. Contains no chemicals. These are idiotic claims that many “natural” products companies use in their marketing copy. (Now, before you think that I’m against natural, organic products–I am not, I use them all the time–please read on.)

To make my point, let’s look at two simple examples of everyday chemicals.

Water: Yep, it’s a chemical
Oxygen: it’s one of the 117 (or so) known elements, also called atoms. But guess what? It’s also a chemical just like the other 116 (or so) elements

That’s right. Even the base elements–those funny little guys that comprise the Periodic Table of Elements–are considered chemicals, although they are often referred to as chemical elements. Why do you think it’s called Chemistry Class?

Speaking of water, not only is it a chemical, it is also a molecule composed of two different bonded species of atoms—hydrogen and oxygen. Thus, it is composed of two different chemicals and is therefore often referred to as a chemical substance or chemical compound.

So, when I buy a product that is claimed to be chemical free, I expect to have just purchased something that contains absolutely nothing. No, that’s not sufficient.

NO CHEMICALS are used at any time. Really? Aren't enzymes chemicals?

When I buy a product that is claimed to be chemical free, I demand that it contains absolutely nothing. It better not contain a single atom of anything or I will sue for misleading advertising.

When I buy a product that is claimed to be chemical free, I want a tube, a bottle, a jar, a box whose contents are guaranteed to be absolutely void of any matter whatsoever. It should be a microcosm of the vacuum in deep space.

Of course, deep space is not even a perfect vacuum. The vacuum of deep space is not even chemical free. So, how do these “natural” products companies create a chemical-free product? You have to wonder. It must be magic.

It’s “Natural” and Organic, So It Must Be Good!

Have you noticed that I keep qualifying the word “natural” by putting it in quotes? Why is this?

Well, natural means absolutely nothing special. It simply refers to something that occurs in nature, is naturally occurring, or is produced by natural processes.

Well, plants growing surely must be a natural process; so peppermint oil is natural. Bees building their hives surely must be a natural process; so beeswax must be natural.

What about people–in particular chemists–who create unique chemical substances that are highly toxic to insects? Is that natural? Well, sure.

Since people are animals, we are part of the natural world. Therefore, everything that humans do is part of the natural process and all of our creations can be considered natural. I know that aliens consider us as puny little, natural organic animals messing up the rest of nature.

What? Are you kidding me?

Not at all…Oh, you’re not asking about the aliens, are you.

Natural is not the appropriate word for separating humankind’s activities or creations from the rest of the ecosystem. Instead, manmade, human made, or artificial should be used.

I prefer people remember that they are part of the natural world instead of abstracting themselves from it. That way, they are less likely to get swollen heads and think that they are separate from all the other animals, that they are not part of the ecosystem. (NB: That is why I think that the phrase anthropogenic climate change is brilliant. It keeps humankind in the climate as part of the ecosystem. See my other rant, The Hot Air About Global Climate Change.)

Okay, what about organic products?

Wow, now this is just becoming too long of a rant. But, since you asked.

The phrase “organic” is another co-opted word used by product marketers. Why? Because most chemical substances can be broken down into two categories—organic and inorganic.

If a chemical substance is primarily comprised of carbon and hydrogen atoms, it is usually classified as being organic. Thus, DDT is organic and, by the way, since it is a human creation, it is also natural. But that does not mean it is safe to eat DDT. It is also best classified as being a highly toxic, artificial chemical substance.

How about plant-based chemicals? Surely they must be safer to use than human-made chemicals. Not necessarily. Some plant-based chemical substances are highly toxic to human animals.

How Can This Get Better?

Well yesterday, when I was looking for a healthier alternative to petroleum-based lip balm, I came across this description on a “natural” products company’s website. I just about lost it when I read this:

Our all natural chemical free lip balm… is not tested on animals.

Holy Cow! I got to get my some of that!

The second thought that came to mind is that I actually should avoid that product at all costs. Why? Because when I use it, I will be the first person to have ever tested the product. I will in fact be the company’s guinea pig. I mean, if it has not been tested on animals, then it cannot yet have been tested on any person.

But then I realized that they might actually be telling the truth. Since the product is chemical free, it contains absolutely nothing. So, it cannot be tested on anything—animals, plants, protozoans, fungi, bacteria, inanimate objects. You get the point. There is nothing to test because they are selling a product which has had all the chemicals removed. So, they can’t even test it on us human animals.

It’s Just a Marketing Message

I realize that phrases such as “chemical free” and “not tested on animals” are meant to convey the message that the products are natural, safe to use, and politically correct to purchase because no non-human animals have been forced to use the products. But, let’s be clear. Natural does not imply safe anymore than organic implies edible.

Lead, arsenic, and benzene are all naturally-occurring chemicals that are quite toxic to people. I don’t know about you, but I try to avoid using any of those natural chemicals when washing my hair. Water, a natural essential chemical substance for all life (as far as we know), can even be lethal under certain uses.

Here’s an interesting article about the toxicity of avocados to some non-human animal species. Once again, “natural” does not necessarily connote edible, healthy, or safe.

Finally, the uninformed usage of the word animal occurs in more that just marketing copy. I see it all the time in news reports, popular articles written by scientists, and many times in letters to the editors. Every time I see someone removing humans from the animal zoo of life, it irks me just a little.

Am I being unreasonable? Well, of course I don’t think so.

In our science-illiterate culture, expressions such as “chemical free” and “not tested on animals” simply add to the disconnect between science, nature, and our view of humanity’s place in the world. I think it is inexcusable and irresponsible.

Okay, end of rant.

«/rant»

I bet you are now entirely confused about all natural, organic, chemical-free products that have not been tested on animals. I’m glad I could help.

Disclaimer: This natural rant is chemical free and has not been tested on any animals (other than organic humans). However, a few plants of multiple species were severely masticated as I sat at my computer writing—yummy all natural organic rolled oatmeal with locally-grown organic blueberries, organic raisins, freshly-ground organic flaxseed, and local genotype native, organic pecans. Oh, I also imagine a number of organic-based bacteria lost their natural lives as well.

Updates:

Here’s a great editorial on the foolish-popular thinking about good chemistry versus bad chemicals: Where are the champions? Viewing requires registering for a free Nature.com account.