Because Titanium Lacks Flexibility (and it’s so 2010)

Posted on August 23, 2012 by jrenstro


The first time I ever watched Transformers, my first thought was that the Decepticons were far cooler than the Autobots and my second thought was how amazing it would be to be able to change shape.

Since the days of Transformers (and before, if you count characters such as the Incredible Hulk), shape-shifters have been staples of science fiction and fantasy.

Every week I watch True Blood‘s Sam Malone turn into some kind of animal–a horse, a dog, a fly–and then strut around naked when he’s resumed his human form.
The liquid metal T-1000s from Terminator 2 top my list of most awesomely terrifying villains. And, of course, there are cuttlefish, octopi, and squid, who don’t need the hand of fiction to change color, shape, or size.

Everyone who’s tried to bend into a pretzel knows that unless David Icke is on to something, humans can’t shape-shift. But now, robots can.

The Maximum Mobility and Manipulation program at DARPA is funding research at Harvard University to emulate the qualities that benefit octopi and cuttlefish by creating soft robots that share many of the same abilities as their cephalopod inspirations–they change shape, temperature, and color, including patterns and luminescence. Unlike sea creatures, their camouflage abilities allow them to avoid detection by infrared cameras.

One advantage that sets these silicon robots apart from others is the price tag–they could be made for less than $100 each.

While scientists acknowledge that the speed is a drawback, their primary concern involves the robot’s flexibility and maneuverability. That focus has recently paid off, yielding encouraging results.

The real magic happens once the robot stops moving and turns up the juice–literally.

The capabilities of the robot come from microfluids, the basis of a new field currently impacting technological developments in a major way. Scientists learned that fluids behave differently on a microscopic scale than they do on a macroscopic scale, particularly when it comes to viscosity, the mixing of fluids (or lack thereof), and momentum. In DARPA’s robot, the microfluids run in narrow channels created inside a mold, and they control changes in color, shape, temperature, and movement. The current model has a tether that links the robot to a power source and allows scientists to inflate the channels and control the pressurization inside of them, which is what makes the robot’s coordinated movement possible.

Future versions will likely integrate the power source and the channel pumps with the robot itself, making it a self-contained unit.

Once these robots are self-contained, they could, at least theoretically, meet up with the cephalopods and take over the world.

I think I’ll just go ahead and put Optimus Prime on speed dial.

Posted in Could this Happen? | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Because Titanium Lacks Flexibility (and it’s so 2010)

Steak Only a Mother Could Love

Posted on August 16, 2012 by jrenstro

A few months ago Could This Happen explored the potential of Star Trekian replicators and 3-D printers. In addition to printing solid objects, like busts of Arthur C. Clarke, projects are underway to print skin and cartilage, as well as pastries.

Peter Thiel, CEO of Paypal, founder of the philanthropic Thiel Foundation, and supporter of the Singularity Institute, is financially backing Modern Meadow, a start-up that aims to 3-D print meat.

Various laboratories around the world are working on lab-grown or in-vitro meat production. In addition to simply being able to achieve the task, the growing concern over the environmental implications of producing meat motivates scientists to figure out how to achieve the process artificially. The livestock industry accounts for almost 20% of global greenhouse-gas emissions, and nearly 70% of land suitable for farming is devoted to the production of meat.

Making meat in a lab, which essentially involves delivering consistent electrical stimulation to skeletal cells growing in a petri dish until they become muscles, is in its early phase. This process would virtually eliminate land use for meat production, use significantly less energy, and would cut down greenhouse gas emission by more than 75%.

Lab-raised meat may be tough to swallow. Even if scientists are able to physically perform the task, who knows how it will taste, and people who stick to Kosher or Halal meats might have some objections. Even if filet mignon birthed from a beaker doesn’t make the grade quite yet, there are other more savory options, such as this 3-D burrito bot.

Right now, food produced in a lab has a much higher price tag than what we see in the supermarkets, but if the price of food continues to skyrocket, that might change. It’s good to know that if we run out of farm land or if new emissions laws are passed, there’s an alternative to astronaut food. At least steak grown in a petri dish won’t be served in a tube.

And who knows what else they’ll decide to replicate, especially with grants from philanthropic futurists.

Posted in Could this Happen? | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Steak Only a Mother Could Love

You Remember Total Recall…Or DO YOU?

Posted on August 8, 2012 by jrenstro

Could I spice up my life by having artificial memories of taming lions, driving race cars, or racing flying dragons implanted into my brain? Find out by reading the latest could this happen? post on Slate.

Posted in Could this Happen? | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on You Remember Total Recall…Or DO YOU?

Slow and Unsteady Kills the Race

Posted on June 27, 2012 by jrenstro


Could the earth’s rotation really slow down like it does in the new novel The Age of Miracles?

Find out by reading my “could this happen” post on Slate .

Posted in Could this Happen? | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Slow and Unsteady Kills the Race

A Head of Its Time

Posted on June 8, 2012 by jrenstro

Battlestar Galactica, the Terminator, Star Trek: TNG, and works by Ray Bradbury, Philip K. Dick, and Isaac Asimov, among many others, feature humanoid robots that are indistinguishable from humans. Such robots are discussed in more detail here. This post explores a different take on the hybridization of humans and robots–a sci-fi variation on the Minotaur.

On Futurama, Bender pawns his titanium body for mad cash, and by the time he figures out that being a body-less head has a few drawbacks, the pawn shop has sold his body to Richard Nixon–or more accurately, to Nixon’s disembodied, but perfectly preserved, head. Once joined with a titanium body, Nixon annihilates (literally) the competition and wins the presidency. This scenario may seem even less plausible than cylons or replicants, but is now making the first jump to reality with “robotic telepresence” technology.

The VGo looks a bit like a segway, if Apple were to design it. At the top is a computer screen, through which a user can see, hear, speak, and interact with people miles, states, or countries away.

VGo allows people who, because of physical disabilities or other limitations, can’t get to places they need to be, such as school. Students such as Zach Thomason, who has myotubular myopathy, a condition which results in extreme muscle weakness and immobility, can now “attend” school via VGo. While he can’t walk or manipulate objects such as pencils or pens on his own, Zach can use a joystick to control the VGo, positioning it so he can see the teacher and join discussions with his classmates.

A teenager in Colorado whose severe allergies prohibit her from attending school also uses the VGo. It took her a few days to get the hang of navigating the device—luckily it doesn’t complain when it smashes into walls, though it is sometimes stymied by closed doors. Although a teacher at the school charges the unit each evening, the student has had to send a few “help me!” emails when the unit has run out of battery power (the battery lasts approximately six hours).

The VGo app is available for PCs and Macs, and the user simply has to start the app on the computer in order to begin navigating. A connection to the internet is established via Wi-Fi or Verizon 4G LTE, and VGo remains connected to its own cloud-computing network, which finds the best possible connection in order to provide high quality audio, video, and navigation data.

“Driving” the VGo only requires moving a mouse or using the arrows on a keyboard. The unit is sensitive to both direction and speed. Positioning the camera at the top of the VGo unit is as easy as scrolling the mouse wheel.

The VGo can also be used by patients recovering from surgery or dealing with an illness, elderly people with limited or no mobility, or people who simply want or need to be somewhere they can’t go, such as a meeting in another city, or for doctors, the bedside of a patient at a different hospital.

I’m not sure how much Bender sold his body for, but VGos rival the price of titanium. The units are $6,000, and also require an annual service contract that runs about $100 a month. Users connecting via Verizon’s 4G network pay for that subscription as well.

VGo doesn’t have the monopoly on robotic telepresence–Xaxxon Technologies, iRobot, and Anybot offer similar functionality and services. At just under 10K (or $3,000 for an eight-hour rental), the Anybot makes the VGo look like a bargain; perhaps the extra $4,000 pays for the Anybot’s far more adorable “face.” While VGo publicizes itself largely through stories of students unable to physically attend school, Anybot makes the news for allowing the old and infirm to party like it’s 2099.

An 82-year-old mother who was unable to attend her son’s wedding in Paris sent an Anybot to France so she could attend by proxy. She had a photograph of herself in her wedding outfit enlarged and mounted on cardboard, and then she got onto the Anybot website and “drove” the bot around, including busting a move on the dance floor.

I look forward to the day I can invite a robot to a party instead of the actual person. I can think of quite a few people whose charms would be greatly accentuated by a robot emissary. And just imagine those party photos.

Posted in Could this Happen? | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Mind the Gap

Posted on April 21, 2012 by jrenstro

Futurama’s Tube Transport system, available in every city except Los Angeles, uses electromagnets and air pressure to propel passengers to their destinations. The Jetsons had a similar transportation system, as do worlds in sci-fi written by Robert Heinlein, Arthur Clarke, and Ray Bradbury, among others.

The tube system of transport, known as the “vacutube” or “bounce tube” in science fiction, resembles the pneumatic tubes used in drive-up banking transactions, and the postal service tubes that were used in the late 1800s. While it might seem that a tube capable of transporting is quite a leap from the tube that sucks up your savings account deposit, it appears that engineers are in the process of making this leap. In other words, perhaps the most unrealistic aspect of the Futurama tube transport system is that it’s free to use.

In 1812, George Medhurst proposed using a tube system for public transportation. While his vision wasn’t quite realized, a somewhat similar model, the atmospheric railway, was adopted for some time. The atmospheric railway is a lot like the air-propelled train that shuttles Guy Montag and others around in Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451.

The atmospheric railway uses air pressure for propulsion. Depending on the model, it either runs on a tube that sits between the rails which is connected to the train via a suspended piston, or the car itself acts as the piston with the tunnel acting as the tube. Engines set up along the train’s route leave a partial vacuum just ahead of the car, while pumping air behind the car, causing atmospheric pressure to boost the train. As the name suggests, atmospheric railways eliminate friction and jerkiness, and are nearly silent. In the mid-1800s, Dublin, London, Paris all operated these trains.

So why aren’t these trains all over the place now? It’s the same reason you and I don’t have jetpacks–cost.

A number of ambitious pneumatic railways have been planned, and in some cases, construction begun, but almost all projects have been shut down due to financial problems. Digging for a railway to run under the Thames River started in 1865 but stopped three years later for lack of financial support. In 1870, an engineer named Alfred Beach unveiled a prototype for a pneumatic train subway in New York City; his model could move 12 passengers, and demonstrated the possibilities of expanding such a system city-wide. However, the city politicos put the kybosh on the idea, as they were invested in developing an elevated train instead.

Nearly a century later, MIT and Lockheed looked into building a vacuum train system that would link together cities on the East Coast, but financial problems caused developers to abandon the project. Lockheed briefly pursued a gravity-vacuum transportation system that would supplement the Bay City’s BART system, but that project also was also…well, derailed.

Currently, Brazil and Indonesia use an updated version of the atmospheric railway called Aeromovel, which consists of elevated air-propelled trains that can reach speeds of 50 mph between city stops, are entirely automated, and are virtually silent.

A company called ET3, based in Crystal River, FL, has proposed yet another leap from Aeromovel trains—they’re developing a system called Evacuated Tube Transport (ETT).

This system would use maglev trains, which work on magnetic levitation, rather than mechanical parts involving wheels and bearings. High speed bullet trains used in Europe and Asia run on maglev systems, and while most run at about 300 mph, the top speed of maglev trains in Japan is over 500 mph.

As fast as they are, maglev trains still encounter air resistance, as well as sharp turns, both of which cap their speed. The ETT system eliminates that by permanently removing all the air from the two-way tubes that comprise the travel route.

Passenger capsules would be about the size of cars and able to contain roughly six passengers each. Initially, they would be accelerated by electric motors, but then could coast through the vacuum once a certain speed is reached. Stations would have airlocks which would allow the transfer of capsules and passengers without introducing air into the tube itself. While we have the technology to make these systems now, more challenging is the laying down of straight tracks, much like freeways, from destination to destination.

Prototypes of Evacuated Tube Transports have reached speeds of approximately 370 mph, and ET3 hopes to develop the system so that trains can eventually reach speeds of about 4,000 mph during longer rides. If they achieve this, a trip from New York to Beijing would take roughly 2 hours, and a trip from New York to Los Angeles roughly 45 minutes. It’s not quite teleportation, but I’ll take it!

Here’s a longer, more technical explanation of how ETT works.

ET3 projects that their systems would require roughly .05% of the material necessary to build high-speed rails and would cost 10% as much to build, and .25% as much as it costs to construct a freeway. ET3 also claims that their system would be 50 times more efficient than electric cars or trains. If these claims are anywhere near accurate, the ETT system could revolutionize transport and minimize environmental and economic impacts in mind-boggling ways.

Soon, we might be boarding the Tube in places other than London, sliding smoothly and silently to destinations that in the olden days only could have been reached with a boarding pass, a few screaming children, a lack of legroom, and an $8 bag of pretzels.

Posted in Could this Happen? | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 7 Comments

Forget the Red Pill

Posted on March 26, 2012 by jrenstro


Tomorrow, I’ll be lounging in a hammock on a Thai beach drinking Mekhong whiskey, resting up for a Full Moon Party. On Wednesday, I’m scuba diving the Great Barrier Reef. On Saturday, I’ll be on Mars, peering up at Olympus Mons.

Or at least, that’s how it goes in my dreams. But what I’m talking about is better than a dream.

Given that I still don’t possess teleportation powers, the next best thing is virtual reality.

From Tron to the holodecks of Star Trek to the Matrix, science fiction has long been crazy about virtual reality. Now, science is too.

Virtual reality either recreates the existing world or creates a fantasy world into which the user can become immersed. With the help of headsets consisting of goggles–one monitor for each eye–and headphones, virtual reality programs recreate sights and sounds in 3-D. Everything you do, your avatar does.

Depending on the sophistication of the facilities, virtual reality labs might also include air nozzles and scent dispensers to enhance the sense of immersion. Sometimes, treadmills or other devices are used to create a bodily experience in virtual reality, though at this point, physical experiences such as climbing a tree or swimming don’t quite transcend realities.

Different virtual reality systems offer different ranges of interactivity, depending on speed, range, and mapping. Computer models incorporate the speed of a user’s actions and attempt to reflect them back to the user with minimal lag time, or latency. Range and mapping involve the “choose your own adventure” aspects of virtual reality–how many different outcomes your actions generate and how natural those responses are. For example, if I’m walking down a street, how fast can I go? Can I trip? Can I fall? Once I fall, can I get right back up, or can I roll around on the ground in pain? Can I sing Bob Dylan while I writhe around? A truly interactive virtual environment allows users to modify the environment, even if the modifications don’t seem logical.

Cave Automatic Virtual Environments project images on walls, the ceiling, and the floor of a room. Instead of wearing headsets, users wear special glasses that give them a wider field of vision, and often a greater sense of immersion. More than one person can participate in a virtual CAVE experience, though programs can respond to only one set of inputs from one person; the others are observers.

Still holding out for a holodeck? Be patient. Netflix the last couple seasons of TNG–it may be a while.

Body Immersion Environments are the next frontier of virtual reality. These don’t involve goggles or avatars–these involve a computer-generated total sensory environment that the user occupies. Unlike the more conventional virtual reality environments, these would produce realistic bodily experiences–you’d actually get tired swimming or climbing a tree. Of course, BIE don’t exist just yet, as scientists haven’t mastered the conversion of energy into virtual space and then somehow animating it, or producing the illusion that one is actually there.

Another kind of futuristic virtual reality is the Brain Simulated Environment. This would involve creating an environment from within a user’s brain, rather than from an external device such as a computer. Neuroscientists believe that stimulation of specific brain cells in the cerebral cortex produces sensations such as sounds, smells, colors, etc. In other words, our sensory experiences likely don’t come from the external world—they come from our brains. If we can figure out how to evoke specific sensory experiences, there’s no end to the virtual environments we can create.

Virtual reality systems may seem like the cutting edge of gaming, but their uses extend far beyond recreation. Virtual reality can help treat patients with phobias and anxiety disorders; it is now a common treatment for PTSD and has been used successfully with Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. Virtual reality exposure or immersion therapy allows doctors to change the virtual environment in order to gauge the patient’s response to certain variables and triggers. Patients can enter a 3-D world in which they can see, as well as smell, hear, and touch, whatever it is that induces phobia or causes their anxiety or PTSD. Confronting these objects or scenarios repeatedly, and with the knowledge that they are at that moment completely safe, allows patients to overcome phobias and anxieties and score virtual victories that carry over into the real world.

Check out virtual Iraq, Afghanistan, and 9/11.

At New Zealand’s Auckland University, scientists are currently developing a computerized cognitive behavioral therapy technique for kids suffering from depression and anxiety. In the game, users’ avatars enter a fantasy world in which they fight negative thoughts and learn how to manage them.

If only that game had been available to Ender at Battle School!

Posted in Could this Happen? | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Forget the Red Pill

From Replicant to Replican

Posted on March 6, 2012 by jrenstro


Given that it might be awhile before we have functioning nanofactories and molecular assemblers, what are we supposed to do if we simply can’t wait to replicate things?

The answer involves an object most of you probably already own–a computer printer.

I’m not talking about your run of the mill desk jet printer, or even a fancy laser jet printer. I’m talking about a 3-D printer. Looking at your existing printer with 3-D glasses isn’t going to work, unfortunately (but hey, it might be fun!)

There are a number of 3-D printing technologies–the methods depend on the composition of the object one wants to produce–but they all use layers to create the finished project.

The process begins with a computer file. Using computer design software, users render an image or scan of the object they want to reproduce. The images can also be original, thus yielding a completely unique final product. The file is then sent to the printer, which contains a “build box” where the printed object is made. The build box is kind of like the tray that contains the finished printed paper on a conventional printer, only bigger. In another compartment, users dump a powdered version of whatever material they want to use, such as polymers, plaster, or resin. The printer spreads a thin (less than a millimeter) layer of material across the bottom of the build box. Then, depending on the technology used, the “printer head” either raises the temperature so the powder melts, or deposits a binding material in the exact design as the object being replicated.

3-D printer heads have tiny nozzles or spindles, which only heat or bind the desired individual grains of powder. The heated or bound powder is then pressed and solidified, and then the printer distributes another fine layer of powder and the process repeats again and again. At the end, the object is cleaned of any excess powder and then coated in resin, and voila! There’s your 3-D object—anything from a spare car part to a drinking glass to a bust of our favorite might-be Replicant.

Here’s a Wired.com video demonstrating a 3-D printer.

The finished products are fully functional and visually (if not practically, depending on the materials) indistinguishable from the original. Depending on the size of the object, printing may take anywhere from a few minutes to a few days. The cost savings depends on the material involved and the quantity printed, but is likely cheaper than producing the object using traditional manufacturing methods.

This technology, which has actually been in development for about 30 years, used to be available only to engineers, industrialists, and university students. While a top of the line 3-D printer can cost more than $100,000, semiprofessional versions cost half that, and recently some $10,000 semi-professional models have hit the market. Thanks to open-sourcing, 3-D printing technologies have developed and spread rapidly; there are now several companies developing personal 3-D printers that cost less than $1,000. Not all printers can handle all products, though, and products are expensive–usually $30-$50 per pound, depending on the material.

I’m sure the first question in most people’s minds is, now that we can print whatever we want, what are we going to make? Sure, we could reproduce objects to suit our most fanciful and ridiculous whims if we were so inclined; I’ve always wanted eleven identical monkey-shaped potato peelers. But those who think we ought to reproduce practically are in luck–3-D printers don’t pass judgment.

3-D printing, particularly a technique called rapid prototyping, is also particularly useful in the three-dimensional preservation and archiving of rare and/or damaged objects.

Recently, scientists have been working on 3-D bio-printers that have the capability to print skin onto burn wounds. At Wake Forest University, scientists have printed 10-centimeter skin patches onto pigs. At Cornell University, scientists printed an ear using silicone. Scientists are currently experimenting with printing bone and cartilage; no one has yet attempted to print organs, though it’s not hard to conjure up the image of a Frankensteinian scientist attempting to print a heart, brain, or eye for his experiments.

Perhaps the most satisfying use of 3-D printing comes from Cornell University and is currently being used at Manhattan’s French Culinary Institute. Their food fabricating printer uses the same basic technique as other 3-D printers, except that this printer head has a syringe that delivers sugar, frosting, chocolate, and other edible ingredients.

One of the advantages of using 3-D printing for food is precision; instead of painstakingly decorating a cake by hand, the printer can perfectly arrange frosting in complicated designs. The printer can also produce identical food products–no more fighting over the biggest cookie or the reddest rose on the birthday cake. The 3-D printer is also capable of producing textures and consistencies that are very difficult to achieve by hand.

Watch a 3-D food printer work .

I bet Arthur Clarke would’ve focused a little more on replicating technology if he knew that they could make chocolate. The minute 3-D printers are capable of making cheese, I’m in.

Posted in Could this Happen? | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Monkey See, Monkey Make

Posted on February 23, 2012 by jrenstro

In 1964, Arthur C. Clarke called the replicator “the invention to end all inventions.”

Just a few years later, the replicator became a staple on Star Trek, providing the crew with food, water, spare parts, and later on, breathable air.

“Don’t ask me exactly how the replicator would work–if I knew, I’d patent it at once,” said Clarke.

In theory, replicators, or “molecular assemblers” can arrange subatomic particles into molecules, and then arrange the molecules into objects. This means that the first step in the creation of almost anything would be for the replicator to form atoms like carbon or hydrogen, and then arrange them into cells, proteins, and other DNA or matter-composing molecules, and then put the particles together like a really complicated jigsaw with a billion tiny pieces that incredibly end up looking like a clock or a carrot, or a thousand-dollar bill.

Because these replicators would have to be able to produce any one of a number of materials at a given time, they would have to store a staggering amount of patterns. Because not even the cloud has enough room for all this data, replicators would have to store patterns in molecular memory. While that alleviates the space issue, it makes replicating more complicated objects, including people, impossible. Except when aliens replicate Picard, but that’s another story.

In 1992, nanotechnologist Eric Drexler proposed the idea of a “nanofactory,” a system in which nanomachines–the replicators–arrange certain molecules to catalyze reactions, from which larger atomic parts could be built and then eventually assembled into objects. Essentially, you feed bits into a nanofactory, and out pops an “atomically precise part.” Nothing could be easier.

Here’s a colorful demonstration of how this works.

Drexler’s theory has been expanded upon and refined by numerous scientists. In 2000, 23 scientists from 4 countries founded the Nanofactory Collaboration, which focuses specifically on the replication of “diamondoids” through a process called mechanosynthesis. Diamond mechanosynthesis involves catalyzing a chemical reaction in a molecule. Then, a mechanical device such as a computer adds or removes atoms from a surface to form covalent bonds. The computer control offers such precision that reactions can be caused one atom at a time all along a surface.

The construction of a nanofactory is thought to have four parts: molecular position fabrication, programmable positional assembly (the atomically precise assembly of the molecules fabricated in mechanosynthesis), massively parallel positional assembly (the assembly of not just one, but many—even trillions—of anatomically precise parts), and nanomechanical design (simulation, design and manufacture of the actual object).

Scientists have worked on all four aspects, but right now, most research is devoted to proving the theoretical and experimental feasibility of mechanosynthesis.

Ralph Merkle, a leading expert in nanotechnology, says that the replicator is coming. There is nothing in the laws of physics that would prevent us from arranging atoms in a particular way, and theoretical and experimental research supports this claim. All we have to do, he says, is “control the structure of matter” and “build molecular structures where everything is where you want it.” Well, that sounds easy, doesn’t it?

Scientists can arrange molecules on a surface, but haven’t yet mastered the ability to stack them or arrange them into 3-D objects. Merkle estimates that functioning nanofactories are anywhere from 20-40 years away, depending on how much scientists focus on their development.

I know what you’re thinking–as soon as we master replication, what’s to stop us from self-replicating? Why stop at one diamondoid when you can simply have a diamond self-replicate infinite times? How about a hunk of cheese that self-replicates so that we never have to settle for plain bread or naked crackers ever again? Why not populate the earth with dozens of smiling versions of ourselves?

While work on self-replicating machines is underway (and a topic for a forthcoming post), self-replication is much more difficult to achieve than replication. A self-replicator would have to build a system that could then build more systems by itself, with no human intervention. A self-replicator would have to be able to produce and reproduce every tool needed in the process over and over, which right now is a bit like putting the cart before the horse.

There are plenty of ethical debates about whether we should pursue nanofactories, and nanotechnology in general. Nothing would have much value, given that objects could simply be produced infinitely and presumably made available to anyone. The economic implications are mind-boggling, in addition to the moral ones—what happens to a society in which the emotional, situational, spiritual, and sentimental value of all objects is negligible?

“Cynics may doubt if any human society could survive an invention which would lead to unlimited abundance and the final ending of the curse of Adam,” says Clarke.

Only time will tell, but here’s one fact to set your minds at ease now: the trouble with Tribbles wasn’t due to use (or misuse) of a replicator–those little buggers multiply of their own frisky accord, which means that we’re safe. For now.

Posted in Could this Happen? | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Monkey See, Monkey Make

Always Take the Weather with You

Posted on January 29, 2012 by jrenstro


Ever been to a baseball game on a rainy day? You check the radar over and over, hoping that when you refresh your browser, the big swath of blue covering the city will have disappeared. You check the team website, half hoping the game will be delayed or canceled, even though canceled games are usually rescheduled for incredibly convenient times such as 2:00 pm on a Tuesday. Finally, you bundle up in your prophylactic rain gear, grab your umbrella, and trudge off to the game only to find out that while you were in transit, the game was indeed canceled about 15 minutes before the opening pitch. So you trundle back, rain somehow dripping down the back of your shirt. If you paid $35 for parking, you feel particularly sodden, as there’s no such thing as rain reimbursement. This is the kind of situation that makes people want to do a rain dance, or an anti-rain dance–anything to coax forth the sunshine.

Science fiction writers know the power, both cataclysmic and restorative, of Mother Nature. The sun goes down and suddenly the night fills with vampires, demons, and other baddies. Various creatures skulk around under cover of darkness and the world doesn’t seem to belong to the humans. And when the sun comes up, there’s always a collective sigh of relief.

Science fiction writers also know the power of manipulating Mother Nature.

In the Avengers, mad scientist De Wynter (Sean Connery) produces natural disasters that target specific areas, such as a hurricane that almost wipes London off the map.

In the Six Million Dollar Man/Bionic Woman crossover, the evil scientist (hired by the Soviets, of course) plots to steal a weather-controlling device that can conjure up hurricanes and wreak untold devastation.

Robert Heinlein wrote about governmental weather control in his 1941 novel, Methuselah’s Children.

Even Underdog’s nemesis, Simon Bar Sinister, invents a weather machine that induces tornadoes, floods, and other natural disasters.

While it’s not possible to create a hurricane to conveniently rampage your least favorite city or the home town of your worst enemy, it is possible for humans to control the weather.

In Moscow, scientists drive rain away when there’s an important event or holiday. They do this by shooting silver iodide into rainclouds, either from planes or from the ground, in a process called “seeding.” The water attaches to the silver iodide particles, which forms a hole in the cloud. If the cloud is dense, the water then falls immediately as rain or snow, and if the cloud isn’t dense, it scatters.

And for a mere $6,000, people can hire private companies to ensure that their weddings or outdoor parties won’t get rained out.

Moscow’s mayor proposed using the technique to divert snow from the city to avoid the cost of clean-up and traffic snarls. Some environmentalists who generally don’t oppose seeding, especially for irrigation and farming, argue that diverting snow from Moscow could cause increased snowfall in neighboring towns that may not be equipped to handle it. Snow also helps vegetation survive the winter and cleans the atmosphere. Advocates of the idea, which was actually put into limited practice in the 1980s, say that they don’t want to eliminate snowfall in Moscow altogether, only reduce its frequency and severity. A snowless Russian capital would seem particularly unnatural–what would they do with all those furry hats?

China has also embraced the idea, especially for the 2008 Beijing Olympics, and spends approximately $100 million per year on weather modification. Beijing’s Meteorological Bureau contains a Weather Modification Office, the world’s largest weather control operation, which employs 37,000 people. In addition to preventing inclement weather, the agency also induces rain to relieve droughts and dust storms and to aid in firefighting. China has had the most success of any country in weather modification, with Russia close behind.

Eventually, scientists want to figure out how to prevent major storms from forming. One idea is to coat areas of oceans with biodegradable oil, making it impossible for hurricanes to siphon water; another is to use techniques similar to seeding to disrupt funnel cloud formation.

As much as I dislike biking in the rain or getting caught without an umbrella, I’m glad the U.S. is behind China and Russia in weather modification. Among other things, as long as I’m a teacher, I need the prospect of snow days in the winter.

And just think about the effects weather modification would have on small talk. If we couldn’t complain about the weather, we’d have to find something else to grouse about. Then the floodgates would really open, and who knows what might come out.

Posted in Could this Happen? | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Always Take the Weather with You