Passive voice

So here is a brief encounter with how to avoid using passive voice; it sums it up pretty well in five steps. I advise this article not without a few notes of my own: step two references auxiliary verbs. These are "helping verbs" that include such ambiguous actions as:: can, do, must, ought, and will. Step three (using grammarcheck) is important, as it is a good way to see if you've actually succeeded in changing the voice. I warn you thoroughly, this is not as useful as it sounds in the long run. The last paper I wrote for Dr. Jay using this method, I spent so many HOURS relying on this method, that I worked (all night) until the deadline, so,  everything in moderation (especially moderation). Next, the specific strategy mentioned in step four is for all you thinkers out there. "Is the subject doing the action?" is an excellent check for this sort of thing. Try it out on someone's blog. Finally, step five is legit. Silliman is a swell- he'll advise you better than anything on the internet ever could, so ask if you still don't get it.

Hay, Monsanto...

Some sources cite a "broad scientific consensus" that GM foods are safe to eat, and no ill-effects have been observed in humans. Other sources I've read have specified effects like cancer, infertility, and birth defects. The problem with trusting any source on the topic is that Monsanto is so involved in both government and food regulation, that the "science" behind GM foods is inherently faulty, and this conflict of interest obscures the truth. Either way, the actions of this corporation have been far from ethical, and their army of lawyers have struck fear into the hearts of simple farmers, whose lives have been turned upside down by the unbridled avarice of this powerful arm of the food mafia. While I don't want to be too quick to jump too far into any anti-GMO movement, as I don't think that GMO's are inherently immoral, I do believe that Monsanto is.
Here's a quick clip of my band rocking against Monsanto in Providence.

Post by Pavlov's Dogs.

Nuclear savior? Or nuclear doom?

I can't make up my mind on this nuclear energy debate. On one hand, nuclear energy (by fission) seems to provide a fairly safe, clean and (mostly) reliable energy source, which could quickly replace many of the carbon intensive sorts of energy we are currently dependent on. Simultaneously, the dangers of nuclear energy are quite clear. Occasionally, massive disasters occur, although they are rare. However, smaller incidents are possibly more commonplace than are reported. The effects of these types of radiation are still unclear. Newer means of containing waste (which is actually quite small compared to airborne carbon waste) show some promise.
The arguments for both sides are very strong, so I am naturally skeptical towards anyone who is inherently bent towards one way or another. One type of energy that is rather promising is nuclear fusion, which, while still under development, is the most soup de jour of our practical energy options, providing a much safer, cleaner source of energy without the worry of toxic waste or meltdown.
I guess, presently, the verdict depends on how immediately we need to change our energy system, and if nuclear energy is actually carbon efficient (given mining, construction, decommission, etc.). I can't help but feel like both sides of the argument are overemphasizing their points due to a largely unsolvable debate. For instance, one could argue that water power (massive sudden flooding) presents a much greater risk to nearby residents than nuclear does, but at the same time, a large enough disaster (Fukishima) could effect the entire planet, at least by a little bit. Tricky.

Fertilizer!

Since it was brought up the other day, I thought I would do a quick look at what types of environmental issues can arise from the use of fertilizers. Turns out many common fertilizers contain problematic ingredients, nitrogen being one of the most common, and uranium being one of the most dangerous. Rainstorms cause fertilizer runoff into groundwater, with significant effects. About half the lakes in the United States are estimated to have undergone eutrophication, which is a lack of oxygen, making these waters uninhabitable. The water is often noticeably discolored. Phosphate fertilizers often contain radioactive metals such as uranium and polonium-210, which have been shown to cause cancer. Plants can absorb these metals, and as such, the average American adult is estimated to consume about 500 micrograms of uranium every year (.5 mg). Alternatives to these fertilizers, or at least a means to reduce their use requires further research. Think twice before spraying your lawn and vegetables!

Potential progression of significant events

If progression towards the global climate change crisis continues at the current rate (which is currently probably negative in growth), then the following significant events may occur in the next century, possibly in this order (in my amateur opinion):

- Worldwide flooding
- Scarcity of clean water
- Massive phytoplankton die-off
- Privatization of water
- Scarcity of food
- Militarization of public spaces
- Mass migration towards poles
- Collapse of global economy (or civilization)
- ?

Naturally, rain cycles will change with worldwide oceanic hyperthermia. Clean water sources will be contaminated by floods, while an exponential die-off of phytoplankton will set off a world-wide chain reaction whose scale has never seen by humankind. During this time, water will somehow be purchased by corporations, who will even claim rainwater as their own. Scarcity of food will follow, caused by economic and ecological stress. Sudden disruption of the modern paradigm will lead to unrest, followed, perhaps preemptively by a militarization of many first world countries (many third world countries have already reached this point today.) Since food and related services both maintain population and economy, the lack thereof would certainly lead to an economic decline on a worldwide scale. Humans would follow food, security and economy to the poles, which would lead to a global collapse of first world civilization as we know it.
At this point, our only salvation would include assistance from another intelligence, sudden helpful mystery technology, evacuation, or extinction. Good luck.

Double ecology simulation review

I recently downloaded two old simulations for PC from the early 90s that use an ecological model as their focal point. The first is SimEarth (1990) and the second is SimLife (1992). While I do remember these games from my childhood (mostly as failures), my interest recently peaked when I realized that my young mind had a compromised understanding of the central elements of these games, so I was inspired to redownload and review them.
SimEarth :The living planet- This game was designed with the help of James Lovelock, father of the Gaia Hypothesis. While there is no win or lose condition in this game, the general idea is to create a sustainable planet and even maintain intelligent civilization. The gameplay consists of altering variables such as planet core temperature, speed of continental drift, rate of volcanic activity, atmospheric makeup and many many other variables. While the concept is truly genius, the actual gameplay walks the rare line between too complex and too simple. One can pick a few variables, alter them, and watch what happens. The graphics are pretty modest, even for 1990, and the interface is pretty much entirely guess and check, without any labels for the multitude of options that can be changed. It is interesting, however, how any form of animal can become sentient and produce civilization, industrialization, atomic energy, etc.  if given the correct evolutionary conditions (mollusks have evolved nanotechnology!). Both interesting and boring, this is an interesting take on Lovelock's theories, and one of the scenarios even reproduces his "Daisyworld" simulation. This game is primarily something to run in the background, a pleasant distraction that reminds you that you can at least pretend to have control of environmental factors, and even then- global warming or ice age is always inevitable.
SimLife: The genetic playground - This game has a slight improvement in the graphic and interface issues of its spiritual predecessor, but has some of the same pros and cons. In this game, instead of an entire planet, your focus is on a single ecosystem, which includes inanimate icons individual animals and plants, instead of icons representing large "populations" of animals. This game's model involves more micromanagement, including rather specific terraforming options. Also included is a means of altering the genes of your creatures, so that you may end up with a filter feeder that lives in the desert, or a coconut that can swim. Some criticisms of this game (unlike SimEarth) include an faulty, yet hyperprecise science, which could be misleading for anybody looking for too deeply into this simulation. Overall, SimLife is worth slightly more than the 5 minutes it too to download and install.

All in all, these software toys are an interesting diversion from the more academic and conventional means of ecology, but scarcely provide any interesting gameplay. SimEarth seems more legitimate as a simulation, instead of trying too hard to be a "game", as the overwhelming complexity of SimLife is a bit of a buzzkill, despite the innovation to add a tutorial style help system..Both games include various pre-built, random and custom starting conditions, where your actions use a sort of depletable "energy", but also an experimental mode where your actions are boundless.
If you'd like to play god too, these great titles- as well as the "obsolete" mechanisms to play them on- can be downloaded for free from myabandonware.com . As always, download at your own risk.

Leopold

First, I want to acknowledge Leopold's beautiful rhetoric. Some of his prose rings with a note of poetry that makes this sort of reading more memorable and easier to swallow.
What struck me about his argument, is in hindsight, a rather obvious concept, one that perhaps Taylor could have used to make his concepts easier to dissect. The community concept is one that makes perfect sense to me why nature may have inherent value. A biological community is simply an extension of our human communities, where we (probably should) care about people we don't know, even though they may have no instrumental value to us, or even in some cases, possess negative instrumental value. While this doesn't clear up any talk about equal inherent value, and the concept is still difficult to dissect, thinking about all life in the Berkshires as part of my community is a nice thought.
After writing this post, I realize once again that the demonstration of inherent value is still somewhat elusive, but it is rewarding to me use this idea, and in that sense, this community concept is bringing me an immediate instrumental value.