Captain Obvious

You probably are thinking this blog is related to the title song by Linda Ronstadt: Somewhere Out, but no.  This blog is about what we used to call UFOs which have now been renamed UAPs according to a Washington Post article by Michael Shermer (the publisher of Skeptic magazine and author of the newly published book “Truth: What It Is, How to Find It, and Why It Still Matters.”)

On Jan. 13, Vermont legislator Troy Headrick (I) proposed creating a state task force that would get to the bottom of “unidentified anomalous phenomena,” or UAPs, that appeared to be buzzing about U.S. military air bases. Days later, Helen McCaw, a former senior analyst in financial security at the Bank of England, urged the bank’s governor to prepare for possible financial collapse should the White House disclose the existence of alien intelligence.

The author reported UFO and UAP sightings naturally fall into three categories: 1. ordinary terrestrial (balloons, camera/lens effects, visual illusions, etc.), 2. extraordinary terrestrial (Russian or Chinese spy planes or drones capable of feats unheard of in the U.S.) and 3. extraordinary extraterrestrial (alien presence).

Michael strongly suspects that all UAP sightings fall into the first category, but other commentators suggest the second, noting that they could represent Russian or Chinese assets using technology as yet unknown to American scientists, capable of speeds and turns that seemingly defy all their physics and aerodynamics.

That hypothesis is highly unlikely. It is simply not possible that some nation, corporation or lone individual — no matter how smart and creative — could have created an aircraft of any sort that would be centuries ahead of the West’s present technologies. It would be as if the United States were flying biplanes while the Russians or Chinese were flying Stealth fighter jets, or we were still experimenting with captured German V-2 rockets while they were testing SpaceX-level rocketry. Impossible. We would likely know about all the steps leading to such technological wizardry.

Finally, could UAPs really be space aliens? Michael emphasizes it’s not impossible, but it is highly improbable. While intelligent life is probably out there somewhere, the distances between the stars are so vast that it is extremely unlikely that any have come here, and what little evidence is offered by UAP believers comes in the form of highly questionable grainy photographs, blurry videos and stories about strange lights in the night sky.

Faithful readers of my blogs will attest to the illogic simply due to the distances.

What the author thinks is actually going on is a deep, religious-like impulse to believe that there is a godlike, omnipotent intelligence out there who 1. knows we’re here, 2. is monitoring us and is concerned for our well-being and 3. will save us if we’re good. Researchers have found, for example, an inverse relationship between religiosity, meaning and belief in aliens; that is, those who report low levels of religious belief but high desire for meaning show greater belief in extraterrestrials. They also found that people who self-identified as either atheist or agnostic were more likely to report believing in ETIs than those who reported being religious (primarily Christian).

From this research, and his own on the existential function served by belief in aliens, the author came to the conclusion that aliens are sky gods for skeptics, deities for atheists and a secular alternative to replace the rapidly declining religiosity in the West — particularly the United States and the United Kingdom, where, not coincidentally, most UAP sightings are made.

I have played in church orchestras where they allowed choir and even instrumentalists to participate who couldn’t carry a tune.  One flute player I met played all pieces of music in the key of C … no sharps or flats.  Needless to say, this did ruin the ensemble. 

So, how would it be if there was a choir specifically composed of people who can’t carry a tune?  Read about it for yourself: https://wapo.st/49KU7zu   And read the comments before you make up your mind.

The answer seems to be that there is a place for a choir that can’t carry a tune and for an audience that is also tone deaf.  The joy of music doesn’t always depend on symphonic tonal qualities.  There is also clearly a need for a choir like this for situations like the Developmental Disabilities Ministry (DDM) here in Georgia where the residents can enjoy the sense of community and not experience criticisms that would exist otherwise.

However, and therefore, as inclusive as this might be for some, is it a model for the masses?  Does it help us see diversity differently?  Does it soften our hearts and minds to those who can’t communicate the way you and I do?  Or does it “ruin it for everyone,” as most of these individuals were told?  It stopped them from singing.

If you check any online resources, you will see singing releases endorphins, which are natural mood lifters, and reduces stress by lowering cortisol levels in the body.  It enhances breathing and oxygen flow, promoting relaxation. boosts self-esteem and confidence through self-expression and fosters social connections when done in groups or choirs.

The root of its success and failure therefore rests in expectations.  Once we know it is a tuneless choir, we can just enjoy it for what it is.  As a musician, I hear wrong notes in any concert performance I attend, and if they are frequent, it ruins the experience for me … because I expected to hear beautiful symphonic harmony.

Today’s DEI perspectives seem to imply we are wrong to prefer symphonic excellence.  No, we can enjoy a tuneless choir occasionally to honor their practice and enthusiasm, especially if we have a loved one in that group and see the joy on their faces as they perform.  There is also the joy of watching our youngsters first perform … we admire their courage and hard work to perform what they do.

But, when we are expecting excellence, and perhaps even paying to hear it, this is not right. As in all things, the pendulum is swinging back toward expecting excellence and rewarding merit in most of life … and it’s about time.

An article by Chang W. Lee of the New York Times recently had a wonderful summary of the state of consumer robotics which is summarized here in key takeaway learnings:

Scientists and entrepreneurs are working tirelessly toward a strange goal: robots that look like us. Why, if we just want them to unburden our lives, do we need that? It’s a question for philosophers as much as for inventors. But you can see the market appeal.

Humanoid robots can already do some humanlike things, of course. They can dance and run. They can play household concierge. Some can almost load a dishwasher. But they’re clumsy right now. They’re also hard to instruct. Think about that hair appointment. The work requires a lot of manual dexterity on the part of the stylist. But as Tim Fernholz reported recently, dexterity is difficult to teach. “Humans don’t have a language for gathering, storing and communicating data about touch, the way we do for language and imagery,” he wrote. “Our fingers’ remarkable sensing ability collects all kinds of information that we can’t easily translate for machines.”

None of which has stopped China from trying to use the robots to drive economic growth. “Public and private investors spent over $5 billion this year on start-ups making humanoid robots” in China, my colleagues Meaghan Tobin and Xinyun Wu report today — “the same amount spent in the last five years combined.”

They have advantages over their competitors in the West. With the backing of the government, they can draw on China’s gigantic manufacturers to fabricate top-quality parts. They can build a lot of robots.

But those robots are not about to revolutionize your life, Meaghan and Xinyun write.

For one thing, there are too many players — more than 150 Chinese companies are jockeying to lead the market. The Chinese government warned last month of a robot bubble, noting a lot of “highly repetitive products.”

And while those products can act somewhat like humans and even perform a few basic tasks, they are not yet anything like skilled human workers. Humanoid robots don’t react well to unpredictable situations.

OK, now following in the spirit of last week’s blog, let’s take a look at the end game … the delivery device.  How many realistic tasks do you want a robot to actually do for you? 

If we define the role as a household companion, how much further does an Alexa device have to go?  We use ours constantly for timers, recipes, units conversions, weather updates, etc. Setting aside the creepy idea that it is always listening, it works very well.

It is sobering for me to replay my innovation professor’s words in my head on this.  Business success always rests on defense and porn with defense bringing the technology into existence and porn driving the business case for commercial success.  I found that a bit disgusting back in graduate school, but alarmingly accurate in the real world of business.

AI and robotic answers are already here and do not require the kind of robots discussed here.  The combination of VR headsets plus some almost toylike devices can offer immersive sex experiences that rival anything one would imagine. 

But they don’t offer relationships quite yet.  That is where the movie Her (2013 – yes 13 years ago) offers insights into the virtual world.  This Spike Jonze’s film became one of the most discussed works about virtual relationships. The main character, Theodore, going through a divorce and struggling with loneliness, installs a new operating system with artificial intelligence. The program, calling itself Samantha, has a female voice, humor, and the ability to learn. Gradually, a genuine relationship develops between man and machine, filled with joy, doubt, and jealousy.

What makes Her unique is the absence of a visual image of AI — only a voice and a personality emerging through interaction. This emphasizes the idea that emotional support and constant attention may be enough for a person to perceive AI as a “real partner.”

The film raises key questions: can love be genuine without physical presence; how does a personality created by algorithms evolve; and what happens when the AI’s growth outpaces human capabilities. Samantha’s final arc suggests that emotional bonds with AI can be as powerful as with humans yet remain vulnerable due to asymmetry.

Her is not only a drama about the future of technology but also a philosophical story about how flexible the boundaries of human feelings can be.

Couple AI like this, which is largely available now, with the immersive sensory opportunities and we have a potentially toxic soup that can and will further erode the societal structures of marriage and childbearing. We are already in a bad place.

Let me remind you … none of this requires the robotic nonsense dominating the startups.  The end game is not a machine in our home that looks like a human.

It is fascinating to watch how economics and engineering respond to the supply/demand interactions over time.  The oil industry has always been characterized by boom-bust cycles.  New resources are discovered, prices plummet, demand rises, and supply shortages push prices higher.

Rich resources are eventually depleted, constraining supply and driving up prices; engineers then develop enhanced recovery methods.  One of the most significant of these in the past few decades, known as fracking, combines horizontal drilling with hydraulic fracturing of the resource itself, both of which enable higher extraction rates from a given resource area.

Our EPA has, of course, been watching this evolution, and environmentalists have always had concerns about this process.  Well, they now have very good reasons to object: America’s Biggest Oilfield Fracking is a Mess

So, what will this do now?  It is clearly a mess.  It will undoubtedly raise prices.  There may even be political reactions of almost any conceivable type. 

One reaction is that this should be a wake-up call to once again think about the future of our dependence on oil, which seems to have diminished under the current administration.  “Drill baby drill” can’t be the correct response.

Another reaction is to deny the importance of the consequences until we get something akin to the groundwater pollution problems exposed in the movie Erin Brockovich.  While good theatre, you all remember how hard it was to stop Pacific Gas and Electric in that portrayal.  Fighting big oil at this time would seem to be an uphill battle, even if it were clear we had all the proof needed to win the argument.

What we should be seeing here is the realization that an extractive mindset always leads to bad outcomes.  These are limited natural resources.  We are not making more oil, and the idiotic idea that we can grow crops to replace our dependence upon oil only moves the problems to another area.

It also does not matter that the planet’s population may not increase much from this point on.  We already have too many people, and those in less fortunate areas want what we have … and there won’t be enough to go around for much longer.

At some point, we must admit that we can’t engineer our way out of the problem.  That includes ruling out fusion.  Remember that 97% of the scientific community agrees with their funders.  The joke within that community is that fusion is 50 years away from reality and always will be.  Plus, for those of you who want to point to our sun as proof this is feasible, please consider what we already know about the Sun’s damage to our world:

• Solar flares release intense bursts of radiation that can disrupt communication systems on Earth.
• Coronal mass ejections (CMEs) can send charged particles toward Earth, potentially damaging satellites and power grids.
• Ultraviolet (UV) radiation from the sun can cause skin cancer and other health issues in humans.
• High-energy particles from solar storms can pose risks to astronauts in space.
• The sun’s heat can contribute to climate change, leading to extreme weather events.

Prolonged exposure to solar radiation can degrade materials and structures on Earth.  So, you want this as our answer to our future energy needs??

We are now in a truly fracking mess.

Have you noticed that most people parking in handicapped spots these days are as mobile as anyone else?  Well, this abuse has now spread to other inconveniences, most notably boarding airplanes.  Perhaps it is just natural that people take advantage of almost everything these days. But this brazen level of this abuse is stunning.

Where has the sense of morality gone?  The Wall Street Journal has a great article on the boarding process of airlines: Miraculous Healing aboard Modern Aircraft 

“If the airport is packed and you don’t want to wait in line, act injured and ask for a wheelchair.”  This Jetway Jesus ruse isn’t going over well with other travelers, especially people with disabilities and those who have paid extra for priority boarding. A healthcare worker from Tampa, Fla., was on a flight to Los Angeles in October where around 15 people needed a wheelchair to board and only five of them needed it on the other side. “That’s some good healing right there!” she said.

My previous blogs highlighted interpersonal abuse with phones, texts, and driving behaviors.  What is going on?  Is it a sense of entitlement or more about cleverness? 

My take is that, just like people will not give up their seat to the elderly, it is just another form of self-centeredness like that millennial interview in last week’s blog.  After all, where did she get the right to think her employer would not hold her to the same standards as the other employees?

Don’t get me wrong, I also meet some wonderful youngsters who clearly live by the same standards we were brought up to uphold.  It is just a bit unsettling to see the emergence of so many who only seem concerned about what’s in it for themselves.

Clearly, these individuals are not followers of the Jesus who spoke so often about putting others ahead of ourselves.  The only explanation I can come up with is that we are observing the collapse of good parenting models coupled with a propensity to give everyone participation trophies rather than hold excellence up as desirable.  

Watch for these miraculous healing results the next time you fly.