(or: Logic Fallacy Fallacy II)
Assumption: You can be just like Woody
Harrelson. You can precisely mimic his mannerisms, his voice, his
attitude, his charisma, his look.
But, you wont be "just like Woody Harrelson".
Because Woody Harrelson himself is not being "just like" someone
else. And you wont be able to simultaneously mimic/model that characteristic.
This seems important - We are in an economic bubble caused by
oil. The least important contribution oil makes to this economic boom is
allowing us each to tool around at 70 mph (113 kph) with a couple of
empty couches strapped to our backs. - Other contributions oil makes to the
bubble include abundant fertilizer and pesticides for huge crop yields,
concentrated energy to turn iron into steel and sand into computer chips. It
is the raw material for making plastics, which are used for everything from
food storage to medical services, just for starters.
A question to the mathematically inclined
Assumptions
everyone in the U.S. has a hybrid vehicle
Each vehicle has two square meters (2.2 yds) of solar cells on
its roof.
Some conservatively estimated percentage of vehicles will be out under
the sun during peak solar hours.
Some conservative and currently doable efficiency numbers for cell
conversion and storage conversion.
Cars are intelligent enough to manage their energy storage in such a way
that they will have capacity in which to store the cell's peak-time output (or
use it directly if the car is moving).
The question:
How many barrels of oil would be saved per day?...
Think about it.
Millions of square meters of solar cells,
all producing energy that will go directly to offsetting fossil fuel
consumption (that includes oil we use to make plastics, fertilizer,
pesticides, and so much more).
Not one square inch of those solar cells will be covering any vegetation
or marine life that would not have otherwise been covered.
What if we cover road-sides,
or even roads with
extra-durable solar cells?
This seems like a win-win for everyone don't you think?
All other animals, even up to the higher levels (possibly excepting dolphins?)
will walk into a clearing with animal tracks and --if they can't see, hear, or
smell an animal-- not think anything more of it. It doesn't matter how hungry
they are.
There have been many debunked theories about why people are so different than
the other animals; tool use, opposing thumbs, language, and these days,
consciousness or self awareness (at least it wont be debunked since it can't be
defined). Though the debate rages, anyone who's ever owned a dog knows that
animals can be conscious and self aware. That's not what makes us so different
than the other animals.
It is becoming more and more clear to anthropologists though, that the parting
branch when humans became so different from the other animals was when they
started to believe that those tracks in the clearing might lead to an
animal. Though they couldn't see an animal, and they couldn't smell it, they
_chose_ to follow those tracks. All other animals will starve to death before
wasting energy to follow animal tracks when there is no immediate evidence of
an animal present.
But men followed those tracks. They CHOSE to ACT on a belief that the tracks
would lead to prey. That required something that (IMO) no other animal has.
That required hope and faith.
It is the same hope and faith that leads two brothers to spend
thousands of hours and dollars developing a flying machine when many
"experts" scoff and
say it can't be done. It is the same hope and faith that makes an inventor
run failed experiment after failed experiment to develop a dry cell that nobody
else thinks possible or even sees any use for. This is the faith
that leads a scientist to spend a lifetime chasing down a truth he 'believes'
is there.
Even today, when we follow animal tracks and come upon the animal,
we are filled with a rush of excitement. I imagine those first humans to
follow those tracks were very hungry indeed, and that when they found that
animal the experience was nothing short of a miracle.
Faith is a source of hope. Saint Paul defines hope as "the evidence of
the existence of things unseen". I believe faith and hope are what
differentiates humans from animals. Faith and hope are things you need to
exercise, to develop.
We've come some way since that first tentative attempt to follow those tracks.
I truly believe that being human --in the sense that we are something more than
animals-- absolutely requires us to exercise hope, and an abiding faith in something unseen. For some it will be the reliability
of the scientific methods and tenets, for others it will be some notion, such
as "There is no God", or we are all part of one consciousness, and
for others, it will be a religion, or military dogma. For me, the older faiths
are the best. Other faiths may be shallow, either due to lack of time to adapt
and grow strong in the face of trials, or because the signs they are founded
upon (the "tracks") don't lead to any profitable ends (the "prey").
Faith needs to lead to something "rewarding" for all human kind. Our
faith and hope must make us better people --though better is itself
indefinable-- because that's the only way we're going to make it off this rock.
Even here, only hope in that better future makes me understand
that "off this
rock" is what's in store for our people some day, if we just
have hope and follow our faith.
Some people can't tell the difference between green and brown.
Others are unable to discern a difference between the words
"ironic" and "irritating"
still others are incapable of grasping the subtle differences between
"contradiction in terms" and "oxymoron".
In similar fashion, it is possible many are incapable of discerning any
differences between "control" and "governance".
In fact, it seems woefully apparent that most of the otherwise able
people in both major U.S. political parties are suffering from at
least one of these maladies.
Art has always embraced uncertainty. But art has been observers passively
observing that which the artist has made. The new art will embrace the
uncertainty, the form, the motion, the chaos and unpredictability that is the
sentient admirer. No longer a passive receiver, now to become an integral part
of the same to such an extent, that the framework without the observer, could
not stand on its own as art. Those observing must now be part of that which
they have loved. Their physical forms, quirky behaviors, reactions, responses,
habits, fears, loves, imperfections, spirits, expressions (to name some), all
adding to the beauty and essence, the ability of the piece to move and inspire.
They shall become the art, perhaps unwittingly, perhaps knowingly. This
idea is rooted within the most basic known structures of the universe. To make
such art will require many in the arts, sciences, and humanities communities to
rise to a seemingly insurmountable challenge, and that is precisely why they
should, and what will make it art.
Like sand on the beach that is at once the biggest blessing and the
greatest irritation for the sunbathers who lay there, art must be at once
free and under great burdens. It must strive, and move forward, against
the resistance of difficulty and hopelessness. Exuding hope and light.
This is why, in a larger sense we all must strive to BE art. It is no longer
enough to admire art, or support it, we must become works of art. In the
tedious details of our daily lives, and the intense moments carried out in the
times of great blessings and strife.
Well,
it
is beautiful.
It
is clever, and reassuring, and ingenious.
It
is
creative and imaginative.
It
soars, invoking great joy, a feeling of
well-being,
and a sense of yearning within the observer.
It
is masterful; a clever and
wonderful performance for the mind; an inspiring, and awesome work that moves
the observer to almost mystical senses...
...Just like most of the other glass boxes that went before
it.
Atheist:
A colorblind man who has convinced himself that all who claim to perceive a difference between
green and brown are delusional and living in a fantasy world.
Agnostic:
A colorblind man who gives those claiming to see colors the benefit of the doubt.
Zealot:
A man who believes his way of seeing or not seeing colors is right, and all those who see colors
differently are wrong and must be silenced. ...By force if
"necessary".
A blog for my site. This is the first entry. It will be placed in the first category: Junk Drawer
This entry is being made in 4-Nov-2009, but it will be dated 2002. This will allow it be displayed as the first entry even after all the old JD-entries are moved in.