Fuel

We are all being hit by these high gas prices. People like McCain and Bush want to drill for more oil, even though it would take years for that oil to even get on the market. It is clear to me that alternative fuels are the answer, but there are so many variables involved here, and I will mention a few that you may not have considered.

Natural Gas:
I have heard that Natural Gas burns cleaner, but isn't it still harmful? And the biggest problem with it: Non-renewable. It is just another fossil fuel that isn't avaliable everywhere, and will eventually be depleted.

Bio-fuels (Ethanol, etc.):
Ethanol from corn sounded good at first, but from what I have heard it has nearly been trashed as a real solution. The problem is that it takes a LOT of corn to make a little fuel, and there are an enormous amount of food products that contain corn products. We do not want a fuel that will raise our food prices, or cause a shortage (which is beginning to happen in many countries anyway). Also, it may be good for us Americans, that grow a lot of corn, but it is not as readily avaliable to other countries, and if oil were to eventually dip below ethanol for them (ex. middle east oil might become less than ethanol simply due to shipping costs) then they have no incentive to stay with ethanol.

The most important topic I want to cover is Nitrogen fixation. Nitrogen, in its most abundant form, exists as N2 (Nitrogen gas) in the air. Nitrogen is vital for all living things (it is a necessary building-block of amino-acids) . However, only the smallest of living things (bacteria and other single-celled organisms) can actually convert Nitrogen from it's natural, un-usable gaseous form into an organic form. We cannot simply breathe in N2 and absorb it. The N-N bond is pretty hard to break. Therfore, up until 1910, all of the Nitrogen in every living thing was, at some point, converted by bacteria.

In 1910, Carl Bosch succesfully commercialized a Nitrogen fixation process that could be performed in a lab, without the use of any bacteria, and was mass produceable. The process was first patented by Fritz Haber, and is now known as the Haber-Bosch process. This was such an important find, that the two of them each won a Nobel Prize.

Why is it so important? Using this process, we can create fertilizer. Plants normally get their Nitrogen from the bacteria in the soil, and lack of Nitrogen from these bacteria would stunt their growth, but with fertilizer that is no longer neccesary, and we can pump our plants full of all the Nitrogen they need, getting maximum yield. 100 million tons of Nitrogen fertilizer is produced each year, and this fertilizer is directly responsible for 1/3 of the world population's food.

The catch is that this process requires natural gas. 3-5% of natural gas production goes into this process, and while that may not seem like much now, if we were to ever run out of natural gas, we would have no fertilizer, and 1/3 of the world's population would starve to death. It might not even take total depletion. Just an increase in demand of natural gas (if we used it to fuel our vehicles, or started using even more for fertilizer to grow bio-fuels) could raise the price of fertilizer to the point where many places in the world simply would not be able to afford it anymore.

And that is really just the tip of the iceberg. Do some research yourself, and you will likely be amazed by the many uses of fossil-fuels. From making plastics to creating electricity, fossil fuels have many important uses, and the depletion of fossil fuels would have a permanent impact on humanity, and would likely go down as one of the biggest most drastic thing to happen to the earth since the extinction of the dinosaurs.

It is clear to me that what we have to do is conserve our fossil fuels as much as possible. We must replace as many of it's current uses with alternatives wherever possible, reserving the fuel for only those processes that strictly require them. We also have no idea what kind of uses for fossil fuels we will find in the distant, or perhaps near, future.

It is like burning money to keep warm, when it could be used for so many other things, like buying wood....or simply saving it for colder days.

Nukes Part 6

Iran has praised the United States' participation in talks as a "positive step forward," but also claimed that it would not halt it's enrichment activities in any way. With sanctions already in place, and possibly more to come, it is becoming increasingly obvious to me that whether Iran is seeking weapons or only power, this has become much more a political game than an economic or military one.
This was Iran's first public answer since talks started, and is not a good sign for those that seek to halt Iran's nuclear ambitions.
Article

Social Contract Theory

The idea behind social contract theory is fairly simple. The theory suggests that we have things such as moral code and ethics because of the societies we live in. This helps explain why moral values can be different in different cultures (a fact that is not as easily explained by other theories). The idea is that humans living in a society that is just forming all must figuratively sign a contract to live in that society. They decide to give up certain liberties (such as the ability to kill someone else) for rights and protection (such as the right not to be killed). Social contract theory suggests that without a society, there would be no moral code.

While I am not sure everyone would agree that it is a strict proponent of social contract theory, there is another idea pertaining to it. The idea that some sort of central governing body is required to uphold the contract. Whether it be an elected body, a dictator, or a village elder, as long as it is a body that commands respect and upholds the contract. If you did not have such a body, some would argue that it would be impossible the know if anyone else will uphold the contract, and therefore you have no reason to do so yourself.

I think it is possible to have some belief in the social contract theory without any kind of governing body. I am in college, and last year I had 5 roommates whom I had previously never met before. Suppose that I somehow knew that I could steal or break their belongings, and nobody would find out. No governing body to worry about at all, because I was guaranteed not to be caught. I could take this guy's food, or blow out this other person's speakers because he has his bass turned up too loud at night sometimes. Why wouldn't I do those things?

In this case there is no reason for me to be afraid of any governing body. Yet I am reluctant to steal from my roommates. Assuming it is not because I am some sort of moral saint, (another topic of discussion entirely) there is good reason for me not to steal. The idea is that there seem to be certain lines set up, and once you cross that line, the whole society or group you are living in changes. If I stole from a roommate, that may open the door for stealing among us. So if I did steal, that would in theory increase the chances of being the victim of theft myself. If you believe this to be the case, then there must have been some kind of unwritten contract among myself and my roommates. Something along the lines of "By living here, I accept the responsibility of treating your property with respect." I think most of us would agree that that is a contract most of us live by, and it is the simple act of living together, not the fear of being arrested for theft, that keeps us from stealing from each other.

Hollywood gives us a good example. In a scene many of us have seen too many times to count, several men all have guns pointing at one another, but nobody is shooting. There is plenty of yelling and dialog, but no shooting. However, once the first man pulls the trigger, everything goes to hell and everyone starts shooting. That first man crossed the line, and in this case it can probably be assumed that the only authority these men currently fear is the other man's gun. Whether these instances actually occur in real life is something I have wondered for years, but it is a pretty good example of social contract theory as I see it.

To be continued.

Nukes Part 5

Iran has recently test-fired 9 more missiles. These are a little different, as they have a big enough range to hit Israel.

Article

Brig Gen Hoseyn Salami, commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guards' air force, said: "Our missiles are ready for shooting at any place and any time, quickly and with accuracy.

"The enemy must not repeat its mistakes. The enemy targets are under surveillance."

Secretary Rice claims that this just helps the United States' case for building a missile defense system in eastern Europe. This comes just a few days after Russia claimed (again) they would take military action to keep the system from being built.

I stood by Iran. I truly believed, and maybe still believe, that they are using nuclear technology for civilian purposes only. However, actions such as these do not help their case, and they cannot be naive enough to think that they can do missile tests without anyone connecting that to their nuclear program.

Regardless, it has long been apparent that Israel has many enemies in the middle east, and Iran is just one of them. Looking at Israel's extensive nuclear program and their threats on Iran and other countries, it is really not surprising that Iran would fight back.

A lot of us "westerners" seem to have a hard time understanding the idea of provocation. Especially the U.S., as the arguably leading (but possibly waning?) world power sometimes does not seem to understand basic principles such as defense until is pertains only to itself. Iran tests less than a dozen missiles in response to the U.S. and Israel's hostile language (McCain: "Bomb bomb Iran.") and suddenly this is an awful thing for Iran to do, and is considered a hostile action. Yet the U.S. thinks that it's missile defense system would not be hostile, and that it would be justified even though the threat is not anywhere near as imminent as the one on Iran (see Nukes Part 2). See the double standard?

I am not suggesting that because we have missiles, they should be allowed missiles. Nuclear proliferation for anything other than civilian use is dangerous, and unjustified in my opinion. What I am saying is that we are just as guilty as them, and to suggest that they are more "evil" or "hostile" because they do the same thing that many other countries have done is just ridiculous.

It is clear that the real problem here is not Iran's nuclear program or it's missile testing. Look back to Nukes for a list of countries that have nuclear programs. Even more countries test missiles all the time. The real issue here is Iran's tense relationship with Israel, and by association (to my dismay) the United States, and this existed before Iran's nuclear program was discovered and especially before these latest missile testings. If the relationship is the real problem, then how can we expect harsh talk, or even dare I say military action (knock on wood) to ever fix this true issue?

Fox News

Most fairly educated people that watch the news even occasionally, and watch more than one channel, know that Fox News is biased. Very biased. While there are so many good examples that we have (in fact there is a good documentary, Outfoxed) every once in a while Fox will do something drastic that will make us wonder how they are still getting away with these things.
This morning Fox & Friends was talking about some New York Times writers who wrote an article about Fox's declining ratings. They photo shopped the two men's images to make them look drastically uglier, and never mentioned a word about the fact that they images were altered. Now there has always been tension between the liberal New York Times and the conservative Fox News, but this is tasteless.
Fox New's message for you: Never question Fox News,even if your just reporting the truth.