Courtesy of this gizmodo post I've learned of a Japanese firm, Shimizu, that would like to use robots to fabricate a solar power plant they call Luna Ring. The Luna Ring would be built by robots using mostly material from the moon itself and cover the equator of the moon with solar panels to collect the power of sunlight without concerns about weather conditions or the atmosphere that reduces solar panel efficiency here on earth. Luna Ring would then beam the power to earth via lasers or microwaves.
The idea is a little similar to one of my favorite pet energy concepts: space-based solar power, which I think offers one of the better chances for reasonably clean and renewable power on earth. It may even be easier or cheaper to accomplish when you consider the fact that you won't have to lift materials into orbit. In any case, it's merely concept now, and we'll have to keep working towards this and other forms of power (fuel cells or fusion power or something else) until one becomes practical enough that we can ween ourselves off of our fossil fuel addiction.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Clarification on Korea and China
I had an opportunity to talk to Dusty a bit last night regarding the escalating tensions between North and South Korea, and it became clear that I'd been unclear on what I meant by referring to China as the wildcard in the situation... I will try to clear up what I think about China's role in Korea here.
North Korea is something of a vassal state to China. Without China's support, North Korea would almost surely collapse. I believe most of North Korea's energy and food come from across the Yalu River. What, then, is North Korea to China? Well, historically it was a military and ideological ally. When the Korean War went against the North Koreans, China invaded Korea to push back UN mandated forces resulting in setbacks and a stalemate that would eventually define the DMZ as it is today. North Korea, ideologically speaking, in the old days anyway, was another Communist country. On paper, I suppose, both are still Communist, though I think neither really has much to do with practical Communism anymore. In China, Communism started its decline when Deng Xiaoping declared that "to get rich is glorious." You can't actually be rich if you're living in a Communist state. I'm less clear when North Korea transitioned from a Communist state to it's current status as a cult-of-personality dictator built entirely around an almost religious fanaticism for Kim Jong Il (Or his father, Kim Il Sung, before him).
So, what's in it for China today? That's what I keep asking myself. The modern post-Cold War geopolitical landscape sees a single superpower (the US) with maybe three in development (EU, Russia, China). China is no longer a Communist country, by ideology, and it seems to me they've adopted a statist, state capitalist, dictatorship-- something not entirely unlike the facist regimes before World War II. It remains to be seen whether state capitalism is a sustainable system, or if the Chinese government can maintain its stranglehold on liberty as their populace develops wealth... But the overriding theme in Chinese decision-making seems pointed at economic and technological development. Given that, I can't really understand why they remain committed to the continued existence of North Korea. I understand that North Korea creates a buffer between China and South Korea, a state with a sizable American military presence and a powerful military of its own. I understand that there are still some ideological and historical reasons for China's continued support of North Korea (not least of which should be their characterization of the Korean War as a war to repel American aggression in China)...
But on the other hand, I have to think there's a lot of upside in it for China if the Koreas were to be unified under "southern" rule. North Korea would quickly become a growth market opportunity for any investor interested in exploting what should be rapid development of North Koreans (see East German example). It should create positive economic growth right on China's doorstep, and one that China could participate in if they played their cards right. I think at some point, that calculation should outweigh the geopolitical benefits of a troublesome ally (who very notably has a negative economic impact on the region) standing between you an American influence. I hope some portions of the Chinese government are beginning to think so, as I think that's the only long-term peaceful resolution to the divide on the Korean Peninsula.
North Korea is something of a vassal state to China. Without China's support, North Korea would almost surely collapse. I believe most of North Korea's energy and food come from across the Yalu River. What, then, is North Korea to China? Well, historically it was a military and ideological ally. When the Korean War went against the North Koreans, China invaded Korea to push back UN mandated forces resulting in setbacks and a stalemate that would eventually define the DMZ as it is today. North Korea, ideologically speaking, in the old days anyway, was another Communist country. On paper, I suppose, both are still Communist, though I think neither really has much to do with practical Communism anymore. In China, Communism started its decline when Deng Xiaoping declared that "to get rich is glorious." You can't actually be rich if you're living in a Communist state. I'm less clear when North Korea transitioned from a Communist state to it's current status as a cult-of-personality dictator built entirely around an almost religious fanaticism for Kim Jong Il (Or his father, Kim Il Sung, before him).
So, what's in it for China today? That's what I keep asking myself. The modern post-Cold War geopolitical landscape sees a single superpower (the US) with maybe three in development (EU, Russia, China). China is no longer a Communist country, by ideology, and it seems to me they've adopted a statist, state capitalist, dictatorship-- something not entirely unlike the facist regimes before World War II. It remains to be seen whether state capitalism is a sustainable system, or if the Chinese government can maintain its stranglehold on liberty as their populace develops wealth... But the overriding theme in Chinese decision-making seems pointed at economic and technological development. Given that, I can't really understand why they remain committed to the continued existence of North Korea. I understand that North Korea creates a buffer between China and South Korea, a state with a sizable American military presence and a powerful military of its own. I understand that there are still some ideological and historical reasons for China's continued support of North Korea (not least of which should be their characterization of the Korean War as a war to repel American aggression in China)...
But on the other hand, I have to think there's a lot of upside in it for China if the Koreas were to be unified under "southern" rule. North Korea would quickly become a growth market opportunity for any investor interested in exploting what should be rapid development of North Koreans (see East German example). It should create positive economic growth right on China's doorstep, and one that China could participate in if they played their cards right. I think at some point, that calculation should outweigh the geopolitical benefits of a troublesome ally (who very notably has a negative economic impact on the region) standing between you an American influence. I hope some portions of the Chinese government are beginning to think so, as I think that's the only long-term peaceful resolution to the divide on the Korean Peninsula.
Belated Memorial Day Observance
I'm a day late on this, apologies. I celebrated Memorial Day by doing nothing related to our servicemen, as I suspect most other Americans did. I went camping with my brothers and their families and we had a nice time. I came home on Sunday to hear Andy Rooney giving his own opinion on how best to honor our veterans and he suggested that we should do it every day rather than on a day contrived to give us a long weekend. I almost never like what Andy Rooney has to say, but I think he's right about this. Now, having said that, I'm going to pay homage (even if belated) to the contrived day in question and offer thanks to the many sacrifices that our servicemen (and servicewomen) have made and continue to make to ensure that the American dream of liberty can continue.
Book Review: Guns, Germs, and Steel
Title: Guns, Germs,and Steel
Author: Jared Diamond
Reviewed Format: Trade Paperback
Pages: 471
Rating: 4 Stars
Review: I came into reading this book with very high expectations and finished just a little bit underwhelmed. I'd seen the impressive PBS miniseries of the same name narrated by Jared Diamond himself, so I was familiar with the premise, and had several enthusiastic recommendations from people whose opinions I trust. Perhaps the bar I set was a little too high, but either way, while I liked the book it didn't quite satisfy me. Guns, Germs, and Steel also won a Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction, for whatever that's worth.
The book is an impressive collection of information supporting Jared Diamond's theories on why it came to pass that Eurasian civilization dominated the modern world in terms of power, wealth, and technology. His theory is pretty strongly deterministic, meaning that on the very large scale environmental/geographical factors allowed people to get a leg up on their neighbors because of where they were as opposed to who they are. I, personally, think (and have thought for most of my adult life) that this makes a great deal of sense. In my own travels I've never come to the conclusion that people are physically or mentally different in any significant way. In terms of proving his point in the very broadest terms, particularly during pre-historical times, Diamond does a great job of making his point.
The book itself is laid out as a series of thought experiments where Diamond posits something and then thinks his way through them given known historical, archaeological, and linguistic factors. He begins (and often returns) to Polynesia and New Guinea as interesting test cases-- situations where racially/ethnically identical people end up in different environments and alternatively regress, stay the same, or prosper significantly. The historical details themselves are fascinating and make the book worth reading, no matter what you think of his conclusions. For all of his though experiments, save one (his theory on the development of government and complex social systems), Diamond was convincing enough to sway my thinking his way.
Stylistically, Diamond is a decent writer. I didn't have to re-read sentences or paragraphs too often, and I thought the level of granularity in his historical examples were sufficient to make his point without overburdening the reader. Diamond also had the integrity to point out the weaknesses in his theories or findings throughout the book and detailing the opposing points of view so that the reader could decide which point of view they preferred.
So that was all pretty positive, right? Why didn't I give this book five stars? I guess it's because I really didn't get anything out of it. I agreed with his point of view concerning the rise of civilizations in antiquity before I read the book, but was curious to see how he would determine why European powers rather than China came to dominate the modern world... And he mostly shied away from it. I'm not sure it's entirely fair to criticize because I'm not sure the mechanisms Diamond is describing (very broad strokes of the evolution of civilizations) can be realistically applied to specific countries over relatively short periods of time. In any case, if the topic interests you even a little, I must recommend this book. (4 stars)
Author: Jared Diamond
Reviewed Format: Trade Paperback
Pages: 471
Rating: 4 Stars
Review: I came into reading this book with very high expectations and finished just a little bit underwhelmed. I'd seen the impressive PBS miniseries of the same name narrated by Jared Diamond himself, so I was familiar with the premise, and had several enthusiastic recommendations from people whose opinions I trust. Perhaps the bar I set was a little too high, but either way, while I liked the book it didn't quite satisfy me. Guns, Germs, and Steel also won a Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction, for whatever that's worth.
The book is an impressive collection of information supporting Jared Diamond's theories on why it came to pass that Eurasian civilization dominated the modern world in terms of power, wealth, and technology. His theory is pretty strongly deterministic, meaning that on the very large scale environmental/geographical factors allowed people to get a leg up on their neighbors because of where they were as opposed to who they are. I, personally, think (and have thought for most of my adult life) that this makes a great deal of sense. In my own travels I've never come to the conclusion that people are physically or mentally different in any significant way. In terms of proving his point in the very broadest terms, particularly during pre-historical times, Diamond does a great job of making his point.
The book itself is laid out as a series of thought experiments where Diamond posits something and then thinks his way through them given known historical, archaeological, and linguistic factors. He begins (and often returns) to Polynesia and New Guinea as interesting test cases-- situations where racially/ethnically identical people end up in different environments and alternatively regress, stay the same, or prosper significantly. The historical details themselves are fascinating and make the book worth reading, no matter what you think of his conclusions. For all of his though experiments, save one (his theory on the development of government and complex social systems), Diamond was convincing enough to sway my thinking his way.
Stylistically, Diamond is a decent writer. I didn't have to re-read sentences or paragraphs too often, and I thought the level of granularity in his historical examples were sufficient to make his point without overburdening the reader. Diamond also had the integrity to point out the weaknesses in his theories or findings throughout the book and detailing the opposing points of view so that the reader could decide which point of view they preferred.
So that was all pretty positive, right? Why didn't I give this book five stars? I guess it's because I really didn't get anything out of it. I agreed with his point of view concerning the rise of civilizations in antiquity before I read the book, but was curious to see how he would determine why European powers rather than China came to dominate the modern world... And he mostly shied away from it. I'm not sure it's entirely fair to criticize because I'm not sure the mechanisms Diamond is describing (very broad strokes of the evolution of civilizations) can be realistically applied to specific countries over relatively short periods of time. In any case, if the topic interests you even a little, I must recommend this book. (4 stars)
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Getting a Little Scary on the Korean Peninsula
Nearly lost among headline's of Lee DeWyze's American Idol victory and (albeit significant and important) news on the BP oil spill in the Gulf, is what I think is the biggest development on the Korean Peninsula I can remember. Almost exactly two months ago the 1200t South Korean corvette Cheonan broke in two and sank after an explosion at her stern. 46 of her 104 man crew were killed. An investigation was performed and despite hopes to the contrary, when the wreckage was raised the presence of remnants of a North Korean torpedo have confirmed that the Cheonan was deliberately sunk by hostile action (in this case suspected to have been a torpedo delivered by a North Korean Yeono-class minisub).
This is a big deal. It's not a case of a bit of sabre-rattling gone a little too far such as the "Second Battle of Yeonpyeong." In that battle, or the others like it, both sides were pushing each other's buttons in disputed waters and shooting broke out. In this case, a DPRK minisub evidently stalked the Cheonan before the decision was made to fire on the ROK corvette. At any time in history, between any two countries, this is reasonable cause for war-- and the two countries in question in this case are already at war (still). The weirdest part is, I can't figure what the reasoning behind it was. Usually Kim Jong Il seems to be perpetrating a game of brinkmanship wherein he shakes something up or pushes some agreement to the point of strain and then lets ROK or the US or whomever buy him off. In this incident I can't see what he'd be looking to gain or why any usual gain would be worth the risk of such a bold move. It begs the question, how monolithic is North Korea? I'm not sure which is more scary, a North Korea dominated by a generally unstable and seemingly batshit-crazy Kim Jong Il, or a North Korea being fought over by several extreme factions with competing goals and resources. One angle that's been troubling my mind ever since it was reported that his health is failing, what if he's decided he should be the one to unify Korea and he feels time running out?
From what I can gather from the news, South Koreans are angry. And well they should be! Can you imagine the response from the government and the populace if some one sank a US naval vessel? That raises the question of a response. In my opinion, if this was "brinkmanship," then you've already gone over the brink. Appeasing Kim hasn't ever gotten us anywhere (though it did eventually lead to North Korea conducting two nuclear tests), and if he's resorting to overt military action to try to get whatever it is he wants then you certainly cannot countenance giving it to him.
Any military response would have to be exceuted very carefully. I'm pretty confident that any general engagement between allied ROK and US forces versus an outdated, outmoded, and probably underfed DPRK military would be very one-sided. Such an engagement needn't necessarily be "general," as you could, through any number of mechnaisms, probably sink a North Korean sub or five without it necessarily looking like it was you-- but a strategy like that could very easily and quickly escalate into a general engagement. The problem with a general engagement, beyond the fact that war is almost always an undesirable outcome, is that Seoul is too close to the border with the North, and DPRK artillery assets could be used to bombard Seoul for at least a short while before it would be neutralized by allied response-- and that could cause lots of damage and many civilian casualties.
In any case, it's not a war yet, but I feel like there are a lot of scenarios that could turn it into one. I hope it can be resolved via some reasonably peaceful approach that doesn't involve appeasement... But as long as an apparent madman like Kim Jong Il is in power, the North will be unpredictable and dangerous.
This is a big deal. It's not a case of a bit of sabre-rattling gone a little too far such as the "Second Battle of Yeonpyeong." In that battle, or the others like it, both sides were pushing each other's buttons in disputed waters and shooting broke out. In this case, a DPRK minisub evidently stalked the Cheonan before the decision was made to fire on the ROK corvette. At any time in history, between any two countries, this is reasonable cause for war-- and the two countries in question in this case are already at war (still). The weirdest part is, I can't figure what the reasoning behind it was. Usually Kim Jong Il seems to be perpetrating a game of brinkmanship wherein he shakes something up or pushes some agreement to the point of strain and then lets ROK or the US or whomever buy him off. In this incident I can't see what he'd be looking to gain or why any usual gain would be worth the risk of such a bold move. It begs the question, how monolithic is North Korea? I'm not sure which is more scary, a North Korea dominated by a generally unstable and seemingly batshit-crazy Kim Jong Il, or a North Korea being fought over by several extreme factions with competing goals and resources. One angle that's been troubling my mind ever since it was reported that his health is failing, what if he's decided he should be the one to unify Korea and he feels time running out?
From what I can gather from the news, South Koreans are angry. And well they should be! Can you imagine the response from the government and the populace if some one sank a US naval vessel? That raises the question of a response. In my opinion, if this was "brinkmanship," then you've already gone over the brink. Appeasing Kim hasn't ever gotten us anywhere (though it did eventually lead to North Korea conducting two nuclear tests), and if he's resorting to overt military action to try to get whatever it is he wants then you certainly cannot countenance giving it to him.
Any military response would have to be exceuted very carefully. I'm pretty confident that any general engagement between allied ROK and US forces versus an outdated, outmoded, and probably underfed DPRK military would be very one-sided. Such an engagement needn't necessarily be "general," as you could, through any number of mechnaisms, probably sink a North Korean sub or five without it necessarily looking like it was you-- but a strategy like that could very easily and quickly escalate into a general engagement. The problem with a general engagement, beyond the fact that war is almost always an undesirable outcome, is that Seoul is too close to the border with the North, and DPRK artillery assets could be used to bombard Seoul for at least a short while before it would be neutralized by allied response-- and that could cause lots of damage and many civilian casualties.
In any case, it's not a war yet, but I feel like there are a lot of scenarios that could turn it into one. I hope it can be resolved via some reasonably peaceful approach that doesn't involve appeasement... But as long as an apparent madman like Kim Jong Il is in power, the North will be unpredictable and dangerous.
Monday, May 24, 2010
Link to something I found interesting about the oil spill in the Gulf
I thought this was pretty cool... Gizmodo's link to a CNN video about a few proposed solutions to cleaning up the oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. That's really a disaster down there, and I'm struggling to see how we're practically going to fix it any time soon.
Triumphant Return from The Japans
I'm back, even if some of you didn't know I'd gone! I took a business trip for my huge corporate employer to Japan over the last week. I didn't have a lot of warning that I was going which is why I didn't post a "see ya's all later kinda blog" before heading out. I even made a weak effort between the very long working days and numerous drinkings of Japanese beer to update the blog with an "I'm in Japan!!!!" kinda post, but was defeated by the intermittent wireless in the hotel.
Anyway, for what it's worth, I've been to Japan several times (including a year-long stint as a college exchange students), so it's a place I'm pretty familiar with... I like it there a lot and enjoy any chance to go that I can get. This trip took me to Kobe, a small city on Shikoku, and a smaller industrial city near Nagoya (or maybe more accurately near Toyota). I had been to Kobe (maybe known to you as the site of the devastating Great Hanshin Earthquake of 1995) once before during high school for a volleyball tournament, and I think that's probably when I started my love affair with things Japanese that resulted in my aforementioned college exchange there-- interestingly enough, I don't recall discussing the earthquake much or noticing a lot of damage or anything, even though I was there around one year later. Kobe is a pretty cool city with some neat features (the Ijinkan-- barbarian houses-- left over from when Kobe was a trade port for early European traders are an example) and some cool places to hang out.
I got to travel with three other guys, who all turned out to be decent travel companions. Work travel in Japan was fairly fascinating as factories there are very different from our own. There's a ton of automation, and the Japanese are able to cram a decent process into an unbelievably tiny space. Supplier relationships are also executed in a very different way-- kind of paternalistic and definitely not arms length. I think there's some things we could learn from each other.
This blog has been brought to you by mild jetlag, which saw me awake at ~4:30 AM and has given me a bit of extra time before work.
Anyway, for what it's worth, I've been to Japan several times (including a year-long stint as a college exchange students), so it's a place I'm pretty familiar with... I like it there a lot and enjoy any chance to go that I can get. This trip took me to Kobe, a small city on Shikoku, and a smaller industrial city near Nagoya (or maybe more accurately near Toyota). I had been to Kobe (maybe known to you as the site of the devastating Great Hanshin Earthquake of 1995) once before during high school for a volleyball tournament, and I think that's probably when I started my love affair with things Japanese that resulted in my aforementioned college exchange there-- interestingly enough, I don't recall discussing the earthquake much or noticing a lot of damage or anything, even though I was there around one year later. Kobe is a pretty cool city with some neat features (the Ijinkan-- barbarian houses-- left over from when Kobe was a trade port for early European traders are an example) and some cool places to hang out.
I got to travel with three other guys, who all turned out to be decent travel companions. Work travel in Japan was fairly fascinating as factories there are very different from our own. There's a ton of automation, and the Japanese are able to cram a decent process into an unbelievably tiny space. Supplier relationships are also executed in a very different way-- kind of paternalistic and definitely not arms length. I think there's some things we could learn from each other.
This blog has been brought to you by mild jetlag, which saw me awake at ~4:30 AM and has given me a bit of extra time before work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)