April 23rd, 2011 § § permalink
Hey, you know what American universities need? That’s right—another dubious ranking system to game in their favor:
This week the Princeton Review, the test prep firm and creator of popular college guides, and the U.S. Green Building Council, a nonprofit organization in Washington, released their second annual listing of the 311 greenest colleges in the country.
Ok, so not quite new. I just didn’t hear about it last year.
The statistics and summaries have plenty of interesting tidbits. Who knew that 94 percent of the electricity used by Bates College, in Lewiston, Me., came from renewable sources? Or that 35 percent of the food served at Harvard is produced locally?
Uh oh. The words “offsetting behavior” creep into mind.
Schools included in the guide scored high on Princeton Review’s “green rating” system, which weighs a variety of criteria, including transportation and construction policies, energy consumption, recycling and waste diversion, environmental studies offerings, greenhouse gas reporting and climate change initiatives.
Sounds about as objective as the coaches’ poll and sophisticated as the RPI. What would Ken Pomeroy say?
Yet one useful figure is missing — the green rating for each school. As a result, figuring out exactly where various schools fall along the guide’s sustainability spectrum is impossible.
Frightening lack of transparency! Well, I’d have to think Tulane is #1. The Green Wave? You can’t compete with that.
April 22nd, 2011 § § permalink
I enjoy this one, if for no other reason than it reminds me of those great Conan O’Brien bits:
The Postal Service is doing its part to “Go Green” by providing you with eco-friendly mailing materials and stamps. […] As part of our Go Green commitment, we’ve designed a series of 16 Forever stamps showing what each of us can do to promote the health of our environment.
A better way to “Go Green” might be a national junk mail refusal list, a la the no-call list, but no—I’m sure the billing supervisor at my condo association is totally gonna go plant a tree when he sees that stamp.
April 22nd, 2011 § § permalink
This news (term used loosely)…
As recession gripped the country, the consumer’s love affair with green products, from recycled toilet paper to organic foods to hybrid cars, faded like a bad infatuation.
…is good news if the actual habitability of our planet concerns you, insofar that any reduction in sales of consumer goods—whether “green”, “premium”, “select’, or equally hollow tag graces the package—is good news. Better news would be that it indicates a broader rejection of overserved, thrice-sterilized existence, but that would be like asking for world peace.
April 15th, 2011 § § permalink
In the comments to my post on reaching in toilets, Nate said:
It falls back on the human tendency toward dualism, to assign everything with “essences.” A toilet, in our minds, is ESSENTIALLY unclean. And it’s this same “malfunction” of the brain that allows us to see people as more than meat machines. […] You rely too much on logic, not enough on instinct. Your genes will not be selected for. You’re an evolutionary failure.
Add to that: I looooooove bitter foods. Yeesh… Evolutionary failure indeed. It’s a wonder I haven’t tripped into a volcano by now.
On a somewhat related thought: It seems like people who claim sensitivity to things like radiation and aspartame are usually ridiculed as hypochondriacs and wackos. Shouldn’t we give them a little more respect? Just because most of us haven’t developed acute reactions to “man-made” carcinogens, we don’t need to resent those that have. After all—it’s their genes that might save our species!
April 14th, 2011 § § permalink
It’s almost Earth Day!
Round up the family, Earthlings, and come to the National Mall this weekend to celebrate one of the all-time greatest planets with
EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson, Marcus McNeill of the San Diego Chargers, Madeiu Williams of the Minnesota Vikings, and Olympic Track Star Michael Walton
…and while you’re there, be sure not to miss
the eyebrow raising database that shows how close your house is to a Superfund site!
FEATURING: a special performance by “Earth’s Natural Force kid rappers”!
And be sure to compete with your friends in the “lung capacity challenge” which—whoa!—“plots a graph” of your score! (But please, kids—no wagering ;).)
Plus: dozens of other games* and prizes, like Chinese finger traps made from recycled CAA violation notices (only 10,000 tickets) and a chance to win a romantic boat cruise down Love Canal!
Don’t be an Earth Day Scrooge! Come celebrate your favorite planet with the government agency that started it all! You won’t want to miss it!!!!!
*Tony Hayward dunk tank cancelled due to liability concerns
April 14th, 2011 § § permalink
Correct me if I’m mistaken, marketing people and graphic designers, but the trend of minimalist, all-lowercase fonts on products and logos is, in my casual observation, still going strong. Running on, oh, ten years at least, it shows no sign of ending.
My question: Where is the backlash, and how long will it take to get here?
I understand why the trend of stupid, minimalist, all-lowercase fonts came to be. The biggest factor, of course, was the internet boom. Our name is lowercase in the URL; why not the logo too? Word-of-mouth spreads by “web chat” these days. Capitalization and grammar? So passé! They would only make us look stuffy and self-conscious.
But nobody types URLs anymore. Most of us have long reconciled the tension between informal txt-speak and hardcover syntax, and we’ve learned to accept both the lolkittens and Punctilious Peters who choose to live at the extremes. So isn’t it time for branding to readjust too?
If stupid, phony, fake-minimalist, all-lowercase (SPFMAL) fonts were only an aesthetic nuisance, I would consider it too trivial for virtual ink. But it’s in the fake minimalism that this stale trend has real consequence.
Consider how often you see greenwashed products with SPFMAL fonts. It’s rare that you see one that doesn’t, despite the fact they nearly always clash with the product’s primary logo. Here are a few examples from the first page of Google Image search results:
pure and natural
I could also mention the BP logo, but honestly, don’t we already pile up on them enough?
What irritates me about this sort of branding is not just that it creates the fraudulent perception of a minimalist existence but that it creates the fraudulent perception of the possibility of a minimalist existence. Or at least, a minimalist existence that any of us or our familiar institutions could possibly fit into.
Either way, SPFMAL fonts are emblematic of the broader minimalistic lie—this idea that we can be gentle, breezy, light-as-a-feather. Ethereal. We cannot. We have things to say, places to go, cravings to tackle, babies to make. We’re loud, messy, wasteful, heavy, sweaty, angry, verbose, and self-aware. That is humanity.
So please, quit lying to yourself. You are not a butterfly. You’re a human being. Cool it with the minimalist, lowercase fonts already. k?
[Footnote: While I was writing this, “Helplessness Blues” by the Fleet Foxes came on the radio. How ridiculously appropriate. If you’ve ever heard
this song this band, you know what I mean.]
April 5th, 2011 § § permalink
When I learn about scientific concepts that I can’t intuitively grasp, I often become obsessed. I marvel at them; I fear them. Until I can hold something in my fingers or see it in a proof, it’s pure black magic. Right now, for obvious reasons, I’m obsessed with nuclear energy and radiation. I’m desperately trying to understand it, to make it tangible.
No luck so far, but I do have some links.
For the techno-utopian in you, here are two recent ones that made me optimistic:
From Fast Company, Will green nukes save the world?
From George Manbiot, Going Critical
As someone who would rather not see an energy apocalypse in my lifetime, I wish I’d stopped there. But of all the nuclear-related material I’ve read in the last few weeks, nothing has captivated my imagination and that obsessive curiosity like the series of posts on Three Mile Island written by Aaron Datesman at A Tiny Revolution. (The two most recent posts are here and here, and you can track the background on Three Mile Island starting at this post and working backwards.)
Because ATR is not what you’d call a science blog, I wanted to brush it off as conspiracy-laden paranoia from a tinfoil hat alarmist, but the arguments are too compelling. What tickles my intuitive sensibilities most are his appeals to the sheer number of uncertainties involved—wind currents, morbidity rates, the mechanisms by which cancer affects the human body—factors with huge individual unknowns, empirically difficult to measure, all stacked together in an attempt to form a single coherent picture.
Such groupings are rarely coherent and often pure chicanery. On its face, the idea that radiation diffuses in a moving atmosphere of multiple strata and pockets of moisture similar to the way light diffuses in an empty room seems preposterous, as does the idea that radiation dosage accumulates in the human body the way water fills a bucket.
But really, what do I know about nuclear power? Absolutely nothing. If you care, read up, and draw your own conclusions. Like I said, I have no clarity to offer, and it seems a very rare few actually do.
February 4th, 2011 § § permalink
Look—I’m as big a sucker for doomsdayism as you’ll ever meet, but even I can raise an eyebrow when I read a sentence like…
We are in fact witnessing a severe collapse of creativity and innovation in spite of the newest apps on your phone.
Hmm. Ok. And the evidence?
The first mechanical computers go back to the 1600s and savants such as Blaise Pascal and Gottfried von Leibnitz. Indeed, the cryptology and mathematics involved are older yet, since the binary number system used for computers originates with the ancient Indian mathematician Pingala. The 1800s saw the rise of punch-card computers and the first modern electrical computers were designed by Alan Turing in 1936 and built during the Second World War. This is old stuff.
“[Current band] is totally unoriginal and derivative. They’re just rehashing [classic ’60s album] with melodies pulled straight from [style of ethnic folk music], repackaged with an [’80s genre] aesthetic. There’s nothing unique at all about it.”
The Internet is from the 1960s, the cellphone is from 1973, the first satellite was put into orbit in 1957, the details of which were put forth by Clarke in a Wireless World article in 1945, but Konstantin Tsiolkovsky had already calculated the necessary orbital speeds in 1903. The first heart transplant was in 1967 and the first kidney transplant in 1953. The list of technology goes on and on: television, radio, nuclear reactors, cars, refrigeration, rail, internal combustion, reinforced concrete, aeroplanes, industrialized agriculture, robots, windmills, solar panels, in vitro fertilization, and so on. These were all invented in the 19th and 20th centuries. In fact, one would be hard pressed to suggest a single innovation from the last 30 years that has changed, improved or eased everyday life for ordinary people in a radical way, such as those mentioned here.
Isn’t that sort of… self-refuting? Like, the very nature of innovation—as these conveniently-cited historical examples show—is that it takes time—say, 30 years, give or take—for truly groundbreaking technologies to take hold in any sort of practical, scalable, marketable, useful-to-your-grandma form. But that doesn’t mean progress is dead. Unless…
innovation peaked in 1873 and that within a few years, the rate of contemporary innovation will drop to levels not seen since the Middle Ages.
Have you ever heard the saying, “Sometimes precision is the enemy of credibility”? I don’t know if anyone’s actually ever said that, but this would be a great example. I shouldn’t mock the research or the conclusion; I’m sure it’s far more thorough, thoughtful, substantive, useful, valuable, etc. than anything I’ll ever produce in my lifetime, but… but…
“We are at an estimated 85% of the economic limit of technology, and it is projected that we will reach 90% in 2018 and 95% in 2038.”
How do I take that seriously?
Don’t get me wrong. I wanna believe the human race is spiraling toward catastrophe as badly as the next guy, but you have to give me something solid to work with!
February 1st, 2011 § § permalink
Can’t we make it through one extreme weather event without some yahoo spinning it into a lecture on peak oil or climate change? I mean, enough already… Yeesh!
January 19th, 2011 § § permalink
My spiritual leader is amused by people who are shocked to find that the U.S. and China have much in common. I share his amusement; however, I wonder how much of this surprise is genuine and how much is faithful lip service to the dichotomy between the Land of the Free and the Oppressive Red Chinese State.
Of course, no matter the “system,” stripping away the labels and org charts leaves only the dynamics of power and submission, and the control is only as strong as the controlled are weak, just as has been the case with every assemblage of human beings and non-human beings in history. Once we learn to ignore the headlines, how free or restricted we are is far more local and perceptually-dependent than is often acknowledged.
If you’re confused to what I’m trying to say, so am I. Here’s a two-part illustration that I hope you find enlightening:
Part 1 (20 minutes)
Part 2 (39 minutes)