Olympic men's 100m sprint: Paradigm Shift

I didn't get a chance to write this when the event occurred, but Ussain Bolt went on to win 2 more gold and set 2 more world records after the 100m sprint so, in a way, it is even more obvious now. What is? Namely, that we are the beginning of a paradigm shift in men's sprinting. Until now, the paradigm had been that tall athletes did not make good sprinters. Their long legs would mean poor starts, an inability to accelerate as a shorter athlete could. Well, Bolt has demonstrated, convincingly, that a tall athlete can be a world-class sprinter. True, he has a slow start, but his powerful legs and long stride mean that in the middle of the race, he simply blows past the other sprinters. He set a world record of 9.69 in the 100m without trying his fullest. Jamaica, with Bolt running the 3rd leg, destroyed the US world record in the men's 4x100 relay with incredibly cautious handovers--meaning they should be able to beat that record in the future.

So, it should be obvious that Ussain Bolt's performance will mean a paradigm shift in the thinking of world-class sprinting. You've heard it hear...expect 100m sprinters to be getting taller from now on.

Unpunished crimes against humanity #1

In keeping with the date and my recent Rush theme, a relevant quote from the band's 1985 song Manhattan Project off the album Power Windows:

The big bang took and shook the world
Shot down the rising sun
The end was begun and it hit everyone
When the chain reaction was done

The big shots tried to hold it back
Fools tried to wish it away
The hopeful depend on a world without end
Whatever the hopeless may say

So, today's unpunished crimes against humanity could actually count as #1 and #2, one being perpetrated 63 years ago today, and the other 63 years and 3 days ago. Of course, while there is debate, they have never been officially considered as crimes against humanity--despite being responsible for the #1 and #2 largest loss of lives in any single attack in the history of the world--because, well, history is written by the winners isn't it? As you might guess, I am speaking about the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nakasaki (Aug. 6 and 9, 1945, respectively). Yes, they led directly to a swift end of WWII, but does the ends justify the means? I certainly hope not, or we're all in a lot of trouble.

A few facts from the bombings:

Hiroshima

Atomic (fission) bomb--Little boy
Core: U235
Yield: 13 kT (13 kilotons TNT equivalent)
Detonated: 600m over Shima Surgical Clinic
Estimated killed instantly: 70,000
Estimated total killed in attack: 140,000
Radius of total destruction (i.e. everything destroyed in that area): 1.6 km

Nagasaki

Atomic (fission) bomb--Fat man
Core: P239
Yield: 21 kT (21 kilotons TNT equivalent)
Detonated: 439m above city
Estimated killed instantly: 40,000-75,000
Estimated total killed in attack: 80,000
Radius of total destruction (i.e. everything destroyed in that area): 1.6 km

As if the instant destruction of 2 cities and over 200,000 lives wasn't enough, the US government was readying a third bomb for the next week, with three more planned for September [ref:National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 162. The George Washington University (1945-08-13).]

For all these reasons and more, I think it's obvious that the nuclear bombings of Japan in WWII easily deserve the title of the most heinous unpunished crimes against humanity in recorded history.

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki for much more detail, including references.

Human-made intelligences and Intelligent Design

It's interesting to think that those believing in Intelligent Design--a recent bit of Christian pseudoscience--would try and convince us that our intelligence was created, not evolved. It seems to me that, having set such a precedence, i.e. that intelligence can be created, such people would have to be strong proponents of the possibility of so-called true artificial intelligence. In other words, they surely must believe that, if we keep increasing our understanding of life and the universe, there is no reason why we could not create our own intelligent, albeit inorganic, beings. If not, then at the very least they would have to believe we will be able to uplift other creatures to intelligence. After all, God may have created the first intelligent species (perhaps, the jury is still out...) but he still had to follow the rules of the universe, rules that we can learn and use ourselves.

Sadly, I'm willing to bet that very few Intelligent Design proponents actually believe that humans will have either ability (AI or uplifts). And this is one of my big beefs with religion. It sets us at the center of the universe while telling us that we are either not allowed or too stupid to go anywhere else. Apparently, we were just supposed to sit quietly in our paleolithic caves and wait for salvation (oops, except most modern religions hadn't been invented at that time).


A response to some comments:

Thanks for the comments.

In response to the I.Q. point--this is true and has been happening throughout history. It's obvious if you think of the things that you know now as part of your general knowledge versus what, say, the average ancient Roman knew. General things about the structure of the atom, space, technology, how things work, different types of wildlife, history, geography, biology... If an unskilled biochemist today went back even 70 years, their knowledge of biochemistry (even just protein and DNA structure) would make them the pre-eminent genius in the field at that time. Almost anyone in the western world today has better medical knowledge than the best doctors of only a few hundred years ago. The 'average I.Q. remains, by definition, at 100 (and, in truth, represents only a very small amount of the population). What has to change, every 5-10 years probably (and soon more often), is what qualifies as 100 on the test.

Incidentally, and on an only minor aside, the future extrapolation of this trend is feared by some (do a search of technological singularity).

Currently, high school student's can do molecular biology experiments that required most of the duration of a Ph.D., and a lot of hard work, in the '70s--only 40 years ago. So...what will the situation be 40 years from now? The fear is that it will be trivial for almost anyone with the desire to create a genocidal pathogen.

In fact, much of technology follows a similar trend:

There a several high school students who have successfully built inefficient nuclear reactors in their basements.
Pre-pubescent kids can lock-up corporate web sites using easily available software and a network of zombie computers without even fully understanding how the software works.

It has even been postulated, due to these trends in technology and general knowledge, that an intelligent species is very fragile once it develops basic technology. Within 200 years from the harnessing of radio waves, based on human progression, a species will not just develop the means (or several means) of autogenocide, but that means will be in the hands of each and every citizen on the planet!

In the 1960s we worried about presidents with the fingers on the red button. In the 2060's we will very likely have to worry about the kid next door...or down the block...or the one who's upset with his teacher...

Feeding the world...

Can't feed the people, but we feed the machines

A prophetic line from the Canadian rock band Rush in 1985. In someways, today the situation is even worse. We are getting to the point where we can't afford to feed either the people or the machines. And when we can, we choose to feed the machines. I mean, how messed up are our priorities when, due to the rising costs of oil, we have devoted food crops to producing fuel for machines while millions starve each year. You'd be laughed at if you ever put something like this in a novel. Reality really is stranger than fiction.

X-Files Movie 2008: I don't believe it!

Ten years on, the duo shacked up, a wimpy stance on stem cell research, lots of God, and no aliens. Who's crazy idea was it to diverge so strongly from the main theme of the entire series for the new movie? [and just what is it with Hollywood's return to the big red scare lately? Everywhere you look the Russians are back as the bad guys?!]