Top 10 Scientific Advancements

The other day I was considering the breadth and depth of scientific knowledge that humans have amassed. While mind numbing, an easier task (maybe) would be to consider the advances in science that have been most transformational. Things that if we did not know, would have a dramatic impact on the way you and I live our daily lives.
Over the next couple of weeks I will share my list with you. And just to be arbitrary (blogger's prerogative), I am going to limit my list to 10 things.
In the meantime however, I would be very interested to hear from you.


So the open question is this -
What advancements in science do you think have most transformed the world we live in? You can be as specific or general as you want.

The court of public opinion

There was a study conducted a short time ago. I heard it presented on NPR, and am sure it was published in some obscure science or psychology publication. I will leave that to the motivated reader to find ;-)

The study gathered relatively un-biased individuals. The group as a whole was surveyed for their “approval” of a certain candidate. The group was then presented with credible, damning information about this candidate. They were once again polled, and as expected, the approval declined precipitously. Now the interesting part. A second piece of information was presented that conclusively, and without ambiguity, showed that the first evidence was baseless and concocted. A final poll showed that the approval again improved, but did not return, not even close, to its original mark.

I am not quite sure what this says about people and their intelligence. I can say that it is obvious that emotions and feelings of mistrust come into play.
So what lesson can we take from this? Mud slinging works. And we know it works, because if it consistently failed, it would no longer be the political weapon of choice.

Which is why it is bothersome when I hear politicians neck deep in the mud. It is a very transparent effort to sway voters with falsehood. If you can’t win with the truth… well, truth is so limiting anyway. Plus, aren’t there two sides to every story? And we all love winners. Even if they had to cheat. It is the American way no?
But that is not the end of it. Some politicians not only want to cheat, but would prefer to not look bad while doing so. So they send underlings to go do the dirty work.

Someday, if we all evolve a little more, or are encouraged to use our God-given critical thinking skills, we will see these candidates for what they are. Cowardly liars.

Biden / Palin Debate Debacle

Ok, I guess I am getting in a rut on debate followup. Or maybe I am just being thorough in this critical election year. However, I did watch last nights' excuse for a debate.

Again, in salient pseudo-summary style, my takes on last night:

• I probably gave this one away with my post title. With every ensuing political debate I watch, I am convinced that debating is now a lost art. Call me delusional, but the last time I checked, a debate includes: questions, relevant answers, and rebuttals, with a dash of moderation. Last night we got questions.
  Score: Biden 5; Plain 3; moderator 4
• A good debate challenges participants to show their skill in critical thinking, accurate retrieval of facts, and yes, performance. One can score amazingly well with just the performance aspect provided for - perception is half the battle. Biden came across calm and collected. Palin nervous, shaky and over dramatic.
  On Performance - Score: Biden 6; Palin 3
• Itemized lists are not my favorite means of communication (not for a debate anyhow). Biden loves them. Small but bothersome detail - getting lost in detailing an item in a list and forgetting the count or even that one IS counting.
• Debaters often forget just how much they can sound like broken records. Yes, they are trying to engrave information in our heads, but that can only happen if we keep our attention on them long enough for the sponge action to happen. McCain/Palin just HAVE to find a better word than "maverick".
• Non-sequiturs:
  --> Palin wants to address global warming, even though she either doesn't believe people are causing it, or doesn't think that its causes are important in trying to find a solution. Huh???
  --> Palin would like us to think that her faith based belief systems would not affect her ticket's stance on such issues as gay marriage/unions. Sadly both candidates are taking half measures on this civil-rights issue.
  --> Every politician wants to be the harbinger of change. As I understand the word "change", it is a relative term. You change FROM one thing TO another. And yet every time Biden tried to tar McCain with the Bush brush, Palin would chide him for looking only backwards. Not sure what her change is all about, other than a nice sounding word.
  Score: Biden 8; Palin 4
• Spin on facts. Few things these days are true/false. Politicians know how to exploit this ambiguity to support their positions. There were several times last night where there was a disputed fact. Who voted for what and how often was brought up just a little too often, and seldom agreed on. Of course, that is a litmus test that means very little in these pork barrel days. Since few things voted on ever stand alone, one has to sully convictions by taking the bad with the good.
  Score: Tie.

Give a quick vote on the left hand side bar!

Obama / McCain Debate

For anyone who asks - my political leanings and preferences are not a secret.
So let me start by saying that I consider myself an independent, and could vote republican, democrat, or any other party if I felt the candidate would do his/her job successfully.
This year, barring any large surprises, I will vote for Obama.

So now that my political leanings and biases are well established - here is my take on last night's debate.

1. Even if McCain does not respect Obama's politics or opinions, he should respect HIM. He was disrespectful and condescending last night. Not a trait I want to see any more of in this county's executive branch.
2. Obama may be a little hurt by being overly respectful. To concede that your opponent is occasionally right (i.e. you agree with him), works well in most arenas (barring politics). He might have instead used the words "I am glad, Senator McCain, that you agree with my position on... . Same thing, but assumes ownership of the idea.
3. Did anyone notice McCain's odd mannerisms every time Obama spoke? It was painful to watch. I know McCain was trying to use Obama's air-time to silently communicate disagreement, amusement and condescension. If that was an overt strategy on his part, in my opinion it is something he should immediately discontinue.
4. Obama still panders a little too much for my liking. Example - McCain touted that he wears a POW bracelet. Mind you, I really couldn't care less. Instead of letting it pass uncommented, Obama said he too wore one. Now I *think* he was trying to say "so what if you wear one, how exactly does that qualify you to be president?". In these ridiculously political days - he could not say that without offending some veterans, or being misquoted. He should have let McCain's comment slide.
5. McCain's intent was a little to single-minded and obvious. He wants to mention that he is the candidate with experience. Barrak is too young, too inexperienced, and naive. However, the punch was missing. For me to make that point, I need to expound on HOW my opponent is displaying that naivete. He failed to do that. In fact, there were several occasions when Obama spoke about a topic; McCain followed up with his too oft spoken "You just don't understand", and then proceeded to repeat the same basic points Obama said. Sorta takes the punch out of the take home when you speak from both sides of your mouth.

For my take, I score Obama a 7 out of 10. McCain a 4 out of 10. Both need to improve to differing degrees.

How business is done

As a general rule, business exists where profit can be made. Pretty basic stuff. Nothing wrong with making a profit. Of course, to make a profit, I usually have to sell something. Usually goods or services. When the supply greatly exceeds demand, prices tend to asymptotically approach the "zero profit" line. This is not really good for business, and tends to dispose of the more inefficient companies, and discourage new entrants into this market. In the end, a fairly good
balance can take place with proper free market driving forces. Everyone benefits, both consumer and business.

But how does this translate to the oil industry?

For starters, you are not very likely today to see many new entries into this market. It takes too much money to get started, and small businesses just don't have the economies of scale necessary to be competitive. So very limited competition.

On the demand end - how much choice does the average person have to reduce gas consumption? There is a little wiggle room, but not much. So we have a fairly fixed demand on a per capita basis, at least here in the USA. (Side note - if we were talking the lobster business, and prices tripled, people would stop eating lobster. Problem solved. But since the world's industry is based largely on oil - price increases will become inflationary).

Everyone knows that oil reserve supplies are limited, yet I am not of the opinion that this is THE reason for the price hikes we have seen over the last 2-3 years. The key suppliers of crude have made sure to allocate production to "match" demand. In the oil industry, excess is difficult to maintain, as you can only store so much oil. So one might infer that this is just how this business needs to be run. But wait. Haven't global markets recently stretched supplies? Driven prices upward? Indeed. And there were few industry experts who were surprised. We have had no fewer than 5-10 years "notice". So why wasn't the industry prepared?

Because that would be bad business. A couple minor shortfalls in supply do wonders for prices. And everybody in the business celebrates. Crude oil suppliers, refiners, and oil/gas distributers. Executives get well deserved pats on that back and record shattering bonuses, stock options, retirement benefits, etc. Again, nothing new about this.

Just don't expect drilling to add much to global market supplies. And don't be so naive to think that if we drill in the USA, or off-shore, that we somehow have dibs on this supply. Unless this country abandons the free market realm and nationalizes the oil industry - oil drilled here will be sold on the world market. Of course, even this is short-sighted. What incentive do oil companies have in off-shore drilling? They have a winning combination right this moment, and they have no desire to invest many billions of dollars in additional off-shore drilling that will only serve to reduce their profit margin. There are allocated lands on-shore today they have not drilled. There may be many reasons, the largest is lack of incentive.

So why do you suppose there is such a "drill, and drill now" mantra being spoken by both sides of the aisle? Because the sheeple want to think that their government is looking out for them, and government is all too willing to strike any pose to garner their votes. End of story.

The prevailing belief is that we have an oil shortage. It is a myth. Oil production has never been higher. The world demand has just outstripped this and other nations' abilities to REFINE the oil. So drill all we want, if the refining capacity is not increased, then we have no more gas.
Will there be ANY winners in the "drill now" crowd? Minimal. Add a couple percentage points (at most) to global oil supplies starting in 10 years or so. Employ a few thousand people. Make people *feel* better, even if they pay the same price at the pump.

Who loses? The environment. Our trust that the government can address a problem with a real solution. Politician's honesty.

The longer we keep looking in the wrong places, with simple-minded solutions to complex problems, the harder the fall will be when we get caught with our pants further down than they already are. Government and big business make for a nefarious combination when allied against the people. And although we the people hold the trump card, we refuse to play it. When we do, we can only hope it won't be too late.