The directors of the project seem to be making every attempt to avert failure. There are big names involved: E.O. Wilson as the Honorary Chair, Harvard and the Smithsonian, to name a few. There is funding from the MacArthur and Sloan Foundations. And with the announcement of the site comes a You Tube video (below), replete with snappy graphics and glimpses of the smoothly navigable menus characteristic of Web 2.0.
But amidst the fanfare lurk glaring pitfalls. Although some information may be accessible as early as 2008, the site is not expected to be complete for 10 years. The differences between the Encyclopedia of Life and Wikipedia (or “The Encyclopedia of Everything,” as many envision it) are unclear. And, irkingly, the emphasis will initially be on animals, plants and fungi, excluding microorganisms until a later date, and contradicting the “comprehensive guide to living things” idea.
Altogether, however, the encyclopedia is a noble idea that appears well-executed. As long as the scientists, the scientific communicators, the digital archivists, and the general public can cooperate, it just might be what we need to catalog our dying biosphere before it’s (gulp) just a sphere.
Video: You Tube + Web 2.0 + Polar Bears = The Encyclopedia of Life’s recipe for media success.
Ocean discovered deep within Earth. Or haven’t you heard? And yet, if the ocean was found on Mars, Bush would have detailed half the State Department there to set up a marina and golf course.
MIT student invents wall-crawling device. Next, a Harvard student will invent and put to use a wall lubricant, causing the MIT student to become injured falling from Boston’s highest building. Next, the Harvard student will follow the limping MIT student to his superhero hideout, only to cleverly capture him in an elaborate scheme that will result in his slow, yet imminent demise. Zoinks, audience, will our hero be rescued? The riveting tale will continue after these messages…
Or does it mean “get the hell out of the way when a UFO is firing lasers at you, or those soulless aliens will zap the living flesh from your body and you will be reduced to a pile of rubble with only your skull intact”?
And, although it’s not really science, I find myself unable to avoid commenting on Astronaut Lisa Nowak’s apparent decline into jealous stalking and lovesick insanity. I attended a panel discussion featuring Lisa Nowak and the rest of the STS-121 crew prior to my September ‘06 post, Astronauts Are Cool, and I stand by that assessment. She was cool. And funny, intelligent and collected. It was these qualities (and a nice supply of diapers) that drove her from Texas to Florida to hunt down the woman who did her wrong. Yes, Lisa Nowak was misguided and led solely by her emotions, but this is a woman who was willing to risk her life by travelling into space in the spirit of exploration. And she was equipped with only nonlethal weapons: a pellet gun, pepper spray, and a really terrible outfit. So really, she meant no harm. She just wanted to kick that love-stealing woman’s butt, astronaut style. And if a male astronaut had acted the same way, it likely wouldn’t have even made the local news.
Can you believe that, before this week, 13% of the US population hadn’t heard the phrase “global warming”? Things might be changing since those two important words have gotten a lot of coverage this week. A few days ago, we heard about the congressional hearing which gave us more details about the Bush administration’s censoring of government scientific research on climate change. (I’ll add that the phrase “climate change” has been critical to the administration’s whitewashing of the global warming crisis.) Today, we all wake up to learn that humans are “very likely” responsible for global warming. This is front page news. Wow. I’d be surprised if we hadn’t known this for years. But it’s really great that people might start to realize that, if we don’t act fast to reverse the damage we’ve done, we’ll be sacrificing the habitability of our planet - something which we should all agree is hugely important. So, thank you to everyone who worked so hard to bring attention to this critical problem. Let’s just hope it doesn’t get completely overshadowed the next time a celebrity baby is born or the release date is announced for next Harry Potter book (oh wait, that one already happened).
The first ever video of a giant squid was released in December. Unfortunately, the squid was killed while being hauled aboard the Japanese research vessel that captured it. Researchers have been unable to find live giant squid until recently and have relied on partially decomposed specimens that have washed ashore or have been found in the stomachs of whales and sharks. The squid in the video is only 24 feet long, which is small compared to the length of the longest giant squid on record (60 feet!). While it’s sad that the squid in the video died, new estimates show that the species is probably not in danger. They’re a primary food source for sperm whales, and based on estimates of the sperm whale population, there are probably at least 200,000 giant squids. If giant squid are so big, why can’t we find them? One theory is that they’re camera shy. My theory is that they’re too too big-headed to want to slum on home videos… Or is that big-mantled?
On a sadder note, the Baiji river dolphin was declared functionally extinct in December. I became a fan of the Baiji via Douglas Adams‘ 1990 naturalist masterpiece Last Chance to See, where Adams and zoologist Mark Carwardine document their journey to visit highly endangered species around the world. Douglas Adams visited the polluted Yangtze River, the home of the Baiji, and discussed the species which was threatened not only by pollution, but due to hunting, fishing, collisions with boats, habitat loss, and severe depression. (Okay, I’m just guessing about that last one.) In Last Chance to See, Douglas Adams wrote, “The great thing about being the only species that makes a distinction between right and wrong, is that we can make up the rules for ourselves as we go along.” So, RIP, Baiji friends - someday we’ll either make better choices, or join you on the extinct list.
And, from things that have ended to things that might never existed, I wonder, what do you know about the Loch Ness monster? You might know that Nessie is rumored to be a plesiosaur. In December, a well-preserved fossil of a juvenile plesiosaur was uncovered in Antarctica. While a believable theory is that a massive volcanic eruption may have enabled the exceptional preservation of the skeleton, nine out of ten conspiracy theorists agree that it must be a hoax. Could a young Loch Ness plesiosaur have died and been buried to cover up the existence of a herd of Nessies in Scotland? Could this all have to do with a plot to allow dinosaurs to once more inherit the earth after the impending nuclear holocaust? Probably not, but it would make a pretty awesome B-movie. (Directors, please contact me for more exciting plot details!)
And a personal note: I apologize that December wasn’t a very active month for this blog. The holidays have been awesome, and now I’m looking forward to some great new stuff here at Attack of the Monkey in 2007! I hope you can come back for lots more scienterrific posts!
Although the jury is still out on whether there is, or ever was, water on Mars, the best evidence yet to support the case was released today. New images show that water could have flowed on the planet within the last seven years. While not quite canals,changes in two “gullies” suggest liquid water may have flowed on Mars’ surface recently and may still squirt out periodically. When comparing images of the planet’s surface collected since 2000, new, lightly colored areas were found which could be sediment deposited by recent water flow. And any indication of liquid water gets everyone excited about the potentiality of life on Mars. But, hey, I’m thinking two steps ahead. Dead life on Mars could mean fossil fuels. So, why not start our interplanetary empire with some good old fashioned, industrial-style air pollution?
Closer to home, you have likely heard of NASA’s new plan to colonize the moon by 2024. The plan is not only to have permanent presence on the moon, but to eventually use it as a spaceport for travellers on their way to more distant locations. The spaceport would not only be a rockin’ slumber party, but hydrogen and oxygen mined from the lunar surface could also be used to make the water and rocket fuel required for long-distance spaceflight… And maybe we’ll find gold there too, so the astronauts can travel in style while they’re on the way to mine for oil on Mars.
Even closer to home, Thursday’s planned nighttime launch of the space shuttle Discovery will likely be delayed due to cloudy conditions. The mission is planned to be an 12-day round trip to the International Space Station. If the shuttle does launch on Thursday night, and you’re on the East Coast of USA from Florida to New York, you may be able to see the launch in the night sky. It should appear as a pulsating, orange shooting star several minutes after liftoff. If you miss the launch (or if it’s delayed), the same effect can likely be achieved by sitting on the side of the road and waiting for someone to throw a cigarette at you (which, I might add, is littering).
And, on a much underappreciated planet Earth, new satellite data shows that global warming is likely causing a decrease in marine life. The overall warming of the planet results in warmer oceans, which have now been linked to a decrease in phytoplankton, tiny marine plants which are at the root of the marine food web. Who’s surprised that this story that got the least press this week? Doom and gloom just doesn’t seem to be popular these days. The gloomiest part is that this finding could result in a viscous cycle, where increased carbon dioxide levels cause global warming, which causes a decrease in phytoplankton, which take up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by photosynthesis, resulting in enhanced carbon dioxide levels, further driving global warming. No worries, though. We’re all going to Mars in our gold-coated rocket ships powered by lunar jet-fuel to mine for water and oil. If there’s intelligent life anywhere in this solar system, I’m betting on Mars.
While I have no problem with eating fish for health reasons, I still have doubts about the long term health effects of toxics which can accumulate in fish tissues. My main concern, however, is that increased seafood consumption could result in increased seafood harvest, impacting our delicate and threatened marine ecosystems in yet unknown ways. There are many initiatives underway to educate consumers on environmentally sound seafood choices. What we really need is a comprehensive assessment of which seafoods are safest for human consumption while also having minimal environmental impacts (efforts are underway, such as this one, which lists the Dungeness crab as the safest seafood). Until we know what is best for our health and the environment, I’m sticking to tofu. At least soybeans can’t blink at you. Well, not yet. Monsanto may be working on it.
Good news for those for and against building offshore wind farms in scenic locations: An MIT engineer has come up with a solution to putting those pesky wind turbines in places where they’ll alter views from the coast. He proposes building floating wind turbines which could be placed a hundred miles out to sea, too far to be visible from land. Current turbine designs must be anchored to the ground, requiring them to be placed in shallower waters where they interrupt the smooth ocean horizon. The new turbines would be built on buoyant platforms tethered to the ocean floor, so they could be placed in deeper water where there is plenty of wind and space, and not much in the way of million dollar real-estate. So, rich people in New England, give this man money. Once again, an argument against renewable energy has been removed. Why not make it happen?
What’s the difference between nanotechnology and “green” nanotechnology? Bethany Manyard, precocious youth and nanotech advocate, will tell you. It seems the difference is that nanotech can do all kinds of cool things, but it could be harmful to human health and the environment. Green nanotech, however, can do all kinds of cool things for the environment, but it could still be harmful to human health and the, um, environment… Sounds great, huh? Bethany Manyard also tries really hard to stain a nanotech-guarded stain-proof tie, to no avail.
A biodegradable napkin has been developed which can use nanofibers to detect and identify biohazards. Biomarkers which change colors when exposed to specific biohazards can be embedded in the nanofibers in the napkins, which are, as I said, biodegradable. Does this count as green nanotech? So, it could be, well, hazardous to human health and the environment. So, why even bother throwing in the word “biodegradable,” when disposing of these napkins is (hopefully) illegal?
The world’s smallest test tubes, nanotubes, are about three atoms across. Or maybe it would be better to say that they are approximately a billion times smaller than a shot glass. Ordering a nano-round is a good move when going out for drinks on the cheap. So is slipping out the back door of the bar…
While not quite considered “nanotech,” scientists have developed self-healing coatings for surfaces out of nucleotides (the “N” in the world-famous molecule, DNA). This is a wonderful development for the anti-biotech and the anti-nanotech movements, that can now unite to protect us from nanofibers embedded in plastics made from genetically-engineered corn that is coated with self-healing DNA-based polymer.
And a non-nano sized technology, the iPod Nano, is now available in black, silver, green, blue and pink with up to 8GB memory. So if you’re in the market for a new iPod (or feel like buying me one), they’re pretty sweet.
Bad news: Earth is farting 40,000 year old gases. And it’s caused by global warming. And it’s accelerating global warming. It’s caused by global warming because the gases have been sequestered in the permafrost in Northern Siberia, which are melting due to the warming climate. It’s accelerating global warming because it’s methane, which is twenty times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. So, global warming leads to the release of methane, which leads to global warming. It’s a viscous cycle.
More bad news: We’re approaching a “tipping point” in climate change. In case the term “tipping point” is not descriptive enough, I’ll give you an analogy. Imagine that earth has been teetering over a kettle of boiling water. Suddenly, one little finger of one tiny hand gives it the teeniest of nudges and … ouch! We fall in. While that is possibly a bit of an exaggeration, research suggests that greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere are approaching a level at which the rate will begin to increase drastically and, most likely, uncontrollably.
Terrifying, right? Global warming is our biggest terror threat. If we can have a War on Terror, can’t we at least fight to save our planet?
We’ll miss you, Steve Irwin. Your enthusiasm about the environment was inspirational to the world. Although I am generally not supportive of selling environmentalism through charismatic megafauna, I recognize that it can work. And you were pretty much the best at it. So, rest in peace, and I hope that one of your colleagues is able to avenge your death by hunting down that sting ray, Steve Zissou style.
