Author Archives: Phil Bowermaster

No Regrets for Time Travelers

One of the themes of the Speculist that I have neglected over the past couple of years is the idea of Practical Time Travel — the notion that we are moving through time not in the reversed or accelerated way described in science fiction stories, but rather forward one day at a time through myriad possibilities to a future that is, to the extent that we can make it so, one of our own design.

Some balk at the idea of describing this as “time travel” at all, but that is exactly what it is. I would make an analogy to space travel. In one sense, we are all space travelers, completing a trip around the sun each year. And that’s just the beginning: the sun doesn’t stand still, and the galaxy itself is hurtling through deep space away from all the other galaxies. We are all astronauts — moving through local, interstellar, and even intergalactic space.

Still, it doesn’t seem remarkable, or even particularly interesting, to move through space this way, seeing as we all do it…all the time. And yet, when someone moves a much smaller distance through space — say into earth orbit or to the moon — that is remarkable. Why?

Well, it’s remarkable because the astronaut broke out of the normal pattern of space travel that we’re all engaged in (and don’t think about) and chose his or her own destination. Time travel works the same way. When we stop plodding along helplessly towards “the future” (as relentless as, and in fact parallel with, our annual journey through space around the sun) and start working on arriving at a future of our own choosing, then we become time travelers. A year from now, it will be 2009 for everybody, but the question is which 2009 you will be living in? The one that just shows up? Or the one that you chose as your own destination?

Via InstaPundit, Gil at Virtual Memories writes a very moving coming-of-age/beginning-of-the-year piece in which he quotes the philosopher Hegel:

A will which resolves on nothing is not an actual will; the characterless man can never resolve on anything. The reason for such indecision may also lie in an over-refined sensibility which knows that, in determining something, it enters the realm of finitude, imposing a limit on itself and relinquishing infinity; yet it does not wish to renounce the totality to which it intends. Such a disposition is dead, even if its aspiration is to be beautiful. “Whoever aspires to great things,” says Goethe, “must be able to limit himself.” Only by making resolutions can the human being enter actuality, however painful the process may be; for inertia would rather not emerge from that inward brooding in which it reserves a universal possibility for itself. But possibility is not yet actuality. The will which is sure of itself does not therefore lose itself in what it determines.

In choosing a destination, we also choose the destinations that we won’t be arriving at. When I decided to write this blog post, I chose not to write any of the other thousands of posts I could have been working on right now. Our task, this year and every year, is to choose a few good outcomes that we want to work towards — or rather one good destination at which we would like to arrive — and start working towards it.

Glenn also linked an interesting NY Times piece with some ponderings on the subject of regret as it relates to these kinds of choices. The following passage in particular caught my attention:

Over the past decade and a half, psychologists have studied how regrets — large and small, recent and distant — affect people’s mental well-being. They have shown, convincingly though not surprisingly, that ruminating on paths not taken is an emotionally corrosive exercise. The common wisdom about regret — that what hurts the most is not what you did but what you didn’t do — also appears to be true, at least in the long run.

So if you want to avoid regret, don’t worry about everything you missed out on. Be a time traveler. Choose a destination for yourself and start towards it. It seems that what people regret is knowing that there was a future out there they could have worked towards, but didn’t. Kind of like an astronaut who thought maybe he could have made it to the moon, but never gave it a shot.

But even worse than that would be an astronaut who could never decide if he wanted to go the moon, to Mars, or to Venus…and so never went anywhere.

Pack your bags, time travelers. All your yesterdays are behind you. All your tomorrows lie ahead. Choose a good one, and don’t stop until you get there.

Peace on Earth

Here’s a future scenario for you. Imagine this trend catching on and staying with us:

While the headlines concentrate on peace breaking out in Iraq, that’s but part of a worldwide trend for the last few years. Violence has also diminished, or disappeared completely, in places like Nepal, Chechnya. Congo, Indonesia and Burundi. This continues a trend that began when the Cold War ended, and the Soviet Union no longer subsidized terrorist and rebel groups everywhere.

Via InstaPundit.

Merry Christmas!

Let's Be Unrealistic

When the SpecuWife and I first started going out, I was something less than the very model of emotional stability and maturity that you’ve all come to know so well from reading these pages. I had this rather quaint idea that she and I could keep things casual and avoid getting into a a full-blown relationship. In fact, I wouldn’t even allow the word “relationship” into our conversations. I insisted on using a euphemism, “the R word.”

Well, in the words of John Cleese explaining that the woman should, in fact be burned as a witch because she turned him into a newt — I got better.

These days, I just couldn’t be more comfortable with the word relationship, so I now use the same euphemism to refer to a different word, a word that I think is all too frequently offered up as a pretext for being a total lame-out, buzzkill, or any other variety of foot-dragging techno-progress-a-phobe.

That word, of course, is “realistic.”

So it isn’t too surprising that when I used the R Word in a recent comment thread, reader and frequent acerbic commenter Mdarling called me on it:

Realistic? really?

How about these for some realistic guys:

- “640k ought to be enough for anybody.” – Bill Gates 1981

- “So we went to Atari and said, “Hey we’ve got this amazing thing, even built with some of your parts, what do you think about funding us? Or we’ll give it to you. We just want to do it. Pay our salary, we’ll come work for you.” And they said, “No”. So then we went to Hewlett Packard and they said, “Hey, we don’t need you; you haven’t even got through college yet.” – Steve Jobs on attempts to get Atari and HP interested in his and Steve Wozniak’s pc.

You know this area of tech blindness at least as well most, better I would think

I’m not asking for my own personal orbital vehicle nor even my flying car (though I think a flying Segway would be wicked cool and not that hard technologically). I just want enough electric storage to move 1500-2000 pounds for 80-100 miles, that can recharge overnight. The technology exists now- though I admit there is no market and Toyota was right to hide the plug in outlet on the early Priuses. (“Priusi” ?)

So the realism you are urging is on the market- not the technology. And this may be one of those Catch-22′s where no one will build it commercially because there is no market and there is no market because the thing is not commercially available.

Well, he’s got me there. When I use the word “realistic,” I’m talking strictly in terms of what the current political/social/economic infrastructure will allow, certainly not what is technologically possible. Personal orbital vehicles and flying Segways, much less the modest electric car that MD is looking for definitely could be developed in a reasonable time frame. I mean, we’ve already had electric cars, so all we’re talking about doing is tweaking the specs of something that already exists.The Apollo program showed us how fast an idea can become technological reality, and it only scratched the surface. The greater the level of motivation, the longer the list of things that we will allow might be “realistic.”

It’s kind of like When World’s Collide. I think if we had a couple years warning of Earth’s certain demise, we could have a substantial population living in space — maybe in space stations, maybe on Mars — within that time. But failing that level of motivation, changes are bound to move more slowly. So in spite of warnings from serious people who are looking at issues much more realistically than most of us would ever care to, there is still no space ark under development.

But there would be if there was general agreement that we needed one. Just as there will be flying Segways when the technology is there, and the technology will be there sometime before the world at large is good and ready for it, but long after the good-and-ready point for people like MD (and me, for that matter.) Meanwhile, we can at least take solace in the fact that we do have some early prototype drawings of this technology in old Dick Tracy comic strips. I wanted to reproduce one here, but I cannot find any online. There is a reference to the technology here, however, with some very cool images of a more — you guessed it — realistic prototype:

hoverplatform.jpg

So, what do you want to see in the next five years — fully electric cars dominating our highways? Personal flying platforms? Personal orbital spacecraft? Personal Star-Trek style replicators? Or better yet, transporters?

Here’s a thought to ponder:

Putting all social, political, and (most) economic considerations aside for a moment, what is the most outrageous, unrealistic technological development that we could see in place one year from today. Five years? Ten years?

I think several of the ones I listed above could happen in that period. What do you think?


Let’s Be Unrealistic

When the SpecuWife and I first started going out, I was something less than the very model of emotional stability and maturity that you’ve all come to know so well from reading these pages. I had this rather quaint idea that she and I could keep things casual and avoid getting into a a full-blown relationship. In fact, I wouldn’t even allow the word “relationship” into our conversations. I insisted on using a euphemism, “the R word.”

Well, in the words of John Cleese explaining that the woman should, in fact be burned as a witch because she turned him into a newt — I got better.

These days, I just couldn’t be more comfortable with the word relationship, so I now use the same euphemism to refer to a different word, a word that I think is all too frequently offered up as a pretext for being a total lame-out, buzzkill, or any other variety of foot-dragging techno-progress-a-phobe.

That word, of course, is “realistic.”

So it isn’t too surprising that when I used the R Word in a recent comment thread, reader and frequent acerbic commenter Mdarling called me on it:

Realistic? really?

How about these for some realistic guys:

- “640k ought to be enough for anybody.” – Bill Gates 1981

- “So we went to Atari and said, “Hey we’ve got this amazing thing, even built with some of your parts, what do you think about funding us? Or we’ll give it to you. We just want to do it. Pay our salary, we’ll come work for you.” And they said, “No”. So then we went to Hewlett Packard and they said, “Hey, we don’t need you; you haven’t even got through college yet.” – Steve Jobs on attempts to get Atari and HP interested in his and Steve Wozniak’s pc.

You know this area of tech blindness at least as well most, better I would think

I’m not asking for my own personal orbital vehicle nor even my flying car (though I think a flying Segway would be wicked cool and not that hard technologically). I just want enough electric storage to move 1500-2000 pounds for 80-100 miles, that can recharge overnight. The technology exists now- though I admit there is no market and Toyota was right to hide the plug in outlet on the early Priuses. (“Priusi” ?)

So the realism you are urging is on the market- not the technology. And this may be one of those Catch-22′s where no one will build it commercially because there is no market and there is no market because the thing is not commercially available.

Well, he’s got me there. When I use the word “realistic,” I’m talking strictly in terms of what the current political/social/economic infrastructure will allow, certainly not what is technologically possible. Personal orbital vehicles and flying Segways, much less the modest electric car that MD is looking for definitely could be developed in a reasonable time frame. I mean, we’ve already had electric cars, so all we’re talking about doing is tweaking the specs of something that already exists.The Apollo program showed us how fast an idea can become technological reality, and it only scratched the surface. The greater the level of motivation, the longer the list of things that we will allow might be “realistic.”

It’s kind of like When World’s Collide. I think if we had a couple years warning of Earth’s certain demise, we could have a substantial population living in space — maybe in space stations, maybe on Mars — within that time. But failing that level of motivation, changes are bound to move more slowly. So in spite of warnings from serious people who are looking at issues much more realistically than most of us would ever care to, there is still no space ark under development.

But there would be if there was general agreement that we needed one. Just as there will be flying Segways when the technology is there, and the technology will be there sometime before the world at large is good and ready for it, but long after the good-and-ready point for people like MD (and me, for that matter.) Meanwhile, we can at least take solace in the fact that we do have some early prototype drawings of this technology in old Dick Tracy comic strips. I wanted to reproduce one here, but I cannot find any online. There is a reference to the technology here, however, with some very cool images of a more — you guessed it — realistic prototype:

hoverplatform.jpg

So, what do you want to see in the next five years — fully electric cars dominating our highways? Personal flying platforms? Personal orbital spacecraft? Personal Star-Trek style replicators? Or better yet, transporters?

Here’s a thought to ponder:

Putting all social, political, and (most) economic considerations aside for a moment, what is the most outrageous, unrealistic technological development that we could see in place one year from today. Five years? Ten years?

I think several of the ones I listed above could happen in that period. What do you think?


'Tis the Season for Geek Gift-Giving

It’s not too late to get something just right for that special geeky someone on your list. J. Random American presents the definitive list over on Ideas in Progress. I especially liked this one for college-age or older geeks:

TOP CHOICE: TECHNICAL CLUB OR PROFESSIONAL SOCIETY MEMBERSHIP
Geeks are sometimes stereotyped as loners. Any technically demanding activity, however, requires a social support structure for exchanging ideas and expertise. These technical clubs and societies are also important for making friends with common interests, finding mentors to provide advice and moral support, and making connections for doing business and smoothing career advancement. Membership in at least one technical society or club in a geek’s field of interest is a huge asset if they take advantage of it for more than just the free newsletter. Encourage college aged geeks to join their professional society or hobby club by offering to pay for their membership fee. Fortunately most professional societies offer discounts for student membership. There are hobby clubs for just about every possible avocation. Here is a partial list of professional societies in engineering and science. If you really want to splurge, pay their way to a convention, swap-meet, or conference on their favorite pass-time.

If that’s a little more expensive than you were planning on, J. has gift suggestions to meet any budget or level of geekiness.

I would also recommend the following, via InstaPundit:

At last, reading material that is entertaining, thought-provoking, AND useful. How can you beat that?

‘Tis the Season for Geek Gift-Giving

It’s not too late to get something just right for that special geeky someone on your list. J. Random American presents the definitive list over on Ideas in Progress. I especially liked this one for college-age or older geeks:

TOP CHOICE: TECHNICAL CLUB OR PROFESSIONAL SOCIETY MEMBERSHIP
Geeks are sometimes stereotyped as loners. Any technically demanding activity, however, requires a social support structure for exchanging ideas and expertise. These technical clubs and societies are also important for making friends with common interests, finding mentors to provide advice and moral support, and making connections for doing business and smoothing career advancement. Membership in at least one technical society or club in a geek’s field of interest is a huge asset if they take advantage of it for more than just the free newsletter. Encourage college aged geeks to join their professional society or hobby club by offering to pay for their membership fee. Fortunately most professional societies offer discounts for student membership. There are hobby clubs for just about every possible avocation. Here is a partial list of professional societies in engineering and science. If you really want to splurge, pay their way to a convention, swap-meet, or conference on their favorite pass-time.

If that’s a little more expensive than you were planning on, J. has gift suggestions to meet any budget or level of geekiness.

I would also recommend the following, via InstaPundit:

At last, reading material that is entertaining, thought-provoking, AND useful. How can you beat that?

The Ultimate Hybrid

Some great alternative energy ideas are emerging around our two most recent posts on the subject. Stephen has us powering our homes with either miniature nuclear reactors or nano-solar panels. Reader Da55id, in the comments section of the earlier post, suggests using those some solar panels to launch a potentially workable version of the hydrogen economy:

1.) Water is delivered via current water pipes (no charge)

2.) Solar power cracks the water to yield hydrogen (appx $15k investment)

3.) The hydrogen is stored to be used by fuel cell that the govt funded to ensure that critical infrastructure can be “battery powered” for months at a time AND this same tech can backup whole houses…and now for the final piece.

4.) The electricity generated by the hydrogen runs your Tesla of Chevy Volt (saves you about $3,000 in gasoline costs per year)

I like this. It seems a reasonably workable model for hydrogen, using it to store solar energy, which has this little not-always-available issue associated with it.

Meanwhile, Will Brown is offering up a veritable smorgasboard of new battery technologies and new approaches for solar, nuclear, and hydrogen power.

Everybody wants their electric car now, it seems — and I’m right there with you, guys — but if I were a betting man, I would predict that we’ll still be using internal combustion engines for at least a couple more decades. Rarely does Phil Bowermaster want to err on the side of caution when it comes to the roll-out of new technologies, but what with this whole thing going on, and all…

President Bush on Wednesday signed an energy bill designed to cut U.S. dependence on overseas oil by imposing the biggest increase in fuel-efficiency standards in 32 years and mandating a fivefold increase in the use of home-grown biofuels.

“Today we make a major step toward reducing our dependence on oil, confronting global climate change, expanding the production of renewable fuels and giving future generations of our country a nation that is stronger, cleaner and more secure,” Bush said in a ceremony at the Department of Energy.

…I think we have to be (and again, nobody hates this word more than Yours Truly) realistic. The new law requires that cars become 40% more fuel-efficient (in 12 years) and that we make some modest progress in ethanol and other biofuels. Clearly, the US Government is not on a Speculist time schedule.

Baby steps, guys. Baby steps.

We’ll have electric cars in a few years, but we’re going to muck around with hybrids for a while until we get it right. And, yes, I think we’ll have mini-nukes or hydrogen fuel cells or nano-solar collectors powering nano-wire batteries to generate electricity for our homes and cars, but this is all going to take a while. In the mean time (building on a all of these various ideas), I would like to see us work towards a scenario where every new vehicle built is either:

1. A flex-fuel plug-in hybrid, or

2. A diesel plug-in hybrid

Today we have a lot of cars running on gas, a few plug-in hybrids running on gas and grid power, and a few vehicles out there running on biodiesel. Petroleum is still dominant. But if every new car fit into one of those two categories, we would eventually see our vehicles powered by:

Fuels
Petroleum
Methanol
Ethanol
Diesel
Biodiesel

The Grid
Fuel Oil
Coal
Hydroelectric
Nuclear
Wind

Off the Grid
Nano-Solar
Hydrogen Fuel Cells
Compact Nuclear

Most of these different approaches to fueling cars actually work together — so you can have a flex-fuel car burning any combination of gas and alcohol while getting its battery power from the home system, which is half nano-solar and half coal power from the grid. Or you could have your biodiesel car with its battery charged from a compact nuclear power source or a hydrogen fuel cell charged by nano-solar. Choices!

Sooner or later, the less environmentally friendly options (standard gas and diesel, and coal) have to start being phased out in favor of the lower-emission options. But in a world where just about anything you can think of can power your car, that shouldn’t be that hard to do.

UPDATE: Then again, maybe the future isn’t that far away. Glenn directs us to a video of a test drive of the 300MPG Aptera, which we recently blogged about.

All I Want for Christmas is a Sane Energy Policy

To use a cliche from a few decades back, I think my “consciousness has been raised” by reading Robert Zubrin’s new book, Energy Victory. It seems that everywhere I turn, I encounter someone who says something that reminds me of the book, and that makes me want to give them a copy. So I’m starting a last-minute Christmas list of people I want to share the book with.

For example, yesterday I followed a link over at Jerry Pournelle’s site to the text of a speech by Newt Gingrich entitled Sleepwalking into a Nightmare. In the speech, Gingrich lays out one of the major propositions of Zubrin’s book — a sound and sane energy policy, one that gets us off Saudi oil once and for all. But he blows it almost immediately, to wit:

And let’s be honest: What’s the primary source of money for al Qaeda? It’s you, re-circulated through Saudi Arabia. Because we have no national energy strategy, when clearly if you really cared about liberating the United States from the Middle East and if you really cared about the survival of Israel, one of your highest goals would be to move to a hydrogen economy and to eliminate petroleum as a primary source of energy.

Emphasis added. One thing Zubrin makes very clear is that the “hydrogen economy” is simply not a workable idea. Hydrogen burns clean and would be a terrific alternative to gasoline if it were available on its own. Unfortunately, on this planet it comes packed with oxygen in the form of water. In order to free up hydrogen atoms to burn as fuel, we have to expend energy to release them from their bond with the oxygen atoms. In fact, the amount of energy we have to expend is, at best, only equal to the amount of energy we’ll get burning the hydrogen. There’s no net gain.

So somehow we have to generate the energy required to free up all that hydrogen. And that needs to be a clean and non-foreign source of energy. So naturally the question becomes –once we’ve figured out what that is, why not just use it instead of hydrogen? Cut out the middle man, as it were.

The hydrogen economy is, if anything — according to Zubrin — a diversion backed by the oil companies. It allows President Bush and other politicians to take the position that they are in favor of getting us off oil while backing a proposal that is very unlikely to do so. Meanwhile, we just keep chugging the oil.

So for Christmas, I want to give Newt Gingrich a copy of Energy Victory. In fact, I’d send him two copies if I thought he could get his friend President Bush to read one of them.

But I don’t just want to give the book to my friends on the right. Oh, no. Others need to read it, too.

Last night I’m sort of half-watching Boston Legal. I don’t really follow that show much any more (believing that it jumped the shark somewhere around the halfway point of the first season), but the lawyer who lives here at Casa Speculist is still a pretty big fan, so it was on. Anyhow, John Larroquette is making this closing argument about how hard it is to know what to do about saving the environment. As a throwaway, he mentions that ethanol is an attractive approach, except for the fact that filling the tank of a Hummer one time requires using the same amount of grain that would feed a human being for a year.

I’m not sure that I’m quoting that correctly, and — even if I am — considering the source, let’s just say that there is some chance that it might be a bit exaggerated. Be that as it may, the problem with that argument is not the merits of the case, it’s the assumption that energy is a zero-sum agricultural game. Zubrin points out that much of the developing world is starving not because we’re burning all our grain in the form of ethanol, but because we refuse to import their agricultural products. If we want to help raise the developing world out of poverty, a huge step forward is to create a worldwide market for their agricultural produce — for example, the ethanol market that Zubrin argues can free us from dependence on foreign oil.

So let me offer the book Energy Victory to Boston Legal executive producer David E. Kelley. Merry Christmas! (Or happy what-have-you.) Dave, this business about helping out third-world farmers is right up your alley. And I have a sneaking suspicion that making our energy economy dependent on their efforts would do more to help them than we have been able to do so far through clever manipulation of, say, the coffee or brazil nut markets. Plus, you could write one of those heavy-handed closing arguments for Alan Shore (James Spader) to deliver, and for once Denny Crane (William Shatner) would be standing by cheering!

shatner.jpg

I also want to give a copy to whoever it was in the Blog Talk Radio chat room while we were interviewing Robert Zubrin who claimed that ethanol requires more energy to manufacture than it produces. This is another oil-company talking point. Zubrin clearly demonstrates in his book that while this is a valid argument against the ‘hydrogen economy,” it is utter nonsense when applied to ethanol. Brazil has demonstrated that you can get a net energy gain from ethanol for decades, now. (And I’ll throw in another gift copy of the book for the first oil-company stooge who leaves a comment arguing that Brazil is different because they use sugar cane rather than corn.)

Finally, I want to give a copy to Dr. John Marburger, a science adviser to President Bush who is quoted in the book as well as to a member of Marburger’s senior staff whose meeting with Zubrin is described in some detail. Zubrin meets with Marburger and outlines how one simple federal requirement — that all cars manufactured in the US and imported into the US be flex-fuel-capable — could help us to:

  • Achieve energy independence

  • Break the grip of OPEC on global energy markets

  • Help to de-fund terrorism

  • Drastically decrease carbon emissions

  • Improve economic conditions for some of the poorest of the poor worldwide

Zubrin argues that putting enough flex-fuel cars on the road can create a market for ethanol (not to mention methanol) both of which can free us from dependence on foreign oil. He explains elsewhere in the book that making a car that can run on either gasoline, ethanol, or methanol is not the huge retooling task that most people would expect it to be. You need a recalibrated fuel injection system — one that responds to whatever mix of gas and alcohol you happen to put into your tank — and fuel lines that won’t break down when exposed to alcohol. That’s it. This is well-established technology. Compared to building a hybrid or making a car that you can safely run on hydrogen, this is child’s play.

Put enough of these flex fuel cars on the road, Zubrin argues, and gas station owners will have an economic incentive to put in ethanol or methanol pumps. More people buying flex-fuel cars and greater demand for alcohol fuels eventually puts price pressure on OPEC. This economic solution would put the consumers in the driver’s seat and would create a competitive environment that would drive down the price of gasoline, ethanol, and methanol. It’s a win-win-win.

Marburger’s response?

“We don’t believe in mandates.”

His staffer, when meeting with Zubrin some time later, explained that the costs involved in making the switch to flex-fuel cars would simply be too great for us to bear. Not the cost of actually changing the vehicles — which apparently he concedes would be minimal — but the cost of certifying all these new flex-fuel cars. That would cost us a whopping $150 million dollars or, as Zubrin points out, about what the US spends on foreign oil every five hours.

You know, I’m a pretty free-market guy, and Zubrin’s solution passes my 80-20 test: 20% of the initiative (or less) needs to come from the government, while 80% (or more) should be market-driven. I haven’t seen anything else proposed that comes close to meeting that ratio. The “hydrogen economy” certainly won’t.

You would think that a government that “doesn’t believe in mandates” would leap at the chance to do something effective that requires so little government involvement. Unless, of course, “we don’t believe in mandates” really means “we don’t believe in doing anything that will annoy the oil companies,” which of course, is another way of saying, “we don’t intend to do anything about this at all.”

So come to think of it, I don’t think I’ll waste two copies of the book on Marburger or his staff member. I think there must be some other folks out there who would benefit more from reading it. Please feel free to leave suggestions in the comments area as to who I should give the book to.

And don’t forget to buy your own copy:


Voices in My Head, Mountain Lions in the Suburbs

From StrategyPage:

LRAD is basically a focused beam of sound. Originally, it was designed to emit a very loud sound. Anyone whose head was touched by this beam, heard a painfully loud sound. Anyone standing next to them heard nothing. But those hit by the beam promptly fled, or fell to the ground in pain. Permanent hearing loss is possible if the beam is kept on a person for several seconds, but given the effect the sound usually has on people (they move, quickly), it is unlikely to happen. LRAD works. It was recently used off Somalia, by a cruise ship, to repel pirates. Some U.S. Navy ships also carry it, but not just to repel attacking suicide bombers, or whatever. No, the system was sold to the navy for a much gentler application. LRAD can also broadcast speech for up to 300 meters. The navy planned to use LRAD to warn ships to get out of the way. This was needed in places like the crowded coastal waters of the northern Persian Gulf, where the navy patrols. Many small fishing and cargo boats ply these waters, and it’s often hard to get the attention of the crews. With LRAD, you just aim it at a member of the crew, and have an interpreter “speak” to the sailor. It was noted that the guy on the receiving end was sometimes terrified, even after he realized it was that large American destroyer that was talking to him. This apparently gave the army guys some ideas, for there are now rumors in Iraq of a devilish American weapon that makes people believe they are hearing voices in their heads.

This made more sense when an American advertising firm recently used an LRAD unit to support a media campaign for a new TV show. LRAD was pointed at a sidewalk in Manhattan, below the billboard featuring the new show. LRAD broadcast a female voice providing teaser lines from the show. The effect was startling, and a bit scary for many who passed through the LRAD beam. It appears that some of the troops in Iraq are using “spoken” (as opposed to “screeching”) LRAD to mess with enemy fighters. Islamic terrorists tend to be superstitious and, of course, very religious. LRAD can put the “word of God” into their heads. If God, in the form of a voice that only you can hear, tells you to surrender, or run away, what are you gonna do?

I wonder if this thing can shoot sound through walls? The implications are a little scary. As a general rule, I’m not sure that putting the “voice of God” into people’s heads is a good idea. For some reason, the Son of Sam comes to mind. Although I do fully support the effort to persuade anyone fighting US troops to put down their arms — don’t get me wrong.

Anyway, talk about an invasion of privacy. Living our lives immersed in ambient marketing messages is one thing; having voices talk right at us is another. This is about one full step away from having messages beamed straight into our heads.

However, the Navy warning system seems like a good application. I can see this technology having a number of similar applications — this might be one way to talk a potential jumper back from the ledge, for example. On the other hand, he or she might decide that a disembodied voice telling him/her what to do is the absolute last straw.

Goodbye, cruel world.

I wonder if a personal, portable version of this might eventually be available? The screech might be an effective way to ward off home invaders — human or animal. Glenn has written more than once about how suburban human populations are starting to share habitat with rebounding predator populations — often with disastrous results. We don’t have a cougar problem per se in Highlands Ranch (yet), although the occasional house pet does fall prey to the coyotes who roam the “open space” that we’re so proud of.

If the coyote population grows and people start taking more active steps to protect their pets, or if the cougar problem emerges here as it has elsewhere in Colorado, I can imagine a proliferation of shotguns here in the ‘hood. Knowing some of my neighbors as I do, that thought doesn’t make me much more comfortable than the thought of the coyotes and the cougars in the first place.

On the other hand, there is no panacea — I wouldn’t want to be permanently deafened when some neighbor kid decides to pull a “prank” with the family screech unit, either.

Still, I can see a technology such as this ultimately being very useful for personal protection — whether from bears while out backpacking or from potential muggers while making one’s way through a late-night parking lot. Sonic Pepper Spray, if you will.

grizzly.jpg

“There’s that voice again — telling me it’s time to hibernate!”