If Capitalists Ran the Schools

Wednesday, June 2nd, 2010

Robin Hanson believes that our school system functions in part to help folks accept workplace domination — a point made in Schooling in Capitalist America decades ago — but Bryan Caplan finds this wildly implausible. If capitalists ran the schools, he says, they’d impose much stricter discipline:

The system we have looks more like it was designed by egalitarian bureaucrats trying to minimize the number of phone calls and visits they get from angry parents of kids with bad behavior.

Furthermore, if capitalists ran the school system, they wouldn’t teach poetry, art, history, music, etc. Performance in these subjects does signal desirable traits, but if the capitalists were in charge, they might as well impose a curriculum that lets students signal and build job skills at the same time.

So, what kind of school system would our corporate overlords design? I don’t think it would be particularly terrifying:

Corporations hiring young workers just out of school complain that “kids these days” can’t communicate professionally and have little sense of responsibility, so a school run for the benefit of corporate employers would probably emphasize straightforward business writing and meeting deadlines.

Instead of poetry, art, history, music, etc., I would expect them to emphasize general business skills — accounting, project management, marketing math — and engineering, along with trade-school skills — metal shop, graphic arts, etc.

The Hobbit

Wednesday, June 2nd, 2010

Guillermo Del Toro recently announced that he will not be directing the two planned Hobbit movies:

“In light of ongoing delays in the setting of a start date for filming The Hobbit, I am faced with the hardest decision of my life”, says Guillermo. “After nearly two years of living, breathing and designing a world as rich as Tolkien’s Middle Earth, I must, with great regret, take leave from helming these wonderful pictures. I remain grateful to Peter, Fran and Philippa Boyens, New Line and Warner Brothers and to all my crew in New Zealand. I’ve been privileged to work in one of the greatest countries on earth with some of the best people ever in our craft and my life will be forever changed. The blessings have been plenty, but the mounting pressures of conflicting schedules have overwhelmed the time slot originally allocated for the project. Both as a co-writer and as a director, I wlsh the production nothing but the very best of luck and I will be first in line to see the finished product. I remain an ally to it and its makers, present and future, and fully support a smooth transition to a new director”.

In more pleasant Hobbit news, someone has scanned an illustrated Russian edition of The Hobbit for the Net’s amusement. A few things stand out — Bilbo’s furry legs, the not especially inhuman goblins (orcs) and elves, and the quite inhuman Gollum:

One commenter adds some details:

According to the book The Annotated Hobbit, this Russian edition was published in 1976. The illustrator was Mikhail Belomlinskiy, who graduated from the I.E.Repin Institute for Painting, Sculpture and Architecture in 1960. He became known as a political cartoonist as well as a prolific children’s illustrator. He later moved to the USA.

(Hat tip to Yana.)

A Bazillion Windmills

Wednesday, June 2nd, 2010

If we take the present total electricity generation in the U.S. and try to figure out how many windmills it would take to replace that, we come up with something like a bazillion windmills — but that’s not how the economy would react, Nathan Lewis says, if we had to switch away from fossil fuels:

We already know the way forward regarding “renewable” energy because we have been making these experiments for decades now. This was done by the “off grid” types beginning in the 1970s. When you disconnect from the grid, what do you do? An off-gridder has some basic decisions:

  1. Install solar panels, microhydro, windmills, etc. to replace the on-grid electricity that an average U.S. household would use (about 30 kWh/day.)
  2. Use less electricity, which means less need for solar panels, microhydro, windmills, etc.

When you do the math for a single household, it is just as ridiculous as it is for the economy as a whole. To generate 30 kWh/day, you would need about 10,000 nameplate watts of PV solar, or about eighty full-size 125 watt solar panels. That is a lot, and at $800 per panel (not to mention chargers, inverters, batteries, etc. etc.) it adds up to serious coin.

So, the typical off-gridder relies overwhelmingly on the second option, which is to use less. Many families get by very happily on 3 kWh/day (1,000 nameplate watts), and 6 kWh/day (2,000 nameplate watts) would be rather cushy. The hardcore types sometimes cut their usage down to 1 kWh/day, which is really impressive but not necessary.

They do this primarily via the technique that I refer to time and time again, which is to introduce new systems, rather than taking the existing system and trying to wring small efficiencies out of it. For example, a tweaking of an existing system would be the Prius, which gets 45 mpg instead of 35 mpg for one of the better normal-engine cars. A “new system” would be to live within walking distance of work. We saw last week that there are colossal differences between transportation energy use in various cities, not because one city is populated by self-flagellating green-living maniacs, and another is not, but because the inherent design of the city.

The off-gridders, in their efforts to live within a 3 kWh/day “budget”, will first forego the most obvious low-value electricity-consumers like electric heating, air conditioning, and water heaters. High-efficiency lighting is next, possibly followed by low-energy computers. Electric clothes dryers also get the heave-ho, along with electric stoves and ovens. Chronic energy-users like refrigerators get replaced with low-energy models, which can use as little as 20% of the electricty of the standard models but are just as cold on the inside.

The result of all this is that the off-gridder accomplishes 90% of his goal by Method 2 (using less), and only 10% by Method 1 (generating energy by alternative means.)

Note that the balance is 90%:10% and not, for the most part, 97%:3%. At some point, the additional difficulties of cutting usage still further are greater than the difficulties of just adding on a few more solar panels. The 1 kWh/day guys are the hardcore experimenters. They get by with two 125-watt solar panels, instead of eight. Most people figure: hey, just stick six more panels up there so I can have ice in my iced tea. My point is, this ratio has been the result of experimentation, and not some pre-arranged planning.

The off-grid household is a microcosm of what could be done on a city-size scale. There are certain efficiencies which can be achieved by centralizing power production, especially as regards the elimination of the need for battery banks and inverters. Instead of having a solar panel on every roof, you could have a few large-scale solar generators (on top of warehouses for example). Instead of little teeny windmills you could have huge ones, and instead of micro-hydro you can use macro-hydro. But the logic of the situation works out more or less the same: the difficulty of generating power via these means is great enough (compared to coal or natural gas) that the natural strategy would be 90% Method 2 (use less) and only 10% Method 1.

So, we already know the answer (90:10) because we already did the experiment. It’s not my opinion!

At this point, it occurs to me that the “alternative energy” system of the future is already built, because nuclear, hydro, wind and solar already account for more than 10% of electricity production.

Of course, that 10 percent of our electricity production that’s “alternative” isn’t always available when and where we need it.

Fast-Roping 101

Wednesday, June 2nd, 2010

Fast-Roping 101:

(Hat tip to Joseph Fouché, who tips his own hat to Shloky.)

The Master of Krugman Exegesis

Wednesday, June 2nd, 2010

Bryan Caplan pronounces Scott Sumner the master of Krugman exegesis for these two gems:

Krugman (in 2005): And the backlash [against neoliberalism] has reached our closest neighbor. Mexico’s current president, Vicente Fox, a former Coca-Cola executive, is a firm believer in free markets. But his administration is widely considered a failure.

Sumner: So what is Krugman saying here? You might think; “Isn’t it obvious? He’s saying that Fox implemented free market reforms and they failed.” If so, you underestimate the subtlety of Mr. Krugman. He didn’t say that Fox implemented any free market reforms at all. He said he was a firm believer in free markets. And who could dispute the proposition that mere belief in free markets, if not actually implemented, does not produce economic miracles? How dare you assume he claimed Fox implemented such policies!
[...]
The fact is that Mr. Fox did not implement free market reforms. Why not? Because the Mexican legislature was firmly controlled by the opposition PRI, who had no interest in helping him. Think about it. If you wanted to say economic reforms failed, why not just come out and say it. Why refer to a leader who believed in market reforms, when it takes no more ink to say a leader who implemented market reforms.

Krugman: Latin Americans are the most disillusioned. Through much of the 1990′s, they bought into the “Washington consensus” — which we should note came from Clinton administration officials as well as from Wall Street economists and conservative think tanks — which said that privatization, deregulation and free trade would lead to economic takeoff. Instead, growth remained sluggish, inequality increased, and the region was struck by a series of economic crises.

Sumner: At first glance you might think; “Aha, Sumner, there’s your smoking gun. He does oppose the neoliberal agenda of privatization, deregulation and free trade, or at the very least thinks it failed. Just as you said. You’ve finally nailed him.” Not so fast. He didn’t say these policies were tried and failed, he said they were recommended by American officials, and he also said Latin America had not done well. But he never actually said the policies were tried and failed.

Big Blue Monster

Tuesday, June 1st, 2010

Before Sesame Street and The Muppet Show, Jim Henson made short corporate films for IBM. Here, Rowlf the Dog — famous for his appearances on the Jimmy Dean Show — joins the IBM sales team and aspires to join the 100-percenters club:

If you’re not up on early TV ads, he’s spoofing Avon, Timex, and Wrigley’s Doublemint gum. And Sperry-Rand was a competing brand.

Before Cookie Monster appeared on Sesame Street, this toothy version of the voracious big blue monster introduced a coffee break:

Kermit the Frog does the same:

These two no-name muppets perform what would become a go-to gag on The Muppet Show:

Fuel-Conversion Efficiency

Tuesday, June 1st, 2010

Fuel-conversion efficiency in the U.S. electric industry has gone down over time:

The graph is titled “U.S. electric industry fuel-conversion efficiency,” and it starts in 1880 with an efficiency of 50%. It reaches a peak of nearly 65%, circa 1910, before beginning a long decline to around 30%, at which level it has been from about 1960 to the present.

How can this be? Were the reciprocating steam engines and hand-fired boilers of the early power plants somehow more efficient than modern turbines?

Not at all. The efficiency of the conversion of fuel into electricity has improved, according to the graph, by about 6:1. What has been lost, though, is the efficiency gained through the use of left-over heat. In many early power plants, waste heat was distributed (as steam or hot water) through a network of pipes permitting it be be sold to local homeowners and businesses. This practice is still used in New York City, where it dates back to Edison’s day. But the use of “district heating,” as it is known, has become much less common in the U.S. than it was in the late 1800s and early 1900s. (These systems are still heavily used in some other countries, including Denmark, the Netherlands, and Finland.)

They laughed at me, once!

Tuesday, June 1st, 2010

This cartoon makes a wonderful point about mad scientists:

Naturally I thought it could be improved with some art from the first Max Fleischer Superman cartoon, generally referred to as The Mad Scientist:

Bystander: Why did you build a death ray?
Madman: To take over the world!
Bystander: No, I mean, what mad hypothesis are you testing? Are you just making mad observations?
Madman: Look, I’m just trying to take over the world, that’s all.
Bystander: You’re at least going to leave some of the world as a mad control group, right?

Natural Security

Tuesday, June 1st, 2010

Not long after 9/11, marine biologist Raphael Sagarin found himself working in DC, where there was clearly more security, but never varied security.

This led him to write Adapt or Die for Foreign Policy, subtitled, What Charles Darwin can teach Tom Ridge about homeland security:

The Cold War was a symmetric conflict in which the two rivals had enough weaponry to guarantee that a “hot” war would result in mutual destruction. Superpower tensions played out in what biologists call dominance displays. In evolutionary terms, the annual May Day parade of missiles in Moscow’s Red Square and former U.S. President Richard Nixon’s “madman” strategy — when he put the United States on secret nuclear alert in 1969 to rattle the Soviets — were no different than the ritualistic claw waving between competing male fiddler crabs.

Terrorist networks such as al Qaeda represent a decidedly asymmetric threat. Like a virus, al Qaeda is an infectious organism, capable of lying dormant for long periods of time. It then hijacks the critical machinery of its victims to weaken their evolutionary fitness. And just as the treatment for viruses is more complex than the remedy for blunt trauma, combating al Qaeda requires a more subtle approach than the chest puffing generally used to meet a symmetric challenge.

Sagarin recommends a number of lessons from Geerat Vermeij’s Evolution and Escalation: An Ecological History of Life — which nominally discusses snail and crab evolution:

  1. Form good relationships.
  2. Never stop adapting.
  3. Don’t put all your eggs in one basket.
  4. Be redundant.
  5. Be flexible.

(I guess lesson 4 means I shouldn’t quip that lessons 2 & 5 and 3 & 4 seem repetitive.)

Sagarin and his colleagues went on to write a book, Natural Security, and a Nature paper, on the same topic, which PhysOrg.com reviews:

“Terrorists figure out unexpected means of attack, hackers come up with new software to break through firewalls, and pathogens develop resistance to antibiotics.”
[...]
“About 1,500 soldiers had died from roadside bomb blasts between the time troops identified the threat and the time MRAPs (mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicles) were deployed to deal with the situation.”

Even after the blast-resistant vehicles arrived, they proved only moderately effective against a quickly moving threat that is constantly changing and rapidly adapting to new challenges.

“These MRAPs are huge, lumbering things that weigh 16 tons,” Sagarin said, “The insurgents, on the other hand, drive around in small pickup trucks. They quickly figured out the MRAPs were limited to certain roads and started placing roadside bombs specifically along those routes.”

Animals’ alarm calls are more sophisticated than you might realize:

Hunting prey uses a lot of energy, Sagarin explained, which is why predators seek to ambush their prey. As soon as the prey is aware of their presence and ready to engage in defense, a pursuit might no longer be worth it.

Ground squirrels, for example, use alarm signals when a predator is lurking nearby, not only to warn their peers, but also to make it known to the attacker its cover is blown.

“When a prey species makes an alarm call of any kind, the game is up,” Sagarin said. Suddenly, things have become a lot harder – if you’re a hawk, you want to swoop down on a squirrel and not get scratched in the face.”

Remarkably, ground squirrels use alarm signals that are very specific to the threat. If the predator is a mammal (which can hear), they utter alarm calls. If it is a snake (which cannot) they use tail-flagging to signal its presence.

The less specific an alarm call is, the less efficient it is in eliciting an appropriate response, the authors argue and point to the U.S. Homeland Security’s threat advisory for national and international flights, which has remained at level orange (high) since August 2006. This static, ambiguous and nonspecific system creates uncertainty or indifference among the population that it is meant to help protect.

That conclusion misses the point. Yes, the blanket orange alert creates indifference among the population, but the point of the analogy is that a blanket alert doesn’t say to the terrorists, “Don’t even try it!”

Of course, it’s not clear that we should follow the squirrels’ strategy against snakes, because we can kill any “snakes” we spot.

Symbolic Iron Yachts

Tuesday, June 1st, 2010

A great many countries fear attack by the United States, Fred Reed says — Russia, China, and Iran, for starters — but don’t have the money to build carrier groups:

All of these have thought about cheap ways to overcome the US behemoth. Four solutions soon came to hand:

  1. Very fast sea-skimming cruise missiles, such as the Brahmos and Brahmos II (Mach 5+).
  2. Supercavitating torpedoes, reaching speeds of over 200 miles an hour.
  3. Very quiet submarines, diesel-electrics in the case of poor countries.
  4. Anti-ship ballistic missiles, such as the one attributed to the Chinese.

Any military buff knows that the Navy cannot defend itself against these. It says it can. It has to say it can. In fleet exercises against submarines, the subs always win — easily. The Pentagon has been trying to invent defenses against ballistic missiles since the days of Reagan (remember Star Wars?) with miserable results. If you have close friends in the Navy, ask them over a few beers what scares the bejesus out of them. Easy: Swarms of fast, stealthy, sea-skimming cruise missiles with multi-mode terminal guidance.

Add to the brew that today’s ships are fragile, based on the assumption that they will never be hit. Go aboard a WWII battleship like the Iowa, BB-61 (I have) and you will find sixteen-inch belt armor and turrets designed to withstand an asteroid strike. Now go aboard a Tico-class Aegis boat (I have). You will find an electronic marvel with big screens in a darkened CIC and an amazing SPY-1 phased-array radar that one burst of shrapnel would take out of commission for many months.

Now note that cruise missiles have ranges in the hundreds of miles. Think: Persian Gulf. A cruise missile can be boxed and mounted on a truck, a fast launch, or a tramp steamer. The Chinese ballistic missile has a range of 1200 miles, enough to keep carriers out of aircraft range of Taiwan. I wonder whether the Chinese have thought of that?

The one thing the Navy can’t do is to admit any such weakness:

Today’s Navy will stay farther and farther out of harm’s way, which will be wise of it, and become an immensely pricey collection of symbolic iron yachts.

So what is the cavalry doing as it eyes machine guns and barbed wire? Buying a better horse. The Navy wants the Ford class (CVN 78) super-carrier, which I think might better be named the USS Thundertrinket. What will it do that the current Nimitz-class carriers don’t? Cost more (eight billion for the first copy, plus five billion R&D. A bargain.) To the uninitiated, that may seem a lot for a high-tech crossbow, but it will put lots of jobs in Norfolk, Virginia, and send money to military contractors.

(Hat tip to Mark Frazier.)