Bloc en català

dijous, 22 maig de 2014

Are we alone in universe?

Every people in every time made this question when they see the majesty of night sky. The answer is No. Our Galaxy (Milky Way) has stars and is sure that exist more planets as our where there are life. Other thing is if these planets have intelligent life, if these intelligent lives have a technological civilization, and technological civilizations have technologies compatible with ours. 

We aren’t alone that is sure, but has our neighbors anytime visited us? More people believe that is true and this is happening now. They think to have conclusive proves of this fact, but science community say these aren’t valid and today officially there aren’t evidence of extraterrestrial are coming now or they were coming before.

We would like that a more intelligent people than us, come to earth to solve our problems. ET is the new god who is different than traditional in it lives in the same dimension to us. Today society is finding new referents and new transcendence which could grab. ET never will be a god, they only would be other travelers with the same questions that we had make from the beginning of time: Who we are? and Where we go?

But extraterrestrial visit is extremely improbable, because advanced technology doesn’t mean to be able make miracles. Distances between stars are unimaginable with our minds; Alpha-centauri is from 4.5 light years (45,000,000,000,000,000 Km; 27,000,000,000,000 miles) and there aren’t planets in Alpha-centauri. The first star found where could be life is 500 ly and it will be more luckily that it has technological life. We can think: distances is making short with increase velocity; unfortunately physics says that exist a limit of velocity that is light and one thing worse energy to increase velocity rises exponential with tendency to infinite in light speed. Fortunately Relativity gives us the possibility to circumvent the time, because in high speed time slows down. Travel to center galaxy is possible yes, even in a generation but when travelers will return Earth will not find anybody of their friends; in fact they will not find humans surely because time passed in Earth will be  millions years and human will extinct. To us and ET this travel is with never returning and their discoveries never will give to the society that paid it.

The more powerful argue to discard the visit is the silence of our visitors. We never fish any communication extraterrestrial. SETI is a project to capture messages that become of starts, from seventies years until today only few signals have been candidates to be extraterrestrial communications but less concluding and without repeat. SETI isn’t thinking to capture local communications but it doesn’t matter locally we have more and more antennas which are listen all electromagnetic spectrum. Unbelievably ET doesn’t call to home

Why can’t we hear any communication of extraterrestrial intelligences? The easy answer is that it doesn’t exist. If we take the natural history of Earth, we can see that life Intelligent species is around 200.000 years while life is in planet more than 3,500 to 3,800 million years; even if we take only the last 750 million years when the main multicellular domains are consolidates, and animals are comparable as current, we can see that is a 0.000026% of time. The possibility of coincidence with other smart specie in cosmos is very little. We are born now but in other planet intelligence it was born and death time before, with the great quantities of time that universe play one million year is nothing. 

Energy can play in this equation also. Radiation only to propagate is attenuating as square of distance. It means that signal of relative near stars we couldn’t listen. Our radiotelescopes hear explosion of supernova (a star several times bigger than Sun that explodes) in center of our galaxy as a whisper. Our signal has traveled only about 100 light years distance, more near to us for to be listened by other planet habitable) but its current intensity isn’t detectable by standard engines. If we must send messages to stars, as it was sending in seventies, we need more energy and use resonant canals (for example 21 cm) and never expect to arrive more than 10.000 ly (Milky Way have diameter 120.000.000 ly). 

But what does it mean simultaneity when distances are greatest? Relativity proved that time and space are relative to observer, and simultaneity is only a local phenomenon. In other hand light needs time to arrive us; distances are enormous even in solar system, light of Sun needs eight minutes to arrive Earth and light of Uranus eleven hours; Alpha-centaruri needs 4.5 years. When we see Alpha-centauri we see really Alpha-centauri to 4.5 years ago; Betelgeuse is a star that is at time to become a Supernova, is at only 650 yl; Betelgeuse could be explode yet but us and our son never will know because explosion will arrive us in 650 years.

We aren’t alone in universe that is sure but it doesn’t want to means that we can contact with them. But I want to be optimistic and I prefer to think that one day our specie will travel to stars, and our technology and knowledge can save obstacles today unsafely. Yes to contact with other species of other planets and sure other kind of biology will be the greatest achievements never do it for mankind. However we must forget to find ours saviors, because while we wait some messiahs which will arrive to stars, it means that we aren’t ready to know other intelligent specie. 

divendres, 9 maig de 2014

Is there room for hope?

People talk a lot, but they made less. Time is passing and world is turning without stopping and waiting what we decides to do. Weather is every day more extremely, nature is deteriorating faster and number of persons in the world is growing rapidly. But nobody do something to arrange the trouble (read Trying to understand Warsaw).

But could we do something really? This is a very difficult question to answer. First we have facts in front us but what is happening really isn’t so clear; because in one way there are a lot of analyses which are showing many kinds of scenarios and in other way facts are seeing as own prejudices says they would be. Second there are more interest playing in climate fight: we have whole industry of fossil which doesn’t want to lose this lucrative business, but other industries which have invested millions in facilities that needs oil or coal (power companies i.e.), and we must not forget the main industry of this world: financial economy which is buying oil and coal that will be extracted from five or ten years; this interest doesn’t want changes on the status of energy because this changes can make huge losses (read $1tn oil projects 'will not see return' if governments act on climate – The Guardian) in fossil business. And the third is if we know what we can do; because we know that climate will change (even if CO2 will remain equal) but we aren’t sure what is its direction, and even know the direction what is the more effective action and which are the action that never do.

Obviously the inaction is the worst thing that we can do. But when we will reduce the consumption of fossil fuel, we put the global economy in Danger (Carbon Bubble); if we want to replace the energy production systems then renewables can’t assume the great current demand of energy which would call into a problem the current lifestyle. But the worst thing is to fail in the action because we can destroy our world for nothing.

Climate change will happen and no matter what we will do. The question is how hard it will be? and here we have the opportunity for opportunity to intervene. Really CO2 quantities in air are in part due to us and in part due to nature, but if we will continue emitting CO2 we help to move the balance, hence our action is forcing the climatic system. What consequences will have this forcing? We don’t know, but the ignorance is precisely what requires us to take precautions. Incomprehensibly prefers to maintain the practice of risk rather than minimum of prudence. 

In other side CO2 isn’t the only agent that influences in climate; Pollution, the decrease in wild land or the same loss of biodiversity force the climatic system. Today we are destroying the mainly natural ecosystem and every ecosystem has associated one climate; when a land lost its ecosystem, its climate changes also. The current megacities has their own climate which invades the near zones damaging the ecosystems of these areas, which in turn changes ecosystem helps radiate the atmosphere of the city areas increasingly distant. In XIX century when humans were only One billion, small cities that time were surrounded by nature that occupied mostly the land; however today when humans are seven billion, nature is surrounding by cities which is being captured by the urban climate.

The destroyed nature never will come, and cities will remain monstrous because our overpopulation must life in somewhere. It’s unthinkable that people left their lifestyle and their comfort, humans have arrived in this technology steep and we never thing in do a passes back. Unfortunately nothing will become as before and our forcing to the nature is doing for to exist. We must thing that any action will not revert or will stop the process; we can only wait that driving process to the less unfavorable state, and ever if we will not fail the action to do.

We are in front an irony. If we take action about Climate Change, our economy and lifestyle will be fail; while if we do nothing nature will hit our society and the result will be the same. therefore paralysis is the real action in front to the problem; fist because social agent doesn’t know what must do; and second people who has something to lose in the fight prefers delay as be as able possible the action.

Mankind is in front of greatest challenge of the last 10,000 years. And this challenge is arriving when our society is in one of periods with more individualism never seen (read Consumer Society). Hope is the last thing to do but greed a few and fear of everyone are hindering every action. Governments, social agents and the rest of society should be involved in this fight and act generosity. But nobody wants to lose a little when our attitude will lose us all.

dimecres, 30 abril de 2014

The Butterfly Effect

Surely many people have heard of the Butterfly Effect. Behind this name we find the formulation of the theory of chaos. After the discovery that the universe has a story (Big Bang) and we certainly two key theories of physics (quantum and relativity) the formulation of the unpredictability of events that changed the conception of our world now. We are facing a revolution totally ignored by majority of the population, which is easier to think about God's plans, conspiracies and other fantasies when he sees the events of our day; but the reality is that man proposes and random features.

Pierre Simon de Laplace certainly was one of the key figures in the scientific worldview to the early twentieth century. He was defending that the laws of physics were above the divine will, he maintained that the Causal Determinism was the thread which moved events.

The principle of Causal Determinism postulates that any outcome is due to a cause and this is the previous state under the action of physical laws. Thus for one particular initial state is only compatible one single final state. This had been confirmed by principle very extended in the scientific world of the time, which explained that the world was conceived from simple basic laws that could be expressed as simple algebraic formulas, presumably analytical. A better-known example is the second law of Newtonian dynamics (F = ma) that you simply conceptual and algebraic, all the physical preparation of the XVI, XVII and XVIII are sums, differences, multiplication and division, exponentiation with a fixed (squares, cubes ...) of some variable, nothing compared to the current physical expressions.

Lagrange, contemporary of Laplace, established from its system of equations one analytical and universal way to solve mechanical systems.  The system of equations gave a unique solution provided that could provide enough initial boundary conditions. Would only be possible the multievaluation if unknown or only partially known some initial conditions. Chance was simply lack of knowledge of all initial conditions, summarizing when we are throwing the craps is as Julius Caesar crossing the Rubicon: the result is already given regardless of the events that happen later, because these will be determined by the laws of physics and the first action. Yes Atheist Lagrange and other eighteenth and nineteenth century physics (believers or not) the fate existed; it was a logical consequence of what happened in the second 0 of history.

But after the discovery of the planet Neptune in the mid- nineteenth King Oscar II of Sweden was interested in the stability of the solar system, giving a prize to those who demonstrate the stability of this or not. We do not know if the king Oscar was doing for philanthropy or he had real fears that the solar system will be collapsing, but in the same way that Neptune was discovered by perturbations in the orbit of Uranus, it was plausible that a combined disturbance could lead to a loss of stability of the set of objects which are orbiting the Sun. The French mathematician Henri Poincare found a stable solution won the award but a friend asked him to see that he had made a mistake, when he knows he returned the prize until to find a solution; the solution had be finding: he demonstrates there was no solution. From 'no solution' to the stability of the solar system produce a first Chaos Theory is based on the fact that the propagation of errors made temporary diverges in long-term extrapolation was small divergence in origin. Whether the solution was not so strange, first we don’t come out of the first formulation of luck where imprecision in the initial values is simply unknowing of the exact value and second from Newton tried to solve systems of three bodies in gravitation no general solution and hence on all of the solar system was nothing more than a Chimera; however the result was disturbing not so much for danger of collapse (unlikely), but the fact of initial values toward the end result had to maintain proportionality, which isn’t happening.

The true theory of chaos will come with Edward Lorenz. From his studies on climatic simulations showed that, as simple as it was the model, it evolved temporarily in a way drastically different for small variations in the initial values. In 1979 he exposes their studies at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, in a paper originally called "Small mistakes to start can be fatal" but to turn it into paper change the title "Does the Flap of a Butterfly's Wings in Brazil Set off a Tornado in Texas?" to paraphrase a Chinese proverb "beating wings of a butterfly can be seen in the whole world." The title of this article is the popular notion of Butterfly effect although in fact the name was due to the previous drawing similar to a butterfly that was obtained graph generated by the evolution of two variables; as shown in the illustration in the begin of write. 

What we perceive as equilibrium is only a steady state that depends of more than two variables with nonlinear relationships crossed. Thus the time evolution of reduced set of variables will move more or less delimited (it would be one of the wings of the butterfly) in a region, that we call attractor, until some of these values out of the zone of influence of the attractor; then evolution is totally chaotic until it falls into a new attractor or the same where it was before, going to have a new steady state. Chaos isn’t the steps between attractors properly but rather from the fact that negligible order variations in the initial conditions produce big changes in evolution. An example are the illustrations that follow; three numeric simulations that in the illustration start in the same physical location as the variation is so small that the graph can’t represent, their trajectories in the begin of simulation are identical, when some time has passed they go out of the first loop (it is much smaller than it looks in the picture but that would be the beginning of the path in the middle ear of the second great illustration) and enter a second loop where we begin to separate the paths each in a different color; at the moment that shows the second picture we can see that a particle returns to the first loop (red) second still orbiting the second loop (blue) and the third has taken a path of escape (green). In the last picture we see each particle follows its own path by a number of independent random orbits and then jumping to another loop.

What happens in reality is that for certain ranges of values, systems have more than one possible behavior. The system may be in a stable or unstable regime but only one when it is outside this range, in contrast it is within this interval can jump randomly to any of the possible behaviors. To make a comparison as if it is a flat set of holes, through which runs a ball delivery which can be introduced randomly in any of these. To get the ball in the hole may have enough energy to overcome holes; it will be trapped in the hole otherwise. Suppose however that the walls of the hole are tunnels where the ball can move freely between holes without having to overcome the potential; then that the ball remains in the hole no longer depend only on energy but if the ball passes over one of these holes. If this tunnel there are many with a very small impact parameter, it causes falling in a tunnel or another depend of almost punctual values on the initial conditions when ball downed into hole, as well as the time that it remains in the hole which is depending of tunnel which finally introduced. If we experiment was sending balls infinitesimal variations of the initial values, surely we can establish a statistical behavior which we relate to the number of holes and impact parameter, but it will be impossible to establish a predictable behavior. Extrapolating it to any system into one-evaluable area, it passes between stable and unstable states completely predictable, but when in areas of multi evaluation then it can be in any of the stable states, introducing randomly in any of unstable states which will lead it to another stable state compatible.

The great news is that the future is not written, and that any disturbance for stupid insignificant it may seem to change the course of events is important. Everything lefts their mark in this world, but on average most effects are canceled by others against the many millions of actions that occur at any time. As we all know everyone, lucky is to be in the right time and place right, and so insignificant an event at a specific time and specific place could condition the fate of the entire universe going to be spread over time. Yes a butterfly really can trigger Nuclear Apocalypse if it takes the wrong direction, but it's impossible to know what might be.

dimarts, 22 abril de 2014

Bade Runner just around the corner

Tyrell Corporation: more human than human

Blade Runner is a 1982 film based on the novel "Do Androids dream of electric sheep?" by Philip K. Dick; it discusses about artificial human (completely built by man) of biological consciousness caught over the years. This artificial human with better performance than natural ones, had become a hazard by its creators and that they had been banned on Earth and they had an expiration date of four years (when they died). I don’t explain the plot but the film debates about what is or what it means living, it personalized by creatures built as our image and likeness, and at same time what rights has the creator on creatures created by It (doesn’t matter human or God).

Blade Runner is a milestone for fans of the genre (science fiction). In the era of digital special effects and virtual reality it seem outdate, but the music of Vangelis, darkness and minimal convincing special effects, gives sufficient consistence it despite pass of years. But what makes it more current the its premonition, when DNA (1969)  was discovered no more time before and its power anybody can imagine, film show us the industrial manufacture of artificial living beings, which has already been achieved "NYU scientists creation of artificial self-replication process holds promise for novel production of new materials (October 12, 2011)”. I could also talk about the climate that describes, the overpopulation and the peope on depression; but depressive environment is due to the plot located in marginal sites of the society of 2019 (we will arrive in no more days) but film insinuate that is extends to all humanity (you see ads promotions extraterrestrial colonies to escape the depressing Earth).

To create life is the ultimate taboo. We found all sorts of myths and punishment that we may suffer from this transgression (i.e. Frankenstein). All current monotheistic religions which have the same God as creator of everything are against. Since the emergence of genetic manipulation have appeared all kinds of moral and ethical committees where it decides what we can do and can’t, something really amazing when they are less about weapons or slavery; two evils that lead behind much real suffering. Study is forbidding, and the little was done is constantly reviewed and censored, when the arrival of genetics has been the most important contribution to medicine.

This persecution hides an important philosophical dilemma but moral as we would believe. A dilemma that directly attacks the waterline of any religion: the faith. Believing doesn’t need testing, but when it appears a contra prove we have a problem. Creationists reach until ridiculous levels of obstinacy in hold the literately which shame other believers, but when the book where are the base your belief has a small fissure, we must cover; for example if we say that at time when book was writing, thing that causes the discrepancy they didn’t know and this is just a metaphor, Why could all the book be a metaphor? And What must believe?. It may seem ridiculous that in the twentieth century have majority democratic enough to declare the validity of creation and to ban evolution (it is supposed to be a lie) (small example: Creationist Lawmakers Derail Third Grader's Campaign To Honor The Woolly Mammoth); but if we can question the validity of a paragraph can question the whole book and undoubtedly the main: to believe that God is real. To create life or even to create humans makes doubts about many things as whom we are, but it ruled out the possibility of immortal soul and if humans are the culmination of the work of God on the Earth.

But in reality we have created life? the question is not trivial. What we understand for life? simply we define life and to live as opposed to what isn’t, and thus we have problems. We know that living beings transcend beyond their physical boundaries (i.e. skin). The complexity of every living being and its interaction with the surrounding makes a living being or an entire species is completely unfeasible without the rest around it. However what is the difference between what we synthesize the entire DNA molecule that nature does naturally; and in any case we generate are natural mutations of this nature, which does not differ too much from replication errors, poor diet or natural radiation. In "To kill the goose that lays the golden eggs" I expose the impossibility emulation of nature by humans and their survival without it; in this direction life is not something that has a living organism, but rather a system which is evolving where we are only one element.

To have achieved a body is a great achievement. Our knowledge in this field opens great opportunities to both health and nutrition. However it’s not without risks. All living organisms will be created for all the consequences, they will be interacting with other and the same time evolves. Today one of the toughest challenges in facing both agriculture and ecology is the invasive species. These species appear suddenly changing the relation rules (dominance, predation...) between beings of that territory. This phenomenon is not inherent in human action, all species (and the first humans, we are born migrants) have invaded territories that were outside until they have found their place in it. The challenge is that these species are moving very fast on one side, and another that appears increasingly becomes an ecosystem that reach (like us, but of course without our control, we believe that nefarious results). Imagine when artificial yeast leaves the laboratory (because sooner or later you will leave it), then it will behave like any other yeast, invade, fed and reproduced without predator known which can stop it; sooner or later will appear also predators, it may exist or perhaps evolved; in time the yeast will end up being just one of many organisms in the world but nobody knows how the global ecosystem will become when the new balance will be established (it can’t pass anything or such as all animals have disappeared over one kg which we can include us).

We must be cautious when handling nature, among other things because just now discovered that Nature is more extensive, complex and unknown than we think. Research is essential to advancing burning stages but we should not burn stages as if our life depends of it, every step must be well measured, so we are sure that there will be mistakes, but we should avoid doing major damage. There will not be a divine punishment or anything like that, but that has more to do with the "Chaos Theory" and unpredictability of disturbances in the long term. Everyone likes to be God, but we must think that we do God in our image and likeness, if He exists sure that there isn’t anything to see in the image we have of Him.

dijous, 20 març de 2014

Really, What can be able to do? and What can’t?

After Napoleonic wars the new king of France (Louis XVIII) was worried about the delay in in industrial technology. War was isolated United Kingdom but their steam machines raised in productivity while the continent machines were stalled. So Louis XVIII was sent to England an engineer named Sadi Carnot for to see and to copy what England industries where doing in their machines.
The surprise was that machines are equal as before war. What had happened? In fact it was happening one thing impossible in the thermodynamic theory of epoch. Watt and their heirs had the patent of steam machine until 1800 (in middle of Napoleonic war) and it born a lot of companies dedicated to build machines steam; and this new companies apply an empirical evidence discovered by mechanical that repair this machines: as great is the temperature better is the machine performance. This evidence was in contradiction to the Caloric theory, and when Watt had been building machines never increase more the temperature (minimum to generate steam) because with the increase of temperature is join the increase of pressure and the mechanical problems that produces (and dangerous situation also). But with freedom to build machines temperatures (and deaths for explosion) increased, at the same time performance and industrial profit increased also. Carnot returned to France with the revolutionary idea, and he devised a machine cycle for maximum performance (Carnot Cycle) and one theorem which prove it. Sure he had seen as a new National hero when exposed his discover in the France Academy, but he died in ostracism.

October 1920 issue of Popular Science magazine, on perpetual motion. 

Carnot died thinking he was a failure man, but his discover become in the basis of 2on thermodynamic law that buried the Caloric theory. Second law gives us the direction of processes and one important item: we always pay a price when we want extracting energy. There are some equivalent formulations about the 2on but only one arithmetic formulation of this, Clausius introduced a new physical quantity called entropy, and we can resume 2on as only can be possible processes that entropy increase (or stay equal in reversible processes).

It exist one kind of machines which are finding by inventors in the last 300 years named “machines of perpetual motion”. These are a chimera of energy without end. These machines thanks to use all kink of tricks will never stop without need energy in first stadium; but after we would extract energy of them with any cost. Obviously this is impossible because it contradicts the first law of thermodynamics, and is very difficult that someone is working in its direction, except amateur inventors without minimum formation. But exist at 2on kind of machine of perpetual motion, and here things are more difficult to distinct. Perpetual Motion’s Machine of 2on kind is a machine which doesn’t comply with the second law of thermodynamics.

Second law people can’t understand too well. First law is more intuitive, and even inventors which show machines out of 1st law never thing in create energy of nothing. Second law is other thing; entropy, order and distribution of probabilities need some knowledge prior to taking it. Second law say also that is impossible to take all the energy of a hot source, we always must trash some energy, but this concept is the more difficult to understand by the people and it’s usually don’t think in how we left the residual hot, and this is summarized to the energy taking. However to profit all the energy when our better profit never pass to 80% is too good to let it lose.

Today, all kind of widgets run or they intent to run around the world, with the purpose to solve the current energy problem. Sometimes machines work well but its performance isn’t more inferior than inventor thinks; other times machines don’t work (but have very encouraging results). Obviously first and second could be wrong but there are many examples that both are correct. Nevertheless we don’t close any door and all must be prove; but before of selling the ultimate solution to our ills better we sure ours basis.

The problem isn’t that people make machines which don’t run; problem is to publisher it without an accompanying critical that gives criterion at public. If inventor that we assume to have sufficient knowledge could be wrong; people without these knowledge only understand the headline, and more times headline has too enthusiasm.

The current energy problem will not solve with magical solutions. 2on law we can’t leave it aside, there are more deep reasons that 2on law is true. Science is the solution but we need before put it in value in front the popular beliefs, and it’s is needed as general people as politicians and other social actors. We can’t waste energy with the rate we do now, and any renewable energy can supply fossil, because we are waste every day, energy stored in decades. Saving is the painful solution and don’t expect one bizarre solution which solve the problem. God makes miracles sometimes but mankind only can follow the natural laws.  

dimecres, 5 març de 2014

The carbon bubble

Atmospheric CO2 is arriving other time at 400 ppm. Obviously last moths it was under mythic threshold but to follow the sawtooth graphic seems that the problem was overcome, but on the contrary graphic trend is growing in exponential. However as I related in “Are 400 ppm of CO2 the border to beginning the Armageddon, or not?” to pass the threshold doesn’t mean that climate begins a spiral of weather disasters. Deniers, in their crusade against the evidence in climate, have profit of a cool winter for beginning their ridiculous idea of Global Cooling. Global Cooling is possible but to put tones of CO2 in atmosphere isn’t a solution because Earth will be heating until CO2 and temperature will take other time the equilibrium; but in other hand high CO2 could do a rebound effect which will carry climate to the Ice Age (read “The day after Tomorrow”)

CO2 is growing and nobody does anything. The more powerful oil industry moves all of its influences for to stop any initiative to reduce emissions so every CO2 tone not emitted are barrels of oil not burned and dollars not charged. In a suicide attitude only moved for greed and ignorance, our economic power only thing in drill oil or carbon, and burned it obviously. Their solution in front the evidence of Global warming is deny it, and waste amount of money to disseminating information against to create doubt in the public opinion. 

But economy crisis crash in half the fantastic business of Oil. Just before of crisis oil arrived at Extraction Oil Peak where prices are beginning at exponential price, but crisis stops demand and prices down. However Oil price isn’t following the market rules, production is modulate by demands as price never down, and in other hand governments subsidizes the purchase of it by the energy producers. Other action that impedes the market logical in oil is the purchase in future; oil that is extracted today was paying some years before so nobody wants any downing of prices because it will be the ruin. Oil price is artificial.

Oil madness is penetrating in all economic stamens. When every economic sector has problems to survive, money sees in oil (easy and testing business) one secure value and an opportunity to earn greats amounts of money. New systems to drill it have opened this business at new operators: Fracking, TAR… democratizes (as it somehow) the closed world of oil. But until today OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) has the production control, but the new operators in the business are out of its influence, and more of the new drilling zones are in countries until today costumers of OPEC, which see fantastic to break free the dependence with it. The consequence is the uncontrolled increase of stock. We would think that it down the prices but no; because the new drill system are less efficient than conventional and more expensive; so prices are up even in increase of stocks. 

Summarize of all is an artificial price in one side and increase of stocks for other. First hold a fantastic profit of Oil business which attracts more money into this business; second generate a problem of storage. The more incongruent is how can’t see something that is physical? Well people that put money are in clean offices far of mountains of TAR. Oil and Coal (which is playing in this dangerous game) are only numbers, who invest in them, and they products generate high profit which is mixed with other financial products and finally they are including in the pension plan which is paying for you.

The hardening of the crisis (currently only improve financial returns) and prices high are reducing the oil consumption. In other hand the climate problem requires reducing the consumption of hydrocarbon and coal. But capitalism needs hard values with speeding growing as Oil and Coal which is leveraged sector; today carbon finances are far of its bases and disaster is close to exploit. Sometimes one planned action has jeopardized the whole world, but now we are in front of collective illusion that carries us to the same finish. The carbon bubble will explode sooner and it will have gone the current society.

dijous, 27 febrer de 2014

The consumer society

During the last days the EU for the umpteenth time, recommending a reduction in salaries Greek, Spanish and Portuguese workers. The question is More? Really salaries can down more; we can only consider payment zero the lower bound (to pay for work only happens for hobbies). We also may ask when it will take to have servitude contracts (pay for food and lodging) or directly slavery. Down salaries when inflation continues to rise, it seems total nonsense, nonsense that goes against the consumer society in which we operate.

The consumer society is based on the constant consumption of goods. Currently repair or transfer of goods to be completely useless. Everything is throwing, everything has short time in use, consumer goods older in design but not in utility or use, Wasting is the basis of the modern economy, using throwing is the current motto. But this implies that there must be a sufficient mass of potential consumers willing with power to consume; we have consumers, with motivation also, but they are very poor will just consume the minimum to live, which breaks the chain of consumption.

Really have they thought well about lower salaries in the EU? Probably yes. Although considering their ability to Numerical Analysis (Per fer models numèrics cal saber matemàtiques) all could be possible. But we think that the consumer society is heritage of capitalism, in fact capitalism isn’t based on the consumer society; capitalism is based on the capital. Looking operations worldwide observe that the majority (75% of all economic transactions) are a financial-speculative. Capitalism isn’t cheating anybody because capital is about money (Capital), in the previous stage Commercialism was when everything was based on trade. In fact the perfect capitalist enterprise is one that only moves capital, Enron in the USA has gotten the first power company without generating sources, without mass distribution, without marketing units, and without clients (brutal), also we must say that it burned like a torch when the scandal of California energy deficit.

During the economic crisis they raced to save the banks, however they left to fend for people less fortunate. And gradually in the boiler burned where the outcasts of the Earth is beginning to have overbooking, more and more people fall into the spiral that leads to the pit of no return. On the one hand there is an action to carry to precarious the life of ordinary people, which they called middle class, but mostly we are fine to complete lack of idea that makes it even crueler for transit crisis. Instead the help to banks although it seems counterproductive was necessary in front the disaster which was coming, if they allowed down banks the savings, checking accounts, insurance, pension ... had disappeared, crippling the world economy; banks and ultimately capital has kidnapped the economy.

Capitalism fucks the market of goods and services which in principle would be real. Its market is the monetary, of the stock (utterly unrelated companies, goods and other things which are representing their root) and especially speculation gains. For other side industrial production needs to cheap cost to achieve capital gains, to get it first it must cheaper raw materials, and other side lower salaries. The raw materials we could say that they are free, they are in nature and should only collect the cost is the labor to get them (this includes energy production). So everything just cheapening the manpower that can be done in two ways down the number of workers or lowering the wages to pay them. Thanks to mechanization it has happened the first: lower the number of workers, but the desperation of discarded it has also lowered the salary of the few working, companies get total return.

The welfare state, which melts as it passes the crisis, was only a maneuver to stop the advance of communism in the early XX century and which was maintained during the century, while there were socialist countries. After missing the socialist states the welfare state was no longer necessary, and taking advantage of the crisis has begun to dismantle. But the advent of the welfare state grew base of potential consumers which does an increase in demand, what is sometimes called virtuous circle. But the virtuous circle has a limitation, growth can’t be infinite. On the other hand industrial production based on low wages, inconsistent with a consumer population, so they send production to third world were on one side and increased mechanization. But two things were causing the demise of work in the welfare Western, thing that made the current results: not work to people; but without the army of Western consumers and mechanization extreme, current third world will haven't worked soon.

We have a wrong view of the consumer society; capitalism appears in the XIX century and we just read the realistic novels of its current time to check hell where most Europeans of this century had lived. So the consumer society was just a secondary effect of the welfare state, but one side has a better life expectancy, dramatically broken today, and another it has led to an intolerable environmental pressure on the planet it also is about to burst.

To down salaries is the only thing that they should think to the EU to obtain that the salary isn’t so decisive and it able to employ more people. This tactic already done the Franco dictatorship where wages were paupers but there was gotten full employment, but the state had been rescued by the OECD in the 60s. As Karl Marx said, "Capitalism is a giant with feet of clay" and now we return to the situation inexorably nineteenth century neo-liberal prophets might do well to read "Das Capital" if their arrogance and ignorance leave them.