Hello internet! Next up for me at #SoCIA18 is Lori Marino, with "Are We Ready for Space Colonization?"
Opens with an analogy about a teenager who just crashed their first car, and whether or not you'd buy them a second, faster car. I can see where this talk is going!
Lots of well-intentioned folks out there think it's imperative for humans to become a multi-planet species. And most of them are motivated, in part, by our failures on/with Earth.
Reasons to colonize other planets (usually Mars) include overpopulation & limited resources, climate change, backup location for humanity; plus our drive to discover and explore. Are these reasons good enough?
(NB: in many parts of space community the term "settlement" is preferred over "colonization," because this is not like Earth historical colonization. I agree, but follow the speaker's terminology.)
Basically, our speaker thinks "Save us from ourselves" is not a sufficient reason. We're not qualified for the job of interplanetary exploration. See: mass extinctions, habitat destruction, overpopulation, etc.
Example upon example of extinctions and pollution, from orangutans to CA/pacific dolphins (missed the species name) to the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, and of course carbon dioxide & climate change.
She notes that pro-colonization arguments entail some bad assumptions: we've learned our lessons, we (as colonists) won't make the same mistakes, we can reconstruct what was lost (?), and we can start over again without Earth.
These are, indeed, unlikely. "If we can send humans to Mars, is there anything we can't do?" - well yesssss, apparently: "keep Earth liveable."
She'd like to cancel colonization plans. But barring that, suggests: staying slow & robotic as long as we can, and develop rights-based protections for planets before humans go there.
In Q&A, audience members disagree about motives for colonization. People desired it long before it became clear we were ruining our world (decades ago). I do think that science provides a better reason to go forth than settlement does.
unroll
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Handedness comes in two groups, "right handed" and "not right handed." Most people use their right hands for almost all precision movement, but the other group is a broad spectrum from weakly-right to strongly-left. baen.com/handedness
The way we describe and define handedness creates the effect @CStuartHardwick rightly notices. Culture defines how we talk about it - but the behavior is mostly genetic. The % of righties has remained constant across continents and milennia.
Hand dominance is a more squirrelly thing than most people realize. For example, righties are better at *some* things with their left hand... and *some* of these asymmetries flip in lefties. Take a few minutes on #LeftHandersDay to learn more!
But you should read and learn from the #BlackSpecFic report anyways! The missing data is due to idiosyncrasies of the @EAPodcasts model, and has no impact on any other magazine's numbers.
Long story short, we treat reprints very differently from other magazines. For @escapepodcast specifically, they were ~45% of our 2017 stories, and our editorial process has one unified pipeline for originals + reprints together.
Regretting organizing my two Worldcon panels this year. It means I'm not free to throw up my hands in frustration and give up on programming. The last 24hrs have been the last worst icing on a bad cake that's long been baking.
I mean, my panels will be awesome. But if you're skipping programming because you don't trust the con, you've made a sensible choice.
There are always more people who want to be on programming than can fit. There's no way to make everyone happy. I get that. But this weekend's screwups come in the context of a long chain of trust-erosion.
So glad this one came out! "After Midnight at the Zap Stop" by @ouranosaurus is an awesome story - full of late-night grease, and the luckless & the worthy. But also because it's a #neuroscience teaching opportunity. Might even be a #NeuroThursday!
One offhand line explains a technology as "stimulating a particular set of mirror neurons." Which works as a story element just fine. It sounds plausible and authoritative! But as a neuroscientist, I have strong opinions about #mirrorneurons. I don't think they're real.
To be clear, mine is a controversial opinion. Many neuroscientists would disagree. But it's a hill I'm willing to fight on, especially given how often "mirror neurons" crop up in popular science.
This phenomenon - when you look away from a moving thing, and you briefly see illusory motion in the other direction - is the "Motion Aftereffect," and it comes from some very basic brain maneuvers. Who wants to join me on going full #NeuroThursday here? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_af…
Most neurons in the brain (and elsewhere) do this thing called "adaptation," where they accept whatever's going on as the new normal. For example, if you sit down with your laptop on your lap, you'll soon stop noticing the weight.
This can arise from the crudest single-cell level: some ion channels in the cell membrane have negative feedback loops that self-dampen.