LA is fine, the sun shines most of the time

                                 L.A.'s fine, the sun shines most the time and the feeling is "lay back"

                       Palm trees grow and rents are low. But you know I keep thinkin' about making my way back 

Well, I'm New York City born and raised but nowadays,
I'm lost between two shores L.A.'s fine, but it ain't home
New York's home,
But it ain't mine no more.

 

----Neil Diamond

 

When we moved from Boston to Los Angeles two years ago (not counting a little more than a year we spent as nomads), this Neil Diamond song captured the feeling we had. We were lost between two shores. LA wasn’t home, and Boston wasn’t ours any more. 

 

Now two years later, we still occasionally miss Boston and New England. The lovely fall colors, the serene beauty of fresh snow, and the blossoming of flowers at the end of winter…how can we forget them? Also, the White Mountains, our outdoor playground, and Plum Island, where we went birdwatching. Above all, how can we not miss our family and friends who were a part of our lives for so many decades?

 

However, to our surprise, not only have we made home in Los Angeles, we actually like it here. Like it a lot. 

 

Of course, having both our children and their families nearby, and my sister living not far away (as LA distances go), are big reasons for our happiness in this megapolis. Afterall, we moved here because of them in the first place.

 

Another big factor is how different LA has turned out to be from what we expected. Yes, it is huge and driving on the freeways can be frightening. There is practically no downtown to speak off and what there is can be considered to be quite plain, at least at the first glance. It has none of the beauty of the Boston downtown. 

 

On the other hand, we discovered that LA is not a monolithic entity but a collection of a large number of neighborhoods, connected by those freeways. Some of these neighborhoods are really pleasant, like Pasadena, where we have now settled. 

 

Living in this quiet part of Pasadena we get a sense of what a “walking” neighborhood feels like. We get our daily walks through treelined streets (talk about LA being very dry) with hardly any cars around. There is Arroyo, a little stream we can walk down to. Walk a little further, and we end up at Rose Bowl, famous for its New Year’s parade.

 

Pasadena is in the foothills of San Gabriel Mountains, where we can see almost every day the 5,700’ high Mt. Wilson, and on a clear day, Mt. San Gorgonio, which is 11,200’ high. I never imagined living so close to mountains, especially in LA. There are also a number smaller hills nearby, all providing excellent hiking opportunities. On a typical morning, we would drive for ten minutes to a trail head and do a 3-mile hike that takes us 400’ high. As there are few trees to obstructing views, we can see the entire San Gabriel Valley as well as downtown LA. 

 

This town also has an active cultural scene. The Pasadena Symphony orchestra performs in Ambassador Auditorium, only one mile away, within walking distance. Also, the downtown begins around there, and so we can dine in all types of restaurants and walk back home. There are several lovely gardens, the largest and most famous being The Huntington Gardens. It is enormous and makes you forget that you are in a major city. There are museums and an auditorium inside this garden, as well as well-designed Chinese and Japanese sections. There are thousands of trees and plants of every type imaginable.

 

Caltech is not far from our home either. In pre-Covid days, we used to attend lectures on scientific topics, such as space travels, which is what this university is famous for. Now we attend them on zoom. Soon, the in-person lectures should start again. JPL, the world-famous NASA facility managed by Caltech is just a little further away. That’s where most unmanned space probes get designed and built.

 

Then there is the Mediterranean weather of Southern California. Although I enjoyed snow as well as cross country skiing in New England, and cold weather does not bother me, I must say that being able to sit outdoors every day on our patio for a cup of coffee or a drink has its advantages. 

 

Finally, being where we are, we are within a day or two drive away from some splendid areas of the country and a huge number of National Parks. We have done a couple of two-week road trips already and visited/hiked in multiple places located in California, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada and Utah. Hopefully, this is just the beginning. 

 

Boston will always have a special place in our hearts. However, fortunately, we have ended up in a pretty good place to spend the winters of our lives. 

 

 

Beethoven's tenth symphony

 On October ninth (2021), Beethoven’s tenth symphony was released. This work was never completed by the maestro but now Artificial Intelligence has advanced to such a stage that finishing it was possible. I presume that all the nuances that makes a Beethoven’s symphony unquestionably his were understood by the machine and extrapolated to develop a piece of music that sounds just as if the old composer had created it. 

 

This opens up intriguing possibilities. Should we expect that other composers would receive a similar treatment? Certainly. Expect to hear Tchaikovsky’s seventh symphony or a finished version of Schubert’s Unfinished Symphony. Perhaps the creators will be honest and say that AI helped develop them. However, one can envision that many “missing” pieces will be “found” in the cellars of old people who lived in the same town as those composers, and then auctioned off as authentic.

 

Talking about missing pieces…what about fine arts? How about a “missing” oil painting by Van Gogh suddenly turning up? A “Starless Night” which is a companion work of the famous “Starry Night?” I am sure a properly trained AI program can very easily figure out the colors, techniques, and the chemicals used to create those colors to create a painting that looks totally “authentic”.

 

This type of scam will only work if people value authenticity and are be willing to pay for it. An authentic work by Van Gogh has far more value than a print made out of it (like the one I would have hanging on my wall). That begs the question, why is it so?

 

If the pleasure is obtained by looking at the art and appreciating what it is conveying, what difference does it make whether it is authentic or not? The only reason I can think of is the bragging rights that accompany the acquisition of an authentic piece of work. “I can afford an authentic van Gogh and you can’t.” 

 

If we can somehow move away from the ego that comes from owning an authentic art, then we can sit back and enjoy these new products without worrying about the fact that they are not authentic. We can live in van Gogh’s world and admire “his” new paintings every few days, and I can continue to enjoy new works by my favorite composer, Beethoven, as the dead man continues to compose symphonies and piano concertos forever.  

 

The end of conversation

  

In 2009, I wrote a Post on different types of conversations. The four types I identified were:

 

• A ping pong match, in which the other person tries to one-up every statement you make. For example, you say, “We had a good vacation in Arizona.” To which the person you are conversing with replies, “We had a good vacation in Paris.” No interest what so ever in hearing your story.
• A Spanish Inquisition, in which every statement you make is torn apart in pieces by the other person who just cannot see the larger picture and seems to be on a quest to prove he/she is smarter/more street wise than you.
• A Communist debate, so named in honor of how Soviet Union used to respond to almost every proposal from the West in United Nations. “Nyet,” they would say. In this type of conversation, everything you say will be opposed by the other person, does not matter what you say. 

 

I pointed out that a more pleasurable conversation would be the fourth type, a Productive Conversation, which involves listening to what the other person is saying, thinking about what was said, and then responding. The point here is to not to think of the other party as an opponent and the reason for conversation as an opportunity to score a victory

 

Little did I know that we would be heading a situation in which there will be no conversation among people. 

 

You know the scenario. Two people sit down for dinner in a restaurant, and both are engrossed in viewing and tapping their own smartphone. An occasional word will be exchanged, otherwise it is total immersion in the outside world.

 

This is a very frustrating situation if you are trying to have a conversation with an addict of smartphone. You are staring at him; he is staring at the smartphone. 

 

“So, how was your day?”

“Good” …. Tap, tap, tap, full concentration on the device, total absence from the present moment.

“What did you do today?” No response. Tap, tap, tap.

“I said, what did you do today?”

“Huh…nothing.” Back to tap, tap, tap.

You give up.

 

Occasionally, the conversation starts normally, but the phone pings and it is taken out in a moment. Then, you lost the conversation partner. Sometimes it does not even need to ping. Every few minutes the addict has to take out the phone to check if he has missed something. How bad would it look if the text of a distant friend is not responded immediately? 

 

Now I am no saint. I too check my smartphone periodically, but I make it a point that it does not come in way of a conversation, which can be a joyous, fruitful activity that further cements the bond between two people. Perhaps some people don’t see the need or don’t feel that they are good at talking with the others. Smartphone provides an easy out in those situations. 

 

As the grip of these devices tightens, there will be no talking. 

It will be the end of conversation.

A far-out scenario

 I recently wrote a Blog Post commenting on the beginning of passenger space flights, thanks to the efforts by Jeff Bezos, Richard Branson and Elon Musk. That would usher in a new era for making dreams of many people like me come true. 

 

When I posted it on FaceBook, I was criticized by two sets of people. One group of responders could not stand these billionaires, especially Jeff Bezos, and so could not see anything good coming out of their efforts. “They are terrible people, sucking blood out of their workers and amassing fortunes that are unconscionable. All they are doing is boosting their already inflated egos,” they said. Right, I responded. I am not a big fan of who they are either. However, that does not diminish what they have done for space travel. Let us not throw the baby with the bathwater.  

 

I was also told that they could have spent their money on fighting climate change (and multitude of human problems that can be addressed by pouring more money). 

 

That last point made me think about the future of our planet. How fruitful will it be to throw money at fighting climate change? Hasn’t the train already left the station? Aren’t we heading to a disastrous scenario? Looking at what is going on this year I cannot help but believe that we are now beyond the tipping point and things will accelerate rapidly in an undesirable direction. Perhaps the earth will become uninhabitable in a few decades.

 

It may be time to start thinking about survival, not just prevention. Perhaps it is more meaningful to pour money into assuring that we the human beings can survive the coming catastrophe that we have brought upon ourselves.

 

Under that scenario, what the billionaires have done is even more meaningful than ever. One option for human survival, albeit far-out, is to transfer some portion of the population into space when earth becomes largely uninhabitable. 

 

This far-out scenario is similar to what was envisioned by a science fiction author Neal Stephenson in his wonderful book called “SevenEves.” In that book, moon is destroyed and its parts are going to hit earth after two years. With the clock ticking, a significant portion of the population manages to get into the near-earth orbit and start a long journey toward an uncertain future. It has a happy ending with population coming back and establishing presence in a ring rotating around earth at the geosynchronous orbit. 

 

That may be one scenario that may come to pass as climate change manages to destroy earth over the coming decades. Then, people will say that those crazy billionaires in year 2021 played a small but significant role in making human survival a possibility. 

 

 

Into space

Space travel is back in the news. The adventures of Richard Branson and Jeff Bezos have made it possible for an average person like me dream again of traveling in space. 

The last time I had that feeling was in the late 60’s after moon walks. We believed then that space travel would become common place and we would all be making journeys to the moon, if not Mars. Remember 2001: A Space Odyssey? Well, 2001 came and went, and 20 years later, we are still no closer to travelling to moon. Now, I am getting too old, but thanks to Virgin Galactic and Blue Origin, there is some hope that my dream will be fulfilled.

 

For many people, this is just a stunt by very rich people and they could have used their money elsewhere. Well, yes, and I am not endorsing Bezos or Branson. They are showmen and have accumulated enormous wealth, some of it on the backs of people who work for them. They are also human beings with faults. 

 

But that does not take away from the fact that they demonstrated at their own risk two different systems for commercializing space travel. These are still baby steps but now there is a price attached to make any individual an astronaut. It is still expensive, but the price will come down. Also, this is just one of many possibilities opening up…consider the SpaceX system for example. They have announced an all-civilian crew for an orbital flight later this year.

 

Regarding spending money elsewhere, I have heard that argument many times, for example, when NASA was launching manned flights or when the Indians Space Research Organization was testing rockets in the 60s. If you go with that attitude, there will be no discoveries, no adventures, no excitement. 

 

Now a few explanations and clarifications. 

 

In US, if you go above 50 miles (80 km), you become an astronaut. Another organization (FAI) requires the altitude to be 62 miles (100 km). This is when you cross what is called Kármán Line, and the atmosphere is so thin, you require centrifugal force to remain afloat for a long time. That is how satellites or space station stays afloat. 

 

The space-flight of Bezos or Branson was not quite sustainable. They went up above the 50-mile limit and came down making them (and their fellow travelers) astronauts. In the past, a rocket powered experimental aircraft, X-15, went up high enough to make its pilots astronauts in 1959, long time before Virgin Galactic. 

 

They did experience weightlessness. Weightlessness does not mean zero gravity. Gravity is always around---you experience weightlessness when you do not resist its force by being in a free fall. After reaching its maximum altitude, Blue Origin crew experienced weightlessness because they were in a free fall inside their spacecraft which was also in a freefall. Hence the sensation of floating around in their vehicle. 

 

Now if you add horizontal speed to the vehicle, free fall will not be straight down but a parabola. This is what an airplane designed to simulate weightlessness does…it executes parabolas starting from high altitude. It is nicknamed vomit comet because of what it does to many people experiencing weightlessness. 

 

If you keep increasing the horizontal speed the vehicle will fall further and further away until at one speed, it will not fall and start going round and round earth. This is when it will be in orbit. 

 

Another, easier way to understand weightlessness while in orbit is to observe two forces: gravity (very much present) and centrifugal force. They balance each other out. Also, both the vehicle and the astronauts are in the same force balance situation and so they can float around. 

 

Oh, how I would love to participate these emerging possibilities! 

 

I realize that at this stage it is a competition between my physical ability to undertake such a journey and its financial affordability. 

 

Who will win?

Pandemic of the No-Vaxxers

 So, we are back to using masks in enclosed space after getting used to not doing so over the past few weeks. The new cases are rising everywhere in the country, the virus is making a comeback and there seems to be no end in sight. This time you cannot blame it on any government screwups or lack of understanding on how virus spreads. You can blame it squarely on misguided people who stubbornly refuse to get vaccinated…the “No-Vaxxers.”

I am tempted to say that let them catch Covid and then refuse to provide them treatment if they get it. That, however would be a cruel and unusual punishment. As they say, you provide treatment even to injured enemy troops during war. That is what makes us human. 

 

However, being a human also means that I can get angry. I ask myself, “What the hell (or another four-letter word) is wrong with these people?”

I know some of these “No-Vaxxers.” When asked what are the reasons why they refuse to get vaccinated, I get one of the following responses:

“I am afraid of the side effects of the vaccine.” My response to them would be: Perhaps you prefer the side effects of Covid.

“The cases are rising due to the Delta variation.” Yes, and who is providing home to these variants? 99.5% of the Covid patients are non-Vaxxers and for that Corona virus thanks you. 

“The vaccines were rushed through without much testing.” Ok, do you know the procedure for getting vaccinations approved? Where, in your opinion were corners cut? How about hundreds of millions of people who have been vaccinated? Can you think of a bigger clinical trial in the history of drug approval? How many of them have died?

That will bring up the next objection. “I know so-and-so who died even after taking vaccine.” Yes, maybe there are isolated cases here and there, but have you heard of Confirmation Bias? It means looking for evidence to support whatever your belief you hold. You will hang on to any news report (the source be damned), that provides ammunition to what you believe in. What about the hundreds of millions of vaccinated people who did not die? 

Now it starts getting more and more bizarre. “I don’t like foreign DNA to invade my system.” Hmmm. How much genetics do you know? What do you think these vaccines are composed of and how they work? Where did you get this dazzling insight from? Fox News?

“I don’t believe in science.” I strongly suggest that the next time you have medical problem, go to a snake oil salesman. They are supposed to cure every disease known to men.  

“It is a plot by Bill Gates to plant microchips in our bodies.” As I mentioned, it gets more and more bizarre. 

“It is a free country and I can decide what I want to do.” Sure, I don’t care, as long as you don’t harm the others. In this case, that is not the case. Just see what you have wrought. 

You are allowing the Coronavirus to continue its rampage by providing safe havens. Thanks to you, the virus feels free to develop even more resistant mutations, and someday even the ones that attack people who have taken vaccines. Like myself. And what about kids who have not been vaccinated? How do we protect them from people like you? Finally, what about the cost of treating you? If your insurance pays for it, where will that money eventually come from?

Do you go around driving drunk? How is not getting vaccinated any different? In both cases, by claiming that you can do what you want, you kill not just yourself but others as well. Yes, I know, you don’t drink and drive, because if you are caught, you will end up in jail. For not getting vaccinated, our permissive society does not punish you. In fact, we can’t even ask you if you have been vaccinated, in order to protect your privacy. You are given a free pass. 

So, what exactly is the end game according to you? 

Do you believe that the virus will get tired and just go away? 

 

Exploring creativity through photography

 A few years ago, the person who founded MetroWest Camera Club in the Boston area asked me to go beyond taking “pretty pictures”. I took up his challenge and have been exploring the medium of photography to find my voice in the world of creative art. A recent lecture by a famous photographer Guy Tal provided me with the vocabulary to express what I am doing.

 

Guy Tal does not consider himself to be a photographer who makes art, but a self- expressive artist working the medium of photography. In other words, he has successfully moved on from taking pretty pictures. 

 

A stepwise progression of what one needs to go through to attain that level can be found by studying what Minor White, another great photographer, has written. He classifies photographic images in four categories: 

 

·      Informational: This is---and how the camera saw it.

·      Documentary: I was there—and this is what I saw.

·      Pictorial: I saw this—and here is how I feel about it.

·      Equivalent: I feel this—and here is a symbol for my feeling

 

Most photographers stay within the first two categories. Those pictures of flowers, landscapes or family document what they saw. When you move to the last two categories, you enter the zone of creativity. 

 

The question is: why do it?

 

The answer can be found in what a guy with an unpronounceable last name, Mihaly Csikszentmihaliy, has written (as per Guy Tal), “Most of the things that are interesting are the results of creativity…. The reason why creativity is so fascinating is that when we are involved in it, we feel that we are living more fully than during the rest of life. The excitement of artist comes close to the ideal fulfillment we all hope to get from life and rarely do.” 

 

He calls “Flow” as the state you are in when creating art.  “…the state in which people are so involved in an activity that nothing else seems to matter; the experience itself is so enjoyable that people will do it even at great cost, for the sheer sake of doing it.”

 

That’s why. You do it to get into Flow. 

 

Personally, as I attempt to progress in the Pictorial and Equivalent categories of photography, I have experienced that zone of excitement, and I like it a lot.

 

My version of using photography as an art form comes in several different varieties:

 

·      I like the concept of minimalism---to express what I am seeing and feeling with very few objects, sometimes just a few lines or shapes.

·      Minimalism very often that leads me to convert color pictures to black and white. Removing the distraction of color makes one focus on shapes, textures, shades, lighting and composition. 

·      I try to find beauty in small things. A flower is interesting but a petal with backlight is more so. 

·      I enjoy converting photographs into images that are impressionistic. Instead of realism, I try to distill the essence of the experience using Photoshop techniques such as creating composites of multiple images, and applying various layers and filters. 

·      I create abstracts that are nothing but colors, shapes, and lines arranged to my satisfaction. (There are ways by which a photograph can be distorted into abstracts using Photoshop.) I cannot articulate how I conclude that an image is acceptable...I just feel it in my guts.

·      I combine slideshows of images (real or abstracts) with music, generally Western Classical compositions. I am exploring the connection between visual and aural experiences and feel good when they complement each other. 

 

Here are examples of what I create:  https://www.flickr.com/photos/ashokbo/

 

Now these are the areas to get my fix of excitement through creativity that Mihaly talks about. Different photographers pursue different avenues in their attempts to go beyond taking pretty pictures. That is if they feel the urge.  Many don’t and that is totally their prerogative. 

 

As for me, I thank the founder of that camera club for pushing me into this quest.

 

Why some scientists disagree with science?

 I find it intriguing when some of my fellow engineers, doctors or scientists take view-points that do not agree with science. A classic case is that of climate change. There are several deniers in my cohort group, and they are firm in their convictions that either it is a hoax or human beings have very little to do with it. Unfortunately, such denying is not restricted to climate change, other scientific or historic findings are also under assault form these folks who one would consider to be supporters of science.

 

What is really mystifying to me is how they started on this journey of denying science. (May be not all of it, but some aspects of it.) Once they start the journey, there is little they can do or anyone else to bring them back to reality. They slide into their echo chamber and only read/listen/view only those who agree with them. The social media makes sure of that. Such confirmation bias is too difficult to overcome. 

 

I can think of several reasons why they started:

 

1. They think of themselves as independent thinkers. Yes, the world will not survive without independent thinking, but that does not mean that you start disagreeing with well-established facts just to demonstrate your independence. There still are flat earth societies in existence, I am sure, with members who are proud of their independent thinking. It could also be that they started on the slippery slope due to some other reason, as articulated below, and then call themselves “independent thinkers” as a boost to their egos.

 

2. They slide into taking the opposite viewpoint because it comes as a package with something else. So, for instance, if you are a conservative, you find the platform of a certain political party more appealing than that of others. However, belonging to that party means listening to broadcasts or TV show that deny science or provide simple explanations for complex phenomena. You eventually end up buying the whole package, hook line and sinker. 

 

3. They have a strong religious background. Now, it is possible for scientists to be religious, however it must be quite difficult to strike the balance. Many folks who belong to Jain religion in India do not eat things that grows underground because they carry germs. One can argue that such non-scientific stand cannot coexist with their professional training. However, it does. Being a member of the tribe, and following traditions to do so, take priority over their science background. 

 

4. They have taken the view that any research done by a (fill-in-the-gap) is suspect because all those people want to do is to perpetuate their view points of the world. The candidates for the class of scientists/historians/writers who are suspect include---those who live in the West, white folks, Jewish people----you name it. Anyone who comes up with a historic research on your country, your tribe, or your ethnic group who does not belong to your country/tribe or ethnic group, is a suspect with a hidden agenda. As it is with reason number 1 above, this can be an excuse to justify what they have come to believe due to another reason. 

 

5. They take the opposite viewpoint because their place of work encourages them to do so. If you are working for an oil company whose profits are going to be harmed if people switch to alternate energy, the employer will convince you that Climate Change is hogwash. Not believing in the company’s view point may be harmful to your employment. 

 

Compounding the problem is the situation that most scientists are generally not savvy in marketing. They call their findings hypothesis or theories, not facts, even when there is little doubt that they are not true. Another issue is that these theories are often dealing with overall trends and not short-term fluctuations, including those that appear to be contrarian.  For example, global warming can include days of freezing cold without violating the overall trend. 

 

Either of these issues allows the deniers with an opening. “See, the scientists are not sure of their own work, how can I believe it?” Or, “aha, how can there be global warming when I am freezing in record cold?”

 

When an average Joe, not trained in a scientific discipline, takes such a stand, I understand (sort of). I find it disappointing when someone who has a similar background as mine and had a successful career does that.

 

PS: Thank you, my friends, who I shared these thoughts with, for your contributions.

Photoshop meets authenticity

 I wrote a couple of Blog Posts on authenticity some ten years ago. A conclusion I had arrived at in those posts was if you can achieve your objectives, even if it includes showing off, by purchasing a non-authentic thing, a rational person would do so. The implication…. authenticity will become a thing of the past!

 

More than ten years later I encounter subject of authenticity in a different form. It has to do with one of my passions, photography. I take pictures, use Photoshop to spruce them up, create composites (mixing two or more pictures) and even create abstracts that have nothing to do with reality. 

 

I have also moved to California and joined a local camera club. They help us enter our photographs in competitions sponsored by a massive consortium of camera clubs. There are multiple categories in which you can enter your photos. I will use some of these categories to illustrate my point.

 

The first one is a category called “Nature.” You can enter your birds and bees pictures in this category. However, there cannot be any manmade object in your photo because then it will be disqualified. So, our camera club will teach you how to remove manmade objects using Photoshop, but do so in a manner that does not arouse suspicion. So, my first question is, why do they have a rule that encourages cheating? Would somehow a picture be less about nature if a wooden post appears in it? 

 

Similarly, a picture in category “Travel” can only be entered if there has been no editing done to it. So, if you remove an unwanted person from the photo will it represent the place less so than if you had left it alone? Is the object of the competition to reward the art of photography or the one that chronicles a place faithfully? 

 

Really interesting things happen in a category called “Creative.” Here is where you would enter your Photoshop images, such as composites. In fact, you run into trouble if your image looks like it was not Photoshopped. Your end product should appear unreal, but not too much. Abstracts are considered too unreal and not allowed.

 

This when I realized that this is a different version of authenticity. Authenticity in this case does not mean that you are trying to sell your photograph as one created by Ansel Adams. Nor is it where you are altering reality by inserting a politician in a compromising picture. So, authenticity of the end product is not in question.

 

It is authenticity of the process used to create the end product that is questioned. 

 

Did your process of creating that lovely bird photograph include removing a manmade object after the picture was taken or you found a bird away from anything that would be considered manmade? Did the process of creating that wonderful photo of sunrise in Miami require you to remove an unwanted person in the photo or did you wait patiently for the beach to become empty? Was the process used to create your image of moon behind camels included using Photoshop (as you are supposed to in the Creative category) or you just happened to be there when moon was rising behind camels?

 

I always thought it is the end product that matters, not the process used to create it, especially in art.

 

Did someone forget to tell Ansel Adams that he could not use his post-processing in a darkroom to create his wonderful images...they had to be as they were taken?

The Dark Forest

One of the more intriguing Sci-Fi novels I have read in recent days (and I read a lot of them) has been Remembrance of Earth’s Past, written by a Chinese author Liu Cixin and expertly translated in English. Actually, this is not one book but a trilogy. The three voluminous books are: “The Three-Body Problem”, “The Dark Forest”, and “Death’s End”. In China, the trilogy is referred to as The Three-Body Problem, the title of the first book, however, the title of the second book is most descriptive of the central theme of the trilogy. 

 

The universe is a dark forest with hunters quietly moving around. Since you don’t know the intentions or capabilities of the other hunters, it makes sense to take a hostile position against any civilization you find out about and eliminate it. However, you cannot take an instantaneous action due to distances involved. Even at the speed of light, the nearest star is more than four light years away. So, there is a potential negotiating window. 

 

Under this scenario, one of the most precious commodities you have against your enemy has is their exact location. You use the information of their location as a deterrent during the negotiating window. “If I see you coming after me, I will broadcast your location to the universe so some others will come and kill you. So better not come after me.”

 

This is similar to mutually assured destruction (MAD) used at the height of cold war.  “If I detect your missiles coming towards me, I will fire mine and destroy you.”  The way such a deterrence can be neutralized is if the enemy is able to destroy your broadcasting capability through a sneak attack, just like the enemy wiping out your counterattack capability during the MAD days. 

 

Three different technologies are envisaged for broadcasting the location of your enemy to the universe: amplification of the radio signals by using sun, creating a morse code using precise detonation of nuclear weapons in orbit, and gravity waves. Without giving away too much of the story, I can say that each one of these is considered.

 

Besides these principal themes of dark forest, deterrence, and attack running through the three volumes, there are some other interesting future projections, some literally mind bending.

 

Hibernation will allow humans to live almost forever, as long as they are willing to skip years of experience in between. The purpose may be to pass time while they are looking for the cure of your disease. It could also be a societal decision to send you to the future where you will be more useful.

 

The Superstring Theory proposes the presence of ten physical dimensions, not three that we are familiar with. In this Sci-Fi work, these extra dimensions are unfolded and come into play in several different ways. One is used by the aliens to interfere in the life on earth by managing to stop advances in science (so they will have an easier time defeating us), the other in travelling through space almost instantaneously, and yet another in causing massive destruction. 

 

Several ideas related to protecting human beings from an attack on the sun are described in detail. One involves using a spaceship that uses propulsion system manipulating curvature of space. It can achieve speed of light almost instantaneously without crushing the occupants. The other has humanity hiding behind the gaseous planets, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune. Yet another speculates slowing down the speed of light, so that the entire solar system can go into hiding. 

 

The name of the first novel, The Three-Body Problem, is one of those hard to solve challenges in celestial mechanics, making it virtually impossible to predict motion of three objects in space moving around each other.  So, if you have the misfortune to live in a system with three stars, you will have no idea how they are going to behave. During some periods, they will all be together, frying the surface of your planet. Other time, they will all in different locations and your home will be frozen and nothing will grow. 

 

The aliens living under these terrible circumstances do develop a technology which depends on dehydrating themselves during rough times, and rehydrating when things are going well. During the good times, they develop a very advanced civilization but they are very eager to leave their home and find someplace more pleasant. Fortunately for them, someone on earth sends out a signal inviting outside forces, because that someone, a woman scientist, is fed up with her government (China during the cultural revolution). 

 

Stephen Hawking, one of the most famous astrophysicists of our time, had warned us not to reach out to aliens out there in universe because an advanced civilization can put us at risk. This dark tale speculates what can happen.  

 

. 

 

Native habitat restoration

 We recently came across an interesting sign outside Arroyo Seco, an area in which we frequently go for walks. “Native Habitat Restoration,” it said. You see, in Southern California, a lot of vegetation is from plants and trees that are not native. They are of invasive species. The restoration aims to remove them and bring back the natives. “With the aliens taking resources, the natives can’t thrive,” they argue. 

 

This made us think of the larger picture involving people, both natives and aliens. The vociferous opposition to new immigrants, “aliens,” is based, among other things, on belief that they take away resources from those living here already, the “natives.”

 

The first problem with this is who is native and who is alien. Yes, California has native Americans. In our areas, there used to be Hahamongna Indians who lived before being displaced by the aliens. First those from south (Mexico), and then from East (United States). 

 

However, if you speak to most Californians, they would not consider themselves as aliens. They are natives. Only those who are immigrating recently are aliens, otherwise, the narrative does not work. They would not want to be uprooted so that the habitat goes back to Hahamongna Indians.

 

We came across a woman, an elderly local, who lamented the fact that in their zeal to restore native vegetation, the authorities had chopped of a lot of trees. She was not happy at all. The trees being chopped off were so valuable. Good for you, we said. 

 

So, my fellow Californians, let us not get too zealous about restoring native plants at the expense of the alien ones. Listen to the argument made by the old lady we met, and apply it to the human population. We recent immigrants, the “aliens” are here to stay, and we add a lot of value to the society, just as alien plants do. 

 

Enough is enough

When we were traveling most of 2019, and staying in multiple hotels, Airbnbs, and homes of family members and friends, there were two challenges we faced almost every time: How to operate the shower and a far greater one, how to make the TV work.  Each time we wanted to watch something, we were confronted with multiple remote controls, with scant explanation on what buttons to press to see the evening news, or watch a movie. 

Now that we have a place to stay, our household is no different. We are proud owners of four remote controls, one each for TV, cable, the sound bar, and Roku. Together, they have 120 different buttons you can press, some of which would be meaningless to you, as they are to us. To get the news channel, you press the TV power button on the sound bar remote and then the source button on TV remote to make sure you are on HDMI 2.  Next comes the cable remote’s turn. It allows you to select the channel. Now, once you get the channel you want, you need to go back to the sound bar remote to adjust volume. 

 

Want to watch a movie? We subscribe to Netflix and Amazon Prime channels. However, to get there, you will need to select HDMI 4 as the source and then learn how to operate the Roku remote. Again, don’t forget, the sound volume cannot be controlled by any remote except the one for the sound bar. 

 

Isn’t technology wonderful? I am an engineer, so this all should be easy. However I am also a senior citizen and find the product complexity unnecessary and infuriating. Pray tell me, why do I need so many choices?

 

Talking about that we bought a Subaru about a year ago. This is a stripped down version but yet it comes with mind-boggling number of buttons and screens.  The main instruction manual is a five hundred and thirty nine page long. It is choke full of information on how to operate the vehicle and its accessories. The section on seats, seatbelts and SRS airbags run for mind-numbing seventy-six pages! Do they expect their customers to go through this crap just to make sure that they are properly restrained in their cars?

 

If you want to know all about instruments and controls, you need to read just one hundred pages, and another hundred will tell you all you need to know about starting and operating the vehicle. 

 

I didn’t read all these pages, of course, but had to glance through them to figure out what most of the switches and buttons do. The last thing I want to happen is press the ejection seat by mistake (I am kidding). Still there were some switches that were not mentioned in the Instruction manual. Two were hidden in the overhead console and two near cruise control.  Then, I read somewhere that if my vehicle is equipped with the EyeSight system then I need to get another manual for that. I was told that indeed our vehicle has an EyeSight system, so I went to the website and found a pdf file of the manual. Guess how many pages are there in that manual? One hundred and sixteen! 

 

We are reaching a state of absurdity, I think.  Yes, AI will come to rescue when all we will have to do is to speak properly and the system will do what we want. No instruction manuals required. However, until that happens, we are caught into this quicksand of increased product complexity, driven primarily by “we will give choices because we can, not because anyone asked us to. “

 

Interestingly, at the other end of the spectrum are some products made by companies such as Apple. They have taken the elegance and simplicity of their products to an absurd level and end up creating the same level of frustration as those that come with too much information, as in the above examples. 

 

So, recently, we got the Apple TV to replace Roku, which is also a streaming device you connect to your television. You get a neat little box containing neat little black components of the device, and practically no instructions. I figured out how to connect the main unit to my TV, but had a great deal of difficulties understanding what the remote did. As I said, there are no instructions. Like the ape in 2001: A Space Odyssey, puzzled at encountering a slick black obelisk, I looked at the small thin black obelisk in my hand, turning it around, and wondering how one can use it to go up and down a simple menu on the screen. 

 

Finally, it took an explanation from our son-in-law to figure out that the top part of the remote is like the touch pad on my laptop. You move your fingers and press it to create action on what you see on TV. Also, there is a Siri like capability on the remote. You just say what you want to watch and it will appear on your screen. Would it have destroyed Apple’s brand image if they said these things on a small piece of paper in the box? 

 

Same issues with their new iPhone. My wife and I went through a hilarious episode when we could not figure out how to switch the damn thing off! Now we are not dumb…we have gone to college and earned many degrees among the two of us. Is something wrong with us or the manufacturers just don’t get it? 

 

I say, enough is enough.

Sharing vs. Showing off

 Recently, I wrote a Blog post on why can’t we stop showing off (1^st December 2020). The main part of that post was a story in NY Times about how to get readers get introduced to classical music. This was filled with experts selecting obscure pieces and describing in such technical terms that only other experts will understand. I thought they were showing off instead of sharing their knowledge. 

I followed that soon after with a document introducing the recipients to classical music. Prompted by a gentle jab from a friend asking if now I was showing off, I started thinking. First, I asked the recipients if they felt that I was indeed showing off. I got a resounding response….no I was not. Then, I thought about when sharing becomes showing off. Here is what I came up with. Let’s start from the very beginning. 

 

What do we share?

 

We share information about ourselves, where and how we live, our family, what we do, our hobbies. 

 

We share our experiences, our travels, the places we have visited, the people we have met, the places where we have dined.

 

We share knowledge, something we know, we have learned, we have studied, we have researched.

 

We share our wealth, donate to worthy causes, help a family member, help a friend in need.

 

Why do we share?

 

We share information about ourselves as a way of establishing a social network. Our relationships in part are based on knowing about each other and establishing trust.

 

We share our experiences to learn about what each one of us have done, where we have gone, what types of friends we have made. 

 

We share our knowledge because it is a part of our job, to help someone learn something new, to start a discussion on a new topic.

 

We share our wealth because of altruistic purposes, and make ourselves feel good.

 

Why else do we share?

 

An additional reason for sharing is that being liked, admired, and respected by others will boost our ego.

 

People may say good things about our lives, our family our house, our car, our skills, and that will boost our ego.

 

The listeners will praise us for the experience we have had, places we have visited, folks we have met, and that will boost our ego.

 

Our audience of our lecture will be mesmerized by our knowledge and be grateful because they learned something new. That will boost our ego.

 

We will get heartfelt thanks for the funds received by a worthy cause. Or family member or friend who we assisted will pledge eternal gratitude and that will boost our ego.

 

Now, in an ideal situation, we should be living a life free from ego, as our wise people say. However, most of us it is impossible to achieve that state. So, this additional reason is important, and for many it might be the driver for sharing.

 

When does sharing become showing off?

 

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

 

The person listening to us talk about our house, our life, our family, our car may also think how egotistical we are. Although that is not what they will say in our faces. Their praise will not be sincere.

 

The folks listening to us talk, without them asking, about our experiences may think, “Here he goes again. I have heard about your Antarctica trip enough number of times. Just shut up.” Of course, they will maintain their pleasant demeanor.

 

The audience of our lecture, or a recipient of a massive document containing our knowledge, will say “I don’t understand a thing. If he were genuinely trying to impart knowledge, why wouldn’t he take my interests and limitations in to account?”

 

The person listening to our tales of donation will say, “He is doing it just to brag about it.”

 

In short, the recipient of our exchange will think that we are showing off.

 

Now again, for some this may be the ultimate goal. Getting their ego stroked is not sufficient, they want to feel superior to the recipients.

 

How can we stop showing off?

 

Showing off can be harmful in several ways. The relationships we are trying to build may not take hold and the existing ones my erode. We will come across as an egomaniac or a fool, not the most complimentary descriptions to aspire to. 

 

So, we should be aware when our sharing may slip into showing off. How do we do that?

 

The most important element in making sure we don’t fall into the trap is to know the recipients of our sharing. Who is the audience?

 

It is one thing if we are talking about our big house on a seashore with someone in the same wealth level, another if the listener is a person with more modest means.

 

It is one thing if we are comparing notes with another well-travelled person, another if the friend has barely left town.

 

It is one thing if we are discussing classical music with a peer, another if we are doing that with a layperson who is genuinely interested in knowing more about the field.

 

It is one thing if we keep the story of our donations just to ourselves, another if we use it to impress a new set of recipients…our family and friends. 

 

That’s my thinking on the topic.