Why did Elon Musk Bribe His Way into the White House?

On occasion I am compelled by some outrage to ponder how and why it could be happening. This is one such occasion, and one of the few for which I can report having formed a convincing hypothesis.

The Outrage

Elon Musk bribed his way into the Trump White House, and is calling the shots on where and how tax money should be spent, dismantling programs to combat climate change, disease and pandemic prevention, and government support for millions who need it at home and abroad. Why is he doing this?

My Hypothesis

Musk has persuaded enough politicians and billionaires to help him establish a city on Mars, as insurance against one or more impending global catastrophes (climate change, plastic pollution, loss of biodiversity, pandemics, supervolcanoes, asteroid collisions, etc.) that can render the Earth uninhabitable. They will collectively throw 99.99% of the human race under the bus, so that 0.01% can emigrate to Mars on his fleet of space buses.

Supporting Evidence

1. Musk is determined to realize his "inspirational idea", https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iT65zFgnHtg

2. He built up SpaceX, Tesla, Solar City, Neuralink, and The Boring Company, which developed some of the technologies needed to build a liveable city on an otherwise hostile planet. SpaceX is building its Starlink constellation of tens of thousands of satellites for global internet, to help fund his Mars ambitions.

3. No Democrat would have gone along with his cockamamie plan, but Musk realized that Trump could be bought, so in 2022 he switched parties. He bought Twitter (now X), which was instrumental in spreading enough disinformation and propaganda to get Trump elected President in 2024, and he spent at least $277 million of his own money on Trump and the GOP, just to make sure. 

Prospects for Success of Musk's City on Mars

Zero, according to Robert Zubrin of the Mars Society,

https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-mars-dream-is-back-how-to-go ,

and according to most scientists,

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/125084292-a-city-on-mars .

So if Elon Musk succeeds in realizing his "inspirational idea", the human race will be left with no habitable planet.

What Does Elon Musk Have in Mind?

I had trouble sleeping last night, pondering the mind of Elon Musk. Why is he hijacking the Dept. of the Treasury? To divert however many trillions it will take to build his refugee city on Mars? I tried to look at the bright side of that scheme and finally fell asleep.

This morning while reading Alton Frye's "Nazi Germany and the American Hemisphere 1933-1941" (Yale University, 1967), Elon's mind started to make sense. On page 12 Frye quotes what Frederic William Maitland, the "patron saint of historians", once said:

"It is very hard to remember that events long past were once in the future."

Reviled as he is today, Elon Musk is thinking of those future days after he has built his city on Mars, when he shall be hailed as the prophet who foresaw the catastrophes that would engulf the Earth, and built a fleet of Arks to deliver humanity (it's richest 1% at least) to a safe haven.

Now I wait for the armed forces to declare martial law, round up all the domestic enemies of democracy - Elon Musk, Donald Trump, Republican Party leaders and their billionaire financiers - and detain them for violating their pledges to defend the Constitution of the United States, and for endangering the lives of the 99%. They can be moved to Guantanamo Bay for their own safety.

History of the Future

 As Yogi Berra once said, "It's hard to make predictions, especially about the future." Of course it's easy to make predictions about the future, but I think Yogi meant accurate predictions about the near future. The far future is easier to predict accurately, based on the laws of physics, so that's the history of the future outlined here.

For the sake of having a far future, let us assume that we make it through the near future by not blowing ourselves up, by preventing global warming and pollution from destroying the Earth's habitability, and by anticipating natural threats such as killer asteroids, and deflecting them away from collision courses with Earth.

Even without greenhouse gas emissions, Earth will continue warming as the sun brightens until it becomes uninhabitable in 1.3 billions years, if our descendants do not intervene. If I were them, I would deploy sunshades at Earth orbit's L1 point, about one million miles from Earth in the Sun's direction. More sunshades can be launched as the Sun warms up, just enough to let through the same amount of solar energy we have today. They would have to block 8% of the sunlight 1.3 billion years from now, and for every billion years after that at least an additional 6% of sunlight. Earth can remain habitable for another 6 billion years by adding more sunshades until they block half of the Sun's disk.

Shortly after that the Sun will balloon into a red giant and swallow the Earth, ending future history on Earth. By then Mars and a few other places will surely be inhabited by our descendants, enabling future histories to unfold.

Recent essays for Band of Writers

History's Dustbins and Ash Heaps

San Jose, CA: April 7, 2024

The life stories of most people living today, including my own I suspect, are headed for the dustbin of history. They are all recorded in official records of births, deaths, marriages, attendance at meetings and so forth.

A few people's lives are remembered long after their deaths and the deaths of their children and grandchildren. They are remembered for their accomplishments that affected many people on a local, regional or global scale, for better or worse. Some of their names and accomplishments inspire writers and editors to enter them into the body of literature we call history. But others are excluded or expunged from history by people with vested interests in alternate interpretations of events, especially after wars when history is written by the victors. The views of the vanquished are consigned to the dustbin of history.

In the fullness of time, historians, archaeologists, geologists and crime investigators can dig through the dustbins and ash heaps of history to resuscitate knowledge of formerly suppressed people and defeated communities.

Embrace being human in every way

Los Gatos, CA: May 12, 2024

Start when you're born by crawling on the floor and pulling the cat's tail to get your mother's attention. If she doesn't scold you for not recognizing the inherent worth and dignity of every cat, run away from home the first chance you get. You cannot expect anyone who disrespects cats to respect her own child, or any other mammal for that matter.

You now face your first fork in the road. If you ran away, seek a higher authority because you're going to need one to survive. The mayor's office would be a good place to start. Hitch a ride if it's too far to crawl.

If you stayed home, you're in good hands, probably a family of Unitarian Universalists, Hindus, Buddhists, or just plain cat lovers. Cultivate your natural curiosity and learn as much as you can by all means possible: reading, interrogating your elders, exploring the world, and engaging in physical activities. Don't let them foist a smart phone or other so-called mobile device on you before high school, or your developing brain and body will atrophy or get run over at a cross-walk while you're Googling. Leave your internet life at home with your stationary device when you venture out in the natural world and you'll learn more about it, you'll get more exercise, and you'll make more friends.

Prompt for 10-minute writing exercise:
What's your favorite company name?

United Metropolitan Improved Hot Muffin and Crumpet Punctual Delivery Company. This Dickensian company name came from Nicholas Nickleby by Charles Dickens, published as a serial from 1838 to 1839. I wonder when somebody will start a real company with that name, so I can find out how improved hot muffins and crumpets taste. Ralph Nickleby is the founder of the fictitious company, so maybe somebody with that name will be inspired to start it.

Climate Restoration? Maybe, maybe not!

 I recently read Climate Restoration: The Only Future That Will Sustain the Human Race, by Peter Fiekowsky (Rivertowns Books, 2022, 259 pages). The author's thinking about climate change and what it would take to reverse it impresses me with its breadth and depth. He cites an armamentarium of technologies that can be deployed to task, but fails to include the one that I consider most critical for assuring success. 

The prevailing public understanding of climate change is that it can be stopped by reducing carbon dioxide (CO₂) and other greenhouse gas emissions to their pre-industrial levels by mid-century. Peter Fiekowsky explodes that popular myth by casting emissions reduction as “Job 1” in a much more ambitious but necessary program to save civilization and bring long-term stability to the biosphere. Stopping at Job 1 does nothing to halt the warming baked in by past emissions, reverse ocean acidification, sequester carbon emitted in the past, or prevent catastrophic methane bursts from thawing permafrost in the Arctic. He outlines programs to accomplish these jobs by scaling up and commercializing existing technologies that mimic what the biosphere has done naturally in the geologic past, but doing it much more quickly. These include

• Synthesizing limestone from CO₂ for building materials.
• Sequestering CO₂ in the seafloor by (1) expanding kelp forests and (2) sprinkling tiny amounts of iron to trigger phytoplankton blooms. Both programs would also enhance marine biodiversity.  
• Enhancing atmospheric methane oxidation to suppress methane spikes.

Finally, Fiekowsky outlines a plan to bring global population down to 2 billion people before the end of the century, because the demand of today’s 8 billion people on Earth’s resources makes climate restoration impossible. I agree that reducing the human population may be necessary, but not nearly as drastically as he envisions.

What I find rather unfortunate is Fiekowsky's deference to Mark Jacobson, who claims that the energy sector can be decarbonized with renewable sources alone. When scientists criticized Jacobson's assumptions¹, he chose to sue them rather than defend his assumptions. That is the action of a propagandist for the fossil fuel industry, not an independent scientist. Renewables are the industry’s favorite zero-carbon sources because they are intermittent. When their output is down, wind and solar farms must burn fossil fuels to provide base load power. While batteries can store renewable energy to smooth their output, their capacity is woefully inadequate to liberate renewables from dependence on base load sources (fossil fuels and/or nuclear).

Jacobson is cited frequently by proponents of renewable energy who believe that nuclear power isn’t needed to decarbonize the energy sector. Most experts in energy and the environment disagree, and regard that belief as dangerous thinking. Climatologist James Hansen, for example, has argued since 2009 for ramping up nuclear power, and has been frustrated by antinuclear activists who have shut down nuclear power plants. In 2017 he said, "We cannot remain silent. If we sit back and say that in a few decades’ time it will become clear that phasing out fossil fuels will not succeed without nuclear power, we will be right, but by then, it will be too late! ... The opposition to nuclear power is truly insane. All these fears – about radiation, about waste, about accidents – have no basis in science. This aversion is quasi-religious and irrational." ²

Fiekowsky’s claim that a global population of no more than about 2 billion people can be sustained indefinitely on 100% renewable energy is probably right. Paul Ehrlich and Lester Brown came to similar conclusions long before him. The limit comes from the diluteness of solar radiation at Earth’s surface, just 100 watts per square meter. Sun and wind are free, but collecting their energy takes a huge mass of materials spread over vast areas. Nuclear energy is so much denser that nuclear plants require only 1/18^th the mass of solar farms and 1/11^th the mass of wind farms, for the same energy output. On a given parcel of real estate, a nuclear plant would generate 37 times as much energy as a solar farm, and 132 times as much as a wind farm. These facts make nuclear the most environmentally benign energy source. If Fiekowsky had included lots of nuclear power in his calculation, he would have estimated a much higher sustainable population limit.

I rate the book Climate Restoration Four Stars. Reading it raised my confidence that we can save civilization and restore the health of the biosphere on which it depends, by deploying technologies at our disposal today. The chapters on drawing down greenhouse gases to pre-industrial levels, preventing catastrophic methane bursts, and stabilizing the population to a long-term sustainable level, provide ideas and insights I had not encountered elsewhere in the climate change literature. I would have rated the book Five Stars if the chapter “Job One: Completing the Energy Transition” had included nuclear power, and the chapter “Population Restoration” had shown how the sustainable population limit increases with the percentage of nuclear in the energy mix.

I hope a future edition of Climate Restoration includes a chapter on the long-term consequences of restoring the climate to its pre-industrial composition. Temperature drops that have led to ice ages were not precipitated by atmospheric changes in CO₂ concentration, as Fiekowsky asserts, but by long-term variations in Earth’s orbit and axial tilt (Milankovitch cycles). For this reason, people before 1980 were more worried about global cooling and the next ice age, than about global warming. If CO₂ levels are reduced to 300 ppm by 2100, the Milankovitch cycles will again dominate temperature trends, leading to an ice age in about 50,000 years.³

But industries profiting handsomely from sequestering carbon over the next half century may want to keep going after they’ve outlived their usefulness and could become self-perpetuating “cash cows” (like today’s fossil fuel industries). If they cannot be stopped and reduce CO₂ concentrations below 250 ppm, they could trigger the next ice age much more quickly. I’d be interested in reading how Fiekowsky deals with this prospect.

References. If a link fails, copy it and paste to web browser.

1…https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Z._Jacobson#Critiques_of_100%_renewable_papers_and_court_controversy

2…https://www.replanet.ngo/post/climate-scientist-james-hansen-the-opposition-to-nuclear-power-is-truly-insane.

3...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles#Present_and_future_conditions.

 

Did Complex Life Begin in a Natural Nuclear Reactor?

Two unique events in world history are believed to have both taken place around 1.7 billion years ago.  Might their coincidence in time explain why life as we know it exists? 

The Emergence of Eukaryotes.  

For more than 2 billion years, the only life forms that existed were the two domains of prokaryotes, the bacteria and the (slightly larger) archaea.  Since their origin almost 4 billion years ago, these simple cells became so successful and adaptable that they haven't evolved greater size or complexity even to this day.  Then all of a sudden, geologically speaking, there appeared about 1.7 billion years ago much larger and more complex single cells known as eukaryotes, the third domain of life (Ref. 1).  Eukaryotes include every complex single-cell species and every multi-cellular species known today, characterized by much more complex biochemistry and cellular structure than those of the prokaryotic domains.  

In Reference 1, author Nick Lane argues that the first eukaryotes evolved from the coalescence of an archaeon ("host") and bacterium inside it ("parasite"), a very rare event which almost always kills the host, but in this case formed a chimeral cell that lived and reproduced.  Over succeeding generations, the parasites became "endosymbionts", losing most of their DNA and retaining only what they needed for energy production.  They became the sub-cellular organelles known as mitochondria.  The host's DNA concurrently expanded to include most of the genes for synthesizing many of the proteins and enzymes that the mitochondria needed to function and reproduce.  This one (and perhaps only) successful prokaryotic chimera to emerge in world history has evolved into all the branches and twigs of the eukaryotic domain: all algae, fungi, plants and animals.

The Only Known Natural Nuclear Reactors.

The other unique event in world history that took place about 1.7 billion years ago was the onset of natural self-sustaining nuclear reactions at 16 sites in Oklo, Gabon (Ref. 2).  It is believed to be a unique event in world history because the decay products of nuclear fission fragments have been found nowhere else in rock strata that predate the atomic era.  These nuclear reactions took place in a uranium layer embedded in sandstone.  When it became inundated with ground water, the layer moderated (slowed down) neutrons enough to sustain a fission chain reaction.  The energy imparted to fission fragments heated the water and boiled it off, shutting down the reaction until the layer cooled enough for water to flow through again and restart it.  This cycle repeated every 3 hours for a few hundred thousand years, until there was too little fissionable uranium left to sustain the chain reaction. 

A nuclear chain reaction, natural or otherwise, is only possible when at least 3% of uranium atoms are the fissionable isotope U-235.  They can no longer occur in nature because the decay rate of U-235 is much faster than the dominant isotope’s (U-238).  In the last 1.7 billion years, the natural abundance of U-235 fell from 3% to only 0.72%, much too low to sustain a chain reaction. 

How might these unique events be causally connected? 

To understand how, consider that adenosine triphosphate (ATP), the energy-storing molecule common to all life, is produced in very thin membranes (6 nanometers thick) which are porous to the flow of protons in one direction but not the other. The "respiratory chain" (oxidizing food, hydrogen sulfide, or even ferrous iron!) drives protons in the porous direction until the voltage drop across the membrane exceeds 150 millivolts.  While this sounds low, such voltage across such a thin membrane creates lightning-bolt-high electric fields (25-30 million volts per meter), strong enough to pull protons back through the membrane in the non-porous direction. This reverse flow of protons powers the production of ATP by ATPsynthase molecules, exquisitely complex protein nanomotors embedded in the membrane.  Every 10 protons rotate a nanomotor one complete turn, producing 3 ATP molecules from 3 adenosine diphosphate molecules (ADP) and 3 phosphate ions(Pi).  The ATPsynthase kicks the new ATPs off the membrane to float around the cell until they encounter proteins that split them back into ADP and Pi, releasing the stored energy to carry out the cell's work.  The ADP and Pi continue floating until they encounter other membranes, whose ATPsynthases grab them to make more ATP.  The main consequence of this mechanism is that the energy available to a cell is proportional to the total area of its energy-producing membranes.

Bacteria and archaea are both limited in their size and complexity by the limited area of their only membrane, the one that encloses most of the cell just inside the cell wall. Given this constraint, these simple cells lack the energy they would need to grow larger or more complex.  Lane believes this constraint was overcome when an archaeon somehow acquired a bacterium and survived.  Archaea are larger than bacteria, but the latter reproduce faster, so an archaeon with bacterial parasites multiplying within is most likely to burst.  But in a sheltered, energy-and-mineral rich environment, such as a porous mineral matrix through which hot water flows, there's a chance that the archaeon and its endobacteria could mutate by sharing DNA, giving the archaeon the ability to expand and accommodate the growing number of bacteria within.  This would enable it to survive and reproduce as a chimera, evolving in size and complexity.  Thus evolved the first eukaryotic cells, 15,000 times the chimera’s original size.  Its thousands of mitochondria, descendents of the original bacterium, contain densely folded membranes that collectively crank out millions of times more ATP than any prokaryote.  

Lane proposed an alkaline hydrothermal vent as the site where this took place.  But such vents are numerous on the ocean floor, and have been around for billions of years, yet no other multicellular domains of life emerged from them.  Why did this only happen once in 4 billion years, giving rise to only one domain of complex life?

Any of the natural nuclear reactors at Oklo might have provided a similar environment, exactly when the earliest eukaryotes emerged.  Uranium in the absence of oxygen is insoluble, and before that time there was not enough oxygen for uranium to dissolve in water and percolate through sandstone to form the uranium ore layer.  Shortly after that time the U-235 in the ore became too depleted to sustain fission.  So if complex life had been kick-started by nuclear power, it would only have happened in a very narrow window of time (0.0004 billion years wide), 1.7 billion years ago.  Translated into an a priori probability per unit time, that’s one domain of complex life per 400,000 years.  Comparing to the a priori probability per unit time of it happening in alkaline hydrothermal vents (once per 4 billion years), it’s 10,000 times as many domains of complex life per unit time! 

While these a priori probabilities are scientifically meaningless because they’re based on an event that happened only once anywhere, they suggest that the Oklo sites are well worth investigating as a possible birthplace of complex life as we know it.  Is there an Evolutionary Biochemist in the House who agrees?  

References

1.  Nick Lane, The Vital Question (Norton & Co. 2015).

2.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor

Why is Science so Easy for People to Ignore?

Lately the challenge of distinguishing facts from falsehoods has been a lively topic of discussion online. Freethinkers frequently express their belief in science rather than religion or politics, for reasons such as the one I read most recently:

"... With science, you know what you know, there are facts you can stand on and reason from in certain surety. But politics is mostly about follow-the-money with some well-meaning exceptions, religion is a smile on a dog, a lie in the fog, humanity is about primates too smart for their own good."

But with science, most non-scientists only think they know what they know. If you think like a scientist, you know that scientific knowledge is tentative and can be subject to revision in the future, following new discoveries. That's both its strength and its weakness. Science is the most reliable path to truth about the world, but the easiest to dismiss by ideologues because none of its truths are absolute. People desiring absolute truth often find it in religious, political, and economic ideologies which, driven by charismatic leaders, propel many of the dangerous trends we see today - pollution, global warming, unregulated free markets, discrimination against "undesirable" populations, wars, and reliance on "dogs and fogs" to save the world.

Maybe the human race wasn't ready for science when it arose in the middle of the second millennium. Given their natural desires to survive, to reproduce, and to seek absolute truth, humans have been enabled by science to overpopulate the planet and amplify their impact on the biosphere to apocalyptic levels.

What next? I think Generation Z will double down on science to get us out of this mess. If Mother Nature takes its course with no further advances from science, She will wipe out civilization and possibly exterminate the human race. That's what the Gaia Hypothesis would predict. Let's see what happens.