AC/DC: Revolutions

     Electric and magnetic phenomena have been observed for well over 2000 years. In ancient Greece, it was discovered that rubbing cat fur on amber would allow someone to pick up feathers without actually contacting them with the piece of amber. As well, a mineral was discovered in an area of Greece called Magnesia that contains Fe₃O₄, magnetite—a naturally occurring magnetic material. The object of much of our fascination and discovery for the past few centuries especially, what is now known as electromagnetism has become the cornerstone of modern civilization. Nearly every facet of our lives is now dependent upon the perpetual production and transfer of electrical power. TVs, radios, computers, traffic lights, toasters, microwaves, and all of the other conveniences we effortlessly plug into an outlet to use function according to a myriad of insights gained through experimentation conducted mostly in the past four centuries. Fermat, Franklin, Watson, Lagrange, Cavendish, Coulomb, Volta, Biot & Savart, Faraday, Gauss, Oersted, Ampere, Maxwell, Tesla, and many others made incredibly impactful contributions to humankind’s understanding of this most intriguing phenomenon. However, credit for popularizing induction motors and the long-distance transfer of power goes to Nikola Tesla.

            Nikola Tesla was born in 1856 in Smiljan, Croatia. After studying physics and math at the Technical University of Graz and philosophy at the University of Prague, Tesla had a vision in 1882 for a new, brushless design for an AC (alternating current) motor. Over the course of the next few decades, that vision essentially developed the precursor to our modern electrical grid. In fact, in 1895—the same year his lab in New York burnt down—with the financial backing of George Westinghouse, Tesla and General Electric installed AC generators at Niagara Falls. After many years of debating Thomas Edison, who championed DC (direct current) transmission as the future, it became apparent that alternating current was the superior technology for long-distance transmission. So, in honor of Nikola Tesla, this paper will contrast DC generators with AC generators. Power factor calculation will also be highlighted.

            Electric generators and motors operate according to principles outlined in Faraday’s Law. Faraday’s Law summarizes the ways in which an electromotive force (emf) may be generated by changes in a magnetic environment. That is, Faraday’s Law basically states that for a coil of wire, any changes in the magnetic environment will induce a voltage (emf) in that coil.

            Essentially, the first form is called the differential form while the second is called the integral form. Faraday’s Law is simplified for understanding generators and motors with multiple loops by the following equation, where N is the number of turns:

            This particular statement of Faraday’s Law highlights a direct proportionality between the number of turns of the coil and the magnitude of the induced emf; i.e., the more turns there are in the coil, the higher the induced emf. There are limitations, however; some of which will be discussed below. So, what is a generator?

A generator is simply a device that converts mechanical energy into electrical energy. It consists of a ferrous frame, called the stator, pole pieces, wound with wire in opposite directions, and the armature, also known as the core, which is the rotating part. The armature is made of many thin strips of an iron-silicon based material, called laminations, that are typically laser cut or die punched, then stacked together and fixed by a shaft through the center of the stack. Around the ridges of the laminations, copper wire is wound in specific patterns a specific number of times. Essentially, the number depends on the permeability of the stator, i.e. that is, the ease with which a ferrous metal can be magnetized, as well as the saturation point of the pole pieces, i.e. the maximum flux density of the pole pieces. At one end of the armature there is attached to the shaft a piece called the commutator. The purpose of the commutator is to provide a path to extract the induced voltage as the armature rotates through the magnetic field. It is made by attaching evenly alternating conductors and insulators to the shaft and connecting one end of one of the windings to one of the conductors and connecting the other end of that same winding to the conductor on the opposite side of the shaft. This process is repeated until all of the opposite conductors are attached in the same manner to a single winding.

            The pole pieces are also made of high permeability ferrous material and are wound many times with thin copper wire. This winding is called the shunt field and produces the main magnetic field through which the armature spins. If self-excited, the pole windings are wired in parallel with the carbon-based brushes that contact the commutator which means that the output will vary greatly with varying speeds as well as changing load. (The brushes are made of carbon because it is very slick and resistance decreases as temperature increases.) If separately-excited, the shunt field is instead connected to a field supply with a field adjust (typically a variable resistor) and provides much better control. In essence, the strength of the shunt field depends upon something called amp-turns. Amp-turns refer to the amount of current put through a conductor coiled a number of times. Low currents produce low flux density while high currents produce high flux density. Saturation occurs as the output voltage tapers off when graphed with field amps on the x-axis and output voltage on the y-axis. The relationship is linear at first but tapers off as the pole pieces reach a point where the inherent molecular properties of the material, along with their limited spatial dimensions, prohibit any more field lines, and thus flux, from being produced. As loads are added to the generator, this flux tends to become distorted. This is called armature reaction and is remedied by adding smaller interpoles between the main poles that are wired in series with the armature circuit.

            Now that a basic understanding of how a DC generator operates has been established, AC generators will now be examined. The main difference between AC and DC generators is that instead of implementing the split ring design of the commutator, as outlined above, AC generators are wired with each end of a loop connected to a separate slip ring. It is across and because of the separation of these slip rings that the sinusoidal, alternating voltage, and thus alternating current, are extracted using carbon-based brushes. Another crucial difference is that as you add more loops in an AC generator, they must be separated by particular angles. For example, in a typical single phase generator, there is a single sinusoidal voltage and current, i.e. positive to negative to positive to negative and so on, because there is a single coil of wire. Two phase generators have two coils that are perpendicular to each other which means two sinusoidal voltages/currents will be 90 degrees out of phase when graphed. Although many more types of polyphase generators exist, such as six phase, perhaps the most common are three phase generators.

            Three phase generators have a high efficiency in changing mechanical energy into electrical energy due to a continuous field flux. This is because of the Y-configuration of the coils in the generator. These coils are 120 degrees apart from each other. Each sinusoidal wave will be 120 degrees out of phase and generated at a rate of 60 Hz. As a result, the voltage is never 0. Hence, current is never 0. Therefore, there is relatively little energy lost through the process of converting the mechanical energy to electrical energy. As long as the load is balanced, each phase will deliver the same power. With the Y-configuration, if a voltmeter is placed across any phase to neutral, it will read 120V.

            Once the alternating voltage is produced with the AC generator, transformers are used to step up and step down the voltage for long distance transmission. Sending large currents over long distance is highly impractical because of the size of wire required. By stepping up the voltage, current is reduced in order to maintain the same power consequently requiring smaller gauge wire:

P = IV

            Typically, from the power station, the voltage is stepped up to around 345,000 V; sometimes to over 700,000 V. Once reaching the substation near the destination city or town, the voltage is stepped down to around 7,200 V and sent on to houses and businesses. Still other transformers, the ones at the top of a lot of the poles along almost every street around, step the voltage down once more to, 240 V, 120 V, or some combination of both, and then connect to residences and commercial buildings. Alas! A switch is flipped and lights come on. Well, it’s not quite that simple!

            When power companies transmit energy over long distances, there are many varying loads along the way which, as alluded to above, will affect the output voltage of the generators.  So, how do they maintain proper voltage output and thus keep the lights on without noticeably flickering? Well, the voltage output from the power company is essentially constant, so it’s really up to the customers drawing large amounts of power, such as commercial facilities that have many electric motors running to not waste power. The short answer is that phasors are used. No, not like the ones from Star Trek; those are phasers. Phasor diagrams are graphical representations of impedance caused by capacitors and inductors in a circuit. Impedance, Z, is anything that resists or impedes current.

            If a graph is made with the x-axis labeled real resistance and the y-axis labeled as an imaginary axis, +j and –j, the above equation will become much clearer. Essentially, this equation is saying that impedance is equal to the algebraic sum of the resistance, R, the capacitive reactance, X_C, and the inductive reactance, X_L. Inductive reactance is situated in the first quadrant while capacitive reactance is in the fourth quadrant. There is an interesting interplay between all of these quantities that ultimately are calculated as real or true power, i.e. the power across the resistor that is the only kind doing work, apparent power, i.e. the power across the inductor or inductors, and reactive power, i.e. the power across a capacitor bank. It is on the careful, dynamic balance of these three quantities that the companies rely to maximize the real power extracted. The goal is to maintain a power factor at or at least close to 1. In other words, as loads change in the facility, capacitor banks are used to balance the reactive and apparent power along the real power line. Since resistive power is the only power doing work, it is the only type that is useful; the others are basically a waste. Therefore, it is important for high energy consumers to constantly monitor the changes in capacitive and inductive reactance in order to reduce waste of the transmitted power; something that would surely make Tesla proud.

            Nikola Tesla lived to see a large portion of his work implemented in society. But, he didn’t do any of it for the money. In fact, he died alone and broke in his suite at the New Yorker Hotel in January of 1943. Instead, Nikola Tesla wanted to power the world for free. He even designed the system that could do it. The breadth of his accomplishments stands as a testament to the power of creative, visionary minds the world over. Tesla’s dedication in the face of adversity and unparalleled innovative skills have inspired countless scientists and engineers since his death. And, it is doubtless that he will continue to inspire generations to come.

In a society that operates almost entirely dependent upon science and technology, it is up to the scientists and engineers to recognize the necessity to examine other methods of social organization and not just focus on churning out more and more advanced technology that fewer and fewer people understand. Why should the idea of allowing those in society that have no clue how a certain piece of technology even works and that typically only have financial motivations dictate the development of such technology? It seems inexcusable to have virtually no one in the scientific community step up and ask the question, “Do we have the resources and the technical know-how?”, instead of, “Do we have the money?” And, it’s a bit strange that a lot of scientists seem to have no problem at all working on weapons of death and destruction. For humans, it’s totally reasonable to, as if by some banking miracle, find the money to bring together 130,000 scientists to develop one of the most unimaginably destructive devices known. But, try to find the money to bring together 130,000 scientists to develop a globally synergistic production and distribution system to provide the basic necessities for every human on the planet and prepare to revel in the glory of being called a socialist, a quack, an idealist, a utopian, or any number of other disparaging, rather unscientific pejoratives. What an absolute travesty! That mindset flies in the face of Tesla and the others that have contributed massively to scientific revolutions in our society by stepping outside of the boundaries of the norm. It turns out that just because a lot of people agree that a certain idea is infallible does not automatically make that idea correct or accurate. In the words of industrial designer and social engineer, Jacque Fresco, “Everyone once believed Earth was flat, but that didn’t make it so.”

Quaestio 3.0: On Aristotle's Function Argument

In his Nichomachean Ethics, Aristotle spends the first 9 chapters examining what “the ethical life” is and how to attain it. But, in the final chapter he simply states that the happy life is “the contemplative life”. So, there is a long train of thought that culminates in explaining what the function of a human being is and claiming that “the good” resides in it. Furthermore, he puts forth an elaborate, somewhat compelling, teleological argument that basically states if the happiest lives non-gods can attain is that which approximates the gods’ lives (the happiest life), and if our only similarity to gods is our ability to contemplate, then the most contemplative humans will live the happiest lives. This argument, while undoubtedly compelling and possibly convincing in ancient times, simply breaks down with modern information in psychology, neuroscience, and similar fields.

            For centuries, the Function Argument has been one of the most hotly debated ideas in philosophy. In essence, Aristotle develops the idea that humans have a particular function. And, it is within this function that the “good” resides in accordance with virtue. By virtue, Aristotle means a quality that makes one good at performing one’s function. As well, he narrows human function down to three possibilities: 1. the life of nutrition and growth; 2. the life of perception; and, 3. the active life of the element that has a rational principle. After ruling out the first two, he settles on the third as being peculiar to human beings. Essentially, this argument seems to be teleological in that it establishes a baseline for human function as being that which most closely approximates the lives of the gods. Moreover, the language used by Aristotle leads to ambiguity when defining the term function; i.e., it is often conflated with purpose. And, while it may be commonplace to synonymously interpret these terms, it is actually upon these subtle differences that Aristotle’s argument rests. In other words, describing an object’s function, i.e., how something does what it does, is much different than describing its purpose, i.e., what it does. Aristotle essentially spends the first nine chapters of the book fleshing out dismissals of popular conceptions of happiness, elaborate descriptions of human function, and explanations on why human function is important to our sense of moral virtue, only to, almost nonchalantly, wave his hand at all of it in chapter 10 by simply exclaiming that the happy life is “the contemplative life”. What makes the Function Argument itself so appealing to humans, however, is that it attempts not only to define our function but also to separate our function from that of all other forms of life that we know of by saying that it is through our rational activity, i.e., how we do what we do, that we are unique. Hence, the debate continues. So, how does the Function Argument hold up to scrutiny when compared to popular conceptions of happiness?

            One might claim that gaining a lot of money can lead to happiness. For instance, in at least the case of winning the lottery, by Aristotle’s standards the basic supposition is that one is acting in accordance with some rational principle. However, the odds are well known to be stacked so far against an individual as to be almost frivolous. Yet, millions of people still play—some even becoming so entranced by the delusion of the prospect of winning that they can be considered addicted, sometimes selling their houses and cars for it. But, there is no doubt that if they do win, they will be happy. For, they will have access to all of the things they believe will make them happy, even if it is temporary. So, are we to suppose that the purpose of a human being is to try to win and that the function is to try to win well? Is that rational?

            Happiness, another might argue, is doing what one loves to do. If one finds ultimate joy in knitting scarfs, but their scarfs are sights of horror to most in society, then, by the Function Argument, that person is not fulfilling their function since they did not knit the scarfs well. But, this is plainly ridiculous by the fact that they are happy irrespective of other people’s opinions. In fact, the knitter likely doesn’t even care about what their presupposed function is. And, it doesn’t matter whether people do like their scarfs; they are happy in any case when knitting them. In other words, the assumed function—to perform the purpose, in this case knitting, well—is irrelevant when determining happiness.

            Still others may offer the idea that the only way one might gain happiness is through their acceptance by others. For example, a guitar virtuoso obviously performs in an almost unparalleled manner; i.e., he plays the guitar well. However, if people ignore him, he may feel distanced, alone, and perhaps even depressed. Despite how well he plays the guitar, in itself, it does not equal happiness for him. Instead, it is only through others listening to his playing, buying his albums, and frequenting his shows, i.e., through their acceptance, that he feels happiness. So, is it reasonable to claim that being accepted well is how this virtuoso fulfills his function? Of course not! That would imply that his purpose is to be accepted by others. And, this leaves a rather large gap in the logic utilized here; i.e., what if he kills someone? Is it still his purpose to be accepted by others? Considering that neither is his function of playing guitar well conducive to happiness, it is obvious that the Function Argument isn’t justified here.

            The Function Argument, as Aristotle explains it, is fundamentally dependent upon his idea of virtues and how they essentially consist in the rational activity mentioned before. Admittedly, within the framework of Aristotle’s way of viewing virtues, purpose, and function, his Function Argument seems to be applicable in a number of circumstances. However, the entire argument obviously assumes that human beings have a purpose or a function. But, there is nothing in nature that indicates humans have to have a purpose or a function; nor is there a wholly objective scale with which we can compare semantically ambiguous, relative, descriptive terminology, such as how well something is done by someone, effectively rendering the argument itself obsolete.

            In terms of the former, humans have a knack for assigning purpose and function to practically everything. But, is that prudent? For example, many ancient societies attributed lightning to gods. We now understand electromagnetism quite well and realize that such notions are antiquated and unnecessary. In other words, gods smiting humans with lightning may have been compelling in ancient times, but nowadays it is a well understood phenomenon and we don’t need quaint, fear-mongering stories to explain it. Another example is if we say that the purpose of a human is to live and the function of a human is to live happily, how do we justify billions of people around the planet living in abject poverty? Do we simply repeat the age old adage that ignorance is bliss? I say no. This is a sad copout of a supposedly intelligent species. Clearly, the socioeconomic paradigm that perpetuates this poverty barely allows these people to even live; let alone live well. So, happiness is a rather difficult idea to define if our notions regarding it can be imposed upon us without understanding our capacity both for it and to understand different perspectives of it. In terms of economics, as another example I will ask: what is the purpose of an economic system? And, does our economic model fulfill that purpose well?

            The term economy comes from the ancient Greek word oikonomos, which translates to “household management”. So, it would be reasonable to claim that the purpose of an economy is to manage a household, and its function is to do it well. But, what is our household? Earth, of course! We tend to disregard the fact that Earth is essentially a closed, finite, interdependent system but it is, nevertheless, our household. None of the borders that we see drawn on typically disproportionate maps, i.e. maps that show Africa much smaller than it actually is in relation with the other land masses, actually exist. Nature doesn’t care that we tell ourselves that our separate countries have meaning because in the grand scheme, they simply do not. So, do we even manage the household? Well, sort of.

            We have a giant machine churning out economic slaves of easily manipulated opinions so everything seems fine and dandy to a vast majority of people. We have transportation infrastructure, we can fly around the world, we can flip a switch and instantly illuminate an entire room, we can sit in front of a computer and access the entirety of humankind’s knowledgebase; but, we also destroy the very environment which we are dependent upon. We dump toxic waste into fresh water supplies, we burn fossil fuels which release millions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere that sustains us, we kill other species en masse for fun and call it sport; we have successfully accelerated the natural warming/cooling cycle of the planet yet continue to passively elect cretins that have no problem using the fruits of science but deny its efficacy every chance they get. Surely, the hypocrisy is blatantly obvious here. But, the rest of the population is so distracted with and bogged down by the notion that we have to have money, that the system continues unabated and unquestioned. Again, does it work? Yes; but only if you are “lucky” enough to be born into a modern industrialized nation. If you are not born into such a country, then there is a word to describe such relatively unfortunate circumstances: fucked.

And what about the function of an economy; i.e. Does our economic model perform its function of managing a household well? Absolutely not! Nature is the only dictatorship and it doesn’t care what we think, believe in, or speculate on. Therefore, the only way to manage our household, Earth, well is to learn about nature and align with its natural processes. Anything less will simply be a cycle of the same exploitative, destructive methods that have been employed for far too long.

            Regarding money, the current socioeconomic paradigm is inextricably interlinked with a monetary/market system that almost no one bothers to learn about. Instead, we are forced into believing that we need money. Never mind where it comes from, what it represents, or whether it’s even relevant in our digital age. We are told that all we need to know is that we need money. Thus, the edifice of all of our wants and the rest of our needs becomes a direct outgrowth of this indoctrinated, unsubstantiated claim; i.e., our wants, needs, and conceptions of happiness are artificially imposed. And this unfortunately continues mostly without question and with total obedience. So, can we really claim that when happenstance bestows a large sum of money upon someone that it automatically means they will be happy because they can go out and buy all of the crap that they have been bombarded with their entire lives by advertising agencies telling them that their life sucks unless they buy the latest, greatest whatever? How could it possibly be considered rational to partake in something so unreasonably, yet obviously, unfair?

            It seems reasonable at first to concede that doing what one loves undoubtedly leads to one’s happiness. However, a number of flaws become apparent when examining this claim, two of which will be outlined here. First, what if, as was the case with the lottery winner and perhaps all of society, the conceptions of what one loves as well as what one deems “happiness” have been imposed upon them? In other words, how is one supposed to know, say, without having experienced much in life, that what they view as love and happiness is accurate or objectively (that is, being as objective as we are capable of being) correct? Secondly, and this hinges on the first, what if someone loves to kill and eat babies, as Albert Fish once did?

            Finally, gaining happiness through the acceptance of others is essentially the same thing as having the concept of happiness imposed. But, this time one is actively seeking this type of imposition outright which seems to indicate they have lost any semblance of self-worth. In other words, they feel as though there is no possible way to bring into fruition self-induced happiness. So, what this amounts to is artificial, presupposed conceptions of happiness being readily accepted from others without question. But, when the fans leave, as in the case of the virtuoso, the happiness leaves with them. And so, he fails to recognize that the most powerful resource on the planet also happens to be the only thing conducive to true happiness—his own mind.

            In closing, Aristotle was undoubtedly an incredible thinker. His Function Argument stands as a testament to how well-reasoned ideas are timeless. There is a reason that not only Aristotle, but many other ancient philosophers are still heavily emphasized in ethics today. (Of course, I recognize that the former statement can be construed to nullify my entire argument about purpose and function, but I’m going to wave my hand at that for the following punchline.) It shows how no matter where we are from, or even what era we are from, humans are far more similar than different. We tend to look back at ancient civilizations, using words such as primitive to describe them, and present arguments for how civilized we have become. Lest we forget that although ancient Egyptians built some of the most amazing architectural marvels in humankind’s history, they too worshipped cats—just as we are doing today.

Quaestio 2.0

     For centuries, Aristotle’s Function Argument has been one of the most hotly debated ideas in philosophy. In essence, in his Nichomachean Ethics, Aristotle develops the idea that humans have a particular function. And, it is within this function that the “good” resides in accordance with virtue. By virtue, Aristotle means a quality that makes one good at performing one’s function. As well, he narrows human function down to three possibilities: 1. the life of nutrition and growth; 2. the life of perception; and, 3. the active life of the element that has a rational principle. After ruling out the first two, he settles on the third as being peculiar to human beings. Essentially, this argument seems to be teleological in that it establishes a baseline for human function as being that which most closely approximates the lives of the gods. Moreover, the language used by Aristotle leads to ambiguity when defining the term function; i.e., it is often conflated with purpose. And, while it may be commonplace to synonymously interpret these terms, it is actually upon these subtle differences that Aristotle’s argument rests. In other words, describing an object’s function, i.e., how something does what it does, is much different than describing its purpose, i.e., what it does. Aristotle essentially spends the first nine chapters of the book fleshing out dismissals of popular conceptions of happiness, elaborate descriptions of human function, and explanations on why human function is important to our sense of moral virtue, only to, almost nonchalantly, wave his hand at all of it in chapter 10 by simply exclaiming that the happy life is “the contemplative life”. What makes the Function Argument itself so appealing to humans, however, is that it attempts not only to define our function but also to separate our function from that of all other forms of life that we know of by saying that it is through our rational activity, i.e., how we do what we do, that we are unique. Hence, the debate continues. So, how does the Function Argument hold up to scrutiny when compared to popular conceptions of happiness?

     One might claim that gaining a lot of money can lead to happiness. For instance, in at least the case of winning the lottery, by Aristotle’s standards the basic supposition is that one is acting in accordance with some rational principle. However, the odds are well known to be stacked so far against an individual as to be almost frivolous. Yet, millions of people still play—some even becoming so entranced by the delusion of the prospect of winning that they can be considered addicted, sometimes selling their houses and cars for it. But, there is no doubt that if they do win, they will be happy. For, they will have access to all of the things they believe will make them happy, even if it is temporary. So, are we to suppose that the purpose of a human being is to try to win and that the function is to try to win well? Is that rational?

     Happiness, another might argue, is doing what one loves to do. If one finds ultimate joy in knitting scarfs, but their scarfs are sights of horror to most in society, then, by the Function Argument, that person is not fulfilling their function since they did not knit the scarfs well. But, this is plainly ridiculous by the fact that they are happy irrespective of other people’s opinions. In fact, the knitter likely doesn’t even care about what their presupposed function is. And, it doesn’t matter whether people do like their scarfs; they are happy in any case when knitting them. In other words, the assumed function—to perform the purpose, in this case knitting, well—is irrelevant when determining happiness.

     Still others may offer the idea that the only way one might gain happiness is through their acceptance by others. For example, a guitar virtuoso obviously performs in an almost unparalleled manner; i.e., he plays the guitar well. However, if people ignore him, he may feel distanced, alone, and perhaps even depressed. Despite how well he plays the guitar, in itself, it does not equal happiness for him. Instead, it is only through others listening to his playing, buying his albums, and frequenting his shows, i.e., through their acceptance, that he feels happiness. So, is it reasonable to claim that being accepted well is how this virtuoso fulfills his function? Of course not! That would imply that his purpose is to be accepted by others. And, this leaves a rather large gap in the logic utilized here; i.e., what if he kills someone? Is it still his purpose to be accepted by others? Considering that neither is his function of playing guitar well conducive to happiness, it is obvious that the Function Argument breaks down here.

     The Function Argument, as Aristotle explains it, is fundamentally dependent upon his idea of virtues and how they essentially consist in the rational activity mentioned before. Admittedly, within the framework of Aristotle’s way of viewing virtues, purpose, and function, his Function Argument seems to be applicable in a number of circumstances. However, the entire argument obviously assumes that human beings have a function. Here, an elaborate dismantling of that assumption, i.e., one that could fill an entire book itself, will be forgone for its thesis. That is, I will simply state that there is nothing in nature that indicates humans have to have a purpose or a function, nor is there a wholly objective scale with which we can compare semantically ambiguous, relative, descriptive terminology, such as how well something is done by someone, effectively rendering the argument itself obsolete.

     Regarding money, the current socioeconomic paradigm is inextricably interlinked with a monetary/market system that almost no one bothers to learn about. Instead, we are forced into believing that we need money. Never mind where it comes from, what it represents, or whether it’s even relevant in our digital age. We are told that all we need to know is that we need money. Thus, the edifice of our all of our wants and the rest of our needs becomes a direct outgrowth of this indoctrinated, unsubstantiated claim; i.e., our wants, needs, and conceptions of happiness are artificially imposed. And this unfortunately continues mostly without question and with total obedience. So, can we really claim that when happenstance bestows a large sum of money upon someone that it automatically means they will be happy because they can go out and buy all of the crap that they have been bombarded with their entire lives by advertising agencies telling them that their life sucks unless they buy the latest, greatest whatever? How could it possibly be considered rational to partake in something so unreasonably, yet obviously, unfair?

     It seems reasonable at first to concede that doing what one loves undoubtedly leads to one’s happiness. However, a number of flaws become apparent when examining this claim, two of which will be outlined here. First, what if, as was the case with the lottery winner and perhaps all of society, the conceptions of what one loves as well as what one deems “happiness” have been imposed upon them. In other words, how is one supposed to know, say, without having experienced much in life, that what they view as love and happiness is accurate or objectively (that is, being as objective as we are capable of being) correct? Secondly, and this hinges on the first, what if someone loves to kill and eat babies, as Albert Fish once did?

     Finally, gaining happiness through the acceptance of others is essentially the same thing as having the concept of happiness imposed. But, this time one is actively seeking this type of imposition outright which seems to indicate they have lost any semblance of self-worth. In other words, they feel as though there is no possible way to bring into fruition self-induced happiness. So, what this amounts to is artificial, presupposed conceptions of happiness being readily accepted from others without question. But, when the fans leave, as in the case of the virtuoso, the happiness leaves with them. And so, he fails to recognize that the most powerful resource on the planet also happens to be the only thing conducive to true happiness—his own mind.

Quaestio

     The current socioeconomic paradigm that our species perpetuates is inextricably linked to technology. Virtually all aspects of our everyday lives in industrialized nations depend upon and are typically a result of the exponential advancements of technology. We are at a point which we can pick up a handheld device, type in a few numbers, and, within seconds, talk face-to-face with anyone else on the planet with a similar device. Our ever-deepening understanding of the universe and our interaction with it has guided us through solving unsolvable problems, curing incurable diseases, and making science fiction science fact. We’ve climbed the highest mountains, dived to the deepest ocean trenches, and even stepped foot on Earth’s moon. Right now, there are people orbiting the planet on a station over 200 kilometers above this majestic world! Think about it: If even a single modern marvel of engineering were to somehow be transported to Aristotle’s time, it would likely be, paraphrasing Arthur C. Clarke, indistinguishable from magic to the people of that period. In fact, one might be revered as a god for possessing and using such technology. Of course, this seems to be characteristic of the ancient method of hasty generalizations for god attributes: If something is not understood, it is often attributed to a particular “god”; a man-made god. And, where there’s a man-made god, something has been anthropomorphized. In Aristotle’s case, the highest form of happiness, a human emotion, has been expressed as a characteristic of gods. As well, according to Aristotle, our contemplative ability is the only way to approximate the gods’ “happiest lives”. But, while all of these speculations and suppositions sound quaint and convincing, we fortunately have discovered phenomena and developed concepts unfathomable in ancient times that, quite frankly, destroy many of the notions put forth in philosophical doctrines of those times. So, the question that arises through this reasoning is this: Considering the fact that we have amassed more knowledge in the past 50 years than in all of humankind’s history before that combined, should we, in 2015, be looking to and applying ancient modes of thought when tackling 21^st century ethical issues?

     One might consider the fact that a number of these modes of thought have been taught in academia for centuries. They have been the foundation of practically all ethical discussion and should still be practiced by tradition. Without such modes, a critical component of the dialogue might be overlooked or lost entirely over time. Therefore, of course it should be considered important to the overall value of a general education. And it should also follow that to rethink and perhaps change this foundation would destroy the edifice of our current cultural climate; our zeitgeist.

     Another proponent would say that most of these people were, even in their own time, venerated as brilliant intellectuals. Some might even claim that they are among the most brilliant minds to have ever lived. And, it is the intellectuals that set social and economic standards. By these standards, we have built the modern industrial civilization we all enjoy and, consequently, continue to flourish. To downplay their brilliance would undermine and nullify virtually all of our social standards.

     And, finally, yet others would offer the idea that every ancient philosopher played an integral role in the evolution of human thought. Without their insight, our civilization would be vastly different and perhaps even underdeveloped. Their thoughts reflect the zeitgeist of each particular historical period and are typically taught within the context of such and in contrast to modern society. So, understanding their work is invaluable to understanding where we come from and why we think the way we do.

     I contend that, while it is important to study ancient philosophers’ work within historical context, their work should not be the only scope through which we attempt to view our modern world; the reasons abound. Quantum mechanics, neuroscience, and germ theory are but three of the many topics that have shaped modern understanding in such a way that would seem, aside from obvious language barriers, completely foreign to ancients. Yet, it is quite accurate to state that the only reason that we are capable of sustaining (as terrible as we might actually be at doing so) over 7-billion people on this planet, is because of such modern ideas. Without quantum mechanics, we wouldn’t understand electricity as deeply as we do nor how fundamentally connected we are to the universe by it; without neuroscience, our behavioral reactions to those connections could not be explained to any truly accurate degree; and without germ theory, millions, possibly billions, of people simply would not be here due to what we now know is the contraction of easily preventable diseases and viruses. The knowledge we take for granted today—the knowledge that continues to shape our society—is so far out of the scope of ancient thought that it is not unreasonable to claim that perhaps we would even be viewed as gods in contrast. Assuming that is the case, as Aristotle suggests, in his society, someone’s only similarity to what they consider “gods” is their ability to contemplate. But, just because they contemplate, it does not necessitate that what they contemplate should or does bear any relevance to those gods or others mistaken as gods. In other words, while it is important in the 21^st century to teach and acknowledge such doctrines in their relation to the evolution of human thought, attempting to apply them to modern society is no different than attempting to apply other ancient concepts: some have been built upon or modified and work nowadays, and others do not. Centuries ago, practically everyone believed Earth was flat; that didn’t make it so. And, centuries before that, Democritus and his mentor Leucippus developed what is now considered one of the original atomic theories of the universe. So, without discrediting the strength of particular arguments within the context of the historical period or their relevance in the overall progression of human thought, I say that within the context of knowledge in 2015, such ancient philosophical views about the way the world ought to be are interesting to think and talk about, as well as intellectually stimulating, but ultimately irrelevant to changing or maintaining (whatever we prefer) modern bio-psychosocial patterns. As Buckminster Fuller once stated, “You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” And that is what we have done. Everything about our society, including the screen you are reading this from, makes those views obsolete.

     Regarding tradition, just because people decide to follow a certain way of thinking because “granddaddy said so” does not mean that granddaddy had all the right answers. It just proves how susceptible we are to groupthink and herd mentality. Be your own leader. Question everything. Learn something new every day. Take nothing I say or anyone else says as “truth” without research. Truth is a biased and subjective notion that only becomes truth when one realizes and accepts it as such. And, with the existence of search engines such as Google, it is wonder that we still argue with broken logic and parroted, unrefined rhetoric. The closest we can get up to now is approximating the truth in our understanding of all of the phenomena we interact with. “In order to know the truth,” Jacque Fresco states, “you would have to know everything—to know what truth is.” It turns out, the more we discover about the universe, the stranger it gets; and the more it diverges from our preconceived notions of it.

     Dimitri Mendeleev would have been incapable of accurately explaining where the elements on the periodic table he designed came from. It is only through modern understanding of astrophysics that our closest approximations tell us that nearly every element comes from stars which are themselves composed mostly of hydrogen and its fusion products. Yet, it is no doubt that Mendeleev was a brilliant man—in that particular time. Today, it is unlikely that, given his understanding at the time, he would be able to get a job as a chemist. So, it becomes clear that if we accept the notion that intellectuals set social standards, and modern intellectuals stagnate their ways of thinking to match historical brilliance, then we should expect to stifle social progress of the degree which we are currently technically capable of. As a result, we should also expect that all of our modern conveniences will amount to nothing but so many tons of useless junk.

     Lastly, I wholly agree that ancient philosophers contributed massively to the progression of the dominant intellectual, cultural, and moral climate of each era since. In fact, I agree that their work should be taught and readily discussed in modern society. But, that does not require application of their work to today’s social construct. It is quite clear what results from the conflict of traditional viewpoints and the discoveries made due to our now-exponential technological progress: utter disharmony with the natural world and aggression toward each other. Case in point, religious fanatics of all types dawn ancient myth and fairy tale but modern weaponry to justify murder; and that weaponry includes bombs that not only destroy human lives but also the environment. Yet, the obvious discord of such absurdity is overlooked or outright neglected because “God told us so. And, He’s on our side!” Ridiculous! It is as though our entire society is suffering from a case of the messiah complex. And, it solves nothing. So, if we are going to address modern problems with any semblance of efficacy, it must be done through modern ways of thinking with modern understanding.

On Culture

     Carl Sagan once stated, “The old appeals to racial, sexual and religious chauvinism and rabid nationalist fervor are beginning not to work. A new consciousness is developing which sees the earth as a single organism and recognizes that an organism at war with itself is doomed. We are one planet.” Considered by ourselves as “the most advanced species on the planet,” we humans have reached a critical period in our development. Recognizing the fact that every decision we make on all levels of social organization affects every other species on the planet, we must decide what type of culture is most advantageous for the ecological synergy of Earth. Cultures are behavioral manifestations of bio-psychosocial pressures on organisms. These behavioral attributes can be examined on the individual, local, regional, national, international and global scales. Humans show perhaps the most diverse set of behavioral traits of any species on the planet. The burgeoning of the forebrain—our highly developed frontal lobe—is what sets us apart from the millions of other species we share Earth with. It is responsible for the vast array of cultural distinctions present in our societies and has allowed us to cumulatively expand our knowledge base regarding our connection to the universe. And, despite having a majority of our physical and mental development occur after birth, our associative memory systems are the most advanced we have thus far encountered. Yet, we choose to destroy the very environment which sustains us; we choose to destroy each other and justify it all with trinkets and paper proclamations. Then, we call ourselves “intelligent”—on a hierarchy that we created.
     We learn culture through our interactions with the environment throughout our lives. Everything we’ve ever heard, seen, tasted, smelled, felt or sensed in any other way possible culminates in something called now. In other words, you…sitting there reading this from a screen are currently experiencing this thing called now with almost unparalleled precision. And as you read, certain words may generate associations in your mind which seem to transport you temporarily to a memory—perhaps of a conversation with an old friend—stored in the aforementioned associative memory system. Perhaps you pause for a moment to reflect on a past experience. Or, an idea may explode in your mind and an entire future unfolds within it in a matter of seconds. Yet, it all takes place now—the most important time of all. What a breathtaking realization! So, what does it all mean for us?
     Well, we have a series of choices to make in order to efficiently and sustainably live within the carrying capacity of the planet. In order to understand how to do this, we must examine what exactly inhibits us from this type of social and environmental interaction. We must understand this: The greatest purveyor of environmental devastation and unnecessary human suffering is our socioeconomic system itself. The current paradigm thrives on and actually generates scarcity and inefficiency. Millions of people around the world starve to death every year—not because we do not have the technical means to feed them; but because those people simply do not have the money to pay for the food. 
     Money is a figment of our collective imagination. It has absolutely no physical referent and has forced us to become utterly detached from any sense of interdependence with Nature and each other. For example, money is created out of debt—a fiction. And this debt can never be repaid due to interest—charged on virtually every loan—which doesn’t exist in the money supply outright. This process of money/debt creation, known as fractional reserve banking, has absolutely nothing to do with maintaining a high standard of living for humans or recognizing and living within the carrying capacity of the environment. Yet, for the vast majority of people, these realizations are unknown, severely misunderstood or simply neglected. In fact, we are perpetually trying to shape our environment in an attempt to satisfy some artificial notion of aesthetics by using ever-decreasingly excellent methods. All this, of course, instigated by the meaningless transfer of money between those willing to do literally anything to acquire it—from intentionally poisoning fresh water supplies to creating a society of economic slaves. For, in a monetary system, everything is up for sale. Everything.—which is why we are constantly declaring war on those ideologies that do not fit well within the established monetary structure as dictated by the ruling institutions and their representatives. In a socioeconomic system based upon differential advantage, wealth accumulation, social prominence and self-aggrandizement, the social values will reflect those of the wealthiest, most famous people. Dr. Gabor Mate has this to say regarding social values:

It is simply a matter of historical fact that the dominant intellectual culture of any  particular society reflects the interest of the dominant group in that society. In a slave-owning society the beliefs about human beings and human rights and so on will reflect the needs of the slave owners.

In the society, which…is based on the power of certain people to control and profit from the lives and work of millions of others, the dominant intellectual culture will reflect the needs of the dominant group. So, if you look across the board, the ideas that pervade psychology, sociology, history, political economy and political science fundamentally reflect certain elite interests.

And the academics who question that too much tend to get shunted to the side or to be seen as sort of ‘radicals’ (Mate, 2011).

And so, it becomes clear that if sustainability, efficiency and abundance are virtual enemies of the very foundation of our economic system, the system simply cannot afford to satisfy at least the basic needs of every human being on the planet and continue to generate massive profits. Again, it is not our lack of technology and know-how; it is lack of empathy and scientific literacy.
     Another example would be our inexcusably destructive method of so-called “energy production” through the use of fossil fuels—the most prominent being oil. A Resource Based Economy—an idea developed over the course of 75+ years by industrial designer/social engineer, Jacque Fresco—addresses our addiction to oil with a very simple process of phasing it out entirely as an energy source. Earth is nothing but abundant in resources and energy. From solar to heat differential; wind to tidal; and especially geothermal—which, by the way, trumps them all—the energy needs of humankind are capable of being satisfied many, many times over with little or no environmental degradation and no human suffering. So if we are to design a system that achieves the ends of access abundance, sustainability and efficiency, technology is paramount. The manufacturing and use of advancing technology requires massive amount of on-going energy. And, through the use of these mediums of energy extraction, there will undoubtedly be no shortage of renewable, pollution-free energy for billions of years to come. But, in order to ensure that this rational, synergistic approach to energy extraction continues to become more and more refined and sustainable through machine automation, we must utilize a method of evaluation that allows for constant change as new information is discovered. So, do we have such a method? We do. It is called the scientific method.
     Throughout our daily lives, whether or not we realize it, each and every one of us uses The Scientific Method. From brushing our teeth all the way to choosing a life-altering decision, our complex associative memory is hard at work deciphering the endless streams of information coming through our sensual receptors and thus are interpreted based upon the information we have been given and exposed to up until now. To understand the information, we utilize this particular method which can be summed up in three fundamental steps: 1. Arrive at a problem or make an observation of a certain phenomenon. 2. Formulate a hypothesis to explain and predict the problem or phenomenon. 3. Test and re-test the hypothesis rigorously.
     To some certain extent, this method is consistently used by Humans on a daily basis—even if we have never heard of these three steps. However, we have never actually applied this method intelligently to designing society. As Jacque Fresco explains, “We have never given scientists the problem of ‘how do you bridge the differences between people and nations?’” Unfortunately, this is a sad reality. And so, according to Dr. Robert Sapolsky, we now have soldiers sitting at computers at Nellis Air Force Base flying drones on the other side of the planet dropping bombs on whom they have been taught are our ‘enemies’ and that what they are doing is something we call ‘patriotic’—which is really just a euphemism for ‘we murder you to keep us all safe from you before you ever do anything because you are a terrorist. And after we indiscriminately blow the shit out of your pitiful, little country, we are going to have our central banks forcefully loan you money so that you can use that money to pay our corporations to come in and rebuild the infrastructure while installing a bourgeoisie comprador oil cartel as president of the new so-called “democracy.”’ This all, of course, is the result of a supreme failure at the second level of this method; for, when our hypotheses do not contain an alternative to our current monetary-based, socioeconomic system, we are depriving ourselves of a well-rounded series of possible solutions—namely, that of a world without money. A world without money could and very likely would translate into a never-before-seen spike in the already-exponential increase in machine automation technology—given that we no longer would have to submit ourselves to employment that contributes nothing to society or ourselves and would be free to pursue self-fulfillment in life anywhere on the planet; anytime; no money; no debt; no barter; no servitude. Everywhere you go you have access to the necessities of life.
     Now, if we step back and examine our level of understanding in regards to Natural processes, as well as our rapid technical innovation, we see a new phenomenon arising over the past few years known as technological unemployment. Simply stated, technological unemployment occurs when advancements in technology allow Humans to be displaced by more reliable, more productive, and more cost-efficient machines. The logic is sound: Machines do not require wages, pensions, breaks, or insurance and can be programmed to extract, manufacture and distribute goods and services all day, every day. But, there is one key element that breaks the logic and causes this house of cards to collapse: If workers are continually displaced by automation, so too will their purchasing power. And, soon the entire economic structure—which is predicated on the perpetual transfer of wealth—will reach a stalemate, halt and fold on itself. But, what if we allowed and encouraged automation to happen in as many different job sectors as are possible? Couldn’t it be considered socially offensive not to automate? We are clinging onto a wage-slave system that is literally thousands of years old. To sum it up in one sentence: I am talking about the intelligent management of the Earth’s resources through the liberal application of technology.
     A common assumption is something to the extent of “This sounds like communism.” The problem with this assumption is that communism has banks, prisons, police, armies, navies and social stratification; a Resource Based Economy has none of these. Another assumption is “We don’t have enough money to feed everyone on the planet.” This couldn’t be farther from the truth. In fact, the UN estimates that it would cost around $30-billion to provide universal access to basic necessities. Sadly, perhaps the most common assumption is this: “What if once we automate everything, machines decide that Earth would be better off without Humans and start massacring us?” First of all, this is a Hollywood projection. Secondly, and I am using another Fresco quote here, “If I took your laptop and smashed it in front of 50 other laptops, trust me, none of them would care.” Lastly, this is just another personification being utilized as a rationalization for us to keep working our useless slave-jobs to perpetuate cyclical consumption and not question so-called ‘authority’. And so, I leave you with a quote from Egyptologist Gerald Massey, “They must find it hard to take Truth for Authority who have so long mistaken Authority for Truth.”

Elements of Our Everyday Life

     Of all the known elements in the universe, there is one in particular that is critical for life as we understand it—carbon. Having an atomic mass unit of 12.0107g/mol and seven isotopes₁—one of which, Carbon-12, being the basis for atomic weights—the sixth element, carbon, is the most chemically active element on the periodic table. Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson states, “You can make more molecules out of carbon than you can all other kinds of molecules combined₂.” Indeed, according to the U.S. Department of Energy’s NNSA (National Nuclear Security Administration, “There are close to ten million known carbon compounds; many thousands of which are vital to organic and life processes₃.” Complex organic chemistry—known as ‘the chemistry of life’—is based upon the properties, structures and reactions of carbon; it is ubiquitous. However, not only is carbon crucial for life, it has essentially become the cornerstone of modern human society through a specific set of molecules called hydrocarbons. In fact, the current global paradigm has been built around the continually accelerated usage of hydrocarbons which are, in terms of the human lifespan, relatively finite and tend to have a negative impact on the environment. So, what are hydrocarbons?

     Hydrocarbons are molecules that are composed of carbon and hydrogen, taking on the general chemical formula C_nH_2n+2. An example of a hydrocarbon is octane, C₈H₁₈, which is widely used in and a main component of gasoline. And, although various forms of these hydrocarbons comprise the edifice of our energy grid, the process by which we extract this energy—combustion—is environmentally deleterious as well as inefficient. Even with such a wide range of so-called “alternative” energy sources within our present capabilities, such as wind, wave, tidal, solar and geothermal, we seem to be intentionally ignoring these other sources for the sake of what can be called an addiction to oil. In detached ways, and this is due to a plethora of inherent inefficiencies in a fiat monetary/market system, we have inched our way toward transitioning into new methods of energy extraction; but, nothing close to the rate which is necessary to reverse the ecological degradation caused by humankind over the past century and a half. It would take an overhaul of our entire global, socioeconomic system to accomplish such a feat.

     We see $1,000,000+ windmills being constructed, just to view the entire process within the context of monetary gain and cost efficiency. Cost efficiency is simply a measure of industrial inefficiency; for, if products were designed with preservation, efficiency and sustainability in mind, massive profits simply could not be generated. This is why silicon-based solar panels, which have been around since 1954, have only recently reached an efficiency level of about 15-20%₄. However, in October 2012, researchers at Stanford University successfully built the world’s first all-carbon solar cell₅. The most promising aspect of these thin film cells is that they can be coated from solution. And, as the field of nanotechnology continues to expand exponentially, an increase in both efficiency and applications is almost inevitable.

     In terms of creating ecological imbalance, there is no greater purveyor than that of carbon. From the hydrocarbons themselves, to the greenhouse gases CO₂ and CO—produced through combustion of such hydrocarbons—carbon seems to be omnipresent. After all, it is the fourth most abundant element in the universe by mass₆. Ironically, in terms of potential for creating and maintaining ecological balance, there is no greater purveyor than that of carbon. With the introduction of this new carbon solar cell, it is only a short matter of time before we see the efficiency climb significantly from the current ‘less than 1%’.

     Another element of great significance on a cosmic scale is hydrogen. Hydrogen is the first element on the periodic table and has an atomic mass of 1.00794g/mol. Existing in nature as the gaseous diatomic molecule H₂—due to a stable electronic configuration which fills the 1s orbital and satisfies the Rule of 2 for both atoms—hydrogen is the most abundant element in the entire known universe and has been the basis of what can be termed “another form of life” for billions of years—stars.

     Stars are the nuclear furnaces of the universe, churning out all of the elements on the periodic table (aside from those created by humans in the laboratory) over millions to billions of years. The process of nuclear fusion that happens in the centers of stars is called the proton-proton chain and is responsible for the creation of different isotopes of hydrogen, helium and beryllium, depending upon the temperature₇. As stars form from giant dust clouds that are sometimes trillions of miles long, contamination or enrichment of newly formed stars from products of stars that have gone supernova leads to another process called the Carbon-Nitrogen-Oxygen (CNO) process which converts these elements into isotopes of one another₈. Fluorine is sometimes created in one of the stages of this process. But, where do the rest of the heavier elements come from?

     It turns out that the fusion of oxygen to oxygen can create elements up to sulfur-32. As the mass of stars increase, the elements eventually reach a limit to what can be fused in the center. That limit is iron. Essentially, a very high mass star will have an iron core surrounded by layers of other elements fusing₉. Eventually, these outer shells are blown off in violent supernovae and even higher elements are created through a process known as nucleosynthesis. Therefore, nearly every atom in each of our bodies was created inside, or through the death, of stars.

     Continuing that logic, every atom of carbon in hydrocarbons was created through the fusion of the other element present in hydrocarbons—hydrogen. This is why these two elements are so very important to all life processes; for, the Sun is the life-ground for all carbon-based life, and hydrogen is the life-ground of stars. It is quite astonishing how interconnected we all are to the rest of the universe. And, as we gaze out into the vastness of the cosmos, we can stand confident and fearless knowing that what is out there is already within us all; we are a part of that. Therefore, there is nothing to fear. As Carl Sagan famously put it, “We are star stuff harvesting star light₁₀.”