Tag Archives: climate change

Hidden in the Cloud

One-word prompt: Hidden


The cloud holds the photos and documents of my life. After I’m dead, I will still reside within the cloud. A sort of computer-designed eternity.

The cloud implies the ethereal, a soft, marshmallowy goodness. A benevolent spirit in the sky. Only the most fortunate travel upward to hang out in that rare air. Even the most atheistic among us may feel a slight regressive spiritual tug when contemplating clouds.

Our ancestors in the not so distant past, unconditionally believed in a spiritual afterlife. For the most part, modern man keeps throwing off the spiritual as mythology.

Yet an Apple store employee described the cloud as magic. Better magic than try to explain to an old, non-tech person what the hell this cloud is all about. He sold me a deception.

In reality the cloud it is just a huge warehouse in North Carolina filled with fossil-fuel guzzling, pollution-emitting machines. Multiply the cloud many times over and see that it occupies scores of factories around the world.

More computers, less paper, less waste. Not quite. Computer technology consumes more energy than most other products we use daily. Wireless comes with strings attached.

Every piece of network hardware has an identifying Internet Protocol (IP) address. Due to the dramatic increase in computerized machines, the number of IP addresses were in danger of being exhausted and the creation of new addresses were necessary to meet future needs. The newly created IP addresses were increased to permit an address to be assigned to every atom on the planet and to allow for some leftovers. That’s a lot of computer-driven devices.

Computers consume at least 10% of the world’s electricity. Since the future foretells dramatic increases in the ways computers will infiltrate every surface of our environment, the energy needed to feed these machines can become massive.

My mother-in-law loved her cats. My husband says, and not in a completely joking manner, that if she had to choose between feeding the cats or him, she might have chosen the cats. So just how important is your smartphone?

Infinity dwells within the cloud. Every 10 minutes people create as much informations as humans did in the first 10,000 generations of human existence. Infinite information and infinite capacity to store it.

Imagination no longer fuels our contemplation of clouds. Now fuel maintains endless bits of information with seemingly no unifying goal. Ceaseless chatter takes over our imagination.

Can the real harbinger of climate change doom be the cloud? Will the cloud consume more energy than our gas-loving cars or our penchant for K-cups?

To change our evil ways we must vastly decrease the number of machines we keep building and the people that love them. But Pandora unlatched the box, the cat’s out of the bag. To curtail technology will bring about Chaos. Ah, right back to the Beginning again.

I fret, yet I feed my machines.

The New Cosmos Quandary

I’m hooked on science shows, especially the ones that deal with the creation of the universe. Science fiction is always on my reading list. Yet the new Cosmos television series sticks in my craw.

The cosmic calendar that Neil deGrasse Tyson so dramatically explores for us is riveting. After the Big Bang, human beings appeared on the scene on the last day of the year. Modern man only happened upon the planet during the last 14 seconds. We are so late to arrive to this Big Bang party.

Then Neil begins to state that humankind wields the power to alter the climate of the planet it lives on and that this is important. The machines we build, the power we use, will destroy the planet unless we change our ways.

But Neil, think of what your show brings to light. Even if humankind is the sole force of climate change, does it really matter if humans change their ways or not? Worse case scenario, most forms of life on the planet die. Did you not show us innumerable other planets in the universe with infinite possibilities of lifeforms on them? So earth loses most of its living creatures, aside from cockroaches perhaps, why is this such a monumental loss to the universe? You just brought us into focus with infinity, so who cares about the last 14 seconds?

Mankind built a now crumbling Stonehenge over five thousand years ago (or seconds ago depending on how you view it). The Great Wall of China got its start nearly 25 hundred years ago and has never been fully intact. Both castles and nuclear reactors will succumb to a heap of dust. In the grand scheme of the cosmos, everything we do is so insignificant and fragile. The earth will move on with us or without us, unless we are successful in blowing it up. Then the universe, considering its vastness, may not miss one measly planet.

In the scope of the new Cosmos series, why is climate change such a big deal? To me, that came out of left field.  The series dwells on the insignificance of mankind as it relates to the universe.

The very premise of the Cosmos series negates the consequence of a climate change focal point. Unless . . .  is there a god on our side tipping the balance? Nah, that can’t be it.

What motivates the creators?






To Deny Is Science: Climate Change

I love science. Even though I studied literature in college, I’ve always love to read about and watch shows about science. Some of my favorite writers wrote in the 19th century, a time when people found a greater freedom to explore science with a lesser chance of getting burnt at the stake or beheaded. A lot of the literature of this time period discussed and criticized the scientific sphere.

I believe in the theory of evolution. I believe in the big bang theory. And I am open to modifications or invalidations of scientific theories. That’s the way science works, so I thought. Science is always up to be challenged.

Issac Newton presented theories that were proven wrong at a later date. So did Einstein. Scientific theories get torn apart to see if they can stand.

So I am disheartened to hear President Obama and his administration assert that “climate change is real” and all discussion is closed. That ceases to be science and starts to become a weird sort of dogma.

Why won’t the believers in man-made climate change debate people that do not buy into this theory wholeheartedly? Scientist vs. scientist. Let there be a free-flowing discussion and experimentation.

The man-made climate change believers are veering onto a pathway to anti-science. Something smells rotten in government. Build upon knowledge, do not create a 21st century Western version of the Islamic Four Great Doctors from the 13th century. I’ve developed a taste for freedom. Let’s be free to think.