News Feeds

A stellar odd couple 700 light-years away is creating a chaotically beautiful display of colourful, gaseous filaments. The Hubble captured the pair, named R Aquarii, and their symbiotic interactions. Every 44 years the system’s violent eruptions blast out filaments of gas at over 1.6 million kilometers per hour.

R Aquarii consists of two dramatically different types of stars: a white dwarf and a particular type of variable star.

The white dwarf is a stellar remnant. It’s what remains of a main sequence star that’s reached the end of its life of fusion. It shines only because of its remnant heat. White dwarfs are extremely dense, so even though they’re about the same size as Earth, they have a mass similar to the Sun. That means for such a small volume object, they exert a powerful gravitational pull.

The variable star is a type of red giant called a Mira-type variable. It’s a complete opposite to its companion star. Rather than extremely compact and dense, the red giant is bloated and red. It’s more than 400 times larger than the Sun. It’s a pulsating giant star that’s more at home atop Sauron’s Dark Tower than it is in a catalogue of stars. As it pulses, it changes temperature and luminosity. Over an approximately 390-day period, its brightness changes by a factor of 750.

That means that when the star is at its peak brightness, it’s more than 5,000 times as bright as our Sun.

This image of R Aquarii is from the SPHERE planet-hunting instrument on the ESO’s Very Large telescope in 2018. It was captured while the instrument was being tested, and astronomers were able to capture dramatic details of the turbulent stellar relationship with unprecedented clarity. This image is from the SPHERE/ZIMPOL observations of R Aquarii, and shows the binary star itself, as well as the jets of material spewing from the stellar couple. Image Credit: By ESO/Schmid et al. – https://www.eso.org/public/images/eso1840a/, CC BY 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=75014181

The powerful pulsing of this massive red star is enough to be a spectacle in itself. But it’s relationship with its binary partner creates an even more spectacular display. As the two orbit, the dense white dwarf draws hydrogen gas away from the red giant. The hydrogen accumulates on the white dwarf until the star can’t take it anymore. Then the hydrogen explodes in nuclear fusion on the surface of the small, dense star.

The nova explosion ejects the material into space in gaseous filaments. But the region around white dwarfs is dominated by the star’s powerful magnetic fields, which can be millions of times stronger than Earth’s. The force of the nuclear explosion and the magnetic fields twist the gaseous hydrogen filaments into trails and streamers, and eventually, they loop back on themselves and form spiral patterns.

We can only see this nebula of gaseous filaments because the radiation from both stars strips electrons from the hydrogen, turning it into ionized gas. The ionized hydrogen glows brightly and creates a beautiful natural display.

The central binary star’s brightness changes over time because of the pulsing of the red giant. The gas appears red to us, but not because of the red giant. R Aquarii is in a dusty region, and the dust absorbs all the blue light, with only red reaching us.

A Hubble timelapse consisting of five images of R Aquarii from 2014 to 2023 helps bring the dynamic interplay to life.

Looking at these images, it’s easy to misunderstand the scale of the stars, the nebula, and the brightly-lit, filaments of ionized hydrogen. However, the material blasted into space reaches as far as 400 billion kilometers (248 billion miles). For comparison, that’s about 24 times greater than our Solar System’s diameter.

R Aquarii was first observed by German astronomer Karl Ludwig Harding in 1810, when he was a colleague of Carl Friedrich Gauss at Gottingen Observatory. It’s one of the nearest symbiotic stars, and is an object that astronomers are very interested in observing. In the 20th century, Edwin Hubble and others studied it and recognized its complex interactions and the resulting nebula. R Aquarii and its brethren can teach astronomers a lot about stellar winds, accretion, and ionized nebula.

The post It Takes Very Special Conditions to Create This Bizarre Stellar Spectacle appeared first on Universe Today.

Just a brief note, in a very busy period, to alert those in the Providence, RI area that I’ll be giving a colloquium talk at the Brown University Physics Department on Monday November 18th at 4pm. Such talks are open to the public, but are geared toward people who’ve had at least one full year of physics somewhere in their education. The title is “Exploring The Foundations of our Quantum Cosmos”. Here’s a summary of what I intend to talk about:

The discovery of the Higgs boson in 2012 marked a major milestone in our understanding of the universe, and a watershed for particle physics as a discipline. What’s known about particles and fields now forms a nearly complete short story, an astonishing, counterintuitive tale of relativity and quantum physics. But it sits within a larger narrative that is riddled with unanswered questions, suggesting numerous avenues of future research into the nature of spacetime and its many fields. I’ll discuss both the science and the challenges of accurately conveying its lessons to other scientists, to students, and to the wider public.

In the earliest moments of the Universe, the first photons were trapped in a sea of ionized gas. They scattered randomly with the hot nuclei and electrons of the cosmic fireball, like tiny boats in a stormy sea. Then, about 370,000 years after the big bang, the Universe cooled enough for the photons to be free. After one last scattering, they could finally ply interstellar space. Some of them traveled across 14 billion years of space and time to reach Earth, where we see them as part of the cosmic microwave background. The remnant first light of creation.

The CMB is a central point of evidence supporting the Big Bang and the standard model of cosmology. By observing the scale of fluctuations within the CMB, we can measure things such as the shape of space, the distribution of matter and energy, and the rate of cosmic expansion. It’s that last one that has been troubling astronomers, thanks to the Hubble tension problem.

Astronomers have several ways to measure the Hubble parameter, the value of which tells us the rate of cosmic expansion. The methods generally fall into two types: those based on observations of the CMB, and those based on astrophysical phenomena such as supernovae. The problem is that these two types of methods don’t agree on the value. They even contradict each other, leading some astronomers to argue there must be something wrong with the standard model.

Polarization fluctuations within the CMB. Credit: SPT-3G Collaboration

Of the two types, the CMB method is the one with the most limited data. The best CMB observations we have come from space telescopes such as Planck, which measured fluctuations in CMB intensity. One solution to the tension problem would be to argue that the CMB observations are somehow biased. But new observations gathered by the South Pole Telescope (SPT) throw that idea out of the water.

Rather than measuring intensity fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background, the SPT observed variations in its polarization. All the CMB light we observe comes from a moment of last scattering, when photons scattered off an ion one last time before making the billion-year journey to reach us. When light is scattered, it is polarized relative to the distribution of ionized gas. So these observations are a truly independent measure of cosmic expansion.

Different modes of CMB polarization. Credit: Sky and Telescope

One challenge in working with polarized CMB data is that as the first light traveled through space, it interacted with matter, space, and time. Not only is the light red-shifted due to cosmic expansion, it is gravitationally lensed by galaxies, which changes the polarization. Some of the light scatters off interstellar gas, which gives a false polarization. Even ripples of gravitational waves can affect the light’s orientation. So the team looked at not just the raw polarization of the CMB, but also what are known as E-mode and B-mode polarization. Each of these is sensitive to different kinds of bias. For example, the E-mode is more sensitive to secondary scattering, while the B-mode is more sensitive to cosmic inflation and gravitational waves.

By combining and contrasting these polarization modes, the team was able to calculate a new value for the Hubble parameter. Since it isn’t based on intensity fluctuations, it is free of any bias in the space-based CMB observations. Based on their data, the team got a value of H₀ at 66.0–67.6 (km/s)/Mpc. This agrees with the intensity-based observations of WMAP and Planck, which found a value of 67–68 (km/s)/Mpc. In comparison, the astrophysical methods find a value of 73–75 (km/s)/Mpc.

This study confirms that earlier CMB observations are not biased. The Hubble tension is very real, and we currently have no clear way to resolve it.

Reference: SPT-3G Collaboration. “Cosmology From CMB Lensing and Delensed EE Power Spectra Using 2019-2020 SPT-3G Polarization Data.” arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.06000 (2024).

The post A New Look a the Most Ancient Light in the Universe appeared first on Universe Today.

Scientists have created a new 'biocooperative' material based on blood, which has shown to successfully repair bones, paving the way for personalised regenerative blood products that could be used as effective therapies to treat injury and disease.

A sprinkling of magnetic nanoparticles is just enough to power up catalysts, so they can make hydrogen peroxide production more efficient.

Animals and plants also live and thrive on public squares. This creates opportunities for greater biodiversity and well-being for the human population. Researchers have studied at 103 locations in Munich how various factors affect flora and fauna. They advocate a close examination of local conditions and a more nature-focused approach to the design of public spaces.

Scientists have produced a new route to materials with complex 'disordered' magnetic properties at the quantum level. The material, based on a framework of ruthenium, fulfils the requirements of the 'Kitaev quantum spin liquid state' -- an elusive phenomenon that scientists have been trying to understand for decades.

Metamaterials are artificial materials that do not occur in nature. Their components function like atoms in conventional materials but have special optical, electrical and magnetic properties. Interaction between the components is crucial to a metamaterial's functionality. Previously a component could usually interact only with its immediate neighbors. Researchers have now developed a mechanical metamaterial with which these interactions can also be triggered at greater distances within the material. Potential uses of the material include measuring forces and structural monitoring.

A simple, highly efficient, inexpensive, and environmentally friendly process could provide a viable pathway for the sustainable recycling of depleted lithium-ion batteries (LIBs): No chemicals beyond citric acid need to be added to leach out and separate over 99 % of the lithium, nickel, cobalt, and manganese metals contained in NCM batteries. The resulting recycled material can be directly converted into NCM electrodes, reports a research team.

I have never singled out a single factor that I considcered crucial in Trump’s victory against Harris, because there were so many factors in play. These include immigration, the economy, wokeness among Dems (loudly decried by Trump’s ads), Harris’s failure to choose Josh Shapiro as a running mate, Biden’s failure to resign, the word-salady nature of Harris’s campaign and her refusal to answer questions like “How would your administration differ from Biden’s?”, and, of course, the blame people affix to Republicans, saying that they are simply misogynistic, stupid, and nationalistic yokels.  A change in any of these factors might have changed the election’s results, but, in truth, we don’t know. All we can offer is post facto analyses. That’s why I simply post a diversity of takes so readers can hear all viewpoints.

In response to one public post I recently put on Facebook about Laura Helmuth leaving Scientific American after going on an expletive-laden post-election rant that demonized Trump voters as “fucking fascists”, as well as “mean, dumb, and bigoted,” I got one comment that basically agreed with Helmuth:

I think the outcome of the election was abysmal, dreadful, and maybe the trans activists were a small part of the problem, but a much bigger problem is the poor state of American education and the country’s persistent religiosity. Again, not the fault of the left.

In other words, this commenter agreed with Helmuth, throwing into the mix the high religiosity of Americans.  I haven’t talked to enough people in my elite “bubble” to know how pervasive this feeling is.

In the 38-minute video below, a segment of Dan Senor’s “Call Me Back” show, New York freshman Democratic Congressman Ritchie Torres, only 36, says that the Democratic left basically scuppered the election by infusing the party with progressive ideology, refusing to address the two issues that really mattered to the middle- and lower-class voters: immigration and inflation. Torres represents the South Bronx, and his district is characterized by Wikipedia as “by one measure the poorest congressional district in the United States.”

A couple of quotes from Torres:

“My diagnosis is that we have to Stop pandering to a far left that is more representative of Twitter and Tik Tok than it is to the real world  and start listening to working-class people of color—working class people in general—who have historically been the heart and soul of the Democratic Party.”

“The movement of ‘defund the police’ has done almost irreparable damage to the brand of the Democratic Party. . . . if the objective is to win elections in the real world, then we have to marginalize the far left in favor of working class Americans.”

Torres is not hesitant to criticize Biden or Harris, calling Biden’s actions on immigration “political malpractice”, which aroused clear signs of popular discontent well before the election.

Senor, who comes from a Jewish background, then brings up an issue that most commenters have neglected: the Jewish vote. As he notes, Jewish voters went for the GOP in higher proportions than previously, so that in this election Jewish voters were largely “up for grabs”—unsure about how to vote. Slogans from the far left like “globalize the intifada,” or “from the river to the sea,” says Torres, alienated Jewish voters, most of whom support Israel.

Torres theorizes that the Jewish vote may have been decisive in states like  Michigan, Georgia, and Arizona, all of whom went for Trump. He adds that the says far left “chose to wage an antisemitic smear campaign in an attempt to sabotage Josh Shapiro, simply because he was a Jew who spoke out against the antisemitism after October 7. . . . The far left’s hatred for Donald Trump was exceeded only by its hatred for Israel and for any Jew who identifies unequivocally as pro Israel. And that to me was the ultimate example of how destructive the far left can be to our ability to win elections.”

Torres argues that Harris herself wasn’t anti-Israel, but a mainstream, pro-Israel centrist who was falsely painted as anti-Israel by the far left. Nevertheless, as you may know, Harris talked out of both sides of her mouth, always mentioning the suffering of Palestinian people when she defended Israel. As Senor says, Harris was, on the Gaza War, talking out of both sides of her mouth to appeal to both sides.  Senor argues that this kind of moral equivalency, or moral equivocation, cost Harris Jewish votes.

Torres chimes in eloquently, saying that in all politics, candidates must espouse “moral clarity”, and Jews didn’t feel Harris’s pious mouthings “in their kishkes“. (Torres gets extra points for the Yiddish.)

30 minutes in, Torres goes on an eloquent tear, including stuff like this:

“The fact that the far left would wage an antisemitic smear campaign against the most popular governor of the most pivotal swing state: that should have been a wake-up call that the far left is  willing to sacrifice what is best for the Democratic party on the altar of ideological purity and anti-Zionism.”

Senor adds that pro-Hamas and anti-Israel protests weren’t just a Jewish issue—that others look at people celebrating Hamas and Hezbollah and get turned off by the far left.  Torres thinks that the failure to deal with such protests undercut Americans’ sense of safety and convinced them that government cannot keep people safe. This, he sayus, was an indictment of the governments of both New York State and New York City.

In the end, since people of color, both middle-class and impecunious ones, are Torres’s constituents, he concludes that, at least in his district, the cost of living far, far outweighed their concern for a war 5,000 miles away.

I recommend this video not because it gives the reason why the Democrats were routed, but why they were routed in a poor, black district. And, to me at least, having sympathies for Israel, it makes Torres look like a guy with an exceedingly bright future in Democratic politics.

Watch it!

Letting AI models communicate with each other in their internal mathematical language, rather than translating back and forth to English, could accelerate their task-solving abilities

Recently, a law banning the consumption of dog meat was passed by the National Assembly of Korea. One of the main goals of domestic animal rights activists and dog lovers has been accomplished. However, quite a few people were dissatisfied with the passing of this particular law, asking why it refers specifically to dogs, but does not protect cows and pigs. Those who welcomed the species-specific ban responded to such reactions by citing the thousands of years of companionship shared between dogs and humans, and our uniquely close bond.

Animal ethics, a division within applied ethics that deals with such disputes over animal issues, is one of today’s most hotly debated fields. It includes discussions on the moral status of animals, the use of animals for food or for experimentation, the ethics of having zoos, aquariums, xenotransplantation, and consumption of dog meat, among various other topics. Such topics are not only interesting in their own right but also invite us to reflect critically on our often-assumed position atop the animal kingdom.

Can humans do with animals as they please?

Until relatively recently, people considered animals merely as tools for human use, thinking that the use of animals in any way was entirely up to humans. What is the basis for such thinking? And can such assumptions be justified?

One of the reasons some people think humans can do whatever they want with animals is that our species now sits atop of the food pyramid, and that position justifies our dominance over animals. They argue that humans have the power to subdue animals and that using this power to treat animals as they please is thereby justified.

With a bit of thought, however, it is not difficult to recognize that this logic is flawed. If the logic of power were justified, then imperialist invasions could be justified, as would be the actions of bullies who harass weaker peers in schools. Invoking power is a logic that thoroughly represents the perspective of the strong, but if we consider ourselves in the position of the weak in a Rawlsian “veil of ignorance” thought experiment, we can see that this reasoning is flawed. If we encountered an extraterrestrial intelligence vastly superior to humans, would we accept the logic of power and agree they could exploit us as food? Obviously not.

One reason that makes the logic of power seem justified is the failure to distinguish facts from values. The two are distinctly different; for example, it is a fact that the strong dominate the weak. The world is indeed a place where the powerful rule over others, such as the wealthy oppressing the poor or the strong bullying the weak. However, just because such practices are facts does not mean they are values we should accept. In philosophy, this mistake of deriving value directly from fact is called the naturalistic fallacy. That humans dominate animals is a fact, but that does not justify it as right, as something we ought to do.

Did God grant dominion to humans?

Christianity, which has established itself as world’s largest and most widespread religion with approximately 2.4 billion followers, has long believed that humans are the crown of creation, were made in the image and likeness of God, and are endowed with rationality unique among all of God’s creatures. This belief justifies the special position of humans who, possessing these characteristics, should be the subject of greater concern compared to other animals, and in cases of conflicting interests between humans and other beings, the latter should yield to the former. From the Christian perspective, all beings, including animals, ultimately exist for God, while in this world, they exist for humans, as commanded in Genesis 9:1–3:

Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.

There is debate over whether interpreting such messages as granting humans the right to treat other animals as they wish is appropriate. Indeed, there is room to interpret this dominion as meaning that humans must fulfill their duty to God by being wise stewards of His creation and therefore making efforts to protect animals. Nevertheless, if indeed God has bestowed such authority upon humans, then they would be able to treat animals as they see fit.

The real problem with this argument arises due to the fact it is specifically rooted in the God of Christianity (as well as Judaism and Islam), and adherents of other religions and agnostics and atheists would therefore not accept this position. Hinduism, for example, advocates respect for animals, teaching that all living beings are imbued with divinity, and those who adhere to this religion would argue for the importance of respecting animals. Justifying human dominion over animals based on the doctrines or teachings of a specific religion lacks persuasiveness. If one were not a follower of that religion, they could simply reject such a position.

Are humans fundamentally different from other animals?

Whatever the reason, we tend to believe that humans are fundamentally different from other animals, and that this difference justifies our dominion over them. Human rationality is often used to highlight the distinction between people and animals, with particular focus on intelligence or capacity for moral reasoning as the specific differences that demonstrate human superiority. Even conceding these differences, do they justify the various forms of abuse perpetrated against animals for consumption or experimentation?

Consider how we treat humans who lack these abilities. For example, while rationality is a capability that the average adult possesses, there are members of society who lack it entirely, such as those with severe intellectual disabilities, individuals in a vegetative state, infants, or those with dementia. Yet, we do not believe anyone can treat these individuals in the same way they are allowed to treat most animals. If this is the case, we cannot justify discrimination based merely on the presence or absence of rationality, and therefore, we cannot justify unfair treatment of animals by claiming they lack rationality. This argument about how to treat those who lack some of the capabilities that the average adult possesses is referred to by ethicists as the argument from marginal cases. If we contemplate how to treat people who lack these abilities, we cannot justify discrimination against animals by claiming they lack these abilities, if we seek any kind of consistency.

Some argue that merely being human can be a reason to respect humans, and that it can become a basis for discriminating against animals. However, this logic is no different from the rationale behind sexism or racism, which treats only individuals of the same sex or race equally and discriminates against those who do not belong to that category. Just as discriminating based on gender is called sexism and discriminating based on race is called racism, discriminating based on species is termed speciesism.

The position that humans can treat animals arbitrarily is generally unconvincing. Conversely, however, if humans should not treat animals arbitrarily, what is the rationale? Ethicists believe various moral judgments made in different situations should be justified through some ultimate standard. For example, they argue that judgments about whether it is permissible to eat animals should be justified through moral theory. Peter Singer and Tom Regan are prominent philosophers who argue that animals should be granted moral status in this way. Singer argues for moral status through utilitarianism, while Regan attempts to grant moral status to animals through rights theory.

Animals That Feel Pleasure and Pain

Peter Singer is the first philosopher to systematically grant moral status to animals. His 1975 book Animal Liberation is referred to as the bible of the animal rights movement and marks the beginning of the debate about the moral status of animals. Before its publication, people did raise issues with factory farming and animal experiments, and while veganism existed, Singer’s work made a significant impact because it was both an exposé and outlined a rational argument for liberating animals. Singer persuasively argued that animals must be granted moral status based on ethical theory, while highlighting—at the time largely unknown to the public—the horrific abuse inflicted upon animals used for experimentation and meat consumption.

Singer uses utilitarianism to show that animals have moral status. Roughly speaking, utilitarianism considers pleasure good and pain evil. According to Singer, any being that can feel pleasure and pain is a subject of moral consideration. He calls such creatures “sentient beings,” a category that includes mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fish that possess a central nervous system. Animals raised in factory farms for meat, such as cows, pigs, and chickens, and animals used for experiments, such as mice and monkeys, live in extreme pain throughout their lives. Releasing them from this pain is a logical and moral obligation of utilitarianism.

Singer formalizes utilitarianism as the principle of equal consideration of interests. This principle demands that the interests of every being be equally considered. This includes all sentient beings, not just humans. Singer believes there should be no special differences in interests, whether they are human or non-human animals. If an animal feels 100 units of pain and a human feels 10 units of pain, other conditions being equal, the animal’s pain should be prioritized. If we think otherwise and give priority to human pain simply because it is human, we are not considering interests equally. To do so is evidence of a specialist attitude that grants priority to humans over animals simply because they are human.

Animals as Subjects of a Life

While Peter Singer used utilitarianism to justify the moral treatment of animals, Tom Regan attempted to grant animals moral status using rights theory. Regan’s rights theory, along with Singer’s position, is considered a philosophical foundation of the animal rights movement, particularly in the English-speaking world.

Regan’s seminal work is The Case for Animal Rights, published in 1983. This book argues, with meticulous logic, that animals that meet certain criteria have an absolute moral status. According to Regan, any being with “inherent value” has rights. Here, rights refer to “ethical values” different from legal rights that vary by society or state. These are rights that protect the inherent value of all beings equally. This value is logically distinct from other types of value, such as utility or aesthetic value, and cannot be reduced to them. It also corresponds to what Kant posits when considering rational beings as ends in themselves; either all beings possess this value or none do, and there are no degrees of possession. Regan asserts that beings possessing this value are equal in having it.

So, who possesses this value? According to Regan, “subjects of a life” have inherent value. These beings possess certain characteristics, such as awareness, desire, intention, purpose, belief, perception, memory, emotion, and self-awareness. Most humans meet these criteria, as do most mammals older than one year. Thus, non-human animals such as mammals older than one year have inherent value. Beings with inherent value have the right to be treated as ends in themselves, not as means to an end. This means it is not permissible to violate the inherent value of these beings for another being’s benefit. Consequently, Regan argues that using animals as food, for experiments, hunting, or display in zoos violates their inherent value and is therefore wrong.

This article appeared in Skeptic magazine 29.3
Buy print edition
Buy digital edition
Subscribe to print edition
Subscribe to digital edition
Download our app

In this regard, Regan contrasts with Singer, who, in some instances, deals somewhat leniently with the issue by leaving room for the possibility of taking the lives of animals beyond certain criteria. Singer’s allowance for taking animal lives stems from the perspective of utilitarianism, where if killing animals produces significantly more benefits than pain, or if it’s possible to kill animals without any pain at all, then it may be permissible. This is an inevitable conclusion from the utilitarian standpoint, but Regan rejects such a moderate stance of utilitarianism and firmly grants moral status to animals.

As recently reported by Peter Singer in his 2023 book Animal Liberation Now, research conducted in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland found that 67 percent of ethicists and 63 percent of non-ethics philosophy professors considered it morally wrong to eat meat from mammals. This shows that even though there may be a relatively high percentage of professors who believe eating meat is wrong, there is still a significant number of ethicists or philosophy professors who do not particularly see eating meat as wrong.

When contemplating this issue, we must not base our judgments on intuition, personal preference, or habit, but rather on reason—at least if we aim to avoid logical errors and strive to maintain logical consistency. This is important not only when discussing animal rights, but also if we hope to lead a morally sound life.

About the Author

Seong-han Kim is a professor in the Department of Ethics Education at Jeonju National University of Education in South Korea, with a keen interest in shared life and evolution. He holds a PhD in Philosophy from Korea University in Seoul. He is the author of several books on ethics, morality, and animal rights, and a contributor to the Korean edition of Skeptic magazine.

Governments and companies almost never take action when satellites alert them about large methane leaks coming from oil and gas infrastructure

Water levels in the Caspian Sea are set to fall dramatically as the climate gets hotter, posing a major threat to economic activity and ecosystems in the region

Space tourism here is here to stay, and will likely remain a permanent fixture of near-Earth activities for the foreseeable future. But is it worth it? 

While for decades private individuals have been able to negotiate with national space agencies to get rides to the International Space Station, it wasn’t until the advent of private aerospace that many more opportunities opened up. With wealthy billionaires like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Richard Branson all creating their own rocket companies, it changed the playing field. Now if you are a private individual wanting to take a hop into space you can shop around with a lot more options.

While Elon Musk’s SpaceX does not have a stated goal of space tourism, if you are willing to front the money you can get a ride on a Crew Dragon capsule, like Jared Isaacman recently did with his Polaris Dawn mission. On the other end of the spectrum, Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic is explicitly designed around space tourism. They offer short sub-orbital hops for a few hundred thousand dollars each.

Space tourism certainly has several positives. For one there is more interest and activity in space which generally brings positive attention to the industry. Second, by companies chasing after a new market niche, these companies are developing new technologies and approaches which can have further beneficial effects on the larger industry. Lastly, there’s the well-reported “overview effect” where people finally get a view of our fragile home planet and gain a new perspective on what is important in human life.

On the other hand, it’s not exactly like many people get to be space tourists. Even the cheapest tickets are comparable to the cost of a home, making it inaccessible to all but the wealthiest people in our society. So it’s not like many people are getting to appreciate the view or participate in this new market. In fact, space tourism can lead to negative feelings as people just think of space as the province of the rich and elite.

Lastly, there are precious few dollars available for rocket development and space exploration. Many might argue that these dollars would be better suited to scientific exploration or experimental development of new technologies rather than creating a new pastime for the ultra wealthy.

Ultimately space tourism is going to be a thing whether we like it or not. It’s also not going to be a big thing. For the foreseeable future it will remain incredibly expensive, and most rocket companies are more interested in scientific and industrial pursuits in low-Earth orbit and beyond. So either way, whether it’s a good or bad thing, it’s simply not going to make a huge difference.

The post Space Tourism: The Good, The Bad, The Meh appeared first on Universe Today.

The world produces 350-400 million metric tons of plastic waste. Less than 10% of this waste is recycled, while 25% is mismanaged or littered. About 1.7 million tons ends up in the ocean. This is not sustainable, but whose responsibility is it to deal with this issue?

The debate about responsibility is often framed as personal responsibility vs systemic (at the government policy level). Industry famously likes to emphasize personal responsibility, as a transparent way to shield themselves from regulations. The Keep American Beautiful campaign (the crying Indian one) was actually an industry group using an anti-littering campaign to shift the focus away from the companies producing the litter to the consumer. It worked.

This is not to say we do not all have individual responsibility to be good citizens. There are hundreds of things adults should or should not do to care for their own health, the environment, the people around them, and their fellow citizens. But a century of research shows a very strong and consistent signal – campaigns to influence mass public behavior have limited efficacy. Getting most people to remember and act upon best behavior consistently is difficult. This likely reflects the fact that it is difficult for individuals to remember and act upon best behavior consistently – it’s cognitively demanding. As a general rule we tend to avoid cognitively demanding behavior and follow pathways of least resistance. We likely evolved an inherent laziness as a way of conserving energy and resources, which can make it challenging for us to navigate the complex massive technological society we have constructed for ourselves.

There is a general consensus among researchers who study such things that there are better ways to influence public behavior than shaming or guilting people. We have to change the culture. People will follow the crowd and social norms, so we have to essentially create ever-present peer pressure to do the right thing. While this approach is more effective than shaming, it is still remarkably ineffective overall. Influencing public behavior by 20%, say, is considered a massive win. What works best is to make the optimal behavior the pathway of least resistance. It has to be the default, the easiest option, or perhaps the only option.

We also know that industry is always going to follow the cheapest and most profitable pathway. Counting on industry to sacrifice their own shareholder profits in the name of some abstract common good is not a solid plan. Even if some companies do this, they will be out-competed by those who don’t. Good behavior, therefore, requires top-down policy, which brings us back to the plastic question.

I love plastic as much as the next person – it’s light, durable, cheap, and sanitary. Glass is heavier and is brittle. For many applications aluminum is a great option, however. But single use plastic is simply terrible for the environment. Technology is often about trade-offs, with some alternatives being better in some ways but worse in others. In a capitalist society we often let the market decide which trade-offs are optimal, and that’s great (the power of the market). But what happens when the trade-offs are different for different segments of society? Industry might prefer one set of trade-offs, consumers another, and environmentalists another. There is also the issue of externalizing costs – who pays for the public consequences of technology?

This is where government comes in. Their job is to protect consumer safety and interests, to protect public spaces and shared resources, and to make sure there is a level playing field and no one is cheating. Of course, this can be challenging as well, and carries its own set of trade-offs – a cumulative regulatory burden. Optimizing the balance between free markets, consumer choices, and government regulation is often tricky, and is best done, in my opinion, based upon evidence and review, not ideology.

So how do we apply all this to the plastic problem? A recent study sheds some light. Researchers found that just four government policies could reduce plastic waste by 91% and reduce the carbon footprint of the plastics industry by 37%. What sacrifices do we have to make to get these benefits?

“The policies are: mandate new products be made with 40% post-consumer recycled plastic; cap new plastic production at 2020 levels; invest significantly in plastic waste management — such as landfills and waste collection services; and implement a small fee on plastic packaging.”

These all sound like reasonable suggestions. They are not necessarily a package deal, and the specifics can be tweaked, but the study shows the potential to significantly reduce the environmental burden of plastic with these types of measures. These policy suggestions also reflect some of the kinds of things government policy can do. They can set a standard for industry, so that everyone has to comply and no one has an unfair advantage (like using 40% recycled material and limiting total production). They can invest in infrastructure, which can both facilitate a technology and also deal with negative impacts. Policy can also shift economic considerations by making harmful practices more expensive or more environmentally friendly practices relatively less expensive. In other words – don’t tell industry what to do, just tweak the economic incentives so that the most profitable path is the optimal one. This also lets industry figure out the details for themselves.

I am neither a free-market purist nor a believer in unlimited regulation without consideration of unintended consequences. These are ideological extremes that are ultimately harmful. As with many things, there is a balance between free market forces and government regulations that follow Aristotle’s “golden mean”. Plus, this balance should be evidence-based and subject to review and revision. All players must have a seat a the table with no one interest dominating. In the end we can get some rational policies that make the world a better place for everyone.

The post Managing Plastic Waste first appeared on NeuroLogica Blog.

A genetic flaw dooms half of all crested newts to die before they hatch – now we know how this baffling evolutionary quirk came about

Two massive galaxies are bending light from the same distant quasar, creating a so-called Einstein zigzag lens that could help astronomers pin down how quickly the universe is expanding

It has been 50 years since archaeologists discovered Lucy, perhaps the most famous ancient hominin ever found. But the scientists who have studied her say that this fossil gave us a misleading image of the nature of her species

A classic study found that people can fail to notice a gorilla when they are focusing on something else, but new experiments suggest this "inattentional blindness" might not tell the whole story