My Google News feed shows me an eclectic mix each day, probably because my reading habits are — eclectic. Sometimes I even see links to this sort of thing:
“London’s Metropolitan Police chief warned that officials will not only be cracking down on British citizens for commentary on the riots in the UK, but on American citizens as well.
“‘We will throw the full force of the law at people. And whether you’re in this country committing crimes on the streets or committing crimes from further afield online, we will come after you,‘ Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley told Sky News….
“…One key aspect that makes this apparent crackdown on social media particularly shocking to critics is that the British government is threatening to extradite American citizens from the U.S. to be jailed in the U.K. for violating their rules about political speech online.…” [emphasis mine]
That last sentence is what got my attention. Partly because I’m an American citizen — and, although I’m not an ardent advocate of some political party or candidate, I’ll occasionally express ideas which can be considered “political”.
So it’s possible that something I say would violate United Kingdom “rules about political speech online”. Unlikely, but possible.
Particularly since I’m not entirely on the same page as the United Kingdom’s government — or mine, for that matter.
Under the circumstances, finding out what inspired this stalwart resolve to protect the British public from unlawful political statements seemed like a good idea.
RIOTERS RUN RAMPANT AS CHAOS STALKS THE LAND!!!
Part of my answer was in that Fox News/New York Post article:
The “dance event” in Southport, Merseyside, England, sounds like it could have been fun.
It was billed as a workshop for kids age six through 11: “Calling all Swifties! You are invited to a yoga, dance and bracelet-making workshop with Leanne and Heidi. Open to children in Year 2-Year 6”.
I’m not sure why the bracelet making and yoga activities haven’t been mentioned in most news coverage that I’ve seen. Maybe editors figured “dance” was more relatable.
Anyway, some guy showed up at the workshop a little before noon on July 29 and attacked the kids.
A few minutes later, three children were dead or dying. Maybe he’d have killed more than just those three, maybe not. Either way, adults interfered, police arrived, the alleged suspect was arrested, and that’s when things got interesting.
Seems that the alleged attacker was a few days short of this 18th birthday at the time. Since he was a minor, authorities couldn’t legally release his name.
Someone in the legal system lifted that restriction on August 1.1 But by then the fewmets had hit the windmill.
“Complete Nonsense” and a Warning
The alleged attacker was born in Wales, lived on the north-eastern outskirts of Southport, and is a British subject, but his parents were born in Rwanda.
He doesn’t, apparently, ‘look British’.
With no reliable information available, England’s self-appointed protectors filled in the blanks.
It wasn’t long before at least one made-up name, Ali Al-Shakati, was making the rounds, along with earnest assertions that he was a Muslim and/or an asylum seeker.
This wouldn’t be the first time folks decided that foreigners must be dangerous because they were foreigners, and that citizens with the ‘wrong’ ancestry must be threats because of their ancestors.
These days, remembering that iterations of the Ku Klux Klan are “subversive” is easy. Remembering that Theodore (Dr. Seus) Geisel warned Americans against Yellow Peril on the west coast: not so much.2
By the same token, noticing when someone who isn’t the ‘right sort’ spouts nonsense is easy. Doing the same when it’s one of the ‘proper people’ — isn’t.
Which preferences and phobias today’s ‘proper sort’ hold dear has shifted since my youth. Variable sensitivity to what the London police chief called “complete nonsense” hasn’t.
At any rate, I still don’t know exactly what London’s Metropolitan Police chief had in mind when he warned those who spread illegal political speech, even those on foreign shores — “we will come after you”.
But I’m guessing that the warning’s mostly directed at folks who see the July 30 – August 5 English riots as a good thing, say so, and urge others to make their cause look like a threat to society.
What the folks with those “serious voices” are thinking, if anything, I don’t know:
“Sir Mark Rowley, the head of the Metropolitan Police, has been speaking to broadcasters this morning.
“Asked if people rioting could be charged with rioting, the Met chief says: ‘We’ll throw the full force of the law at offenders, whether that’s charging people with assaults, violent disorder, riot and — if terrorism offensive are appropriate — I know the director of public prosecutions has said he’s prepared to consider that.
“‘We will throw the full force of the law at people.
“‘And whether you’re in this country committing crimes on the streets or committing crimes from further afield online, we will come after you.’…”
Scary Situations, Fear, and ‘Those People’
Fallout from the Southport killings was still popping up in my news feed this week.
What wasn’t making headlines is almost as interesting as what was.
Particularly the yawning chasm where discussions of the alleged attacker’s mental health might have been.
Seems that he’d been diagnosed with ASD, autism spectrum disorder.
He’s got that in common with the person who killed more than a dozen folks, mostly at Sandy Hook Elementary School, back in 2012.
As I recall, it didn’t take more than a month or so for serious-minded folks to stop saying that all those autism persons should be locked up. Or at least put on a watch list or something.
I had and have a personal interest in opinions of that sort, since my medical chart includes ASD, Autism Spectrum Disorder, ADHD, and an assortment of other psychiatric glitches.
Human nature being what it is, I figure that there will always be some folks who fear foreigners, lunatics, and those who don’t belong to their polo club.
But I also figure that many folks who aren’t just like me — aren’t all that different, either.
Something that has changed is the status of a once-honored and acclaimed procedure that made patients more “amenable”.
I’m grateful that, despite making lunatics more manageable, lobotomies seem to have gone out of fashion.
An ominous warning from London’s police chief, against making illegal remarks online: “we will come after you”.
Yoga, dance, bracelets, and death for children in England. Followed by riots and that remarkable statement by London’s police chief.
Fear, foreigners, phobias, and foibles.
An angle of the Southport stabbings that hasn’t been stressed, and why I have a personal interest in knee-jerk responses to scary situations.
Right.
Four Freedoms: a Catholic Viewpoint
I grew up in an America where red-white-and-blue-blooded-one-hundred-percent-regular Americans were defending freedom something dreadful.
They stood behind everyone’s right to express unyielding, unwavering, unthinking support for their opinions.
For what it’s worth, I suspect many didn’t see the disconnect between their notion of “free speech” and how they treated folks who didn’t agree with them.
Time passed.
The Establishment of my youth lost whatever credibility they’d had, and long-overdue reforms finally got traction. I don’t like some of what’s happened since then, but some changes were for the better.
On the other hand, today’s Establishment — folks who know what’s best for the rest of us (just ask them: they’ll confirm this) and have earned positions of power and influence — they uphold “free speech” with the same old enthusiasm.
I don’t see much difference between them and their counterparts back when McCarthyism finally expired.
Sure, the current ‘proper sort’ have different preferences and new slogans. But I see the same fear and loathing of unsanctioned viewpoints. Possibly because I haven’t spent a lifetime surrounded by like-minded folks, or ingratiating myself to — no. I’ll stop there.
Researching this week’s post, I ran across a flag design from 1942: one that’s been called the Four Freedoms Flag, or United Nations Honour Flag; and has been largely forgotten.4
I’ll probably talk about that, eventually. But for now I’ll look — briefly — at goals mentioned in the American president’s 1941 State of the Union address:
Freedom of worship
Freedom from want
Freedom from fear
Freedom of speech and expression
More than eight decades later, all four still look like good ideas.
So: what, if anything, does all that “freedom” stuff have to do with London’s police chief’s declaration that his government will go after lawbreakers in other countries?
Freedom of Worship, From Want, and From Fear
I’ll start with freedom of worship.
I think it’s a good idea, partly because of my family’s history. One of my ancestors had trouble getting a birth certificate, and that’s yet another topic.
More to the point, I must value freedom of worship because I’m a Catholic. I’m Catholic, by the way, because I think Jesus is who he said he is, and finally realized who currently holds the authority Jesus gave Peter.
As a Catholic, I must recognize that folks are searching for God: including those who haven’t had my opportunities. Supporting freedom of religion, for everyone, comes with being Catholic. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 839-845, 1907, 2104-2109, 2211, 2566, and more)
Freedom from want: I’ll take that as part of what we’re told about social justice. Basically, it’s a good idea. (Catechism, 1928-1942, for starters)
Freedom from fear, starting with the sort of fear the president mentioned in 1941.
“…freedom from fear … translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor — anywhere in the world….” (The Four Freedoms speech, Franklin Delano Roosevelt (January 6, 1941) via Wikisource)
Over-simplifying this a lot: peace is a good idea. (Catechism, 2302-2306)
War is something governments should avoid. Praying and working for an end to war is a good idea. (Catechism, 2307-2317)
But sometimes war is better than the alternative. (Catechism, 2309)
As for fear, it’s an emotion. Feeling emotions is part of being human. By themselves, emotions aren’t good or bad: they’re just there. When we decide what we’ll do with our emotions: that’s when good or bad — ethics — get involved. (Catechism, 1762-1775)
The main emotions are love, hatred, desire, fear, joy, sadness, and anger. (Catechism, 1772)
I’d like it if rabidly earnest folks would appeal to emotions other than fear, anger, and hatred: but at least I can try not letting their rants affect me, and suggest that thinking is a good idea.
Free Speech and Being Responsible
Since I’m an American, I think freedom of speech is important.
Since I’m also a Catholic, I think freedom of speech is much like any other freedom.
Having free will is part of being human. I can decide what I do, or do not do. And I am responsible for my actions, or lack of action. (Catechism, 1730-1738)
The Catechism says quite a bit about neighbors, love, and responsibility: but not much specifically about “freedom of speech” in isolation. So I’ll quote a few popes:
“…The General Assembly wished also to affirm that one of the highest human aspirations is to see the dignity of the human person recognized, and it looked forward to the coming of a world in which all could exercise freedom of speech and freedom of belief. In this sense, the Declaration expressed a common ideal to be attained by all peoples and all nations….” (Message for the celebration of the 40th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Pope Saint John Paul II (December 6, 1988)) [emphasis mine]
“…Moreover, man has a natural right to be respected. He has a right to his good name. He has a right to freedom in investigating the truth, and—within the limits of the moral order and the common good—to freedom of speech and publication, and to freedom to pursue whatever profession he may choose. He has the right, also, to be accurately informed about public events….” (Pacem in Terris [Peace on Earth], Pope Saint John XXIII (April 11, 1963)) [emphasis mine]
“…Freedom of the press, like any other freedom whether of action or of speech or thought is limited; it does not allow a man to print what is wrong, what is known to be false or what is calculated to undermine and destroy the moral and religious fibre of individuals and the peace and harmony of nations….” (To representatives of the press from the United States of America, Venerable Pope Pius XII (July 11, 1946)) [emphasis mine]
That view of “freedom” falls well short of ‘I can do whatever I want, whenever I want’, but it works for me.
As for the once-common habit of treating “man” or “a man” as synonyms for “humanity” or “a person”: this isn’t the America I grew up in. I don’t miss the days when “she’s smart as a man” was supposed to be a compliment. I’ve said that before. Often.
The Powers That Be and Malcontents, Viewpoints and Fear
Freedom of expression: a currently-proper view, and a banned comic strip.
My country’s history being what it is, the odds of someone running for office promising to stamp out freedom of speech are pretty much zero.
I’ve been told that we got our attitude toward freedom of expression from England, a legacy from our colonial days.
So how come the occasional malcontent gets in trouble for complaining, or simply drops off the radar?
I don’t know. I’m just some guy living in central Minnesota. I don’t have the resources for a comprehensive study of American politics and culture. Let alone a global view.
But I’ve been living in this country all my life, have been paying attention, and haven’t lost a wary view of The Establishment developed in the 1960s. So here’s how I see it.
Folks at one end of the political spectrum have little incentive to go bonkers over the news and official pronouncements: their views are well-represented.
Besides, the way they see events and ideas presented is clearly fair, balanced, and correct. From their viewpoint.
Everybody they work with, everybody they rub elbows with, all their favorite authors and celebrities: they’re all in agreement. “Our” view is the proper one.
Folks at the other end: well “everybody” knows that they’re wrong. And a threat to society. Therefore, those in authority must silence those threats. Thus says The Establishment.
Oversimplified? Yes, enormously. Not far from accurate? I think so, definitely.
“Outside Agitators”, “We Will Come After You”: Same Attitude, Different Eras
I don’t see a problem with some degree of self-confidence.
But when self-confidence boils over and becomes self-righteousness: that’s a problem, a big one.
It’s an even bigger one, I think, when the folks in charge start seeing disagreement over policy as a threat to society. And try using their power to silence that threat.
They might have good intentions.
But doing something bad to get good results is a bad idea. Always. (Catechism, 1789)
That applies to folks who riot, when there’s still some hope of discussing problems — and I think it applies to other folks who won’t listen to views they don’t like.
Some of what I’ve read about the recent riots in England sounded very familiar:
“…Far-right groups spread misinformation online, and the UK government under [name] has accused Russia of spreading disinformation to stoke the unrest….
“… [name], an expert on right-wing extremism, commented….
“…the [newspaper] reported ‘far right thugs, fuelled by lies, sought to exploit the tragedy’….” (2024 United Kingdom riots, Wikipedia (text from August 15, 2024))
Substitute “left” for “right”, “pamphlets” for “online” and “American government” for “UK government” — add phrases like “communist menace” and “un-American” — that could have been written about other people who’d gotten fed up, back when I was a teenager.
I’m not making excuses for folks who rioted in England.
But I am suggesting that maybe, just maybe, letting those who don’t agree with The Establishment have their say — even better, LISTENING to them — might result in fewer folks feeling that rioting was their only option for reform.
I’ll wrap this section up with a pared-down bit from that “serious voices” … “complete nonsense” article; and remarks by another frustrated official, who was also dealing with “outside agitators”.5
“Sir Mark Rowley, the head of the Metropolitan Police, has been speaking to broadcasters this morning….
“… ‘…whether you’re in this country committing crimes on the streets or committing crimes from further afield online, we will come after you.‘…” [emphasis mine] [this article no longer found online; August 15, 2024]
***
“If the Federal Government really wants to help in this unfortunate situation, they will encourage these outside agitators to go home. We have the means and the ability to keep the peace in Alabama without any outside help.” (Governor of Alabama, quoted in the Washington Post (May 21, 1961) via Historic Newspapers) [emphasis mine]
“With Great Power….”
It’s been nearly a week since I saw that “UK police commissioner threatens to extradite, jail US citizens…” headline in my news feed.
I still don’t know exactly what sort of online remarks would result in extradition to the United Kingdom.
I’m not worried, but now I have another reason for avoiding off-the-cuff responses to weighty issues.
I’m slightly concerned about mainstream news media’s non-coverage of the London police chief’s “we will come after you” remark. No criticism, no support for his stalwart defense of the British public: nothing. Not that I’ve seen, that is.
Maybe his remark doesn’t matter, and everyone in the proper circles understands that he was just blowing off steam. Or maybe I’ll start seeing headlines about dangerous extremists who made illegal statements. Or maybe I won’t see such headlines.
Whatever happens, I’ll keep on thinking that truth matters: which is another one of those things I’d better think, if I’m going to keep calling myself a Catholic:
“Truth as uprightness in human action and speech is called truthfulness, sincerity, or candor. Truth or truthfulness is the virtue which consists in showing oneself true in deeds and truthful in words, and in guarding against duplicity, dissimulation, and hypocrisy.” (Catechism, 2468)
On a more practical level, I’ll maintain my habit of researching facts, and making an effort to not get facts, opinions, and feelings confused.
As for those whose position in society gives them a degree of control over what shows up in our news feeds, I think this quote applies:
“With great power must also come great responsibility!” (Spider-Man, via Wikiquote)
Wisdom in a comic book? These days, I’ll use what I find, where I find it.
Finally, the usual links to more stuff; this time mostly about freedom of expression and making sense:
Headlines about an “eyeball planet” got my attention last month.
Then I got distracted by what I thought were more time-sensitive topics — and remembered what two scientists learned when they simulated ocean currents and winds on a tidally-locked exoplanet.
That last item was from 2013. It’s still the best discussion I’ve seen of what an “eyeball planet” might actually look like. Turns out that a patch of open ocean on a tidally locked exoplanet’s ocean wouldn’t necessarily be circular.
But I’ll admit that “eyeball planet” is a cool description. And may be easier to remember than terms like “lobster-like spatial pattern”.
So this week I’ll be talking about LHS 1140 b, which may not be an “eyeball planet” after all, ocean planet simulations; and — briefly, for me — how I see extraterrestrial life.
LHS 1140 b: Water, With Nitrogen in the Atmosphere — Maybe
B. Gougeon’s illustration, comparing an ice-covered LHS 1140 b (with and without open water) and Earth.
“A Closer Look at a Potential ‘Eyeball Planet’“ Arielle Frommer, Sky & Telescope (July 24, 2024) “New James Webb Space Telescope observations of LHS 1140b hint at a temperate water world with a nitrogen-rich atmosphere.”
“Imagine a world hospitable to life, with a single temperate ocean surrounded on all sides by ice. This ‘eyeball planet’ might sound straight out of science fiction, but it is entirely possible — and astronomers think they might have found such a world in LHS 1140b.
“Located only 49 light-years away in the constellation Cetus, LHS 1140b is one of the closest discovered planets that lies within its star’s habitable zone — the region where a planet could retain liquid water….”
We’ve known about LHS 1140 b since 2017.
It’s a transiting exoplanet, passing between us and its sun every 24 and three-quarters days, which gives scientists a chance to study light passing through its atmosphere.
The Sky & Telescope article talks about what scientists found in data from the James Webb Space Telescope’s Near Infrared Imager and Slitless Spectrograph.
Seems that the planet could have a nitrogen-rich atmosphere.
“…However, the team only has hints about the atmosphere’s composition so far — the researchers couldn’t rule out that the planet might have no atmosphere at all, making it a world of barren rock or ice.
“‘What I find to be the most significant about this result is that there’s an indication that LHS 1140b might have an atmosphere at all,’ says Jason Dittmann (University of Florida), a co-discoverer of LHS 1140b who was not involved in this study.
“LHS 1140b is the first rocky exoplanet to have shown hints of an atmosphere, and while the study’s atmospheric results are tentative, LHS 1140b is certainly a promising habitable candidate to keep an eye on….” (“A Closer Look at a Potential ‘Eyeball Planet’“, Arielle Frommer, Sky & Telescope (July 24, 2024))
I’m not sure about “first rocky exoplanet to have shown hints of an atmosphere” in that last paragraph.
The last I checked, nobody had confirmed that planets in the TRAPPIST-1 system had atmospheres. But 55 Cancri e is a “rocky” planet, in the sense of being mostly silicate, rock, or metal. And it’s got an atmosphere.
On the other hand, there’s a chance that 55 Cancri e is a carbon planet.
I suppose “first rocky exoplanet” depends on what “rocky” means in context.
I’ve talked about some of this stuff before. As usual you’ll find links in the footnotes.1
Next, a quick look at “eyeball planets” and — maybe — lobster-shaped oceans.
Tidally Locked Ocean Planets: Simple, and Not-So-Simple, Models
Hu & Yang’s Figure S1: hypothetical eyeball planet, with a slab ocean. (2013) (left) sea-ice fraction (right) surface air temp (upper) low CO2 (lower) high CO2
“…Simulation with a comprehensive Earth atmospheric general circulation model (AGCM) coupled to a slab ocean, without dynamic ocean heat transport, revealed an ‘eyeball’ climate state, with a round area of open ocean centered at the substellar point and complete ice coverage on the nightside, even for very high CO2 concentrations….”
Yongyun Hu and Jun Yang’s “slab ocean, without dynamic ocean heat transport”, may be among the simplest climate models for an ocean planet.
With no ocean currents, a tidally locked planet’s ocean might be covered with ice, with a single round spot of clear blue water gazing at its sun.
I haven’t tracked the term “eyeball planet” or “eyeball Earth” any further back than 2013. Maybe I’ll go deeper down that rabbit hole someday, but not this week.
Anyway, an “eyeball planet” is, I gather, an ocean world that’s tidally locked with its star, like the Moon is with Earth.
The Moon has a day-night cycle, since it turns around relative to the sun once a month.
But a planet that’s tidally locked with its star would have one side where it’s always day, with nothing but night on the other.
For a planet with no air to speak of, like Mercury, being tidally locked would leave it baking on one side, freezing on the other.
Scientists thought those were the conditions on Mercury. Until the 1960s, when we learned that the planet rotates three times for every two orbits.
Mercury is tidally locked, by the way, but with a 3:2 ratio instead of 1:1. That’s almost another topic.
At any rate, LHS 1140 b — I’m back to that planet for a moment — is around 1 and three-quarters times Earth’s diameter, but less dense. It might be a sub-Neptune.
But since nobody’s detected hydrogen in its atmosphere, the odds are that it’s an ocean world, a rocky planet covered with an ocean hundreds of miles deep.2
Exoplanet Climate Simulations and a “Lobster-Like Spatial Pattern”
Hu & Yang’s Fig. 1: hypothetical ocean world. (2013) (left) sea-ice percent (right) surface air temperature °C (upper) atmosphere with 355 ppmv CO2 (bottom) 200,000 ppmv CO2
Sooner or later, “ocean world” may mean a planet with closely-defined characteristics.
That hasn’t happened yet, so sometimes Earth is called an “ocean world”.
Along, again sometimes, with Saturn’s moon Titan; exoplanets like CoRoT-7b, Kepler-10b, and Kepler-78b, that may be covered in lava; and LHS 1140 b — assuming that recent observations and analysis are right.
If LHS 1140 b is an ocean world, then it’s probably not an “eyeball planet”. At least not one with a round ice-free patch facing its sun.
For one thing, I’ve seen research that says the sort of tidal locking needed for eyeball planets won’t work.
I haven’t read it, though. It’s been one of those weeks, which seem to be coming more often these days, and that’s yet another topic.
Assuming that 1:1 tidal locking for worlds like LHS 1140 b is possible, and their surface conditions are right, looks like their ice-free patches won’t be round.
That’s because ocean currents happen: certainly on Earth, and near-certainly elsewhere.
It’s hard to imagine an ocean where the water doesn’t move around. Maybe in a post-plastic-apocalypse scenario, where the ocean’s water is entirely contained in discarded plastic bags. Oh, boy. Never mind. Moving along.
Folks developed the first weather and climate simulation programs around 1950. By the 1970s, forecasting where tropical cyclones would go — is yet again another topic.
The point is that we’ve got moderately-accurate simulations for how Earth’s ocean and atmosphere work. Plugging in different values lets scientists make informed guesses about the climate on other worlds: even still-hypothetical ones we haven’t spotted yet.
Like the ‘lobster-shaped’ ice-free area described in this 2013 paper:3
“…Fig. 1A shows AOGCM [Atmospheric-Oceanic General Circulation Model] simulation results of sea-ice fraction and wind velocity at the lowest model layer for 355 ppmv of CO2. This level of CO2 roughly equals the present-day CO2 concentration in the Earth atmosphere. In the presence of a dynamic ocean, the open-ocean area (blue) is not like the round iris of an ‘eye’ such as that in AGCM simulations coupled with a slab ocean (Fig. S1A; also figure 3 in ref. 4). Instead, the spatial pattern of the open-ocean region is more like a ‘lobster,’ showing two ‘claws’ symmetric to the equator and a long tail along the equator. The tail of open water extends eastward to the nightside. At the western side of the substellar point, sea ice is drifted eastward from the nightside toward the substellar point. The open-ocean region remains even for 3.6 ppmv of CO2 and shows the similar lobster-like spatial pattern. For very high-level CO2 (200,000 ppmv), sea ice is completely melted (Fig. 1B). By contrast, the nightside and a large part of the dayside remain frozen for the same level of CO2 in the AGCM simulation (Fig. S1B), and the open-ocean region is only slightly expanded compared with that in Fig. S1A….” (“Role of ocean heat transport in climates of tidally locked exoplanets around M dwarf stars“; Yongyun Hu, Jun Yang; PNAS (2013)) [emphasis mine]
That’s No Lobster, That’s a Spaceship!
I haven’t talked with my oldest daughter for some time, mainly because we spend a couple hours each day on a text/media messaging service.
It’s not the same being in the same room, but suits us pretty well, and that’s still another topic.
The point of that digital detour is that I showed her the ‘lobster-like spatial pattern’ those scientists described.
She saw the pattern just fine, but didn’t see the “lobster”:
“Image A looks like a sleek spaceship.” … “Yeah, really not getting ‘lobster’ out of any of these.” (excerpt from my oldest daughter’s remarks, earlier this week: ca. August 7, 2024)
I think she’s right.
My first take on that hypothetical patch of open water was that it looked like “a sleek spaceship”: the sort writers and artists imagined, before we learned that real spaceships look like piles of storage tanks in a hurry.
Somewhat Simple Simulations, Dynamic Oceans
Hu & Yang’s Fig. 2: “Depth–latitude cross-sections of zonal-mean ocean potential temperatures and zonal-mean zonal velocity. (Left) Ocean potential temperature (unit, °C); (Right) ocean zonal velocity (unit, m s−1); (Upper) 355 ppmv CO2; and (Lower) 200,000 ppmv CO2. “In C and D, yellow-red colors indicate westerly flows, blue colors indicate easterly flows, and contours are the mean meridional mass streamfunction. Solid contours indicate clockwise streamlines, and dashed contours are anticlockwise streamlines. Contour interval is 100 Sv.” Hu & Yang (2013)
My hat’s off to Hu and Yang’s 2013 study, mainly for showing how ocean currents might take heat from a tidally locked planet’s sunlit side to its dark half.
Their simulation is, I strongly suspect, much simpler than any real planet’s ocean.
For one thing, their hypothetical ocean is four kilometers, two and a half miles, deep: the same as most of Earth’s ocean, once you get past the continental shelves.
That’s four kilometers deep everywhere on the planet.
Maybe there are worlds with perfectly flat ocean beds. My guess is that at least some would have features like Earth’s continents, complicating what might otherwise be elegantly simple looping currents.4
But I figure Hu and Yang helped others see water and air on ocean worlds as “dynamic”.
That’s not, I think, wishful thinking on my part. I found catchy(??) titles like these in my notes, when I got started writing about ‘lobster oceans’ this week —
“The middle atmospheric circulation of a tidally locked Earth-like planet and the role of the sea surface temperature” Elisavet Proedrou, Klemens Hocke, Peter Wurz; Progress in Earth and Planetary Sciences (2016)
“Connecting the dots — II. Phase changes in the climate dynamics of tidally locked terrestrial exoplanets” L. Carone, R. Keppens, L. Decin; MNRAS (Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society) (2015)
Extraterrestrial Life, the Universe, and Me
R. Hurt’s illustration: what potentially habitable planets might look like. (2022)
By now, I suspect that someone’s tried simulating an ocean that’s hundreds of miles deep, like the one that’s (maybe) covering LHS 1140 b. But I haven’t run across it.
As usual, it started with an Abstract, which told me that it’ll be fascinating reading — and not something I’d try digging into this week:
“…Most studies assessing the effect of flares on planetary habitability assume a 9000 K blackbody spectral energy distribution that produces more NUV flux than FUV flux (R=FFUV/FNUV ~ 1/6)…” (“Stellar flares are far-ultraviolet luminous“, MNRAS (August 5, 2024))
These scientists looked at stars in a Gaia catalog, including red dwarfs like LHS 1140, and learned that their stellar flares make more high-energy ultraviolet light than expected.
That probably affects the odds for an exoplanet supporting life. But whether it means we’re more, or less, like to find extraterrestrial life: it’s probably to early to tell.5
Still Looking For Life, Still Learning
We know that there’s life in the universe. Earth is swarming with it.
The question is whether we’ll find life that started on — or in — other worlds.
So far, we’ve found a profusion of chemicals used by our sort of life in this part of the Milky Way galaxy.
But we’ve found no solid evidence that life exists elsewhere. And there’s nothing even close to a scientific consensus on the odds that we are — or are not — alone.
I’ll admit to a bias. I’d prefer that we find life that didn’t come from Earth — even better, that we find people like us; free-willed creatures with souls and bodies, but not human.
If that happens, studying similarities and differences would give us marvelous opportunities to learn more about life — and ourselves.
But I don’t think that there must be life elsewhere in the cosmos, or that there must not be. It’s God’s universe and God’s decision. Our job, part of it, is studying God’s work; and learning what we can.
I’ve talked about this, and related ideas, before:
“Transmission Spectroscopy of the Habitable Zone Exoplanet LHS 1140 b with JWST/NIRISS” Charles Cadieux, René Doyon, Ryan J. MacDonald, Martin Turbet, Étienne Artigau, Olivia Lim, Michael Radica, Thomas J. Fauchez, Salma Salhi, Lisa Dang, Loïc Albert, Louis-Philippe Coulombe, Nicolas B. Cowan, David Lafrenière, Alexandrine L’Heureux, Caroline Piaulet-Ghorayeb, Björn Benneke, Ryan Cloutier, Benjamin Charnay, Neil J. Cook, Marylou Fournier-Tondreau, Mykhaylo Plotnykov, Diana Valencia; The Astrophysical Journal Letters; American Astronomical Society (July 10, 2024)
“Stellar flares are far-ultraviolet luminous” Vera L. Berger, Jason T. Hinkle, Michael A. Tucker, Benjamin J. Shappee, Jennifer L. van Saders, Daniel Huber, Jeffrey W. Reep, Xudong Sun, Kai E. Yang; MNRAS (Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society) (August 5, 2024)
This year, I’m glad that I lack a deep emotional connection to what’s happening in Paris. Mainly because of the remarkable “Festivité” show.
I don’t think this year’s performance art at Paris 2024’s opening ceremony will affect its popularity. Too many folks get too excited about other folks showing what they can do for that.
And a drag show — that we’re told was not made to look like Leonardo da Vinci’s “Last Supper” — apparently doesn’t clash with the Olympic Charter’s high ideals.1
Even so, I think this communiqué/bulletin from the Vatican makes sense.
“The Holy See was saddened by certain scenes during the opening ceremony of the Paris Olympic Games and can only join the voices that have been raised in recent days to deplore the offence caused to many Christians and believers of other religions.
“At a prestigious event where the whole world comes together to share common values, there should be no allusions ridiculing the religious convictions of many people. The freedom of expression, which is clearly not called into question here, is limited by respect for others.”
I might have added “disgusted” to “saddened”. But I’m a very emotional man, and not directly involved with international diplomacy. For which we should all be thankful, and that’s another topic.
Catholic bishops in France seem to have had mixed feelings about this year’s Summer Olympics opening ceremony.
“‘The opening ceremony,’ the French Bishops’ Conference acknowledged, ‘offered the world last wonderful moments of beauty, joy, rich emotions, and universal acclaim,’ but ‘included scenes of derision and mockery of Christianity, which we deeply deplore.’
“At the forefront of the criticism across was a reenactment of Leonardo da Vinci’s ‘The Last Supper’ by ten men in drag….
“…In response to requests for explanations, Michaël Aloïsio, spokesperson for the Paris 2024 Olympic Organizing Committee, responded on Saturday, July 27, on Franceinfo: ‘We stand by our decision to push boundaries.’…
“…The opening ceremony ended on a hopeful note, unanimously appreciated by spectators, with one of the evening’s highlights: Céline Dion concluding Edith Piaf’s ‘Hymn to Love’ from the first floor of the Eiffel Tower, letting the last words of the song resonate in the Parisian night: ‘God reunites those who love each other.'”
It’s Okay, Everybody’s Doing It?
Differences of opinion regarding artistic interpretations of the Last Supper happen.
Salvador Dali’s “The Sacrament of the Last Supper”, for example, is “junk” and a “misunderstood masterpiece”: depending on who’s talking.2
I like it. But then, I don’t mind paintings that don’t look like they were done by some Renaissance artist. I’m drifting off-topic again.
Getting back to the Summer Olympics’ starting show.
I gather that it represented “a pagan feast linked to the gods of Olympus”, was inspired by Leonardo da Vinci’s famous “Last Supper”, and was not inspired by da Vinci’s mural.3
“…The ‘Festivité’ segment contained a scene of drag queens and other artists arranged in a row along a catwalk. A statement from Paris 2024 said that it was inspired by Leonardo da Vinci’s fresco The Last Supper, which depicts Jesus and the Twelve Apostles, while Thomas Jolly and the Olympic Games’ X account stated that this represented ‘a pagan feast linked to the gods of Olympus’ and an ‘interpretation of the Greek god Dionysus [that] makes us aware of the absurdity of violence between human beings’….
“…In response to the criticism, the Paris 2024 producers stated that ‘Thomas Jolly took inspiration from Leonardo da Vinci’s famous painting to create the setting’, and cited that the painting had already been frequently parodied in popular culture. However, the next day Jolly denied having been inspired by The Last Supper on BFM TV. On 28 July, organisers issued an apology for the performance, stating that ‘there was never an intention to show disrespect to any religious group’.…” [emphasis mine]
I’m impressed that event organizers issued an apology for the whatever-it-was.
Particularly since, as the Wikipedia page puts it, da Vinci’s “Last Supper” has been “frequently parodied in popular culture”.
Justifying behavior by citing ‘everybody’s doing it’ — an “appeal to the people” — sounds cooler in Latin: “argumentum ad populum”. But apparently that argument is still recognized as a fallacy in argumentation theory.4
Maybe ‘democratic principles’ only go so far. And yeah: that’s yet more topics.
Maybe the Paris 2024 producers had no idea that putting on a drag show that looked like da Vinci’s “Last Supper” might bother at least a few French citizens.
Or maybe they didn’t see the “Last Supper” connection until after it was too late to book another act.
Either way, I’ll give them credit for issuing an apology.
Dealing With Reality
I’d prefer living in a world where my betters would realize that a drag version of “The Last Supper” would go over as well as a blackface performance of “Uncle Tom’s Cabin”, at least in some quarters.
But forcing others to act as if what I hold dear matters — isn’t an option. It’s not even one I’d want.
I’m just glad that Notre-Dame of Paris is getting repaired, and that the French government allows Catholics to worship there. The situation’s complicated, and that’s — yet again more topics.5
The Last Supper: It’s a Big Deal
For Catholics, the Last Supper is more than just a meal.
It’s been some time since I talked about that, partly because explaining Mass and the Eucharist involves discussing ideas that are not part of my native culture.
I’ve been feeling distinctly sub-par, and there’s another topic I’d planned on doing this week. So I’ll say that the Last Supper is when Jesus established the Eucharist, which makes it a very big deal — and leave it at that.
“EUCHARIST: The ritual, sacramental action of thanksgiving to God which constitutes the principal Christian liturgical celebration of and communion in the paschal mystery of Christ. The liturgical action called the Eucharist is also traditionally known as the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. It is one of the seven sacraments of the Church; the Holy Eucharist completes Christian initiation (1322 ff.). The Sunday celebration of the Eucharist is at the heart of the Church’s life (2177). See Mass.”
“MASS: The Eucharist or principal sacramental celebration of the Church, established by Jesus at the Last Supper, in which the mystery of our salvation through participation in the sacrificial death and glorious Resurrection of Christ is renewed and accomplished. The Mass renews the paschal sacrifice of Christ as the sacrifice offered by the Church. It is called ‘Mass’ (from the Latin missa) because of the ‘mission’ or ‘sending’ with which the liturgical celebration concludes (Latin: ‘Ite, Missa est.’) (1332; cf. 1088, 1382, 2192). See Eucharist; Paschal Mystery/Sacrifice.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Glossary)
Update (2100 UTC — 4 p.m. here in central Minnesota — August 5, 2024)
“Trust and Mercy” (guest post: Deacon L. N. Kaas) (April 8, 2018)
1 Background and current events:
Wikipedia
2024 Summer Olympics (“This article documents a current sporting event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses. Initial news reports, scores, or statistics may be unreliable. The last updates to this article may not reflect the most current information….”)
Concept art: Max Space inflatable habitat on Lunar surface.
I remember when many folks were getting used to the idea that space travel wasn’t just science fiction. Some apparently still haven’t gotten the memo, but others have been developing new technologies. Like inflatable space stations.
I’ll be talking about that, and how I see getting back on the road to the stars.
Building Better Habitats: Basket-Weave, and Now: Isotensoids?
Max Space people and expandable space habitat prototype at MARS 2024.
Space habitats like Salyut, Almaz, Skylab, and the ISS, aren’t new.
As an idea, inflatable habitats go back at least to 1961. That’s when Goodyear designed and built a prototype concept station. It looked like an inner tube, and was never flown into orbit.
Fast-forward to 2016. The Bigelow Expandable Activity Module was docked to the ISS for a two-year test. It’s still up there, currently being used for storage.
Fast-forward again, and a startup called Max Space has what they think is a better, safer, and less expensive design for inflatable space habitats.
I haven’t found much about Max Space, apart from what’s in a TechCrunch article. No surprises there. Max Space is a very new company, run by folks who have been pretty much off the radar.
I did, however, finally learn what “MARS” in “the prestigious Amazon MARS 2024 event” (probably) stands for: “Machine Learning, Artificial Intelligence, Robotics, and Space”.
I’m not sure why MARS is so low-profile. Maybe it’s the sort of thing only tech nerds find interesting, maybe it’s the Amazon connection.1 I don’t know.
At any rate, that’s what got me started this week. That, and an 18th century mathematician who did some of the science behind airplanes and rocket engines.
“…strong, simple, and safe….”
Sierra Nevada Corporation LIFE inflatable habitat.
Instead of ferreting out background on Max Space and their new habitat tech, I’ll let Aaron Kemmer and Maxim de Jong do the talking.
“…[Maxim de] Jong, through his company Thin Red Line Aerospace, worked successfully with Bigelow Aerospace to develop and launch this basket-weave structure, but he had his doubts from the start about the predictability of so many stitches, overlaps, and interactions. A tiny irregularity could lead to a cascading failure even well below safety thresholds.
“‘I looked at all these straps, and as a field guy I was thinking, this is a cluster. As soon as you’re over or under pressure, you don’t know what percentage of the load is going to be transferred in one direction or another,’ he said. ‘I never found a solution for it.’
“He was quick to add that the people working on basket-weave designs today (primarily at Sierra Nevada and Lockheed Martin) are extremely competent and have clearly advanced the tech far beyond what it was in the early 2000s, when Bigelow’s pioneering expandable habitats were built and launched. (Genesis I and II are still in orbit today after 17 years, and the BEAM habitat has been attached to the ISS since 2016.)
“But mitigation isn’t a solution. Although basket-weave, with its flight heritage and extensive testing, has remained unchallenged as the method of choice for expandables, the presence of a suboptimal design somewhere in the world haunted De Jong, in the way such things always haunt engineers. Surely there was a way to do this that was strong, simple, and safe….”
I’m not convinced that Aaron Kemmer was the best lead narrator for this video. Particularly not in combination with the topic-appropriate background music.
On the other hand, he’s a Max Space founder and someone with expertise in this field. Plus, I was born during the Truman administration, so my idea of ‘best narrative voice’ may be outdated.
Next, the TechCrunch article’s introduction to these two engineering entrepreneurs; then a (very) quick look inflatable habitats in general and the Max Space prototype in particular.
Expandable Habitats and Max Space
Inflated Max Space prototype, outside and inside views.
“…The startup is led by Aaron Kemmer, formerly of Made in Space, and Maxim de Jong, an engineer who has studiously avoided the limelight despite being the co-creator of expandable habitats like the one currently attached to the International Space Station.
“They believe that the breakout moment for this type of in-space structure is due to arrive any year now. By positioning themselves as a successor to — and fundamental improvement on — the decades-old designs being pursued by others, they can capture what may eventually be a multi-billion-dollar market….” “Max Space reinvents expandable habitats with a 17th-century twist, launching in 2026” “Super-strong and ‘stupidly simple'” , Devin Coldewey, TechCrunch (July 27, 2024)
I found a fair number of references to Aaron Kemmer online, but they were mostly podcasts, social media accounts, and the like. Since I’m not sure how to evaluate resources like that, I’m moving on.
New Technology Built on Old Ideas
Deflated 20-cubic-meter habitat makes a two-cubic-meter pancake.
Inflatable habitats look good for orbital, lunar and other uses. That’s because they’ll squeeze into comparatively small packages for launch, and that means less aerodynamic stress on the way up.
One of these days I may talk about how inflatables like now-defunct Bigelow Aerospace’s B330 — I’ve put links in the footnotes — are more than just expensive balloons.
But not today. It’s been one of those weeks, and I’m keeping this (fairly) short.
Basically, if folks are going to live and work in a habitat — inflatable or otherwise — it must keep their air in, radiation out, and give some protection from meteorites and debris.
And that brings me to what Maxim de Jong said about “basket-weave” design for inflatable habitats and transferring load/stress. Which puzzled me.
I’d gathered that an advantage of designs that spread stress along a structure’s surface — predictably or not — was that they spread stress along the surface.
And that an advantage of shapes like geodesic domes is that stress at one point gets shared out to a larger part of the structure fast, lowering the odds that something will break.2
I see how a habitat where stress spreads along one axis is lighter than one with a more complex design. But: well, I’m no engineer.
Maybe stress that doesn’t run along the tension lines doesn’t matter, when we’re looking at stress resulting from differing pressures.
Maxim de Jong got his idea from looking at Mylar ‘get well’ balloons — his son was in the hospital, I don’t know more it than was in that TechCrunch article.
Being an engineer, he saw that all of the stress was along one axis. Then, when he dug into literature on the idea, de Jong found an 18th century mathematician’s research.
Perceived Impossibilities and Being Human
Diagram from “Curvatura Laminae Elasticae”, Daniel Bernoulli. (1694)
The TechCrunch article mentions isotensoids in that diagram’s caption:
I didn’t find Bernoulli’s “Curvatura Laminae Elasticae” online. But I did find his diagram used, as Figure 5 in Raph Levien’s “The elastica: a mathematical history”.3
My quest for a simple explanation for what “isotensoid” means finally led me to this:
“…The isotensoid is a spheroidal shape that carries stress only in one direction under uniform internal pressure….” (“Structural mechanics of lobed inflatable structures” ; Andrew Lennon, Sergio Pellegrino; Proceedings of the European Conference on Spacecraft Structures, Materials and Mechanical Testing (2015) via NASA/ADS/Harvard)
Which I could have gotten from the TechCrunch article’s discussion, but I like to verify what I read.
That habit sometimes pays off. Or at least sends me down interesting rabbit holes.
The TechCrunch article said that Bernoulli was a French mathematician, which may be accurate; although I gather that the Bernoulli family started in Belgium, unless they’re part of a Dutch family of Italian ancestry.
Actually, that part of Belgium was part of the Spanish Netherlands, and the family moved to Frankfurt am Main/Frankfurt for their health. I’ve talked about religion-themed propaganda during Europe’s turf wars before.
These Bernoullis ended up in Switzerland and were mainly famous for being math whizzes.
French? Well, they spent a fair amount of time near France, I’d settle for “European”, and that’s another topic or three.
I’d known about Daniel Bernoulli because of Bernoulli’s principle, an idea in fluid dynamics that the faster a fluid flows, the lower its pressure. That’s sort of related to the Venturi effect,4 and the reason many rocket engines look a little like Coke bottles.
New Ideas, Old Reactions
Minnesota in winter: humans ‘can’t live’ here. It’s too cold during winters.
Last year I talked about a very earnest op-ed piece entitled “Human Beings Will Never Permanently Colonize Mars or Even the Moon” , with an equally-earnest subtitle: “Billionaires are destroying Earth for a childish fantasy”.5
I’ll agree that we don’t, right now, have the equivalent of Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station or McMurdo Station on Earth’s moon. But permanent settlements in Antarctica are a recent development.
Until the 19th century, we didn’t have the tech and interests needed to see living and working in Antarctica as a good idea. Folks have been born and have died there since then, but nobody’s been born and died in Antarctica. Yet. I figure it’s just a matter of time before our “bases” become “towns”.6
It wasn’t until the 1960s that we could send people to the Moon at all. And it’s only recently that we’ve made definite plans for going back: setting up a long-term presence this time.
Saying that human beings will “never” live and work on the Moon or Mars sounds like “if God had wanted man to fly, he would have given him wings” — an ‘old saying’ I ran into it quite a bit in my youth.
Back then, it was given as an example of how newfangled ideas upset some folks.
I tried tracking down the ‘God would have given him wings’ saying this week, and learned that it’s been mentioned in news articles off and on, at least recently.
What a Bishop Didn’t Say, and the Wright Brothers’ Mother
The story goes that the Wright brother’s father said “if God had wanted man to fly, he would have given him wings” in a sermon, after reading about Otto Lilienthal’s fatal crash.
It’s a good story, with the drama of a distraught father striving to save his sons from impending doom. And it fits neatly into my culture’s assumptions about Christians, science, and new ideas.
There’s just one problem. There’s apparently no evidence backing it up.
“…Bishop Milton Wright was the first official professor of theology in that church, as well as a missionary to Oregon, a pastor in Indiana and an editor, according to [the Rev. Dr. John H.] Ness [Jr]. He was elected a bishop in 1877 and again in 1885, but led in a split of the church in 1889 and became the first bishop and publishing agent of the United Brethren (Old Constitution). The split was largely over the issue of churchmen as members of secret organizations, which Wright opposed.
“Dr. Ness said he could find no evidence anywhere that Bishop Wright had said, as has often been reported, that ‘if God had wanted man to fly, he would have given him wings.’ Instead, he said, the bishop’s pride in his sons’ accomplishments shows up strongly in his journals. However, he added, Orville and Wilbur apparently got most of their skills and advice from their mother, who knew both how to draw and to use mechanical tools….” (Full text of “North Carolina Christian advocate [serial].” Vol. 114, No. 27 (July 10, 1969) Duke University Library; Greensboro, North Carolina; Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2014) [emphasis mine]
What that North Carolina Christian Advocate story said about the Wright brothers’ mother reminded me of this household. My wife’s the one with a degree in computer science, many of the tools our son uses came from her, and that’s yet another topic.
Maybe it was some other bishop who added the “if God had wanted man to fly” saying to our folklore.
Given what I’ve noticed about human nature, I’d be surprised if someone, somewhere, hadn’t said something along the lines of “…would have given him wings”.
Here’s another example of the ‘it is new, therefore it is impossible’ attitude:
“…His Plan Is Not Original
That Professor Goddard, with his ‘chair’ in Clark College and the countenancing of the Smithsonian Institution, does not know the relation of action to reaction, and of the need to have something better than a vacuum against which to react — to say that would be absurd. Of course he only seems to lack the knowledge ladled out daily in high schools….” (“A Severe Strain on Credulity”, The New York Times; page 12, column 5 (January 13, 1920) via Wikisource)
I was going somewhere with this. Let me think. Space habitats. New ideas. An 18th century mathematician, the Wright brothers, and Goddard’s rocket experiments. Right.
“Houston, Tranquility Base here. The Eagle has landed.”
Construction project on the ISS. (December 12, 2006)
I don’t miss the Sixties. For one thing, I sincerely don’t want to be a teenager again: once was quite enough.
But I wouldn’t mind if more of us remembered how folks around the world watched humanity’s “one small step”.
A thousand years from now, I strongly suspect that our first Moon landing will be remembered. Maybe not remembered well: but remembered more than the Dominican Civil War, Congo Crisis, or even the Beatles.
The Space Race was arguably part of the Cold War.7
But I’m pretty sure that it wasn’t the geopolitical ramifications of America’s human spaceflight program that got the attention of so many people.
I think many were getting excited about the Apollo 11 landing because they recognized a unique historical event when they saw it.
I know I was excited.
Partly because I’m an American, and it’s nice when my country’s government gets something right.
But mostly because I realized that before the Eagle landed, nobody from Earth had ever walked on another world. That made the event unique.
A half-century later, I’m glad that humanity has finally gotten around to planning a return to the Moon: and that my country has a significant share in that effort.
What’s Next?
Interstellar mission: illustration by Tom Brosz.
A question that’s implicit in statements like “if God had wanted man to fly” and “Billionaires are destroying Earth for a childish fantasy” is — should we try building airplanes or spaceships?
It’s not a silly question.
From some viewpoints, serious-minded folks should spend their days brooding on the futility of it all and humanity’s utter depravity — while striving to make everyone drop what they’re doing and join in the high-minded misery.
In my youth, I didn’t see the point of a rabidly-religious version of that viewpoint. I’m no great fan of the secular equivalent that’s become fashionable.
There’s a (very) little truth behind the attitude.
Scientific research and how we use technology have ethical angles. We’ve got brains and should think about what we do. Whether we decide to help or harm each other matters. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, , 1723, 1730-1738, 2292-2296, 2493-2499)
Good grief. I talked about this a couple months back:
“…Truth matters, both in science and in faith. (Catechism, 31, 159, and more)
“God is the source of all truth. (Catechism, 2465)
Okay. A few more points, and I’m done for this week.
We’re pretty hot stuff: “little less than a god”, as it says in Psalms. But God is large and in charge; and that’s not going to change, no matter how much we learn, or how far we go.
“Indeed, before you the whole universe is like a grain from a balance, or a drop of morning dew come down upon the earth. “But you have mercy on all, because you can do all things; and you overlook sins for the sake of repentance.” (Wisdom 11:22–23)
“When I see your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and stars that you set in place— “What is man that you are mindful of him, and a son of man that you care for him? “Yet you have made him little less than a god, crowned him with glory and honor. “You have given him rule over the works of your hands, put all things at his feet:” (Psalms 8:4–7)
If it was a question of either acting like our neighbors matter, or getting back on the road to the stars,8 I’d say the universe can wait until we solve all of humanity’s problems.
But I think we can both work on humanity’s massive backlog of unresolved issues and start living on the Moon, Mars, and beyond.
God’s universe is calling us. If this generation doesn’t answer, another will.
More of my take on life, the universe, and being human:
Something new each Saturday.
Life, the universe and my circumstances permitting. I'm focusing on 'family stories' at the moment. ("A Change of Pace: Family Stories" (11/23/2024))
I was born in 1951. I'm a husband, father and grandfather. One of the kids graduated from college in December, 2008, and is helping her husband run businesses and raise my granddaughter; another is a cartoonist and artist; #3 daughter is a writer; my son is developing a digital game with #3 and #1 daughters. I'm also a writer and artist.
I live in Minnesota, in America's Central Time Zone. This blog is on UTC/Greenwich time.
Support this Blog:
More Perspectives From the Catholic Laity:
Blog - David Torkington
Spiritual theologian, author and speaker, specializing in prayer, Christian spirituality and mystical theology [the kind that makes sense-BHG]
