Human Achievement Hour founder Michelle Minton talks about the annual celebration of human creativity and innovation that happens at the same time every year as Earth Hour. Ecology and economy are quite compatible. One definition of progress, after all, is doing more with less. When people are left free to achieve and innovate, that is exactly what happens, to the environment’s benefit — and mankind’s.
Human Achievement Hour
Seismologists have long feared that “BIG” earthquakes might trigger other “BIG” earthquakes (a view that warms the cockles of catastrophist’s hearts who immediately connected global warming with this event). However, a March 2011 study published in Nature Geoscience finds this is highly unlikely. Since reliable records began back in the ’60s, there has been no correlation of this sort. Rather, “BIG” earthquakes trigger “small” earthquakes, which relieve plate tectonic pressures building up elsewhere in the world. An interesting and reassuring finding – Bad things don’t have to happen in concert! — which suggests that at some point in the future (when our ability to work with nature is much greater than it is today) geo-engineers might select regions remote from population centers and trigger large quakes directly, relieving pressure on zones where damages would be more costly.
Too human-centric? Not really. Earthquakes are disastrous for nature as well as man, but only we will ever be able to do anything about such tragedies. Given man’s creative abilities (CEI and ARI just celebrated Human Achievement Hour this past weekend), we’ll be able to take on this responsibility at some future date. Unless, of course, the Blame Humanity First types prevail. Our duty is to ensure that they don’t!
As our frenemies over at Treehugger wrote last October about how Lockheed Martin had come up with an ingenious idea for its 2,500 decommissioned Hercules cargo planes: mass-planting of trees.
As The Guardian reports, while these planes were once used for aerial assaults, they can now drop sapling-containing cones instead of land mines — about 3,000 cones a minute or about 900,000 a day.
According to Peter Simmons from Lockheed Martin:
Equipment we developed for precision planting of fields of landmines can be adapted easily for planting trees.
…The tree cones are pointed and designed to bury themselves in the ground at the same depth as if they had been planted by hand. They contain fertilizer and a material that soaks up surrounding moisture, watering the roots of the tree.
The containers are metal but rot immediately so the tree can put its roots into the soil.
Lockheed has set up Aerial Forestation Inc., a company to market the idea. But just who might pay for something like this? According the article, the system works well for replacing forests that have disappeared for one reason or another. For example, desert areas like Egypt, where there is already a pilot program in the works, the Scottish mountains, or the Black Forest, part of which was cut down for strategic military purposes during the Cold War.
The turboprop plane, which was originally designed for troop medical evacuation and cargo transport, might someday be used to speed up the process of reforestation post-disaster. For example, when Mount St. Helens erupted in 1980, it took nearly 25 years for wind-blown seeds to take root to begin to regrow the forest that the super-heated pyroclastic flow leveled. Perhaps with this new way of planting we can accomplish the Herculean task of regrowing an entire forest in less than a decade.
This is what human achievement hour is all about: using human intelligence, creativity, and technology — not government interference or mandated conservation to come up with the solutions of the future.
This “human achievement of the day” is a true example of why we at CEI and many others around the world choose to celebrate the ingenuity expressed when individuals can exploit resources. Apart from increasing personal wealth and improving the quality of life for humans around the globe, it is technology, not “conservation,” that results in more “environmentally friendly” technologies. The machine that turns plastic waste into oil is just one example of this.
The miracle of plastics: The invention of plastic is arguable one of the most important contributions to the improving quality of human life. Plastics are used in medicine, aeronautics, travel, construction, and electronics. In fact, if it wasn’t for plastic materials, one wonders if we’d have the satellites used to track the changes in Earth’s environment.
The problem with plastic: While plastics make much of modern human life possible, there are some who see the downsides of plastics. Making these synthetic materials accounts for 7 percent of the world’s annual petroleum usage, which increases demand and the price of oil. At the same time, disposing of plastic is environmentally tricky: it takes a while for plastics to biodegrade naturally — some say it takes between 500 and 1,000 years – and there is a fear that these materials will fill our oceans and landfills. Several cities have banned or taxed the use of plastic bags, which some believe are polluting rivers, streams, and oceans.
It’s hard to deny that lasers are cool, but a lasers that can blast mosquitoes out of the sky, protecting us from the malaria spreading insects, is as inventor Nathan Myhrvold, said “very satisfying” to see.
The laser was demonstrated earlier this year during a TED talk (Technology, Entertainment, Design (TED) is a non-profit organization) presented by “professional jack-of-all-trades” Nathan Myrvold, the former Chief Technology Officer at Microsoft.
While lasers are fun and cool the impetus for creating the device is deadly serious. As noted in the presentation, malaria, the mosquito-borne blood infection sickens more than 250 million people every year and kills a child every 43 seconds. Though DDT had been extremely successful in eradicating malaria in many parts of the world, baseless environmental concerns ultimately resulted in the banning of the technology, resurgence in the spread of malaria, and skyrocketing numbers of people infected.
While DDT has since been re-legalized, many countries, particularly African nations, are wary of using the chemicals. While DDT is still an option, Myhrvold, who created the laser with his team at Intellectual Ventures Laboratory, has truly created a technology that represents a leap forward in pest-control.
For example, as noted in the demonstration, the technology is actually two-fold. First, there is a non-lethal which tracks and analyses insects in flight. It can tell based on size and wing motion whether the insect it is tracking is “friend” or “foe,” even differentiating between the non-harmful male mosquito and the blood-thirsty female mosquito. The second laser then picks out the female mosquitoes and “shoots them out of the sky.” As Myhrvold notes, technology has become so cheap that, “we can weigh the cost of an individual insect’s life.” With this laser — which was built with parts bought on eBay, scientists can pick off harmful bugs while leaving other insects in the ecosystem alone.
High-speed video of the mosquitoes in flight shows just how deadly accurate these laser are and how devastating it is to the insect.
It’s a hot summer day, you pass by a lemonade stand and you think “An ice-cold lemonade would really hit the spot,” but you have no cash and there are no ATMs in sight! That is no longer a problem thanks to Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey’s Square, a small credit processing device anyone can use with their mobile devices to accept debit and credit payments on the spot.
Small businesses from corner flower merchants, garage and estate sale holders, or street food vendors and farmers markets can now offer their customers a more convenient way to pay for their goods, allowing them to compete with larger businesses. Square is literally a small square device that can be attached via cable to mobile devices, and which processes credit payments for a small per-transaction fee. Square is currently compatible with Apple products such as the iPhone, iPad, and iPod, as well as Google Android products such as the Droid or Nexus One, and will likely increase compatibility with other devices as the technology catches on. There are no monthly fees and no contracts for those who sign up — just a per transaction cost of 2.5 percent plus $0.15, which Square uses to cover interchange fees to credit card companies. Dorsey claims that, with Square, merchants can see an immediate increase in sales of around 20 percent.
In its story on Human Achievement Hour today, USA Today says we will be celebrating breakthrough technologies “such as the Compact Fluorescent Lightbulb.”
Hmmm. What Michelle actually told the reporter was that even people who celebrate the CFL should celebrate Thomas Edison and the incandescent lightbulb, because it was that technological breakthrough that eventually made the CFL possible. Earth Hour, however, represents a repudiation of technological advancement, the incandescent bulb and the energy that powers it. [click to continue…]
CEI appreciates the virtual knuckle-bump we received from the folks over at Treehugger.com for our Human Achievement Hour efforts. Lloyd Alter’s post declares that “The Competitive Enterprise Institute Finally Gets It Right!” and, without any irony, that we have “seen the light”.
“After all these years of fighting for incandescent light bulbs, gas guzzling cars and bottled water, The Competitive Enterprise Institute has finally had an idea we can get behind…”
Unfortunately, while the article praises our positioning of the advancement of technology as the way to solve environmental problems, it mischaracterizes what CEI does and the ideas behind Human Achievement Hour. I’d even go so far as to say that the post turns a blind eye to the real meaning of environmentalism as a philosophy that places value of nature apart from and above human life.
“I don’t know what brought about this transformation; There never was an organization so devoted to fighting new technology and innovation as was the CEI…”
Alter’s confusion about CEI’s approach to technological progress comes from three apparent flaws in his logic. First, he assumes that CEI has ever been for or against certain products. The second, is that new technology is “discovered” by an individual without the need or benefits of prior experimentation and discoveries. The last assumption is that environmentalists generally have human life as the basis of their philosophy.
“…this is an organization that has fought technology and innovation every step of the way. They even make a symbol out of an inefficient, hundred year old incandescent bulb, as if they were proud of their old, wasteful ways”
Hell yes! You’re damn right we’re proud of the incandescent light bulb and any environmentalist claiming to be a fan of the “green” compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFL) should be proud of the incandescent bulb too. Without Edison’s production and popularization of incandescent lights there would be no CFL.
One of the earliest fluorescent lamps was actually created by Thomas Alva Edison. Though his design was never put into production as is not the one modern CFLs are based on, without the success of Edison’s electricity delivery system we wouldn’t have fluorescent bulbs. Based on his success with the incandescent lamp, Edison was able to found and sustain the company, General Electric, that created and now produces the lauded compact fluorescent lights greens love so much. Without Edison, without the popularity of his invention and the wide-spread success of his “wasteful” technology, we wouldn’t have the “environmentally friendly” technology that environmentalists want government to force us all to use. That is the point of HAH–it is about the fundamental freedom for humans to freely use their minds. People need to be free to use and create things that others may consider dirty or wasteful before we can get to the technologies that are “cleaner”.
It isn’t this bulb over that bulb or this industry versus that one. Though it might seem like it at times, we don’t oppose products, we object to government policies, mandates, tariffs, taxes, and bans–any intervention in the market place that seeks to deter or encourage consumer choice. What we want is freedom for consumers to choose the best products based on their own judgment (no matter how flawed) and we want the Edisons of today to be free to create the inventions of the future.
“They are having a party in Arlington, VA during Earth Hour to celebrate their alternative (in a smoking room, yet) to “celebrate the inventions of human ingenuity that make all of our lives better.” There is not a TreeHugger around who wouldn’t want to do that. But we have a conflict that night; 34 people have signed up for their party, while 5,638,090 have signed up for Earth Hour. We will stick with the crowd.”
Mr. Alter, you are free to stay on the green bandwagon; it is your right to turn off the lights if you’d like, but know that belonging to the mob with the greatest numbers does not make you correct (and how much energy do you think it took to create the internet and takes to keep it running?)
Also, during your hour of darkness, remember that there are places in the world where electricity is not switch away, where they don’t have the right to freely offer or consume goods, where they don’t have a right to express themselves, where every hour of every day is Earth Hour. Whether it is explicit or not, that is the world environmentalism wants all humanity to live in. Those who celebrate Human Achievement Hour aren’t doing so because we like our hybrids, or our iPhones, we are celebrating the freedom that is necessary for humans to survive and create the products and services that make our world better and, in some cases, cleaner.
Though I recognize the scheduling conflict, I sincerely encourage you Mr. Alter and anyone interested in honest intellectual discussion about this issue to come out to RiRa in Arlington, VA on Saturday. A free market for ideas is just as important as a free market for goods.
Oh yeah, I’m going there. Cigarettes are a human achievement. Just like food items (i.e. chocolate) or beverages (i.e. wine) cigarettes are a consumable product that can enhance the enjoyment of the smoker’s life. Sure, it can cause a lot of problems for the smoker and irritate folks around him or her, but those are trade-offs that, as with many other things, one must account for when deciding whether or not to take a certain action. 
All that said, quitting is a really good idea. The achievement this post seeks to praise is the device that shows great promise in helping smokers improve the quality of their lives while allowing them to continue behaviors that they find enjoyable.
Smoking in the modern age is not like it used to be. Gone are the days when you could light up anywhere, buy a pack for pennies, and expect the nonsmokers to “suck it up” so to speak. Almost anyone who has or continues to smoke understands that maintaining the habit is costly, time consuming, and hazardous to one’s health and psychology.
But quitting can sometimes be more difficult than living with the immediate frustrations of smoking. One major barrier to helping smokers quit is that most of them genuinely enjoy the act of smoking. Whether it’s the rush of nicotine or the habitual behaviors surrounding the process of lighting up, even those smokers who intellectually understand the dangers of smoking don’t want to stop.
The electronic cigarette, or e-cigarette might change all of that.
First developed in 2003 by a Beijing company now known as The Golden Dragon Group Ltd. the electronic cigarette is was approved by the FDA for sale in the US in 2008. These battery powered devices, which can look like cigarettes, cigars, or even pens, provide a dose of nicotine through the process of vaporizing a gel solution.
In addition to purported nicotine delivery, this vapor also provides a flavor and physical sensation similar to that of inhaled tobacco smoke, while no tobacco, smoke, or combustion is actually involved in its operation…They are battery powered, and create their effect by vaporizing nicotine which is dissolved in a solution of water and propylene glycol.
The question for some however, is whether or not these new electronic cigarettes really are safe. As one producer website noted, while the safety of the e-cigarette may not be exactly known, it is assuredly safer than smoking conventional cigarettes. For one, there is a definitive reduction in the risk of accidental fires as the e-cigs are battery powered and have no burning element.
E-smoking is almost identical to cigarette smoking. The major difference is that the e-cigarette is always “lit”. Most of them even have an LED on the end that lights up like a cigarette ember when you draw on it. You can put it down or pick it up at any time without worrying about burning anything. It is only on when you actually draw on it. How much you smoke is related more to how many puffs you desire rather than on the length of the cigarette.
But what about the health consequences of long-term e-smoking? Again, it isn’t exactly known how much safer e-cigarettes are than conventional smoking, but again, it is almost assuredly safer to smoke the vaporized nicotine solution than the tar-laced smoke of tobacco products.
Even if e-cigs are about ten times as harmful as smokeless tobacco, that still makes them about 1/10th as harmful as smoking. Smoking is just that bad.
First of all, there is no burning of any plant matter so all those combustion related carcinogens are no longer present. Of course, in most cases, nicotine is still present but, as we’ve written elsewhere, nicotine is one of the more benign elements in tobacco…All that remains is some uncertainty about the effects of propylene glycol with long term regular use.
Almost anything else that is not acutely toxic (and we know the e-cigs are not) will be safer. Even if e-cigs are about ten times as harmful as smokeless tobacco, that still makes them about 1/10th as harmful as smoking. Smoking is just that bad.
Predictably, the FDA sought to prevent the sale of e-cigarettes in the states, claiming that the effects had not been thoroughly studied. However, in January of this year Federal Judge Richard Leon ruled in favor of plaintiffs Smoking Everywhere and Njoy who filed a jurisdictional lawsuit against the FDA. In his concluding remarks Judge Leon commented:
This case appears to be yet another example of FDA’s aggressive efforts to regulate recreational tobacco products as drugs or devices under the FDCA. Ironically, notwithstanding that Congress has now taken the unprecedented step of granting FDA jurisdiction over those products, FDA remains undeterred. Unfortunately, its tenacious drive to maximize its regulatory power has resulted in its advocacy of an interpretation of the relevant law that I find, at first blush, to be unreasonable and unacceptable
According to Matt Salmon, president of the Electronic Cigarette Association (ECA) and former congressman, in the two short years since the product was introduced in the US there’s an estimated 300,000 e-smokers now.
RSS Updates 
RSS E-Mail Updates 
Twitter 
Facebook 
CEI.org 
WorkPlaceChoice.org 
GlobalWarming.org 
CEI On Demand Video 
Liberty Week Podcast 