h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I don't quite know how, but I seem to somehow have amassed a huge general knowledge, to the extent that I regularly catch documentary programs on TV making blatant mistakes. Today's was, a documentary about a possible comet strike about 10 000 years ago, where scientists had been discovering tiny diamond fragments that could have been created in the crash. Quite casually the narrator then also talked about 'fullerenes' that were also in the soil samples and saying 'fullerenes were discovered by Buckminster Fuller.' Sorry but NO! They were not! Buckminster Fuller was a designer, an outstandingly creative and fascinating man, but discover fullerenes he did *not*. He wasn't a chemist at all.

The first discovered fullerene, Buckminsterfullerene, was a molecule of exactly 60 carbon molecules arranged in the shape of a soccer ball, the traditional shape made with twenty hexagons and twelve pentagons. It's the first time this spherical arrangement of molecules was ever found in Nature, and it was named in honor of Buckminster Fuller because he popularised (not invented) the principles of making geodesic domes ... spherical or partly-spherical structures based on a framework of 'struts'. The soccer ball shape is similar to a very simple geodesic dome.

Buckminsterfullerene was discovered in 1985 by Harold Kroto, James Heath, Robert Curl and Richard Smalley of Rice University in Texas (OK, this I had to look up in Wikipedia!) They're the ones who should get the credit.

Apart from Buckminsterfullerene, many other carbon molecules have been discovered that form spherical, ellipsoid or tubular arrangements, with the same kind of geometrical features as Buckminsterfullerene. The spherical and ellipsoid types are called 'Buckyballs' while the tubular ones are called 'Buckytubes'. These together are called 'fullerenes'.

So anyways there you have it. Please read up on Buckminster Fuller and also on Fullerenes! For me one of the coolest things is 'nano-onions' where you actually have molecular balls wrapped around each other in layers, a simple 'buckyball' being right at the centre!

(More reading on the 'net: apparently, such 'buckyballs' can be made with silicon or boron, to name just two, as well).

How do I know this stuff? I remember ages ago having seen a science magazine discussing the discovery of Buckminsterfullerene. I remember having read about geodesic domes and Buckminster Fuller in the context of creating enclosed ecological areas or 'Biodomes', or for creating domed living spaces on the moon or other planets, I've also read about Fuller's work in designing low-cost energy efficient houses, I certainly read about his statements on sustainable and ecologically-friendly living ... as for fullerenes, I can remember reading about them in the context of super-strong carbon nano-tubes and probably other materials as well ... but I can't tell exactly where or how I learnt what ... but it seems to me now, I must have done a heck of a lot of reading in a rather wide range of fields in my life and somehow much of the knowledge 'stuck'...

Why not contact the makers of the documentary and tell them. if they are reputable they would want to put it right. Was it something that could be watched in the UK?

Websailor

Hi Websailor! How're you doing?

Certainly it was a British documentary, the narrator had a strong Scottish accent! Maybe BBC ... I'll check if the documentary shows again. But I wonder about 'reputability' and especially when it comes to TV. On nature and wildlife programs I've seen shocking inaccuracies. And from people who *really* ought to have known better.

Things like showing a tamandua (medium-sized anteater) which comes from South America, and saying it lives in Madagascar! Or leaving out vital information, such as saying that the temperature in the thermosphere (a very high layer of the atmosphere) reaches thousands of degrees Celsius, but *without* saying that, because of the thinness of the air up there, there is hardly any *heat* despite the high activity (temperature) of the air molecules - and that outside without protection, a person is actually liable to freeze to death there.

I sometimes think they believe the viewers are all idiots, or don't actually care about the factuality of facts. Maybe I'm old fashioned because I still believe if one says something that's supposed to be a fact, then it ought to be true. Give people credit for what they actually did, and not for what they didn't do.

Where's the harm, if facts are not actually factual? Well ... there's a real harm to science when people start thinking it makes 'facts' up ... and this happens! We have post-modernists and others saying the facts of science are 'constructed' by 'authorities' rather than being 'real'. You get people like Richard Dawkins positing a conflict between science and religion that needn't exist ... Creationism and other 'isms' arrayed against science and what it considers as 'facts' ... science itself suffering from over-specialisation and lack of coherence between its various fields ... some fields of science actually becoming so esoteric as to seem to have left reality altogether ... WHILE our global society becomes more and more dependent on science and technology ... meanwhile there are some major flaws in some scientific theories ... fields of ignorance being ignored rather than seen as the growth opportunities that they are ...

In all this ... I believe fervently in the value of science, RIGHT science, that doesn't go too far or become arrogant, but establishes a reasonably reliable body of knowledge, and seeks out more knowledge with the right critical and self-correcting procedure. And that ordinary people should understand this and have some trust (not infinite trust though) in Science. And that documentary programs should teach people the *right* facts.

Totally agree, Willem!

I first read about Buckminster Fuller in the 70's, when 'spin doctors' hadn't been invented. i think i first saw him mentioned in The Whole Earth Catalog

http://www.wholeearth.com/issue-electronic-edition.php?iss=1180

We personally are in a slightly strange situation here, we are pretty much trying to be as self-suficient as possible; no problem regarding doing without mains electricity, but still buying food from local shops; luckily the town is a 'Fairtrade' registered one & there's a decent range of organic stuff.

But in order to do other things, p works as an Inspector of Sustainable Energy for the Government; he was probably the pioneer of sustainable energy in Ireland; but it means he has to travel a lot....which uses diesel etc!

I'd love to grow more of our own veg, but physically, for me, the actual maintenance would be difficult & P has enough on his plate with the job & doing most of the outside heavy work to make this really feasible.

Much of his work involves very scientific data gathering, sending reports etc; which is a pain, but these schemes *do* have to be monitored; there are a lot of cowboys around who claim unrealistic stuff for their installations.

Ah well; sooner rather than later, maybe the world will wake up to the shocking FACT that oil is running out & radical lifestyle changes are inevitable!

Let's hope the Copenhagen conference actually sets drastic changes in place.

zdt

Hi Terri! The things you're doing on the farm are admirable. I wish I could have a patch of land of my own for experiments in sustainable living! Anyways it's a sorry situation that there are those 'cowboys' you speak about who make unrealistic claims. This is one more area in science where we truly need accuracy! The world and humanity is served no jot when we are presented with 'sustainable' models that are not *really* sustainable! And there are lots of people out there who will exploit our fears about global warming, pollution and what not ... 'selling' us something that actually is no solution!

Hi dear Willem,

I had never heard of Fullerton - so will now make it my business to look him up.

Do you really think there is NO solution to global warning.? I am feeling so guilty about the fact that in my youth there was nothing like plastic. The first motor cars only came in at the turn of the last century(C. 20th). I think that it is aviation which has caused too many problems, and that only started in ernest during WW2.

I was very fearul of nuclear power, but now it would seem that it will be the only fuel which would propel our aircraft, making the planet uninhabitable for the human race in the process. ah me!! Ah my!! And where and how do we dispose of nuclear waste? So that is no answer. !!

zdt I had absolutely no idea you lived in Ireland. I thought you lived in Spain. !!

Go well my dear friends,

Christiane
AR80
7/XII/2009 10.27GMT

Hello Christiane AR80! It's nice to see you here again.

His full name is 'Buckminster Fuller' and there's a fascinating article about him here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckminster_Fuller

I do think there are several solutions to the problem of Global Warming. That is because there are several problematic aspects to it. There are solutions for *preventing* global warming altogether ... which, frankly, in my opinion, we ought to have done ages ago ... now, that we have neglected doing those things, it is 'too late' so no solution for the problems we have incurred through that initial neglect.

So, global warming is already happening, so the next solution is to try and slow it down. That is basically what all the government meetings are about, finding a compromise, trying to get countries to cut down their CO2 emissions.

But global warming slowed down, will still cause problems - and there are various different ones. If much ice in Greenland and Antarctica melts, the sea levels will rise, and coastal cities will need extra protection. If the seas rise too much, no protection will be possible and those cities will eventually disappear beneath the waves.

Also, climate patterns will shift. We still don't know just in what way, but we know the result will be, some fertile areas will turn into desert, and other areas will get much more rain than usual. A probability is that weather will become more violent, because more heat in the atmosphere, means there is more energy that gets pumped into things like thunderstorms, hurricanes, and tornadoes.

The problem with modern humanity is that it is very much 'settled'. A city like London and New York can't just be pulled up by the roots and put down again in a different place. We have dreamed up the idea of 'property' so now, people own a house or a patch of land, and if they leave that, they have nothing. In the old days, before we had cities, humanity was much more nomadic, and could move in response to climate change. No more ... we have literally painted ourselves into a corner.

But ... when the seas rise, and great areas of land become infertile/uninhabitable, there *will* be mass movements of people. Desperate they will give up their homes, their farms, their cities, and move elsewhere, mainly with nothing more than the clothes on their backs. Imagine if billions of people worldwide are doing this ... imagine a billion people from Southeast Asia moving into China ... or from South America to the North ... even the southern states of the USA like Florida or Louisiana drowning in the sea and all those people going deeper inland ... the new human burden that will result on the regions that are lucky enough to still be high and dry!

In the old days before mass humanity dominated the planet, the global ecology was also free to move. When a region went dry, the animals and plants could also move to another that was more favourable. But thanks to us, animals and plants are now also painted into a corner: they are fenced in, in the remaining wild areas. When those wild areas become unsuitable due to climate change, they cannot move easily somewhere else. Fences, and other things, like roads, farms, cities, residential areas - now block the way. Consequence of global warming for Nature - mass extinction of plants and animals. Consequence of mass extinction of plants and animals for humans - so much wonder and beauty of Nature, lost forever to us - AND - global ecology becomes unstable since plants and animals regulate the balance. Worst case scenario - ecological collapse planetwide, the Earth now pretty much uninhabitable. Most mammals - INCLUDING US! - go extinct; rats and cockroaches inherit the Earth and, *perhaps* after 50 million years or so, another 'smart' species evolves - hopefully, smarter than us.

When one thinks of problems like those ... it is difficult to even imagine a 'solution'. The problem must be nipped in the bud! But HOW???

There may be ... there must be ... solutions, but there are also things that are advocated, that cannot really be solutions. For instance recently in the local papers, there was a journalist advocating hydrogen as fuel, and also, solar energy. There are major problems with both. Hydrogen cannot be used as a fuel if we don't have it ... and it is not freely available on our planet. It has to be made, out of other stuff, first. And solar power ... it sounds wonderful, and it can work on a small scale ... but I am very doubtful if it can replace all the energy we currently get from fossil fuels.

I'll go into more detail in a future entry, perhaps ...

The bottom line is - we need *real* solutions, not pipe dreams ... and especially, we now need honesty in Science, and we need sincere and principled Science. In my view, we need philosophy as well!

Willem, I am so glad I am a You should be writing for !

It is funny how opinions change - My Dad, born 1900, thought nomadic tribes were just too lazy to settle down Things look very different now. We had some very lively arguments!

Websailor

Howdy Websailor and thanks for reading! Do you really think the Post can handle this sort of writing? The thing is, and you know it, there's a lot of 'traumatic' sort of stuff in what I write ... things regular folks may not want to think about! I may in some cases also be a bit on the 'fringe' ...

I don't know Willem, you will have to ask them. I would suggest that if you do, you make them a bit shorter. It is not always easy to set aside time to read serious stuff like this if it is long. Small bites serialised might be more digestible ;-D .

I agree some folks might not want to read such in depth stuff which is why I try to keep my articles light, but we none of us know who is reading, since it is available to all and sundry, not just hoo too researchers. It's how I got interested in the first place.

There are some very clever folks on here you know who will probably have views as strong as yours.

Ask them and think about it. I just feel that your writing may be a little bit wasted in journal threads which don't necessarily get a wide audience.

Websailor

Hello again Websailor! Hoping you're well.

I'll see about submitting a piece to ... I'll do a more 'planned' piece ... these journal entries of mine, are just off the top of my head. At any rate, here in my journal, people like yourself and a few others can comment and this may help me get an idea what sort of thing I could write for a proper, well-thought-out artice. So thanks!

Good thinking

Websailor