It's Always Greener on the Other Side...

…of these state boundaries. The Huffington Post recently released an article of the 10 least green states in the United States. The conclusions may be surprising to some, they certainly were to me. Living in Los Angeles and breathing in the thick L.A. smog day in and day out, one would expect California to be somewhere on that list. Or with densely populated areas of New York City, the state of New York should have earned a spot on this superlative list. But alas, California and New York seem to have done enough to keep their names off the callout of the country’s worst polluters.

Instead, the list is filled with states whose postcards showcase the greenest hills, pastures, and fields.

10. Illinois

9. Missouri

8. Kentucky

7. Texas

6. Pennsylvania

5. New Jersey

4. Louisiana

3. West Virginia

2. Indiana

1. Ohio (not Bowling so Green)

While that may appear as a list of the most undesirable states to have to drive through, let me assure that there are already plenty of drivers (and their emissions) clouding the airspace within the states’ borders.

Most of the incriminating acts of pollution arise from the power-producing parts of these states. There are refineries, plants, mines, and reserves across the otherwise verdant landscape. However, these pollutant places are helping keep gas prices low(er) as they are doing as much as they can to reduce American dependence on crude oil. Harvesting these regions for natural gas and coal does lower the states’ respective greenness, but it is for unavoidable reasons that we do so.

To end on a brighter note, here are HuffPost’s 10 greenest states (and none of them are too surprising):

10. Colorado

9. Oregon

8. Idaho

7. Montana

6. South Dakota

5. Hawaii

4. Nevada

3. New Hampshire

2. Maine

1. Vermont (appropriately named the Green Mountain State)

iBuild: A Helping Hand But Not a Human Hand

In the field of construction, the role of robotics is expanding as technology continues to progress and advance. Increasing safety and productivity are the main drivers in implementing an increasing amount of automated machinery on jobsites. These mechanisms can be programmed to perform tasks from welding and painting to fabricating systems of frames. However, the range of functions in the entire construction process is limited. The intricate and comprehensive nature of the process and industry calls and will continue to call for the experience and intuition of a human mind.

The construction process is one that originated in prehistoric times. The likes of cavemen and nomads had to explore into construction in order to live in their environments. From the rock dwelling of Fred Flintstone to the high-tech Centre Pompidou of Lord Richard Rogers, construction has been a dynamic field that continues to progress and grow according to modern technology.

In the present day and age, technology has allowed humanity an infinite amount of benefits, and the construction industry is certainly no exception. The advancements and improvements to this building craft are almost to the point of full self-organizing automation, or simply put, robotics. Machines have been regularly used in fashioning automobiles for years now, but in terms of constructing entire buildings, that task seems daunting.

The need and desire for the automation of particular construction jobs is evident. Repetition and precision are obvious advantages of a machine. Construction has always been a field of dangers and hazards, even with the numerous precautions and safety codes. Using the advanced technology to remove humans from perilous conditions is a great progression towards eliminating risk and injury in construction.

From a need, an itch, came the scratch. The current development of automation in construction is allowing for safer construction methods and more efficient manufacturing of mass quantities of products.

However, the current state of robotics limits these machines to task-specific roles. The comprehensive nature of building an entire structure restricts machines from replacing humans altogether in the field. The ability to foresee slight problems and changes in construction plans is not a characteristic of robotics. Until the arrival of artificial intelligence in addition to the advanced mechanics, these construction machines are simply following a predesigned program that an engineer has created to perform and execute an explicit task.

The future development and progression of robotics in construction appears to be nebulous. Technology is doing nothing but advancing, with the arrival super smart computers (take a look at IBM’s Watson, winner of the trivia game show Jeopardy!). It seems impending that different types of machines will be created to perform more and more functions and tasks on and off the jobsite in the construction industry.

However, a potential influx of robotics in the field does not necessarily equate to a globally beneficial change for the industry. Furthermore, the extent to which robotics can influence a particular project is restricted by the nature of the machine, one that is cold and calculated. Further introduction of automation is limited to the ability of that piece of technology, whether it be welding, painting, or something as simple as lifting. The advent of a computerized version of the human mind does not seem to be making its appearance anytime in the near future as the construction foreman or project manager.

While one can fathom up as many different robots as possible to execute specific functions necessary to project completion, that is about as far as the future of robotics is concerned in the construction industry. The complexity and fluidity of the field makes it nearly impossible to replicate in any computer programming.

Furthermore, judgments and inspections of work quality are better left in the human eyes and hands. While the works of a programmed piece of machinery are probably more accurate, precise, and consistent, it only takes one missed detail to cause a potential structural failure. Job experience and human intuition guide the decision as to whether the building code is sufficient given conditions, or a greater factor of safety is necessary. These are traits that a robot does not have and is incapable of gaining.

Moreover, there have been considerable criticisms regarding what construction robotics would do to the current job market. The replacement of human hands by geared clamps would be devastating to an economy just recovering from a recent crash. Instead of creating more jobs once the building industry starts picking up again, the implantation of machines automating jobs would take away opportunities the American worker has to get back on his feet.

Robotics in construction certainly reflects how far the construction industry has progressed since the days of log cabins. The capabilities of automation are essentially limitless in physical functions and tasks. Introducing and using robots in construction methods surely reduces the amount of risks and dangers to the human worker. And productivity of repetitive chores would increase, as machines are incapable of muscle fatigue and loss of motivation.

However, machines are also incapable of gaining and building upon life experience and using that to provide intuitive decisions. The intricacies involved with the construction industry are also difficult to model and reconcile with anything other than human judgment. Overall, the comprehensive nature of construction is not suited for the implementation of advanced robotics or artificial intelligence. Construction began ages ago with the ingenuity of human minds and the craft of human hands, and should continue as such for ages to come.

Happy April Fools' Day from Dubai

Throughout the 2000s, Dubai was the place to be. Whether you were an architect, a contractor, an investor, or just a tourist, traveling to Dubai was an expensive but worthwhile journey. Airfare and accommodations in the modern city were in high regard and high demand.

However, as quickly as Dubai earned its place on the map, it has fallen off with more pace and intensity. Not long ago, the words amazing and future were keywords when thinking of the Middle Eastern oasis. Now, when shown a picture of the city in a word association game, the two words that first come to mind are overbuilt and debt. The rapid rise of Dubai seems like nothing more than April Fools’ joke put on by the richest pranksters.

When the majority of the developed world went through a financial crisis, the major players began to take their toys out of the sandbox. An insane amount of construction projects were delayed indefinitely or cancelled entirely. Across the entire state of the United Arab Emirates, about $430 billion worth of new development was abandoned and withdrawn.

Over the most recent years now, real estate prices in Dubai have been plummeting due to the global crash. Unfortunately, this will most likely be a problem that will only worsen before improving. Not all interest has been lost in the extremely modern city, and developers can only hope that the recovering economy will soon allow the bright lights and colossal skyline to attract people from across the world once again.

There are many optimistic economists out there, some a little foolish, but some who defend the future of Dubai with good reason:

Great cities have long been built by great gamblers, and Dubai’s sheik may well be the second greatest city-builder — after the Chinese government — of our age. Many of those gamblers have ended up bankrupt, but their structural legacies remain, providing the space that connects humanity and facilitates the success of our urban world.

Even if Dubai’s real estate prices continue to drop, which is certainly quite possible, there will remain a strong incentive to fill its buildings. If the structures remain occupied, then Dubai, and its sheik’s dream of a great metropolis, will survive.

For the sake of architectural creativity and tourism, hopefully April Fools’ Day is not observed in the U.A.E. and this is merely an awkward transition phase between growth spurts in Dubai’s young life.

15 Million Can't Be Wrong

Over the course of one year, 15 million consumers bit the hook and forked over the cash in exchange for Apple’s iPad. It’s the newest hard drug. It makes the people who use it happy. Seeing your friends use it makes you want to use it. People don’t want or need to pay all the money it costs but they do anyway. Hoards anxiously await its newest release and distribution.

The recent global debut of the iPad 2 was greeted with the open arms of massive crowds to which Steve Jobs is accustomed. It seems not too long ago that people doubted the functionality of the tablet, that no one would need such a thing. While it is true that nobody needs an iPad like they need food and water, the iPad has shown that almost everyone has a need for one.

The tablet is an interesting piece of technology that exists between a laptop computer and a smartphone. Laptops are getting thinner and lighter, and smartphones allow you to play your music, pay your bills, and everything in between. Why would anyone need a tablet?

The tablet market was nonexistent and its future looked grim. Then, people started actually using the iPad.

The arrival of Apple’s newest product is compared to the arrival of the microwave oven by tech writer Matthew Guay and WIRED writer Brian Chen:

Succeeding the conventional oven, the microwave oven could heat food faster and use less energy. Even though it wasn't as good at cooking as an oven, and it wasn't obvious why anyone would want a microwave, the microwave became a staple in practically every home, because people kept finding new ways to use this technological wonder.

Just like the microwave, the iPad’s functions are essentially limitless. This is made possible with the support of Apple and hundreds of thousands of downloadable applications, or apps.

Watching movies and playing games are probably the two most popular functions of the iPad. Beyond entertainment, however, it offers a variety of productivity applications full-size calendars and maps at your fingertips. It even offers the adaptation of a Windows environment for more compatibility with enterprise functions.

Other than all the apps available, the design of the tool makes it desirable for all demographics. The sharp visual graphics are friendly to eyes of all ages and prescriptions. The thin and light body is easy to carry in a backpack, a shoulder bag, or a briefcase. The overall sleekness and simplicity of its design makes it usable for both children and seniors, described in a full product review.

Improving on its performance and design, there is no mystery or surprise as to why the crowds started forming outside the Apple store at an ungodly early hour. Those who had the first-generation product wanted an upgrade. Those who did not own one, wanted to.

With all this excitement regarding the recent iPad 2 release, it is needless to say that the tablet has found its place in our technology market. For now, that market belongs to Apple. No competitor has created a tablet that has nearly as much buzz and popularity among the masses.

Jotting down notes, playing Angry Birds, watching movies, reading a book, sending email, outlining a presentation, perusing the newspaper, social networking. Few of us can honestly claim we do none of those things. The iPad rolls combines all those tasks, and more, into a single, 8.8 millimeter-thin package.

Its wide array of capabilities makes the iPad a common bond between children and seniors, teenagers and adults, students and teachers. The one division the iPad creates is between the haves and the have-nots. Which one are you?

Is the Juice Worth the Squeeze?

Among the many lessons to be learned from the tragedy in Japan, the most significant to our future is nothing but nuclear in matter and anything but atomic in scale. The earthquake and tsunami natural disasters in the Asian Pacific wreaked havoc on Japanese nuclear reactors, instilling global fear and unease about nuclear energy as a source of power.

But even with violent multi-car crashes at the Indy 500, the race continues and ultimately comes to a finish. So while the field is currently under the yellow caution flag, waving that green flag and getting back up to full speed in nuclear power is essential to winning the energy race against time.

As Japan continues to investigate the failures and damages to their reactors caused by the natural disaster, we will learn more about the general safety of harnessing nuclear energy. The anticipation from forthcoming results should encourage, not discourage, advancement in research, development, and production.

Ongoing inspection of current facilities for physical maintenance and code compliance is absolutely necessary. Improving the safety conditions and procedures at existing plants and applying these higher standards to concepts in design are methods of learning from the present devastation. But this is not all we can do.

The meltdown at Three Mile Island occurred over three decades ago. While safety was improved as a result, “the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has not approved a single application to build a new reactor in this country” since then. Moving forward and exploring the construction of new nuclear plants following the discoveries from Japan is a progressive step towards solving our energy crisis. We should not only learn more this time around, but do more as well.

Moreover, eventual approval and implementation of new facilities creates a bundle of new jobs for Americans. Some pessimists insist we cease utilization of our current reactors, which involves layoffs across the country and slimming the job market in a recovering economy. Building and operating new plants would provide numerous opportunities for the unemployed to reenter the workforce, and help stimulate our economy from a different angle.

But what about the risks? Anybody could rightfully ask, observing the not-so-friendly reminder across the Pacific.

A truth concerning energy as it is a truth in life: you would be hard-pressed to find a risk-free reward.

The dangers of exploiting nuclear energy are inherent, their hazardous potential realized most recently and famously at the hands of a natural disaster. However, possibly the most dangerous of energy sources is not receiving the limelight that Three Mile Island or the BP Oil Spill received.

Coal mining and extraction has noiselessly taken more lives than nuclear power plants over the same time period. Mining incidents certainly are not as catastrophic as meltdowns, but occur at an infinitely more regular basis. As a result, there is a lack of media attention and public knowledge about these dangers.

Furthermore, the constant air pollution by coal plants presents yet another risk. The pollutants are not only sources of sicknesses like lung cancer, but the heavy amount of carbon dioxide emissions add to the environmental threats as warned by global warming advocates.

Perhaps the danger of harnessing nuclear energy seems overwhelming to some because it reaches our sentiments on mental and emotional levels that other incidents cannot. But going by the numbers, it would more advisable to start building nuclear reactors than coalmines.

It appears that the current state of nuclear energy is merely in caution, and should continue to move forward and progress. The thoughts of the president and chief executive of the Nuclear Energy Institute are about as optimistic as one can get at this point in time:

It is premature to reach conclusions, but I believe that expansion of the nuclear energy sector will proceed. Our industry has been forecasting the development of four to eight new reactors between 2016 and 2020; four are under development. The forecast beyond 2020 is unclear simply because so much depends on market conditions.

Before the checkered flag is out and the finish line comes into sight, the green flag must be waved, an apparently imminent spectacle with the support of Mr. President. So in a world of scarce and limited fruit trees, it seems as though the juice is definitely worth the squeeze.

This One's For Keeps: Last Call for a Comprehensive Energy Policy

$2.92, $3.19, $3.54, $4.07, $5.13, $6.45, an arm, a leg, an arm and a leg, your firstborn son.

Those are the average U.S. per-gallon gas prices over the last three months, the current cost, and a slight projection into the ensuing months to come. Alright, so maybe you won’t be handing over a baby boy to the gas station attendant in exchange for a full tank by September, but there is no argument that gas prices are certainly on a steep rise once again.

There is argument and debate, however, regarding the best solution for our gas and energy problems. The answer lies within our own borders and territorial waters, not in Northern Africa or on the Arabian Peninsula. We must not panic and tap into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve either, but what we must do is actually realize and implement a comprehensive energy policy, one that does not stall on Capitol Hill.

The turbulence in Libya and Saudi Arabia is the most likely culprit for the skyrocketing pump charges for Americans. Some believe the solution to our gas problem is simple: bombs. We insert ourselves and our advanced warfare technology into the ongoing conflict and impose peace using our big stick. However, turmoil in this oil-endowed region of the world is seemingly endless. The current uprisings may be quelled and barrel prices brought down for a couple happy years, but how long until the next Arabian snafu? History is not on our side here.

Others are flustered by the rapid escalation of gas prices and insist we start utilizing our Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) to ease the pain at the pump. This could be, and probably would be, a fatal mistake in the future. The reserve “exists to protect the United States in case of a significant interruption in our oil imports. It was not designed as a means for the government to manipulate the price of gasoline.” Tapping into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve at this point would be nearsighted and not strategic at all, as the existing energy sources in the world are slowly dwindling. Each gallon taken from the reserve is just a little more vulnerable we leave ourselves in the instance of a true emergency.

Instead of dropping bombs in the desert or drawing from the SPR, those serving our country in Washington need to establish and sign a comprehensive energy policy to resolve not only the current situation but future oil and energy crises. Past attempts of this kind came to a halt due to bipartisan disagreement. If there were a policy in place already, we would not be suffering as much from the price of oil as we are today.

Domestic drilling and looking into alternative energy sources like natural gas should both be detailed in this plan. While these seem like contradictory, opposing forces, both are important for short-term, long-term, and longer-term relief.

The call for such progressive actions requires the need for a workforce, providing the potential to significantly dropping the unemployment rate. Both extraction and exploration creates jobs for the proverbial blue-collar and white-collar worker. Getting Americans back to work will make it considerably easier to endure the gasoline prices, until they drop due to this plan that is, and future fluctuations in oil production, domestic and foreign.

With high pump prices come high costs of doing business, decreasing the consumer market in our recuperating economy. Fortunately, the opposite also holds true. From a comprehensive energy plan, wallets will be heavier and people will have the means to spend more on leisure, bringing the status of our economy from recovering to booming.

In the long run, not only will our dependence on foreign oil will be incredibly reduced, but the dependence on oil in general will diminish. People will worry less about the next crisis in the Middle East and concern themselves more with the decision between buying a new set of golf clubs or a jet ski.

Treasure in Foreign Sands

Last summer, this monstrous structure resembling a cruise ship dropped anchor next to the financial district of Singapore. It is the latest enterprise of the Las Vegas Sands Corporation, the new Marina Bay Sands.

The six billion dollar project is yet another mega-casino center developed, with shopping malls, restaurants, condominiums, a museum, convention centers, theaters, nightclubs, and hotel rooms (almost forgot those). What this particular getaway has unlike any other, aside from its ship-on-stilts appearance, is its Sands Sky Park. This main attraction is elevated 57 stories above Singapore, and features public gardens, a restaurant, observation decks, and a 150-meter infinity swimming pool (pictured). It is truly an architectural and scenic wonder, while the massive cantilever on which it is supported is a structural marvel.

Not yet one year in age, Marina Bay Sands, along with the other Singapore development Resorts World Sentosa, are “well on track to achieving the target of contributing 5.4 billion Singapore dollars (4.3 billion U.S. dollars) per year to the economy.” U.S. efforts by gaming corporations have been made as well to try and jumpstart our struggling economy, namely MGM’s $8 billion City Center development in Las Vegas. However, the projected results of Marina Bay Sands are going to benefit the city-state of Singapore in much greater measures. Perhaps the most efficient strategy to lift the building and construction industry is to explore overseas, and contract work while also helping a foreign economy.

Sheldon Adelson, chief executive of Las Vegas Sands Corp., has certainly not been shy about scouting and surveying development sites outside our country’s borders. Las Vegas Sands has two prominent properties, Sands Macau and the Venetian Macau, in the world’s new gambling center. While the Marina Bay Sands came in at second after the aforementioned City Center, Adelson looks to claim that top sot, setting his sights (and course) for Spain.


From a building perspective, whether its land development, design or construction, it evidently appears that the hefty bankrolls, the large-scale projects, the colossal conceptions, are being realized overseas. Personally, I am grabbing my portfolio and my passport, boarding the next plane to Barcelona, and hoping for a serendipitous run-in with Mr. Adelson.

Modern Communication lol jk

The need to belong has always been a part of life, and drives people to branch out and socially interact with those around them. Accordingly, it has also driven brighter minds to invent tools to facilitate the formation of these relationships we desire. Before Alexander Graham Bell, the only way to keep in touch with an out-of-town relative was by post. Since the initial arrival of the telephone, researchers and developers have made it possible for one to call the house next door, or a house on the opposite of the globe, thousands of miles away. Then came the Internet, from which spawned innovative forms of social technology such as email, chat rooms, and networking websites. Now, the mobile cell phones people have telephone, messaging, and Internet capabilities. Over the course of all the technological advancements, the need for personal, face-to-face communication has gradually diminished, resulting in lower amounts of it. While relationships can now be cultivated over great distances, their quality and depth tends to be suspect, in a world where facial recognition is being phased out by screen name recognition. Today’s advanced technology in communication has allowed for convenient, expedient, and far-reaching connections to be made among those in the modern world. However, the endless growth and spread of emails, text messages, and online chat services is atrophying man’s fundamental social skills, both verbal and nonverbal, and subsequently establishing a modern definition of social interaction.

In the earliest of civilizations, the ability to socialize and be one of a whole has been essential to survival. Rowland Miller and Daniel Perlman illustrate this foundation of society in their book, Intimate Relationships:

Because early humans lived in small tribal groups surrounded by a difficult environment full of saber-toothed tigers, people who were loners were less likely than gregarious humans to have children who would grow to maturity and reproduce. In such a setting, a tendency to form stable, affectionate connections to others would have been evolutionarily adaptive, making it more likely that one’s children would survive and thrive.

Whether it be primitive grunting or words strung together to form sentences, communication among one another was, is and will continue to be the building block to forming the social relationships humans need. Simple telegraphic phrases have expanded into countless elaborate language systems. Beyond verbal interaction, nonverbal communication grew and developed, such as facial expressions and body language. In the classic video depictions of prehistoric life, one could mute the presentation, and the frustration and then amazement from the discovery of fire are clearly evident from the caveman’s face. As generations passed, social skills continued to grow, increasing in efficiency, creativity, and subtlety. They grew into the personal interactions we observe today at a dinner table, at the coffee shop, and at the local pub. These social skill sets we now possess, after centuries of maturation and evolutionary pruning, allow us to maintain existing relationships and generate new ones, satisfying the need to belong and find a place in the world around us.

A key variable in our social development is the technological advances we have seen in the past few generations. Long ago, the arrival of the telephone was revolutionary, producing widespread amazement at the ability to hear the voice of another despite being far from one’s current location. From the telephone spawned the mobile telephone, otherwise known as a cell phone. Now, it was possible to get in touch with a significant other while on the move. As the technology and the popularity of cell phones grew (and their physical sizes shrunk, from the original cinder brick dimensions), so did the average coverage of an individual’s social network. Cell phones allowed for constant verbal interaction between people, no matter their locations. Then, their capabilities advanced further, as text messaging was invented and added as a cell feature. Soon, the most basic functions of every cell phone were calling and texting. Communication history was made, as phones could now provide the means for oral and written interaction around the country and some around the world, while either sitting at home or traveling on the road, or both.

The advent of the internet is another monumental technological progression that created a large splash in our pools of socialization and communication. The existence of some global network, instantly connecting millions of users in all different locations is like one, enormous community center, where congregations of different cultures can meet and interact with one another, a modern agora. The internet gave people a world of potential and endless possibilities, including but not limited to: emailing, sharing experiences through pictures and videos, researching the perfect vacation destination, purchasing a new pair of shoes, instant messaging and chatting with both old friends and newly-met acquaintances, meeting complete strangers (or their online identity), finding a husband or wife, and the list goes on. Emailing and instant messaging, in particular, has fostered interaction between two people even if one resides in Chicago and the other in Sydney, Australia. At the same time, it also satisfies the human need for instant gratification, hence the term instant messaging. In the workplace, emails and instant messages have allowed for greater efficiency and quicker correspondence, turning a business into a better-oiled machine. While there are those who claim instant messaging is another source of distraction and interruption, the true effects lie in the usage of the service: "Instead of dropping in unexpectedly, many are using the technology to check in with coworkers to see when they are available. Many also use the technology to get quick answers to general questions or to inquire about current work tasks instead of engaging in longer face-to-face conversations." With the powerful technology of cell phones and the internet, global communication functions like a business, like a well-oiled machine.

Alas, humans are not machines; our communication and socialization has evolved into more than what sound bytes, video pixels, and extravagant text fonts are capable of expressing. The finely-tuned set of social skills our race has developed over time is not simply being supplemented by all the great modern advances like the cell phone and the internet. Instead, as Neil Postman would describe, "it changes everything."

Technological change is not additive; it is ecological. I can explain this best by an analogy. What happens if we place a drop of red dye into a beaker of clear water? Do we have clear water plus a spot of red dye? Obviously not. We have a new coloration to every molecule of water. That is what I mean by ecological change. A new medium does not add something; it changes everything.

Postman’s applied this red-dye notion to Gutenberg’s printing press and the new age of television, and it also applies to an even newer age of the internet, cell phones, and smart phones (cell phones with email and internet capabilities). These new innovations have made global communication possible, but they have also altered the common definition of communication in modern society.

Face-to-face conversation is most likely the classic visualization of communication between two people. In this age, even phone conversations typify what is classic, possibly vintage to younger demographics. Texting is the new way of communicating, it is convenient, discrete, and you can do it while multitasking. In a 2004 study performed at the University of Plymouth, people who talked on phones, “Talkers,” were socially and psychologically compared to people who texted, “Texters.” Results indicated that “texting seemed to facilitate the expression of some peoples real-self. Those people tended to be those who were socially anxious and lonely…” These results were supported by the fact that “texting permits visual anonymity and its asynchronous nature allows for editing and self-reflection.” So while texting may give those less socially able an opportunity open up and reveal their true self, the same nature of texting also opens the door to deception or the creation of an alternative identity. Essentially, the person on the other side of your text conversation is either disclosing what is real, or hiding it. There is less mystery with phone conversations, as voice intonations and the immediate call for a response go a long way in baring genuine expressions. Interactions that occur in person are even more transparency, offering nonverbal cues such as facial expressions and subtle body language to both parties involved, assuming the participant possess the social skills to read these cues. And skill requires amounts of practice, which is gradually reduced with each text message we send.

Every instant message sent over the internet also steadily grinds away at the social proficiency developed by previous generations. In fact, the anonymity is further accentuated, as users fabricate screen names by which they are identified online. This would seem to be the final step in producing an alter ego, where one can choose to be real and candid, or shallow and illusory. The enigmatic nature of online interaction is reflected in the typical conversation topics: “impersonal and informal [topics] (i.e. gossiping, complaining, setting up social events, etc), were much more likely to be discussed through IM [Instant Messaging] while those topics which are considered more serious and personal (sharing religious and political views, giving bad news) were discussed less on IM and more in person or over the phone,” as explicated in a Stanford student essay. The lack of depth in instant messages is evident, thus putting in question the validity and substance of a relationship founded or based on this form of communication. These concerns of instant messages are compounded with those raised with text messages, as they are just as relevant.

Aside from instant messaging and chat services, the internet also provides us with opportunities to socialize with networks like Facebook and MySpace. In these virtual worlds, there is not limit to how many friends one has, how vast one’s social association is. But like the nature of instant messages, the substance is questionable at best; having over a thousand ‘Facebook friends’ does not translate into reality and writing on someone’s ‘Wall’ is not comparable to saying ‘Hi’ while passing by on the way to class on campus. According to a New York Times piece, a study of users “found some less-than-social behavior, however. People who use social networks like Facebook or Linkedin are 30 percent less likely to know their neighbors and 26 percent less likely to provide them companionship.” While causation cannot be proved, merely correlation, there remains a slight uneasiness about how social interactions are evolving. Will we learn to accept the casual online drop-in as a sincere personal greeting?

If that is the case, what will happen when the target of uncensored online criticism, courtesy of the man behind his mask of anonymity, takes things too seriously? Because, as Adam Gopnik writes in The New Yorker,

…things that were once external and subject to the social rules of caution and embarrassment—above all, our interactions with other people—are now easily internalized, made to feel like mere workings of the id left on its own. (I’ve felt this myself, writing anonymously on hockey forums: it is easy to say vile things about Gary Bettman, the commissioner of the N.H.L., with a feeling of glee rather than with a sober sense that what you’re saying should be tempered by a little truth and reflection.) Thus the limitless malice of Internet commenting: it’s not newly unleashed anger but what we all think in the first order, and have always in the past socially restrained if only thanks to the look on the listener’s face—the monstrous music that runs through our minds is now played out loud.

Thus, maybe the set of social skills we possess will naturally adjust according to the path down which modern technology has us racing. Maybe it will soon become an acquired ability to decipher the subtle differences among typed messages and determine exactly which are genuine, which are sensationalized, and which are utter nonsense. However, to reapply Postman’s red-dye concept, it will change everything. The hypothetical addition of this new social skill would not be a simple plus-one process, it would be a rewiring of the human processes of social functioning, removing, adding, and replacing certain components. But some things cannot be eliminated, namely the need to belong. To quench this everlasting thirst, a Baltimore Sun writer discusses:

…just the small daily aspects of life, which lend it savor and tunefulness and chewability. That includes free-form, rambling, open-hearted conversation. Sometimes you find it in bars, sometimes on airliners, sometimes after church, at coffee hour. It is fundamental to a sense of belonging in the world. Basic confidence begins here.

Confidence, amiability, wisdom, charm, clarity, compassion, awareness, poise, presence…all are qualities that most would deem important if not essential social skills. All are traits that can be enhanced by certain social experiences in a lifetime. Most of these influential experiences occur not in a digital or virtual world, but in person in the real world. So until the innate need to belong is entirely satisfied by what the screen of a computer or phone has to offer, until cleverly placed punctuation marks can accurately and fully represent human emotion :), until the definition of social interaction is overhauled to reflect these radical changes, the preservation of fundamental social skills should be a concern for generations to come.

Recyclable Trailer Trash

“Glen Small had this vision of creating mega-structures with plug-in architecture, so instead of having urban sprawl you have these cluster structures. The remaining open space is for wild animals.”

-Peter Fend

The architect behind the design pictured and the subject of the above quote are one and the same, Glen Small. In the late 1970s, Small birthed this idea of a modern, sustainable system of low-income housing that took up a minimal urban footprint. Emerging from his original notion of a “vertical city,” Small’s structure would stand 500 feet tall, composed of layers of modular homes, specifically Airstream trailers. More importantly, the design was based on sustainability, and the recycling of air and natural ventilation; the project was aptly named the “Green Machine.” Though thirty years old, Glen Small’s optimistic concept should receive more exposure in the studios of today’s young architects, as it is a magnificent example of attempting to solve a problem in a unique fashion.

While Jimmy Carter was in office, the “Green Machine” was to be realized in Santa Monica, California. The urban planning was there, the designs and specifications were there, and most importantly, the funding and public backings were there. A Los Angeles city planner put his full support behind Small’s initiative, in hopes the housing scheme would foster connections among otherwise unrelated communities. In addition, a councilwoman Pat Russell played a major role in gaining the support of the city. All the pieces of the puzzle were in place, until the presidency shifted to Reagan. Then, the $1.5 million dollar endeavor was deemed too expensive of an “experiment” for public money. And so the project was killed.

In a recent interview, Small was asked if the “Green Machine” would still be a viable development today. He responded, “I don’t think the price went up that much. You can still buy a used Airstream trailer around that price and space frame systems have developed even more advanced and cheaper. Sure, it is even more feasible now.” So when the desire to replace the classy glamour of today’s existing trailer parks with a creative and environmentally friendly system arises, it is certainly well within reach. And if there were any qualms regarding the aesthetics and their integration within an environment, there are already more overstated and less sustainable buildings dotting our landscape. Glen Small’s “Green Machine” is the proverbial one stone, solving multiple problems such as sustainability and low-income housing, and should regain public knowledge and support if not public project funding as well. Some of the more enthusiastic advocates are already off to a good start.

Do Your Part: Stop Global Whining

During my morning drive to work this past week, I browsed through numerous radio stations whose morning talk show topics were centered on the epic storm passing through the majority of our nation. In other words, a Los Angeles commuter was listening to Chicagoans calling into LA radio stations and elaborating on the blizzard, trying to earn the sympathy of southern Californians before they hit the next preset button on their car radio in search of more interesting and personally relevant issues.

Raised in suburban Chicago, this listener could not help but feel a sudden wave of nostalgia, remembering all the cold mornings spent in front of the local news channel waiting for the name of his school to be announced on the list of official snow day closures. But as I later discovered from a multitude of reports, this was unlike any winter storm I had personally previously experienced. This massive system spanning regions of the country was touted as one of the worst in several decades. Cities used to mild winters were blanketed in snow and ice, making Dennis Quaid appear as though he were a real scientist playing an actor playing fake scientist.

This winter wonderland of grandiose proportions raises some eyebrows about the theories of global warming. Certainly this is just one instance, but an extreme one at that. If the world is slowly getting warmer as the years pass, how come the larger half of the continental United States currently looks like the inside of the seldom used icebox freezer sitting in my garage?

Global warming includes notions of how a gradual temperature increase will eventually melt the ice caps, interfering with the North Atlantic current and consequently plunging the planet into another ice age. However, that is not supposed to happen for a number of centuries, given mankind maintains its current development path. The Blizzard of '11 or the "Snowpocalypse" is hardly a sign of imminent things to come as a result of global warming.

Instead of worrying and possibly soiling our underpants about a global crisis that may or may not happen a thousand years down the road, the world's brightest minds would be put to better use advancing current technology. Specifically, figuring out procedures, methods, and designs to deal with these environmental disasters, because as Hurricane Katrina and the Boxing Day Tsunami have shown, the manner in which Mother Earth treats her inhabitants is like a proverbial box of chocolates.

After this disastrous winter storm, it's to the drawing board on how to redesign new buildings and refurbish old ones. But if the film The Day After Tomorrow is accurate in its most literal sense, then everyone must drop all other matters and work to expedite an alternative living plan.

A Possibly Inconvenient Review

Almost-President and former U.S. Vice President Al Gore has earned many forms of recognition, including a Grammy, an Emmy, and a Nobel Peace Prize. But has he earned a designation of a public intellectual? Breaking down the title literally, Gore’s Grammy and Emmy awards speak to his publicity, while the Nobel Peace Prize is certainly helpful in arguing for his intellect. Logistically, like 1 + 1 = 2, this would indicate Gore as an apparent qualifier. However, the nature of a public intellectual is more of an intricate art than a logical science, and the portrayal of Al Gore as one renders the definition, much like issues of global warming, ambiguous and inconclusive.

Beyond awards, Gore has some lofty credentials capable of classification as a public intellectual. He attended Harvard University and law school at Vanderbilt University. He was in political office as a member of the House of Representatives, a U.S. Senator, and the Vice President to President Bill Clinton. He is also an accomplished author; his most famous work An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It inspired the production of an award-winning documentary film. According to Foreign Policy Magazine, Gore is actually firmly within its final rankings of the Top 100 Public Intellectuals, surrounded by names like Noam Chomsky and Bernard Lewis. This inclusion isn’t all too surprising, as Gore does perform one important function of a public intellectual, as described by Stephen Mack in his essay, The “Decline” of Public Intellectuals?:

…the public intellectual function is criticism. And if intellectuals are in a better position to perform that function it’s not because they are uniquely blessed with wisdom—and it’s certainly not because they are uniquely equipped to wield social or political power. It is only because learning the processes of criticism and practicing them with some regularity are requisites for intellectual employment. It’s what we do at our day jobs.

Gore has not been shy about criticizing the Bush Administration since 2002, covering issues domestic and international, political and social.

However, Stephen Mack also writes:

…our notions of the public intellectual need to focus less on who or what a public intellectual is—and by extension, the qualifications for getting and keeping the title. Instead, we need to be more concerned with the work public intellectuals must do, irrespective of who happens to be doing it.

The focus and emphasis regarding public intellectuals, or those in question, should be placed on the work. While Gore’s criticisms may qualify him as a public intellectual, his more renowned work regarding the environment has been falsely recognized as the function of a public intellectual.

Many skeptics of Gore’s environmental concerns tote him as the inventor of global warming. Nonexistent issues before his studies and research, the environmental dangers that face our world are now an emergency after decades of global lectures and conferences led by Gore. The creation of a worldwide worry is the prominent reason why the portrayal of Gore as a public intellectual problematizes the notion. Granted, with extremely thorough research and study, a well-educated political figure with a voice could formulate the next global crisis and be lauded with the same praise. After the debut of the documentary film An Inconvenient Truth, there were a number of disbelievers, some with elaborate and thorough responses. Detailed lists of alleged fallacies were brought up, reactions suspicious of the overarching political stance of the work. Though Gore’s environmental endeavors have been successful in keeping the “pot boiling,” lesser individuals have also created a global stir with imaginative and phenomenal creations of their own. Despite consistently chipping away at the barrier between his own and public intellectual status, the illustrious title should be absent from Al Gore’s albeit tremendously impressive resume.