Student Political Party Party-Off

Holy cow, another microblog.... you know, for me. Though this one is a bit of a cheat since it's really just an overlong facebook status. Cheers all four of you readers who get this on facebook AND Google plus.

I think, as a means of boosting political awareness and engagement and raising funds to do even more of that, all party affiliated student groups should get together at every university where enough exist, and create an early in the fall semester Party party off. Essentially this would be a competition in which each political party's student group would host a party, raising money, planning, advertising and so on. Then on the arranged date, early in the semester they would all host simultaneous parties, preferably in fairly close proximity to one another. Wristbands would be sold which would gain access, and alcohol rights to all of the parties, and people would go from party to party, and then, at some point in the near future there would be a vote (with people turning in their wristband as the vote, ensuring no voter fraud, just for you Young Republicans out there) as to which Party's party was best. The money earned from the wristband sales would be split with 15% going to the outright winner, and the remaining 85% being split between all the teams according to their percentage of the vote. This would be an excellent fundraiser, and an amusing way of creating a uniquely student appropriate parody of the political process which may none the less educate and interest some of the people who get involved to help with the party, and even some who attend the event(s).

The "Sustainability" movement in architecture.

Architecture has had many styles, or movements. They blend, and are fractured, and are in some ways arbitrary, however as the job of Master Builder transformed into the profession of Architect and communication and literature became more widespread, and education more formalized, movements began to be recognized in their own time. Of this modern era of Architecture the most important, defining movement was appropriately, the Modernist movement. It is a broad term, with many internal divisions and precursors, and the era it covers is nebulous in the extreme, but it is a recognizable movement, and it is one which transformed, dramatically, not merely the aesthetic of Architecture, or even the structure, or functional theory of Architecture. It transformed the entirely philosophy of the profession, it introduced social duty, an engineering of society through the design of buildings. It taught that architects were in the vanguard of progress, interdisciplinary designers who drew upon the most up to date theories of structure, materials, social science, health, and industrial design. There were many different visions of the future that was to be built, and the style of buildings varied greatly, but there was a tremendously powerful underlying intention, and belief. Since that movement (roughly 1900-1950, with a buffer of about 10 years on either side) there have largely been a series of reactions to it, followed by odd excursions into different materials, aesthetics, colors, etc. From Brutalism to Deconstructivism the movements were largely concerned with skinning. Many of the advances made in the Modernist movement have been continued, some even improved upon, but much of the social duty of architects appeared to have been forgotten, the structural advances were increasingly left to engineers, and residential design stagnated.

 I see the Sustainability movement to be fundamentally similar in scope and importance as the Modernist movement. It is the most important movement since the Modernist, and has the possibility of even eclipsing it. The Modernist movement was born of a need for designers to solve the problems of the turn of the century, the growth of the middle class, the aftershocks of the industrial revolution, and indeed, two world wars.  These were huge social challenges, and so there was a great need for a change of paradigm in order to come up with solutions, and architects were major players in that paradigm change. So it is/should/shall be with Climate Change and the Sustainability movement. In fact, Climate Change is only part of the problem, the world is facing a huge number of changes all occurring at once. The climate is changing, deserts are expanding, and society is urbanizing and becoming increasingly interconnected. Poor countries are getting richer, and better educated. Oil is running low, technology is outpacing governments, and species are going extinct at an alarming rate, most of which is not the result of Climate Change, but will no doubt be amplified by it. Humans are not merely posing a threat to one another, we are literally threatening the wellbeing of the global ecosystem. This challenge is almost certainly greater than that faced by the Modernists.

The challenge is greater, and it is also more multifaceted, fortunately, the tools we've got are FAR FAR better than the modernists had. We can automate, compute, and calculate things that were far beyond the abilities of the modernists. The modernists considered the ways in which people lived, or could live if given the right environment, They considered the structure, and aesthetic of materials, but little of their function in terms of insulation, or for that matter, health. They dreamed up new structural systems to reach great heights, but gave very little thought to the impact of their buildings, or their materials, on the environment. Since the Modernist movement however much of the focus in architecture has reverted to the skin of the building, and architects have withdrawn from the position as engineer, to be largely concerned with the look and to a greater or lesser extend, feel, and function of the space. The sustainability movement needs architects who consider ways of integrating the building into the environment, building with a focus on efficiency, and low impact, including finding ways of building less. Architects will have to once again be multidisciplinary, to integrate plants into their designs, make use of emerging materials and systems, understand end users needs and proclivities to tailor the buildings to those so that the building functions like the delicate, efficient, vibrant, evolving environment it should be. Architects will have to learn to take cues from nature in order to design buildings, and spaces, which are in tune with nature, rather than in harmful discord. Buildings will have to be made with both an entrance strategy and an exit one, or designed to have an extendible lifespan. It's an exciting time to be in the field, since the stakes are high, and the weapons at our disposal are powerful. 

How I've taught myself to love the homophobe, but hate the homophobia.

You like that title? That's right regressionist homophobic religious types, I've found Jesus, in that I've found that core part of his message, empathy. I understand why you rally so strongly against homosexuality, it's acceptance in our culture, and the equal treatment of those who practice it. I don't accept it, I know it to be wrong, unnecessary,  and immoral, but I understand how you arrive at it with only good intentions, and bad logic.

You will never read this, likely almost no one will, but perhaps some liberals will and it will give them insight into your mindset.

There are two types of you, and I know you both, deep down.

There are the ones who are rarely, if ever, tempted by homosexual desires.
And there are those of you who, almost certainly in secret, have felt, still feel, perhaps ONLY feel attraction to who's bits look a bit like your bits.

The first, I consider understandably, and frankly, pretty typically lazy ethicists. Most ethical people fall into this category. Most people consider themselves ethical, so most people fall into this category. You learn a set of ethics, and then adapt them to your situational needs and desires, in order to make yourself feel good. This is fairly easy, and thus common. Often (in the USA and Europe) it's the bible, with various denominational, cultural, and personal slants upon it. Sometimes it's the law, including a collection of family law. Many rules are shared broadly (murder, theft-*with addendums, adultery, cruelty, etc.) others much more specific (you never sit in Dad's chair, no matter what.) These are learned, adhered to, and (usually) used to judge other people. Sometimes rules are considered to only apply to those within the culture group, other times not. The key point however is that often times, perhaps much more so today than in the past, people emphasize aspects of their personal rulebook which allow them to feel better about themselves and worse about other people (superior). Rich people considering how lazy, stupid, criminal, etc. the poor are, considering their lack of success to be a mark of poor character, since they themselves value success highly. This plays into their morality by making themselves feel better, which allows them to ignore those other aspects of their learned rulebook they are failing at (charity? fidelity? honesty? pride? greed? that's right boys, keep telling yourself how good you are.)
The same effect drives much of homophobia. It's an easily justified sin, whatever your feelings are towards the Biblical view of homosexuality, it's certainly easy to make the case that the Bible DOES condemn it. So it's not a stretch, but playing up it's importance is easy and lazy because most people don't have much in the way of homosexual tendencies, and so they can feel absolutely pure and free of sin in this regard, unlike for instance, violence, theft, lust, and so on. Even if they manage to remain righteous in act, they still feel the temptation, and that would of course make them worried, and feel bad, so they focus on something they are never tempted to do, homosexuality. This is then compounded by the fact that homosexual acts are indeed disgusting. To heterosexuals with very little experience, openness, or interest in homosexuality, rather as I'm fairly certain many strictly homosexual men and women find the concept of heterosexual acts utterly disgusting. (Am I right Lesbians, how disgusting is a dick?) This is simply the difference between sexuality, heightened by the unfamiliar, and cyclically reenforced by the learned unethical nature of the acts. It's not a rational basis for an ethical position, but it lends visceral credence to what they are being taught, their own bodies seem to reject the mere notion of the act, and so surely it must be both unnatural and sinister. This makes a very convincing case to someone who has absolutely nothing to lose by embracing the sinfulness of homosexuality with open arms. They get to feel pure, see others as sinners, and themselves and bulwarks of morality standing against a tide of terrible sinfulness, by which they themselves are not even tempted. What a glorious feeling that must be, and the best part is, up till recently (maybe) you were still the majority, and that meant you could stand against this seemingly powerful tide, and not be harmed by it, could win against it. This is changing, because the tide you are standing against isn't immorality overtaking society, it's progress in moral improvement, it's further civilizing, moving away from our brutal past into our more accepting future. But for 60+ years now, you've had a hell of a good time. Oh you've seen barriers fall, but most of your real strongholds held out till very recently. It wasn't a crime anymore, but then, neither are lots of sins, you still got to rail against it, hurt people who embraced it, marginalize them, demonize them. You've been fighting a war of attrition, and it let you ignore so many of your own demons, since you were busy fighting someone else's. And you were clothed in the pure shining cloth of morality, and godliness, and you KNEW you were fighting the good fight. You still do, but now you're losing it, the bulwarks are falling, and you will become mere footnotes in history, while champions of the movement will live on for many years as icons.
So you see, I understand the appeal, and know that many on my side would do the same had they simply been given a different rulebook. I know you're wrong, but I understand the appeal of believing you're right.

Then there are the others.
The ones who hide in a closet with an N.O.M. poster on the door.
Oh you poor poor people.
This time is hell for you.
You're lucky though, because this hell is far better, and won't last as long, as the hell which has existed for those who COULDN'T hold it in for the rest of recent history. Those people suffered tremendously throughout much of time, and just have to suffer somewhat tolerably for about 70 years.
But right now is nearing the worst of it.
What to I mean?
These are people who have learned that homosexuality is a sin, and because in their immediate circle, it is widely discussed and condemned, they have this emphasized, again and again. They worry about it more than ANY other sin, not because it's the worst, but because it's so prevalent, in their environment, and in their lives. Because after hearing this so much, they can't help but believe it strongly. This is then further reinforced by their fear, often legitimate, that if they acted upon, or embraced those urges their world could utterly collapse, family and friends would utterly abandon them, they could become outcasts in their school, town, church, business. They would be destroyed, and they aren't about to suffer both earthly and heavenly damnation, so they fight it. Now in the past, I'm sure that fight was sometimes difficult, but all of society was structured (by intent perhaps?) to defend against such actions, leaving people with an easier job avoiding temptation. Now however, just as the sin is increasingly emphasized, culture is moving towards accepting the sin, and temptation abounds. Hell the internet is right there, you could be with your new gay lover in literally days. I'll bet there are hundreds of beautiful gay men who would sleep with a Republican senator no matter what he looked like, or had said. Just for the bragging rights (Am I right Gays? Who doesn't want some of John's Boehner?)
eh hem, getting away from tempting people into sin, and back into commiserating in as offensive and insulting a way as possible.
I get why you would be absolutely frothing mad at all these liberals who are making it so easy for you to be tempted off your righteous path, you who are so naturally inclined to be tempted, you who have sacrificed sexual and relationship satisfaction for acceptance in the community and biblical morality for so long. I completely understand and feel for the hatred you would have towards those people who pile literal insult upon literal injury by, after creating a society which hurts you daily with temptations you dare not act on, and which acting on would do tremendous harm to you, then go about acting on the same impulses you dare not. And now, they're being fucking praised for it, winning all the rights you have sacrificed for, and being socially accepted. Plus they have MUCH MUCH better parties, those outted homos have all the luck amirite? How could you not fight tooth and nail for the societal armor that in the past sheathed those who like you had a tender hold on (hetero)sexual morality to begin with? How could you not lament and object to the granting of rights, freedoms, opportunities, and privileges to those people who have given in to their depravity while you have rejected it at great personal, and entirely secret, cost. Sadly though, you are so twisted about by fear and anger, you cannot see that the best path forward is to embrace the change, and in doing so accelerate it, so that you could possibly enjoy your own entirely ethical and honest sexual existence, and the personal success and acceptance you currently have (admittedly likely in a different community). The reason this hell is far less serious than that faced by those who couldn't suppress their feelings in the past is that you probably won't be killed no matter what you do. The reason it will be shorter lived is that there will reach a tipping point very soon where only in very small and isolated communities will anyone again grow up denying their sexuality out of fear, of immorality, of social rejection, of God.
Damn I'm a champion rambler. 
 

On science, and why people need to learn how it works

I'm going to try something new and radical in my young career as a blogger, something I've never tried before.

What you ask? A rough draft followed by an edited and well structured final post.
Not a chance oh hopeful one.

I'm trying for a SHORT POST!!!!!!

That's right, slightly less long winded and considerably less long worded, it'll be like jaunty high five rather than an uncomfortably prolonged hug.

The topic at hand.

Some people don't understand how science works.
I don't mean, they don't understand some scientific principle, I mean they are missing a fundamental  concept that's key to the whole business. They don't understand that science is interconnected, and impossible to map. They forget that many, possibly even most, scientific discoveries were made by people trying to figure out something else entirely. So I read an article talking about caffeine and it's effect (positive) on productivity, and about how this has been suggested as being of profound importance to the development of the recent history of the world.
      Some comments were along the lines of "no shit sherlock" to which I say, scientists look at Sherlock Holmes and say "don't be a pompous ass, there are dozens of scenarios equally as likely as the little fantasy you just cooked up, and when we are dealing with biology we barely understand, very little is self evident, and nothing is elementary". Science is always in a state of argument, that's why it advances.
      The most awful comments though are those (and I do see these often) that say things like "they should be spending time and money curing cancer, not conducting study x that I barely understand but think sounds wishy washy" or the snide "solved all the other problems in science then have ya". No, guess what, every scientist in the world is not going to spend each day trying to figure out how to solve cancer, because most scientists aren't suited to that work, and that's good, because it might be some marine biologist, or a sociologist who discovers some key bit of information that leads to a greater understanding of the disease and it's ultimate curing, because that's how science works. So when next you read some scientific study, feel free to criticize the method or conclusions (if you really understand them) but you better be very confident in your grasp of the science of the study before you criticize it's existence.

In defense, sort of, of America

Holy cow, this blog thing is almost becoming a thing.

I have this tendency to play devil's advocate, likely because I was raised on debate (thank you Pappy) and because for me the mental exercise of debating, and in considering subjects from multiple viewpoints is truly enjoyable, like a game. The point is that I find myself arguing different sides of an issue depending on where other people fall, but ultimately, if I sit down and work out my positions, it usually falls somewhere in the middle of the two extremes (extremes which I'm sorry to say are increasingly becoming the uniformly held beliefs of the majority of Americans). This is my attempt to describe this process, and also endorse a certain worldview.

It has to do with whether America is a armor clad knight striding through the world cutting bullies down to size with a sword called Justice while sheltering the oppressed masses with a shield called Freedom, or a flame eyed demon which spread like a virus over the globe, feeding it's insatiable hunger with the riches, lives, and very souls of the poor people over which it holds sway. Because this is the dichotomy that seems to be presented as the two options, and many people seem inclined to agree with one or the other position fairly completely. Obviously there are shades, but most people seem clustered around one of those two positions, and I want to scream at everyone NO!

Here's a little twist in the argument.
America's influence on the globe is first and foremost......
Good?
Bad?
Nope. Big

That's the main point, right there. America has HUGE gravity, and very large feet, where we step, we make big marks, and inevitably some people get trod on.

You know who practically nobody hates?
New Zealand
Know why?
Because Hobbits.
But also because New Zealand simply doesn't have a great deal of effect on the global scale, except in rugby. New Zealand didn't leave the Chechens hanging because New Zealand was never in the position to give the Chechens significant aid.

But America is a major player, and boy does it play. Sometimes well, sometimes not so well. On the balance, I'd say we've done pretty well long term, and kind of well short term, but to be fair, the game's gotten a lot harder.

So when people say things like "The terrorists hate us because we're free" or "because we're Christian and they want to destroy all religions aside from theirs" or similar I have to respond that in all likelihood the ones actually doing the fighting hate us because we've killed their friends and relatives, or because they know of people who have been killed and want to fight against the people who they believe (with some accuracy) WOULD kill their friends and relatives. The ones planning it will also have some of that drive, but will also see the damage the US has done, and while they too will be seeing an image skewed by their personal experience, desires, dogmas, and ignorance, they will nonetheless be acting in what they see as their own best interest, and the best interest of their people, perhaps all people. And it seems like I'm arguing that the terrorists are right, that America is evil and deserves to be destroyed, which is absolutely false, and is caused by this absurd notion that people have that "if you're not for us you're against us", the idea that if one takes issue with one side's argument, they must therefore be uniformly aligned with the direct opposite. So I will say this.

People who intentionally target individuals who are no direct threat to themselves(the targetters) or others (friends, co-workers, innocent bystanders if you can find any) are in the wrong. That is simple morality. The people responsible for the bombing of the Boston marathon may well have legitimate grievances with the United States Government, but they had NONE with the people who they attacked.

However, the USA has directly caused the deaths of far more civilians, far more children, women, old men, and unarmed workers or celebrants than it has suffered from terrorism in the years since 9/11, likely even including 9/11. There are differences, most of these deaths are caused by mistakes in response to the very real danger our soldiers faces in Iraq and Afghanistan. I do not believe the US government has a policy of intentionally attacking civilians, yet we cannot ignore the damage we cause, and we cannot ignore that this damage gives root to the movements which in turn attack us.

And then there's the OTHER flip side.
To all those liberals who would focus on the negative results of American actions. While it is certainly true there are major gaps in our foreign policy, we do a tremendous amount of good, both in the form of direct aid/action, and in the form of innovations and breakthroughs which improve or save the lives of millions each year. In the long view, America has been a major force in nurturing the spread of Democracy from it's earliest years, it has contributed tremendously to the advancement of mankind, performed stellar service in two world wars, helped rebuild Japan and South Korea (admittedly after thoroughly knocking the former down in the first place but still) and nurture Taiwan, all three of which became havens of democracy, freedom, innovation and economic development. We produced Norman Borlaug and thus the Green Revolution, which, however you feel about GMOs and Monsanto, did save literally a billion people, which is nice to have on the resume.

Essentially it comes down to this.
Since at least the end of WWII, and to some extent before, America has been the single greatest force on the world stage, we have been challenged, but never surpassed. This may change, but it is fairly true for the last 60+years. So the question then becomes, has the world moved in a positive direction in that time?
Personally, I say yes. We've gone that whole time without a world war, which considering we went just 21 years between the first and the second, and we've only become MORE interconnected since. Perhaps we can thank the nuke for that, but then, America get's to claim that too. Okay, so climate change is going to be a problem, and perhaps that's the clincher for some people, that we've not done well, but I'll take the challenges of today and the tools we have to fight them over the challenges of any decade pre-1950 no question.
If the world has improved in that time, then it's hard to say that America has been the evil empire, we could do better, we SHOULD do better, hell we CAN do better (I'm not confident we WILL, but I'm working on that), be we've not done half bad.

Aquaponica

That's the name of my imaginary business. It's like having an imaginary friend, but for adults, a species I'm still unwilling to admit I am a part of, though I am perhaps willing to concede to some shared traits. Aquaponica is what I spend my spare daydreaming bandwidth on, when it's not clogged up with shadow debating gay marriage, or gun control, or the place for government owned industries. Aquaponica is a constantly changing concept which has been being slowly refined over the past half year or so, molded by time and the classes I'm in, into something that may actually be viable.

Some business student out there is probably thinking that I shouldn't be sharing my business ideas with the world, and to them I say this "A: I'm just cocky enough to think that no matter how much of my idea I share, no one will be able to execute it as well as I can, and thus I can out compete them, and B, lets face it this is pretty much just a personal journal that happens to be online, it's not like anyone reads this tripe".

So what the hell is it?

A bad name? Probably. An awesome concept for bringing the locavore movement to it's asymptote and using that asymptote as a symbiote for a probiote of a system which promotes healthy eating and sustainable production? Might be, if many of those words weren't made up. On the other hand we are talking about an imaginary business, so what's wrong with imagining some words?

Here's a quick list of things you'll have to know/accept to get the idea, skip any you already know... you know, if you feel like it.

Aquaponics- Some of you might know about hydroponics, which is plants grown without soil, all/most of their nutrients being delivered by the water which has a nutrient solution dissolved into it. Hydroponics is appreciated because it reduces disease and pests, and allows for careful tailoring of the nutrients to achieve tremendous growth. It is water intensive because the water has to be drained and replaced periodically to avoid the accumulation of dangerous chemicals which the plants cannot use and thus do not filter out of the water (salts mostly I think). Aquaponics is hydroponics+fish, except the fish provide the nutrients (for the most part) instead of added chemicals, while the plants filter the water for the fish, creating a system which requires far fewer inputs (the water is recycled, with most of the loss coming from transpiration) and requires less maintenance and care than either aquaculture (farming fish) or hydroponics. If this sounds familiar it's because a well known laboratory has been working on this model for quite some time, around 500 million years (pssst. the "laboratory" is earth).

Locavore- A movement which pushes the importance of eating food which has been produced near where it is being consumed. The main reason for this is to reduce carbon emissions associated with transporting food long distances, but there is also the desire for increased local self-reliance, and support for local businesses, and the advantages of freshness. It is fairly popular at the moment, and may well grow more popular as things like Global Climate Change (GCC) and Peak Oil (PO) begin to be recognized and felt more.

Peak Oil- Speaking of which. We are living on a finite planet, using finite resources. One of the main resources around which we have built our society around is petroleum ("oil"). PO is really more than just about petroleum though, it is short hand for the reality as we use more and more fossil fuels of all sorts, the amount available decreases, and the difficulty of accessing what IS there increases. For petroleum we are at, near, or past the point of peak production, which means costs will rise from now on, and probably faster than inflation. This means that infrastructures which are predicated on the cheap availability of fossil fuels are going to become increasingly expensive to maintain, and thus less competitive. This includes both conventional farming (which using tremendous amounts of petroleum to produce fertilizers and pesticides, in addition to running their large machines) and the global distribution network. Any good which has a large portion of it's cost devoted to transportation is likely going to see it's input costs rise as the various peaks are passed over the next decade or so.

Global Climate Change-It's happening, just fucking accept it. It means more extreme weather, which means less reliable weather. Droughts and floods will both occur more often, and be more extreme.

Food Dessert- These are areas in cities where it is difficult or impossible to find fresh food, typically poor areas where people are by virtue of price, culture, knowledge, and time less likely to purchase fresh foods, and therefore stores to not carry any. This creates a vicious cycle in which kids are raised on processed and unhealthy foods, and thus as adults seek those foods out, and give them to their kids, and it is at the heart of the plethora of health problems for which a major predictor is socioeconomic standing and location.

So the idea.
An aquaponic farm in the city, which includes a restaurant which serves the fish, poultry, and produce which is grown on site.

That's the basic framework, the details are where it gets really sexy.
First of all the whole set up has to be made beautiful, and the restaurant has to be cleanly integrated into the "farm". The restaurant will be filling a niche which for the most part doesn't exist. Many restaurants buy local food, some even grow some of the food they sell on the property, but I know of none where you can eat surrounded by the plants that grew your food, next to the tank that housed the fish you're eating, hearing the chickens that provided the eggs and meat. This means that the local aspect is a serious selling point, and should be emphasized, by making sure the whole farm is beautiful and clean, people will be encouraged to go out among the plants, and be confident that their food is being produced safely, sustainably, and ethically. This could even be integrated into the dining process by allowing people to go out and harvest the vegetables that will be used in their meal. A menu could include a list of ingredients that could be gathered by the diner, allowing them to pick precisely the food they want, even choosing different varieties of the same crop to give each dish a unique character. This would mean that part of the work of harvesting is turned into an added value to the customer, the value of choice (including the choice to NOT harvest their own food).

Another variation on this concept is the possibility of growing flowers around the space, in particular in ways which could be moved and arranged, so the space could be used as an event space, with living plants inside a climate controlled environment, which has been beautifully designed and built, and includes a commercial kitchen to produce food. Essentially the perfect wedding or other major event venue, since the flowers would be alive and growing, the food would be as fresh as it is possible to be, and there would be no worry about rain. We could offer a combination service, the food, the venue, and the flowers (including arrangement), and then the flowers could be cut and sold for off site events. Legally selling the exact same flower to two different people? Brilliant.

Then there's the opportunities offered by all that slow time in the kitchen, and all those veggies which weren't quite pretty enough for the customers to ask out on a dinner date, but who's insides are good as gold. Well, we just run that kitchen as often as we need to turn out a whole bunch of value-added products made from the unused produce. Sauces, pestos, frozen pizzas, canned goods, jams, herb mixes, and more could be produced and sold on site, in stores, or as part of a CSA.

Remember those flowers, and how pretty they were, and how good of a product they were on account of their high value? Well guess what, the fish can get in on this too, and not just fish. I think it's time for a break from reading, so here's a bit of beautiful for you to look at.

What the what? Is that real? Yup, blue marron, the most fabulous crustacean this side of the mantis shrimp

The best part about the above is that they are also delicious (though from what I can tell that bright blue doesn't survive the cooking process) so any marron that AREN'T blue shelled bombshells can just be cooked up and served as an exotic freshwater lobster equivalent. Beyond pretty crustaceans there's also Koi and other ornamental fish which can be sold for good prices and perform well in aquaponic systems. We could even sell ornamental fishtank+flower combos to people/companies which will maintain themselves so long as fish food is added. There's no end of commercialization opportunities.
As for how this can help solve food desserts I'll get to that later.

Refugee housing that turns into permanent housing by desalinating seawater.

That's what I'm working on.

Check it out, another blog post, so soon. Maybe this will become a thing for me, probably not, but we dream in order to have something to aim for. What's more this is a blog post about something other than gay marriage, because let's face it, I've got the opponents pretty well licked with my previous posts. Time Crunch Jeremy had time to send me a few more messages, naming me hateful, and finally uninterested in being moral, sadly he didn't bother to make any substantive responses to my points, because I'd have had a good laugh reading his attempts to justify his use of simplistic genetics, discredited studies, logical fallacies, and unsupported assertions, because I like a good laugh.

To the topic at hand.

I'm doing research, and it's super cool, on a hot topic, which I'm really warming to.

You know how every time your small coastal fishing village is destroyed by a tsunami, civil war, Cthulhu attack, etc.  you get gathered up and put in refugee camps. Then the first world (which is probably, let's face it, at the heart of your current predicament in one way or another), as represented by the UN presents you with this palatial accommodation?

Because you know who doesn't love camping? No one, I checked.

Doesn't that just SUCK?

I'm (figuratively) right there with you bro.

And here's the thing about me. It's basically impossible for me to see a problem without trying to think of a solutions.

If I could be less lazy and actually translate thought into action I might actually become a worthwhile contributing member of the global society.

Enter: The carrot (more accurately the UROP money)

AND

The Stick (shame at having received a much sought after UROP grant only to let it die on the well worn alter of my listlessness)

What's a UROP?
It stands for Undergraduate Research Opportunity Program, which is a program devoted to paying students to research things. Sometime (often?) it's really just an extension of the student employment side of the university, since students will just join a professor's ongoing research project and take over a small part of it while being paid with UROP money. Mine is a project I dreamed up, and I'm being advised by the local guru of emerging construction materials, Professor Blaine Brownell, who I feel very privileged to be working with. The original proposal was simply an exploration of textile architecture, the opportunities afforded by emerging textiles, computer directed production, and designs tailored (quite literally har har) to a paradigm of flexible cladding material. The UROP office quite rightly recognized this as wishy washy nothingness and requested that I narrow my project to something more concrete, that could produce an tangible result after roughly 80 hours of work. I decided to go for

Designing a home for a family of four, which can be produced en-masse economically and shipped easily by utilizing the advantages of a primarily textile based construction paradigm

Because this is Academia, and that's how we talk here.

Essentially the project is to design a new type of refugee housing that uses clever design to deliver a quality product.

Now of course some of you clever cats are saying, "dude, all that curly writing is really just saying 'a tent' and you've already poked fun at the UN's tent" and you're right, tents are shelters which take advantage of a primarily textile based construction paradigm, but I want to make a home that uses textiles. The UN tent is a tent, and tents are intended to be very lightweight, quick to erect, and very importantly, temporary. The problem is that often, these refugee housing situations aren't, by any realistic standard, temporary. They can last for years, and I'd rather like to make those years somewhat less awful.

So I began this process, and in speaking with Blaine I/we developed an idea that might just be crazy enough to work, maybe, possibly, with luck and effort.

Check it out.

Lots of refugee situations occur in hot places near the ocean.
If you had to list things in the order of how much you absolutely need them to live it might go something like this.
Air
Water
Food
Shelter
There's probably some others that could fit in there, but that's a nicely Maslovian simple list. Shelter's already part of this little shindigg, food I'm still working on, air is free, but water, now water can be tricky. Clean, fresh water can be tough to get in normal circumstances throughout much of the developing world, add to this some disaster that forces people into refugee camps and you often have a major challenge getting them enough water for drinking and cooking. But look there, it's a massive supply of water, pity it's saline. So here's the concept.

You make a house with a double wall of textile, you use the tides to pump water to each house in the camp, then each house slowly releases that water to run down the inside of this double wall. The hot sun evaporates the water leaving behind salt crystals. Using the rest of the sea water to cool that air, the water condenses and is collected, now pure H20, to be used by the occupants of the home. The evaporating water keeps the interior of the house cool during the day, the large mass of seawater sitting next to your house keeps it warm at night, and the salt crystals accumulating inside your home's walls slowly build up and create a solid, permanent structure, which will probably look pretty darn baller.

So I've been researching solar desalination, salt construction, refugee housing, tidal pumps, and tent design. It's pretty fun.

Here's what I need to know.
How can the flow of water be simply but accurately calibrated to the evaporation rate so that water reaches the bottom but doesn't pool, and so that salt crystals are deposited evenly and steadily?
What do refugees really need from their housing, how does it differ from place to place?
What textiles would resist the salt water and the UV radiation, and how much do they cost.

Lots and lots more.

I'm hoping to make a test model of this concept, show that it can evaporate salt water and collect freshwater, solidify a wall with salt, and still be simple enough to produce fairly cheaply and shipped easily.

Any ideas are welcome, hell I'll even credit you.

Let me break this down for you

Apparently I only feel the need to write blog posts on the subject of homosexual rights/marriage... I swear I think about other things. Just yesterday I was imagining what it would be like to be in the middle ages with the knowledge and technology of today, because it would be awesome. I've been spending a lot of time trying to figure out how to house thousands of refugees in homes which are comfortable, durable, and desalinate sea water using the sun, because I care about shit like that. But this is about the gays. Some guy sent me a message on facebook, because he noticed I'd been posting about this whole homosexuality thing, and felt he needed to set me straight about how homosexuality actually isn't "natural" to which I felt

"
You throw a stone of an argument about how homosexuality is "unnatural" I won't stop at breaking it down to pebbles by pointing out the many species IN NATURE that exhibit it, no I'll pull out every genetic, biological, evolutionary, sociological, and just plain logical weapon in my thoroughly overcrowded arsenal and break that shit down to CLAY, and then mold it into a sculpture of your blighted understanding and cram it up through your overly tight sphincter until it lodges in your lymph nodes in the hope that it can serve to filter your inane vitriol before it spreads too far and pollutes the progressive air this country is finally starting to breath you ass backwards, high school genetics toting, pseudo-logical, fallacy spewing half-wit.
" 

And so I did. Here's his part of the conversation. And yeah, I'm including his name because fuck him.

Jeremy Dueck

Jeff, I noticed you writing a LOT about homosexuality---you seem to have a lot of time on your hands... I don't have a lot of time so this will be short and we'll take religion out of the argument for once. Do us all a favor, and stop telling people that you know homosexuality is natural when you have no evidence either. Physically speaking the acts of gay men and women go against nature. Take all the gay people of the world and put them on an island... no outside contact... they will all be gone in one generation. Mother nature doesn't even accept homosexuality. Its true and there is no good argument against that. Some studies in pedophiles also suggest a difference in brain function... but it doesn't make it right. Now if you want to go further you can talk about genetics. If even 80% of the people were gay at one point thousands of years ago, they would pass on genetic traits that would end with each truly gay couple right? Just like blue eyes get passed along because being gay is a physical trait right? Two parents pass on specific traits but if both gay parents don't pass along any genes (or even if SOME have kids heterosexually and pass along some genes), you have a diminishing level of homosexual genetics. Oh and since homosexuality rises and falls with different nations prosperity levels... don't let that sway you either. The reality is this, you are trying to be fair, and courteous to others, I understand this. But its a weak viewpoint and you're wrong when you use common sense and reason.

And my, considerably longer (sorry Time Crunch Jeremy, but while vitriolic nothing speech can be whipped of in 144 characters, straightening out your bullshit with actual facts takes a bit more time) retort.

I'll take this point by point.
Natural=exists in nature
homosexuality does. Many animals exhibit it to various degrees (exclusive throughout life and circumstances, dependent upon age, open to either sex, so on an so forth)
If you put a bunch of sterile/infertile people on an island, or a bunch of asexual people, or a bunch of truly devout catholic priests and nuns, all will be gone within a generation, these people are not considered unnatural, or immoral, or icky
In fact, I'd bet that if you put a bunch of gay and lesbian people on an island, barring the effects of starvation, thirst, disease, insects, and lord of the flies style internal warfare, they would breed and continue and it... Would .... BE.......... FABULOUS!!!!!!!!
because here's the thing, homosexuality falls on a spectrum, or rather, marks one end of a spectrum (though in reality it's not just a bar, but we can simplify it to that for the purposes of this conversation) with heterosexuality falling at the other end. People fall at various points along this spectrum, typically however only those at the very gay end identify as gay, and people in the middle rarely identify as bi, because there is so much pressure to fall into the "traditional" sexual identity, so if you CAN be attracted to the other sex, you tend to identify as heterosexual. However many studies have shown that heterosexuals of both sexes often have homosexual encounters, fantasies, and desires. The point of all this is that on your hypothetical island you would have some people who were attracted to some of the opposite sex members, and then you'd have people who are just willing to have a slightly awkward foursome in order to have children because yes, just like straight people, some gay people have the urge to raise children, and just like straight people, sometimes they do an excellent job, sometimes not. Please change your thinking to include a non binary sexual identity. I personally identify as straight, yet I have had crushes on men, and have seriously considered acting on them, yet most of my crushes, and all of my experiences have been with women. I am a living breathing example of the non-binary nature of sexuality. I'd bet even you have felt attracted to men before, though I very much doubt you'd even be able to consciously recognize the feelings.
Ah yes, the "gays are like pedophiles" argument. Guess what, pedophiles are natural too, and some at least or biologically created. What they do is immoral by the application of most any ethical philosophy. Their actions cause harm to others, they infringe upon the rights of children. They are raping, because a child cannot give consent, we have chosen to set limits on how old you have to be to give consent for many contracts, because we recognize that underdeveloped brains can't make fully rational and fair judgements, and that there are inherent power disparities between nearly all adults and nearly all children. None of that exists with (legal) homosexual acts. The participants are willing, adult, fully cognitive individuals who are unlikely to experience any damage physical or psychological due to the act (assuming it's done safely, just like hetero-sex). So there's that licked.
Oh yes, and genetics. My parents both had blue eyes, I've got hazel eyes, according to the simplistic model many of us learned in school at some point this means my mom cheated, because two blue eyed people (blue eyes being regressive) must produce a blue eyed child. Of course, eye color is effected by several genes, and possibly other factors, so we get much more complex genetics. Homosexuality is biological, it is PROBABLY partly genetic as well. The difference is that biological means that there are identifiable differences at the physical level, different hormone levels, different finger lengths, other little markers. These could be related to genetics, yet they are almost certainly effected by the intra-uterine environment. The chemical cocktail a mother feeds to her fetus effects the biology of the child. The more older brothers you have, the more likely you are to have homosexual impulses (if you're male). This has been shown with several studies, and it is suggested that this is an evolutionary mechanism meant to limit conflict between brothers in tribal societies where an overabundance of unattached men had the severe downside of murder and civil war. Evidence of a partial genetic cause of homosexuality is based on studying identical twins vs fraternal twins, with the assumption that apart from the genetic difference, fraternal twins and identical twins would have the same shared experiences both in the womb and in their lives. Identical twins are more likely to share their twins sexual preference than fraternal, but from what I've read this is still a somewhat unclear relationship. The point is that genes are complex, they can float around for generation and then come together in some novel way to throw up someone who looks like no one else in the family except for an old engraving of someones great great grandfather, who he resembles near precisely. Don't assume you can make some simple gay+gay=gay, straight+straight=straight comparison, it's far FAR more complex than that, partly because there are many different factors ranging from genetics to BAC which can effect someones sexual identity, and partly because sexual identity is both a gradient, and fluid throughout life (it is statistically possible for a guy who has always been straight, in every way, at all times, never a single thought of men, to meet a guy who he ultimately falls in love with. That guy might be the only many in the entire world who the first guy is "gay" for, but there it is. That could happen, it's just unlikely.)
I doubt homosexuality rises or falls with a nations prosperity. I suspect openness about homosexuality rises and falls with a nations prosperity. This is because as nations get wealthier they get less dogmatic and more accepting of difference. There's good reason for this, in times of scarcity we look to our "tribes" the group of people we most closely associate with, and consider all others to be outsiders who are liable to be trying to take advantage of us, that IS genetic. As scarcity falls so too does suspicion, and we come to accept those who are different. Also the kind of society that accepts homosexuals tends to attract creative types who, these days especially, drive economies forward, increasing prosperity. That's why having homosexuals move to town is really really good for that town. Look it up, that's economics.
I am trying to be fair, actually no, I am being fair, and I'm also being logical, and reasonable, and sensible. I'm also being accepting, understanding, considerate, progressive, honest, ethical, and exceedingly thorough.
If you're still with me i'd like to point something out. You never made any argument that could be considered "moral"
To recap
-first you said it was unnatural (not a moral statement)
-then you talked about the ability to reproduce (not a moral statement)
-Then you compared homosexuality to pedophilia, but only to point out that the same arguments for the "naturalness" of homosexuality could be made about pedophilia. This is called the association fallacy, which often can fool people into THINKING a moral claim has been made, when in fact only a factual claim has been made. Your factual claim was correct but it was (not a moral claim)
-Then you talked about genetics, which was mostly wrong, but also (not a moral claim)
-Then there was the odd comment about prosperity.
So maybe you AREN'T trying to make a moral argument. So what if homosexuality WERE unnatural? So's marriage (no other species marries, hell, even the "monogamous" species cheat like crazy), oh and cars, those are unnatural, charity beyond your immediate social circle, that's unnatural. Lots of things we do are unnatural, lots of things we know to be immoral ARE natural (rape, very natural, so's infantacide) so WHAT'S YOUR FUCKING POINT?