New letters are brought to light every few years, and archives are made available to scholars that had previously been closed. Isaacson’s Einstein takes advantage of some newly accessible letters and documents unavailable to previous biographers. Einstein also benefits from an author who is an excellent writer, researcher, and collaborator.

He summarizes:

Einstein was many things: physicist, mathematician (it’s a myth that he did poorly in math at school), revolutionary, socialist, pacifist, humanist. That’s a whole lot of –ists to keep straight, but Isaacson does an excellent job of presenting a complete picture of Einstein as all of the above and more. If you have already read an Einstein biography or two, or have even read a few popular books on relativity, don’t make the mistake of thinking there’s nothing here for you. Isaacson’s engaging Einstein is recommended for anyone interested in Herr Professor’s physics and philosophy.

Another review by Erik Spanberg also shows this book is needed:

Untangling Einstein’s discoveries and accomplishments require a bit of genius in itself for the scientifically challenged among us. After all, as Isaacson points out, Einstein came to symbolize the perception that modern physics operated at a level far above the heads of most people, a stark contrast to the earlier, more accessible cause-and-effect breakthroughs ushered in by Galileo, Isaac Newton, and Benjamin Franklin, among others. While everyone has at least a fuzzy knowledge of Einstein — the shock of unkempt hair, the use of his name as a synonym for genius and an enduring, iconic pop-culture familiarity — much of his basic biography is at least unexamined and probably unknown, as well, by the mainstream audience Isaacson’s book targets.

A swarm of new Einstein’s videos were produced recently; now it is time for the updated books …

* Global Population and World Religions, by country (use the options)

* World population prospects (predictions for 2050)

* Genoicide by Country

If charts fail, words about our dark nature work too: Eliminationism in America.

Though, World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War sounds like a sure bet for late night reading:

Brooks tells the story of the world’s desperate battle against the zombie threat with a series of first-person accounts “as told to the author” by various characters around the world. A Chinese doctor encounters one of the earliest zombie cases at a time when the Chinese government is ruthlessly suppressing any information about the outbreak that will soon spread across the globe. The tale then follows the outbreak via testimony of smugglers, intelligence officials, military personnel and many others who struggle to defeat the zombie menace.

Yahoo News and The Nation (Bangkok’s Independent Newspaper) carried this story today (added emphasis mine):

An Australian scientist called Wednesday for an end to the age-old tradition of cremation, saying the practice contributed to global warming.

Professor Roger Short said people could instead choose to help the environment after death by being buried in a cardboard box under a tree.

It continued:

The decomposing bodies would provide the tree with nutrients, and the tree would convert carbon dioxide into life-giving oxygen for decades, he said.

“The important thing is, what a shame to be cremated when you go up in a big bubble of carbon dioxide,” Short told AFP.

“Why waste all that carbon dioxide on your death?”

Short said the cremation of the average male in Australia, during which the body is heated to 850 degrees Celsius (1,562 degrees Fahrenheit) for 90 minutes, produced more than 50 kilograms (110 pounds) of carbon dioxide.

Ausrtralian Science Media Centre added additional details (emphasis mine):

Professor Short’s proposal is that everyone should be buried upright in a cardboard cylinder, next to their favourite species of tree. This would allow the remains to enrich the growth.

“Not for nothing are trees known as the lungs of the world”, he said. “A single tree over a hundred-year period absorbs over a metric ton of carbon dioxide (CO2), so imagine the difference it could make if everyone was buried and had a tree planted in their memory”.

“Photosynthesis in trees is the single most efficient way of sequestering CO2. Not only that, but they do what no other method of carbon minimisation can do, and that is to produce oxygen”, he said.

Malaysian National News Agency also adds:

“Why not, instead of polluting, you fertilise that tree for the rest of your life?” he said.

… proving there really can be life after your death!

Others have considered the very same idea of composting your corpse (see BBC Newsnight blog) and I’ve often told my wife, “Just toss my corpse in the wood chipper and compost the remains!”.

Health issues may be a valid concern: certainly we don’t want animals digging up remains and spreading diseases. On the other hand: how practical and wasteful is burial, which locks up vital chemicals six feet under inside a sealed casket?

To be fair, burial and cremation of departed loved ones are all too human and natural forms of showing respect — neither form is likely to vanish.

However, reconsidering burial and cremation traditions in terms of natural life cycles, the environment, and global warming isn’t entirely incompatible with religious ceremony and respect — the least we can do is plant a tree in memory of the deceased.

Thanks, Martin, for forwarding this jewel.

Sunlight has never really caught fire as a power source, mostly because generating electricity with solar cells is more expensive and less efficient than some conventional sources.

But a new solar panel unveiled this month by the Georgia Tech Research Institute hopes to brighten the future of the energy source.

The difference is in the design. Traditional solar panels are often flat and bulky. The new design features an array of nano-towers – like microscopic blades of grass – that add surface area and trap more sunlight.

Technology and information are the only viable tools to place into the hands of an ever increasing and prospering world population. When solar panels are cheap enough, there’s no reason they won’t be widely adopted by everyone who can find a place to install them.

The largest solutions to the climate change and energy problems must come from cheaply available and efficient technologies. Everyone wants to save money. Everyone wants to live too.

We also need to consider how the power grid itself works. It has been far too centralized for far too long. Imagine a world where anyone with a nearby stream, access to wave or tide driven water, or feels the blow of a constant breeze could put a power generating device on their own property and feed (logical) excess energy back into the power grid…

– Kurt Vonnegut, whose novels included “Slaughterhouse Five” and “Cat’s Cradle,” has died at 84, his wife tells The Associated Press.

For the next two years, Bush wins. His “stay the course” rhetoric has become a self-fulfilling prophecy and, based on his defensive speeches, is unlikely to change.

Worse, no honest Progressive or Humanitarian can thoughtfully call for immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq and ignore the inevitable ethnic cleansing and religious wars that are certain to follow. It isn’t hard to imagine that a million or more people (fellow humans!) could be killed if we pulled out of an unstable Iraq.

I do, however, find it hard to imagine a future president, regardless of party or political pressure, ordering a full retreat: there are simply too many intelligent, hard working, civil servants in the Pentagon and various think tanks (of both political persuasions), who advise policy makers and recognize the consequences of a withdrawal and the future importance of permanent regional military bases and oil security.

We may be stuck in Iraq for a minimum of 5 years if we continue with “surges” attempting to strengthen an unpopular government tucked away in the safety of The Green Zone. In the worst case, fighting with a counter-insurgency mindset and tactics could last for 10 years; as occurred, for example, during the Philippine-American War.

David, a friend and student of history, predicts Iraq is headed for a strongman (LÚ.GAL) government, a mini-Saddam headed by a secular Shī‘a commander, possibly positioned by a US-backed military coup, as the only thing which can stop the current spiral; though, he also notes civil war is highly likely further down the road.

Another remaining option, one Bush entirely dismisses, is a partitioned state separating the Kurdish, Shi‘ite, and Sunni populations. The country we know as “Iraq” doesn’t have a very long history: Let’s not forget that the British and French Empires carved out Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, and others from the defeated Ottoman Empire at the end of World War I — each new nation created from artificial borders bounded by neither ethnic nor cultural heritage requiring theocratic or dictatorial governments to glue them together.

Though, history also shows that partitioning isn’t a long term solution and often leads to further wars. Just consider the history of India and Pakistan (once a larger India and currently enemies) and Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia (once Yugoslavia and still capable of exploding). Partitioned states often hold grudges. Ancient religious hatreds always manage to find ways to release their wrath. Ultimately, all we can hope to do is delay the apocalypse and limit the bloodshed.

America wants out of the war and David’s prediction of a strongman government who we control to protect our interests will certainly get us out of Iraq faster, though, who knows what circumstances await the Iraqi people?

There must be realistic solutions worked out by our greatest minds within existing institutions. Plans which can be explained, in better language than Bush is capable of sputtering, why sorting out Iraq is our responsibility, why no one except the US can fix Iraq, and why we may need to stay in Iraq for some time to come.

We need a leader who can engage the American people with wisdom instead of fear, anxiety and simple-minded rhetoric. Someone who can explain the honest details of the situation; Americans will get it.

However, the carbon data is compelling and in the words of that great spokesman, Fred Sanford:

Oooo… Its the Big One… You hear that Elizabeth…

I think it’s too late and there probably isn’t much we can do beyond preparing for future change — something we humans are also good at (else we’d not be here, right?).

I just don’t see the world actually making any workable prevention or disaster recovery plans — plans we are reasonably certain are useful and have scientific merit. Even in New Orleans, the levees are simply being rebuilt.

While the science of climate change appears consistent, consideration of prevention is still “just talk” (if not fear mongering) and there’s no real, scientific understanding of practical tools we can use to clean up the mess we’ve already made.

A rules based carbon trading system to the rescue? Come on, the other thing we humans are good at is breaking the rules. Any rule-based system will be so full of politically motivated exceptions that it’ll become useless in a year.

Worse: the more powerful (and louder) fringes of society are trying to talk us out of whatever conversations are taking place. Back slide, mud slide, or water slide: the bigger problem won’t be climate change, it’ll be all the hot air created by egotism and posturing within political and academic circles. (See Salon’s, How the World Worlds: The instant legacy of the Stern Review.)

And our inaction will likely be crippled more by rhetorical arguments from over-reactionary Liberal Political Correctness (“don’t drive!”) and Conservative Libertarian (“use oil for sunscreen too!”) movements.

Will we ever find the right balance of ideas and solutions argued from under and over reactionaries? I think we will — provided normal people are given the practical tools (devices for saving and generating power), rhetorical-free information, and incentives to promote use of new technologies.

Regardless of our faults and the extent of the pending disaster, in the end, humanity will find ways to come through; it is simply in our interest to do so, especially if reality and prediction merge.

It would take an extraordinary event to destroy all life on earth. We’re not at that point yet; but that doesn’t mean serious planetary and social changes aren’t around the corner. We just need to decide who we’re going to listen to: the simple fear mongers or the complex truth peddlers or someone in between — then find ways to create cheap alternative processes and technologies (which don’t create more problems).

We must also trust that our fellow neighbors will do the right thing — instead of passing more laws which only end up creating more criminals. Outlawing incandescent light bulbs with fluorescent replacements that require more energy to make (and produce a horrible light quality), explain that again?

{Wed Apr 18 20:00:57 EDT 2007 – updated}

I don’t want celebrity; only to be able to talk freely. Nothing more. I intend to put my version of the facts related to the “Kathy Sierra Incident” online; some are now at misobserver.wordpress.com.