Why is Copernicus relevant to our understanding of Globalization?

We are constantly bombarded with media reports on globalization in terms of its increasing process and potential effects on our lives. What is meant by this concept and why should we be concerned with its impact? The developing countries of sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America and Asia should be interested in it because of the opportunities and threats offered by globalization (also known as globalisation).

The mother of this globalization is Science and the activator is her daughter Technology (both affectionately called science and technology). The most visible manifestations of “globalization” are in the economic and communications spheres. And one of the fathers of Science is our friend Copernicus.

In two sentences his contribution to Science and Globalization is:

Copernicus broke open the medieval idea of an enclosed, Earth-centered universe.
He set the stage for all of modern astronomy.

And why does this matter?

He lived at a time when people believed Earth lay enclosed within crystal spheres at the center of the universe. Can you picture the leap of imagination required for him to conceive of a sun-centered universe? The publication of Copernicus’ book – De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres) – just before his death in 1543, set the stage for all of modern astronomy. Today, people speak of his work as the Copernican Revolution.

Nicolaus Copernicus – Heliocentric Model [HQ]

Post-data: Copernicus wasn’t the first to conceive of a sun-centered universe. Early Greek philosophers also spoke of it. It was the Greek philosopher Aristotle, however, who proposed that the heavens were literally composed of 55 concentric, crystalline spheres to which the celestial objects were attached. In Aristole’s model, Earth lay at the center of these spheres. Thus Earth lay – fixed and enclosed – until Copernicus published his version of a heliocentric universe.

Satellite images of negative externalities caused by Globalization

I always keep track of the images from space taken by NASA. They usually have impressive “natural hazards” photographed with the highest technology available. However, sometimes the natural hazards to humanity are not caused by the natural cycles of Earth. In those cases, it is humans who have created hazards for themselves and people die. Now, why would we create things that harm us so much? Why would we support and contribute to such terrible things? A good explanation is the one given by economists with the complex and difficult term negative externalities.

A negative externality is a spillover of an economic transaction that negatively impacts a party that is not directly involved in the transaction. The first party bears no costs for their impact on society while the second party receives no benefits from being impacted. This occurs when marginal social cost is greater than marginal private cost (MSC > MPC).

The case of pollution in China elucidates very well how the market-driven approach to correcting externalities by “internalizing” third party costs and benefits fails to work in a globalized economy. For example, by requiring a polluter to repair any damage caused. But, in many cases internalizing costs or benefits is not feasible, especially if the true monetary values cannot be determined. In fact, our technological gadgets and thousands of products imported from China are the cause of the hazardous health conditions in that country. We as consumers are part of this chain by buying the products. How can we do something?

I would suggest that the best way to participate in a positive way is to continue creating awareness of the failure of the government of China to protect the lives of the Chinese people. It is at the end of the day the responsibility of that government to protect the life and property of its citizens, not ours. We as consumers can only morally sanction them and stop consuming their products whenever possible.

This is a good (and very unfortunate) example of how globalization without an objective code of values becomes a zero sum game. I share with you the information regarding how dangerous has become the air in the surroundings of Beijing and Tianjin,

—-

acquired January 14, 2013download large image (7 MB, JPEG, 5000×6400)

acquired January 14, 2013download GeoTIFF file (47 MB, TIFF)

acquired January 3, 2013download large image (8 MB, JPEG, 5000×6400)

acquired January 3, 2013download GeoTIFF file (51 MB, TIFF)

acquired January 3 – 14, 2013download Google Earth file (KMZ)

View Image Comparison

Residents of Beijing and many other cities in China were warned to stay inside in mid-January 2013 as the nation faced one of the worst periods of air quality in recent history. The Chinese government ordered factories to scale back emissions, while hospitals saw spikes of more than 20 to 30 percent in patients complaining of respiratory issues, according to news reports.

The Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) on NASA’s Terra satellite acquired these natural-color images of northeastern China on January 14 (top) and January 3, 2013. The top image shows extensive haze, low clouds, and fog over the region. The brightest areas tend to be clouds or fog, which have a tinge of gray or yellow from the air pollution. Other cloud-free areas have a pall of gray and brown smog that mostly blots out the cities below. In areas where the ground is visible, some of the landscape is covered with lingering snow from storms in recent weeks. (Snow is more prominent in the January 3 image.)

At the time that the January 14 image was taken by satellite, ground-based sensors at the U.S. Embassy in Beijingreported PM_2.5 measurements of 291 micrograms per cubic meter of air. Fine, airborne particulate matter (PM) that is smaller than 2.5 microns (about one thirtieth the width of a human hair) is considered dangerous because it is small enough to enter the passages of the human lungs. Most PM_2.5 aerosol particles come from the burning of fossil fuels and biomass (wood fires and agricultural burning). The World Health Organization considers PM_2.5to be safe when it is below 25.

Also at the time of the image, the air quality index (AQI) in Beijing was 341. An AQI above 300 is considered hazardous to all humans, not just those with heart or lung ailments. AQI below 50 is considered good. On January 12, the peak of the current air crisis, AQI was 775 the U.S Embassy Beijing Air Quality Monitor—off the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency scale—and PM_2.5 was 886 micrograms per cubic meter.

Resources
Air Pollution in China: Real-time Air Quality Index Visual Map. Accessed January 14, 2013.
China Air Daily. Accessed January 14, 2013.
U.S Embassy Beijing Air Quality Monitor. Accessed January 14, 2013.

References
Associated Press, via Yahoo News (2013, January 14) Beijing warns residents after off-the-charts smog . Accessed January 14, 2013.
NASA (2010, September 22) New Map Offers a Global View of Health-Sapping Air Pollution.Accessed January 14, 2013.
NASA Earth Observatory (2012, March 23) Satellites Map Fine Aerosol Pollution Over China.
The New York Times (2013, January 14) China allows media to report alarming air pollution crisis. Accessed January 14, 2013.
Yahoo News (2013, January 14) China’s air pollution problem slideshow. Accessed January 14, 2013.

NASA image courtesy Jeff Schmaltz, LANCE MODIS Rapid Response. Caption by Mike Carlowicz.

MILLOY: China’s bad air puts the lie to EPA scare tactics (washingtontimes.com)
Beijing’s air pollution as seen from space (blogs.scientificamerican.com)

I don’t want a cheaper and weaker iPhone!

I read today’s article”A Low-Priced iPhone Awaits” in the Wall Street Journal with disappointment. For some reason, it has become widespread for people to think that “successful products = low price” and that “happy costumers = low price“.

While those affirmations are truth I consider them to be only partially truth.

I want to bring into consideration the fact that it is not only “low-price” products what makes customers happy. As a owner of stores that sell electronic accessories and as a user of cellphones I can tell you this:

No matter how expensive a telephone is, the owner of those products is going to be willing to take care of it without caring much for the original price paid for their phone. So, no matter if the phone is a $500 iPhone or a $50 Samsung S 1st Generation. Both of the owners would consider paying from as little as $10.00 to as much as $75.00 in extra accessories to PROTECT and personalize their phones.
The owners of more expensive phones are always willing to invest a little bit extra to protect their phones. However, the owners of cheaper phones are also going to be willing to pay a little bit extra to “improve” their phones quality and DURABILITY by adding other electronic accessories or gadgets.

That being said, while companies may continue offering lower-price products the overall quality of these items continues decreasing. It is IMPRESSIVE the amount of customers I used to received in my store with broken screens in their iPhone’s, Samsung’s, and other Smartphone devices. Those companies are REALLY making a profit by selling products that can be damaged very easily while forcing costumers to buy new ones.

When did design became more important than functionality and durability?
Why do big screens are so easily to get broken and they are not made with better products?
The best example for this is the iPhone that has also what seems to be some type of glass cover in the back! It was impressive to see many of those covers broken and hearing the stories of sad costumers who want to replace it! The behind glass has no functional use rather than just making the product being overall weaker and less resistant…

While the Wall Street Journal article says that “Apple is working on a lower-end iPhone” the only thing I read is “Apple is working on an EVEN LESS DURABLE, WORSE QUALITY and lower-end iPhone”. This is unfortunate… specially because I still have many of the old generation “black bean” phones that I used to own 10 years ago that are in perfect shape and resistant very hard falls from my pockets when I was younger.

Lets fight this wave of “lower-end products”! As consumers we should receive the best we can get for our money! Not the worse we can get for it!

On Earth Day 2012

Yesterday, April 22 many people gathered to celebrate “Earth Day” in order to call for a stop of human action and creativity in the process of transforming our planet. Fortunately, against these destructive minds and philosophy many men and women have been working to show why the transformation of the world is something good, positive and beneficial for all of us.

I invite you to watch this wonderful video titled “If I wanted America to fail”

Furthermore, I also invite you to read the essay written by Alex Epstein (Founder and Director of the Center for Industrial Progress) in which he elaborates why human transformation of Earth is the product of our success in being more efficient and productive. Because as Epstein wonderfully elaborates,

“It is only through technology–transforming the world around us for human purposes–that we eventually lessened that load. Technology, by creating a human environment in which our goals are easier to accomplish, buys us time–time to enjoy ourselves as we please, or time to create more technologies that will buy us even more time by improving our environment even more.” Read his essay here

Earth in Detail. Fantastic high resolution photographies!

The Spanish blog “Pasa la vida” shared these wonderful pictures of Earth in high resolution (11500 x11500) As mentioned by them, the pictures were taken by the satellite Suomi NPP with the instrument Visible Infrared Imager Radiometer Suite (VIIRS).

Picture 1