Dr Kipling Makes Exceedingly Good Hypotheses, Perhaps

Scientists Attempt to Produce Two Identical Snowflakes- Not There Yet Fellas 

I've written about the Drake equation previously. This simple equation attempts to estimate the number of extraterrestrial civilisations in the galaxy. Dr Drake proposed his famous equation during a coffee break at a conference in 1961. To be fair to Dr Drake, his off-the-cuff formula was not designed to be taken too seriously. His hastily framed equation was meant to stimulate discussion concerning the possibility of advanced alien life within our Milky Way galaxy. The equation, as originally proposed, contained nine terms, and at the time, seven of the terms were unknown. Therefore, depending on input data, it was possible to generate a vast range of possibilities. As a serious equation of scientific merit, it was not. However, in the public mind, it has taken on a significance way above its original intention. The general public should hold its head in shame. Dr Drake has been exonerated. ,  

Most Astrophycists, and scientists in general, consider that due to the presence of billions of stars within our galaxy and the appreciation that most host orbiting planets, it is almost inevitable that there are intelligent technological civilisations 'out there'. The number of civilisations is open to speculation, but generally, most pundits place the number in the thousands or millions. To suggest that we might be alone in a cold, insentient universe is akin to heresy, a display of arrogance and hubris by feeble-minded insular humans. With all that said, it cannot be denied that we have absolutely no credible evidence for the existence of any extraterrestrial civilisation in our galaxy. Speculation and hypotheses are fine, but for knowledge to progress, we need data, and currently, that is sadly lacking.    

A British Astrophysicist, Dr David Kipling, has decided to look at the problem from a different angle. What follows is taken from his seminal paper: 'An Objective Bayesian Analysis of Life’s Early Start and Our Late Arrival' published on an open access platform: PNAS. May 18, 2020, 17 (22) 11995-12003. After reading through the paper, I have to admit that the general reader may be put off by the mathematical treatment of the problem and the technical jargon employed. I will endeavour to summarise the paper and present its key elements and conclusions without emphasising the mathematical/statistical notation present in the original paper. This, hopefully, will aid clarity as I suspect most readers are unlikely to be aware of Bayesian statistics and some of the 'mathematical niceties' proceeding from the analysis. On occasion, the paper lapses into pure logic and, therefore, has no appeal to most. Frankly, I am not equipped with the high level of statistical education necessary to fully appreciate the chain of reasoning provided in the paper. However, I am familiar with Bayesian statistics as I've used the technique to calculate genetic risk in patients. A brief digression is in order.

In my professional experience, the technique was useful for calculating the risk of an individual having a particular genetic disorder based on prior 'risk' knowledge. Risk may be updated as new data becomes available. This technique is applicable to conditions that do not conform to classical simple genetic inheritance and is relevant to polygenic conditions where a number of genes represent risk factors or modifiers. A good example of such a condition is schizophrenia or cancer. Back to the paper. 

Initially, the paper deals with setting the time parameters regarding the 'First Emergence of Life' and the advent of the 'Intelligent Observer' The analysis specifically relates to Earth's condition and represents a hypothetical rerun from the conception of life and its appreciation due to the emergence of the 'Intelligent Observer'. By subjecting various time parameters to Bayesian analysis, it is hoped that the results will shed light on the statistical probability of life's inception and the subsequent evolution of intelligent organisms. This analysis may be further extrapolated and applied to other planetary systems within our galaxy and provide a degree of statistical validity for the presence or absence of extraterrestrial civilisations.

Findings and Conclusions

Different models are compared while admitting that the true timing for life's emergence is controversial, with estimates varying wildly. Even taking into account the difficulties in determining the correct time scale, a rerun utilising a variety of time parameters was remarkably consistent in predicting life's early start in Earth's history. As soon as conditions became stable and conducive to supporting life, biogenesis became almost inevitable.    

Earth came into being 4.5 billion years ago, and life has been detected in the fossil record dating back to  3.5 billion years ago. Although these organisms were simple prokaryotes, they were capable of complex metabolic processes, indicating that they had evolutionary antecedents. Thus, life's inception through abiogenesis occurred (origin of life) millions of years previously. Admittedly, this 'first life' and its preceding proto-life have left no mark within the fossil record. This negative observation does not negate their original existence. Given the right conditions, the inception of life is likely a rapid process. The other observation made is that the evolution of intelligence seems to appear late in Earth's development, suggesting that is not an inevitable phenomenon. The implication is that if Earth's 'time clock' was reset, the formation of life would be virtually inevitable. However, the evolution of an intelligent species able to harness technology is less certain. 

Commentary

What are we to make of this analysis? Dr. Kipling's statistical approach to the problem is undoubtedly interesting and novel. The main takeaway notion to be absorbed is perhaps we should not expect our galaxy to be teeming with extraterrestrial advanced civilisations. Simple life may be common, as biogenesis is highly likely to occur, but there are a number of important evolutionary steps that are crucial for the eventual development of intelligent agents capable of self-reflection and the building of rocket ships. It is sobering to contemplate that while life dates back 4 billion years, the first important step toward intelligence, the evolution to eukaryotes, had to await a further 2 billion years. This was a crucial step in the evolution of more complex multicellular organisms. Additional evolutionary steps required to achieve humanity were numerous and complex- well worthy of a future post (maybe).   

Intuitively, given the vast size of the galaxy and its contents therein, it is natural to assume there must be others 'out there' very much like us. But perhaps we really are special and mayhap unique. Dr Kipling, in a podcast, introduces the analogy of the snowflake. Each snowflake is structured so that its form is unique; no two snowflakes are alike, and the chance that this can occur is 1, followed by 768 zeros. In other words, essentially zero.   

Dr Kipling introduces a compelling approach to the great existential question: 'Are we really alone?' This approach is fascinating but suffers from the limitation of all approaches to this question—the lack of input data. Dr Kipling focuses on the only two parameters available to him: the 'emergence of life' and the emergence of the 'intelligent observer'. As with any mathematical technique, the quality and the quantity of the input data are crucial for the calculation of credible results. A reliance on just a single parameter (time) severely limits what can be achieved, especially when we are trying to extend the analysis to a different case, i.e. aliens. Notwithstanding the limitations of this approach, the good doctor demands applause for innovative critical thinking and introduces the reader to an alternative and thought-provoking narrative.

Spartacus (Third Servile War)

   "No, I'm Flaxen Saxon" 

When the average man is asked to name three characters from ancient Roman history, they will inevitably conjure the following folks in their head: Caesar (obviously), Nero and Spartacus. Sometimes Nero can be substituted with Caligula (wot no Hannibal?). These characters from history have insinuated their presence into the modern mind and secured their place in history. Of the three, Caesar's incorporation into the corpus is warranted upon a consideration of merit. We are looking at the rare (extremely rare) individual that has changed history through the dint of their character, intelligence and action. Nero has left, but a scratch on the historical path, and his inclusion on this list is underserved. With Spartacus, we have a different case. Spartacus is remembered not because he changed history or became a mad emperor but because he became a powerful, alluring idea and ideal. Read on and weep.

Three significant slave revolts impinge on our sense of Roman history. I have previously written about the revolt of 135 BC, entitled 'The First Servile War,' on this very blog platform. The second slave revolt remains but a spark within my restless, nay febrile/fecund brain. The first two 'Slave Uprisings' were confined to the island of Sicily. The Roman heartland/mainland was unaffected. This all changed with the third and last major slave revolt. 

The Romans had a problem. Like most ancient cultures, they operated a slave economy, and mainly due to success in war, Rome had a lot of slaves. So many slaves, in fact, that during the latter Republican period, slaves outnumbered the free population of the city of Rome and numbered a third of the total population of Italy. There was always a constant fear that the slaves would somehow come together, organise and overthrow their masters. This was not a hypothetical dilemma, as, by 73 BC, Rome had endured two significant slave outpourings. Now, in 73 BC, Rome was about to face the third slave uprising; the Spartacus Rebellion was the most significant, the most destructive and most successful.

We know little about Spartacus' early life. He likely hailed from ancient Thrace, a region now considered part of the Balkans. According to the Roman writer Appian, Spartacus was taken as a prisoner of war and sent to a gladiator school due to his robust physique. Plutarch gives a different version, claiming that Spartacus was in the Roman military but was charged with desertion and sentenced to the arena. Regardless of provenance, at the time of the revolt in 73 BC, Spartacus was ensconced in a gladiator training school close to the city of Capua. The training was harsh and cruel, designed to instil complete obedience and produce an accomplished gladiator for the amusement of the rich and poor alike. Spartacus, together with others, planned to escape and flee north. However, their plan was discovered. Knowing their fate was sealed, the men incited 78 others to violently revolt. Armed with kitchen knives and utensils ( sans egg timer), they fell upon their captors, wreaking havoc. After killing their tormentors and collecting a cache of weapons, they fled to the slopes of Mount Vesuvius. Once camped, Spartacus was elected as leader, with Crixus and Oenomaus as immediate underlings. They then began to systematically loot the region, encouraging enslaved agricultural workers to flock to the 'banner of freedom'.

The Romans were not impressed or especially worried and considered the slaves as more of a trifling nuisance than a major military threat. Consequently, their response was lacklustre and dilatory. A force of poorly trained militia was gathered under the leadership of Gaius Claudius Glaber and sent forth to deal with the problem. Glaber, with his force, surrounded the slaves, hoping to starve them into submission. However, Spartacus and his men used vine branches to climb out of the encirclement. Afterwards, they attacked the Roman camp from the rear, defeating the troops, plundering the camp, and further enhancing their weapon supply.

A second armed troop led by Publius Varinus was hastily prepared and sent to attack these pesky but annoyingly persistent slaves. Again, the Romans had underestimated their enemy and the 'pesky slaves' quickly defeated the Roman troops sent against them. This victory encouraged more slaves to leave their masters and join Spartacus' rapidly growing army. At last, the Romans realised that they had a serious military situation, as by this time, Spartacus commanded a force of 70,000 ex-slaves. The senate decided to send both consuls (spring 72 BC) and their troops to deal with the rebellion. This response utilising the military resources of the two consuls, Gellius (erroneously called Publicola in some sources) and Clodianus, illustrated the grave threat Spartacus and his slave army posed to the Republic of Rome. In response, Spartacus devasted the region, laying waste to several cities (Nola, Thurii, Nuceria, and Metapontum) in the process. Spartacus, no doubt, realised that his luck would soon run out as Rome was mobilising its vast military resources against him and his merry band. No longer would Sparticus face barely trained militiamen, for now, he would have to face the battle-hardened soldiers of the legions. His force was a mixed bunch of slaves, of which many would have been of little utility in battle.

This host needed vast resources and food, and thus, he decided to split his slave army into two, with Crixus commanding the second group. His initial plan was to strike north, cross the Appenine range and from there, the band was to disperse with individuals striking out to return to their homes. A forlorn hope, I suspect. Though it has to be said, the whole enterprise was predicated on desperation with little to commend it. From the rational perspective, the slaves would experience a brief idyllic taste of freedom before death in battle or worse. Certainly, no rational man would have savoured falling into the hands of the Romans and their inevitable cruel retribution.

Troops under Gellius attacked Crixus and his army, defeating his contingent and killing Crixus. Meanwhile, Spartacus had miraculously defeated Clodinius and his troops and then turned to drive Gellius from the field. At this stage in the conflict, Spartacus made a critical error. Perhaps his victories had gone to his head. Whatever the reason, Spartacus disregarded his original scheme and, at the head of a large force of infantry and assorted cavalry, marched toward Rome. He encountered two more Roman armies on the way and defeated both. His tactical skill was undeniable, though ultimately, he lacked sound strategic vision. Even the military genius Hannibal shirked a march on Rome after his stupendous victory over the Romans at Cannae. By this time, the conflict had dragged on for nearly three years, and what had started as a simple and local slave revolt had now developed into a crisis of epic proportions. The Romans had had enough and placed their armies under the competent general, Marcus Licinius Crassus. During the initial clash of arms, a portion of Crassus' army exhibited cowardice, and as punishment, Crassus revived the ancient practice of decimation. One in ten of the men was selected by lot; thereafter, the rest of the troop beat their unlucky comrades to death with cudgels. Crassus was not soft. This terrible display of Roman justice served to encourage the others and to exhort Crassus' army to display great feats of courage in the coming, final battle. Spartacus abandoned his march to Rome as the way was blocked by Crassus and his armies. Instead, he marched south into the 'toe of Italy' to a region known as Bruttium. Spartus then negotiated with Cicilian pirates to arrange passage to Sicily for himself and his men. However, the pirates reneged on their end of the bargain, leaving the slaves in a desperate plight. Who would have thought that pirates lacked honour! Once Crassus arrived with his army, he hoped to pen in the slave army by building fortifications and earthworks.

However, at night and during a heavy snowstorm, Spartacus and his army managed to break through the lines. Spartacus then made the fateful decision to turn and fight a major battle. It is here that Spartacus lost his military acumen. Or, more likely, the odds were not in his favour, and Crassus was no military dullard. At the battle of the Silarius River, Spartacus was killed in the fighting, and his army was utterly defeated. Six thousand slaves were taken prisoner and crucified along the Via Appia and left to rot at the stake. Thus they provided a stark billboard to those travelling this busy byway. The message was clear: Don't fuck with Rome, or you will die horribly, horribly. Thus the Third Servile War' came to an end. As for Spartacus, his body was never found.

Throughout the ages, Spartacus has inspired the oppressed and disenfranchised. His motives have been widely debated. Was he a proto-Marxian proletariat revolutionary or something else? I conclude that he was 'something else'. What that 'something else' is open to much speculation. Modern interpretation through film, theatre, and literature often displays the disparate/desperate slave group as 'freedom fighters' railing against the oppressive and cruel Romans. Ancient writers err on the side of the prosaic: Spartacus and others merely planned to escape, disperse and head home. Their aspirations changed when their plan unravelled, and swift, violent action was the only option. It seems that the merry band of slaves became a rallying point for equally desperate folk in southern Italy, and I suspect Spartacus became the unwilling focal point for a horde. Did this sudden change in fortunes go to his head? He must have realised that there was strength in numbers, but did he appreciate its inherent weakness. People need resources, both food and weapons. Whatever the group dynamic was saying, I think Spartacus' ultimate aim remained the same: he just wanted to go home. Not all in his band shared this sentiment or goal. Some of his group were out for revenge and plunder- two processes difficult to disassemble. He must have known that whatever he did, the Romans would eventually prevail. Once the Romans finally realised that this was not a police action and engaged competent military leaders, the game was up. I don't see Spartacus as a man of high ideals, a man raging against the system. I see a man thrust into the limelight by the cast of the dice, by chance, a hero. He was a victim of circumstances of which he had little control. He did not write the script, but he was fully aware of the last page. In the end, I see a man who, unlike Caesar, was not about being part of history, just a frightened, courageous young man yearning to go home.    

Security

                                                  Greetings From Jo'Burg

Greetings From Fortress Flaxen

On the early morning of last Thursday at approx. 12.30 am., Mrs. S was taking out our three yappy, fluffy, white dogs for their final piddle. During the procedure, the dogs started to bark (not unusual) and alerted my wife to an intruder standing in the front garden about 15 metres away. Bravely but foolishly, she challenged the interloper and asked: ''What are you doing on the property''? The man turned his head in her direction but said nothing. She then hurried into the house and woke me up. At my age, I need my beauty sleep. I quickly put on a housecoat, grabbed a knife and flashlight, which I keep strategically under the bed and rushed outside. By the time I had entered the front garden, the interloper was nowhere to be seen. I did not think it wise to be prowling around my property in the dark, so I returned to 'Fortress Flaxen', locked the door and turned on all the interior and exterior lights. In the meantime, Mrs S phoned the police, and they arrived 20 minutes later. The two officers had a wander around the immediate garden area, and one of the officers challenged Ted, the alpaca, but nothing unusual was seen.    

Mrs. S provided the officers with a description: He was about 5' 10'' and wearing a motorcycle helmet. Of course, she couldn't supply any further details due to the darkness and situation. Interestingly, I didn't hear a motorbike when I came outside—perhaps I was too slow? The officers suggested that the potential thieves were looking for unsecured quad bikes, ride-on mowers, etc. This seems reasonable as we live on a large rural property. 

This episode obviously made us examine our current security and the means to improve and upgrade safety. The next day, I alerted our immediate neighbours about the incident. Our closest neighbour is a retired policeman who suggested several easy-to-implement safety measures.

In fairness, we live in a safe area not noted for crime; however, that is no excuse for complacency. We also need to tailor our security needs to our own particular circumstances. For context, our property lies at the end of an extended tarmac drive about 0.5 km in extent. From this drive, access can be gained to four properties, including our own. We have a typical 'farmer's style' gate about 10 feet in length. Normally, the gate is left unsecured and open. However, from now on, the gate will be secured with a chain and padlock. The house lies about 30 metres from the gate and is accessed by a gravel driveway. The house is surrounded by areas of managed garden. Our garden area is large in extent and comprises about 0.5 of an acre in total. Outside this area, we have several managed lawned fields. Adjacent to one field and the garden area, we have an acre of unmanaged pasture containing livestock. Currently, we own a single alpaca and sheep. Apart from the house, our other major security concern is the barn/shed. This building contains a number of expensive items, including two ride-on mowers. The shed is accessed from a gravel driveway that arcs off the main driveway and loops behind the property before terminating at the shed. This driveway also has a farm gate that was hitherto left ajar but is now secured. The shed itself is accessed via a door which is now permanently locked. These measures alone should deter thieves interested in stealing our ride-on mower, as two locked gates would need to be opened. We do not keep the keys to the mower in the shed, and therefore, to steal the machine, the thieves would have to drive a pick-up vehicle to the shed, gain access to the shed and load the mower on their transport. I suspect the barriers imposed would represent a severe impediment and deterrent.

Now we come to the house itself. Our home is a four-bed brick bungalow lying off-centre on the property. It is pitch black at night due to the lack of urban and external lighting. Due to the incursion, we decided to invest in external camera security- we already have internal security cameras. Four cameras have subsequently been fitted to encircle the property to ensure there are no blind spots. The cameras are fitted with night vision, a hefty spotlight, an alarm and two-way communication. The cameras can discriminate between the local wildlife (possums, rabbits and feral cats) and miscreants of evil intent. The images are crisp, and the system provides up to two years of video storage. Alerts are through our phones, and the various parameters offered are eminently customisable. 

Now it gets personal: unlike the US, gun laws in NZ are very strict, and firearms are not encouraged for home defence. As mentioned at the beginning of this tortuous post, I keep a knife close by at night. It is a robust weapon with a 7" blade and full tang. I've added to my nocturnal safety by including a pistol crossbow. It is quick and easy to load with attached mechanical assist and fires metal 6.5" winged darts. It is accurate to 20 metres and has a draw weight of 80lb. I am well versed in its use, and I'm going to assume that anyone entering my house at 2 am. in the morning is not there for a cosy chat. I suspect being hit by a crossbow bolt in the chest area is not conducive to further respiratory activity. I am forced to enact this extreme measure to ensure personal safety for myself and my family. This is especially relevant due to lengthy local police response times.

Am I being over the top, considering we do not live in South Africa or San Pao? As a digression: my son used to date a Brazilian girl whom he met on an exchange program. She lived in San Pao in a luxurious compound full of rich folk. When my son went to visit, he was shocked by the opulence and self-contained nature of the gated community. This starkly contrasted with the immediate outside world as most of San Pao is draped in a pall of desperate poverty. When they ventured away from their cloistered bubble of enchantment, they travelled by car with bodyguards. When the 'Brazilian Princess ' (for it is she) deigned to stay with us, she was astonished that we did not have servants. The upshot is that this 'beautiful bauble' (my son gets his taste in women from his dad) did not do a lick of work around the house during her stay, which pissed off Mrs S no end. Here endeth the digression/lesson.

Our ex-copper neighbour explained that it is a matter of security layers. The more effort you put forth to secure your property, the less likely you will be targeted by thieves. That said, professional, highly skilled thieves will put forth the effort if they think you own very expensive items. We do not come within the range of the super-wealthy, and the items available in our home are no different from most middle-class establishments. No fine art, jewellery or precious stones are within our humble abode.   

It could be argued that owning three crappy/yappy dogs is our best defence against intruders. Although they are fairly indiscriminate and not customisable as to their response, they undoubtedly provide an effective early warning system. Anyway, folks, let me know your thoughts and approach to security issues.