Slashdot Mirror
Stanford Researchers Release Virtual-Reality Simulation That Transports Users To Ocean of the Future (ieee.org)
Tekla Perry writes: Stanford's Jeremy Bailenson and his Virtual Human Interaction Lab have for more than a decade been testing whether experiences from virtual reality can change real-world behavior. Now they are using their knowledge -- and expertise at developing VR software -- in what they hope will be a large-scale move towards making people behave better. The lab this week released, for free, a VR experience for the HTC Vive. It's aimed at giving people the sense of diving down to a coral reef -- but the real goal is getting them to consider how carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere is killing the oceans. He hopes, with the dearth of good VR content available, this software will proliferate at least as fast as VR hardware does. Next up for the lab, a deep dive into homelessness. The experience is formally called "The Ocean Acidification Experience" and it's "intended to teach users about the chemistry behind ocean acidification, as well as the problems it causes, and what they can do to help prevent it," according to IEEE Spectrum. Bailenson describes the general story line by saying, "It starts with a globe. We talk about how we can see climate on the coastlines, but nobody can see how carbon dioxide affects the oceans. We then take you into a crowded city. You touch an exhaust pipe, and you then see carbon dioxide go into the atmosphere, and you're told to follow one particular molecule. Then you are in a boat, on the ocean, you see your molecule come towards you. You touch it and push it into the water; when it lands you see the chemical reaction that creates acid; that's the chemistry lesson. Then you are underwater, at this special reef in Ischia, Italy. This reef has naturally occurring carbon dioxide from underwater volcanoes; it shows how all our oceans will look by 2100. We take you to a normal reef, where you see coral, and count sea snails and species of fish. Then you go to an acidified reef; you see that algae have taken over the reef, there is no coral; there are fewer fish species, and no sea snails. The final scene tells you what you can do to help, prevent this future, including managing your own carbon footprint, talking to decision makers, and supporting research organizations."
Ah slashdot, the site where nobody accepts that humans can do anything to the environment, ever.
And they still expect to be taken seriously.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Not only that, but whoever affords to buy a VR headset is likely already having a larger carbon footprint than the ones who don't afford said gizmo. Bigger house leads to more energy spent heading and maintaining it. More electronics mean more energy consumed. Likely bigger cars with worse mileage too. And so on.
telling them about the coral reef dying will scare them in the wrong direction: "OMG where the hell would I go snorkeling then?"
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
Oh, I can predict the future with high accuracy:
We're all screwed, no matter what we do, and still, we'll muddle on somehow. . .
"They'll swing back to the belief that they can make people... better. And I do not hold to that. So no more runnin'. I aim to misbehave. "
- Captain Malcolm Reynolds
Converting CO2 to Ethanol is cool, but impress me.
Convert it to Scotch. . . . (grin)
Can they run a simulation to see how many a-with-a-hat(TM)s slashdot stories will have if they sack all the editors?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
It's long been established that migrants are of net economic benefit to Britain while natives are net cost, so I propose that everyone whose ancestors have been in Britain for more than a certain number of generations have to pass a test to demonstrate that they're worthy to stay, otherwise they face compulsory emigration.
If we applied Brexit arguments rationally, this is what we'd do.
"no coral"
Let's remember that coral is - literally - one of the oldest life forms on the planet.
They existed in much warmer, higher CO2 environments for hundreds of millions of years.
The tocsin that 'coral are dying' (implying that they're going to die out) is one of the more nakedly disingenuous pleas coming from the AGW crowd.
-Styopa
And where to? What country accepts intellectual refugees willingly?
Don't say Germany, that's been over for a while now.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Pour that Ethanol over oak shavings and wait for a while.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
When stanford does it theyre being progressive and advanced, with newspapers calling them "brilliant" but when i do it im being "unprofessional" and "dangerously irresponsible" with nothing more than a bystander or two remarking that ive "flooded the bathroom" with a "wad of paper towels in the sink." Some appreciation for showing you the ocean of the future on the fourth floor near the copier.
Good people go to bed earlier.
What's with that, anyway? I remember back in the day when there'd be creationists trolling the biology threads but the only cranks left seem to be the climategate guys. There aren't even any anti-vaxxers around anymore.
FTS: Showing people a possible future plays on the Ebenezer Scrooge fable, in that people can change if they are simply presented with the results of their actions. I'd like to believe that's the case, but the cynic in me says people are more likely to minimize their personal impact and sustain a planet-wide tragedy of the commons.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
You have no idea what you are talking about. Start with taking a basic science class. But this time around actually comprhending and retaining the material taught and then passing the class this time around.
You exhale chemicals that make water acidic - you can measure that in a tabletop experiment, bubble exhaled breath through water and read it on a pH meter. It takes a tiny change in pH to start killing coral.
Now, that same chemical you exhale is exhaled by cars, trucks, and power plants by the tons per second. Every tree and plant on the planet can be burned to release more of that chemical, and we're deep into the process of doing just that, not only for the current crop of living trees, but also for the geologic deposits of plant growth from the "carboniferous period" when there were no fungi to rot plants when they died, so their dead bodies made coal deposits instead. New coal isn't forming (in bulk) because in today's biosphere, dead plants rot and convert to CO2 gas instead of solid coal.
Is it enough to change the oceans? Surveys in places like the Great Barrier Reef, hundreds of miles from the nearest human activity, say yes - over the last 40 years, mass quantities of corals have bleached and died.
Maybe some millennium new coral will evolve to be more acid resistant. Meanwhile, the ecosystems that depend on them will die off.
That's your solution to everything: to move under the sea.
It's not going to happen!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Not even close.
IF the ice caps completely melt, they'll displace 90+% of the current human population of the Earth, but that's only because most of the population chooses to live along the coasts. Most of the land area will be unaffected - generally coastlines will move inland a few miles, though some especially low-lying areas like Florida and Louisiana will be almost completely submerged.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
"OMG where the hell would I go snorkeling then?"
Well, there's this new VR thing that has an ocean level I heard about somewhere.
That's a whole lot of assumptions there. A more expensive house can also involve a lot better insulation, solar gain, photovoltaics, etc. Any one of which can reduce the carbon footprint below that of a much smaller house. Similarly cars - almost *any* new car will be more efficient than a beater that's been on the road for 20-30 years, and an increasing number of modern cars are putting efficiency front and center, with electrics and hybrids forming the vanguard.
Perhaps most relevantly - those with VR headsets are disproportionately likely to have the time and/or wealth to be able to actually make changes in their own lifestyle and/or contribute to bringing political pressure to change things on a larger scale. Not much point proselytizing to people who are barely making ends meet - they can't really do a whole lot to help.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
You fucking retard look into something called ecology - everything kills when it occurs in the wrong ratios in a given environment. Eat lead and see how it goes. Lead is natural and has been around for trillions of years and we are alive, so use your "logic" and try it out. Or grow the fuck up.
It always struck me as intentional that there is far too much focus around global warming because its complexity lends itself to endless debate/FUD about the relative contributions of the solar cycle/volanoes, etc, the differences between climate and weather, and so on.
Ocean acidification alone would probably justify more than even the most extreme carbon-policies that are being negotiated, but it's almost never discussed publicly -- probably because anyone with a glass of water and pH meter can demonstrate the cause and there's so much less room for manufactured doubt.
Hey mate, spare a sig?
Just out of morbid curiosity, what is your definition of the word "chemical". Because it's clearly different from the one most of us use.
Alright, so GameStop had a VIVE demo. The big problem for me was drawing a bead on a flying target an the aim was off.
The two sensors and lame controllers are also no gos for an apartment. Now the PSVR's modular approach allows pieces to be acquired pieces at a time. I just bought a used PS Move and games mainly because I wanted to try out the Portal 2 optional feature, and I understand that the same Move periperals that work with the PS3 will work with the PS4 and VR. Too bad I have to keep more consoles around if I want to play older titles, but that could be reversed in the future. Also, augmented reality may make a number of things moot. Eventually I will be able to don goggles that correct to my eye prescription and add enhanced depth cues.
Just what do you think science is?
people take basic science classes throughout K-12.
Everything is chemicals! https://youtu.be/VGErC6QQdoc
Better yet... arsenic.
Not that much different than the ocean has looked at any given point in time? Sure the ocean has its interesting bits of space-time, but it is largely a snooze-fest.
The cost it takes to manufacture vs the already existing car has to be weighed in. That's a lot of carbon. Reality dictates we start measuring effect from the now.
No it doesn't. What kind of logical point are you trying to make?
Had to undo mod points to post this, but I feel it needs to be brought up. As a resident of Louisiana, I would like to offer a quick perspective. When Katrina hit, it displaced a paltry 250,000 people, and has taken 10 years to recover that population. The richest country in the world was seemingly unable to handle this overflow well, despite only being around 0.1% of the nations population. Now, can you imagine what kind of nightmarish hellscape the earth will be if 6.3 BILLION people start trying to "move a few miles inland". Considering the timescales that could be involve, it might be more like 14 billion. Even over a drawn out time frame, this will be a very dark period for humanity. Also, you might want to look more carefully at http://ngm.nationalgeographic.... , depending on your definition of "a few miles"
Your lot of assumptions versus my lot of assumptions...
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
Explain to us: How much buffer is in solution in the oceans and why the greenies choose to ignore this?
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Add the contents of one medicinal iodine bottle and some peat moss.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I agree i would be a major challenge, but as the pace of change accelerated it would have the advantage that a lot fewer people would be stupid enough to move back and rebuild what is obviously doomed land. And insurance companies would presumably start hiking rates long in advance of the inevitable inundation, boosting short-term incentive to relocate inland as well. How much repair and new construction happens in your average city on any given day?. Redirect the vast majority of that to neighboring cities that won't flood in the next 50-100 years (how long does the average building remain in use?) and, if the caps took several centuries to melt, we could probably adapt okay. Whether we can slow things down that much... that's the question, isnt it? We'll probably have at least one or two though.
We'd have to muster the social acceptance that New Orleans had to be abandoned though.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
But, unless we have a realistic alternative, that purchase is going to happen regardless, so it may as well be in a positive direction. And it's not like the old car is shredded - it enters the stream of multipl-owner vehicles that trickles down all the way to those ancient beaters - most of those are on the road for for lack of ability to afford something newer after all, and the sooner we get cleaner alternatives trickling down, the better.
Of course, a re-imagining of transportation would be vastly preferable, but FAR more difficult and expensive to pull off (personally I like the idea of fast, reliable public transportation coupled with something like electric skateboards/scooters for the "last mile")
And, to get back to the original point - it's largely those middle-class families with disposable income who collectively decide the direction of society (and first-owner technology) - everyone else gets dragged along for the ride...though politiciains, bankers, and the media have gotten somewhat better at guiding the bull.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Maybe you should talk to somebody from the Netherlands about what is or is not an obviously doomed land. In fact the using of levees dates back to before there was an America. What doomed New Orleans, was Congress putting off money to maintain the Levee system for more than a decade. As far as the national benefit of New Orleans is concerned, it is still one of our major ports situated right on the Mississippi River. Admittedly a city can be replaced over time, but at what cost? The infrastructure to house a million people doesn't spring up overnight. The buildings, the roads, the industry, the ports, all of those things have a staggering price associated with them. And let's also not forget that we're not just talking about New Orleans. We're also talking about New York. And 100 other coastal cities around the country. Assuming that we can just slowly back away from these places and not feel the tremendous crunch of resources that's bound to follow, is simply naive. And lastly, we're talking about the whole state of Louisiana and Florida, you know the place that grows the most abundant amount of the crops you eat. While the loss of US oranges, cotton ,soybean, sugar and tobacco might not significantly disturb you , it's important to note that almost everywhere in the world , those crops and others are raised on Coastal floodplains. Because coastal plains have been depositing thousands of years of organic sediment that grows crops really well. If you're going to assume that kind of change is benign you need to take into account a lot more factors then just disagreeing with the elevation of a city.
Yes, if you have sufficient wealth and insufficient land, it may be worth saving certain areas. The cost can be extreme though, and it bears considering that the Netherlands don't face hurricanes, and 65% of their GDP is produced below sea level. What does New Orleans offer to justify such expense?
Yes, the levees should have been maintained, but why should it be Congress that does so? What does it benefit the US to subsidize a poor city location? If you want to live in a city locked in a perpetual (and now losing) fight against nature, why should the rest of the nation pay for your choice?
Yes, that's a cold-hearted approach, but with the majority of the population facing inundation over the next centuries, I think it's one that must at least be considered. In the face of the limited resources we will have to face the challenges that are approaching, if a city can't afford it's own salvation, is it really worth saving?
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.