RefBan

Referral Banners

Thursday, August 9, 2012

The Toilet is Obsolete: How Science Is Redefining Waste

August 9th, 2012Top Story

The Toilet is Obsolete: How Science Is Redefining Waste

By Robert T. Gonzalez

The Toilet is Obsolete: How Science Is Redefining WasteToday more than ever, politicians, engineers, researchers and citizens are actively seeking out ways to reduce our production of waste — everything from industrial byproducts, to old and outdated electronics, to human excrement.

It's no mean task, but it's one that is becoming increasingly possible, in light of recent advancements in fields ranging from chemistry to physics to microbiology. Let's explore some examples of how, by helping redefine what we regard as a resource, science is putting an end to waste. It seems only fitting, really, that we begin by examining the reinvention of the toilet.

Reinventing the Toilet

In a world where sanitation fixtures rule, the toilet is a perennial despot. With the exception of a few incremental tweaks relating to pipe and plumbing placement, the porcelain throne has remained largely unchanged for well over a century, and for good reason: it works. As explained by Rachel Swaby in Gizmodo's recent explainer on why toilets, after all these years, are still made of porcelain:

A toilet needs to do three things well, according to Brian Hedlund, Kohler's senior product manager for toilets. First, "It needs to be a flushing engine." Next, he says, "It needs to be water-proof, clean, and sanitary." Finally, explains Kohler's king of thrones, "it needs to be sturdy." Because people sit on it. Some of those people will be quite heavy. Porcelain, as it turns out, aces at all three of these requirements.

But here's the thing: eliminating our excrement, being sanitary, and bearing loads (snicker) is no longer enough; the time has come to ask even more of our toilets.

The fact of the matter is that toilets could be better, and people are pushing to see them revolutionized. Last year, Bill and Melinda Gates challenged 22 universities to come up with a toilet that not only works in parts of the world without sewers and running water, but also transforms waste into energy, nutrients, and even clean water. Since 2010, the Gates foundation alone has awarded upwards of 50 grants to "next-generation" sanitation projects.

The Toilet is Obsolete: How Science Is Redefining WasteSo what are the alternatives? How do we improve upon one of the most enduring waste disposal designs of the modern era? One of the simplest (and oldest) methods, says Gretchen Vogel, in a perspective published in this week's issue of Science, is a composting toilet. In a composting toilet, bacteria are used to decompose waste, generating heat that eliminates harmful pathogens in a (surprisingly) odorless fashion. Despite their utility, however, composting toilets haven't really caught on (remember this — we'll come back to it in a second).

Other options include concepts like "Toilet 2.0," pictured here, which is designed to separate urine from feces to facilitate the recovery of nutrients and clean water.

"The bowl has two openings," reports Vogel, "one toward the front for urine and one toward the back for feces." She continues:

Separation has several advantages, says Tove Larsen of the aquatic research institute Eawag in Dübendorf, Switzerland. Urine contains fewer pathogens than feces and so needs less intensive treatment to disinfect it. Urine also contains most of the nitrogen and much of the phosphorus that could be used as fertilizers.

Reevaluating What We Regard as "Waste"

The quest for a better toilet — one that can actually generate nutrients and clean water — draws attention to what is arguably the most important theme in science's ongoing quest to make waste a thing of the past: "waste" that can be reused isn't really waste to begin with.

That might sound like an obvious deduction, but, historically, it's been a difficult one for humans to make. Sometimes this difficulty just boils down to psychological barriers; composting toilets — which are highly effective at putting human "waste" to use — have been around for decades, but have failed to really take off, due in no small part to the fact that many people find the idea of dealing with human excrement repulsive.

The Toilet is Obsolete: How Science Is Redefining WasteEven with the advent of technologies like Sweden's MullToa Waterless Composting Units — a remarkably sophisticated and, for lack of a better word, un-yucky take on the eco-friendly toilet — self-composting hasn't found a foothold. Logically, composting your own waste can make all the sense in the world; if you can't get over the fact that you're dealing with your own poo (and few people, it would seem, can), or live without the convenience of simply ditching it to the sewer system, you'll never see waste as anything but. (For a related perspective on how human psychology gets in the way of solutions to recycling waste water, see this incisive piece by Science Magazine's Greg Miller.)

Other limitations, however, are more practical in nature. Only recently, for instance, was crop waste identified as a viable starting material in the production of biofuels. This illustrates how thinking of waste as a resource just requires looking at it in a new light — like an even more creative form of dumpster diving.

Of course, sometimes there are technical or scientific hurdles that can prevent that light from being turned on in the first place. To that end, advances in chemistry and microbiology are helping people come up with new techniques for turning waste into resources — techniques that were once considered a) impossible, or b) impractical; that is, if they were ever considered at all.

"Recently developed microbial electrochemical technologies (METs) that use microorganisms to catalyze different electrochemical reactions, such as microbial fuel cells (MFCs) that generated electrical power, are promising approaches for" turning organic waste into pure energy, write environmental engineer Bruce Logan and microbial ecologist Korneel Rabaey in a review about how microorganisms will soon be used to generate everything from biofuels to valuable organic and inorganic chemicals.

The Toilet is Obsolete: How Science Is Redefining Waste

A prototypical bioelectrochemical system, a.k.a. a microbial fuel cell (MFC), borrowed from Logan and Rabaey's article, illustrates the kinds of bioconversion reactions that are currently being explored. Write the authors: "Purple indicates reactions that do not directly result in current generation; green, reactions that can produce current; yellow, reactions that can occur spontaneously or can be accelerated by adding additional power; orange, power addition is required. The stoichiometry of the reactions is principally theoretical because many conversions lead to side products as well as biomass formation."

Many of these microbes are capable of producing electrical current (they're called "exoelectrogenic microorganisms," a description which somehow manages to out-awesome even the word "extremophile") by using waste biomass as a source of electrons, and are part of the burgeoning field of microbial electrochemical technologies.

According to Logan and Rabaey, organic sources of electrons "include simple molecules such as acetate, ethanol, glucose, and hydrogen gas; polymers such as polysaccharides, proteins, and cellulose;" and even "wastewaters from domestic, food processing, and animal sources." While there is still much to learn in the way of harnessing and directing the potential of these microbes, the commercial and industrial applications are boundless.

But reevaluating our conception of waste is important for reasons that extend beyond the spheres of production and manufacturing. Waste management is becoming a more and more pressing issue every year. The United States, alone, is estimated to produce on the order of 12 billion tons of waste annually. That number is growing, and while the U.S., being a developed nation, has a reasonably well-organized infrastructure in place for not only collecting waste, but looking into how it might be put to further use, such is not the case for many other regions of the world. In the years ahead, it will become increasingly important for countries — including the U.S. — to participate in the search for waste management methods that can make that which seems weathered and depleted new again.

As they say in England: "Where there's muck, there's brass." In the future, we'll look to science as the driving force behind this crucial conversion.

MFC diagram via Logan and Rabaey; Images via Shutterstock
Number of comments

BioShock Infinite Update: Multiplayer Modes Cut, Gears Maestro Joining. But Should Fans Worry?

August 9th, 2012Top Story

BioShock Infinite Update: Multiplayer Modes Cut, Gears Maestro Joining. But Should Fans Worry?

By Kirk Hamilton

BioShock Infinite Update: Multiplayer Modes Cut, Gears Maestro Joining. But Should Fans Worry?A string of bad news about one of the most anticipated games on the planet might be giving BioShock Infinite fans cause for concern. But the game's creative director, Ken Levine, tried to allay concerns during a call with Kotaku today. He did so on the heels of us learning some surprising details about Infinite's development from sources close to the game.

What we've gotten during the last few days from both Levine and our sources is an unusual amount of insight about the making of a major game. Some of it may fill Infinite fans with hope while other details may raise concerns. We've heard about cut multiplayer modes, the addition of a chief Gears of War developer to the BioShock project and the return of a former BioShock top talent, but also of team stress, struggles with core Infinite concepts and more.

***

Currently slated for a February 2013 release, BioShock Infinite is a first-person action-adventure game set in the fictional floating city of Columbia during the early 1900s. From the moment Irrational revealed it in 2010, Infinite captured gamers' imaginations with its striking art direction, unique setting, political overtones and the promise of emergent, intelligent action.

BioShock Infinite made a great impression at the Electronic Entertainment Expo back in June of 2011. But it seems like there might be some trouble afoot for the game. According to three sources familiar with the game, the development team has struggled to craft a full game that meets the promise of the early demos, experiencing some of the same problems that befall any ambitious game but also suffering some distinct troubles of its own. Two multiplayer modes have been cancelled and several key staff departures have coincided with an unusual twist: the executive producer of Gears of War director of production at Epic Games, Rod Fergusson, is rumored to be being brought in by the BioShock team to help finish the game.

Art director Nate Wells and director of product development Tim Gerritsen, two key senior members of the creative team, are the latest in a string of staffers to depart Irrational over the past 18 months. Other departures include design director Jeff McGann, producer Joe Faulstick, principal systems designer Ken Strickland, senior level designer Steve Gaynor, and systems designer Tynan Sylvester, among others. Coupled with the departure of Wells, who has been a part of Irrational for more than a decade, and Gerritsen, it seems that a significant chunk of the core Infinite team is no longer working on the game.

Ken Levine, BioShock Infinite creative director: "I don't think there's a single senior BioShock team member that isn't here."

Irrational Games creative director Ken Levine addressed concerns about Infinite in a phone call today with Kotaku. "In a company of 200 people you're going to have turnover," Levine said. "We never like to see a guy like Nate leave because he's been here for a long time but it's been 13 years and I think sometimes people want to spread their wings. I'm not going to stop people. We love Nate and I think we all remain friends. After 13 years he sort of finished his work on BioShock Infinite, as you will be able to tell when you see the game again… I think Nate's moving on to something else."

Levine was sure to point out that much of the remaining team worked on the first, beloved BioShock. "As far as the team itself, the lead artist, the art director, the creative director, the lead effects artist, the senior sound guy, the lead programer and the lead AI programmer from BioShock 1 are all on BioShock Infinite. I don't think there's a single senior BioShock team member that isn't here, which I think is amazing and a testament to their commitment to the studio. And there are a ton of amazing people who weren't on BioShock 1 that are on BioShock Infinite." Levine also said that Jordan Thomas, designer of BioShock 1's Fort Frolic level and of BioShock 2 has been "on loan" from sister studio 2K Marin for much of the year. Levine said Thomas still technically works for 2K Marin but has been working on Infinite for most of the year.

BioShock Infinite Update: Multiplayer Modes Cut, Gears Maestro Joining. But Should Fans Worry?

The original BioShock, released in 2007, was a critical darling and a sales success. It cemented the team led by Levine as among gaming's elite. Gamers and developers have been hungry for Irrational's next game, and strong early showings and an impressive E3 2011 demo seemed to signal that the game was on the right track.

Our sources describe the process at Irrational as lacking needed focus, with teams dedicating months to doomed projects only to have them inevitably get cut. One of the largest of those failed projects was BioShock Infinite's multiplayer.

In 2010, Levine told Kotaku that multiplayer wasn't guaranteed to be in the game, but in May of this year, job listings at Irrational hinted that the studio was in fact working on a multiplayer component. Two of our sources confirm that was indeed the case. In fact, Irrational placed a large internal emphasis on multiplayer, at least partly in an effort to keep BioShock Infinite from being traded in to used game stores as quickly as the first (single-player-only) BioShock was. Irrational went through two potential multiplayer modes for Infinite, both of which were eventually cancelled. (We're unclear on whether any multiplayer modes remain.)

One of the largest of those failed projects was BioShock Infinite's multiplayer.

The first mode involved players being miniaturized and placed into an old-timey arcade machine, where they would fight against waves of enemy toys that would roll out on tracks. It was essentially a cooperative tower defense game, but it never worked; the decision was made to can it so that the multiplayer team could focus on a second co-op mode.

That mode, internally dubbed "Spec-Ops," was similar to the Spec-Ops mode in the most recent two Call of Duty: Modern Warfare games. In it, four players would cooperatively work their way through levels lifted from the single-player game. The mode wasn't working, however, and some of the multiplayer team was taken off of it and tasked with getting the 2011 E3 demo into shape. The Spec-Ops multiplayer mode has since been canned, and it's possible that despite Irrational's initial multiplayer mandate, BioShock Infinite will ship as a single-player-only game. Levine declined to comment on those specific multiplayer modes, but said, "As I've always said we are experimenting with things, and only if they are good enough will we put them in the game."

The 2011 E3 demo, which wowed critics and gamers alike, was, apparently, far from indicative of the actual state of the game. Of course, that's par for the course at E3—it's common for developers to paste together a demo that deliberately shows their game and its concepts in the best possible light.

All the same, the Infinite demo made a stunning debut despite the fact that the team was wrestling with the most basic elements of the game, from the story to the level design to the AI programming to how to design the sidekick character of Elizabeth, who can magically conjure weapons and in other ways affect the environment. Despite all this, BioShock Infinite won numerous "Best of E3" awards from various publications, including the Official E3 Game Critics Awards' "Best Of Show" citation.

Click to view In May of this year, Irrational announced that they were pushing back Infinite's planned release date from fall 2012 to early 2013. The creators also announced then that the game would skip E3. That raised some eyebrows, especially considering that Infinite had looked so impressive at E3 a year prior.

We asked Levine if people should be worried about the game. "It's always challenging when you're trying to make a game that does a lot of different things," Levine said, noting that designers can be drawn back toward what is safe and familiar. "Trust me, there are plenty of things in this game—either it was the Skyline [a roller-coaster-like apparatus that players can use to zoom about the levels] or Elizabeth—where there were movements in the team to get rid of them. Because they are the most challenging things." He said that these challenges have been much of the reason the game has been in development for such a long time.

In a final twist, our sources report that Gears of War producer Rod Fergusson has been brought on to take over for Gerritsen and get Infinite shipped. When asked about this, Levine declined to comment; Epic has not yet replied to our requests for comment.

Ken Levine has a nigh-unblemished track record, from Thief to System Shock 2 to the first BioShock. It's entirely possible that he and his team at Irrational will pull together a fantastic finished product. If they do, it won't be the first time a studio has overcome creative problems—well-received games like L.A. Noire and Red Dead Redemption were the result of lengthy, tumultuous development cycles. Levine remains committed to BioShock Infinite, and when asked if the game was still on track for a February 2013 release, he said, "It is currently on track."

As the game's development drags on with no visible signs of progress, it's hard not to start to wonder about the state of BioShock Infinite, and when the game will actually see the light of day. "When you are trying to innovate," Levine said, "the path is not always clear and these things take time. But I guarantee this: The next time we show you guys the game the judge will be you, not me. "

Number of comments

Charles Manson: America's Greatest Living Reality Star

August 9th, 2012Top Story

Charles Manson: America's Greatest Living Reality Star

By Rich Juzwiak

Charles Manson: America's Greatest Living Reality Star

Look at this guy. Like it or not, he's an American icon.

No American madman has a legend as nuanced as Manson's. That has everything to do with Vincent Bugliosi's definitive chronicle of the Manson Family, their murders and their trial. To read 1974's Helter Skelter is to obsess over Helter Skelter is to cultivate a lifelong interest in Manson and his once-petulant, now-repentant acolytes.

That book taught us that he was a bad guy, who despite (allegedly? probably?) suggesting to his cult that they perform murders so infamous and shocking that they prematurely ended the '60s 43 years ago today, didn't make a single stab or cut August 9, 1969 or the following night in what are generally referred to as the Tate-LaBianca murders.

I can only imagine how shocking those crimes were at the time, how they tore down other iconography in an acid nightmare that irrevocably damaged the image of the peace-loving hippie. I know that despising Manson wholesale is a reasonable reaction. Three years ago, to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the Tate-LaBianca murders, Los Angeles magazine ran an oral history that described Manson as "an enduring symbol of unfathomable evil." That is the truth.

But for someone to whom the '60s never existed in the first place, someone who entered a world that was already obsessed with serial killers and other mortal boogie men, someone who saw Charles Manson frequently on television during his childhood in the '80s and thought, "What the fuck?" even though he was too young to say "fuck" out loud without getting punished with cocktail sauce on his tongue, I know that it's possible to regard Manson differently. I came to know much later than I could have, even – I didn't read Helter Skelter until a few summers ago. It's a relic of its time, so I was horrified as much as I was supposed to be. I would read it late at night in my living room, certain that someone was going to break through my apartment's back window, which was right off of the fire escape. That only added to the effect.

As much as I admire the terrifying ingenuity in the Manson-birthed concept of creepy crawling (when the Manson Family would break into homes to rearrange furniture or watch people sleeping), it wasn't until post-Skelter research that I approached an appreciation of what Manson has to offer. Or a portion of it, at any rate. I blame modernity. Reality TV and general cultural narcissism have conditioned us to appreciate characters (especially villains) and, man, is that guy a character. Man, is he a villain. But not only that, he's a performance artist, a very contemporary celebrity whose true art is giving interviews. In this respect, among his very few peers are Madonna and Amy Sedaris, whose Jerri Blank character often resembles Manson in mannerism and affect.

Several clips of him doing absolutely crazy things with words and his face from the '80s (many of them included in the montage above) have racked up millions of hits on YouTube – if video had the viral capacity then that it does now, his profile, his cult, his legend would have undoubtedly been so much higher. We would barely need to question his appeal.

Our culture puts a premium on extreme human behavior, and to watch Manson go off and sputter his free associative efrannis booj pooch boo jujube is thrilling. Good nonsense is hard to find. He invokes images of "staunch" and "upstanding" parrots and pockets full of "everything you can eat." He calls Geraldo Rivera "Mr. G." He explains the swastika on his forehead (which alone makes him understandably impossible to look at for particularly sensitive people) as not a sign of affiliation with the Nazi party, but with his Nazi party: "It means I've been locked up in here since 1943, that I'm standing behind the judges in Nuremberg." A very loud facet of our culture loves things for being terrible – to watch Charles Manson in 2012 is to revel in the concept of so-bad-it's-good where the bad is actual evil.

In 1987, when Penny Daniels asked Manson about what draws people to him, he leaped from his seat, performed a display that was part mime show, part interpretive dance and boasted, "I'm brand new. Everything I do is always brand new." Indeed, this unpredictability is key to his appeal.

Manson lied and told contradictory stories. Much of his clan did the same throughout the years to the point where it's best for all of our heads to just take Helter Skelter as gospel – it's bound to be closer to the truth than any other involved party's narrative. (In that sense the Manson Family was like the first reality TV ensemble cast – a bunch of liars telling lies to create this fog of a story.) "There was no such thing as the Manson family. It was a musical group called Family Jams!" Manson claimed at one point during the '80s. "I've done nothing but play the guitar," he said at another to disavow any wrongdoing. He also said, "I was born 1,000."

Nonsense wasn't the only thing that came out of his mouth. The roller-coaster effect comes from him often starting paragraphs in a semi-reasonable manner so that you can at least see why his mind is going to where it is, only to meltdown mid-thesis. However, he was really onto something when he commented on his celebrity, which the series of interviews in the '80s maintained and enlivened. "You're creating a legend, you're creating a beast, you're creating whatever you are judging yourselves with into the word Mason," he said. While that media coverage was understandable given the cultural weight of his crimes and his captivating persona, it served to repeatedly feed this beast, to put on a platform someone ravenous for attention. Of all the crazy things Manson said, "I'm not an entertainer, I don't entertain," really might have been the craziest.

It's liberating to laugh at a monster, to understand that every man has a capacity to be more than and contradictory to the thing that defines him. The taboo of Manson, too, boosts his appeal – appreciating him is like the intoxicating spiral of laughing in church. Perhaps it would be better to ignore him entirely, to move on with our culture and do our best to pretend like his heinous crimes never happened. But they did, and while it may provide no comfort for those to whom it matters the most – the families directly affected by his murders who still attend his and the remaining incarcerated Manson girls' parole hearings – it is somewhat therapeutic for those of us on the outside to experience that different face of Manson. His ability to entertain is his small part of good that he's contributed to the world. It is his silver lining, the sole thing that keeps his entire existence from being in vain. The world would have been a better place without Manson, but since he had to exist, his roles as the nutjob to end all nutjobs can be read as something like compensation. It's not an even trade in the slightest, but a little bit of cultural rehabilitation is better than none at all.

Number of comments