Stanford Researchers Release Virtual-Reality Simulation That Transports Users To Ocean of the Future (ieee.org) 83
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."
Re: VR still holds promise for me, but VIVE = big (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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. . .
Not with _that_ attitude! (Score:2)
It's not going to happen!
Re: So a bunch of retarded propaganda? (Score:1)
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.
Re: Basic science classes (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Explain to us: How much buffer is in solution in the oceans and why the greenies choose to ignore this?
Re:So a bunch of retarded propaganda? (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: So a bunch of retarded propaganda? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
And where to? What country accepts intellectual refugees willingly?
Don't say Germany, that's been over for a while now.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 citi
Re: Behavioural engineering (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: Bad for science? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
"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
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Ah slashdot, the site where nobody accepts that humans can do anything to the environment, ever.
And they still expect to be taken seriously.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I shit in the ocean! (Score:2)
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 t
Re: (Score:2)
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?"
Re: (Score:2)
"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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 he
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 prefe
Re: (Score:2)
Your lot of assumptions versus my lot of assumptions...
Re: (Score:2)
Converting CO2 to Ethanol is cool, but impress me.
Convert it to Scotch. . . . (grin)
Re: (Score:2)
Pour that Ethanol over oak shavings and wait for a while.
Re: (Score:2)
Add the contents of one medicinal iodine bottle and some peat moss.
An idea (Score:2)
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?
So...FUD propaganda then? (Score:3, Informative)
"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.
Re: (Score:1)
The mass bleaching of the great barrier reef where 20% where bleached and died off in one year would tend to disagree with you
But hey... Can't let actual facts get in the way of hating on science now can we?
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/07/the-great-barrier-reef-a-catastrophe-laid-bare
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/oct/20/great-barrier-reef-given-d-for-health-fifth-year-in-a-row
Edit: haha... captcha "bespeak"
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking of the ocean a great documentary is Mission Blue [imdb.com] (available on Netflix)
Re: (Score:2)
The mass bleaching of the great barrier reef where 20% where bleached and died off in one year would tend to disagree with you
Unless of course, that happens all the time, including before human-caused global warming. Then I guess it wouldn't tend to agree with you.
Re: (Score:2)
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, not that extraordinary proof is required to dismiss them. I can "prove" that corals have existed for hundreds of millions of years. During this span, the world has suffered long-duration changes AS WELL AS extremely catastrophic short-duration changes - supervolcanoes, meteorite impacts, etc - that changed the climate for decades.
Coral survived.
Look at the historical temp record - there's a 'pulse' of temp and CO2 every 120k-140k years. Just like we're ex
Re: (Score:2)
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.
First, let's also remember that we've seen sudden significant die-offs in coral in the past couple decades (and especially in recent years). So something verifiable is happening that seems to be having a widespread and large-scale effect on coral. The question is the magnitude and ramifications.
Second, the question I'd have to ask is why exactly many of the world's experts in coral would be sounding an alarm if there was nothing to worry about. What exactly do these folks have to gain by lying about th
Re: (Score:1)
Re: co2 and not trash of course (Score:1)
So? (Score:1)
I'll be dead before that matters. Now excuse me, my SUV needs to be gassed up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No it doesn't. What kind of logical point are you trying to make?
Re: Great Job Anti-Nuclear Body (Score:1)
Ocean Acidification, AGW's forgotten cousin (Score:2)
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 demonstra