Monthly Archives: April 2011

Space: the Final Frontier

We are attempting, even today, to escape the confines of this world and arrive with engines roaring and orbits trailing behind us at the limits of the universe.  I long for this day, and when it comes, I will have only a lingering reluctance and regret in leaving behind the already infinite wealth of worldly aspects, studies, and people. I want to glance backward at our star system as we leave its influence to investigate even deeper mysteries; I want to see for myself the elusive centerpiece of our galaxy, brilliant and ever enigmatic; I want, most of all, to answer that one question that both plagues and transcends our time – what’s out there?

So many fundamental questions like these linger about the cosmos that we inhabit. This is a frontier that still today eludes the grasp of even the most intrepid and ingenious of men and women. The vast territory that is space remains largely uncharted, its outer limits unknown but to theory and imagination, despite the best efforts of scientists and explorers throughout the millennia of human history.

A better understanding of the hostile environment of space must be grasped in order to develop means to counter and alleviate issues while operating in its midst. But to gain this better understanding, we must make forays into space itself to conduct experiments and relay results. We must utilize practical methods to discover truth; we must understand truth to develop practical methods. This is a distinctly Isocratean problem, and it requires an Isocratean solution.

One of the largest barriers to space activity and exploration is the sheer cost associated with the planning and execution of a mission – manned or unmanned, local or far-flung. The cost of a launch vehicle that injects a spacecraft into orbit can range anywhere between 50 million USD and 150 million (depending on the mass of the payload to be transported). The entire cycle of researching, developing, and constructing a spacecraft and sustaining its operation could demand a budget of over 1 billion USD.

These enormous costs are often offset by government-based funding (e.g., the 2010 NASA budget tops 18 billion USD), which is currently a necessary but unhealthy dependence. The recent global economic downturn placed great strain on annual budgets, and space agencies throughout the world suffered numerous setbacks and cancellations. As a result, the industry is inordinately sluggish and progress is often haphazard, subject to the whims of politicians and their incessant campaigning and posturing.

How can we address this unhealthy dependence? The Isocratean answer is clear: sever it.

To achieve this, the space sector must establish a measure of fiscal self-sufficiency. There must be a motivation for space exploration and pioneering that melds both scientific pursuit and commercial enterprise: an entrepreneurial and venture capital motive. I would like to see a burst of advancement and innovation in space technology that can rival the dot-com boom of the 1990s in information technology and internet-based fields. I want to help spark an interest in space so intense that a hub for the space sector as iconic as Silicon Valley can be created and sustained.

Hence, the primary task of engineers like myself should be to develop technology that reduces the cost of space activity such that it is accessible to the individual – something akin to the transistor in the field of electronics and computing. Enabling a vested commercial interest in space would provide a basis for a fast-paced, vibrant space industry. Whether this viable interest manifests in mining, tourism, communications, et al. is yet to be seen.

Encomium of John Bardeen

The name John Bardeen is uttered with quite familiarity on the University of Illinois campus, just like Busey, Edmund James, and all those “Six-Pack” residence halls. But how many students can match accomplishments to these names, illustrious enough to adorn the face of this University for all eternity? Bardeen itself has been attached to that little plot of land inhabiting the region between Everett Lab and Engineering Hall – quite small, but recipient of a huge quantity of pedestrian traffic. There is no place more fitting, as this is the area that aspirants of the electrical engineering discipline frequent the most.

John Bardeen was the only person in history to have won the Nobel Prize in Physics twice. The two technological breakthroughs that were honored by the Nobel represent the apex of his work; they revolutionized this world to the point that we would hardly be able recognize life prior to their inception, let alone contemplate living one like it. The subject of this panegyric must focus on the accomplishments of the man, rather than the exemplary nature of his character, but I shall show nevertheless that he was a paragon in both regards. Praise from a mere student such as myself will not benefit him in the slightest, but let it serve as a solemn remembrance of one who is infinitely greater.

The first Nobel was awarded for his involvement in the 1947 invention of the transistor, a device that can amplify and switch electrical signals. Such a thing hardly seems exceptional to those unfamiliar with the field, but in fact, the transistor is single-handedly responsible for revolutionizing the entire field of electronics. Its inception cleared the path for the development and mass production of now-widespread devices, such as computers, cell phones, and calculators. The Internet Age, the Information Age, the Obsolescence Age; for better or worse, you may attribute all of these to the rise of the transistor. Today, they are recognized as a fundamental building block in all electronics, replacing vacuum tubes as the primary electrical component. This spurred the transformation of electronics from towering behemoths to the palm-sized devices that we are accustomed to using today.

Simple logic gates, which are small architectural components that facilitate a computer’s binary logic, can consist of up to 20 transistors. An advanced microprocessor can contain up to 3 billion. In the year 2002, it was estimated that 60 million transistors were built annually just for you. It was also estimated that by 2010, the number of transistors built per person  annually would exceed one billion. Such is the ubiquity of this device in the modern era, and indeed, few other inventions can claim to have experienced the same meteoric rise.


Image (yikes): Atmel ATS2343 Microprocessor. Transistors circled in red.

As if this technological breakthrough were not enough, Bardeen was awarded a second Nobel for his contributions to superconductivity theory, which was developed when he was a professor at the University of Illinois. (Should you pass by the engineering quad, take a moment to stop and read the sign by the river titled Theory of Superconductivity. Or you can just click here.) The property of superconductivity refers to a material’s ability to maintain zero electrical resistance, which gives rise to powerful magnets and magnetic fields. Bardeen and his colleagues proposed an explanation for how materials achieve this state, which is now known as BCS theory. Superconducting magnets are widely used in modern equipment, such MRIs, mass spectrometers, and signal filters for cell phone towers. However, the most revolutionary applications of this theory are not yet completely within our grasp. Examples of these include magnetic levitation “maglev” devices (such as the maglev train), electric motors and generators for conventional vehicles, and the development of advanced materials such as nanotubes and composites.

Finally, let it be known that John Bardeen, despite his great genius, always maintained a humble and unassuming personality. Bardeen was recognized by his neighbors to be affable and frank, and was best known to them not for his scientific accomplishments but for the many cookouts he held right on his front lawn. In outward appearance, he never claimed to be anyone out of the ordinary, but instead embodied knowledge and achievement in his very manner. Too many in this field adhere to and perpetuate the stereotype of the “mad scientist” or the “crazy genius” in a dank laboratory. Such foolishness is unbefitting of those who hold a professional station and is indicative of one who craves fame and attention over virtue and substance; these are the sophists of the scientific realm.

The full implications of BCS theory will be explored for decades into the future, and there is no improvement or replacement in sight for the transistor. Many future generations will yet be influenced by the magnitude of Bardeen’s works.

I had once mentioned the potential rift between physics and engineering as possibly reminiscent of the millennia-old dispute between philosophy and rhetoric. Upon examining the life of this eminent scientist, what conclusions can we draw? What greater example could we obtain of a single being that delved deeply into the mechanisms of the universe, and then armed with that knowledge, wrought goods of great and practical significance to the world at large? Proponents of the dichotomy, take heed. Apply your furious efforts elsewhere, advocate disunity no longer, and all will benefit from your abandonment. Truth, the ideal, sublimity; such things are achievable only when all matters come together as a whole. Let the Paragon of John Bardeen remain a testament to the transcendence of this splendid harmony.

In Defense of the Liberal Arts

Philosophy is the highest pursuit. All other subjects only function as a gymnasium of the mind in preparation for its study. Isocrates, in the compilation of his life’s work, asserts this plainly and astutely.

Lately however, as noted several times in class, the reputation of the liberal arts has not fared well in the realm of public attention. The rhetoric had shifted yet again to favor the narrow, vocational style of education exhibited in the curricula of colleges like that of Business and Engineering. This debate had been framed so aptly by Cicero in his De Oratore, but seems to be just as relevant today as it was long ago. A few typical phrases uttered by politicians and so-called social commentators:

“Our country is experiencing a severe shortage of engineers and scientists!”

“China and Russia are surpassing us in technological innovation and achievement.”

“What will students do with that major after graduation?”

There are several implications. The United States has a large appetite indeed for those in scientific professions, and it is entirely possible that there is a dearth of individuals to fill vacant positions. This is the case in certain sectors, such as the aerospace industry, where it is estimated that over 50% of the current workforce will be eligible for retirement within 5 years. The implication here is that a surplus of students in the liberal arts is detracting from scientific fields – a claim I find to be fallacious. Generally, there is already an existing net surplus within the fields of science and engineering. This is a situation currently exacerbated by the global economic recession; many engineers who would have otherwise entered the workforce were forced to attend graduate school instead. I see no reason for politicians to continuously spout such alarmist sentiments. Indeed, I am exceedingly baffled by the actions of those who have benefited most from the study of the liberal arts, who yet continue to defame it.

Secondly, it is suggested that the study of liberal arts has hindered the country’s technological progress, again by detracting those who would otherwise be studying the sciences. In response, it must be noted that vocational schools function much like coin mints or assembly lines. You cannot hammer out innovation through a procedural process, lest you desire the resulting graduates to be mere number crunchers. The required ability is cultivated by critical thinking, curiosity, and an indomitable sense of perseverance. Strangely, these are the traits that a curriculum in the liberal arts professes to teach. You will find that an inordinately large number of professors in the scientific fields have an appreciation for history, literature, and the fine arts. This is no coincidence.

Two examples come to mind regarding the above, straight out of various engineering classes. In one instance, a professor interjected into the middle of his lecture: “You can watch me draw symbols on the board all day, but to be human, you must know the humanities.” During another class, a student once complained about the breadth of humanities courses (18 credit hours) we needed to take in addition to engineering courses. The professor replied: “Without those, you’d be ignorant. We don’t tolerate ignorance.” The consensus is clear. All vocational education should be supplemented by a curriculum of liberal arts.

The last inquiry suggests that a liberal arts education is too broad to be practical in any field offered by the real world. This may be true for highly specialized fields, but in general the question is ill-posed and the inquirer presumptuous. What will you do with a liberal arts degree? You will dictate policy, preside as judges of the civil court, and champion the rights of the people. You will declare war on our enemies and preserve ties with our allies. You will allocate funds here and cut budgets there; engineers like myself will write proposals to you, begging you for the funds without which our projects would only wither. Let us not forget, dear students of the liberal arts, that a great majority of the elected leadership in this country had sat in the same seats, walked the same halls, and toted the same books. You will, as they are doing presently, decide what is important to the country. By the virtue of your training, your decisions will shape the future of this world: politically, scientifically, morally.

I have great confidence that you will succeed, armed with the summation of knowledge from those that have preceded you. When you’ve reached such heights, do not forget to credit those that are responsible for your rise, and restore the liberal arts back to its proper eminence. Too many already are preoccupied solely with their own reputations.

Isocrates made no mistake in asserting that philosophy was the culmination of all studies, as its pursuers will eventually preside over all human matters imaginable. After all, we elect leaders who we believe to be capable of arriving at the best course of action on our behalf; such is wisdom. It may not produce results measurable by discrete numbers or human methods of survey, but we should know better than to assume that it produces no results whatsoever.

Physics, Engineering, Truth, and Practicality

The metaphysical battle between philosophy and rhetoric spanned centuries, transcended generations, and divided the loyalties of even the reconcilable of minds. The former claimed to be the art that discovered truths and condemned the latter as derivative and illusory, whilst the latter professed indifference and ridiculed the former for taking itself so seriously. The origin of this clash is difficult to pinpoint, but all might agree that the great inquisitive mind of Socrates, ever intent to flesh out the truth, had poured fuel into the fire that threatened to burn rhetoric and its practitioners.

The criticisms are not completely unwarranted. Much emphasis is always placed on the ease with which rhetoric can be used to obscure the truth, and abused to subvert and coerce, by exerting the intoxicating power of speech upon easily-swayed minds. Indeed, even I must seek to distance myself from those sophists with outlandish boasts, claiming to know all things under the sun, and teaching all for but a paltry fee. Philosophy, in contrast, can only be pursued by those that are good and just, for the purpose of determining truth.

Lately, I’ve heard rumblings that instances of this dichotomy may be found between other disciplines too – that of physics and engineering, the latter a field that I have chosen to call my intended profession.

If Socrates were to ask me to define the both of them, I would be fairly confident in the response I could offer. It can be said that physics takes the role of philosophy, in that it attempts to determine the governing principles of the universe and expresses them in the absolute language of mathematics. Now, it must be noted here that mathematics is just a language, such as English or Latin or Greek, but is particular, precise, quantifiable, and succinct. Note the examples below.

The wave equation, which describes a wave propagating along a medium (e.g. air, water, wood):

The Euler-Bernoulli equation, which describes the deformation of a beam under loading:
And finally, Newton’s law of gravitation,
All such physical principles of our universal have been revealed by the tireless work of physicists. Now, you may wonder where subjects like chemistry and biology belong in relation, but for simplicity’s sake I will group all such sciences under the heading of physics, as it was only in modern times that science experienced such segmentation. It is also noteworthy that in the days of Newton and the Royal Society, scientists called themselves natural philosophers.

Then, does engineering belong with the likes of rhetoric? In the simplest and most general of terms, engineering is the application of physical principles. Using the wave equation, engineers construct theatres in which sound can reach all members of the audience and build cars whose engines are dramatically quieted to accommodate passengers. Using the Euler-Bernoulli equation, engineers build towers and ensure that if 100 people stood on the top floor, the structure wouldn’t so much as budge a millimeter. Using Newton’s law of gravitation, engineers can build planes and spacecraft and scheme to leave the confines of Earth behind us in a trailing plume of smoke and dust.

Where does engineering fall astray? By harnessing the principles of combustion to develop bombs and other incendiary devices to maim and kill. By converting chemical energy to mechanical energy in order to construct machines used to systematically strip the earth of its resources. By concocting sinister poultices with the sole intention of harming those that are tricked to imbibe them. Of course, let us not forget an improper or incomplete education in physics would more oft than not result in collapsing bridges, sputtering engines, and sinking ships.

Why do the physicists not cry foul at the devious uses of their hard-gained work, like so many philosophers had at the rhetoricians? It is perhaps easier to see in a discipline that uses a language so explicit. To be an engineer, you must understand all the fundamental principles. You are just like a physicist, except your immediate task is to discover methods to utilize existing principles, not to discover more principles. Only the foolish would hark to such an inconsequential distinction to sow discord in this mutually beneficial relationship, and such people would likely make poor physicists and poor engineers.

Engineering is a tool to be utilized for benefit or for harm, depending on the wielder. It is by no means inherently unjust. Its correct usage depends on a broad swath of education that addresses the ramifications of wielding a power as potent as the very secrets of the universe.

Just so, an aspiring rhetorician must receive a broad education in order to perceive the just use of the power of speech.

Socrates chose a truly pure path: he did not risk corruption by wading into the public fray, but his ideas are left unexplored and at the mercy of time. He had power at his fingertips, but chose not to use it. As a result, much of his work and wisdom is lost to us. A question had once been posed during class regarding why Plato chose to defy his beloved mentor in writing a host of treatises. I believe it to be this: Plato recognized that in order for philosophy to benefit the world at large, it must be taken into the public sphere of rhetoric.

Without engineering, the principles uncovered by physics can never be harnessed to benefit the world. Vice versa, without physics, engineering would only stumble blindly through a world full of intricate and elegant truths. Likewise, truths determined by philosophy cannot be implemented in policy without rhetoric.

Aristotle put it most aptly: engineering is the counterpart to physics, just as rhetoric is the counterpart to dialectic. The relationship between them is that of duality, not dichotomy. Without one, the other cannot function.

1; Unity

In the half-century following the conclusion of the Peloponnesian War, the city-states of Hellas remained embroiled in incessant quarrels over the most of petty matters, despite the best attempts of those who had once hoped to unite all Hellenes under a common banner. Though the leaders in power had never solved any issues of great importance, they still walked with pride and held their heads high, concerning themselves with little matters fit only to enhance their own reputations. These leaders made often treaties of peace between themselves, but in vain and perhaps in ill-conscience from the outset. The treaties themselves did not settle hostilities, but served only to defer wars to the moment that one such leader perceived that he could inflict some grievous wound upon another.

It is in this environment that we are counseled by Isocrates, that the more narrow-minded and cowardly our leaders prove to be, the more vigorously the rest of us must work to find a solution in order to end our apparent enmity. Our duty is to rise above these petty plots and endeavour to establish a greater sense of security at home, and to install greater confidence among neighbors and between each other.

The specifics, however, may be more difficult to swallow in modern times. Isocrates presents a simple solution to forging a lasting peace: war with Persia, which would turn the mutual enmity of the Hellenes away from each other and towards a common enemy.

Yet has America not been forged by the very same process? We have been united by war, and our member states have long ago sacrificed much of their independent identities and sovereignties to become integrated as parts of the whole. Our enemy was no derivative Achaemenid king, guardian of a realm long bereft of their former glory and hegemony, but one of the most powerful and far-flung empires that has ever graced the surface of this Earth, and it was still yet in its prime.

It took a foreign army to conquer the city-states of Hellas and impose unity upon them. Isocrates would no doubt look upon the creation of the United States as a demonstration of the natural tendency to form bonds against all adversity. The colonies, which were established with vastly different motivations and creeds, had virtually no mutual ties but were able to create common cause nonetheless.

The United States has advanced innumerable steps since then, but our political climate has suffered to the point that it is comparable to that of Hellas. Long gone are the days that any single politician can be elected to the office of the Presidency on a unanimous vote. Politicians today stand on what they call “principle” in order to appeal to their voter base, instead of compromising with opposing factions to create more balanced legislation. They do and say not what is required for the betterment of country, but what will cement their reelection. One faction’s triumph is now automatically regarded as another’s scourge. The recent battle over the 2011 budget is exemplary of the tendency to pass temporary treaties so that all parties involved can probe for another chance at the killing blow: several “stopgap” funding measures were passed that funded the government for 3 weeks at a time, postponing the inevitable confrontation and giving politicians more time to maneuver. However, I am not here to judge the guilty party, but only to observe that all sides are worthy of praise and deserving of condemnation.

It is time that we left behind these petty, childish power plays that have yet again divided our country into squabbling factions. But who are we to unite against? Enemies that we face now are much more insidious than the looming threat of a foreign invader. The true threats are diminishing natural resources, global overpopulation, and rising extremism on all sides of the political spectrum. These are enemies that shed no blood and conscript no hosts, and cannot be solved by a broken and disjointed effort. No, what can spur a nation to great heights other than the sentiment that it is being outdone by another? Like those before me, I propose a simple solution. We have been complacent for too much time while we surmised that our country was preeminent in all affairs: science, law, medicine, literature, and invention. Such designations are far from permanent and are ultimately worthless to our motivations; other nations have been spurred by the desire to match and surpass our accomplishments, and they are getting ever closer. Let the spirit of competition among nations dictate to us an identity and purpose that all can rally behind. If we are to endure the real challenges that lie ahead of us, our banners must first be unfurled.

To that effect, let us bask in our mutual accomplishments instead of our ideological differences, and allow all our myriad parts to come together as a functioning whole once more. After all, we hardly boast that that a single state was responsible for the civil rights movement or that the Democratic Party defeated the Third Reich in World War II; such deeds are what the nation is capable of only if it chooses to come together.

Hahn-Bin: a Glimpse into the World of Forms

I have, here on the very campus of the University of Illinois, glanced upon what Plato must have envisioned to be a Form!

The encounter was brief, fleeting, and totally unpremeditated, but there it was not one-hundred meters in front of me: the embodiment of a Form displaced from the world beyond heaven itself.

This embodiment manifested as Hahn-Bin, a virtuoso violinist 22 years of age, who appeared as guest soloist at CU Symphony Orchestra’s concert last weekend. When I first took my seat among the audience, the performance hall at Krannert Center was quiet and unassuming. Neatly-arranged rows of stands and chairs adorned the stage, each occupied with a musician dressed crisply in black, cradling an instrument in hand – a sight quite familiar to me. Suddenly, the side-doors flung open and the soloist walked forth onto center-stage. His attire was bright red in hue and quite stylish in manner, his demeanor grandiose yet affable, and the entirety of his black hair was swept upward in a mohawk – all in brilliant contrast to the stark and conservative nature of the traditional symphony. All eyes were on him; the orchestra was forgotten; only one presence remained.

Then, soft notes filled the surroundings. The orchestra was in motion. Hahn-Bin raised his bow with a flourish of his arm, where it landed on string like an acrobat. The result was the most exquisite music I have ever heard (I’ve watched my fair share of performances and virtuosos, not nearly enough to judge them on technicality, but merely their impressions on the mind). The waves of sound rippled gently over their aerial medium, so discretely ushered by their progenitor that the air could scarcely claim to be disturbed. At other parts of the composition, the mood of the music shifted towards the energetic and discordant, with the notes ricocheting to blanket the audience more like gusts of wind rather than the acoustic waves they were supposed to be.

Video: Hahn-Bin – P. de Sarasate, Carmen Fantasy

Hahn-Bin’s demeanor matched the mood of the music, or rather, perhaps his demeanor was the driving force behind the composition itself. His every motion personified the waves of sound, and even from afar, I could see his face twinge with agony, glee, and contentment. There was an element of dance and expression that Hahn-Bin incorporated into his performance that hinted at inspiration beyond that of even an adept musician. Here, he was not a student of Sarasate’s Carmen Fantasy, but its master. All the marks of a true artist were evident, whose foundation is perhaps beyond this world, transcendent and virtuoso in the image of its corresponding Form.

You may recall that not too long ago, I criticized the Platonics and their prized concept of the Forms for their emphasis on rigidity and absolutism. What does this bode for my previous assertions, now that I have so enthusiastically professed to have seen one for myself? Can our two philosophies be reconciled, or must one of us abandon our posts for good? The answer to this inquiry – I contend, and you can judge for yourself – supports both of our claims, but it tends to be more consistent with the relativistic view of the world.

Other people, such as yourself, may not agree with my interpretation and appraisal of the artist’s work. Perhaps you believe that the performance was not so striking at all, or that such extravagant displays only move art away from its proper form. Perhaps the performance struck my senses with its novelty, and the next one I see will not move me so much. Perhaps an even greater artist will honor me with their presence on the stage, swaying my notion of perfect art into a new direction.

There are so many possibilities, but each of them is centered on a single concept: our interpretation of the world based on our observations. The culmination of a person’s experiences allows them to create an expectation for what constitutes perfect forms, built gradually and empirically, but capable of changing in an instant. Another individual’s experiences will lead him or her into a different direction, and I cannot say whose is correct.

Regardless of the universality of the artist’s appeal, I still do not know if what I witnessed was truth or shadow or anything close to what the Form of artistry should entail. Does such a world even exist, resplendent with perfect counterparts of what we experience in the natural world? Possibly – I do not claim to know, for I have neither proof of its existence nor evidence of its fabrication. However, the ability for certain things to inspire awe suggests at the existence of a realm that transcends the day-to-day dealings of the natural world. Certainly a great majority of humanity has experienced that inexplicable sense of glee that manifests when we partake in something greater than ourselves or venture into realms previously uncharted. Some will devote their lifetimes to the search for that one ideal instance. Others, like me, will simply acknowledge its possible existence and then press on, noting that every step of human advancement will bring us closer. These paths are by no means conflicting or mutually exclusive, and any claims to the contrary are wrought simply by differences in perspective.

In these pursuits, humanity will ascend ever higher, reaching asymptotically for something that is always just out of reach. Perhaps someday, the combined weight of our observations and experiences will allow us to perfect an institution, art, or feeling. It is not today, and it will not be tomorrow.

Doubtlessly, there are many who would be swayed by the apparently futility of the task; why strive for something that we can never reach? A difficult inquiry indeed – allow me, just this once, to answer by posing a question of my own. I say this: everybody dies. Every breath you take is one closer to your last, and knowing the inevitability of the outcome, why do you opt to live rather than to stop breathing altogether? Answer me thus, and you will have your answer to our previous inquiry.

Hahn-Bin: a Glimpse into the World of Forms

On Libya and the International Response

Libya, once home to the far-flung Phoenicians and exalted Cyrene, has devolved into a crisis of revolutionary conflict in the last few months, with neither side offering diplomatic resolution or brokered compromise. The political turmoil that spurred the onset of revolution did not originate within the Libyan state, but rather, it was derivative of a series of ongoing clashes between the populace and the ruling class in neighboring Middle Eastern and North African countries. The conflagration had erupted in Tunisia, toppling yet another king of Carthage, with the so-called “Last Pharaoh” of Egypt following on his heels. Libya, situated directly between the two, could not escape the wildfire. This time, in spite of the numerous calls for his resignation, the ruling autocrat opted to militarily suppress the would-be rebels with every last ounce of his diminishing influence.

The international response to this crackdown has been neither slow nor reserved in forthcoming, and as of yet I believe it to be one of the only heartening consequences of this crisis. Supranational organizations that represent regional powers, such as the Arab League, the African Union, and the European Union, were quick to condemn the disproportionate use of force against Libyan civilians by mercenaries and military detachments loyal to the state. The conflict garnered enough controversy to warrant the attention of the United Nations (UN), the assembly of all sovereign nations, which proceeded to deliberate on whether or not action should be taken to staunch the crackdown. The UN passed a series of resolutions sanctioning the top officials of the Libyan cadre, and approved the use of extraordinary measures to protect the well-being of civilians. Not long hence, a coalition of 10 nations began an aerial and naval military operation to ground Libyan forces and disable armored artillery.

These events are quite significant to the legitimacy of international law, the viability of multinational interest, and the establishment of a “Pangaeaic” or human-centric identity, for the reasons I have listed below.

Foremost, it established a clear-cut precedent for the prosecution of international law against a rogue state. The primary accusers of the regime’s illegality originated not from within the body of the UN or a nation divested from Libya’s best interests, but from its neighboring states and various regional organizations whose membership and mutual support Libya had previously enjoyed. Their summons beckoned the attention of the international community, and their demands provide the ius ad bello and the ius in bello for the coalition’s subsequent military intervention.

Secondly, the level of caution and restraint affected by the individual nations of the coalition is to be commended. No actions that would violate Libya’s sovereignty were attempted prior to the establishment of a legal sanction. This basis was ultimately provided by UN Resolution 1973, which passed with ten member nations in favor and five abstaining. The five nations in abstention indicated that they believed the resolution overstepped the legal authority of the UN. However, the two nations possessing a veto noted that the desires of the Arab League and other such organizations were in accordance with the UN, and hence did not exercise their right to veto even though the resolution conflicted with their individual interests. The processing of this resolution demonstrates that these international organizations are capable of producing multinational interests, even in a volatile political community in which each member nation is an unknown variable.

Finally, we can easily see that the prosecution of law would ultimately be useless without the presence of enforcement, regardless of just cause or the rendered verdict. A large coalition of states formed with alacrity to enforce the UN resolution, and still many others have offered assistance should it be desired.

The outcome of the crisis in Libya and the other nations beset by turmoil is far from determined, but the international community has taken many precautions and satisfied many demands with its response. I can now only watch and wait as new developments invariably manifest.

The obstacles are still multitudinous, but these few glimmers among the gloom of unfolded events offer me hope that humanity can unite under a single identity with common interests. The complication will always lie in the world’s vast diversity and the tendency for diffidence among those that are unacquainted. We view our peers not in light of our many similar desires, but we focus on the few petty differences that facilitate suspicion and enforce a sense of variability for those that do not bear our banners. However, variables are the only constants in this cosmos, and we cannot wish away or ignore their existence simply because it is convenient. Through continued education, we can gradually push back the veil of ignorance that has kept the people of this world at odds with one another. I long for the day that this Earth can stand united, capable of dealing with common adversaries, arming ourselves foremost with caution, restraint, and reason. Until then, I will continue to peddle this long road to the Pangaeaic identity, enlisting all that I can to my cause.