Much Ado About Nothing

It's a bird! It's a plane! No, it's...wait a minute, it actually is a plane. 

[An Unrelated Digression Before A Purposeless Entry: Chhatrapati Lukeji has upgraded his mock portfolio, One Thousand One, to a Transaction Portfolio. Since its inception on 20 August 2010, the total gains from the three stocks in the portfolio have added up to a 20% increase in assets. Chhatrapati Lukeji will be continuing a long position on Tata Motors Ltd., Sumitomo Chemicals, and The Vice Fund. One Thousand One FTW!]

The First Part: Tubes With Wings

Yesterday the Economist ran an article focused on new designs for passenger aircraft. I had read a related article sometime last year in Popular Science that arrived at a similar conclusion. That conclusion, my friends, is that the current flying machines that we rely on to get to such faraway places as, say, India, have reached a crucial stage in their design where the marginal benefits from technological advances in the various components of an aircraft are outweighed by radical changes in the design of the aircraft itself. Thought this may appear a far-fetched idea, the reality is that the surprise comes less from the nature of the new designs and more from the lack of awareness that our current fleet, consisting of a bunch of giant tubes with wings, is neither a natural nor practical design for human air travel. 

Some time ago I briefly and quietly celebrated the launch (pardon the pun) of Boeing's sexy new 747-800. Fully aware that such sentiments contradict this very entry, I must clarify my position on aviation design to anyone who cares (read: no one). While I do think that the new 747 is a gorgeous and impressive aircraft, that is not to say that the progression of all future aircraft designs should follow this pattern. How might the future flying machines of humanity differ from our current tubes with wings? Maybe something along the lines of this:

AWW COOL!

Or this:

SWEET!

It should be noted that, from the above renderings, these conceptual aircraft are not so dissimilar from our current winged tubes. The Chhatrapati apologizes. The photo that I was looking for (an aircraft resembling a giant triangle) is nowhere to be found (yes I classify aircraft by shape-let's call the second one an "arrowhead"). 

[Side Note: It is around 20 minutes past 800 here in Pune, and from somewhere outside my window a group of men with drums is having what sounds like a very spirited Pow Wow. If not for the fact that I was already awake (during this past week I lost quite a bit of sleep and my sleep schedule has been altered), this would either be a fantastic alarm clock or a perplexing and painful early morning wake up on the first day of the past week in which I have slept past 630.]

The Economist notes that improvements have indeed been made. The original Boeing 737 carried a maximum of 100 passengers. Current models carry twice that number, twice the distance, using 23% less fuel (Economist). 

The article in Popular Science featured passenger aircraft that bear a mild resemblance to the B2 Spirit bomber of the United States Air Force. The Spirit, interestingly enough, was designed to give USAF the capability to win a war with a single mission (true statement). The seating for the Arrowhead was multi-leveled, and there was even room for a spacious bar at the front of the second floor. Conceded, this sort of idea is what is referred to as a "fifth generation" concept, meaning that I will probably not live to see it. The main problem is that such aircraft are massive, even compared to the 747. Runways would have to be widened and substantially elongated, and docking stations would have to be spaced further apart. Even if such aircraft become feasible, the adoption of the new design will necessarily be accompanied by large scale remodeling of existing airport facilities. 

The Second Part: Not My Cup of Tea

Enough of planes. My relating this article is due both to my interest in aviation and my disinterest in our most recent discussion in Issues in Political and Economic Development (IPED). It was a discussion that made me very uncomfortable. It was a discussion that will live in infamy. I am referring, of course, to feminism. But not just any feminism. AU induced feminism. The worst kind. 

Am I a hater of the fairer sex? No no, nothing could be further from the truth. To be candidly honest, I am a great admirer of women. Casual politically incorrect/semi sexist jokes aside, it is not women or feminists that bother me, but rather the confines of my perilous and unwanted status in any discussion of the subject. Being a male is not ideal when discussing feminism. There are two basic paths that we can take. The first path, i.e., the right path, is the path of wisdom. It goes like this: if you have a Y chromosome, you say nothing. Smile and nod, charmingly, when a particularly poignant point is produced. But remember, silence is the best policy. Path number two is similar to the first. The British and the French did it at the beginning of World War II. It's called "Appeasement." Appeasement gets a 8/10 rating, because it accomplishes the same goals as the first strategy, while even allowing the male to participate in the discussion. The drawback of this tactic is that it may require the degradation of his dignity, which can be regained by playing football, tuning the engine of his Kawasaki Ninja motorcycle, drinking a pint of beer, or slipping into ostrich skin spandex and dancing to Kelly Clarkson's "Since You Been Gone." (Note: one of those does not belong with the others). 

Surely I jest. But it is also true that such a topic in general makes heterosexual males uncomfortable, to say the least. Of our class of around 20, less than one quarter were males. We had no personal anecdotes to relate to the conversation, and any attempt to play devil's advocate would be inevitably interpreted as male chauvinism. Let's face it. Feminism is not our strongest suit, and we do not like talking about it in the same way that many a female has experienced annoyance when her male counterpart talks about sports. This is a generalization, and I feel I may need to delete this entry should I ever aspire to public office (unlikely), but after the frustration of an entire 90 minute class in which I was unable to say anything I think this a better course of action than many alternatives. 

My mother always alleges that a world in which female empowerment was more well developed would likely be a more peaceful and just world. I agree. Such economic initiatives as the Grameen Foundation literally bank on the higher efficacy of women in repaying loans and providing for their families. There is no doubt in my mind that a world in which women had a greater policy-making role would be a fundamentally freer and fairer world. I would even go as far to say that I support such current initiatives in the Government of India to create a reservation of 33% of the seats at the Central level exclusively for women. The difference is that I refuse to argue about it. I will not engage in debate on the subject. I will not share my views. Though I will listen to others for a limited amount of time, I do not feel inclined to respond. (This is gradually becoming true for most subjects, not just feminism). The topic exhausts me. The debate frustrates me. Regarding the subject as a whole, I feel I am gradually shifting into what I have termed the Douglas Adam's Perception of Reality. But that is something that I will leave for another entry.