The pollution of the Gulf of Mexico by crude oil, of course, has many undesirable consequences. But, oil mining companies are not the only "villains of the pollution piece". The tourism industry cannot be immune from criticism: how many miles of pristine coastline have been ruined by hotel complexes? How many mountain environments have been ruined by ski resorts and pistes? All this development has been made possible by the provision of cheap fossil fuels and most western people , including myself, have used these tourist developments.
All mining operations carry some risk and it is impossible to drill for oil without there being some leaks and damaging spillages. There is only one way for the tourism and fishing industries etc. to be protected from the damaging effects of crude oil and that is for all of us to stop burning the stuff. At the moment, of course, this is not possible as it would result in the collapse of more than than fishing or tourism; our whole way of life depends on cheap oil. We all have to accept that the benefits of the good life incur many costs as well. We are all responsible; capitalists, green protesters and all, for the crude oil pollution which is blighting many areas of the world, so don't just blame the oil men.
Monday, 14 June 2010
Sea Eagles in Suffolk
The decision by English Nature not to re-introduce Sea Eagles into the wetlands of Suffolk has been welcomed by some farmers, one of whom described the idea of re-establishing a colony of these beautiful birds of prey as madness. This would be no such thing. The original decision to destroy these and other predators was the real madness. Why should indigenous birds of prey have been eliminated to make way for introduced species such as pheasants which were then shot for sporting pleasure?
There is no evidence that re-introduction schemes have really damaged the economic interests of farming. I am all in favour of supporting our farmers but not at the expense of our wildlife. We as a nation can easily afford the small financial losses when a small number of predators take some chickens or weak lambs. Any economic loss is more than easily counterbalanced by the improved environment which must result from the re-introduction of previously eliminated species.
There is no evidence that re-introduction schemes have really damaged the economic interests of farming. I am all in favour of supporting our farmers but not at the expense of our wildlife. We as a nation can easily afford the small financial losses when a small number of predators take some chickens or weak lambs. Any economic loss is more than easily counterbalanced by the improved environment which must result from the re-introduction of previously eliminated species.
Tuesday, 8 June 2010
High Fidelity Sound
My wife listens to French Radio a lot, on the Long Wave . The reception in South East England is acceptable for voice transmissions but when France Inter transmits music it does not sound so good. I decided to try Internet Radio connected to the HiFi system and there was a marked improvement in the quality of the sound. So we put our anoraks on and compared the quality of Internet radio, DAB radio and FM broadcasting. A five minute test was easy, and all we had to do was connect up the laptop and all the equipment and press a few buttons. We tried a test on BBC Radio 3: Fm radio came out as the winner, second came the Internet radio and third came DAB.
I did a little bit of research, on the Internet, to discover that the authorities are trying to phase out FM radio by 2015. This means that we shall all have to listen to the Radio either on the Internet or DAB, but will there be an improvement to the quality of the sound reproduction? Further investigation revealed that DAB is to be replaced by DAB+, which means that my current DAB radio will become obsolete. What happens to car radio? Will there be complete coverage of the country via DAB+ when FM is phased out?
The quality of the reproduction of the music is vitally important to some listeners especially those who listen to classical music and opera. The performance of DAB, Internet radio and "Freeview" radio is nowhere near as good as FM. FM radio is also better for jazz and folk music and even most types of pop. Radio is a typical example of modern technology not being being able to deliver the same performance as older technology. But this is probably for economic and logistical rather than technological reasons.
There are still some, the audiophiles, who believe that long playing records reproduce music better than Compact Discs, but I am not one of them. This argument has gone on for years and I still have friends who believe that LP's sound better; but of course they need to be played through very expensive equipment.
I once had a work colleague who spent many thousands of dollars on the most advanced LP turntables and CD players etc. He swore that LP's sounded better than CD's and tried to demonstrate this by comparing the same music using both media. Both of them sounded great but the very expensive equipment picked up the static electricity on the LP which spoilt the music for me. I also had to question whether his HiFi set up sounded 20 or 30 times better than my more humble equipment which cost 20 or 30 times less.
In theory,the analogue music reproduction of an LP should sound better than the digital reproduction of a CD. But neither medium can exactly capture sound waves. Playing records on turntables, also means that any imperfection in the design or production of the record itself, the diamond needle and cartridge, the pick up arm or the turntable will be reproduced as rumble, changes to the frequency of the sound or hissing and popping noises from dust, static electricity or scratches. This extraneous noise seems to be unavoidable. For this reason alone, a well recorded CD played through reasonable quality equipment sounds much better.
Many of my audiophile friends seem to spend more time comparing the merits of different forms of equipment and their technical specifications rather than listening to the music.
How can we make comparisons anyway? It is not often that any of us listens to music which has not been electronically reproduced in some shape or form. I have even been to an opera where the production company used a PA system. The only time I have truly listened to live music was at a classical concert, the opera , at a folk club or at home with friends. Most of the music that we listen to has been adjusted to the tastes of a recording engineer, even if we are listening to Radio 3. It is not possible, therefore, for any HiFi equipment to exactly reproduce the conditions of an original live performance. Where the original music is produced electronically we are in a more difficult position for we cannot know what the performance was supposed to sound like.
I have heard John Renbourn a jazz and folk guitarist perform acoustically at a club. His CDs sound almost exactly the same, when I play them at home, even with my humble and aging equipment. This is good enough for me: I have never heard Maria Callas performing live, but I am reasonably confident that I am hearing a very good reproduction of her voice on the CD. Equally, I am reasonably confident that the electronic music of the Pink Floyd is being reproduced as intended by the musicians. I urge all young people to go to hear some acoustically produced live music, such as by an orchestra, to experience for themselves the comparison between live and electronically reproduced music - in this way they can test how good their MP3 players really are.
Any idea, that I had, to prove whether LPs are better than CDs was squashed once and for all on Saturday night whilst I was listening to Classic FM. They had billed the classical pianist Dinu Lipatti to play Grieg's piano concerto in A minor. At the start of the recording, I heard the familiar clunk and rumble of an LP starting up and then I heard the usual crackle and pop which is always present even with the best equipment . All of this was being faithfully reproduced in high fidelity, so I was distracted from the music. The LPs are going to be left in the attic.
Modern technology could be used to much better effect, provided broadcasters like the BBC concentrate on the quality of both the music and the reproduction technology. More choice either in terms of content or technical performance is not so desirable if the budget is spread too thinly. Perhaps, it would be better to drop DAB altogether and retain FM. Virtually everyone has an FM radio which provides good reproduction for all forms of music. Digital services could then be improved to provide a higher quality service via the Internet. The budget could be spent more effectively.
All of us deserve to hear our music being broadcast at the highest possible quality, lets use the technology to really make an improvement at a reasonable cost.
I did a little bit of research, on the Internet, to discover that the authorities are trying to phase out FM radio by 2015. This means that we shall all have to listen to the Radio either on the Internet or DAB, but will there be an improvement to the quality of the sound reproduction? Further investigation revealed that DAB is to be replaced by DAB+, which means that my current DAB radio will become obsolete. What happens to car radio? Will there be complete coverage of the country via DAB+ when FM is phased out?
The quality of the reproduction of the music is vitally important to some listeners especially those who listen to classical music and opera. The performance of DAB, Internet radio and "Freeview" radio is nowhere near as good as FM. FM radio is also better for jazz and folk music and even most types of pop. Radio is a typical example of modern technology not being being able to deliver the same performance as older technology. But this is probably for economic and logistical rather than technological reasons.
There are still some, the audiophiles, who believe that long playing records reproduce music better than Compact Discs, but I am not one of them. This argument has gone on for years and I still have friends who believe that LP's sound better; but of course they need to be played through very expensive equipment.
I once had a work colleague who spent many thousands of dollars on the most advanced LP turntables and CD players etc. He swore that LP's sounded better than CD's and tried to demonstrate this by comparing the same music using both media. Both of them sounded great but the very expensive equipment picked up the static electricity on the LP which spoilt the music for me. I also had to question whether his HiFi set up sounded 20 or 30 times better than my more humble equipment which cost 20 or 30 times less.
In theory,the analogue music reproduction of an LP should sound better than the digital reproduction of a CD. But neither medium can exactly capture sound waves. Playing records on turntables, also means that any imperfection in the design or production of the record itself, the diamond needle and cartridge, the pick up arm or the turntable will be reproduced as rumble, changes to the frequency of the sound or hissing and popping noises from dust, static electricity or scratches. This extraneous noise seems to be unavoidable. For this reason alone, a well recorded CD played through reasonable quality equipment sounds much better.
Many of my audiophile friends seem to spend more time comparing the merits of different forms of equipment and their technical specifications rather than listening to the music.
How can we make comparisons anyway? It is not often that any of us listens to music which has not been electronically reproduced in some shape or form. I have even been to an opera where the production company used a PA system. The only time I have truly listened to live music was at a classical concert, the opera , at a folk club or at home with friends. Most of the music that we listen to has been adjusted to the tastes of a recording engineer, even if we are listening to Radio 3. It is not possible, therefore, for any HiFi equipment to exactly reproduce the conditions of an original live performance. Where the original music is produced electronically we are in a more difficult position for we cannot know what the performance was supposed to sound like.
I have heard John Renbourn a jazz and folk guitarist perform acoustically at a club. His CDs sound almost exactly the same, when I play them at home, even with my humble and aging equipment. This is good enough for me: I have never heard Maria Callas performing live, but I am reasonably confident that I am hearing a very good reproduction of her voice on the CD. Equally, I am reasonably confident that the electronic music of the Pink Floyd is being reproduced as intended by the musicians. I urge all young people to go to hear some acoustically produced live music, such as by an orchestra, to experience for themselves the comparison between live and electronically reproduced music - in this way they can test how good their MP3 players really are.
Any idea, that I had, to prove whether LPs are better than CDs was squashed once and for all on Saturday night whilst I was listening to Classic FM. They had billed the classical pianist Dinu Lipatti to play Grieg's piano concerto in A minor. At the start of the recording, I heard the familiar clunk and rumble of an LP starting up and then I heard the usual crackle and pop which is always present even with the best equipment . All of this was being faithfully reproduced in high fidelity, so I was distracted from the music. The LPs are going to be left in the attic.
Modern technology could be used to much better effect, provided broadcasters like the BBC concentrate on the quality of both the music and the reproduction technology. More choice either in terms of content or technical performance is not so desirable if the budget is spread too thinly. Perhaps, it would be better to drop DAB altogether and retain FM. Virtually everyone has an FM radio which provides good reproduction for all forms of music. Digital services could then be improved to provide a higher quality service via the Internet. The budget could be spent more effectively.
All of us deserve to hear our music being broadcast at the highest possible quality, lets use the technology to really make an improvement at a reasonable cost.
Badger Cull North Pembrokeshire, Wales
The badger cull is about to start in North Pembrokeshire in an attempt to eliminate bovine tuberculosis in a limited area. Any protest about this is futile and will not succeed in preventing the cull. It would be better to sit and wait and watch the experiment fail. As I have said before the reason why the disease is called bovine tuberculosis is because it is mainly a disease of cattle who spread it to one another; the infection of mammals including badgers and human beings is accidental. The real reasons for the spread of the disease are increased cattle movements and poor animal husbandry. Some of the dairy farms in North Pembrokeshire are practicing very intensified farming , the stressed cattle simply have reduced resistance to disease.
There is no need for a badger cull; the incidence of this disease can be greatly reduced by use of vaccines and improved animal husbandry.
It is obvious that mankind needs to live in some kind of harmony with nature. If we continue to have the attitude that any possible animal or plant competitor should be eliminated,we might go too far and eliminate some of the species which are essential to our own survival. The world may then be left to survive with bacteria, cockroaches,and "weeds" but without us.
There is no need for a badger cull; the incidence of this disease can be greatly reduced by use of vaccines and improved animal husbandry.
It is obvious that mankind needs to live in some kind of harmony with nature. If we continue to have the attitude that any possible animal or plant competitor should be eliminated,we might go too far and eliminate some of the species which are essential to our own survival. The world may then be left to survive with bacteria, cockroaches,and "weeds" but without us.
Friday, 4 June 2010
520 day Mars Project
Recently, six "cosmonauts" locked themselves away into four steel containers at a Russian research institute to simulate a return journey to Mars. The six researchers, working in cooperation with the European Space Agency, will be locked away for 520 days without windows and direct communication with the outside world. There will be a time delay between text and radio messages which will simulate the time delays of a real space flight. Even though they will be closely monitored, they will be expected to resolve any engineering or medical problems without help from the outside world other than via radio communication. Presumably, they will not be let out unless there is a real emergency.
The people agreeing to this experiment must be very special indeed. A 105 day pilot scheme has already been carried out without the crew suffering obvious ill effects. Submariners, also, often spend many months submerged at sea without problems. But 520 days; I would not last for a weekend. The thought of doing something like this appals me and fills me with awe.
Above all, I would not be able to accept the isolation from family and friends and I would not attempt to work on a project such as this from this point of view alone.
I feel slightly claustrophobic in confined spaces, and I am reluctant to to go down mines or caves, so this would also mitigate against sealing myself up in capsules which have a total volume of 550 cubic metres with 5 other people.
I believe that man and all the other animals and plants on the planet have evolved to have an intimate biological and psychological relationship (at least in the case of mammals) with the earth. It would be very difficult for most humans to be isolated from the sights, sounds, smells and feelings of our natural environment. It would be very difficult to maintain my sanity if I was deprived of the smell of fresh air, the sound of birdsong or the sight of the sun and the feeling of the warmth of sunlight. I certainly would not isolate my self in an Arctic or Antarctic camp during the long winter nights. I would not isolate myself on a spacecraft for a long period.
In my opinion the Apollo astronauts who visited the moon showed not only exceptional bravery but exceptional mental stability. They were able to endure both the isolation and the risks of venturing to a place where there was no hope of rescue. At least on planet earth, it is possible to escape by use of your own resources if you are isolated or marooned in the jungle, the Arctic or the Antarctic - witnessed by Earnest Shackleton's adventures, for instance.
The "520 day cosmonauts" have entombed themselves in the knowledge that they are able to escape if they are in danger of going mad or there is a real emergency. Real astronauts, on the way to Mars, will be almost totally isolated and dependent on their own resources without any chance of escape or real help if something goes wrong; so there is an additional psychological burden to be overcome.
I believe that the isolation from the home planet coupled with the vast distances will be a limiting factor that could prevent inter-stellar travel by mankind. Even at half the speed of light any return journey to a neighbouring star would take many years and the distances are beyond our imagination. The risks are also beyond imagination. Who would attempt such a journey?
If other creatures have evolved on extra solar planets they are probably animals like us, and are equally as committed to their home planet as we are to the Earth. The chances of us meeting extra solar beings are, therefore, remote. No doubt they would send robots to explore alien solar systems but the costs would be enormous and that is another factor which could prevent us from
meeting either our extra solar neighbours or their agents.
The search for alien life should, however, continue, if only out of curiosity and for man to find his true place in the Galaxy and the Universe.
The people agreeing to this experiment must be very special indeed. A 105 day pilot scheme has already been carried out without the crew suffering obvious ill effects. Submariners, also, often spend many months submerged at sea without problems. But 520 days; I would not last for a weekend. The thought of doing something like this appals me and fills me with awe.
Above all, I would not be able to accept the isolation from family and friends and I would not attempt to work on a project such as this from this point of view alone.
I feel slightly claustrophobic in confined spaces, and I am reluctant to to go down mines or caves, so this would also mitigate against sealing myself up in capsules which have a total volume of 550 cubic metres with 5 other people.
I believe that man and all the other animals and plants on the planet have evolved to have an intimate biological and psychological relationship (at least in the case of mammals) with the earth. It would be very difficult for most humans to be isolated from the sights, sounds, smells and feelings of our natural environment. It would be very difficult to maintain my sanity if I was deprived of the smell of fresh air, the sound of birdsong or the sight of the sun and the feeling of the warmth of sunlight. I certainly would not isolate my self in an Arctic or Antarctic camp during the long winter nights. I would not isolate myself on a spacecraft for a long period.
In my opinion the Apollo astronauts who visited the moon showed not only exceptional bravery but exceptional mental stability. They were able to endure both the isolation and the risks of venturing to a place where there was no hope of rescue. At least on planet earth, it is possible to escape by use of your own resources if you are isolated or marooned in the jungle, the Arctic or the Antarctic - witnessed by Earnest Shackleton's adventures, for instance.
The "520 day cosmonauts" have entombed themselves in the knowledge that they are able to escape if they are in danger of going mad or there is a real emergency. Real astronauts, on the way to Mars, will be almost totally isolated and dependent on their own resources without any chance of escape or real help if something goes wrong; so there is an additional psychological burden to be overcome.
I believe that the isolation from the home planet coupled with the vast distances will be a limiting factor that could prevent inter-stellar travel by mankind. Even at half the speed of light any return journey to a neighbouring star would take many years and the distances are beyond our imagination. The risks are also beyond imagination. Who would attempt such a journey?
If other creatures have evolved on extra solar planets they are probably animals like us, and are equally as committed to their home planet as we are to the Earth. The chances of us meeting extra solar beings are, therefore, remote. No doubt they would send robots to explore alien solar systems but the costs would be enormous and that is another factor which could prevent us from
meeting either our extra solar neighbours or their agents.
The search for alien life should, however, continue, if only out of curiosity and for man to find his true place in the Galaxy and the Universe.
Sunday, 30 May 2010
Man made life and intelligent design
The so called creation of synthetic life by J Craig Venter raises a number of scientific, philosophical and engineering questions. These questions need deep thought by everyone about their implications.
A totally satisfactory answer to "what is life" has not really been discovered. It is often defined in terms of a bio-chemical structure or cell which organises itself to independently reproduce and duplicate itself. The living organism is able to metabolise, proteins and enzymes to generate the power to self-replicate and maintain itself in a state of homeostasis. The living cell uses the information stored in DNA to maintain a blueprint to reproduce and control the bio-chemical processes needed to sustain its own life. The cell maintains itself in a state of homeostasis and draws sustenance from the environment. The cell is also capable of reacting to its environment and is subject to the process of natural selection. The cell can temporarily resist the the second law of thermodynamics and exist in a state of negentropy or negative entropy by actively maintaining organised systems. But, eventually all individual cells succumb to the laws of nature and die.
There is some dispute as to whether viruses, whose genetic material is composed of either DNA or RNA , are alive or not. Viruses cannot independently reproduce outside of a living host cell. It is difficult to define when life becomes life. When does an organism which is slightly more complex than a virus become alive? Is there an actual point where it can be said, "life begins". My own view is that life is a property of the universe. The universe is capable of organising itself along the line of a continuum to create what we recognise as life, but there is no actual point where life starts. The universe, therefore, is in itself alive but in some places, in time a space, it is more organised than others to produce life and even self recognition. This time and place exists on the planet Earth, which is the only place that life, as defined by human beings, is proven to exist.
According to my framework of reference, the evolution of life does not require the existence of a god to drive the process either by a form of creationism or intelligent design. So there is no intervention by a supernatural being. As far as I am concerned there is no evidence to suggest that a supernatural being or god created the universe to start off the whole chain reaction of being. When religious philosophers provide me with testable evidence, I shall rethink my agnostic or atheistic stance.
Venter has not created artificial life or played God for two reasons. The first: life could be an actual property of the universe itself and therefore exists everywhere and anywhere. The second: if life is to be defined as a self-replicating cell, he has not designed a unique genome and he has not created unique cytoplasm to go with it. Technically, he has transferred the genome (DNA) from one form of bacteria , Mycoplasma mycoides, into the cytoplasm of a closely related species, Mycoplasma capricolum, which has been stripped of its own genome (DNA). This new living cell was then tricked, bio-chemically, to start reproducing as if it were a new variety of the Mycoplasm mycoides organism. Technically, this feat has been performed before but this time the transplanted genome was constructed from a genetic blueprint held on a computer database. The four nucleotides used to make the donor genome DNA were assembled using yeast cells programmed with the "blueprint". Life itself uses the medium of DNA to store the blue print of a living cell, however this blueprint could just as well be stored on a computer database or even sheets of paper. The technical genius displayed by Venter was both being able to create viable DNA, from information on a database, and then transpose that DNA to take over the cell functions of a related species. This is very advanced genetic engineering and modification. DNA is now able to replicate itself indirectly via the medium of a computer database.
A means of modifying the design for a living cell has now been created by using a new genetic modification technique. This has the elements of intelligent design. But to create a completely artificial life form, which performs a function or functions predetermined by a human plan or scheme, is an entirely different matter. Natural life has evolved to meet its own purpose to replicate itself and survive. Would a purpose built life form be able to compete against other organisms to evolve into a species that could survive for millenia or longer? Would such a life form be be subject to the theory of natural selection at all? Could a "life form" that was not capable of evolving in its own direction, whilst competing in natural environment, be said to be truly alive?
Man might shortly have the power to create truly artificial life and this raises a number of philosophical issues. Would the newly designed species be a form of creationism as espoused by the religious philosopher William Paley in the 19th century? Paley's beliefs were a forerunner of intelligent design i.e. God created all of life to a design according to his purpose. God created man who creates artificial life ; so this is proof of intelligent design. I do not think so, as there is no tenable evidence for such a theory.
It has been suggested that one of the biological benefits of creating artificial life would be to solve the problem of fuel production without having to mine for fossil fuels. Vast industrialised scale cultures of artificial algae could be used to extract carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to produce methane or petroleum as clean fuel. We could even use such artificial life to reduce the concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. But let us think for a minute. What if we become dependent upon such artificial life? What happens if our economies become dependent upon fuel produced by industrialised vats of algae? How would natural plants be able to compete for the carbon dioxide in the air? What happens if we upset the balance of the atmosphere to remove too much carbon dioxide? Other natural plants may not survive and our world could be plunged into an unexpected ice age, because global warming might have been dangerously and uncontrollably reversed.
What would happen if a natural virus found a way of infecting and killing the vats of artificial algae? We might be cut off from our fuel supplies before a solution is found. The genetic engineering implications should be carefully thought out before artificial life is deployed to perform an industrial function.
One of my greatest fears is the potential to create an artificial bacterium which is capable of wiping out human beings in the form of a weapon. Human beings might not have any resistance to a new and potent form of artificial disease. We could find that a designer biological weapon could kill everyone on the planet.
We should also be careful that an artificial life form does not damage the ecosystem if it accidentally escapes into the natural environment. Nasa was very careful to decontaminate the Apollo space ships returning from the moon and to hold the astronauts in quarantine. This was for very good reason; they did not want to take the risk of alien life infecting the Earth. We should be equally as watchful with artificial life.
I am totally in favour of using genetic engineering to further scientific knowledge. I am also in favour of considering the ethical and philosophical implications of using this science. When it comes to biological engineering on an industrial scale then I am both sceptical and very wary "intelligent design" could easily become "dumb design". The dangers are there for all to see: let us not fall into an hubristic trap of our own making.
A totally satisfactory answer to "what is life" has not really been discovered. It is often defined in terms of a bio-chemical structure or cell which organises itself to independently reproduce and duplicate itself. The living organism is able to metabolise, proteins and enzymes to generate the power to self-replicate and maintain itself in a state of homeostasis. The living cell uses the information stored in DNA to maintain a blueprint to reproduce and control the bio-chemical processes needed to sustain its own life. The cell maintains itself in a state of homeostasis and draws sustenance from the environment. The cell is also capable of reacting to its environment and is subject to the process of natural selection. The cell can temporarily resist the the second law of thermodynamics and exist in a state of negentropy or negative entropy by actively maintaining organised systems. But, eventually all individual cells succumb to the laws of nature and die.
There is some dispute as to whether viruses, whose genetic material is composed of either DNA or RNA , are alive or not. Viruses cannot independently reproduce outside of a living host cell. It is difficult to define when life becomes life. When does an organism which is slightly more complex than a virus become alive? Is there an actual point where it can be said, "life begins". My own view is that life is a property of the universe. The universe is capable of organising itself along the line of a continuum to create what we recognise as life, but there is no actual point where life starts. The universe, therefore, is in itself alive but in some places, in time a space, it is more organised than others to produce life and even self recognition. This time and place exists on the planet Earth, which is the only place that life, as defined by human beings, is proven to exist.
According to my framework of reference, the evolution of life does not require the existence of a god to drive the process either by a form of creationism or intelligent design. So there is no intervention by a supernatural being. As far as I am concerned there is no evidence to suggest that a supernatural being or god created the universe to start off the whole chain reaction of being. When religious philosophers provide me with testable evidence, I shall rethink my agnostic or atheistic stance.
Venter has not created artificial life or played God for two reasons. The first: life could be an actual property of the universe itself and therefore exists everywhere and anywhere. The second: if life is to be defined as a self-replicating cell, he has not designed a unique genome and he has not created unique cytoplasm to go with it. Technically, he has transferred the genome (DNA) from one form of bacteria , Mycoplasma mycoides, into the cytoplasm of a closely related species, Mycoplasma capricolum, which has been stripped of its own genome (DNA). This new living cell was then tricked, bio-chemically, to start reproducing as if it were a new variety of the Mycoplasm mycoides organism. Technically, this feat has been performed before but this time the transplanted genome was constructed from a genetic blueprint held on a computer database. The four nucleotides used to make the donor genome DNA were assembled using yeast cells programmed with the "blueprint". Life itself uses the medium of DNA to store the blue print of a living cell, however this blueprint could just as well be stored on a computer database or even sheets of paper. The technical genius displayed by Venter was both being able to create viable DNA, from information on a database, and then transpose that DNA to take over the cell functions of a related species. This is very advanced genetic engineering and modification. DNA is now able to replicate itself indirectly via the medium of a computer database.
A means of modifying the design for a living cell has now been created by using a new genetic modification technique. This has the elements of intelligent design. But to create a completely artificial life form, which performs a function or functions predetermined by a human plan or scheme, is an entirely different matter. Natural life has evolved to meet its own purpose to replicate itself and survive. Would a purpose built life form be able to compete against other organisms to evolve into a species that could survive for millenia or longer? Would such a life form be be subject to the theory of natural selection at all? Could a "life form" that was not capable of evolving in its own direction, whilst competing in natural environment, be said to be truly alive?
Man might shortly have the power to create truly artificial life and this raises a number of philosophical issues. Would the newly designed species be a form of creationism as espoused by the religious philosopher William Paley in the 19th century? Paley's beliefs were a forerunner of intelligent design i.e. God created all of life to a design according to his purpose. God created man who creates artificial life ; so this is proof of intelligent design. I do not think so, as there is no tenable evidence for such a theory.
It has been suggested that one of the biological benefits of creating artificial life would be to solve the problem of fuel production without having to mine for fossil fuels. Vast industrialised scale cultures of artificial algae could be used to extract carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to produce methane or petroleum as clean fuel. We could even use such artificial life to reduce the concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. But let us think for a minute. What if we become dependent upon such artificial life? What happens if our economies become dependent upon fuel produced by industrialised vats of algae? How would natural plants be able to compete for the carbon dioxide in the air? What happens if we upset the balance of the atmosphere to remove too much carbon dioxide? Other natural plants may not survive and our world could be plunged into an unexpected ice age, because global warming might have been dangerously and uncontrollably reversed.
What would happen if a natural virus found a way of infecting and killing the vats of artificial algae? We might be cut off from our fuel supplies before a solution is found. The genetic engineering implications should be carefully thought out before artificial life is deployed to perform an industrial function.
One of my greatest fears is the potential to create an artificial bacterium which is capable of wiping out human beings in the form of a weapon. Human beings might not have any resistance to a new and potent form of artificial disease. We could find that a designer biological weapon could kill everyone on the planet.
We should also be careful that an artificial life form does not damage the ecosystem if it accidentally escapes into the natural environment. Nasa was very careful to decontaminate the Apollo space ships returning from the moon and to hold the astronauts in quarantine. This was for very good reason; they did not want to take the risk of alien life infecting the Earth. We should be equally as watchful with artificial life.
I am totally in favour of using genetic engineering to further scientific knowledge. I am also in favour of considering the ethical and philosophical implications of using this science. When it comes to biological engineering on an industrial scale then I am both sceptical and very wary "intelligent design" could easily become "dumb design". The dangers are there for all to see: let us not fall into an hubristic trap of our own making.
Wednesday, 19 May 2010
The Great Leap Forward
Some anthropologists such as Jared Diamond, I am a great admirer of all his work, posit that mankind made a "great leap forward" in terms of intellectual, technological and cultural abilities about 50,000 years ago. Evidence for the "great leap forward" has been found in both East Africa the Near East and South Eastern Europe with the discovery of jewellery and standardised stone tools etc. Proponents suggest that this advancement was associated with genetic changes that lead to the development of more complex language and improved mental powers. Some observers also suggest that Cro-Magnon man in South Western Europe was able to use his improved mental powers to assist with the replacement of the Neanderthals, that also lived in the region.
Recent evidence (see my previous blogs) concludes that Neanderthals and Modern humans interbred and that non-African modern humans carry between 1% and 4% of Neanderthal DNA in their genes. Neanderthals and Modern Men should now be regarded as sub-species of Homo Sapiens rather than as separate species.
I am sceptical that there was a sudden "great leap forward" and would prefer to take the view that there was a gradual improvement in the abilities of human beings and that this was shared amongst our species.
Why do we make the value judgement that the production of improved tools, jewellery and cave art were the result of genetic changes? Where they in fact an advance in absolute terms? Alternatively, were they the necessary changes which had to be made by a resourceful species making cultural adaptations to environmental changes and migration etc? Why would men living in the jungle need to invent kayaks and harpoons if they never encountered seals?
There are still some tribes of hunter gatherers living on the planet. The differences between their cultural and technological lives and the lives of city dwellers are much much greater than the differences between Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons. A child born in Singapore would quickly learn how to be a hunter if adopted by a San family from Nambia. And the reverse would be true, a San child would quickly adapt to "modern" life if adopted by a Singaporean family. There are very few intellectual differences between the various groups of humanity; we all have the capacity to adapt. We should not fall into the trap of believing that scientific,technological and artistic prowess is somehow superior and represents a more advanced form of culture and being.
There have been a number of conceptual discoveries which have lead to modernity. The invention of the scientific method was a gradual process started, perhaps, by the Greeks and culminating with Galileo and Newton. Did this make Europeans intellectually superior? Was the invention of the scientific method the result of genetic mutation? I doubt it.
A Hindu mathematician was reputed to have invented the zero which transformed mathematics: was this the result of genetic mutation? All of mankind has the capacity to understand the scientific method and mathematics.
China was a more technologically advanced society than Europe up until the 15th century. Politically, they then chose a different path to the Europeans and fell behind in the technological race. Politically, they have now decide to catch up. Similar politics could have dominated in more ancient times. The Neanderthals may have decided not to standardise their tools or to perform cave art but their mental capacities may have been the equal of modern man. Perhaps we will never know.
We should also be careful not to become hubristic to believe that scientific and technological advancement will lead to continuous improvement to both our lives and ultimate survival. There is evidence to suggest that industrialisation is damaging the environment, so much, that it could lead to the collapse of global ecosystems and dangerous irreversible climate change. Hunter gatherer skills might become a premium if mankind is reduced to a small number of tribes.
The "great leap forward" may have been a "great leap backward". Time will tell.
Recent evidence (see my previous blogs) concludes that Neanderthals and Modern humans interbred and that non-African modern humans carry between 1% and 4% of Neanderthal DNA in their genes. Neanderthals and Modern Men should now be regarded as sub-species of Homo Sapiens rather than as separate species.
I am sceptical that there was a sudden "great leap forward" and would prefer to take the view that there was a gradual improvement in the abilities of human beings and that this was shared amongst our species.
Why do we make the value judgement that the production of improved tools, jewellery and cave art were the result of genetic changes? Where they in fact an advance in absolute terms? Alternatively, were they the necessary changes which had to be made by a resourceful species making cultural adaptations to environmental changes and migration etc? Why would men living in the jungle need to invent kayaks and harpoons if they never encountered seals?
There are still some tribes of hunter gatherers living on the planet. The differences between their cultural and technological lives and the lives of city dwellers are much much greater than the differences between Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons. A child born in Singapore would quickly learn how to be a hunter if adopted by a San family from Nambia. And the reverse would be true, a San child would quickly adapt to "modern" life if adopted by a Singaporean family. There are very few intellectual differences between the various groups of humanity; we all have the capacity to adapt. We should not fall into the trap of believing that scientific,technological and artistic prowess is somehow superior and represents a more advanced form of culture and being.
There have been a number of conceptual discoveries which have lead to modernity. The invention of the scientific method was a gradual process started, perhaps, by the Greeks and culminating with Galileo and Newton. Did this make Europeans intellectually superior? Was the invention of the scientific method the result of genetic mutation? I doubt it.
A Hindu mathematician was reputed to have invented the zero which transformed mathematics: was this the result of genetic mutation? All of mankind has the capacity to understand the scientific method and mathematics.
China was a more technologically advanced society than Europe up until the 15th century. Politically, they then chose a different path to the Europeans and fell behind in the technological race. Politically, they have now decide to catch up. Similar politics could have dominated in more ancient times. The Neanderthals may have decided not to standardise their tools or to perform cave art but their mental capacities may have been the equal of modern man. Perhaps we will never know.
We should also be careful not to become hubristic to believe that scientific and technological advancement will lead to continuous improvement to both our lives and ultimate survival. There is evidence to suggest that industrialisation is damaging the environment, so much, that it could lead to the collapse of global ecosystems and dangerous irreversible climate change. Hunter gatherer skills might become a premium if mankind is reduced to a small number of tribes.
The "great leap forward" may have been a "great leap backward". Time will tell.
Tuesday, 18 May 2010
Climate Solutions
It is all very well to be sceptical about a solution to the excessive production of green house gases which cause global warming, especially as most nations are either paying lip service to making reductions or are in fact increasing their emissions. Here are some of my suggestions to help resolve the problem.
Most workers in the western world have broadband connexions at home and most employers can afford to supply their workers with a laptop PC. So why not limit the amount of time an office worker can spend at their work place to two or three days per week. This would reduce the amount of commuting to and from work and reduce the carbon emissions from buses and cars etc. Workers would be less stressed and happier as a result.
Use information technology to reduce significantly the amount of paper communications . I see no need to be sent a standard paper statement by anybody. The internet can be used for this. Paper statements should only be sent to those who are breaking their overdraft limits, missing their credit card repayments or are overdue for invoice settlement. For everyone else, an annual hard copy should suffice. This would reduce the need to waste energy to produce and deliver paper communications.
Give staff more flexible or longer holidays to allow them time to go by train or ship to their holiday destinations instead of using the aeroplane or a car.
Tax fuel for cars more heavily, but pledge the extra tax to make public transport quicker and cheaper. Improve the public transport system before penalising motorists so that they are encouraged to use more fuel efficient means of transport rather than being forced and, thereby, voting against governments that favour public rather than private transport.
Make hiring cars much cheaper so that travellers who have to use a car for a special journey will rent a vehicle rather than possess one. This combined with more effective public transport will encourage the use of trains and buses rather than privately owned cars.
Tax portable phone "give aways" this will discourage the overproduction of such devices.
Discourage built in obsolescence and make manufactured goods more expensive but of higher quality so that we replace them less often and consume less energy.
Use nuclear energy rather than wind energy which needs back up fossil fuel power stations to provide energy when the wind blows to weak or too strong.
Persuade everyone to limit their families and manage human fertility to achieve a substantial reduction of the world's population. I see this as the only real solution to climate change, starvation, disease control and social and environmental degradation. I am totally opposed to any form of coercion and to achieve this for the third world we would would need to improve living standards considerably. We will also need to and appeal to the general population to ignore the blandishments of religious leaders who are opposed to contraception. If, we do not reduce our population nature will, eventually, do it for us and millions will starve to death rather than living out their lives in relative comfort.
We should produce a contingency plan to geo-engineer a solution to global warming. The engineering should stop, however, when we have eliminated the effects of the emissions , if that is now possible.
The global warming deniers should consider the following. If man is not responsible for global warming and nature alone is controlling the climate, then what are we going to do when the Milankovitch cycle causes the earth to cool down to begin the next ice age? What are we going to do, in 8,000 years time, when most of the northern hemisphere is covered in one kilometer of ice? Where will the billions of people migrate to? Or, will the climate change deniers, of that future time, propose a geo-engineered solution to pump a trillion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere?
Most workers in the western world have broadband connexions at home and most employers can afford to supply their workers with a laptop PC. So why not limit the amount of time an office worker can spend at their work place to two or three days per week. This would reduce the amount of commuting to and from work and reduce the carbon emissions from buses and cars etc. Workers would be less stressed and happier as a result.
Use information technology to reduce significantly the amount of paper communications . I see no need to be sent a standard paper statement by anybody. The internet can be used for this. Paper statements should only be sent to those who are breaking their overdraft limits, missing their credit card repayments or are overdue for invoice settlement. For everyone else, an annual hard copy should suffice. This would reduce the need to waste energy to produce and deliver paper communications.
Give staff more flexible or longer holidays to allow them time to go by train or ship to their holiday destinations instead of using the aeroplane or a car.
Tax fuel for cars more heavily, but pledge the extra tax to make public transport quicker and cheaper. Improve the public transport system before penalising motorists so that they are encouraged to use more fuel efficient means of transport rather than being forced and, thereby, voting against governments that favour public rather than private transport.
Make hiring cars much cheaper so that travellers who have to use a car for a special journey will rent a vehicle rather than possess one. This combined with more effective public transport will encourage the use of trains and buses rather than privately owned cars.
Tax portable phone "give aways" this will discourage the overproduction of such devices.
Discourage built in obsolescence and make manufactured goods more expensive but of higher quality so that we replace them less often and consume less energy.
Use nuclear energy rather than wind energy which needs back up fossil fuel power stations to provide energy when the wind blows to weak or too strong.
Persuade everyone to limit their families and manage human fertility to achieve a substantial reduction of the world's population. I see this as the only real solution to climate change, starvation, disease control and social and environmental degradation. I am totally opposed to any form of coercion and to achieve this for the third world we would would need to improve living standards considerably. We will also need to and appeal to the general population to ignore the blandishments of religious leaders who are opposed to contraception. If, we do not reduce our population nature will, eventually, do it for us and millions will starve to death rather than living out their lives in relative comfort.
We should produce a contingency plan to geo-engineer a solution to global warming. The engineering should stop, however, when we have eliminated the effects of the emissions , if that is now possible.
The global warming deniers should consider the following. If man is not responsible for global warming and nature alone is controlling the climate, then what are we going to do when the Milankovitch cycle causes the earth to cool down to begin the next ice age? What are we going to do, in 8,000 years time, when most of the northern hemisphere is covered in one kilometer of ice? Where will the billions of people migrate to? Or, will the climate change deniers, of that future time, propose a geo-engineered solution to pump a trillion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere?
Monday, 17 May 2010
World Cup Anaethesia
I was amused when I saw David Beckham delivering the FA's bid to FIFA last week. 1800 pages who is going to read that? That should keep Sepp Blatter awake for a long time.
Friday, 14 May 2010
Fixed Term Parliament
I am disappointed that the Conservative- Liberal Democrat coalition government of the UK is seeing fit to change the constitution, by law, to allow for a fixed Parliament which can only be dissolved by 55% of MP's voting in favour. I believe that constitutional change should only be made after serious consideration of the consequences for our Democracy. It seems that only the House of Lords can prevent this change from happening, but because they are an unelected body they will eventually be over-ruled by the House of Commons. Once again, a Prime Minister is able to implement serious changes to the constitution without checks and balances. One conservative MP described the situation as "constitutional incoherence" and I agree with him.
What would happen if the government was defeated on a major law change, the budget or a decision to go to war by a simple majority? Presumably, they would still continue to govern without the confidence of Parliament and the Head of State could do nothing about it. At present the Queen could, reluctantly, intervene to dissolve a government which seriously defied the will of Parliament. The general public would accept this but a change to the law would render her powerless.
The coalition could claim that this is a temporary ploy to provide stability, but what happens if we return to single party government? Will the law be repealed? I do not think so. It will make it even more difficult for the opposition to overthrow an incompetent government of whatever complexion.
We have a parliamentary democracy and Parliament should be able to vote out a government by a simple majority. No wonder there is disquiet amongst some MPs from all the political parties.
The argument that the Scottish Assembly requires a 66% vote of MSPs to affirm a dissolution of Parliament does not hold water, as the Westminster government reigns supreme to prevent an abuse of power.
We urgently need a fully elected House of Lords which is given the authority to defend the constitution on the Queen's behalf. I am now fearful that the necessary changes will not be made.
Surely, all Members of the House of Commons deserve the right to challenge the Government no matter which party they are a member of. This is why we have a representative democracy.
The Liberal Democrats have long argued that the electoral system does not represent, fairly, all the voters of the UK. I agree with them. However, all of our representatives in Parliament should enjoy the same right to challenge the Government and fairness can only be guaranteed by equity. If a sufficient number of Conservative or Liberal Democrat MPs are opposed to government policy or action they should be allowed to overthrow the government by forming a simple majority with the opposition.
What would happen if the government was defeated on a major law change, the budget or a decision to go to war by a simple majority? Presumably, they would still continue to govern without the confidence of Parliament and the Head of State could do nothing about it. At present the Queen could, reluctantly, intervene to dissolve a government which seriously defied the will of Parliament. The general public would accept this but a change to the law would render her powerless.
The coalition could claim that this is a temporary ploy to provide stability, but what happens if we return to single party government? Will the law be repealed? I do not think so. It will make it even more difficult for the opposition to overthrow an incompetent government of whatever complexion.
We have a parliamentary democracy and Parliament should be able to vote out a government by a simple majority. No wonder there is disquiet amongst some MPs from all the political parties.
The argument that the Scottish Assembly requires a 66% vote of MSPs to affirm a dissolution of Parliament does not hold water, as the Westminster government reigns supreme to prevent an abuse of power.
We urgently need a fully elected House of Lords which is given the authority to defend the constitution on the Queen's behalf. I am now fearful that the necessary changes will not be made.
Surely, all Members of the House of Commons deserve the right to challenge the Government no matter which party they are a member of. This is why we have a representative democracy.
The Liberal Democrats have long argued that the electoral system does not represent, fairly, all the voters of the UK. I agree with them. However, all of our representatives in Parliament should enjoy the same right to challenge the Government and fairness can only be guaranteed by equity. If a sufficient number of Conservative or Liberal Democrat MPs are opposed to government policy or action they should be allowed to overthrow the government by forming a simple majority with the opposition.
Thursday, 13 May 2010
African Americans
I often wonder why the name African Americans is applied to black people from the USA. Humans love to classify and define everyone and everything. Everyone who lives in the USA is an African American no matter what colour their skin is. The Human Species originated in Africa and every person in the world can trace their ancestry and their genes back to Africa. Our sub-species migrated out of Africa about 100, 000 years ago but of course many of our group remained there.
Recent discoveries (see my previous post) suggest that Modern Humans interbred with Neanderthal man. Even though Neanderthals originated in either Europe or the Near East, their predecessor the Heidelberg man originated in Africa. Heidelberg Man was also a predecessor of Modern Man. The recent evidence suggests that all three of us Modern Man, Neanderthal Man and Heidelberg Man are in fact sub-species of Homo Sapiens. Even though Neanderthals (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) took a separate path out of Africa, about 500,000 years ago, to Modern Man (Homo sapiens sapiens), we were able to interbreed when we met again in Europe or the near East 450,000 years later. The Neanderthals and Heidelbergs died out to leave genetic markers in the last remaining sub-species -Us.
What does this mean? It means that for hundreds of thousands of years Human Beings have been migrating to and from Africa, from where we all originated and they have been exchanging their genes to leave just one sub-species, Modern Man, who now populates the whole world.
There are practically no differences between members of our sub-species no matter where we come from.The colour of our eyes, skin or hair makes no difference. The shape of our bodies makes no difference either, whether we are from the Arctic, North Africa, Central Africa or Europe, we are all one sub-species. Even though Neanderthals looked different to us, our similarities far outweigh the differences and the evidence suggests that they were just as intelligent and capable as us. They were adapted as well to their environment as we are to ours and part of their genetic inheritance survives in us today. Their genome was 99.7% the same as ours.
Any belief that one group of Humans is superior or different to another is clearly irrational. It is time to stop classifying people into specific groups; we all have the same mental and physical capacities and instincts. It is time to change public policy to reflect the facts contained in our genes. We are all Africans by heritage.
Recent discoveries (see my previous post) suggest that Modern Humans interbred with Neanderthal man. Even though Neanderthals originated in either Europe or the Near East, their predecessor the Heidelberg man originated in Africa. Heidelberg Man was also a predecessor of Modern Man. The recent evidence suggests that all three of us Modern Man, Neanderthal Man and Heidelberg Man are in fact sub-species of Homo Sapiens. Even though Neanderthals (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) took a separate path out of Africa, about 500,000 years ago, to Modern Man (Homo sapiens sapiens), we were able to interbreed when we met again in Europe or the near East 450,000 years later. The Neanderthals and Heidelbergs died out to leave genetic markers in the last remaining sub-species -Us.
What does this mean? It means that for hundreds of thousands of years Human Beings have been migrating to and from Africa, from where we all originated and they have been exchanging their genes to leave just one sub-species, Modern Man, who now populates the whole world.
There are practically no differences between members of our sub-species no matter where we come from.The colour of our eyes, skin or hair makes no difference. The shape of our bodies makes no difference either, whether we are from the Arctic, North Africa, Central Africa or Europe, we are all one sub-species. Even though Neanderthals looked different to us, our similarities far outweigh the differences and the evidence suggests that they were just as intelligent and capable as us. They were adapted as well to their environment as we are to ours and part of their genetic inheritance survives in us today. Their genome was 99.7% the same as ours.
Any belief that one group of Humans is superior or different to another is clearly irrational. It is time to stop classifying people into specific groups; we all have the same mental and physical capacities and instincts. It is time to change public policy to reflect the facts contained in our genes. We are all Africans by heritage.
Wednesday, 12 May 2010
Come back Neanderthal all is forgiven
The news that Neanderthal man interbred with modern humans should now put the final nail in the coffin of racism. Ever since our Neanderthal cousin was discovered in Germany in 1856 there has been heated debate about whether he was the same species as modern humans or not. Initially, he was classified as Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis, but latterly he was placed into another species of his own; Homo Neanderthalensis. Our cousin was portrayed as a crude and aggressive half ape, half man creature until well into the 20th century. But more recent evidence suggests that he was much more human than previously considered. Our cousin died out in Spain about 28,000 years ago. Some palaeoanthropologists believe that Neanderthals interbred with modern humans and now it looks as if there is proof that this did in fact happen. Svante Paabo at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany has discovered that the genome of modern humans contains between 1 to 4 percent Neanderthal DNA. Further studies suggest that the genome of modern man is 97.7 percent similar to the DNA of our cousin.
But what has this got to do with racism? We humans are obsessed with classifying nature. We are constantly trying to assert that there are major differences between closely related animal and plant species. For instance, the dog and the wolf freely interbreed with one another and the domestic dog descended from the wolf, so nature regards them as the same species but humans classify them as separate. Unfortunately, we have tried to do the same with human beings and we have falsely asserted that there are substantial differences between human populations where none exists. And from that assertion we have assumed racial differences that do not really exist and have supplied "oxygen" to the false assertions of racists. Modern human beings are almost clones of one another and there is no substantial difference between a person originating from China and a person originating from India or anywhere else.
Jonathan Marks in his excellent book "What it Means to Be 98% Chimpanzee" put forward the point of view that Neanderthals and Modern human beings should be referred to as sub-species of Homo Sapiens. The Neanderthals (Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis ) died out to leave just one sub-species , Homo Sapiens Sapiens, or us. The latest evidence vindicates this point of view. The last surviving humans are all in the same group. There is no scientific basis for racism which should now be defeated once and for all.
The new findings also put modern humans, firmly, in their rightful place within nature: we have believed that we were somehow superior to our Neanderthal cousins, but we are not. They were our equals and they were sufficiently human to interbreed with us. No modern human group, therefore, is superior in nature to another and racism is a dangerous and unnecessary contrivance.
But what has this got to do with racism? We humans are obsessed with classifying nature. We are constantly trying to assert that there are major differences between closely related animal and plant species. For instance, the dog and the wolf freely interbreed with one another and the domestic dog descended from the wolf, so nature regards them as the same species but humans classify them as separate. Unfortunately, we have tried to do the same with human beings and we have falsely asserted that there are substantial differences between human populations where none exists. And from that assertion we have assumed racial differences that do not really exist and have supplied "oxygen" to the false assertions of racists. Modern human beings are almost clones of one another and there is no substantial difference between a person originating from China and a person originating from India or anywhere else.
Jonathan Marks in his excellent book "What it Means to Be 98% Chimpanzee" put forward the point of view that Neanderthals and Modern human beings should be referred to as sub-species of Homo Sapiens. The Neanderthals (Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis ) died out to leave just one sub-species , Homo Sapiens Sapiens, or us. The latest evidence vindicates this point of view. The last surviving humans are all in the same group. There is no scientific basis for racism which should now be defeated once and for all.
The new findings also put modern humans, firmly, in their rightful place within nature: we have believed that we were somehow superior to our Neanderthal cousins, but we are not. They were our equals and they were sufficiently human to interbreed with us. No modern human group, therefore, is superior in nature to another and racism is a dangerous and unnecessary contrivance.
Tuesday, 11 May 2010
UK Government
Perhaps, we should now start to consider a coalition government between all the major parties. Gordon Brown has done the decent thing and resigned as party leader but remains as Prime Minister at the behest of the Queen until a new government can be formed. David Cameron has offered changes to the voting system and economic management. All of the major parties have talented politicians who could help lead the country out of a possible crisis. It should be possible to negotiate common ground between all parties. No one party is able to dominate. The wishes of the minor parties can also be taken into account. Many British people would agree to this; perhaps they are tired of the tribal politics visible every day in parliamentary debate and they are tired of an all powerful Prime Minister who is effectively Head of State and Government rolled into one.
A grand coalition of all the parties would save them all "losing face" before the electorate. What would be wrong in David Cameron being Prime Minister under these circumstances?
We need constitutional change and therefore a coalition of the three parties could put a referendum before the people about changes to the election system, including proportional representation and a fully elected House of Lords.
One change that should be most carefully thought of , however, is the change to a directly elected Prime Minister. We are a parliamentary democracy. The Prime Minister has never been selected by popular vote. Prime Ministers have been selected either by the monarch, without reference to Parliament, or latterly by the the most powerful political party in terms of the number of seats in the House of Commons. We have got used to the one of the two major parties dominating the House of Commons. Each of the two parties select their own leader who could then possibly become Prime Minister. Our choice of Prime Minister effectively rests in the hands of the tens of thousands of party members not the electorate in general. It is not possible to have a general election every time a leader of a party resigns , retires or is deposed.
Politicians who claim that a Prime Minister should be elected by the public are either being disingenuous or they are ignorant of the British constitution. Neither Gordon Brown, David Cameron nor Nick Clegg have been or can be elected Prime Minister. Gordon Brown can not be pushed out of office at present because the Head of State needs someone to lead the country until another government is formed.
To elect a Prime Minister by popular vote would mean that we were electing a President. What would be the relationship with Parliament and what would be the monarch's powers ? Are those who advocate a directly elected Prime Minister proposing a full republic as well as parliamentary democracy? Let them come out and say it.
The demand for a directly elected PM is being fuelled by the media. The British people should watch out : we would need another referendum to ensure that the effective Head of State and Government does not exceed his powers. Public opinion suggests that we want to keep a constitutional monarchy, where the powers of the Head of State are moderated by Parliament.
I would prefer to keep a parliamentary democracy which has all the checks and balances required to prevent any abuse of power. A fully elected House of Lords or a Senate would be part of this democaracy. The President of this house could then advise the Queen - who the British people want to retain as Head of State - of what to do in the event of a hung parliament or government abuse of power. Both Houses of Parliament would then have better control over who is Prime Minister and who is appointed as government minister.
Effectively, we would have a full democracy and some of the powers rested away from the Queen could return to her. Why should the Prime Minister be able to veto the appointment of the Archbishop of Canterbury? An elected House of Lords would also be allowed to reselect a monarch who was challenging our social mores or constitution. This would be preferable to the Church of England or the Prime Minister having to intervene, as was the case with Edward VIII when he was forced to abdicate.
I, also, say to those who want a Prime Minister who is directly elected by the people; "be careful what you wish for as you may unleash unpalatable forces for change." The Prime Ministers' debate may become more than a beauty contest.
A grand coalition of all the parties would save them all "losing face" before the electorate. What would be wrong in David Cameron being Prime Minister under these circumstances?
We need constitutional change and therefore a coalition of the three parties could put a referendum before the people about changes to the election system, including proportional representation and a fully elected House of Lords.
One change that should be most carefully thought of , however, is the change to a directly elected Prime Minister. We are a parliamentary democracy. The Prime Minister has never been selected by popular vote. Prime Ministers have been selected either by the monarch, without reference to Parliament, or latterly by the the most powerful political party in terms of the number of seats in the House of Commons. We have got used to the one of the two major parties dominating the House of Commons. Each of the two parties select their own leader who could then possibly become Prime Minister. Our choice of Prime Minister effectively rests in the hands of the tens of thousands of party members not the electorate in general. It is not possible to have a general election every time a leader of a party resigns , retires or is deposed.
Politicians who claim that a Prime Minister should be elected by the public are either being disingenuous or they are ignorant of the British constitution. Neither Gordon Brown, David Cameron nor Nick Clegg have been or can be elected Prime Minister. Gordon Brown can not be pushed out of office at present because the Head of State needs someone to lead the country until another government is formed.
To elect a Prime Minister by popular vote would mean that we were electing a President. What would be the relationship with Parliament and what would be the monarch's powers ? Are those who advocate a directly elected Prime Minister proposing a full republic as well as parliamentary democracy? Let them come out and say it.
The demand for a directly elected PM is being fuelled by the media. The British people should watch out : we would need another referendum to ensure that the effective Head of State and Government does not exceed his powers. Public opinion suggests that we want to keep a constitutional monarchy, where the powers of the Head of State are moderated by Parliament.
I would prefer to keep a parliamentary democracy which has all the checks and balances required to prevent any abuse of power. A fully elected House of Lords or a Senate would be part of this democaracy. The President of this house could then advise the Queen - who the British people want to retain as Head of State - of what to do in the event of a hung parliament or government abuse of power. Both Houses of Parliament would then have better control over who is Prime Minister and who is appointed as government minister.
Effectively, we would have a full democracy and some of the powers rested away from the Queen could return to her. Why should the Prime Minister be able to veto the appointment of the Archbishop of Canterbury? An elected House of Lords would also be allowed to reselect a monarch who was challenging our social mores or constitution. This would be preferable to the Church of England or the Prime Minister having to intervene, as was the case with Edward VIII when he was forced to abdicate.
I, also, say to those who want a Prime Minister who is directly elected by the people; "be careful what you wish for as you may unleash unpalatable forces for change." The Prime Ministers' debate may become more than a beauty contest.
Thursday, 6 May 2010
Badger's Demise
The Welsh Assembly has approved a cull of badgers, in Pembrokeshire, in an attempt to stamp out the spread of Bovine Tuberculosis. Why is this cull necessary?
I was at a petrol station in West Wales a couple of weeks ago and saw a cattle lorry full to the brim with cows. I wondered where they were going to. I also wondered if any of the cows were carrying TB, even though they all looked quite healthy.
Why is the disease called Bovine Tuberculosis and not Badger Tuberculosis. Yes, you have guessed it, the principal carriers of Bovine TB are cattle and not badgers. The cows are spreading the disease to the badgers not the other way around. Of course, we must support the farming community; but why must wildlife suffer when there is a possible conflict between the natural environment and farming? A small percentage of badgers have been infected with Bovine TB and no doubt small percentages of rats, rabbits and other animals are infected too. So why just pick on the badger's? Perhaps they are an easy target.
Mankind has got a dreadful record of slaughtering wildlife "competitors" to agriculture and animal husbandry. This killing is often justified on dubious scientific and moral grounds. Eagles have been persecuted because farmers have seen them eating lamb corpses, but quite often they are "carrion feeding" on animals that are already dead. Buzzards and other indigenous birds of prey have been wiped out from substantial areas of the UK because they threaten game bird species, some of which are introduced aliens. Bears, Wolves and Lynxes have been completely eliminated for similar reasons. Anything which seems to threaten the economic usage of animals or plants is wiped out. Sometimes these threats are very small.
We live in a very rich society; and yes, some Eagles do take live lambs but it does not threaten any farmer's existence and we can afford to pay compensation.
But back to the badger's; what would happen if they too were of economic importance? We would no doubt find an alternative solution. We could learn a few tricks from human disease control. We have vaccinated our population against TB. We have improved human sanitation and our living conditions to such an extent that tuberculosis no longer poses a serious problem. What is good for the humans is also good for cows. A vaccination programme will probably reduce the infection rates in both cows and the wildlife population.
The life of cows is also becoming increasingly stressful. Is there a need to herd thousands of cows into a barn to be milked three times day? Why are we transporting live animals long distances in crowded conditions? Improved animal husbandry would also help to reduce infections.
We are a rich and resourceful society we can afford to improve the living conditions and health of all animals on the farm. Lets do that and leave the poor badgers alone.
Wednesday, 5 May 2010
The 2010 UK General Election
I have still not decided whether to vote in the 2010 election or not. There are three parties which I seriously consider as fit to govern. Having read the manifestos of the three major parties, I conclude that there is really not much difference in policy.
I believe that the nation will benefit from constitutional change. A proportional representation system seems a much fairer way of electing members to a Parliament which represents the views of all of the British people. I also believe that we should have a fully elected House of Lords or a Senate which would have full powers to review all legislation including the budget. This House of Lords would also approve cabinet appointments and organise committees to question government policy. The House of Lords would also be elected on the principle of proportional representation.
If the parties are not able to agree to a proportional representation election system, I would agree to a system where third and fourth place candidates etc. would drop out of the election and there would be a fresh count to select one of the two remaining candidates. This system is used for the presidential elections in France.
It is blatantly unfair that a party which comes third in the popular vote could achieve the most number of seats, if not a majority. How could that government claim the authority to rule?
The political system in the UK allows a Prime Minister to become the Head of Government and Head of State in one. If no one party achieves a majority the Queen cannot exercise real power to appoint a Prime Minister either on the basis of most votes or most seats. The existing Prime Minister is conventionally given the right, first choice, to form a government even a minority one. Only, as a last resort is the Queen allowed to appoint a Prime Minister, from a minority party, to avoid a constitutional crisis.
Our Head of State is virtually powerless in all matters of the constitution and government as most of his or her powers are delegated to the Prime Minister. In a democracy, of course, an unelected Head of State cannot be allowed to interfere in the affairs of an elected government; this is why we need an all elected House of Lords to review the government's actions and to achieve checks and balances. Our country would then effectively become a full democracy and a "respublica" in the true meaning of the word. There is nothing to stop us retaining the monarch as Head of State for ceremonial and official occasions. The Queen or King could be advised by the House of Lords as to the possible course of action when there is a hung parliament or an abuse of power by the government. The House of Lords would also be able to approve the appointment of ministers on behalf of the monarch.
The House of Lords would also approve changes to the constitution. It would then allow Britain to become a truly secular state; as it could swear in (or remove) the monarch rather than the Church of England. The monarch would then be allowed to marry a Roman Catholic or the member of another religion; if that is what the British public really want. The monarch would still give royal assent to legislation and represent Britain overseas and would head up the Commonwealth.
The general election campaign has been conducted as if it was an election for a President. The "Prime Minister" debates have been organised as if the general public were electing the Prime Minister, rather than the political parties deciding who will be their leader and subsequently the Prime Minister. In a parliamentary democracy, such as Britain, the political parties decide their leader and this is difficult to change. If the Prime Minister were to be directly elected we would need substantial constitutional change. What would happen if a Prime Minister were elected but his political opponents were in the majority in parliament?
I believe we will only achieve constitutional change if there is a hung parliament, one of the minority parties will then be able to force a change. If I do vote, this will influence my decision.
I believe that the nation will benefit from constitutional change. A proportional representation system seems a much fairer way of electing members to a Parliament which represents the views of all of the British people. I also believe that we should have a fully elected House of Lords or a Senate which would have full powers to review all legislation including the budget. This House of Lords would also approve cabinet appointments and organise committees to question government policy. The House of Lords would also be elected on the principle of proportional representation.
If the parties are not able to agree to a proportional representation election system, I would agree to a system where third and fourth place candidates etc. would drop out of the election and there would be a fresh count to select one of the two remaining candidates. This system is used for the presidential elections in France.
It is blatantly unfair that a party which comes third in the popular vote could achieve the most number of seats, if not a majority. How could that government claim the authority to rule?
The political system in the UK allows a Prime Minister to become the Head of Government and Head of State in one. If no one party achieves a majority the Queen cannot exercise real power to appoint a Prime Minister either on the basis of most votes or most seats. The existing Prime Minister is conventionally given the right, first choice, to form a government even a minority one. Only, as a last resort is the Queen allowed to appoint a Prime Minister, from a minority party, to avoid a constitutional crisis.
Our Head of State is virtually powerless in all matters of the constitution and government as most of his or her powers are delegated to the Prime Minister. In a democracy, of course, an unelected Head of State cannot be allowed to interfere in the affairs of an elected government; this is why we need an all elected House of Lords to review the government's actions and to achieve checks and balances. Our country would then effectively become a full democracy and a "respublica" in the true meaning of the word. There is nothing to stop us retaining the monarch as Head of State for ceremonial and official occasions. The Queen or King could be advised by the House of Lords as to the possible course of action when there is a hung parliament or an abuse of power by the government. The House of Lords would also be able to approve the appointment of ministers on behalf of the monarch.
The House of Lords would also approve changes to the constitution. It would then allow Britain to become a truly secular state; as it could swear in (or remove) the monarch rather than the Church of England. The monarch would then be allowed to marry a Roman Catholic or the member of another religion; if that is what the British public really want. The monarch would still give royal assent to legislation and represent Britain overseas and would head up the Commonwealth.
The general election campaign has been conducted as if it was an election for a President. The "Prime Minister" debates have been organised as if the general public were electing the Prime Minister, rather than the political parties deciding who will be their leader and subsequently the Prime Minister. In a parliamentary democracy, such as Britain, the political parties decide their leader and this is difficult to change. If the Prime Minister were to be directly elected we would need substantial constitutional change. What would happen if a Prime Minister were elected but his political opponents were in the majority in parliament?
I believe we will only achieve constitutional change if there is a hung parliament, one of the minority parties will then be able to force a change. If I do vote, this will influence my decision.
Tuesday, 4 May 2010
starry, starry night
Our council in London, has started to introduce street lighting which directs the light towards the ground and reduces the escape of light into the sky. I have noticed a small improvement to the view of the night sky. There is still a long way to go however, but any improvement should be welcome. There are few places in the UK where we are able to see the full magnificence of the night sky. To do so one would need to go to the more remote areas of Scotland, Wales and Northern England.
When I was a boy, a half mile walk from my village would reveal completely dark skies My father used to point out the most noticeable constellations such as the Great Bear, Orion, Cassiopeia . I am have always held a fascination for the night skies ever since. I used to watch out for Yuri Gagarin and John Glenn in orbit but I was always in the wrong place at the wrong time.
From London I can still make out the brighter constellations but where has Ursa Minor gone? I can just about identify Castor and Pollux but where is the rest of its constellation? Where is the Milky Way? They are lost in the orange glow unfortunately.
In 1997, the comet Hale Bopp was able to penetrate the light and particle pollution over London and the sight was inspiring. A trip to the Auvergne in France, and away from much of the light pollution, shewed the comet in its magnificent glory; the size of its tails was truly amazing. This is a sight everyone should have the privilege of seeing.
Later, in France again and during Christmas 1999, hurricane force winds had turned off all the lights in the Champagne region where I was staying. A trip out into the country showed me how spectacular our skies could be again if the light pollution disappeared. The wind and rain had cleared the air but it was difficult to pick out the constellations because of a surfeit of stars; we simply were not used to seeing so many. I had almost forgotten what the Milky Way looked like.
Of course, it is now impractical to provide completely dark skies in our cities but we have made a good start. It should now be possible to improve, substantially, the visibility of the skies from our suburbs and villages. Children would, then again, not be so far from a location where they could see the full magnificence of the Milky Way. Hopefully, they would be inspired and the spirit of Gagarin, Glenn and Jim Lovell would live on indefinitely.
When I was a boy, a half mile walk from my village would reveal completely dark skies My father used to point out the most noticeable constellations such as the Great Bear, Orion, Cassiopeia . I am have always held a fascination for the night skies ever since. I used to watch out for Yuri Gagarin and John Glenn in orbit but I was always in the wrong place at the wrong time.
From London I can still make out the brighter constellations but where has Ursa Minor gone? I can just about identify Castor and Pollux but where is the rest of its constellation? Where is the Milky Way? They are lost in the orange glow unfortunately.
In 1997, the comet Hale Bopp was able to penetrate the light and particle pollution over London and the sight was inspiring. A trip to the Auvergne in France, and away from much of the light pollution, shewed the comet in its magnificent glory; the size of its tails was truly amazing. This is a sight everyone should have the privilege of seeing.
Later, in France again and during Christmas 1999, hurricane force winds had turned off all the lights in the Champagne region where I was staying. A trip out into the country showed me how spectacular our skies could be again if the light pollution disappeared. The wind and rain had cleared the air but it was difficult to pick out the constellations because of a surfeit of stars; we simply were not used to seeing so many. I had almost forgotten what the Milky Way looked like.
Of course, it is now impractical to provide completely dark skies in our cities but we have made a good start. It should now be possible to improve, substantially, the visibility of the skies from our suburbs and villages. Children would, then again, not be so far from a location where they could see the full magnificence of the Milky Way. Hopefully, they would be inspired and the spirit of Gagarin, Glenn and Jim Lovell would live on indefinitely.
Monday, 3 May 2010
Crude Speculation
The Deep Water Horizon crisis, in the Gulf of Mexico, should provoke discussion beyond the immediate problem of preventing crude oil damaging the livelihood of fishermen and others in the States affected. The wildlife also needs protection. People can been protected, to some extent, from the economic ravages of the spillage but protecting the environment is a different matter.
No doubt, the organisational skills of the American people will temporarily alleviate the economic and environmental damage. We must all, however, consider the long term consequences of our actions and our attitude to nature and to our ultimate survival.
Industrialisation commingled with our ever increasing population growth is straining the environment, which supports all of us, to breaking point. It is feeding the demand for oil which needs to be sourced from more problematic locations. When there is an oil leakage or spillage, effecting repairs will become increasingly difficult. This trend is set to continue.
When there is an oil spillage, next to heavily populated areas, the crude oil does not just create a new environmental problem but adds to an existing one. The environment will already have been degraded and weakened by industrialisation; the recovery then becomes that much more difficult.
The risks to our survival result not just from what we actually do, but also from the dimensions of our activity. It is the scale of the oil spillage that causes the problem. The risks of environmental and economic damage lie solely in the numbers: it is a triumph of quantity over substance. The environment can easily cope with a small natural spillage of crude oil; but industrial scale quantities present a severe problem. The same principle applies to all human activity.
No doubt, the organisational skills of the American people will temporarily alleviate the economic and environmental damage. We must all, however, consider the long term consequences of our actions and our attitude to nature and to our ultimate survival.
Industrialisation commingled with our ever increasing population growth is straining the environment, which supports all of us, to breaking point. It is feeding the demand for oil which needs to be sourced from more problematic locations. When there is an oil leakage or spillage, effecting repairs will become increasingly difficult. This trend is set to continue.
When there is an oil spillage, next to heavily populated areas, the crude oil does not just create a new environmental problem but adds to an existing one. The environment will already have been degraded and weakened by industrialisation; the recovery then becomes that much more difficult.
The risks to our survival result not just from what we actually do, but also from the dimensions of our activity. It is the scale of the oil spillage that causes the problem. The risks of environmental and economic damage lie solely in the numbers: it is a triumph of quantity over substance. The environment can easily cope with a small natural spillage of crude oil; but industrial scale quantities present a severe problem. The same principle applies to all human activity.
How long can we continue to live in an increasingly industrialised society where the need for fossil fuels is encouraged by population growth? The risks to our well being are now starting to be recognised by politicians, and the governor of California is now questioning whether prospecting for oil should continue offshore from his state.
The USA, or the rest of the world that matter, cannot stop prospecting for oil as we need it to drive our flourishing economies. But, overuse of the very fuel that secures our livelihood will eventually choke us.
The business and financial world has taught us to recognise that benefits should be weighed against costs. It has also demonstrated that risks and rewards are closely correlated and that the higher the reward the the higher the risk. When these two principles are ignored, business and economic systems run out of control and grow until there is a collapse.
Human activity is not immune from these principles . We run the risk of social collapse if industrialisation and population run out of control. I cannot understand why humanity cannot appreciate the risk to our survival of continued population expansion. There is a trade off between the benefits of growth against the costs of environmental degradation. Does anyone seriously believe that the planet is able to support multiple billions of people in industrialised comfort?
History provides many examples of social and economic collapse; the Roman Empire and the Soviet Union are but two. We are trying to create a Globalised society, and of course there are many benefits such as cheap consumer goods and free and easy travel. But what are the costs of increased industrialisation and rapid population growth? What is the risk? Will it, eventually, lead to social, economic and environmental collapse? These are the questions we should all be asking. The evidence suggests that we are heading for danger.
Every person alive deserves to benefit from the apt use of technology and industrialisation. But we cannot achieve this unless we manage our population; we need to stop its growth and eventually reverse it until the numbers operate in our favour. The result will mean that spillages of of oil etc. will be less dangerous. We will not have to search for resources in remote and wild areas. We will, also, be able to recycle most of the material needed for an industrial society.
We cannot expect Nature to help us if we overextend ourselves. It will not, altruistically, generate a favourable wind to direct the the crude oil away from our shores. Equally, it is not motivated to cruelly blow the oil to our beaches and marshlands. We are the masters of our own destiny. If we chose to operate in harmony with a natural world that does not care whether we live or die, then we as a species will survive to follow our evolutionary path. If we chose to act in disharmony, our species will probably perish.
Friday, 30 April 2010
Misuse of Technology
This week, in the news, we have seen a number of misuses of technology as demonstrated by the following:
The Prime Minister, of the UK, was wired up with a portable microphone which was not switched off when he made private disparaging remarks about a voter he had just met. The private comments were then broadcast to the world. Then, afterwards, the Prime Minister was filmed by a television camera, in a Radio studio, whilst his words were played back to him by surprise. Of course, pictures of him hiding his face were then broadcast to the public.
There was a court case, where a teacher was acquitted of the attempted murder of a pupil who had been badly misbehaving. He had been deliberately stressed by the pupil, in question, and his classmates as part of a ruse to film classroom mayhem with a hidden video camera.
A prospective member of parliament, for the UK general election, allegedly used twitter to broadcast the results of the count of postal votes before the election proper. This is in contravention of UK election law.
There are some lessons for all of us here.
Lets take the case of the Prime Minister. The purpose of the microphone was to help journalists hear what the PM was saying in public; not in private. Surely, it was a breach of faith to publish his private comments, the press knew that he was not making public remarks. Whether you like the Prime Minister or not or agree with his politics or not, this should not have happened. The point was made that the PM or his aides should have turned the microphone off, but it is easy for anyone to make a mistake. With regard to the Radio interview: what was a television camera doing in a Radio studio? The whole point of Radio is to broadcast sound content only; if you introduce television cameras into the studio you might as well abolish the medium of sound once and for all. There is already too much television content on the airways and most of it is rubbish. The television pictures portrayed the PM as if he was hiding his face in shame. But, he could just as well have been concentrating on the playback of the recording. The whole event in the radio station looked as if it had been stage managed to ensure maximum embarrassment.
With regard to the teacher; the pupils' attempts to secretly film his embarrassment badly misfired and the consequences could have been even more tragic for all concerned. No doubt the pupils were hoping to broadcast the teacher's demise on a social web site.
I can only think that the prospective MP pressed the send button before she had engaged her brain. I have often done this myself and I have had to go back and edit these blogs to correct spelling mistakes because I have forgotten to use the spell checker or I have pressed the "publish" button, rather than "save", before I have proofread the wonderful words of wisdom. But, back to the election: what was the council doing counting the postal votes before the actual day of the election? They could have saved the prospective MP a lot of trouble and potential legal action.
The world is full of wonderful inventions which could, if used with thought and care, save us both time and effort. However, their misuse is causing more and more problems, or should I say challenges, which require far more time and effort to resolve than the original problems they were being used to fix. And, you might get more than you bargained for.
Take the example of email: I make a point of reading my email once a day in the evening; therefore, there is no point in sending me an email during the day which requires attention in the next five minutes. The purpose of any form of mail is to allow the recipient time to think before they answer. If an instant answer is required; use the the telephone or text.
Spreadsheets were designed for accountants and bookkeepers to add up figures. They were not designed for verbal or visual communication. When they are used to draw up plans or write reports they are a disaster. They have too many boxes which cannot be read easily and are often filled up with useless irrelevant information. They can be dressed up with fancy colours and they are style over substance gone mad. If you have got to include a table, in your written communications, then use the table function in Word; it does not allow you to use too many boxes so you have to crystallise your thoughts.
Blackberries must be one of the most misused inventions of all. How many times have I received an unintelligible email message from someone on a train or at an airport. The whole idea of spending time out of the office is to give you time to spend with your family or friends or just to think and rest and be more creative. Twenty four hour working just makes you tired and you become unproductive when you are "at the the office" during normal working hours.
Portable phones should be used with equal care; whenever I managed project teams I always encouraged staff not to 'phone me at home unless there was a real emergency and not if they were unable to find a line in a report or a task on a planning Gantt chart! They used to say to me, "what happens if something goes wrong ?" I used to say, "what happened to Christopher Columbus when something went wrong?" He thought of a solution himself: he did not have time to wait for the pigeon post to report back from the King. We all perform better when we have to think for ourselves. My team mates thanked me for it afterwards.
There is a general theme running through all of this, and it is all about time. The journalists can not wait to get a report. The politician cannot wait to get the election results published. The pupils cannot wait to see the teacher making a fool of himself on a social website. And there is another theme; none of us, politician, pupil, blogger or worker seems to have time to think before we act or make fool's of ourselves or worse still do something which provokes anger or danger.
So what should we do about it? We should think about how we did things before our wonderful inventions existed. Only make use of them when they really add value to social or business activity. Plan your actions as if these tools are not available all the time.
Well, when we arranged a meeting we had to plan the social or business occasion well in advance and we had to have a contingency plan if someone failed to turn up. We had to make more of an effort to keep our promise to be there on time. There was no portable 'phone to make last minute arrangements. We took a map and planned our route.
When we used to manage our projects, we spent a long time planning and making contingencies for when things went wrong. We had to think our way out of difficult situations as we could not contact our bosses or more experienced colleagues as easily.
We had to give ourselves time to breathe and to use the best tool available: that was our brain which was not designed, solely, for "just in time" usage. In fact it was not designed at all, it has evolved into a marvellous all purpose, creative, reasoning, social and business tool.
When we use our computer tools and mobile devices effectively we make time for thought , planning, reasoning and effective social interaction. If we misuse them, we can create disharmony and dysfunction.
Please make time to think about the consequences of your actions before you press the button on or off. Make the world both more kind, more productive and more healthy.
The Prime Minister, of the UK, was wired up with a portable microphone which was not switched off when he made private disparaging remarks about a voter he had just met. The private comments were then broadcast to the world. Then, afterwards, the Prime Minister was filmed by a television camera, in a Radio studio, whilst his words were played back to him by surprise. Of course, pictures of him hiding his face were then broadcast to the public.
There was a court case, where a teacher was acquitted of the attempted murder of a pupil who had been badly misbehaving. He had been deliberately stressed by the pupil, in question, and his classmates as part of a ruse to film classroom mayhem with a hidden video camera.
A prospective member of parliament, for the UK general election, allegedly used twitter to broadcast the results of the count of postal votes before the election proper. This is in contravention of UK election law.
There are some lessons for all of us here.
Lets take the case of the Prime Minister. The purpose of the microphone was to help journalists hear what the PM was saying in public; not in private. Surely, it was a breach of faith to publish his private comments, the press knew that he was not making public remarks. Whether you like the Prime Minister or not or agree with his politics or not, this should not have happened. The point was made that the PM or his aides should have turned the microphone off, but it is easy for anyone to make a mistake. With regard to the Radio interview: what was a television camera doing in a Radio studio? The whole point of Radio is to broadcast sound content only; if you introduce television cameras into the studio you might as well abolish the medium of sound once and for all. There is already too much television content on the airways and most of it is rubbish. The television pictures portrayed the PM as if he was hiding his face in shame. But, he could just as well have been concentrating on the playback of the recording. The whole event in the radio station looked as if it had been stage managed to ensure maximum embarrassment.
With regard to the teacher; the pupils' attempts to secretly film his embarrassment badly misfired and the consequences could have been even more tragic for all concerned. No doubt the pupils were hoping to broadcast the teacher's demise on a social web site.
I can only think that the prospective MP pressed the send button before she had engaged her brain. I have often done this myself and I have had to go back and edit these blogs to correct spelling mistakes because I have forgotten to use the spell checker or I have pressed the "publish" button, rather than "save", before I have proofread the wonderful words of wisdom. But, back to the election: what was the council doing counting the postal votes before the actual day of the election? They could have saved the prospective MP a lot of trouble and potential legal action.
The world is full of wonderful inventions which could, if used with thought and care, save us both time and effort. However, their misuse is causing more and more problems, or should I say challenges, which require far more time and effort to resolve than the original problems they were being used to fix. And, you might get more than you bargained for.
Take the example of email: I make a point of reading my email once a day in the evening; therefore, there is no point in sending me an email during the day which requires attention in the next five minutes. The purpose of any form of mail is to allow the recipient time to think before they answer. If an instant answer is required; use the the telephone or text.
Spreadsheets were designed for accountants and bookkeepers to add up figures. They were not designed for verbal or visual communication. When they are used to draw up plans or write reports they are a disaster. They have too many boxes which cannot be read easily and are often filled up with useless irrelevant information. They can be dressed up with fancy colours and they are style over substance gone mad. If you have got to include a table, in your written communications, then use the table function in Word; it does not allow you to use too many boxes so you have to crystallise your thoughts.
Blackberries must be one of the most misused inventions of all. How many times have I received an unintelligible email message from someone on a train or at an airport. The whole idea of spending time out of the office is to give you time to spend with your family or friends or just to think and rest and be more creative. Twenty four hour working just makes you tired and you become unproductive when you are "at the the office" during normal working hours.
Portable phones should be used with equal care; whenever I managed project teams I always encouraged staff not to 'phone me at home unless there was a real emergency and not if they were unable to find a line in a report or a task on a planning Gantt chart! They used to say to me, "what happens if something goes wrong ?" I used to say, "what happened to Christopher Columbus when something went wrong?" He thought of a solution himself: he did not have time to wait for the pigeon post to report back from the King. We all perform better when we have to think for ourselves. My team mates thanked me for it afterwards.
There is a general theme running through all of this, and it is all about time. The journalists can not wait to get a report. The politician cannot wait to get the election results published. The pupils cannot wait to see the teacher making a fool of himself on a social website. And there is another theme; none of us, politician, pupil, blogger or worker seems to have time to think before we act or make fool's of ourselves or worse still do something which provokes anger or danger.
So what should we do about it? We should think about how we did things before our wonderful inventions existed. Only make use of them when they really add value to social or business activity. Plan your actions as if these tools are not available all the time.
Well, when we arranged a meeting we had to plan the social or business occasion well in advance and we had to have a contingency plan if someone failed to turn up. We had to make more of an effort to keep our promise to be there on time. There was no portable 'phone to make last minute arrangements. We took a map and planned our route.
When we used to manage our projects, we spent a long time planning and making contingencies for when things went wrong. We had to think our way out of difficult situations as we could not contact our bosses or more experienced colleagues as easily.
We had to give ourselves time to breathe and to use the best tool available: that was our brain which was not designed, solely, for "just in time" usage. In fact it was not designed at all, it has evolved into a marvellous all purpose, creative, reasoning, social and business tool.
When we use our computer tools and mobile devices effectively we make time for thought , planning, reasoning and effective social interaction. If we misuse them, we can create disharmony and dysfunction.
Please make time to think about the consequences of your actions before you press the button on or off. Make the world both more kind, more productive and more healthy.
Wednesday, 28 April 2010
Nuclear Bombs
I can clearly remember the missile crisis of October 1962, when Soviet Union vessels carrying intermediate range rockets were heading for the the US fleet which was blockading Cuba. Fortunately, the Soviet Union backed down and decided not to "run the blockade". The fear of imminent war was palpable and the whole of the world faced the prospect of nuclear annihilation. The memory of these events still chills me. I remember the three minute warning which Britain would have received if the nuclear weapons had been unleashed. We all left for school in the morning wondering whether we would see our parents again.
No crisis since, short of actually being involved in a war, has matched this for the sheer fear that it provoked that the whole world would end.
During the seventies and early eighties we were"treated" to government propaganda about what to do in the event of another nuclear crisis and how to plan for it- Protect and Survive. There were suggestions to keep a supply of food and water and diagrams showing you how to build an ersatz nuclear fall out shelter in the living room.
Being a natural sceptic, I realised what rubbish it all was:there is no real way to protect yourself from a nuclear bomb or the fall out, chaos and disease that would result from a nuclear war.
My plan was to find the place a nuclear weapon was most likely to hit and end it all quickly.
How did the human species ever indulge in the irrationality and madness of inventing these kind of weapons? What will happen if they fall into the hands of another Hitler or a bigot full of hate?
Tuesday, 27 April 2010
Aliens
Professor Stephen Hawking has suggested that we avoid contact with any alien beings that we might discover. He is of the view that it is "perfectly rational" that intelligent life could exist elsewhere. It is quite possible that life exists on other planets within our solar system or other star systems within the Milky Way. There is, however, no hard evidence and it is pure speculation whether any kind of life exists anywhere else other than the earth.
SETI ( the search for extraterrestrial intelligence) has been scanning the heavens for over a decade and have found nothing. Any intelligent life could be tens of light years away.
Even if intelligent beings were on another planet it would be very difficult for them to travel across many light years to get to earth. It would not just be a technical problem; it would cost them a lot of money and resources and it may not be worth the investment to come here. There would probably be enormous social and psychological difficulties to be overcome. Who would volunteer for such a long journey? They would probably send a robot. I doubt that we will ever meet an intelligent alien face to face.
SETI ( the search for extraterrestrial intelligence) has been scanning the heavens for over a decade and have found nothing. Any intelligent life could be tens of light years away.
Even if intelligent beings were on another planet it would be very difficult for them to travel across many light years to get to earth. It would not just be a technical problem; it would cost them a lot of money and resources and it may not be worth the investment to come here. There would probably be enormous social and psychological difficulties to be overcome. Who would volunteer for such a long journey? They would probably send a robot. I doubt that we will ever meet an intelligent alien face to face.
Monday, 26 April 2010
Vatican Troubles
Once again the Vatican is getting itself into all sorts of problems: now it is with the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office. It really should have kept quiet about the musings of a "junior" Foreign Official when he or she attended a brainstorming session. The whole idea of a brainstorming session is to think the unthinkable or the bizarre to assist problem solving. There would have been no intention to publish these ideas and certainly no intention to insult anyone, let alone the Pope. The idea of a brainstorming session would probably have been to make the Pope's visit better. The Vatican should "get real" and move into the modern age.
Imagine what would have happened if an official had lampooned the Pope in the 14th century; the humorist would probably been tortured to death. This is why we are lucky to live in a secular society: there can be no punishment for those who criticise or make fun of religious or political organisations.
The Roman Catholic Church and other religions should also be thankful that Britain is a secular society. If Britain were to become a theocracy again, no doubt the Church of England would reign supreme and if it obtained absolute power it would not be favourably disposed to Roman Catholics, Muslims, Hindus or even Baptists etc. The coalition of the faiths to attack secularism would, also, then be quickly disposed of by the newly powerful Church of England and we would go back to the attitudes of the 16th and 17th centuries and woe betide a Roman Catholic, Jew or Muslim.
Our secular society has guaranteed the civil liberties of all of its citizens including those of faith and those of us who are agnostics and atheists. I do not know why any religion in Britain should feel that it is under attack from either the British state or its non-religious citizens. There is really no need to be sensitive about some simple lampooning conducted in private.
The Vatican should stop trying to muffle criticism and put its house in order regarding crimes against children, holocaust denial and discrimination against homosexuals. The Vatican should also celebrate the fact that a secular society is still prepared to welcome the Pope despite the cover ups, denials and prejudice. Would a theocracy ever be that tolerant? I don't think so.
Imagine what would have happened if an official had lampooned the Pope in the 14th century; the humorist would probably been tortured to death. This is why we are lucky to live in a secular society: there can be no punishment for those who criticise or make fun of religious or political organisations.
The Roman Catholic Church and other religions should also be thankful that Britain is a secular society. If Britain were to become a theocracy again, no doubt the Church of England would reign supreme and if it obtained absolute power it would not be favourably disposed to Roman Catholics, Muslims, Hindus or even Baptists etc. The coalition of the faiths to attack secularism would, also, then be quickly disposed of by the newly powerful Church of England and we would go back to the attitudes of the 16th and 17th centuries and woe betide a Roman Catholic, Jew or Muslim.
Our secular society has guaranteed the civil liberties of all of its citizens including those of faith and those of us who are agnostics and atheists. I do not know why any religion in Britain should feel that it is under attack from either the British state or its non-religious citizens. There is really no need to be sensitive about some simple lampooning conducted in private.
The Vatican should stop trying to muffle criticism and put its house in order regarding crimes against children, holocaust denial and discrimination against homosexuals. The Vatican should also celebrate the fact that a secular society is still prepared to welcome the Pope despite the cover ups, denials and prejudice. Would a theocracy ever be that tolerant? I don't think so.
Holocaust Denial
I do not believe that free speech should be limited by fines or imprisonment, but I can understand why Holocaust denial is such a sensitive issue in Germany and Austria. I would like bishop Richard Williamson, however, to explain why he believes that the Holocaust did not happen.
There is more than ample evidence that the Holocaust took place, and not just from the distressed testimony of eye witnesses.
No doubt, because he is a Roman Catholic bishop, Williamson believes in god. There is no verifiable evidence that a supernatural deity exists.
Why, therefore, deny the existence of the Holocaust when there is solid evidence, but assert the existence of god when there is none. Surely, opinion and belief should be informed by the facts.
I aver, that the historic consequences of, what was possibly, the greatest crime in history should not be trivialised by anyone who is unable to interpret evidence or lack of it correctly. It is time for the Vatican to act and resolve this issue.
Perhaps, the world would be a better place if we based our opinions on some form of observed facts rather than belief which denies the evidence.
There is more than ample evidence that the Holocaust took place, and not just from the distressed testimony of eye witnesses.
No doubt, because he is a Roman Catholic bishop, Williamson believes in god. There is no verifiable evidence that a supernatural deity exists.
Why, therefore, deny the existence of the Holocaust when there is solid evidence, but assert the existence of god when there is none. Surely, opinion and belief should be informed by the facts.
I aver, that the historic consequences of, what was possibly, the greatest crime in history should not be trivialised by anyone who is unable to interpret evidence or lack of it correctly. It is time for the Vatican to act and resolve this issue.
Perhaps, the world would be a better place if we based our opinions on some form of observed facts rather than belief which denies the evidence.
Friday, 23 April 2010
3D TV
This is the television set that I watch: it is a 19 inch Samsung. There is no HD and definitelyno 3D. Suppliers are now trying to ship 3D televisions, in time for the world cup, for more than £1,800. I was scanning the numerous channels on Freeview the other night and could only find one channel that I wanted to watch. The rest of the channels were either showing rubbish or looping through 24 hour news. Most of the content was not being broadcast in either HD or 3D, so why should I bother to spend £1,800.
I do not go to football matches very often, and the last time I went I saw West Ham United play Manchester United. It was live and very much in three dimensions. The one thing that I noticed, from a perception point of view, was that the footballers were running very much slower live than they appear to be on TV. The twinkled toed star of MU did not look so impressive. The West Ham team quickly neutralised the highly paid "dribbler" and went on to win the match 2-1. Somehow the football did not look so special . Now, with Rugby Football, it is a different story but maybe I am prejudiced.
Have I become so used to seeing sport on television that I am disappointed when I see the real thing? Has anyone else noticed the difference? Is it the electronic medium providing the entertainment rather than the content that is broadcast. Will the 3D television world be equally disappointing?
Eventually, 3D television sets will become so cheap that everyone will be watching them, including me. Coronation street will still be rubbish, however, and the endless repeats of Dallas will still retain their faded quality. We will still be paying for style over substance when it comes to programme content.
As for the football, we will soon be treated to players diving and shirt pulling in full HD and 3D. The histrionics and false displays of pain will become more exaggerated. The endless discussions about whether a player was off-side or the ball over the goal line will still continue in the studio: 3D television might result in them going on forever. Now, with Rugby Football this will not happen but maybe I am prejudiced.
Green Thinking on Climate change and Population
I have just read the Green Party election manifesto on climate change and population.
With regard to climate change, the policy is for the UK to reduce CO2 emissions by 90% by 2030.This means that by 2030, and on average, each person in the UK must reduce their CO2 emissions from 9.5 tonnes to about 1 tonne per year. By 2030 the UK would then be emitting 60 million tonnes of CO2 per year rather than the 570 million tonnes at present. It is claimed that this would be Britain’s contribution to the Global effort to stabilise but not reduce the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Each year the population of the planet increases by about 83 million people. Even if each new person were only to emit 1 tonne of CO2 per year, in 2030, the UK’s contribution would be totally wiped out. The figures are not favourable.
The contribution of Britain’s greenhouse emissions to global warming is described well in George Monbiot’s book “Heat. The book also proposes a technical solution, to reduce the UK’s Carbon CO2 emissions by around 90%, to meet the deadline.
I have little doubt that dangerous global heating is imminent. It could strike us, within the next thirty years or so, and surprise us with sudden and unpredicted changes when it does. What would happen, if the Northern latitudes were to freeze for a hundred years or longer, whilst the rest of the planet warms up, even more, to maintain a new balance of energy and temperature? Do not think that this cannot happen because similar climatic changes have happened in the past - at the end of the last ice age- when CO2 levels were much lower than they are now. If you are not convinced that global warming theory is correct then read “The Discovery of Global Warming” by Spencer R Weart.
The problem, that I have, is how are we to going the make the political, economic and social changes needed to achieve CO2 reductions. I also take issue with the reasoning that steadying global emissions will, in fact, halt the global warming that we have set in train.
From a political point of view, most people remain to be convinced by the science and are unconvinced that we must take action. They find it unacceptable that their standards of living or life style should either be reduced or altered to meet the demand for reduced emissions.
The IPCC has failed to convince the general public that their climate models are able to predict the future. Their predictions that the climate and weather will warm up in a gently sloping curve so that we can intervene when it gets a little bit hot are clearly wrong. So, when a cold winter occurs in the Northern Hemisphere, it becomes increasingly difficult to convince the public that global warming is in fact taking place. The Kyoto agreement has failed to reduce CO2 emissions significantly and the Copenhagen conference failed completely. Getting world agreement is a tremendous problem so, if the world cannot agree to a Global solution, how do we expect voters in the UK to agree to the major changes that such drastic reductions in CO2 emissions demand? Who in Britain wants to forgo their car, foreign holiday and new consumer goods when they see other major countries, including China and India, increase their emissions. The argument that “you where the original ‘polluters’ so you take all the hits”, may be justified, but it does not impress voters either in Europe or the US. Let us face the facts.
We need a fresh approach to both IPCC and Kyoto- like conferences. I fear that it may not be possible, in an open and free society, to convince voters to reduce their consumption while all the confusion reigns. To achieve the reductions required, politicians may have to resort to an unpalatable compulsion that would need to be imposed globally. What chance is there of that happening?
From an economic point of view, we need to completely change our economic model; from one of free and easy travel, cheap farming practices, “just in time” production and supply techniques, built in obsolescence and cheap consumer goods, to the reverse of it.
We also need to impose taxes on fossil fuels and change the whole system of the supply and demand for fuel. I do not believe that taxing emissions, just in the UK and developed world, will reduce emissions globally. Making UK fuel more expensive will reduce demand in Britain but decrease the price on world markets. Poorer countries who cannot afford the luxury of “green” energy, will then “take up the slack” by consuming more fossil fuel at the reduced price.
We have seen the disruption caused by the recent credit crisis and changes are required to regulate the financial system to prevent a future meltdown. The economic forces opposing this are enormous and international agreement may take years to implement. Just changing the financial system is difficult enough; so how are we going to change the rest of our economic system, in the time required, without impoverishing both the developed and developing world?
Britain could weaken its economic position if we were to incur the costs of converting to alternative energy whilst other countries do not. The government and people of Britain would not allow this to happen.
There are a number of issues to be solved related to our belief systems. Many writers on the problem of climate change comment that CO2 gas is a pollutant. It is not. If there was no carbon dioxide in the atmosphere most of the plant and animal life on the planet would die. If there is too much in the atmosphere, as there is on Venus, all life would die out completely. It is a question of the right quantity and maintaining a balance of nature. This principle applies to the whole of nature including human beings. For some reason, we humans believe that we are immune to these laws.
The motor car is a wonderful invention, when only a few million people posses one, but when hundreds of millions start to use a vehicle there is a serious problem. The same principle applies to all of the wonderful inventions that modern life has created. The more people there are the more CO2 there will be emitted. We cannot escape from the fact that there are too many people on the planet, who are either, already, consuming at levels which threaten the environment or aspire to do so. In the Western World, we have based our political, economic and social systems on immediate consumption. This has already lead to enormous degradation of the environment and dangerous levels of CO2 gas in the atmosphere. The developing world wishes to aspire to the same level of economic development as the West. It would be immoral to stop them; so while the population of the planet is increasing our problems are mounting and we are living out of balance of nature. The dynamic equilibrium of atmospheric gases, which has kept our climate favourable for the last 8,000 years or so, is being compromised.
I fear that the problem of over population and the perception that we are immune to the laws of nature will not be overcome before it is too late. For decades, there was a need to have a tsunami warning system in the Indian Ocean, nothing was done about it until 250,000 people died. Global warming will probably hit us with a crisis of much greater proportion. By then, it might not be possible to mitigate the effects of climate change and environmental degradation. The realisation that we must all change our opinion might come too late.
Getting the whole world, let alone the UK, to reduce its thirst for energy is a colossal and task. It might only be achieved by some form of dictatorship. We would also have to deny poorer countries the means to develop their economies. By 2030, at an emission rate of only one tonne of CO2 per person, the world will be emitting 8 billion tonnes per annum, if a population growth of 83 million per year is maintained. The ecosystem is able to sequester 4 billion tonnes per year, at best. The emissions balance sheet does not look good.
By 2030 the Arctic Ocean will probably not be covered by ice in the summer or the ice will have substantially reduced. This, in itself, presents a huge problem as the reflectivity of a vast area of ocean will be reduced from about 80% to 20%: the ocean will, therefore, absorb and retain more of the Sun’s energy. The planet will warm up more and more as a result. Not even the Green party has a policy for this, so we are faced with extra warming even if we could steady CO2 emissions by 2030. The prospects are not good.
To reduce man’s thirst for energy and consumer goods is almost an unsolvable problem. It would probably require complete cooperation between the competing nations. What are the chances of this happening?
The only way to get back to preindustrial levels of emissions and restore the CO2 concentration to safe levels will be too reduce our population to perhaps a billion people or fewer - whilst we rely upon fossil fuels. One might argue that soon the oil and gas will run out but there are ample supplies of coal and methyl clathrates just waiting to be exploited. More carbon in fact than we have burnt already.
How are we going to reduce our population? Some major religions are completely opposed to contraception. It is a difficult human rights issue and the drive to reproduce is as strong as the fear of death. Our economic, social and political systems are based on population growth. This is where the Green Party policy becomes unrealistic and wish washy: how can persuasion work? The Green party is, however, very brave to raise this issue as all other politicians seem to be frightened to tackle it. This is why Caroline Lucas is needed to point out the dangers; her eloquence and rationality are at least keeping the issue in the public eye.
I am of the view that it is now time for everyone to consider the position regarding the population growth of the planet. I am opposed, however, to families being forced to curb their reproduction. I urge every person to consider the future of our human species. If we all agreed to limit our families then we could help to reduce the problem of resource shortages along with, atmospheric pollution and the excess production of green house gases. I do not regard CO2 as a pollutant; we simply need it at the right concentration in the atmosphere for our species to flourish. Unfortunately, my hopes are probably in vain.
Where does this leave us? I could be accused of being a merchant of doom. Everyone, however, is doomed. Seven billion people will die of old age whether there is global warming or not. None of us will live for ever. We have to find a way to curb our population growth to maintain a reasonably good quality of life for everyone whilst they are alive. If we do not, the planet will do it for us. It will simply become uninhabitable, in most regions of the world, as the planet heats up and drought sets in. The ecosystem will not be able to support several billions of people. The evidence from palaeontology suggests that the human population was once reduced by climate change, in this case during an ice age, to around two thousand individuals. It happened without human intervention. The same could happen again because of our actions: we could even become extinct. We face the possibility of millions of children being born only to die in the first four or five years of their life. We face the prospect of mass migration, starvation, resource wars and global disease which could kill millions of weakened people. Do we really want this to happen? There is considerable risk that this undesirable consequence could occur. Over population does not only threaten us with climate changes; it threatens the degradation of the very environment which sustains us.
What do we do? Is there hope? I believe that the proposals of the Green Party will not solve the problem of Global Warming. They are a start, however, and they are more relevant than most other political parties’ propositions.
What do we do? I agree with James Lovelock. We must plan a contingency for the possible coming crisis. This planning might be more important than striving to reduce carbon emissions. But the emissions issue must be tackled eventually. Somehow, we must persuade everyone to reduce their fertility as a managed reduction of the population will be much more desirable. Nature is not cruel, in a human sense, it simply does not care whether we exist or not. Nature will be able to continue without us. We must change our view that we are immune to the laws of nature for we are an integrated part of them. Then, it might be possible to workout a solution.
Much as I hate to say this, we are faced with the prospect of having to “geo-engineer” a solution, but if climate change pulls out a surprise it may be too late to implement mitigation. We might have to consider carbon sequestration or pumping millions of tons of sulphur compounds into the atmosphere to artificially reduce the temperature. Such projects would be very expensive and difficult to maintain and in the long run might further upset the balance of nature. Perhaps, there will be little choice but to accept the additional risk.
The Green Party’s solutions are unrealistic but of course they have the right, if not the duty, to raise them. No other political parties are portraying the sense of urgency that is needed or perhaps, just like me, they despair that there is a solution.
With regard to climate change, the policy is for the UK to reduce CO2 emissions by 90% by 2030.This means that by 2030, and on average, each person in the UK must reduce their CO2 emissions from 9.5 tonnes to about 1 tonne per year. By 2030 the UK would then be emitting 60 million tonnes of CO2 per year rather than the 570 million tonnes at present. It is claimed that this would be Britain’s contribution to the Global effort to stabilise but not reduce the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Each year the population of the planet increases by about 83 million people. Even if each new person were only to emit 1 tonne of CO2 per year, in 2030, the UK’s contribution would be totally wiped out. The figures are not favourable.
The contribution of Britain’s greenhouse emissions to global warming is described well in George Monbiot’s book “Heat. The book also proposes a technical solution, to reduce the UK’s Carbon CO2 emissions by around 90%, to meet the deadline.
I have little doubt that dangerous global heating is imminent. It could strike us, within the next thirty years or so, and surprise us with sudden and unpredicted changes when it does. What would happen, if the Northern latitudes were to freeze for a hundred years or longer, whilst the rest of the planet warms up, even more, to maintain a new balance of energy and temperature? Do not think that this cannot happen because similar climatic changes have happened in the past - at the end of the last ice age- when CO2 levels were much lower than they are now. If you are not convinced that global warming theory is correct then read “The Discovery of Global Warming” by Spencer R Weart.
The problem, that I have, is how are we to going the make the political, economic and social changes needed to achieve CO2 reductions. I also take issue with the reasoning that steadying global emissions will, in fact, halt the global warming that we have set in train.
From a political point of view, most people remain to be convinced by the science and are unconvinced that we must take action. They find it unacceptable that their standards of living or life style should either be reduced or altered to meet the demand for reduced emissions.
The IPCC has failed to convince the general public that their climate models are able to predict the future. Their predictions that the climate and weather will warm up in a gently sloping curve so that we can intervene when it gets a little bit hot are clearly wrong. So, when a cold winter occurs in the Northern Hemisphere, it becomes increasingly difficult to convince the public that global warming is in fact taking place. The Kyoto agreement has failed to reduce CO2 emissions significantly and the Copenhagen conference failed completely. Getting world agreement is a tremendous problem so, if the world cannot agree to a Global solution, how do we expect voters in the UK to agree to the major changes that such drastic reductions in CO2 emissions demand? Who in Britain wants to forgo their car, foreign holiday and new consumer goods when they see other major countries, including China and India, increase their emissions. The argument that “you where the original ‘polluters’ so you take all the hits”, may be justified, but it does not impress voters either in Europe or the US. Let us face the facts.
We need a fresh approach to both IPCC and Kyoto- like conferences. I fear that it may not be possible, in an open and free society, to convince voters to reduce their consumption while all the confusion reigns. To achieve the reductions required, politicians may have to resort to an unpalatable compulsion that would need to be imposed globally. What chance is there of that happening?
From an economic point of view, we need to completely change our economic model; from one of free and easy travel, cheap farming practices, “just in time” production and supply techniques, built in obsolescence and cheap consumer goods, to the reverse of it.
We also need to impose taxes on fossil fuels and change the whole system of the supply and demand for fuel. I do not believe that taxing emissions, just in the UK and developed world, will reduce emissions globally. Making UK fuel more expensive will reduce demand in Britain but decrease the price on world markets. Poorer countries who cannot afford the luxury of “green” energy, will then “take up the slack” by consuming more fossil fuel at the reduced price.
We have seen the disruption caused by the recent credit crisis and changes are required to regulate the financial system to prevent a future meltdown. The economic forces opposing this are enormous and international agreement may take years to implement. Just changing the financial system is difficult enough; so how are we going to change the rest of our economic system, in the time required, without impoverishing both the developed and developing world?
Britain could weaken its economic position if we were to incur the costs of converting to alternative energy whilst other countries do not. The government and people of Britain would not allow this to happen.
There are a number of issues to be solved related to our belief systems. Many writers on the problem of climate change comment that CO2 gas is a pollutant. It is not. If there was no carbon dioxide in the atmosphere most of the plant and animal life on the planet would die. If there is too much in the atmosphere, as there is on Venus, all life would die out completely. It is a question of the right quantity and maintaining a balance of nature. This principle applies to the whole of nature including human beings. For some reason, we humans believe that we are immune to these laws.
The motor car is a wonderful invention, when only a few million people posses one, but when hundreds of millions start to use a vehicle there is a serious problem. The same principle applies to all of the wonderful inventions that modern life has created. The more people there are the more CO2 there will be emitted. We cannot escape from the fact that there are too many people on the planet, who are either, already, consuming at levels which threaten the environment or aspire to do so. In the Western World, we have based our political, economic and social systems on immediate consumption. This has already lead to enormous degradation of the environment and dangerous levels of CO2 gas in the atmosphere. The developing world wishes to aspire to the same level of economic development as the West. It would be immoral to stop them; so while the population of the planet is increasing our problems are mounting and we are living out of balance of nature. The dynamic equilibrium of atmospheric gases, which has kept our climate favourable for the last 8,000 years or so, is being compromised.
I fear that the problem of over population and the perception that we are immune to the laws of nature will not be overcome before it is too late. For decades, there was a need to have a tsunami warning system in the Indian Ocean, nothing was done about it until 250,000 people died. Global warming will probably hit us with a crisis of much greater proportion. By then, it might not be possible to mitigate the effects of climate change and environmental degradation. The realisation that we must all change our opinion might come too late.
Getting the whole world, let alone the UK, to reduce its thirst for energy is a colossal and task. It might only be achieved by some form of dictatorship. We would also have to deny poorer countries the means to develop their economies. By 2030, at an emission rate of only one tonne of CO2 per person, the world will be emitting 8 billion tonnes per annum, if a population growth of 83 million per year is maintained. The ecosystem is able to sequester 4 billion tonnes per year, at best. The emissions balance sheet does not look good.
By 2030 the Arctic Ocean will probably not be covered by ice in the summer or the ice will have substantially reduced. This, in itself, presents a huge problem as the reflectivity of a vast area of ocean will be reduced from about 80% to 20%: the ocean will, therefore, absorb and retain more of the Sun’s energy. The planet will warm up more and more as a result. Not even the Green party has a policy for this, so we are faced with extra warming even if we could steady CO2 emissions by 2030. The prospects are not good.
To reduce man’s thirst for energy and consumer goods is almost an unsolvable problem. It would probably require complete cooperation between the competing nations. What are the chances of this happening?
The only way to get back to preindustrial levels of emissions and restore the CO2 concentration to safe levels will be too reduce our population to perhaps a billion people or fewer - whilst we rely upon fossil fuels. One might argue that soon the oil and gas will run out but there are ample supplies of coal and methyl clathrates just waiting to be exploited. More carbon in fact than we have burnt already.
How are we going to reduce our population? Some major religions are completely opposed to contraception. It is a difficult human rights issue and the drive to reproduce is as strong as the fear of death. Our economic, social and political systems are based on population growth. This is where the Green Party policy becomes unrealistic and wish washy: how can persuasion work? The Green party is, however, very brave to raise this issue as all other politicians seem to be frightened to tackle it. This is why Caroline Lucas is needed to point out the dangers; her eloquence and rationality are at least keeping the issue in the public eye.
I am of the view that it is now time for everyone to consider the position regarding the population growth of the planet. I am opposed, however, to families being forced to curb their reproduction. I urge every person to consider the future of our human species. If we all agreed to limit our families then we could help to reduce the problem of resource shortages along with, atmospheric pollution and the excess production of green house gases. I do not regard CO2 as a pollutant; we simply need it at the right concentration in the atmosphere for our species to flourish. Unfortunately, my hopes are probably in vain.
Where does this leave us? I could be accused of being a merchant of doom. Everyone, however, is doomed. Seven billion people will die of old age whether there is global warming or not. None of us will live for ever. We have to find a way to curb our population growth to maintain a reasonably good quality of life for everyone whilst they are alive. If we do not, the planet will do it for us. It will simply become uninhabitable, in most regions of the world, as the planet heats up and drought sets in. The ecosystem will not be able to support several billions of people. The evidence from palaeontology suggests that the human population was once reduced by climate change, in this case during an ice age, to around two thousand individuals. It happened without human intervention. The same could happen again because of our actions: we could even become extinct. We face the possibility of millions of children being born only to die in the first four or five years of their life. We face the prospect of mass migration, starvation, resource wars and global disease which could kill millions of weakened people. Do we really want this to happen? There is considerable risk that this undesirable consequence could occur. Over population does not only threaten us with climate changes; it threatens the degradation of the very environment which sustains us.
What do we do? Is there hope? I believe that the proposals of the Green Party will not solve the problem of Global Warming. They are a start, however, and they are more relevant than most other political parties’ propositions.
What do we do? I agree with James Lovelock. We must plan a contingency for the possible coming crisis. This planning might be more important than striving to reduce carbon emissions. But the emissions issue must be tackled eventually. Somehow, we must persuade everyone to reduce their fertility as a managed reduction of the population will be much more desirable. Nature is not cruel, in a human sense, it simply does not care whether we exist or not. Nature will be able to continue without us. We must change our view that we are immune to the laws of nature for we are an integrated part of them. Then, it might be possible to workout a solution.
Much as I hate to say this, we are faced with the prospect of having to “geo-engineer” a solution, but if climate change pulls out a surprise it may be too late to implement mitigation. We might have to consider carbon sequestration or pumping millions of tons of sulphur compounds into the atmosphere to artificially reduce the temperature. Such projects would be very expensive and difficult to maintain and in the long run might further upset the balance of nature. Perhaps, there will be little choice but to accept the additional risk.
The Green Party’s solutions are unrealistic but of course they have the right, if not the duty, to raise them. No other political parties are portraying the sense of urgency that is needed or perhaps, just like me, they despair that there is a solution.
Tuesday, 20 April 2010
Down to Earth
I have just read Hamish McRae’s article about the travel crisis resulting from the volcanic ash problem, in “The Independent”. I agree with nearly everything he says:
How reliant we have become on Air transport
Foreign Travel being a great equaliser
“Just in Time” systems making us more vulnerable to disruption by natural events
Land based travel systems being more “disorganised”
A change of thinking might help resolve problems that we have built into our economic models etc.
Where I disagree with him is; how we are going to resolve a solution. No doubt the wind direction will change and all the problems resulting from the air travel crisis will be forgotten; until the next time.
The 9/11 tragedy and crisis gave the airlines an opportunity to develop contingency plans to cater for stranded travellers and they did not. History, and the lessons which can be learnt from it, was quickly forgotten.
Even though less modern and less organised land based travel systems are slower they eventually will get you to your destination.
As per usual, some elements of the press are stirring up the crisis and are beginning to criticise the Met Office and Europe etc. Airline industry bosses are criticising the computer models used to predict where the ash cloud could be. Sensibly, because the computer models are not and cannot be perfect the authorities are erring on the side of caution. Equally, actual observations cannot be perfect as the volcano and the weather are unpredictable and cannot be manipulated to adhere to the human desire for certainty. The captains of industry pride themselves on being able to run business in the face of uncertainty, but this time air industry bosses are stumped and I feel that they are looking for a change of words to allow business as usual. The facts should dictate action. All human activity involves risk, I would be happy to fly if I knew that the Captain of the aircraft was allowed to make his own risk assessment without commercial pressure or media opinion swaying the decision. If an airliner falls out of the sky, as a result of the misinterpretation or dismissal of the facts, the consequences could be dreadful, even if the risk is very small that an accident will occur. This crisis has lasted less than a week so the authorities are correct not to panic.
This mini-crisis, and the way we are responding, epitomises our approach to life and business in general. The recent economic crisis indicates that the world is becoming over sophisticated. The super-organised system of using computer models to predict economic activity and financial outcomes has become unstable. We too often ignore the facts before our eyes. We should beware that our society could become unmanageable as greater numbers of people indulge, increasingly, in complex economic activity which strains the resources of the world. The world now operates on a “just in time “basis. We may not have time to think our way out of the next crisis even a minor one.
Before, the changes to our way of thinking happen, we shall need to be shocked by a really big crisis, an even bigger one than the last economic debacle, by then it might be too late to recover. I hope Hamish’s optimism is well founded.
How reliant we have become on Air transport
Foreign Travel being a great equaliser
“Just in Time” systems making us more vulnerable to disruption by natural events
Land based travel systems being more “disorganised”
A change of thinking might help resolve problems that we have built into our economic models etc.
Where I disagree with him is; how we are going to resolve a solution. No doubt the wind direction will change and all the problems resulting from the air travel crisis will be forgotten; until the next time.
The 9/11 tragedy and crisis gave the airlines an opportunity to develop contingency plans to cater for stranded travellers and they did not. History, and the lessons which can be learnt from it, was quickly forgotten.
Even though less modern and less organised land based travel systems are slower they eventually will get you to your destination.
As per usual, some elements of the press are stirring up the crisis and are beginning to criticise the Met Office and Europe etc. Airline industry bosses are criticising the computer models used to predict where the ash cloud could be. Sensibly, because the computer models are not and cannot be perfect the authorities are erring on the side of caution. Equally, actual observations cannot be perfect as the volcano and the weather are unpredictable and cannot be manipulated to adhere to the human desire for certainty. The captains of industry pride themselves on being able to run business in the face of uncertainty, but this time air industry bosses are stumped and I feel that they are looking for a change of words to allow business as usual. The facts should dictate action. All human activity involves risk, I would be happy to fly if I knew that the Captain of the aircraft was allowed to make his own risk assessment without commercial pressure or media opinion swaying the decision. If an airliner falls out of the sky, as a result of the misinterpretation or dismissal of the facts, the consequences could be dreadful, even if the risk is very small that an accident will occur. This crisis has lasted less than a week so the authorities are correct not to panic.
This mini-crisis, and the way we are responding, epitomises our approach to life and business in general. The recent economic crisis indicates that the world is becoming over sophisticated. The super-organised system of using computer models to predict economic activity and financial outcomes has become unstable. We too often ignore the facts before our eyes. We should beware that our society could become unmanageable as greater numbers of people indulge, increasingly, in complex economic activity which strains the resources of the world. The world now operates on a “just in time “basis. We may not have time to think our way out of the next crisis even a minor one.
Before, the changes to our way of thinking happen, we shall need to be shocked by a really big crisis, an even bigger one than the last economic debacle, by then it might be too late to recover. I hope Hamish’s optimism is well founded.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
