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.
Tuesday, 8 June 2010
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
