The biggest problem with modern food production is that it is entirely dependent on oil. We've already seen food costs rise as a direct response to rising oil prices.
Many farmers have profitably moved their food production over to organic methods, I wonder how long it will be before we see certified carbon-neutral foods on our supermarket shelves?
I'd certainly be happy to pay a premium initially in the sure and certain knowledge that as oil runs low my food prices will remain stable.
I can see that there would be degrees of carbon-neutrality. The foods that still use oil, but are carbon-offset, the foods that use no oil in production and the farms that use no oil in production or distribution.
All plants should be fertilised using non-oil derived fertilisers. The by-products of plants such as the unused stems and leaves should be put into bio-reactors to produce fuel or fertiliser. All farm animals should be fed on carbon neutral food stuffs and their by-products should be recycled for fuel or fertiliser.
A collective of farms could work together: One specialising in producing plants for food and fertiliser, another producing fuels and yet another producing meat, fuels and fertiliser. Each farm would work to offset the others' needs.
I don't know when this will happen, I only know that it will have to happen.
Showing posts with label Political. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Political. Show all posts
August 03, 2008
December 17, 2007
A petition that everyone should sign.
If you're at all concerned about the protection of your personal data you should consider signing the following online petition. Following the progressive release of stories about the extreme indifference to digital electronic privacy, this petition seeks to introduce a little more accountability.
Petition to: require all organisations notify customers immediately of any personal data security breaches.
Petition to: require all organisations notify customers immediately of any personal data security breaches.
June 11, 2006
Water, Water Everywhere and not a Drop to Drink
I never fail to be irritated by short-sighted stupidity.
I live in the South of England and have been watching all the green spaces where I live being relentlessly developed. I often feel that in order to eliminate the North-South divide, the government is trying to get the entire population to live in the South. Every few months there seems to be a new diktat that several thousand new homes be built in one of the Southern Counties.
One of the problems is that we are in the middle of one of the worst droughts to ever hit the Southern Counties. Why are we moving thousands of people to an area that does not have the infrastructure to support them? It seems that someone is failing their basic planning course - ensure that you have sufficient resource available before you start.
Something that adds heavily to the irony is that, as the South is already very densely populated, most of the decent land has already been used. This means that many of the new developments are occurring on less-suitable land such as flood-plains. Already people are being flooded out of their homes while they can't use their sprinklers.
Will the time come when people are forced to use stand-pipes while their downstairs is under water?
I live in the South of England and have been watching all the green spaces where I live being relentlessly developed. I often feel that in order to eliminate the North-South divide, the government is trying to get the entire population to live in the South. Every few months there seems to be a new diktat that several thousand new homes be built in one of the Southern Counties.
One of the problems is that we are in the middle of one of the worst droughts to ever hit the Southern Counties. Why are we moving thousands of people to an area that does not have the infrastructure to support them? It seems that someone is failing their basic planning course - ensure that you have sufficient resource available before you start.
Something that adds heavily to the irony is that, as the South is already very densely populated, most of the decent land has already been used. This means that many of the new developments are occurring on less-suitable land such as flood-plains. Already people are being flooded out of their homes while they can't use their sprinklers.
Will the time come when people are forced to use stand-pipes while their downstairs is under water?
May 21, 2006
Are They Running the Country or Running for Re-Election?
This is an huge question, but one which has a simple answer.
I believe that all political parties in Britain are about running for re-election and running the country is a side issue.
This has not always been the case, but the temptation to run for election is one of the great weaknesses of democracy. It is much harder to get re-elected by doing a good job of running the country than by standing around for photo opportunities and telling us what we want to hear. Especially when you consider that your opponents only have to do the photo opportunities. Of course the machiavelllian solution is to get your opponents deeply enmeshed in running the country 'in the interest of non-partisan politics'. The opposition would get credit for not being out of practice in running the country and for any good work they do. You'd increase the availability of competent people for key positions, tie your opponents up and level the field when it came time for elections. With more competent people, the country would benefit overall and you'd get the credit for that (and of course for the good work that your opposition do...).
The trouble is exacerbated by the press. We are told that a strong fifth estate is one of the great pillars of a strong democracy. Unfortunately at the moment our press is lazy and lets the politicians set the agenda. Many stories are handed to them by the current political leadership and by their opposition in their struggle to be elected. It is also in the press' interest to keep politics partisan as the latest bickering is an easy story that sells papers and airtime.
I wonder whether the press could ever be convinced that the real story is in the fact that politicians are running for re-election and not running the country. What would happen if the press were banned from naming individual politicians except when they were doing something wrong? Can democracy ever produce a leadership that truly focusses on running the country and is able to work together with their opponents for the common good? Any other ideas?
I believe that all political parties in Britain are about running for re-election and running the country is a side issue.
This has not always been the case, but the temptation to run for election is one of the great weaknesses of democracy. It is much harder to get re-elected by doing a good job of running the country than by standing around for photo opportunities and telling us what we want to hear. Especially when you consider that your opponents only have to do the photo opportunities. Of course the machiavelllian solution is to get your opponents deeply enmeshed in running the country 'in the interest of non-partisan politics'. The opposition would get credit for not being out of practice in running the country and for any good work they do. You'd increase the availability of competent people for key positions, tie your opponents up and level the field when it came time for elections. With more competent people, the country would benefit overall and you'd get the credit for that (and of course for the good work that your opposition do...).
The trouble is exacerbated by the press. We are told that a strong fifth estate is one of the great pillars of a strong democracy. Unfortunately at the moment our press is lazy and lets the politicians set the agenda. Many stories are handed to them by the current political leadership and by their opposition in their struggle to be elected. It is also in the press' interest to keep politics partisan as the latest bickering is an easy story that sells papers and airtime.
I wonder whether the press could ever be convinced that the real story is in the fact that politicians are running for re-election and not running the country. What would happen if the press were banned from naming individual politicians except when they were doing something wrong? Can democracy ever produce a leadership that truly focusses on running the country and is able to work together with their opponents for the common good? Any other ideas?
May 19, 2006
Learning: By Rote Vs, Asking Why.
I had a very pleasant lunch yesterday with two Voca colleagues, Roger and Peter. As my lunches tend to always go, we ended up discussing a number of interesting topics, this lunch steered entirely clear of technology.
We discussed counselling, consciousness, upbringing and education. I told Roger and Peter in my typical bombastic manner about a very interesting piece of research I read recently in New Scientist. The article touched on the manners in which humans and our cousins great apes learn from our parents. If you were asked which species is more likely to learn by simple, exact copying of parental activities, which species would you pick?
It turns out that humans are far more likely than any other great ape to shortcut learning by simple imitation. The example that is often quoted is the Mother making a 'pot roast', she cuts off one end of the joint and puts it in the pot beside the main part. Her daughter asks her why she does that and she is forced to reply that she doesn't know, her mother did it that way. So the Mother asks here mother who replies that her own mother always did it that way. The Mother then calls her grandmother who replies that she started doing that because she didn't have a big enough pot.
It appears that humans are extremely likely to learn by rote. It seems to be a shortcut that we have evolved. I believe that this shortcut emerged because of the volume of information that we are forced to learn in order to survive in our culture. If we questioned every single tiny fact, we would never learn enough to sustain the complexity of our culture before we were 50 years old.
That's not to say that questioning is not important. Without 'Why?' we would never have progressed our culture.
I would suggest that the best education a child can get is one that is primarily by rote that does not suppress the desire to question. In effect there is a balance: sufficient rote learning to provide a basic body of knowledge to survive in the world coupled with time spent teaching how to question this body of knowledge.
I believe that you actually have to have a basic level of knowledge before you can decide which questions are worth asking.
When I say 'Culture' I mean it in the more scientific sense of the set of learnt behaviours and knowledge that we as a species learn rather than are born knowing.
We discussed counselling, consciousness, upbringing and education. I told Roger and Peter in my typical bombastic manner about a very interesting piece of research I read recently in New Scientist. The article touched on the manners in which humans and our cousins great apes learn from our parents. If you were asked which species is more likely to learn by simple, exact copying of parental activities, which species would you pick?
It turns out that humans are far more likely than any other great ape to shortcut learning by simple imitation. The example that is often quoted is the Mother making a 'pot roast', she cuts off one end of the joint and puts it in the pot beside the main part. Her daughter asks her why she does that and she is forced to reply that she doesn't know, her mother did it that way. So the Mother asks here mother who replies that her own mother always did it that way. The Mother then calls her grandmother who replies that she started doing that because she didn't have a big enough pot.
It appears that humans are extremely likely to learn by rote. It seems to be a shortcut that we have evolved. I believe that this shortcut emerged because of the volume of information that we are forced to learn in order to survive in our culture. If we questioned every single tiny fact, we would never learn enough to sustain the complexity of our culture before we were 50 years old.
That's not to say that questioning is not important. Without 'Why?' we would never have progressed our culture.
I would suggest that the best education a child can get is one that is primarily by rote that does not suppress the desire to question. In effect there is a balance: sufficient rote learning to provide a basic body of knowledge to survive in the world coupled with time spent teaching how to question this body of knowledge.
I believe that you actually have to have a basic level of knowledge before you can decide which questions are worth asking.
When I say 'Culture' I mean it in the more scientific sense of the set of learnt behaviours and knowledge that we as a species learn rather than are born knowing.
March 29, 2006
The Real Questions.
I've been watching the various manoeuverings going on in parliament to change various aspects of the balance between the legal system and the political system in this country.
When misgivings are raised, the politicians always seem to justify their actions on two bases:
- It is necessary because the current system is unwieldy/expensive.
- Don't you trust us/me?
The real questions that should be asked of the politicians are:
- Whether I trust you or not is irrelevant. Can I trust your successors? Can you guarantee that the 2nd, 3rd or 4th set of politicians to be voted in won't abuse the powers that you are giving them?
- Don't you think it is worth the inconvenience/expense in order to guarantee a reasonable level of freedom from oppression?
I wonder whether we will ever see these questions posed clearly, well and in a situation where the politician is forced to answer.
January 31, 2006
Change and Stability
I've been giving some thought of late to how groups of people are run, not just at a team level but at an organisational or even a national level.
I've been trying to draw lessons from out politicians past and present. Not many of the lessons have been how to do it well...
One of the major things that have come out of this thought is the dynamic tension between change and stability. Notice the words that I have used, another way of expressing it is the tension between chaos and stasis.
An example of this is the NHS. It is obvious to all politicians that something must be done. The trouble is they never seem to get the something quite right. The old NHS worked as well as it did before the politicians started fiddling because the patients, nurses, doctors and administrators had worked out a modus vivendi. They had discovered ways to work around the grossesr of flaws and it more or less worked. Unfortunately for the NHS it has become a political football, a month doesn't go by without some new announcement. This change is done with the best of intentions but it never gives the participants a chance to settle into the new practices and so the grossest of flaws never get worked around as new ones are introduced the whole time.
Change is essential, especially in this day and age. New technologies, new ideas and new social groups all mean that many of the old ways of doing things do not remain correct. You can't stand still.
But neither do you have to keep running.
I think that the lesson that we and our politicians need to learn is to moderate the rate of change. The real skill comes in introducing changes that only do what is needed and no more. The necessity is to fine-tune the structures we have and only do significant restructuring when absolutely necessary.
This even extends into my domain. It is very tempting to completely re-write systems from the ground up with no regard for the havoc that those changes will cause. All in pursuit of some perception of perfection.
Lasting perfection is unattainable in a dynamic world. All we can ever do is approach it by making sensible, minor changes to proven, stable systems.
The real skill may be in knowing when not to do something...
I've been trying to draw lessons from out politicians past and present. Not many of the lessons have been how to do it well...
One of the major things that have come out of this thought is the dynamic tension between change and stability. Notice the words that I have used, another way of expressing it is the tension between chaos and stasis.
An example of this is the NHS. It is obvious to all politicians that something must be done. The trouble is they never seem to get the something quite right. The old NHS worked as well as it did before the politicians started fiddling because the patients, nurses, doctors and administrators had worked out a modus vivendi. They had discovered ways to work around the grossesr of flaws and it more or less worked. Unfortunately for the NHS it has become a political football, a month doesn't go by without some new announcement. This change is done with the best of intentions but it never gives the participants a chance to settle into the new practices and so the grossest of flaws never get worked around as new ones are introduced the whole time.
Change is essential, especially in this day and age. New technologies, new ideas and new social groups all mean that many of the old ways of doing things do not remain correct. You can't stand still.
But neither do you have to keep running.
I think that the lesson that we and our politicians need to learn is to moderate the rate of change. The real skill comes in introducing changes that only do what is needed and no more. The necessity is to fine-tune the structures we have and only do significant restructuring when absolutely necessary.
This even extends into my domain. It is very tempting to completely re-write systems from the ground up with no regard for the havoc that those changes will cause. All in pursuit of some perception of perfection.
Lasting perfection is unattainable in a dynamic world. All we can ever do is approach it by making sensible, minor changes to proven, stable systems.
The real skill may be in knowing when not to do something...
September 24, 2004
An Erosion of our Humanity by the Justice System.
Something has been niggling me for some time about our approach to crime and punishment. Why is it that whenever a crime is committed, large or small, a whole raft of extenuating circumstances are brought out and the sentence reduced?
This worries me deeply, a criminal being able to say that he/she did something because of all these external factors and so should be mercied. I believe that one of the fundamentals of humanity is the ability to make a conscious decision, weigh all the pros and cons before acting. I wonder what the message is then when leniency is shown, the messages that I can see are:
This worries me deeply, a criminal being able to say that he/she did something because of all these external factors and so should be mercied. I believe that one of the fundamentals of humanity is the ability to make a conscious decision, weigh all the pros and cons before acting. I wonder what the message is then when leniency is shown, the messages that I can see are:
- Either, if you make a conscious decision to break the law, having weighed all the factors, that's OK, it's not that bad really,
- Or, it's alright to break the law because you didn't really think about it, didn't think about the damage that you were doing and were only conscious of a small part of your decision making process.
The first message is bad enough. It takes the judgement of Solomon to determine whether there really were mitigating factors, and the mitigating factors have to really outweigh the negative consequences, not just outweight them in the mind of the offender.
The second message is far more dangerous, it goes to the heart of what makes us part of an human society. This means that it's alright to act as a criminal as long as you didn't think clearly about it, you didn't act as a thinking human being so we'll allow you back into human society sooner. That is a very bad thing. It attacks our humanity in general, it means that there is a general belief that we are unable to aspire to be rational beings and it's fine just to act without thought.
I take this very, very personally.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)