Blessings

I remembered an occurrence today; it happened a few years ago when I was leading a cross-cultural team in Bulgaria. We were waking through a mountain town on a very hot day and came upon an old Moslem woman. She brought us all cold water and chatted a bit with Vlady (our Bulgarian logistics fellow).
As we left, she said something that returns often in my memory:
“May all your villages be blessed.”

I’m giving some thought to the power of blessings; in many cultures the hex or curse is considered a powerful statement. However, I think a blessing must be the most potent words any human can speak.

Dinner

I’m working into the evening and ate dinner whilst editing a document. Earlier, I picked up a dish of (what I thought) was egg salad at the store.

When I went to wash my plate and rinse out the little plastic tub of egg salad, I found, not eggs, but fish heads in the mix. I should have thought those were odd tasting eggs. This either states that I pay absolutely no attention to what I eat or, alternately, I am able to completely focus on my work. (Not that I mind little dead-eyed fish, just not when I thought I was eating eggs—it’s a matter of principle.)

This was a much better finding than the time I discovered I’d eaten most of a [name withheld] sports-snack bar that was riddled with an exotic moth larva (reading the newspaper at that time).

The Interface

This is my take on Ubiquitous Computing.
For the past several weeks, I’ve mused on some sort of system that would allow collaboration between urban planners, politicians, and citizens of large cities. This would be a system that would allow people in a given city to readily reference what they are doing to address any one issue; people in other cities would have open access to this knowledge and would work collaboratively on shared solutions.

Originally, I had thought that a well-planned weblog could address this; however, on further reflection, no weblog (as we understand them now) could handle this much traffic and information. Imagine if every city planner in the world attempted to simultaneously discuss wastewater treatment and determine a collaborative plan of action. It may be almost possible with the systems available; however, what if the citizens of each of these cities also offered input? What if all the articles, abstracts, and past research were cross-referenced? It would quickly become a mass of unmanageable information. The next thought was a cross between Google News and . But even that would not be “intelligent” enough to collate such information. So, obviously, such a discussion would have to be moderated; but by whom? No one person could possibly moderate such massive discussions; beyond that, the discussion would be taking place in every major language simultaneously. Someone would have to translate everything—into everything else—in real time.

Read More

Waste

Three Thousand Dollars!
I’ve been considering ways to reduce waste in my everyday activities (and, concurrently, trying to economise where possible). When I last bought shaving cream, I picked up a bottle of the Tesco generic brand rather than the kind I usually use (which, here in the Czech Republic, is rather expensive). The Tesco brand set me back about $1; however, it’s not a very satisfying shave. Also, the disposable razor refill I normally use is even more expensive here than in the states (about $14 USD per 8 heads). I have, apparently, rather course beard hair and can only get about four or five shaves out of one of these heads before it starts chafing my skin or skipping and cutting. So, I go through a lot of these.

As I was falling asleep last night, I considered this. I’ve been shaving now for some years. How many razor heads and bottles of shaving cream have I used in that time? Many. Multiply that times all the men who shave using the same system; how much waste is that! On the back of the razor package there is even a pathetic little icon with a man tossing bits into a rubbish bin. This morning, I went a step further; how much have all those bottles of shaving cream and razor refills cost? With some estimating and averaging, I’ve come up with a figure around $3000 USD. When one derives a number (for anything) that is more than many people in the world make in a lifetime, it ought to call for some pause.

I have used these things because I was largely unaware of other options. I was bombarded with advertising stating that The best a man can get is basically the only thing a man can get if he wants a clean shave and wants women to walk up and stroke his face suggestively. There are, of course, other options. Men have shaved for all recorded history without paying such significant sums. I can reduce cost and waste hundreds of times by using some of the older, tried and true, methods. Of course, I’d have to learn to use them properly and it might not be as convenient. But how often do I need to shave in three minutes rather than five and a half?

It makes me wonder, to an even greater extent, what other waste (both in physical and financial resources) I regularly produce. Toiletries are obvious. I go through toothbrushes like nobody’s business; but, of course, I just wear out the head. Does someone make a toothbrush with a replaceable head? When I was in the Netherlands, I was given a bottle of “shower gel.” It was convenient; I bought several bottles and used them for the time I was there. However, one day it struck me: this stuff is expensive; it lasts for a relatively short time; every time I finish a bottle it goes back to the recycling facility to go through a whole energy-wasting process of re-use (or, many go to the landfill). On the other hand, a bar of soap comes in a paper wrapper (or some stores carry them unwrapped); is cheap; and it lasts for some time. However, according to the shower gel ads you won’t really be clean and manly unless you use our shower gel. . .which we’ve cleverly named after a tool that sounds all manly as well. Axe for it at your local retailer.

If you take a step back from the consumer everything mindset and look at it objectively, it’s really rather sad.

Word of the day

I’ve been studying Czech with my girlfriend’s mother (who speaks no English). In our most recent lesson, I learned the word police which, in Czech, means shelves. The word for police is policie.

I am glad I have learned this distinction before having to call for the police in a crisis situation. I can see the terrible humour in my potentially running down the street shouting “Shelves! For goodness sake, somebody call for the shelves!”

One person is tomorrow

Humans hold a paradoxical view of culture (by “culture” I mean the encompassing sphere of human thought: the arts, political systems, religion, economics, and so on). On one hand, we tend to view both history and the future through the eyes of our current culture; as if culture has not changed for some very long time and is unlikely to change for some time more. Such a myopic view robs us of history’s wisdom and binds us to a pre-packaged determined future. Concurrently, we also view past and future culture as something vastly different than the current human experience. Our forebearers (noting even the separation of one generation to the next) lived lives so different than our own that their experiences and accumulated knowledge are invalid for the present. Future generations will encounter a world so changed from this one that we may not even speculate their circumstances. Of course, neither of these views is entirely satisfactory; but both are necessary to address our current situation and plan for the future.

This paragraph, in its draft form, began “From an environmental viewpoint . . .” However, that is not the viewpoint that I, as a person, can fully comprehend. I can only hope to come from a human viewpoint—a human who is part of an environment. Each of us is part of a cultural environment and, though we tend to deny this with a thousand decaying whispers, part of the natural world. I cannot take responsibility for the Earth’s actions; she is, of herself, a most responsible organism. I can (and must) take responsibility for my own. Without recognition of this personal responsibility, there can be no health. No health of persons. No health of society. No health of the larger whole we call The Environment. The Earth will attempt to maintain what we call The Environment till her last recourse is exhausted. It is up to me to see what my place is, in context of the past and future, for the maintenance of the whole.

My role is largely influenced by culture. What does my culture say about an individual’s responsibility to the larger whole? This has obvious political and economic implications; however, I think we will, in short order, begin to move past these structures (a future we cannot fully speculate). We’ve done too much damage to both the cultural and natural environments to sustain our past and current systems of governance and economy. Humankind, though we have had many thousands of years to consider this, has not yet found the way by which we should live and relate to one another. We have, at various times, nearly discovered how to relate to the Earth; but this relationship has, for too long, been abandoned in favour of self-absorption.

Culture is no more or less than a collective decision by a group of people to live and continue to live a certain way in a certain place (and people can only take responsibility if they are “in a place.” One cannot take responsibility for an abstraction or “nowhere”). Culture is not immutable; the history of ideas does not necessarily determine the future of human thought. We have yet the opportunity to recover wisdom from the past and take knowledge from the present to determine a future that will benefit all. This is, in fact, the only choice we have that does not end terminally for everyone. If we do not take on this individual responsibility, the cultures will splinter. The Earth, no matter her best efforts, cannot maintain the prolonged negligence of so many irresponsible people. She has provided the necessary components to sustain life. We’ve had an unwritten but obvious agreement that she will continue operating as with such designs as long as we do no harm to the process. If, from the neglect of stewardship, we lay waste to life it will be our decision that breaks the deal.

A culture is as alive as the people who live it; it will continue on till a collective decision is made to cease (or till such time as it is no longer sustainable). Culture can change. It does evolve for the betterment of those living it. The culture of Germany today is far different that what presented itself in the 1930’s. Though we now consume the foundations of life and the lives of those after us, there is nothing keeping us from positive change. Culture is not wholly a language, religion, music, or dress; these things change and grow over time. Changing culture does not mean abandonment of these things; it should mean the enrichment of our better parts. We should not fear the oncoming change (even drastic change) if that change means the resolution of these current ills and the maintenance of life itself.

Finally, culture was never one thing and can never be tomorrow what it was yesterday any more than our children will live the life of our grandparents. We return to the paradox. The present is the future; we cannot put the future off till tomorrow. We must reshape culture to become what it must be beyond this day. If we do not, the opportunities for a common future of life and good humanity will fade; the trust we pass on to the future will be spent. We have no other future than one made now.

Good Science

A few weeks ago, while visiting my parents, I read a guest commentary by Jeffrey Jarrett in their local newspaper. Mr. Jarrett is the assistant secretary of the Office of Fossil Energy in the U.S. Department of Energy. The same commentary was apparently printed in multiple newspapers around the country (see here, here, or here). His article warrants debate; my response follows:

Science means something and must not be made to serve political opinion. I can appreciate the goals outlined for a “comprehensive, multi-billion dollar Climate Change Science Initiative;” however, much of the research and conclusions concerning climate change are extant. This is not a new or recently realised matter; over the past century, scientist have noted the cumulative effects of industrial activity and voiced concern. These voices were largely ignored.

We, as a society, rely on science as fact; there is little debate or confusion concerning science that aims to advance ceramics, toothpaste, or eyeglasses. There is no political capital won in arguing over it. However, the same science used to develop optics applies to observations concerning the environment. Mr. Jarrett’s commentary implies that scientists are a lot of confused mumblers; while, on the other hand, a group of government funded scientists will, by using “good science,” determine our best course of action. My question to Mr. Jarrett is, when did the previously understood science become untenable and what constitutes “good science” according to Mr. Bush?

Mr. Jarrett places great hope in technology to resolve the predicament we are in (that is, I’m assuming, if the good scientists determine there is a predicament at all). However, technology itself cannot become a solution if the problem addressed is insurmountable; it, of course, cannot provide answers if we ask the wrong questions. According to Mr. Jarrett, a large percentage of our energy is born from the consumption of fossil fuels; these fuels, as a source of energy, cause apparent harm to life; and we are uncertain of their near-term availability (both in terms of physical availability and political reality). Why, if this is the case, does the research and development of alternative sources of energy only garner a passing mention from the Assistant Secretary of the Office of Fossil Energy?

Half of Mr. Jarrett’s commentary is devoted to “something called ‘Carbon Sequestration.’” This title of his commentary (which, perhaps, was not chosen by the author), is “Technology may bury climate change issue for good.” [ title as printed in the Morgantown, WV Dominion Post ] This assumes two things: we can solve a problem by the same means it was created and, this new “good science” will put a permanent end to the issue. However, though the technology behind carbon sequestration is feasible, the permanence is not. The storage of CO2 in underground fissures does nothing to change its nature as a greenhouse gas; it only delays its eventual release into the atmosphere. Of major concern to climatologists are existing natural stores of methane frozen in permafrost and sea beds. If global temperatures do rise and these gasses are released, the greenhouse effect could increase by magnitudes. Of course, Mr. Jarrett would propose that carbon sequestration might delay that warming till technology offers a more viable energy alternative. But his suggestion that the offset CO2 be used to produce more fossil fuels seems to argue against that point.

Mr. Jarrett implies that, to explore energies far different than fossil fuels would, “. . .risk economic and social dislocations that really don’t bear thinking about.” His language is telling; since changing course would be so difficult, let us not even consider it. Let us not change our behaviour. Let us rely on “good science” and government initiative. Mr. Bush, addressing President Hu Jintao of China at a recent Asian trade summit stated, “I strongly support your vision, Mr. President, of encouraging your country to become a nation of consumers and not savers.” I suppose this is reasonable; why encourage economic or environmental thrift when “good science” will, no doubt, have ready solutions “in a few short years?”

No amount of governance can directly address the natural world; we cannot determine “environmental policy” by economics and political expediency alone. Our current situation is evidence of this; if we are given “answers” but are unwilling to undertake the social changes that may be necessary to accomplish them, no sum of money or scientific knowledge will aid us.

Update: my response above was printed in the Morgantown, WV Dominion Post editorial section on 17 December 2006.

A day at the game

Yesterday, for the first time in fifteen years, I went to a football game—an American football game. It was at the same stadium (the same seats, for that matter) of my last experience. The band played the same themes; the man with the funny felt hat a few rows ahead still sits with his funny felt hat a few rows ahead. There was a comforting continuity to it all.

Not comforting was the obscene negative shouting of fans around me. Our team lost. That’s okay; one team or the other will loose. Don’t we know this before the game begins? Are we only there to see our team win? I’m not going to go off on some soft-shoe elitist commentary about how we are all supposed to feel good about everything in the world and give flowers to one another in the stands; I wanted to see us win as well. But what help is it (for the other fans, the team, for one’s own blood pressure) to shout an extensive list of expletives if a player runs the ball in a manner contrary to one’s personal play-book preference? Maybe I’m wrong, but when your compatriots are down, it’s not helpful to rain abuses upon them.

Two rows in front of us was a grizzly old man wearing a heavy plaid coat and boots; his hair and beard were a mane of white flowing fur. He looked like he had just come down from the mountains. To passing women on the stairs, he would give a polite, “how are you doing today, ma’am?” However, once our team began down that slope to ultimate loss, he began cursing up a blue streak. (I will not reproduce direct quotations here.)

My parents, who are not exactly old, recalled games from their university years. People dressed almost formally; gameday had the air of an event. Yesterday, besides one man I spotted in a sport-coat (no doubt a journalist or errant cantankerous fellow who insists on such clothing), most people looked as if they could just as well work in the backyard. Of course, I looked the same; it never occurred to me to put on a tie (it probably will as soon as I become about 15% more cantankerous).

I could also go off here on the amount of advertising we were pummelled with; however, the sports world is not my own. It’s not my place to lament the passing of any particular golden age. But, I’m thirty-one; has civility degraded so much in my own lifetime?