Wow. Just saw "Paradise Now" a movie about two palestinian men who are suicide bombers.
A heavy, but ultimately good movie. Interesting on so many levels & topical to my "Pity for Suicide Bombers" post in June. The story is of two friends who live in Palestine & who are called upon to perform a suicide mission. It basically recounts their lives from just before they are notified, to - well i don't want to give the whole plot line away, so i'll stop there. The film is extremely well done - the actors are so convincing you can taste their emotions. The cinematography was beautiful, the plot was superb too. Not sure if it was a particular true story, or if it was just a representative dramatization, but I am sure that it was excellent.
A terrible subject, not to mention depressing, but so well done & so worth seeing - particularly for us North American/Western World types.
Friday, August 04, 2006
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
Switching from a "Consumer Driven" to a "Conservation Driven" Economy
I was contemplating the modern "Consumer-Driven" Economy the other day & had to ask myself - what would happen (and how we could switch) from an economy that is driven by Consumption, to an economy that is driven by Conservation.
I think we could perhaps term it an "Efficiency-Driven Economy" because that has a more conventional ring to it, but is almost as effective in concept. Hmm - now that I write it I do notice that they are different.
At any rate - What would a Conservation Driven Economy look like? How could we achieve it?
What do I mean by a conservation driven economy? Well, in the Western Free-Market style economy (which works well for a lot of things! ) the greater the rate of consumption, the greater the growth of the economy. We usually measure this with figures like GDP (Gross Domestic Product) for a given region or country. So in a conservation driven economy, the greater the rate of the conservation, the greater the “growth” of the economy.
If calling it "Growth" in a Conservation Driven Economy seems like a contradiction, note that I am effectively redefining the meaning of "economic growth" from an increasing quantity of something, to a more general concept of "increasing goodness" where goodness (in my book) means conservation of something worthwile conserving. (And a host of other things too, but all summarized by "increasing goodness.")
If you're starting to wonder what I am talking about with this "increasing goodness" thing, try looking at the David Suzuki Foundation's definition of "Genuine Wealth" in the first Chapter of their report "Sustainablity within a Generation" for a bit more concrete enlightenment.
I think this contemplation was inspired by my brother's bumper sticker that reads:
I think we could perhaps term it an "Efficiency-Driven Economy" because that has a more conventional ring to it, but is almost as effective in concept. Hmm - now that I write it I do notice that they are different.
At any rate - What would a Conservation Driven Economy look like? How could we achieve it?
What do I mean by a conservation driven economy? Well, in the Western Free-Market style economy (which works well for a lot of things! ) the greater the rate of consumption, the greater the growth of the economy. We usually measure this with figures like GDP (Gross Domestic Product) for a given region or country. So in a conservation driven economy, the greater the rate of the conservation, the greater the “growth” of the economy.
If calling it "Growth" in a Conservation Driven Economy seems like a contradiction, note that I am effectively redefining the meaning of "economic growth" from an increasing quantity of something, to a more general concept of "increasing goodness" where goodness (in my book) means conservation of something worthwile conserving. (And a host of other things too, but all summarized by "increasing goodness.")
If you're starting to wonder what I am talking about with this "increasing goodness" thing, try looking at the David Suzuki Foundation's definition of "Genuine Wealth" in the first Chapter of their report "Sustainablity within a Generation" for a bit more concrete enlightenment.
I think this contemplation was inspired by my brother's bumper sticker that reads:
"Question Consumption"
Sound Advice.
Saturday, July 29, 2006
Live Like your Grandpa
Living like you're grandpa (or grandma) is a good model, when one is trying to be green. Between WWII & the depression era, people from that generation knew how to be thrifty, which was often in sync with being green.
Thursday, July 13, 2006
[CR] The Googiverse
Someone at Google has probably already coined this term, but Googiverse is the only term I can think of for Google's insane expansion/proliferation into all aspects of the internet. Everytime i think of some information or service i need, i find that google has already built it, has it online, & is offering it for free.
Either they will be the internet soon, or they will go bust trying. I wonder which it will be? I'd be interested in your thoughts, since you are reading this.
I think they have "got it" in terms of the internet, collaborative models, and ethics - the 21st century business.
Either they will be the internet soon, or they will go bust trying. I wonder which it will be? I'd be interested in your thoughts, since you are reading this.
I think they have "got it" in terms of the internet, collaborative models, and ethics - the 21st century business.
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
[CR] Stopping "Bad-ware", Accountability & In defense of Gossip
There really are some neat things going on - on the internet. It's a whole new "sphere of existence" in a way, literally in places like "Second Life" http://secondlife.com/ but it's more interesting what's going on in the wider internet.
From what I can see, it's evolving into an instrument of accountabilty. It's certainly enabling accountablity where before real accountability was not practical.
In small towns & communities - accountability is handled by a natural - probalby evolved - system - a system called "The grapevine" or with less positive connotations - gossip. Well - that's not strictly true - i suppose gossip could be defined as the malicious use of the grapevine.
Just to be explicit, I mean the "informal network of people talking to people - in a natural socializing kind of way" when I say "The Grapevine." I'm pretty sure it's a universal aspect of human experience, because I also think it's probably an evolved-in trait, because it serves a purpose that would select for the success of a small group or tribe - the natural unit of human evolution until a few hundred years ago. (again - in my opinion)
Anyway - so - in defense of gossip - I think/believe that it (in it's non-malicious incarnation - "the grapevine") is an important enabler of accountability within tribal units/communities. I figure the natural group size is @ 50 people, but can probably scale to several hundred - even a thousand or two. Think how many people you know, how your experience in highschool was - how many people did you know, know well, etc. I've also noticed that department sizes/management group sizes in large corporations seem to cluster @ 50-ish in size.
So - Accountability is a good thing & a natural thing in small communities. That's why small towns are such gossip-mills & again I think this is a good thing in general, but as always the balance of positive intentions vs. maliciousness exists.
IMO - (In my Opinion) what has been a problem in the past with big business, with government & large groups in general - is a lack of accountability, because mechanisms for accountability on a large scale have not existed. This has allowed "jerks" to act badly - ie without a balance of respect for others with self-interest and not only get away with it, but effectively do well because of it. People have been able to "do well by doing bad" - which sucks! A far better model is that which the quakers espoused - "Doing well by Doing Good"
What a big problem has been is that in large groups without a mechanism for accountability, the benefits of doing good were not realized - those such as endorsement from others, repeat business, what-have-you. Even worse - the negative effects of doing bad became negligible the larger the group size has become, because there was "always a new sucker around every corner" because there was no reasonable, convenient way for a bad reputation to develop.
Anyway - hopefully you get the idea - because i think this post is @ long enough now.
If you don't believe me that the internet is providing a way for this to change check out:
http://stopbadware.org/ and http://www.google.com/corporate/software_principles.html
which are what inspired me to write up these thoughts.
Also think about e-bay & the accountabilty system of rating that has been built into it. Interesting no??
From what I can see, it's evolving into an instrument of accountabilty. It's certainly enabling accountablity where before real accountability was not practical.
In small towns & communities - accountability is handled by a natural - probalby evolved - system - a system called "The grapevine" or with less positive connotations - gossip. Well - that's not strictly true - i suppose gossip could be defined as the malicious use of the grapevine.
Just to be explicit, I mean the "informal network of people talking to people - in a natural socializing kind of way" when I say "The Grapevine." I'm pretty sure it's a universal aspect of human experience, because I also think it's probably an evolved-in trait, because it serves a purpose that would select for the success of a small group or tribe - the natural unit of human evolution until a few hundred years ago. (again - in my opinion)
Anyway - so - in defense of gossip - I think/believe that it (in it's non-malicious incarnation - "the grapevine") is an important enabler of accountability within tribal units/communities. I figure the natural group size is @ 50 people, but can probably scale to several hundred - even a thousand or two. Think how many people you know, how your experience in highschool was - how many people did you know, know well, etc. I've also noticed that department sizes/management group sizes in large corporations seem to cluster @ 50-ish in size.
So - Accountability is a good thing & a natural thing in small communities. That's why small towns are such gossip-mills & again I think this is a good thing in general, but as always the balance of positive intentions vs. maliciousness exists.
IMO - (In my Opinion) what has been a problem in the past with big business, with government & large groups in general - is a lack of accountability, because mechanisms for accountability on a large scale have not existed. This has allowed "jerks" to act badly - ie without a balance of respect for others with self-interest and not only get away with it, but effectively do well because of it. People have been able to "do well by doing bad" - which sucks! A far better model is that which the quakers espoused - "Doing well by Doing Good"
What a big problem has been is that in large groups without a mechanism for accountability, the benefits of doing good were not realized - those such as endorsement from others, repeat business, what-have-you. Even worse - the negative effects of doing bad became negligible the larger the group size has become, because there was "always a new sucker around every corner" because there was no reasonable, convenient way for a bad reputation to develop.
Anyway - hopefully you get the idea - because i think this post is @ long enough now.
If you don't believe me that the internet is providing a way for this to change check out:
http://stopbadware.org/ and http://www.google.com/corporate/software_principles.html
which are what inspired me to write up these thoughts.
Also think about e-bay & the accountabilty system of rating that has been built into it. Interesting no??
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
How to Avoid being Sued
Had a funny thought about our excessively litigious society...
The most effective (and cheapest!) defense against being sued, is to not have anything worth being sued for.
This trick also works for avoiding being robbed. If you don't have anything worth stealing, there's nothing for anyone to take from you.
The implicit connection made here between sueing & robbery wasn't part of my initial intention, but now that they concepts are compared - the shoe does seem to fit...
Ah well, enough for now. Over & Out.
The most effective (and cheapest!) defense against being sued, is to not have anything worth being sued for.
This trick also works for avoiding being robbed. If you don't have anything worth stealing, there's nothing for anyone to take from you.
The implicit connection made here between sueing & robbery wasn't part of my initial intention, but now that they concepts are compared - the shoe does seem to fit...
Ah well, enough for now. Over & Out.
Monday, July 10, 2006
Massively Parallel Processing
A market economy could be considered a massively parallel processing system. I bet there are some interesting connections emerging in the study of both markets & massively parallel computing.
The Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy was right.
The Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy was right.
Monday, June 26, 2006
An Inconvenient Truth - the Movie
I saw Al Gore's new documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" on Thursday night. Great Flick - as good as I was hoping it would be. Better actually. There was science in it that was new to me, it had a great balance of "Scary" with "galvanize-to-action," and there was just enough fun to make a difficult topic enjoyable to watch.
On top of it all, my-oh-my was the presentation technology well done. From a purely intellectual perspective, I had to appreciate his slides, graphics, & delivery for their own merits - aside from the obvious power of their content.
On top of it all, my-oh-my was the presentation technology well done. From a purely intellectual perspective, I had to appreciate his slides, graphics, & delivery for their own merits - aside from the obvious power of their content.
Technology Will Save Us
The CBC is doing a series of stories this week on climate change (hooray! - it's quite good actually) and in one interview, the interviewer asks a question that sums-up an often expressed sentiment - that "Technology will save us" I wanted to put down a few thoughts on this topic.
I'm an optimist & all for the global market-economy. I do believe that technology can & will respond rapidly to the crisis & that humanity will survive climate change.
Humanity will survive, short of sterilizing the planet (which i'm not sure i'd put past us - Nuclear winter & an unanticipated effect from one of the many GMOs that have been released into the environment being the two chief contenders in my book,) but it remains to be seen how much of it will survive. Will it be the current level of population? Will it be a greater level of population? Will it be substantially less? The answers are not yet known & in practice can probably only be found via experiment.
The theory that probably best answers the question is provided by an "Ecological Footprint" analysis of the type first popularized by Prof. Bill Reeds of the University of British Columbia. But that's the question - how many of us will survive climate change - rather than if. The answer to that question depends on how much anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change we allow to happen.
Note that rephrasing the question that way eliminates the polarizing effect of a "the world is ending" argument - it isn't. However - the important question - the question of how much to do remains, and it is a function of a) how bad is it going to get? b) how many people are we willing to let die? and c) how many people do we want to live with on this planet in the longer term. I would sum these up as how much do we do, how fast do we do it, & how many people do we want to live with.
Moral & Ethical questions to direct our science.
I'm an optimist & all for the global market-economy. I do believe that technology can & will respond rapidly to the crisis & that humanity will survive climate change.
Humanity will survive, short of sterilizing the planet (which i'm not sure i'd put past us - Nuclear winter & an unanticipated effect from one of the many GMOs that have been released into the environment being the two chief contenders in my book,) but it remains to be seen how much of it will survive. Will it be the current level of population? Will it be a greater level of population? Will it be substantially less? The answers are not yet known & in practice can probably only be found via experiment.
The theory that probably best answers the question is provided by an "Ecological Footprint" analysis of the type first popularized by Prof. Bill Reeds of the University of British Columbia. But that's the question - how many of us will survive climate change - rather than if. The answer to that question depends on how much anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change we allow to happen.
Note that rephrasing the question that way eliminates the polarizing effect of a "the world is ending" argument - it isn't. However - the important question - the question of how much to do remains, and it is a function of a) how bad is it going to get? b) how many people are we willing to let die? and c) how many people do we want to live with on this planet in the longer term. I would sum these up as how much do we do, how fast do we do it, & how many people do we want to live with.
Moral & Ethical questions to direct our science.
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
Chuckles Rides Again & Again
I just noticed that the last few entries have been getting a little overly serious. Time to put some fun back up here, so i've reposted this shot of Chuckles & I and how we get around Town. - Cute No?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)