So this is Christmas

So this is Christmas

And what have you done?

Another year over

And a new one just begun

Happy Christmas (War is Over) is a song written by John Lennon and Yoko Ono, released in 1977 as a single by John & Yoko/Plastic Ono Band with the Harlem Community Choir.  It was originally a protest song about the Vietnam war.

Thirty six years later, there is still armed conflict all over the world and anti-war protests continue but to no avail.  The problem as I see it, and I'm certainly no expert, is that efforts to prevent war or bring wars to an end, seem to focus on the symptoms (i.e. unnecessary bloodshed) rather than the underlying causes.  But that is probably due to the fact that it is usually extremely difficult to understand the underlying causes.  In my opinion, the big question is why are human beings intent on destroying themselves?  Is it all in the genes?  Is it learned behaviour?  Or is it a combination of those and other factors?

There are many psychoanalytical views on the causes of war, too many to review in this post.  But one theory held by E. F. M. Durban and John Bowlby is that human beings are inherently violent and their natural aggression is sustained by for ever wanting to convert their grievances into bias and hatred against other races, religions, nations or ideologies.  If this is true then there surely can't be any hope for sustained world peace in the future.  Indeed it does appear that when conflicts are supposedly resolved, later, more horrific consequences raise their ugly heads.  I suppose the adage: Today's problems come from yesterday's 'solutions', holds true.  Conflict resolution will inevitably be based on short-term 'solutions', because extrapolating the long-term effects of resolutions is usually impossible.  There are just too many unknowns.  It's easier to look back and suggest what should have been done, than to look forward and establish what has to be done.  It's called being wise with the benefit of hindsight.

So is the future really so gloomy?  Maybe, but perhaps we should see if there are any common threads within the hindsights of past conflicts.  One of the lessons that I think we can all learn from looking back at the life of Nelson Mandela, is that good leadership is a very important ingredient of peaceful solutions to conflicts.  Leaders, such as Hitler, can incite hatred and extreme forms of racism.  Conversely, leaders like Mandela inspired his followers to strive for peaceful and democratic roads to justice built on a vision of equality and not dwelling on the inequalities of the past.

The last verse of John and Yoko's song is poignant.

War is over

If you want it

War is over

Now

On that note, a Merry Christmas and a Happy and Peaceful New Year.

What really counts?

Two events in the news recently, inspired me to write this post.  Firstly, the report that the UK's economic growth rate was the highest for seven years.  Secondly, the fact that Ireland was exiting from its financial bailout.  These two items ought to be good news for the citizens of the UK and Ireland, but is that the case?  My guess is that the politicians will be rejoicing whereas the majority of the two country's populations will have noticed no change.  Both cases are examples of a classic political ruse, which is to pick a measure, or measures, for which there is no argument as to the absolute values and then construct a good news story.  One favourite measure of a nation's economic success or failure is Gross Domestic Product, GDP.  This is the monetary value of all the financial goods and services produced within a country's borders in a specific time period, though GDP is usually calculated on an annual basis.  It is calculated as follows:

GDP = C + G + I + NX

where:

C = consumer spending

G = government spending

I = business spending on capital

NX is the value of Exports - Imports

So what's wrong with that?  Well, I will summarise my concern with the old adage: "It's easier to count the bottles than describe the quality of the wine".

In other words some things are easy to measure (like numbers of bottles) but within the entities that are being counted are intangibles (like wine quality), which bear little or no relationship to the number of entities.  So given the UK's growth in GDP, which is actually very small but nevertheless greater than it has been for seven years, is the population feeling better off financially and generally happier?  I doubt it.  A 'healthy' GDP growth statistic is meaningless if you are a young person who hasn't found employment since leaving school or university, a family struggling to pay the rent and feed themselves whilst their income has decreased in real terms in recent years, or an elderly person who can't afford to keep warm through the long winter months because of rising fuel bills.  I know, you've heard it all before and it's always possible for any disadvantaged person or society to find less fortunate cases in other parts of the world.  But my point is that it is demeaning and patronising to celebrate success on statistics that bear little relationship to personal well-being and happiness.

OK, so I've got that off my chest but what's the solution?  Do we not measure anything?  Or do we try to measure the intangibles, like happiness?  Well, if you can measure some of the right things then it is possible to conclude whether things are really improving or not.  The UK Prime Minister, David Cameron, introduced a Happiness Index for the UK as an alternative to GDP and the first results, published in July 2012, showed the average adult rated 7.4 out of 10 for life satisfaction.  Oh and by the way, the first national survey concluded that those who have jobs and own their homes are most likely to be satisfied with their lives.  Well there's a surprise!  The Prime Minister described the survey as crucial to finding out what the government can do to "really improve lives", but the Labour opposition party described the outcome of the survey as a "statement of the bleeding obvious".

It's easy to rubbish any initiative but on the other hand subjective 'measurements' will always be open to interpretation and criticism.  Conversely, objective measurements, such as GDP, have their own shortcomings as I hope I have illustrated.  So what really counts?  In my opinion, honesty and transparency are essential.  The world is going through some difficult times with no short-term fixes.  So let's face the big challenges, like a growing population consuming too much of the world's finite resources and don't fool ourselves that the 'live today, pay later' policies of the past will work in the future.  As Gandhi put it so succinctly:

"There's enough for everyone's need [in the world], but not enough for everyone's greed."

Why break the habit of a lifetime?

Why break the habit of a lifetime?  I picked up this definition of the idiom: "Something that you say which means that you do not believe that someone will stop doing something bad that they have done all their lives".  Interesting that this particular definition refers to "something bad".  So for example, "Uncle Tom always gets pissed out of his mind at Christmas, so he's unlikely to break the habit of a lifetime".  If the definition is valid, then the inference in this example is that Uncle Tom's behaviour at Christmas is viewed as a bad habit.  But is habitual drinking bad?  Well it's certainly not bad for the drinks industry that employs many workers.  Nor is it bad for the state coffers from the taxes that are collected.  So if Uncle Tom breaks his habit of a lifetime, it might be good for his health and he might not be a pain in the arse for those who have to tolerate his company, but breaking his habit could contribute to a negative impact on the economy.

Now here's a definition of 'habit': "A recurrent, often subconscious pattern of behaviour that is acquired through frequent repetition".  We all have those and they are not always bad.  For example, good driving habits should reduce accidents and good or bad driving becomes habitual.  Most of the time we don't have to think about how we drive, the subconscious will take over.  So when the traffic light is red, a good driver will automatically stop.  It's interesting to consider habits in the context of business organisations.  Why am I using the example of businesses?  Well, they've featured prominently throughout my life, so why break the habit of a lifetime?!  It doesn't matter whether you are one of six people working in an office or an employee of a corporation employing 60,000, you will have experienced organisational CULTURE - "that's not the way we do things around here".  Culture is the cultivation of individual habits and collective traditions to create a unique working environment.  A business leader who tries to change culture by producing vision statements, mission statements and business plans, no matter how well communicated, will fail.  How do I know?  Because I've been there, done that and got the tee shirt!  Where there is a match between the organisational culture and the individual's habits, the two will co-exist comfortably.  Where there is a mismatch, the individual will be the loser.  So a risk-taking entrepreneur will not survive in a risk-averse, conservative organisation.  But we are all creatures of habit.  Most of the time we do what we do most of the time!  So how do individuals and organisations, which are collections of individuals, set about changing direction?  That's a big question and I don't profess to know the answer.  But I do know what has worked for me when I have attempted to change my attitudes and behaviours.

I find it useful on occasions to assess my habits, of which I have plenty.  If I can spot a really bad habit, I like to analyse it and see if I can change it.  I've had some successes but many failures because "old habits die hard"!  But if it was easy to change individual behaviours, the world would probably not have all the problems we have today.  Returning to the title of this post, why break the habit of a lifetime?  Because if you wish to change the world, start with yourself.

Liquid Sunshine

It's raining today.  Fortunately, on Turkey's Mediterranean coast weather like today's is the exception rather than the rule, but I still hate it!  I like to think I have a rational mind and of course, rain is essential for all living organisms.  Without it, I wouldn't be here to complain about it.  I suppose after many years of living in the UK, my weather tastes have been influenced by an unpredictable climate where long spells of sunshine were definitely an exception.  The 1976 UK heat wave is still a topic for discussion, 37 years later!  I guess this year's hotter than usual summer in the UK will likewise be remembered for many years to come.

In hotter countries, rain in moderation is welcomed and some use the term 'liquid sunshine' - not to be confused, of course, with a brand of tanning lotion!  I think liquid sunshine is an excellent term.  Think about it.  Something that brings the happiness of sunshine in a liquid form.  Rain brings fresh water to the earth, provides the energy source for hydroelectric power, water for crop irrigation as well as, of course, providing suitable conditions for the ecosystem - wonderful!  So I guess my hatred of rain is very selfish.  I am viewing it from the perspective of what it is preventing me from doing.  I have enjoyed a few weeks of physical activity, including chopping down and pruning trees, mowing, strimming, etc and to be stopped from continuing my outdoor pursuits comes as a shock to the system.  Even though, if the forecast is correct, we could be back to 'normal' tomorrow!  If I had grown up in the part of the world where I now live, I might not have the same obsession with the weather.  And a danger of obsession is that it can lead to superstition, even for apparently rational-thinking individuals.

Superstition about the weather is hardly surprising, given some of the horrendous events that we have witnessed in recent times.  Superstition is, after all, rooted in fear and provides a means of linking unwanted climatic conditions with controllable human behaviour.  It's only a few centuries ago that superstion over the climate led to witch hunts and executions for witchcraft.  Now, as I have stated in previous blog posts, I am no longer skeptical on the issue of global warming.  I do believe there is a causal link between the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and climate change.  I do not believe, however, that global warming should become the scapegoat for all weather extremes.  Apparently, a check of weather records for the 1930s or the 1950s, when the CO2 level was much higher than it is today, shows that extreme weather events are nothing new.

What I am witnessing today is steady heavy rainfall but hardly a weather extreme.  It's doing lots of good things to the agricultural environment around me and I should be thankful for it.  But I can assure you, if the sun shines tomorrow, I will be out enjoying the real thing and as for liquid sunshine, you can stick it up your arse!

When is a weed not a weed?

"I am just going into the garden to do some weeding", my wife, Sandie, said the other day.  We do tend to have a clear division of responsibilities when it comes to gardening tasks and weeding is something I don't take onboard.  It's not a job I enjoy but more important, I am never quite sure what is deemed to be a weed.  Wikipedia's definition is 'a plant considered undesirable within a certain context'.  Well that really is subjective!  I am sure Sandie and I can agree what, for example, is a rose.  But when it comes to weeds, we do have differences of opinion, although I usually bow to her experience of these matters and anyway, I want a quiet life!

When I had a lawn in the UK, I became quite obsessive about achieving a bowling green effect.  I regularly weeded and fertilised the grass and mowed it using a power mower with a heavy roller to achieve a professional striped finish.  Here in Turkey, the climatic conditions are vastly different to the UK.  We have long hot summers with little or no rain and a mixture of weather in the winter, predominantly dry and mild but with heavy storms at times.  An English lawn would not survive in this part of Turkey.  But we do manage to have green lawns, which are a mixture of long-rooted grass and various green 'weeds'.  From a distance it looks good!  The bottom line is, what is regarded as a weed in a UK lawn could be very acceptable here in Turkey.

If a weed is 'a plant considered undesirable within a certain context' then clearly if the 'context' changes, for example UK to Turkey, then what is 'undesirable' also changes.  But context can be more than just climatic conditions.  Context can also be to what extent the lives of weeds affect human activities.  I have already touched on weeds being unacceptable in ornamental lawns and those used for sporting activities, such as bowling, cricket and football.  But of course weeds can also be unacceptable in agricultural environments where they compete for survival against crops that provide food for humans.  This 'context' is where humans are at war with nature.  Plants that interfere with food production have to be controlled otherwise crop yields are reduced or lost.  Humans have a formidable array of deterrents at their disposal, including chemical weapons (weed killers), which can be selective and very effective.

Look at the photo at the beginning of this post.  This is white clover.  Now the lawn enthusiast, which I am happy to say no longer applies to me, would definitely regard this plant as a weed but in many other 'contexts', it is a desirable source of fodder, honey and soil nitrogen.  The lawn specialist would probably eradicate it with a selective weed killer.  However, it tolerates close mowing and is a beneficial component of natural or organic lawn care as a result of its ability to fix nitrogen and out-compete other lawn weeds.  So there's the dichotomy, is it an invasive weed or a truly beneficial companion?!

I could ramble on and on with this topic, but I won't.  We are definitely exploring the world of opinion rather than fact.  So when is a weed not a weed?  Ask my wife! 😊

KISS

No, this blog post is not about the act of expressing love, passion, affection, respect, greeting, friendship, peace or good luck.  It is about the KISS principle, an acronym for Keep It Simple Stupid.  The phrase has been widely used as a design principle, which is based on the premise that most systems work best if they are kept simple rather than made complex.  Simplicity should be a key goal in design rather than complexity.  As an engineer, I can relate to this goal, particularly in the case of software-intensive systems.  The oxymoron 'worse is better' is often applied to software systems, where less functionality ('worse') is often preferable to more complex systems ('better'), which can be more difficult to use and prone to bugs.

A simple acronym like KISS, is easy (simple) to remember, rolls off the tongue nicely and is a good philosophy.  But is it?  I don't think so.  At least, not always.  Whether we like it or not, life is incredibly complex.  So how do you apply simplicity to complexity?  Well, it might be argued that any complex problem can be dealt with by breaking it down into simple 'chunks' and dealing with them individually........KISS!  Imagine an electric blanket that the owner switches on one hour prior to going to bed each evening.  On one occasion he notices the bed is cold and checks the plug observing that a 13A fuse is blackened.  He changes the fuse and the blanket appears to work.  Next evening the bed is cold again........bloody fuses!  So Mr Heath Robinson decides to replace the fuse with copper wire - that won't blow mate!  And it didn't, but the following night the bed covers ignite and the house burns down.  The simple 'solution' to the problem ends in a tragedy.  The fuses had been blowing not because of faulty fuses but because of a damaged element in the electric blanket, causing it to draw too much current.  When the fuse was replaced with copper wire, the element got hotter and hotter until it ignited the bed clothes.  The point of this story is that breaking the problem down into manageable 'chunks', dealing with each one separately........KISS........was not the way to deal with the problem.  The fuse blowing was the symptom of the problem, NOT the problem.

I can think of loads of situations in my own life where quick simple fixes have led to longer-term problems.  On the other hand, I do believe simplicity does play an important role in life.  Leonardo da Vinci said "Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication" and Albert Einstein who was a master of understanding complexity, said "If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself."  So I'm not against simplicity in certain situations but it's not the be all and end all of problem solving.  Let me conclude with my own acronym - KISSES - Keeping It Simple Sometimes Endangers Situations........through unintended consequences.

What's the topic for my blog post today?

Most of my blog posts are the result of almost spontaneous inspiration.  I just get the urge to write about something and although they tend to be published weekly, there is no set timetable.  You can't schedule inspiration!  When I look back at my posts, I note they seem to fall into three categories - posts that are topical, based on a recent NEWS item; posts that are based on general OBSERVATIONS; posts that are on issues that I feel PASSIONATE about.  Today's post has a thread that runs through all three categories.

Dominating the NEWS today is the horrendous aftermath of the typhoon, named Haiyan, that hit the Phillipines, which has been reported as the strongest storm ever recorded.  It's a part of the world that is used to typhoons and there were warnings for Haiyan but nevertheless the destruction has been unimaginable and left an estimated 10,000 dead.  National and international relief and rescue efforts are of course underway, but it will take months, if not years, for the affected areas to return to some sort of normality and the lost lives will never be recovered.  Disasters such as this make other world issues pale into insignificance, particularly problems where the solutions are directly controllable by the world's inhabitants.  For example, the issue of controlling Iran's nuclear activities, such that it does not develop a nuclear weapon capability, can be solved by debate, negotiation and agreement, as well as, of course, an overarching desire to succeed by all parties.  The Phillipines tragedy, on the other hand, was an act of nature, over which mankind has no control........but is that true?

Over the past couple of decades, from my OBSERVATIONS of natural disasters, my feeling is that the rate and severity of calamitous acts of nature appear to be on the increase.  I have not collected any statistics to support that claim.  It's just a feeling.  Floods, storms, droughts, hurricanes, typhoons, earthquakes, tsunamis, fires, blizzards, heat waves, extreme cold........seem to get regular and extensive news coverage.  But are these acts of nature all unavoidable or does mankind have an influence and therefore a responsibility?  Well let me digress to one of my old chestnuts, correlation and causation.  Correlation does not imply causation.  For example if the cockerel crows each morning at sunrise, the cockerel will not be causing the sun to rise!  On the other hand, the rising of the sun could be causing the cockerel to crow.  There are many more subtle examples of of incorrect conclusions from correlations.  After the Second World War the rate of pregnancies in the UK closely followed (i.e. correlated with) the number of bananas that were being imported.  Were the bananas causing the pregnancies?!  Well if you believe that you need to study biology.  It could have been pregnant women had a desire to eat bananas.  It might have been the 'feel good factor' at the end of the war lead to a desire for reproduction and, quite separately, the urge to buy bananas.  Or it might have just been a coincidence i.e. no apparent causal link between the pregnancies and the bananas.

For many years I was not totally convinced of the causal link between mankind's generation of carbon dioxide and climate change, but in recent times I have changed my view.  All the evidence suggests there is a definite correlation between the emission of carbon dioxide from, for example, the burning of fossil fuels and global warming, which is causing climatic changes.  I have become PASSIONATE about this issue (see my previous blog post) and I am so frustrated that there seems no sense of urgency by the world's political communities to take the issue seriously.  Now I'm not suggesting that Typhoon Haiyan was avoidable.  That would be a hypothesis that could be neither proved or disproved.  But what I do believe is that paying lip service to green issues could contribute to more disasters.

That's my blog post for today and my thoughts are with all those affected by Typhoon Haiyan.

Too hot to handle?

It's nice to keep warm on a cold winter's night.  Conversely, the cold weather can kill, so warmth is not a luxury.  It is a necessity.  So I watch with interest the energy debate in the UK, particularly following the recently announced fuel price increases.  The coalition government formed by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, with the latter as the junior partner, made a big issue of its green commitment in the early days in office.  I recall news clips of the Prime Minister, David Cameron, cycling to the Houses of Parliament, albeit followed by his limousine!  But it's easy to be green when not faced with tough economic choices and I now sense the tide is turning.

I always thought the highest priority on the green agenda was to prevent irreparable damage to the planet by excessive man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, which cause global warming.  If you believe action has to be taken to prevent the threat to the planet, then the economic arguments are of secondary importance.  The cost of energy produced from fossil fuels will inevitably rise because the deposits of the fuel, which have taken billions of years to form, are diminishing whilst the demand is increasing, ergo the demand is greater than the supply so the price goes up.  The green alternatives, such as solar, wind and waves, are not cheap in terms of capital investment to create useable energy supplies and the costs of running and supporting the new installations.

What about nucleur fission?  Well, it is green in terms of the extremely low levels of carbon dioxide emissions, but dealing with radio active waste, which remains active for many generations, has not been satisfactorily addressed.  Nuclear fusion (like the sun) doesn't have the same waste problem, but commercially available fusion reactors are still a long way off.

What about fracking?  In my opinion, forget it.  It's just another form of dirty fossil fuel with potentially dangerous extraction consequences that are not fully understood.

We can't flick a switch and go totally green overnight.  There needs to be a transition.  For reasons that I have already described, the transition will be costly.  This is where the political debate, such as the one currently raging in the UK, becomes interesting, because costly energy could cost votes!  Politicians are not interested in long term sustainable green energy sources at the expense of their short term political careers.  But the political system, particularly the feudal elective dictatorship in the UK, will not change overnight.  So what's the solution?

I believe the real problem is not the cost of energy but the inability of the poorer sectors of society to pay for it.  A professional footballer, a banker, a doctor, a plumber........for example........will always be able to pay for gas and electricity.  But there are many citizens who have to make the choice between warmth and food during the cold winter months.  Therefore the real problem is the inequitable distribution of wealth, where the gap between rich and poor continues to widen year-on-year.  So the political debate should not be about clean or dirty energy, which in my opinion is really beyond debate.  The real issue is about creating a fair society where the necessities of life, including warmth in the winter, are affordable by all.

But is that too hot to handle?

Don't take the tiger for granted.

There are some things in your life that always seem to have been around.  For me, one of them is the tiger.  It is the largest cat species, with body length up to 3.3m and weighing up to 306kg.  That's big!  But it's not just the knowledge of the existence of the animal that has been with me for as long as I can remember, it's also the use of the word 'tiger' as a name or brand - Tiger Woods and Tiger Beer being just two examples.  It is synonymous with strength, skill and majesty.  Despite being regarded by some as dangerous, wild tigers will normally avoid interactions with humans.  Attacks can, however, be provoked, for example when they are hunted or looking after their young.

My recent interest in tigers was prompted by information from the World Wildlife Fund (WWF).  According to the WWF, there are now around 3,200 tigers left in the wild.  There are more than that number in captivity.  Over the last century the population has reduced by over 95%.  Tigers used to roam over most of Asia, from as far west as Turkey.  But now they are only found in isolated areas in India, Nepal, China, Russia, Malaysia and Sumatra.  The main reasons for the population decline are habitat destruction, habitat fragmentation and poaching.  The main reasons for poaching have been the high prices paid for body parts, particularly the skins, and the belief by many people in China and other parts of Asia that some tiger parts have medicinal properties, including pain killers and aphrodisiacs.  Some of the claims of those practising traditional Chinese medicine are as follows:

Tiger claws cure insomnia.

Teeth treat fever.

Fat treats leprosy.

Nose leather cures bites.

Bone treats rheumatism and arthritis.

Eye balls treat epilepsy and malaria.

Tail is used to cure skin diseases.

Bile cures meningitis.

Whiskers cure toothache.

Brain treats laziness and pimples.

Penis is used in love potions and aphrodisiacs.

Dung or feces treats boils, hemorrhoids and alcoholism.

Western medical experts tend to discount all the claims but still the practice goes on.  In my opinion, one of the reasons the traditional practice is perpetuated is because it is 'traditional'.  The adjective 'traditional' almost becomes a seal of approval, a guarantee of success, because so many people have benefitted from (or been fooled by!) the traditional remedies.  I suppose when the traditional cures involve the the use of herbs, then there is little or no damage to the environment, but when it means slaughtering tigers, already an endangered species, it beggars belief.

The other major threat to tigers is habitat loss.  Information from WWF UK States that only 7% of the tiger's historical range is still available to them.  The rest has been cleared and gone to agriculture, forest clearing, roads, etc.  This has forced the tigers to inhabit isolated pockets of land thus impeding their breeding characteristics.

So unless action is taken and fortunately WWF and others do have programmes to save tigers, an animal which is known by all could become extinct and relegated like the dinosaur to the history books.  Please don't take the tiger for granted!

The Impotent President

The current shutdown of the US government seems bizarre to me and many other observers, particularly given the ramifications to the global economy.  What makes the whole saga surreal is the fact that the potentially very dangerous consequences are inflicted by mankind on mankind.  Not with guns and tanks, but purely by elected representatives trying to gain political advantage and being allowed to hold the world at ransom.  It is interesting, however, to note how this particular news item, although still unresolved, is sliding down the scale of importance when measured by its position on international news bulletins.  It is almost as if the world is becoming bored with the antics of American politicians and also somewhat embarrassed for President Obama who is demonstrating his political impotence, which is inherent in the American constitution.  For many major issues he is an impotent President.

The US constitution makes it possible for different branches of government to be controlled by different parties and in the current standoff each party can claim to be representing the will of the people.  This is the way the Founding Fathers wanted it to be, so that there would be a system of checks and balances.  They divided the US government in order to keep it limited and to ensure major decisions are the result of negotiation and compromise.

Now let's compare the US form of government with the United Kingdom's parliamentary democracy.  This form of democracy was described by the former Lord Chancellor of the UK, Lord  Hailsham, as an elective dictatorship.  As a hypothetical example, if something like Obamacare was in the election manifesto of a UK political party and that party won the election, then it's parliamentary majority would allow Obamacare to become law.  Now the first-past-the-post electoral system means that a strong majority on the House of Commons does not necessarily mean the majority of the electorate have voted for the ruling party.  At the last election in the UK, the Conservatives gained 36% of the votes and 47% of the seats in parliament, their current overall majority was created by forming a coalition with the Liberal Democrats.  This was the first coalition government formed outside wartime or a national emergency since 1918.  So in general, the elective dictatorship leads to strong decisive government, particularly if, as is normally the case, there is not a need for a coalition.

So what system of the two mentioned democracies, is better?  Well no system of government, democracy or otherwise, is perfect.  Winston Churchill said:

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

In my opinion, it's one thing for governments to make decisions that affect solely their national interests, but when national decisions have a global impact, then that's a whole new ball game.  Hypothetically, imagine if the Polish government was procrastinating over a decision that could have a serious impact on the global economy.  Do you think the USA would just be a passive observer and wait for whatever will be?  I don't think so!

Looking at the bigger picture, in my view globalisation is testing to the full the world's current territorial governance.  Just how independent are so called independent states?  I am not questioning the cultural ties within countries and regions of the world but political responsibility needs to take on a much broader perspective than national boundaries.  The guy at the helm of the national ship cannot be allowed to be impotent because if that ship sinks, so do the rest of us.  Wake up America!

Business School Crap

As a part time management consultant it is perhaps heresy for me to suggest the teachings of business schools could be described as crap, but I do think business men and women should view with suspicion some of the latest thinking emanating from business academia.  Why do I say this?  Well throughout my own business career I was an instant convert to many of the various business fads, tools and techniques that were vogue at the time, including Boston Consulting Group Matrix, Total Quality Management, Lean and Agile Manufacturing, Balanced Scorecards, Business Process Re-engineering, Best Demonstrated Practice, Value Stream Mapping........to name but a few.  Looking back, I realise now that I suffered from the indoctrination and therefore the businesses that I was part of, or later in my career running, could have suffered too.  That's not to say that managers shouldn't be analytical and some tools, including those mentioned above, can help to gain a better understanding of  business performance and develop strategies.  But it is important not to get carried away with a simplistic approach to business strategy that many protagonists recommend.

Any business is a complex chaotic system that has no predictability.  Also, because it is a system, it contains a daunting web of interdependencies, both internal to the organisation and external to customers, suppliers and the rest of the global community.  The internal dependencies are difficult to influence and impossible to control.  The external interdependencies are even more remote.  Now the business school solutions to these complex problems are often based on subdivision, breaking down the internal organisation into units, divisions and departments, whilst creating neat sub-contract-driven supply chains to 'control' the outside world.  I'm not saying that this is not the way to try to bring some sort of control and certainty to an uncontrollable and uncertain business environment.  But the mistake is to believe such a structure, together with a few business improvement techniques thrown in, is the panacea for success........it ain't!  In my opinion, it doesn't matter how many case studies you review, there are not common threads for success, or conversely, for failure.

I ask myself, if I'm not happy with what's on offer at business schools right now, then what am I proposing?  Well I believe that the talent we all need to develop throughout our lives is thinking.  We have to be able to apply different types of thinking to situations and in the complex world of business, there is rarely a formulaic approach.  It is also dangerous to become too obsessed with both measuring things that have happened and applying measurements to things that have yet to happen.  Let me explain with an example.  I like to watch the UK BBC programme 'Dragons' Den'.  This is where budding entrepreneurs present business cases to proven entrepreneurs (the Dragons) to try to get investment by one or more Dragons into their businesses.  The Dragons will inevitably explore 'the numbers', i.e. the sales and profit to date and the projected sales and profit usually over the next three years.  If the budding entrepreneurs don't understand, or worse still don't know, their numbers they will be crucified by the Dragons.  Whereas if they present a good set of numbers, they get a big tick in the box.  But in reality, the past numbers are history and the future numbers are pie in the sky.  There is generally an obsession with profit but in the words of Peter Senge:

"Profit for a company is like oxygen for a person....unfortunately most businesses operate as if their purpose is breathing."

So in my opinion, understanding business is part of understanding life, because each business is a sub system within life's system.  Now to get from that level to tangible day-to-day actions to improve business performance, will not unfortunately lead to self-contained simplistic processes.  There might be some simple processes  but they cannot be viewed in isolation of the whole.  You might create the most efficient typewriter factory on the planet, but if the world has moved on from typewriters and doesn't use them anymore, you have wasted your time and money.

Now if you have read this blog post and ended up confused, I am not surprised.  I haven't attempted to answer any questions but merely to issue a health warning on the misuse of management fads.  There are no standard prescriptions for business success and in the words of Dr Deming:

"

"Improvement is a process, and not a pill.

Thought Experiments

If you are interested in thought experiments, I recommend 'The Pig that Wants to be Eaten' by Julian Baggini.  It's a good read and I will be referring to it later in this post.  Thought experiments are, like scientific experiments, a means of imagining situations that are akin to real-life scenarios but can be 'tidier' than real life and therefore allow us to focus on the important issues.  A thought experiment is a tool that aids our thinking, it does not pretend to describe real life.

Enough of the generalities, let's describe a thought experiment to consider some of the issues associated with a real-life problem - climate change.  Now I have to admit that up to a few years ago, I was a climate change sceptic.  I accepted the fact that climates were changing but I believed that the phenomenon was more to do with long-term cyclical weather changes, rather than human-created emissions of carbon dioxide.  However, as the evidence for carbon dioxide emissions being a major cause of climate change increased, I changed my views.  Indeed, I am now of the opinion that governments need to assign a high priority to the green agenda with the possible negative impact on economic growth.

At this point, I am going to return to thought experiments and in particular one entitled 'Sustainable development' in Julian Baggini's book.  The Copyright Act prevents me from reproducing this particular thought experiment and I have highlighted it purely as a reference.  It has also been the inspiration for this post.  Here's my own version with a slightly different twist.

Smartfil Limited was a medium-size family-run business that produced water filtration systems for developing countries.  It had a unique design and demand for the products was high, which had led to 24/7 production on a shift system.  It was a major employer in a small town in Scotland where it was based.  But there was one facet of this successful business that particularly irked the owner-directors.  Smartfil Limited was not eco friendly.  The production processes used a huge amount of electricity produced by generating stations powered from fossil fuels.  Also, when there were any interruptions to the power supply, Smartfil Limited used petrol-driven on-site generators to keep production going.  The directors decided it was time to go green.  They devised an elaborate system of power generation, employing a water mill that was to be constructed by a river that ran through the grounds of the factory, two windmills and a vast array of photoelectric panels.  Having obtained all the necessary permissions, the capital expenditure was estimated to be £10 million, but also there was likely to be a three-month transition period when production could be reduced by 50%.  To cut a long story short, the company proceeded with the project but with disastrous consequences.  The disruption to production caused staff lay-offs and many key employees left the area to find work elsewhere.  The countries purchasing the filter systems faced real hardships due to the supply not meeting the demand, which was eventually overcome by finding alternative suppliers.  The repayments and interest on the loans for the capital expenditure, pushed up the cost of production and led to higher prices, which meant products were less competitive.  The maintenance costs on the new equipment were higher than anticipated and the cost of 'green' electricity was 50% higher than electricity from fossil-fuelled power generators, which again had a direct impact on the price of the Smartfil product.  Three years later Smartfil Limited went out of business.

This simple thought experiment summarises the dilemma that governments have when going green.  That's not to say that nothing should be done about global warming but it's not as simple as just replacing 'dirty' energy sources with 'clean' energy sources.  There are consequences and very often unintended consequences.  Thought experiments maybe a way of discovering previously unintended consequences.

Happy thinking! 😊

Note:  I have used a company name, Smartfil Limited, in this blog post, which I couldn't find as a reference to a company in a Google search.  However, the thought experiment is a work of fiction and any resemblance to an actual organisation is purely coincidental.

Secret Thoughts

I have always enjoyed reading but my choice of books has changed over the years.  During my student days, followed by my early career in engineering, which then led me into project and business management, my choice of reading material was technical and factual - no science fiction for me!  Later I developed an interest in philosophy - is that real or unreal?  Well the existence of philosophical theories is real, whether the theories bear any relationship to reality is what the philosophical debate is all about.  If there's one common thread through the majority of my past reading habits, it is that it has been hard work.  Engineering text books, business management and philosophical thinking, are all brain-pounding stuff, leaving little or no scope for allowing the thought processes to drift into oblivion.  It's a bit like writing this blog post! 😊

In more recent times, I have taken an interest in reading fiction.  At first it was difficult for me because I have a natural aversion to things that aren't real.  When Harry Potter became all the rage, I read one of the books just to see what all the fuss was about and I had to force myself to finish the story.  It bored the pants off me and I quickly gravitated back to non-fiction.  My recent reading matter has mainly been crime fiction, particularly books by John Grisham and Michael Connelly, which whilst being works of fiction, have plausibility, unlike Harry Potter.  Although I am not addicted to reading and probably can't justify owning a Kindle yet, I do find burying myself in a fictional story is particularly relaxing.  It takes your thoughts away from the here-and-now and can provide an experience that is probably akin to meditation.

To say that non-fictional books are factual is, in my opinion, a misnomer.  I have written two 'factual' books - 'The Oxymoron of Managerial Wisdom' and 'Food for Thought'.  The first, as the title suggests, attempts to destroy any suggestion that management is an exact science.  The second, is a collection of articles on various 'real' issues.  But both pieces are riddled with my own thoughts and opinions and, therefore, are open to questions and comments, which I welcome.  Fiction, on the other hand, is open to review but the stories cannot be questioned, simply because they are stories, not opinions related to facts.  I suppose that is why reading a fictional story is far more relaxing than reading opinions.  The reader's mind drifts into the story rather than continually questioning the validity of the content.

An aspect of an invented story that can be very powerful, is the author's prerogative to describe the thoughts of the fictional characters.  Now in real life, I don't know what you're thinking and you don't know what I'm thinking.  If I ask you what you're thinking, you may or may not tell me the truth, and vice versa.  But in the invented story, the author can describe a fictional character's thoughts and no one can dispute it........because it's fictional!  This, in my view, is another reason why reading a fictional story can be so relaxing, we don't question the thoughts of the characters.

Returning to real life, we spend most (or perhaps all)  of our time thinking and much less time communicating.  Of course, whilst we are communicating we are also thinking.  Part of the art of communicating is making assumptions on what the other party is thinking.  So when, for example, President Obama recently said Syria's use of chemical weapons was unacceptable and the USA would take military action against them, did he really THINK that was the correct response or was he just saying it for effect?  We will never know.  Only President Obama knows.  So our thoughts are truly secret.  I ask myself the question, if we knew what others were thinking, would the world be a better place?  Wow, I think that question should be regarded as rhetorical.  A response to it could never be tested, except, of course, in an invented story.  So maybe that's a theme for a book set in a world where one's private thinking ceases to be secret.  I'm not sure if such a book would be relaxing or brain-pounding.  Whatever, if it exists or ever comes to fruition, happy reading 😊

What a beautiful bird.

A couple of mornings ago, I was enjoying a cup of tea on the balcony watching a flock of beautiful birds, which I discovered were bee-eaters.  They alternated their behaviour between being perched on a large tree in my garden and flying around an adjacent field full of sweet corn and ready for harvesting.  Most species of bee-eater can be found in Africa and Asia but others occur in Southern Europe, Australia and New Guinea.  They predominantly eat flying insects including bees and wasps, which are caught in the air.  Whilst they will eat almost any flying insect, honeybees can comprise a large part of their diet.

In the part of the world where I live, I often hear the sound of gunshot, which I am told is to frighten, not kill, the bee-eaters and that is because beekeeping is an important rural activity in this area.  I don't know how much of a threat the bee-eater is to beekeepers.  Certainly, the bee-eater only stalks bees in flight, not on the hives.  There has been a lot of concern in recent years about the declining bee population and not just because of the obvious product from bees, i.e. honey.  One of every three bites of food eaten worldwide depends on pollinators, especially bees, for a successful harvest.  I have not done extensive research on the causes of the declining bee population, but they include the use of pesticides, notably neonicotinoids, fungicides as well as the spread of viral pathogens and parasitic mites in beehives.

Ironically, recent research by the University of Sussex in the UK suggests that the fad for keeping bees in the cities as a means of preventing bee population decline, actually poses a threat to honeybees.  In London alone, the number of beehives has doubled in the past five years.  Professor Francis Ratnieks from the University of Sussex, summarised the problem as follows:

"Both honeybees and wild bees have been declining.  Although the causes are complex the most important seems to be the loss of flowers and habitat.

If the problem is not enough flowers, increasing the number of hives makes that problem worse.  The honeybee is just one of many insect species which feed on nectar and pollen.  Having a high density of honeybee hives is not only bad for honey bees, but may also affect bumble bees and other species feeding on the same flowers.

If a game park was short of food for elephants, you wouldn't introduce more, so why should we take this approach with bees?"

So what about the threat of the beautiful bee-eaters to the magnificent honeybees?  Beekeepers quite understandably regard bee-eaters and other insectivorous birds as pests, but other branches of agriculture generally do not consider them as their enemies.  In fact, birds that prey on insects are mostly considered to be beneficial for farming because they help in the control of insect pests.  The biggest threat to apiary bees usually occurs  during a period of migration of the birds and two possible solutions that can be adopted by beekeepers are to relocate the apiaries temporarily during that period or to scare (but not kill) the birds with the sound of gunshot.

Let's hope we can continue to live in harmony with bees and bee-eaters, taking precautionary measures where necessary and controlling human bad practices that threaten the natural habitats for the planet's pollinators 😊

It's a great idea!

I have always had a fascination for and admiration of human ingenuity.  From the start of our lives we inherit and benefit from the innovative achievements of those around us and all the generations that preceded us.  Medicine, motor cars, aeroplanes, computers, clothing, food supplies, electricity, gas, solar panels, roads, bridges, monetary systems, televisions, radios,........ - the list goes on and on - are all the result of human ingenuity, intellectual and physical endeavours.  As an engineer, my appreciation of mankind's achievements extends beyond WHAT a product can do for me, to HOW it works.  In fact, I find it difficult to accept the benefits of my man-made surroundings without understanding the workings of the component parts.  As an example, I know many people are quite content to drive their cars without a basic understanding of the internal combustion engine, but that doesn't work for me.  I need to know how it works, its capabilities and limitations.  Now to some readers, my behaviour might seem a bit whacky or even obsessional but I can assure you that when I am in the company of practising engineers (I no longer practise) my inquiring mind, compared with others, seems quite pedestrian.

There are pros and cons of having an inquiring mind.  The main advantage is that when things go wrong, and you understand why they have gone wrong, then you might be able to fix them.  The downside is that it is very easy to become obsessed with the HOW rather than enjoying the WHAT.  So for example, I check the quality and speed of my Internet connection regularly and if the speed reduces significantly, it concerns me and prompts a call to my Internet service provider, even if it is not really unduly affecting my use of the Internet.  But another problem with focussing too much on the HOW rather than the WHAT, is that it can constrain 'blue sky' thinking.  Here's a very recent example.  Yesterday, whilst enjoying breakfast with my wife, we were were discussing some of the topics we wished to raise with a friend who we would be talking to on FaceTime later that morning.  FaceTime calls allow us to have iPad-to-iPad video and audio communications.  It's Apple's answer to Skype.  We call our friend once a week and he updates us on his news from England, whilst we respond with our news from Turkey.  It's informative and a very enjoyable way to spend about an hour each week.  My mind wandered and whilst I was marvelling at what technology was allowing us to do, even though we tend to take it for granted, I mused at what might be possible in the future.  Our virtual meeting only uses two of the five senses - sight (with two-dimensional rather that three-dimensional images) and hearing.  There is no transmission and reception of the remaining three senses - taste, touch and smell.  Now we all know three-dimensional imaging is now possible, but what about taste, touch and smell?  I am not sure that taste and touch could enhance a FaceTime call, so my mind wandered into the area of smell.  My wife sensed that my cogs were ticking and I shared my idea of enhancing video/audio calls with smell, explaining that whilst we might not necessarily want to smell our friend 😄 , topics such as cooking, perfumery, etc, could benefit from the transmission and reception of smell.  It's a great idea!

After breakfast, I decided some Internet research was required.  I Googled SMELL ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION and then followed 'Digital scent technology' on Wikipedia.  Lo and behold the concept is not new.  In fact Hans Laube invented Smell-O-Vision, a system that released odour during the projection of a film, in the 1950s.  There are now many companies working on the technology and a group of Japanese researchers believe a 3D television with touch and smell will be commercially available by 2020.  So my great idea is by no means novel!  Now because my mind is focussed on the HOW and in this case, the HOW is well on the way to being achieved, I lost my enthusiasm to continue my thought process.  Whereas perhaps I should have parked that particular issue and mused on WHAT might be achievable by, for example, creating a totally inclusive and integrated virtual communication environment.  An environment where there really is no difference between real and virtual, i.e. the geographic divide between families, friends, colleagues, politicians........, disappears.  That's WHAT we want.  It's a great idea!  But don't ask me HOW! 😄

Should we or shouldn't we?

At the time of writing this post, members of the international community are considering military action against Syria in response to the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime.  The UK government`s intention to support a US-led initiative has just been defeated following a debate in the House of Commons.  All week I have tried to follow the various arguments, for and against action, on the media and I do not intend to continue that debate within this post. I am more concerned by the judgement processes employed by those who have real influence on issues affecting mankind's well being and survival.  For example, why do two supposed intelligent individuals, Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin, have entirely different views on the role of the international community in respect of the Syrian conflict?  Specifically, on the issue of military intervention, Barack would say ''we should'' whereas Vladimir would say ''we shouldn't''.  And of course, David Cameron would say ''we should but my country won't support me''.  Why does David Cameron have a different opinion to the majority of MPs and, according to recent opinion polls, the majority of the UK's population?

In previous posts, I have banged on about the benefits of systems thinking and I am about to do it again.  Systems thinking is all about looking at things in their totality rather than as the sum of the parts.  It requires an understanding of not just the component parts of the system but also the interdependencies.  In the words of Peter Senge:  ''Dividing an elephant in half does not produce two small elephants''.  One of the ways that NON-systems thinking can manifest itself in, for example, international affairs is when a solution to a problem can lead to greater problems than the one that was supposedly 'solved'.  Or put another way, and again quoting Peter Senge: ''Today's problems come from yesterday's 'solutions' ''.  In my opinion, most of today's leaders either demonstrate a complete lack of systems thinking or their differences of opinion result from differences in what constitutes 'the system'.  Returning to the example of Syria, there is little doubt that Barack Obama  and Vladimir Putin do have different views on Syria, within a systems context.  The USA's interests in Syria and the Middle East are quite different to Russia's interests in Syria and the region.  So if the interdependencies are different, 'the systems' are different.  That said, in my opinion most political leaders have a myopic view of problems.  It's normally double myopia, in space and time.  Spatially, they tend to think territorially, focussed on their national interests.  Temporally, the thinking is very short term, usually dictated by their period in office.

So what's the solution?  Well, in my humble opinion and in the words of a former non-systems thinking UK politician, Tony Blair, it's ''education, education, education''.  The teaching of systems thinking does not feature prominently in schools, colleges or universities and I think it should.  But it's not easy because there are not many people who are truly proficient at systems thinking.  So if you don't have the teachers, you can't attract the students and you don't develop tomorrow's teachers.  Also, systems thinking should not be regarded as an adjunct to curricula but embedded, like a language, in all disciplines.

I'm not an educationalist, I don't pretend to know right or wrong ways of teaching, but I do know that the world appears to be suffering from poor thinking, which is a systemic problem.  At least if we recognise that problem then maybe we are on the road to knowing the answer to ''should we or shouldn't we?''................even if the answer is ''maybe''!! 

By the book

We live in a rule-based society.  No matter how 'free' we think we are, eventually we come across a rule that ensures our behaviour is guided in a certain direction.  Most rules that have any chance of controlling individuals, carry penalties for non-compliance, for example the rule of law.  It's interesting that we tend to think of penalties for non-compliance rather than incentives for compliance, i.e. plenty of stick but no carrot!

Some years ago, I was in a taxi in Amsterdam, which was taking me to the airport.  The driver was a talkative individual and we engaged in conversation.  He soon revealed his political leanings and informed me that he was an anarchist.  He was quite passionate, albeit somewhat dogmatic, about his views, with little tolerance of anyone with opposing opinions.  So I became a good listener, not wishing to upset him and certainly not wanting to miss my plane!  In summary, he believed rules were for fools and individuals didn't need to be controlled by governments to act responsibly.  Interestingly, he was a good driver.  I suppose it is not too much to expect a cabbie to have good driving skills.  But he obviously had no difficulty following the rules of the road.  In Turkey, where I live, driving is an interesting experience.  The rules are very similar to most other countries but many drivers seem to regard the rules as guidelines!  For example, it is not unusual to see vehicles jumping red traffic lights, crossing double white lines, driving without lights at night and even driving against the traffic flow!  Oh and it's quite common to see a family of four on a motor scooter!........without wearing helmets!!  I can only assume that the penalties for non-compliance of traffic laws are rarely dished out and indeed, although I (and many others) are often stopped by the traffic police it is always no more than a documentation check.  So as far as driving in Turkey is concerned, it would appear there is an attitude amongst many drivers that rules are for fools, despite the fact that the official statistics suggest otherwise.  The following stats have been taken from a World Health Organisation report for 2009:

Road fatalities per 100,000 inhabitants per year:  Turkey 13.4, UK 2.86

Road fatalities per 100,000 motor vehicles per year:  Turkey 97.1, UK 5.1

These figures speak for themselves.

Returning to the anarchist from Amsterdam, I think he probably believed that individuals were in a better position than governments to decide what they should and shouldn't do.  The quote from Douglas Bader is apposite "Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men."  Now that philosophy certainly does provide a certain amount of music to my ears, but what about those who, for whatever reason, don't have the wisdom of wise men?  Does it mean rules exist to protect those who don't have the knowledge, experience, whatever, to protect themselves?  In my opinion, anarchy would only have a chance of operating effectively if participating citizens had common values, including broad agreement on what is right and what is wrong.  But that is utopia, not reality.  If we want to strive to achieve a utopian, rule-less society, then wisdom might be the key to success.  Society can't become wise overnight, but maybe a gradual transition from rule-based to guideline-based communities, within an ethos of shared values, might prevent us from becoming mindless zombies! 

The Quiet Cacophony

The Quiet Cacophony, yes it's an oxymoron if ever there was one, but I experience it most days.  There's rarely a day on the year when I am not up and about by 5.30am.  At the time of writing, mid August, the afternoon temperatures here in Turkey can approach 40 degrees C but at 5.30am it is usually in the mid 20s, relatively cool and for me a more physically active time of day.  That said, I usually start my day with a period of physical inactivity, enjoying a cup of English tea, whilst just sitting and thinking on my balcony.  It's the only cup of English tea I have during the day.  At this time of year and particularly if I'm working, cold water is far more refreshing.  There is, however, one hot drink I do enjoy from time to time, Türk çayı (Turkish tea).  It is served in small glasses, without milk, and although I'm not a 'sugar man', I always take one spoonful of sugar with my Türk çayı.  It's a fantastic flavour and, believe it or not, very refreshing even in the summer heat.

Returning to my morning quasi-meditation, I try to time it just before the sun rises, which at this time of the year is slightly later each morning.  So for example, this morning the sun rose at 6.21am and I had my tea at about 5.45am, well before the sun had made its presence known from behind the mountain, but when the sky was just beginning to transition from darkness to dimness.  This is when I am conscious of the 'quiet cacophony'.  If I sit, occasionally sipping my tea, letting thoughts drift into my mind and flutter out, often inviting other thoughts before departing, then it is the quietest time of the day.  The quiet environment, the comfortable ambient temperature and the English tea, combine to provide a very thought-productive experience - wonderful!  Thought productivity during that part of the day is a measure of the number of thoughts swilling around effortlessly in my mind.  It is definitely not, however, a time for converting thoughts into tangible actions, which requires mental effort.  So it is a time for relaxing, not exerting, the mind.  If you consider the analogy with the physical aspects of the body, we need sleep before and after physical activity.  Likewise, the mind needs relaxation between periods of mindful activity.

But what about the cacophony?  Yes there is one.  If I cease my quasi-meditation and just listen, there is a tremendous cacophony, a discordant mixture of sounds.  These include dogs barking, cockerels crowing, calls to prayer from local mosques, low frequency vehicle noises from a distant main road, farm vehicles travelling through the village, the start of the dawn chorus, the occasional aircraft coming into or taking off from the local airport and miscellaneous rural sounds.  In fact if I really concentrate on the cacophony, trying to work out the nature and origin of each acoustic signature, my quasi-meditation thought-productivity, would rapidly decline to zero!

I don't need to extol the virtues of the human brain but my morning experience is an example of our amazing mental processes.  We have the ability to concentrate our thoughts on something, to the exclusion of everything else.  Now I'm not suggesting I could relax my mind to the same extent when, for example, I am sitting in a busy cafe in the centre of Istanbul but even in that environment, it is possible to blot-out distractions.  It does raise two interesting questions, does the mind need a certain level of background noise to operate efficiently and would a truly silent environment be a major distraction in its own right?  Two questions I don't feel able to answer, but maybe there's an expert somewhere who will have an opinion.  Meanwhile I'll just continue to enjoy the start of each day!

Fusion, fission and all that jazz.

In a previous blog post - It's fracking stupid! - I expressed my opposition to the creation of additional gas supplies by fracking.  I don't want to go over old ground so in this post I will focus on a solution rather than a problem.  The problem is the depletion of the world's energy resources as well as the carbon that is created whilst the energy is consumed.  In my opinion there should be three components to the world's energy strategy, each of which is carbon-free, as follows:

🌅 Nuclear fission - short to medium term.

🌅 Solar, wind, tidal, etc - short to long term.

🌅 Nuclear fusion - medium to long term.

Let me explain the rationale behind my proposed strategy.  Steps have to be taken to reduce carbon emissions, as a matter of urgency.  A move away from coal, gas and oil is, therefore, essential.  There's little point developing electric cars if the batteries are charged using electricity generated from power stations burning fossil fuels!  Conventional nuclear power stations, which do not emit harmful carbon dioxide but do create dangerous radioactive waste, provide a short to medium term energy source.  Continuing development of energy from renewable sources, based on solar, wind, tidal, etc, will increasingly become a prime generator in the short to long term.  However, all the predictions suggest fission and natural renewable sources will not be sufficient to meet the increasing demand, particularly from the developing world.  That's why nuclear fusion is so important.

The international nuclear fusion project known as Iter, meaning 'the way' in Latin, is a research project on a site in the Caderache forest of Provence in the south of France.  34 nations, representing more that half of the world's population, are engaged in the biggest scientific collaborative project on the planet.  The aim of the project is to create an unlimited supply of clean, cheap energy.  Unlike conventional nuclear fusion reactors, nuclear fission reactors do not produce radioactive waste and the fusion process cannot easily be used for military purposes.  Whereas nuclear fission does not occur in nature, nuclear fusion is the process that powers the sun.  A lot of progress has been made but there is still a long way to go.  The current forecast is that the first demonstrator of a nuclear reactor to produce electricity for the grid will be during the 2030s.  The first commercial nuclear power plants are expected from the 2050s onwards.  Yes it's a long journey but it's worth the effort.

Could Iter achieve its aims sooner with more funding and effort?  Probably it could but in my opinion, the real impediments to progress are the vested interests of the giant multinational oil companies and politicians.  Both these groups are driven by very short-term interests.  The oil companies want profit NOW.  The politicians want re-election SOON.  So companies' and most governments' aspirations are incompatible with a long-term survival strategy for the planet.  But I don't want this post to become problem-orientated.  Let's be positive!  Work is underway on each component of my proposed fission/natural renewable/fusion strategy and it's up to activists around the world to make sure this strategy is delivered.  This means opposition to the development and perpetuation of fossil fuel energy sources, including fracking, whilst encouraging carbon-free programmes.  We have a duty, not just to the present incumbents of our planet but also to future generations, to ensure life is unhindered by the exploits of our own species.  Fine words, but when I look around I see a big gap between that statement and reality.  But we live in hope! 😊

The Mighty Fan

In countries that have months of very hot weather, like Turkey where I live, it is important to have ways of being comfortable.  Diving into the sea or a pool does the trick but you can't do that all day, every day.  Night time can often be a major problem because being too hot can make it difficult to get to sleep and lack of sleep is bad for your health.  In my bedroom I have an air conditioner, which is a permanent fixture, and a portable fan.  I usually switch the air conditioner on about one hour before I intend going to bed, which cools the bedroom to a comfortable temperature, I then lie on the bed with no covering, switch off the air conditioner and switch on the portable fan, which is positioned to produce a cooling breeze over my body.  It usually doesn't take long before I am asleep and the fan is left to run all night.

The economics of my practice are interesting.  The air conditioner consumes about one kilowatt of electrical power, whereas the fan consumes about 40 watts.  Put another way, if the fan is left on all day and all night, it consumes less electricity than the air conditioner would consume in one hour of usage.  So for the period that I am asleep, the fan's consumption is less than the amount that would be consumed by the air conditioner in 20 minutes.  But of course, to compare a fan with an air conditioner is like comparing an apple with an orange.  The air conditioner does actually cool my bedroom and I can verify it by measuring the 'before and after' temperatures, which might, for example, indicate a drop from 30 degrees C to 20 degrees C.  On the other hand, the fan does NOT cool the bedroom.  It just makes me feel cooler.  It is the same effect when, in the winter, the weather forecaster talks about 'wind chill factor' and might say, for example, the daytime temperature will be four degrees C but because of the strong wind it will feel like minus two degrees C.  It is describing a perception that cannot be measured.  In my bedroom, the perception of cooling is created by the fan blowing a warm air layer from my body to be replaced by cooler air.  Also any moisture on my skin, like sweat, evaporates and creates an additional cooling effect.  But the effect cannot be measured, only predicted by various empirical formulae.

My bedtime cooling technique combines the old with the new.  The introduction of the fan predates the advent of electricity by many centuries, whereas air conditioning has only been possible since electricity was available.  But there is not just a difference in the maturity of the two technologies, there is also a fundamental difference in the technique.  In one case I am cooling the environment (my bedroom) in the other case I am cooling the body (me).  As I was mentally preparing this blog post, I mused about the problems people have working outside in high temperatures, for example hand-harvesting of crops in hot countries.  Unlike a bedroom, it is not possible to reduce the temperature of the outside environment, so for a worker to keep cool, some sort of fan technology might be the answer.  My wacky thoughts led me to the idea of a flat hat made from a thin solar panel, below which would be a fan, powered by solar energy, which directed a draught onto the worker's head!!  I doubt my creative thinking will ever see the light of day as a commercial product, indeed it might even have been thought of before - it's not difficult to reinvent the wheel!  Whatever, I hope those of you who are currently enjoying a long hot summer, are also managing to keep cool - happy days 😊

Having an open mind.

It's easier said than done.  I have opinions on subjects where I have varying degrees of knowledge.  Currently these include, the war in Syria, the UK royal baby, a new kitchen layout in our villa, religion, politics, football, climate change, modern monetary theory, systems thinking........to name but a few!  There are many other subjects where, because of my lack of knowledge, I have very few opinions.  These include, brain surgery, sub atomic physics, psychiatry, my neighbour's hobbies, Ancient Greek history, the UK Prime Minister's choice of holidays........I'll stop there!  The comedian, Frank Skinner, once said: "Since I gave up drinking alcohol, I no longer have the opportunity to talk about subjects where I have little or no knowledge.  So now my conversations are quite limited, frankly."  Frank's right, there's many a true word spoken in jest.  Have you ever listened to a couple of old soaks in a bar, putting the world to rights, and talking (usually rather loudly) a load of old rubbish?!  As the alcohol is consumed, the inhibitions are released and the opinions flow free.  But does it matter?  So long as it's harmless drivel, probably not.  Nobody's going to visit the local pub to get briefed on sub atomic physics.

Returning to the sober world, there must surely be benefits in having an open mind even on issues where we would claim to have plenty of knowledge?  Yes, but is it possible?  We all have opinions, stated and unstated.  Peoples' stated opinions reflect their unstated agendas and biases - in my opinion!  The concept of an open mind implies shelving preconceived ideas to allow an unbiased evaluation of others' opinions.  That's not easy!  Indeed, whilst we might start listening to others' views with openness, gradually data is extracted from our memory banks, which consciously or subconsciously processes and filters the incoming opinions into 'agree', 'no fixed view' or 'crap'.  I don't see how any person with an active mind can prevent this natural cerebral activity. So what's the answer?  How can we detach ourselves from preconception and think objectively?  I stumbled across a discussion thread on LinkedIn's System Thinking World, a short while ago.  One of the participants was proposing Explore, Question, Discover as a learning process.  EQD - I like it!

I think you can apply EQD to all issues, both within ourselves and in society.  Self analysis is a good starting point.  So if we have an opinion on, for example, the layout of a new kitchen, it will almost certainly have a strong foundation of preconceived ideas.  But those foundations can shape the way our ideas develop and very often constrain, or destroy, creativity.  EQD - we can Explore our ideas alone, smashing down any preconceptions by considering all possible options, however wacky.  EQD - we can Question other stakeholders and in the case of the kitchen project there is only one other very important stakeholder - my wife!  EQD - hopefully our creation will be Discovered but probably not without a few iterations of E - Q - D.  At the time of writing, our kitchen plan is still very much work-in-progress!

EQD in society is exactly the same process and for example, although I don't pretend to have thought through the options for resolving the Syrian conflict, I am concerned that the international community is not doing enough E and Q to have a realistic chance of D - Discovering a solution not just for Syria but for an extremely volatile Middle East region.  Do any of the interested and influential parties - Syria, Russia, China, USA, EU - really have an open mind?  I don't think so and there lies the problem.

Having an open mind is not easy.  It's not difficult, therefore, to understand why a highly intelligent species, homo sapiens, has so much conflict at all levels within its societies.  But in the words of Wayne Dyer: "If you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change."

There's a moose loose aboot this hoose.

There's a moose loose aboot this hoose is a cliché highlighting a Scottish dialect pronunciation, which came to mind around 2am this morning.  About half an hour earlier, my wife and I were disturbed by a tapping sound in the hall.  Noises in the night are not unusual for us because our two dogs and a cat often wander around and, for example, inspect their bowls and maybe chew at a biscuit for nocturnal comfort.  And of course it is Ramadan (known as Ramazan here in Turkey), so after dark is when the human species comes alive (not in our villa!) to break the fast.  So we often hear sounds from activities in the village.  But the tapping in the hall was different and it was coming from behind a large cabinet.  We decided to investigate and moved one corner of the unit away from the wall.  And there it was.  An over-fed mouse surrounded by a few doggie treats, obviously stolen from our canine family!

We had the mouse cornered, but what to do next?  Although it was an unwelcome guest, neither of us wanted to kill it but the same sentiment was probably not shared with our cat, DC.  He was asleep in another room, so we closed the door to prevent him from waking up and wanting to help!  We discussed tactics and decided we would attempt to coax the mouse into a container in order to remove it from our villa.  We positioned a pot where the cabinet had been moved away from the wall then tried to encourage the mouse to enter the 'transit lounge'.  But the plan failed when the mouse decided to squeeze through the gap at the other end of the cabinet.  It then scampered up the hall, through the lounge and into the kitchen, where it sought refuge behind the fridge-freezer.  We were now concerned that it would find its way to nearby fixed kitchen base units, which were not easily detachable from the wall.  So Plan B came into play.  We enlisted the support of a mop and a vacuum cleaner, the latter having a newly-fitted bag, which had, therefore, little pre-hoovered debris and plenty of space for a mouse.  We fitted the pipe attachment to the vacuum cleaner and we were ready for action.  I managed to coax the mouse from under the fridge-freezer and when it raced across the kitchen floor, caught it under the soft mop and then sucked it up with the vacuum cleaner into the bag.

Then what?  Well it seemed likely that a mouse that can gnaw its way through dog biscuits would soon do a Houdini trick and escape from the bag.  Our nearest rubbish bin is about 200 metres from the villa, so that's where I took it and my guess (and indeed hope) is that before sunrise it would have escaped to a nearby field.

My wife and I went to bed and were woken by the call to prayer at a local mosque about one hour later. It was an interesting night!