My father provided me with various words of wisdom throughout my youth, most of which I forgot. But one snippet has been retained in my memory and for some reason has preyed on my mind in recent years. I was about thirteen years of age when he told me life was about choices. Yes, that's it, LIFE IS ABOUT CHOICES. I think at the time I was given this pearl of wisdom, he was trying to encourage me to take my studies more seriously, stressing the desirability of a strong academic foundation "if you want to get on in life" - his words not mine. Well his guidance sort of worked although my father's advice was competing against all manner of extracurricular activities that tempt fun-loving teenagers away from academic life. I was well into my twenties before I started giving any serious thought to my aspirations and through my thirties, forties and beyond, my life seemed to have been driven by opportunities rather than definitive pre-determined plans. Yet throughout life I suppose my father's advice has influenced my behaviour and particularly when faced with making decisions where there is no obvious choice. As an example, I have never been an impulse buyer. If I buy something it is because I think I need it, although very often the purchase is driven by want rather than need. Also I usually spend considerable time and effort looking at all the possible options. When I finally take the plunge, I feel I have made the right decision.
Clearly there are many choices that have to be made in life and my analytical approach for simple purchases is often not appropriate for other important decisions. In fact I am conscious of the fact that my decision-making process can lead to paralysis by analysis. As I look back on my life, I often think of my father's words in the context of why I am where I am, doing what I am doing with my current network of family, friends and acquaintances. Was I destined to be where I am, going where I am going, and am I master of that destiny?
Let's start with where I am. There has been a myriad of choices and decisions that have been responsible for my life's journey so far and there have been many critical decisions, which, if I had taken alternative routes, would have probably led me to a considerably different destination - the choices of careers, employers and partners, are good examples of 'life changers' for all of us. So my father was right that choices influence, or even control, direction and therefore our judgements are crucial to our destinies. But there are many other factors outside our own sphere of influence that are also influential. As an example, I will return to my father's life and in particular, his final day.
For as long as I can remember, my mother and father had enjoyed a sherry and 'nibbles' before their evening meal, the ritual spanned my father's working life and retirement. On the final day of my father's life, my parents discovered that the store of nibbles, salty biscuits and nuts, was empty, so my father walked to the local Tesco to buy replenishments. On his walk to the store he was run over by a vehicle and killed - another road traffic accident statistic. He was approaching his eighty fifth birthday and had lived a good and healthy life but whilst he chose to walk to the shop, chose the route to the shop, I very much doubt he chose to be run over. Likewise, I doubt the driver of the vehicle chose to run him over. It was an accident, an unplanned event.
Life is full of unplanned events, many of which are not of man's making such as the recent meteorite strike in Russia, when thankfully nobody was killed, but imagine the possible catastrophe if it had landed in Moscow. Life is also riddled with unintended consequences many being emergent properties of the complex system environment within which we live. I recently watched an extremely thought-provoking TED lecture given by James B. Glattfelder. The title of his talk was 'Who Controls the World?'. If you're interested, take a look at www.ted.com. Mr Glattfelder is part of a team that has been researching financial ownership networks. He presented the results of an analysis of 43,000 Transnational Corporations (TNCs), which arrived at a staggering conclusion that 80% of the TNC value was owned by around 0.1% of the shareholders. But what is also amazing is the fact that the 'inner core' of the ownership is an emergent property of a highly complex system, rather than any form of conspiracy theory. The self-organising outcome stems from interactions of highly complex and chaotic human-based dynamic systems.
Extending this model to our own personal experiences, there are many emergent properties of our life journeys that are just going to happen whether we like it or not. So returning to our destiny, can we be master of it. If mastery is control or supremacy, then I fail to understand how anyone can claim to be master of their destiny. On the other hand, the choices that we make strongly influence where we are and where we are going. Yes dad, life is about choices and thanks for that guidance, but just as wrong choices might mean things will go wrong, the right choices will not guarantee things will go right - life's a bitch!
Saturday, 23 February 2013
Sunday, 17 February 2013
What is Great?
I watched a few snippets of President Obama's recent State of the Union address, which were broadcast on TV. I perhaps could have read the transcript on the Internet but to be honest I'm not interested. I don't intend to imply any disrespect towards the President but his speeches, like most politicians', regardless of nationality, are usually full of political spin and hype. There's often plenty of aspirational and inspirational stuff, which is unlikely to be achievable and definitely not in the timescale of a presidency. For some reason there is one phrase in Barack Obama's speech that I can't forget, even though it's not unique, that's when he referred to the United States of America as "the greatest nation on earth". What does that mean?
There are differences between American English and my native tongue, English English, but I believe the definitions of Great and therefore Greatest, are the same. The Oxford English Dictionary definition is:
'Much above average in size, intensity, ability, quality, or importance'.
The USA certainly has the largest economy in the world when measured by Gross Domestic Product (GDP), but when that GDP is divided by the size of the population to give GDP per head it slips to number 11 in the world. OK so let's look at some other measures like the Human Development Index (adjusted for inequality), Prison Population per 100,000 population, Emission of Carbon Dioxide and Defence Spending, where the USA's world ratings are 12, 1, 2 and 1, respectively. The Human Development Index adjusted for inequality is a measure of years of schooling, life expectancy and income levels adjusted for inequality in the distribution of health, education and income. It is a measure of the quality of life and you can see the USA has plenty of room for improvement. The other three measures indicate that compared with the rest of the world, the USA has the highest percentage of the population in prison, is the second highest producer of carbon dioxide and has the highest level of defence expenditure. It's not a status that any country should be proud of and the high level of defence spending would probably qualify as the 'Greatest' in the world for military and therefore destructive, capability!
I don't want this blogpost to focus solely on the USA. There is no doubt that the President of the United States of America is an important world leader, Barack Obama and other world leaders should be extremely influential in shaping the planet's future so their perception of 'greatest' is pertinent. There are some real crunchy issues facing the planet at the moment, like poverty, wealth distribution, climate change, energy and food supplies, all of which are interrelated and cannot, therefore, be picked off one-by-one for remedial action. So in my opinion leaders should not be competing for national 'greatness' but working together for global improvement and sustainability. But how?
The problem with any political system, particularly democracy, is the politicians are short-term focussed. Political parties and individuals within the parties, have as their number one priority, re-election. This usually means the extent of any 'vision' is limited to no more that four years and typically one to two years. The issues facing the world today result from actions that were initiated decades ago, indeed sometimes centuries ago. If you don't believe me, think of it from a personal perspective. You are where you are today because of an action initiated by your parents at a time equal to your age plus nine months ago! But you are also where you are today not just because of the actions of your parents but as a consequence of millions (yes millions!) of actions that post-date and pre-date your birth. Life is highly complex and can rarely be modified by simple short-term policies, unless of course those short-term initiatives are compatible with a much longer-term vision. The planet's problems are not going to be solved by any nation's president or prime minister but on the other hand, those leaders who take global issues seriously and initiate appropriate actions to move society in the right direction, even with possible adverse effects on their own political careers, could arguably be described as 'great'. Such great leaders, particularly from the richer nations, could be following a course against their own national interests if, for example, poor under-developed countries benefit at the expense of the developed world, which, for the developed world leaders, could be political suicide.
To conclude, I would argue that the leader of a nation who uses his or her influence to benefit the planet and particularly by addressing some of the aforementioned important issues, i.e. poverty, wealth distribution, climate change, energy and food supplies from a global perspective, qualifies as a great leader, which, in my opinion, is more important than aspiring to (or claiming to) lead a great nation. Indeed, competitions between nations to achieve greatness could be the major impediment to the achievement to global improvement and sustainability - think globally!
There are differences between American English and my native tongue, English English, but I believe the definitions of Great and therefore Greatest, are the same. The Oxford English Dictionary definition is:
'Much above average in size, intensity, ability, quality, or importance'.
The USA certainly has the largest economy in the world when measured by Gross Domestic Product (GDP), but when that GDP is divided by the size of the population to give GDP per head it slips to number 11 in the world. OK so let's look at some other measures like the Human Development Index (adjusted for inequality), Prison Population per 100,000 population, Emission of Carbon Dioxide and Defence Spending, where the USA's world ratings are 12, 1, 2 and 1, respectively. The Human Development Index adjusted for inequality is a measure of years of schooling, life expectancy and income levels adjusted for inequality in the distribution of health, education and income. It is a measure of the quality of life and you can see the USA has plenty of room for improvement. The other three measures indicate that compared with the rest of the world, the USA has the highest percentage of the population in prison, is the second highest producer of carbon dioxide and has the highest level of defence expenditure. It's not a status that any country should be proud of and the high level of defence spending would probably qualify as the 'Greatest' in the world for military and therefore destructive, capability!
I don't want this blogpost to focus solely on the USA. There is no doubt that the President of the United States of America is an important world leader, Barack Obama and other world leaders should be extremely influential in shaping the planet's future so their perception of 'greatest' is pertinent. There are some real crunchy issues facing the planet at the moment, like poverty, wealth distribution, climate change, energy and food supplies, all of which are interrelated and cannot, therefore, be picked off one-by-one for remedial action. So in my opinion leaders should not be competing for national 'greatness' but working together for global improvement and sustainability. But how?
The problem with any political system, particularly democracy, is the politicians are short-term focussed. Political parties and individuals within the parties, have as their number one priority, re-election. This usually means the extent of any 'vision' is limited to no more that four years and typically one to two years. The issues facing the world today result from actions that were initiated decades ago, indeed sometimes centuries ago. If you don't believe me, think of it from a personal perspective. You are where you are today because of an action initiated by your parents at a time equal to your age plus nine months ago! But you are also where you are today not just because of the actions of your parents but as a consequence of millions (yes millions!) of actions that post-date and pre-date your birth. Life is highly complex and can rarely be modified by simple short-term policies, unless of course those short-term initiatives are compatible with a much longer-term vision. The planet's problems are not going to be solved by any nation's president or prime minister but on the other hand, those leaders who take global issues seriously and initiate appropriate actions to move society in the right direction, even with possible adverse effects on their own political careers, could arguably be described as 'great'. Such great leaders, particularly from the richer nations, could be following a course against their own national interests if, for example, poor under-developed countries benefit at the expense of the developed world, which, for the developed world leaders, could be political suicide.
To conclude, I would argue that the leader of a nation who uses his or her influence to benefit the planet and particularly by addressing some of the aforementioned important issues, i.e. poverty, wealth distribution, climate change, energy and food supplies from a global perspective, qualifies as a great leader, which, in my opinion, is more important than aspiring to (or claiming to) lead a great nation. Indeed, competitions between nations to achieve greatness could be the major impediment to the achievement to global improvement and sustainability - think globally!
Friday, 8 February 2013
Sensing the Storm
The dedication in my latest book is: "To Bella, Blondie and DC - my pets and special friends." The dogs Bella and Blondie, who we think are sisters, and the cat, DC, were rescued from the streets by my wife, Sandie. There are too many street dogs and cats in Turkey and Sandie with her truly caring concern for all creatures great and small, could, if space and finance allowed, take in all manner of waifs and strays. I have to admit I was reluctant to take on board our current family but four years later I have no regrets. They are truly special friends with their own different and very engaging personalities. I know there has been plenty of research to determine whether animals have personalities but from my experience, I have no doubt that they do have individual characters and behaviours, so what's that if it's not personality? Maybe it should be referred to as dogality or catality!
This blogpost is about Bella and specifically about her fear of thunderstorms. Bella is the most sensitive of our three adopted waifs. At a first encounter she looks tough and if put to the test by an unwanted intruder, she probably would be. But she can get very upset from certain occurrences, particularly inclement weather. In the area of Turkey where we live, we enjoy long hot summers, with very little rain, from May through to October. Most of the rain comes during the winter months and although I don't keep records, more often than not, rain comes with a thunderstorm. I would be guessing but I suggest 70% of all storms are thunderstorms. Sometimes they can be powerful and destructive and as an example, we are now on our third ADSL modem router in as many years! Two were damaged by overhead lightning strikes and the latest one survives purely because whenever there is the slightest chance of a thunderstorm, we disconnect the mains and telephone connections!
Although I am not a great fan of thunderstorms, I can't resist measuring the 'flash to bang' time in order to estimate the distance of the storm from my location. If you count the seconds between the lightning and the thunder, then divide by five, it will be a good approximation for the number of miles. Divide by three if you prefer kilometres. If the storm is more than about 12 miles away, the thunder is unlikely to be heard but the lightning should still be visible. For very distant storms, the lightning will not be visible. Now although I'm sad enough to amuse myself with these calculations, I don't think Bella would have the same interest!
We first observed Bella's fear of thunderstorms shortly after she joined us as a young puppy at our previous property. We were out one day and she was in the garden with Blondie and DC. Whilst we were away there was a horrendous thunderstorm with fork lightning that was almost overhead. The pets could shelter on the balcony and sure enough after we rushed home, that's where we found Blondie and DC, but initially we couldn't find Bella. At our previous property, our solar water heating panel was mounted on the ground in the garden, which is not the most common location as roof-mounting is far more effective. We eventually found Bella cowering and shaking under the solar panel. That's when we first discovered her problem, which she hasn't grown out of. Blondie and DC, by contrast, do not like thunderstorms but don't show any signs of fear - different personalities!
In our current property, there is no way Bella could retreat to the solar panel, because it's on the roof! But she does have a retreat that we have named 'Bella's Shelter', which is a coffee table in the lounge. She hides under it during every thunderstorm. In fact, her built-in 'early warning system' prompts her to take shelter before the first sound of thunder. So how does she sense the storm well before the flashes and bangs? I have a theory.
When there is an electrical discharge in air, like lightning, it creates ozone, which is a strong-smelling toxic form of oxygen. Ozone is present and can be smelt on the London Underground, created by the sparks on the train tracks. It has long been known that dogs have very powerful smelling capabilities and my theory is that Bella can smell the ozone from the lightning well before it is visible to humans. It is only a theory and I haven't conducted any controlled experiments but I have observed Bella's raised head and twitching nose on some occasions and just prior to her scampering off to her shelter. Now there could be other smells associated with thunderstorms or maybe acoustic signals that dogs can detect before humans but, whatever, Bella's 'early warning system' has never let her down and hopefully I won't lose any more ADSL modem routers!
This blogpost is about Bella and specifically about her fear of thunderstorms. Bella is the most sensitive of our three adopted waifs. At a first encounter she looks tough and if put to the test by an unwanted intruder, she probably would be. But she can get very upset from certain occurrences, particularly inclement weather. In the area of Turkey where we live, we enjoy long hot summers, with very little rain, from May through to October. Most of the rain comes during the winter months and although I don't keep records, more often than not, rain comes with a thunderstorm. I would be guessing but I suggest 70% of all storms are thunderstorms. Sometimes they can be powerful and destructive and as an example, we are now on our third ADSL modem router in as many years! Two were damaged by overhead lightning strikes and the latest one survives purely because whenever there is the slightest chance of a thunderstorm, we disconnect the mains and telephone connections!
Although I am not a great fan of thunderstorms, I can't resist measuring the 'flash to bang' time in order to estimate the distance of the storm from my location. If you count the seconds between the lightning and the thunder, then divide by five, it will be a good approximation for the number of miles. Divide by three if you prefer kilometres. If the storm is more than about 12 miles away, the thunder is unlikely to be heard but the lightning should still be visible. For very distant storms, the lightning will not be visible. Now although I'm sad enough to amuse myself with these calculations, I don't think Bella would have the same interest!
We first observed Bella's fear of thunderstorms shortly after she joined us as a young puppy at our previous property. We were out one day and she was in the garden with Blondie and DC. Whilst we were away there was a horrendous thunderstorm with fork lightning that was almost overhead. The pets could shelter on the balcony and sure enough after we rushed home, that's where we found Blondie and DC, but initially we couldn't find Bella. At our previous property, our solar water heating panel was mounted on the ground in the garden, which is not the most common location as roof-mounting is far more effective. We eventually found Bella cowering and shaking under the solar panel. That's when we first discovered her problem, which she hasn't grown out of. Blondie and DC, by contrast, do not like thunderstorms but don't show any signs of fear - different personalities!
In our current property, there is no way Bella could retreat to the solar panel, because it's on the roof! But she does have a retreat that we have named 'Bella's Shelter', which is a coffee table in the lounge. She hides under it during every thunderstorm. In fact, her built-in 'early warning system' prompts her to take shelter before the first sound of thunder. So how does she sense the storm well before the flashes and bangs? I have a theory.
When there is an electrical discharge in air, like lightning, it creates ozone, which is a strong-smelling toxic form of oxygen. Ozone is present and can be smelt on the London Underground, created by the sparks on the train tracks. It has long been known that dogs have very powerful smelling capabilities and my theory is that Bella can smell the ozone from the lightning well before it is visible to humans. It is only a theory and I haven't conducted any controlled experiments but I have observed Bella's raised head and twitching nose on some occasions and just prior to her scampering off to her shelter. Now there could be other smells associated with thunderstorms or maybe acoustic signals that dogs can detect before humans but, whatever, Bella's 'early warning system' has never let her down and hopefully I won't lose any more ADSL modem routers!
Sunday, 3 February 2013
The Powerful Pill
Recently there was news coverage of the story of an American soldier, Brendan Marracco, who has survived after losing all four limbs in the Iraq war and had recently been given a double-arm transplant. He had also received bone marrow from the deceased donor of his arms, which should help the body accept the new limbs with minimal medication - truly amazing! Operations of this type are evidence of how medical science has progressed over the past century. The human body is so complex that nobody could truthfully claim to understand it fully, yet through intensive scientific research, trial and error, advances continue to be made in the cure of diseases, repair of injuries and replacement of body parts.
Although the surgery that was performed on Brendan Marracco was extremely skilful, it was based on techniques and medical care that were all well-researched and proven, with documented evidence to support it. Yes it could have gone wrong but I am sure the medical team would have justifiably assumed a high probability of success. This 'orthodox' approach to surgery and medicine contrasts to what is known as 'Complementary and Alternative Medicine', CAM, which includes homeopathy, acupuncture as well as the administering of all manner of pills and potions, which are not supported by evidence-based research. Now you might ask, does it matter? If it works don't knock it? But the real question is, how do we know it works?
I am slightly embarrassed to admit that I have been taken in by the alternative medicine brigade. I went through a period when I suffered from mouth ulcers and I decided to try a homeopathic cure. I can't remember the name of the active ingredient, but did it work? Well in time the ulcers did disappear but ulcers do go eventually - I don't know anyone who has had them for life! Around the same period of time, my dog had a tooth abscess. He hated the vet so I tried a homeopathic remedy, which didn't work! I took him to the vet and despite the trauma for the dog (and me!) a tooth was removed and subsequent 'orthodox' medication led the dog back to good health. Another CAM experience for me was when my ears became partially blocked with wax and a friend recommended a local 'specialist' who was proficient in the use of Ear Candles. I went to her surgery and underwent treatment that consisted in placing special candles in each ear (not at the same time!), which when lit I was told would suck the impurities out of ear. Sure enough, at the end of the 'operation' each candle was opened up and I was shown a familiar waxy orange substance, which must surely be earwax. Did I feel better? Well strangely enough for a while I thought there was an improvement but not for long. Eventually I went to an 'orthodox' doctor who syringed my ears and I left his surgery with perfect hearing - job done!
After I had overcome the embarrassment of those personal experiences, I did my own research on the methods employed, firstly homeopathy. What I couldn't understand was why the strength of homeopathic remedies is apparently inversely proportional to the amount of 'active' ingredient contained in the pill, so the weaker the dose, the more effective the cure! But what's more, a concentration of, for example, 30C, is a dilution of one part per million million million million million million million million million million!!!! This means there will be no molecules of the active ingredient left in the dose you get. So if an active ingredient is a cure for a disease, but it is administered in a pill that doesn't contain it, how can it possibly do the job?! I rest my case!
In the case of the Ear Candles, I discovered two important features of these 'wonder cures'. Firstly, if you light the candle and hold it over some dust, you will see little evidence of any suction. Secondly, if after it has burnt down, you cut it open, you will find a waxy orange substance, despite the fact it hasn't been in anyone's ear! Again, I rest my case!
So why do these CAM procedures, pills and potions work with some people? Well, I think most 'orthodox' practitioners recognise the 'placebo effect', this is the phenomenon of a patient's perceived medical improvement following treatment with an inert substance, such as a sugar pill. Tests on placebos have yielded interesting results. Apparently blue sugar pills are more effective than white ones and an injection of salt water gives even better results! So maybe CAM procedures and pills are merely different forms of placebos. Whatever, I will conclude with a quotation from the French philosopher, Voltaire - "The art of medicine consists in amusing the patient while nature cures the disease".
Although the surgery that was performed on Brendan Marracco was extremely skilful, it was based on techniques and medical care that were all well-researched and proven, with documented evidence to support it. Yes it could have gone wrong but I am sure the medical team would have justifiably assumed a high probability of success. This 'orthodox' approach to surgery and medicine contrasts to what is known as 'Complementary and Alternative Medicine', CAM, which includes homeopathy, acupuncture as well as the administering of all manner of pills and potions, which are not supported by evidence-based research. Now you might ask, does it matter? If it works don't knock it? But the real question is, how do we know it works?
I am slightly embarrassed to admit that I have been taken in by the alternative medicine brigade. I went through a period when I suffered from mouth ulcers and I decided to try a homeopathic cure. I can't remember the name of the active ingredient, but did it work? Well in time the ulcers did disappear but ulcers do go eventually - I don't know anyone who has had them for life! Around the same period of time, my dog had a tooth abscess. He hated the vet so I tried a homeopathic remedy, which didn't work! I took him to the vet and despite the trauma for the dog (and me!) a tooth was removed and subsequent 'orthodox' medication led the dog back to good health. Another CAM experience for me was when my ears became partially blocked with wax and a friend recommended a local 'specialist' who was proficient in the use of Ear Candles. I went to her surgery and underwent treatment that consisted in placing special candles in each ear (not at the same time!), which when lit I was told would suck the impurities out of ear. Sure enough, at the end of the 'operation' each candle was opened up and I was shown a familiar waxy orange substance, which must surely be earwax. Did I feel better? Well strangely enough for a while I thought there was an improvement but not for long. Eventually I went to an 'orthodox' doctor who syringed my ears and I left his surgery with perfect hearing - job done!
After I had overcome the embarrassment of those personal experiences, I did my own research on the methods employed, firstly homeopathy. What I couldn't understand was why the strength of homeopathic remedies is apparently inversely proportional to the amount of 'active' ingredient contained in the pill, so the weaker the dose, the more effective the cure! But what's more, a concentration of, for example, 30C, is a dilution of one part per million million million million million million million million million million!!!! This means there will be no molecules of the active ingredient left in the dose you get. So if an active ingredient is a cure for a disease, but it is administered in a pill that doesn't contain it, how can it possibly do the job?! I rest my case!
In the case of the Ear Candles, I discovered two important features of these 'wonder cures'. Firstly, if you light the candle and hold it over some dust, you will see little evidence of any suction. Secondly, if after it has burnt down, you cut it open, you will find a waxy orange substance, despite the fact it hasn't been in anyone's ear! Again, I rest my case!
So why do these CAM procedures, pills and potions work with some people? Well, I think most 'orthodox' practitioners recognise the 'placebo effect', this is the phenomenon of a patient's perceived medical improvement following treatment with an inert substance, such as a sugar pill. Tests on placebos have yielded interesting results. Apparently blue sugar pills are more effective than white ones and an injection of salt water gives even better results! So maybe CAM procedures and pills are merely different forms of placebos. Whatever, I will conclude with a quotation from the French philosopher, Voltaire - "The art of medicine consists in amusing the patient while nature cures the disease".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)