Monday 30 September 2013

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.

Sunday 22 September 2013

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 😊

Sunday 15 September 2013

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 😊

Sunday 8 September 2013

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! 😄