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?