Red Nose Day is a biennial event organised by the British charity, Comic Relief. The charity's stated aim is to "bring about positive and lasting change in the lives of poor and disadvantaged people, which we believe requires investing in work that addresses people's immediate needs as well as tackling the root causes of poverty and injustice". That aim is highly laudable and the commitment and work by all involved are fantastic. That said, I watched the highlights of Red Nose Day on UK television and it left me feeling embarrassed, maybe red-faced! Embarrassed not just for myself but for the whole of society. So why should I feel that way? I am certainly not belittling the funds, in excess of £800 million, that have been raised since Red Nose Day's inception 25 years ago. That money has made and will continue to make, a difference to people's lives. My embarrassment is twofold. Firstly, I am embarrassed at the state of the world's economy that allows the current levels of poverty and social injustice. Secondly, I am embarrassed at the TV manifestation of the Red Nose Day's events.
Let's start with some stark facts. 925 million people do not have enough to eat. 2.8 billion people survive on less than $2 a day. 1 billion people are illiterate and 1 billion do not have safe water. Yet, on the other side of the coin, less than 1% of the world's population control 40% of the world's wealth. What is really worrying is that the gap between rich and poor is continuing to widen, so it is a systemic problem. Now, £800 million raised in the past 25 years for the poor and disadvantaged by Red Nose Days, sounds pretty good. However, to put it into context, this year's welfare budget in the UK is around £200 billion, so the annual amounts raised for Red Nose Days is around 0.016% of the UK's annual welfare expenditure. I don't think I need to bombard the reader with more statistics, I am sure the overall picture of inequality is clear and, in my view, embarrassing.
What about the television manifestation of the Red Nose Day events? Maybe I'm getting old, but I thought the quality of the fund-raising entertainment, particularly the 'humorous' sketches, was poor, but that's a question of personal taste. What I did find distasteful and I don't believe I'm alone, were the video clips of highly-paid celebrities alongside extremely poor African children. Some of the celebrities were in tears. Were they embarrassed by their own personal financial positions? I doubt it.
I'm not knocking any charity's efforts to help those in need but I do feel it's about time the global community came to its senses and took a hard look at priorities. As a parting shot, I will summarise my view of the world's malaise and a possible plan for recovery. We are taking more out of the planet than we are putting back in, primarily as a result of our obsession with economic growth. The developed countries are finding growth more difficult because of their past excesses and spiralling debt. The developing countries are growing but demand for their goods and services from the developed world is slowing down. Poverty is rife in the developing world and developed countries are also experiencing an increasing divide between 'haves' and 'have nots' . Against this background, my proposed recovery plan would be to encourage growth in the developing world, compensated by a flattening of the economies in the developed countries. With limited global resources, growth in one area can, in my opinion, only be achieved by easing back in the countries that have already reached maturity and I know that will not be easy to stomach. But maybe in a more egalitarian world, red noses and red faces would be a thing of the past........Utopia!
Sunday, 24 March 2013
Saturday, 16 March 2013
Robot, friend or foe?
Throughout history and particularly since the start of the industrial revolution in the late eighteenth century, homo sapiens' innovative skills have transformed life on this planet. But is this transformation for better or worse? Well that depends from which perspective you view life on earth now and what it might be heading for. There is no doubt that large sections of society in all parts of the world are better off today than their predecessors were, say, one hundred years ago. There are also large sections of society that live in poverty and the gap between rich and poor, in most countries, continues to get bigger. And what about the planet? Well, homo sapiens continue to take more out than they put back in, driven by an obsession with economic growth, and the waste products pumped into the atmosphere are creating notable destructive changes in the climate. So it's a mixed picture.
Against that background, innovation continues relentlessly particularly in engineering and technology. Indeed, for those lucky enough to have meaningful employment with a good income in return for their efforts, living standards can be good with a healthy balance between work and play. Automation in all the employment sectors has improved productivity reducing working hours for some, whilst making the less fortunate redundant. So is automation a good or bad thing? Are robots going to make us all redundant? Well, in the nineteenth century the Luddites thought they knew the answers to those questions. They protested violently against the machinery introduced in the textile industry during the industrial revolution, which made it possible to replace them with low-skilled, low-wage labourers, making them redundant. Their protest took the form of wrecking the machines, particularly the automated looms. An agricultural variant of Luddism consisted of breaking up threshing machines. Despite their efforts, automation continued. Indeed, many economists believe in the 'Luddite Fallacy', which says that advancing technology creates more jobs than it destroys. Returning to the case of the Luddites, the automated looms made clothes cheaper, so consumers experienced lower prices and after buying the same amount of clothes, had money left to buy other goods, for example scarves and hats, which created more jobs. Simple economic theory isn't it?! But what happens when robots get a foothold in the service sector and, for example, cut our hair? Well the same principle applies. Haircuts are cheaper meaning that we have money left over to buy other things thus creating employment in other sectors.
Whenever I am assessing the validity of arguments like the one I have just proposed, I like to engage in thought exercises that explore the extremes. So imagine a world where everything is done by robots. Unlike humans, robots don't want to buy the products and services that they produce and if there are no human jobs, people will have no money to buy the products and services. So the whole economy will collapse, because without money there is no market. If we move back slightly from that extreme scenario and consider the case where there is a mixed manufacturing and service economy of robots and humans, then people will be paid for doing a job, the owners of the robots will get returns on their capital investments, so the robot owners and humans in employment will have the purchasing power to buy goods and services produced by humans and robots. What these two thought exercises illustrate, however, is that eventually total automation leads to economic collapse. Searching for a solution to this problem, led me to the concept of Peoples' Capitalism, which sounds like an oxymoron!
The late Dr James Albus was an American engineer and former head of the Intelligent Systems Division of the Manufacturing Engineering Laboratory at the National Institute of Standards and Technology. He was noted for his contribution to robotics but he was also a strong proponent of People's Capitalism, which tried to answer the question - how do we live without jobs? His vision was a world without poverty, a world of prosperity, a world of opportunity, a world without pollution and a world without war. Sounds good doesn't it?!
One of the important facets of his proposal was to provide everyone, whether poor or rich, the opportunity to acquire capital by way of credit for investment in credit-worthy, wealth-producing capital assets. In other words, in the extreme thought experiment that I described earlier, everyone would have a share in the ownership of the robots. In that extreme case, peoples' incomes would be the return on their capital investments rather than selling their labour because in a totally automated society, the market for labour wouldn't exist. Moving back from the extreme to a more likely scenario, peoples' incomes would be a mix of returns on capital investment as well as revenues for their physical or mental efforts.
What about poverty? Well Dr Albus made the point that the 2.8 billion people living in poverty on the planet are there not because they don't have a need for products and services but because they don't have the means to purchase anything beyond their basic needs and even the basics suffer. Yet there is no shortage of manufacturing capability and the shelves of stores are always full of products. In recessions, companies don't blame lack of capacity but do point the finger at lack of demand. So the 2.8 billion very low income market represents a fantastic opportunity if the incomes were higher. Dr Albus claimed his alternative model would address the problem by providing income to the current poor population through their investments in capital, which would be funded by loans paid off over, say, 30 years through the returns on their investments.
Now this short post cannot adequately cover the work of the late Dr Albus on Peoples' Capitalism or the work of others in the economic field often referred to as binary economics and neither would it be right for me to endorse it or otherwise. But what I do know is that innovation will continue and that should make life better for all of us yet current trends suggest that won't be the case. Albert Einstein said insanity was doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. There are things that we are doing wrong on the planet but we continue doing the same things regardless. So perhaps the time has come to embrace the new world with its robots and challenge mindsets, economic and others, that are heading us in the direction of an apocalypse........I love robots!!
Against that background, innovation continues relentlessly particularly in engineering and technology. Indeed, for those lucky enough to have meaningful employment with a good income in return for their efforts, living standards can be good with a healthy balance between work and play. Automation in all the employment sectors has improved productivity reducing working hours for some, whilst making the less fortunate redundant. So is automation a good or bad thing? Are robots going to make us all redundant? Well, in the nineteenth century the Luddites thought they knew the answers to those questions. They protested violently against the machinery introduced in the textile industry during the industrial revolution, which made it possible to replace them with low-skilled, low-wage labourers, making them redundant. Their protest took the form of wrecking the machines, particularly the automated looms. An agricultural variant of Luddism consisted of breaking up threshing machines. Despite their efforts, automation continued. Indeed, many economists believe in the 'Luddite Fallacy', which says that advancing technology creates more jobs than it destroys. Returning to the case of the Luddites, the automated looms made clothes cheaper, so consumers experienced lower prices and after buying the same amount of clothes, had money left to buy other goods, for example scarves and hats, which created more jobs. Simple economic theory isn't it?! But what happens when robots get a foothold in the service sector and, for example, cut our hair? Well the same principle applies. Haircuts are cheaper meaning that we have money left over to buy other things thus creating employment in other sectors.
Whenever I am assessing the validity of arguments like the one I have just proposed, I like to engage in thought exercises that explore the extremes. So imagine a world where everything is done by robots. Unlike humans, robots don't want to buy the products and services that they produce and if there are no human jobs, people will have no money to buy the products and services. So the whole economy will collapse, because without money there is no market. If we move back slightly from that extreme scenario and consider the case where there is a mixed manufacturing and service economy of robots and humans, then people will be paid for doing a job, the owners of the robots will get returns on their capital investments, so the robot owners and humans in employment will have the purchasing power to buy goods and services produced by humans and robots. What these two thought exercises illustrate, however, is that eventually total automation leads to economic collapse. Searching for a solution to this problem, led me to the concept of Peoples' Capitalism, which sounds like an oxymoron!
The late Dr James Albus was an American engineer and former head of the Intelligent Systems Division of the Manufacturing Engineering Laboratory at the National Institute of Standards and Technology. He was noted for his contribution to robotics but he was also a strong proponent of People's Capitalism, which tried to answer the question - how do we live without jobs? His vision was a world without poverty, a world of prosperity, a world of opportunity, a world without pollution and a world without war. Sounds good doesn't it?!
One of the important facets of his proposal was to provide everyone, whether poor or rich, the opportunity to acquire capital by way of credit for investment in credit-worthy, wealth-producing capital assets. In other words, in the extreme thought experiment that I described earlier, everyone would have a share in the ownership of the robots. In that extreme case, peoples' incomes would be the return on their capital investments rather than selling their labour because in a totally automated society, the market for labour wouldn't exist. Moving back from the extreme to a more likely scenario, peoples' incomes would be a mix of returns on capital investment as well as revenues for their physical or mental efforts.
What about poverty? Well Dr Albus made the point that the 2.8 billion people living in poverty on the planet are there not because they don't have a need for products and services but because they don't have the means to purchase anything beyond their basic needs and even the basics suffer. Yet there is no shortage of manufacturing capability and the shelves of stores are always full of products. In recessions, companies don't blame lack of capacity but do point the finger at lack of demand. So the 2.8 billion very low income market represents a fantastic opportunity if the incomes were higher. Dr Albus claimed his alternative model would address the problem by providing income to the current poor population through their investments in capital, which would be funded by loans paid off over, say, 30 years through the returns on their investments.
Now this short post cannot adequately cover the work of the late Dr Albus on Peoples' Capitalism or the work of others in the economic field often referred to as binary economics and neither would it be right for me to endorse it or otherwise. But what I do know is that innovation will continue and that should make life better for all of us yet current trends suggest that won't be the case. Albert Einstein said insanity was doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. There are things that we are doing wrong on the planet but we continue doing the same things regardless. So perhaps the time has come to embrace the new world with its robots and challenge mindsets, economic and others, that are heading us in the direction of an apocalypse........I love robots!!
Sunday, 10 March 2013
The Butterfly Effect
There are many versions of the butterfly effect but the one I like is the theory that a butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil could set off a tornado in Texas. The theory assumes that the flap of the wings could create tiny changes in the atmosphere that may affect the path of a tornado. The name of the effect was coined by Edward Lorenz who, in 1961, was using a computer (an extremely basic model compared with today's PCs) to re-run a weather prediction. As a shortcut, he entered 0.506, instead of the full 0.506127, as one of the initial conditions and the result was a completely different weather scenario. In general, he concluded that a small change in the initial conditions of what is known as a 'chaotic system', like the weather, can result in large differences to a later state. Hence the butterfly effect.
Now I think our lives are full of butterfly effects, which are seldom obvious after the event. Because they are not obvious, we rarely recognise them but instead try to rationalise situations using conventional logic. We then kid ourselves that we have 'learnt' from our experiences and apply the same false logic to guide us in the future - a recipe for disaster! For this reason, I hate the expression 'wise with the benefit of hindsight'. The assumption being that you know how you got to where you are now because you have the 'benefit of hindsight'. Well I would argue against that premise. Sure, there are major decisions that you took in your life that if you had made different choices, would have led to a different result but what about the butterflies? Those little things that you never spotted that months or even years later took you down a completely different path to your original intentions.
We are still feeling the pain of the 2007-2008 financial crisis, which politicians are conveniently using as a scapegoat for many of their subsequent bad decisions. It was considered to be the worst financial crisis since the depression of the 1930s and resulted in the collapse of large financial institutions, bailout of banks, downturn in the stock and housing markets, evictions and widespread unemployment. Many economists are blaming the 'burst' of the previous housing bubble in the USA for the problem but is it that simple? I suggest not. Do I have a better theory? Definitely not! What I do believe is that in the same way as chaos theory can be applied to weather prediction, it is equally applicable to financial markets. The similarity being that a tiny change in initial conditions can lead to a large change in results, which is the definition of a chaotic system. Financial bubbles grow because of positive feedback. So, property prices are rising, people panic and buy. This causes the prices to rise further (classic demand greater than supply) and more people buy .........and so it goes on until the loans aren't repaid, repossession kicks in and the bubble bursts. Now the initial rise in prices might have been caused by something quite innocuous like lunchtime speculative chit chat in a pub - the butterfly flapping its wings! Just as the butterfly might not directly cause a tornado but affect its destination, so the chit chat might not directly cause property speculation but could act as a stimulus to panic buying.
We can theorise all day until the cows come home and if we can't test our theories by re-running history, they are of little value. But what is important is to recognise the limitations of our analysis of the past and prediction of the future in the chaotic environment within which we all live. Returning to the subject of the weather, meteorologists have long since abandoned expending much effort on long range (greater than 7 days) weather forecasts, which were based on past weather patterns and were rarely accurate. So when someone says with an air of confidence 'they say' we're in for a cold winter or a dry hot summer, take it with a pinch of salt! But whilst the weather is accepted by most as chaotic and highly unpredictable, why is it that the financial and business world, which has been proved from experience to be highly chaotic, is regarded as predictable? When stocks and currencies fluctuate on a daily basis, usually by fractions of a percent, analysts come up with all sorts of seemingly plausible reasons and declare with certainty what will happen in the future even though history has proved they don't really know!
I will continue to enjoy life's unpredictability and be amused by the pet theories of the 'experts'. Who knows, one day politicians might not blame the opposition or global economic circumstances beyond their control, for their own failures. They might just point the finger at a harmless and beautiful butterfly!!
Now I think our lives are full of butterfly effects, which are seldom obvious after the event. Because they are not obvious, we rarely recognise them but instead try to rationalise situations using conventional logic. We then kid ourselves that we have 'learnt' from our experiences and apply the same false logic to guide us in the future - a recipe for disaster! For this reason, I hate the expression 'wise with the benefit of hindsight'. The assumption being that you know how you got to where you are now because you have the 'benefit of hindsight'. Well I would argue against that premise. Sure, there are major decisions that you took in your life that if you had made different choices, would have led to a different result but what about the butterflies? Those little things that you never spotted that months or even years later took you down a completely different path to your original intentions.
We are still feeling the pain of the 2007-2008 financial crisis, which politicians are conveniently using as a scapegoat for many of their subsequent bad decisions. It was considered to be the worst financial crisis since the depression of the 1930s and resulted in the collapse of large financial institutions, bailout of banks, downturn in the stock and housing markets, evictions and widespread unemployment. Many economists are blaming the 'burst' of the previous housing bubble in the USA for the problem but is it that simple? I suggest not. Do I have a better theory? Definitely not! What I do believe is that in the same way as chaos theory can be applied to weather prediction, it is equally applicable to financial markets. The similarity being that a tiny change in initial conditions can lead to a large change in results, which is the definition of a chaotic system. Financial bubbles grow because of positive feedback. So, property prices are rising, people panic and buy. This causes the prices to rise further (classic demand greater than supply) and more people buy .........and so it goes on until the loans aren't repaid, repossession kicks in and the bubble bursts. Now the initial rise in prices might have been caused by something quite innocuous like lunchtime speculative chit chat in a pub - the butterfly flapping its wings! Just as the butterfly might not directly cause a tornado but affect its destination, so the chit chat might not directly cause property speculation but could act as a stimulus to panic buying.
We can theorise all day until the cows come home and if we can't test our theories by re-running history, they are of little value. But what is important is to recognise the limitations of our analysis of the past and prediction of the future in the chaotic environment within which we all live. Returning to the subject of the weather, meteorologists have long since abandoned expending much effort on long range (greater than 7 days) weather forecasts, which were based on past weather patterns and were rarely accurate. So when someone says with an air of confidence 'they say' we're in for a cold winter or a dry hot summer, take it with a pinch of salt! But whilst the weather is accepted by most as chaotic and highly unpredictable, why is it that the financial and business world, which has been proved from experience to be highly chaotic, is regarded as predictable? When stocks and currencies fluctuate on a daily basis, usually by fractions of a percent, analysts come up with all sorts of seemingly plausible reasons and declare with certainty what will happen in the future even though history has proved they don't really know!
I will continue to enjoy life's unpredictability and be amused by the pet theories of the 'experts'. Who knows, one day politicians might not blame the opposition or global economic circumstances beyond their control, for their own failures. They might just point the finger at a harmless and beautiful butterfly!!
Saturday, 2 March 2013
Don't take it for granted.
Or for my Turkish friends, kendiliğinden olmalarını bekleme.
You get up in the night, it's dark, you flick the light switch and the room is illuminated. You probably took that for granted, but should you? Electric fish were reported in ancient Egyptian texts dating back to 2750 BC. The rapid progress in electrical science took place in the nineteenth century, when electricity moved on from being a scientific curiosity to something that was essential for modern life, including the second industrial revolution. So when you turn on the light, you can probably take the existence of electricity for granted but at the same time marvel at the human race's ingenuity in the application of electricity to life.
What you cannot take for granted is the generation and transmission of electricity. You know you can't take it for granted when the supply is lost from a fault or perhaps even industrial action. Your supply has been and continues to be dependent on billions of dollars of investment into research, design, development, manufacture and support of equipment and facilities, employing hundreds of thousands of people worldwide. But the electrical supply industry is not a charity. You pay for it. So although you cannot take the electricity supply for granted, if you pay for the service you should expect to be supplied with electricity. Is your expectation any different from taking something for granted?! It's a moot point.
Recently there has been a furore over the sale of products marked as containing beef, found to have horsemeat. The CEO of Tesco, Philip Clarke, has apologised for Tesco's involvement in this scandal and promised a "root and branch" review of its supply chains. The reason he and others are concerned about the horsemeat scandal is because of 'reputational damage'. Reputation can be damaged when products or services fall short of expectations and companies live or die by customers' willingness to part with their money for products or services. So companies that take reputation for granted are living very dangerously. What's more, it can take years of hard work to establish a reputation but one foolish incident can destroy it overnight.
Reputation is part of what some businesses call Relationship Capital, arguing that it is an intangible asset, but just as powerful, if not stronger, than tangible assets such as cash in the bank. The Beatles summed it up in Can't Buy Me Love:
I'll buy you a diamond ring my friend
If it makes you feel all right
I'll get you anything my friend
If it makes you feel all right
Cause I don't care too much for money
For money can't buy me love
In other words, you can't buy happy relationships. In the same way as a shop's reputation takes years to establish so, for example, a marital relationship doesn't establish itself overnight but takes years of tender loving care to develop into something really meaningful. However, the relationship can be damaged, sometimes irreparably, by foolish incidents and should not, therefore, be taken for granted.
To conclude, it doesn't matter if we consider tangibles, like the supply of electricity, or intangibles, such as love, neither should be taken for granted. If we don't take things for granted, we become more appreciative of what we have.
This probably won't be my last blogpost, but don't take it for granted!
You get up in the night, it's dark, you flick the light switch and the room is illuminated. You probably took that for granted, but should you? Electric fish were reported in ancient Egyptian texts dating back to 2750 BC. The rapid progress in electrical science took place in the nineteenth century, when electricity moved on from being a scientific curiosity to something that was essential for modern life, including the second industrial revolution. So when you turn on the light, you can probably take the existence of electricity for granted but at the same time marvel at the human race's ingenuity in the application of electricity to life.
What you cannot take for granted is the generation and transmission of electricity. You know you can't take it for granted when the supply is lost from a fault or perhaps even industrial action. Your supply has been and continues to be dependent on billions of dollars of investment into research, design, development, manufacture and support of equipment and facilities, employing hundreds of thousands of people worldwide. But the electrical supply industry is not a charity. You pay for it. So although you cannot take the electricity supply for granted, if you pay for the service you should expect to be supplied with electricity. Is your expectation any different from taking something for granted?! It's a moot point.
Recently there has been a furore over the sale of products marked as containing beef, found to have horsemeat. The CEO of Tesco, Philip Clarke, has apologised for Tesco's involvement in this scandal and promised a "root and branch" review of its supply chains. The reason he and others are concerned about the horsemeat scandal is because of 'reputational damage'. Reputation can be damaged when products or services fall short of expectations and companies live or die by customers' willingness to part with their money for products or services. So companies that take reputation for granted are living very dangerously. What's more, it can take years of hard work to establish a reputation but one foolish incident can destroy it overnight.
Reputation is part of what some businesses call Relationship Capital, arguing that it is an intangible asset, but just as powerful, if not stronger, than tangible assets such as cash in the bank. The Beatles summed it up in Can't Buy Me Love:
I'll buy you a diamond ring my friend
If it makes you feel all right
I'll get you anything my friend
If it makes you feel all right
Cause I don't care too much for money
For money can't buy me love
In other words, you can't buy happy relationships. In the same way as a shop's reputation takes years to establish so, for example, a marital relationship doesn't establish itself overnight but takes years of tender loving care to develop into something really meaningful. However, the relationship can be damaged, sometimes irreparably, by foolish incidents and should not, therefore, be taken for granted.
To conclude, it doesn't matter if we consider tangibles, like the supply of electricity, or intangibles, such as love, neither should be taken for granted. If we don't take things for granted, we become more appreciative of what we have.
This probably won't be my last blogpost, but don't take it for granted!
Saturday, 23 February 2013
Masters of our own Destiny
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!
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!
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)