Am I the only person on anize who doesn’t write music and play guitar? How did I waste my youth? Strange that I can’t remember what I would have been doing with that time instead.
I will learn guitar. Not before I’m 30, because June would be pushing it. I managed to get my hair long in time, my Spanish is half-way there, but I haven’t touched a guitar since a few Munich winters ago where I discovered that it will be extra hard work with my lack of talent. Maybe we can do “anize-con: guitar for dummies”. With hammocks and campfire. I guess that means it won’t be in Australia or it would be with swag and total fire ban.
I’m in a somewhat irreverent mood. I just sent off a job application to be a lecturer that took much time to try and obfuscate the fact I haven’t taught and stretch all the selection criteria so they sounded like I had. I even stretched my response to “Desirable: Skills in the use of web-based resources and facilities to enhance teaching and learning”, I wrote “…I maintain a personal weblog…”. Sorry DFC, we all know you maintain anize… but the brad bit is personal… and maintained some of the time…right? I doubt I’ll get the job, but it would be very cool so we’ll see what happens and continue to play every card I’ve got.
Elsewhere I’m running around again after almost 4 weeks recovery after calf strain #2. It feels like a little kid finally allowed to go to the park. Less than 9 weeks till nationals so training needs to pick up a notch. My weekend’s evenings were late and enjoyable: there’s no friends like old friends (Friday) and ulti friends that sing Karaoke after a few drinks (Saturday). Time to go catch up on some sleep.
the earth has music for those who listen
Its a New Zealand advert, but according to the Internet, they got it from Shakespeare. I like it.
So I’ve blogged a few personal questions and thoughts, facing up to my interpretation that we as a society and therefore myself as an individual must address that we are proceeding unsustainably. In time, I’m hoping to get a positive vibe going, address solutions and somehow become confident that I’m playing my part in doing things better.
Since I’ve written a few of my thoughts, influenced in part by things I’ve been reading this past year, I’ve received further reading tips and found other voices further along the same path. David Suzuki, the famous canadian ecologist will be delivering a lecture in Perth in March, so I ended up at his website and found his answer to the question, What does sustainability really mean?
While I’m linking to his ideas and work, you can also check out the Nature Challenge which addresses the question “what can I do?”. Quoting:
The David Suzuki Foundation has researched the 10 most effective ways we can help conserve nature and improve our quality of life.
1. Reduce home energy use by 10%
2. Choose an energy-efficient home & appliances
3. Don’t use pesticides
4. Eat meat-free meals one day a week
5. Buy locally grown and produced food
6. Choose a fuel-efficient vehicle
7. Walk, bike, carpool or take transit
8. Choose a home close to work or school
9. Support alternative transportation
10. Learn more and share with others
Starting to write this and not sure how its going to go. Is this a personal question or better framed in terms of society and people in general? Lets see what happens.
Less than a hundred years ago the industrial revolution started with a huge improvement in man-output due to machinery taking over more and more work. Going back further even the switch from hunter-gathering to primitive farming was about productivity and increasing yields from the limited time and effort we could put in. Back then it was necessary so we could eat better and support more people. Nowadays engineers rushing to develop chips that sustain Moore’s law, are theoretically doing it to increase our productivity. But why? Is this good? What does it achieve? (eg good: digital cameras are approaching the point where Volker can get a digital SLR and shoot as much “film” as he wants, is it good?: the 75MHz PC that was good enough to write my thesis on is hopelessly out of date and can only be thrown out (possibly recycled but the statistics are bad), like the 12MHz PC before it)
My questions are: what do we do with all this “freed up” time or extra production? Why are we so fixed on freeing up more time and/or producing more stuff?
How many hard workers now struggle to find meaning in their leisure/family time? It seems like the more someone earns, the more they need to work. How rarely do you hear “I got paid heaps the last two years, so I’m going to take the next couple years off and enjoy myself/help other people/spend time with my family”?
It seems that society says the point of producing more or saving time is we can sell things for more. Which means we get paid more. Which means we can buy more. Which means all the other support/service jobs get done more. Which means those workers and their families can buy more. Which pays for the next loop of increased production.
Individually we chase that next higher paid job, providing stuff we can sell for as much money as possible. What it costs isn’t as important as what we get for it. Then what to we do? Live more comfortably. Until we get laid off or want to take a break and find everything’s expensive and we can’t afford to go without working/earning.
Each loop gets more and more expensive in terms of inputs (resources required from the planet) and waste. I can see why we individually do it, but why our entire society is based on it? Where does it end?
He who knows he has enough is rich.
Lao-tzu
I’m one of those shoppers who researches my wants, my means and what’s available before forking out cash. Cars, computers, cameras etc, when its time to update, I’ll talk to my network, get on the net and do some research. As with my car, I may end up spending more than I initially planned, but I’ll know what I’m getting and it’ll be good value for what I get out of it. The less I care about something, the less I’ll “shop around” and I’ll be more worried about saving my time.
Hugh has a pretty funky blog and writes about the ignorance premium. His basic gist is some companies will charge large markups based on consumer ignorance and stupid people pay it. If you read the comments and those in the sequel, lots of people comment that they can afford this ‘ignorance premium’ and since they earn so much money it makes sense to pay it for the (believed) convenience and time saving.
If I take the concept of marketing vs real information, I see the Internet bringing down the amount of time needed to research products (brands) and stores. Marketing aimed at someone like me won’t be as effective, since I’ll be using reviews and customer feedback, rather than spiffy advertising to make my mind up.
If I compare this to my concerns about big projects and politics raised previously, I see that ignorance is a driving factor in democratic decision making. The market overpowers real information. The claim that the environment will be saved by capitalistic forces isn’t working because individuals in our society value our time, our worth (earnings) and our share portfolios more than the earth’s resources. So we waste them.
We’re being stupid, paying more and its getting worse.
I’ve been thinking a lot about quality versus quantity. When growth is good. When less is more. When more is better. Its easy to argue both sides of all these statements depending on circumstance. George Santayana wrote numerous clever things including: Those who speak most of progress measure it by quantity and not by quality.
This seems particularly appropriate to Australian socio-politics that I keep hearing. The WA economy is booming thanks in large to a huge demand in China for our raw materials. When mining booms, WA has money to burn, the tax coffers are full and everybody gets a bit dizzy. One occasionally hears talk of sustainability and the environment, but the reality concentrates on improving middle income’s wealth (property value increased an average 20% in the last 18 months, 40% in some areas) and using more and more resources.
In the upcoming state election 2 big issues are the capacity to supply sufficient water and electricity to meet Perth’s ever increasing demand. Blackouts have become common when its very hot and water restricitions are in place (mainly limiting when you can water the garden). The public debate is only about increasing supply. I’ve not heard or seen it questioned whether increased demand and meeting that demand is a better nevermind sustainable way.
Just talking water for a second, the Labour Party is planning a desalination plant (using huge amounts of energy to turn sea water into drinking water). The list of reasons not to do this is enormous. The Liberals have shocked the election campaign by coming out in support of building a canal from the Fitzroy river and pumping water the not paltry distance of 3700 kms (2300 miles) southwards. The list of reasons not to do this is gigantic. (Which is bigger gigantic or enormous?) Did I mention that the only plan and costings available are those from the Engineering company that want to build it? So it seems that in our 2-party system whichever way the people vote, one of these energy expensive, anti-environment projects will go ahead.
The logic behind these plans seems to be as follows: In order to get elected, government has to be seen to be able to meet the ever increasing demands of an ever increasing electorate that always wants more. (It seems that if you can do this, momentarily, then sustainability and the environment become relevant again).
Time for the punchline. Perth receives 869mm (34.2in) a year rainfall. For comparison, London a famously wet city receives 812mm. Los Angeles is less than half, around 15in a year, Barcelona around 600mm a year. We’re an isolated city of around 1 million people, how can we be “running out?”.
My message to politicians, voters one and all: Speak of Progress and measure it by Quality, not Quantity.
Since less IS more, I’ll only briefly mention our extensive use of coal fired power stations (huge CO2 generators) and skip the solutions bandied about for our electricity “shortage”. Straight to the punchline: Perth averages 8.1 hours sunshine a day and is quite a windy place (9am mean 12km/h, 3pm mean 17km/h). That’d be more than enough if we designed our buildings optimally.