Thursday, July 17, 2008
A new "Ten Year Plan"
Back in 1992 I was playing a round of golf with "The Groose" and Andrewww. I asked them where they wanted to be in ten years time. I can't remember what they said, but I knew that I wanted to be back in Townsville with a stable life with plenty of family support and perhaps an interest in the family business. When me & K decided to have kids, we had a secret pact to space our children about three years apart and to have a maximum of two boys. Once Z was born, our ten year plan was complete, and ever since, I have been struggling to have a vision of where I want to be in ten years time. The truth is, any ambitions I had as an individual are no longer relevant eg. - to become a great tennis/trumpet player. Ambitions I had vicariously for my children have come up against the barrier of their own free will being at odds with what I believe they *should* wish to strive for. I seem to have lost the steering wheel to my life and I'm just relying on accelerator, break, gears and momentum for any control at all. Any ideas?
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Economist.comments.marcoparigi
Still doing more Comments on Economist.com than my usual blog sphere of reading.
Subjects of interest include:
China
Iraq
green taxes
superannuation
oil
carbon footprint
Australian immigration/guest workers
Subjects of interest include:
China
Iraq
green taxes
superannuation
oil
carbon footprint
Australian immigration/guest workers
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Minke Whale Meat - It's the beef of the sea!
In response to Dr.Clam's suggestion to eat more whaleThis should really be a real ad for the real product that ought to be offered in Australia.
*Update* I have it on good advice that Minke whale meat is WAY healthier than beef (and other common non-fish varieties)
And just for balance:
*Update* I have it on good advice that Minke whale meat is WAY healthier than beef (and other common non-fish varieties)
And just for balance:
Thursday, May 29, 2008
The coming oil price crash
There are numerous "experts" talking up the price of oil. Like at the end of the Dot.com boom, I believe this is a technique to give those in the know time to sell dud futures to those that aren't. As far as reality is concerned, supply and demand are nearing that elusive intersection. From the demand side:
US demand has already slumed 10% on some figures
from this article.
On these figures, the US demand will drop much faster than it will pick up in China, in barrels per day terms.
On the supply side, there are several increases in capacity going on in Saudi Arabia, and Iraq production has stabilised and is likely to increase, if anything. oil saviour? perhaps.
Consumer committment to reducing petrol usage has finally started happen in several countries. For the layman this means that even if petrol prices suddenly drop, consumers are likely to keep to these committments, without the usual usage surge that happens with lower prices.
As far as when? goes, the US is stocking up on fuel for the summer driving season. When the oil companies realise few are driving this will reduce the price a little bit. China is stocking up big time for the Olympics and internal aid. Once the Olympics are done and there is spare, the oil price will plummet.
Yes I'm talking down the oil price, but does anyone listen? :) we'll see....
US demand has already slumed 10% on some figuresfrom this article.
On these figures, the US demand will drop much faster than it will pick up in China, in barrels per day terms.
On the supply side, there are several increases in capacity going on in Saudi Arabia, and Iraq production has stabilised and is likely to increase, if anything. oil saviour? perhaps.
Consumer committment to reducing petrol usage has finally started happen in several countries. For the layman this means that even if petrol prices suddenly drop, consumers are likely to keep to these committments, without the usual usage surge that happens with lower prices.
As far as when? goes, the US is stocking up on fuel for the summer driving season. When the oil companies realise few are driving this will reduce the price a little bit. China is stocking up big time for the Olympics and internal aid. Once the Olympics are done and there is spare, the oil price will plummet.
Yes I'm talking down the oil price, but does anyone listen? :) we'll see....
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Narrative II
Clam's narrative in italics
Let us begin with the way the world was twenty-five years ago. It was in the last years of a titanic struggle between two great powers, and every single event that happened anywhere in the world was seen, and had to be seen, firstly and most importantly in relation to that titanic struggle. What opportunities did it afford for the advantage of our side? What opportunities for the other side? Who benefited in the long term, in the short term? It was an age of game theory in international relations, of conspiracy theories that were credible and even true, of brinksmanship and mind-numbing terror. Perhaps you do not remember it like that. This is my narrative, and I am saying how I remember things.
In that titanic struggle our side, the West, supported many unworthy allies; in a calculated fashion, because those allies were important in in the existential struggle. Hence Suharto, the Shah, Pinochet, at certain times a certain Iraqi strongman.
In the milieu in which I lived, I breathed in a certain cynicism about this titanic stuggle. Sure, our side was ours, but we were not enthusiastic partisans. Our side had high ideals, and failed to live up to them; the other side, too, professed high ideals, and likewise failed to live up to them. They were two great grey colossi locked in an interminable struggle. We were weary unto death of their fighting and wanted something, anything, to make it end.
One day it ended. We had won.
Over the next few years- the next several years- it gradually dawned on me that my cynicism had been misplaced. The other side had been, in its essence, wrong and evil, and our side was, in its essence, right and good. The crimes that had been committed by our side had been committed, rightly or wrongly, as calculated moves in a struggle against a far greater evil. The crimes of the other side had been committed as calculated moves to still all voices of opposition and dehumanise mankind.
I realise this must sound breathtakingly naïve to many people. But I think there is no other plausible reading of the historical evidence. I am prepared to justify it at appalling length in subsequent posts.
Almost the last, but far from the least evil to spring from this titanic struggle happened in the first half of 1991. A tyrant who had made unprovoked war on most of his neighbours, who had caused the deaths of upward of a million people, who was a bad egg overall, had been brought to bay by a vast alliance of many nations. He could have been cast down, as all tyrants should be cast down, with relative ease. And yet he was not. President George Bush called upon the oppressed people of Iraq to rebel against their ruler, and did not aid them as they fought and died. The vast armies were dispersed and sent back to their homes. The tyrant remained in power. Why was this allowed to happen?
This was clear to me then as it is now. This was a judgement call. It was plausible then as now that things could have gone really badly even if he was thrown out. For the purposes of the narrative I will accept as an axiom that it was a mistake to leave him in power, and the interpretation of the Cold War as outlined above.
I remember the removal of Saddam from power being a bipartisan policy throughout the 1990s, once the habits of thought of the Cold War began to recede. I was angry about sanctions. I was angry about the bombings of 1998. I was angry then because these things because they impacted disproportionately on innocent civilians, and they had no hope of achieving what is most precious to God, in the words of Baha’ullah, which is justice. The invasion of Iraq was carried out to make amends for the shame of 1991 and bring this long overdue justice. It was obvious that it should be done, long before 2001.
The New World Order TM as I saw it had developed to the extent that a large chunk of the society deemed that the UN was, for good or ill, the only arbiter of such interventions. This worked acceptably in the break-up of ex-Yugoslavia. Iraq was different in as much as Saddam had a grudge against the US in particular. For the US, Iraq was unfinished business. Saddam took delight in defiance, in particular, defiance the US. In short, it was personal. There was umpteen other tyrants that did equally bad things over the 25 years. I could argue that many of these were equivalently evil and ripe for intervention. I would personally argue that it is a greater shame that Mugabe has avoided being toppled, for instance.
* It seemed quite clear from the pronouncements of George Bush et al that the goal of the invasion was what I have said above, to crush a wicked despot like a weevil.
The goals were more multi-faceted than that. I have argued that leaving armies go completely idle means that when they are needed, they will be almost useless (as most of those in Europe are). As I said, with Iraq, it was a little more personal. Saddam was so cocky he thought he could keep Kuwait. Taunting the western world by continuing to preside over a once great country that was becoming a failed state. Essentially again, invading was a judgement call. Crushing Saddam was a primary goal, but to see it as being completely unselfish in terms of what was judged to be good for the US or even for its president's legacy is quite partisan.
* In a move stupid in retrospect, George Bush et al sought to obtain an imprimatur from the United Nations for the invasion. This brought the Weapons of Mass Destruction issue to the forefront, because the UN resolutions that Iraq had flouted were concernd with these.
Again, one way or another this was a judgement call. Perhaps George wanted to give Saddam the false impression that he may yet avoid invasion. Perhaps he wanted to be sure there *wasn't* any mass destructive weapons before invasion. The New World Order TM works better if there is some sort of UN rubber stamp. In terms of TNWOTM the outcome of the war was that it is completely on hold as far as removing tyrants is concerned, and more to the point, removing tyrants is so burdensome for the US that it will only happen when it gets personal or close to home for the US.
* Because Iraq had not complied with these resolutions, a murderous regime of sanctions was daily punishing the Iraqi people.
Saddam had set it up such that invasion would punish them way more than even sanctions.
* Everyone was agreed that the Despot had Weapons of Mass Destruction: the French, the Russians, Uncle Tom Cobbley, etc. If anyone had good evidence to the contrary, they sat on it.
There was so much bluff and double bluff, exaggeration and downplay over this, that everyone in every party could reasonably be accused of being a liar.
Lying is a great handle for launching partisan attacks, and like children overboard it is milked for all it's worth well after it has been acted on as if true when the lie was being told. Lying should not be considered as part of a narrative, but as a springboard for launching partisan attacks.
So my narrative is that motivation for war (Gulf War I and II) is 90% American values("Blooding" the military, revenge for 9/11 related riks, unfinished business from Gulf War I) and only 10% Aslan values. Despots can do anything they like to people in their own country without risk of invasion(see Darfur, Zimbabwe), but if you make it personal for Americans and their president, you will be taken to task, and *Americans will be happy to risk lives in the struggle and the aftermath*. Serbia may well be a counterpoint to this narrative because it wasn't personal. However, it was personal for NATO as a whole. For the Americans it was rather a cowardly but militarily effective testing ground for new smart weapons. It took all of two *Accidental* helicopter US deaths to put a whole ground offensive to a halt for months. Serbia was just a much easier judgement call than Iraq or say Serbia when Bosnia was being throttled. There was talk even then of the US attacking them, but without the cover of a UN mandate, was geopolitically unwise.
So in conclusion, I want more Aslan values and less American values in nation-building excercises. I will protest the war inasmuch that if they open the door by saying it is about justice, then accept criticism about the way it is delivered. If you open the door by saying it is about WMD, then accept that this action is outside of the bounds of The New World Order TM, and other countries or the UN do not have the responsibility in the aftermath. Above all note that all breaches of Aslan style behaviour in this and any conflict will make it harder to pursue future acts of justice outside of The New World Order TM.
Let us begin with the way the world was twenty-five years ago. It was in the last years of a titanic struggle between two great powers, and every single event that happened anywhere in the world was seen, and had to be seen, firstly and most importantly in relation to that titanic struggle. What opportunities did it afford for the advantage of our side? What opportunities for the other side? Who benefited in the long term, in the short term? It was an age of game theory in international relations, of conspiracy theories that were credible and even true, of brinksmanship and mind-numbing terror. Perhaps you do not remember it like that. This is my narrative, and I am saying how I remember things.
In that titanic struggle our side, the West, supported many unworthy allies; in a calculated fashion, because those allies were important in in the existential struggle. Hence Suharto, the Shah, Pinochet, at certain times a certain Iraqi strongman.
In the milieu in which I lived, I breathed in a certain cynicism about this titanic stuggle. Sure, our side was ours, but we were not enthusiastic partisans. Our side had high ideals, and failed to live up to them; the other side, too, professed high ideals, and likewise failed to live up to them. They were two great grey colossi locked in an interminable struggle. We were weary unto death of their fighting and wanted something, anything, to make it end.
One day it ended. We had won.
Over the next few years- the next several years- it gradually dawned on me that my cynicism had been misplaced. The other side had been, in its essence, wrong and evil, and our side was, in its essence, right and good. The crimes that had been committed by our side had been committed, rightly or wrongly, as calculated moves in a struggle against a far greater evil. The crimes of the other side had been committed as calculated moves to still all voices of opposition and dehumanise mankind.
I realise this must sound breathtakingly naïve to many people. But I think there is no other plausible reading of the historical evidence. I am prepared to justify it at appalling length in subsequent posts.
Almost the last, but far from the least evil to spring from this titanic struggle happened in the first half of 1991. A tyrant who had made unprovoked war on most of his neighbours, who had caused the deaths of upward of a million people, who was a bad egg overall, had been brought to bay by a vast alliance of many nations. He could have been cast down, as all tyrants should be cast down, with relative ease. And yet he was not. President George Bush called upon the oppressed people of Iraq to rebel against their ruler, and did not aid them as they fought and died. The vast armies were dispersed and sent back to their homes. The tyrant remained in power. Why was this allowed to happen?
This was clear to me then as it is now. This was a judgement call. It was plausible then as now that things could have gone really badly even if he was thrown out. For the purposes of the narrative I will accept as an axiom that it was a mistake to leave him in power, and the interpretation of the Cold War as outlined above.
I remember the removal of Saddam from power being a bipartisan policy throughout the 1990s, once the habits of thought of the Cold War began to recede. I was angry about sanctions. I was angry about the bombings of 1998. I was angry then because these things because they impacted disproportionately on innocent civilians, and they had no hope of achieving what is most precious to God, in the words of Baha’ullah, which is justice. The invasion of Iraq was carried out to make amends for the shame of 1991 and bring this long overdue justice. It was obvious that it should be done, long before 2001.
The New World Order TM as I saw it had developed to the extent that a large chunk of the society deemed that the UN was, for good or ill, the only arbiter of such interventions. This worked acceptably in the break-up of ex-Yugoslavia. Iraq was different in as much as Saddam had a grudge against the US in particular. For the US, Iraq was unfinished business. Saddam took delight in defiance, in particular, defiance the US. In short, it was personal. There was umpteen other tyrants that did equally bad things over the 25 years. I could argue that many of these were equivalently evil and ripe for intervention. I would personally argue that it is a greater shame that Mugabe has avoided being toppled, for instance.
* It seemed quite clear from the pronouncements of George Bush et al that the goal of the invasion was what I have said above, to crush a wicked despot like a weevil.
The goals were more multi-faceted than that. I have argued that leaving armies go completely idle means that when they are needed, they will be almost useless (as most of those in Europe are). As I said, with Iraq, it was a little more personal. Saddam was so cocky he thought he could keep Kuwait. Taunting the western world by continuing to preside over a once great country that was becoming a failed state. Essentially again, invading was a judgement call. Crushing Saddam was a primary goal, but to see it as being completely unselfish in terms of what was judged to be good for the US or even for its president's legacy is quite partisan.
* In a move stupid in retrospect, George Bush et al sought to obtain an imprimatur from the United Nations for the invasion. This brought the Weapons of Mass Destruction issue to the forefront, because the UN resolutions that Iraq had flouted were concernd with these.
Again, one way or another this was a judgement call. Perhaps George wanted to give Saddam the false impression that he may yet avoid invasion. Perhaps he wanted to be sure there *wasn't* any mass destructive weapons before invasion. The New World Order TM works better if there is some sort of UN rubber stamp. In terms of TNWOTM the outcome of the war was that it is completely on hold as far as removing tyrants is concerned, and more to the point, removing tyrants is so burdensome for the US that it will only happen when it gets personal or close to home for the US.
* Because Iraq had not complied with these resolutions, a murderous regime of sanctions was daily punishing the Iraqi people.
Saddam had set it up such that invasion would punish them way more than even sanctions.
* Everyone was agreed that the Despot had Weapons of Mass Destruction: the French, the Russians, Uncle Tom Cobbley, etc. If anyone had good evidence to the contrary, they sat on it.
There was so much bluff and double bluff, exaggeration and downplay over this, that everyone in every party could reasonably be accused of being a liar.
Lying is a great handle for launching partisan attacks, and like children overboard it is milked for all it's worth well after it has been acted on as if true when the lie was being told. Lying should not be considered as part of a narrative, but as a springboard for launching partisan attacks.
So my narrative is that motivation for war (Gulf War I and II) is 90% American values("Blooding" the military, revenge for 9/11 related riks, unfinished business from Gulf War I) and only 10% Aslan values. Despots can do anything they like to people in their own country without risk of invasion(see Darfur, Zimbabwe), but if you make it personal for Americans and their president, you will be taken to task, and *Americans will be happy to risk lives in the struggle and the aftermath*. Serbia may well be a counterpoint to this narrative because it wasn't personal. However, it was personal for NATO as a whole. For the Americans it was rather a cowardly but militarily effective testing ground for new smart weapons. It took all of two *Accidental* helicopter US deaths to put a whole ground offensive to a halt for months. Serbia was just a much easier judgement call than Iraq or say Serbia when Bosnia was being throttled. There was talk even then of the US attacking them, but without the cover of a UN mandate, was geopolitically unwise.
So in conclusion, I want more Aslan values and less American values in nation-building excercises. I will protest the war inasmuch that if they open the door by saying it is about justice, then accept criticism about the way it is delivered. If you open the door by saying it is about WMD, then accept that this action is outside of the bounds of The New World Order TM, and other countries or the UN do not have the responsibility in the aftermath. Above all note that all breaches of Aslan style behaviour in this and any conflict will make it harder to pursue future acts of justice outside of The New World Order TM.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Counter - Narrative:Must provide a good example/that's not how you win wars anyway!
This is a counter-narrative that I'd kind of given up on when the build up to the Iraq war started back in 02, but on reflection, I think it still is of great intellectual and theoretical importance. It is based on my theory of the trade of "Sympathy". When a country/entity gets brutally attacked (eg.'s Jews in WWII, 9/11, Pearl Harbour, Suicide bombings, Hiroshima, Blitzkrieg bombings etc.), that which gets attacked obtains a sympathy credit. When a country/entity retaliates, anything close to proportional retaliation cashes in that credit.
In modern day geopolitical confrontation, keeping and holding that sympathy credit (ie. avoiding retaliation) is key to winning the peace. Revenge is something that never wins the peace, and retribution should be left to any court of law that can decide on it.
An important side note is that "who shoots first" is of absolute critical importance both in a battle sense and in a declaration of war sense. Thus no matter how rediculous it sounds, the US would be seen to be a World leader much more, would be seen to have absolute moral integrity within the UN, and would have been that much closer to a new world order in which it was the moral leader, had they either not attacked Iraq, or had waited (even indefinitely) for them to "shoot first".
Thus East Timor wins the peace in their country, partly because they didn't retaliate proportionally (nor request other countries to do so on their behalf).
Israel appears to be gradually cashing in their sympathy credit ever since the end of WWII, Australians in Afghanistan (etc.) are winning sympathy credits due to their rules of engagement which prohibits them from shooting until fired upon. The Iraq war has cashed in all (and then some) of the sympathy that the US had left over from 9/11.
Thus the war in Iraq was wrong on the count that it did not show a good example for other world citizens, and anyway, that is not how wars are won.
In modern day geopolitical confrontation, keeping and holding that sympathy credit (ie. avoiding retaliation) is key to winning the peace. Revenge is something that never wins the peace, and retribution should be left to any court of law that can decide on it.
An important side note is that "who shoots first" is of absolute critical importance both in a battle sense and in a declaration of war sense. Thus no matter how rediculous it sounds, the US would be seen to be a World leader much more, would be seen to have absolute moral integrity within the UN, and would have been that much closer to a new world order in which it was the moral leader, had they either not attacked Iraq, or had waited (even indefinitely) for them to "shoot first".
Thus East Timor wins the peace in their country, partly because they didn't retaliate proportionally (nor request other countries to do so on their behalf).
Israel appears to be gradually cashing in their sympathy credit ever since the end of WWII, Australians in Afghanistan (etc.) are winning sympathy credits due to their rules of engagement which prohibits them from shooting until fired upon. The Iraq war has cashed in all (and then some) of the sympathy that the US had left over from 9/11.
Thus the war in Iraq was wrong on the count that it did not show a good example for other world citizens, and anyway, that is not how wars are won.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Now for the refugee intake
Finally the government has announced an increase of unskilled migrants increasing our overall intake to 300,000. Hopefully that will include "economic" refugees and others who are desperate enough to seek people smugglers. All that is left is to increase refugee quotas drastically and to relax work visa requirements, and I will be satisfied
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Alternate Narrative on Mesopotamia
In response to:
Doctor Clam's elegant intellectual take on attitudes to war in Mesopotamia
Who is after an alternate intellectual narrative (from the left)
I have the following link to offer with my recommended comment snipped.
Economist article on Iraq, Iran and US
Azr@el wrote:
May 10, 2008 17:13
Where does the economist find such clueless journalist? Look at the problem from the desired end results from the view of the three outside players involved; what is an ideal Iraq in Iranian eyes? What is an ideal Iraq in Sunni Arab eyes? What is an ideal Iraq in U.S. eyes? The Iranian's want a demilitarized Iraq run by Shia's with a friendly Kurdish choir. Their tool to achieve this goal? The ballot box and a little ethnic spring cleaning of recalcitrant Sunnis. Their major problem? Pan-Arabist Shias trying to hijack the show. Sunni Arabs? They want a strong man of Sunni Arab persuasion to restore the good old days of pre-Kuwait Saddam. Their instrument? Money to al-qaeda-lite, political isolation of the Shia Iraqi government and of course foreign Sunni fighters by the truckload. Their major obstacle? History and demographics, neither favors them. The U.S. ? No one, especially no one in the white house has the slightest clue what an ideal endgame would look like.
The point being that it is very much (at least) a three entity game even in its simplest working model. There appears a distinct possibility that each entity is following optimal strategies,there is a Nash equilibrium of sorts, and that the endgame is a generation away. The "oil security" issue will only gradually improve, as the main players realise that security is unlikely to get much better or much worse for a long time yet.
Doctor Clam's elegant intellectual take on attitudes to war in Mesopotamia
Who is after an alternate intellectual narrative (from the left)
I have the following link to offer with my recommended comment snipped.
Economist article on Iraq, Iran and US
Azr@el wrote:
May 10, 2008 17:13
Where does the economist find such clueless journalist? Look at the problem from the desired end results from the view of the three outside players involved; what is an ideal Iraq in Iranian eyes? What is an ideal Iraq in Sunni Arab eyes? What is an ideal Iraq in U.S. eyes? The Iranian's want a demilitarized Iraq run by Shia's with a friendly Kurdish choir. Their tool to achieve this goal? The ballot box and a little ethnic spring cleaning of recalcitrant Sunnis. Their major problem? Pan-Arabist Shias trying to hijack the show. Sunni Arabs? They want a strong man of Sunni Arab persuasion to restore the good old days of pre-Kuwait Saddam. Their instrument? Money to al-qaeda-lite, political isolation of the Shia Iraqi government and of course foreign Sunni fighters by the truckload. Their major obstacle? History and demographics, neither favors them. The U.S. ? No one, especially no one in the white house has the slightest clue what an ideal endgame would look like.
The point being that it is very much (at least) a three entity game even in its simplest working model. There appears a distinct possibility that each entity is following optimal strategies,there is a Nash equilibrium of sorts, and that the endgame is a generation away. The "oil security" issue will only gradually improve, as the main players realise that security is unlikely to get much better or much worse for a long time yet.
Thursday, May 08, 2008
Does this link work
Does this link to Economist articles with comments! work? It feels like sending a letter to the editor and always being published!
Prediction time minus four months
On Sunday, September 24, 2006 I wrote "I am confidently predicting that on this day in 2008, the price of petrol will be under $1.00 Au per litre in Townsville."
To which Anonymous replied:Today is 7 May 2008.
Given that the price is already in the $1.40 to $1.50 range and the price of oil has tipped US$120/barrel, I'd say that the alarmists win.
Well, I am not anywhere near conceding, the reason I indicated the same day is that I wanted to rule out seasonal factors. The oil price spike has since spread to a raft of energy and agricultural commodities. By predicting Townsville prices it also disconnects my prediction from distorted markets. I did not predict a gradual lowering of prices, but an overshoot followed by an undershoot. This has not got past the overshoot yet, and I await patiently for a triggering event of say the Olympic Games to get me there before my self-imposed two year limit.
To which Anonymous replied:Today is 7 May 2008.
Given that the price is already in the $1.40 to $1.50 range and the price of oil has tipped US$120/barrel, I'd say that the alarmists win.
Well, I am not anywhere near conceding, the reason I indicated the same day is that I wanted to rule out seasonal factors. The oil price spike has since spread to a raft of energy and agricultural commodities. By predicting Townsville prices it also disconnects my prediction from distorted markets. I did not predict a gradual lowering of prices, but an overshoot followed by an undershoot. This has not got past the overshoot yet, and I await patiently for a triggering event of say the Olympic Games to get me there before my self-imposed two year limit.
Tuesday, May 06, 2008
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
It's the Balance duh
When raising children, there is so many competing obsessions related to the child's well being that it really is a minefield. eg:
Food health - obsess that foods they eat are the healthiest possible.
Fitness health - make sure these kids get enough excercise.
Dental health - make sure that teeth are brushed, water is fluoridated etc.
Sun safety - sun exposure between birth and 20 yo means high risk for melanoma.
Money management - kids must learn to manage money early so they don't risk debt traps etc.
Social learning - obsess with kids able to interact one on one and in group situations.
Stranger danger - recognise dangers with strangers.
Abusive relationships - recognise dangers with non-strangers.
Academic learning - achieve as well as possible academically.
Clean room - learn how to manage one's own space tidily and usefully.
Smoking/drugs - Avoid the trap of getting hooked and counter peer pressure with solid knowledge.
Alcohol - moderation.
Disease - Up to date immunizations and good hygene.
Road safety - Bike helmets, seat belts, alertness.
Swimming safety - avoid the toddler killer of drownings.
So often one sees children of parents obsessing in one (say academia) and so obviously has ignored another (say, weight gain). The examples I have seen are endless, and some such as fitness are notoriously hard to balance with others such as sun safety for instance. It is quite easy to see as an outsider of the failures of these obsessions, often with some being overdone and others seemingly completely ignored. I urge everyone to aim for the balance - see which ones your children are weak in and concentrate on those for a while. Are we spending too much effort on diminishing returns? Walk the fine line, dear friends.
Food health - obsess that foods they eat are the healthiest possible.
Fitness health - make sure these kids get enough excercise.
Dental health - make sure that teeth are brushed, water is fluoridated etc.
Sun safety - sun exposure between birth and 20 yo means high risk for melanoma.
Money management - kids must learn to manage money early so they don't risk debt traps etc.
Social learning - obsess with kids able to interact one on one and in group situations.
Stranger danger - recognise dangers with strangers.
Abusive relationships - recognise dangers with non-strangers.
Academic learning - achieve as well as possible academically.
Clean room - learn how to manage one's own space tidily and usefully.
Smoking/drugs - Avoid the trap of getting hooked and counter peer pressure with solid knowledge.
Alcohol - moderation.
Disease - Up to date immunizations and good hygene.
Road safety - Bike helmets, seat belts, alertness.
Swimming safety - avoid the toddler killer of drownings.
So often one sees children of parents obsessing in one (say academia) and so obviously has ignored another (say, weight gain). The examples I have seen are endless, and some such as fitness are notoriously hard to balance with others such as sun safety for instance. It is quite easy to see as an outsider of the failures of these obsessions, often with some being overdone and others seemingly completely ignored. I urge everyone to aim for the balance - see which ones your children are weak in and concentrate on those for a while. Are we spending too much effort on diminishing returns? Walk the fine line, dear friends.
Friday, April 18, 2008
Peak oil = peak food?
(lame peak oil satire)Peak Food is the point in time when the maximum rate of global food production is reached, after which the rate of production enters its terminal decline. If global consumption is not mitigated before the peak, a food crisis may develop because the availability of conventional food will drop and prices will rise, perhaps dramatically. M. King Hubbert first used the theory in 1956 to accurately predict that United States oil production would peak between 1965 and 1970. His model, now called Hubbert peak theory, has since been used to predict the peak food production of many other countries, and has also proved useful in other limited-resource production-domains. According to the Hubbert model, the production rate of a limited resource will follow a roughly symmetrical bell-shaped curve based on the limits of exploitability and market pressures.
Some observers, such as food industry experts Kenneth S. Deffeyes and Matthew Simmons, believe the high dependence of most modern humans, agricultural and industrial systems on the relative low cost and high availability of food will cause the post-peak production decline and possible severe increases in the price of food to have negative implications for the global economy. Although predictions as to what exactly these negative effects will vary greatly, "a growing number of food industry chieftains are endorsing an idea long deemed fringe: The world is approaching a practical limit to the number of tonnes of food that can be supplied every day."[1]
If political and economic change only occur in reaction to high prices and shortages rather than in reaction to the threat of a peak, then the degree of economic damage to importing countries will largely depend on how rapidly food imports decline post-peak. The Export Land Model shows that the amount of food available internationally drops much more quickly than production in exporting countries because the exporting countries maintain an internal growth in demand. Shortfalls in production (and therefore supply) would cause extreme price inflation, unless demand is mitigated with planned conservation measures and use of alternatives, which would need to be implemented 20 years before the peak. (/lame peak oil satire)
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
What to Blog... What to blog
The US election stuff bores me to tears, and I have no interesting opinion about the candidates.
I was going to talk about the local council elections, because I feel violated in that preferential voting was thrown out the door, and no explanation nor correspondence was entered into. First past the post significantly devalues votes for anybody other than the front contenders. I would reccommend throwing out the state Labor government but it appears a near certainty anyway.
Kevin Rudd appears to be in his element on a diplomatic world tour. He is uniquely placed to bring up the issue of Tibet appropriately. Meanwhile Julia Gillard can knuckle down getting that unemployment rate back up from its continuing record lows.
I was going to say more about brass banding, but all I've got is that I was offered a trumpet part in "Thouroughly Modern Milly", a local theatre production, and I turned it down.
I was going to talk about the local council elections, because I feel violated in that preferential voting was thrown out the door, and no explanation nor correspondence was entered into. First past the post significantly devalues votes for anybody other than the front contenders. I would reccommend throwing out the state Labor government but it appears a near certainty anyway.
Kevin Rudd appears to be in his element on a diplomatic world tour. He is uniquely placed to bring up the issue of Tibet appropriately. Meanwhile Julia Gillard can knuckle down getting that unemployment rate back up from its continuing record lows.
I was going to say more about brass banding, but all I've got is that I was offered a trumpet part in "Thouroughly Modern Milly", a local theatre production, and I turned it down.
Monday, March 24, 2008
View From the Back Row
(24/3/08)
I have just come back from the Brass Band Championships held in Brisbane over Easter. The euphoria of winning the street march, something quite rare for Townsville Brass was tempered by our faltering somewhat through our Test piece later that same day. Being a second cornet player and therefore stuck in the row behind the "Solo" cornets who get to play all the showy bits, is not too taxing on rehersals, but still critical during contests. That suits me just fine and I had a great time.
I have just come back from the Brass Band Championships held in Brisbane over Easter. The euphoria of winning the street march, something quite rare for Townsville Brass was tempered by our faltering somewhat through our Test piece later that same day. Being a second cornet player and therefore stuck in the row behind the "Solo" cornets who get to play all the showy bits, is not too taxing on rehersals, but still critical during contests. That suits me just fine and I had a great time.
Friday, March 07, 2008
Life lessons
When I was young but starting to control my own food choices, I used to have a great time teasing my mother by choosing foods with artificial colours (flavours etc.)She was one for believing all artificial substances in foods should be considered "bad" and to be avoided, even if all available research pointed to them being 100% safe. I would be into jelly, cordial, soft-drink, lollies and all those things that I was deprived of as a young child. This extended into my own children, where it would give me pleasure to feed them froot loops just to annoy my mother. That was until Zac came along. We were quite sure some foods were making him hyper-active. The before and after drinking creaming soda at Sizzler was quite stark. He liked banana lollies, so we moved towards using them as "bribes" like we did for the other children to help control behaviour. Lo and behold, his behaviour got distinctively worse when we tried that tactic. Then one day we had fed all the kids froot loops, and Zac too since he would have been jealous if he had missed out. Not long after he started being particularly loud and got cranky at the slightest provocation. We were having a party later that day (he was about 2 and a half years old then) but he refused to get dressed, insisting he stay naked. He wasn't much into clothes and we had a lot to do, so we moved on after a half an hour of screaming. When relatives arrived for the party they mostly felt his nakedness to be unacceptable, which led to another round of screaming for 30 minutes at a time as various relatives thought they knew Zac behaviour and felt they could convince him otherwise. The behaviour, if anything, intensified and the screaming started happening with any interaction. The party was a complete disaster, but Zac hadn't quite finished with us. The screaming and hyperactivity kept going and going through the evening. It stopped only when Zac crashed to the ground in complete exhaustion and fell asleep suddenly. As can be expected, the froot loops hit the bin. We converted to the all natural confectionary company, which has been a bit of a godsend. We made a mental note of every single food-stuff which triggered hyperactivity, to determine the additives and commercial foodstuffs to avoid. Things like artificial banana flavour, bright blue and red food colouring, some preservatives. Confectionary is a minefield of probable triggers. At home we stock only the all-natural lollies and that is working quite well. There are a raft of complications outside of home, with friends, teachers, parents etc. casually unaware of the risks.
It is easy to generalise, and put the blame of other's hyperactivity on artificial additives, but it is a lot more complicated than that. That said, additives are a significant contributing factor to a scary proportion of diagnosed hyperactive and autistic cases. It is impossibly hard to narrow down triggers when they are different for every individual, and behaviour profiles are often a lot more subtle and there are time delays, and for some behaviours, diet can have a residual effect that lasts weeks, and is not necessarily isolated to artificial substances. One rule of thumb is that it isn't the sugar that gives a sugar high, but the artificial stuff that goes with it. Zac can have sugar all day and still be in control.
Suffice it to say that this issue has gone full circle for me, and now I obsessively check every food we buy for additives. We avoid them for the whole family. If they have this much effect on Zac, surely they can't be that good for the rest of us either!
It is easy to generalise, and put the blame of other's hyperactivity on artificial additives, but it is a lot more complicated than that. That said, additives are a significant contributing factor to a scary proportion of diagnosed hyperactive and autistic cases. It is impossibly hard to narrow down triggers when they are different for every individual, and behaviour profiles are often a lot more subtle and there are time delays, and for some behaviours, diet can have a residual effect that lasts weeks, and is not necessarily isolated to artificial substances. One rule of thumb is that it isn't the sugar that gives a sugar high, but the artificial stuff that goes with it. Zac can have sugar all day and still be in control.
Suffice it to say that this issue has gone full circle for me, and now I obsessively check every food we buy for additives. We avoid them for the whole family. If they have this much effect on Zac, surely they can't be that good for the rest of us either!
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Evolution - The scientific method
I believe strongly in the development of evolutionary science, and I have new hypotheses that ought to be tested that don't contradict any experiments done, nor do they contradict the overall modern evolutionary synthesis. However, these hypotheses, if proven, may open up some arguments thought long ago settled.
The role of random mutations is well researched. These are well observed and are thought to be the basic unit of truly new, potentially beneficial adaptations.
DNA repair Is a process where damage to the DNA is fixed. This process is imperfect, however and failure in repairing mutations is a variable source of mutations. The process of DNA repair is blind to the function of the gene it is repairing. Thus, resulting mutations tend be in random places, and the build up of mutations on sections of DNA that don't change the function of the gene happen at a well defined rate. Thus, a process of feedback of information whether the gene is functioning properly, is the only way to account for genetic drift NOT occuring on important functional elements of the gene. Natural selection acting on whole organisms holding that gene is the only feedback commonly agreed on by evolutionary biologists to occur. However, my view is, that with a hierarchy of genes (ie. genes that control a bank of genes, that each control a set of basic genes that relate to a phenotype), there needs to be a hierarchy of feedback to ensure that the lower level genes are functioning. Ie. there needs to be a form of selection within an organism such that each basic gene can be selected or rejected based on its function independently of all other genes. The corollary being that lower level genes that are suppressed in some way by some higher level genetic action, can have its function ensured with the same process of feedback.
There are a number of mechanisms that could be at play to ensure functional integrity of genes, that are not natural selection between whole organisms. One of the mechanisms proposed, which is quite likely to be involved in some way is through the selective properties of sperm. In this mechanism, sperm act as selective proxies for the organism but specifically for genes lower down in the genetic hierarchy. Thus, every lower level gene affects the selective aspects of sperm, and that which gets to reproduce has fully functioning lower level genetics.
In this sense, this hypothesis is not concerned with the genetic variability due to the shuffling of phenotypes that follow the laws of Mendelian Inheritance, but only the functionality of the individual allele itself. This hypothesis takes it as a given that the spread of mendelian traits is the primary source of variability in phenotypes that are subject to selection in a standard Darwinian way. This hypothesis is concerned with: 1)How "improved" versions of alleles arise.
2) How stress triggers greater mutations.
3) How latent phenotypes not visible in a species can become common again.
4) How many "truly new" genes are involved in speciation, and how many genes are latent ones that are re-activated (or de-activated), or inserted via horizontal gene transfer, or are just a previously unobserved combination of mendelian and non-mendelian traits.
The role of random mutations is well researched. These are well observed and are thought to be the basic unit of truly new, potentially beneficial adaptations.
DNA repair Is a process where damage to the DNA is fixed. This process is imperfect, however and failure in repairing mutations is a variable source of mutations. The process of DNA repair is blind to the function of the gene it is repairing. Thus, resulting mutations tend be in random places, and the build up of mutations on sections of DNA that don't change the function of the gene happen at a well defined rate. Thus, a process of feedback of information whether the gene is functioning properly, is the only way to account for genetic drift NOT occuring on important functional elements of the gene. Natural selection acting on whole organisms holding that gene is the only feedback commonly agreed on by evolutionary biologists to occur. However, my view is, that with a hierarchy of genes (ie. genes that control a bank of genes, that each control a set of basic genes that relate to a phenotype), there needs to be a hierarchy of feedback to ensure that the lower level genes are functioning. Ie. there needs to be a form of selection within an organism such that each basic gene can be selected or rejected based on its function independently of all other genes. The corollary being that lower level genes that are suppressed in some way by some higher level genetic action, can have its function ensured with the same process of feedback.
There are a number of mechanisms that could be at play to ensure functional integrity of genes, that are not natural selection between whole organisms. One of the mechanisms proposed, which is quite likely to be involved in some way is through the selective properties of sperm. In this mechanism, sperm act as selective proxies for the organism but specifically for genes lower down in the genetic hierarchy. Thus, every lower level gene affects the selective aspects of sperm, and that which gets to reproduce has fully functioning lower level genetics.
In this sense, this hypothesis is not concerned with the genetic variability due to the shuffling of phenotypes that follow the laws of Mendelian Inheritance, but only the functionality of the individual allele itself. This hypothesis takes it as a given that the spread of mendelian traits is the primary source of variability in phenotypes that are subject to selection in a standard Darwinian way. This hypothesis is concerned with: 1)How "improved" versions of alleles arise.
2) How stress triggers greater mutations.
3) How latent phenotypes not visible in a species can become common again.
4) How many "truly new" genes are involved in speciation, and how many genes are latent ones that are re-activated (or de-activated), or inserted via horizontal gene transfer, or are just a previously unobserved combination of mendelian and non-mendelian traits.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
More Rants
There are clearly other biological hypotheses that have somehow graduated to the orthodoxy, such as Earthly abiogenesis. The hypothesis that non-life to life transition happened on Earth is a reasonably testable one, but a lot more mileage is given to experiments that assume early Earth origins (ie. that somehow Earthly origin is almost certainly the "truth"). However, I will concentrate on those biases against anything that remotely appears Lamarckian or like intelligent design (even if the intelligence is held within the DNA and/or the organism itself).
Now my thesis is that although the main feedback of information back to the DNA of how well it is doing is via the brute force of "natural selection" - that is a comparative between individuals with different DNA. However, my thesis is that there clearly is processes that are very much like selection that is also giving a feedback of how "fit" the DNA is. There are tens to hundreds of millions of sperm that are competing for an egg. The male is producing these and there may be a selection process from that side which strengthens those sperm with particular mutations and weakens others depending in part on the level and type of stress he is under. On the female side, the same thing is bound to be happening, with body conditions slowing down sperm with some particular mutations and letting through others depending on the level and type of stress she is under. As a final error correcting check, particular important sequences of genes are tested in the controlled conditions of the ova. The ova has been fully formed since before the mother-to-be was born. This is a rudimentary "archive" that checks on crucial DNA sequences to make sure there is no changes to those. Thus, a great deal of crucial environmental and/or competitive information is fed back to the DNA, as well as strict error correction on crucial segments during and even before conception. Thus the new organism will have had extensive pre-birth selection to give its genes the best chance of survival.
This might yet be uncontroversial - But it really depends on how sophisticated the stress to mutation-selection link is. To me it is plausible that there is a simulation engine powered by the subconscious mind that does intense calculations on how well any particular mutations may benefit particular constraints. Information can flow through the conscious mind, seeing certain genetic consequences, and the subconscious could translate it to stress information that would be selective for sperm proxies of the same genetic consequences. These would be really, really smart mutations - Much smarter than any genetic engineer could ever hope to become in following millenia.
The difference between the orthodox view and my view can be illustrated by a fashion paradigm. In the orthodox view, fashion designers make random changes to existing designs and force models to wear them. If they sell, they make more of the same. If they don't, the clothes get thrown in the bin and they don't make anymore of that crap.
In my view, what (successful) fashion designers do is that fashion designers make random changes to existing designs - show them to a test audience (of horny males, apparently :)) - changes that show some approval get kept. Process is repeated as many times as the exhausted sewing machinists and test models can cope with and then the surviving clothing is forced onto the model and onto the catwalk.
In my more sophisticated fashion design view, the machinists and models are given a break and all the experimentation with random changes happen on the computer (or a drawing board) and get shown to the test audience. By the time the design gets on the catwalk, the design looks "worked" and unlike the designs it may have been based on. To an untrained eye, it might still look like random changes, but those that *actually* put random changes straight on to the catwalk don't win the fashion show.
Additionally - to look at it another way the *winner* of the fashion show can gloat and make grandiose claims about his *creativity*, when in truth he just had a more sophisticated system of randomised changes with good feedback loop.
Now my thesis is that although the main feedback of information back to the DNA of how well it is doing is via the brute force of "natural selection" - that is a comparative between individuals with different DNA. However, my thesis is that there clearly is processes that are very much like selection that is also giving a feedback of how "fit" the DNA is. There are tens to hundreds of millions of sperm that are competing for an egg. The male is producing these and there may be a selection process from that side which strengthens those sperm with particular mutations and weakens others depending in part on the level and type of stress he is under. On the female side, the same thing is bound to be happening, with body conditions slowing down sperm with some particular mutations and letting through others depending on the level and type of stress she is under. As a final error correcting check, particular important sequences of genes are tested in the controlled conditions of the ova. The ova has been fully formed since before the mother-to-be was born. This is a rudimentary "archive" that checks on crucial DNA sequences to make sure there is no changes to those. Thus, a great deal of crucial environmental and/or competitive information is fed back to the DNA, as well as strict error correction on crucial segments during and even before conception. Thus the new organism will have had extensive pre-birth selection to give its genes the best chance of survival.
This might yet be uncontroversial - But it really depends on how sophisticated the stress to mutation-selection link is. To me it is plausible that there is a simulation engine powered by the subconscious mind that does intense calculations on how well any particular mutations may benefit particular constraints. Information can flow through the conscious mind, seeing certain genetic consequences, and the subconscious could translate it to stress information that would be selective for sperm proxies of the same genetic consequences. These would be really, really smart mutations - Much smarter than any genetic engineer could ever hope to become in following millenia.
The difference between the orthodox view and my view can be illustrated by a fashion paradigm. In the orthodox view, fashion designers make random changes to existing designs and force models to wear them. If they sell, they make more of the same. If they don't, the clothes get thrown in the bin and they don't make anymore of that crap.
In my view, what (successful) fashion designers do is that fashion designers make random changes to existing designs - show them to a test audience (of horny males, apparently :)) - changes that show some approval get kept. Process is repeated as many times as the exhausted sewing machinists and test models can cope with and then the surviving clothing is forced onto the model and onto the catwalk.
In my more sophisticated fashion design view, the machinists and models are given a break and all the experimentation with random changes happen on the computer (or a drawing board) and get shown to the test audience. By the time the design gets on the catwalk, the design looks "worked" and unlike the designs it may have been based on. To an untrained eye, it might still look like random changes, but those that *actually* put random changes straight on to the catwalk don't win the fashion show.
Additionally - to look at it another way the *winner* of the fashion show can gloat and make grandiose claims about his *creativity*, when in truth he just had a more sophisticated system of randomised changes with good feedback loop.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Rant
My research on modern ideas on Lamarckism has led me to Edward Steele, a controversial Australian Molecular immunologist. He has (indirectly) demonstrated a counterexample contradicting the Weismann Barrier. Now my instinct (as was his) was to suggest that the Weismann Barrier is therefore disproven, and we should be looking more closely as to when, why (or why not) there would be information feedback from somatic cells to germline cells.
I would also suggest that the Central Dogma of molecular biology should not be taken as gospel in evolution. It is not a proven fact as such - it is a simplification that demonstrates the orderly passage of genetic replicative information. It says nothing at all about the exceptions to this process (mutations). However, it is the very exceptions to the process which drives evolutionary progress. Natural selection is the big feedback loop for information about the environment to (indirectly) affect DNA. I am certain that there is extensive natural selection between sperm - However, this isn't exactly comparing one's fitness with others, because they are all from the one organism. An elaborate error correction mechanism (to obtain the best possible duplication of genes) is not actually selecting at all. It must be practically a simulation of how fit they will be in the environment - letting through genes and mutations that "pass the test" which must be indicative enough of adequate fitness through a living body.
I would also suggest that the Central Dogma of molecular biology should not be taken as gospel in evolution. It is not a proven fact as such - it is a simplification that demonstrates the orderly passage of genetic replicative information. It says nothing at all about the exceptions to this process (mutations). However, it is the very exceptions to the process which drives evolutionary progress. Natural selection is the big feedback loop for information about the environment to (indirectly) affect DNA. I am certain that there is extensive natural selection between sperm - However, this isn't exactly comparing one's fitness with others, because they are all from the one organism. An elaborate error correction mechanism (to obtain the best possible duplication of genes) is not actually selecting at all. It must be practically a simulation of how fit they will be in the environment - letting through genes and mutations that "pass the test" which must be indicative enough of adequate fitness through a living body.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Dillemma - Conviction Rant or Scientific Method
I am not sure whether to use this blog to state what I believe the scientific truth to be, or whether to methodically and scientifically (with citations) demonstrate why I am right.
At this link - The crux of the matter is laid out a plausible genetic mechanism for "smart" mutations that would clearly be a superior response to stresses than "random" mutations. If that kind of response is actually possible in an organism, those organisms that express this response would clearly be "fitter" than those that don't. In a purely Darwininan way, those without capability for "smart" mutations would not exist anymore.
At this link - The crux of the matter is laid out a plausible genetic mechanism for "smart" mutations that would clearly be a superior response to stresses than "random" mutations. If that kind of response is actually possible in an organism, those organisms that express this response would clearly be "fitter" than those that don't. In a purely Darwininan way, those without capability for "smart" mutations would not exist anymore.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)