Dinner with Sir Bob Geldof

Last night I went to a charity dinner in Auckland where Sir Bob Geldof was speaking. Thanks to the guys at Duco who organised the event, I was lucky enough to be seated on Sir Bob's table, and close enough to have a chat to him for a good half an hour or so over dinner about our shared passions of people and the planet (To be honest, Sir Bob is probably more passionate about the people, and I'm probably more passionate about the planet). My polite request for a photo was unfortunately stymied by Paul Holmes, but Paul had his own problems to worry about after publicly calling Sir Bob 'Bob Dylan' more than once during the evening.

To be honest, Sir Bob is probably one of the best, most compelling, most human and accessible speakers I've ever heard. I've heard the Clintons, Obama, Kissinger, Branson and others speak live, and rarely have I been more moved or compelled by one person's passion and life story. Geldof has achieved some amazing things including being better known for Live Aid than singing, raising hundreds of millions of dollars for Africa, being the person instrumental in getting billions of dollars of third world countries debt waived, and pressuring the G8 leaders to do more to help. Surprisingly he had much praise for President Bush for doing more than any other President to help Africa, and related his humorous tales of them hanging out as buddies only a week or so prior.

Sir Bob's information about how Europe has subsidies for farmers that mean that their farmers produce more food than could possibly be required, while African farmers are priced out of the global markets, while Europeans are taxed to store all of that excess food, and then ultimately dispose of it when it goes off, all occurring while millions of Africans regularly starve to death (especially during the Ethiopian Live Aid era), when Africa is just 8 miles away from Europe, did a good job of making everyone in the room feel ashamed to live in the first world.

Sir Bob's aims of brining the third would out of poverty, or at least into a more equal playing field are certainly admirable, and definitely compelling - and I think that we have a human obligation to implement a lot of the policies that he is so passionate about. HOWEVER, as far as the planet is concerned, I have some real concerns that it's just NOT going to be possible in the utopian manner in which a lot of people including Sir Geldof would like to believe.

Currently humanity is ALREADY using up the resources of the planet in a non-sustainable manner. In fact we are already chewing up the planet at a rate that is at least twice the replacement rate of natural resources in every area - so for example, forests are getting chopped down at least twice as fast as they are planted, fisheries are being exploited at least twice as fast as they can recover, water is being diverted for dams and irrigation twice as fast as our needs expand, and the list goes on. In fact, in the case of oil and coal, it took billions of years for those resources to form, and it's only taken around 100 years for us to use perhaps half the resource, so in that particular case, we're using up the resource perhaps a billion times faster than those resources will recover.

What this all means is that even if our global population was to stay steady, and use the same amount of fuel, resources etc, there WILL be a point in the future where we come up against a wall (which will be MUCH worse than the financial crisis), where we simply run out of resources to live in the way that we have, and we will either perish in the billions, or find new, more sustainable ways of living. Even if you don't believe in global warming, it's still easy to see that the whole world has been built out of the energy from coal and oil, and that perhaps there is only 50 years of those resources left. The whole world is going to have to shift to running on sustainable energy over the next 50 years or we're stuffed. Considering it can take 20 years to get a dam consented, planned and built, this isn't a lot of time.

Now here is where my concern for us and the planet really kicks in. As I have outlined - we ALREADY have a HUGE problem to deal with in the way that we are living in terms of Global Warming, and environmental degradation. Now if our impact on the planet was to DOUBLE, then obviously that problem would become a lot worse and we would hit the wall twice as fast. But I guess you might say 'well - we have to solve these problems anyway, so it won't be much worse to solve the problems for twice the number of people'. But what if I told you that our impact on the planet was going to be HUNDREDS of times the current environmental impact if we implement all of Sir Bob's wildest desires and lift all of the third wold out of poverty to a level of living comparable with our own?

You see, the Impact on the planet "I", is not just a factor of population, but also a factor of the Affluence, and resource use of each person "A", as well as the Technological impact "T" of each person, such as whether they use a hand plow, or a giant mechanical plow. We have been told that the population is going to grow to 9 billion people by 2050, so that's already an increase in resource use of 50%. But one thing that a lot of people aren't aware of, or don't think about, is that the average third world person currently consumes JUST 1/50th the resources of the average first world person. So for example, they don't have a car, plasma TV, big house, lots of water use, throwaway meals, clothes etc. The other thing is that there are currently TWICE as many third world people as first world people. So if ALL of the third world was to achieve a level of Affluence on par with the first world, we would have twice as many people using 50 times the resources, or around 100 times the resource use. The other factor is if course the Technology factor, that allow a single person to have so much more of an impact on the planet than previously - think of a chainsaw vs an axe, a tractor vs a manual hoe etc. The technological impact I believe would be around a 10 times multiplier, but lets just assume that it doubles.

So: our impact "I" on the planet in the future, if we lift the whole world out of poverty, will be an increase of: 50% (6 billion to 9 billion people); TIMES an Affluence impact on the planet of around 100; TIMES a Technological multiplier of at least 2; EQUALS: around THREE HUNDRED TIMES THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ON THE PLANET OF TODAY. Who wants to put their hand up and say that they believe that the planet could support a rate of exploitation 300 times current levels?

Now, the first world is already in population decline, because we have a level of Affluence that makes us comfortable, and we don't need to have large numbers of children to support us. In some African countries, the AVERAGE number of children per family is 9. So the challenge is HOW do we lift the third world to a level of wealth where they don't feel the need to have so many children BEFORE the world runs into an environmental crisis hundreds of times worse than the current financial crisis? Well - to be honest, I just don't believe that we can. My personal opinion is that in the coming decades we will see mass starvation and famines that make the Ethiopian crisis of 1984 look pale by comparison. We need to do what we can, but perhaps its time that the world started talking about having voluntary goals of a world population lower than todays, and a 'one child' policy similar to China's if the third world is to receive aid at all?

I'm NOT suggesting we kill anyone off, or let people starve if we can prevent it. BUT if humanity is going to co-exist with the rest of the animals and the planet for thousands of years to come, do you think it would be better to have a steady-state of around ONE billion people on the planet, all living sustainably and harmoniously, all being able to live close to the sea or in beautiful natural surroundings, or do you think it would be better to have TEN billion people all living in a polluted and charred earth, and all living in tiny concrete apartment blocks next to smouldering rubbish dumps? It took 10,000 generations of humanity to reach one billion people, and it will take just over ONE generation to go from one billion to ten billion. Perhaps it's time that we put the needs of the planet and the millions of future generations first, and talked about that taboo subject of setting a population limit for the planet before it's too late.

Sir Bob Geldof visits NZ herald article here

John Key under fire from the sloppy thinkers

On page 24 of the NZ Herald on Sunday today (and quoting from the opposable thumb blog), there is the following statement: "Key would be the last person qualified to run an economy, especially as the particular business he was in - investment banking - is all about maximising profit pretty much regardless of other considerations, and doubly especially given the current crisis, which has been visited on us by the colossal mismanagement of, you guessed it, investment bankers".

I didn't think this was fair on Key, so I thought I'd make a few brief comments:

- If you were in a plane, and planes all around the would started falling out of the sky, and then your pilot died, would you rather put someone in the seat with plenty of prior experience as a pilot? or would you think it sensible to blame the problem on all pilots and put someone with no experience in the job instead? 

- All Kiwi's should want the country to do well - what is wrong with being aspirational and having a leader who wants the country to run profitably? I like the idea of sound business principles being applied on a country level so that we all end up wealthier.  If Key has experience and a successful track record in maximising profit, then isn't that a good thing for us all?

- Would Key *really* be the *last* person qualified to run the economy? I suppose a P-addicted gang member could be more exciting...

- Is cutting political commentary really your skill if you use expressions like 'doubly especially'?

Encourage standardisation, reduce waste, and save the world

Standardisation is a wonderful thing. Without standards, we wouldn't have telephones, tyres that fit our cars, electrical appliances that you can plug into the wall, batteries to fit anything, or in fact almost anything that you see in the modern world. The Internet was in fact so successful ONLY because it was based on standards that any computer, on any platform could access, and so it cut through all those Mac/PC/Desktop/Server and other device compatibility issues that used to exist, and therefore made electronic information much freer and accessible to anyone, on any device.

But although standardisation is all around us, there is still SO MUCH that could be standardised, and wherever you standardise, you generally reduce inefficiency, waste and cost. And if you can do that, you can help reduce the environmental mess that we have all contributed to, that has spoilt almost every corner of our precious world.

Let me give you a simple example of how standardisation could save consumers money, save businesses money, AND be good for the planet - all at the SAME TIME.

- Think about it - Every laptop, cellphone, camera, music player or portable device currently comes with it's own plug in charger when you purchase it. I just counted, and I personally have around 20 of these little black transformers lying around my house unused at present from old laptops, digital cameras, or devices that I can't find or can't remember what they are for.

- Imagine what a revolution it would be if ALL the electronics companies worldwide actually decided JUST to standardise on a power adapter, so that every time you wanted to charge something, you could easily borrow ANY charger - at your friends house for example. It's an environmental crime that there isn't a universal charger with a standard voltage for mobile phones, a universal charger for laptops that would work on any laptop, and so on. 

- The companies who make all the devices would all benefit, because they wouldn't need to produce all those millions of chargers every time they produce a new product - saving them money. Chargers could then be sold separately (a new revenue stream), so you'd just buy 2 chargers - for example - one for work, one for home, for your laptop. When you got a new laptop, you'd simply keep your existing chargers for home, car and work, and hopefully you'd get a discount on the new laptop too because it wouldn't have come with a charger.

- The planet would benefit, because far far fewer plastics and raw materials would be used in manufacturing things that are just thrown away, so resources would be conserved for other things, and less pollution and waste would reach landfills, meaning fewer heavy metals and poisons leeching into our water supplies.

- Other benefits would pop up as a result of the standardisation. For example - charging leads or ports could be provided at places like bus terminals and airports, and in every new car, so that you'd be able to recharge any device you had with you easily if it went flat by accident. Wouldn't it be nice to have a port on the bus that would re-charge your iPod and phone?

This is just one example I can think of where standardisation would produce a benefit for everyone, and the planet too. How about other ideas such as making standard components for every day items, so that not everything needs to be thrown out to be upgraded? I must have 10 old, unused cellphones lying around from years of being in business - imagine if I could re-use the cases of the phones, and just buy a new 'brain' for the phone much more cheaply in order to upgrade. Again - it would be cheaper for consumers, and produce vastly less waste. What about making standardised computer cases with easy to upgrade parts, so that anyone can upgrade to a new PC more cost-effectively without having to take the whole metal case to the dump?

Most people have no idea how much energy is required to actually manufacture the things we use. To make a plasma TV, literally hundreds of tons of rock are dug up to mine the raw materials. Humanity needs to start being smarter, by re-using things as much as possible so that things can be upgraded rather than continually manufactured and thrown out a few months later. Re-using things and standardisation will not only be good for our pockets and the environment, but I believe will become a vital part of combatting Global Warming in the years to come.

Maths, The worlds largest machine, and the US economy

Lets face it - regular people just aren't that good at doing maths, and don't have brains that comprehend really huge numbers. In fact - almost no-one does, because our brains didn't have any evolutionary pressure to deal with numbers in the thousands, millions, billions or trillions.

Ask most people how much a a Billion dollars is, and they have a concept in their head of 'more than a million', but in actual fact it is 1,000 times more, which is actually a really large and staggering number, considering how large a million already is. Try counting to 1,000 sometime, and it will give you a much improved concept of how much bigger a Billion is than a Million.

This issue of comprehending large numbers gets us into trouble, because we often end up making scenarios equivalent in our minds that really aren't. For example - 3,000 Americans dying in 9/11 was a terrible tragedy, but was it really that much more important than the 1,000,000 people that died in the genocide in Rwanda, where basically the whole country cut each other up with machetes, an event that the world pretty much ignored?

Geeks are the perfect people to deal with these issues, because they are much more used to dealing with large numbers. Where a normal person might be tempted to spend $100,000 to try and save a first-world person dying of self-induced lung cancer and diabetes from smoking and over-eating, Bill Gates does the math and works out that he can save people in Africa for just a few bucks each, and therefore that is a much more efficient way to spend his money.

So when it came to spend a huge amount of money, and build the worlds largest and most advanced machine, of course geeks were our only option. A week or so ago, the Large Hadron Collider was switched on, bringing to life an amazing machine that: was built by 10,000 of the worlds smartest people; must be kept colder than the outer reaches of space; can accelerate particles to 99.999999% the speed of light; has a diameter of 27kms; houses the worlds most powerful electromagnets; uses more power than most countries; and can essentially re-create the conditions that were present at the dawn of the universe. 

Now - The LHC was deemed so expensive and complex that no one country could fund it or design it - so a consortium of 80 countries pulled together to try and find the money to answer the largest question of all - "where did we come from, and what are we made of" - and the total cost of the LHC? Around $10 Billion. Now - knowing that figure, and the fact that 80 countries pulled together to find that kind of money (which is actually an ENORMOUS sum), do you feel a bit more nervous that the USA is having to bail out it's financial institutions to the sum of SEVEN HUNDRED BILLION? I sure do - that's about $2,500 for every man, woman and child in the USA, and considering how many people I saw there that can't even afford a square meal, it makes me wonder if the problem won't take a bit more fixing than good 'ol boy Bush signing a cheque.

I think that the only way that that kind of money can be found is if the USA frantically starts printing money (as I believe it has already been doing to fund the 'war on terror'), the end result of which I suspect may be a permanent devaluation of the US currency. Are we witnessing the end of US world dominance? I suspect so, but we'll all be worse off, as the US has done a pretty good job of keeping the world an orderly place. In the future, with a USA that's falling apart, high oil prices, high food prices, Global Warming, and an environment that's falling apart every where you look, humanity will really need to start rolling up it's sleeves...

Palin: A celebration of mediocrity

I've been watching the US vice-presidential race unfolding, and I have to say that I'm scared. Sarah Palin i'm sure is a nice, decent person, but frankly I don't believe she has any of the necessary skills to run the world's most powerful country. Which is exactly what will happen if the Republicans win the upcoming election, and then the ageing Mcain kicks the bucket mid-term.

The scariest thing is that the Americans seem to be completely in love with Palin precisely because she is 'normal'. "She's one of us" they say, She's not elitist, we like her 'down to earth' values. But in what other profession would you ever give someone huge responsibility because they are 'like you', rather than having the necessary skills? Would you want a pilot who is a 'good guy', or an excellent pilot? Would you want a brain surgeon who plays ball on Sundays, or who has trained for more years than anyone else?

Another concerning thing is Palin's confidence - she seems to have no sense of her own limitations. She's up for anything. Everything is an immediate "YES". No financial experience? "no worries - i'll guide the country through this difficult period". No international political experience, and I only just got a passport in the last few months? "I'll handle the crisis in Iraq and Iran". No medical training? "I'll operate on this wounded soldier right now!". 

To be honest I would be a lot more comfortable if she had some idea of her own inexperience. But her enthusiasm combined with her extremely right-wing values such as "No abortions - even if the mother is under-age and has been raped", and her belief that everything happens due to the will of god, and not because of complex political interactions, make her a ticking time bomb in international relations. If she ever controls the world's most powerful army and largest Nuclear weapons arsenal, then I think we all need to be very, very afraid... (watch this video to laugh and shudder)

Windows 98 Rocks! (In 2008)

I recently employed a university student to do some work for me, and when I sat him down at the computer I had set up for him, was embarrassed to find out that all of a sudden it had decided to grind to a complete halt. MS word took around 5 minutes to start up, and even the shiny Vista start button took half a minute to pop up with it’s lovely animated fade in.

Which got me thinking: how come my $800 Playstation3 can reliably immerse me in amazing 3D, highly-graphic, CPU-intensive gameplay day after day, but a relatively new $1,600 workstation can’t even render a boring, static word document without having some problem or another?

After checking for rogue programs, doing a full virus scan, and other trouble-shooting basics, no solution to the problem could be found. The only solution seemed to be to do a complete re-install. Then I realized that I have been doing this same routine on all of the PCs I own, and some of the Macs, at least once per year for the last 10 years or so.

As I was looking for my box of software installation disks, and the one that came with this particular machine, I came across on old version of Windows 98 second edition, and suddenly had a sneaky thought – why not give downgrading a go?

As the installation process for Windows 98 started on my P4 machine with 2GB of ram, I couldn’t help giggling joyfully at the speed of the install, and the fact that I could remember installing this piece of software on a machine with a 2GB hard drive – let alone 2GB of RAM.

This giggling turned into sheer amazement once I had installed a few old applications - they would open instantly almost in advance of a mouse click. I had never experienced such speed! Of course, I started running into problems – such as the fact that drivers haven’t been released for parts of the machine, or many of my peripherals. But it got me thinking:

I realized that hardware and software manufacturers have been keeping in step - machines are getting faster and faster, but software is getting more and more complex at exactly the same rate. Which means that the actual speed of our experience on the computer has been exactly the same for years. In many respects, I can’t remember Windows 3.1 being any slower to do word processing than my current machine.

One solution could be to make all the software companies take an enforced 2-year sabattical so that they end up a bit behind the hardware guys, and then hopefully our computers will always be speedy!

Another option perhaps is that someone could write a game for the PS3, that is actually an advanced, 3D version of Windows 98, with word processing, spreadsheets, databases, storage and internet browsing, and is also a closed system (like a game) so that it can’t get viruses or slow down.

Then with all the productivity we’d all gain by everything working so much faster, and the money we’d save by the whole package being cheaper, we could get off the computer and read a book every now and again!

*of course I’m partly joking with my suggestions. But perhaps…