What the…
For once, I’m speechless…
The real Agenda 21 is not a secret conspiracy. At least, it’s not secret – it’s right here. I think the main reason people make up stuff about it rather than actually reading it, is that it’s mind-numbingly boring. I certainly haven’t read it all the way through. I don’t think anyone could. From a quick skim, it’s about sustainable development, but it’s hardly radical. In fact, it’s generally pro-trade and pro-growth.
Did you ever wonder how to quantitatively analyze the quality, shape, and degree of connectivity of natural habitats? Well, there’s an open source app for that, called FRAGSTATS, and good documentation that describes the theory behind it. To summarize, it looks at area and edge, shape, core area, contrast, aggregation, and diversity. Here are just a few quotes describing some of the metrics.
“Core area is defined as the area within a patch beyond some specified depth-of-edge influence (i.e., edge distance) or buffer width.”
“Contrast refers to the magnitude of difference between adjacent patch types with respect to one or more ecological attributes at a given scale that are relevant to the organism or process under consideration.”
“Aggregation refers to the tendency of patch types to be spatially aggregated; that is,
to occur in large, aggregated or “contagious” distributions.”
“FRAGSTATS computes 3 diversity indices. These diversity measures are influenced by 2 components- richness and evenness. Richness refers to the number of patch types present; evenness refers to the distribution of area among different types.”
At the end of September, my Hope for the Future Index stood at +1. As I did last month, I’ll sort selected posts that talk about positive trends and ideas vs. negative trends, predictions, and risks. Just for fun, I’ll keep a score card and pretend my posts are some kind of indicator of whether things are getting better or worse. I’ll give posts a score from -3 to +3 based on how negative or positive they are.
Negative trends and predictions (-11):
Positive trends and predictions (+8):
Hope for the Future Index (September 2014): +1
October 2014 change: -11 + 8 = -3
Hope for the Future Index (October 2014): +1 – 3 = -2
This article from Atlantic Monthly saying Millennials are not interested in houses and cars has been talked about a lot. The car companies think they just haven’t hit on the right propaganda yet:
Don’t blame Ford. The company is trying to solve a puzzle that’s bewildering every automaker in America: How do you sell cars to Millennials (a k a Generation Y)? The fact is, today’s young people simply don’t drive like their predecessors did. In 2010, adults between the ages of 21 and 34 bought just 27 percent of all new vehicles sold in America, down from the peak of 38 percent in 1985. Miles driven are down, too. Even the proportion of teenagers with a license fell, by 28 percent, between 1998 and 2008.
In a bid to reverse these trends, General Motors has enlisted the youth-brand consultants at MTV Scratch—a corporate cousin of the TV network responsible for Jersey Shore—to give its vehicles some 20-something edge. “I don’t believe that young buyers don’t care about owning a car,” says John McFarland, GM’s 31-year-old manager of global strategic marketing. “We just think nobody truly understands them yet.” Subaru, meanwhile, is betting that it can appeal to the quirky eco-conscious individualism that supposedly characterizes this generation. “We’re trying to get the emotional connection correct,” says Doug O’Reilly, a publicist for Subaru. Ford, for its part, continues to push heavily into social media, hoping to more closely match its marketing efforts to the channels that Millennials use and trust the most.
I think Millennials have encountered a tough economy. If economic conditions improve and they have more money, they will find ways to spend it. But not necessarily on cars. I think cars are just fundamentally different from all the other things we can buy with our money. No other good just completely saturates the physical environment, and drives the entire way our physical world is set up, the way cars do. Cars have physically saturated our world to the point that there is no room to squeeze any more of them in. Getting around our car-oriented world is just not convenient any more, and people are smart enough to realize that no matter how much advertising is thrown at them. Advertising messages that cars represent “freedom” are just not going to resonate with most people any more. And as far as status and sex appeal, I don’t believe for a second that our species has fundamentally changed – those things still matter to our species of large hairless ape but they are moving on to new forms.
Cars kill, pollute, waste our space and waste our time – good riddance.
This article casts doubt on the U.S. government’s predictions of domestic oil and gas production. Granted, it is from something called the Post Carbon Institute which may have a point of view.
This report finds that tight oil production from major plays will peak before 2020. Barring major new discoveries on the scale of the Bakken or Eagle Ford, production will be far below the EIA’s forecast by 2040. Tight oil production from the two top plays, the Bakken and Eagle Ford, will underperform the EIA’s reference case oil recovery by 28% from 2013 to 2040, and more of this production will be front-loaded than the EIA estimates. By 2040, production rates from the Bakken and Eagle Ford will be less than a tenth of that projected by the EIA. Tight oil production forecast by the EIA from plays other than the Bakken and Eagle Ford is in most cases highly optimistic and unlikely to be realized at the medium- and long-term rates projected.
Shale gas production from the top seven plays will also likely peak before 2020. Barring major new discoveries on the scale of the Marcellus, production will be far below the EIA’s forecast by 2040. Shale gas production from the top seven plays will underperform the EIA’s reference case forecast by 39% from 2014 to 2040, and more of this production will be front-loaded than the EIA estimates. By 2040, production rates from these plays will be about one-third that of the EIA forecast. Production from shale gas plays other than the top seven will need to be four times that estimated by the EIA in order to meet its reference case forecast.
In this game, you are a poor person trying to pay your bills. Hint: the game isn’t fair! Well, I think that is supposed to be the point.
According to Wired, Google X is working on nanotechnology that can swim around in your blood and tell you what it finds:
“Because the core of these particles is magnetic, you can call them somewhere,” Conrad said, indicating that you could use a wearable device to gather them in the superficial veins on the inside of your wrist. “These little particles go out and mingle with the people, we call them back to one place, and we ask them: ‘Hey, what did you see? Did you find cancer? Did you see something that looks like a fragile plaque for a heart attack? Did you see too much sodium?”
From the New York Times, here are some attention grabbing quotes:
Like many people, I used to think the scientific community was divided about climate change. Then in 2004, as part of a book I was doing on oceanography, I did a search of 1,000 articles published in peer-reviewed scientific literature in the previous 10 years.
I asked how many showed evidence that disagreed with the statement made in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s report: “Most of the observed warming over the past 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.” I found that none did. Zero…
On the various issues where members of the group had been active — acid rain, ozone depletion and climate change — there appeared to be a playbook drawn from the tobacco wars: Insist that the science is unsettled, attack the researchers whose findings they disliked, demand media coverage for a “balanced” view…
When we began, we wondered about the common thread linking smoking, acid rain and global warming — what was it? Well, each was a serious problem that the unregulated free market didn’t respond to.
How does the free market prevent acid rain or climate change? It doesn’t. How do we know about the potential harm to individuals or the environment? Because of science. And how does one prevent harm? With regulation. To prevent regulation, we’ve had this campaign of doubt-mongering about science and scientists.
Here is a continuation of the Economist‘s musings about automation:
The possibility of a world in which a rather large share of the population works as drivers, simply because human labour has gotten too cheap to automate out of the job, should focus minds on the nature of the policy challenge economies are beginning to face. Is work—and the link between work and the earning of an income sufficient to live on—so important to society that we should want millions of people to function as meatware: doing jobs sensors and computers could and would do if only there were not an excess supply of humans needing to work in order to afford food and shelter?
That’s not a rhetorical question. It’s a genuine puzzle that societies will find themselves confronting in coming decades. It will be obvious to many people that the answer is no and just as obvious to many others that the answer is yes. I cannot begin to say which side will win the argument.
The idea is that as automated vehicle technology becomes more effective and inexpensive, it will start to put more drivers out of work. But having more drivers available will reduce wages for drivers, possibly below what the automated technology costs and reducing the incentive for further development of the technology. It’s logical, but this sort of thing must have happened throughout history, and technology tends to win even if it takes a while. Take agricultural technology like diesel-powered tractors – when they got cheaper and more effective, they put enormous numbers of agricultural workers out of work. For the most part, those people didn’t accept lower wages and continue as agricultural workers, they migrated and tried to find better jobs in manufacturing, jobs that were also unfortunately drying up due to globalization and automation. The result, in the U.S. at least, was formation of a (seemingly, so far) permanent new underclass. So not only are these issues about technology vs. jobs, they are about how (whether) the wealth created by the new technology is going to be shared throughout society. In theory, we could retrain people and better educate their children, while also working less and sharing income more broadly. But that doesn’t sound like the American way, does it?
LinkedIn has created some interesting maps of the most common skills and professions in cities throughout the U.S. and Europe.