Category Archives: Web Article Review

National Geographic “Greendex”

National Geographic has developed an index that tracks the green-ness of consumer behavior worldwide.

“Greendex 2012: Consumer Choice and the Environment—A Worldwide Tracking Survey” measures consumer behavior in areas relating to housing, transportation, food, and consumer goods. Greendex 2012 ranks average consumers in 17 countries according to the environmental impact of their consumption patterns and is the only survey of its kind.

The top-scoring consumers of 2012 are in the developing economies of India, China, and Brazil, in descending order. Those in emerging economies continue to round out the top tier of the Greendex ranking, while the lowest scores are all earned by consumers in industrialized countries. American consumers’ behavior still ranks as the least sustainable of all countries surveyed since the inception of the study, followed by Canadian, Japanese, and French consumers.

Meanwhile, consumers in developing countries with the highest Greendex scores are the most likely to agree that they “feel guilty about the impact [they] have on the environment,” despite having the lightest footprint as individuals. The research finds a positive relationship between the extent to which people feel guilty about their impact and the Greendex scores of average consumers in the same countries. Consumers with low Greendex scores, i.e., those demonstrating the least sustainable behavior as consumers, are least likely to feel guilty about the implications of their choices for the environment.

I don’t doubt the validity of their conclusion that the average person in China, India, and Brazil has a much lower environmental impact than the average person in Canada, Japan, France, and the United States. I am surprised though by their finding that people in developing countries express more guilt about their own personal ecological footprints. That is not my impression based on some time living and working in Asia. The small, unscientific sample of people I have interacted with are definitely concerned about air and water pollution, for health and safety reasons, and if they belong to a generation that still remembers the land they tend to feel some sadness about urbanization. But concern about health and safety is not the same thing as guilt. People are demanding cleaner air, water, and food for themselves and their families, but that doesn’t mean they are thinking much about their impact on the environment for the environment’s sake. It’s a great story to tell that as these billions of people catch up in wealth and spending to their more industrialized, urbanized neighbors, they will do so without adopting those neighbors much larger ecological footprint. I want to believe it, but I don’t believe that is the path we are on.

 

telepathy

According to the BBC, telepathy is here, sort of. Human brain waves can be read by machines, then transmitted by machines to other human brains, which can perceive them. At the moment, they are perceived only as light, not the original thoughts that they were. Before we get too excited, the researchers say they think the technology will eventually allow perception of the original thoughts, but not in our current lifetime. I can see another implication though – if brain patterns are already being read into computers, we will eventually figure out how to have computers interpret them. Assuming progress in computing power continues to be exponential or super-exponential, I wouldn’t be so sure that we won’t see this relatively soon. Lots of exciting, and scary, implications, of course.

walking and creativity

This article in the New Yorker talks about how walking stimulates thinking and creativity.

Because we don’t have to devote much conscious effort to the act of walking, our attention is free to wander—to overlay the world before us with a parade of images from the mind’s theatre. This is precisely the kind of mental state that studies have linked to innovative ideas and strokes of insight. Earlier this year, Marily Oppezzo and Daniel Schwartz of Stanford published what is likely the first set of studies that directly measure the way walking changes creativity in the moment. They got the idea for the studies while on a walk.

It goes on to talk about differences between walking in natural and park-like settings vs. city streets. But is it too much to ask for safe, park-like city streets where people can stroll and think and interact? Does this sound crazy? No, it just means picking some streets and getting all or most car traffic off them, which can be done if people live near where they work and shop. Then you drastically slow down the remaining motorized traffic, if any, plant lots of trees and provide occasional places to sit. Make those public investments, and complementary private investments will pop up. Even from a cynical economic perspective, the cost-benefit is there, I sincerely believe. And the more subtle effects that cost-benefit analysis will miss – a more creative, innovative, less-stressed society – will follow, I sincerely believe. These are really the fundamentals, I am pretty sure. Maybe we can unleash a new wave of creative problem solving. Let’s stop thinking cynically about how we can make cities a little less bad, and start thinking about how we can unleash their potential.

innovation units within big companies

According to the BBC, some big companies are forming small internal units to act more like startups:

Kassir Hussain, director of connected homes at British Gas, says Hive was founded on the “lean start-up principles” espoused by Eric Ries in his book The Lean Startup: How Today’s Entrepreneurs Use Continuous Innovation to Create Radically Successful Businesses.

In practice, this means developing a product or service step by step, constantly consulting with customers so that money isn’t wasted on features they will not want. Each stage of development is tested – so-called “validated learning” – so that future success is almost built in to the process. Normal management structures don’t apply.

“We believe that job titles can actually prevent co-operation and teamwork,” says Mr Hussain. “It’s about encouraging an entrepreneurial mentality throughout the business. Hive’s product development is in days and weeks, not months and years.”

Hive’s Active Heating system, which lets you remotely control your home heating via smartphone, now has about 80,000 customers. But the service could not have come about from within British Gas’s complex corporate structure, Mr Hussain believes.

“Nearly three-quarters of Hive’s business is staffed by people with digital backgrounds from outside the group,” he says.

I see a few lessons here. First, the group has outsiders. Second, it is protected from the internal bureaucracy. Third, it has permission to take risks, which implies permission to fail. But it tries to limit the size of failures by staying in constant touch with customers. Not mentioned here is the idea that it has adequate resources, but that must be the case.

The other important question is how you would take this concept that seems to work well with consumer products and apply it to other sectors like, say, services or government.

Herman Daly

Herman Daly has a graph explaining his concept of “uneconomic growth”.

From the graph it is evident that increasing production and consumption is rightly called economic growth only up to the economic limit. Beyond that point it becomes uneconomic growth because it increases costs by more than benefits, making us poorer, not richer. Unfortunately it seems that we perversely continue to call it economic growth! Indeed, you will not find the term “uneconomic growth” in any textbook in macroeconomics. Any increase in real GDP is called “economic growth” even if it increases costs faster than benefits.

 

meat

Here is the BBC raising the alarm about meat consumption:

Global consumption of meat needs to fall to ensure future demand for food can be met and to help protect the environment, a study says.

Research from two universities estimates greenhouse gases from food production will go up 80% if meat and dairy consumption continues to rise at its current rate.

Meanwhile National Geographic has a long, interesting article about what our ancestors actually ate. The answer: pretty much everything and anything they could get their hands on. Some societies ate a lot of meat while others did not. Some made a big deal of meat, but filled up on a steady diet of twigs and berries in between successful hunts.

In other words, there is no one ideal human diet. Aiello and Leonard say the real hallmark of being human isn’t our taste for meat but our ability to adapt to many habitats—and to be able to combine many different foods to create many healthy diets. Unfortunately the modern Western diet does not appear to be one of them.

Endogenous technological and population change under increasing water scarcity

This article in Hydrology and Earth System Sciences (which is open access) is a great simulation-based study of how natural resource scarcity, the economy and technological change interact. First, they take an economic production function and add water to it as a factor of production. Then, they simultaneously allow population growth, increasing water scarcity, and technological innovation. Technological innovation is driven by scarcity, the level of investment the society chooses to make in innovation activities, and an assumed success rate. To invest more in innovation activities, the society has to save more, which means incomes have to decline in the short term.

So, this model answers the criticism economists often make that other models have ignored the effects of scarcity on innovation. With reasonable inputs the simulation always ends in declining water consumption, declining incomes, and eventually declining population. They relate this to real case studies from Australia where drought did drive innovation (for example drip irrigation), but ultimately it was not enough – agricultural output declined, incomes declined, and eventually population declined (they didn’t die of thirst, they just moved away).

the latest in non-lethal weapons

Harper’s fills us in on the latest in non-lethal weapons for crowd control (which, ironically, are generally considered illegal in warfare):

It is a need for discretion rooted in one of the oldest fears of the ruling class — the volatility of the mob — and speaks to rising anxieties about crowd control at a time when global capitalism begins to run up against long-predicted limits to growth. Each year, some 76 million people join our current 6.7 billion in a world of looming resource scarcities, ecological collapse, and glaring inequalities of wealth; and elites are preparing to defend their power and profits. In this new era of triage, as democratic institutions and social safety nets are increasingly considered dispensable luxuries, the task of governance will be to lower the political and economic expectations of the masses without inciting full-fledged revolt. Non-lethal weapons promise to enhance what military theorists call “the political utility of force,” allowing dissent to be suppressed inconspicuously…

Flush with success, Taser International is now moving more directly into crowd control. Among its new offerings are a “Shockwave AreaDenial System,” which blankets the area in question with electrified darts, and a wireless Taser projectile with a 100-meter range, helpful for picking off “ringleaders” in unruly crowds. In line with the Pentagon’s growing interest in robotics, the company has also started a joint venture with the iRobot Corporation, maker of the Roomba vacuum cleaner, to develop Taser-armed robots; and in France, Taser’s distributor has announced plans for a flying drone that fires stun darts at criminal suspects or rioters.

Second-generation non-lethal weapons already appear to have been tested in the field. In a first in U.S. crowd control, protesters at last September’s G20 summit in Pittsburgh found themselves clutching their ears in pain as a vehicle mounted with an LRAD [Long Range Accoustic Device] circled streets emitting a piercing “deterrent tone.” First seen (but not used) at the 2004 Republican Convention, the LRAD has since been used on Iraqi protesters and on pirates off the Somali coast; the Israeli Army has used a similar device against Palestinian protesters that it calls “the Scream,” which reportedly causes overwhelming dizziness and nausea. The 2009 Pittsburgh G20 protests also produced another U.S. first when a New York social worker was arrested for posting details of police movements to a Twitter feed; when Iranian protesters made similar use of Twitter during the contested elections last summer, U.S. elites had nothing but praise.

It may be “tactical pharmacology,” finally, that holds the most promise for quelling the unrest stirred by capitalist meltdowns, imperialist wars, and environmental collapse. As JNLWD research director Susan Levine told a reporter in 1999, “We need something besides tear gas, like calmatives, anesthetic agents, that would put people to sleep or in a good mood.” Pentagon interest in “advanced riot-control agents” has long been an open secret, but just how close we are to seeing these agents in action was revealed in 2002, when the Sunshine Project, an arms-control group based in Austin, Texas, posted on the Internet a trove of Pentagon documents uncovered through the Freedom of Information Act. Among these was a fifty-page study titled “The Advantages and Limitations of Calmatives for Use as a Non-Lethal Technique,” conducted by Penn State’s Applied Research Laboratory, home of the JNLWD-sponsored Institute for Non-Lethal Defense Technologies.

Penn State’s College of Medicine researchers agreed, contrary to accepted principles of medical ethics, that “the development and use of non-lethal calmative techniques is both achievable and desirable,” and identified a large number of promising drug candidates, including benzodiazepines like Valium, serotonin-reuptake inhibitors like Prozac, and opiate derivatives like morphine, fentanyl, and carfentanyl, the last commonly used by veterinarians to sedate large animals. The only problems they saw were in developing effective delivery vehicles and regulating dosages, but these problems could be solved readily, they recommended, through strategic partnerships with the pharmaceutical industry.16

Following the Sunshine Project’s revelations, the JNLWD quickly issued denials, and subsequent Freedom of Information Act requests have been refused on national security grounds — and also, no doubt, because such research is prohibited by the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention, signed by more than 180 nations and ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1997. Little more was heard about the Pentagon’s “advanced riot-control agent” program until July 2008, when the Army announced that production was scheduled for its XM1063 “non-lethal personal suppression projectile,” an artillery shell that bursts in midair over its target, scattering 152 canisters over a 100,000-square-foot area, each dispersing a chemical agent as it parachutes down. There are many indications that a calmative, such as fentanyl, is the intended payload — a literal opiate of the masses.

“how plagues really work”

This article from Aeon argues that we shouldn’t worry so much about some random mutation of an animal virus coming out of the jungle and destroying us. Instead, it is the conditions in human society that allow new diseases to evolve and adapt to us that we should be more concerned about.

According to this argument, new germs that erupt into our species will be potential triggers for pandemics, while germs that have a long history in a host species will have evolved to be relatively benign.

Many health experts take the notion further, contending that any coming plague will come from human intrusion into the natural world. One risk, they suggest, comes when hungry people in Africa and elsewhere forge deep into forests and jungles to hunt ‘bushmeat’ – rodents, rabbits, monkeys, apes – with exposure to dangerous pathogens the unhappy result. Those pathogens move silently among wild animals, but can also explode with terrifying ferocity among people when humans venture where they shouldn’t. According to the same line of thought, another proposed risk would result when birds spread a new pandemic strain to chickens in factory farms and, ultimately, to us.

But there’s something in these scenarios that’s not entirely logical. There is nothing new in the intimate contact between animals and people. Our hominid ancestors lived on wildlife before we ever evolved into Homo sapiens: that’s why anthropologists call them hunter-gatherers, a term that still applies to some modern peoples, including bushmeat hunters in West Africa. After domesticating animals, we lived close beside them, keeping cows, pigs and chickens in farmyards and even within households for thousands of years. Pandemics arise out of more than mere contact between human beings and animals: from an evolutionary point of view, there is a missing step between animal pathogen and human pandemic that’s been almost completely overlooked in these terrifying but entirely speculative ideas.

According to the evolutionary epidemiologist Paul W Ewald of the University of Louisville, the most dangerous infectious diseases are almost always not animal diseases freshly broken into the human species, but diseases adapted to humanity over time: smallpox, malaria, tuberculosis, leprosy, typhus, yellow fever, polio. In order to adapt to the human species, a germ needs to cycle among people – from person to person to person. In each iteration, the strains best adapted to transmission will be the ones that spread. So natural selection will push circulating strains towards more and more effective transmission, and therefore towards increasing adaptation to human hosts. This process necessarily takes place among people.

It goes on to talk about some major plagues in history, including the 1918 influenza which is “the rod by which all other pandemics are measured”.

We could take some comfort in all this – the diseases that cause the most suffering are the ones that evolve within and amongst people, suggesting that there should always be sub-groups of people who develop immunity to them. This suggests that despite terrible suffering, they shouldn’t represent an existential threat to the species. There is a plague in history that I find even more horrifying that 1918 or the Black Death, and that is the almost complete ravaging of Native American populations after 1492. That was a case of diseases that evolved in and amongst human populations, that were then unleashed on another isolated population (possibly a very large one) that had no resistance to them. So as much as we worry about international travel spreading germs, maybe it means it would be harder for some germ to completely sneak up on us, since there are virtually no human populations that are truly isolated anymore.

There is still the worst possible scenario though – somebody taking one of the ugly human-adapted diseases mentioned in this article, and purposely modifying it into something that the population has no immunity to.