Actually this is just a place for my stuff, ya know? That's all, a little place for my stuff. That's all I want, that's all you need in life, is a little place for your stuff, ya know? I can see it on your table, everybody's got a little place for their stuff. This is my stuff, that's your stuff, that'll be his stuff over there. That's all you need in life, a little place for your stuff. That's all your house is: a place to keep your stuff. If you didn't have so much stuff, you wouldn't need a house. You could just walk around all the time.
A house is just a pile of stuff with a cover on it. You can see that when you're taking off in an airplane. You look down, you see everybody's got a little pile of stuff. All the little piles of stuff. And when you leave your house, you gotta lock it up. Wouldn't want somebody to come by and take some of your stuff. They always take the good stuff. They never bother with that crap you're saving. All they want is the shiny stuff. That's what your house is, a place to keep your stuff while you go out and get...more stuff!
Sometimes you gotta move, gotta get a bigger house. Why? No room for your stuff anymore. Did you ever notice when you go to somebody else's house, you never quite feel a hundred percent at home? You know why? No room for your stuff. Somebody else's stuff is all over the goddamn place! And if you stay overnight, unexpectedly, they give you a little bedroom to sleep in. Bedroom they haven't used in about eleven years. Someone died in it, eleven years ago. And they haven't moved any of his stuff! Right next to the bed there's usually a dresser or a bureau of some kind, and there's NO ROOM for your stuff on it. Somebody else's shit is on the dresser.
Have you noticed that their stuff is shit and your shit is stuff? God! And you say, "Get that shit offa there and let me put my stuff down!"
Sometimes you leave your house to go on vacation. And you gotta take some of your stuff with you. Gotta take about two big suitcases full of stuff, when you go on vacation. You gotta take a smaller version of your house. It's the second version of your stuff. And you're gonna fly all the way to Honolulu. Gonna go across the continent, across half an ocean to Honolulu. You get down to the hotel room in Honolulu and you open up your suitcase and you put away all your stuff. "Here's a place here, put a little bit of stuff there, put some stuff here, put some stuff--you put your stuff there, I'll put some stuff--here's another place for stuff, look at this, I'll put some stuff here..." And even though you're far away from home, you start to get used to it, you start to feel okay, because after all, you do have some of your stuff with you. That's when your friend calls up from Maui, and says, "Hey, why don'tchya come over to Maui for the weekend and spend a couple of nights over here."
Oh, no! Now what do I pack? Right, you've gotta pack an even SMALLER version of your stuff. The third version of your house. Just enough stuff to take to Maui for a coupla days. You get over to Maui--I mean you're really getting extended now, when you think about it. You got stuff ALL the way back on the mainland, you got stuff on another island, you got stuff on this island. I mean, supply lines are getting longer and harder to maintain. You get over to your friend's house on Maui and he gives you a little place to sleep, a little bed right next to his windowsill or something. You put some of your stuff up there. You put your stuff up there. You got your Visine, you got your nail clippers, and you put everything up. It takes about an hour and a half, but after a while you finally feel okay, say, "All right, I got my nail clippers, I must be okay." That's when your friend says, "Aaaaay, I think tonight we'll go over the other side of the island, visit a pal of mine and maybe stay over."
Aww, no. NOW what do you pack? Right--you gotta pack an even SMALLER version of your stuff. The fourth version of your house. Only the stuff you know you're gonna need. Money, keys, comb, wallet, lighter, hanky, pen, smokes, rubber and change. Well, only the stuff you HOPE you're gonna need.
(All material written and owned by George Carlin)
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Sunday, March 8, 2009
The Girl Who Silenced the World for 5 mins
A coursemate forwarded this to me, and I thought it's one of the best clips ever to appear on Youtube. It features Severn Cullis-Suzuki, at the age of 12, speaking at the United Nations Earth Summit at Rio de Janeiro in 1992 (that was where the Convention on Biodiversity was signed). Watch it, and think about what you were doing at 12, and if you are way past 12, what are you doing now?
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Crocodile Post on STOMP
I read this post on STOMP, which basically was about this Singaporean who went to a Johor crocodile farm, and "learnt" stuff from the farm's owner. I quote the following from the post:
""The crocodile has no tongue and according to the farm owner, Mr Ng, it has 72 teeth which can even snap off your leg if you are within reach of its mouth."
Correction #1: The crocodile HAS a tongue. It is attached by a membrane to the bottom of its mouth so it's movement is limited and sometimes looks like it has no tongue. In fact for these estuarine (i.e. saltwater) crocodiles, the tongue is one of it's most important organs because it has salt glands to excrete the salt that gets into its physiology from it's saltwater environment in the wild.
Correction #2: Estuarine crocodiles have 64-68 teeth. Not 72. Firstly, there isn't a fixed value, and secondly, 72 is a bit high.
I suppose the STOMPer wouldn't have known better, but it's disturbing that supposed "experts" give dodgy information.
""The crocodile has no tongue and according to the farm owner, Mr Ng, it has 72 teeth which can even snap off your leg if you are within reach of its mouth."
Correction #1: The crocodile HAS a tongue. It is attached by a membrane to the bottom of its mouth so it's movement is limited and sometimes looks like it has no tongue. In fact for these estuarine (i.e. saltwater) crocodiles, the tongue is one of it's most important organs because it has salt glands to excrete the salt that gets into its physiology from it's saltwater environment in the wild.
Correction #2: Estuarine crocodiles have 64-68 teeth. Not 72. Firstly, there isn't a fixed value, and secondly, 72 is a bit high.
I suppose the STOMPer wouldn't have known better, but it's disturbing that supposed "experts" give dodgy information.
Friday, February 27, 2009
E-hoot for Dr. Jane Goodall
Dr. Jane Goodall will be 75 this April 3rd (And she still occasionally visits the field!). The Jane Goodall Institute has set up a webpage for an E-hoot (E-card, but chimps hoot, and so it will be an E-hoot for her). Anyone who would like to send her your greetings please do so at this link, and watch the great video there.
Send Dr. Goodall your birthday wishes!
http://www.janegoodall.org/splash/landing-JaneBdayRS.asp
Send Dr. Goodall your birthday wishes!
http://www.janegoodall.org/splash/landing-JaneBdayRS.asp
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children
There is a often used proverb, by David Brower "We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children" (and no, it is not a native Indian proverb that many people think it is), which can be found in numerous conservation articles. Today, Dr. Jane Goodall gave a lecture here in Oxford, and this is what she said:
"Someone said that we do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, but borrow it from out children. Look at the world around us. The line is a lie! We aren't borrowing from our children. Borrowing means that we will pay it back, but we aren't paying back. We are STEALING from our children...."
This is the second time I've sat in on Dr. Goodall's lecture, and again she hits me with something new to think about. Give it a ponder in the Singapore context. Parents work hard, spend a lot on luxuries (for themselves and their children), driving consumption through the roof. These parents are thinking they are giving their children good lives, and ingraining in them values of materialism, so that their children will plunder whatever's left from their grandchildren. Dr. Goodall also went on to say:
"We shouldn't be stealing from our future generations. We haven't paid them back yet, but we should."
And so it must be. Think about it. Are you stealing your (whether born or not) children's future? Are you willing to pay it back? Are we willing to be the generation that will shoulder the responsibility of collectively paying back for the generations past that have now returned to the soil?
On a brighter note, Dr. Goodall mentioned to me in the little bit of time we spoke, that she will be in Singapore this June! Watch this space for details of the possibility of events and lectures that might be available!
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Carrying Capacity and Singapore
I remember reading with great interest some forum with regards to population size, and carrying capacity with regards to Singapore.
For the technically uninclined, here's the definitions for the key word.
Carrying capacity: The maximum population size that can be supported by the available resources, symbolised as K. (Campbell and Reece, 2005)
The forum page had someone try to calculate the carrying capacity of Singapore using area size (680 sq kilometres or 168,032 acres roughly) and the average area of land required to feed an average American (something like 1.5 acres). So that gives a figure of K=112,021 people that Singapore can support. Given that the Singapore Government is targetting 6 million to sustain long-term economic growth, the post then asserts that the population of Singapore will plunge by more than 90%. This is very alarmist. The problem is far more complex than the writer thinks. Global carryng capacity for humans lies around 10-15 billion (depending on who's calculation you look at). And given the way we import our food, effective land use in this aspect for Singapore is actually far bigger than the actual land area of Singapore itself. However, all these calculations should not be taken too seriously.
Carrying capacity is a snapshot number. It is dependent upon many factors, like technology and efficiency, production and consumption, and the interactions between the biotic and abiotic factors in the environment (Arrow et al., 1995). A single technological innovation in primary production may significantly raise carrying capacity, just as a single comet hitting the Earth will significantly reduce carrying capacity.
The example of the collapse of the Roman population in the ancient times was also cited, but these were self-sustaining, agricultural populations, a period of time which technology very much infantile, way before innovations like the Haber process.
Perhaps we should look at other indicators. How much of global terrestrial primary production is taken by humans. It's actually around 40% (Vitousek et al.), and probably rising due to forest and arable land loss due to poor farming practices, and an exponentially increasing human population and the accompanying increase in consumption. Now that statistic makes more sense, and should make people sit up and take notice.
How do we relate the 10-15 billion carrying capacity and the disproportionate amount of primary production we consume given we're only halfway, or less to the limit? I think here, perhaps it is useful to recall again that the carrying capacity number is a snapshot number, done using curves and models of the current situation (or the situation as of the calculation). One thing that mathematical models cannot predict is preference, and the human desire for excess. People are not content with enough. They want 'more than enough'. Everyone wants to consume at the rate of Bill Gates and Hollywood celebrities. That is one of the main problems. As the human population increases, and the corresponding number of people having such desires, and a good number of them working towards and 'achieving' these targets, the scenarios start to change. Mathematical parameters change, and the carrying capacity is slashed because what society deems as enough is actually ecologically excessive. Couple that with the exponential increase in human population, then it might seem that the two limits are racing towards each other.
At this point in time, it's not the end of the world. A 90% drop in population for Singapore is way off the target for now, while the current estimates of carrying capacity remain relatively high up. However, we should not try to meet carrying capacity. In fact, the further away we are from carrying capacity the better. There must be a significant buffer between the two points. We could go about it by working on both points. Raise the carrying capacity, and reduce the rate of human population increase. People should control and bring down the upper limits of consumption, so more resources are freed up and this can actually increase carrying capacity. Nations with disproportionate increase in populations should also watch their birth rates. If not for ecological reasons, then for humanitarian reasons, as often, these are areas where poverty levels are relatively high.
So how does Singapore fit in all this? 6 million people seems a lot for an island nation like ours, especially during rush hour in the MRT trains, but the effective terrestrial land use area for things like food production and energy resource extend the area far beyond her sovereign boundaries. Singapore is technologically advanced, with a top notch sanitary infrastructure (I know coffee shops leave a lot to be desired but at least the flushing works and it's not a hole in the ground). As such, carry capacity for Singapore in effect could be very high indeed. HOWEVER, that said, our problem, like much of humanity, is that we still require a massive shift in mindset in terms of our consumption and our attitudes towards nature, biodiversity, conservation and their balance against economic growth and well-being.
References:
Campbell, N.A and Reece, J.B. (2005) Biology. 7th Edn. Pearson Education Inc.
Arrow, K., Bolin, B., Costanza, R., Dasgupta, P., Folke, C., Holling, C.S., Bengt-Jansson, B-O., Levin, S., Maler, K.G., Perrings, C., and Pimentel, D. (1995) Economic Growth, Carrying Capacity and the Environment. Science 268: 520-521
Vitousek, P.M., Ehrlich, P.R., Ehrlich, A.H., and Matson, P.A. (1986) Human Appropriation of the Products of Photosynthesis. BioScience 36: 368-380
For the technically uninclined, here's the definitions for the key word.
Carrying capacity: The maximum population size that can be supported by the available resources, symbolised as K. (Campbell and Reece, 2005)
The forum page had someone try to calculate the carrying capacity of Singapore using area size (680 sq kilometres or 168,032 acres roughly) and the average area of land required to feed an average American (something like 1.5 acres). So that gives a figure of K=112,021 people that Singapore can support. Given that the Singapore Government is targetting 6 million to sustain long-term economic growth, the post then asserts that the population of Singapore will plunge by more than 90%. This is very alarmist. The problem is far more complex than the writer thinks. Global carryng capacity for humans lies around 10-15 billion (depending on who's calculation you look at). And given the way we import our food, effective land use in this aspect for Singapore is actually far bigger than the actual land area of Singapore itself. However, all these calculations should not be taken too seriously.
Carrying capacity is a snapshot number. It is dependent upon many factors, like technology and efficiency, production and consumption, and the interactions between the biotic and abiotic factors in the environment (Arrow et al., 1995). A single technological innovation in primary production may significantly raise carrying capacity, just as a single comet hitting the Earth will significantly reduce carrying capacity.
The example of the collapse of the Roman population in the ancient times was also cited, but these were self-sustaining, agricultural populations, a period of time which technology very much infantile, way before innovations like the Haber process.
Perhaps we should look at other indicators. How much of global terrestrial primary production is taken by humans. It's actually around 40% (Vitousek et al.), and probably rising due to forest and arable land loss due to poor farming practices, and an exponentially increasing human population and the accompanying increase in consumption. Now that statistic makes more sense, and should make people sit up and take notice.
How do we relate the 10-15 billion carrying capacity and the disproportionate amount of primary production we consume given we're only halfway, or less to the limit? I think here, perhaps it is useful to recall again that the carrying capacity number is a snapshot number, done using curves and models of the current situation (or the situation as of the calculation). One thing that mathematical models cannot predict is preference, and the human desire for excess. People are not content with enough. They want 'more than enough'. Everyone wants to consume at the rate of Bill Gates and Hollywood celebrities. That is one of the main problems. As the human population increases, and the corresponding number of people having such desires, and a good number of them working towards and 'achieving' these targets, the scenarios start to change. Mathematical parameters change, and the carrying capacity is slashed because what society deems as enough is actually ecologically excessive. Couple that with the exponential increase in human population, then it might seem that the two limits are racing towards each other.
At this point in time, it's not the end of the world. A 90% drop in population for Singapore is way off the target for now, while the current estimates of carrying capacity remain relatively high up. However, we should not try to meet carrying capacity. In fact, the further away we are from carrying capacity the better. There must be a significant buffer between the two points. We could go about it by working on both points. Raise the carrying capacity, and reduce the rate of human population increase. People should control and bring down the upper limits of consumption, so more resources are freed up and this can actually increase carrying capacity. Nations with disproportionate increase in populations should also watch their birth rates. If not for ecological reasons, then for humanitarian reasons, as often, these are areas where poverty levels are relatively high.
So how does Singapore fit in all this? 6 million people seems a lot for an island nation like ours, especially during rush hour in the MRT trains, but the effective terrestrial land use area for things like food production and energy resource extend the area far beyond her sovereign boundaries. Singapore is technologically advanced, with a top notch sanitary infrastructure (I know coffee shops leave a lot to be desired but at least the flushing works and it's not a hole in the ground). As such, carry capacity for Singapore in effect could be very high indeed. HOWEVER, that said, our problem, like much of humanity, is that we still require a massive shift in mindset in terms of our consumption and our attitudes towards nature, biodiversity, conservation and their balance against economic growth and well-being.
References:
Campbell, N.A and Reece, J.B. (2005) Biology. 7th Edn. Pearson Education Inc.
Arrow, K., Bolin, B., Costanza, R., Dasgupta, P., Folke, C., Holling, C.S., Bengt-Jansson, B-O., Levin, S., Maler, K.G., Perrings, C., and Pimentel, D. (1995) Economic Growth, Carrying Capacity and the Environment. Science 268: 520-521
Vitousek, P.M., Ehrlich, P.R., Ehrlich, A.H., and Matson, P.A. (1986) Human Appropriation of the Products of Photosynthesis. BioScience 36: 368-380
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Treating the Symptom but Not the Root?
The BBC website posted this article today, "'Climate-proof' crop hunt begins".
The idea of the whole project was to produce cultivars of crop plants that will be able to cope with impacts from climate change, and that crops must "..must produce more food, on the same amount of land, with less water, and more expensive energy".
However, is this the right way to approach the climate-change problem? Does this step give administrations more time and excuse to delay setting or meeting emissions targets, since food resources would have become "more secure"? It smacks of short-sightedness as far as I am concerned. Humans have gotten ourselves, and a large proportion of other lifeforms on Earth in trouble BECAUSE of the way we live, and BECAUSE of this "治标不治本" mentality (Treating the symptoms but not the root). It is very likely that too many humans are living in their isolation bubbles with no understanding and appreciation of geography and ecology (E.O Wilson agrees with me on that). So what if the experiment succeeds? People will continue to overconsume and overpopulate such that the results of the experiment would soon be overwhelmed. And then what? Produce an even more "super" super-crop? Where is the limit? Where do we draw the line? How about doing things the more painful (in the short run) but more sustainable (in the long run) way? Amazing revolutions and large-scale changes in the history of mankind have almost always resulted from us being forced into a corner and having out backs to walls. Instead of trying to escape the reality and gravity of the climate change situation, why don't we take a leaf out of the ancient military strategy books and adopt a 破釜沉舟 way (Basically it means to remove all forms of retreat and escape so there is no choice but to face the problem)? Would that not be better?
The idea of the whole project was to produce cultivars of crop plants that will be able to cope with impacts from climate change, and that crops must "..must produce more food, on the same amount of land, with less water, and more expensive energy".
However, is this the right way to approach the climate-change problem? Does this step give administrations more time and excuse to delay setting or meeting emissions targets, since food resources would have become "more secure"? It smacks of short-sightedness as far as I am concerned. Humans have gotten ourselves, and a large proportion of other lifeforms on Earth in trouble BECAUSE of the way we live, and BECAUSE of this "治标不治本" mentality (Treating the symptoms but not the root). It is very likely that too many humans are living in their isolation bubbles with no understanding and appreciation of geography and ecology (E.O Wilson agrees with me on that). So what if the experiment succeeds? People will continue to overconsume and overpopulate such that the results of the experiment would soon be overwhelmed. And then what? Produce an even more "super" super-crop? Where is the limit? Where do we draw the line? How about doing things the more painful (in the short run) but more sustainable (in the long run) way? Amazing revolutions and large-scale changes in the history of mankind have almost always resulted from us being forced into a corner and having out backs to walls. Instead of trying to escape the reality and gravity of the climate change situation, why don't we take a leaf out of the ancient military strategy books and adopt a 破釜沉舟 way (Basically it means to remove all forms of retreat and escape so there is no choice but to face the problem)? Would that not be better?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
