a preview of pleasures to come

Did you see the pictures of algae at Qingdao? Five thousand square miles of green gunk clogging up the sailing venue for the coming Olympics. It is the type of green that most of us can do without. If nothing else, the Beijing Olympics will show the West what is about to happen to our planet if we keep wasting energy the way we do now. China is the proverbial canary in the coal mine.

Take a look at this picture from the guardian of London.

That's a man standing in the waves, in case you didn't recognize it.

While graphic it is by no means the only evidence of pollution in China. I could add pictures of Beijing's famous smog, but there is nothing to see there but gray haze. China is a country that is so polluted, it gives the word pollution a whole new meaning.

And the Chinese response ? Mobilizing the population to go out and fish up the green stuff. It is reminiscent of the days of Mao Zhedong. Fortunately, the Chinese have lots of people they can put to work. Unfortunately, this is only a temporary measure and once the Olympics are over and eyes focus elsewhere, the Chinese will continue to do what they have been doing all along: pollute more and more quickly. And to make matters worse, they have virtually unlimited coal resources and an equally inexhaustible desire to put these to work.

Hello, brave new world.

a lasting green legacy

This just came across my desk. It is in a month old Costco magazine, but I think it needs some highlighting. PepsiCo's CEO wants to leave a lasting legacy. A legacy of what? Obese diabetic Americans? The maker of high fructose-spiked waters and cereals, not to mention over-salted and spiced chips thinks she lived "wisely, agreeably and well." The CEO of the world's fourth largest food and beverage company is quoted as saying, hopefully without blushing or blinking:" We try to leave as minimal an impact on the environment as we can." You got to be kidding right ?

Did I mention that PepsiCo won the 2007 US Environmental Protection Agency Energy Star Partner of the Year award? That's a mouthful isn't it? Almost as wasteful with words as with energy I might add. The award was for outstanding energy management and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Wow !

Look people, it is quite simple really. Selling water in bottles is not environmentally sound. It isn't healthy either, especially when that water is spiked with high fructose corn syrup or any other sugar. This type of water is an addictive substance much like cigarettes. And probably just as bad for your health and well-being.

Shipping water in any shape or form, whether in glass bottles, eco-containers or plain plastic is not good for you and it is not good for the environment either. Water is heavy and it takes a lot of energy to ship. That is an absurd thing to do when everyone has access to clean water in their homes. No matter how many experts praise the company or how many awards get bestowed on this enterprise, it is not an environmentally clean business. It is based on a fundamentally flawed concept and should be abandoned right away. Shipping water in little containers is immensely wasteful and irresponsible.

The only green in PepsiCo and its competitors is in the money they make polluting you and the environment around you. Their lasting legacy are the "green"house gases that will affect our climate for centuries to come; the plastic bottles and bags that will clutter our landfills for an equally long time, and the overweight and obese children and adults driving around wasting more energy in the process. All that maybe agreeable, or well, but it is certainly not wise.

the human condition

Nothing is more surprising to people than reading about the deteriorating conditions of today's society or today's rebellious youth and then finding out that the text was written over 100 years ago. Or in some cases, as long as several thousand years ago. There are many Greek and Roman texts discussing the human condition that sound as real today as they did back then. Once you remove the time dependent clues, it is virtually impossible to tell when the text was written.

Obviously the human condition has not changed all that much. If we were to magically revive an average Roman citizen, chances are they would have no trouble adapting to today's conditions. After a bit of initial amazement at the cars and cell phones, they would quickly fall in line and act like everyone else.

Here is another hint. Many people when discussing human behavior like to point out that our "hunter-gatherer" brain prefers this or that look or situation or environment. We are said to like women with a certain waist to hip ratio, with a certain breast size, etc. because it indicates how fertile they are. We are told we enjoy certain situations because they appeal to the "primitive parts of our brain." Many pseudo-scientists and, unfortunately enough, scientists talk of human evolution as it it stopped 100,000 years ago, when our species appeared. When you read their comments, it may sound as if humans evolved from primate ancestors, and voila, that is that, here we are, forever static and unchanging. We are trapped in a modern world with a primitive brain.

It is baloney of course and evolution is an everyday phenomenon. We change continuously and from one generation to the next. Human evolution is quite rapid and surely more rapid than any scientific treatise lets on. The Europeans for example had evolved quite a bit of resistance against many diseases that came from Africa and Asia by the time they discovered America. The American natives, who had no such exposure had not evolved in the same way -although they were by definition equally evolved-, and hence they were quite quickly decimated once the Europeans arrived bringing with them ferocious and unknown germs.

Why is it then that we evolve so quickly, yet things remain so familiar? Are our brains evolving slower than the rest of our bodies? Fat chance, really. What it really tells us is that the human niche has remained essentially the same for the past 5,000 years. And very likely it will remain the same for the next 1,000 years. Probably a lot longer if we are lucky enough to stay around. The latter may be a bit doubtful now that we are outgrowing our resources.

Evolution is much like the red queen in Alice in Wonderland. You have to change continuously to remain in the same place. It is called the red queen hypothesis. It is also a lesson futurists never learn. They are always so impressed with new technology that they think these new technologies will fundamentally change us or our environment. Unfortunately, all technology really does is allow us to exploit our environment faster and more efficiently.

We now use more energy per capita now than the Romans did. We drive cars instead of chariots. We fly planes. We have indy and nascar instead of ben-hur's horse racing. If one movie is to be believed, we will soon have pod racing. The experience won't be that much different, it will be more of the same. We will just burn more energy more quickly. Until we run out that is.

voting and democracy

Remember when Iraqi's went to the polls and everyone in the White House touted it as a victory? One of the many victories we scored in Iraq. One of the many missions accomplished. But as today's vote in Zimbabwe clearly demonstrates, voting does not equal democracy. You can vote all you want and dip your finger in whatever color dye you prefer but it won't do you no good.

I mention Zimbabwe because it is easier for Americans to relate to than Iraq. On Iraq, opinions are divided, and some people are effectively blocked from seeing the truth. Maybe they are Republican and so they need to toe the party line. Or maybe their friends or relatives are in Iraq putting their lives on the lines. When things like that happen you have little choice but to see progress. Not seeing progress must feel like betraying your loved ones. And we all know how easy it is to influence the human mind. People see what they want to see, or in some cases, what they are told to see.

But the purple-tipped Iraqi finger so proudly displayed, and so widely advertised in the US media, is no more free than the red-tipped Zimbabwan finger illustrated on the BBC's front page today. Voting is one thing, but if nobody cares about your vote, or acts on it, what good does it do you?

Much the same problem happens with free speech. Sure, you are welcome to express your opinion. You can say what you want without fear of prosecution or imprisonment. But if nobody listens, what good does it do you? If a few people control all the media and effectively shut you out from access. Like the red finger of Zimbabwe or the purple finger of Iraq, your voice is meaningless.

It is something big corporations, greedy bosses, and their government minions have figured out long ago. Whoever controls the media, controls the news. And with the news comes public opinion. Better let you waste your breath without anybody hearing you, than make a martyr out of you by arresting you and throwing you in prison. Because, unlike your cries, your arrest would most certainly attract attention.

So it is one thing for Bill Maher to say he is happy that he lives in a country where he can open his mouth without getting arrested, but the reality is quite different. Bill no longer has mass media access. His ideas were not appreciated and he was summarily shut down. Now he has to make do with the much smaller audience on cable TV. So Bill, better watch out what you say next. It is still a long way down.

burning man

Take a look at the NASA pictures and you can see that the Northern part of the Central Valley is covered in smoke. Over 1,000 fires are burning all over Northern California. The air is so thick you can barely breathe. You can look straight at the sun. An orange ball high in the sky. Sort of like a perpetual sunset. A preview of things to come?

Wildfire is an integral part of California's ecosystem. It has been here for as long as we know. But human intervention has clearly changed the equation. And not for the better I might add. Whereas periodic smaller fires cleared out the underbrush on a regular basis, intense fire-fighting efforts have stopped the natural process in its tracks. Always eager to protect their homes and the surrounding scenery that is responsible for home-values, humans have put an end to a natural form of growth control. Instead of many little fires, we now get fewer enormous ones.

We also interrupted the natural cycle of fire that many native species need for reproduction. As a result native species with good fire-resistance have disappeared and were quickly replaced by non-native species that in many cases burn hotter and are more destructive. But we did not just shortchange reproduction. In many cases, we destroyed the natives outright. California redwoods were turned in mansions and replaced by fast growing, resin and oil-filled Eucalyptus. Ever seen dry Eucalyptus burn? They explode.

Meanwhile fire fighters are doing whatever they can to save the rich McMansions. Battling night and day until exhaustion sets in. Hoping to make it out alive. With the constant whir of helicopters overhead, dumping water that we don't have or can ill afford onto the towering flames. "We have the best fire fighters in the world," says Arnold the governator. What else is there to say? We are engaged in epic battles against nature. An ill-suited form of nature that we have created and sustained.

Fires in California, flooding in the mid-West, what's next? Hurricanes in the Gulf? All are aggravated by our present neglect of the environment. And all are made worse by our insistence to build in areas that are not well suited for human habitation. At least not the type of human habitation that we like to see. Unfortunately that is not how proud home owners feel. They feel it is their right to build wherever and however they want. They also feel we should defend their homes against any and all disasters even if they had a hand in making them worse. And they also feel entitled to ask for money so they can rebuild their dwellings. And every time they rebuild, they rebuild bigger and better.

That is what happened in Oakland, in Tahoe, and wherever else fire has struck. Rebuild but rebuild bigger. What else is there to do with the insurance money, the FEMA money, the emergency funding and all the goodwill and sympathy lavished on the victims?

in sickness and in health

The CDC released its 2007 National Diabetes Fact Sheet recently. Among the notable findings, 24 million Americans suffer from diabetes, with another 57 million in a pre-diabetic state. 90-95% of these are type 2 diabetes, also known as non-insulin dependent or adult-onset diabetes. It is by and large a preventable form of the disease.



While pre-diabetics don't always progress to diabetes, a very significant percentage do. Type 2 diabetes is strongly associated -among other things- with being overweight and being physically inactive. Many people with type 2 diabetes can control their blood glucose by losing weight, following a healthy meal plan, and exercising. In most cases, their doctors will add a blockbuster oral drug for good measure. If all that fails, insulin is the only option.

However, even when treated appropriately with all the life-saving medications the pharmaceutical industry can offer, diabetes is nasty killer. Its victims suffer increased infections, blindness, limb amputations, kidney disease that may lead to dialysis, heart attacks, strokes, and other ills. It is not a pretty picture.

Diabetes is more common in certain ethnic groups, many of whom also happen to suffer from very high incidences of obesity. There is little doubt that, in many instances, diabetes is a life-style disease. You could say, it is part of the price we all pay for cheap oil. A tax on gas so to speak.

You may have seen those anti-smoking ads that the State of California put out recently. In it they take down the glamorous Marlboro man image to that of a sick person, sitting in a wheelchair with oxygen supply lines in their nostrils. For now at least, smokers are free game. Not so for the overweight and the sedentary. At least not yet. However, it would not be hard to imagine a similar ad that takes down the image of the successful macho SUV driving male to a similarly more realistic representation.

take two of those and see me in a week

The best selling drug in America is Pfizer's Lipitor. It sold over $6B last year. Lipitor is a cholesterol lowering medication. It is, in essence a preventive drug. It is there to prevent heart attacks and possibly stroke. It is also a pharma company's darling. You take it for life, no matter how good or bad you feel. High cholesterol is almost always a no-symptom condition and Lipitor does not treat any symptom or subjective problem. It just lowers your cholesterol and may or may not produce some unwanted side-effects. Once you hit a magic number on the cholesterol scale, you are stuck for life. Apart from Lipitor there are a few other cholesterol lowering medications that had over $1 billion in sales last year. These include Vytorin, Zetia, and Crestor.

Despite these high sales, we had to confront a rather unpleasant reality. Tim Russert, a well-known journalist died suddenly of a heart attack at age 58. Mr. Russert, the moderator of Meet the Press on NBC, took high cholesterol pills, aspirin, and high blood pressure pills we are told. The latter, also blockbuster drugs treat another no-symptom condition that is diagnosed in the doctor's office. Another preventive medicine class with members in the top 100 best selling drug list for the year. We are told Mr. Russert was also in the good care of well-known cardiologists. He was given check-ups and stress tests and he always passed with flying colors. His cholesterol was normal and his blood pressure a stellar 120/80. Yet he died suddenly, with no warning and no symptoms. That was unsettling.

Mr. Russert is not alone of course. He is only the best known member of a class of 300,000 people who die suddenly of heart attacks. And about 150,000 of those have no symptoms whatsoever. They just drop dead one day, good cholesterol and all. With or without medication. So much for taking drugs all your life. But let's go back to the bestsellers for a moment.

Number two on the best seller list is Nexium, the purple pill. At $4.4B a year, another stellar performer. And one most people ask for no doubt. Because there are older and equally effective medications in the generic arsenal. Nexium is another darling of the industry. For a different reason though. Nearly everyone can take it. And many people do. Most take Nexium for the occasional indigestion or a bit of acid reflux. They take it so they can go to McDonalds and have a big mac with fries without getting an upset stomach. Or maybe, because they had too much to drink.

Number three on the list is Advair Diskus, a medicine for asthma. Asthma too can be a rather serious condition, but once again most people taking Advair are using it for the occasional nasty wheeze. Advair is a bronchodilator that has been around for a long time in generic form, combined with a steroid, all in a nice package to inhale easily. Advair Diskus is good for almost $3.4B a year.

Next on the list is Prevacid, a competitor to Nexium. $3.3B to cure more heartburn and indigestion. Maybe we need to look at what we eat instead of popping pills? Over $7 billion for heartburn. It is likely to give one heartburn just thinking about it.

Rounding out the top five is another drug Mr. Russert could have used. Plavix, a high prized competitor to lowly aspirin when it comes to heart attack prevention. Plavix is usually given after a heart attack or stroke to prevent recurrence. That is, of course, if the first heart attack or stroke doesn't kill you right away.

All in all the top five generate over $20 billion in sales in the US alone. None of them seem particularly impressive at what they do.

Rounding out the top ten, we find Singulair, another asthma drug, Seroquel, an anti-psychotic, Effexor XR and Lexapro, two anti-depressants, and Actos, a medication for type 2 diabetes. All of these drugs have over $2 billion of sales per year each.

Apart from more wheezing drugs, and a medication for overweight people who develop diabetes, there are the mental health medications, that feature so prominently on the rest of the best-seller list. Here we encounter Risperdal, Abilify, Cymbalta, Zyprexa just to name a few.

These are the life-saving drugs that make America tick. Their main impact it seems, is on the share price of pharmaceutical companies.

american dream

George Carlin, one of the great comedians and actors died on Sunday. Mr. Carlin was, according to the New York Times, "hailed for his irreverent social commentary." Like Lenny Bruce, his predecessor, Mr. Carlin had several brushes with the law, that likewise involved drugs and charges of obscenity. One of Mr. Carlin's best known routines was "Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television." But unlike Mr. Bruce, Mr. Carlin was better able to weather the storm. Maybe times had changed a bit too.

However, Mr. Carlin was not just about scatological humor. He would often attack consumerism, and the way people "spend money they don't have on things they don't need." He talked about how the "owners of the country, the big club" wanted "obedient workers." Workers smart enough "to operate machinery," but not too smart so they would not question authority or revolt against their ever worse predicament.

According to Mr. Carlin, those "owners know the truth, it is called the American Dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it." It is probably a feeling many people can relate to nowadays. Although Mr. Carlin's attacks on religion probably put him off limits for those Americans who would most benefit from his words of wisdom.

oily banana split

I read an interesting op-ed column about food and energy yesterday. It was written by Dan Koeppel in the NYT and is entitled:"Yes, We Will Have No Bananas." It brings up lots of interesting issues. What is really interesting is how cheap oil has distorted our world view, mine included. I used to buy a lot of bananas -I won't anymore now that I have read this. For some reason it never occurred to me that bananas are way too cheap. And despite the term "banana republic" (not the clothing brand) I always ignored the role of our military in providing us with artificially cheap food. Talk about national security.

Here are the key points, which I will list but you really ought to read the Koeppel story because he has a wonderful way of explaining it.
1. Bananas are produced thousands of miles away. They are a locavore's nightmare. Refrigerated food that is shipped in half way across the planet.
2. Bananas are perishable. They do not keep well and need to be refrigerated.
3. Bananas don't have seeds (they are sterile) and they are a mono-culture. A mono-culture that has been struck with devastation before and it is only a matter of time before it will happen again.
4. Banana culture leads to rainforest devastation.
5. The bananas we eat look good but they are an inferior-tasting variety. Out of the 1,000 or so varieties that exist, producers chose the one that is hardy, looks good, but has inferior taste.
6. Foreign policy plays a key role in keeping bananas cheap by supporting exploitation of workers.
7. Our military backs up that foreign policy agenda, beating up revolting workers if necessary to ensure cheap prices.
8. All that results in bananas being cheaper than apples, a local fruit that is hardy, keeps well, and needs no refrigeration.
9. Bananas are one of the most popular fruits in the US.
10. Not part of the article, but interesting nonetheless, bananas are little more than sugar-rich fruit. In many countries their calorie-rich, low nutrition value leads to malnutrition.

So now you know. Next time you see the yellow fruit beckon at 59c a pound, please abstain. You will be doing the environment a favor. You will also be saving oil and reducing greenhouse gases.

good news and bad news

The bad news first: the oceans are rising more and faster than we thought. New studies clarify what was long a puzzle for climate modelers. Scientists found a subtle error in previous temperature readings done by submarines and ships. Now they estimate the seas warmed and rose about 50% faster than previous estimates. That is especially bad news if you just invested in a nice coastal property and managed to escape subprime woes and foreclosure. Your troubles are just starting: mother nature is coming to get you. Is there no fairness in the world?

More bad news for those of you with coastal properties, especially in Florida and California. Our president and one of the presidential candidates want to restart offshore drilling. And guess what, even "hard core" environmentalists -those that drive Volvo SUV's with tons of stickers no doubt- now feel that gas prices are SO high that "something needs to be done." How about driving less? Are you kidding? We have to drive, they say. The environment be damned, they think.

Better prepare for oncoming seas filled with tar balls and bunker fuel. Now there is something that will affect property values. So far coastal communities have fared better in the mortgage crisis than their inland peers. Maybe there is justice after all?

The good news, for as long as it lasts, is that DOT announced that Americans drove 1.4 billion fewer highway miles in April of 2008 versus April 2007. And who said there was no way to solve greenhouse gas pollution? Who said we needed to explore alternative energy and invest in clean technology to solve our energy "needs?" What we really need, my friends, is to stop driving. That will solve many of our biggest problems.

1. Obesity. The US Department of Health and Human Services estimates over 2/3 of Americans are overweight or obese. It has been called an epidemic that threatens life-expectancy for future generations. Guess what, have the kids walk to school, or have them ride their bikes. And while you are at it, you can bike too.

2. Dependency on foreign oil. This is big, especially in an election year, when concern with matters of national security and flag waving are high on everyone's to-do list. Since we only import about 50% of our oil and we certainly waste more than that, what is the problem really ? Our only dependency is our addiction to consume more.

3. Global resource depletion and pollution. The more oil we use, the more other goodies we consume as well. Oil is the lubricant of the consumer economy. It makes it so we can buy new things all the time and then throw them away within 6 months. The trucks not only bring in new goodies all the time, they also take away our waste to far away countries such as India and China. It is no surprise that over 60% of China's drinking water is contaminated.

4. Global warming. That is a no-brainer. Just wait until your beach and your beach house disappear into the deep blue sea.

It is clear that high gas prices are the solution to our woes. However, instead of rejoicing, we are all worried. Not so much about the high prices -they are way too low for us to worry a lot now- but about what could happen in the future and the possibility of dwindling supplies. Nothing to strike more fear into the hearts of addicts than the specter of future shortages. That is when all good intentions go out the door. Now we are ready for blood.

The drug pushers too are getting worried it seems. Saudi Arabia just announced it was going to boost production come July 1. The kingdom is worried that we might get serious about alternative energy. Or god forbid, that we would actually change our habits and continue to use less oil. Now that would be a real disaster for the pocketbooks of so many greedy people.

back to the future

Above all, people want optimistic views of the future. Never more so than in problematic times. That explains why Kurzweil is such a fun read today. His promises are surely one's that we can all understand. We have been looking for immortality since the dawn of civilization. What better way to escape high gas prices, food shortages, pollution, and the threat of global warming? If we all lived forever then it wouldn't matter what evil things the future has in store for us. That is the beauty of virtual reality and video-games. When you die you get another life and you can try again.

As a futurist you don't want to disappoint your audience. You have to give them hope, otherwise what is the point of listening? But if you really want to sell books you have to have unbridled enthusiasm and predict exceptional things to come. It doesn't really matter if you are wrong, because the people who buy your books won't be around to witness it. Or if they are, and you were wrong (that is almost guaranteed by the way), they will have moved on to other things.

I personally remember going to a neural network meeting in the early 1980's. At that time energy was high, and the feeling that we had finally understood the brain was universal. Sure, there had been AI or artificial intelligence in the 60s, and it had failed rather miserably, but that was precisely the point. This time around we learned from our mistakes and knew better. And so a very prominent researcher who was starting a company predicted we would all have smart vacuum cleaners by the mid 1990's. Vacuum cleaners that were smart enough to know when the vacuuming needed to be done and take care of it too. At the time, the prediction was met with skepticism. Surely, the researchers in the audience thought, this problem would be solved much sooner than the mid-90s. By the mid-90's we would have smart machines that we could talk to.

Ok, so maybe we were off by a few decades, so what? Clearly, we are making progress. And if you chart the right mile-stones on the right axes, you will see that change is happening exponentially faster. Which means that pretty soon we will get to the singularity. That is a mystical word for hitting the time axis (you have to draw things the right way to see this of course). Now change will be instant. It will be a dramatic step change. Furthermore, this change will be for the better. It will be exponentially better.

Never mind that there a few problems with this approach. One is in the milestones. In essence, you can pick whatever milestones you like, and history has plenty to chose from. You decide whether the steam engine was a world changing event or not? Like the Wright brothers better? And what about the more distant past. Here some well-heeled beliefs are unquestionably wrong but so what? If they fit the chart, why let data get in the way of a good story?

There is one chart however that is based on rather solid data. It too shows very rapid growth and when you extrapolate it further it too will reach a singularity. It is a chart that concerns us all as it shows how many people there are on the planet. In some very real sense we are the data points for that graph. While there is some uncertainty as to the past data, it is of very little concern to us now. Because the curve remained largely flat for a long time. It started its upward growth very recently. And our data for that part of the curve is very good. Since all people are counted within the limits of accuracy, and since the time points are fixed, there is little picking and choosing here. Very little value judgments as to what is important and what is not. No argument as to whether this or that individual represents a breakthrough.

It is clear to everyone that growth of this nature cannot be sustained indefinitely. Somehow, somewhere it has to slow down. Even the most optimistic agriculture experts believe the planet can only sustain 10 billion people. We are past 6 now. Luckily enough, other "experts" predict we will level off at 9 billion around 2050. So why worry you say? Because those same agricultural experts believe the planet can only sustain 2.7 billion "Americans." In this context, Americans means people living at the standard of living (or standard of waste) that current Americans live at.

The bottom line is that even the wildly optimistic think we are in for some serious belt-tightening in the near future. Now that won't sell too many books unfortunately!

malthusian hoopla

For as long as humanity has existed there have been prophets of doom. It is, if not the oldest, surely the second oldest profession around. And yet, so far their predictions have not materialized. Does that mean we should ignore the warnings? Are all the warnings false?

Our favorite prophet of doom at this point in time is none other than Englishman Reverend Thomas Robert Malthus, who lived from 1766 to 1834. Malthus is the poster child of global disaster and whenever resources are depleted, oil prices spike, or food shortages appear, Mathusian is on everyone's lips. We quickly start seeing signs of global disaster and the end of humanity. It has made headlines many times during the last century and every time, we are told, it was a false alarm. But was it? Clearly, global events work on a time-scale that is rather more extended than the attention span of the public and the news media. I have previously pointed out that Club of Rome's predictions were "within the next 100 years," so by 2070. Yet nearly everyone has already written off the Club of Rome as an alarmist hoax that is so passe.

What Malthus said, in his famous "An Essay on the Principle of Population," is that populations always increase, and when they do, they do so geometrically. He also noted that these populations depend on food and that food production grows linearly. Now, if you remember some of your high school math, you will realize that this invariably creates a serious problem of food shortage. Throughout his life time Malthus came up with various "solutions" to this problem but overall his tone remained pessimistic and it is therefore no surprise that we associate Malthus with disaster and not with a solution to such potential disasters.

The truth is that calamities of Malthusian nature have occurred throughout history. Many population groups and even advanced civilizations have perished because they ran out of resources and could not sustain themselves. Because the lengthy human life-span introduces significant lags, these events have invariably been catastrophic in nature.

Pollution and resource limitations are responsible for most, if not all collapses we know about. This fact is always conveniently ignored by those who think Malthus was nothing but an alarmist whose predictions turned out false. It is also obscured by the tendency of historians to attribute success and failure of civilizations to the acts of individual humans. This tendency is especially strong in the West, where individual accomplishments and hero worship are big themes.

One could of course argue that no disaster on a global scale has (yet) occurred. This is somewhat of a perverse argument though, as I pointed out before. If we all die, there won't be anyone around to say, I told you so. As long as a large enough group survives, they are going to rebound and so they can keep arguing that Malthus was wrong.

The main reason we have not seen a global disaster is that until very recently, humans were not a global force. However, in the last century all that has changed. There are now enough humans on the planet for them to make a real difference on a global scale. What that means is that the dimensions and scope of the next collapse will be orders of magnitude bigger than what we have witnessed so far.

Time to fasten your seat belts.

living it up

According to a KTVU, Bay Area Channel 2, report Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums is living it up at tax payers' expense. KTVU is apparently upset about the sorry state of Oakland, where Dellums was recently elected mayor. So their special reports team went to dig into the public records and found that Ron Dellums, a long time politician and former congressman is greatly outspending his predecessor, Jerry Brown.

I have to admit that the news coming from Oakland is not good. Crime is up, streets are full of potholes, and the schools are performing badly although they appear to have improved somewhat. It is however unclear how much of that is related to Dellums. Most problems were there well before Dellums was elected mayor. Some would argue he was elected to fix these very problems. If that it true, then it certainly remains a campaign promise. However, what really rubs people the wrong way is the Mayor's plan to cut back on city services to save money. Not that he has that many alternatives given the sorry state of the California budgets.

Dellums is well known for his left-leaning policies, and wikipedia calls him the first openly socialist Congressman since World War II. There is no doubt that many are strongly opposed to Dellums and would welcome any criticism of the man as long as it is negative. Given his political orientation, it is obvious where that criticism would come from. Note that KTVU felt it necessary recently to make clear to its viewers that while it is affiliated with FOX, FOX News has little or nothing to do with the contents of its reporting. Now there is a coincidence if I ever saw one.

To be honest, I am not all that upset about another politician getting free rides. They all do. One might say it is probably the main reason why they went into politics. Perks and power. That is what politics is all about. Never mind the advertising tag line of "public service." Remember, the ministry of love?

What is truly interesting about the whole episode is the warped idea people have of happiness and success. An idea that affects Dellums and other politicians as much as it does most of us. It is the consumer society's idea of happiness and achievement.

It appears Mayor Dellums enjoys fancy hotels, flowers, eating in expensive restaurants and being driven around, be it locally by his personal chauffeur, or in the nation's capital using expensive limo services. These, my friends are put forth as the true measures of what we should all strive for and aspire to. That is why it is supposed to irk us that this particular politician is getting all these perks undeservingly so, and at our expense -or at least the expense of the citizens of Oakland. Furthermore, being a left-leaning politician, this is an indicator of his deceitfulness and untrustworthiness. As if right-leaning politicians are entitled to live it up.

It is sad that people equate dining at expensive restaurants, sleeping in luxury hotels, and first-class airline travel with happiness and achievement. These are ostentatious acts designed to impress others. Their only biological benefit is in attracting mates and generating more offspring. Unfortunately, that is often not possible. So what remains is a ritual shell with all the costs of sexual display, but none of the advantages.

These "perks" do not enhance personal well-being. They are more likely to make you sick. Many people sitting in expensive restaurants wish they could have a hamburger and a beer at home. If only they could shed their expensive costumes and untie their restrictive ties. They would feel happier if they did not have to travel and meet strangers. If they could just shed the yoke of consumerism and enjoy life instead.

personalized medicine

One of the most popular stories on the BBC website this week is entitled,"The United States of Advertising." In it, the author takes on the direct-to-consumer (aka "DTC") advertising practiced by the drug industry in the US. One only has to step outside the country for a few hours to realize how unusual and bizarre this practice really is. Needless to say, the drug industry loves it and for a good reason: it really pushes sales of drugs into blockbuster territory. It has nothing to do with healthcare so much as with opening whole new markets for spending and consumption.

The success of DTC is the main reason the pharma industry has overwhelmingly moved their headquarters to the US. Unfortunately, it has also morphed drug development into a business that requires blockbuster sales numbers just to please Wall Street investors. It is called ROI or return on investment. ROI's make anything but a $1B a year drug a non-viable option for the industry. It is a prime example of how unlimited greed distorts our society. In the end we all pay.

The role of doctors in safeguarding patients is now seen as an obstacle to be conquered. The article points out for example that a simple message is sent: "If your doctor is not offering you this drug, maybe you should ask for it." What it does not say and what is perhaps more important, is that if your doctor does not offer you this drug, maybe you should find another doctor. Get a second opinion as they say in the business.

The author observes that the ads are "sending us in to see the doctor filled with nameless dreads about the symptoms of diseases we might have and a detailed knowledge of the drugs that might help us." This is putting it nicely because the DTC practice not only makes the doctors non-players, it also takes the disease out of the equation. It urges consumers to pop pills whether they are ill or not and whether their doctors think they should or not. I.e. as long as you dread symptoms of a disease you might have, you should take our pill. For good measure the ads are filled with common symptoms that are portrayed as the insidious portents of horrible illness. And those that may otherwise be thought of as harmless are shown as causing great social embarrassment.

Never mind that the symptoms are often caused by irrational behavior, nearly always overconsumption of one sort or another. In the author's case, a minor addiction to beef jerky. While the rational response would be to stop eating something that upsets one's stomach, the "appropriate" response is to keep eating it and go see a doctor instead. Once there, express fear that one maybe affected by "acid reflux disease" or some other horrendous malady, and ask for Nexium, affectionately known to the consumer as the "purple pill." The doctor better behave and do as you demand lest you seek a second opinion on the matter.

In other cases, a little insecurity will do the trick. Not up for intercourse tonight? Maybe you need Viagra, or -if you are frequently interrupted by social gatherings- Cialis perhaps? Aren't you happy that America's pharmaceutical companies are fighting the life-threatening illnesses so we may all live longer?

the weight of the neighborhood

In yet another example of how humans are influenced by their surroundings, researchers announced that obesity rates correlate with the type of neighborhood people live in. In a recent study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology, researchers looked at long term residents of several neighborhoods. What they found was that people who live in neighborhoods where walking is discouraged (i.e. your typical suburbia) tend to weigh more. Other studies have found the same trends, people in suburbia are heavier than city-dwellers, and so while suburbia may be "safer" from acute violence, it is worse for you in the long run.



The new study also found that environments that promote social interaction and score high on esthetics are better for women, but worse for men. Women living in such neighborhoods are slimmer, whereas men are fatter. Social activities likely draw women out of the house and engage them in physical activity. For men, on the other hand, it seems social interactions lead to drinking and barbecuing instead. The latter is my take on the study, but it seems plausible and I have some circumstantial evidence to back it up. I often run on a bike path through a suburban neighborhood and often meet groups of women, many with baby strollers, all engaged in a sort of outdoor group aerobics. While I would not go as far as call that serious exercise, it certainly beats sitting at home. Not surprisingly, all these women drive to the trailhead with their SUV's, where they "unpack" their baby strollers and get ready to work up a sweat.

I have also noticed that while men often exercise alone or with a friend, women are rarely seen alone and most often appear in groups. Of the cyclists riding Marin, or the East Bay hills, men tend to ride alone or with one friend, while women ride in small packs. Solitary women are a minority, whereas solitary men are the rule. Men do ride in packs, but only on weekends it seems.

At several of the local clubs, women spend mornings doing group aerobics and other group related pool activities. You rarely, if ever see men do this. Whenever the men at the club have a "social" they barbecue and drink beer. Otherwise, they exercise or swim alone. Although the gender issue is interesting, the main point here is not to highlight gender differences, but to stress the importance of context on all people.

All the available evidence points to the fact that we are much more influenced by our peers and surroundings than we would like to admit. It appears extremely difficult for people to deviate from these local norms for any extended period of time. Subtle and at times not so subtle social pressure is likely responsible. If you are a fitness buff and you move to a "nice" neighborhood, where everyone drives an SUV and mows their lawn military-haircut style, beware. Chances are you will be corrupted, and sooner than you think.

I have often advocated that only way to produce lasting change is to change your environment. You need to find another setting where doing the things that you like doing comes natural to you. Let the environment "force" you to walk, bicycle or run. Such gentle forcing will not be perceived as such and may become pleasurable instead. The neighborhood invites you to do physical activity.

In these settings you will be successful without unnecessary effort. Swimming upstream is not something humans are very good at. That is why diets don't work. To lose weight you need to change your life-style. For most people that means you will have to physically move to a new home, a new neighborhood, etc. A neighborhood where everyone is slim. If you can find one of those that is.

freedom and terror

The politics of fear works. And one area where success can be seen is in the loss of personal freedom. Ever since 9/11 both the US and the UK have severely curtailed personal freedoms. Citizens in those countries have been eager to give up the rights and freedoms that many consider to be the hallmark of a free society. In true Madison avenue style the US version of the law that takes away our liberty has been called the Patriot act. Now there is some advertising mojo !

All of this bargaining is done in return for perceived protection from evil terrorists. We have been quick to allow wiretapping, extensive spying into our personal lives, loss of habeas corpus, and the use of torture to extract confessions. The latter has been romanticized in shows such as "24," which is not surprisingly perhaps, paid for by FOX. 24 is meant to show how effective torture really is and how it can save the world. Which is easy of course if you write the script and know who the villains are. In real life the situation is a bit more murky and the suspects are more often than not innocent citizens. There have been plenty of examples of this already, but so far none have had any effect on our collective mindset. Mistreated individuals have often not received as much as an apology, let alone compensation. That while some were carted off to foreign countries to be tortured.

Recently, Gordon Brown in the UK won a victory to extend the time period the government can keep suspects without charging them. That should be surprising given the extremely poor track record of the UK anti-terror efforts. Not only have they killed innocent people in highly publicized events, but they had to let go of nearly everyone they ever arrested on suspicion of terror. The most important accomplishment of UK intelligence has been to ban bottled water on planes. And to promote the sale of travel-size tubes of toothpaste.

Fortunately, the US government seems to be turning in the right direction. Remember however that we have a much longer way to go. Nevertheless, the supreme court just dealt a major blow to the White House by allowing civilian appeals in Guantanamo terror tribunals. Not that it will matter much as I am sure the government will quickly invoke national security to classify any data that could be used in one's defense. Furthermore, they have been extremely careful to limit prosecution to carefully profiled individuals. Individuals nobody will feel particularly sorry for because they look like terrorists. Profiling is not allowed in screening, but it appears alive and well in arrests made.

It has often been said that we let the terrorists win if we suspend our personal freedoms. If that were true, the terrorists already won. But that is a rather naive view. The real winners are those in Washington and London who would prefer a tighter rein on the populace. Those who think that they know best. That anyone who disagrees with their ideas is not patriotic or worse, a traitor. Those who long to consolidate their power and eradicate dissent. The enemy within.

endless war

George Orwell understood that oppressive governments need wars to keep their populace under control. Wars focus the mind like nothing else. And wars also bring the specter of fear, another great means of crowd control. Fear has been applied with great success in America lately. Ever since 9/11 brought real fear into the hearts and minds of East Coast residents -the effect on the West coast was much less pronounced- our government has done whatever it can to make sure these feelings are kept alive. So effective and enticing is the fear mongering that presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton grabbed it from the Republican playbook and used it in her now famous 3 am ad.

The same 3 am ad that alarm companies use on a regular basis to convince home owners to plunk down hard earned cash, and subscribe to never-ending, but hopelessly unproductive monitoring services. Never mind that most burglaries happen during the day time. People are afraid of the dark, and nowhere more so it seems than in America. That must be one reason why everyone feels so compelled to leave their lights on all the time.

Recent studies have shown that fear works. It works even when our conscious mind dismisses it. Or when we make fun of it. It works because it is of primary importance in survival. Humans are a fairly weak species. Nearly every other species is faster and stronger than we are. A small chimp can easily outdo the most buffed up, steroid pumped body builder. And not by some tiny amount. Chimps routinely generate four to five times as much force as Mr. Universe. And they do it without breaking a sweat. As many drunken college students find out even birds like ducks, geese, or swans can be serious adversaries. A deer can kill an adult human in a heart beat. And so many dogs have been killing people lately that we are all aware of the pitbull factor. Yes, we have reason to be fearful out there.

Unfortunately, the only defense against fear-inducing advertising is to limit your exposure. I know that you will say, it doesn't affect me, I can see through it, I ignore it. I think it is funny. But brain studies show what Madison Avenue knows to be true. It does affect you and very powerfully so. The White House knows too. In these times of economic uncertainty, high gas prices, and a dying American dream, nothing better than to engage in a bit of war dance to keep that brain occupied and focused.

First there was Al Qaeda, then Afghanistan and finally Iraq. Unfortunately, none of these turned out the way we wanted them too. We let Al Quada get away and then the "battle" turned into an endless search for a tall man with a beard wearing a robe. There are plenty of fearful images out there, but a soft-spoken, tall and skinny bearded fellow is not one of them. Even if we know he is very dangerous. This type of rational thinking does nothing to the fear centers in our brain. Neither do beat up, grimy looking fellows like the "9/11 mastermind." They are less scary than good-looking Ted Bundy. What we need here is some good direct and subconscious stimuli. Like the 3 am ad.

Ditto for Afghanistan. It turned out to be a dusty, backward, stone-age patch that nobody cares about. No photo-ops here either. Iraq was fine as long as we had Saddam and some feigned resistance, but once we got rid of him, and nothing changed what more is there to do? The place turned into an endless rioting quagmire. The images on TV look like LA after the Rodney King trial, except a bit more bloody. Poor neighborhoods with burned out cars and foreign looking natives. How is the mighty American military ever going to score here? Not even the machine gun fire can dispel the image of inner city. Neither can John McCain walking around in a bullet proof vest in a place that looks every bit like South Central LA. Shopping?

Desperate for images, we tried Syria and North Korea. North Korea had the "bomb," except it proved to be a dud. It is a poor country and we all know it. Poor countries are the last thing on earth for us to fear. Nothing here either I am afraid. Furthermore, Kim Jung Il is too aloof to be scary to us. He looks so passe, like the Soviet Union in the last century.

Syria also eluded us. Assad is too much of a cold fish to arouse much enthusiasm and Damascus looks too much like the friendly souk where you buy peppers and henna. But Iran is a godsend. Ahmenidjad is a natural enemy. He taunts us, he laughs at us. He displays all the attributes Madison avenue needs to make a successful enemy. And he is endorsed by the Israelis who are also looking for serious distractions. Our friend Olmert too is quite desperate for diversions.

Unfortunately the Europeans are yawning. They can't be roused. Their stance on Iraq proved correct and now they are smug. And that is why our beloved President is out there rallying the troops. Forget about the mortgage crisis, the sluggish economy, the high gas prices. Let's get our European friends to help us out a bit here. We need to unite against a common enemy. We need a coalition of the willing. The willing to pay that is. Because we are bit cash strapped at the moment. So if you have the cash, we have the fear. Let the games begin.

the ideal solution

Most people are aware of climate change and most are smart enough to agree with the prevailing scientific view that humans are causing global warming. Those that don't, either don't get it, or more often perhaps, don't want to get it. They prefer to be left alone and continue doing the things they have always done and more. Those that do seem to care and argue against, are often misguided but sometimes it appears the issues are simply too complex for them to understand. Or perhaps they think that by endlessly repeating the same argument, it will somehow become reality.

Regardless of whether you "buy into" global warming, it is clear enough to those willing to look that we are faced with a myriad of problems that all find their roots in having too many humans wasting too much stuff. We are running out of fish, our only way to produce enough meat is unsustainable, the forests are disappearing, the coral reefs are turning to wastelands, and everywhere you look pollution is rampant, etc. etc. The list is endless and what is more important, these items are perhaps easier to understand than climate science. You may not buy that the world is getting warmer, but you can certainly see that it is getting hopelessly polluted and that our natural resources are being depleted at breakneck speeds.

But enough already, let's assume you are sensible enough to see the obvious. The question is how to fix it? It appears that the ideal solution is also the least palatable one. Many people who do understand the seriousness of our predicament, will nonetheless object to the only proven solution. That solution is also the most elegant of all and it requires no technology breakthroughs, or alternative energy, or what have you. Simply make things more expensive. Raise prices. The only way to make humans appreciate the value of resources is to make it so they can ill afford to use them. Only then will they modify their behavior and act sensibly. It appears we aren't smart enough to stop ourselves. We are like addicts who cannot refuse another drink, no matter how bad it will be for our health. And worse, even if we tried to abstain and not touch the drink, as soon as someone else did, we'd be all over them with envy and all hell would break lose.

Rising prices have several beneficial effects. Not only do they reduce consumption, they also have a negative effect on population growth. And right now, that is very important. We are near the limit of what the planet can sustain. Especially if we all live or want to live the way Americans do. If that is the goal, it would probably be better if we reduced the size of the world population by a good 30-40%. If we could somehow all agree to live sensibly, we could perhaps keep the total near 6 or so billion, but not too much more. That scenario is however extremely unlikely.

Oh, and one last thing. If we don't have the stomach to make the necessary changes, they will be made for us. That, my friends is going to start happening soon enough for most of us to notice.

dirty laundry

In addition to flushing clean water down the toilet, we use it to wash our clothes. Approximately 15%-25% of daily water use goes into laundry according to some sources. A top rated energy saving washing machine uses as much as 5,000 gallons of water per year or about 14 gallons a day according to Energy Star ratings. Energy Star ratings are issued by the government and assume a healthy amount of washing. Actual numbers are probably a bit lower, although you never know. A recent UK study found that the average UK household uses 21 liters or 6 gallons a day to do laundry.

Washing machines maybe practical but they are enormously inefficient. According to the same British study, a washing machine uses about 35 liters (or 35 kgs) of water for every kg of laundry. I am assuming this refers to front-loaders that are ubiquitous in Europe. Front-loaders use a lot less water than the more common top-loaders favored in America. Hey, we live in the desert so why worry. Whereas front loaders spin the wash through a layer of water at the bottom, top-loaders soak the entire tub. In doing so they use 3-4 times as much water.

It doesn't stop there. All that water has to be pumped and heated and that is no small matter. Water is heavy and it has some of the highest heat capacity of any commonly used substance. Calories, a measure of energy are defined as the amount of energy it takes to heat 1g of water by 1 degree centigrade. To heat 35 kgs of water by 35 degrees takes 1,225 kcal or 4,800 BTU. But that is only half the story. Once the wash is done, people use even more energy to get those same clothes to dry.

Although most households in the US have ample sunlight to dry clothes, nearly everyone these days uses a dryer. In some communities, hanging one's laundry to dry is against home owner association rules. God forbid that the neighbors would have to look at your laundry. That is simply not acceptable. Much better to waste tons of energy to dry your clothes. This is, after all, the land of plenty. The added benefit of course is that your clothes won't last as long, which is good for business too. But let's turn to more sensible approaches.

I read today that a UK company, spun out of Leeds University plans to introduce a "waterless" washing machine. The machine uses as little as one cup of water to run a load of laundry. The magic ? Plastic chips ! The company is appropriately named Xeros, derived from the Greek word dry, and it plans to start selling machines next year. The added benefit is that your clothes won't be wet so there will be no need to use the dryer or to face the ire of the neighborhood moral enforcers. It remains to be seen how successful the machine will be. So far, all we have is a press release.

Given that major cities like Barcelona in Spain are now forced to ship in water by boat, and that entire provinces in Spain are drying up and becoming part of the Sahara's northward expansion, this is a timely invention. Hopefully Americans will be smart enough to import these machines should they become successful in the UK and Europe. Until then, try to conserve water if you can. Experts predict it will be the next battleground.

G8 wisdom and foreclosures

The G8 ministers meeting in Japan are up in arms about oil prices. The G8 are a group of eight rich nations whose influence goes well beyond that of the remaining 100+ countries on the planet. Nevertheless the G8 invited China, India, and South Korea, illustrating the power shift that is about to take place on the world stage. Soon the G8 will have to add to its magic number or consider booting some of it older members who are no longer carrying so much weight.

For now though, it appears the G8 mostly invited China and India so participants could scold these countries for their energy subsidies. The participants in question being mostly the US. Never mind that the US has its own energy subsidies in place. When you are the biggest bully on the block it is fine to attack others for what you yourself do all the time.

What worries the US is that world oil production has stalled since 2005, while global economic growth -read China and India- is pushing demand to ever higher levels. Much of that growth is fueled by US dollars and US demand for cheap goods. The US has moved much of its manufacturing base to China, and much of its low-level services base to India. When you buy a gadget in the US, chances are it was made in China, and when you call customer service to inquire about something, chances are someone in Bangalore will be answering the phone. That puts the US in a tricky position. What also puts the US in a tricky position is the increasing military might of the Chinese. That while we are busily trying to keep our head above the water in the Middle East.

We also read that the five top consumers, the US, China, Japan, South Korea, and India, urged oil producers to boost output, while pledging to develop clean energy alternatives and increase efficiency. It is unclear what if anything the US government means by its pledge to develop clean alternatives and increase efficiency. So far, all we have seen is quite to the contrary. Any attempt to take away subsidies from fossil fuels has been death on arrival. With two oil men in the White house, it seems unlikely such a pledge amounts to much more than window dressing. Other bills, to support alternative energy, or to reduce greenhouse gases, or other pollution have all been stalled, and received veto warnings to boot.

On a more practical level, both China and the US are increasingly reverting to coal, a fossil fuel that is even more damaging to the environment than oil. So much for progress. In the US, coal has been busy convincing consumers and politicians alike that there is such a thing as "clean coal." Ads on TV ask consumers to embrace clean coal as the energy of the future. Both the US and China unfortunately have huge coal reserves to feed their power hungry consumers.

The advertising is especially damaging. At this stage, clean coal is as real as cold fusion, or x-ray lasers. And we all know what happened there. Fortunately for us, the US is more constrained than China and US consumers are more sensitive to coal pollution than the Chinese, who have little say in what their government does. But there is no telling what US consumers will put up with once gas prices close in on $8 a gallon. It is a scenario that is more realistic than most people think. The US infrastructure is also more vulnerable than the Chinese infrastructure. In the US much of what is there, and almost all of what is being added daily is heavily dependent on cars and trucks. The layouts are very unfriendly towards alternatives such as walking, biking, or even public transportation.

If the US mortgage crisis has a silver lining it is right here. Now is the time to abandon much of this non-sensical infrastructure. If you have to leave because your house is in foreclosure, at least now you have the option to go live closer to work, closer to the city, or in a place where you can walk or use transit. The high oil prices give you an added incentive and one can only hope prices will stay high for long enough to support a mini-migration towards the population centers. It is important because there will be partial recoveries and people may be tempted to re-indulge in their bad habits. Ultimately though our economy is unsustainable and a collapse of one kind or another is inevitable. The more we adjust now, the better off we will be when that finally happens.

diapers, tires, and a global crisis

Oil prices are surging and soon the effect on the economy will become noticeable to all, not just drivers and travelers. Oil is not just used for transportation. It goes into everything from diapers, paper towels, laundry products, plastics to tires. Already many companies are switching back to the natural products that made up these goods before the advent of petroleum. Natural rubber, palm oil, and other natural commodities are making a huge comeback. But these items are not cheap either and prices are rising everywhere.

The reason is simple. Global warming is not our only problem. Not by a long shot. Global warming is but one symptom of a much larger problem. A problem that won't be so easy to ignore or deny. While it takes some understanding of mathematics, statistics and probability -not something most people excel at- to understand climate science and modeling, it won't take a PhD for people to see that nearly everything will soon be in short supply. Why? Too many humans, all acting as if they have infinite resources. Wasteful overindulgence on a global scale.

There have been other times in human history where people acted just as irresponsibly as we do now. Times of plenty, when excess and gluttony were the norm. Invariably such times were followed by rather dramatic collapses where the overall standard of living dropped significantly. The collapses were dramatic because they did not just affect the poor and the "middle classes," but also the rich and the very rich. In short, these events were not pretty and very few were immune.

Never before though have we experienced a global crisis. Even though previous crises affected all of the then known world, their scale was small compared to the planet. That is no longer true. We are now faced with global crises. That has never happened before and so in a very real sense, all bets are off. We are facing shortages in energy, natural resources, water, food and nearly everything imaginable. Furthermore, most of these problems are interconnected, so there is no telling which way the dice will roll. Food production is dependent on cheap oil. So is irrigation. The list goes on and on.

While it is certainly possible that we make a soft landing as slowly increasing prices eventually cure most excesses, I would not bet on it. The probability of that happening is close to zero. Soft landings are the stuff of dreams. Too many people's livelihoods depend on these excesses. Their jobs will have to go. It won't be as simple as designing eco-bottles to put water in. The whole bottled-water business has to disappear. And many other businesses too. That cannot be done without millions of job losses.

Given how many humans we have, and how long these humans live, these crises will not be resolved without some very bloody fighting and cruel warfare. Nobody is simply going to roll over and accept a much lower standard of living. And it appears the standard of living will have to drop rather dramatically from what we are used to today. It also appears that the population will have to shrink in a very real sense.

restless legs

You have to hear Bill Maher say it. Why do people like to travel ? Answer: to get laid. It is one of those instances where comedians tell us what we all know to be true. Sure, there are the tourist attractions, but the number one attraction is the other people who are also there to view them. There is ample evidence to support this non-conventional view. From the crusades to the missionaries, to modern day tourism, we can see the evidence plainly written in mitochondrial and Y chromosome DNA.

Have you ever wondered why people living in exotic travel destinations never go see the local sights? It often takes out of town visitors for them to even consider looking at those "fabulous treasures." I have lived in San Francisco for decades and never been to Alcatraz. I think I have been to Muir woods twice, both times because out of town visitors wanted to go there. The same applies to ChinaTown, Fisherman's Warf, Pier 39, and all other tourist attractions. I lived in other tourist hotspots and they too never inspired me to go see the sights.

And I am not alone. I went to Boston recently to visit a friend. He too took me places that are high on the tourist must-see list but that he, as a life-long Boston resident had never bothered to see. Everyone knows stories like these.It is not that we are immune to natural beauty. But natural beauty can be found everywhere and anytime. It is a free commodity and not something you need to go travel for to experience.

Furthermore, a lot of it is in the eye of the beholder. Sure you can look over the Grand Canyon or Monument Valley and be amazed. But as Marc Reisner points out in "Cadillac Desert," the desert only looks wondrous and attractive from an air-conditioned car with a cooler full of cold drinks. If you had to survive there, you wouldn't be nearly as impressed. Even Hawaii with its spectacular volcanoes is no different. If it weren't for all the goodies we constantly ship in, paradise would look as desperate and dreary as Father Damian saw it.

Hawaii, like all beach destinations is about the surfer dudes and the bikini girls. The hard bodies on the beach. Now that is a sight worth seeing ! Men of course would only grudgingly acknowledge this in public. Because men, as we all know, buy PlayBoy for the articles.



There are only so many sunsets one can watch. And only so many new and exciting landscapes. Sure the romantic pictures matter somewhat, but face it, it is not the tropical beach but the bodies lying on that beach that count. And the clubs and the nightlife. It is not the ski, but the apres-ski that we are looking for. If not, why put up with all the lift lines and the hassle?

In tourist hotspots such as Las Vegas, Bangkok, Phuket, and Spain, the sex industry is alive and well. That industry does not just comprise sex workers but also the many nightclubs and bars where eager souls can pick up new companions. In some cases it goes so far as to support a "scavenger population."

I saw a program recently documenting the many single males living a minimal existence on the Spanish coast. They try to survive winter doing odd jobs here and there. They live frugally to the point of poverty and have but one goal. Like raptors they are eagerly awaiting the tourists that arrive in Spring. To take advantage of the relaxed atmosphere that gives many women the green light for an adventure or a one-night stand.

Despite the reproductive advantage, traveling is not something that humans are well adapted for. It comes at a price. There are dangers on the road, and dangers in the encounter with foreigners. There are illnesses, some quite serious. Even today, with tourism bringing in billions of dollars, and tourist-destinations eager to protect their source of income, travelers are at increased risk for illness, injury, and death. It is not something you read about a lot and the travel industry does its best to ignore it or brush it away. But every year, a lot of people die. Even more are assaulted, robbed, or kidnapped.

Travel also plays a key role in epidemics and pandemics. Travel is a major contributor to global warming and environmental destruction. From the planes, cars, and buses, to the garbage people leave behind, tourism is damaging and destructive. Unfortunately, it does not end there. Tourism also leaves its mark in infrastructure. An infrastructure that is often poorly adapted to the local circumstances.

Tourism plays a major role in the current water crisis in Southern Spain. The crisis goes largely unnoticed for now, but its impact is devastating. Spain is a good example because it contains many fragile environments and receives more tourists than almost any other destination on the planet. Almost 50 million people make an annual trek to the Spanish coast each and every year. They go there to do those things that they would never contemplate doing at home. But what happens in Spain is not an isolated phenomenon. It happens everywhere else too. Florida's ecosystem has been trashed by retirees and visitors alike. The everglades have seen their best days. The reefs are all but depopulated. The same is happening to the SouthWest. The spread of golf courses and swimming pools is contributing to water shortages and putting stress on the ecosystems.

Like so many other things in modern life, travel is one area where the consumer does not pay the true cost of the trip. If they did, travel would once again become rare and be the prerogative of the very rich. Not that that would be a bad thing. After a while, I am sure nobody would miss it very much.

the cost of change

Why is it so difficult to start saving energy? It turns out there are several reasons, ranging from laziness, poor habits to infrastructure. For example, when you live in suburbia, you almost certainly have to drive most places. You can buy a fuel efficient car, and try to limit trips by doubling up chores or carpooling with others, but there are clearly limits to what you can achieve. If you have a big house and only one heater/airconditioner you may be stuck having to heat or cool the entire house, regardless of whether you actually "use" the whole house.

There are remedies to these situations but all are expensive and unlikely to have a big return on investment. And if things don't save you money, you probably won't be motivated to do something about it. Furthermore, it isn't just about saving money, what counts is how much money you save relative to what you have or are willing to spend. Unless the items "register" you are unlikely to take action. Case in point is gasoline. It registers because you are faced with it on a regular basis. You may spend thousands of dollars on gas and that may cause you to abandon your beloved SUV. However, when you bought the monster, you probably did not worry too much about the extra $5,000 in useless options that the car dealer talked you into.

The same is true for gimmicks like $2.99 gas. If people offered you a $2,000 rebate you may not act, but buying gas cheaply certainly rings a bell. Even though the rebate has much more value. And that brings us to psychology. Psychology and habits. Habits are perhaps the most difficult of all to change. Once a person is used to doing things a certain way, they put up enormous barriers to change. Change may become frightening to the point of being unimaginable. Yet we all have energy wasting habits. Unless you spent the last 10 years of your life in a cave, chances are you picked up a great many energy wasting and pollution producing habits. If you watched TV on a regular basis and were thus subjected to thousands of ads, chances are most of your habits are insanely wasteful. Because ads are there to make you consume. And the more you consume the more you waste. Consumption is waste.

How about cutting back on your spending? Spending money for the sake of spending is not smart and it isn't patriotic either, no matter what the President thinks. It also isn't fun. People just talked you into believing it is fun. How can it be fun to throw away your money and make others rich? It is probably fun for them to watch you be so foolish. Remember that over 90% of the items that American buy end up in the trash within 6 months. Clearly these items were not all that exciting or valuable to begin with.

How about getting rid of your lawn and plant vegetables? Every time food prices rise and recession looms, more people plant vegetables. But when the tide turns, they quickly remove the "ugly" plants and replace them with a lush green lawn. They also ditch their fuel efficient cars and replace them with a "fun" gas-guzzler. What is so beautiful about a lawn or so fun about a truck with leather seats? Are you just trying to impress your friends and neighbors? Guess what, rather than be impressed they quickly set out to outdo you. And then you can counter and so on, until you are both broke.

How about ditching bottled water and sodas? Your tap water is better quality and the sodas do nothing more than make you fat. How about turning off your lights? There is a suburban myth that keeping your lights on deters crime. Give me a break. Most break-ins happen in the morning when people are out at work and when the presence of another van or truck in the neighborhood is expected.

There is so much you can do that will make a very significant difference to humanity. This is true democracy in action. You need not follow the lead of the advertisers. Chart your own path. A path that is in harmony with the environment you live in.

energy policy

The more I look into the energy issue the more optimistic I become that we can solve our problems. Theoretically at least the solution seems straightforward and simple. We are consuming resources in an incredibly wasteful manner and we are living life-styles that are seriously out of touch with our surroundings. If we simply paid more attention to our energy use and did not attempt to live artificial lives, we would be able to reduce our resource consumption to levels needed to stave off long term ill effects. What that means is serious cutbacks from where we are, but not the type of cutbacks that would send us back to the stone age.

Although I feel much more optimistic about our ability to fix things, I am also increasingly pessimistic about the prospect that it will really happen. I fear that we will just continue to hold on to our life-styles for as long as we can, and thereby forego our only chance to solve problems before they go out of control. We will cling to the promise of technology much like the ancients clung to their religious icons. It will prove to be equally ineffective.

History shows that civilizations tend to run almost unchecked until they hit the wall and collapse. The premise of Jared Diamond's book "Collapse" was that some civilizations manage to avoid disaster by taking action, while others do nothing and fail. But upon closer inspection of the case studies we see that those civilizations that survived, did so not by changing their wasteful life-styles, but by finding new resources to exploit and new places to dump their waste. Those that failed lacked that option.

Unfortunately, these types of solutions arew not available once the problems are planet-wide. We are faced with global crises now: global warming, global deforestation, global destruction of ecosystems, global shortages of food, water, and oil. There are no outside places to dump and no other planets to mine. At least not within the reaches of our current technology. Even if that technology grows exponentially fast.

Furthermore, the real situation is a bit worse. We are faced with mechanisms that exhibit long lag times and have the potential for autonomous growth and positive -in the engineering sense that is- feedback. Our problems too can grow exponentially as Mr. Kurzweil forgot to point out.

We have set in motion processes that will affect us for centuries to come. Even if we stopped polluting, the CO2 that we have already put out will continue to exert long term effects. Some of these effects are still unknown to us, but at least some are active processes that may amplify or cross thresholds without any further intervention. It is clear that we have already crossed the threshold of CO2 homeostasis. We have started a fire. Now we are making it worse by feeding it some more.

What it means is that we have to act quickly and decisively. We have to drastically reduce our consumption in absolute terms. All the talk about efficiency is meaningless. It is meaningless to discuss whether flying cross country is more efficient than driving. What we need to ask is whether we honestly need to travel there. What counts is not CO2 per capita, but CO2 in absolute terms.

Unfortunately, all proposed solutions are to phase out pollution over several decades, and they are not sensible. These are politically palatable band-aid "solutions" whose aim is to defer actions that voters find objectionable. These will not work even if they are implemented and the likelihood of that happening is actually quite small. Experience shows that when politicians approve actions that affect future generations, these generations quickly undo such actions when their time comes. And that is the bad news.

The good news is that you, dear reader, can do something about that. And you can start right now. You can reduce your energy consumption right away. No alternative energy or other kool-aid. Reduction is the only option. It will make a huge and lasting difference and it maybe the best thing you can do for humanity.

exponential optimism

Maverick futurist Ray Kurzweil gave an upbeat presentation at the World Science Festival in New York recently. I wasn't there and my story comes through John Tierney of the NY Times, but I have no reason to believe John would misrepresent the claims, so here we go. Among some of the bullish assertions made, we learn that within 10 years we will have a diet pill that will let us eat whatever we want without gaining weight. Not convinced?

That is just the beginning, here are some more happy tidings. Solar power will be cost competitive with fossil fuels in five years, and in twenty years all our energy will come from clean sources. In 15 years our life-expectancy will keep growing faster than we age, and then by mid-century we will experience the "singularity" that will let us transcend biology and create intelligent machines. Then we and/or the machines will live forever. Now, there is something to look forward to! Because, by some other calculations there will be nine billion of us then, and if we all live forever and keep reproducing we won't need any diet pills to keep us from gaining weight. Maybe the machines will figure this out and help us along!

Dr. Kurzweil, a member of the National Academy of Engineering, makes his predictions using the law of Accelerating Returns, and he apparently brought a widget to the show to prove his point. Both the honors and the widget are mentioned to assure us the Dr. Kruzweil is no lightweight. The widget, a text reader, may appear impressive to those of us who have been around long enough to know what computers were like, but the honors do little to convince me. There is a whole slew of Nobel Laureates who made fools of themselves post-Nobel by voicing opinions or starting projects in areas they knew nothing about. Nothing more dangerous than a man who receives the highest awards at a relatively young age.

Kurzweil, we read has many graphs showing exponential growth for everything from the spread of telephones, to patents issued, to money spent. His latest graphs show exponential growth in nanotechnology, gene splicing, sequencing, and the resolution of brain scans. Therefore, we will see tremendous breakthroughs in all these areas. All these breakthroughs will come through the spread of information, and now that information technology has sunk its teeth into biology, the equivalent of the text reading gadget will be an intelligent machine that transcends biology. And it will come sooner than you think.

Jokes aside, there are a few things in this story that are worth discussing. One is the following quote:" Scientists imagine they'll keep working at the present pace. They make linear extrapolations from the past." It is a very important statement and one that does not just apply to scientists. It applies to all people. People are linear thinkers. They always think things will move along smoothly as they did in the past. They think if one item is good for you, then 100 items must be 100 times as good.

Many natural processes however, are not linear. They accelerate and some grow exponentially. And when they do, they cross thresholds or become essentially irreversible. Processes that were easy to understand and control may suddenly enter a runaway phase where neither understanding nor control is possible.

Exponential growth is pretty amazing to people. According to Kurzweil, "If you reach 1% and keep doubling growth every year, you'll hit 100% in just seven years." Here is another well known example. You probably heard the riddle of the waterlillies that double every day. On day 10 they cover half the lake. Then the narrator asks, When will they cover the whole lake? Most people, thinking linearly, will say on day 20. Or maybe you heard the story about the inventor of the chess board who wanted the following reward for his ingenuity: one grain of rice on the first square, and then double the amount on every subsequent square on the board. It turns out there isn't enough grain on the planet to fill square 64.

These interesting properties don't just apply to inventions and engineering. They also apply to "nasties" such as greenhouse gas accumulation, pollution, and food shortages. And here is where linear thinking gets us into trouble. We never envision a runaway heating process. As with any exponential growth, the initial steps are so minuscule that they are easy to ignore. But when the curve raises its ugly head, it will be too late to do something about it.

Unfortunately, these undesirable effects are likely to get to us well before we reach the wondrous utopia that Dr. Kurzweil envisions. Not that anyone has really thought through the issues raised by immortality. Always be careful for what you ask for!

calories explained

Most people in the Western world know or think they know what calories are. Yet it appears that few connect calories and energy. Witness to that the success of foods and drinks that promise to deliver energy without calories. Another common example of disconnect are the ubiquitous zero-calorie energy drinks. In case you wonder, the calorie is a unit of energy. There is no such thing as energy without calories and the expression makes about as much sense as saying length without meters (or feet) or weight without kilograms (or pounds).

The word calorie contains the root "calor" or heat and calories were originally defined as the energy required to heat a certain quantity of water (a gram) by a certain amount (a degree centigrade). The definition does not limit the calorie to heating however, and calories are a universal unit for energy. You can calculate the energy content of food, gasoline, natural gas, heating oil, and even nuclear materials, and express it in calories. Since the calorie is a rather small unit, it is not used all that often for gasoline or heating oil. Even the food calorie is in reality a kilo-calorie (or 1,000 calories).

Nutritionists will tell you that the average adult needs about 2,500,000 calories, or 2,500 "food calories" to stay healthy. Most of us consume quite a bit more and these excess calories are stored away as fat. Today, over half the population in the civilized world has excess calories stored away. The mantra in the West is how to loose weight, not how to stay properly fed.

The calorie is an older unit, and the official SI unit of energy is the joule. You may have noticed that some food packages express energy as both calories (Kcal to be exact) and KJ or kilo-joules. When you bought a portable heater or installed an air-conditioner, you may have noticed its rating in BTU or British thermal units. A BTU is approximately 252.5 calories. When you look at your gas bill, you may see yet another unit, called a Therm. A therm is 100,000 BTU or 25.25 million calories.

A kilogram of fat contains 9,000,000 calories or almost 36,000 BTU. A cubic foot of natural gas has approximately 1030 BTU or 260,000 calories. That is equivalent to 260 food calories, and you would need 10 cubic feet of gas per day to stay healthy (provided you could utilize the energy in natural gas).

Why go through this physics lesson?

The reason is to get a better understanding of how we stay alive. We stay alive because farmers produce excess calories that they do not need to feed their families. These excess calories can be traded (sold) to keep non-farmers alive. The non-farmers in turn mine and produce the other goodies we all use. That includes many items that farmers can use to make their yields go higher. And farm yields have increased significantly over the last 100 years. In the 1930's one farmer could sustain 10 people. These days, one farmer sustains 80 or more individuals. In a primitive economy, farmers could only produce enough food for 3-4 individuals. We have come a long way you might say. Yet there is no such thing as a free lunch.

One key reason why farmers have become so successful is because they put in a lot more energy to produce food. Whereas farmers were once limited to manual labor, supported by domesticated animals, today's farmers rely heavily on oil-powered machinery. They also depend on artificial irrigation systems, and heavy doses of fertilizers and pesticides. All in all, they are not just using more energy to produce food, they are using more energy per unit of food produced. What that means is that they are putting in more calories than they get out. And not just by a small margin. Estimates are that we consume 9-10 calories to produce one calorie worth of food. We are definitely entering a region of diminished returns.

All that excess food has had some serious consequences. Not only did we all get fatter, we also reproduced more. A lot more. The population boom of the last century was largely a result of the earlier "green revolution" in farming. Suddenly we could sustain a lot more people, and guess what, a lot more people quickly appeared. Now it seems, we are entering an era of more limited resources. Unfortunately, all those extra people are still with us. And they will be with us for a while to come. Not only that, but those people have already started reproducing too.

And therein lies our key problem.