There's a saying about 'leaving this world a better place than when you entered it.'
I've always instinctively believed this - and probably will until the day I do 'leave'.
Certainly, I'll never know if I've made a real difference overall, but would like to think my personal 'nett input' has been positive.
Among the important things I've learnt, and tried to apply, are 'passion', 'courage', 'honesty', 'loyalty', 'common sense', 'objectivity' and 'compassion' … and I rate them equally highly.
Perhaps the greatest discovery of my entire life is belief in myself, which kinda encompasses the above values. It's never been about 'putting myself first' (see below), but about trusting my own judgement.
Among the notionally important things I've never learnt are faith in a deity … and ambition.
I recognise the widespread craving for a god of some kind. It gives people a reference point or (a term I'm fond of) an anchor.
I also appreciate the positive impact of 'believers' in the real world which, on balance, is greater than the negative.
To generalise for a moment, there are two kinds of believers: (a) those who use their faith for personal aggrandisement (the selfish), and (b) those who obey their god's direction to serve humanity (the selfless).
A subset embracing both kinds? Do me a favour!
Walk your camel through the eye of a needle first, then we'll discuss it.
Alternatively, try shedding your skin, starting anew and standing naked in the face of an infinite cosmos. I did it at 14 and haven't looked back.
I'll have more to say on this from time to time.
Moving on …
'Ambition'. Hmmm. Sorry, I've never understood it. So much so, in fact, that I've started to think I'm missing a gene!
I'll probably die with my working boots on, wondering how to pay the next electricity bill.
In the meantime, I'll continue to count my blessings.
Sunday 27 January 2008
Thursday 24 January 2008
Revisiting "IF"
That brilliant (?German-made?) biographical Dennis Hopper movie was on TV the other night [insert name here].
Although I'm not a movie buff, as you can tell!, Dennis is my favourite actor.
At the very end of the film, after the credits, Dennis recites Rudyard Kipling's "IF".
I've copied and pasted it below; and then made some personal observations.
IF you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise:
If you can dream - and not make dreams your master;
If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools:
If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: 'Hold on!'
If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
' Or walk with Kings - nor lose the common touch,
if neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And - which is more - you'll be a Man, my son!
This verse made an enormous impression on me in the seventies.
I'm not saying it's great as a work of literature … it's not.
However, "IF" says pretty much everything about being true to yourself, regardless of what The Rest of The World is doing … and irrespective of how badly (or well) the World is treating you.
Put more simply, it's a 'call to courage'. Gotta love that!
Pure courage is in short supply these days, probably because there's no dollar profit in it.
My biggest problem with "IF" is that it excludes fifty per cent of the population!
Women are often more capable of sheer courage than men, yet Kipling's last few words effectively dismisses females from 'owning' (or even sharing) the poem.
A smaller quibble, but just as valid, is with this extract:
If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
OK, fine if you 'have nothing to lose' …
but what about everyone else - especially those closest to you?
An equally valid interpretation of 'risking' your 'heap' is that it's the ultimate act of selfishness, only practised by people who don't give a shit about their loved ones … OR who rate the potential 'return on investment' more highly than their family's wellbeing.
I dunno, Kipling really dropped the ball here; it reads as a bit of a rich boy's wank, which largely detracts from the value of the poem: perhaps it's a stanza too long?!
Although I'm not a movie buff, as you can tell!, Dennis is my favourite actor.
At the very end of the film, after the credits, Dennis recites Rudyard Kipling's "IF".
I've copied and pasted it below; and then made some personal observations.
IF you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise:
If you can dream - and not make dreams your master;
If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools:
If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: 'Hold on!'
If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
' Or walk with Kings - nor lose the common touch,
if neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And - which is more - you'll be a Man, my son!
This verse made an enormous impression on me in the seventies.
I'm not saying it's great as a work of literature … it's not.
However, "IF" says pretty much everything about being true to yourself, regardless of what The Rest of The World is doing … and irrespective of how badly (or well) the World is treating you.
Put more simply, it's a 'call to courage'. Gotta love that!
Pure courage is in short supply these days, probably because there's no dollar profit in it.
My biggest problem with "IF" is that it excludes fifty per cent of the population!
Women are often more capable of sheer courage than men, yet Kipling's last few words effectively dismisses females from 'owning' (or even sharing) the poem.
A smaller quibble, but just as valid, is with this extract:
If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
OK, fine if you 'have nothing to lose' …
but what about everyone else - especially those closest to you?
An equally valid interpretation of 'risking' your 'heap' is that it's the ultimate act of selfishness, only practised by people who don't give a shit about their loved ones … OR who rate the potential 'return on investment' more highly than their family's wellbeing.
I dunno, Kipling really dropped the ball here; it reads as a bit of a rich boy's wank, which largely detracts from the value of the poem: perhaps it's a stanza too long?!
Thursday 17 January 2008
church of garbology
http://gawker.com/5002269/the-cruise-indoctrination-video-scientology-tried-to-suppress
The net is buzzing with news and views about a Tom Cruise video bite, in which he 'articulates' his beliefs.
[I use that word with extreme prejudice!]
[use the link above, however long it lasts! otherwise, google is your friend]
Over the past 48 hours, give or take, the 'Church' of Scientology has been systematically pursuing any site hosting the video and threatening it with legal action.
Google Video has complied (and, it seems, so has Youtube); it remains to be seen whether or not we bloggers are enmeshed in the same net.
Anyway, here's my (edited) response - posted today - to a thread in my favourite forum …
[Some context for international readers: Kevin Rudd is Australia's new Prime Minister; his informal election slogan was 'Kevin07' - and he's often quoted as saying 'I'm from Queensland and I'm here to help.]
Cruise had nine minutes plus to deliver his message.
I got it: like Kevin07, he's 'here to help'.
However, ignoring the banal 'traffic accident' scenario, what 'help' is he offering?
Now, if you gave Kevin nine minutes of airtime, scripted or not, he'd be able to say what he'd actually done in his first few weeks and what he planned to do in the future.
And whether or not you agreed with him, his policies would be 'out there' for all to see.
OTOH, what concrete policy / reform / vision did Cruise offer?
What has he or his church delivered to real people?
Fer chrissakes, a quarter of the world's population live in poverty and squalor!
How will he or his ridiculous 'philosophy' (a.k.a. indulgent 'gibberish') make our world a better one?
I could only conclude that he was on about 'enlightening' people, not improving their lives.
OK, I'm enlightened: I'm an atheist. Even so, I recognise that most religions and belief systems (warts and all) have some socially useful activities.
Is it just me, or is Scientology-according-to-Cruise a complete wank for rich spoilt brats?
The other thing that's got me baffled is why this 'church' is pursuing and threatening websites who've been hosting the video.
If Tom Cruise Superstar is such a marvellous advocate for the cause, shouldn't they take advantage of the free marketing?
AND spend the LEGAL BUDGET on HELPING REAL PEOPLE?
The net is buzzing with news and views about a Tom Cruise video bite, in which he 'articulates' his beliefs.
[I use that word with extreme prejudice!]
[use the link above, however long it lasts! otherwise, google is your friend]
Over the past 48 hours, give or take, the 'Church' of Scientology has been systematically pursuing any site hosting the video and threatening it with legal action.
Google Video has complied (and, it seems, so has Youtube); it remains to be seen whether or not we bloggers are enmeshed in the same net.
Anyway, here's my (edited) response - posted today - to a thread in my favourite forum …
[Some context for international readers: Kevin Rudd is Australia's new Prime Minister; his informal election slogan was 'Kevin07' - and he's often quoted as saying 'I'm from Queensland and I'm here to help.]
Cruise had nine minutes plus to deliver his message.
I got it: like Kevin07, he's 'here to help'.
However, ignoring the banal 'traffic accident' scenario, what 'help' is he offering?
Now, if you gave Kevin nine minutes of airtime, scripted or not, he'd be able to say what he'd actually done in his first few weeks and what he planned to do in the future.
And whether or not you agreed with him, his policies would be 'out there' for all to see.
OTOH, what concrete policy / reform / vision did Cruise offer?
What has he or his church delivered to real people?
Fer chrissakes, a quarter of the world's population live in poverty and squalor!
How will he or his ridiculous 'philosophy' (a.k.a. indulgent 'gibberish') make our world a better one?
I could only conclude that he was on about 'enlightening' people, not improving their lives.
OK, I'm enlightened: I'm an atheist. Even so, I recognise that most religions and belief systems (warts and all) have some socially useful activities.
Is it just me, or is Scientology-according-to-Cruise a complete wank for rich spoilt brats?
The other thing that's got me baffled is why this 'church' is pursuing and threatening websites who've been hosting the video.
If Tom Cruise Superstar is such a marvellous advocate for the cause, shouldn't they take advantage of the free marketing?
AND spend the LEGAL BUDGET on HELPING REAL PEOPLE?
Monday 14 January 2008
oh, what a tangled web …
Apologies if you've seen this before; it's a few months old.
Yes, it's a propaganda piece … constructed from real video bites.
All that's missing is a few Australian talking heads!
If you oppose truth in politics - maybe you favour leniency for war criminals? - piss off back to MyFace or share trading.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgfzqulvhlQ&eurl=
Yes, it's a propaganda piece … constructed from real video bites.
All that's missing is a few Australian talking heads!
If you oppose truth in politics - maybe you favour leniency for war criminals? - piss off back to MyFace or share trading.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgfzqulvhlQ&eurl=
Saturday 12 January 2008
one reason why I grow my own
The following is an edited version of a post I submitted to an online forum earlier today.
I think it's worth repeating …
I'd like to see harvested dates on fruit and veges sold as 'fresh'.
Retailers are now required to state country of origin, at least if it's not Australia: fair enough.
However, this requirement doesn't resolve most QC issues.
How much stuff is being sold as fresh food when it's last season's harvest, or at least several months old and preserved in coldstores?
I've needed to return potatoes, of all things, to my local Fresh Food People because they were rotten. (Gotta love that smell!)
And it's amazing how much 'fresh' produce gives up the ghost within 24 hours of getting it home.
It's not just about perceivable quality either.
Fruit and veg lose nutrients rapidly after they're picked; for this reason canned or frozen groceries are often more nutritious than the unprocessed, unpackaged product.
I think it's worth repeating …
I'd like to see harvested dates on fruit and veges sold as 'fresh'.
Retailers are now required to state country of origin, at least if it's not Australia: fair enough.
However, this requirement doesn't resolve most QC issues.
How much stuff is being sold as fresh food when it's last season's harvest, or at least several months old and preserved in coldstores?
I've needed to return potatoes, of all things, to my local Fresh Food People because they were rotten. (Gotta love that smell!)
And it's amazing how much 'fresh' produce gives up the ghost within 24 hours of getting it home.
It's not just about perceivable quality either.
Fruit and veg lose nutrients rapidly after they're picked; for this reason canned or frozen groceries are often more nutritious than the unprocessed, unpackaged product.
Thursday 10 January 2008
my pressure cooker
To use a 'kitchen' metaphor, we live in a microwave environment.
I have a microwave. I use it about once a fortnight to partially defrost meat and roughly twice a week to 'steam' some treats (e.g. food scraps, sunflower seeds and a little pasta) for my chooks.
For a short time, around 10 years ago, I used it for cooking but, overall, I found that the flavour and texture of microwaved food was second-rate.
This is a personal opinion and, if you disagree, good luck to you.
Over the past decade or so there's been a quiet debate happening about the quality and nutritional value of the food that comes out of the microwave. I'm not pursuing this debate but, if you wish to, 'Google is your friend'.
Partly due to fond memories of my Mum's pressure cooker (which produced such delicious meals from the cheapest cuts of meat), but mostly due to my personal need to eat quality food, I bought my own pressure cooker in 2004.
It's not huge - maybe six litres - but it's thick-gauge stainless steel with a heavy base.
It has a series of safety features - including an idiot-proof interlock on the handle and a special seal - to ensure it can't explode.
This quality of engineering makes it so much nicer than Mum's aluminium unit, which posed a minor threat to our domestic wellbeing every time it was used.
Alongside my rice-cooker, my pressure cooker takes pride of place in the kitchen. Neither is ever 'put away': what's the point, when both are used six days out of seven?
Making best use of a pressure cooker is fairly straightforward. Yes, you can use it to brown meat and caramelise onions. Yes, you can use it to retain the natural nutrients contained in meat and vegetables, rather than 'cooking them off' by using a standard saucepan or frypan.
But, best of all, a pressure cooker offers not only high-quality, tasty food but also quality time with yourself!
One of their traditional selling points is that they 'halve the time' required for cooking meat and vegetables, but this 'feature' doesn't wash with me. Want speedy meals? Use the bloody microwave!
No, what I really like about my pressure cooker is that we work together as a team - at a similar pace.
Preliminary preparations: if you are using chickpeas and/or dried beans they should be soaked in cold, salted water for 24 hours or simmered for at least an hour.
Phase one: Pressure cooker on the hotplate (medium-high) with two or three tablespoons of olive oil; while it heats up, chop up meat, onions, garlic, ginger, chillis, mushrooms, whatever needs browning. Chuck this stuff in as you go and stir vigorously every minute or two.
Phase two: Add water (according to volume required) and turn hotplate down (medium); add slow-cooking ingredients (e.g. pre-softened dried beans, chickpeas) and herbs, spices and condiments; put the lid on and allow to cook for 45 to 60 minutes. (You might need to reduce the stovetop temperature to medium-low to prevent food sticking to the bottom of the pot and burning.)
Phase three: Prepare your 'fast-cooking' ingredients (e.g. fresh vegetables, lentils); open the blow-off valve on the cooker until the lid can be removed; add these ingredients and continue cooking under pressure for around 20 minutes.
As Mum did, I buy budget meat - and I use my own homegrown vegetables whenever I can.
I reckon I eat as well as anyone, and often better … thanks to my pressure cooker.
And, if I prepare enough for three or four days - and refrigerate in-between - I can enjoy 'fast food' most nights; in fact, at successive meals, the flavour of the food improves.
It would be interesting to know 'average' food preparation times in 2008 compared with 30 or 40 years ago …
Why does genuine restaurant food usually taste better than homemade?
Well, most of it doesn't come out of a packet.
It usually doesn't go anywhere near a microwave.
Maybe it's fair to say that, as a general rule, the quality of the food we eat is directly proportional to the quality time invested in making it?
Man! We so busy being busy, aren't we?
I have a microwave. I use it about once a fortnight to partially defrost meat and roughly twice a week to 'steam' some treats (e.g. food scraps, sunflower seeds and a little pasta) for my chooks.
For a short time, around 10 years ago, I used it for cooking but, overall, I found that the flavour and texture of microwaved food was second-rate.
This is a personal opinion and, if you disagree, good luck to you.
Over the past decade or so there's been a quiet debate happening about the quality and nutritional value of the food that comes out of the microwave. I'm not pursuing this debate but, if you wish to, 'Google is your friend'.
Partly due to fond memories of my Mum's pressure cooker (which produced such delicious meals from the cheapest cuts of meat), but mostly due to my personal need to eat quality food, I bought my own pressure cooker in 2004.
It's not huge - maybe six litres - but it's thick-gauge stainless steel with a heavy base.
It has a series of safety features - including an idiot-proof interlock on the handle and a special seal - to ensure it can't explode.
This quality of engineering makes it so much nicer than Mum's aluminium unit, which posed a minor threat to our domestic wellbeing every time it was used.
Alongside my rice-cooker, my pressure cooker takes pride of place in the kitchen. Neither is ever 'put away': what's the point, when both are used six days out of seven?
Making best use of a pressure cooker is fairly straightforward. Yes, you can use it to brown meat and caramelise onions. Yes, you can use it to retain the natural nutrients contained in meat and vegetables, rather than 'cooking them off' by using a standard saucepan or frypan.
But, best of all, a pressure cooker offers not only high-quality, tasty food but also quality time with yourself!
One of their traditional selling points is that they 'halve the time' required for cooking meat and vegetables, but this 'feature' doesn't wash with me. Want speedy meals? Use the bloody microwave!
No, what I really like about my pressure cooker is that we work together as a team - at a similar pace.
Preliminary preparations: if you are using chickpeas and/or dried beans they should be soaked in cold, salted water for 24 hours or simmered for at least an hour.
Phase one: Pressure cooker on the hotplate (medium-high) with two or three tablespoons of olive oil; while it heats up, chop up meat, onions, garlic, ginger, chillis, mushrooms, whatever needs browning. Chuck this stuff in as you go and stir vigorously every minute or two.
Phase two: Add water (according to volume required) and turn hotplate down (medium); add slow-cooking ingredients (e.g. pre-softened dried beans, chickpeas) and herbs, spices and condiments; put the lid on and allow to cook for 45 to 60 minutes. (You might need to reduce the stovetop temperature to medium-low to prevent food sticking to the bottom of the pot and burning.)
Phase three: Prepare your 'fast-cooking' ingredients (e.g. fresh vegetables, lentils); open the blow-off valve on the cooker until the lid can be removed; add these ingredients and continue cooking under pressure for around 20 minutes.
As Mum did, I buy budget meat - and I use my own homegrown vegetables whenever I can.
I reckon I eat as well as anyone, and often better … thanks to my pressure cooker.
And, if I prepare enough for three or four days - and refrigerate in-between - I can enjoy 'fast food' most nights; in fact, at successive meals, the flavour of the food improves.
It would be interesting to know 'average' food preparation times in 2008 compared with 30 or 40 years ago …
Why does genuine restaurant food usually taste better than homemade?
Well, most of it doesn't come out of a packet.
It usually doesn't go anywhere near a microwave.
Maybe it's fair to say that, as a general rule, the quality of the food we eat is directly proportional to the quality time invested in making it?
Man! We so busy being busy, aren't we?
Monday 7 January 2008
peripheral vision
(WARNING: this post has no scientific merit)
I want to talk about a phenomenon that, to my knowledge, has never been documented elsewhere.
There is a direct correlation between the quality of an individual's peripheral vision and the quality of their relationships with other human beings.
Of course, anyone can produce exceptions - medical conditions and so forth - but I'm talking about a general principle.
To state it another way: rude, self-centred people are less visually aware of those around them.
You can easily test this theory the next time you go to a supermarket or a party or drive on city streets.
So there's a degree of correlation between an individual's physical attributes and their psychological makeup.
It's all about a quality called perception.
Loud-mouthed barge-arses don't have it.
I want to talk about a phenomenon that, to my knowledge, has never been documented elsewhere.
There is a direct correlation between the quality of an individual's peripheral vision and the quality of their relationships with other human beings.
Of course, anyone can produce exceptions - medical conditions and so forth - but I'm talking about a general principle.
To state it another way: rude, self-centred people are less visually aware of those around them.
You can easily test this theory the next time you go to a supermarket or a party or drive on city streets.
So there's a degree of correlation between an individual's physical attributes and their psychological makeup.
It's all about a quality called perception.
Loud-mouthed barge-arses don't have it.
Sunday 6 January 2008
a simple philosophy
Do the right thing.
At least TRY!
You won't always succeed. ;-)
Sometimes, my life seems to be a series of misunderstandings.
Why?
The archetypal optimist, I tend to assume that everyone thinks the same way I do …
and that they understand the nuances, the subtexts and multiple ironies that instinctively flow out of my mouth.
Reality check: most people don't instinctively engage on this level! And why should they?
Oh, well. Nobody's perfect.
I'll continue to try to
Do the right thing.
At least TRY!
You won't always succeed. ;-)
Sometimes, my life seems to be a series of misunderstandings.
Why?
The archetypal optimist, I tend to assume that everyone thinks the same way I do …
and that they understand the nuances, the subtexts and multiple ironies that instinctively flow out of my mouth.
Reality check: most people don't instinctively engage on this level! And why should they?
Oh, well. Nobody's perfect.
I'll continue to try to
Do the right thing.
governments just don't get it … case study
In 2007 the Victorian Government decided to build a desalination plant to help 'future-proof' our state against water shortages.
It resolved - in advance! - to build this plant irrespective of community concerns and environmental impacts.
Over the past 12 months or so, Victorian consumers - residential and commercial - have reduced their 'freshwater' consumption by 22%; these savings will only increase.
This new-found thrift is largely negated as …
(1) incalculable volumes of water leak from tired and broken distribution infrastructure which is patched up on an ad hoc basis by a small number of underresourced maintenance crews;
(2) our government continues to advocate the sale of our groundwater to private enterprise (primarily for bottling for the retail market) at discounted rates, bloating their already hefty revenue streams.
Impressive, huh?
Reprocessing sea-water, especially using creaky old fossil-fuel technology, generates massive amounts of greenhouse gases.
Even if the project adopted 'clean' technology to capture and recycle / store this waste (which would add to the cost in dollar terms), it's a fact that vast quantities of fuel will be used up to satisfy the market 'demand' for fresh water.
Even from an 'accounting' perspective, desal water is many times more expensive to acquire, manage and deliver.
Perhaps someone could explain to me how this plan 'future-proofs' our state against greenhouse effects and energy shortages?
The desal plant is currently costed at three billion dollars.
Given governments' long-standing proclivity to under-budget and faff around with our money I'm guessing a bottom line of six billion when it's completed - but let's stick with the estimate.
I can go out and buy a good-quality 5000 litre rainwater tank for A$1300 - retail. (Well, I could if I had the money.)
If the government issued a tender a for million of these, they would probably cost the taxpayer around $300 each.
$300 x (say) 1 million households (in Victoria) = $3 billion. Same as the desal option.
Yes, I'm suggesting that our government 'gives' every household in Victoria a 5000L rainwater tank.
If a householder can afford to 'upsize' for more storage, they can pay the difference.
Likewise, the end-user pays for the associated infrastructure to connect to distribution points.
In both cases, the aforementioned economies of scale will apply.
I'm not claiming this initiative is perfect.
Manufacturing and distributing these tanks will cast a long 'greenhouse' shadow.*
5000 litres of storage will not make most households self-sufficient for water.
Yet the nett potential benefits are massive! …
High-quality drinking water, as opposed to a lifeless collection of reprocessed molecules.
Minimal infrastructure; minimal maintenance (all at absolutely no cost to the taxpayer).
A strong incentive for end-users to optimise every drop of the precious resource 'they' collected and now own and manage.
Will it happen? Not without some fresh thinking. Not without (excuse the cliché) a paradigm shift: a concession by our lawmakers that it's OK to hand back a measure of control to citizens.
As things stand, they just don't get it.
* I'm guessing that a blanket ban on retail bottled water would completely offset the carbon footprint of a million large plastic tanks - but that's another discussion.
It resolved - in advance! - to build this plant irrespective of community concerns and environmental impacts.
Over the past 12 months or so, Victorian consumers - residential and commercial - have reduced their 'freshwater' consumption by 22%; these savings will only increase.
This new-found thrift is largely negated as …
(1) incalculable volumes of water leak from tired and broken distribution infrastructure which is patched up on an ad hoc basis by a small number of underresourced maintenance crews;
(2) our government continues to advocate the sale of our groundwater to private enterprise (primarily for bottling for the retail market) at discounted rates, bloating their already hefty revenue streams.
Impressive, huh?
Reprocessing sea-water, especially using creaky old fossil-fuel technology, generates massive amounts of greenhouse gases.
Even if the project adopted 'clean' technology to capture and recycle / store this waste (which would add to the cost in dollar terms), it's a fact that vast quantities of fuel will be used up to satisfy the market 'demand' for fresh water.
Even from an 'accounting' perspective, desal water is many times more expensive to acquire, manage and deliver.
Perhaps someone could explain to me how this plan 'future-proofs' our state against greenhouse effects and energy shortages?
The desal plant is currently costed at three billion dollars.
Given governments' long-standing proclivity to under-budget and faff around with our money I'm guessing a bottom line of six billion when it's completed - but let's stick with the estimate.
I can go out and buy a good-quality 5000 litre rainwater tank for A$1300 - retail. (Well, I could if I had the money.)
If the government issued a tender a for million of these, they would probably cost the taxpayer around $300 each.
$300 x (say) 1 million households (in Victoria) = $3 billion. Same as the desal option.
Yes, I'm suggesting that our government 'gives' every household in Victoria a 5000L rainwater tank.
If a householder can afford to 'upsize' for more storage, they can pay the difference.
Likewise, the end-user pays for the associated infrastructure to connect to distribution points.
In both cases, the aforementioned economies of scale will apply.
I'm not claiming this initiative is perfect.
Manufacturing and distributing these tanks will cast a long 'greenhouse' shadow.*
5000 litres of storage will not make most households self-sufficient for water.
Yet the nett potential benefits are massive! …
High-quality drinking water, as opposed to a lifeless collection of reprocessed molecules.
Minimal infrastructure; minimal maintenance (all at absolutely no cost to the taxpayer).
A strong incentive for end-users to optimise every drop of the precious resource 'they' collected and now own and manage.
Will it happen? Not without some fresh thinking. Not without (excuse the cliché) a paradigm shift: a concession by our lawmakers that it's OK to hand back a measure of control to citizens.
As things stand, they just don't get it.
* I'm guessing that a blanket ban on retail bottled water would completely offset the carbon footprint of a million large plastic tanks - but that's another discussion.
Saturday 5 January 2008
time out
OK.
My last post required a degree of patience.
Hope I didn't scare anyone away!
I'm considering a couple of techniques for making these 'analyses' a little more user-friendly.
Bear with me. Please! This is seriously big picture stuff.
As always, comments and suggestions are welcome.
My last post required a degree of patience.
Hope I didn't scare anyone away!
I'm considering a couple of techniques for making these 'analyses' a little more user-friendly.
Bear with me. Please! This is seriously big picture stuff.
As always, comments and suggestions are welcome.
Friday 4 January 2008
governments just don't get it (part 1)
The tagline (sub-heading) above says "think globally, act locally … ACT GLOBALLY".
In my first post, I limited this theme to my business plan; however, it imbues pretty much every waking moment.
What does it mean?
Well, in a strictly scientific sense, everyone on the planet is connected.
Even if we weren't all distant relatives (which we are), and suspending - for the time being - my personal belief in equal 'rights', we share the same pool of resources!
Some of the air you breathe right now was expelled by someone on another continent at some time and partially or completely reprocessed before it eventually came in your window and you sucked it into your lungs.
Similarly, the food I eat and the liquid I drink contains the waste of someone, alive or dead, ten thousand miles away.
In the future, our waste products will help someone else survive.
Matter and energy are to some extent interchangeable, but the system we live in - our planet, our atmosphere - is pretty much closed.
We can't use up these resources. We can't increase them either. All we can do is convert them. Or leave them alone.
OK, so our pool is limited and we all live in the same closed system.
So what?
Quite simply, a minority of our 'family' is fucking things up for the rest and it's time we stopped them.
All cultures have developed measures to control or limit antisocial behaviour to some extent. I'm not claiming any of these is perfect (or even 'correct') but there's something in human nature that abhors cruelty, unnecessary violence, vandalism, thievery, dishonesty and so forth.
Laws, accountability, enforcement and punishment are tools invented by humans to 'protect the greater good'.
Now, I don't have much time for conspiracy theories, but it seems to me that these well-intended codes of behaviour rarely apply to protect the entire system we all share - only to tiny, disjointed bits of it.
Furthermore, looking at our planet from a distance, metaphorically speaking, there appears to be an inverse relationship between damaging behaviour and accountability.
Some individuals are allowed - even encouraged - to shit in our pool.
Some countries have assumed the right to occupy a disproportionate space in the pool.
I haven't mentioned 'governments' yet, because I wanted to provide some context.
In my experience, governments are comprised of followers - not leaders. (I'm happy to concede the exceptions - there aren't many).
They are good at supervising and controlling their constituents (usually via prohibition), they are exceptionally good at taking money from people and disbursing it (sometimes for the greater good - often not), they are 'adequate' at managing existing structures (as opposed to creating new ones) and they are truly excellent at acting swiftly to increase their own power.
But they're hopeless at innovation!
Any genuinely 'fresh' approach by a government - good or bad - is not driven by politicians but by lobbyists.
This is a good time for me to take a break, for the waters will get very muddy very quickly.
In the meantime, here's a handy hint. Do you suspect a government 'initiative'? Follow the money trail.
In my first post, I limited this theme to my business plan; however, it imbues pretty much every waking moment.
What does it mean?
Well, in a strictly scientific sense, everyone on the planet is connected.
Even if we weren't all distant relatives (which we are), and suspending - for the time being - my personal belief in equal 'rights', we share the same pool of resources!
Some of the air you breathe right now was expelled by someone on another continent at some time and partially or completely reprocessed before it eventually came in your window and you sucked it into your lungs.
Similarly, the food I eat and the liquid I drink contains the waste of someone, alive or dead, ten thousand miles away.
In the future, our waste products will help someone else survive.
Matter and energy are to some extent interchangeable, but the system we live in - our planet, our atmosphere - is pretty much closed.
We can't use up these resources. We can't increase them either. All we can do is convert them. Or leave them alone.
OK, so our pool is limited and we all live in the same closed system.
So what?
Quite simply, a minority of our 'family' is fucking things up for the rest and it's time we stopped them.
All cultures have developed measures to control or limit antisocial behaviour to some extent. I'm not claiming any of these is perfect (or even 'correct') but there's something in human nature that abhors cruelty, unnecessary violence, vandalism, thievery, dishonesty and so forth.
Laws, accountability, enforcement and punishment are tools invented by humans to 'protect the greater good'.
Now, I don't have much time for conspiracy theories, but it seems to me that these well-intended codes of behaviour rarely apply to protect the entire system we all share - only to tiny, disjointed bits of it.
Furthermore, looking at our planet from a distance, metaphorically speaking, there appears to be an inverse relationship between damaging behaviour and accountability.
Some individuals are allowed - even encouraged - to shit in our pool.
Some countries have assumed the right to occupy a disproportionate space in the pool.
I haven't mentioned 'governments' yet, because I wanted to provide some context.
In my experience, governments are comprised of followers - not leaders. (I'm happy to concede the exceptions - there aren't many).
They are good at supervising and controlling their constituents (usually via prohibition), they are exceptionally good at taking money from people and disbursing it (sometimes for the greater good - often not), they are 'adequate' at managing existing structures (as opposed to creating new ones) and they are truly excellent at acting swiftly to increase their own power.
But they're hopeless at innovation!
Any genuinely 'fresh' approach by a government - good or bad - is not driven by politicians but by lobbyists.
This is a good time for me to take a break, for the waters will get very muddy very quickly.
In the meantime, here's a handy hint. Do you suspect a government 'initiative'? Follow the money trail.
Wednesday 2 January 2008
on the bandwagon
2 January, 2008
[1.15pm, Australian Eastern Summer Time]
OK, I'm blogging at last. (Disclaimer: This behaviour is NOT driven by a New Year's Resolution!)
I'm still feeling my way so bear with me.
Not exactly an early adopter - it took me about six years to discover Lou Reed's Transformer - I've several reasons for creating my own "web presence". Do they still call it that? Probably not.
To make it easier all round, I'll stick to my four primary drivers.
I'm the sort of person with an opinion on pretty much everything … 'opinionated'. Not a bad thing.
My opinions sometimes take a while to become well-formed; usually they're instinctive (experience-based).
Either way, they're always right. So you've come to the right place.
And, because no one is paying me to grind their axe for them, I can freely promise to tell always the truth.
Anyway, that's my first reason: I've got stuff to say. Some of it's 'important'. Some less so. And, hopefully, we'll have some fun in-between.
My second reason is that there's so much happening in the world that's just slipping through the cracks.
On the surface, we in the affluent West are 'spoilt for choice' in what we consume: information sources, communications, entertainment, food, drugs of choice, gadgets and lifestyles.
Scratch this surface - in many ways barely skin-deep - and there are real problems.
In a random kind of way I'm going to address some of these issues.
Oh yeah, and I'm happy to celebrate the positives too!
The third reason is that I'm currently making a big effort to build my business.
The last couple of years have been a real struggle for me financially but I'm determined to turn this around.
Not even having a marketing budget at present, I'm taking advantage of this free opportunity to put myself 'out there' and, hopefully, pick up a few new clients. If it doesn't click … well, at least I'll know for sure!
In a nutshell, I offer a range of services to small businesses: skills which most businesses need from time to time, yet can't deliver 'in house'.
Specifically, I have a wealth of experience in copywriting, marketing and communications, copy editing and proofreading, graphic design / digital illustration, pre-press and print liason in a range of media.
In an earlier life, I worked in journalism on and off for many years before managing Banshee! Graphics for 12 years.
Banshee specialised in typesetting and illustrating educational textbooks for Melbourne- and Sydney-based publishers.
We had a well deserved reputation in the trade for speed, reliability and excellent product, all at a reasonable price.
Although the nature of my business has shifted considerably, I continue to deliver quality and value … and always will.
To proceed at a tangent momentarily, there is a crucial nexus between 'growing' my business and my personal world view.
In terms of communications technology, we never had it so good!
In terms of markets (supply and demand), the planet grows smaller every day.
Puttting these two factors together creates a hothouse environment for a business like mine: because everything I produce can be digitised and transmitted to my client electronically AND because my client can, in turn, directly credit my bank account for services rendered, we can do business regardless of where you live.
There are more bonuses.
Pumping product and payment through telephone lines is incredibly efficient. Not only does this save my time and your money, the environmental impact of these transactions is incredibly small. This effect fits in neatly with my increasing desire to tread as lightly as possible on our planet.
No, this ain't 'serendipity'! But it's a fortunate piece of timing all round. Not only can we 'think globally, act locally' - we can start to 'act globally' in a very positive way! Think about it.
My final reason is philosophical.
I love to communicate. I love to write. I do both pretty well.
I'm no rocket surgeon but it's increasingly obvious to me that the vast majority of 'human' problems are caused by people's inability or unwillingness to communicate effectively.
Yet, too few are doing anything about it.
Beyond the depressive effect, I'm increasingly irritated with the 'quality' of language being published on the Net.
Not just in the open forums or in U-tube comments or on MySpace - choose any morass of illiteracy you like! (I for one don't begrudge dyslexic nine-year-olds their right to articulate a viewpoint!)- but in notionally 'grown-up' environments like news reports and adult discussion forums.
This phenomenon - laziness? ignorance? both? - is symptomatic of a deeper malaise, I think, wherein too many of us tend to favour instant gratification over quality communication.
Let's try to balance the scales a fraction.
OK: that's enough. First post is done. Constructive feedback welcome. Catch you next time.
[1.15pm, Australian Eastern Summer Time]
OK, I'm blogging at last. (Disclaimer: This behaviour is NOT driven by a New Year's Resolution!)
I'm still feeling my way so bear with me.
Not exactly an early adopter - it took me about six years to discover Lou Reed's Transformer - I've several reasons for creating my own "web presence". Do they still call it that? Probably not.
To make it easier all round, I'll stick to my four primary drivers.
I'm the sort of person with an opinion on pretty much everything … 'opinionated'. Not a bad thing.
My opinions sometimes take a while to become well-formed; usually they're instinctive (experience-based).
Either way, they're always right. So you've come to the right place.
And, because no one is paying me to grind their axe for them, I can freely promise to tell always the truth.
Anyway, that's my first reason: I've got stuff to say. Some of it's 'important'. Some less so. And, hopefully, we'll have some fun in-between.
My second reason is that there's so much happening in the world that's just slipping through the cracks.
On the surface, we in the affluent West are 'spoilt for choice' in what we consume: information sources, communications, entertainment, food, drugs of choice, gadgets and lifestyles.
Scratch this surface - in many ways barely skin-deep - and there are real problems.
In a random kind of way I'm going to address some of these issues.
Oh yeah, and I'm happy to celebrate the positives too!
The third reason is that I'm currently making a big effort to build my business.
The last couple of years have been a real struggle for me financially but I'm determined to turn this around.
Not even having a marketing budget at present, I'm taking advantage of this free opportunity to put myself 'out there' and, hopefully, pick up a few new clients. If it doesn't click … well, at least I'll know for sure!
In a nutshell, I offer a range of services to small businesses: skills which most businesses need from time to time, yet can't deliver 'in house'.
Specifically, I have a wealth of experience in copywriting, marketing and communications, copy editing and proofreading, graphic design / digital illustration, pre-press and print liason in a range of media.
In an earlier life, I worked in journalism on and off for many years before managing Banshee! Graphics for 12 years.
Banshee specialised in typesetting and illustrating educational textbooks for Melbourne- and Sydney-based publishers.
We had a well deserved reputation in the trade for speed, reliability and excellent product, all at a reasonable price.
Although the nature of my business has shifted considerably, I continue to deliver quality and value … and always will.
To proceed at a tangent momentarily, there is a crucial nexus between 'growing' my business and my personal world view.
In terms of communications technology, we never had it so good!
In terms of markets (supply and demand), the planet grows smaller every day.
Puttting these two factors together creates a hothouse environment for a business like mine: because everything I produce can be digitised and transmitted to my client electronically AND because my client can, in turn, directly credit my bank account for services rendered, we can do business regardless of where you live.
There are more bonuses.
Pumping product and payment through telephone lines is incredibly efficient. Not only does this save my time and your money, the environmental impact of these transactions is incredibly small. This effect fits in neatly with my increasing desire to tread as lightly as possible on our planet.
No, this ain't 'serendipity'! But it's a fortunate piece of timing all round. Not only can we 'think globally, act locally' - we can start to 'act globally' in a very positive way! Think about it.
My final reason is philosophical.
I love to communicate. I love to write. I do both pretty well.
I'm no rocket surgeon but it's increasingly obvious to me that the vast majority of 'human' problems are caused by people's inability or unwillingness to communicate effectively.
Yet, too few are doing anything about it.
Beyond the depressive effect, I'm increasingly irritated with the 'quality' of language being published on the Net.
Not just in the open forums or in U-tube comments or on MySpace - choose any morass of illiteracy you like! (I for one don't begrudge dyslexic nine-year-olds their right to articulate a viewpoint!)- but in notionally 'grown-up' environments like news reports and adult discussion forums.
This phenomenon - laziness? ignorance? both? - is symptomatic of a deeper malaise, I think, wherein too many of us tend to favour instant gratification over quality communication.
Let's try to balance the scales a fraction.
OK: that's enough. First post is done. Constructive feedback welcome. Catch you next time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
