Not that I'm planning to turn this blog into a GMO-activism sort of thing, but, consonant with the notion that self-sufficiency is inherently anti-corporate (and possibly a bit subversive) here's more follow-up on my comments about the fraud being perpetuated by the pro-GMO lobby.
Showing posts with label kakistopoly. Show all posts
Showing posts with label kakistopoly. Show all posts
12 January 2012
The Great GMO Scam
I am assuming that we all understand roughly the same thing when I speak in abbreviated fashion about Genetically Modified Organisms -- particularly GMO food plants. Some people are tempted to sidetrack the conversation into irrelevancies with arguments like, "All our food crops are genetically modified, anyway, because we've been selectively breeding them for thousands of years." While true, it is either foolish misdirection, or deliberate obfuscation of the crucial differences between conventional genetic evolution (whether consciously directed by ourselves, or whether the result of natural evolutionary pressures) and the deliberate introduction, removal or rearrangement of isolated snippets of genetic material into otherwise-unrelated gene sequences using advanced cellular "surgery". Those who deliberately obfuscate this point clearly have an agenda.
I am no techno-luddite. I am not opposed to improving the yields, flavours, nutrition or agronomic properties of the 5 Fs1 that constitute our reasons for farming. Quite the opposite.
Hell, we've been doing this stuff for thousands of years, as witness the amazing variety of delicious and nutritious heirloom varieties we still have access to3. I am actively engaged in various small projects to try and cultivate new veg varieties using traditional methods. So its not progress per se that worries me, but I am deeply bothered by the whole pro-GMO lobby and its bought politicians.
In short, I think that the whole GMO programme is (at best) stupid. (At worst it is an out and out con job conceived and executed by greedy, lying bandits.)
Parts of the GMO Proposition might even be dangerous, as some GMO opponents argue. Certainly the effects of introducing essentially alien genetic material into our life-support systems largely untested seems a bit foolish and short-sighted, at best. But frankly I am spectacularly uninterested in whether we humans do actually endanger ourselves by introducing weird genetic combinations into our food-supply. We will reap as we sow.
I am equally pretty unworried by the possibility that a Tomato might harbour Cow genes to the detriment of my (vegetarian) karma. I do understand those arguments. They may have substantial merit. But they interest me not. They are Other Peoples' Problems.
I am concerned by the PR schmaltz spread by the pro-GM lobby. At best it is yet another manifestation of nothing more nor less than the usual corporate self-serving, soul-sucking greed, greed and more greed. At worst it fuels a smokescreen that blinds people to the true dangers of this technology, that suffocates the honest debate, thoughtful challenges and many very serious questions we should be asking about GMO crops under a blanket of misdirection, deceit, ad hominem denunciation, pseudo-answers and frequently, outright lies.
The Central Problem Of GMO is this: Evolution.
Life on this planet evolves4. As the energy flows impacting any ecosystem change – be they changes in rainfall, solar-energy infall, atmospheric CO2 concentrations, trace elements or key nutrients,... just anything, in fact – so the ecosystem changes, adapts to the new reality. And that means that the organisms within ecosystems are in a constant and ongoing state of flux, genes ever dancing and gyring to adapt to changes. Life has been doing this for something like 3.5 billion years – basically ever since the Earth got cool enough for any life forms to exist.
We're really very, very good at evolving. All of us Earthicans! We're all evolution Badasses of the highest capability.
To put it another way, the Central Problem Of GMO is this: It Cannot Possibly Work.
Let's take a quick look at some of the things we're told that "genetically-modified" crops are going to really great for:
The first two are pretty closely related. In both cases the germplasm of a crop-plant is modified to impart a resistance to environmental pressures. In both cases the outcome is very highly predictable... evolution happens.
In the first case the pests and diseases that the genetically-modified variety is supposed to resist evolve their way past the newly-injected defences, bringing the whole affair back to its starting point: a crop plant that no longer has resistances to those pests and diseases.
In the second case it is extremely likely that the pests/diseases that we're spraying against will out-evolve the agrichemicals involved. Just as before, we're soon back to square one.
The last two arguments might have some merit, except that we are perfectly able to introduce the necessary nutrients and breed drought-resistance into our crops by a combination of conventional breeding practice and sound soil-management. (Read: Organic cultivation.) At no cost at all. I am working on drought -resistant Tomatoes and Potatoes right now.
I don't wish to delve too deeply into the issues around the transfer of modified genetic material into the wild. It happens. That is well documented. And unscrupulous, greedy corporate blood-suckers want (and, so far, too frequently succeed) at gouging money from unsuspecting farmers who have been the unwilling recipients of this alien germplasm. Suffice to point out that Roundup-Ready weeds are well documented as wild plants. So the Genetically Modified genes have escaped into the wild, with no telling what the consequences might be. Stupid, stupid, stupid!
Now I don't believe that microbiologists are stupid people. Quite the contrary. It is my experience that they are highly intelligent, thoughtful people. So I greatly doubt that they are unaware of this Fact Of Evolution. I'm pretty sure they know that the rest of the ecosystem is going to evolve around the manipulated organisms introduced into it. There is no other possibility. In part I believe that scientists don't really have a very good idea, yet, of just how quickly evolution happens. We are just beginning to find out. It seems that resistances show up in as short a time as 3 or 4 growing seasons! Much faster than anyone expected.
Interestingly, the pro-GMO lobby somehow altogether fails to mention that their products are certain to be out-evolved in short order. In other words, the useful lifespan of such a product – the timespan for which it is likely to be effective for the purpose claimed by its makers – is really quite short. After which we'll need to do something else to "combat" the "hostile" predators, pests and diseases that seek to enjoy their portion of our crops. I'm pretty sure I know what the agri-industrialists are likely to propose... More and newer GMO crops, allowing us to use new and stronger chemical cocktails in the "War on Bugs".
And so another Arms Race chases its own tail...
In short, I don't believe that the GMO industry is telling the full story. And why would they, since the full story doesn't paint a picture that leads inexorably to Perpetual Profit. I would guess that the Techies (the scientists involved) are simply not allowed a voice by their corporate overlords, since the truth is so much more complex and nuanced than the Marketing Department would like. So much more ambiguous and uncertain.
In even shorter, the GMO producers are misleading everybody. They're lying.
They're prepared to risk unpredictable (possibly lethal) consequences on the ecosystems we depend upon for life, all in the name of This Quarter's Profits.
[1] Food, fodder, fibre2, fuel, pharma(ceuticals).
[2] And by "fibre" I also mean "framework" material that we use for building... OK, so maybe I should make it "The 6 Fs". You tell me.
[3] ...despite the best recent efforts of the monopolistic seed kakistopoly.
[4] Sorry, creationists/intelligent-design proponents, you'll have to seek elsewhere than this blog for a sympathetic hearing or equal consideration.
[5] For some value of "we". Reality is that the bulk of humanity is fed by modern factory farming methods. We pro-organic growers are still a splinter minority.
[6] And that really is "engineered" as opposed to "bred"...
I am no techno-luddite. I am not opposed to improving the yields, flavours, nutrition or agronomic properties of the 5 Fs1 that constitute our reasons for farming. Quite the opposite.
Hell, we've been doing this stuff for thousands of years, as witness the amazing variety of delicious and nutritious heirloom varieties we still have access to3. I am actively engaged in various small projects to try and cultivate new veg varieties using traditional methods. So its not progress per se that worries me, but I am deeply bothered by the whole pro-GMO lobby and its bought politicians.
In short, I think that the whole GMO programme is (at best) stupid. (At worst it is an out and out con job conceived and executed by greedy, lying bandits.)
Parts of the GMO Proposition might even be dangerous, as some GMO opponents argue. Certainly the effects of introducing essentially alien genetic material into our life-support systems largely untested seems a bit foolish and short-sighted, at best. But frankly I am spectacularly uninterested in whether we humans do actually endanger ourselves by introducing weird genetic combinations into our food-supply. We will reap as we sow.
I am equally pretty unworried by the possibility that a Tomato might harbour Cow genes to the detriment of my (vegetarian) karma. I do understand those arguments. They may have substantial merit. But they interest me not. They are Other Peoples' Problems.
I am concerned by the PR schmaltz spread by the pro-GM lobby. At best it is yet another manifestation of nothing more nor less than the usual corporate self-serving, soul-sucking greed, greed and more greed. At worst it fuels a smokescreen that blinds people to the true dangers of this technology, that suffocates the honest debate, thoughtful challenges and many very serious questions we should be asking about GMO crops under a blanket of misdirection, deceit, ad hominem denunciation, pseudo-answers and frequently, outright lies.
The Central Problem Of GMO is this: Evolution.
Life on this planet evolves4. As the energy flows impacting any ecosystem change – be they changes in rainfall, solar-energy infall, atmospheric CO2 concentrations, trace elements or key nutrients,... just anything, in fact – so the ecosystem changes, adapts to the new reality. And that means that the organisms within ecosystems are in a constant and ongoing state of flux, genes ever dancing and gyring to adapt to changes. Life has been doing this for something like 3.5 billion years – basically ever since the Earth got cool enough for any life forms to exist.
We're really very, very good at evolving. All of us Earthicans! We're all evolution Badasses of the highest capability.
To put it another way, the Central Problem Of GMO is this: It Cannot Possibly Work.
Let's take a quick look at some of the things we're told that "genetically-modified" crops are going to really great for:
- Pest- and disease-resistance. This has really been the main song sung by the pro-GM lobby so far. We're told that by growing these "genetically enhanced" crops we won't have to use as much toxic pesticide, fungicide, herbicide as we5 currently do, "So really, choosing GMO crops are a very Green thing to do!"
- Resistance to agrichemicals design to kill off pests, competitors or diseases that prey on our crops.
- We can add Antibiotics/Vitamins/Trace elements to our food supply, thereby enhancing peoples' health and wellbeing at a very tiny cost. Good! I have no objection to that, as long as people have a clear and informed choice in the matter. That means Food Labelling. However, I think there's likely to be some unexpected fallout...
- And the latest in a desperate gambit to keep those GMO profits rolling in... GMO crops can be engineered6 to be drought resistant, so that we don't have to worry so much about rapid global climate change.
The first two are pretty closely related. In both cases the germplasm of a crop-plant is modified to impart a resistance to environmental pressures. In both cases the outcome is very highly predictable... evolution happens.
In the first case the pests and diseases that the genetically-modified variety is supposed to resist evolve their way past the newly-injected defences, bringing the whole affair back to its starting point: a crop plant that no longer has resistances to those pests and diseases.
In the second case it is extremely likely that the pests/diseases that we're spraying against will out-evolve the agrichemicals involved. Just as before, we're soon back to square one.
The last two arguments might have some merit, except that we are perfectly able to introduce the necessary nutrients and breed drought-resistance into our crops by a combination of conventional breeding practice and sound soil-management. (Read: Organic cultivation.) At no cost at all. I am working on drought -resistant Tomatoes and Potatoes right now.
I don't wish to delve too deeply into the issues around the transfer of modified genetic material into the wild. It happens. That is well documented. And unscrupulous, greedy corporate blood-suckers want (and, so far, too frequently succeed) at gouging money from unsuspecting farmers who have been the unwilling recipients of this alien germplasm. Suffice to point out that Roundup-Ready weeds are well documented as wild plants. So the Genetically Modified genes have escaped into the wild, with no telling what the consequences might be. Stupid, stupid, stupid!
Now I don't believe that microbiologists are stupid people. Quite the contrary. It is my experience that they are highly intelligent, thoughtful people. So I greatly doubt that they are unaware of this Fact Of Evolution. I'm pretty sure they know that the rest of the ecosystem is going to evolve around the manipulated organisms introduced into it. There is no other possibility. In part I believe that scientists don't really have a very good idea, yet, of just how quickly evolution happens. We are just beginning to find out. It seems that resistances show up in as short a time as 3 or 4 growing seasons! Much faster than anyone expected.
Interestingly, the pro-GMO lobby somehow altogether fails to mention that their products are certain to be out-evolved in short order. In other words, the useful lifespan of such a product – the timespan for which it is likely to be effective for the purpose claimed by its makers – is really quite short. After which we'll need to do something else to "combat" the "hostile" predators, pests and diseases that seek to enjoy their portion of our crops. I'm pretty sure I know what the agri-industrialists are likely to propose... More and newer GMO crops, allowing us to use new and stronger chemical cocktails in the "War on Bugs".
And so another Arms Race chases its own tail...
In short, I don't believe that the GMO industry is telling the full story. And why would they, since the full story doesn't paint a picture that leads inexorably to Perpetual Profit. I would guess that the Techies (the scientists involved) are simply not allowed a voice by their corporate overlords, since the truth is so much more complex and nuanced than the Marketing Department would like. So much more ambiguous and uncertain.
In even shorter, the GMO producers are misleading everybody. They're lying.
They're prepared to risk unpredictable (possibly lethal) consequences on the ecosystems we depend upon for life, all in the name of This Quarter's Profits.
[1] Food, fodder, fibre2, fuel, pharma(ceuticals).
[2] And by "fibre" I also mean "framework" material that we use for building... OK, so maybe I should make it "The 6 Fs". You tell me.
[3] ...despite the best recent efforts of the monopolistic seed kakistopoly.
[4] Sorry, creationists/intelligent-design proponents, you'll have to seek elsewhere than this blog for a sympathetic hearing or equal consideration.
[5] For some value of "we". Reality is that the bulk of humanity is fed by modern factory farming methods. We pro-organic growers are still a splinter minority.
[6] And that really is "engineered" as opposed to "bred"...
01 February 2010
Mysterious Mr Mofokeng
This post is clearly not much about self-sufficiency, homesteading, gardening or anything related, but I have to get it off my chest. Regular readers (yes, both of you) might want to give this one a miss...
It must be the first of the month. My cellphone hasn't stopped ringing. Just like every first of the month.
None of the calls are for me, though, and most of them show up on the screen as "Number Withheld". The calls are all for a Mr. Mofokeng. I don't know his first name, though. Or, rather, at last count I've been asked for around fifteen different first names. Albert Mofokeng, Charles Mofokeng, Sidney Mofokeng, Mbazima Mofokeng, Jonathan Mofokeng, September Mofokeng, November Mofokeng... I think he started running out of names... The best I can establish is that Mr. Mofokeng is a small-time conman who opens accounts with various stores, banks, phone companies, buys some stuff on tick, and then skips on payments, leaving the creditors with myphone number.
Some of the people who call are quite polite and see the humour in the situation when they understand that Mofokeng has dished out a fake phone number. Others are quite a lot less polite. Yes, Virgin Mobile; I'm looking at you! Isn't it peculiar that a phone service provider can be fooled with the wrong phone number? Don't they consult their own database?
Even odder is that this thing has been going on for years. Surely this guy has long since been listed with the various credit agencies and blacklists? Don't credit-grantors actually check any of the information an applicant gives them? I mean, really, if I were sitting with some person in front of me asking for a line of credit, clutching their freshly lettered application form, and the form gives their cellphone number, why not just pick up the phone on your desk and call the damn number! If it rings in the applicant's pocket, all's well and good. If not... well, would you grant them credit? So I have little to no sympathy for the idiot companies that get taken in by this guy. If their vetting process is so badly broken, they deserve all the woe they bring upon themselves and should stop wingeing.
But I do wish that Mr Mofokeng would give out somebody else's number for a change. Or perhaps he does!
It must be the first of the month. My cellphone hasn't stopped ringing. Just like every first of the month.
None of the calls are for me, though, and most of them show up on the screen as "Number Withheld". The calls are all for a Mr. Mofokeng. I don't know his first name, though. Or, rather, at last count I've been asked for around fifteen different first names. Albert Mofokeng, Charles Mofokeng, Sidney Mofokeng, Mbazima Mofokeng, Jonathan Mofokeng, September Mofokeng, November Mofokeng... I think he started running out of names... The best I can establish is that Mr. Mofokeng is a small-time conman who opens accounts with various stores, banks, phone companies, buys some stuff on tick, and then skips on payments, leaving the creditors with myphone number.
Some of the people who call are quite polite and see the humour in the situation when they understand that Mofokeng has dished out a fake phone number. Others are quite a lot less polite. Yes, Virgin Mobile; I'm looking at you! Isn't it peculiar that a phone service provider can be fooled with the wrong phone number? Don't they consult their own database?
Even odder is that this thing has been going on for years. Surely this guy has long since been listed with the various credit agencies and blacklists? Don't credit-grantors actually check any of the information an applicant gives them? I mean, really, if I were sitting with some person in front of me asking for a line of credit, clutching their freshly lettered application form, and the form gives their cellphone number, why not just pick up the phone on your desk and call the damn number! If it rings in the applicant's pocket, all's well and good. If not... well, would you grant them credit? So I have little to no sympathy for the idiot companies that get taken in by this guy. If their vetting process is so badly broken, they deserve all the woe they bring upon themselves and should stop wingeing.
But I do wish that Mr Mofokeng would give out somebody else's number for a change. Or perhaps he does!
01 October 2009
Malting
I'm fed up with the useless South African internet/mail-order homebrew suppliers. Essentially there are only 3, and they're all pretty useless in my experience. Orders fail to pitch up for months. Ingredients that I'm told are in stock, mysteriously become out-of-stock upon ordering. Websites that list fairly common-use grains as out-of-stock -- since March 2008!
It makes me want to set up my own internet brewshop. The buggers are ripe for some competition!
There are some challenges to the thing, I admit. Firstly, I think that most (all?) of the online suppliers are under capitalised. I suspect that running a brew-supply business needs quite a lot of working capital: you have to stock quite a significant range of yeasts, malts, hops and adjuncts, not to mention expensive kits, in order to really "be in business", even if you only carry a quite restricted product range. That all ties up quite a lot of money in eminently perishable products that you hope you might sell before they're stale. Then, too, I don't know that there are enough home- / craft- / nano- / micro-breweries in SA to really sustain such a business. Maybe there are, but I suspect that it is very borderline.
And to think, all I want is some specialty malts and a couple of yeasts.
Suddenly I was struck by a passing Thought Particle! A few weeks ago we were treated to a tour of the Caledon Maltings, arranged by the SouthYeasters brew-club. (And I'm very remiss in blogging that fascinating tour!) And we learned a bit about the malting process, didn't we? (At least, as practised on an industrial scale!) Why not try my hand at a bit of malting?
So, this afternoon I bought 5 kilos of barley from the local farm co-op. Bunged 1kg into a bucket of water to soak overnight, and let's see how it goes! After all, stage one is only sprouting grains, no? And we've certainly done that plenty times. I'll probably leap in at the deep-end and try for a Caramel Malt straight-off. Why stick to something simple, eh? So the roasting process might catch me out... what's the risk? A whole kilo of Barley! If I manage to figure the process out in a tiny batch (though 1kg still gives me a decent amount of malt to use for brewing if it does work out OK) then I'll worry about scaling the process up a bit.
Hmmmmm... maybe -- between the home-brewers and the microbreweries -- there's enough of a market for a local specialty-grain maltings locally ;-)
It makes me want to set up my own internet brewshop. The buggers are ripe for some competition!
There are some challenges to the thing, I admit. Firstly, I think that most (all?) of the online suppliers are under capitalised. I suspect that running a brew-supply business needs quite a lot of working capital: you have to stock quite a significant range of yeasts, malts, hops and adjuncts, not to mention expensive kits, in order to really "be in business", even if you only carry a quite restricted product range. That all ties up quite a lot of money in eminently perishable products that you hope you might sell before they're stale. Then, too, I don't know that there are enough home- / craft- / nano- / micro-breweries in SA to really sustain such a business. Maybe there are, but I suspect that it is very borderline.
And to think, all I want is some specialty malts and a couple of yeasts.
Suddenly I was struck by a passing Thought Particle! A few weeks ago we were treated to a tour of the Caledon Maltings, arranged by the SouthYeasters brew-club. (And I'm very remiss in blogging that fascinating tour!) And we learned a bit about the malting process, didn't we? (At least, as practised on an industrial scale!) Why not try my hand at a bit of malting?
So, this afternoon I bought 5 kilos of barley from the local farm co-op. Bunged 1kg into a bucket of water to soak overnight, and let's see how it goes! After all, stage one is only sprouting grains, no? And we've certainly done that plenty times. I'll probably leap in at the deep-end and try for a Caramel Malt straight-off. Why stick to something simple, eh? So the roasting process might catch me out... what's the risk? A whole kilo of Barley! If I manage to figure the process out in a tiny batch (though 1kg still gives me a decent amount of malt to use for brewing if it does work out OK) then I'll worry about scaling the process up a bit.
Hmmmmm... maybe -- between the home-brewers and the microbreweries -- there's enough of a market for a local specialty-grain maltings locally ;-)
09 June 2009
Chainsaw Woes 2
Following my whinge (winge? whinj? How the hell do you spell it?) to Husqvarna yesterday, to their full credit, I had responses by email from their MD and their Territory Manager by phone first thing this morning. That sort of response is pretty unusual in the Global Kakistopoly, in my experience, so full marks to Husqvarna South Africa!
The real point, as I reiterated to them, is that, so long as Topsaw is the sole agent/dealer for them this area, there is no way I will own Husqvarna products. The pain and uncertainty is just not worth it.
Just thought that Husqvarna's name should be kept in the clear on this, in all fairness...
The real point, as I reiterated to them, is that, so long as Topsaw is the sole agent/dealer for them this area, there is no way I will own Husqvarna products. The pain and uncertainty is just not worth it.
Just thought that Husqvarna's name should be kept in the clear on this, in all fairness...
Kakistopoly
Wrote up the origin and definition, with appropriate ranting, of the word "Kakistopoly," a word of (as far as I know) my own invention.
Share and Enjoy!
Share and Enjoy!
08 June 2009
Chainsaw Woes
A copy of my letter to Husqvarna South Africa:
I recently took my chainsaw to the local dealer/agents in the South Cape, Topsaw, for a minor service. I was told that the expected price of such a service was in the range of R250-R400, which I accepted, with the clear instruction to phone me if any other problems were uncovered.
Upon calling to enquire about the progress of the service after a week, I was told that parts were on order and that the repair bill would be R1250! You can imagine my consternation. Times are tough, and I cannot honestly afford to pay that much.
Their report of the behaviour of the chainsaw after its service bears absolutely NO resemblance to the performance of the machine prior to the service, and I strongly believe that they have carried out this additional and expensive work unnecessarily. It is my considered opinion, in the light of disucssions with numerous friends and acquaintances who have suffered similar occurences at their hands, that Topsaw are no better than a bunch of thieves and con artists.
As a result, despite believing that Husqvarna makes a top-class chainsaw, I shall be selling the machine as soon as I have it back (though I fully expect there might be some further delays, obfuscation and additional expenses) in order to go and buy a Stihl, simply so that I never have to deal with this bunch of sharks ever again.
06 March 2008
Plan Be Unplugged
Fit the First
Unless you're living in South Africa, you're probably unaware that the country is in the midst of an Energy Crisis. Rolling blackouts are the order of the day; even the mines -- traditionally the mainstay of the economy[1] -- are having to deal with major power-cuts. Stories abound of commuter trains stranded, traffic snarl-ups due to non-funtioning traffic lights, hospital patients dependent on breathing machines having to be "breathed" by manual labour, telephones and network connections that stop working because the local telephone exchange exhausts its backup power. Nobody is untouched. Every one of us has a story of somebody we know being affected in a life- or income-threatening way.
My youngest brother, Richard, owns a factory that produces sugar sticks -- great lumps of crystalised sugar at the end of a stick, for stirring into coffee (or even -- ugh, gods forbid! -- tea!) Signpost to the pointymost peak of Peak Everything Civilisation, I suppose, but there it is. Trouble is, the process of producing a sugar stick takes 3 days. Three days of pernickity temperature differentials, maddeningly-critical evaporation rates and inexplicably unstable solution-flow rates. Three days. Unless the power fails. Then you get to throw away an entire batch -- 5 tonnes -- of sugar solution, and start again, hoping against hope that the power stays up long enough to make a living. It would be one thing if the business were a well-established one, with a stable, understanding and patient customer base, but it's not. They're still a startup. They produce the best quality sugar sticks in the world, at one third the price of their closest competitors, but they're The New Kids on the Block. They've signed some great customers. But those customers will evaporate if they can't deliver the goods. The fact of power-cuts every second day will produce sympathy from the individuals involved who understand the whys and wherefores; but the fact remains... the customers will go away.
The "current" energy problems are totally the responsibility of the government. Despite the public anger at Eskom, the state-owned-and-run electricity monopoly. More than ten years ago (in 1998, to be exact,) Eskom was warning government that, given government's economic growth targets, Eskom would need to build several more baseload power stations to meet the demand. Given that it takes about ten years to build a significant baseload power-station -- not to mention the getting through all the Environmental Impact Assessments and Community Consultation and Planning requirements. At the time, it was Not Politically Convenient to hear this message, so Mbeki's cabinet ignored it. So we sit with Economically Significant Power Cuts.
Recently some government schmuck tried to suggest that the power shortage was a result of Apartheid-Era Planning -- The Usual Scapegoat. Oh how we laugh! (I'll bet it was my "friend" Arshole Alec, the Arithmetically Challenged Minister Who Has Shot His Bolt. Whilst the apartheid regime certainly left us with lots of horrible legacy, this particular clusterfuck came about on the ANC's watch. The Old Nats (may they rot in hell) would never have permitted such sloppy planning! (whatever else they may have turned a blind-eye to...)
Premonition of the Great Unwinding. We South Africans are the Pathfinders. We are the first to glimpse the course of Energy Descent. Not with a bang, but with a whimper, we go.
Fit the Second
For the couple of years I've had DSL internet service, it has been great. In the face of country-wide complaints (verging on rioting, mayhem and life-threats to Telkom's management) about the Totally Fucking Useless National Telco I have been a lone voice in the wilderness saying what a great DSL service I get. Wellbite my shiny metal ass blow me down. A major service outage about ten days ago. Two days of frustration and stress and hours (literally!) on hold. "Thank You For Your Patience. Your Call ''Will'' Be Answered As Soon As A Customer Service Agent Is Available." It wears a little thin after an hour, I'll tell you! This, right at the time when the small flow of money I'm earning is totally dependent on that thin strand of copper I call "The Internet." It all came right in the end, only to be followed by another failure last Friday. The line is still down.
Fit the Future
So this is the face of the powerdown. Not in a cataclysmic implosion, does our civilization die, but little piece by little piece. Some things will undoubtedly get better even as other parts of the technological iceberg disintegrate. Not a single all-in-one unravelling of the Jersey of Warm Fuzziness, but one loose thread at a time.
Even as cellphone service improves and prices fall, fixed-line service goes down the toilet. Even as our air-force's latest toys scream by overhead, petrol prices are at an all-time high, and people are wondering why food prices seem to have skyrocketted, too. Can there really be such a disconnect in peoples' understanding?
'Tis the season for Growing Corn in Rheenendal, and never before have I seen as much acreage[2] dedicated to growing Maize. Most of it, I am guessing, contracted to American biofuel companies. Why do I not feel Warm and Fuzzy like this is a reasonable and sustainable way to provide the energy needs of 6 or 10 or 12 billion people striving to live a first-world lifestyle, driving their Hummers to collect the kids from school[4], annual holidays in another hemisphere and fresh Canadian Salmon for Summer Snacks?
The Unterste Schürer[5]
In a low-energy future -- and we're going to have one, whether we like it or not -- the planet cannot sustainably support so many of us. I realise that I risk the wrath of feminists everywhere (and The Pope[7]) but we face simple choice: reduce our numbers in a managed way, or have Gaia reduce them in an unmanaged way.
What's your choice?
----
[1] South Africa still produces something like 50% of the world's gold each year, not to mention a host of rare and obscure minerals that turn out to be totally essential to modern industry. Stuff like Cadmium and Tantalum, Vanadium, Ytterbium[3]. In recent years, though, tourism has generated more jobs and revenue to than even gold mining.
[2] Somehow "hectarage" just doesn't sound the same.
[3] http://www.privatehand.com/flash/elements.html
[4] I couldn't make it up if I tried. Not to mention that home and school are the daunting distance of some 800m apart! I sure that Little Darling's legs would break if they walked that far.
[5] Yiddish[6]. "The Bottom Line".
[6] Spelling optional.
[7] Not noted for his Feminist sympathies, I'll note[8].
[8] "A note? A-Flat[9], I'm sure. My Mother gave the gift of perfect pitch, you know!"
[9] ...or, given the state of the electrically-disconnected South African gold mines, A-Flat-Minor!
Unless you're living in South Africa, you're probably unaware that the country is in the midst of an Energy Crisis. Rolling blackouts are the order of the day; even the mines -- traditionally the mainstay of the economy[1] -- are having to deal with major power-cuts. Stories abound of commuter trains stranded, traffic snarl-ups due to non-funtioning traffic lights, hospital patients dependent on breathing machines having to be "breathed" by manual labour, telephones and network connections that stop working because the local telephone exchange exhausts its backup power. Nobody is untouched. Every one of us has a story of somebody we know being affected in a life- or income-threatening way.
My youngest brother, Richard, owns a factory that produces sugar sticks -- great lumps of crystalised sugar at the end of a stick, for stirring into coffee (or even -- ugh, gods forbid! -- tea!) Signpost to the pointymost peak of Peak Everything Civilisation, I suppose, but there it is. Trouble is, the process of producing a sugar stick takes 3 days. Three days of pernickity temperature differentials, maddeningly-critical evaporation rates and inexplicably unstable solution-flow rates. Three days. Unless the power fails. Then you get to throw away an entire batch -- 5 tonnes -- of sugar solution, and start again, hoping against hope that the power stays up long enough to make a living. It would be one thing if the business were a well-established one, with a stable, understanding and patient customer base, but it's not. They're still a startup. They produce the best quality sugar sticks in the world, at one third the price of their closest competitors, but they're The New Kids on the Block. They've signed some great customers. But those customers will evaporate if they can't deliver the goods. The fact of power-cuts every second day will produce sympathy from the individuals involved who understand the whys and wherefores; but the fact remains... the customers will go away.
The "current" energy problems are totally the responsibility of the government. Despite the public anger at Eskom, the state-owned-and-run electricity monopoly. More than ten years ago (in 1998, to be exact,) Eskom was warning government that, given government's economic growth targets, Eskom would need to build several more baseload power stations to meet the demand. Given that it takes about ten years to build a significant baseload power-station -- not to mention the getting through all the Environmental Impact Assessments and Community Consultation and Planning requirements. At the time, it was Not Politically Convenient to hear this message, so Mbeki's cabinet ignored it. So we sit with Economically Significant Power Cuts.
Recently some government schmuck tried to suggest that the power shortage was a result of Apartheid-Era Planning -- The Usual Scapegoat. Oh how we laugh! (I'll bet it was my "friend" Arshole Alec, the Arithmetically Challenged Minister Who Has Shot His Bolt. Whilst the apartheid regime certainly left us with lots of horrible legacy, this particular clusterfuck came about on the ANC's watch. The Old Nats (may they rot in hell) would never have permitted such sloppy planning! (whatever else they may have turned a blind-eye to...)
Premonition of the Great Unwinding. We South Africans are the Pathfinders. We are the first to glimpse the course of Energy Descent. Not with a bang, but with a whimper, we go.
Fit the Second
For the couple of years I've had DSL internet service, it has been great. In the face of country-wide complaints (verging on rioting, mayhem and life-threats to Telkom's management) about the Totally Fucking Useless National Telco I have been a lone voice in the wilderness saying what a great DSL service I get. Well
Fit the Future
So this is the face of the powerdown. Not in a cataclysmic implosion, does our civilization die, but little piece by little piece. Some things will undoubtedly get better even as other parts of the technological iceberg disintegrate. Not a single all-in-one unravelling of the Jersey of Warm Fuzziness, but one loose thread at a time.
Even as cellphone service improves and prices fall, fixed-line service goes down the toilet. Even as our air-force's latest toys scream by overhead, petrol prices are at an all-time high, and people are wondering why food prices seem to have skyrocketted, too. Can there really be such a disconnect in peoples' understanding?
'Tis the season for Growing Corn in Rheenendal, and never before have I seen as much acreage[2] dedicated to growing Maize. Most of it, I am guessing, contracted to American biofuel companies. Why do I not feel Warm and Fuzzy like this is a reasonable and sustainable way to provide the energy needs of 6 or 10 or 12 billion people striving to live a first-world lifestyle, driving their Hummers to collect the kids from school[4], annual holidays in another hemisphere and fresh Canadian Salmon for Summer Snacks?
The Unterste Schürer[5]
In a low-energy future -- and we're going to have one, whether we like it or not -- the planet cannot sustainably support so many of us. I realise that I risk the wrath of feminists everywhere (and The Pope[7]) but we face simple choice: reduce our numbers in a managed way, or have Gaia reduce them in an unmanaged way.
What's your choice?
----
[1] South Africa still produces something like 50% of the world's gold each year, not to mention a host of rare and obscure minerals that turn out to be totally essential to modern industry. Stuff like Cadmium and Tantalum, Vanadium, Ytterbium[3]. In recent years, though, tourism has generated more jobs and revenue to than even gold mining.
[2] Somehow "hectarage" just doesn't sound the same.
[3] http://www.privatehand.com/flash/elements.html
[4] I couldn't make it up if I tried. Not to mention that home and school are the daunting distance of some 800m apart! I sure that Little Darling's legs would break if they walked that far.
[5] Yiddish[6]. "The Bottom Line".
[6] Spelling optional.
[7] Not noted for his Feminist sympathies, I'll note[8].
[8] "A note? A-Flat[9], I'm sure. My Mother gave the gift of perfect pitch, you know!"
[9] ...or, given the state of the electrically-disconnected South African gold mines, A-Flat-Minor!
17 August 2007
Small Victory Against Global Warming
TV adverts... Ugh! I so seldom see them, 'cos I so seldom look at the TV. One one of my rare forays into the mental-candy-floss zone a few months ago just took my breath away. For all the wrong reasons. An advert, heavily disguised as a Public Service Announcement, telling us all that "dishwashers use 50% less energy, and 10x less water than handwashing."
Now this might be true in some parts of the world where people wash their dishes by holding them under a stream of hot, running water (and then stick them in the dishwasher!)1 but I cannot, in my wildest imaginings, think of anyway it can be true in a developing country, where the vast majority of people wash their dishes by hand, and many, many of them lack running water in their homes, so having to transport the water by the (heavy) bucketload. I know that modern dishwashers have become pretty efficient, but I still don't see how they can use less than 3 cups of water -- which would 10x less than we use to wash dishes by hand, in the sink -- to get a load of dishes clean. In fact, the best figures I can find claim that a high-efficiency dishwasher, in its "eco" mode, uses 12 litres of water. A sink is full enough for a stack of dishes with 5 or 6 litres.
I lack any way at all to measure the energy efficiency: our hot water is heated by the solar panel on the roof, so our energy expenditure on water heating is almost nil. Really, really hard to get 50% more efficient than that!
I won't even begin to get into comparing the embedded energy costs of constructing, plumbing, transporting, and eventually disposing of, a dishwasher! After all, to be completely fair I'd have to figure out the embedded energy cost of our sink and solar panels...
The ad closed with the tagline "so do your bit for the environment." By buying a dishwasher?
Sponsored by Reckitt Benckiser South Africa, makers/distributors of Finish dishwashing products, the ad is part of their campaign to "increase the penetration of dishwashers in the country by an additional 100 000 units by the end of 2007" gratuitously aided by some addle-witted plunk-heads at theCentral Energy Fund -- a state-owned energy company -- who didn't think to question RB's self-serving lies.
After my third viewing of this disingenuous piece of crap, I could stand the deception no longer. Booted the trusty 'puter, and fired off a complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority.
Well, the weeks ticked by. I have not seen the ad lately, so assume that the ad-campaign has come to an end. Lo', yesterday, arrives an email from the ASA, freighted with a PDF:
[1] I've seen it with my own eyes, but being a polite guest in their house, refrained from my usual sort of reaction.
Now this might be true in some parts of the world where people wash their dishes by holding them under a stream of hot, running water (and then stick them in the dishwasher!)1 but I cannot, in my wildest imaginings, think of anyway it can be true in a developing country, where the vast majority of people wash their dishes by hand, and many, many of them lack running water in their homes, so having to transport the water by the (heavy) bucketload. I know that modern dishwashers have become pretty efficient, but I still don't see how they can use less than 3 cups of water -- which would 10x less than we use to wash dishes by hand, in the sink -- to get a load of dishes clean. In fact, the best figures I can find claim that a high-efficiency dishwasher, in its "eco" mode, uses 12 litres of water. A sink is full enough for a stack of dishes with 5 or 6 litres.
I lack any way at all to measure the energy efficiency: our hot water is heated by the solar panel on the roof, so our energy expenditure on water heating is almost nil. Really, really hard to get 50% more efficient than that!
I won't even begin to get into comparing the embedded energy costs of constructing, plumbing, transporting, and eventually disposing of, a dishwasher! After all, to be completely fair I'd have to figure out the embedded energy cost of our sink and solar panels...
The ad closed with the tagline "so do your bit for the environment." By buying a dishwasher?
Sponsored by Reckitt Benckiser South Africa, makers/distributors of Finish dishwashing products, the ad is part of their campaign to "increase the penetration of dishwashers in the country by an additional 100 000 units by the end of 2007" gratuitously aided by some addle-witted plunk-heads at theCentral Energy Fund -- a state-owned energy company -- who didn't think to question RB's self-serving lies.
After my third viewing of this disingenuous piece of crap, I could stand the deception no longer. Booted the trusty 'puter, and fired off a complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority.
Well, the weeks ticked by. I have not seen the ad lately, so assume that the ad-campaign has come to an end. Lo', yesterday, arrives an email from the ASA, freighted with a PDF:
"A hypothetical reasonable person, on seeing the commercial, would understand that it is a fact that dishwashers use 50% less energy and 10 times less water than washing dishes by hand. The documentation at hand, however, does not specifically confirm this, and specifically indicates that 'study need to be continued to verify these preliminary learning.'Victory is Ours! A small one, but victory nonetheless.
"Based on the above, the [ASA] Directorate is not satisfied that the claims that 'dishwashers use 50% less energy and 10 times less water than washing dishes by hand' is substantiated. The commercial is therefore in contravention of [the advertising Code]....
"the respondent is required to... withdraw the claim.. with immediate effect... from every medium in which they appear"
[1] I've seen it with my own eyes, but being a polite guest in their house, refrained from my usual sort of reaction.
22 November 2006
Evil Supermarkets and Organic Labelling
A fascinating story, "Wal-Mart, the Cornucopia Institute and Organic Labeling" unfolds over at Sustainablog. Is Walmart deliberately misleading consumers? Is the Cornucopia Institute simply on a self-serving mission of revenge?
When I did a consulting gig to a major local supermarket chain some years ago, I learned that people (shoppers, competing merchandisers, illiterate shelf-packers) shifting shelf-labels around, accidentally or mischievously, is always a major headache for supermarkets.
So this would tend to support Wal-Mart's claim...
On the other hand, a (different) local chain, focused on selling into the A-income (rich people) market, screwed a lot of small organic farmers. Their tactic was to place organic meat close to non-organic meat, with both organic and non-organic products deliberately packaged in very similar packaging.
After 18 months ( a year? two? - memory fails) or so they cancelled all contracts with the organic farmers, putting a lot of farmers out of business in the process. They also did not bother to mention to consumers that they were dropping the organic meat products, and, although their labelling and packaging was technically legal, many, many consumers continued buying way-overpriced meat in the belief that they were buying organically-raised meat.
So this would tend to support a "deliberate obfuscation" theory...
I wouldn't like to guess what is really going on in the case Jeff wrote about, but it sure looks suspicious to me.
When I did a consulting gig to a major local supermarket chain some years ago, I learned that people (shoppers, competing merchandisers, illiterate shelf-packers) shifting shelf-labels around, accidentally or mischievously, is always a major headache for supermarkets.
So this would tend to support Wal-Mart's claim...
On the other hand, a (different) local chain, focused on selling into the A-income (rich people) market, screwed a lot of small organic farmers. Their tactic was to place organic meat close to non-organic meat, with both organic and non-organic products deliberately packaged in very similar packaging.
After 18 months ( a year? two? - memory fails) or so they cancelled all contracts with the organic farmers, putting a lot of farmers out of business in the process. They also did not bother to mention to consumers that they were dropping the organic meat products, and, although their labelling and packaging was technically legal, many, many consumers continued buying way-overpriced meat in the belief that they were buying organically-raised meat.
So this would tend to support a "deliberate obfuscation" theory...
I wouldn't like to guess what is really going on in the case Jeff wrote about, but it sure looks suspicious to me.
21 July 2006
Monsanto Pigshit
Monsanto files patent for new invention: the pig
Trust the megacorps! (Hint for humour-alternatively-abled)
Well, before overreacting, we have to understand something of how the patent process works: you start out with some incredibly broad claim, which will likely get struck down, then follow up with something ever-so-slightly narrower, which is ever-so-slightly-less-likely to get struck down, followed by some ever-so-slightly anrrower claim,.... ad nauseam until you get something you hope is still defensible. Only a lawyer could love it.
Basically it is a strategy that relies on the fact that Patent Offices all over the world are overburdened with bogus claims. Particularly the USPTO. So, in the torrent of patentable-but-shouldn't-be shit, some of these ridiculous patent applications will slip through, especially since the patent examiners frequently lack the technical expertise to evaluate the detailed claims of a given patent application.
Of course once a patent has been granted, someone "just" has to come along and prove prior art or obviousness (which shouldn't be hard in this case :-) to get the patent tossed, and that's quite hard, expensive, and carries little or no reward.
It looks to me like Monsanto are really seeking a patent on some genetic quirk that has the effect of speeding the normal selective-breeding cycles, and they're throwing a lot of extra mud on the wall because, who knows? some may stick! They're almost certainly right!
At the root of the problem is the broken American patent system that is allowing non-material "things", like ideas, mathematical expressions and descriptions of processes, to be patented, and the laws (American in origin, but now pretty universal) that give corporate entities the same legal status as real people - but that's another rant for another day. I strongly recomend the writing of Lawrence Lessig, who is not only far cleverer than me, and happens to also know a near-infinite more about patent law than me, but also explains the issues in a very digestible manner. Don't be put-off by the fact that he's writing mostly about patent (and other intellectual-property) law as it applies to software - exactly the same law and arguments apply to the world of genetics, and our food supply, with far, far more dire consequences.
Trust the megacorps! (Hint for humour-alternatively-abled)
Well, before overreacting, we have to understand something of how the patent process works: you start out with some incredibly broad claim, which will likely get struck down, then follow up with something ever-so-slightly narrower, which is ever-so-slightly-less-likely to get struck down, followed by some ever-so-slightly anrrower claim,.... ad nauseam until you get something you hope is still defensible. Only a lawyer could love it.
Basically it is a strategy that relies on the fact that Patent Offices all over the world are overburdened with bogus claims. Particularly the USPTO. So, in the torrent of patentable-but-shouldn't-be shit, some of these ridiculous patent applications will slip through, especially since the patent examiners frequently lack the technical expertise to evaluate the detailed claims of a given patent application.
Of course once a patent has been granted, someone "just" has to come along and prove prior art or obviousness (which shouldn't be hard in this case :-) to get the patent tossed, and that's quite hard, expensive, and carries little or no reward.
It looks to me like Monsanto are really seeking a patent on some genetic quirk that has the effect of speeding the normal selective-breeding cycles, and they're throwing a lot of extra mud on the wall because, who knows? some may stick! They're almost certainly right!
At the root of the problem is the broken American patent system that is allowing non-material "things", like ideas, mathematical expressions and descriptions of processes, to be patented, and the laws (American in origin, but now pretty universal) that give corporate entities the same legal status as real people - but that's another rant for another day. I strongly recomend the writing of Lawrence Lessig, who is not only far cleverer than me, and happens to also know a near-infinite more about patent law than me, but also explains the issues in a very digestible manner. Don't be put-off by the fact that he's writing mostly about patent (and other intellectual-property) law as it applies to software - exactly the same law and arguments apply to the world of genetics, and our food supply, with far, far more dire consequences.
30 June 2006
Telkom Disconnected
Telkom, the state-owned (and still monopoly) phone company is one of my favourite crowds to rag on. They make it so easy!
The phone is sort-of-dead this morning. Loud crackling noises; people unable to call in - the phone bleeps briefly and the caller gets cut off; crossed line with neighbours down the road. The problem has been the subject of numerous fault callouts over the past 6 or 8 months, and has never been solved.
Tried several times to log the fault by phone. First had to discover that, because it is a DSL line, the fault must be reported to a different call-centre whose phone number utterly fails to appear on any documentation. Several attempts to call needed, because I keep getting disconnected from the call-centre mid-conversation due to the fault.
Inspiration: At least the DSL is still working, so let's see if I can log the fault via Telkom's website! Fill in the relevant details on the fault-reporting page; click "Submit".
OnlineFaultReporting web exception
We appologise for the inconvenience,
but the page that you requested can not be processed correctly. Please report this to the system administrator.
Copied from the Telkom website: misspellings all their own.
But! There's no "Contact the webmaster" link to be found on their website. Oh well, back to trying to phone the fault in.
Please, God, give these buggers some real competition and put them out of business soon.
The phone is sort-of-dead this morning. Loud crackling noises; people unable to call in - the phone bleeps briefly and the caller gets cut off; crossed line with neighbours down the road. The problem has been the subject of numerous fault callouts over the past 6 or 8 months, and has never been solved.
Tried several times to log the fault by phone. First had to discover that, because it is a DSL line, the fault must be reported to a different call-centre whose phone number utterly fails to appear on any documentation. Several attempts to call needed, because I keep getting disconnected from the call-centre mid-conversation due to the fault.
Inspiration: At least the DSL is still working, so let's see if I can log the fault via Telkom's website! Fill in the relevant details on the fault-reporting page; click "Submit".
OnlineFaultReporting web exception
We appologise for the inconvenience,
but the page that you requested can not be processed correctly. Please report this to the system administrator.
Copied from the Telkom website: misspellings all their own.
But! There's no "Contact the webmaster" link to be found on their website. Oh well, back to trying to phone the fault in.
Please, God, give these buggers some real competition and put them out of business soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
You might also like
