"Winner announcement"

So it seems sustainability won - the debate I referred to in my previous post was officially closed today and the moderator's concluding remarks are here. I am not sure I agree with some of his observations. For instance, according to me, the issue of fossil fuels and energy sufficiency is an issue now, and will remain one till it is solved (assuming it is, at some point). However, the question of sustainability will continue to hang over our heads as long as we do not transform the way we think, feel, work, play, live and love. If it is not about fossil fuels and their effects on the environment, then it will be the availability of water, and if not that, then food, and if not that then other resources and opportunities, including access to health care and the means to earn a livelihood.

The Western mind does not readily grasp the economics of scarcity because it seldom needs to deal with it (though Great Depression II might have changed some of that). A large segment of the global population lives under conditions that barely support human life, where demand is overwhelming and supply scant and the means to match demand and supply fall short by a few orders of magnitude. This is a time-bomb for economies of abundance. At best, the West has been a benevolent patron of poverty and sickness, when it should have been an active partner in growth and development. (Obama said something to this effect, in the context of Africa, in his Ghana speech.) It should have been teaching people to fish, not just giving them fish for their next meal - to paraphrase an old adage. Not out of noblesse oblige, but out of the recognition that 'prosperity does not happen in a vacuum' (latter expression borrowed from Obama, again, though perhaps not verbatim).

As I pointed out in an old post (when my perspective was only just slightly different): it's the people stupid! A planet with finite resources populated by an exponentially growing mass of humans must worry about sustainability for as long as that mass of humans is growing exponentially - especially because the have-not's are growing much faster than the have's. We are already witnessing wars between as well as within regions and/or communities today. Most of these are exacerbated by socio-economic inequities involving scarcity of resources for daily sustenance and/or a healthy and secure life, and of opportunities for growth and development. While such conflicts may be triggered, on the face of it, by other differences (such as religion or ethnicity), they achieve momentum because one section of the population (of a certain religion or ethnicity) feels cheated out of their land or their water or other resources, by the other section. Religious or ethnic differences serve as good rallying-cries for leaders of hate-based militancy / extremism simply because it is easier to hate on an empty stomach, than it is to love. And easier to love when there is contentment, when there is no need for hate.

In atomic physics, we learn that too many protons in a nucleus make it unstable. Up to a certain point, adding neutrons 'keeps the peace', but beyond that point this strategy doesn't work - the atom becomes radioactive and then starts the process of exponential decay. The story of world population is similar. The glue of love that holds us together seems to be running out, and we might be teetering dangerously close to the tipping point, beyond which the population is just so huge that civilisation as we know it will collapse under the weight of its own hatred - all that is left then will be anarchy and utter chaos. And it won't be about fossil fuels or alternative energy sources (though if that problem is not solved by then, it will only fuel the flames of hate even more - please excuse the bad pun, this is too serious to be funny).

No, I'm not a doomsday pundit. This is real. Worry about it now. And act if you can. If you will.

Posted via email from HyperActiveX's (Pre)Posterous Posts

Of paradoxes and oxymorons regarding sustainability

There's this debate on sustainable development going on, as I write this, at Economist.com's debate micro-site. Naturally, I have a thing or two to say about such matters. However, I tend not to favour media sites and blogs that require you to register and login just to leave a comment. I have an email address, a gravatar, an OpenId etc. and somehow manage to prove my humanness on Captcha challenges, usually. Why won't they accept any of these to make sure I'm a live human being and not a spam bot (assuming that's the concern)? In any case, they can moderate my comment just to make sure I'm not posting hate and libel. But no, they want me to register and login. Meh. So then I come back to my blog to air my views. Smaller readership as compared to The Economist, but what the heck. On the plus side, I can say pretty much what I want here, without having to be stodgy, keep a stiff upper lip and speak in euphemisms.

The motion: "This house believes that sustainable development is unsustainable". My comment: 

To being with, the motion, as articulated, is paradoxical. As a logician, I'd classify it along with other self-referential 'nonsense' statements such as the Eubulides paradox: "This statement is false" or the liar's paradox: "He is a liar - he said so himself". All very well in a lighter vein, in a tongue-in-cheek kind of way, but debates on topics such as sustainable development, should not become a forum for indulgence in frivolous footling. And after all, one does expect a quantum of gravitas in the content hosted by The Economist. No?

So here're a couple of alternative interpretations of (what to my mind are) the issues and concerns underlying the theme of sustainable development, which, according to me, make for good debate over a cuppa.

(Alternative interpretation no. 1) If what has been labelled "sustainable development" is turning out to be (or has already turned out to be) unsustainable, then the focus should be on the corrective action that needs to be taken to make it so. The debate should then centre around two questions: (a) Is the sustainable development initiative turning out not to be so sustainable after all, and if so, then (b) What can we do to set it back on its proper course. In this case, the motion should be re-articulated as "This house believes that the sustainable development initiative needs to correct its course, in order to meet its goals".

(Alternative interpretation no. 2) If the expression "sustainable development" is an oxymoron (as opposed to a paradox) - i.e., if the proposition is that all development is intrinsically, by definition, not sustainable - then the focus should be on evaluating other strategies to address global challenges that threaten the future of our planet and the nature and quality of life as we know it. The debate should then centre around two questions: (a) Are efforts to achieve sustainability (in development) in vain because the very nature of development carries within it the seeds that will make such efforts unsustainable, and if so, then (b) How must we address global issues that call for a sustainable approach. In this case, the motion should be re-articulated as "This house believes that the concept of development is unsustainable by definition and hence we need other solutions to global challenges and threats".

Of course "sustainable development" is sustainable! Moreover, sustainable development is not an option (as I have argued before and will continue to argue). Look around you -  we simply cannot go on like this! Governments, corporations, institutions, communities and people in general must all understand and embrace sustainable development if we are to have a fighting chance to survive and thrive.

P.S. On second thoughts, the moderator might just not have posted my comment. Harumph! 

Posted via email from HyperActiveX's (Pre)Posterous Posts

Seven habits of highly irritating 'twits'

And by twits I mean strangers who get onto your twitter timeline and display any or all of the following behavioural traits:

1. [General Irritants] Follow you, in the hope that you will be a nice guy and follow them back. They will lurk in the shadows till you follow them, and after that, do #2 or #3 below, depending on who they are.

2. [Commercial Bots] Do #1 above, and then spam you with links to their web-sites. Zero updates (or maybe one update), following lots of people but few followers. No, I don't want to see your naughty pics at http://tinyurl.porn 

3. [Arrogant Pompous Twits] Do #1 above, and then un-follow you. Such twits are collecting followers - they don't care about you or your tweets. This is like someone attempting to shake your hand and then withdrawing it just when you extend yours. 

4. [General Irritants] Use hash-tags and keywords liberally, hoping to get noticed at a topic search on a hot topic, so as to attract more followers. Their tweets make no sense and/or are of no relevance to you. #FAIL

5. [Hashtag Stalkers] Continuously monitor their hashtag searches and swoop on new members (who used a keyword of interest to the twit) and follow them (go to #1)

6. [Arrogant Pompous Twits] Broadcast their travel schedule and who they're meeting, when and where. Lots of name-dropping. Like I care who you're having breakfast with at the Grand Hyatt in Guangzhou tomorrow morning.

7. [Sports (Over)Enthusiasts] Tweet you a real-time stream of their expert comments on the state of play in the current hot sports event. Dude - if I gave a rat's ass, I would be watching it myself. (Note: Some of these could be your friends, in which case you should learn to use filters!)

Posted via email from HyperActiveX's (Pre)Posterous Posts

No, Minister!

Not quite sure what, but something is causing Ministers in India to go crazy with power in the last couple of days. First, a Union Minister tries to "influence" a Madras High Court judge to grant anticipatory bail to a student in a forged mark sheet case. Then, an MP from AP (not playing with acronyms here, though it is tempting) gets pissed off with a bank manager and slaps him on the face a couple of times. The first case is a bit hush-hush - nobody has been named and there isn't much coverage on the TV news channels except for a mug-shot of the judge and a few quotes.

The second case, however, is hilarious in its WTFness. Video clips of the MP slapping the bank manager - not just once but multiple times, have been on the air since last night, while the MP's responses are quoted on the ticker at the bottom of the screen. I can't reproduce it verbatim, but this is the overall logic and flow of what he had to say at various times over last night and this morning:

1. I did not slap him at all, I did nothing.

2. I did not slap him, I only held him by the shoulder.

3. I did not slap him, I was trying to hold him and my hand slipped.

4. My hand accidentally touched his face

5. OK I slapped him lightly, just once, but he provoked me

6. OK I slapped him - he was being rude to me because I'm from a lower caste

7. "Can he speak to me in the language which he did? He was drunk heavily" (sic)

8. He's the one who should be punished.

So you can imagine watching the MP slap the manager again and again ad infinitum (which is what new channels do when all they have is just a short clip of the live action - gets bloody irritating after a while!) while his explanation of the moment appears at the bottom of the screen. Reminds me of my sons playing the "he started it" blame game when I catch them beating each other up, though I must say they're both far more imaginative and come up with some very bizarre but realistic-sounding explanations.

No, this won't do. This is not why I voted for Congress, and this is what I was worried about when the right and the left both started crumbling due to their respective internal hemorrhage. If we don't keep these guys in check, there will be slaps on the face of the electorate on far more critical issues. Are you listening, Ms Gandhi?

Posted via email from HyperActiveX's (Pre)Posterous Posts