I'm looking for a Petition that says "I Demand Less!"

I must be obsessed with the notion of "peak oil". Recently I woke up in the middle of the night trying to calculate the worldwide average daily per capita consumption of this incredibly concentrated energy resource. I was thinking about what Thomas Homer Dixon had pointed out to us in his book The Upside of Down:

Three large spoonfuls of crude oil contain about the same amount of energy as eight hours of human manual labor. When we fill our car with gas, we're pouring into the tank the energy equivalent of about two years of human manual labor.

I wanted to know, if we divided this precious stuff out in an equitable manner, how much I would get. Upon rubbing the sleep out of my eyes in the morning I unearthed these numbers from Wikipedia:

(A) Total World Oil Production as of March 2008 = 87.5 mb/d
(B) Total World Population as of January, 2009 est. 6.756 billion
(C) One barrel of petroleum = 158.99 litres

A divided by B multiplied by C = my equitable share, or about 2.06 litres per day (.54 U.S. gallons/day).

I then compared this to recent U.S. consumption figures:

(A) Total U.S. Consumption as of 2005 = 20.7 mb/d
(B) Total U.S. Population as of Oct. 17, 2006 = 300,000,000
(C) One barrel of petroleum = 158.99 litres

A divided by B multiplied by C = what America takes, per person, about 10.97 litres per day (2.9 U.S. gallons/day)

I sat stunned looking at those numbers for some time. I re-calculated them. I crunched them some more. I knew this was a gross over-simplification. Yet, it was quite obvious that Americans (and I expect Canadian numbers to be similar, although I haven't searched out our numbers yet) consume far in excess of their equitable share of world oil resources daily. And why do we consume so much? Because we can. And, of course, just last week, we all heard Barrack Obama say:

"We will not apologize for our way of life nor will we waver in its defense."

How can he say with a straight face to these people living in this neighbourhood in Indonesia:



That Americans have nothing to apologize for when they use fuel for the likes of this:


I like Barrack Obama. I like him a lot. However, ultimately, someone needs to start saying it the way it is. Americans, and the rest of us in the gluttonous western world, have a lot to apologize for. It's time someone started speaking the truth to the masses. As pop psychologist "Dr. Phil" likes to tell us:

"You can't change what you don't acknowledge."

After looking at these very sad and disturbing numbers and photos, it helped me understand why I cringe every time I hear another populist demand for "more of this" or "more of that". A union wants higher wages, or this sector of the economy must be bailed out, or we must protect our pensions, so that we can be secure, retire, and play golf during our "golden" years. Actually, no. It is the constant demand for more that is killing us. We not only appropriate through our profligate spending far in excess of what is our fair share, we also, in essence, are stealing from our own grandchildren. Bring me a petition that will demand less. Where do I sign!?!?

Exploring Google Streetview - Brooklyn Bridge Then, and Now

It's Cool - But Is It Ethical?

My curiosity in Google Streetview was first raised a couple of years ago when I saw a small car with California plates and a camera spinning around on its roof driving up and down the streets of my neighbourhood here in Ottawa. Expecting to see myself on the net I kept checking, but, I never appeared. Apparently, this latest incursion of Google hasn't yet extended into Canada.

However, it certainly covers the U.S. Want to check out where you went to college oh so many years ago, or perhaps re-visit that vacation you took? Fly over and zoom in, surreptitiously. No one will know you are watching. (Then again, perhaps "they" will, whoever "they" are. More on this issue further down the page.)

This morning, then, I decided to go for a drive in Google "Streetview" and explore the streets of Lower Manhattan. I began my journey using an old photo I took of the Brooklyn Bridge back in 1970 as a starting point. I wanted to see if I could figure out, at least approximately, where I was when I snapped the shutter.I took this shot while on a "field trip" of The Big Apple organized by my Urban Geography class from Queens' University. I could recognize the Brooklyn Bridge, but, did it look anything similar today, I wondered? Not about to organize another field trip, it seemed like the perfect opportunity to use "virtual" reality to help me answer the question.

This is what I found:

View Larger Map

Thirty eight years later, the roadway is essentially untouched, with the same concrete barricades. It seems more people friendly, however, with cyclists and pedestrians enjoying the view. Gone is the derelict abandoned dockyard look. Massive roadway signage, though, is blocking the previously open view of the Brooklyn Bridge, and office towers now dominate.

A fascinating aspect of Google "Streetview" is that if you put your mouse over the above photo, you can use the controls to move around 360 degrees, left right, or up and down, progress along the street or go back simply by clicking on the arrow. Can't do that on my old photo!

This morning I watched an interesting BBC piece on Google. They discuss the corporate philosophy of promoting innovation by encouraging employees to devote at least one fifth of their time to pet projects which may not necessarily "go anywhere". Perhaps they could start collecting dated photos and video and put them together in a sort of "timeline" through the ages.
Want to see New York in 1900, they ask? Click here! Then again, perhaps Toronto's Union Station or its Highway 401 "bypass" during the 1950's would be more interesting to you.

This of course begs the question; Do we really want to be seen, everywhere? Or, the corollary, do we really need to see everywhere? This is simultaneously cool, and scary. Lots of questions that most of us never visioned we would ever be posing. Is this the Orwellian future that we thought was impossible? Or, is this open access to virtually limitless information the dawning of a new age of populist empowerment? Who gets to see what information? Who gets to decide what to collect, what to keep, and what to share? Is the information world flat, or are there multitudes of hidden, (and not so hidden) barricades to data?

I and many others wouldn't be asking these questions if Google hadn't launched this, and other projects. That, in itself, is stimulating. But, what will the outcome be? How do we ensure ethical behaviour in the use of these technologies? But then, who gets to determine the definition of ethics?

To what extent might Google get to define ethics? Should they? "Don't be evil", the motto of Google proclaims. It "is tailored to the popular image of the company - and the information economy itself - as a clean, green twenty-first century antidote to the toxic excesses of the past century's industries."(1) But, how green is it? As has been noted in such publications as the Economist, every time we click the "search" button a Google server takes another sip from the energy straw. In 2006 American data centers consumed more energy than American televisions. In 2005, as Google prepared for the ever increasing demands for power to feed their server farms, they concluded a deal at The Dalles, Oregon (site of a significant hydro-electric power source) with local officials that included access to federally subsidized energy and other tax breaks. This one server farm will consume enough energy to power 82,000 homes. According to IDC, a market-research firm, America alone has more than 7,000 data centres. And the number of servers is expected to grow to 15.8m by 2010—three times as many as a decade earlier. The EPA estimates that data center power consumption will double by 2011.

Perhaps, then, we need to better understand the full cost of seemingly limitless computing power. Ginger Strand, in a March, 2008 Harper's article offers this conclusion:

As the functions long performed by personal computers come to be executed at these far-flung data centers, the technology industry has rapturously rebranded the Internet as "the cloud". The metaphor is apt, both for our foggy notions of a green web and for the storm that awaits a culture that squanders its resources.

Youtube, and searches for American Idol (the top search on Google News in 2007), powered by the energy grid. Is this an ethical use of a dwindling resource? Would some ethicists consider it evil? How would Google or any of their cloud computing competitors respond?

Google is proud to point out that their business model is different. They seek to promote computing in the cloud that is based on server based software that is "free" to use. While it is true that users such as you and I are forking over less cash to install software than we did in the past, we are now subject to Google's advertising based business model. As we know, the purpose of advertising is to promote consumption. That is how they get paid. And so, the consumption cycle increases. Any thoughts on how this will play out? I guess somehow, they just think that we can continually increase our consumption, and the wheels can keep spinning. They may want to consider the words of Kenneth Boulding:

Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.

Perhaps we should include technology gurus in this list of believers. Consumption growth needs to be reversed. How do we turn the tide? Is Google interested in the answer to that question?

And yes, I know, that with every keystroke and click of my mouse, I am part of the problem. My hope is that in some small way, these actions can also be part of the solution. And, of course, perhaps Google is as well. Time, as "they" say, will tell. The final question then for this post is:

Do we have enough time to wait for the answer?

Dan Gardner on Why He Writes

Dan Gardner-Provocateur

Dan Gardner opens his article by provocatively telling us that he doesn't care what his readers think. Now firmly gripping our attention, he moves on to a discussion of Sir Francis Bacon's observation that

"human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion ... draws all things else to support and agree with it".

Fast forward 300 years and Bertrand Russell tells us:

If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence.

Modern psychologists have dubbed it "confirmation bias." As Dan points out, once we have an opinion of any sort, we seek to confirm it. He equates surrounding oneself with opinions that confirm our beliefs (imagine George Bush, in bath robe and slippers, watching Fox News), with slipping into a warm bath.

As an opinion writer, he sees his role as akin to turning on the cold tap while we relax in comfort. He encourages us to:

look for information that contradicts your views and give it real consideration -- while remaining aware that the brain that is doing the considering is biased against it.

Yes, he makes me think. A cold shower is good for the soul and wakens the brain. Of course, that being said, I notice that I continue to hold tightly on to many opinions, such as:

• A world that continues to increase consumption of material goods is on a collision course with physical reality
  
• George W. Bush has been the worst President of the United States in my living memory
  
• The term "Fox News" is an oxymoron, and
  
• Stephen Harper and his brand of Conservatism will never get my vote

Of course, truth, as is often said, is stranger than fiction. What is most important is that I own my biases, and keep an open mind. However, in the same breath, I am deeply concerned that the planet may not afford us the time for such petulant navel gazing. It has been suggested by many that ultimately, the planet doesn't care one way or the other if the human species continues to exist. It will continue to exist with, or without us. If it had the opportunity to voice an opinion on such a matter, it probably would prefer that we not be here, given the mess we are creating.

Workers of the World Relax

Here is an interesting video that explains how the traditional view that we can have economic growth forever is bumping into the harsh physical reality of biology and physics. It also points out that increasing energy efficiency often results in more, not less energy consumption. Confused? Watch the video.

Herman Daly's Views on The Current Economic Situation

Herman Daly: The Disconnection Between Financial Assets and Real Asssets

According to Wikipedia,

Herman Daly (born 1938) is an American ecological economist and professor at the School of Public Policy of University of Maryland, College Park in the United States.

He was Senior Economist in the Environment Department of the World Bank, where he helped to develop policy guidelines related to sustainable development. While there, he was engaged in environmental operations work in Latin America.

Before joining the World Bank, Daly was Alumni Professor of Economics at Louisiana State University. He is a co-founder and associate editor of the journal, Ecological Economics.

He is also a recipient of an Honorary Right Livelihood Award (the alternative Nobel Prize), the Heineken Prize for Environmental Science from the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, the Sophie Prize (Norway) and the Leontief Prize from the Global Development and Environment Institute, Man of the Year 2008 Adbusters.

In his view,

The current financial debacle is really not a “liquidity” crisis as it is often euphemistically called. It is a crisis of overgrowth of financial assets relative to growth of real wealth—pretty much the opposite of too little liquidity.

Essentially, we have come to believe that our dreamlike ability to increase how much "stuff" we produce through increased borrowing actually equates to real wealth, that is, what we have actually paid for. Follow the link for more.