mmmm...Monsanto Makes Me Mad

mmmm... that's what we say when a nice plate of food is before us, and more often than not these days, that food has been genetically modified - so that there can be more to go around, they say. And chances are, that food has been genetically modified by Monsanto.

Here's the problem: A case - Bowman v. Monsanto Company -  is now before the U.S. Supreme Court, in which the court must decide whether Farmer Bowman was wrong to have saved and re-used soybean seeds. Seeds that Monsanto had engineered to be resistant to the Round-up herbicide (also made by Monsanto). This is what Farmer Bowman did: he bought the soybean seeds from an aftermarket grain elevator, not from Monsanto. But then he planted the variety, sprayed the crop with the herbicide and saved the ones that were left standing for planting later. Monsanto requires that farmers who buy this seed also sign a contract saying that they can't save any harvested seeds for replanting, buying their next season's seed only from Monsanto. The company is arguing that the farmer infringed their intellectual property ownership rights in sowing, harvesting and replanting seeds that contained their weedkiller resistant formula. The farmer is arguing that in turning it's unsold seeds over to the grain elevator for sale as feed, Monsanto had abandoned its claim to the seeds' properties.

Let's think how agriculture got started in the first place: after the Ice Age, humans in the Middle East began harvesting wild wheat - but did not know how to plant it. That they left to mother nature, which blew the unharvested seeds to new ground for the next season. In time, naturally, there came about a genetic mutation between wild wheat and a goat grass variety that engineered a new, bread wheat plant whose seeds did not scatter in the wind. As Jacob  Bronowski put it "the bread wheats can only multiply with help; man must harvest the ears and scatter the seeds; and the lives of each, man and the plant, depends on the other. It is a true fairy tale of genetics, as if the coming of civilization had been blessed in advance.." Like Farmer Bowman. Thus was agriculture born and with it such giants as Monsanto - a fact that it, and the learned justices might do well to remember. Especially Justice Breyer, who managed to cast aspersions not only on the mental health of the farmer, but in the same breath, on mental illness in general.

When the farmer's lawyer responded to the justices' questions about intellectual property protection with a suggestion that Contract, not Patent Law, should protect the intellectual property, Justice Elena Kagan remarked "all that has to happen is that one seed escapes the web of these contracts, and that seed, because it can self-replicate in the way that it can, essentially makes all the contracts worthless."

And here a term appears that is heard repeatedly in the arguments by Monsanto, (which is favoured by the US Administration): self-replicate. Since when do soybean seed's self replicate entirely on their own? Since when does any seed self-replicate unassisted? They all need the miracle of life, growth and replication provided by Mother Nature. Monsanto may own its patents to weedkiller and anti-weedkiller formulas, but it will never own the miracle of life. The justices, Monsanto's supporters and even the administration seem to fear that a victory for the farmer would be the end of free enterprise as we know it. Fear not good judges - it might be the end of companies like Monsanto fraudulently claiming that they have appropriated the miracle of life. They own the miracle of life as much as Mr. Ponzi owned the miracle of financial growth.

So back off, Monsanto. And please, don't give Mother Nature another reason to punish us earthlings.

References:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/20/business/justices-signal-a-monsanto-edge-in-patent-case.html?_r=0
Jacob Bronowski, Ascent of Man, BBC, London, 1973, pp. 65-69.

Obama, now you're talking!

"I am a firm believer that climate change is real, that it is impacted by human behavior, and carbon emissions," Obama said at a news conference on 14 November 2012, shortly after he was re-elected (without mentioning climate change in the campaign debates), adding "and as a consequence, I think we've got an obligation to future generations to do something about it." In his victory speech on November 7, he had said "We want our children to live in an America ... that isn't threatened by the destructive power of a warming planet."  In the State of the union address, he drew attention to his powers of Executive Order, to act if Congress can not.

So I take back what I said about President AWOL. Actually I borrowed it from The Worldwatch Institute. 

But there is much that can be done even without executive orders. Apparently the United States can achieve emissions reductions using current law, flexing the muscles of the Clean Air Act and the Ozone Protocol. The World Resources Institute (WRI) has published a playbook (yes, with a silver lining) that explains what can, and must be done to bring harmful emissions under control. The main points are:

The greatest projected emissions reduction opportunities by 2020 and beyond come from four federal policy measures. The Administration will need to pursue these opportunities if the United States is to achieve the 17 percent reduction target. Those policies are:

• standards to reduce carbon pollution from existing power plants (48 percent of total emissions gap between business-as-usual (BAU) and 2020 target);
• requirements to phase out the use of certain hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) (23 percent of total emissions gap between BAU and 2020 target);
• standards to reduce methane emissions from natural gas systems (11 percent of total emissions gap between BAU and 2020 target);7 and
• actions to improve energy efficiency in the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors (8 percent of total emissions gap between BAU and 2020 target).

Download the summary from WRI

There is also a fascinating discussion at the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. on the implications for Canada of Obama's new U.S. climate-change measures. 

This site is a companion site to The progress trap and how to avoid it, which is a companion site to the book Escaping the progress trap

Creativity: how extraordinary is the ordinary person's mind

A great institution such as science is like a society, and the scientific paradigm is at risk of failing to shift from the defining, isolating laboratory mode to an inclusive, open culture of human and natural possibilities. The medieval Church as an institution might not be thought of as having much in common with Easter Island, or with Control Data Corporation, but all these share a similar fate: interrupted progress. If modern science fails the inhabitants of the globe, it too will fall from grace.

There can be no doubt that each human being is a reserve of great potential. In The creative mind: myths and mechanisms, Margaret Boden explains how the culture of the scientific revolution demoted the subjective properties of creativity: *

.. no room for notions like creativity, freedom, and subjectivity. As a result, the matters of the mind have been insidiously downgraded in scientific circles for several centuries.

In her book, Boden considers many creative minds in the context of analytical machines: Beethoven, Mozart, Kekulé, Coleridge, Kepler, Copernicus, Dickens, Crick and others from the arts and sciences. She is encouraged by the fact that:

computational psychology is helping us to understand such things in scientific terms. It does this without lessening our wonder or our self-respect…on the contrary it increases them, by showing how extraordinary is the ordinary person's mind.

There is one last case, that of Abraham Lincoln, which brings together resilience and creativity. It is well known that he suffered from melancholy, but how he came to terms with it is not part of popular legend. Joshua Wolf Shenk, author of Lincoln's Melancholy: How Depression Challenged a President and Fueled His Greatness, describes how Lincoln made use of his affliction, rather than attempt to defeat it: **

In his mid-forties the dark soil of Lincoln's melancholy began to yield fruit. When he threw himself into the fight against the extension of slavery, the same qualities that had long brought him so much trouble played a defining role. The suffering he had endured lent him clarity and conviction, creative skills in the face of adversity, and a faithful humility that helped him guide the nation through its greatest peril.

We may not all be as gifted as Lincoln or Beethoven, but as Pinker*** and Boden suggest, each of us can come up with extraordinarily good ideas. As a global community, our reserve of skills, our long evolution and our modern sharing of wisdom point toward a positive future. (from Escaping the Progress Trap, chapter 14)

* Margaret A. Boden, The creative mind: myths and mechanisms, Routledge, New York, 2004, p. 304. 

** Joshua Wolf Shenk, Lincoln's Great Depression, The Atlantic, Oct. 2005, p.60. 

*** Stephen Pinker, How the Mind Works, W.W. Norton, New York, 1997

Get the Kindle edition

Governor Fossil vs. President AWOL?

The Worldwatch Institute has posted a remarkably frank article by Christopher Flavin, with the provocative title: Debating Energy: Governor Fossil vs. President AWOL.

For anyone who has been watching the US Presidential debates and waiting in vain for signs that at least one of them cares about the future, survival and all that stuff, this article shows that there has been change, and reason for hope. It is worth a read. If you don't have time, at least look at the pictures:

US Carbon dioxide emissions, 2000-2012
US imports of crude oil, 2000-2012 
US wind capacity, 2000-2012

As Flavin says: "If President Obama is able to overcome the damage done by his lackluster debate performance, he may have the chance to solidify the energy transformation he started in his first term: replacing America’s dependence on the dirtiest fossil fuels and building an efficient economy powered by clean, renewable resources. The President’s first step should be to acknowledge the energy successes he’s already achieved—and to present a compelling vision that matches his policy record"

If you do have the time, read the article.

It's official - the globe is warmer.

Not because the statistics, data, science, pundits and everyday experience says it is, but because, in the summer of 2010, I bought an air conditioner. I who at 60 years of age have resisted this for so long. And because, like many others I have stopped living in denial.

The thing is, my apartment seems to concentrate the heat, making it much hotter than outside. Could I have moved to another apartment? I moved two years ago. How about another country? Continent? Done that.

I started off in South Africa and left 3 times, when things got too "hot". In Lesotho long ago, my father, also a frugal man, held off on buying a refrigerator as long as he could. I am in icy Canada now, where the park is melting. I work in health-care where the wisdom is - "stay cool". So now I own something I always thought I could do without. The air conditioner box says it is Energy Star, and that the refrigerant is Eco-Freindly. Does that make it OK?

So here we are, admitting defeat, selling out, compromising and swapping the principle of conservation for the practise of not boiling alive. In my way I have tried and tried not to reach this point. Oh well. Maybe a miracle will occur and folks will see the wood from the trees and the light from the heat.

But the worst part is I bought the air conditioner on credit from - would you believe it - Future Shop.

First published at Technorati.com as It's Official: the Globe is Warmer (According to Me)

See also: Escaping the progress trap (website).

Playing God, again

(excerpt from Escaping the progress trap) Moral and ethical questions surrounding certain scientific innovations have resulted in continuous debate. In one area in particular, recombinant DNA, new developments have had dramatic implications for genetic engineering and the possibility of laboratory-created diseases. In the early 1970's laboratory experiments had been conducted that enabled gene cloning and chromosomal DNA splicing. This gave rise to a series of discussions and meetings of experts, culminating in the Asilomar conference of 1975. The medical and scientific community concluded in 1977 that the risks were not as dramatic as originally feared and that this research could proceed, provided strict precautions were taken. The Asilomar conference was characterized by a good deal of soul-searching. June Goodfield, in her account of this debate, "Playing God," commented that:*

"It seems that a total extension of cold logic and objective rationality into anything we do is in danger of removing the humaneness from our lives... We have minimized the validity and appeal of emotion, aesthetics and feelings. For I did find that, though many scientists were prepared to appreciate concerns about the effects of their work, both in the short and the long term, they were rarely prepared to weigh feelings, emotions aesthetics or any spiritual considerations in the balance with sheer rational arguments."

This spirit is not heard often enough, but even if it were a constant chorus it may have no effect, since scientists do not generally give formal credence to spiritual considerations. Surely though, any conscientious scientist must be aware that science is flawed. To these the challenge should be: Why is science flawed? Can the causes of these flaws be determined? Can the potential harm, no matter how well-intentioned, be minimized or removed? These are questions that defy science's conventional view of itself as inherently good and progressive. It is imperative for humanity's future security that science take stock of itself. Complicating the issue is the fact that one of the permanent features of western science is its discomfort with paradoxes. A scientific inquiry into concepts alien to science—such as scientific criticism of science—would be a paradoxical venture. Now, it is not impossible that there are non-scientific cultures, quite comfortable with the paradoxical, which would eventually and inevitably do the job of conducting critical analysis, and possibly take control, of science. An extreme reactionary government might do this, as would a disgruntled popular movement, or any force whose power base is not sympathetic to science. Conventional science may need to let go of its Baconian and Cartesian apron strings if it is to avoid obsolescence. Robert L. Sinsheimer is eloquent in his description of science as being caught in a kind of spiral from which it cannot escape:

...we seem to be discovering that the application of one technological fix seems to lead us into another technological fix.**

He mentions how antibiotics have led to overpopulation and how this in turn has led to the need for pesticides, herbicides and other environmental carcinogens. Daniel Callahan expresses the same idea:***

We solve old problems only to create new ones in the process, becoming ever more deeply entangled in dangerous paradoxes of our own making.

Callahan recognizes that scientific research is an inevitable form of human activity, terminable however, where risk is evident. These aspects of science again beg the question: Can it be determined—scientifically—why science is flawed?

* June Goodfield, Playing God. New York, NY: Random House, 1977. p.73.
** Robert L. Sinsheimer, "The Presumptions of Science," Limits of Scientific Inquiry, G. Holton, G., and R.S. Morison, eds., 1979, p. 30.
*** D. Callahan, "Ethical responsibility in Science in the face of uncertain consequences," Annals of N.Y. Academy of Sciences, 1976, 265: 112.

get the Kindle version of Escaping the progress trap

Purchase the book at Amazon.com

Books - no power, no problem. Just read away.

The printed word must be one of the greatest inventions ever. You can be stranded on a desert island and still read. No electricity, no wifi, no cable, no lights, no battery, no power, no problem. Just read away. When you have cut down the last tree for firewood, scratched out the last blade of grass for kindling you can still read. You can even burn that book for warmth.

Ah yes, all those trees. There's the rub. Back here in the real world we have gadgets for saving the trees: computers and digital everything. I published a book once on paper and have just taken the plunge to the ebook format.

I read all the tips, tricks and how-tos, downloaded the mobipocket converter, and I was off to the races. I uploaded the file to Amazon on a Saturday and the Kindle version was available online on the Monday following. To judge from the comments on the digital platform forum, this is a record. Perhaps ironically, the book is called "Escaping the progress trap".

Now, as if that wasn't grabbing the techno-bull by the horns, along comes iPad, hitting the market the very same day I kindled my er, kindling. And if there is one thing that will send an old-school publisher into a frenzy, it's a gadget that scoops the story.

But wait - there's an app for that. Kindle for the iPad. It seems Apple's eBook offerings at the iBookstore are well behind the Amazon Kindle in terms of being ready for publishers and writers who are not contemporaries of Gutenberg. Thanks to the smart developer who came up with that app! A twist is that you need Apple's iTunes application to get it. And other stuff. But as a publisher I can relax for five minutes.

If you happen to be reading this on a desert island, using the smartest electrogadget, you can find out how to make paper at the Make Paper! website.

Article first published as Warp Speed Publishing Progress and the iPad on Technorati.

get the Kindle version of
Escaping the progress trap

China is the new America

In the good old days, back at the end of the last millennium, the coming century was supposed to be the New American Century. The neoconservatives of the "Project for a new American Century (PNAC)" boldly held forth in their signature document, Rebuilding America's Defenses, that globalization behooved the US to institute a Pax Americana, (re)armed to the teeth. This was in September 2000. If only the American public could be persuaded to spend the money. All that was required was "some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor". A year later, on September 11, 2001, President Bush was to write in his White House diary; "The Pearl Harbor of the 21st century took place today."

Ten years later the PNAC website www.newamericancentury.org, is defunct, its domain name for sale. It's topics though can still be seen on Google, like fragments of a dream; "A neoconservative organization supporting greater American militarization, challenging hostile governments, advancing democratic and economic freedom, ..." In December 2009, after the turbulent Copenhagen environmental conference that saw China, not the US, calling the shots, it is widely held that China is the new America.

Since 9/11 the US has spent more than $850 billion on the Iraq and Afghan wars, plus $12.8 trillion bailing out businesses following the vaporising of its own economy. On the credit side it reduced its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2.2% in 2008. China on the other hand increased its GHG by about 11% in 2008 and has earned 60 trillion since 2000.

So what can we expect from China? Some have been arguing that it's time for people to take charge of policies covering science, technology and the environment, and this may be possible in a democracy. But China isn't a democracy. More like wage slavery, of which western "greed is good" advocates can't get enough. Should democracies refuse to trade with China until it is liberated? Fat chance.

Will the people of China turn away from their autocratic regime? Perhaps, but not tomorrow. After all, Machiavelli said "one of the most efficacious remedies that a prince can have against conspiracies is not to be hated and despised by the people". And did not Jackie Chan, star of Rumble in the Bronx and Shanghai Noon say "we Chinese need to be controlled." In fact Chinese society has been managed continuously longer than any other, and world-wide respect for its gift of Yin and Yang endures.

Hmm. Wasn't it China that decreed families can only have one child? That policy has roughly halved their birthrate since the 1980s. China's GHG emissions have increased 120% since 2000, compared to 13% for the US. Pointing fingers at developed nations as a rationalization for not curbing emissions is the easy way out, and an un-Chinese activity. Other nations did not force China to curb its birthrate, China made that tough choice all on its own. Halving GHGs could be done the same way.

How about it, China? Lead, follow, or get out of the way. *

Purchase
Escaping the progress trap
at Amazon.com

Copenhagen - Power to the people.

Before hightailing it out of Copenhagen on Friday Dec. 18 2009, ahead of the snowstorm that was to smother Washington in the coming hours, President Obama met the press, to share his position on climate change. Environmentalists were underwhelmed – to put it mildly – by the cautiousness of his remarks. Such even-handedness may play well with globally vested interests, and disappoint anyone seeking a sharp turn toward the survival of the fittest. That's the humans.

I wasn't in Copenhagen but thanks to the magic of the Associated Press Climate Pool Twitter, I was able to track down Obama, at Facebook's White House Live page which pointed me to the actual White House Live page where the press conference was streamed in real time. I for one was surprised to hear Obama say; "Ultimately this issue is going to be dictated by the science, and the science indicates that we're going to have to take aggressive steps in the future." With all due respect, I felt that tossing the ball into the court of science was not such a good idea. It has been in their court a lot, and look what happened. So I clicked back over to the Facebook White House live page, which allows one to enter comments.

I typed in; "Way forward will be dictated by science? We're in this mess because science dictates. Time for people to dictate to science." Then Matt from Germany commented that this was stupid, it would be awesome for science to dictate but does not, because unfortunately most countries have democracies, and thus continue polluting and trashing the planet.

Ouch. Then I typed in; "@Matt: in fact, having democracy is a fortunate thing and could allow people to take charge of science, technology and policy."

Chris from Texas then weighed in; "It could if people would realize that and get their head out of their a.... for once."

Matt fell silent. By now the Copenhagen Press conference was on YouTube and I listened intently for something concrete, and heard about progress. It sounded well-worn so I commented again at the White House Live page quoting the President; "Our hope is...that by beginning to make progress and getting the wheels of innovation moving that we are in fact going to be in a position to solve this problem" — actually this has been true for a long time. Innovation would be for those in power to be shown, forcibly and democratically, that they themselves will be compromised by not solving this problem.

By that I meant voting with a majority of 80-90 rather than one or two percent, and I was also thinking of the London politicians who failed to act on cholera until 1858, when the infectious stench from the Thames became unbearable within the houses of Parliament. My next riposte would have been; "Progress is not progress unless at the same time, we learn how it affects the planet" but four hours later no-one had responded to my innovation comment at the White House Live page. Oh well.

The environmentalists at that point in the evening were labelling the Copenhagen conference a potential Brokenhagen and Flopenhagen – due to the lack of deadlines and emissions targets.

But wait. Maybe the policymakers have learned something. After being skewered by the scandal of leaked emails and falsified climate data, and with my constant harping about the folly of letting hard empiricism, rather than good judgment, determine policy – perhaps Obama and company are wise to hedge their statements.

It gives the rest of us a golden opportunity to take charge of science, technology and policy.

Purchase Escaping the progress trap at Amazon.com

Global warming and the trouble with data.

In the current brouhaha about fudged climate data I actually haven't seen or heard the TV experts mentioning glaciers. To be honest, I haven't been to check on the glaciers but I have faith that the photographs haven't been photoshopped. The obvious status of the glaciers: significant shrinkage. The arctic ice is in fact melting. The snow cover on Kilimanjaro and many other peaks is receding. Without glueing myself to every channel 24/7, I have faith that a few TV pundits must have mentioned the glaciers, but why quibble?

The trouble with data is that when science requires absolute statistical, quantifiable fact as definitive proof that a hypothesis is true, or false, it places itself on a pedestal where its position is precarious. Like Tiger Woods. When someone fudges the data, the hypothesis is weakened or discredited entirely. Science itself is discredited, and this is something that Science should work to avoid. At any cost one might say, because there is no coinage that will reverse damage to life and nature due to misjudged climate change. On the other hand, preventive measures and their results will be tallied and appreciated. Does it offend the principle of scientific parsimony that I just said climate change instead of global warming? Does parsimony matter to those whose ice floes are vanishing, or those whose islands are being submerged?

So what if the greatest evidence of global warming is circumstantial? In law, compelling circumstantial evidence is considered a reliable guide in forming good judgment when empirical, quantifiable evidence is unavailable. Do they count every single body before they convict agents of genocide? No. Indeed there usually is plenty of empirical evidence. But if, hypothetically, the trials were based on absolute numbers, would errors in data absolve the accused? What if Solomon had based his timeless decision exclusively on hard data rather than good judgment? An innocent life would have been lost. If faith in 'compelling circumstantial evidence' was good enough for Solomon, it's good enough for the permafrost. And for you.

Think about it. If, generations from now, victims of environmental degradation put suspects on trial for the effects of climate change, and the accused get off because the numbers don't add up, would you really like to be in the shoes of those wishing the case had been less scientific?