I can't say I'm much of an expert in maternity. My wife, being from Japan, was rather ignorant of what having a baby in Canada involved as well. So, our first child was a bit of an adventure, and it started with our first choice, to decide between an OB/GYN or a Midwife.
I, being one of those self-declared rational people, had a decided preference for the established medical route. My wife had no idea... in Japan, expectant mothers picked the private maternity clinic that offers the perks and price that interests them. So, we got our referral to an OB/GYN, in 3 weeks. While waiting for this, as we walked past a Midwives office in our neighbourhood, we decided to see what that was all about.
Before we knew it, we were having our first appointment with our Midwife. We filled-out the paperwork, answered the questions, went for the blood tests... had our second appointment, got some great advice, got our questions answered, and everything was great. But, there was that OB/GYN appointment coming up. Our Midwife was most understanding and supportive, saying it was perfectly fine if we wanted to switch.
We went to see the OB/GYN, waited in the office for 20 minutes, and then met a wonderful person. She was obviously busy, but very supportive. We let her know that we had been seeing a Midwife but were undecided on which way to go. She let us know that under BC regulations we had to choose between the two, there was no going to both, but that she was okay with whatever we decided. Then, she went through the standard first meeting, filling out the paperwork, asking questions, requisitioning blood tests, just in case we decided to go with her. She was great.
However, the one thing that really struck my rational self was that the questions she asked were the same as the Midwife's, the blood tests she ordered had already been done with the Midwife. Everything was already in order, all the 'T's had been crossed. The Midwife and the OB/GYN were doing the same thing... they were both great. Well, this caused us some consternation. It would have been an easy choice if either the OB/GYN or the Midwife was clearly better, but they were both great, really great. Still, we had to choose.
While I still had a slight leaning towards the OB/GYN, mostly because we're a little older and the possibility of complications was higher, I left the choice to my wife. This was probably a mistake as she, being Japanese, wound up agonising about not wanting to offend either. She leaned towards the OB/GYN because she was referred by her GP, and she didn't want to offend the GP either. So... by the slightest of margins, the OB/GYN won out. My wife asked me to call and make an appointment.
I called the OB/GYN receptionist and we went back and forth searching for a time to come in. Best I could get was in about a month, and both my wife and I would have to book off time from work to make it. Now, for a couple expecting their first child, a month is a very, very long time away. So, making a manly command decision, I said "screw this" and convinced my wife to go with the Midwife. We could always switch later on if we felt it was necessary. She agreed. I called the Midwife receptionist and booked an appointment the following week. And, thus began our journey through maternity with our Midwife.
I'll skip the complete narrative on our appointments with our Midwife and instead say that any doubts I had about a Midwife being somehow less able to deal with complications were completely unfounded. Our baby was breech and we ended up going through what's called a Version, where a medical doctor tries to turn the baby from the outside. This didn't work and we had to go in for a scheduled C-section. The transitions in care, from Midwife to MD and back again, were seamless. Our Midwife was with us there in the operating room, and after, and had full hospital privileges. No one we met at the hospital expressed any concern about us having a Midwife instead of an OB/GYN, in fact they were all very supportive. We never, at any point, felt we were lacking in professional care, never.
We did, however, gain a lot by going with a Midwife instead of an OB/GYN. We've had hour-long appointments, un-rushed with plenty of time to discuss any concerns we had. We've had easy appointment bookings that fit our busy lives. We've had frequent in-hospital visits after the delivery to help with breastfeeding and any other concerns. We've had several at-home visits after delivery. And, there's the follow-up appointments for 6 weeks after deliver too. Our Midwife has been great, more than great actually. Both my wife and I have relied on our Midwife to not only have a child, but to transition into becoming parents. This is no small thing and I couldn't imagine going through this process without her. If we ever decide to have another child, I would not even consider going through it without a Midwife.
Thus, through more chance than intelligent choice, my wife and I went through a pregnancy, through delivery, and now into parenthood with a Midwife. We consider ourselves to be very, very lucky. I write this now, with my healthy and happy son sleeping on my lap, as a recommendation to any other self-declared rational people that may be reading this. Don't worry about missing-out on professional care with a Midwife. They are professionals, fully integrated into the BC medical system, and the enhanced support they provide is exactly what you're going to need.
2010-07-17
2010-03-29
Trade Wars
Let's see here... China and the USA are playing this little dance. China makes stuff and sells it to people in the USA. People in the USA can afford to buy the stuff from China because they borrowed the money, from China...
We could look at it this way: China, as the world's largest emerging market and also the world's manufacturing centre is pretty well set. At any point, they can just stop buying US debt, double or triple their internal financial support (either through infrastructure projects or direct welfare), and let their own people be their own manufacturer's market. Of course, they would have to prevent their now-rich people from buying non-Chinese products, but a nice trade-war would accomplish this fairly easily.
Or, we could look at it this way: China has been busily manufacturing all this stuff and selling it to a counterfeiter. The US is, after all, just printing money to buy this stuff. What is this money actually suppose to be worth? Thus, the people in the US have all this Chinese stuff and the debt accrued while paying for it will simply disappear with hyper-inflation. Hyper-inflation will happen when people realize that US money is worthless, which will happen as soon as China stops buying it. China will be left with a pile of worthless money, polluted rivers, and air they can't breath. The US, not being able to import anything, will have to ramp-up local manufacturing and, in the process, create local jobs. It's not like there isn't the know-how available to do this. US businessmen have been setting up factories all over the world and staffing them with unskilled labour. Doing it at home will be easy.
So, who wins?
Well, I say China. If they had let things go, contented themselves with just being the world's biggest emerging market, then they would be the ones with debt right now. Instead, they played with the currency such that the majority of their people never really got to the point of being consumers. They exploited their impoverished people, US manufacturing competition, and global trade liberalization such that China became the world's manufacturing centre instead. Yes, all that money they bought to keep their own people poor will become worthless. However, worthless money is still better than debt. The old China could not have ramped up internal production to meet the needs of their people that had become spoilt on imports. Now, they already have the manufacturing. They don't really need an export market because they already have a billion people emerging from poverty. Those people have a lot of things to buy.
I don't think it will be all that bad in the USA, certainly not as bad as the doom-sayers expect. There will be some turmoil, and the embarrassment of no longer being the economic powerhouse of the world. Britain survived this, and the British people seem fine. The US is still a military superpower, and this isn't likely to go away, not when their arms manufacturing is mostly internal anyway. Manufacturing will return and jobs along with it. Really, as all things economic are relative, when China bows out, goes internal as in the Middle Kingdom days of old, the rest of the world will probably get back to normal. Again, after the turmoil subsides.
Really, all that happened is that China screwed the world out of being able to exploit it as the world's biggest emerging economy. They industrialized without being exploited. It's a pretty neat trick when you think about it that way.
We could look at it this way: China, as the world's largest emerging market and also the world's manufacturing centre is pretty well set. At any point, they can just stop buying US debt, double or triple their internal financial support (either through infrastructure projects or direct welfare), and let their own people be their own manufacturer's market. Of course, they would have to prevent their now-rich people from buying non-Chinese products, but a nice trade-war would accomplish this fairly easily.
Or, we could look at it this way: China has been busily manufacturing all this stuff and selling it to a counterfeiter. The US is, after all, just printing money to buy this stuff. What is this money actually suppose to be worth? Thus, the people in the US have all this Chinese stuff and the debt accrued while paying for it will simply disappear with hyper-inflation. Hyper-inflation will happen when people realize that US money is worthless, which will happen as soon as China stops buying it. China will be left with a pile of worthless money, polluted rivers, and air they can't breath. The US, not being able to import anything, will have to ramp-up local manufacturing and, in the process, create local jobs. It's not like there isn't the know-how available to do this. US businessmen have been setting up factories all over the world and staffing them with unskilled labour. Doing it at home will be easy.
So, who wins?
Well, I say China. If they had let things go, contented themselves with just being the world's biggest emerging market, then they would be the ones with debt right now. Instead, they played with the currency such that the majority of their people never really got to the point of being consumers. They exploited their impoverished people, US manufacturing competition, and global trade liberalization such that China became the world's manufacturing centre instead. Yes, all that money they bought to keep their own people poor will become worthless. However, worthless money is still better than debt. The old China could not have ramped up internal production to meet the needs of their people that had become spoilt on imports. Now, they already have the manufacturing. They don't really need an export market because they already have a billion people emerging from poverty. Those people have a lot of things to buy.
I don't think it will be all that bad in the USA, certainly not as bad as the doom-sayers expect. There will be some turmoil, and the embarrassment of no longer being the economic powerhouse of the world. Britain survived this, and the British people seem fine. The US is still a military superpower, and this isn't likely to go away, not when their arms manufacturing is mostly internal anyway. Manufacturing will return and jobs along with it. Really, as all things economic are relative, when China bows out, goes internal as in the Middle Kingdom days of old, the rest of the world will probably get back to normal. Again, after the turmoil subsides.
Really, all that happened is that China screwed the world out of being able to exploit it as the world's biggest emerging economy. They industrialized without being exploited. It's a pretty neat trick when you think about it that way.
2010-03-18
Personal Digital Ecosystem
I'd start with a series of pocket computers, all doing basically the same thing but with different performance and sizes. There would be tiny ones, about iPhone sized, middle ones, something as small as the Nokia N810 all the way up to the iPad, and even bigger netbook sized ones. They would have options for built-in hardware keyboards if people wanted them. All would have WiFi and Bluetooth, none would have GPS, accelerometers or fancy cameras. Sure, maybe something like the N810 webcam, but nothing more.
Next, I'd have a wristwatch voice-controlled cellphone with built-in GPS. In stand-alone mode, it would offer basic voice communication and direction-finding. It might even tell the time. However, it should tether to the computer and give it full Internet access over the cellular network. The computer should be able to call people on the contact list or allow typing and reading SMS communication. It should also be able to display full navigation maps and other GPS features.
Next, I'd have a camera, maybe a little point&shoot, maybe a full DSLR. Whatever I want to use and am willing to pay for. This too should be tethered to the pocket computer. If I take a picture, it should automatically geo-reference from the wristwatch GPS data. It should transfer pictures to the pocket computer with a touch of a button. The pocket computer should allow full remote-control of the camera, with a full remote-viewfinder.
Next, I'd have a TV at home. If I tether the pocket computer to the TV, the TV should become the monitor for the pocket computer. Maybe this TV has a keyboard/mouse interface attached as well. Movies could be played from the pocket computer on the TV or, alternatively, the pocket computer could be the remote control for the TV with other media sources.
Next, I'd have similar TVs in the hotel room when I'm traveling. Maybe, this TV is in an airport kiosk and I pay by the minute via my cellphone contract to use it. Thus, all my personal computing goes with me, all my media, all my contacts, everything, yet I have access to a full monitor and keyboard when I want to get something done. Why should I have to lug around a screen and monitor while traveling? All I need is the computer, and maybe a little screen for casual use while I'm waiting around.
Next, I'd have a mass-storage device that tethers to the pocket computer. Maybe it's a cheap hardrive, or maybe it's the latest in solid-state. Again, my choice, any size I want and easy to upgrade.
Next, I'd have little I/O modules and sensors: Maybe a cheap accelerometer inside a tennis ball, maybe a weather-station. Whatever I want to buy, sort of like Wii game controls. The more to choose from the better. After all, while there is an iPhone app that allows you to see who can toss the iPhone up the highest, do you really want to do this with your expensive monolithic smartphone? Why not put the stupid little sensor in something that costs $20 and tether it to the expensive part? Put it inside a baseball and see how hard batters are hitting it, whatever comes to mind.
Next, I'd have some motion-powered battery chargers. I'd make all of these devices use the same small batteries, small enough to fit in the GPS watch. Larger devices would just use packs of them. These batteries would go in the motion-powered battery chargers that are worn on the wrists. Yes, they would be heavy, but that's the point. They are for exercise. As you exercise, you charge your batteries. It wouldn't have to be that practical, as most of the battery charging would be done at home on a base charger, but the idea would get people moving.
The basic idea is to break up the monolithic smartphones into individual devices. The advantages of doing this are many:
- People can build the exact system they want. If photography is important, get the expensive camera, if movies are important, get the better screen, or more processing horsepower, or smaller size, or... Rather than trying to find the perfect smartphone, and settling for deficiencies as there can never be perfection for everyone, all the best components can be put together as desired.
- Individual components could be upgraded as the user wants. Rather than forking out big-bucks for a new monolithic device, each component could be replaced as something better comes along. New sensors or game controllers can be bought whenever they come out.
- People don't have to carry everything if they don't want to. If they're going for a jog, do they really want to carry a pocket computer just because they need a cellphone? If they're not planning on taking pictures, maybe they won't carry the DSLR, maybe they'll slip a cheap point&shoot in their pocket instead.
- Companies can keep selling devices, over and over again, as each component won't be too expensive. Alternatively, really expensive components can be sold as they won't become obsolete like a monolithic package would. The fabulously-expensive DSLR could outlast several pocket computers, for example. Thus, discriminating customers would be willing to pay quite a lot more for some of the components.
This idea is now published and, as such, is free to the world. Feel free to take this idea and do with it as you wish. I expect no remuneration, but do expect attribution. Please tell people where this idea came from.
2009-12-05
The Psychology of Junk
I love junk... I'm the kind of guy that just can't pass up some rusted bed-frame laying on the side of the road. I just 'gotta have it. It's metal, angle iron... I could make something from that. Of course, like all of my kind (except maybe those living out in the desert somewhere), I have more junk than space. In fact, I have so much junk that I don't have any room to do anything with it. If I want to do something, anything, I have to move a pile of junk out of the way before I can start.
Thus, I've been thinking about all this junk the last while. Why do I just 'gotta have it? Why can't I be like a normal person and just go to the store when I need something? Why would I rather store junk, with all the costs this entails, instead of paying the store to, well, store it for me? That's what stores do. Take my off-cut bin for example. When I make something out of wood, there are always little bits left over. Those bits can come in handy, when using a drillpress for example. It's always good to have a few bits of wood kicking around for whatever. So, I have a cardboard box up on a cabinet in front of my benchsaw. Yes, that box is overflowing, still, even after moving a bunch of this "good stuff" to a drawer in a shed that's buried behind a bunch of other good stuff. So, now, when I need the benchsaw, I have to clear all these stupid little bits of wood out of the way. Honestly, if I ran out of little bits of wood for backing boards while using the drillpress, I could go cut a chunk off the new 2x4 standing in the corner. Yes, this would be a waste of new material, I might even waste $2 worth in the course of a year. $2... or cutting a board with a handsaw because I'm too lazy to clear the junk and get to my benchsaw. Why do I have to have this junk around, instead of just cutting a bit off some new stock when I need it?
I think I have the answer. I used to think it was because I was efficient, the ultimate recycler. I didn't waste anything. But, reality is a lot less grandiose. I have all this junk around because I prefer to build things out of junk. No, not because I don't believe in waste, it's because I'm chicken. When I work with new material, I don't want to waste any of it. I plan, I measure, I make cut-lists, and I swear my head off when I inevitably screw it up. But, when I use found material, junk from the side of the road, I don't care. I throw stuff together, if it works, great. If not, who cares. I didn't waste anything, it was already junk. Easy come, easy go. That's the secret allure of working with junk. It's like spending found money. It's easy, no stress at all. The honest truth is that working with junk instead of new material is a lot more fun.
But, junk has a dark side too, there are a lot of hidden costs. First, you have to spend time processing the junk. I'm not talking about finding it, that part's fun - kind of like hunting. But, after you get it to the shop, you have to take it apart, and that takes time and consumables. Saw blades, drill bits, gloves, and the occasional knuckle all get used in this processing. Second, is the part we all know about, storage. Maintaining a large store of junk takes space, and that space costs. It may be in money, or arguments with the family, risk to people running about, or poor relations with neighbours. Maybe you're like me and have bought new material to build a shed to keep your junk. Heck, even all those tarps cost money. Third, and this is the real kicker, it creates a lot of constraints on new projects. Instead of having your pick of materials from the store, you get bits of this and that from the junk piles. So, the shelves can only be this big, or it can only use that kind of hinge, or it has to be made out of the wrong type of material. The list goes on. Basically, while it may be a lot less stressful working with found material, it's a lot more work, and the results are often less than ideal.
So, what am I going to do about this new found realisation, that all my problems with junk actually stem from me being too chicken to use new material. Well, I've already cleared all the off-cuts in front of my benchsaw. Yup, they went in the garbage. I know, a tiny first step, but it was hard to do. This isn't going to be an instantaneous behavioural change; no cold turkey for this guy. I'll start with wasting $2 a year on bucked up 2x4s, then try to be a little more casual about wasting other material. Maybe, I'll actually make some shelves for my shop out of a new sheet of plywood, without a cut-list even. I just have to keep reminding myself that keeping junk really costs more than going to the store, that it's okay to economise on the junk by wasting a little bit of new stuff, once in a while. It's either that move to a desert somewhere...
Thus, I've been thinking about all this junk the last while. Why do I just 'gotta have it? Why can't I be like a normal person and just go to the store when I need something? Why would I rather store junk, with all the costs this entails, instead of paying the store to, well, store it for me? That's what stores do. Take my off-cut bin for example. When I make something out of wood, there are always little bits left over. Those bits can come in handy, when using a drillpress for example. It's always good to have a few bits of wood kicking around for whatever. So, I have a cardboard box up on a cabinet in front of my benchsaw. Yes, that box is overflowing, still, even after moving a bunch of this "good stuff" to a drawer in a shed that's buried behind a bunch of other good stuff. So, now, when I need the benchsaw, I have to clear all these stupid little bits of wood out of the way. Honestly, if I ran out of little bits of wood for backing boards while using the drillpress, I could go cut a chunk off the new 2x4 standing in the corner. Yes, this would be a waste of new material, I might even waste $2 worth in the course of a year. $2... or cutting a board with a handsaw because I'm too lazy to clear the junk and get to my benchsaw. Why do I have to have this junk around, instead of just cutting a bit off some new stock when I need it?
I think I have the answer. I used to think it was because I was efficient, the ultimate recycler. I didn't waste anything. But, reality is a lot less grandiose. I have all this junk around because I prefer to build things out of junk. No, not because I don't believe in waste, it's because I'm chicken. When I work with new material, I don't want to waste any of it. I plan, I measure, I make cut-lists, and I swear my head off when I inevitably screw it up. But, when I use found material, junk from the side of the road, I don't care. I throw stuff together, if it works, great. If not, who cares. I didn't waste anything, it was already junk. Easy come, easy go. That's the secret allure of working with junk. It's like spending found money. It's easy, no stress at all. The honest truth is that working with junk instead of new material is a lot more fun.
But, junk has a dark side too, there are a lot of hidden costs. First, you have to spend time processing the junk. I'm not talking about finding it, that part's fun - kind of like hunting. But, after you get it to the shop, you have to take it apart, and that takes time and consumables. Saw blades, drill bits, gloves, and the occasional knuckle all get used in this processing. Second, is the part we all know about, storage. Maintaining a large store of junk takes space, and that space costs. It may be in money, or arguments with the family, risk to people running about, or poor relations with neighbours. Maybe you're like me and have bought new material to build a shed to keep your junk. Heck, even all those tarps cost money. Third, and this is the real kicker, it creates a lot of constraints on new projects. Instead of having your pick of materials from the store, you get bits of this and that from the junk piles. So, the shelves can only be this big, or it can only use that kind of hinge, or it has to be made out of the wrong type of material. The list goes on. Basically, while it may be a lot less stressful working with found material, it's a lot more work, and the results are often less than ideal.
So, what am I going to do about this new found realisation, that all my problems with junk actually stem from me being too chicken to use new material. Well, I've already cleared all the off-cuts in front of my benchsaw. Yup, they went in the garbage. I know, a tiny first step, but it was hard to do. This isn't going to be an instantaneous behavioural change; no cold turkey for this guy. I'll start with wasting $2 a year on bucked up 2x4s, then try to be a little more casual about wasting other material. Maybe, I'll actually make some shelves for my shop out of a new sheet of plywood, without a cut-list even. I just have to keep reminding myself that keeping junk really costs more than going to the store, that it's okay to economise on the junk by wasting a little bit of new stuff, once in a while. It's either that move to a desert somewhere...
2009-10-25
Climate Change Denier
I was just accused of being a "Climate Change Denier." I'm not. I acknowledge that the climate is changing (how could it not?). I acknowledge that human activity is quite likely driving this change, and driving it at a very dangerous rate. In fact, I'm not denying anything, other than that changing to florescent light-bulbs will make any difference. I know we're in trouble, but unlike my accusers, I've actually thought about the problem.
When I hear people prattle on about what we should do to reverse global warming, I think to myself "there goes another population denier." These people prattle on with nonsense like "we just have to reduce our carbon footprint by 20% and everything will be fine." These people need a remedial math course. Yes, global CO2 emissions must reduce, 20% is a great start, but that's 'global' emissions. These people conveniently forget that the population will hit 9 Billion or so in 50 years, so 'per-capita' emissions don't need to go down by 20%, it's 30%. Oh, and then they need to factor in that most people on earth can't lower their carbon footprint because they already use about 1/6th of our western amount, but they want more. They want to drive cars, and own refrigerators and TVs. So, their emissions are only going up, not down. Thus, our 30% now starts to get even higher, maybe even 80% or more. In my Canadian city, I keep hearing "every little bit counts." Well, not really. Really, wiping the entire population of Canada off the map, reducing our carbon footprint to 0, would reduce the world output by less than 2%. This would, at best, make a momentary blip in the global trajectory.
This trajectory towards increased carbon emissions is not going to reverse, not without some serious changes. With current technology, the only way to reduce global CO2 emissions is to either kill billions of people or force them into a carbon-neutral lifestyle through some brutal and repressive government. A government that would make the Burmese Junta seem positively caring. Pro-democracy is, at this point, pro-climate change. After all, if people are free to choose, they will expect to be treated fairly. To expect otherwise is absurd. If one person has 10 and another 90, do you really expect the person at 10 to be happy with 20? No, only 50 is fair. Now, this is okay, until you realise that there are not one of each, the ratio is more 10:1, soon to be 20:1. A fair distribution is not 50 for all, it is 15. Well, it's not 15 because we need to reduce from where we are, so it's 11 or 12. Do you think the people at 90 will be happy with 11? Let's rephrase that: do you think people at 90 will drop down to 11 without a fight? I don't think so.
Thus, I think climate change is inevitable. However, I don't see global warming as the issue, I see global cooling. I say this because we already have the technology to cool the planet; actually, we have several mechanisms. We could, for example, go the old-fashioned route, a small nuclear war. It would only take a few nukes to throw up enough dust to cool the planet down. Remember nuclear winter, that thing we were all told to be afraid of before terrorism and global warming came along? If it came right down to it, do you think the Chinese government would let millions of it's citizens drown or starve when all they would have to do is let off a series of above-ground nuclear tests. After the latest typhoon breached the city dikes and washed a million people out to sea, do you think the billion citizens that remain will give their leaders any choice? Now, this is pretty extreme but there are other technological solutions being proposed for cooling the planet down, ones that don't involve nuclear weapons. Some of these are so low-tech that relatively small nations, say Indonesia, could attempt them. Of course all of this deliberate meddling in the Earth's climate would cause problems of its own.
The biggest problem, besides our lousy track record when it comes to meddling in natural systems, is that "somebody" would have to decide just how much to cool things down. The problem with this is that there are places right now that are too hot, and I expect they would like things to be cooler than they are. So, do we decide to cool to 2009 levels, or maybe we should go a few degrees cooler, say back when the Middle East really was the Fertile Crescent instead of a desert. Who decides? Given that the majority of humanity currently lives in areas generally considered to be too hot already, I don't give northern countries much hope. Should the moral arguments against deliberate meddling in the Earth's climate be overruled, and I expect they will at some point, who will stop China, or even Indonesia, from continuing to cool below current levels. How could we stop them? War? No, that's just going to cool things down faster. Nothing can stop them; it's easier to cool the planet than warm it.
Thus, the real challenge for us northerners is to support the moral arguments against deliberate meddling in the Earth's climate. Doing so involves two things: First, we need to reduce our carbon footprint drastically, not a little bit, and quickly, not slowly. Of course, this still won't be enough. Thus, the second thing we need to do is bet on technology, a technology that might yet, as it has so many times in the past, spare us from our current Malthusian dilemma . We need to find an abundant and practical carbon-free energy source that the world can use. Then, we might be able to successfully argue against deliberate meddling in the climate. We need some kind of breakthrough technology, and we need it now. To do this, we need a massive research effort, an effort best made in the Northern countries. As odd as it may seem, the people in colder places have the most to lose from global warming.
We will not experience runaway global warming. The sea levels will not rise 20m. We will not be deluged with climate refugees from the equator. I say this not as a climate change denier, but as a realist. Long before we get to this point, those people, rather than being drowned, starved, and pushed from their homelands will do something about it, whether we want them to or not. Low-tech or high-tech, subtly or with brute force, the people holding the shitty end of the global warming stick will eventually take climate change into their own hands. They will shut down and reverse global warming. In the north, our only hope is to intercede through technology development, to make this deliberate climate meddling unnecessary. It's time to get off our butts and make that happen.
When I hear people prattle on about what we should do to reverse global warming, I think to myself "there goes another population denier." These people prattle on with nonsense like "we just have to reduce our carbon footprint by 20% and everything will be fine." These people need a remedial math course. Yes, global CO2 emissions must reduce, 20% is a great start, but that's 'global' emissions. These people conveniently forget that the population will hit 9 Billion or so in 50 years, so 'per-capita' emissions don't need to go down by 20%, it's 30%. Oh, and then they need to factor in that most people on earth can't lower their carbon footprint because they already use about 1/6th of our western amount, but they want more. They want to drive cars, and own refrigerators and TVs. So, their emissions are only going up, not down. Thus, our 30% now starts to get even higher, maybe even 80% or more. In my Canadian city, I keep hearing "every little bit counts." Well, not really. Really, wiping the entire population of Canada off the map, reducing our carbon footprint to 0, would reduce the world output by less than 2%. This would, at best, make a momentary blip in the global trajectory.
This trajectory towards increased carbon emissions is not going to reverse, not without some serious changes. With current technology, the only way to reduce global CO2 emissions is to either kill billions of people or force them into a carbon-neutral lifestyle through some brutal and repressive government. A government that would make the Burmese Junta seem positively caring. Pro-democracy is, at this point, pro-climate change. After all, if people are free to choose, they will expect to be treated fairly. To expect otherwise is absurd. If one person has 10 and another 90, do you really expect the person at 10 to be happy with 20? No, only 50 is fair. Now, this is okay, until you realise that there are not one of each, the ratio is more 10:1, soon to be 20:1. A fair distribution is not 50 for all, it is 15. Well, it's not 15 because we need to reduce from where we are, so it's 11 or 12. Do you think the people at 90 will be happy with 11? Let's rephrase that: do you think people at 90 will drop down to 11 without a fight? I don't think so.
Thus, I think climate change is inevitable. However, I don't see global warming as the issue, I see global cooling. I say this because we already have the technology to cool the planet; actually, we have several mechanisms. We could, for example, go the old-fashioned route, a small nuclear war. It would only take a few nukes to throw up enough dust to cool the planet down. Remember nuclear winter, that thing we were all told to be afraid of before terrorism and global warming came along? If it came right down to it, do you think the Chinese government would let millions of it's citizens drown or starve when all they would have to do is let off a series of above-ground nuclear tests. After the latest typhoon breached the city dikes and washed a million people out to sea, do you think the billion citizens that remain will give their leaders any choice? Now, this is pretty extreme but there are other technological solutions being proposed for cooling the planet down, ones that don't involve nuclear weapons. Some of these are so low-tech that relatively small nations, say Indonesia, could attempt them. Of course all of this deliberate meddling in the Earth's climate would cause problems of its own.
The biggest problem, besides our lousy track record when it comes to meddling in natural systems, is that "somebody" would have to decide just how much to cool things down. The problem with this is that there are places right now that are too hot, and I expect they would like things to be cooler than they are. So, do we decide to cool to 2009 levels, or maybe we should go a few degrees cooler, say back when the Middle East really was the Fertile Crescent instead of a desert. Who decides? Given that the majority of humanity currently lives in areas generally considered to be too hot already, I don't give northern countries much hope. Should the moral arguments against deliberate meddling in the Earth's climate be overruled, and I expect they will at some point, who will stop China, or even Indonesia, from continuing to cool below current levels. How could we stop them? War? No, that's just going to cool things down faster. Nothing can stop them; it's easier to cool the planet than warm it.
Thus, the real challenge for us northerners is to support the moral arguments against deliberate meddling in the Earth's climate. Doing so involves two things: First, we need to reduce our carbon footprint drastically, not a little bit, and quickly, not slowly. Of course, this still won't be enough. Thus, the second thing we need to do is bet on technology, a technology that might yet, as it has so many times in the past, spare us from our current Malthusian dilemma . We need to find an abundant and practical carbon-free energy source that the world can use. Then, we might be able to successfully argue against deliberate meddling in the climate. We need some kind of breakthrough technology, and we need it now. To do this, we need a massive research effort, an effort best made in the Northern countries. As odd as it may seem, the people in colder places have the most to lose from global warming.
We will not experience runaway global warming. The sea levels will not rise 20m. We will not be deluged with climate refugees from the equator. I say this not as a climate change denier, but as a realist. Long before we get to this point, those people, rather than being drowned, starved, and pushed from their homelands will do something about it, whether we want them to or not. Low-tech or high-tech, subtly or with brute force, the people holding the shitty end of the global warming stick will eventually take climate change into their own hands. They will shut down and reverse global warming. In the north, our only hope is to intercede through technology development, to make this deliberate climate meddling unnecessary. It's time to get off our butts and make that happen.
2009-08-03
Legal Content
But, any site devoted to funding and distributing content is a target for abuse. There will be unscrupulous people trying to raise money for the release of content they don't own the rights to. There will be unsavory people trying to distribute content that is flat out illegal and disgusting. There will be people just trying to make a nuisance of themselves. This is a fact of life, and Keliso is ready for it.
Keliso has built-in mechanisms for dealing with these people. There is a system that allows the processing of take-down notices in a way that requires no intervention by website operators. Keliso has a complaint and take-down system that functions within the Keliso communities, leveraging these communities to deal with the problem both quickly and efficiently, including complaints, including appeals, and the restoration of content if required. Keliso is designed to work with the law-enforcement community such that illegal content can be removed as soon as anyone complains, where information on people attempting illegal activities can be in the hands of the police immediately. No court orders, no paperwork, just immediate results.
Keliso is designed to be a place where people can earn legitimate income; it is not a platform for free speech or artistic freedom. If the community doesn't want a producer's content, then they can kick it and the producer out, all without any assistance from the website operators. Keliso is a place where the producers of content can build a community of people that support their work. There is no place for troublemakers in these communities and there are mechanisms to kick those people out, quickly and easily.
What is Keliso?
Monetising Existing Content
Are you sitting on the intellectual property rights to a virtual
mountain of content? If so, you need something like Keliso. Keliso
isn't just about releasing new content, it can fund the release of
existing content too. Yes, you've already published your content, it's
already been pirated into the P2P Datastore, but that's okay. Keliso can still work for you.
Within the Keliso system, content is the focus of the community, but accessing this content is not the reason people contribute. Thus, your content can already be available while you raise money to make it legally free to share. Yes, you can still make money in the Information Age, and you can do it with the support of the file-sharing community.
All you need to do is give people a reasonable alternative that works with the new reality of the Information Age, that works with the P2P Datastore. You need to work with people, to build relationships. Keliso is a system that can give you that opportunity, an opportunity to have people work with you towards common goals. Keliso is also a system that could make you a lot of money, if you do it right.
What is Keliso?
Within the Keliso system, content is the focus of the community, but accessing this content is not the reason people contribute. Thus, your content can already be available while you raise money to make it legally free to share. Yes, you can still make money in the Information Age, and you can do it with the support of the file-sharing community.
All you need to do is give people a reasonable alternative that works with the new reality of the Information Age, that works with the P2P Datastore. You need to work with people, to build relationships. Keliso is a system that can give you that opportunity, an opportunity to have people work with you towards common goals. Keliso is also a system that could make you a lot of money, if you do it right.
What is Keliso?
2009-07-31
Selling Value-Added
Keliso is a donation-based system where, once the creator is paid in full, the production
is released to everyone; not just to the people that contributed, but
everyone. This raises an obvious question: why donate? Why not wait for
other people to donate first, or donate more? As someone asked
within a forum debating recommendations for the new Canadian copyright
laws, "How can one buyer PAY MORE, while another PAYS LESS, and yet they
have the same 'product'?"
Excellent question. The answer is that people aren't paying for digital content, they are paying for something else, something tacked onto the content. People won't pay for something they can get for free; after all, that's a pretty silly thing to do. So, whenever people pay for what amounts to the common good, they are actually paying for something else. This is what Keliso does.
I have no intention of "releasing" the mechanism behind Keliso, not without being paid first, but I can show how several other existing value-added systems work. Let's take a limited edition print for example. The photographer signs and sells only 100 of them for a high price but, to gain interest, basically gives the actual print away on the net. Anyone can download the print and enjoy it for free, but if they want something more, the exclusivity of the signed limited-edition print, they have to pay for it. Take the limited-edition print and copy it, and it's worth exactly what the free print is worth - nothing. It's not about selling the print, the photographer is selling something else... the "limited" part.
The iTunes Store is another value-added system. Apple's not really selling the music, they're selling a convenient hassle-free download service. Apple then just tosses some money to the original artists so they can continue using the content, to sell the service. People will pay a dollar for ease-of-use, even if they can get the content elsewhere for free. This is the reason iTunes works.
Neither of these value-added mechanisms are how Keliso operates, but they are crude analogies. On Keliso, the people donating money aren't really paying for the content, they are paying for something else. Funding the content is just a byproduct of the system. Keliso needs content to operate; without content, Keliso is devoid of purpose. But, by tying the unique nature of Keliso communities to the work of content-producers, a lot of great things can happen. The communities can be self-moderating, without the need for oversight, people can deal with the inevitable troublemakers and trolls by themselves. Communities can operate anonymously while still making these anonymous accounts valuable, so that people will act responsibly with them. It's the way human communities are suppose to work.
A vibrant and healthy Keliso community will be a great place to be a part of. It offers all of the standard forum-based activities, yet offers mechanisms to deal with the troublemakers. And, as a byproduct of a functioning community, productions get funded, artists earn a living, and the creative commons, the sum-total of all freely-available content, gains in value.
This is what Keliso has to offer.
What is Keliso?
Excellent question. The answer is that people aren't paying for digital content, they are paying for something else, something tacked onto the content. People won't pay for something they can get for free; after all, that's a pretty silly thing to do. So, whenever people pay for what amounts to the common good, they are actually paying for something else. This is what Keliso does.
I have no intention of "releasing" the mechanism behind Keliso, not without being paid first, but I can show how several other existing value-added systems work. Let's take a limited edition print for example. The photographer signs and sells only 100 of them for a high price but, to gain interest, basically gives the actual print away on the net. Anyone can download the print and enjoy it for free, but if they want something more, the exclusivity of the signed limited-edition print, they have to pay for it. Take the limited-edition print and copy it, and it's worth exactly what the free print is worth - nothing. It's not about selling the print, the photographer is selling something else... the "limited" part.
The iTunes Store is another value-added system. Apple's not really selling the music, they're selling a convenient hassle-free download service. Apple then just tosses some money to the original artists so they can continue using the content, to sell the service. People will pay a dollar for ease-of-use, even if they can get the content elsewhere for free. This is the reason iTunes works.
Neither of these value-added mechanisms are how Keliso operates, but they are crude analogies. On Keliso, the people donating money aren't really paying for the content, they are paying for something else. Funding the content is just a byproduct of the system. Keliso needs content to operate; without content, Keliso is devoid of purpose. But, by tying the unique nature of Keliso communities to the work of content-producers, a lot of great things can happen. The communities can be self-moderating, without the need for oversight, people can deal with the inevitable troublemakers and trolls by themselves. Communities can operate anonymously while still making these anonymous accounts valuable, so that people will act responsibly with them. It's the way human communities are suppose to work.
A vibrant and healthy Keliso community will be a great place to be a part of. It offers all of the standard forum-based activities, yet offers mechanisms to deal with the troublemakers. And, as a byproduct of a functioning community, productions get funded, artists earn a living, and the creative commons, the sum-total of all freely-available content, gains in value.
This is what Keliso has to offer.
What is Keliso?
The Staggering Accomplishment of Simple Pirates
One is, of course, Wikipedia. Who'd have thought that a bunch of people could get together and build something that amazing. Criticised from the start; with calls of being hopeless, bound toward total inaccuracy, and an impossible goal; it has grown into the most complete and up-to-date repository of knowledge the world has ever seen. Excluding the obvious joke-entries that are bound to come up with such a system, it is on average likely to be the most accurate as well.
Another is Open Street Map. Who'd have thought that a bunch of people running around with their personal GPS devices could build the most comprehensive street-map that has ever existed. They did; over 160Gb of XML data, and counting. I say "over" because I don't want this article to be dated next week. Open Street Map now covers most of the developed nations on Earth, and a good part of the undeveloped ones too.
The third Web 2.0 project is something that most people don't think about, at least not in a positive way. It is the distributed data warehouse of content archived in the P2P networks. Most people think of piracy when the term P2P comes up, and they're right. The vast majority of content within the store is copyrighted and being used without permission. But, if you step back and look at it, the results really are stupendous.
Any casual browsing of torrent listings will show a staggering array of content. Basically, it contains pretty much everything that anyone has ever found interesting. Virtually every song, every application, every movie... TV shows, sporting events, scanned magazines and books, photos... the conglomeration of culture is astounding, and growing by the day. I wouldn't even hazard a guess at how many terabytes of data are available, searchable, and downloadable with a few mouse clicks. Any number offered would only be a guess, and even if accurate it would be obsolete within days. It is the single greatest aggregation of culture that humanity has ever created; the greatest libraries in the world are insignificant-nothings in comparison. In a day, a person could download more books that could be read in a lifetime, in a few weeks (only because data rates are often throttled by ISPs) more movies than could be watched in a lifetime, more applications than could be installed, more content that any human could ever consume. Not bad for a bunch of pirates.
Of course most of this content is there illegally, against the wishes of the rights-holders. But, how could this be any other way? There is no way such content could be legally collected, not without huge sums of money involved. For it to be done by people in their spare time, like Wikipedia and Open Street Map, it has to be free. Yes, the content isn't suppose to be free, but it will be.
Eventually, all the content in the P2P datastore will be legally free, either because the rights-holders have monetised those rights through a system like Keliso, or the copyright has expired. It won't be long before all new content will be released under pay-for-production systems, rather than the failed pay-for-consumption system we have now. Thus, eventually, it will all be legally free and waiting for us in the P2P datastore. Web 2.0 at its best. Who'd have thought a bunch of - insert your chosen expletive here - pirates could do such a thing.
What is Keliso?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
