Category: Education

The Emperor’s New Mind

I have finished this fabulous book.

The Emperor’s New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds and The Laws of Physics

Book by Roger Penrose

Here is a summary of the book that is first, a very deep read, and, second, full of detailed mathematics that were beyond me. I just skipped those parts. However, it is an incredible book and one that has extended my knowledge in so many ways. I think that it isn’t going too far to say that it has amended my knowledge tremendously and I am so glad to have read it, even at the age of 81.

If you wish, you may refer to my thoughts when I first obtained the book, written down on April 14th.

ooOOoo

The Emperor’s New Mind (1989) by Roger Penrose argues that human consciousness involves non-computable processes, meaning a computer can never fully replicate the human mind, even if it can simulate its functions. Penrose uses Gödel’s incompleteness theorems and quantum mechanics to support his view, suggesting that consciousness arises from physical processes in the brain that are not algorithmic, and that a deeper understanding of physics, possibly involving quantum gravity, is needed to explain the mind. The book explores the “mind-body problem” and challenges the idea that all thinking is computation, proposing that human understanding can grasp truths that formal systems cannot. 

Key arguments and concepts

  • Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems: Penrose argues that human mathematicians can see the truth of certain mathematical statements that a formal system (like a computer program) cannot prove, demonstrating a non-computable aspect of human thought. 
  • Non-computability: He posits that certain mental activities, like mathematical insight, are inherently non-algorithmic and cannot be simulated by a computer, even a powerful one. 
  • Quantum mechanics and consciousness: Penrose suggests that consciousness is linked to quantum mechanical processes in the brain, specifically involving microtubules, a theory he later developed further in Shadows of the Mind. 
  • Critique of Strong AI: The book challenges the “strong AI” hypothesis that a sufficiently complex computer can achieve genuine consciousness, arguing that it misunderstands the nature of human understanding. 

Reception and legacy

  • The book won the 1990 Science Book Prize. 
  • It sparked debate and collaboration, notably with Stuart Hameroff, leading to the “orchestrated objective reduction” (Orch OR) theory of consciousness. 
  • It remains a significant work in the philosophy of mind, artificial intelligence, and the physics of consciousness, influencing discussions on the limits of computation and the nature of the mind. 

ooOOoo

Penrose won the Science Book Prize in 1990 for The Emperor’s New Mind.

I am not surprised.

The unacceptable side of technology

The right to repair one’s own technology products is under attack.

I hadn’t really thought of this before now. I am speaking of an article last Friday that was published by The Conversation.

A large part of me is very open to the ways that technology is helping me. I presume that I am far from being alone.

Here is that article that questions the way things are.

ooOOoo

Today’s bans on DIY repairs of everything from cell phones to tractors grew out of Hollywood’s fear of videotaping

Betamax video recorders like this one helped set off a chain of events leading to bans on repairing your own devices. Steve Jurvetson/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY

Oana Godeanu-Kenworthy, Miami University

If you have ever tried to repair something, realized that it was beyond your financial or technical means, and ended up buying a new one, you are not alone. Repairing electronics and household appliances has not been a real option in the United States for decades now, particularly for items that have proprietary software in them.

Absurd situations have proliferated. It can cost about the same to buy a new printer as it does to replace the ink cartridge. The U.S. Department of Defense cannot repair the weapons systems it purchases because the intellectual property rights remain with the manufacturer. John Deere, the farming equipment company, doesn’t allow farmers to access the software needed to repair their own combines and tractors because, while the purchase covers the physical machinery, it does not cover the software.

One consequence, in addition to cost and frustration for consumers, is environmental harm. The U.S. is the world’s second producer of electronic waste after China, to the tune of about 43 lbs (19.5 kg) of electronic waste annually per person. Only 25% of this e-waste is recycled.

The right-to-repair movement emerged in response, calling for people to be able to repair what they purchase, or have third parties do the repair work, without unnecessary financial, legal or technical barriers. Right to repair seems to be a rare area of bipartisanship in Congress. The Warrior Right to Repair Act – introduced in 2025 by a Democrat – and the Repair Act – introduced by a Republican – are two ongoing legislative initiatives to create a federal legal framework that would make it easy and cheap for American users to repair their devices. Both bills are fiercely opposed by industry groups.

As a scholar of American culture, I found through my research that the origins of the legal and technical obstacles to product repairs lie in debates in the 1980s over new media and copyright guardrails.

Hollywood and VCRs

The rapid rise and popularity of video cassette recorders, or VCRs, in the late 1970s transformed films and TV shows from transient experiences into tangible consumer goods. As I show in my book, “Videotape,” despite the potential for extra revenue, Hollywood was alarmed by the fact that users were now able to copy films on videotape, and tried to stop the technology. Today’s repair bans are part of that story.

The first U.S. copyright provisions were embedded in the 1790 Constitution. Over time, the law was amended to include new technologies, but at the core of future legal arrangements remained the initial intent: to protect the financial rights of creators while giving enough access to information for society as a whole to progress.

Until the second half of the 20th century, the American doctrine of fair use, which allows the unlicensed use of protected works under specific conditions, allowed judges to prevent copyright law from negatively affecting public interest. Organizations such as public libraries, book clubs, universities and news organizations benefited from this legal approach. The concept was codified into American law in the Copyright Act of 1976.

When the film studios took Sony to court to stop the production and sale of video recorders in 1976, they argued that Sony’s product encouraged copyright infringement. But the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1984 that taping TV content for personal use did not violate copyright law, expanding the understanding of fair use.

The industry then focused on finding a technological solution to the piracy problem and on securing stricter legal protections for its products.

They identified the digital versatile disc, or DVD, as a safer alternative to the VHS tape. Initially, the DVD was a read-only format. It took a few more years of engineering before affordable recording was possible. Even then, the process was far more complicated for users than videotape recording. In 1997, barely one year after the video disc was launched, all of the Motion Picture Association of America member studios joined the DVD Forum, collectively adopted the new format and started to phase out films released on videotape. https://www.youtube.com/embed/46RDkiy5h3U?wmode=transparent&start=0 Manufacturers use several tactics to block consumers and third-party repair shops from fixing their products.

Copyright and virtual locks

Then came digital rights management. Collectively, the term refers to the battery of technological tools that the industry developed in order to control user access to content. These include encryption software and various forms of authentication or enforcement software that limit which types of digital activities users can perform. For instance, some mechanisms block the option to download or share a digital file.

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act, or DMCA, signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1998, provided the broad legal framework that allowed these technological locks to expand far beyond entertainment, including to software. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act reflected a new alignment in interests between the entertainment and software industries. It increased existing penalties for copyright infringement online and criminalized any technology used to bypass technological locks. The law was adopted although at the time – and since then – critics warned that it could stifle innovation and increase costs for consumers.

Since 1998, more and more consumer products, from toys to dishwashers, use microchips and proprietary software protected by copyright. Because of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, third party repairers cannot alter or bypass the proprietary software. If they did so, they would be liable for infringing the manufacturer’s intellectual property rights, as is the case for John Deere farm equipment. Some electronics are even designed to make tampering with the product impossible.

Manufacturers maintain that only they or authorized personnel can and should repair their products. These repairs are often quite costly. When getting a product repaired becomes almost as expensive as buying a new one, many consumers will choose to buy and throw repairable items away.

Rising resentment over repair bans

Technology tends to outpace existing legal arrangements. With over 80% of Americans supporting the right to repair, it remains to be seen when or if American law will catch up with the unexpected consequences of a law meant to protect the intellectual rights of the creative industries, but which is now hurting consumers’ pocket books.

Oana Godeanu-Kenworthy, Teaching Professor of American Studies, Miami University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

ooOOoo

The end of that article points out that more than 80% of Americans support the right to repair and, I guess, that support extends far beyond the USA.

Indeed, a quick online search found that in the UK an organisation, Restart, had a website on the subject. Here is a little of what they said;

“The last few years have been really exciting for the Right to Repair in many countries outside the UK. Around the world we’ve seen people get access to more repairable and longer lasting products, cheaper repair options and better information about product repairability. As a result, repair is helping tackle climate change, reduce waste, lower living costs, support communities and create green skilled jobs in more places than ever.“

Then another search found out that the Eurpoean Commission had a Right to repair law in place. It was introduced in 2024. Here’s how it starts:

“The new rules reinforce the right to repair, aim to reduce waste and bolster the repair sector by making it easier and more cost-effective to repair goods.“

So, hopefully, Oana, the teaching professor at Miami University, can establish a new law that will give American consumers the right to replair their technology belongings.

An Internet Passport

This is a brilliant idea.

A Passport is a very important document. I have both a British and an American passport.

For most of my life there has been no World Wide Web (WWW). And being the age I am I do not pretend to know all the lastest advances in the WWW field. But my grandson is an avid user and, presumably, so are millions of other teenagers across the world.

Thus the idea of an Internet Passport is smart, extremely useful, and brilliant.

ooOOoo

The INTERNET PASSPORT Will Advance Civilization, Promote Democracy, Reduce Censorship, Save The Children And Fight Crime. What is There Not To Like?

Question: How could an internet passport, where the identity of an individual would be displayed, not improve security, safety of children, advance civilization, and even promote democracy if associated with completely constitutionally protected free speech?

The INTERNET PASSPORT would enable to control the age and granular exposure of children to the INTERNET. Presumably, the more than doubling of the suicide rate of girls is related directly to WRONGFUL INTERNET EXPOSURE. Not acting on the Internet Passport would be tantamount to complicity in the abuse and deaths of millions of girls.

If one enters a country, one is required by the authorities to produce a document called a PASSPORT informing them of our identity. Otherwise NO entry. The controls are stiffer if a child is involved, as they should: child trafficking is as old as humanity (and was outlawed by the European Queen Bathilde in 657 CE). So why not the same sort of control of who is entering, when entering the Internet?

A huge problem with the Internet has been too much access by children and access to age inappropriate content. Another bad problem has been the usage of the Internet by Organized Crime.

A simple way to prevent ILLEGAL INTERNET USAGE is to deliver INTERNET PASSPORTS. A law passed worldwide  would be impossible to access the Internet without an INTERNET PASSPORT  The passports would have a degree of security and control comparable to that of a passport to pass physical ports. I am sure China would have to approve.

Organized Crime, which profits from adopting the latest Internet tech faster than anybody else, will protest (and some politicians on its payroll will listen). It may be objected by individuals who claim to be good citizens, that the instauration of an INTERNET PASSPORT would introduce a worldwide police state. On a personal basis, I am very much against police states… If the policing goes beyond the law enforcement necessary and sufficient to make sure the constitutional laws are respected. But only then. I firmly believe that a substantial population is kept in check only through the knowledge of potentially efficient police action (I have been a victim of serious crimes more than a few times).

To make sure that the INTERNET PASSPORT does not bring a non constitutional dictatorship, PARRHEISIA and ISEGORIA which should be META CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES ought to be enforced by arsenals of laws. 

Parrheisa and Isegoria basically ensure FREEDOM and EQUALITY of speech, not just by allowing them, and making them constitutional, but by making them CIVIC DUTIES.. Thus constitutional speech and expression and their dissemination would be protected…. Which is certainly NOT the case now.

The usual objections will be raised by the same ones who object to cameras: intrusion on private lives. But that is silly. My main outlet is wilderness exploration. If drones would follow me everywhere, I would feel safer. They can spy on me all day long, but I do nothing wrong, aside from calculated risk[1].

The argument, made for years by many of the world’s wealthiest individuals, like Meta’s Zuckenberg, has been a nebulous “People’s right to privacy”. There is no such a thing because the “Right to Privacy” gets ABROGATED BY THE RIGHT TO SURVIVAL (I learned the abrogation idea in my studies of Islamic law, ironically enough…) As the singularity technology evolves, so does the power of individuals: somebody evil could sneak in with, say, Ebola in a jar… But no doubt planning Mass Destruction would involve Internet usage and could be recognized by LAW ENFORCEMENT AI… As long as distinct sources can be identified.

***

Naturally this simple treatment of an Internet malady has not been suggested. Instead fake news media has insisted on applying censorship on sites they consider “violent”. But of course one of the main ways dictatorships achieve control is through censorship of (what they consider to be) “violence” (the coverup is that only the dictator can use violence to suppress what the dictator calls violence)..

Much of the “culture” that young people are exposed to today is violent and extremely divisive, instead of being informational and collaborative. Why? Well, the established plutocracy has always tried, for keeping in control, to divide (and conquer). The controlling plutocracy has always greater means to adopt the latest tech, as when Hitler adopted air travel and radio to get elected. So naturally, the plutocracy we enjoy adopted Internet control and directing it towards the children was particularly perverse.

Patrice Ayme 

[1] One of my fears is an accident which would leave me crippled and rescue would not arrive in time (I have occasionally been in absolutely gigantic landscapes with no one or no sign of human activity in sight; once in Nevada, a billionaire crashed his plane. Neither he nor the plane were ever found… It’s called Nevada for a good reason… Last year I broke an arm in the mountain consecutive to rock failure and subsequent fall; I took the decision to go down the mountain, waiting for rescue would have meant death from exposure. Being able to tell a drone to fetch rescue, or more precisely blankets and shelter would have been safer. Helis couldn’t fly.)  

***

[2] In 2026 CNN and other plutocratic serving media oligopolies pressured the UK government to shut down entire websites because those sites showed violence. Showing violence somehow causes violence according to CNN (does this theory make CNN into a terrorist organization?). Instead one should behave as if all was for the best in the best of all possible words. 

Paradoxically, the Internet Passport will force much greater democracy, because it could not be an improvement without Isegoria and Parrhesia. Those two are needed because the US First Amendment protects only aspects of free speech addressed to the government (and the situation is even worse in all other countries)…

Patrice Ayme

ooOOoo

Whether or not, governments across the world will implement these changes, this response to the online world we now live in, is terribly uncertain.

I regret that i am not holding my breath.

The ‘Free’ Trial

As you are seeing on the Web.

This article from The Conversation really resonated with me. For as the online world is advancing, so too is the darker side of the Web.

Here is that article.

ooOOoo

Dark patterns on the web are designed to manipulate you – why aren’t they all illegal?

Website designs that try to change your behavior cross a line when they outright deceive. Fizkes/iStock via Getty Images

Gregory M. Dickinson, University of Nebraska-Lincoln; Institute for Humane Studies

You open a free app to do one simple thing. Before you even start, a full-screen message asks whether you want to try the paid version. The “Start free trial” button is large, bright and hard to miss. The option to keep using the free version is smaller, buried at the bottom. The same prompt appears again tomorrow. And the day after that.

A lot of people look at screens like that and think, “Surely this has to be illegal.” We even have a name for them, “dark patterns.” They feel pushy. They waste time. They seem designed to wear you down. But in most cases, they are perfectly lawful.

“Dark pattern” is not a legal term with a clear boundary. It is a broad label for digital designs that nudge, pressure, confuse or trap users. As a legal scholar who studies consumer protection and digital design, I think the most important thing for readers to understand is that the label “dark pattern” covers a broad spectrum.

Some of that spectrum is just annoying. Some of it is aggressive salesmanship. And some of it crosses the line into deception or coercion. Federal and state consumer protection laws are mostly aimed at that last category. They do not ban every design choice people dislike, only those that trick or coerce.

Annoying isn’t illegal

smartphone screenshot of images of a well-dressed young man
The ‘X’ in the upper right corner of this ad, for users to click to dismiss the ad, appears after the ad has been displayed for a moment. The ad also has an ‘X’ in the upper left corner, which is part of the image in the ad. Some users might click the ‘X’ on the left to dismiss the ad but instead be sent to the ad’s website. Possibly annoying but not illegal. Screen capture by Gregory Dickinson

That reality may sound unsatisfying, but it is not unusual. Offline life is full of things that are irritating but not unlawful. Think of the cashier who asks whether you want to sign up for the store credit card, then points out the discount you are turning down, then asks again. Most people know exactly what is happening. They roll their eyes, say no and try to shop somewhere else next time.

The same is true online. A repeated pop-up can be obnoxious. A guilt-inducing button can be tacky. But consumers recognize ordinary annoyance for what it is. In many cases, the market answer is simple: Close the app, ignore the pitch or take your business elsewhere.

Similarly, law does not ban persuasive sales pitches just because they are effective. A car salesperson who keeps steering you toward the upgraded model is trying to influence your choice. So is the airline clerk who offers travel insurance. So is the restaurant server who asks whether you want dessert. Salesmanship is nothing new. Digital design often borrows from familiar techniques.

That helps explain why lawmakers cannot simply outlaw “manipulation.” And so many interfaces are built to persuade, openly and lawfully.

What crosses the line

What the federal FTC Act and analogous state consumer-deception statutes usually care about is not whether a design is annoying. They focus on whether the design is likely to mislead a reasonable consumer. That is the core idea in modern consumer protection law.

So a design is likelier to be unlawful when it hides key facts, makes an optional choice look mandatory or tricks people about the effect of the button they are pressing. A fake countdown timer, a disguised ad, a misleading one-click purchase button or a cancellation path that looks finished when it is not are all different from ordinary hard selling. Those designs do not just pressure users; they can deceive them.

That is also why the app maker’s intent is not always the key question. In many consumer protection cases, a company does not get a free pass just because no one said, “Let’s trick people.” The legal question is often about effect: What would a reasonable user likely understand from this screen?

Research on dark patterns reinforces that concern. Even relatively mild designs can push people into choices they would not otherwise make. And regulators have increasingly focused on subscription flows, hidden fees and cancellation obstacles for exactly that reason.

image of a website form with a pop-up box in front of it
The instructions for this web form and the pop-up box that appears when users click ‘Continue’ indicate that the form has required fields. The form uses the word ‘mandatory,’ which could lead some users to believe that the form itself is required in order to continue when it is instead optional. Possibly annoying but not illegal. Screen capture by Gregory Dickinson

Why it feels like dark patterns are everywhere

One reason people might think there are no laws against dark patterns is that they see them so often. But that frequency reflects that the term covers a wide range of conduct, from lawful nagging to outright deception.

It also reflects enforcement limits. Regulators cannot chase every irritating screen on every app and website. They have to prioritize the worst cases. That leaves a lot of borderline conduct in the wild, which makes the whole problem feel bigger and murkier to ordinary users.

So when people ask why there is not a law against dark patterns, the best answer is that there already is, but the law does not prohibit every annoying or high-pressure design. It targets lies, misleading cues and coercive obstacles.

That line can be fuzzy. But the fuzziness is not a mistake. It is what you get when the law tries to separate persuasion from deception in a world full of both.

Gregory M. Dickinson, Assistant Professor of Law, University of Nebraska-Lincoln; Institute for Humane Studies

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

ooOOoo

Gregory Dickinson does us a real service. Especially when the intention is to pass on blatant mistruths.

So many people get sucked into these dark patterns. The legality of these dark matters needs to be re-examined.

Knowledge

The following is an excellent message.

The Conversation yet again have published an excellent post. It is about becoming a more informed person.

ooOOoo

Most people don’t know what they don’t know, but think they do – correcting your metaknowledge can make you a better teacher and learner

The ability to say ‘I know that I know nothing’ could be considered a sign of wisdom. Nicolas-André Monsiau/Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts via Wikimedia Commons

Tommy Blanchard, Tufts University

Do you know what the Apple logo looks like?

Chances are, you think you do. It’s ubiquitous and iconic. How could you not know it?

But when tested, it turns out very few people can remember all the features of the logo. One study of 85 people found that only about half could pick the correct logo out of a lineup of similar ones. And only one person could correctly draw it.

This isn’t an isolated example. A classic study from 1979 found that people similarly couldn’t draw a penny accurately or pick out a correctly drawn penny from incorrect ones.

People aren’t just bad at remembering things they see all the time, but also in actually knowing how they work. In a 2006 study, many people made significant errors when drawing a bicycle, like putting the chain around the front wheel as well as the back wheel. More than just a forgotten detail, putting the chain around both wheels shows a deeper misunderstanding of how a bicycle works. A bicycle with a chain around both wheels wouldn’t be able to turn.

Illustration of bike with different components labeled
Do you truly know how a bicycle works? Al2/Grandiose via Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA

It turns out people’s knowledge of how the world works is often fragmented and sketchy at best. They systematically overestimate their understanding of everyday devices and natural phenomena. People will tend to give themselves high ratings on how well they understand something, such as how bicycles or zippers work. But when they’re asked to actually explain the mechanics of these objects, their ratings of their understanding typically drop.

Just like how your knowledge of the world around you is imperfect, your knowledge about your own knowledge – also called metaknowledge – is often flawed. My field of cognitive science has been uncovering various gaps in human metaknowledge for decades.

If people are systematically overconfident about how well they understand things, why don’t they notice when they don’t understand something? And what can people do to better recognize the limits of their own knowledge?

Why you think you know more than you do

Researchers have identified several factors behind people’s overconfidence in their knowledge.

One is that people confuse environmental support with understanding: The information is out in the world but not actually in your head. With a bicycle or a zipper, all of the parts are visible to you, and you may confuse this transparency for an internal understanding of how they work. But until you go to use that knowledge by attempting to explain how they work, you may not recognize that you don’t understand how those parts interact.

A second factor is confusing different levels of analysis. People can often describe how something works at a very high level. You know that the engine of a car makes the car go, and the brakes slow and stop the vehicle. But confidence in your high-level understanding of the car may bias you to think you also have a good grasp of the finer details, like how the engine pistons and brake pads work.

Additionally, people can be blind to the ways their knowledge shapes their own perception. In one study, researchers had participants tap out the tune to a popular song. On average, the tappers thought listeners would be able to identify the song about 50% of the time. But when listeners had to identify the tapped song, they actually could identify it only 2.5% of the time. The tappers didn’t realize how much their knowledge was making identifying the song seem easy to them.

A teacher talks to a student before a chalkboard wall filled with equations, chemical structures and graphs
Intellectual humility can help you see your expert blind spot. Vitaly Gariev/Unsplash, CC BY-SA

This disconnect has consequences beyond whether someone else can understand your Morse code version of a song. When teaching people, whether in formal classroom settings or through casual mentorship, you can sometimes have an expert blind spot: the inability to recognize the difficulties beginners face when learning something you have expertise in.

Building expertise often involves internalizing knowledge to the point where it becomes invisible to you. You draw on knowledge you don’t realize you have, making it hard to relate to learners who lack this knowledge – and, of course, hard for learners to relate to your teaching. You might have experienced this when you’ve gotten partway through explaining something, only to realize you’ve been using jargon you forgot isn’t common knowledge and lost your listener.

How to address metaknowledge failures

Your metaknowledge can fail in two directions: You can think you know more than you do, and you can be blind to how much you’re relying on knowledge you do have. Each calls for a different response to correct it.

When you’re overconfident in your knowledge, the remedy is using that knowledge. You’ll quickly realize how much you actually understand and dial down your confidence. Challenging yourself to actually try to walk through how something works is a great exercise in intellectual humility – that is, recognizing that you may be wrong – and can keep you from getting out over your skis.

Building a greater appreciation for what you know is more difficult. You can’t simply unlearn what you’ve internalized. But what this challenge shows is that, to some extent, knowing a subject and knowing how to teach it are two separate skills. Some experts are great teachers, but not simply by virtue of being experts. Recognizing that you have to approach teaching with humility, and that your expertise doesn’t automatically make you a skilled teacher, can go a long way toward making you a better teacher and mentor.

These aren’t easy and quick fixes to failures of metaknowledge. Both require ongoing intellectual humility and a willingness to distrust your own confidence. But acknowledging the fallibility of your own metaknowledge is a good place to start.

Tommy Blanchard, Research Associate in Cognitive Science, Tufts University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

ooOOoo

This article is of particular interest for me. Because a few years ago, I had a biking accident at the local Merlin (OR) rail crossing. I banged my head badly and was unconscious for about eight minutes. Later on the surgeon who operated on my head said that I was lucky to be alive but that from here on my memory would be poor.

I work very hard to try and remember the items that I want to. And without my pocket book to write things down, I would be so much more forgetful.

Connecting with the natural world

Please, please, let us remember this.

It is my habit to listen to BBC Radio 4 in the early morning. Especially The World at One from 13:00 to 13:45 BST and then, usually, the 15-minute programme transmitted immediately afterwards.

Yesterday, that programme was the start of a new ten-part series called RINSED. Here’s how it is described on the website:

1. The Bridge

Rinsed.

 Episode 1 of 13

After watching their local river grow murky and lifeless, two retired neighbours decide to take on the water industry and its regulators. The unlikely sleuths begin a ten-year battle to clean up our rivers.

On the banks of the River Windrush in Oxfordshire, Kate Lamble meets campaigners Ash Smith and Peter Hammond

Reported and presented by Kate Lamble 
Producer: Elle Scott
Sound Design: Andy Fell
Executive Producer: Joe Kent 
Commissioning Executive: Tracy Williams
Commissioning Editor: Dan Clarke 

Rinsed is a BBC Studios production for BBC Radio 4

Here is the link to the programme.

Geo. Monbiot’s Grim Message

Action regarding the climate crisis.

The following essay from George Monbiot is a difficult read but it is also a necessary read.

With the news that the polar ice caps are retreating, just read yesterday: “Polar ice caps and sheets are shrinking at alarming rates due to global warming, with Arctic sea ice decreasing by over 12% per decade and polar ice sheets losing 7,560 billion tonnes of ice between 1992 and 2020. Greenland and Antarctica are losing hundreds of billions of tons of ice annually, significantly contributing to rising sea levels. [1, 2, 3, 4]”

ooOOoo

Alternating Current

Posted on 29th April, 2026

If this crucial circulation system shuts down, the civilisational impacts will be irreversible. So why isn’t it a top priority?

By George Monbiot, published in the Guardian 23rd April 2026

The poor and middle pay taxes, the rich pay accountants, the very rich pay lawyers – and the ultra-rich pay politicians. It’s not an original remark, but it bears repeating until everyone has heard it. The more money billionaires accumulate, the greater their control of the political system – which means they pay less tax, which means they accumulate more, which means their control intensifies.

They reshape the world to suit their demands. One of the symptoms of the pathology known as “billionaire brain” is an inability to see beyond their own short-term gain. They would sack the planet for a few more stones on the pointless mountain of wealth. And we can see it happening. Last week delivered the biggest news of the year so far, perhaps the biggest news of the century. But partly because billionaires own most of the media, most people never heard it. We might find ourselves committed to a civilisation-ending event before we even learn that such a thing is possible.

The news is that the state of a crucial oceanic circulation system has been reassessed by scientists. Some now believe that, as a result of climate breakdown changing the temperature and salinity of seawater, it is more likely than not to collapse. This system – known as the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (Amoc) – delivers heat from the tropics to the North Atlantic. Recent research suggests that if it shuts down, it could cause both a massive drop in average winter temperatures in northern Europe and drastic changes in the Amazon’s water cycles. This could help tip the rainforest into cascading collapse and trigger further disaster.

Amoc’s shutdown is likely also to cause an acceleration of sea level rise on the east coast of the US, threatening cities. It could also raise Antarctic temperatures by roughly 6C and release a vast pulse of carbon currently stored in the Southern Ocean, accelerating climate catastrophe.

Even when the countervailing effects of generalised global heating are taken into account, a further paper proposes, the net impact in northern Europe would be periods of extreme cold – including events in which temperatures in London fall to -19C, in Edinburgh to -30C and in Oslo to -48C. Sea ice in February would extend as far as Lincolnshire. Our climate would change drastically, with the likelihood of far greater extremes, such as massive winter storms. Rain-fed arable agriculture would become impossible almost everywhere in the UK.

This shift, on any realistic human scale, would be irreversible. Its speed is likely to outrun our ability to adapt. Amoc shutdowns, driven by natural climate variability, have happenedbefore. But not in the era of large-scale human civilisation.

The first paper proposing that Amoc might have an on-state and an off-state was published in 1961. Since then, many studies have confirmed the finding and explored potential triggers and likely implications. Until recently, Amoc collapse caused by human activity fell into the category of a “high impact, low probability” event, devastating if it happens, but unlikely to occur.

Research over the past few years prompted a reassessment: it began to look more like a “high impact, high probability” event. Now, in response to last week’s paper, Prof Stefan Rahmstorf – perhaps the world’s leading authority on the subject – says the chances of a shutdown look like “more than 50%”. We could pass the tipping point, he says, “in the middle of this century”.

So why is this not all over the news? Why is it not the top priority for the governments that claim to protect us from harm? Well, in large part because oligarchic power has championed a model of climate impact that bears little relation to reality: that is, they have a hypothesis about how the world works that is completely detached from scientific findings. This model underpins official responses to the climate crisis.

It began with the work of the economist William Nordhaus, who sought to assess the economic effects of global heating. His modelling suggests that a “socially optimal” level of heating is between 3.5C and 4C. Most climate scientists see a temperature rise of this kind as catastrophic. Even 6C of heating, Nordhaus suggests, would cause a loss of just 8.5% of GDP. Climate science suggests it would look more like curtains for civilisation.

As the eminent economists Nicholas Stern, Joseph Stiglitz and Charlotte Taylor have argued, the mild effects Nordhaus forecasts are merely artefacts of the model he has used. For example, his modelling assumes that catastrophic risks do not exist and that climate impacts rise linearly with temperature. There is no climate model that proposes such a trend. Instead, climate science forecasts nonlinear impacts and greatly escalating risk.

The likely impacts of high levels of heating include the inundation of major cities, the closure of the human climate niche (the conditions that sustain human life) across large parts of the globe, the collapse of the global food system and cascading regime shifts – that is, abrupt transitions in ecosystems – releasing natural carbon stores, potentially leading to a “hothouse Earth” in which very few survive. Never mind a few points off GDP: there would be no means of measurement and scarcely an economy to measure.

Bizarrely, the modelling also applies discount rates to future people: their lives, it assumes, are worth less than ours. In other words, it has taken a method used to calculate returns to capital and applied it to human beings. As the three economists point out, “it is very difficult to find a justification for this in moral philosophy.” Moreover, climate impacts disproportionately affect the poor – but under the models, their lives are also priced down.

Unsurprisingly, models of this kind, Stern, Stiglitz and Taylor note, have been seized on by “special interests” such as the fossil fuel industry to argue for minimal responses to the climate crisis. And it’s not just the oil companies. Bill Gates, who claims to want to protect the living planet, has given $3.5m (£2.6m) to a junktank run by Bjorn Lomborg, who has built his career on promoting Nordhaus’s model, thus helping to downplay the need for climate action. Nordhaus was awarded the Nobel Memorial prize for economics for his pernicious nonsense – and it is deeply embedded in government decision-making.

A billionaire death cult has its fingers around humanity’s throat. It both causes and downplays our existential crisis. The oligarchs are not just a class enemy but, as they have always been, a societal enemy: a few thousand people can destroy civilisations. It’s the billions v the billionaires, and the stakes could not possibly be higher.

http://www.monbiot.com

ooOOoo

Until I came to live in the the USA permanently, in 2010, I used to live in South Devon, near Totnes. Thus the AMOC was very familiar to me and the local population. AMOC stands for Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation. Much more information on AMOC may be read on the WikiPedia site.

Although the future of the AMOC is uncertain, many scientists are concerned that the AMOC will weaken.

The above article by George Monbiot is potentially frightening. As Monbiot says at the end; “… a few thousand people can destroy civilisations.“

What we need is a few thousand people to make this the number one priority! Not tomorrow but today!

Penny writes about home remodelling

With our dogs very much in mind.

Penny Martin’s latest post is about keeping dogs happy, and safe.

ooOOoo

Stylish Home Remodels That Keep Dogs Safe Happy and Your Space Beautiful

For dog owners planning dog-friendly home remodeling, the hardest part is admitting one simple truth: the home has to work for real dogs every day.

Pet-safe interior design can feel like a compromise when muddy paws, zoomies, shedding, and anxious moments meet the finishes and furniture people hope to love for years.

The core tension is balancing aesthetics and durability so home upgrades for dogs protect everyone’s comfort without making the space feel like a kennel. With the right mindset, a remodel can support calmer behavior, easier routines, and a home that still looks like home.

Choose 7 Upgrades That Take Paw-Print Life in Stride

If you’re aiming for that sweet spot, beautiful, calm, and built for real dog life, start with upgrades that quietly prevent damage and stress. Think “easy to wipe,” “hard to scratch,” and “nothing for a bored dog to pick at.”

  1. Start with scratch-resistant flooring where your dog actually lives: In high-traffic zones (entry, hallway, kitchen, living room), choose tough surfaces like luxury vinyl plank, tile, or sealed concrete, and add washable runners for comfort. Ask for samples and do a quick “nail test” with your dog’s normal walk and a dragged chair. This protects your style investment while making muddy paws and shedding a two-minute cleanup.
  2. Add a “landing zone” at the door to stop mess before it spreads: Create a small drop spot with a wipeable mat, a towel hook, and a closed bin for paw wipes and poop bags. A slim built-in bench or wall hooks keep leashes off the floor so nobody trips during excited greetings. Bonus: it teaches your dog a predictable routine, which can reduce zoomy chaos.
  3. Build a feeding station that looks like it belongs: Tuck bowls into a pull-out drawer, a base cabinet, or the side of a kitchen island so water stays off the floor and your dog’s setup doesn’t feel like clutter. One homeowner described how a station can create a seamless polished look when it’s integrated into cabinetry. Place it away from main walkways so nobody steps in the splash zone.
  4. Choose durable pet-friendly materials for the “mouth and paw” zone: Prioritize washable, tightly woven fabrics, easy-clean paint finishes, and scratch-tolerant trim in spots your dog rubs, leans, or patrols. If your dog guards windows, consider tougher screen options and hardware, secure window screens help prevent an excited launch after a squirrel. These changes are subtle, but they keep your home feeling polished.
  5. Install a secure fenced outdoor area with a simple, safe layout: A good fence isn’t just about height, it’s about no gaps, sturdy latches, and corners that don’t become “dig pits.” Walk the perimeter weekly for loose boards and soil shifts, especially after heavy rain. If you’re planning for resale, clean boundaries also make the yard feel intentionally designed, not “dog-proofed.”
  6. Use dog-friendly landscaping that survives play and stays non-toxic: Pick hardy ground covers or tough grass mixes for the run path your dog naturally creates, and use mulch or gravel in muddy choke points. Create shade and a water spot so your dog self-regulates on hot days, then keep delicate plants behind low edging. A defined dog path can actually protect the rest of your yard from becoming a patchy free-for-all.
  7. Protect home value by preventing the “pet home” signals buyers notice: Plan for odor control (washable slipcovers, a vented litter/gear closet, and easy-clean floors) and repair wear as you go, not all at once later. Some sellers worry about stigma, and one estimate notes the value of a home drops when buyers learn it was shared with pets. The goal isn’t to hide your dog, it’s to keep your home feeling cared for.

Map a Realistic Budget for Bigger, Longer-Lasting Remodel Choices

Once you’ve picked the upgrades that can handle real paw-print life, the next step is figuring out how to pay for the durable versions that won’t need replacing.

A home equity loan is one way to fund a dog-friendly remodel because it lets you borrow a lump sum of cash using your home’s equity as collateral, helpful when you’re tackling bigger, longer-lasting improvements all at once.

Lenders typically look for enough equity in your home, good credit, steady income, and a debt-to-income ratio they consider manageable.

If you’re comparing routes, reviewing the best home equity lines can give you a starting point for what to ask about.

Once your budget is set, simple upkeep routines will help those upgrades stay comfortable, safe, and good-looking over time.

Daily and Seasonal Habits for a Dog-Safe, Stylish Home

Dog-friendly remodels stay beautiful when you pair them with small, repeatable habits that support your dog’s comfort and your home’s finish. Think of these as the relationship-building basics that reduce stress, prevent wear, and keep your space feeling calm.

Five-Minute Floor Sweep

  • What it is: Sweep high-traffic lanes to remove grit, fur, and tiny pebbles.
  • How often: Daily
  • Why it helps: Less grit means fewer scratches and fewer slip-prone tumble moments.

Bowl Zone Reset

  • What it is: Wipe the feeding station and refresh the mat under bowls.
  • How often: Daily
  • Why it helps: It limits odors, stains, and sneaky mold around baseboards.

Nail and Paw Check

  • What it is: Inspect nails and paw pads after walks and play.
  • How often: Weekly
  • Why it helps: It reduces floor scuffs and catches small injuries early.

Toy Rotation and Tidy Basket

  • What it is: Rotate chew toys and store extras in one easy-to-reach bin.
  • How often: Weekly
  • Why it helps: It protects trim and furniture by giving chewing a clear “yes.”

Seasonal Safety Walkthrough

  • What it is: Use review routines to check gates, rugs, and outdoor surfaces.
  • How often: Start of each season
  • Why it helps: Small fixes prevent big repair bills and keep paths predictable.

Dog-Friendly Remodel FAQs Homeowners Ask

Q: What flooring actually holds up to nails and muddy paws?
A: Look for scratch-resistant, easy-clean surfaces like luxury vinyl plank, porcelain tile, or sealed concrete. Choose a low-sheen finish to hide scuffs and add washable runners in high-traffic paths. If you love wood, consider an engineered product with a tough topcoat and commit to quick wipe-ups.

Q: How can I keep my home stylish without adding dog hazards?
A: Pick closed storage, rounded furniture edges, and sturdy textiles that are still beautiful. Use non-slip rugs, cordless window coverings, and cabinet latches for anything toxic or tempting. The best designs feel calm because everything has a place, including leashes and treats.

Q: What materials should I avoid if my dog chews or licks surfaces?
A: Skip finishes with strong lingering odors and prioritize low-VOC paints and sealants. Avoid crumbly foam, exposed particleboard edges, and delicate trim in chew zones. Give chewing a safer “yes” with durable chew stations and wall guards near corners.

Q: When does it make sense to finance pet-friendly upgrades?
A: Financing can help if it lets you do the safety-critical work up front, like floors that prevent slipping or secure fencing. Keep the payment comfortable, and separate “must-haves” from “nice-to-haves” before you sign anything.

Remember the home remodeling market valued at $1,142.6 billion reflects how many homeowners are investing, so planning carefully is part of protecting value.

Q: Can dog-friendly upgrades still support resale value?
A: Yes, when you choose broadly appealing, durable finishes and keep the layout flexible. Focus on upgrades that help any buyer, like easy-maintenance floors and cleanable paint in entry areas. Some projects can be especially value-forward, and garage door replacement cost recouped 267.7% shows how a practical exterior update can pay off.

Small Remodel Choices That Keep Dogs Safe and Homes Beautiful

It’s hard to balance a space that looks pulled-together with a life that includes muddy paws, nervous chewers, and everyday wear.

The good news is that dog-friendly remodeling isn’t about perfection, it’s a steady mindset of making thoughtful, durable choices that support harmonious living with dogs while keeping style intact.

When homes are designed for real canine behavior, creating pet-friendly spaces gets easier, messes feel more manageable, and the benefits of dog-friendly remodeling show up in calmer routines and fewer “oops” moments.

A dog-friendly home is simply a human home that finally fits your dog, too.

Pick one improvement to do this month, one change that makes your dog safer, happier, or more relaxed.

Those small wins stack into a steadier home and an enhancing human-animal connection that lasts.

ooOOoo

This is a very useful article from Penny Martin. I find it fabulous. Well done, Penny!

Picture Parade Five Hundred and Twenty-One

More NASA images.

And what images.

NASA celebrates Hubble’s 36th anniversary with a new image of the Trifid Nebula, a star-forming region it first captured in 1997. The telescope leveraged almost its full operational lifetime to show us changes in the nebula on human time scales with an improved camera.
NASA, ESA, STScI; Image Processing: Joseph DePasquale (STScI)

There is more information on the NASA website.

Now a YouTube video.

What terrific images from Hubble.

The End of Our Lives

As in Death!

During the week of the 20th to 24th April, 2026, BBC Radio 4, immediately after the World At One, at 13:45-14-00 BST, presented a fifteen-minute series on death. The episode of the April 22nd, 2026 was called Lay This Body Down. It is summarised as follows:

As our society becomes more secular, more people feel like they want to do death their own way. That’s leading to a range of new options for disposing of dead bodies.

Now watch this:

Jean and I have opted for human composting after we have died. It is a natural process and details may be found here.