On July 15th, 2009 a post called Parenting lessons from Dogs started what has now become a bit of a ‘habit’. But more reflections tomorrow.
Reach for the Skies
Today I want to voice something that has been running around my mind for some time. It is whether we give in to the mounting doom and gloom at so many levels in our societies (and it can be a very compelling draw) or whether we see this as a painful but necessary period where slowly but surely the desires of ordinary people; for a fairer, more truthful, more integrous world are gaining power.
And I’m going to use Richard Branson to voice it for me!
(Now this is an unusually long Post so I’ve inserted the Read More divider to prevent the Post visually swamping your browser.)
“An ethic of kindness, benevolence and sympathy extended universally and impartially to all human beings.”WikiPedia
Introduction
Friedrich Nietzsche
I do not in any of this mean to say that humanitarianism is a negative thing, I am merely attempting to describe why humanitarianism exists in the world today in much larger proportion than it has in the past.
I hope also in some of this to disagree, hopefully intelligently, with Nietzsche’s claim that humanitarianism decreases the overall strength of the human race, or at least its higher echelons.
Self-interest
Human beings are either entirely or nearly entirely driven by self-interest, this much has been made clear by both ancient and modern philosophy.
Different philosophers have realized this point in different ways.
Mises said that all people are rational maximizers.
Nietzsche said that the natural human being attempts to exert his force upon the world surrounding him.
Plato said that all men desire good things, but each man has his own subjective opinion of the “good” which he came to via his own experiences (both during and before “life”.)
I highly doubt that human nature has changed a great deal in 100 years.
However, 100 years ago it was very common for European nations to do just about whatever they wanted to the rest of the world. In fact, human nature is in all likelihood not very different now than it was in the days of the early church, when Christians were wrapped in lambskin, covered in oil, and burned alive in order to serve as torches.
Stonehenge is one of Britain’s most famous historical sites, deservedly so because Stonehenge was one of the most important places in ancient Europe.
StonehengeProfessors Tim Darvill and Geoff Wainwright are the world-renowned archaeologists who believe they have cracked the conundrum of Stonehenge’s original purpose.
But evidence from a dig that was authorised in 2008 has shown that not only is Stonehenge a much older site of human habitation but that it’s purpose is altogether different to what has been assumed. It was, indeed, a healing place, possibly the most important in Europe.
Those living in the UK can watch the Timewatch programme on the BBC iPlayer. But for those living outside the UK then the following web site has reams of wonderfully fascinating information. That site is here.
I can’t recall how but I came across a web site that focuses on ‘translating’ data into pictures. As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. The web site is called Information is Beautiful.
Anyhow, they have attempted to graphically portray the scale of the BP oil spill. (A thumbnail is below but please click on the link, or here, to see this as it was meant to be shown.)
Ouch!
But this image is an update of an earlier one here that is really powerful. Because it attempts to put the scale of the oil spill into context with global oil consumption.
If the Purdue University estimate of the oil spill is correct at 48,500 barrels a day (a barrel is approximately the equivalent of two car tankfuls of gas/petrol) and the spill is contained in 90 days then the total oil spilled will be:
90 x 48,500 = 4,365,000 barrels
That is an enormous quantity.
But have a guess as to how much that would represent in terms of hourly global oil consumption?
Any idea?
Well global oil consumption is 3,500,000 barrels an hour.
So 90 days at 48,500 barrels a day represents just 1 hour 15 minutes worth of global consumption!
If there was ever an argument for the world to wean itself off oil then this would appear to be it.
What has happened so far is tragic – tragic beyond measure. But if it turns out to be a ‘tipping point’ for nations to reconsider how we find and use energy then, perhaps, it will have been a horrible lesson that we all had to take.
And if the USA puts all it’s collective back into leading the world out of our addiction to oil then the damage and hardship will not have been in vain.
Despite the fact that we have now been living in Payson, Arizona, since the end of February and, therefore, a degree of familiarity exists in both directions, the local Saturday Farmers Market prompted this thought.
Why do I not feel a foreigner here?
There is no question that America, in general, and Arizona, in particular, is very different to England. In many ways the differences are far greater than, say, England and Australia, or England and New Zealand (I’m picking other English speaking countries to avoid to obvious difference between countries of different languages).
Local goats' cheese
I love Farmers Markets. They seem to encapsulate the wholeness of locals growing meat and produce for other locals. They seem to serve as a reminder of the integrity that is needed just as much in food as in all other areas of life.
Of course, I am not so naive to think that we could wind the food revolution back to before the days of supermarket chains – food is wonderful value nowadays especially for those families on tight incomes.
But I can’t be the only one that ponders what the long term effect of all those
Local jellies (jams to Brits!)
E-numbers and other strange ingredients that one reads on most packets of most items, and whether or not fruit is sprayed with anything that we should know about, and so on and so forth.
That’s why that place in my psyche is ‘stroked’ so well by wandering around the Farmers Market.
One would expect if there was going to be any place where yours truly, dressed and sounding like the Englishman that he is, is going to feel foreign, it would be at the Payson Farmers Market. I don’t even try to hide my origins, responding to a “Howdy folks” from the stall-holder with a quintessentially English “Good Morning!”
Inevitably there are reasons why I am made to feel welcome here in Payson, my hunch is that it is much to do with this being a pioneering town for most of the last 100 years, and therefore co-operation, collaboration and a welcoming attitude were key elements of sustaining a way of life, but, in the end, analysis is pointless.
What matters is how we are made to feel, and we are made to feel very welcome.
Indeed, Payson with it’s predominance of right-wing, independent thinking, tough ‘cow-boy’ inhabitants echoing a recent past, may have an important lesson for all of us, across the globe, as the forces of disconcerting change build and build: be local, think local, preserve local.
I’m very proud to be slowly but surely turning into a Payson local.
I can’t possibly add anything of substance to the hours and millions of words spoken about this tragic event.
All I felt as I watched the Congressional Hearing live on CNN was both embarrassment and sadness as a fellow Englishman demonstrated how the lawyers have won.
Hayward, from the couple of hours that I saw, said nothing of substance, nothing of real value and nothing that recognised how the American people, and the world in general, deserved openness and in-depth answers.
‘Among the calamities of war may be jointly numbered the diminution of the love of truth, by the falsehoods which interest dictates and credulity encourages.‘ (Samuel Johnson, from The Idler, 1758)
I have used this quotation simply because we need to remind ourselves that the media, politicians, journalists and many ordinary folk find it easier to be extreme, opinionated, outlandish and provocative (ergo, ignorant) than to be thoughtful and reflective about an incredibly complex situation. Rant and blame, while making for great reading or viewing, is not helpful.
This all came to mind from reading a recent article in The Financial Times (you may need to register to view it) which was titled:
Britain should back down over BP
By Clive Crook
That article starts like this:
A week ago I criticised the US media for childishly demanding that President Barack Obama “just do something” about the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, observing there was much to be said for a leader who stayed calm in a crisis. Next day, no doubt as a result, Mr Obama became pointedly less calm. He called for some “ass to kick”, a very Bushian sentiment, and dialled up the invective against BP – which he likes to call by its old name, British Petroleum, to underline the company’s alien perfidy.
The US outcry against the company is still building, and the administration, intent on deflecting its critics, has put itself in the vanguard. Criminal investigations and efforts to remove a statutory cap on the company’s liability are under way. It is ominous that lawyers are working hard, with the administration’s blessing, to enlarge the very concept of civil liability.
And concludes thus:
The question of whether even this company’s mighty resources are adequate to meet these demands cannot be dismissed. In such circumstances, I cannot see why BP has hesitated to suspend its dividend. The idea that it can take this calamity in its stride and proceed on the basis of business as usual is absurd, and politically foolish too, since it is a provocation to critics intent on vengeance.
The Gulf disaster will have far-reaching economic and energy-policy implications. The right liability and mandatory insurance regimes for deepwater drilling are high on the list. No doubt the White House should worry less about kicking ass and more about thinking these questions through. But British complaints that BP is being “scapegoated” will not help reason to prevail. Let us not add insult to injury.
Frankly, I don’t have either the knowledge or the competence to judge the validity of Mr Crook’s article and, as so often in cases like this, took to reading the comments as they can frequently shed more light on a particular issue.
And that is how I came across the following comment from RiskManager. Whoever you are, well done on taking the time to put what feels like some badly needed balance into this issue. This in no way lessens the terrible harm being metered out on innocents, just as in any ‘war’, but this is not about winning – it is about learning.
From RiskManager
Unlike ANY U.S. company EVER in a similar situation (Exxon, Union Carbide, Accidental Petroleum, etc. etc. – its ALL of them), BP has indeed done the right thing since the blowout by immediately admitting its liability/responsibilities. It has mobilised the largest containment and clean up operation ever and immediately issued compensation to those affected. The effort to stem the well, something never done before at this depth, has seen the assembly of the best experts in the world and the greatest concentration of sub-sea equipment perhaps ever seen. That efforts have failed so far to stem the leak is a fact that testifies to the challenge of the task, a challenge that cannot be understood until the failed Blowout Preventer (BOP) is recovered and we find out why the accident happened and why the top-kill did not work. What is going on inside the BOP?
And there it is. Today we just do not know. The failsafe in place, a modern BOP, failed. We don’t yet know why. BP may well. Transocean and Cameron the same. When we do recover the failed BOP which is under subpoena already all the questions will be answered. Until then it is fatuous and unhelpful to go round looking for bottoms to boot.
Why the gas kick happened down the well seems to me to be secondary. Things happen. That’s why we have a failsafe, that’s why there was BOP installed and paid for by BP, the failsafe device.
An editorial in The Daily Telegraph of yesterday said….
“It should not be difficult to rewrite the rules to make sure that no deep-water drilling is permitted without a fail-safe arrangement in place from the start,…..”
No, these are the current rules. The fail-safe arrangement was the blowout preventer, the one that failed. Note how BP always refer to it as the “failed blowout preventer”. Always.
The BOP has multiple (five I think) valves, of varying types with at least one that is meant to shear the casing, the drill pipe and anything else.
One valve was operated from the surface by the tool pusher who testified as such, indeed he operated it before the Offshore Installation Manager gave permission as mud circulation had been lost. That failsafe BOP valve failed.
The next I believe is a failsafe that shuts when contact is lost with the rig, like a dead mans handle on a train. As the Deepwater Horizon rig sank and contact was physically broken (or before), it also failed.
The others (three ?? ) are I believe all meant to be operable by sub sea vehicles (ROV’s). The first days after the blowout were spent trying to shut these valves as per the design of the failsafe device, the blowout preventer. All these valves failed.
That’s a lot of failure. Why??
Now, if BP should have known about whatever is found to have happened in the failsafe BOP then it is their fault. If sub-contractors installing and operating the BOP or is manufacturers lied or were negligent it is there fault.
If the blowout preventer had worked as intended, as the failsafe final defence device, there would have been no loss of life and no oil spilled.
Given the sums of money involved I suggest the UK immediately prepares to seize US assets of potentially liable companies or associates in the event that BP is found to be the victim of its supplier’s negligence. Unlike BP these companies have already sought protection of US law, are paying dividends and are saying nothing at all as BP gets a kicking
At the end of the day, we (you and I) need the deepwater oil as the worlds easy and cheap to produce oil reserves are controlled by the OPEC cartel and restricted to about a 40% of global production from 80% of reserves. But however many failsafes, however many regulations, human activities entail risk. The deep water drilling was thought to be safe with a modern BOP. It wasn’t. Now we need a BOP and inspection/testing regime that really is failsafe and expertise in responding if that fails. I would have thought the facility to install a new shear ram at the well head below the BOP after a blowout would do the job, or a fitting at the top of the LMRP that a ready built new valve could be installed on top of post blowout would do the job..
Ironically BP will certainly be the world experts in these matters after this accident and response.
P.S. Shortly after completing this Post, I read the following from the BBC. (Extract provided only – see link for full BBC article.)
Barack Obama calls for clean energy push
President Obama
US President Barack Obama has called on his Democratic Party and other supporters to back a government campaign for clean energy.
In a statement aimed both at paid-up Democratic Party members and at millions of individuals who backed his 2008 presidential bid online, the president asked his network to lend their name to a campaign to change the way America produces and consumes its energy.
“We are working to hold BP accountable for the damage to the lands and the livelihoods of the Gulf Coast, and we are taking strong precautions to make certain a spill like this never happens again,” Mr Obama said.
“Beyond the risks inherent in drilling four miles beneath the surface of the Earth, our dependence on oil means that we will continue to send billions of dollars of our hard-earned wealth to other countries every month – including many in dangerous and unstable regions,” he said.
“In other words, our continued dependence on fossil fuels will jeopardise our national security. It will smother our planet. And it will continue to put our economy and our environment at risk.
“We cannot delay any longer, and that is why I am asking for your help.”
Let me close as I started, by using an old saying:
“It’s an ill wind that blows no good.” (John Heywood (c.1497-1580))
In a recent article I discussed the fear of the unknown, linked to the down-turn, redundancies, etc.
Per Kurowski, a great supporter of this Blog, posed the following question.
Great advice… but how do we remove the fear of what is known?
A simple, and slightly flipant answer would be,
“Develop a different relationship with it.”
What I’m saying is that when we are facing the known, and I’m assuming that it’s something unpleasant, our choices are limited. It’s going to happen, so the only thing we can do is change the way we view it.
This brings us back full circle to developing a different relationship with it.
Let’s take the word, ‘fear’.
“All fear is an illusion, walk right through“. I heard Dr David Hawkins say on a CD. Granted, a great trick if you can do it!
Here’s another description of fear: Fear= False Evidence Appearing Real
Fear is generally future-based. We tend to use the past as a learning reference to inform us of what to be afraid of in the future. So human beings live their lives trying to predict and prepare for the future, limited by their past experiences.
Unfortunately, the only way to work with fear of the known is to live in the present! [Just like dogs! Ed.]
Our whole society is geared up to look into the future. We are forever worrying about or planning something for the future.
To begin focussing on the present, try this.
Simply, to start off, become aware of the breath and sensations in the body. This will slowly start to remind us to be present, or embodied, in our own body.
Fear
Problems, fear and spiral thinking, often at 3 or 4 in the morning, are generated in the mind.
Thoughts occur randomly, although we call them, “Our thoughts”, and refer to, “Our mind”.
By dropping out of the thought processes into awareness of the breath and body, the noise stops, even if only for a moment.
So very few people in the world will have even the slightest inkling what these words mean.
If more of us got used to coming out of the mind before making an important decision, and simply sat with the question for a while, the answer would probably present itself.
This will probably raise more questions than it answers but that’s not a bad thing.
[Apologies to our readers but a consistent error in all the links to previous posts within this and earlier posts has now been corrected. You can view all the previous sections of his lecture by clicking the links in this Post. Ed.]
We live on a finite Earth. But really understanding what that means is difficult. I guess because most of us think that in our own little way we can’t really be doing any harm to the planet – I mean what’s another few grams of CO2?
Al Bartlet, University of Colorado
Well here’s Dr Albert Bartlett of the Department of Physics at the University of Colorado chatting about arithmetic! And if you go to his website, you will come across this quote on the home page:
“Can you think of any problem in any area of human endeavor on any scale, from microscopic to global, whose long-term solution is in any demonstrable way aided, assisted, or advanced by further increases in population, locally, nationally, or globally?”
Want to sit in on his famous lecture, “Arithmetic, Population and Energy: Sustainability 101”? Well you can.
The lecture is broken down into 8 10-minute videos, each of them on YouTube. The first two instalments are here , Part Three and Four here
Parts Five and Six were in this post. These are the concluding two parts.
Learning from Dogs 