Technogenesis by Syne Mitchell (2002)

Our imaginings of the future are often bleak. Everyone's got their own idea of who the bad-guy is who will enslave the future population to drudgery and stupidity, sucking the creativity out of their neurons.

Syne Mitchell's idea seems to be the iPhone.

One of the most impressive things about her theory is that she wrote the book in January, 2002, five years before the first iToys (iPod and iPhone). All that was sucking people into computerized connectivity were laptops, early blackberries, and regular ol' cellphones.

It makes for an interesting and depressing novel topic. Throughout the first half of the book, my interest was growing and growing.

Sadly, she did not have great follow-through. Technogenesis devolves into almost super-hero antics and increasing fishy fantasy.

The idea that we could create a 'metamind' by the parallel connections of person to person to person is fascinating. I can believe it. I can wonder if it's really happening right now... However, that metamind would not necessarily have a psychology which is so understandable to the human neurons which make up it's brain. And if it did, it would not necessarily be so smart.

These were only my musings so I couldn't really hold it against her... at first. But the plot got more and more bizarre as she tried to keep it going. Without going into detail outlining the whole book, so y'all don't have to put yourselves through the experience, I'll say the plot was strung along with coincidences and rationalizations. Why are we being kidnapped? Because! Why the hell not? We think it's a good way to make friends!

The ending is written like a poor soap opera. This book was written by three or four different personalities which didn't consult each other on project's goals. It makes for a somewhat unpredictable tale, which is good. But a poorly woven one. Which is bad.

But what the hell do I know? Most other reviewers seem to really like it! (how else do you sell books?) If you like speculative Sci-Fi, give it a chance.

Teaching students to value food in school lunch-rooms and reclaiming lost value

I would like clarification on the following issue:

A Jeffco Board Policy, effective 6/16/09, states, "All menus, recipe cards and books, food, equipment and supplies are the property of the Jeffco Public Schools. Under no circumstances is an employee to take or give away any school district property. It is against District policy to take food from any school for personal reasons. Food being transferred between sites must be approved by a Food Service facilitator before the food is transferred. Leftover food may not be given to other staff members as a "free" lunch or any other person for any reason. The Kitchen Manager will make every effort to use leftover food as a choice the following day. All leftovers which are not reusable must be thrown away into the proper refuse containers."

This policy seems aimed at preventing thievery and loss of school resources to purposes it was not intended for. I know that around '09, cafeterias became more stringent with teacher lunches and provided the same portions for adults as kids and this policy seems to govern this. It does not seem to bar the possibility of redistributing food that has been bought, and therefor no longer the property of Jefferson County Public Schools.

At my school, like others in Jeffco, we throw away massive amounts of good food. Food that is still in sealed containers. It has all been bought by a student, who then decides they are not hungry and throw it away. However, it should be possible to reclaim some of this value.

There is no argument from the USDA or the Federal Government that this food can be reclaimed. It is even encouraged and they provide some resources for getting started. 

According to the USDA, "The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Western Region Office and the Nutrition Services Division of the California Department of Education have determined that leftover foods may be donated to charitable feeding programs rather than be discarded." ... "A majority of what students throw away include packaged food or fresh whole fruits and vegetables. These foods can be placed on a donation table, a reuse box or "sharing tables." Sharing tables are carts and/or tables where children can place unconsumed food and beverage items (pre-packaged food and beverages, unopened wrapped food and beverages, or food items with a peel) that they choose not to eat/drink. These tables provide an opportunity for other children to take additional helpings of food or beverages at no cost to them. In many instances, food and beverage items, especially unopened milk, have been reused by child nutrition operations as part of a reimbursable meal, served a la carte, and/or used in cooking." (source: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/reducewaste/schools/food/Donation.htm.)

President Clinton issued a memorandum asking the Federal Government to do more to promote food recovery activities to help reduce hunger in America. This food could be donated, or it could be collected by the cafeteria and re-sold, or given to staff, or distributed to students. If the owner (purchaser) relinquishes it, it would be thrown to the landfill, or it could be donated back the school to do with as we see fit.

I do not see any problem with that.

If I am right, please let me know. If there is more to discuss, I would like to continue the conversation.

Thanks,

Edward Morrison

Resource:

http://www.fns.usda.gov/fdd/gleaning/gleanman.pdf

The Casual Vacancy

The best use for JK Rowling's newest books is to hand it to twats you may know and have them read it for any character they might, themselves, resemble. And if there are, they should change themselves accordingly.

First, you should do it to yourself, of course, because you are being a judgemental prick.

It is obvious Rowling has a hard spot for humanity. And does not judge us (as a whole) very nicely. She is not alone, of course. There are a lot of little sins among our species which does little to recommend us, but I choose to be less pessimistic in our prospects. In contrast to Rowling, I don't believe most people are purposely bastards... they are just stupid and ignorant to their follies. ....mmm perhaps I am more pessimistic.

British culture does not seem to be any better than American culture about being open and honest with others. We never tell anyone our troubles, rarely are we given a chance to listen. So we blistfully bumble along being twats. Some people are truly sociopathic (like Fats Walls), and I know a Howard Mollison in my own community (though I truly hope he is not quite such an arse), but I don't think there are so many Shirleys and Samanthas and Maureens around.

Maybe I am just naive.

Anyway the book is written alright. A little jarring how quick and often it bounces perspective. It'll fit right in with the TV generation. I liked her style of extended (parentheses sections). It is very readable and devourable to book-lovers. All the same, it is absolutely Miserable. Appropriate for our societies in declining democracies parading popularity contests as a stable form of government, but Miserable all the same. There is not a positive note in the whole thing. It has a little flat humor, but it is really just a recommendation to any alien visitors to vaporize humanity before it can do itself anymore harm.

Oh, and stop Tar Sands, too, if you're there, aliens...

BeefStuff

Professor Post's famously expensive hamburger is supposed to help feed the world. There are many in favour of this (and other) solutions to our food problems. There are others who are more sceptical.

Dissenters to Professor Post's hamburger generally fall into three categories I am told by my local paper. People who think it's just plain gross to make food in a chemistry lab, people who think it is immoral to play with genetics, and some people are worried about corporate monopoly on our supply of food. Down and dirty descriptions which cannot begin to express the complications of reality. So people who disagree can quickly and easily formulate their arguments against these three points.

I agree with all of them to a certain extent. However, there is a fourth point I find more important than any of them.

We do not need more food.

Adding food to the system* isn't going to help anything, really, and might hurt long term.

Suppose that we increase the amount of available food for human consumption in the world by 2-fold. What would that truly mean? That we would be able to feed twice as many people? Well, break out those Algebra skills**, we've got a few equations we could run. How many people could that support? Twice as many as now? 14 billion? If you think that's an OK number of human beings to be running around, you obviously do not understand what a billion means. Sorry to be condescending. Image twice as many people on your roads. Or twice as many cities. Twice the people in your neighbourhood and in your schools. Twice as many people trying desperately to flee their dangerous country for more prosperous climes. Twice the competition for resources and twice the war.

And then, in 40 short years (our doubling rate. that's 2053, by the way), when we have finally reached 14 billion and the synthetic hamburger cannot feed everyone, we all start starving again. We still have starvation, but now twice as many people cannot get enough to eat.

I think it is more likely we would end up wasting twice as much food. Right now, we probably manufacture enough food to feed everyone. We just throw it all away. I, for example, work at a 'small' elementary school (K-6, approximately 300 kids) in Jefferson County in Colorado, in the US of A. Every day, we throw away enough food to amply feed a village of about 25 people. They'd have to find something else in the summer, maybe a day care, but for 3/4 of the year, we got it covered. We don't even compost it. It's just shipped to the landfill. If we didn't supply the over-wealthy with a thousand percent of what they needed, perhaps there'd be a little left over for everyone else.

We do not show many signs of changing this greedy behavior. The rich in the world do not, as a rule, share. Private schools apparently do not have kindergarten. Distribution is a challenge. Even if this does solve some distribution problems (and doesn't get monopolized by a corporation), it will only create a worse situation.

Right now, all over the world, there is the illusion that we don't have a serious problem. That there is enough food. That we can go ahead and reproduce alls we want. If even more food is supplied, it will reinforce that illusion, but not change the fact that it is an illusion. Then the population will grow again. Now it is a balloon about to pop. So we re-enforce the balloon and pump it up until it is about to pop again. That isn't a solution. It is not long term.

What we really have to do is stop pumping up the balloon. There isn't enough space for other parts of our system. We could grow test-tube burgers until we don't have any real cows left, that'll save a lot of land (space for those 14 billion) and get rid of a profession. Perhaps we can do it with milk and eggs and chickens too. Create burgers out of grasshoppers and eggplant and soy beans.

And then we will have 30, maybe 40 billion people...

Who we will not be able to feed. And we will need a new solution.

It is called "Shifting the burden to an Intervenor" and it is not a stable solution. It does not fix the system. It requires figuring out more and more intense solutions.

*A System:

The universe is a system. It is essentially closed, and infinitely complex. With in the entirety of the universe there are a trillions, quintillions, of other inter-related systems. Like your own body. It is a system complicated enough that we cannot describe the whole equation. Within that, there is your circulatory system, skeletal system, etcetera. Systems are beautiful things. When one thing is changed, that effect ripples through the entire aparatus, eventually affecting other systems around it, which will ripple back. Nothing exists in isolation so that, yes, even the minute beating of a butterflies wings might have astronomical implications in enough time.
 

**Algebra Skillz:

If population continues to grow the way it is now, based on:
Supposing that there is about 1.5 × 10⁸ km² (150 million km²) of land space on earth, 14 billion (1.4 × 10¹⁰ or 140 × 10⁸) people would average out to be 140 people per 1.5 km² (or about half (0.56) square miles). Or would we just double our waste? Fill up our landfills with rotting food faster. Would we still have the disparity in distribution?

or:

N=(N0)e^rt    where:
(N0)=initial population=(N2013)=7E9 (or 7 billion)

e = 2.71828 (the special log number)

r = a rate of 1.7% (or 0.017)

t = 987 years between now and the next millennium

Then by the year 3000, we will have about 1.36E17 people. Or 136 Quadrillion people.

This right here is why we need better mathematics education.

***External Links:

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/scientists-serve-up-burger-grown-in-lab-from-cow-stem-cells-for-the-first-time-monday

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d82b9398-fde3-11e2-8785-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2cAygr8If

****PS:

Thinking about population is inherently and enormously depressing. But it is very important to understand.

I'm going to go do something happy. And promise never to have children of my own.

Outside the Box Thought of the Month: the Dozenal System

Counting by dozens is a lot of fun. If only because you aren't used to it. It makes me just laugh as the foundations of my thinking are shaken.

So, in Dozens, what is 9*6? Hmm?

Here is the answer: And many more:

0  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  X  E  10

0  2  4  6  8  X  10 12 14 16 18 1X 20

0  3  6  9  10 13 16 19 20 23 26 29 30
0  4  8  10 14 18 20 24 28 30 34 38 40

0  5  X  13 18 21 26 2E 34 39 42 47 50

0  6  10 16 20 26 30 36 40 46 50 56 60

0  7  12 19 24 2E 36 41 48 53 5X 65 70

0  8  14 20 28 34 40 48 54 60 68 74 80
0  9  16 23 30 39 46 53 60 69 76 83 90

0  X  18 26 34 42 50 5X 68 76 84 92 X0

0  E  1X 29 38 47 56 65 74 83 92 X1 E0

0  10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 X0 E0 100

There are a few dozen people around the world who think we should all count like this. Because it is easier. We could teach children elementary math quicker. Even thought it would blow the minds out of the heads of all our adult population. We do not have the teacher to teach this math to elementary students.

No one actually seems to be in earnest about this. They have made a clock, but not a temperature scale. Or an available calculator. Or replacement formulae for important equations easily and publicly available.