Update May 26/08: Due to technical difficulties, some posts are currently unavailable. Please contact help[at]homerdixon.com for more information. http://homerdixon.com/forum/index.php Wed, 08 Sep 2010 21:03:40 -0400 Phorum 5.2.7 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,1031,1031#msg-1031 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,1031,1031#msg-1031
The source of tidal energy is the movement of tides. Wave turbines, which have a role similar to wind turbines, are placed under the sea water. The water movement results in the movement of turbines and thereby results in the production of electricity.

As the world is looking for renewable energy resources, tidal energy is getting more attention day by day. Tidal energy extraction works in two ways: it creates electric power from the horizontal movement of sea water and from the rise and drop of sea water levels.

Tidal energy is highly dependable and predictable. As tides do not depend on weather, their motion can be predicted. Tidal energy works in a similar way to hydroelectric energy. Tidal energy is one of the clean and cost-effective forms of alternative energy. The rise and ebb of the tides can be effectively used as an alternative energy resource.

More information about tidal energy and the methods of extraction can be obtained from the recent Energy Industry News reports [www.worldenergymedia.com].]]> FRIEDT21 General Discussion Thu, 22 Jul 2010 09:39:13 -0400 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,1026,1026#msg-1026 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,1026,1026#msg-1026 The Upside of Down, I was disappointed by the absence of any substantial solution to the fundamental issues raised by the book. Indeed, I felt like we are all unable to have any positive impact on the ultimately doomed world -- 10 chapters of down with not much up.

Toward the end, you suggest that moderate people have a "collective action problem" vs. extremists in those moments of contingency. Your solution: an online community. My initial reaction was that this was trivial. It certainly didn't leave me feeling that I have a great deal of power over the various extremist forces, I must confess.

So, tonight I came to the online community to see what it offered. Forgive me if I'm missing something deeper here, but what I see at first blush is a discussion-board kind of book club. If you hoped for a real and vital community that would be working online toward solutions to the five tectonic stresses or the multipliers you identify in the book, I think you must be very disappointed. Is such a thing even possible in a public forum? Or am I looking in the wrong place?

In the three years since the book, have you done any re-thinking about where we go from here, and whether we can get there from here?

I'd be interested to know of any real movements that are happening in the direction of preparing for catagenesis.]]> Robert Irish General Discussion Fri, 14 May 2010 01:42:08 -0400 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,1024,1024#msg-1024 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,1024,1024#msg-1024
Your analysis of the fall of the Western Roman Empire based around declining EROI and increasing complexity is extremely thought-provoking. Many thinkers and commentators have argued that the modern western world is going the way of Rome, but your analysis provides more technical grounding for this hypothesis than any other that I am aware of.

But still, I wonder how the EROI/complexity paradigm holds up when applied to the fall of other long-lived empires. Would it be relevant to the Eastern Roman Empire, i.e. Byzantium, which began a long, mostly gradual contraction in the seventh century (but held out until the fifteenth century)? Did the east not experience the same EROI crisis due to warmer, sunnier climes and access to alternate food sources, from the sea for example (given that most of Byzantium was close to water)?

As to complexity, I do find it interesting that Byzantium, which certainly had its complexities (thus the term we use today for unnecessary complexity, i.e. "byzantine" ), was ultimately defeated by the Islamic Turks, who held to a much simpler religious and theological structure versus Eastern Christianity. So is the slow fall of the east more a question of accumulated complexity which fails to adapt to changing conditions? (Recall that the Turks and not the Byzantines used a new military innovation, gunpowder canons, in the final battles.)

So, at some point, do increasing levels of organizational, social and economic complexity cross a threshold that inhibits positive innovation? For example, when things get "too bureaucratic"? See, perhaps, the 2008 financial crisis, where government financial oversight mechanisms (complex arrangements across multiple agencies) couldn't respond quickly enough to increasingly complex financial instruments (despite documented awareness of the danger by people within those oversight agencies)?

Just wondered what your thoughts on this might be.

Thanks.
Jim Gerofsky]]> jimg404 General Discussion Sun, 18 Apr 2010 21:10:25 -0400 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,1021,1021#msg-1021 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,1021,1021#msg-1021
You wrote, "Our innate capacity for fear clashes with another deep human characteristic - a tendency toward optimism.Contrary to Mr. Brown’s claims, people aren’t naturally pessimistic. Psychological research has shown that we have, on average, a bias toward hopefulness."

This is not actually true in any research I have read. I tried to see your source/reference list to see where you had determined this conclusion, but you did not list it? Don't take this the wrong way: but if you're a researcher and teacher, should not you list your sources on your articles?

I have been doing extensive research on the Positive Psychology movement by Dr. Seligman at Penn State, and he would actually disagree with you here. There are natural optimists, and there are natural pessimists. We are naturally born as one or the other, and while we can work to adjust our natural 'outlook' buffer-range, we cannot fully change it.

I agree that people are not all naturally pessimistic...but nor are they all naturally optimistic. There is a variance among humans, as both optimism and pessimism served a natural purpose (different ones) in the human evolutionary process. Both have their benefits and drawbacks to society. Not one or the other is better or worse. Instead, what matters is how, when and why each is applied.

Optimism vs pessimism

M
----
Michelle Estable
www.michelleestable.com

Sources:

Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Authentic happiness: Using the new positive psychology to realize your potential for lasting fulfillment. NY: Free Press.

Seligman, M. E. P. (2006). Learned optimism: How to change your mind and your life. NY: Vintage Books.

Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist. v55. no.1. Jan. pp 5-14.

Seligman, M. E. P., Steen, T. A., & Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005). Positive psychology progress: Empirical validation of interventions. American Psychologist. v60. no.5. Jul/Aug. pp 410-421.

Seligman, M. E. P., Rashid, T., & Parks, A. C. (2006). Positive psychotherapy. American Psychologist. v61. no.8. Nov. pp 774-788.]]> mestable37 General Discussion Thu, 01 Apr 2010 14:39:37 -0400 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,1020,1020#msg-1020 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,1020,1020#msg-1020 The Ingenuity Gap is about cars. How they (Oldsmobiles) were built in the '50s and how Thomas was able to rebuild one of them (p.107). "Dismantling that machine taught me that it was possible to analyse machines and the things in our world, to break them apart and grasp their inner workings" (p.108).

Quote from p.111 reads: "A 1999 Oldsmobile engine with its computerized control...has far more parts, and is therefore far more COMPLEX." That means more difficult to fix of course.

And indeed, things are as predicted by the author. Today we read in the news: "Consumers to see more recalls as auto technology becomes more complex. Vehicle recalls (Toyota) could become broader and more frequent as automakers use increasingly complex technology.., analysts say."]]> Wojt General Discussion Thu, 04 Mar 2010 13:23:15 -0500 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,1019,1019#msg-1019 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,1019,1019#msg-1019 The Wealth of Planets

The Wealth of Nations brought to the Western world germinal insights into the fundamental drivers of production efficiencies and the power of supply chain feedback loops to effectively allocate resources and distribute goods.

Over the intervening 230 years, a complex set of mathematical formulations has evolved which govern most of the economically related regulation globally. Neo-Classical economic theory is currently the central framework guiding a significant portion of the economic, political and indeed social decision making in the West and increasingly throughout the rest of the world.

Its mathematical basis, the application of Helmholtz’s equations for energy dynamics (subsequently superseded by more robust theories of electromagnetism and thermodynamics) exchanging utility for energy, etc., has built into the entire edifice (built atop the basic paradigm) the fundamental assumption that equilibrium is the natural state of economic markets. Although this fundamental flaw certainly drives much of the inability to create market systems that avoid the asynchronous boom and bust behavior characteristic of global capitalism, I believe an even more serious outage exists.

Wholly aside from this question of whether the embedded mathematical assumptions and relationships are even vaguely suited to the physical behavior being modeled, there exists a more fundamental question of great importance. That question is whether the approach of Neo-classical economics - handling all factors beyond the limited set explicitly modeled within the framework as “externalities” - has any hope of leading to a model that can guide us to an ecologically, politically and socially stable global state.

Adam Smith’s Semi-Global Village

It is 1786 in a small town in Scotland. Adam Smith’s nephew Able has moved there 5 years after the publishing of The Wealth of Nations. He has purchased a tin flatware and cutlery factory where he intends to apply the power of the division of labor to make his fortune. He quickly transforms the group of individual craftsmen into an efficient factory process which produces 3 times as much product at half the cost.

Within one year he has increased his output fivefold, dominating the market within 20 leagues and has purchased the largest manor in the county. He has raised the wage of his craftsmen by 25% while expanding his workforce by twofold. His only problem seems to be that he can’t get sufficient tin and the cost has increased by half.

The local sheriff, a distant relation of the Sheriff of Nottingham, approaches Able and offers an exclusive supply relationship, promising to meet all requirements and maintain the current price for 3 years, which Able gladly accepts. The Sheriff immediately commandeers the local tin mine for lateness in paying retroactively defined taxes. He rounds up 100 men, women and children from surrounding villages to work in his newly acquired mine in order to pay off the same retroactive taxes.

Five years later, runoff from the mine has ruined the creek and much of the groundwater that supplied the town, rendering many small farms incapable of sustaining themselves. Most of the town’s men spend half their time in the militia trying to defend their families and crops from raids by the surrounding villages enraged over the enslavement of their relatives. As the decreasing supply of water and food increases the pressure on the townspeople, Able needs more and more private guards to protect his manor, grounds and factory. Finally, spreading consumption and an explosion of vermin in the growing squatters’ camp in the adjoining forest lead him to acquiesce to his young wife’s requests. He buys a castle on the south coast of France where he relocates permanently.

While writing to his uncle Adam to thank him for the profound insights into the division of labor, the natural and market price of commodities, and all the other subjects in The Wealth of Nations, and bemoaning the wretched state of his home village and the utter lack of industry and morals of the peasant population, Able falls into a dream. In this dream, he meets a visitor from the future. This visitor is a strange and profoundly annoying man holding a violin, upon which he occasionally produces horrible screeching noises. The visitor introduces himself as one Henny Youngman and proceeds to relate a strange tale. “There once was a man buying a suit. While trying on the suit the man tells the tailor that the pants are too long. The tailor says not to worry, pulls up the waist of the pants in the front to the man’s chest, places the man’s left arm across his chest to hold the pants in place and says, “There, just right”. The man looks in the mirror and says that the right sleeve is 4 inches too long. The tailor bunches up the right sleeve, places the man’s right arm on top of his head and says “There just right”. The man looks in the mirror, and says that the left lapel is longer than the right. The tailor pulls up the left lapel, places the man’s chin down on it to hold it in place and again states “There, just right”. The man takes one more look in the mirror, pays for the suit and proceeds down the sidewalk. Grossly contorted and walking as if seriously crippled, the man passes two little old ladies. After passing the man, the first woman says to the second, “Oh, did you see that poor man?” The second replies, “Yes, but didn’t the suit fit nice”… Mr. Youngman concluded before disappearing, “Great economic theory, how’d that work out for you?”

Life, Entropy, Perpetual Motion and Utility

Perpetual motion schemes, above unity motor plans and early proponents of life as anti-entropic all have one characteristic in common. They fail to comprehend all salient factors and mistakenly treat open systems as closed, therefore creating flawed models of physical systems’ behavior.

The fundamental variable in all flavors of economics is utility. Utility is a measure of the relative satisfaction from or desirability of consumption of goods. Upon this extremely limited basic definition, the very weak analogy of utility to energy and the use of Helmholtz’s “energetics”, the entire complex edifice of neo-classical economics is built.

If Able’s next dream introduced him to the most brilliant neoclassical economists of today, they could not employ the best current economic models to inform him how to create an economy in his new French community that would be much more stably sustainable than the destruction he just unintentionally wrought in his home town.

The entire concept of utility is so limited that it undercuts the ability of economics to usefully comprehend the interconnected complexity of the world’s dynamics. It has led to top decision makers forming globally impacting policy based on flawed beliefs that our economic models are optimizing what is important to our nation and the world.

Neo-classical economics addresses all factors not readily described by utility functions as “externalities”. Thus they model them as phenomena separate from the basic economic model. Any model that can’t quantify and process the value associated with incremental pollution, global warming, risks of political destabilization, terrorism, war, pandemics, etc. is so fundamentally flawed as to be dangerous. Global economic policy is a major factor in all such risks. Political beliefs governing social, currency, trade, medical and military policies impact the world in profound ways. Belief in the accuracy and efficacy of neo-classical free market capitalism has guided much of US domestic and foreign policy for decades. Critical government policy decisions in areas of healthcare, child welfare, education, trade policy, environmental protection and foreign aid hinge on the beliefs of policy makers regarding the ability of “the free market” to remediate large-scale social, environmental and political problems.

Behavior interacting in complex ways governs the variable risks of such critical “external” factors as those above in concert with macroscopic economic decision making, such as tax policies affecting energy and transportation industries, funding levels for education and welfare, tax and regulation policies for environment-impacting industries and activities, etc. Current economic theory is incapable of meaningfully assessing the risks and probabilities and appropriately modulating the investment or pricing decisions associated with such critical questions as:

• What cost to the world economy is represented by the following risks, and what level of investment in peace-keeping forces, medical and educational aid, and agricultural assistance to Africa would reduce these risks to levels acceptable to the developed world?
- A global pandemic of multiply resistant TB
- Exploding global terror attacks from the merging of middle eastern jihadism with the extreme social dislocation manifested in the Rwanda genocide as it spreads with the growing food shortage crisis

The potential costs are certainly in the trillions of dollars. In fact, a global pandemic with global mortality on the order of the Black Plague (30% on the low estimate) could conceivably reduce global GDP (US $65 trillion estimated in 2006) proportionately (>US $20 trillion). Similarly, a series of successful WMD strikes, such as 4 x 5 Kiloton “suitcase nukes” or 3 x 20 Kiloton theater nukes against major global cities would certainly cause trillions of dollars in cost from damage remediation, trade/economic disruption and military response expenditures.

• How much family services, educational and substance abuse treatment investment would lower the current incarceration rate and its total societal costs to the point of positive ROI?

• How much investment (including the value of a reduction in the gross product of specific industries) in regulation and enforcement, incentives and direct government investment would reduce the long term costs of environmental damage to a positive ROI?

The entire set of market mechanisms that result in pricing goods and services is decoupled from global costs/risks associated with their creation and delivery such as environmental, social and political risks/impacts.
There exists a large pool of individuals conversant in extremely sophisticated modeling of highly complex systems in various physical sciences, including physics and mathematics. It would serve us well to enlist these capabilities to build a new economic theory that encompasses all the critically relevant relationships that are day by day determining the ultimate livability of our planet. It could be that the current edifice of neo-classical economics can be fundamentally expanded to encompass the needed scope of global decision making or it could well be that its Helmholtzian foundation may need to be replaced with more powerfully appropriate tools developed over the last two hundred years. Either way, this task needs to be recognized as more critical than the moon landing and elevated accordingly in the national scientific psyche.

The Wealth of Planets is waiting to be written. Please help.]]> wealthofplanets General Discussion Wed, 03 Mar 2010 19:17:46 -0500 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,1018,1018#msg-1018 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,1018,1018#msg-1018
Helmholtzian Regrets
(with apologies to Longfellow, Poe and Suess)


By the shores of Michi-Gami
By the shining global market
Bringer of all things the market
Raiser of all boats the market
Stood the office of the Friedman
Father of the boon the Friedman
Arbiter of rates the Friedman
Stopping global scares the Friedman
Priest of Laissez Faire the Friedman

No?... OK…

Once upon a downturn dreary, global markets weak and weary
Over a quaint volume of forgotten economic lore
While I quaffed my fear a numbing, in my brain I felt a drumming
As a memory gently humming, strumming on my forebrain’s door
“Tis just a ghost of ancient physics“ strumming on my forebrain’s door
Only this and nothing more

Ah distinctly I remember, it was in a bleak September
Began liquidity dismember, signaling what was in store
Gnashed our teeth in pain and sorrow, as we vainly tried to borrow
“Not today, perhaps tomorrow” said the crack head banking whore
“No loans today from in my Caddy, try tomorrow, pay my Daddy”
“Then just post my bail once more”

Still No?...OK…Probably really a Seuss story anyway…

Neoclass Sneeches see invisible hands
Allocating resources across all lands
Removing barriers to equilibrate
Failing economies to set them straight
The ghost of Helmholtz spins in his grave
Vainly wishing his rep he could save
“I thought that ectoplasm made me look pretty bad”
“But using my Dynamics they made me look mad”
“Equating energy to utility was wholly misguided”
“And up here in heaven I’m constantly chided”
“For letting them do it, I look like a chump”
That basic mistake leads to bump after bump

My Energy Dynamics hidden deep inside
The neoclassic structures they built with such pride
You see, cried Schumpeter, we’re scientists too
Our bold intellectual prowess is just like you
What Mirowski calls emulation misbegotten
Recalls the theft I wish was forgotten
I take enough guff about mediums’ tappings
Without the heat for neoclass’ fake physics trappings

Closed energy systems do equilibrate
And if utility was conserved it just might work great
To steal my stuff for an econ theory-light
But utility and energy are nothing alike
No matter the edifice built on top
The neoclass endgame always will stop
In some form of stable configuration
Solved by neoclass confabulation
Or they would, except for the basic mistake
That utility energy’s mantle can’t take
So shaking economies up in the belief
That barrier downing always brings relief
Playing business and governments’ culpable cupid
Genius or selfish, destructive and stupid?
Increasingly frequent, increasingly global
Economic crises that are frightfully mobile
More higher peaks and more lower troughs
Strain the credulity of Krugman’s froths

As we shake the economies of the weak
(If we’d done such here we’d been shot in a week)
Equilibrium’s inevitable we boldly conclude
They just need more discipline, less heat and less food
Our thumb on the scale the table's been shifted
The worthy more worthy of what we have gifted
The strong are more strong now more able to rule
With us build those condos, just knock down that school
They now have the cash to hold off that mob
Of those without shelter, food or a job
With help from us winners we know they can hold
Off the hordes in the streets till their dead hands grow cold
Till we’re long retired and rich as we should
Can you say equilibrate, I knew you could

Worshipping in the church of Uncle Milty
Cleanses our sins, ensures we’re not guilty
Of any offences the IMF may commit
Removing barriers like a Mafia hit
To save economies in dire trouble
Just make sure you’re on the right side of that bubble]]> wealthofplanets General Discussion Thu, 25 Feb 2010 11:58:54 -0500 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,1017,1017#msg-1017 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,1017,1017#msg-1017
Here is a list of multiple problems that you are quite familiar with:

-We are destroying natural habitats at an accelerating rate.
-The great majority of valuable fisheries already either have collapsed or are in steep decline.
-A significant fraction of wild species, populations, and genetic diversity has already been lost.
-Soils of farmlands are being carried away by water and wind erosion at rates between 10 - 40 times the rate of soil formation.
-The world's major energy sources will be increasingly expensive to extract or process, or will involve higher environmental costs.
-Most of the world's fresh water in rivers and lakes is already being utilized for irrigation, underground aquifers are being depleted so they will eventually dwindle. Desalinization is too expensive to solve most of the world's water shortages.
-Since 1986, it has been projected that we will utilize most of the world's terrestrial photosynthetic capacity by the middle of this century. Little will be left over to support the growth of natural plant communities (forests).
-"Alien Species" devastate populations of natural species (damages are in millions/billions of dollars).
-It all comes down to a growing human population, but what really counts is not the number alone, but the impact on the environment.
When I see reports on research leading to extended longevity of Homo sapiens, I cringe despite the fact that such attempts are totally unrealistic.

Let's take metals:

Indium, gallium (semiconductors, solar cells) are estimated at best to last 10 years, platinum 15, antimony (flame retardants) 15, silver 10, zinc 25, hafnium (computers) 7,terbium (green phosphorus in bulbs) 3 !!

Uncertainties like this pose far-reaching questions. They call into doubt dreams that the planet might one day provide ALL its citizens with the sort of lifestyle now enjoyed in the west. The planet's booming POPULATION is set to put demand on the materials that only Earth can provide. And some technologies are not worth pursuing long-term. (Solar panel technology may not be available soon. Uranium for nuclear plants: if the world continues to consume it at today's rate, it is estimated that uranium will be gone in 50 years.)

If the oil peak is true, it is not an energy issue (this can be substituted with natural gas utilization), it is a matter of saying good-bye to PLASTICS and many types of fertilizers (cosmetics as well, but one can live without them).

On top of all this, we hear the mantra of GDP growth. This variable is very valid and meaningful. Societies cannot accept zero growth. And then we have the parasitic new technologies like flat TVs. Just recently, it has been announced they "eat" energy at double rate of old tube units. All this contributes to CO2 emissions.

After 1950, precise instrumental records began with respect to CO2 ppm, global temperature, GDP/capita and population. Therefore "hockey stick" graphs are not a hoax; all curves represent remarkable correlations with population growth!!

I selfishly have to state that I am lucky to be getting older and probably will not last long enough to see any dramatic events such as social upheavals, conflicts and large-scale wars, but we are moving towards them with increased speed. I am lucky to live my life without experiencing and suffering the consequences of any global wars (like civilians did in WWI and WWII, for example).

In summary: we can forget about the "Doomsday Argument" that says there is a 5% chance that some humans will still be alive in about the year 11125. No one will be alive by then.]]> Wojt General Discussion Tue, 09 Feb 2010 17:11:12 -0500 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,1005,1005#msg-1005 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,1005,1005#msg-1005
I have been reading climate science intensively for about a year and I have come across a lot of good "science" that runs counter to the IPCC's AGW hypothesis - AND - I have encountered considerable "ideology" from supporters of the IPCC / Kyoto / Al Gore / Michael Mann 'hockey stick graph' view that human activity is the main driver of the global climate.

I recommend reading Dr. Petr Chylek's December 5, 2009, very balanced, and charitable 'Open Letter to the Climate Research Community' for a summary of some of the egregious advocacy on the part of the leading proponents of the AGW hypothesis - AND - Chylek's take on the difference between "science and ideology" -- see:

[www.thegwpf.org]]]> Peter Salonius General Discussion Fri, 11 Dec 2009 20:31:31 -0500 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,994,994#msg-994 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,994,994#msg-994
Thanks,

Dave]]> Dave General Discussion Thu, 25 Jun 2009 12:20:02 -0400 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,993,993#msg-993 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,993,993#msg-993
It’s clear to most progressive minds that the planet is in deep trouble, at least with respect to human and non-human habitats. In my view the root cause is humankind’s largely unconstrained biological drives. These drives, which are today expressed predominantly through capitalism, have caused us to overshoot our planetary niche. Overshoot manifests itself as ecosystem degradation, species decline, and rapid resource depletion.

I believe the correct strategy is to replace the logic of capitalism, modify its institutions, and shift from the biological to the conscious era of our history. (All this is explained in detail in the videos previously cited.) In medical terms, the disease is humankind’s expansionist nature; the symptoms are the various environmental disasters we’re now witnessing.

H-D’s new book, Carbon Shift,notes that two serious symptoms, oil depletion and climate change, are two sides of the same coin - the excessive use of fossil fuels (carbon) in our economies. The indicated strategy is therefore to address this common element by moving swiftly to clean (low-carbon) energy systems.

What H-D says is obviously true with regard to symptoms. Tying oil depletion to climate change is useful in reducing both, as has been suggested previously by Bill McKibben, Richard Heinberg, and others. The problem is that the underlying disease is ignored: why are we using fossil fuels excessively in the first place? Without making this crucial diagnosis, H-D and the other carbon-shifters will find that they’re simply removing a limit to growth. Other symptoms will soon become equally or more serious, and the original symptoms will eventually return - possibly with greater force than before.

The tragic aspect of Carbon Shift is what it implies about H-D’s role in shaping humankind’s strategic ideas. His previous books included some keen insights into our predicament and criticized the prevailing order in scathing fashion. After reading The Upside of Down (2007), I felt that H-D might move towards the consideration of root causes, thereby lending some weight to my feeble efforts in this sphere. If Carbon Shift is an accurate indicator, this possibility has evaporated.

This matters greatly because H-D is among the few intellectuals with the capacity and orientation to assume the role of planetary doctor. There are plenty of activists, scientists, writers, energy analysts, and talking heads out there, but only a handful of deep, critical thinkers. The world needs such people to probe the necessary civilizational transition, to analyze the prickly issues surrounding capitalism, and to formulate a new economic basis for human life on this planet. I find it lamentable that H-D has abandoned this central task in order to address the symptoms of our expansionist folly.

Of course, if I have misconstrued either Carbon Shift or H-D’s trajectory, I would welcome his corrective comments.]]> Frank Rotering General Discussion Sat, 12 Sep 2009 14:22:08 -0400 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,992,992#msg-992 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,992,992#msg-992 Ingenuity Gap, Upside of Down, articles, etc. - I'm jumping ship and will not be reading Carbon Shift. Essentially, I'm disappointed by his own shift - from a critical attitude towards capitalism to a lusty embrace* - and by his failure to address the fundamental issues facing our species. For my take on the latter, see the following two-part video:

Redirecting our Civilization - Part 1: From the biological to the conscious era
[www.youtube.com]

Redirecting our Civilization - Part 2: From capitalism to a new economy
[www.youtube.com]

Readers of Carbon Shift should note that two of its six essays are by conventional economists (Jeff Rubin, Mark Jaccard), and that a third is by a reporter who firmly supports conventional economics (Jeffrey Simpson). In Upside of Down, Homer-Dixon said that:

"Conventional economics is the dominant intellectual rationalization of today's world order." (p. 293)

My interpretation is that, despite his earlier pretentions, Homer-Dixon has fully succumbed to this world order, and now only supports modifications that fail to seriously threaten it.

Frank Rotering
(needsandlimits.org)


* Upside of Down (2007) contains some sharply critical statements about the language, logic, worldview, and ideology of capitalism (pp 216-218). A year later, in a Globe & Mail article ("The underground road to getting rid of carbon and saving us all," March 8, 2008, with David W. Keith), the capitalist system is characterized as "dynamic, innovative and adaptive," and as being indispensable for cutting the emissions it has produced.]]> Frank Rotering General Discussion Fri, 11 Dec 2009 21:57:13 -0500 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,969,969#msg-969 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,969,969#msg-969
Here is a link that might be useful: [www.lincenergy.us] How Does Clean Coal Work?]]> damienian General Discussion Mon, 23 Feb 2009 05:10:20 -0500 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,965,965#msg-965 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,965,965#msg-965 Managing without growth: slower by design, not disaster. If you Google the name and title, you can learn a little about this work (including a limited-publishing price of $80 in paperback, although I trust this will change and the book will become more accessible). But what of envisioning an economic model not predicated entirely on unchecked growth? If you'll remember, the sixties gave us Limits to Growth, and later, Beyond the Limits (both important books, but controversial), but can we live in a world "without" economic growth? I'd like to hear what others have to say on the subject, including any related resources they know of. Don]]> workwise General Discussion Sat, 31 Jan 2009 14:57:11 -0500 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,964,964#msg-964 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,964,964#msg-964
I am writing a thesis in which I am stressing the need to reduce waste as the first step to mitigating our current global problems (pollution, resource depletion, ghg, economic meltdown, health problems from toxic infiltration into the ecosystem, etc.), which I believe should take precedence over efforts in technological development aimed at increasing production, making things bigger, faster, stronger, etc. It is very much rooted in the philosophy of Amory Lovins and William McDonough, if you are familiar with them.

I believe too many people place an inordinate amount of faith in technological development - believing that just because we have come so far so fast, the momentum is something we can count on to fix all our problems. This is probably influenced by iconic axioms like Moore's law, which uses the past to predict the future of integrated circuit development; it is now deemed a self-fulfilling prophecy (integrated circuits have increased exponentially, doubling approximately every two years, and are expected to continue to do so).

What this means is that many people not involved in science have effectively let their guard down, believing that innovation will come just by waiting for it. This is not how innovation works!

I'm not preaching to the choir - I know you all know this. I say this as a personal observation, having a gut sense, if you will. This might just be the trend towards specialization that I'm seeing - smart people get smarter and apathetic people get more apathetic. Either way, I am trying to find peer-reviewed studies which look into this, or a book, or a website, or anything at all which examines this phenomenon. I also invite people to argue against me, as long as they back up their arguments.]]> yoshhash General Discussion Fri, 30 Jan 2009 17:02:09 -0500 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,961,961#msg-961 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,961,961#msg-961
"It seems to me that every society has some kind of an organizing myth; traditional societies had one, medieval society had one, we have one. Very central to our modern myth is the idea that it's perfectly reasonable that the economy should be the paramount institution around which everything else revolves, and that economic logic and economic values should guide our decisions. This all seems so natural that we never think to question it, and yet there are profound reasons why we should question it.

The domination by the economy rests on these basic assumptions:
- any organization must grow or die
- the economy as a whole must grow exponentially
- labor productivity must continue to increase
- owners have the right to receive maximum return on their investments
- unbridled competition is a good thing with a few minor exceptions.

But if you were to look at the goals that not only this society but any human society seems to aim toward, you would come up with a very different set:
- we want a wholesome environment in which to raise our children
- we want a good relationship with nature
- we want to feel safe
- we hold dear certain values like democracy, liberty, the rule of law, equity and justice and so on.

It turns out that if you look at the assumptions underlying our economic system - especially the ones regarding the prerogatives of ownership - and then you look at the goals we humans have about how we want to live our lives, there is no compatibility. The assumptions can never lead to the goals.

And yet this incompatibility passes unnoticed. I think that's because the assumptions about economic progress seemed to work rather well during the time when you could equate material progress with general benefit. But that equation doesn't work anymore. We now have a system that works to the benefit of the few and penalizes masses of people today and in the future."

Source: Willis Harman, Transformation of Business, [www.context.org]

When it comes time to seriously reassess our global social values, those deeper ones, it will be prudent to consider this incompatibility of assumptions and goals that Harman alludes to.]]> workwise General Discussion Sat, 17 Jan 2009 21:58:05 -0500 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,956,956#msg-956 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,956,956#msg-956 The Upside of Down with the image of the huge foundation stone lying useless in the quarry at Baalbek. Yes, a powerful symbol of the demise of the Roman empire and the end of a civilisation. Located within a stronghold of Hezbollah, and in a previously fertile region supposedly laid waste by over-exploitation in ancient times, it also resonates with the conflict between the cultures in the subject line. That conflict clearly troubles THD a great deal.

The question I want to explore is whether there is any scope for resolving this conflict. I live in England. I'm white, middle-class, and have this peculiar desire to visit one of the hotspots in my country (for example, Blackburn in the North West, which seems to have become a segregated society of white and Asian communities, a scene of race-riots in the recent past, and a place where no-go areas for both "sides" have been described in the media) to visit and try to get some understanding of what is driving Islamic extremists. Did the author engage in any way with members of Hezbollah while visiting Lebanon?

I hope this discussion is not out of place on this forum.]]> njwatts General Discussion Sat, 30 May 2009 05:12:23 -0400 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,949,949#msg-949 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,949,949#msg-949 The Upside of Down by Thomas Homer-Dixon

A much-needed book. I am very glad that it has been written. I feel affirmed in my world-view. I am highly impressed by Tad's achievements. His analysis is brilliant and he points towards the opportunity that is in crisis. The opportunity, in my opinion is less technological, more spiritual and cultural. It is less about windmills and solar cells, though they are very important, and more about quitting consumerism and the growth imperative. I have high hopes that Barack Obama is a manifestation of this cultural change. He is a citizen of the world, beyond the narrow interests of race or nation and is where he is because of the enthusiasm and hard work of many conscious people.

My achievements have been much humbler but, I believe, are nonetheless worth mention. I became an environmental activist in 1980 after twice travelling round the world, then quitting my career as a professional engineer. I visited Baalbek in 1972. On the same visit, I saw the last remaining grove of original Cedars of Lebanon surrounded by bare mountains denuded by the Phoenicians to build their ships before the Romans arrived.

I grew up in Yorkshire, England and it was only after returning from my travels that I realized that the moors that were the backdrop of my childhood must once have been forested. Like everyone else, I had assumed they were natural. I saw other things differently too. After five months immersed in Asian cultures and five months immersed in Latin America, everything was culturally relative. I had gained a critical perspective on my own culture (and on my own behavior) as a result.

I learned a lot as an environmentalist and peace activist but eventually felt frustrated, unable to make a difference. I read a lot and initiated a dialogue group which met twice a month for several years. I taught a course at a community centre in Vancouver, BC called Personal and Social Ecology. Its premise was this:-

Ecology is the study of natural systems.
Social ecology is when we include human activity in such studies,
finding it is almost always destructive.
Personal ecology is when we learn the lessons of social ecology
and act in accordance with our new understanding.

On completion of the course I moved to the country with my new family, intent on walking my talk and creating an ecological lifestyle. I did well with the ecology part, learning organic gardening and building a house out of recycled materials, but my economy was unsustainable. I learned that a peasant's life affords no such luxuries as a car or travel.

A major part of my project was to reconnect with the natural world by immersing myself in natural beauty, reconciling the inner and outer landscapes of my heart. This combined perfectly with taking care of three young children.

Having railed about ecological crisis, I now arrived at my own personal crisis, losing everything that I held dear when, as my savings ran dry, my marriage fell apart. I was, in some small ways, forearmed. I had good support in my men's group. I was aware of the two characters in the Chinese word for crisis: danger and opportunity. I saw the opportunity to learn more self-awareness. While I grieved for the loss of ideals, of home and family life, I realized I was also grieving for the degradation of my world and my powerlessness to stop it.

I boiled the situation down to this. We have a dysfunctional relationship with nature and dysfunctional relationships with one another. Those dysfunctions are the same: we exploit nature and exploit one another. I believe that this is only because we have the illusion of being separate. When I hurt nature or others, I am hurting myself. (From working with prisoners, I am convinced that the perpetrators of violent crimes are as traumatized as their victims in the process.)

I moved back to the city, trained to teach communication skills, couldn't make a living doing it and fell back on free-lance carpentry, part time. I lead a life of voluntary simplicity, consuming very little, hiking wilderness a lot, participating in dialogue groups and leading “Alternatives to Violence” workshops.

Of necessity, I believe in the Ripple Effect. Tad's book could feel very disempowering as most of his suggestions can only be applied by people with power. I believe that my actions affect others, that, overall, I can affect the well-being of humanity by adding positive energy and putting my own house in order. I am paying attention to the means and letting the end take care of itself. This allows me to be present rather than fretting about an imagined future, just as grieving my losses allows me to let go of the past.

What I am saying here is that, while I appreciate the suggestions for practical steps to be taken by those in a position to do so, there is much work to be done by all of us. The external crisis that looms is preceded by an internal, psychological crisis that plays out in all of us. As Thackeray wrote, “Sow a thought, reap an act. Sow an act, reap a habit. Sow a habit, reap character. Sow character, reap destiny.”

As Tad points out, our thoughts have been conditioned by the culture that engulfs us. Consumerism and growth are but recent arrivals. Dehumanization and exploitation have much deeper roots. Now is humanity's opportunity to shake off both.

In Bergson's philosophy, evolution is driven by adaptation. When the environment changes, the organism becomes stressed, experiences a crisis. It either adapts (evolves) or succumbs. To me, this means that the ancient Chinese who created picture-writing understood the role of crisis in personal evolution. They also created Taoism, which suggests a way of living in harmony with natural order, ie. sustainably. For human beings, evolution is personal and social rather than physical, ie. changing our habits. A thing is only truly learned when it is put into practice. As Leonardo da Vinci said, theory without practice is the greatest tragedy. This is the tragedy of academia, which Jane Jacobs, in her book The Coming Dark Age, calls 'credentialling'!

The wave of cultural change is now. It has been building for decades. As Gandhi said, “Be the change you want to see in the world.” The paradigm shift happens inside each person one-by-one and gains momentum as we support one another. The hegemony of the established order will crumble because it is out of touch with reality, is unsustainable. We are already at the turning point of the psychological crisis. Some are evolving, thriving and some are succumbing to stress.]]> Edward Butterworth General Discussion Fri, 05 Jun 2009 09:07:08 -0400 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,947,947#msg-947 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,947,947#msg-947
After extensive lobbying from the business sector, our Prime Minister announced that Australia will aim to reduce emissions of climate change causing pollutants by 5% before 2020. Just in case you are unsure, that figure was FIVE PERCENT! This alleged target may rise to a total of 15%, dependent upon the stance taken by countries of influence on Australia (presumably the United States, China, and Japan). This despite the overwhelming majority of scientific experts in the field clearly modeling the need for a minimum 20 - 25% reduction! This, despite the fact that Australia has just come through the longest and most severe drought in recorded history. This, despite overwhelming evidence that one of the natural wonders of the world, Australia's Great Barrier Reef, will be 'dead' within 10 years without drastic change.

The reasoning, very unsurprisingly, is presented as being due to the 'Global Economic Crisis' and the need to preserve jobs for the future. Forget developing a creative economy, forget realising potential economic benefits from sustainable change and sustainable development - Australia will remain a resource-based economy forever, providing the potential planetary pollutants to the globe (coal, gas, oil, uranium - we do it all!). Obviously the reaction from future-thinking Australians has been outrage (unfortunately, this is a declining set of just a few Australians - political dissent is very unpopular), and interestingly, some parts of the business sector have complained of the harshness of this 5% target... what guile!

When this government was elected just over one year ago, it promoted real change for the future. Since taking office, it has shown itself to be almost as conservative as its predecessor, continuing and embellishing the policy of the previous government, across sectors. This is happening despite posturing and people-pleasing gestures, such as the Australia 2020 Summit, held in April. This 'summit' was promoted as something that would look at Australia's future in a changing world, developing innovation and informed directions. A thousand representatives, publicly labelled "Australia's best and brightest," were invited (including Cate Blanchette, Hugh Jackman, pop stars, journalists, sporting stars - oh, and a few academics). And they came up with..... um.... well.... enough said. Individuals were also invited to write submissions for consideration - between 6000 - 8000 of us did this - and some decent proposals were put forward, such as arguing for the need for a change in future economic direction from a resource-based economy (almost wholly) to a creative, knowledge-based economy (perhaps like Singapore). There was much more proposed, but the point is that it was a futile exercise put forward by a neo-conservative government aiming to present nothing more than a people-pleasing front for those who desire a voice in future direction.

I have included some links below, outlining this target and some reaction.

Please share your thoughts on this thread, and let others know of Australia's apparent future directions and leadership!

Quite clearly, I am embarrassed and appalled.



From the speech itself...

"And the time has come for Australia to embrace this future. The Government was elected with a long-term commitment to reducing Australia’s carbon pollution by 60 per cent from 2000 levels by 2050. The Government reaffirms that commitment.

Today I announce the Government’s medium-term target range: in other words, our 2020 target to reduce carbon pollution. These targets are appropriate and responsible. They deliver necessary reform to tackle the long term challenge of climate change, while supporting our economy and securing jobs during this global recession.

By the end of 2020, we will reduce Australia’s carbon pollution by between 5 per cent and 15 per cent below 2000 levels. 5 per cent below 2000 levels is our minimum, unconditional commitment to reduce emissions by 2020, irrespective of the actions of other nations.

15 per cent below 2000 levels is our commitment to reduce emissions further, if there is a global agreement where all major economies commit to substantially restrain emissions and advanced economies take on comparable reductions to that of Australia."

Prime Minister's full speech...

[www.alp.org.au]

Professor Garnaut's reaction...

The Federal Government's chief climate change adviser has strongly criticised the carbon emissions policy announced this week.

Writing in Fairfax newspapers this morning, Professor Ross Garnaut says this week's white paper on carbon emissions does not set a high enough emissions reduction target and it threatens the Australian economy.

The white paper set a target of an unconditional 5 per cent cut in emissions by 2020.

Professor Garnaut writes that although a larger unconditional cut would be expensive to the Australian economy, the 5 per cent target set by the Government will not encourage the global community to set strong targets.

He has urged the Federal Government to keep a higher emissions cut as an option.

Professor Garnaut has also criticised the $3.9 billion worth of compensation for electricity generators outlined in the plan.

He says the funding lacks a public policy purpose and the cost is likely to blow out in future and create a "large risk to public finances."

He also writes that the plan to provide polluters with free carbon permits is a form of protection that will prompt other countries to follow suit and threaten the international economy.]]> lee General Discussion Sat, 20 Dec 2008 05:19:15 -0500 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,943,943#msg-943 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,943,943#msg-943
Pursuant to your newsletter article, "Rapid Loss of Multi-year Sea Ice in Arctic" (April 2008), this past summer I observed the direct impact of this on the climate of northern Canada. As all are aware, summer (2008) was one of the coolest and wettest on record, where we experienced twenty-eight days of consistent cloud and rain and over forty days of same within the period of June through mid-August. My view is that this was a direct result of the rapid melt of ice in Hudson's Bay / Arctic, producing excessive moisture, thus creating an "artificial low" over most of central Canada. Within this phenomenon, my wife observed rapid changes in cloud formations, including unusual black "blobs" accompanied by sporadic bursts of wind, rain and hail. With the exception of a brief period of temperate fall weather, this pattern has resumed with unusual amounts of early snowfall. No telling what will follow for Winter or Spring 2009, but if current trends continue, i.e. rapid melt of Arctic, we can expect more cool, unsettled conditions.

My only question is, "What will happen when the ice in the glass is gone?" My theory is similar to that whereby the temperature of a drink stays the same until the last ice cube melts, and when this has occurred, its temperature begins to rise rapidly. Accordingly, when the last ice in the Arctic disappears, not only will we experience such things as rapidly rising sea levels and excessive releases of methane, but moreover, temperatures over the northern hemisphere (and planet) will increase rapidly and uncontrollably. Maybe Nostradamus was right! Thank you for keeping us informed. P.S. Have you picked up a copy of "The World to Come" by Ruth Montgomery yet?
Paul]]> paul finley General Discussion Thu, 27 Nov 2008 19:00:11 -0500 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,941,941#msg-941 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,941,941#msg-941 Thought maybe you would be interested.

While the world is trying to offset its carbon emissions, many businesses are stuck in the trendiness of transporting their people around for unsubstantiated reasons now that the virtual office is a reality.

The change we need as a society needs to start at the top with the CEO's. Not only would it save our environment, but it could help our businesses in this tricky economy get a bit more cashflow. Often a consultant or travelling manager's monthly travel bill can be anywhere from $5,000 to an easy $20,000 a month. Imagine the carbon emissions just to make an appearance in a cube and do a few face-to-face meetings! As the big three get turned down for their handout because they took their private jets.... it would be beneficial and a good cost-cutting measure if they might think twice about a few things:

1. Can this business be established over the Internet or a conference call?

2. What really is the reason why we're sending our people on a plane?

3. Could we use the money we use travelling for other things the business needs?


[www.findgreenstuff.com]]]> GreenShawn General Discussion Thu, 23 Jul 2009 10:14:16 -0400 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,940,940#msg-940 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,940,940#msg-940
“Rule one: Never allow a crisis to go to waste,” Mr. Emanuel said in an interview on Sunday. “They are opportunities to do big things.”

Maybe Obama's administration understands that breakdowns are inevitable and are willing to consider creative solutions on how to prepare for them.

[www.nytimes.com]]]> Daniel General Discussion Mon, 10 Nov 2008 13:13:52 -0500 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,939,939#msg-939 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,939,939#msg-939 ----------------------------------------
lauran]]> lauran1947 General Discussion Sat, 01 Nov 2008 05:59:57 -0400 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,935,935#msg-935 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,935,935#msg-935 rob General Discussion Sun, 11 Jan 2009 18:43:29 -0500 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,932,932#msg-932 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,932,932#msg-932 SAshman General Discussion Thu, 27 Nov 2008 11:26:51 -0500 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,930,930#msg-930 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,930,930#msg-930
I was shocked by the frankness of such a statement, particularly in light of governmental control of media and their close linkages to business and power in Australia. Certainly pleased to hear such a statement, but shocked all the same!

The severity of this crisis in economics raises important questions for all...

Were governments, businesses, investors, and indeed, just regular people so deluded as to believe that a boom could continue endlessly?
Had the increasing disparity between the few rich, the declining middle class, and the growing poor been that well hidden by PR and media spin?
Economic rationalism and measures of so-called accountability had pervaded economics and the world of work for some 15 years. How long was this philosophy, and the developing set of completely unethical accounting practices, expected to continue the boom, particularly when the majority of businesses and consumers in OECD countries were buying more 'stuff' on easy credit?

In light of the tectonic stress that TAD identified, and economic crisis being one of these, I am wondering, and perhaps somewhat fatalistically hoping (apologies to ethical people who are suffering as a result of this economic problem) that we may be witnessing something that could form the basis for meaningful change. Certainly it has people thinking more strongly about the shape of capitalism, and the future of civilisation, and with a presidential election fitting neatly around this, I am hoping that the conditions are appropriate for the investigation of a more sustainable, ethical, simple, intellectual society.

Maybe such a statement is premature or simply just reaching for an opportunity to feel optimism towards the future? But I am interested in comments or other thoughts about current happenings.

Thank you.]]> lee General Discussion Sat, 29 Nov 2008 15:18:59 -0500 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,929,929#msg-929 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,929,929#msg-929
see: [en.wikipedia.org]

see also a number of youtube videos on the subject: [www.youtube.com]

Could this be a method more powerful than all others to mitigate CO2 emission volumes?]]> rob General Discussion Wed, 08 Oct 2008 23:14:42 -0400 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,927,927#msg-927 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,927,927#msg-927 The Upside of Down. I think every point made in this book is completely valid and, in my opinion, teenagers need to be more informed about, or aware of, many of these issues.

This has to be one of the most interesting books I have ever read, which means a lot to me, since I am not too keen on reading.

Good work on the book and I hope to get a couple of posts/responses.

Blake]]> blake General Discussion Fri, 05 Jun 2009 08:35:19 -0400 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,923,923#msg-923 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,923,923#msg-923 Why Men Rebel that people do not engage in violence because they are poor; there are many places full of poor people where there is no conflict. He had two hypotheses, both classed in terms of relative deprivation. One was that it is not so much where you are per say, but where you are in comparison to other people. So if the distribution of income in a society is becoming more unequal over time, it contributes to a sense of deprivation. The second is the expectations gap. If societies are flat-lining in extreme poverty, people do not have expectations except for what has always been. If, on the other hand, things start to change for the better and living standards rise, people come to expect continued increases in standard of living. If there is a shock to the system, an economic or currency crisis, peoples? expectations are not met and this may lead to conflict. Just wondering what people think about this in relation to climate change. Climate change can lead to increased inequality. Climate change could also lead to shocks to the system.]]> SAshman General Discussion Fri, 08 Aug 2008 13:58:16 -0400 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,919,919#msg-919 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,919,919#msg-919
I might have been misled by crafty journalism, but any documentary that garners eight awards must hold some hint of respectable and honest journalism. I'm referring to the movie "Sharkwater," a movie that has made me question myself, my country, and my planet. If the movie is legit, and the underwater ecosystems are in as much danger as the film claims, I want to know how, through 22 years of my life, I haven't heard a single thing about Shark Fin Soup, and the potential impact this single dish could have on our planet. Sure, overfishing has been showcased in the news on several occasions, but I hadn't known our imminent survival rested on the backs of sharks.

Was I asleep in class? Did I miss the memo? Is it not really that much of a problem?

Mr. Dixon. You're a Canadian. Should this problem be one of our greatest concerns? Is the Canadian government putting pressure on China to ban the import and export of shark fins? Are we doing enough to educate our people? Are we doing our part in protecting Costa Rica and Ecuador from poachers? What is our status as a nation concerning the multifaceted issue that is Shark Fin Soup?

]]> Jordan General Discussion Wed, 13 Aug 2008 03:03:01 -0400