Joule - a value for sustainable choices?

If you care about a sustainable future and questions like how to feed 6 billion people, then you are likely to discover vast amounts of waste. Our food waste in the industrial countries accounts for up to 50% of the food we produce (1, 2, 3). It is therefore really odd to me why some scientists advertise research to meet the potentially growing food demand when population grows. Especially if the scientists support basic ecology: more food for a species = increased numbers of that species = more demand for food etc. The food for growth is often a key argument for sustainability and gene modified organisms (GMO).

But why do we waste so much, purposefully? Why do products travel several times around the world before we can buy it in the shop, throw it in the garbage within a few days to years, and sometimes never even use it.

Well, money from what I can tell. It is sensible because the driver for sense is economy. If you can sell something cheaper and gain profit - you have to for the sake of competitors and stake holders. Same for buying. People buy what they can afford. Makes sense.

Not really.

It makes sense only as long as you think of currency as a value. If you compare a choice with "what resources do I have to consume to get item A versus getting it locally or making it myself" then it often makes little sense. Examples: growing/making your own food, making your own clothes, using certain transportation's.

As a scientists I have been thinking hard of how to expose this lack of logic - how to measure it. Currency is a common denominator for work time, transport, fuel, materials etc. but how can you compare this with something that is not using money Example: milking by hand rather than by machine is reflected in differences in time used, but do not account for the building and use of the machine.

My best shot so far is: joules. Human labor, extracting and shaping raw materials, transportation, heating, etc. can all be added a joule value and compared.

I think experiments that would examine these traditions and habits using joule consumption we have could have a strong impact on peoples mentality and choices. Your choice would suddenly have number of waste. Imagine you standing in the supermarket and on your banana you have a total number of joules used to make and bring it there for you (and it is not a small number).

Yes - yes I know, the work places. If people do not buy things, other people will be out of a job. And if you do not have to transport things 4-10 times to get it to you, it means even less work and jobs. But is it smart? Could peoples time and money be saved for more useful things than shuffling papers and moving things? Would both mom and dad have to work at the same time if you do not need so much money to spend? More physical work wouldn't hurt most peoples health would it? Would it be better for the family - for life in general?

In a week I attend a course on how to construct models that examine and predict sociological-ecological interactions in farming. The course is aiming at finding solutions within the existing framework of agriculture. Let us see how my colleagues will like my new proposal.

Examples of how joules (in some cases as calories) can be counted:
Physical activity
Social study of connection between food and money
Example of study using calories to estimate agricultural practices in Pakistan

Books on the subject
   

Facts - until proven otherwise (repost)

It is a fact! This sentence gives me the shivers. Not the word fact itself, but the use of it. The description of a fact is not so permanent as it sounds: something that can be verified according to established standard of evaluation.

Especially scientists like the use of this word when describing fundamentals. Politicians use it when they do not wish to discuss something in further detail. But once I heard a very good definition of a PhD-student studying constants from a philosophical science dissertation. He spoke of the gravity constant, defined as 9.81 m/s(squared), is a fact. This is true, he said, on Earth... from a human perspective... under normal conditions... at current gravitational conditions... at ground level... ignoring air resistance... and so on. This opened my eyes in the way of not viewing constants as holy numbers or facts, but status quo indicators.

It was a fact the Earth was flat until proven otherwise by Copernicus. Flight was impossible (unless you were a bird) until the beginning of the 20th century, thanks to a couple of persistent bicycle mechanics. The atom was the smallest particle (defined by its name) in existence, until the quarks saw the light of day in 1961. The abandonment of previous facts for new are easily forgotten, because it becomes the next status quo and fact.

My most recent eye opener is the book "1421 - the year China discovered the world" by Gavin Menzies. After reading this I am sadly disappointed in western history education. If I could ask a high school class a question in History today it would not be "who discovered America?", but "was Columbus the third, fourth or later explorer to come to the American continent?" Even though it is fairly accepted that Leif Erikson was fist European to the continent, Columbus still gets credit for this feat. The knowledge of Chinese presence, even settlements, in America is overwhelming prior to Columbus, at least to Asian and local scholars, but the facts remain unchanged. Why? Because it is fact? Is is so provoking to debate a topic stamped as "fact" if there exist evidence of other options?

In my opinion facts are only good estimates for status quo until new data is uncovered - they are not truth, holy, or hammered in stone.

More food for thought
25th January 2010
An expansion to this post: Beginning this year the Dutch physicist Erik Verlinde did what I described with the fact of gravity - redefining it. Perhaps he is right in his theory, perhaps not, but it illustrates the fluid concept of "facts".

3rd February 2010
Another fine example of "facts - until proven otherwise". Diamant is the hardest material - or it was - because looking into meteorites something IS harder than a diamant.

23rd April 2016
Interesting talk about the difference between scientific belief and scientific
method by Rupert Sheldrake. Funny thing that he uses some of the same examples in this post (this talk had not been recorded when I wrote this blog entry).

The dishwasher dilemma

Often I hear the argument that using a dishwasher reduce the use of water when replacing washing in the hand. We often calculate the better choice from a small scale perspective. If I do X now, I will reduce my use of Y. But does it really make sense if taking more than the water use into account?

I think we severely lack studies that undertake taking into perspective the total consumption of resources in our habits and production, from concept until it is implemented.

It takes 2.900 gallons (10.991 liters) of water to produce 1 pair of jeans (National Geographic, April 2010). I would modestly argue a dishwasher probably consume a bit more than a pair of jeans to produce when taking into account: extracting raw materials, shaping materials into parts, transport of parts, combining parts, packing parts, shipping parts, running the machine in use, etc. Additionally, advertising, packing materials, design & development, etc. should also be part of this equation.

A thought experiment.
For modesty sake let us say it takes a only equal to 1 pair of jeans (10.991 liters of water) to all aspects of making and buying a dishwasher. Let us also be large and assume the machine gets a life of 15 years. If you waste 1 liters daily from washing your dishes in the hand rather than in a dishwasher you would have "wasted": 365 liters x 15 years = 10.950 liters of water. Still less than the savings gained from buying a washing machine. The truth is probably closer to 1000 jeans, which would require a good 180 years of hand washing wasting of water to balance out.

It is the same thought experiment Daniel Quinns sketch in his book "Ishmael" asking: "What takes more resources to produce? A can of tomatoes, or getting it in the wild?" When stating something like that it also raises the question of how to feed the large population in our current situation without industry. And how about all the people whos work is dependent on continous consuming resources?
My suggestion is that we scientists and economists pay attention to these kinds of calculations to explore if there is sense in our current industry. My field of agriculture and livestock production could benefit from such studies. For example, is it really more efficient to farm livestock in high densities rather than on permanent grazing areas? Or, is plowing necessary when all the side effects is taken into account?

Manley P. Halls lecture on "Value" kind of sums it up. If the time you save on buying a modern convenience such as a dishwasher is used for something without value, such as watching television, the time washing dishes is better invested.

Further reading

What I learned as a scientist from the 7 steps in alchemical transformation

I am a scientist, and I use the current method that applies for investigating theories. It is my opinion that I would be an arrogant scientist if I think previous students of nature such as Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci, Issac Newton, and Nicolaus Copernicus could not teach me thing of two about learning new things. Since they studied by the Alchemical method of Transmutation, I looked into this and tried to understand how this mutated into the modern scientific method, and how I could perhaps improve my own approach to understanding a subject.
Apparently I am not the first scientists to look back on this old philosophy. People like Albert Einstein and Ernest Rutherford also spent their later years studying these principles.

In the alchemical transmutation the seven steps are: Calcination, Dissolution, Separation, Conjunction, Fermentation, Distillation, and Coagulation.

Before we begin I must make a note that these steps not only applied to the study subject in this method, but also the investigator. The understanding of the study subject was also to change (transmute) the mental and physical aspects (as close to perfection as possible) of the alchemist.

Calcination
Basically this means to destroy the substance. Normally by burning it to ashes. Mentally it is the destruction of the ego.
Scientifically we still do this. Breaking down something into components we can understand. Dissecting and describing. Testing endurance and limitations. Fundamental in understanding something as the components. Sometimes this knowledge seems to boost the ego in those who study, rather than humble it, and can be worth a thought. I think this step is supposed to give the impression of how little we actually know, or can hope to know.

Dissolution
This is an extension of the calcination (as are the rest of the steps). This is the process of getting the calcinated ashes dissolved and create a solution. Mentally this is a process of flow, and accessing parts that is normally restrained or inaccessible.
In scientific work this could be understood as finding the relations to which the essential parts connect (dissolve) by attributes. The mental part, the lesson to be learned, is kind of rediscovering playing, or removing the boundaries (such as ego or prejudices) that allow us to make discoveries. This is basically what my kid do in the kitchen sink every time I turn my back - mixing everything he can find, just to see what happens. Or, what we do in cooking, pulling on experiences from what happens when the contents in the pot mixes together. For example, it is not irrelevant when the milk goes in or at any temperature. It is one of my most favorite activities.

Separation
At this step the dissolved material is processed by filtering and removing the unwanted materials. Mentally it is the exercise of discovery. Finding the essence and looking beyond rationality.
Here science begin to fall a little short. Or, rather this is the end for most modern studies. We want to find the important and surprising discovery nobody thought of, or was just at our nose tip. Physics is probably the best metaphor, since it uses imaginary models such as quantum theory, which works very well in practice too. But though finding this beautiful simplistic model of understanding something like matter, we still know we are not quite there yet. I understand this part as being able to understand when you reached something of quality. Really good evidence or model of your subject, and know what to ignore/reject (probably the latter is the hardest part).

Conjunction
Now knowing what is of quality/essence from the previous steps the experimentation continues as combining them into something else. Something new. Merging experiences and parts of the investigator into intuition and freeing himself from previous constraints on his perceptions such as social and programmed morals.
If we as scientists ever reach a point like this, where accumulated wisdom is allowed to correlate and come to word, it may often contradict with the established norm, data, and moral status quo. I would say only the bravest of our scientists speak aloud if they have such insight. And often we probably are likely to think of them as arrogant or nuts (especially if we have not passed step 1 ourselves). In other words, a scientist reaches a point where the freedom and flow of his mind makes new unexpected connections that he previously would not even consider of find possible. I think it is this kind of insight that has led our great physicists to conjure the amazing theories of our time - and often succeed in proving them too within their lifetime.

Fermentation

Alchemically this is a two-step progression of the Conjuction step above. Firstly the subject is broken down, not by chemicals, but by living things (yeast, fungi, bacteria etc.) Secondly, it is adding of new life into the subject. Mentally this is a spiritual awakening that the alchemist is now intellectually ready for. The miracle of life and its diversity unfolds like a "Peacocks Tail".
I think this is to be understood that this is the step where it is possible to understand the life of the subject in its natural life (death and rekindling of itself) since the connections are now understood (Conjuction). I can understand many scientist split at this point. Some being reductionists in their beliefs would not be likely to accept elements beyond control. But we do hear scientists being awe of the never ending source of inspiration something as simple as a drop of water can be to them. Interestingly the difference between yoga-masters and such scientists begins being a matter of titles.

Distillation
The fermented subject is now distilled to remove impurities and obtain the pure version possible for the last step following. The process of evaporation and condensation is as if letting it go and creating the conditions of it to return in its pure form. Mentally the alchemist also seek to remove the final elements of his ego and attitudes that hinder his true understanding. This is to raise the power of his psyche to the highest level possible.
As a researcher I choose to interpret this as a humbling of one-self. Knowing so much, only having more questions, could or should lead to a state of acceptance that ones study subject is beyond you. And that you will only be allowed a glimpse of what might be its place in everything. Truth or facts do not exist, but something can be experienced as an almost disillusioned state.

Coagulation
The final state is the control over matter. The subject comes into existence in its purest form with perfect attributes. Its existence itself allow it to transmute other elements/subjects. This is also known as the Philosophers Stone. The mental aspects of the alchemist is now reborn. A threshold has been reached where he can leave his old life behind and redefine himself in existence (the phoenix metaphor). The aim of all experiments was the wisdom of a God: the ability to differ good from evil, right from wrong. The alchemists knew that is an unachievable goal, but the Coagulation is the closest man could hope to aspire.
As scientists we aspire to control matter and life too. Nanotechnology, chemistry, gene-modifications, cloning, etc. However, I see an important lesson from the 7 steps of transmutation. In alchemy it is imperative that the researchers undergo a mental development that lead to a humbling and redefinition of himself and his morals. Without this purification, science can be Thor's hammer in the hands of ignorance - or worse, arrogance. Not a merry picture.

Learning is not a 9-5 job - it is an experience we are supposed to constantly change ourselves with. Adaptation according to wisdom accumulated. I think we scientist have to a large degree lost this most fundamental power of all. We got the know-how, but not the know-why.

Further reading

A field study in changing the mind of a scientific community

The great thing about being a mad scientist is that when organizers invite you to give a talk - the audience have listen to you ramble. And I feel that I am obliged to! The last 3 days I attended the NJF symposium "Climate Change and Agricultural Production in the Baltic Sea Region" in Uppsula, Sweden. And let me first say: it was a good seminar!

But the outcome of 300 scientists from 15 countries, and the 70 presentations (incl. mine) had a very predictable outcome of how to go about the climate change from a agricultural / livestock perspective - "More!" More networking, more production, more research, more diagnostics, more risk assessment, more lobbying etc.

We had discussions, which I think were the highlights of this seminar. Both in my presentation and the following discussion I felt I actually succeeded in presenting some views that "shook things up" with my colleagues, who may be a little stuck in the framework we are expected to work in.

Some points I put up for discussion:
- there is a huge gap between scientists and those who is supposed to use and benefit from know-how (farmers) in many countries. Should we continue ignoring that?
- how can a farmer take up new management or technology when his only chance of obtaining an economical buffer to do so is by constantly optimizing production (more, more, more)? Farmers have got the same dump price for many years for their products (or produce at a losses).
- would the impact of existing solutions not be bigger by finding passionate individuals or groups willing to go forward with them (ownership) in contrast to hoping governments will consider scientific knowledge?
- perhaps increasing complexity of our production systems is not the way forward with the only focus on more production. I pointed at grass roots have had good success looking backwards and simplifying production by attempting new/re-adapting old technologies that can give the same (or better) outputs, but with less impact on climate, animal health, and farmer economy.
- I suggested feeding down-up (farmer grass roots) networks rather than only top-down (policy driven), epathizing passionate people have proven incredibly effective in integrating methods through beliefs. If we could work with such people (to assure we do not jump in a harmful direction) we might accomplish a lot very quickly.

It is not that we lack technology to solve problems - it is just so hard to change course with such a large machinery as global economy. Some scientists pointed out they did not think it is our (scientists) role to make sure science is used - that is up to policy makers. I disagree - especially considering how science is often abused.

After getting time to explain these points in details I experienced most my colleagues could agree on points, at least on the ideology level. Interestingly, full support and additional insight, was added by collegues with long experience in 3rd world countries - who point at these things as crucial for the most fundamental kind of success in applying science to improve conditions locally and nationally. Similar signals came from scientists with practical experience and contact with farmers. We had representatives from the Swedish Agricultural Ministry present, and they surprisingly showed interest in some of these points during discussion. However, those who were at higher decision making levels, such as EU level, or national risk management, were not so interested in these points - and more focused on survailance, and how to secure current production status. I frankly asked "Why are we (in disease control) doing our job?". The question was not understood, but when I added "Are we supposed to be a shield while we wait for something better to happen?" Then everybody agreed. I did not persue this, but I think this professional passiveness is not in the common interest of the creatures in the ecosystem.

One orginizations initiatives, LRF (the Swedish farmers association), presented by the charismatic Elisabeth Gauffin, who gave an impressive talk. This orginazation and sharing of experience would without a doubt benefit Baltic States if they took up such an initiative with similar passions. Sharing videos on the website of methods to increase energy efficiency on the farms and other experiences I think is especially brilliant. Imagine if scientists could tap into such an information channel!

I was also happy to see Biochar (Terra Preta) on the agenda. Apparently, the last 2 years research in Sweden and many other places has focused on this promising (ancient) carbon sink and soil cultivator with very promising results. But... it is "going backwards" in some peoples eyes (was used by indians in the Amazonas). A short list of the (long term: hundreds to thousands of years) benefits are increases in: nutrient retention, moisture, soil microlife and metabolism, shelter for microorganisms, pH buffering and stability etc. Besides the plant benefits, on the climate side, experiments show the presence of Biochar can reduce greenhouse gas emissions (N2O and methane) with up to 90%, according to the researchers present. A good point was made in the presentation: halting CO2 emissions is useless (will not halt effects) if we not actively also remove carbon in an intelligent way. Wood, and biomass in general, can be made to Biochar (which is much like charcoal), reducing carbon by putting it into the earth (with no measurable side effects). One kg burried equals to 3.67 kg CO2 removed. A very profitable buisness for a farmer if CO2-taxes become fair. At the same time producting Biochar taking care of garbage (organic) and producing energy (the burning is about 70% of burning all the organic material instead of making Biochar).
Abstract on the presentation should be available here in the future (NJF Report Vol. 6 (1) p. 103)
Obviously, I have to try spreading 1 g charcoal per square meter of my land to see what happens.

A very interesting exercise for me. I learned a lot. And perhaps others learned something from my ideas. I conclude from my "provokations" to the scientific community that people exist out there who are willing to think differently, but the framework most scientists have worked in for so long is binding most from straying from a one-way-road.

For the critics. Yes, scientific reasoning should be the drive for convincing a scientific community. This exercise hopefully show that taking a direction as a community deserves more than one point of view. Especially if the point of view is the status quo in a debate discussing an unsustainable culture. There are scientificly strong alternatives that is hard to see in the debate, and areas that should be examined more closely (such as social factors) that bring forward a scinece based change.


Further reading

Political blocks - targeted funding. Funding of products.

Funding of research is not supporting the scientific community. Politiken brought reflected on an anaylsis of the Danish funding of science the 22nd April 2010. As a scientist the result is not surprising, but it may shock those who pay tax money in the hope education and development of the future is for the common good... or at least logical. Between 2001-2006 20% of the total sum of funding for research (7 billion DKR) in Denmark went to 56 people (0.7% of applicants). And as the study empathize that it is not the lack of applicants or their qualifications, because they apply within the frames set for them.
As a scientist you currently need to have the right buzz-words in your application to get a chance for funding. Nano-"something", "food-safety"-something, "biofuel"-something etc. If you have the cure for cancer and it involves methods non-cutting edge technology you do not stand much of a chance. And the irony is that many scientists spend 1/3 of their time on applying for funds or other paperwork.

So why?

I got a few suggestions:
The evaluation system
Universities are rated much like individual scientists: graduating students, publications, and patents. In that order. You better spit out articles like a madman, and preferably have some patents. Then you are a "good" scientist. Output is what counts.

High-tech.
The best solutions are not necessarily high-tech or cutting-edge as demanded by funding. But it employs more people, and moves more money.

Targeted funding.
The largest funding program in Europe, the Framework Program, decide the next periods "target areas" (buzz-words) in triad between industry, governments, and universities. Universities having the smallest voice. So the chance of scientists having in say in what is good science is really insignificant, good science, or important. In addition you need to attach industrial enterprises to you application. Independence is not an option.

A good example: biofuels.

Why do we need biofuels? They take up vast amounts of space, output is not very high and laborsome, can do ecological damage to the area as industrial plantations, and could be used (if willing) to feed people who need it. Because - it is a good transition from fossil fuels where industry can earn a good buck before we take the full logical step to electricity. And, to make matters worse biofules also release more CO2 than normal fossile fule. Really, what is the point?

Second example: gene-modified crops (GMO).

Why invent a super sonic car if a wheel do the same job? GMO seems to be a powerful tool with many applications. I do not doubt that. Personally I also think that concerns about "power-weeds" or out-of-control spreading of seeds etc. are a bit over-empathized speculations. GMO is often preached to be the solution to food safety, feeding a hungry population, and sustainability. But to me it seems to be another billion dollar patch-solution to a system that do not work. Our agriculture the last 50 years have destroyed and consumed resources what "primitive" but sustainable (but laborious) methods worked for thousands of years to build up. Examples are biochar, sustainable desert farming, and more recent experiments of "do-nothing" agriculture". In stead of fixing broken systems, we might as well try to learn a little from how things have been done the last few millenia in nature. It is not a question of if it can be done, but choosing to do it and admit that we might sometimes be on the wrong track with our glorious technology. But how do you find funding for showing more primitive farming is just as good as cutting-edge?

The funding system supports products! Not basic research or answering fundamental questions.

I say it again. Scientists need to find a new source of funding or cut out the middle men (fund holders) - and go directly to the users for support (you). That is why I so strongly support Open Science. Otherwise scientists are becoming paid workers that produce the product ordered.

Further reading:
 

Open Access - rich can publish, poor can read

Nature News published an article "US seeks to make science free for all" by Declan Butler explaining how Open Access publishing of scientific journals is marching forward. Actually it is doing so well that US politicians are pushing forward to make it mandatory.

This is, in my opinion, a step forward towards Open Science. But as stated before, there is a large drawback with Open Access (other scientists may have more): rich can publish, but poor can only read. It is very expensive to publish as Open Access, that it is not even an option to many universities, including my own. So the published science is not "free" to all. It is accessible to read by anyone with an Internet, but it is open universally for the authors.

The big trouble is how to publish and read free of charge, and retain the credibility of peer-reviews.

I hope for better platforms in the future.

Further reading
 

Disease control... bridge under construction, please wait

The conclusion of my PhD-work was that despite 20 years of published knowledge about the parasites I work with and the damage caused by them, almost nothing has happened to prevent it! The cattle farmers are unaware of its presence, though every single farm got it, or ignores the symptoms. The disease symptoms have become a tree in the forest - the status quo. But why?

This massive "?" was a puzzle I have to solve. Not because it is my duty, but what is the point of ANY research if those who benefit from it will never hear about it or rejects it on default? Doing my background research for the Baltic states and onwards to Scandinavia, the pattern was similar - the flow of information that would benefit farmer and/or animals just stop dead somewhere for whatever reason. When asking for opinions from veterinarians of why this is so, many have opinions about farmer mentality: they do not know, they do not want to know, they know better than veterinarians/scientists, they give up and return to old routines, they do not care etc. But nobody really knows. Research on the area is amazingly sparse, but do exist (1, 2, 3)
It seems like two different worlds: University and Agriculture.

Is it the scientists fault? Should they be better at informing? Is the medical staff too poorly educated, insecure, powerless? Is it the farmers tradition, routine, focus, staff? What?

It is therefore easy to estimate that the majority of those research billions put into improving anything in agriculture is just oil for the machinery (accumulating know-how). Or in other words: not very well invested money.

We see the same problem in specialist research fields. The high tech awe-inspiring new genetic tool that can do anything... except apply itself to any valid interpretation that leads to a practical use. I begun as a ultra-specialist in biochemistry (one molecule). But gradually I felt I had to keep scaling up and up to get any sense out of my results. A "what is the point?"-search has lead me into immunology, to epidemiology, and now into the hands of social science.

Standing next to the agricultural monster and analyzing, it is scary to see how unorganized it is, in some cases narrow minded, but most importantly in self-awe. It sounds so much like politics/economics rhetoric's - growth, growth, growth - at any cost! From our epidemiological studies in cattle, it looks like not-doing many things would solve many problems in the industrial farms, in-stead of adding new things to do to prevent things happening (the patching-technique). And if I may come with a bold hypothesis: allowing the cattle to live as cattle naturally would have - is very likely to limit most diseases, leg disorders, reproductive problems, and mortality's dramatically!

“The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom.” – Isaac Asimov

Image: Bo Secher

One final act in life

Yesterday Andrew Joseph Stack piloted his plane into a local tax office in Austin, Texas - deliberately. People killing themselves, and others these in the process, are not uncommon these days. Especially USA and Europe seems to be hit hard by these disturbed people, but we also see violent acts elsewhere. Statistics on educational institutions alone list 13 killings, 7 in Europe and 5 in USA, and 1 in Canada over the last 20 years.

The Department of Homeland Security have according to the news classified Stacks suicide has nothing to do with terrorism. I bothered to look up Stacks suicide note and read it in The New York Times. From what I understand Stack had enough of being abused by the law and so called justice, and in a act of desperation tried to strike a blow to the corruption that had damaged his life thus far. Stack writes as final words:

I saw it written once that the definition of insanity is repeating the same process over and over and expecting the outcome to suddenly be different. I am finally ready to stop this insanity. Well, Mr. Big Brother IRS man, let’s try something different; take my pound of flesh and sleep well.

Is that not terrorism? Or is it not terror when a country's own citizens attack its own country and its systems out of desperation of its monstrosity? But our governments highly peculiar and selective investigations of terrorist acts at 9/11, and mostly criminal and unethical actions that followed by that event, is supported by real terrorism then or what? Hmmm. I have read some comments from people on this already outdated news event. Oddly enough people do not disagree with Stacks perception leading to his actions, but rather his conscious taking of other peoples lives and some strange assumptions of political orientation. The latter seems to be exactly what we (The Coalition countries) seem to do in counter-terrorism. It is a very vague and foggy business who gets to do terror apparently.

One can agree or disagree with Stacks actions, but it made me think: What would you do if you knew your life was over? Terminal cancer, suicide, starvation, death of your loved ones, a future in slavery... would you lie down and take it, or would you do something with that last breath? Was this what Stack was thinking?

I know abuse and injustice makes most non-masochistic people angry. How we deal with that anger varies individually. I was angry, very very angry, already when I was 5 years old - because at that age I could already perceive something was insanely wrong with the way humans acted just because. Adults could not answer me the most fundamental questions: "What is evil? Why do money make people do bad things? Why do we tell people in Africa how to behave? etc." My son now answer the same kind of questions, and not because I ask him to, but I can at least attempt to answer them from my best ability.
At the age of 15 I was ready too follow Stacks example, and I can at least imagine I understand why peoples anger grow into terror to get YOUR attention - because governments can not afford to sway at one mans sacrifice! Georgians: "Help us - they are slaughtering us and stealing our country!", Uganda: "They are mutilating and raping our women and children and enslaving our sons as brainwashed soldiers!", Kosovo: "We are dumped in mass-graves in your back yard!" and so on. But those kind of cries drown in headlines like "Norweigan clown trousers are a hit in Canada" and "After plus degrees the frost returns". Luckily my fate allowed me to enslave my anger and transform it into something more constructive, as you are reading about it now.

My final act in life is raising my children with open answers to their questions and nourish a critical attitude to seek out meaning and answers in their world. For as long as I can remain free in thought I can guide my work towards finding smarter ways for us all and expose the wasteful ones. And with a little luck I may keep evolving and learning something new every day.

Doctor of Philosophy - Egypt and Thoth

When it comes to the wheels of religion, secret societies, science, and civilization, Dan Brown has to eat his heart out when it comes to how Egyptian thinking has rippled our culture. Gospel editing is just a tiny aspect from what lies beneath. Most who write or talk on the origins of science begin with the natural philosophers. But where did they get the idea from to study methodically and why? The alchemists! But where did they get the ideas from? The Greeks philosophers (among others)! And where did they get it from... the Egyptians! Perhaps the thread goes further back, but I have seen no references.

As introduction I think most need to get an insight into what purpose icons or pictures of deity's could mean. This is important because when you start to examine it, everything in our systems are based on symbols from cave paintings, religion, quantum physics, to commercial logos. Even reading these symbols right now gives meaning to you as sounds unlocking the ability to read and write. Example: "A" is a bulls head (Aries) turned upside down, you know as the phonetic sound "A". Icons are concentrations of symbols. I was introduced to this insight through martial arts where I was shown how some icons once banned by law in Japan and thus were hidden. Often the picture of a deity, prophet, angel, demon, etc. is filled with symbols that have powerful meanings in the context of those who live in that icons culture. It would give you guidance and purpose in how to live your life - and could thus be dangerous to those who disagree with the ideology. Just have a closer look at Virgin Mary for example or the 12 disciples and see what they are carrying. Thoth pictured here have the head of the ibis, which also was associated with the phoenix legend, which will make sense later. Above Thoths head is the sun, connecting him to the main deity Ra. He is counting or measuring showing his association with science. And so on. Keep this in mind, because symbols are the language which both science and religion are explained the interpretations and misunderstandings are many. And which interpretation is closest to the original meaning, and which one is more sensible?

What did the Egyptians believe about perceptions of science? Their deity Thoth embodied the heart and the tongue of the sun god Ra. The heart in Egyptian mythology was the vessel of the mind and intelligence, and Thoth was so to say the "mind" and the "voice" of Ra, or God if you like. He (Thoth is pictured as a male) was associated with functions that involved magic, writing, science, and the judging in disputes and fate of the dead. He had these functions because of the mastery in physical (science) and moral (divine) law.

First I skipped through that last sentence without thinking, but later learned it was very important. Science, was meant to be the workings with matter, while religion was the workings of the right and wrong (good and evil) - what to do with science. It is kind of simple and logic once you think of it: what good is knowledge if you have no good use of it? Often people make the quick assumption that these things as defined or fixed (such as facts or laws), but for mortal man the understanding of these two dualities was a work in progress - also known as life or learning. Egyptians was aware of a duality, a balance, in things and was symbolized in Thoth carrying a staff which later became the winged staff crowned with a sun and two coiling snakes - the Caduceus or Staff of Hermes. "Duality" is in my interpretation another word for "balance".

Thoths judgement of the dead as described in The Book of the Dead, carries a lot of information as to what originally may have been the idea of a good life. As the dead was brought before Thoth, Anubis would weigh the heart of the dead on the scales of Maat against the Feather of Truth. If the heart was too heavy, the chimera Ammut would tear the person to pieces. If the person was vindicated the person was raised to assume power in the universe as one of the gods (chapters 130-189). I think this description hold a lot of information to what happened later in our history and thought.
My first note, though a theory since I can not find evidence of a direct link, is that Maat and the scale (the female counterpart of Thoth of justice and law) could have been the original concept of justice (Lady Justice). She commonly assigned to originate from the Greek goddess Dike. But as I will write later - Greeks borrowed heavily from the older Egyptian civilization. Or as Herodotus would write in The Histories (book II), that Egyptians knew of the old gods and were the older culture (meaning there were similarities between Greek and Egyptian pantheon). If this is of interest to you, I suggest having a look at the Zeitgeist movie (first half).
Secondly, the judgment of the heart against the soul is fascinating once you put things into context. The heart was according to Egyptians the vessel of the intellect and the soul. This had to be lighter than the Feather of Truth (or in other words probably light). What does that mean? I understand this as if you had been living an immoral or abused your intellect you would be burdened by this on this final day of judgment Now, if there is no difference between intellect and moral (both hosted by the heart), and a good life was a pursuit of both moral (the divine) and physical intellect (science), this could explain the development that followed in Greek philosophy, alchemy, and some of the earliest science. But somewhere something went off this track, for I dare say that the present day science is not driven by a moral pursuit to any great extent today!
Thirdly, a successful vindication would give the person would assume power in the universe as one of the gods. Gods ultimate power was the ability to differ good from evil, right from wrong. This would later be the goal of the alchemists, a goal never reached, refined through experimentation, but pivoting around a perfection of the person himself. The alchemists call this the search for the Philosophers Stone. Today we call this pursuit the Grand Unified Theory.

Another interesting observation mentioned in Manley Palmer Halls lectures on alchemy, is the way knowledge was probably passed in this culture. Egyptians knew mathematics, accounting, astronomy etc. but there were not schools for common people. You had to be accepted into an order that would eventually give you this knowledge, bit by bit as trade for your dedication to the order. These were religiously orientated. Belief and logic mixed into a ritualistic entity. We know of these kind of organizations still because they became guilds, the strongest and most famous known as Freemasons as we know today. There is nothing occult or weird about this really. Sharing knowledge makes it vulnerable to criticism and evolution. In suppressive regimes knowledge makes you a target. Large companies do the same today regarding their strategies and know-how, binding employees best they can they higher they go in the hierarchy.

This was stray thoughts on the Egyptians at the root of science, among many other things affecting us today. Later I wish to take this to the next phase of what I learned about the Greek philosophers involvement.

Further reading

Doctor of Philosophy - without the philosophy please!

Science. People who have an opinion about science, and what it is, are not in shortage. But how many have bothered to try and find the roots and the original purpose of science?

When I did my Ph.D. I asked myself: What is a Doctor of Philosophy? Apparently one that teaches philosophy. Besides some rudimentary course in "Philosophy of Science" that mainly focused on how to write a science application, "philosophy" was an alien word during my work. I love philosophy and thought I could easily discuss this topic with my ph.d. colleagues and students. Alas, I found few such people interested in training their minds on the basis of science. To some it even looked like I suggested heresy.

So, if I wanted to know anything on the topic "what is science?" and "what is the purpose of science?" I had to find some answers myself. I found this part very important part of my work since I was/am dealing with disease control in livestock farming, and frankly, there is no control despite decades of research in the field. So something must be off target, I thought.

The essence of what my research in the roots of science was baffling and eye opening to me to put it mildly. Not only could I find a purpose for myself in science, it also gave me many answers to questions on religion, esoteric disciplines, politics, human behaviour, and history. When I defended my thesis I spent half of my time presenting this research which I will elaborate on in this blog. Speaking of Egyptian religion, alchemy, and the art of transformation in a modern doctoral defense felt like a big risk - but one I had to take to be honest to myself and my colleagues. Luckily the commission I defended in was open (mentally) enough to accept this (or ignore it), and a few even gave a positive feedback on the topic.

I must strongly recommend anyone who has any passion in science (please note that I did not write: "interest" or "carreer wishes") to do their own studies into what makes science.

Please follow the topic line ("Doctor of Philosophy").

University budget - copy+paste+pray... or WAKE UP!

University budget cuts while the obligatory short sightedness continues - I had enough and had to put my head on the chopping block! We are experiencing severe budget cuts to an extent where there literally is no money for research after (some of) the payrolls have been secured. I am submitting the article below to the university newspaper where I work (Estonian University of Life Sciences, aka EMÜ) in Estonian.

I know I do not have The Truth and the Glorious Facts which others might have, but at least I am making honest attempts of finding a way out. I thought the article fit the topic of the blog and added the English version here.

Crisis?

It is easy to cut down on budgets. It is perhaps easier to make savings into continuous profit. I would like to suggest EMÜ directors several strategies that can do that.

I work with parasites at EMÜ. To me it is obvious to see the same general survival strategies are used by cooperate firms as seen in the biological world. We have to live with them because we are too weak and starved to expel them. Just like getting rid of a parasite infection will give you surpluses in health and economy, so will independences from licences and resources.

Here are 4 ideas EMÜ can apply to save vast amounts of money.

1. Replace expensive licences with open source.
2. Make internet telephony standard
3. Become an green independent university.
4. Make savings self-perpetuate in the budget.

The software licenses are expensive and almost without exception, unnecessary. Open source programs such as Open Office can replace most tools used on the computer, for free. Though it is mainly myth that licensed programs can do more and are safer than open source, individual exceptions can be made to satisfy sceptics or specialists – opposite of the current strategy.

Skype is already standard many major firms because it is free and ridiculous cheap use compared to standard telephony. A headset and web cam cost less than most of us pay for a phone bill each month. A hand held phone that can use Skype through the WiFi network cost less than 2200 EEK. It does not take much imagination to manage a credit system for those calling non-Skype networks, and for monthly unlimited world wide use of landlines cost less than a meal in the university cafeteria for 3 persons. Why pay for both internet and telephone when you only need to pay for one?

Being "green" looks good. Being "independent" works! EMÜ has all the facilities to implement technology that provide free heat and electricity. Already working radiator systems, water tanks, and flat roofs (even south facing tilted roofs) are begging for solar heaters and sun cells. The university has several hectares of land for pipes that could provide buildings with heat through ground pipes and heat pumps. These technologies can easily be rejected as options when buying them from firms who sell and install each of the items for around 100.000-150.000 EEK at household size. However, most items can, and is, easily made by untrained hands at a quarter of the price or less. I would love to share my knowledge and be part of such a project at EMÜ – because it is fun and it makes a lot of sense.

Most of us do not make use of the above methods regardless of their obvious and proven benefits. It can be difficult convince oneself to find that extra financing to invest in a method that will save you money. So, if you succeed making the first baby step and save something on your budget after the initial investment is paid back, immediately invest it again! The second step is much easier when there is nothing to loose any more - your overall expenses are the same with the savings reinvested. The self-perpetuating strategy can makes the progress possible. Normal strategy would be to put the savings into the bag of money, look at the minus on the bottom line, and say "sorry, there is no finances for it this week/month/year". In stead of staff taking extra holidays, perhaps they should build sun panels?

We got the tools, let us grow the will!

Further reading

Consumers Paradox - Buying Locally is not Always Best

Buying locally does make good sense as a concept if you wish to do your part in being a sensible consumer. For example, why buy garlic from China when they grow like weed in the back yard without you even caring for them and easy to store (and taste a lot better).

On the other hand every evening I look out my window I see the city of Tartu lit up like it is on fire. The cause is not due to excessive street lighting (yet) but the green houses growing cucumbers - all year round. Since I am aware of this (I am reminded every evening) I can not make myself buy these cucumbers in the shop even if it does not get more local. I am fairly certain that the energy used to grow these things in -10 to -20 degrees Celsius outside temperature takes more fuel than transporting cucumbers from Netherlands or Spain (where they also grown the with aid). In the end I decided not to eat cucumbers out of season, unless we really needed them for something. I wonder how many think these things through in Estonia.

This is not unique off course. It is really difficult to understand where your items come from. My veterinary colleagues in Finland tells me animals are transported very long distances to be slaughtered and then back again to be processed as meat. Closer slaughter houses exist, but it is still cheaper to transport the animals hundreds of kilometers. This information rarely reach a consumer, and even rarer affects the consumer mentally. I am not surprised if the same happens to groceries.

We need one independent place where people can look up information about these things (transportation, pesticides used, slaughtering technique...) and other qualities (taste, independence of food chains, success in complying with food and production safety, fair price...) to a product other than just price. If not the conscious consumer will not see the real product choice behind coupons, client cards and different sales strategies every half year. Much like it is impossible to get a clear idea of the best choice of bank, insurance, gas station etc. If we do not have transparent choice then we need to gather information. 

 Further reading: