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.