by cameron | May 31, 2007 | energy, energy debate, environment, science, singularity, technology
Didn’t expect THAT, did you?
I’m prepping for my chat with Vint tomorrow morning and happened upon this recent interview with Kuzweil on CNNMoney where he says:
“These slides that Gore puts up are ludicrous,” says the man who once delivered a tech conference presentation as a singing computer avatar named Ramona. (That stunt was the inspiration for the 2002 Al Pacino movie “Simone.”) “They don’t account for anything like the technological progress we’re going to experience.”
I guess he means that accelerating technological progress will allow us to generate power using fossil-fuel substitutes and undo the damage we’ve already done. He might be right. I hope he is. I still don’t think that means we should stop doing what we can do now to change our behaviours though.
By the way… I’ve got something VERY exciting in the works for TPN’s audience regarding carbon offsets. Stay tuned.
by cameron | Apr 30, 2007 | Christianity, climate change, energy debate, environment, media 2.0, movies
While I was working out today I watched “Land Of The Dead“, George Romero’s 2005 4th zombie flick, starring Aussie actor Simon Baker, Dennis Hopper, Asia Argento and John Leguizamo. What a great way to pass a couple of hours of otherwise-boring exercise.
Two things I loved in particular with the “Making Of” doco.
1. Romero talking about how Hopper decided he wanted to play the part of the bad guy, Kaufman, as Donald Rumsfeld and the way Romero yells “Exactly! This is about the Bush administration!” Too many directors are oh-so-politically correct (even now!), but not George, oh no. He tells it like it is!
2. The other thing I loved was George’s glasses:
When I saw the Ocean’s 13 trailer, with Elliott Gould wearing the same glasses, George Burns glasses, I said “I’ve got to have some!”
Anyone know where I can get some? Without real lenses of course. I have 20/20 vision (not like the rest of you geeks out there… how come I’ve read more books than the rest of you put together, I sit in front of a PC all day, and I *still* have 20/20?).
******
Kevin Rudd is pitching himself at the ALP conference as “Mr 21st Century”. Yet, at the same time, he is content to wear his Anglican Christianity on his sleeve. I find it impossible to take anyone seriously who tries to position themselves as 21st century yet clings openly to a 2000 year-old mythology about a miracle worker who could fly.
That said, I admire his cojones in commissioning an Australian version of the Stern report. Do we really *need* another Stern report though? Isn’t one Stern enough Stern? Let’s face it – we call know not doing anything about climate change will be BAD. REALLY BAD. And those that continue to dispute that issue, aren’t going to be convinced by one more report, any more that Rudd will drop his Christianity by one more book pointing out that there is no evidence to support his mystery faith. It’s a waste of money.
******
I see Dom Carosa’s been busy launching yet ANOTHER new site – NICE SHORTS. I stumbled on this (yes, using Stumble Upon) last night and watched a great clip by up-and-coming Aussie filmmaker Gabriel Dowrick.
His short film, “The Lord Is My Shotgun” is very impressive. I’ve got Gabe coming on G’Day World later in the week for a chat. I think he’s about 21 and has made something like 20 short films as well as a recent straight-to-dvd zombie slasher horror feature called “Nailed”.
******
Did TWO – count ’em – TWO workouts today. 45 minutes on the xtrainer at 9am and then another 30 minutes at 5pm. Don’t want to be a fatblogger. I cannot for the life of me get interested in working out at 6am, so I tend to wake up, do email for a few hours, take the kids to school, and THEN get on the machine. And watch zombie flicks. I can pretend I’m running away from the flesh-eating zombies. SPEAKING of which… am I the only person who is surprised that with those rotten teeth they all seem to have, the zombies still manage to rip huge chunks of flesh, tendon and bone out of their victims? Shouldn’t their teeth just fall out when they try? Now there’s an idea for a postmodern zombie flick – the zombie’s attack, their teeth fall out, and everyone falls over laughing while the zombies spend the rest of the film trying to gum people to death….
******
by cameron | Apr 23, 2007 | Australian media, Australian politics, censorship, climate change, Culture Jamming, energy, energy debate, environment, freedom of speech, Melbourne, movies, Podcast
No guest today, just a bit of a chat about:
Robert Rodriguez’s cooking show on the Sin City Recut DVD
this report that less than 7% of Australians believe cosmetics advertising
a review of “The Receipt” by Will Adamsdale and Chris Branch, currently showing in the Melbourne Comedy Festival
ExxonSecrets, a site that helps you follow the money behind the climate change skeptics
my review of George Romero’s 1985 classic “Day Of The Dead”
my review of Danny Boyle’s current film “Sunshine” starring Aussie actress Rose Byrne and Cillian Murphy
the spoof website MiningNSW which the Mining Council of NSW has been trying to shut down
and then I finish with a little chat about my friend, the darkness, and what to do about it.
Don’t forget to make use of my new comments line – Aussies can dial into +613 9016 9699. The rest of you can either pay international charges (cmon, what price can you put on being on my show??) or just start begging me to set up an international number.
If you enjoyed this podcast, make sure you don’t miss future episodes by subscribing to our feed and leave us a voice comment!
The G’Day World Theme Song is “Save Me†by The Napoleon Blown Aparts.
by cameron | Apr 14, 2007 | environment, Melbourne, Uncategorized
I had the fortune last night to be invited to Peter Ellyard’s 70th birthday party at SOS, a sustainable and ethical restaurant at Melbourne Central with an amazing view over the old Melbourne Museum. I’m guessing there were about 100 people there from different sides of Peter’s life – his family, colleagues and friends. It’s was a terrific night and the tributes to Peter were all heart-warming (even mine). I had a series of engaging and vibrant discussions with a group of intelligent, articulate people from various walks of life I consider new friends, including Lauren (a Rhodes scholar), Felix (a self-described “70-year-old French Jew” who spent 30 years living in a kibbutz in Israel), Felix’s wife Shoshanna who is a philosopher/artist/educator who successfully fought off several of us who wanted to debunk the documentary she recently watched on memories transmitted through heart transplants, Ralph, a surgeon, his wife Patsy, an editor, and many others. My good mate Anthony, the guy who introduced me to Peter, was there, as was Diane, the masseuse at the Como Building in South Yarra who apparently originally introduced Peter to AJ and, coincidentally, has massaged all three of us at one point in time (separately, I might add) over the years.
ANYWAY… many of the tributes during the evening talked about Peter’s overwhelming generosity to everyone in his life. I’ve certainly been touched by this in the couple of months I’ve known him. He seems to operate on the principle that the more you give of yourself, the more will come back to you.
It reminded me instantly of a section in Buckminster Fuller’s book “Critical Path” which I was reading earlier in the day. Fuller described this principle, which I’ve learned to think of over the years as “The Principle of Reciprocity” as “precession”. He defined “precession” as “the effect of bodies in motion on other bodies in motion”. Precession was his answer to his own question “How do you obtain the money to live with and to acquire the materials and tools with which to work?”. This was the beginning of his mission when he was effectively bankrupt. His examination of the world around him lead him to believe that bodies in motion exert right-angle effects on other bodies around them. For example, the gravitational effect one planet has on another is at right-angles to the direction of motion of the planet (okay, so my simplistic understanding of the general theory of relativity would suggest that it’s actually the other way around… the warping of space-time that the mass of body A has causes body B to travel in a certain directional orbit around it… but let’s leave that aside for the time being, okay?). Drop a stone in a still pond and the concentric rings spread out at ninety degrees to the motion of the stone.
Fuller theorized that while most humans had, historically speaking, spent most of their energy trying to selfishly earn a living for themselves, some of them had, inadvertently, helped “nature” progress by making huge leaps in the standard of human civilization. These advances were “side effects” of the primary objective of being selfish.
He wrote:
“Therefore, what humans called the side effects of their conscious drives in fact produced that main ecological effects of generalized technological regeneration. I therefore assumed that what humanity rated as “side effects” are nature’s main effects. I adopted the prescessional “side effects” as my prime objective.”
What if, instead of working with the objective of your own comfort, you worked purely for the betterment of the human race? Would, perhaps, your own comfort be taken care of by “nature” in some sort of principle of reciprocity?
Fuller wrote:
“”Since nature was clearly intent on making humans successful in support of the integrity of eternally regenerative Universe, it seemed clear that is I undertook ever more humanly favorable physical-environment-producing artifact developments that in fact did improve the chances of all humanity’s successful development, it was quite possible that nature would support my efforts, efforts, provided I were choosing the successively most efficient technical means of so doing. Nature was clearly supporting all her intercomplementary ecological regenerative tasks – ergo, I must so commit myself and must depend upon nature providing the physical means of realization of my invented environment-advantaging artifacts. I noted that nature did not require hydrogen to “earn a living” before allowing hydrogen to behave in the unique manner in which it does. Nature does not require that any of its intercomplementing members “earn a living”.”
Now I don’t want to sound all “The Secret” on you, but there does seem to me to be a principle that, put simply, “if you do good things, good things happen to you”. Karma without the reincarnation. From the moment I started TPN, I had this feeling that this was an important mission. I’ve always felt like I had a purpose. And, that if I did it properly, worked hard, was focused, disciplined, and did it with integrity, that “good things would happen”.
I don’t expect miracles. I don’t expect things will always fall into my lap. But I do believe (not very scientific of me, i know) that if I pursue the right vision, diligently, honestly, and work my ass off, that perhaps I am merely fulfilling the purpose the Universe has for me. Now, again, I’m not suggesting that the Universe is “intelligent” or that there is some sort of mystical “higher power” that “has a plan” for me.
But… humans are made from atoms. Atoms obey the laws of physics and chemistry. Could you say that an atom of oxygen, connected to two atoms of hydrogen, has the purpose of being water? At the moment in time when you observe it as a water molecule, isn’t that it’s purpose? And up a level, on a macro scale, what is the purpose of that molecule of water? To make a cell function? To provide life-giving nutrients to an animal or plant? And that plant, what is its purpose? To feed me?
In the great chain of “purpose”, with every component of the Universe fulfilling its individual task, am I not merely a bunch of atoms, each of them obeying the laws of physics and chemistry? Am I, then, not also obeying the laws of physics and chemistry? Perhaps I, like the oxygen atom, have a role to play, determined, not by some mystical being, but by the laws of physics and chemistry.
Peter Ellyard is fulfilling his role, as mentor and futurist and leader. As he has done that diligently over his lifetime, he has obviously been rewarded in a variety of ways.
If I fulfill my purpose, which I see today as being a cog in the human evolution machine, dragging us an inch closer to the realization of our potential as a species, perhaps the Universe will continue to rise up and support my efforts, naturally and effortlessly?
by cameron | Mar 20, 2007 | censorship, climate change, environment, freedom of speech, US politics
From the LA Times’ coverage of the Hansen case:
James Hansen, director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, took particular issue with the administration’s rule that a government information officer listen in on his interviews with reporters and its refusal to allow him to be interviewed by National Public Radio.
“This is the United States,” Hansen told the House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee. “We do have freedom of speech here.”
But Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Vista) said it was reasonable for Hansen’s employer to ask him not to state views publicly that contradicted administration policy.
Of course, the most shocking suggestion here is that the Bush administration has a policy? Who knew!?
The suggestion that a senior scientist on the government payroll should not be able to talk openly about his scientific views because they might contradict administration policy is absurd. The dangerous theory here that Issa wants to sell is that the Government is a regular employer who should be able to determine what is said publicly by their “employees”. This theory fails to recognize that ALL Government employees and actually employees of the PEOPLE, paid for by THE PEOPLE, and their first (and only) duty is to fulfill their public responsibility, not to toe the line.
By the way, know where the term “toe the line” comes from?
According to the Grammar Tips site:
The phrase “toe the line” is equivalent to “toe the mark,” both of which mean to conform to a rule or a standard. The Oxford Dictionary of Word Histories (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2002; ed. by Glynnis Chantrell) says, “The idiom toe the line from an athletics analogy originated in the early 19th century”.
The specific sport referred to is foot-racing, where the competitors must keep their feet behind a “line” or on a “mark” at the start of the race–as in “On your mark, get set,
go!”
So one who “toes the line” is one who does not allow his foot to stray over the line. In other words, one who does not stray beyond a rigidly defined boundary.
