A flying airplane is something that has always puzzled and amazed me
since I was a child. I remember staring them in the skies and asking
myself how on earth something so huge and heavy was capable to fly.
Since then, I look at it with profound admiration and devote my sincere
respect for aviation engineering.
In my opinion, airplanes are some of the few things that best
represent connectivity, cutting edge technology and evolution. Thus, as
stressful as airports can be, as uncomfortable as a long flight can be,
I’ve always faced them as a symbol of new discoveries, connection, a
borderless world, unforgivable vacations… hence: happiness.
Needless to say that when I hear about airplane crashes, it
devastates me in ways words can’t explain. Mostly, of course, due to the
commotion of losing so many lives at once, but also because it
represents a flaw of what I consider an impeccable advanced and
sophisticated engineering system.
The recent tragedies of the Malaysian airlines have been resonating
non-stop in my mind. Both cases are tremendously worrisome: one for
still being a complete conundrum and the other for being the direct
result of mankind’s stupidity. Shooting down an aircraft passenger (even
if mistook by a military one) is so repulsive that causes the deepest
dismay even in insensitive hearts. Not checking what type of plane was
crossing the air space before activating a missile makes it intentional.
Seeing the greatest symbol of a world without borders being shot down
due to primitive borders conflict does really consternate me.
I wonder if we humans have learned anything from history. Sometimes I
doubt it because I keep seeing us repeating the same mistakes again and
again. And considering the amount of information we have on hands
nowadays, as well as the stage of human development we should have
reached on the year 2014of the 21st century, attitudes like this are too pre-historical to be accepted (to say the least).
Acknowledging the human being ignorance that still reigns, I express
my sincere condolences and sentiments to the families and friends who
lost their loved ones.
May these souls rest in peace.
Tuesday, July 22, 2014
Sunday, July 6, 2014
Food
It is expected that by the time we reach the year 2050, the world
population will increase about 35% based on current numbers. The huge
concern when it comes to food supply is that to feed a population of 9
billion people, crop production will need to double. One of the main
reasons for that is associated to the economic prosperity the developing
world has been experiencing, which led them to eat more, especially
more meat. According to the National Geographic magazine, the increase
in the per capita daily protein demand will be revolving 15.3%
in the developed countries, while in the emerging ones it is supposed to
be around 103.6%.
Agriculture poses several challenges to the environment: it is among the greatest greenhouse gases emitters (due to the release of methane gas by cattle and forest clearing to grow crops/livestock, to name a few reasons); it is – by far – the industry that requires more water supply to operate; it is associated to the acceleration of biodiversity loss; and the constant use of fertilizers and pesticides may cause irreparable damages to nearby groundwater, rivers and community.
The pressuring demand for meat will require not only more livestock availability (including more land for it), but also an increase in crops (mostly corn and soybeans) to feed the cattle, pigs and chickens the planet will be requiring. Here lies one of the main reasons why we will need to double the amount of crop by 2050. This also fuels another debate about organic versus conventional agriculture. The former argues that small (organic) farmers are capable to increase yields in ways that would help meet the world demand, while the latter advocates that only modern agriculture techniques such as mechanization, irrigation, chemicals and improved genetics will be the answer to fill the demand blanks.
I don’t intend to point fingers to the right or wrong here. My intention is to raise the awareness for the fact that achieving sustainable agriculture may become increasingly harder and also to ask my fellows a few important questions: do we really need that much food (especially meat) on our plates everyday? Do we need food portions as big as the ones offered by restaurants nowadays? Should the increase in income lead people to eat more or eat better? Does better mean more? I personally think it is absurd that an increase in 35% of population will require 100% more food. Another absurd is to accept the huge food portions we are getting lately as a normal thing. I would go for a campaign of charging me half the price for a half the size meal.
Let’s think about that for a while and try not to be part of those who will demand 100% more food. Maybe by doing so, in 2050 we will prove wrong the statistics we foresee now.
Source: National Geographic Magazine, May edition 2014.
Agriculture poses several challenges to the environment: it is among the greatest greenhouse gases emitters (due to the release of methane gas by cattle and forest clearing to grow crops/livestock, to name a few reasons); it is – by far – the industry that requires more water supply to operate; it is associated to the acceleration of biodiversity loss; and the constant use of fertilizers and pesticides may cause irreparable damages to nearby groundwater, rivers and community.
The pressuring demand for meat will require not only more livestock availability (including more land for it), but also an increase in crops (mostly corn and soybeans) to feed the cattle, pigs and chickens the planet will be requiring. Here lies one of the main reasons why we will need to double the amount of crop by 2050. This also fuels another debate about organic versus conventional agriculture. The former argues that small (organic) farmers are capable to increase yields in ways that would help meet the world demand, while the latter advocates that only modern agriculture techniques such as mechanization, irrigation, chemicals and improved genetics will be the answer to fill the demand blanks.
I don’t intend to point fingers to the right or wrong here. My intention is to raise the awareness for the fact that achieving sustainable agriculture may become increasingly harder and also to ask my fellows a few important questions: do we really need that much food (especially meat) on our plates everyday? Do we need food portions as big as the ones offered by restaurants nowadays? Should the increase in income lead people to eat more or eat better? Does better mean more? I personally think it is absurd that an increase in 35% of population will require 100% more food. Another absurd is to accept the huge food portions we are getting lately as a normal thing. I would go for a campaign of charging me half the price for a half the size meal.
Let’s think about that for a while and try not to be part of those who will demand 100% more food. Maybe by doing so, in 2050 we will prove wrong the statistics we foresee now.
Source: National Geographic Magazine, May edition 2014.
Thursday, June 12, 2014
Historical Personality - Socrates
Socrates
Only a few personalities in history enchant me as much as Socrates. He had some of the character traits I value the most: lightness of soul, bravery, simplicity, humility and the assumption that “all I know is I know nothing”.
Philosophical writings report that Socrates, since very little, tirelessly dedicated himself to what he considered his mission: to dialog with people. But they were dialogues in which he asked more about things he heard than provided elucidation. The rationale behind it was that the questions would lead the interlocutor to analyze their own convictions. By doing so, he put into question several alleged “talents” and unfounded sapience reputations. For those who accepted to submit themselves to the socratic dialogues, acknowledging their own ignorance regarding something could mean a “conscience renaissance”.
Once, after a prolonged conversation with a local personality, who considered himself a wisdom model, Socrates told him that he (the interlocutor) presumed to be wise, but he was not. Socrates then became hated by most of those present in the occasion. His conclusion about that is the following: “I am wiser than this man; it is highly probable that none of us knows anything, but he supposes to know something and he does not; while I, if I don’t know, I don’t suppose to know either. It seems, then, that I am a little bit wiser than him for not assuming to know what I don’t know”.
Accused for not accepting the State’s gods, for introducing new ones and for subverting the young, Socrates is judged and convicted. He never denied his words and attitudes in order to change the opinion of the tribunal. On the opposite, he proclaimed to those who were suppose to judge him: “I have no occupation, other than trying to persuade you all, old and young, to focus less on your bodies and goods and more on the perfection of your souls. Also, in telling you that virtue does not come from wealth or from what you consider useful, either in the public or the private life. If, by doing so, I am subverting the young, there is not much I can do; but if someone states that I say otherwise, they’re lying”.
Socrates refused to make any kind of concession, even to pay the fine for his freedom, because that would be endorsing the guilt that was denied by his own consciousness. About the death penalty Socrates said: “If death is the extinction of all sorts of feelings and if it resembles one of those sleep mode where we see nothing, not even while dreaming, then dying is a wonderful gain (…) On the other hand, if death is like a passage from here to somewhere else and if it is true, as some advocate, that it is there where the dead get together, can we, dear judges, imagine anything better?”
When he declined the support of his friends to escape the prison, he said: “The only thing that matter is to live honestly and without committing injustices, not even in retaliation for a perpetrated injustice”.
When the jailer brought him the hemlock (a highly poisonous plant), he took it in a single swig, telling your friends afterwards: “Everything must end with words of good augury. Remain, then, serene and strong”
*Born in Athens in 470 (or 469) B.C. and died in 399 B.C.
Source: The Thinkers Collection – Nova Cultural (Socrates)
Only a few personalities in history enchant me as much as Socrates. He had some of the character traits I value the most: lightness of soul, bravery, simplicity, humility and the assumption that “all I know is I know nothing”.
Philosophical writings report that Socrates, since very little, tirelessly dedicated himself to what he considered his mission: to dialog with people. But they were dialogues in which he asked more about things he heard than provided elucidation. The rationale behind it was that the questions would lead the interlocutor to analyze their own convictions. By doing so, he put into question several alleged “talents” and unfounded sapience reputations. For those who accepted to submit themselves to the socratic dialogues, acknowledging their own ignorance regarding something could mean a “conscience renaissance”.
Once, after a prolonged conversation with a local personality, who considered himself a wisdom model, Socrates told him that he (the interlocutor) presumed to be wise, but he was not. Socrates then became hated by most of those present in the occasion. His conclusion about that is the following: “I am wiser than this man; it is highly probable that none of us knows anything, but he supposes to know something and he does not; while I, if I don’t know, I don’t suppose to know either. It seems, then, that I am a little bit wiser than him for not assuming to know what I don’t know”.
Accused for not accepting the State’s gods, for introducing new ones and for subverting the young, Socrates is judged and convicted. He never denied his words and attitudes in order to change the opinion of the tribunal. On the opposite, he proclaimed to those who were suppose to judge him: “I have no occupation, other than trying to persuade you all, old and young, to focus less on your bodies and goods and more on the perfection of your souls. Also, in telling you that virtue does not come from wealth or from what you consider useful, either in the public or the private life. If, by doing so, I am subverting the young, there is not much I can do; but if someone states that I say otherwise, they’re lying”.
Socrates refused to make any kind of concession, even to pay the fine for his freedom, because that would be endorsing the guilt that was denied by his own consciousness. About the death penalty Socrates said: “If death is the extinction of all sorts of feelings and if it resembles one of those sleep mode where we see nothing, not even while dreaming, then dying is a wonderful gain (…) On the other hand, if death is like a passage from here to somewhere else and if it is true, as some advocate, that it is there where the dead get together, can we, dear judges, imagine anything better?”
When he declined the support of his friends to escape the prison, he said: “The only thing that matter is to live honestly and without committing injustices, not even in retaliation for a perpetrated injustice”.
When the jailer brought him the hemlock (a highly poisonous plant), he took it in a single swig, telling your friends afterwards: “Everything must end with words of good augury. Remain, then, serene and strong”
*Born in Athens in 470 (or 469) B.C. and died in 399 B.C.
Source: The Thinkers Collection – Nova Cultural (Socrates)
Sunday, June 8, 2014
Clean Energy - Coal
The recent tragedy in a coal mine in Turkey, causing the
death of more than 300 workers, put – one more time – the problems associated with
the mining activity under the spotlight.
Large scale energy generation will always be inevitably linked
to social and environmental impacts. Even the so-called “cleaner”
power production, like the hydropower, takes its toll over adjacent communities
and the overall ecosystem. A few alternatives of energy generation, like coal,
are so detrimental that it deserves our deepest concern and consternation. The
problem, however, is that the current insatiable appetite for energy doesn’t
leave much room for improvement.
Among all the fossil fuels, coal is – by far – the dirtiest
and – by all means – the cheapest. The planet burns eight billion tons of this
resource a year and 40 percent of the world’s electricity comes from
it.
Coal is responsible for 39 to 44 percent of the global CO2
emissions (in 2012, the world emitted 34.5 billion metric tons of carbon
dioxide from fossil fuels). The most worrisome information, though, is that the
world coal consumption keeps stubbornly moving up, mostly in emerging
industrialized countries, such as India and China. China alone increased its
consumption from 1.5 billion tons in 2000 to 3.8 billion tons in 2011.
Coal business causes enormous negative externalities, but no
one pays the monetary price for that: neither consumers, nor emitters. The
intangible price, however, is borne by the planet as a whole. Thousands of
people die a year in coal mines and various more perish due to polluted air.
Only in China, it is reported that the filthy air is linked to 1.2 million
deaths a year.
Mitigation alternatives, such as carbon capture and storage
(literally injecting it underground under conditions that deter leaks), can be such
a complex and costly process that no one expects it to be mandatory unless it
becomes financially viable.
Another serious issue is that work conditions on any regular
underground mine are extremely unsound and insalubrious per se. To make things worse, there are several mines around the
world that are not even regulated by local governments, subjecting workers to
all sorts of irregularities, including child labor, which causes profound
distress if we consider that work in such mines may diminish one’s
life expectancy. The ordinary work ambience in the underground is confined,
arduous, highly flammable and after a few years of exposure, workers are
commonly affected by a disease called pneumoconiosis, which derives from the
inhalation of poisonous gases and dust, that can be lethal.
Knowledge, technology and resources that could help making the
power generation business cleaner and safer abound. The only thing missing seems
to be good will to make them financially viable. Considering that the consequences
of persisting on the bad practices are global, it seems reasonable to address
the problem in a collective/global standpoint. The planet and their people ask
for help.
Sources:
- National Geographic Magazine, April 2014
- A Segurança em Minas de Carvão Agindo na Prevenção da
Pneumoconiose – Região Carbonífera de Santa Catarina http://www.bib.unesc.net/biblioteca/sumario/000028/000028C9.pdf
Toiletries and Cosmetics - Controversial Ingredients
History has proven us how the adoption of hygienic measures with
personal care and asepsis are vital for the human life maintenance. Along time,
R&D institutions fostered a sophistication of the toiletries and enabled
the creation of cosmetics. For women, in particular, the variety of such
products in the shelves has a mesmerizing effect. There is nothing wrong about
the desire of being cleaner and beautiful, but it is important to have in mind
that the load of ingredients brought by these products can (or cannot) be
harmful healthwise.
The presence of these items in the formulation is
fundamental to assure product stability, efficacy, preservation,
fungicide/bactericide action, among other attributes of the final product as we
know it. However, many are considered controversial because the magnitude of their
aggregate exposure can (or cannot) cause health problems. It is important to
highlight that an ingredient is considered controversial when the scientific
community can’t reach a consensus regarding its
negative effects. Some experts assure it is 100% safe, while others condemn it
and associate it with unfavorable outcomes. Hence the controversy. Some
raw-materials are also considered polemic given their critical sourcing chain,
since the extraction can (or cannot) be directly associated to environmental
impacts (ecosystem contamination, deforestation, biodiversity damage, etc) as
well as social ones (mostly related to child labor, slave-like labor and
conflict zones linkage).
Some of the ingredients considered controversial nowadays
(among many others) are: triclosan, paraben, phthalate, toluene, benzene,
bisphenol, formaldehyde, phenoxiethanol, aluminum, mercury, lead,
nanoparticles, camphor, GMO, palm oil, mica, and the list goes on. Some of the
associated problems are (very important to recall the controversy aspect): endocrine,
hormone, neurological, sexual and reproductive disruptions; birth defects;
cancers; allergies; dermatitis; bioaccumulation (environment) among others.
There are market regulations that control the dosage of
these products within acceptable levels, but one of the main arguments among
scientists who advocate the negative consequences is that the aggregate
exposure is harmful. What does it mean? It means that these components are
present in almost every product we consume in a daily basis, such as
toothpastes, deodorants, shampoos, moisturizing, perfumes, cosmetics in
general, make-ups, plastic objects, cleaning products, textiles, furniture, kitchen
utensils, dye, paints, foods, etc. Therefore the aggregate exposure.
A special warn must be given to women, because a greater
percentage of some of these ingredients is in personal care and cosmetics
products. A research from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has
shown that women presented levels significantly higher of chemicals in their
organism than men submitted to the same investigation.
It is known that running away from such components seems
impossible. Some companies are already taking the lead when it comes to
eliminating some of them from products’ formulation. The problem
is that some substitutes are not necessarily better taking into consideration
their value-chain and they can even happen to be another controversial item. To
be considered a substitute, it is mandatory to fulfill the technical features
previously mentioned.
No despair needed, because there is not much one can do from
a consumer’s point of view. Hopefully, engaged regulatory organs
along with countless researchers are working in our favor around the world. Let
us wait for good news, responsible business and safe products.
Sources:
My own professional experience
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)