One of the things that bothers me about the current economic crisis is what is going to happen with all the people who have been displaced by jobs that have ceased to exist or have been exported elsewhere?

At one time, the eager but (perhaps) undereducated could find work pumping gas or working on an assembly line. Or perhaps they stayed home and worked on the family farm — though I am not so naive as to think that agriculture is a function for those less intellectually endowed. But many of these jobs have been pushed out of the system or moved elsewhere. North America no longer makes its own electronics and fewer people are involved in making furniture or assembling cars.

So where do the displaced go? Not everyone can go to night school and become a computer programmer. And (thankfully) the military no longer absorbs so many young men and women and marches them off to distant killing fields — removing them from the equation.

So as a society, what is our responsibility to those displaced by economic and technological change? Can we recreate the low level jobs that once absorbed so many? Do we need a new civilian conservation corp like the one that took my father off the streets during the Great Depression and put him to work building park trails in Oregon? Or do we follow the conservative view that it is their problem and society has no responsibility for them — so I guess that mass starvation is the logical end?

I would like to believe that everyone should be capable of pulling themselves up by their bootstraps and not need public assistance. But the plain fact of the matter is that there are a lot of people who just cannot do that. So should my tax dollars go to support them? I don’t know — I would rather not be party to a welfare state. But that may be because of my own good fortune as opposed to any real thoughts about the welfare of others. I have seen the misery that conservative cutbacks have caused and it bothers me.

But the problem is much broader. I can see that as computers become more capable and automated factories become more prevalent, that many of the jobs that have occupied my contemporaries will become obsolete. There may come a point where the vast numbers of humanity do not have jobs in the conventional sense to occupy them. What do we do then? Do we build a society of bread and circuses to keep the masses distracted? (It has been done before…) Do we try to reduce populations so that there are fewer mouths to feed? Do we find a way to provide a basic sustenance for all? Or do we let the less capable die off — specters of an African famine or form roaming gangs to prey on the rest of us?

Over the long haul this may be one of the larger challenges we as a society face — up there with water shortages and climate change. As a society, are we willing to take responsibility for the welfare of our brothers and sisters? And if not, are we really condemning all of us to extinction?

There seem to be (at least) two kinds of relationships in use. The one kind is the caring, sharing (rare) type that O`Henry wrote about in the ‘Gift of the Messiah’. Then there are the exploitive relationships — where one partner describes the other in terms of how much money they make (never enough) and how much unquestioned slave work they do, for which they are never thanked, of course. And the other party is always complaining that their ‘partner’ never does enough (for them) and treats whatever is done with dismissive contempt.

This has been on my mind because I recently read an attempt at humor that came across as a very nasty encapsulation of an exploitive relationship. There was regret about the loss of a relationship because now the author had to do the slave work that was formerly done by the now departed ‘partner’.

This hit a nerve because I have been in both kinds of relationships, and know first hand that the first kind just goes on and on — while the second kind end badly with an unevenly distributed amount of suffering. Pity, the world would be a better place if there was more of the first and much less of the second — but then the divorce lawyers would starve, and we could not have that…

Today marked yet another round in the continuing war of words that surrounds the deployment of wind power and the debate around climate change. I don’t know about anyone else but I am getting tired of it all.

Climate change seems to be about two groups of issues — whether the global climate is changing and to what extent human activities are responsible. From my simple viewpoint the discussions around whether global climate is changing need to address a couple of key issues — the melting of the arctic ice cap, the retreat of major glaciers that supply rivers that many millions depend upon, the change in rainfall patterns and the advance of deserts around the world. As far as I have seen, the climate change deniers have not proposed any believable hypothesis that account for these very visible changes.

The extent of human influence is much more interesting. Carbon dioxide levels are rising in the atmosphere, that much seems clear. But recent discoveries about the influence of the nitrogen cycle and cosmic radiation impacts on global cloud formation suggest to me that our theories about how it all works are a bit thin. I suspect that the reality may be a bit more complicated than our philosophy. In any event it is probably premature to begin dismantling our civilization. Unless we are really sincere about committing societal suicide. But that has not stopped us from blocking nuclear plant construction and shutting down industries in North America that provided millions of jobs. Guess we must really want to go back to an agrarian society and let the East return to being the center of civilization.

So here we are with wind turbines. Pretty much everyone that has built them on a large scale will reluctantly admit that they are expensive and have done almost nothing to reduce greenhouse gasses — with the need for backup power perhaps made things a bit worse. To say nothing of the noise and the destruction of birds and bats. Here in Ontario there are plenty of places where the things could have been built, but the builders seem to have a fascination for the major bird migration routes and quiet rural retirement areas. If we are doing the damn things at all, why could they have not gone into the northern areas where there is a lot more wind and fewer people — and off the migration routes? And there are the power lines running into Manitoba so they could be connected to the grid.

Ah, but there is the fatal flaw — wind is notoriously unstable. If I had a turbine here I would have to buffer it with batteries to stabilize the output so my computers and other electronics would not be damaged by the output flutter. The monsters on the next island are just the same, but batteries in multi-gigawatt quantities would affect the cost equation. So the output is tied right to the grid. Compared to the total output of the Ontario power plants the contribution of wind is pretty small, so when it drops the other plants should be able to backfill. If the delusions of our leaders are ever realized, and wind becomes a major component, I guess we will get blackouts (like any other 3rd world country) or have a lot of gas turbines running in the background [burning fuel and emitting carbon dioxide]. So where is the climate protection in that?

We just seem to be wrapped in a culture of fear. And since only the dead are truly safe, we systematically work to destroy our society and kill ourselves. The ends justify the means, right?

The Globe had an amusing article this morning about voter apathy. Of course the article cited attack ads, message box campaigns and the perception that their vote didn’t count. But from where I sit it, voter apathy is easy to believe in. Despite all the posturing and seemingly endless streams of attack ads decrying their opponents as baby eaters and crooks, politicians seem particularly vacuous in one key area — leadership.

Why should I care about anybody who seems to believe in whatever the polsters have identified as the issues of the day? Because when they get in office they have another agenda and the party platform was discarded as easily as it was picked up. How can one get passionate about issues in a campaign when one knows that these will be abandoned as soon as the campaign is over. Where are their principles? Or more important, do these politicians have a vision for what this country could become that I would be willing to work towards (to say nothing of pay for)? But no, with all the real problems that we have between the economy, official corruption, financial scandals and and endless stream of misery abroad, all I seem to get from my local MP is that he is working hard on getting tough on crime. Oy…

So in the end, why should I or anyone else care? My taxes will go up regardless, the country will still be in a mess, but if politicians are really impotent, maybe solutions would be found by private enterprise and the problems will just go away. Or maybe they will just decide to outsource the whole government to someone, and we will lose even the illusion of control over our institutions? Maybe if ‘none of the above’ had a place on the ballot there would be a way to express our disdain beyond just not voting?

Our mailbox has, over the last few days, become a battleground for the pro and anti wind groups here. First we got an anonymous mailer (from a ‘neighboor’) attesting that anticipated benefits to an area resulting from wind development might not materialize now that the ‘Green Energy’ bill has removed local zoning controls. Then today we got another anonymous mailer — the first part of an article about a Wolfe Island couple who were counting on the $10,000 per year for each of four wind turbines they allowed on their buffalo farm. I am sure there will be more of these coming.

There is a certain sadness to both of these mailings that goes to one of the central problems of the controversy. In Canada, as other places, wind project development has proceeded in an adversarial way. Developers quietly creep through a community and swear everyone to secrecy. Neighbor is pited against neighbor right from day one.  People naturally resent things being done to them without their knowledge — and the change to the character of a quiet rural area by populating them with 500 foot tall structures is significant, to say nothing of the destruction of property values, wildlife habitat damage and health concerns that accompany these projects.

And of course there are the economic issues for the farmer. I personally decry the decline of local agriculture — it makes me sad to drive through the area and see mile after mile of once thriving farmland now fallow (or worse) because it was more profitable for some to bring food in from California and Chile rather than grow it locally. This still seems insane and hopefully can be reversed someday, however reasonable it may seem in some Montreal central purchasing office.

So leasing some land to a developer to put up wind turbines seems like a good idea, and probably is — except for the collateral damage, mentioned above. Plus those folks who bought land for retirement homes from those same farmers are not going to be feeling too friendly when they find that their new home is overshadowed by a huge monolith, or dozens.

Wind turbines by themselves are probably not a bad idea, but parking them in the middle of a populated area, especially a major stop on a bird migration route, probably is. But what really poisons the well is the sneaky and adversarial way the whole thing is being done. And the anonymous mailers are merely the latest attack of a long, slow process that has the potential to tear the community apart. I hope it fails.

We recently completed a journey by VIA train from Vancouver to Kingston, ON in the ‘Blue and Silver’, a premium (according to VIA) experience.

The human landscapes we passed through were testimonies both to the natural beauties of Canada and the role of a good transportation network in populating and integrating a country. All along the way we were reminded of how this network is crumbling. Huge areas were settled due to the railways. And a glance at the map or attempt to find an airline schedule will show how limited access is to many of these settled areas through other modes of travel. But the railway continues to distance itself from passenger service — major cities are no longer serviced by rail (My son lives in Thunder Bay — you can drive there or fly but the closest train stop is over 100km away). VIA uses CP trackage for its service instead of CN — which means that many urban areas are bypassed and those that are serviced are conveniently accessed from well outside of town, a great convenience I am sure to the non-car owner.

And if the latest news about bus service (a mainstay of the budget traveler) being pulled out of western Ontario and the prairies is true then some of these areas will simply be cut off.

I suspect this is all a result of the continuing delusion of the market as universal decider . Transportation networks are allowed to drop service to populated areas if that service is not sufficiently profitable. This is national necrosis in action — cutting off circulation to an area means that it will eventually die. If it cannot support (on its own) a less expensive form of transportation, it should come as no surprise that more expensive modes will also not be supported.

What interests me is thinking over the long term what the result will be of this necrosis to the nation of Canada as it allows parts of itself to die off — indeed deliberately killed. How does this impact the national character? And how will this affect our ability to utilize our national resources — no, not the rocks and trees but the creativity and hard work of the people?

I would think that maintaining good, economic transportation links to all parts of the country would be a priority for building national identity and a strong economy. Even if some individual parts of this landscape did not pay their own way. This is certainly the argument around arctic sovereignty — if we leave those areas isolated our argument that they are a vital part of the country is pretty weak. Does this same logic not extend to the rest of the country as well? And by extension to differentiating Canada from the US? 
 

I was reading another breathless science article about carbon capture and sequestration technology when the thought struck me — what happens if this works? For thousands of years we (as a species) have been merrily taking the carbon from live and fossil sources and combining it with atmospheric oxygen in a process that releases heat and forms the basis of our civilization. But over time the excess byproduct of this (carbon dioxide) has built up in the atmosphere and is seen as one of the contributors to global warming.

You see, the natural process would be for plants to absorb the carbon dioxide and use the energy from sunlight through photosynthesis to release the oxygen back into the atmosphere and put the carbon into its structures. Over time this gets buried and becomes coal or other fossil fuels. Then we dig it up and the process starts all over. (I am sure that a similar cycle exists for petroleum.) The point of the cycle for this discussion is that the oxygen is released back into the atmosphere.

But now we have this great idea that to save ourselves we need to capture the carbon dioxide from our waste streams and hide it somewhere. Sounds great but what happens to the two atoms of oxygen that get sequestered along with the atom of carbon? Seems to me that if we systematically remove the oxygen from the atmosphere along with the carbon we will end up in a worse place then we are at now. After all, if the carbon dioxide does not get rendered by photosynthesis, where is the oxygen going to come from to run the combustion process the next time? Or worse, where does the oxygen come from for us to breath?

Seems to me that the whole concept needs a massive rethink. The problem is not only the accumulating carbon dioxide in the atmosphere but the declining amount of oxygen. Somehow the real solution should address both issues.

Living away from the big urban areas has many virtues and rewards. But internet services are not among them. This is particularly true with streaming video, that every news service in the world seems to have embraced. Previously, if one wanted to watch video media, there would be a delay while the media file downloaded before it played. But other than the delay the results would be quite good. But with streaming video, the material is fetched from the internet and rendered immediately — so the continuity of play closely reflects the quality of the connection. Out here in the boonies this means ‘Th’…..’is ‘……’is a specia’….’l announcement of ‘……’major’………………….’import’….’ance.’ And so on. And since it is a live stream there is no way to buffer it locally to enhance the continuity. A pity. While I am sure that from the developers perspective, anyone without a local fibre connection is just too backwards to be noticed. Out here in the generally peaceful countryside we have different opinions.

This past week both Canada and the United States marked the anniversaries of their founding. Amidst the celebrations, though, there are still notes that politicians on both sides of the border have lost their way. At the Stampede PM Harper decried the opposition for trying to hinder his ‘get tough on crime’ campaign — an odd point, that, because as far as I have seen putting a larger percentage of the population behind bars does little to reduce crime and nothing to reduce the cost of government. And Ignatief complained about the rather vicious attack ads the Conservatives have been running. Did anyone remember that the rising population of unemployed, the shrinking manufacturing sector and the crumbling public infrastructure are the real problems? How will any of this influence my vote and the vote of my neighbors? Well, if ‘none of the above’ is on the ballot I am sure it will win by a landslide.

On the other side of the border we have the spectacle of the Republicans working harder than ever to disrupt the Democrats attempts to rebuild the country. All the posturing against the idea of a single payer health care system is just pathetic.  It is clear to many, the Prez and me for example, that rising costs will eventually destroy the country, and not that far in the future at that.  The list of issues goes on but becomes boring in its repetition.

I think the central problem, if there is one, is that what happens down the road to us and our children is difficult for many if not most to conceptualize — so we seize on the little points that  we can grasp. In either ‘The Peter Principle’ or perhaps ‘Parkinsons Law’ there was an example of a board meeting where a multi-million dollar project was discussed and approved in a few minutes but they debated the issue of a new five hundred dollar bike rack for hours. The point was that everyone could grasp the bike rack issue but the project was too abstract.

So too in government the problem is always leadership and patriotism to solve problems for the future good of the country and its citizens. But too often it becomes bogged down in petty bickering and mud slinging. The U.S. has done well in its new President and I am hopeful that some patriots in Congress will help the country move forwards to solve its problems and build a better tomorrow.

But in Canada I fear that building a better tomorrow is being left to chance and that the ‘true patriots’ are just words in a song, not people of vision and leadership.

This week I had the sad job of sending my beloved robot lawnmower back for service and upgrades. There is a lot of technology around the house, some of it even useful. The lawnmower is one device that just does its job and makes few demands on us other than to keep it clean. It has been a cold and rainy week and in truth the machine would be hiding in its garage all the time.

Like our neighboors, when we moved to this rural area we spent a lot of time outdoors cutting the grass. We have a small lot compared to some, but keeping it looking neat was not a small effort. Letting part of it go wild helped a bit, we now see wildflowers and attract a lot more birds than the prior suburban expanse. But the idea of having a robot keep it neat was very interesting, so four years ago we dived in.

At that time, there were two product lines available — the Lawnbott (made in Italy) and Robomower (by Friendly Robotics, an Israeli company). From a functional perspective they seemed similar — but the Robomower was about 4x the size of the Lawnbott Evolution and from the specs was much noisier. Both could be run like a traditional lawnmower, but the Evolution could also run autonimously. Since my wife works a crazy schedule — sometimes days, sometimes nights, there was a real benefit to a quiet machine that could run itself. And there was an interesting difference between them, besides noise level — in what happened when they encountered unexpected obstructions.

Both machines use a perimeter cable to define the mowing area.  This cable is followed when they are heading back to the barn to recharge. There should never be an obstruction on this path — but sometimes there is. When the Evolution hits an obstruction, it backs up and makes a wide circle around it and continues on its path.  This seemed to be a reasonable approach. But Robomower in the same situation just backs up and hits the obstruction and keeps doing this untill the obstruction gets out of its way. From their country of origion these differences in behavior seemed symbolic — and the world being what it is the decision to go around the obstruction seemed to be much more reasonable than just hitting it over and over.

So we are into our fourth year with the machine. In the Spring we put it out and turn  it on. There are always a few new pot holes and other issues to be fixed — and when the grass is wet and the ground muddy it can get stuck. But for the most part it just cuts the grass as often as needed and we get to do other things. The robot wanders across the yard and cuts what is there. On a typical day we can get 4 to 5 hours of work on a single charge. When the battery runs low it heads back to the barn to recharge itself. Depending upon the state of the grass it may be out again later or wait untill the next day (or longer). The really clever thing about it is that it measures the power consumption of the cutting blade. The more power it takes per unit time then the more the grass has grown. When the grass is not growing very fast the robot reschedules itself to cut less often. This is a very different philosophy from how a human would do it.

Here in our rural area cutting the grass is a major activity for our neighboors. Saturday morning is filled with the chorus of lawnmowers — mostly big riding mowers or tractors with cutting heads. The roar is depressing in an otherwise quiet area. Big, powerful units are needed to cut the weeks’ growth. Robomower seems to follow the same approach. The Lawnbott takes a different tack — it is small and light and works by nibbling away regularly, mulching the grass in tiny pieces. In the years we have been using it this seems a good approach and is not very intrusive. We wish our neighboors would have the same consideration.

The down side of it all is that like most technical wonders it requires a technical touch to keep it going. On a weekly basis one has to keep it clean — the underside cruds up with grass at an amazing rate, probably because the Spring grass grows rapidly and is generally wet. There are error messages when there are problems, but it would get tiresome if we had to ship it off to Montreal every time there is a problem. So as much as I would like, my neighboors are not likely to get one soon. The predicted life for this robot is 7 to 10 years with likely one battery replacement. We are starting our 4th year so this seems reasonable. COmpared with perhaps twice that for a gasoline rider mower. But in our minds the real tradeoff is simple — we dont have to do it. The few hours that I spend cleaning it and sorting out the occasional technical issue are an acceptable tradeoff compared with the hundreds of hours I would have spent cutting the grass myself. But it will likely be many years before the robustness of the technology catches up.  In the meanwhile, we hope that we can continue to afford this wonderful device — it has made our rural life far more enjoyable. Unlike so many peices of technology, it just does its job.